asked the Prime Minister if he has now received the report from the Minister of Labour on strikes during the election period; and if he will publish it.

asked the Prime Minister, in the light of the information made available in the Minister of Labour's inquiry, if he will now arrange for an independent inquiry into the Hardy Spicer dispute during the General Election, and undertake to publish the report.

I would refer the hon. and right hon. Members to the Answer I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) on 3rd December.

Surely the Prime Minister, with his encyclopaedic memory, will recall column 1082 of HANSARD for 24th November, in which he promised that he would make a statement in the House. May I ask why he has not seen fit to honour that undertaking?

There was a Question down to me for Oral Answer. I answered it. As it was not reached, it was printed.

Will not the Prime Minister frankly admit that he made a reckless political intervention in a purely industrial dispute? Was not this a foretaste of acting first and thinking afterwards which has been the hallmark of the Government and which has effectively destroyed industrial confidence?

No, Sir. I stand by what I said in the House earlier on this matter. When we got, in this election as in previous ones, strikes threatening to paralyse the whole of the motor car industry, when there was reason to suspect that there had been political motivation in the earlier ones—[Interruption.]—it was right on this occasion to say that the matter would be inquired into. Within 24 hours of my making that statement, other statements were made on television which showed us the real reason why these industrial difficulties arose. That has been confirmed by my right hon. Friend.

Surely the Prime Minister is not attempting to continue this quite—[Interruption.] Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister's intervention exacerbated the situation of the strikes and that it was the direct cause of the other statements, and that where he made things vastly worse it was my job to settle the strike, which I did? Is the right hon. Gentleman still saying that he was honouring the undertaking which he made to the House when he said that he would make a statement when, in fact, he arranged for a Question to be answered at a convenient time when it would not be reached and then hurriedly left the country?

On that last allegation, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw that statement. I had no contact whatever with my hon. Friend. The Question was put down without my knowledge and it was answered—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] If hon. Members opposite do not accept that statement, they had better think about their relations with the whole traditions of this House. Now, will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw?

No, I will not withdraw. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] The Prime Minister said that he would make a statement, and a Written Answer is very far from a statement.

rose—

On a point of order. I understood that the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) made a direct allegation that a Question had been "planted" by my right hon. Friend.

Of course it was.

My right hon. Friend has subsequently denied this. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who believes him?"] Is it, therefore, in order to ask the right hon. Member for Grantham to withdraw the allegation?

As far as I know, it is not unparliamentary to say that a Question has been "planted". As to what the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said, I could hear not one single word. I do not know what happened. Mr. Shinwell.

On a point of order. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) clearly made an implication against the behaviour of the Table when he said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had arranged that a Question should be so placed that it would not be reached. Is that not an attack upon the Table and the institutions of this House? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

That is a non sequitur.

Since the behaviour of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been questioned by right hon. Members opposite, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that his behaviour during the election compares more than favourably with the behaviour of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) on racial affairs and, in particular, the disgraceful behaviour of the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg)?

If the Prime Minister is so sensitive, why is he still trying to wriggle out of his original pledge to institute a searching inquiry?

Our prospects of making progress with Questions are not good if hon. Members spend their time saying things and asking for them to be withdrawn and asking points of order about words used when the din is such that I cannot hear what words are used. I respectfully suggest that the sensible thing to do is to get on with Questions.

In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter at an early opportunity.

On a point of order. Could not the Prime Minister have got the House out of the difficulty by asking leave to answer the original Question orally? [Interruption.]

I can only partly hear what is said. In any event, it does not seem to be a matter for the Chair to inquire what the right hon. Gentleman could do should he want to do it. Do let us get on. Mr. Joan Evans, Question No. 5.