asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what circumstances caused the unsatisfactory conditions of piping in the new tower building of the Army Catering Corps, Aldershot; when this will be put right; and at what cost.

We have found that the type of plastic piping used in the waste water disposal system of this building can be damaged by very hot water. As the building contains a large number of kitchens, the plastic piping must be replaced with metal pipes. The work will be put right at the same time as other work yet to be completed on the project, and is estimated to cost £38,000. The building will be occupied in March, 1970.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the top floor is completely unusable, although the lower floor can be used, and what steps is he taking to avoid this happening in the future?

On the general construction of the building, there will be no delay in the ultimate completion of the work. In reply to the second part of the supplementary question, the matter is now being investigated, and I would not like at this stage to make any further comment.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works why no steps have been taken at Willems Park, Aldershot, since October, 1968 when the attention of the Ministry of Defence was drawn to the inadequate height of the top floor parapet, with consequent danger to young children; and whether he will ensure that this will be remedied without waiting for the proposed strengthening of the whole building.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for drawing my attention to this point. We propose to fix a railing to the tops to make them safer. I am arranging for the railings to be fixed as soon as possible.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman why there has been this delay? This matter was brought to the attention of the Ministry of Defence in October last, and there is a grave risk that children playing on the top parapet may fall over. May I be assured that This will not await the general strengthening of the flats at Willems Park?

It was intended that it should await the general strengthening, but I have come to the conclusion that, in view of the time lag, it should be put into operation earlier. At the time when the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. R ippon) gave the original instructions for the height of the balustrades, the height given was 3 ft. 6 in. This has been increased, on my instructions, to about 4 ft. 3 in., and we hope that this will remedy the matter.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the matters raised in the last two Questions have caused great concern about the people responsible for giving specifications for these projects? Will my right hon. Friend look into the matter, and perhaps deal with people who specify pipes that are not adequate to take hot water?

In reply to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) I said that the matter was subject to investigation.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the productivity of the construction industry since the suspension of building controls.

Between the fourth quarter of 1968 and the first quarter of 1969 productivity on all new work fell by about 5 per cent.

Do not these figures reveal that the industry has suffered a setback in spite of the abolition of building controls? Does it not appear to suggest that building controls when in opera- tion were not serving any useful purpose and were not stopping the overheating?

I think that the figures show demonstrably that Great Britain has a winter. A fall of about 5 per cent. is not unusual.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on the progress of winter building.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my predecessor to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) on 22nd April this year.—[Vol. 782, c. 242]

Does not the Minister feel that progress is impeded by the operation of investment grants and by the rule that no grant can be given for capital expenditure on one item of less than £25? Does it not affect in particular site lighting, which is an important matter in this context?

That point is made from time to time, but investment grants equally are available for winter building equipment or assemblies of equipment costing over £25. Even if no grant is forthcoming, all the evidence is that there is an increase in productivity to be gained from winter building techniques. This by itself should be a stimulus to the employment of these techniques.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many public buildings coming under his supervision have been cleaned in the past three years; and at what estimated cost.

All or major parts of twelve buildings have been cleaned and work has begun on one more. In addition, Trafalgar Square, notably Nelson's Column, and the Wellington Arch have been cleaned. The total cost so far is some £70,000.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these cleaning operations are much appreciated by visitors to London and also by those who pass them every day? Is it not now logical that the lists of buildings to be cleaned should include the most important building of all, the Palace of Westminster?

I agree that the cleaning of buildings is desirable since they are an amenity. But we have the task of maintaining buildings, and the maintenance of buildings costs a lot of money. We can undertake only a certain amount of cleaning in any given year.

In view of the tremendous benefits to tourism and the excellent results in Whitehall and Trafalgar Square, will my hon. Friend also consider cleaning the British Museum and Buckingham Palace?

The 1969–70 programme includes a start on the Mall facade of Buckingham Palace, and the House will accept that Buckingham Palace itself is a great tourist attraction. We shall also be undertaking work on the Royal Naval College, the Tower of London, the old Register House in Edinburgh, and Gwydyr House. I do not think we can do more at this stage.

Although I appreciate how necessary it is to undertake the cleaning, would it not be of advantage if we were to reduce the pigeon population in Trafalgar Square?

It would be an advantage to reduce the pigeon population, but an enormous number of authorities have attempted to get rid of birds of one kind or another and it is an intractable problem.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now give an assurance that no legislation to set up a state building corporation will be introduced during the life of the present Parliament.

No, Sir.

Why not? Surely the right hon. Gentleman must accept that the Government have already embraced almost every form of human folly, without their now adding this one.

The hon. Gentleman asked me a Question to which I gave a correct answer. I am not at present considering any legislation. But even on a day as hot as this I do not see why I should commit myself totally to inertia.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made in providing an assistant for Professor Reddaway of Cambridge University to assist him in his inquiry into the impact of selective employment tax on the construction industry.

We hope that an announcement can be made shortly about this appointment.

Patience is all very well, but how long does one have to wait? How long has this inquiry got to continue digging and digging for truth, truth that is already very well known; namely that the selective employment tax is a damnable affair for everybody, particularly the construction industry?

The hon. Gentleman has a tendency to use exaggerated language and to get hysterical about things. The situation is simply that we have had to try to get the right kind of person to fill this appointment. Both the major organisations in the construction industry accept that Professor Reddaway is the right person under whom this particular problem should be investigated. We think we have the right type of person, but are not yet in a position to make an announcement.

Is not this about 18 months too late, far too late, in view of the fact that the construction industry pays 25 per cent. of the yield from this tax?

I appreciate that there has been a delay, but I can assure the House that there has been no dragging of feet so far as we are concerned. We have simply been trying to get the right person to do this particular job. We think we have now got that person, and we will make an announcement as soon as we can.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I give notice that I wish to raise the matter again on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on the effects of selective employment tax on the civil engineering industry, and, in particular, on fixed price contracts without a fluctuation clause.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has now received from the civil engineering industry against selective employment tax; and what reply he has sent.

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 10th June to a similar Question from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor).—[Vol. 784, c. 1214.]

What is the cause of the delay? It is only a question of basic justice. Can we get on with it and have a decision?

The hon. Gentleman should not be more impatient than the Federation. Discussions are going on. As soon as I am in a position to give a definitive answer, I will.

Has not selective employment tax been in existence now for three years? Should not the private sector be on the same basis as the public sector? Will the Minister assure the House that there will be no question of referring anything to the National Board for Prices and Incomes?

I can confirm that selective employment tax has been in existence for three years.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the rest of my question?

Mr. Jopting. No. 14.

rose—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Order. I have called the next Question.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works in respect of how many building workers engaged on public contracts selective employment tax is payable; and what effect he estimates the tax has had on their output.

The tax is payable without refund in respect of about 65,000 operatives of public sector direct labour organisations and such of the 490,000 contractors' operatives engaged in public sector contracts. Between 1967 and 1968 output per operative rose sharply, but it is not possible to quantify the extent to which this is a conseqeunce of S.E.T.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what benefit accrues to the public sector by having additional costs to the tune of approximately £80 million per year as a result of S.E.T.?

I should think that there were considerable benefits to the economy by the—I am not quite sure what the word is—aggregation of S.E.T.

Can the Minister say how, for the purposes of refund, local authorities are expected to differentiate between their operatives engaged on new work and those engaged on maintenance, especially as the Government do not know what the benefit from the tax actually is?

There is a considerable benefit from the tax. I should think that there was a very clear and general division between operatives employed on new work and operatives employed on maintenance—at any rate, clear enough for the local authorities concerned.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now outline his policy regarding the proposal of the Estimates Committee that he should introduce legislation to amend the Commissioners of Works Act, 1852.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made with his review of the possibility of making firmer advance commitments of the Government's office building programme; and whether he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend is awaiting the outcome of an interdepartmental working party.

Since on 11th March it was announced that the Ministry was looking into the matter, will not the Minister take away some of the inertia he has mentioned and say whether or not he finds favour with the proposal? How many Parliamentary Questions do we have to put down before something is done?

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is now becoming so impetuous; it is out of character. This issue involves a major judgment in carrying through the policy of our Department, which in one way or another costs a good deal of money. The Estimates Committee made a recommendation; we have set up an inter-departmental committee to examine it, and we cannot move until we have examined it.

Is the Scottish Office represented on this inter-departmental committee, and what representations has it made?

I am extremely sorry but I do not know. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I will make inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what are his general criteria for selecting projects for study by the Building Research Station.

New projects at the Building Research Station must be relevant to the needs of the building user, of central or local government or of the industry. They must offer reasonable prospects of success; and the station should be demonstrably the most suitable place for them.

Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree with Mr. MacDougall's statement that the Building Research Station should operate at the bounds of knowledge? Does he appreciate that only about one-fifth of the projects undertaken by the Building Research Station have commercial possibilities?

The hon. Gentleman ought to be careful since the Building Research Station is doing an extremely good job of work. This is accepted by the building industry. There is a steering committee at the station on which the industry itself is represented, and if it has any objections to the projects that we have in hand it will make known its opposition. The hon. Gentleman ought to do his homework on this matter.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what plans he has to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Phelps Brown Report regarding self-employed men; and when he proposes to publish a White Paper outlining the terms of it.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on the proposed legislation on cont-actual liability for self-employed men working in the building industry; and when he proposes to introduce it.

I have nothing to add to my Answer of 10th June to similar Questions by the hon. Members for Rushcliffe (Mr. Gardner) and Meriden (Mr. Speed).—[Vol. 784, c. 1204–6.]

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's self-proclaimed dynamism and in view of the importance of this problem, is it not time that some progress was being made?

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that, in view of my lack of inertia, it is time that there was some progress in this matter. I am at present discussing the whole question with my colleagues, and I hope to be in a position in the not too far distant future to give a definitive answer.

Does not the Minister realise that this is totally inadequate and typical of the delays of this Government in construction legislation? Will he get a move on?

Perhaps it would be as well to teach the hon. Gentleman a little history. The Phelps Brown proposals were published in July, 1968. The first and most important essential obviously was to get the views of both sides of the industry. These were received in February, 1969. From that moment to this, urgent discussions have been taking place. I do not think that this is a very long lapse of time.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this problem is a very serious one and that a great deal of preparation is required before he can come to a firm decision? I think that the whole House will agree that it is necessary to take every conceivable offer made to my right hon. Friend to solve the problem.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In this case, I would rather be accused of inertia than of moving too quickly and getting the wrong answer.

the Minister of Public Building and Works what steps he plans to take to reduce the 23 departmental committees on which builders are currently serving; and whether he will make a statement.

None, Sir.

If I am right in understanding the answer to be "None", does not the Minister remember that the Construction Materials Group was abolished because its membership overlapped that of the E.D.C.? Does not he think that he could scrap more of these 23 committees and let the builders get on with their job of building?

The hon. Gentleman should recognise that there are three major national committees here. If one takes Wales and Scotland, there are 13 regional committees. According to the opinions of both sides of the industry, the other committees are important. Does the hon. Gentleman want me to scrap some of the regional committees?

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what advice has been given to firms in the construction industry by the Economic Development Committee for Civil Engineering on protective clothing; and what action he has taken to give publicity to it.

The Civil Engineering E.D.C. has issued advice in the form of a booklet entitled "Protective Clothing". The National Economic Development Office is responsible for publishing and publicising E.D.C. publications.

While we all want to see operatives properly protected, does the hon. Gentleman really think that it is the function of the E.D.C., with all its civil servants, to issue documents to builders telling them that donkey jackets should have seams six inches in front and ten inches behind the shoulder and should be single-breasted with buttons right up to the neck?

They sound like uniforms for members of the party opposite.

The E.D.C.'s advice was based on a report which called for further research into protective clothing. While it may be funny and while we may get a little laugh out of it, there has been a heavy demand from many industries, including the construction industry, for this document.

Will my hon. Friend take it from me that any action to increase and enforce the wearing of protective clothing in any industry where there is a danger will be greatly welcomed on this side of the House?

I accept fully what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what recent changes he has made in the structure and organisation of his Department; and whether he will make a statement.

Plans are well advanced for a re-organisation of the headquarters of my Department, which will come into effect on 1st October, 1969. I will circulate more details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

May I congratulate the Minister on at last condescending to give the House this important news a month after he told the Press? Can we have an assurance that this change has been brought about with the Minister's proper rôle as sponsor of the construction industry fully in mind?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the whole House will acquit me of a deliberate discourtesy. I looked into the precedents, and I found that when the present organisation was set up no statement was made to the House by the noble Lord the late hon. Member for Totnes in introducing the division of administrative and professional responsibilities in 1851.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what recent discussions have taken place with Her Majesty's Inspectors over the fire alarm system in the Palace of Westminster.

The authorities of the House and members of the Ministry's staff have had frequent discussions over the past year with Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate on this matter. Plans for a fire alarm system are now being drawn up, and it is expected that installation work will begin next year.

Is my hon. Friend, therefore, satisfied that at this moment at least the standards of safety in this building are not up to the requirements of other public work houses?

I am not sure what my hon. Friend means by "public work houses". In view of the fact that there has not been a major fire in this building for 126 years, touch wood, I think we can assume that the building is relatively safe. Of course, there is a fire control system in the House, and I would not like it to be thought that there are no preventive measures.

Does my hon. Friend agree that 126 years is rather a long time between major fires? What does he intend doing about it?

I appreciate that the longer it goes on, the shorter the odds get. However, the whole system is being looked at at present, and we hope to have an entirely new scheme started next year.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he is satisfied there will be no shortage of building materials in the house building industry; and if he will make a statement.

I do not foresee any general shortages of basic building materials for the house building industry in the next year or two, although local shortages, and shortages of specialised items, are always liable to occur from time to time, for reasons which cannot be predicted.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is genuine concern in Scotland about a possible shortage of bricks, for example, for the house building industry? Is he further aware that according to statements in the Press there seem to be some bodies of people who are more concerned about making party political capital out of this issue than about producing solutions for the problems?

As to the first point, there is a temporary shortage in the central belt in Scotland, but I believe that the deficit is being made good from Northern England and that the present shortage will not be of long duration.

Does the Minister appreciate that the extra burden which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put on transport costs is one of the reasons for local shortages? Is it not ridiculous that there should be an excess of bricks in England and a shortage in Scotland due purely to the costs of distribution?

I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's diagnosis of the brick shortage or of the remedies. The main point is that there has been a change in the employment pattern and, therefore, a change temporarily in the supply of bricks. The obvious thing to do is to meet that supply.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what percentage of the 40 per cent. of fly-ash used by the construction industry comes from Scotland; and what areas it comes from.

About 10 per cent. It is produced in Ayrshire, Renfrewshire, Kincardineshire, Fife and Edinburgh.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the miners believe that not enough publicity is given to what could be described as derivatives coming from coal-fired stations and that his statement today will certainly be welcomed by them?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I congratulate him on the vigour with which he has pursued this subject.

Can the Minister tell us what fly-ash is?

Fly-ash—P.F.A.—is produced by the electricity generating stations using ground coal blown on to the boilers, which produces a powdered ash.

the Minister of Public Building and Works what percentage of building work will be carried out by the public sector in 1969 and 1970.

Approximately 55 per cent. of new work in 1969 and a little less in 1970.

Would it not be a good idea to try to redress the balance a little and at least get a 50–50 basis? Would not a good start be to get the private house building sector back to the 1964 level?

Questions on housing are probably better addressed to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. But, since the subject has been raised, the annual number of houses produced under the Conservative Government totalled 305,000 and under the Labour Government 395,000.

Has my right hon. Friend noticed the increasing venom with which local Conservative groups have been attacking direct works departments of local authorities? Does he agree that there is a need for more publicity about the excellent achievements of direct works departments, like that in Manchester?

I would always agree with my hon. Friend on practically everything.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will set up an independent committee to review the number of statues and memorials now on public view in London, and to make recommendations over the replacement of those which they consider no longer relevant or desirable in 1969.

My right hon. Friend has no evidence of any widespread feeling which would justify such an inquiry.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary say for how many more generations we shall have to endure some of the unknown and unremembered people whose statues are now on display? Is it not time these statues were replaced by statues of some of the outstanding men and women of the last 100 years? Surely this would be more appreciated by the public.

I accept that there is a school of thought that there ought to be a re-examination of our attitude to statues. But I do not think there is a wide demand for a review of the kind that the hon. Gentleman indicates. This is a complicated problem. It involves the approval of this House in some instances, it involves legal problems, and it involves an examination of the circumstances in which a statue was put up. It is a difficult problem—[Interruption.] I took it, Mr. Speaker, that the House wanted information.

Will my hon. Friend accept that there is no need for an inquiry? Does he agree that some of these monstrosities ought not to be replaced but should be removed once and for all? A lot of London is cluttered up with this rubbish.

I think the House should clearly understand that many statues are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Buildings and Works but are the responsibility of local authorities in London.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what research he is doing into problems of condensation in new houses.

None at present. Condensation can be largely avoided in new houses and cured in existing houses by the application of existing knowledge. We are trying hard to inculcate good practice in the design, construction and maintenance of houses.

Would not work on condensation at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, prove useful?

Research on condensation has been done at the B.R.S. We think that we know what the problem is and what the solutions are. If we find, in the light of experience, that we need to do further research, I think that we can do it at the B.R.S.

Is it not a fact that British experts have assisted the United States space people in solving the problem of condensation in their space research ships, yet council houses in Macclesfield are full of condensation throughout the year?

What the hon. Gentleman has said in the first part of his supplementary question may be true. Where a local authority has this problem, if the hon. Member concerned will get in touch with me I will do whatever I can to assist the local authority.

How is it that on the Continent they have been able to build multi-storey flats for 50 years without this trouble? Is my hon. Friend aware that all over the country in new council flats clothes, furniture and food are going green with mould because of this problem? Some of the tenants feel that if the architects and building contractors were forced to live in them they would not design houses and flats like them.

I would not accept that this problem is peculiar to this country. The Department cannot be held responsible for the actions of everyone in the building industry, but it is trying to help to solve a problem that has arisen. We now have the knowledge. We go to the nth degree to get this knowledge across. I repeat, if any local authority wants assistance we will try to help.

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that one problem is that people accept the need to run in a new car but not properly to ventilate a new house?

It may be that the biggest problem with condensation is that we have attempted to concentrate our design on the basis of maximum comfort and have eliminated a great deal of natural draught.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in Liverpool some blocks of fiats built as recently as three years ago have had to be vacated while this problem is eradicated? Some people feel that as contractors make their money from these jobs they ought to put this problem right without the local authorities being involved in extra expenses.

I cannot get myself involved in a dispute between contractors and local authorities. All that we can do is to help the local authorities where possible.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a survey of lands in the possession of his Department in Scotland, with a view to making a more economic use or sale of potential building land, for which he is responsible, and which is currently underdeveloped.

The Department holds very little undeveloped or underdeveloped land in Scotland, and what is held is to meet specific Government demands. The extent of such holdings is reviewed periodically and when, as a result of changed circumstances, a site or part of a site is no longer required, it is disposed of.

Granted the periodic review, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the Department has sufficient incentive to disgorge surplus land?

It is not a question of having an incentive to disgorge it. If we have surplus land, then, subject to the general policy of land disposal, we try to get rid of it, and we would not impede any industrial or housing development.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what consideration he has given to the consequences for traditional crafts in the building industry of the potential use of plastic components; and if he will make a statement.

Craftsmen in the building industry have shown great readiness to adapt their skills to new materials. The policies formulated by the Construction Industry Training Board, in agreement with both sides of the industry, for training apprentices and existing craftsmen will ensure that they are qualified to work with new plastic components.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is grave apprehension within the industry that the introduction of plastic components, such as doors and window frames, in houses may lead to serious diminution within the joinery trade, if not to its ultimate extinction? Can some consideration be given to the consequences of this policy?

It seems to me that there always is a legitimate fear that men have, but craftsmen are always in demand, and provided that the training arrangements and working agreements continue to be adapted to changes in technology I see no reason to fear the future and no reason to believe that this will lead to redundancies.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement about the use of London Parks under his control for the giving of pop concerts.

Permission was given for a small number of "pop" concerts to be held in Hyde Park last year as an experiment. They proved very popular, and the audiences were well behaved. I agreed therefore to allow the experiment to be repeated this summer. The two concerts held so far attracted vast crowds and passed off with only minor incidents. In view of the great pleasure which these concerts afford, particularly to the younger generation, I have decided to allow another concert to be held next month, the last for this year.

At the last one, which was probably the largest public meeting in London since the days of the Chartists, was not there less hooliganism and litter than at many a football match? But will my right hon. Friend ensure that in future these events are the exception, rather than the rule, because many people go to the parks for peace and quiet?

With regard to the first question, I pay tribute to the young people who attended this enormous concert. At the end of the concert I was most impressed to learn that they had voluntarily helped with the clearing up of litter, and I think they set a great example to their elders.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say why permission was refused to the Festival of London Stores to hold a parade in Hyde Park this year? Is he aware that his predecessor confirmed in a recent answer that the festival parade which was held last year was very well conducted?

I believe that my predecessor has replied to that question by saying that it was a commercial operation. The "pop" concert was free.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Wcrks what representations he has had from builders about the raising of loans to finance construction work; and what replies he has sent.

None, Sir.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the credit squeeze is a very serious matter for the liquidity of small house builders? What progress has been made since 22nd April, when the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor said that he would see what he could do to improve the lot of the small house builder?

Undoubtedly restrictions on credit cause a considerable amount of difficulties—one is aware of that—but if the hon. Gentleman has any specific cases in mind I shall be willing to look into them.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the President of the Board of Trade in Glasgow on 20th June, 1969, about invisible earnings represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether the speech made by the President of the Board of Trade in Glasgow on 20th June about Great Britain's invisible earnings represents Government policy.

Yes, Sir.

Is the Prime Minister aware that net invisible earnings on private account regularly show a handsome surplus, which last year amounted to £839 million? Has not the time come for the Government to reconsider the relative contributions of visible and invisible earnings to our balance of payments, and what Government policy towards them ought to be?

We have had many criticisms about our treatment of those responsible for invisible earnings, and I am glad to join the hon. Gentleman in the tribute he paid to the very big figures for the last year. While there are fluctuations from quarter to quarter, the figure for the first quarter was at a still higher rate. I suggest that that might indicate to the hon. Gentleman that we have been following the right policies.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the tribute paid by the President of the Board of Trade to the contribution made by business and financial services is very welcome? Will he now agree to explain, or perhaps, even better, to withdraw, his own slighting reference to those who use money to make money?

At the Guildhall last year I paid tribute to those responsible for our invisible earnings, and I expressed the hope that we should see a continuing increase in our invisible earnings. There is a big difference between those who earn money overseas to strengthen our balance of payments and those who gamble at home without helping to fertilise or irrigate the investment source of British industry. The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that in the first quarter net invisible earnings were greater than in the whole of the last year of the Conservatives.

On the general question of the trade returns, there has been some comment today that the export figures are larger than the figures actually given because of the so-called figure of anything up to 2 per cent. which is not allowed for. Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the Government are proposing to do about this rather vague figure? Are they proposing to return to the original system before 1963 in which there was a double currency check, the first before exports were made? Second, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that for every increase there must be a corresponding decrease in the balancing item?

I recognise the last point. It makes no difference to the inflow of money to the reserves, or things of that kind. It does, however, make a difference to the true figure of the balance of trade as opposed to the balance of monetary movements and the balance of payments. There is another Question on the Order Paper about a statement by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referring to those items.

Returning to invisible earnings, will my right hon. Friend institute a cost-benefit analysis into the growth and consequences of the Euro-dollar market, to which the City of London contributed too much, some people think at such high cost?

With regard to the Euro-dollar market, I remember at Guildhall paying tribute to what the City has done, despite foreign exchange restrictions, in moving quickly into what is an entirely new market in this country, and indeed as it has done since then with certificates of deposit. It has been to the benefit of this country in terms of invisible earnings, but the recent problems of the Euro-dollar, resulting from high interest rates in America, and the outflow from Euro-dollars, I do not think can be laid at the door of our own operators in this market.

asked the Prime Minister what further discussions the Government intends to have with the ShahanShah of Iran.

the Prime Minister what further consideration he has given to the possibility of arranging a meeting with the Shahan Shah of Iran.

I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friends on 20th May.—[Vol. 784, c. 236–9.]

Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the British public are only now beginning to appreciate that, under this Government, for the first time in 150 years, British troops are no longer fighting and dying in foreign wars? As the Opposition are still insisting that British troops should return to the Middle East, is it not time that there was a joint statement from the Iranian and British Governments, showing the very wide measure of agreement that there is on policy between them?

In one sense, that supplementary question would have been relevant to the first Question on the Order Paper as well as to this one, because this is, of course, highly relevant to the net invisible earnings, which are struck after allowing for overseas Government expenditure, which this Government, of course, are reducing and which they have been criticised by right hon. Gentlemen opposite for reducing. As for a joint statement on this matter, my hon. Friend will recall the recent visit of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to Teheran, and his statement afterwards, in which it was made clear on behalf of the Iranian Government that they supported the British decision to withdraw.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, since I first raised this matter in the columns of the Sunday Times, the Leader of the Opposition, assisted by no less a dignitary than his Parliamentary Private Secretary, has been trying to create a smokescreen over what happened when they visited Teheran? Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the mischievous activities of the Leader of the Opposition, then and when he came back, have created a dangerous situation in the Gulf? Is it not right that he should take every opportunity to affirm the accord which exists between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Iran?

The accord on this matter was stated by my right hon. Friend. I do not believe that the statements of the Leader of the Opposition have created a dangerous situation in the Gulf, because the Persian Government have made it clear that they support the policies adopted by Her Majesty's Government. It is a fact, however, that the right hon. Gentleman has been criticised for totally misrepresenting what he was told in Iran.

On what precise date did it come about that our frontier was no longer on the Himalayas?

Is the Prime Minister aware that, since the mischief-making attempts of his Foreign Secretary, there has been an exchange of correspondence between the Iranian Foreign Secretary and myself, which has been published and which makes it absolutely plain that there was no misunderstanding whatever? Is it not important that we have had very good relations with Iran during the past 15 years, in which we have had forces in the Gulf, and that there is no reason why this good relationship should ever be broken?

The only thing, of course, which has affected this is the equivocation of the right hon. Gentleman's statement on this question. In fact, the Iranian Foreign Minister, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, described their policy as, among other things,

"…non-interference by the countries outside the riparian States and Emirates in the affairs of the Persian Gulf".

"… as I have made absolutely no statement as to what was said by … the Shah,…it was impossible for me to have incorrectly reported him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1969; Vol. 734, c. 1671.]

"I have no doubt about what their view is ', said Mr. Heath, ' and I do not know how the idea has got about that Persia does not want us to stay.' "—

" Mr. Heath had held long talks with the Shah and in this article Mr. Heath drew his own conclusions from those private talks."

Perhaps the Prime Minister would be kind enough to quote what I said. I said:

" I am satisfied that a Conservative Government would be able to work well with these countries "—

' since we all share one common aim: the maintenance of stability."

No, Sir, I am saying that the Shah approves our decision to withdraw, whereas the right hon. Gentleman was reported in The Times as saying that he did not accept the view that the Shah of Iran would resent a reappraisal of the British decision to pull out by 1971. He then said that there was no doubt about their view and went on to say, after his talk with the Shah,

"I do not know where the idea has got about that Persia does not wish us to stay."

On a point of order. Can the House be protected from these very long and protracted quotations, since Question Time is for asking questions?

The Chair allows the two Front Bench leaders some latitude, and, indeed, some longitude.

To finish the Answer, I said that it was, therefore, no surprise that the—[Interruption.] Well, we had these statements in June by the right hon. Gentleman which are not correct. The Shah said—this was reported by the Foreign Secretary—

" The Shah feels that Mr. Heath must have misunderstood or misquoted what he said."

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in view of the recommended increases of certain civil servants' salaries to £14,000 per annum, which will alter the relationship with Ministerial salaries, he will refer the salaries of Ministers and Members to the National Board for Prices and Incomes with instructions to report by 1st October, 1969;

There are no plans to increase Ministerial salaries. On the remuneration of Members, I have nothing to add to what I said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North West (Mr. Ellis) on 3rd April.—[Vol. 781, c. 649–50.]

Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that reply, having regard to the fact that, recently, a statement has been made to the effect that the salaries of the senior echelon of civil servants were to be raised progressively from £9,000 per annum to £14,000 after those of the senior echelon of the heads of nationalised industries have been raised from £12,500 to £20,000 and, in one case, to £25,000? Does he think that Members of the House of Commons should be the only public servants to be disregarded in the context of highly increased costs of operation?

I know the feeling in all parts of the House on this question and particularly, of course, about the problem which hon. Members have in meeting the costs of doing the job, quite apart from the question of salaries. But the supplementary answer to which I referred in my original reply was, of course, in reference to the remit which the Services Committee now has on hand to consider these very questions. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told the House in reply to Questions earlier—I think that I have it right—that he was hoping to be able to present the report of the Services Committee to the House before the Recess. I suggest we wait for that report before making further progress.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the effects of this reference to the Plowden Committee and the Committee's findings go far beyond the Government and that they impinge even upon the authority of Mr. Speaker and this House, in so far as we had the ridiculous position in 1965 that Mr. Speaker received remuneration below that of the Second Clerk Assistant and that we are likely to reach that ridiculous situation again? Is he aware that the pay of the Officers of the House is reflected in these rises, because they follow Civil Service rates? Would he do something to stop this particular nonsense?

I am aware of these difficulties; indeed, they are difficulties which were commented upon in a different context by the Lawrence Committee in 1964, when it referred to the disparity between Ministers' salaries and the salaries of their Permanent Secretarys. At that time, there was the problem of Mr. Speaker and his salary in relation to those of the paid Officers of the House. All these questions are very much in the minds of all of us, but it would be right for the House to await the report of the Services Committee before the Recess.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whatever the merits may be behind a demand for increased salaries, from whichever quarter it may come, he must bear in mind the impor- tance of checking inflation since it affects the poorest of the poor? Before giving way to demands, will he bear this in mind?

That is a central consideration, and has been throughout in the proposals which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put and is putting again to the House this week in the matter of Budget finance and monetary policy.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the question of increased Ministerial and hon. Members' salaries can be dealt with at a date some time in the future? Is not the central issue this: since time and again under the prices and incomes policy the question of workers' wages has been under review in this House, why was it necessary to come to this decision without consulting hon. Members? Why should the Government be so trigger-happy in making vast sums of remuneration available to civil servants in view of the strong feeling in the Labour Party on this matter?

I take it that when my right hon. Friend referred to "this decision" he was referring to the Report of the Plowden Committee and the announcement of last Friday. He will be aware that it was indicated on Friday that it would be our intention in the future progressively to ensure that more and more of the special reporting bodies on the incomes of particular groups—professional groups and others—will be brought under the aegis of the Prices and Incomes Board.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a problem which is even more urgent than that of increasing hon. Members' salaries is the one affecting hon. Members' widows? Is he aware that in the last year there have been at least two cases of ladies in this category being expected to live on a pittance compared with the provision made by the French legislature and Parliaments in other parts of the world? Is not this an absolute disgrace?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because hon. Members in all parts of the House have recent reason to know of this problem in individual cases concerning well-respected hon. Members of Parliament. I suggest that this matter is best left to the authorities concerned with it, although there is, I am sure, general support in the House for what the hon. Gentleman said.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not a question of increasing hon. Members' salaries but a question of providing assistance to enable hon. Members to do their job; for example, assistance with secretarial work, postage, out-of-town expenses, and so on? Is he aware that many hon. Members who, like myself, have been shop stewards are wondering what we have been doing in this place for the last few years? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.] In other words, is he aware that in any circumstances I would have called a mass meeting long ago to get something done about the present state of affairs?

I am sure that any mass meeting that my hon. Friend might have called on this subject in this building would have been better packed than any other, since these matters are always fully discussed among hon. Members. I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the point he made; namely, that he is concerned not so much with the question of salaries but with the question of the ability of hon. Members to do their job and the need to meet the costs involved in doing that job.

Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that I do not regard hon. Members as public servants and that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) on this issue? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He does not represent me. Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that I am more interested in those living on small fixed incomes? Will he also take note that I do not want the Services Committee interfering in this kind of matter; that I do not care tuppence for the Services Committee over this. I want something for those living on small fixed incomes rather than for the rest of the community.

The hon. Lady is, of course, entitled to her view. Her remarks will have been noted by the House, although I am not, of course, concerned with any disagreement that there may be between her and her hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro).

But I am.

That is obvious, but such rifts in the lute are of more concern to the hon. Lady than they are to me. I am concerned, as is the hon. Gentleman who raised the matter initially and as are hon. Members in all parts of the House, about the specific question of the cost of the services which are necessary for an hon. Member to do his job properly.

While there is a strong case for hon. Members who represent provincial constituencies to have better lodging allowances, free telephone calls and so on, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that some of us consider that it would be wrong to raise hon. Members' salaries now or in the near future? Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, as Labour Members, we should bear in mind that there are millions of low-wage earners whose financial needs are far greater than ours?

I am well aware of the views of my hon. Friend and those of many other hon. Members. Many hon. Members consider that the right way to attack this problem, whatever the anomalies may be, is by improving the means to do the job rather than increasing the basic rate of pay. In any consideration of this matter it is clear that the House—we have always wished to take this line in the past—must take into account public opinion outside. It might be the right and fair judgment of public opinion that it is more concerned that hon. Members should be more able to do their job, both in relation to their constituencies and in the House, than it is with hon. Members' salaries. That raises an issue which the Services Committee is considering.

rose—

Order. We are well past Question Time.