asked the Minister for the Civil Service by how many persons the strength of the Civil Service diminished from 1st July, 1970, to 31st December, 1971.

As I told my hon. Friend on 1st December we have made reductions in staff but these have been counterbalanced by increases required mainly to meet growth in population, more widespread social benefit payments, higher requirements for prison personnel and arrears of work in the Inland Revenue.

Has my hon. Friend perceived that I have frequently had occasion to rebuke him for his lethargy and indifference in honouring election pledges, which were twofold: first, to indulge in open government, whereas all bureaucrats are introverted; and, secondly, to reduce the size and scope of the bureaucracy, whereas my hon. Friend continuously encourages the expansion of the bureaucracy? Is there any danger that we shall see some results shortly?

I certainly perceive my hon. Friend's constant interest in this question. If there are certain areas where he believes there should be fewer staff, and if he is against the increases which I have mentioned, I am sure that his views on particular activities which could be cut will be very welcome indeed, and he should put them forward.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether possible entry into Europe has in any way inhibited the retention of staff who will be required to meet the consequences of such entry, and whether a proper estimate has been made of the staff required to introduce the value-added tax?

That is rather a different question, but if I get the hon. Gentleman's meaning aright the answer is that it has not inhibited it.

While appreciating that the numbers have fallen and the welcome reasons in certain sections for that, may I ask my hon. Friend to publish a list of the Departments in which the numbers have fallen since 1st July, 1970?

It has already been published.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what consultations prompted his recommendation that salaries of certain civil servants should be increased by 7½ per cent. as announced in February, 1972.

The Central Pay Increase for certain civil servants announced on 3rd February, 1972, was a settlement arrived at after negotiations conducted within the normal Whitley Council framework.

While I am always the first to admit that competent and proficient people should be adequately and suitably rewarded, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that 7½ per cent. compound interest per annum is a deliberate provocation to miners, to railwaymen, to engineers and to other large bodies of organised workers to seek at least commensurate advances and that all this is highly damaging to the community?

I am glad that my hon. Friend is at least prepared to recognise the excellent worth of the work done by our public servants.

Very few.

The increase is very much in line with current and recent settlements. Indeed, the only exception is the highly exceptional increase for the miners.

Will the Minister not pay too much attention to his hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) and recognise that he is something of a special case?

A court case.

I do not approach this in a roundabout fashion. Will the Parliamentary Secretary further recognise that the need for this rise is very much underlined by the quite large numbers of civil servants who are at present having to apply for family income supplement?

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is not easy to ignore. I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) that this increase was arrived at in negotiations in the normal framework. It fairly reflects the situation and is not out of line with recent settlements outside the Civil Service.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what code of conduct governs those civil servants with access to, or involved in, computer projects in Government Departments.

Civil servants concerned with computer projects are subject to the same general rules about conduct as those laid down for other civil servants. In addition, there are stringent statutory provisions protecting particular classes of information; for example, under the Statistics of Trade Act, 1947. The detailed application of these rules is the responsibility of individual Departments.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that none of those rules and regulations to which he has referred applies specifically to computerised installations? Is he also aware that the Prime Minister has been sitting on that Front Bench for the past year telling me that there is nothing to worry about concerning the confidentiality of Government information? Bearing in mind the large numbers of Government Departments which are now bringing computers into use, is it not about time that we had a code of conduct specifically covering this kind of installation?

I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's great interest in this issue. He may like to know that the survey on the use of Government computers to record personal details is very near completion and that the Government will then consider whether further action should be taken to safeguard personal details. In this consideration we shall take account of the recommendations to be made by the Younger Committee on Privacy.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware, however, that after 1st January, 1973, his remarks may not be valid at all? The only secrets protected by the European Communities Bill are those relating to atomic energy. Yet the Bill provides that all information in the possession of the Government can be given to institutions of the Community and contains no provision for protecting anything other than that which I have mentioned.

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's assertions on that matter. This is obviously a much wider question. If he wants to ask me about it and puts down a Question, I will do my best to answer it.