asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will move that it be a standing order that seven clear days' notice be given of the first meeting of a Standing Committee on any Bill.

I should not wish to propose such a change without prior consideration by the Select Committee on Procedure.

In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman consult the Select Committee? Is he aware that it is very important that hon. Members with outside interests should have at least seven days' notice of the first meeting of a Standing Committee in order that they may discuss Bills properly?

I will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. The position is not unusual, but I take note of his remarks.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will move to amend the practice of the House so that in no circumstances may two Bills be taken in a Standing Committee on the same morning.

No, Sir.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this point. It is not a party matter. It is for the convenience, not only of hon. Members but of the many people who wish to make representations, that they should know when the Committee is to meet.

I accept that this is an important matter. Of course, this does happen on a number of occasions and it affects mainly Private Members' Bills. I do not think that I can change this now, for obvious reasons, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to have more detailed information I should be glad to speak with him.

asked the Lord Privy Seal why barmen employed in the Refreshment Department receive an average of 30s. a week more than barmaids; and what are the differences in their duties.

The bar staff of the Refreshment Department are paid according to the Wages Council Act.

As I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be the first to recognise that equal pay on a gradual basis is now Government policy, will he start by seeing that things are put right in this House?

My hon. Friend is on a very important point there. I sympathise with her. I will convey what she says to the Chairman of the Department concerned.

Would not the Lord Privy Seal think it wise to consider the wages of all the refreshment staff before the Summer Recess?

This is certainly a matter in which we are anxious to help those who serve us so well.

As the bars concerned are in a Royal Palace, are the payments of the staff subject to the rules of the Prices and Incomes Board?

I should have thought so, as in any other nationalised institution.

asked the Lord Privy Seal what representations he has received on the experimental broadcasts of proceedings of the House of Commons; if he will make a statement on the result of the experiment; and what progress he will recommend towards public broadcasts along similar lines.

Other than those of my hon. Friend, I have so far received few representations about this experiment. A report from the B.B.C. has been received by the Services Committee, which is now examining it. I hope that the Committee will be able to report its recommendations to the House before the Summer Recess.

Will my right hon. Friend agree about clarity of the reproduction? It was so good that one could hear the comments of the interjectors, who were often more interesting than the speakers. As some of us think that Parliament is not the private property of Members of Parliament but should belong to the whole nation, will he now suggest that there should be a public experiment in this Chamber?

I think that the first step should be for the Services Committee, which represents the House, to study the matter and perhaps bring out a report before we come to any conclusions. That seems to be the right order of going about it.

Is the Lord Privy Seal now sympathetic towards an experimental closed circuit television broadcast on similar lines?

No.

That is another matter. I am dealing with the sound broadcasting experiment.

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will seek to amend the House of Commons Offices Act 1812 to substitute for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretaries of State, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General as members of the House of Commons Offices Commission, the Leader of the House, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the Opposition Chief Whip and three other Members to be nominated by Mr. Speaker.

It would be premature to draw conclusions at this stage. As I said during the exchanges following the business statement last Thursday, the present position regarding the issues raised about the staffing of the House will be urgently considered by the Services Committee and reported to the House.

Does the Lord Privy Seal recollect that the Services Committee apparently did not protest at the cuts that were enforced last year? Will he also have regard to the fact that as the Services Committee is mainly nominated by the Whips the Government could always have a majority on it, and to change it in present conditions is rather like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire? Finally, will he bear in mind that this House is the watchdog of the taxpayers' interest, and that it is an unnecessary impertinence for the Treasury to interfere with it?

Order. Supplementary questions should be reasonably brief.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not look upon the Services Committee as a tool of the Executive. It is an all-party Committee which does valuable service, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, appreciate. As I said as Leader of the House during business questions, the first step in relation to an inquiry into this important matter should be for the Services Committee to consider it. I thought that there was agreement on that on both sides.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I resent the imputation made by some hon. Members that I am a tool of any party? Furthermore, does he not agree that the Services Committee has not been given a chance to consider the matter before, but that we look forward to considering it?

I am quite sure that the Services Committee will consider it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the United Kingdom abstained on 28th May from supporting in the United Nations Economic and Social Council a resolution condemning the continued infringement of trade union rights and unlawful prosecution of trade union workers in South Africa.

We voted in favour of those parts of the resolution which endorsed the conclusions and recommendations of the ad hoc working group on trades union rights in South Africa, but we felt obliged to abstain on the resolution as a whole because it also extended the original mandate of the working group to cover infringements of trades union rights in South-West Africa, Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories in Africa.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it docs no good to Britain's reputation for us to appear to be indifferent to or to condone this kind of practice, which is the product of the apartheid doctrine of South Africa? Could we not take a positive attitude in the Councils of the United Nations on this kind of resolution?

We make our abhorrence of apartheid perfectly clear constantly and consistently. The question here was whether this was the best method of dealing with the matter in the territories I have named. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State explained the position fully, and I think it is widely understood and accepted.

Was not such a resolution a clear infringement of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the United Nations Charter?

I could not at the moment say whether the resolution was an infringement of that Article.

Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman speak up? There is no microphone.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. Gentleman will kindly table that question, I will do my best to answer it.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what were the reasons for the abstention by the United Kingdom on the resolution on South-West Africa adopted on 12th June by the General Assembly of the United Nations by 96 votes in favour, with two against.

The United Kingdom was one of 18 members States which abstained on this resolution. We were opposed to the provisions of the resolution calling for severance of economic and other relations with South Africa; nor could we support its other provisions which derived from earlier General Assembly resolutions on South-West Africa on which we had abstained.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I am concerned that the United Nations Organisation should work as effectively as possible, having worked there myself for several years. But does not this decision and other decisions which the United Nations has taken recently show that a majority of members is not always right?

The majority of no organisation, national or international, is always right.

In view of the nature of the South African Government and the policies they pursue, is it not all the more necessary to make sure that the territory of South-West Africa is not permanently controlled by the South African Government?

We are constantly studying the best way in which to solve this very difficult and legally doubtful question. I have already said that we are engaged in a study of the issues raised. Our friends in the United Nations perfectly well understand our efforts and we hope that in co-operation rather than in polemic this very difficult question may be solved.