asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the present annual cost to the building industry of the selective employment tax.

The annual S.E.T. payable by the construction industry as a whole is about £80 million.

After food, shelter is probably the most vital need of human existence. Does not this show that it is ludicrous to place this huge tax upon the building industry at this time?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the objective of the tax was to try to get labour away from service industries into more productive industries. In the construction industry average employment in 1967 was 2½ per cent. less than in 1966, while output, including repair and maintenance, increased by nearly 4 per cent. It looks as though the tax is working in this instance.

Is not the most obvious consequence of this an increase in the gangs of self-employed men, which neither side of organised industry wants to see?

The hon. Gentleman will know that a special committee, the Phelps Brown Committee, is looking into this. I hope that it will submit an intelligent report on which we can act.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from builders regarding the imposition of the Selective Employment Tax; and what reply he has sent.

I have received no recent formal representations from the builders on this subject.

The right hon. Gentleman is aware of how the building industry feels about the matter. Will he keep it under review? I am sure that he does not wish to add to their costs.

Yes. I am always meeting these people, and we get on very well.

As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in 1966 that the S.E.T. premium would have an invaluable effect on altering the shape of the construction industry and on speeding up industrialised building, why is it being withdrawn? Did the Minister resist its withdrawal?

I said earlier that I have formal meetings with the builders. They have not brought this matter forward to me and they have made no representations about it. If they hold the point of view which hon. Members opposite suggest, I wish they would come to me and discuss it with me.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works which Departments were chiefly responsible for the increase of £1,050,000 above the original estimate for 1967–68 for electrical, gas and water charges; and what steps he has taken to economise in the use of lighting and fuel in Government Departments.

Most of the increase is due to tariff increases and most of the balance to additional accommodation approved after the annual estimates were settled. As many offices are occupied by more than one Department I could not say without a special inquiry how much of the increase is attributable to each Department. There are standing instructions about economy and my Ministry sends out reminders from time to time.

Why are the Government being so extravagant at a time when everyone is having such difficulty in paying their extra gas, electricity, and fuel bills? Surely the right hon. Gentleman should persuade the Prime Minister to cut back the number of civil servants, and the extra Government Departments?

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to learn that for each Government building the Department concerned is asked to appoint an officer in charge. It is his duty to control the consumption of fuel. Advice is also given in the instructions on the way in which the staff can help. To assist the hon. Gentleman I shall send him a copy of the instructions we send to the officers. He will see that we are very much on the ball.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many full-time civil servants in his Department are employed in checking price increases notified under the voluntary early warning system; and what increase this represents over the number employed before devaluation.

Three officials are employed part time on this. There has been no increase in staff employed on this work since devaluation.

Without commenting on the merits of this policy can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he expects price supervision responsibility for his Department to increase as a result of devaluation? Is he satisfied that three part-timers can adequately cope with the responsibility which his Department presumed to accept?

They seem to be doing all right. There are other Questions about devaluation and their costs. I think, with respect, that the hon. Gentleman might wait until we reach them, when I shall give him what I hope will be an adequate answer.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further consideration he has given to the erection on Constitution Hill of modern lamp stands in place of the existing lighting; and if he will make a statement.

I would refer my right hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Richmond, Surrey (Mr. Royle) on 26th February.—[Vol. 759, c. 235.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to retain the old lighting was received with relief and great satisfaction by all those anxious to preserve the remaining attractive vistas in London? Will he pursue this desirable objective wherever he exercises his authority or influence?

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. As the Minister concerned, I am most anxious to be associated with the retention of all that which is worth preserving in London. I also associate myself with the policy of getting rid of slums, but when it comes to preserving things of yesteryear, I want to be there with him.

I agree with everything said by the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss). May I ask who was originally responsible for the error of taste and grave waste of public money which has occurred?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the interest that he has shown, and indeed I give him credit for what finally resulted from my ultimate decision. As to who was responsible, it was a Ministerial decision based on the best information available to the Minister at that time. I am a new Minister giving a decision as I see it now. That is the position.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if, in view of the inability of his Department to erect the Phantom Training School building at Royal Naval Air School, Yeovilton, within 12 months without putting it inside an existing hangar, he will review the relevant building procedures.

No, Sir. Building in the hangar saved over £100,000 compared with a separate building.

Is it not plum crazy, having bought the land, and having all the time that is necessary under ordinary circumstances, by one's own procedure to render quite useless a building which is badly needed, namely, the hangar in this case? I hope that the Minister will look at his own procedures again.

This is one case where we cannot possibly win. It would have cost £170,000. As a result of building inside this hangar, we have saved the nation a considerable sum. At a final cost of only £55,000 we have got all that is needed, and now I am being ticked off for having done it.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works (1) what assessment he has made of the increased costs and loss of flexibility to specialist piling contractors which would result from the Transport Bill, and of the effects on the construction of large buildings;

(2) what estimates he has made of the additional costs to the construction industry of the proposals in the Transport Bill.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the increased cost to the building and civil engineering industry following the introduction of the Transport Bill; and if he will make a statement.

It is too early to estimate the effects of the Transport Bill on the cost of building and civil engineering.

As regards pile driving, does the Minister realise that essential plant will have to pay the abnormal loads tax in advance of any movement by road and that this, and the delays caused by the quantity licensing proposals on journeys over 100 miles, will seriously hold up pile driving and the building operations that will follow? What is he doing to protect the construction industry from the doctrinaire proposals of the Minister of Transport, who could not care a fig for the industry's efficiency?

It is not quite as bad as that. The various sections of the industry have been to see me. I have arranged for ample opportunity to be given to them to take part in discussions on their various problems with the Ministry of Transport and British Rail. Those discussions are still going on, and at the moment they are going rather well.

Does the Minister appreciate that this Bill will cause delays on sites, due to the fact that contractors will not be able to use their transport efficiently? Will his Department give an extension of time to contractors who have to suffer delays because of this new monstrosity of legislation?

I recognise that the construction industry has certain problems, and that for many of those engaged in certain parts of its work any form of licensing would be difficult. These points of view have been put to British Railways and the Minister of Transport. I can only repeat that as I understand it relationships at the moment are very good.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what action he has taken to implement the Recommendation Report No. 55 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes that the margin allowed to distributors should be cut in any price rises to the consumer due to devaluation.

None of the materials in the early warning system for which I am responsible recommend distributors' price margins; consequently there is no action for me to take.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what he is saying is that no industries in respect of which he negotiates contracts have anything to do with this Report?

In selecting a representative range of prices for study the National Board for Prices and Incomes did not think it necessary to include any building materials. One of the problems is that this is a complex industry which is not easily comparable with others. For example, builder merchants traditionally provide credit for small builders, in many instances. It is a different industry.

If this is such a complex industry, is the Minister satisfied that three part-timers are sufficient to do the job?

As I told the hon. Member earlier, yes. They are doing very well.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proposals he has to encourage more tourists to visit ancient monuments and historic buildings under his care.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what has been the total receipts from the sale of postcards and guides of ancient monuments and historic buildings in the last three years.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what have been the total admissions to ancient monuments and historic buildings in the last three years.

Between 1965 and 1967 receipts from the sale of publications increased from £168,000 to £248,000. Admission to ancient monuments went up from 8·9 million to just over 10 million.

I propose to continue and develop the publicity and other measures which have contributed to the increase in the number of visitors. In particular, a travelling exhibition on historic monuments is due to open in London before Whitsun. I have recently announced improvements to be made at Stonehenge. I also hope that arrangements can be made for short films of individual monuments to be shown on television.

I congratulate the Minister on the progress that he has made, but can he tell us what communications and interchange of ideas he has had with the British Tourist Association, and what amount of advertising of ancient monuments is done overseas?

Off the cuff, I cannot answer that, except to say that I am seriously considering having an O. & M. team come into my Department to see what we can learn from experts outside. I want to do anything that can be done to advertise the greatest monuments that we have, and if the hon. Member—or any other hon. Member—has any practical suggestions I shall seriously consider them.

In view of the drive to encourage people to buy British, can the Minister say how many postcards depicting ancient monuments and public buildings are printed in the United Kingdom?

The hon. Member will not be surprised if I tell him that I do not know the answer, but I shall certainly investigate. I shall be shocked if I find that they are not being printed in the United Kingdom. They had better be.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will receive the strongest support from both sides of the House for anything he can do to stop further spoliation of ancient monuments? Is he satisfied that the present maximum penalty is sufficient to deter people from this?

I believe that that point is raised in a later Question on Stonehenge, where some special activities have been going on.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how much litter was swept up from the Royal Parks in 1967; what was the cost of collecting it; and how many persons were prosecuted for dropping litter.

Separate figures are not kept for litter alone, but about 38,000 cubic yards of grass cuttings, garden refuse, litter and other such waste were collected in 1967, at a cost of some £18,000.

There were no prosecutions during 1967. People seen dropping litter are normally asked to pick it up, and cautioned.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any decrease in the dropping of litter since the Litter Act came into being?

This is an intractable problem. I gather that it has defied solution over the years, both in the Royal Parks and elsewhere. Until the public as a whole can be educated to adopt tidier habits we are not likely to get an improvement in the parks. On this matter, again, I shall consider any suggestions from hon. Members or from members of the public.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many men and women, respectively, are employed as car drivers by his Department; and what are their respective rates of pay.

152 male and 170 female drivers. Their rates of pay are 277s. per week in London and 267s. per week in the provinces.

Is the Minister aware that the figures for 1960 show that the total for the whole country—both men and women—was 253? How does he account for the latest figures, which, on a rough calculation, I make to be 70 extra drivers since that time?

I do not know about the 1960 figures. The present total is 322, which is accounted for by the fact that the needs of Government today—and this applied when his own party was in power in 1964—are that much greater than they were in 1960.

Although my right hon. Friend will be aware, may I ask him whether he is aware that when we took over in 1964 we had a very hard look at this business? Is he also aware that there are no abuses under the present Government that were not in existence under the previous one? Will he also note that the hon. Member who asked the Question was rather careful to start with the figure for 1960? He should have a look at the figures between 1960 and 1964.

I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I was hoping that I should be complimented on the fact that at any rate in the case of drivers we pay the same rates to the ladies as to the men.

Is not the hard truth simply that there are far too many Ministers—that almost one-third of the party opposite are Ministers?

Speaking for myself, no, Sir.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the likely rise in building and construction costs during 1968 as a result of recent Government decisions; and whether he will make a statement.

I estimated in November, 1967, that the direct effects of devaluation would be to increase construction costs—including repair and maintenance—by a little more than 1 per cent. When the other measures, which were part of the devaluation package, are taken into account the increase in new construction costs is expected to be about 2 per cent. during this year.

The construction industry has continually improved its efficiency and I am confident that it will be able to absorb at any rate part of the increase.

Is not the Minister aware that it is not only devaluation and directly connected measures which are increasing costs, but that the industry estimates that British Standard Time will increase costs considerably? Can he give an estimate of the effect on costs of British Standard Time?

I cannot give the hon. Member any estimates about the effect of British Standard Time. There is another Question on this matter on the Order Paper. This is a very good industry. It is quite capable of absorbing many of these increases through increased output. Let us give it credit for having done that in the past. I am sure that it will do it in the future, too.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking to assist civil engineering consultants and contractors to expand their activities overseas.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on his official discussions with the Building Materials Export Group concerning the promotion of exports of building materials.

I have recently met representatives of the design professions, the Export Group of the Constructional Industries and the Building Materials Export Group to discuss ways of expanding exports. My Parliamentary Secretary is co-ordinating the action to encourage efforts of the whole construction industry, and he will ensure that the services of my Department and of other Departments are known to the industry.

is the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Secretary visiting any countries abroad to have a look at the position there? Second, has he drawn the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the recommendations of the Cromer Committee about the importance, for example, of take-home pay after tax for those working abroad?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, because I can tell the House that my Parliamentary Secretary, who had great experience in exports in his private capacity before he entered the Government, is doing a first-class job. He has been abroad, he knows all these trade attaches personally and I have asked not only associations in the industry but individual firms to contact him, because all his services are at their disposal. As to the Cromer Report, yes, Sir, it is known and understood and is in the hands of those responsible.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what studies he has instituted on the scope and extent of Government participation in the commercial activities of private building firms: and what has been the findings of these studies.

No such studies have been instituted.

I deplore this fact. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the terms of the Industrial Expansion Bill seek to impose further Government restrictions on the building industry? In view of the Minister's recent speech at Harrogate, when tribute was paid to the achievements of the industry, would he not agree that further Government interference would be deplorable and liable to curtail that industry's activities?

I do not know why the hon. Gentleman has said all that. I have just told him that I am having no such studies made. So far as the Industrial Expansion Bill is concerned, I have already assured the industry that I shall use no powers in that Bill without consultations with the industry. The hon. Gentleman does not have to tell me that this is a good industry: I think that it is first-class.

Then what is the significance of the right hon. Gentleman's signature on the Bill?

It is that, if I wanted to take power to improve and help the industry, the powers would be available under that Bill, but I give the assurance again that I would not do so without consulting the industry.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement about the cleaning of buildings for which he is responsible in London.

Work is in progress or will shortly start on cleaning Trafalgar Square—notably Nelson's Column—the National Gallery and National Portrait Gallery, the Admiralty, the Old Treasury and the Wellington Arch. There has been much public interest in this programme and the results achieved on buildings already cleaned seem generally to be appreciated. I am reviewing the future programme in the light of the economic situation.

Are the new methods proving cheaper since Nelson's Column has been cleaned? Are Nelson's head injuries endemic, due to the London atmosphere or were they inflicted, posthumously, by enemy action?

I gather that Nelson's head is rather like Tory Party policy, in a state of disarray, but we are doing our best to see that it will be all right. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's earlier question, the new methods which we are applying today are in fact dearer, although I cannot give figures, but I think that the methods are that much more efficient. If the hon. Gentleman would like the figures, I will get them for him.

What progress is being made in comprehensive programmes to include private commercial buildings in a suitable area, similar to the successful scheme in Paris?

I want to be helpful on this. I think that Westminster City Council would co-operate with me in appeals to private industry. Local authorities generally, where practicable, should also take up these schemes of cleaning some of these old buildings, which should have been done a long time ago.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman intimating Nelson in another respect by turning a blind eye to the disarray of his own superiors?

I do not know; I can only look at what I see in front of me, which is a pretty poor lot.

Since there has been reference to what is done in Paris, will my right. hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there private enterprise pays half the cost?

Yes, Sir.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the proportion of building work likely to be carried out by the public and private sectors, respectively, in 1970.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is his latest estimate of the probable level of private sector building activity in 1970.

It is not yet possible to forecast the level of construction work in 1970, but I expect that about 55 per cent. of the new work will be for the public sector and 45 per cent. for the private sector.

But as the Government's housebuilding policy is in complete disarray, would the right hon. Gentleman represent to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing that he should abolish his doctrinaire one-for-one building policy and allow private enterprise to get on with private house building?

The hon. Gentleman has a capacity for making facts sound absolutely ludicrous. To say that the Government's housing figures are in disarray when we are building more houses and there are more under construction than ever before in Britain's history, and that that makes nonsense of Government policy, is an extraordinary statement.

But are there as many houses under construction as the party opposite promised?

We have until 1971; the hon. Gentleman wants to be hopeful.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the possible increases in building costs in 1968 as a direct result of current legislative proposals.

It is too early to say.

As the right hon. Gentleman is well aware that costs are rising steeply, how does he expect the industry to go on making satisfactory estimates, especially since he has already said twice today that it is too early to make estimates either with regard to the Transport Bill or generally?

The Question related to possible increases in building costs in 1968. The proposals in the Transport Bill are not likely to affect costs in 1968.

As the right hon. Gentleman's earlier Answers on this matter were very complacent, will he look at the Transport Bill to see what the extra costs beyond 1968 will be for the industry?

I have already told the hon. Gentleman that I have tried to ensure that the views of the industry, which I readily understand—particularly those of some individual firms—have been made known to the Minister of Transport personally and also to British Rail. I understand that these discussions are going very well.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the National Joint Consultative Committee about outstanding moneys due to contractors and builders from public bodies; and what replies he has sent.

The N.J.C.C. has brought this issue to my attention. I have promised to investigate personally any specific complaint of delay on the part of my own Department—although our record is in general a good one. I have taken whatever opportunity offered—and will do so again—to urge the prompt payment of accounts in both public and private clients.

But as the figure involved at any one moment is estimated to be £500 million, are the public sector clients of the building industry, who represent about a third of the total, responsible for a due proportion of that sum, which represents a large amount in high interest rates?

I think that the construction industry has every reason to complain about delayed payments, and some of the worst offenders are local authorities. I very much hope that they will mend their ways and see that, where good firms are doing a good job for them, they behave as first-class clients. It is about time that they did.

Does the right hon. Gentleman see any prospect of any new action with the public sector clients in regard to speedier payment of retentions, which account for about 20 per cent of the outstanding money?

The hon. Gentleman is right. This part of the money, retention payments, is not paid until some time after the job is completed. My answer is that, when a first-class firm is working for one, the best possible punishment in the future, if it does not do a good job, is not to give it any more work.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what studies he has made of the level of output of building workers directly employed by public bodies; and what have been the findings of those studies.

None, Sir.

That is a disappointing reply. Will not the right hon. Gentleman take some account of all the evidence that direct labour is the most incompetent and inefficient way of doing any job? Will he, in his own Department, set a good example to local authorities which are inclined to put Socialism well before common sense?

It is a little prejudiced of the hon. Gentleman to condemn all directly employed labour: such a sweeping statement is not fair. He will know that many local authorities which have directly employed labour departments—some of them under Conservative control—are doing a first-class job. The hon. Gentleman must not make such sweeping statements.

On that reply, has not the right hon. Gentleman ignored the findings of the Mann Committee? Was that not set up with some of these objects in view? Why does he say that no studies have been made?

Because the Question asked for the level of output, whereas the Committee inquired into the best way of carrying out maintenance. They are two different things.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter again.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from builders about the current state of trade in the building industry; and what action he has taken.

None, Sir. The current state of trade in the industry is discussed regularly at meetings of my National Consultative Council. I do not consider that any specific action is required.

Is the Minister aware that the latest state of the trade inquiry shows the dismaying fact that half of the firms answering expected to do less work in this year than they did in 1967? Is it clearly not time to scrap building licensing and to free the industry from the Selective Employment Tax?

The hon. Member may be interested to know that output last year rose by about 5 per cent. In this year it is expected to rise by 3 per cent. above last year. The hon. Member raises a point about the number of firms which will not do so much work this year. Part of the trouble is that fewer and fewer of the larger firms are doing more and more of the work. That has nothing to do with the Government. It is because, as a result of the cost mechanics of the private enterprise sector, we shall get more work done by fewer employers. Some of the small firms will have to fight for their lives, not against us but against their own competitors.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the northern Press reported this morning that the private builders building houses for sale in the North of England are having better sales than at any time since 1932 and that one speculative builder in Newcastle sold 30 houses last Thursday, when the average sale of houses at this time of the year is about 30 a week?

I have great respect for the private sector of the house building industry and I want to do anything I can to help it. But this is a competitive jungle in which many people can be hurt.

In view of the Minister's enthusiasm to help the private builder, will he have some words with his right hon. Friend and get some more land made available so that the private builders can get on with the job?

I wish that the builders would go to the Land Commission and ask for land before they offer criticisms of that body. The hon. Member is a well-known builder in the industry and it is a pity that he does not set an example.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether, in view of his policy that all professions concerned with construction should dispense with imported materials where suitable home-produced alternatives exist, he will request the Construction Materials Group to issue at regular intervals a publication giving particulars of home-produced building materials available for use in the various categories where imported materials are now frequently used.

I am certainly concerned to see that home-produced building materials are used to the maximum extent.

The Construction Materials Group is responsible to the Economic Development Committee for Building and Civil Engineering, and I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion to its attention.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that in the conservation of imported materials the architect is all important? As he is the Ministerial parent of all architects in Britain, cannot he distribute his information direct to architects to promote this vital policy?

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the interest which he has shown. I have had discussions with Sir Hugh Wilson, President of the R.I.B.A., and I have a personal assurance from him that he will do the best he can to see that the point of view which the hon. Member has expressed, and which I share, will in fact come about.

asked the Minister of Building and Works what is his policy regarding the control of dark smoke on building sites on which contracts let by his Department are being carried out; and if he will make a statement.

My Department's contractors are required to take all reasonable precautions to prevent nuisance or inconvenience to adjoining owners and occupiers or to the public generally. My superintending officers have powers under our contracts to require contractors to take action that will abate nuisances. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be pleased to investigate it.

Bearing in mind the proposals in the Clean Air Bill, which I strongly support, will the right hon. Gentleman strongly urge his right hon. Friend to permit the burning of diseased timbers, in particular, and other rubbish, on sites because, especially in areas such as Glasgow, with their new development schemes, it is impossible to have infected material carried through the city?

I give the hon. Lady an assurance that I will have discussions on the matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while I share the point of view expressed in the Question, it should not be assumed by the House that dark smoke is the only smoke which can cause danger to health? A great deal of invisible smoke, sulphur dioxide, and other materials, which are being emitted in vast quantities by industrial plant, is far worse a hazard to health than the dark smoke previously coming from bituminous coal.

I was at one time Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and associated with the Clean Air Committee. My hon. Friend is right. The other dangerous element is exhaust from cars.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the percentage increase or reduction in the work load of the building and civil engineering industry by June 1968.

I estimate that the rate of output of new work in the first half of 1968 will be some 3 per cent. to 4 per cent. higher than the rate in 1967.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he is taking to make the work being carried out by his Department on the design and development of furniture and furnishings more widely known.

Every opportunity is taken of publicising this work at the principal furniture exhibitions. A display of domestic furniture is currently being shown at the Ideal Home Exhibition, and a wider range of office, domestic and laboratory furniture will be on show at the Contract Furnishing Exhibition at, Olympia in May. An exhibition at the Design Centre is planned for the early part of next year.

I am sure that the House will welcome the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. Could he tell us the extent of the participation of his Department from the point of view of the supply of furniture and furnishings?

We are responsible for giving orders to the value of about £15 million of furniture a year. My Department has made a great contribution to the design of furniture. It is recognised throughout the industry as being the largest customer. It can, therefore, have the biggest impact on the furniture of tomorrow.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what proposals he has for introducing open-plan offices for the Civil Service, following the recently announced experiments.

I am considering the inclusion of some open-plan offices in the new buildings which are to be put on the Bridge Street-Richmond Terrace site as the first phase of the Whitehall redevelopment scheme.

In this exciting departure from the point of view of office planning, has my right hon. Friend obtained the reaction of the Civil Service towards this venture and, if so, what has it been?

The exciting prospect of open-plan offices is that even the most junior clerk can enjoy the same high standards of dimensions and conditions as the highest civil servant. Everybody can, therefore, enjoy the highest standards of office accommodation. It is encouraging to think that, for the first time, one is not able to distinguish between civil servants by the office accommodation provided.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Question 44.

On a point of order. The Minister said earlier that he intended to answer during Question Time a Question on Stonehenge.

That is not a point of order.

I did give an assurance that I would answer a Question about Stonehenge. The trouble is that the hon. Member in whose name the Question stands has not been present to ask it.

On a point of order. The Minister did say that he would answer this Question—

Order. This is Question Time. We must get on.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will take steps to ensure that the Olympus 593 engine being built for the Concorde conforms to London Airport, Heathrow, noise limits if the aircraft is to use that airport in the future.

It has always been a Concorde design aim that engine noise should be no greater than that of present-day jetengined aircraft. This implies meeting existing noise limits at Heathrow airport.

Would my hon. Friend accept that that assurance—I take it that it is an assurance—that the engine will conform to the existing noise level at Heathrow will be received with considerable satisfaction under the glide path? Will he endeavour to ensure that his forecast is carried into fact?

These estimates are being continually revised as developments proceed. Noise assessments are complex calculations to make and we must await the prototype flights for confirmation.

In welcoming the hon. Gentleman's statement, may I ask him to say when the Concorde prototype will make its first flight and whether there will be any further delay from that speculated in the newspapers?

I do not think that that matter arises on this Question.

asked the Minister of Technology what consideration he has given to the siting of a pilot scheme in Scotland concerning research into the extraction of sulphur from a coal-fired power station.

As my hon. Friend was recently informed, there is no economic case for recovering sulphur at power stations.—[Vol. 758, c. 928–9.]

Is my hon. Friend aware of Press reports to the effect that this experimentation is going on? Is he aware that the cost of sulphur is increasing and that there would, therefore, appear to be some conflict between this fact and his Answer?

I am aware of the reports to which my hon. Friend refers, but there appears to be some confusion here. There is no case for producing sulphur at power stations merely for the sake of producing sulphur. But if sulphur were to be removed from flue gases in the interests of dealing with air pollution, then the sale of by-product sulphur could partially offset the cost of dealing with air pollution.

asked the Minister of Technology what general policy he has for increasing the amount of civil research relevant to industry and decreasing the military research in establishments such as the Royal Radar Establishment, Malvern, the Signals Research and Development Establishment, Christchurch, the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment, Aldermaston, the Aeroplane and Armament Experimental Establishment, Boscombe Down, the Explosives Research and Development Establishment, Waltham Abbey, the National Gas Turbine Establishment, Pyestock, and the Rocket Propulsion Establishment, Westcott.

The primary purpose of these establishments is to meet the needs of defence, though some of them have particular functions in connection with civil aviation. In so far as facilities which have been provided for defence requirements are no longer needed for defence purposes, it is our policy to make them available for the benefit of industry in cases where the specialised equipment and expertise of the establishments can be of help in the civil field. It is not, however, our policy to build them up as civil research establishments or to seek civil work merely to keep them at their present size.

Concerning the last part of that Answer, are the Government satisfied that the results of discontinued military research are made sufficiently available to civil firms or firms involved in civil contracts. Do the Government see any possibility of improving this mechanism of transferring information?

We are constantly seeking to improve the mechanism whereby the results of defence research work are made available to industry operating primarily in the civil sphere. There is close collaboration between my Department and the National Research and Development Corporation. Representatives of the Corporation have direct links with the management of the R. and D. establishments in the progressing of the industrial application of research work carried out primarily for defence purposes.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Science and Technology is looking into this matter and will be reporting to the House in due course?

indicated assent.

asked the Minister of Technology if he has studied the reports of the American Federal Aviation Agency., copies of which have been sent to him, that jet travel shortens the life span; and if he will investigate the extent to which supersonic travel will shorten it more rapidly.

I am not aware of any report that jet travel shortens the life span.

I regret that my hon. Friend has not received the report, which I have sent to him. I will make sure that he gets it. However, will he accept my assurance that it is a medical report which was made to the American Federal Aviation Agency, as mentioned in the Question?

I can only say that neither the American Federal Aviation Agency's administrator's office in London nor our Institute of Aviation Medicine can identify the report or reports mentioned by my hon. Friend. I would agree that it is widely recognised that people can be upset by time zone changes, but not that these have permanent ill effects or that jet travel is the cause of these disturbances.

asked the Minister of Technology if he will state the total research development and engineering costs hitherto of fitting the Spey Engine into British Phantom aircraft; and how many Phantoms have already been fitted and adapted with Spey Engines.

About £75 million. This includes the cost of developing the Phantom Spey engine and also of the necessary modifications to the Phantom airframe. About 16 Phantoms out of the total of 170 on order have so far been equippped with Spey engines.

Is it or is not not a fact that the readaptation of the Rolls-Royce Spey engine to the American airframe has added about £1 million to the unit cost per Phantom, from £1·5 million to £2·5 million? What conclusion do the Government draw about the difficulties of adapting a British engine to an airframe for which it was never intended, even thought it may appear to save money across the exchanges?

We were aware at the outset that to incorporate the Spey Engine into the Phantom would be expensive and might lead to difficulties. However, the decision to fit the Spey into the naval Phantoms was taken because the performance of the Spey engine was thought to be better than the American engine. This higher performance is necessary because of the use of Phantoms from carriers; and the House must bear in mind the important contribution to the industry which is being made by the use of the Rolls-Royce Spey engine.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that workers in the British aircraft industry get very upset by the continued knocking of British aircraft and aero engines by certain hon. Members of this House? Is he aware that the fitting of the Spey engine into the Phantom aircraft has led to a considerable improvement in this aircraft's performance, which has made the Phantom not only more suitable to the needs of the British Forces but has also made it more readily saleable to air forces overseas?

I can certainly confirm that the fitting of the Spey engine improves the performance of the Phantom in certain respects. I am glad to say that a suitable standard of engine has now been achieved for installation into the production aircraft; and, of course, it is of great advantage to the British aero engine industry to have the contract for the engines for the Phantom order.

Am I to understand from what has been said that the adaptation of the Spey engine hat meant that the cost has increased by 100 per cent.? If so, should not this be questioned in the House, even if the Liberal Party objects?

I am sure that if that were the case it would be a matter which would be questioned in the House. But I do not quite follow the details of my right hon. Friend's arithmetic.

asked the Minister of Technology in view of the references in the Wilson Committee of Inquiry that Bristol Siddeley Engines Limited required substantial profits from repetition work such as overhauls on projects to lay the foundation for other research and development, what guidance he now intends to offer companies with regard to similar contracts.

The Department has reminded those firms with whom contract prices are negotiated that the standard price fixing condition imposes an obligation on both parties to agree prices which are fair and reasonable in relation to the particular contract in which the condition appears, and also that the condition cannot be interpreted to imply that the fairness and reasonableness of prices can be judged in the light of factors extraneous to the particular contract in question.

I am grateful for that statement. In view of the increasing disquiet arising from the Wilson Report and the absence of any statement on company practice from the C.B.I., can my hon. Friend go a little further and make it clear that, in these operations, high profit margins will not be encouraged simply to justify a high scale of R. & D.?

This has always been made clear. There is no defect in the standard condition of contract, although it has on occasion been argued that the standard condition might bear an interpretation which it should not, in fact, bear.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it was in the period between 1956 and 1963, when the party opposite was responsible, that £2,335 million worth of aviation contracts were handed out? Does he not think that it is now time for his Department to carry out a thoroughgoing investigation of all these contracts in order to see how many " Bristol Siddeleys" there are?

asked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in the official discussions with the various

I am sure that we would be willing to pursue any matter that might be laid before us and which might lead us to think that there had been maladministration in previous contracts or misappropriation of public funds.

asked the Minister of Labour what has been the estimated increase in wage and salary earnings, respectively, over the past 12 months; and what are the expected changes during 1968.

I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table of figures for the past 12 months to the nearest available date. Estimates of future trends in earnings are not published.

Estimates of future trends of earnings may not be published, but surely the hon. Gentleman has some idea of the expected increase in earnings? If he has no idea of the expected increase, how can an intelligent discussion proceed upon what kind of statutory requirements there are for a prices and incomes policy?

With or without statutory requirements, the Government necessarily need to know, roughly and crudely, the anticipated increases in earnings. My answer to the question is that it is not the practice of this Government, and has not been the practice of previous Governments, to make estimates known, and I do not intend to change that practice this afternoon.

The main conclusions reached in my discussions with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. were outlined in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Dr. Summerskill) on 18th December, 1967. Officials of these organisations and my Department have met to plan the further joint studies it has been agreed should be undertaken. These will be completed as quickly as possible.—[Vol. 756, c. 893–4.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that a speeding up of the discussions on this subject is long overdue; and that if a wages policy is to be successful it must have as its cornerstone equal pay for women?

Committed as they are to the principle, the Government are naturally anxious that these discussions should be concluded as speedily as possible, but there are matters of great technical complexity, and it is important that these decisions should be taken on the right basis of information.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary let us know whether, before this very important and acceptable pledge was given prior to the General Election, no agreement between the main bodies concerned had then been obtained? Is not this partly the cause of this unfortunate and intolerable delay?

The pledge given before the General Election was given by the party which now forms the Government, and it is still the policy of that Government. The details we are discussing, and the details we could not discuss until we came to power, are details which our predecessors made no attempt to discuss with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C.

asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the wage increase negotiated by draughtsmen employed by Beckman Instruments Limited, Glenrothes, Fife, and the reasons for his direction to the firm to cease payment of the increase.

The settlement appeared contrary to the requirements of the incomes policy and the company was so advised when the proposal was notified. This view was reinforced by the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on the pay and conditions of service of engineering workers generally. The particular case is now under examination by the Board.

Can my hon. Friend say why there was a 12 weeks' delay between the payment of the increase and the indication from the Ministry that it should not be paid? Does he recognise that only 15 men are involved and that the total weekly cost of the pay increase is less than £20? Is it not absurd to carry the incomes policy to this length?

I accept that there was a delay, although not that it was as much as 12 weeks. The reason was that the Government rightly and properly first of all asked the parties involved to postpone the increase on a voluntary basis before a direction was made. The other reason was the necessity to make sure that our direction was based on information which confirmed our view that the policy was being breached.

asked the Minister of Labour how many work permits have been issued to Asiatic immigrants from Kenya for employment in the Orkneys, Inverness, Roxburgh, Peebles and Selkirk, Hamilton and North Devon, respectively.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. E. Fernyhough): This information is not available.

Does not that Answer really mean "None at all"? What steps is my hon. Friend taking to encourage immigrants to go to these areas, since it is quite clear that the hon. Members concerned want them and that it would be a very considerable benefit to urban areas such as London, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and the rest, if this could be done?

Vouchers were issued to 393 persons from Kenya between 1962 and 1968. The hon. Members opposite to whom my hon. Friend referred must be the custodians of their own consciences.

Is it not obvious that until the obnoxious and loathsome Commonwealth Immigrants Act was passed last week, no Kenya Asians holding British passports would have required work permits to come to any constituency, including Fife, West? Would not the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that it is contrary to the practice and custom of the House for hon. Members to put down Questions relating to their colleagues' constituencies; and that two can play at that game?

I can confirm what my hon. Friend said about the freedom of Asians holding British citizens' passports to come here. If the hon. Gentleman has any argument with my right hon. Friend he should settle it either across these benches or outside.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members, particularly those from Liverpool, feel it regrettable that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) did not put down a Question appertaining to immigration in Liverpool? Is my hon. Friend further aware that we have had immigrants coming into Liverpool for at least two or three hundred years from all parts of the world—white faced, black faced and brown faced—and that we have had very little difficulty in integrating those immigrants into our community?