asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what percentage of the population of Wales receive the British Broadcasting Corporation Wales Channel; and what is the figure for Carmarthenshire.

The B.B.C. tells me that, providing efficient sets and aerials are used, 74 per cent. of the population of Wales and 48 per cent. of the population of Carmarthenshire should be able to receive the very high frequency transmissions of B.B.C. Wales.

I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware that there is a great deal of concern in Carmarthen-shire, basically a Welsh-speaking county, with 70 per cent. to 75 per cent. speaking Welsh, at the inability of half of the population there not only to receive Welsh language programmes but even to receive English language programmes relating to Wales? Will the Minister indicate when the Carmel U.H.F. station, now transmitting B.B.C.2, will be able to transmit B.B.C. Wales programmes, and what will be the increase in the coverage? Further, is the Minister aware that in areas of North Carmarthenshire and Mid-Wales there is a great deal of concern, regarding not only B.B.C. Wales but all channels, at the poor reception or lack of coverage?

I am not able to give a date for the Carmel transmissions of B.B.C. Wales, but when they are available they will be receivable, I am told, by 62 per cent. of the population of Carmarthenshire. On the more general point, 97 per cent. of the population of Wales can now receive either B.B.C.1 or B.B.C. Wales. Many people in the rest of Great Britain would be surprised to know that a substantial number of people in Wales have the choice between three B.B.C. stations and two I.T.V. stations.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will initiate legislation to provide for a network of local post offices operating as private companies.

No, Sir, but there are nearly 23,000 sub-postmasters engaged in private enterprise.

But not in relation to postal services. Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that he expressed a distaste for monopoly conditions in radio and broadcasting generally? Does he not apply the same criteria to postal services, or does he think that monopoly services are desirable and efficient?

I have never disguised my view that for postal services, in this country as in all others, a monopoly is desirable. One continually has to look at the scope of such monopolies. But when it comes to broadcasting, I am glad to say that there is no such necessity for a monopoly.

Will not my right hon. Friend welcome the belated conversion to the theories of private enterprise shown by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)?

It is most encouraging.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what proposals he has received from the Director-General of the Independent Television Authority relating to a fourth television channel.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether a decision has yet been made on the allocation of the fourth channel.

I am studying the proposals to be published by the Independent Television Authority today for a fourth television service provided by I.T.V.

Will the Minister accept that he is dealing here with the disposal of a fourth mass audience television channel and is not simply approving the proposals which this public authority are putting forward for I.T.V. 2? Will he also bear in mind that many people who work in broadcasting regard the timing of these proposals as a preemptive strike to set up a second I.T.V. service before the next general review of I.T.V.? Therefore, would the Minister consider very fully the proposals which will be sent to him by the Federation of Broadcasting Unions, the A.C.C.T., and the T.V. 4 campaign, and set up a general inquiry to look into the feasibility of these proposals?

I have received representations along the lines which the hon. Gentleman mentions, and I will bear in mind these views and others.

Is the Minister aware that his reply shows no recognition that today the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries begins an inquiry into the I.T.A.? Will he assure us that he will wait for the Select Committee's report before making any announcement about the allocation of the fourth channel?

I have not been led to believe that that inquiry is an inquiry into the new services which the I.T.A. ought to provide.

The Minister will be aware that there are two decisions that he must make: first, whether any decision on the allocation of the fourth channel ought to be taken prior to 1976, and second, if he decides that it should, where it should go. Would the Minister give an undertaking that no decision as to the allocation of a fourth television channel will be taken prior to the inevitable public discussion and debate that must ensue before the charters are renewed in 1976?

I accept entirely that there are those two decisions which the hon. and learned Gentleman describes. I hope that I have made that clear throughout. What we have to do now is to look at the particular proposals which the I.T.A. has brought forward. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will want to consider these before reaching a conclusion.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will estimate how many telephones per 1,000 population there will be in the United Kingdom by 1980; the increased capital investment required to achieve this figure; and if he will make a statement.

The Post Office has estimated that about two-thirds of all homes will have telephones by 1980. For forecasts of Post Office investment, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the recent White Paper on Public Expenditure to 1975–76.

Is the Minister aware that, even if we reach the figure of two-thirds, it will be substantially below the American-Canadian-Swedish pattern? Why is he suggesting that we shall be substantially below this figure? Is he further aware that the attitude of the Post Office to anyone demanding a telephone today tends to be, "Oh, Lord, Another customer"? Will he take action to ensure that the Post Office will not try to limit demand artificially by excessive prices?

Certainly. It is no part of the Government's belief that the Post Office should limit demand artificially. At present the capacity of the system as a whole does not enable the Post Office to supply all those who want telephones. In the investment plans to which we have given agreement it is the Post Office's intention and the Government's intention that the full demand should be met. It is true that at present Britain has lower figures than the countries which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, but we have higher figures than any of the Common Market countries.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have an elderly constituent who has been told that she must wait for nearly two years for the installation of a telephone? Is not that absolutely scandalous?

It is true that in some areas the waiting list is a very serious matter. The capacity of the system as a whole is limited by investment decisions taken four or five years previously. We are anxious to ensure that the investment decisions taken now will lead in due course to the elimination of that waiting list.

Does the Minister realise that there is a tremendous waiting list for telephones? Therefore, will he increase the capital investment? Will he bear in mind, too, that nowadays many people are compelled to share a telephone against their wish?

I accept all that. The investment in telecommunications is running 50 per cent. higher than the investment of five years ago which determines the present capacity of the telephone system.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give a direction to the Post Office to discontinue forcing subscribers to share a telephone line at the Post Office's request.

No, Sir. I understand sharing is still necessary to enable as many people as possible to have telephone service.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are people who are being asked to share telephones after having been subscribers for 10 years? Does he not think that the Post Office should now plan so that it can withdraw this iniquitous restriction on people's freedom at least within the next decade?

I accept that that would be a reasonable objective, and it is indeed in line with the thinking of the Post Office.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that far from being short of investment funds, in the last 12 months the Post Office was unable to spend all the money allocated to it because the equipment manufacturers could not deliver orders on time? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that it is because of the failure of the private equipment manufacturers to meet their contracts that there are waiting lists and that people have to share a service?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman knows much more about the matter than his question would suggest. There is a whole variety of causes of the present difficulties, the greatest of which is under-estimating the level of demand in the past. As to delays in meeting contracts, the number of delays has been reduced from 80 per cent. in March, 1970, to 45 per cent. in March, 1971.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give further details of the Post Office's plans for improving marketing techniques designed to increase public use of facilities provided by the Post Office Giro.

No, Sir. Now that my review is concluded the implementation of the agreed changes is a matter for the Post Office.

I appreciate the significant contribution which the Minister made to saving the Post Office Giro banking system. However, will he consider having discussions with the Paymaster-General to examine the possibility of that Department's payments being made through the Giro system?

No. These matters were carefully considered during the course of the review. Government Departments will, like other customers, choose the system which suits them best. I have no doubt that on that basis Giro will be able to attract increased business.

Although the new plans for running the Giro may be a matter for the Post Office, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the basic reasons why Giro has failed so far to come up to expectations is that it was sought to run it with Post Office personnel under a Post Office head and that this is not the right approach to a competitive and commercially orientated enterprise?

What my hon. Friend says has a good deal of validity in it. The Post Office accepts that it will now be necessary to bring in outside expertise, particularly on the marketing and the financial side.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the latest available number of National Giro accounts in current use; how this number compares with the figure at the beginning of this year; how many accounts have been closed by customers over the past year; and what estimate he made in his review of the Giro of the number of accounts required before the service will operate profitably.

I understand that the net increase in the number of accounts over the past twelve months has been 75,000 bringing the total to over 450,000. However, profitability does not depend solely on the number of accounts.

As the Cooper Bros. report on Giro points to serious errors and hopelessly optimistic estimates of business, is it not in the public interest—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—that the report be published and are not taxpayers entitled to see the results of the independent inquiry? Why is not the report of the independent inquiry being made public? Has the Post Office or the Minister something to hide?

No. We are following past practice. If one commissions outside consultants and asks them to be frank about facts and individuals, it is normal to assure the consultants that their report will not be published. I do not think that it would be appropriate to publish in this case.

Is the Minister aware that we on this side would have no objection to publication? Indeed, we would welcome publication of the report if only to support the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris) on Question No. 7 about Government Departments. We cannot yet understand why the Minister refuses to recommend to his colleagues that Government Departments should use the Giro service.

The hon. Gentleman would be most ill-advised if he were to support a demand for the publication of a document which has been commissioned in this way. Publication would be a departure from past practice.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will reserve a television channel for the transmission of Parliamentary proceedings.

Neither House has yet decided whether it wants its proceedings broadcast on television, but I will bear my hon. Friend's views in mind.

If the fourth channel is allocated to I.T.V., will it be possible to reserve a national channel for the House, should it desire its proceedings to be televised?

There would probably be no further national channels available until well into the 1980s, because it would not be until the V.H.F. transmissions ceased that two further channels would be available. Therefore, the answer to the question is "No" in the years immediately ahead.

Does the Minister recall that Parliament has already declared its opposition to the televising of its proceedings? Will he bear in mind that television editors and directors already have power which exceeds their responsibilities?

The question whether the proceedings of Parliament should be televised is for the House to decide and not for me.

But the allocation of the fourth television channel is for the right hon. Gentleman to decide. Will he now give a firm undertaking to the House that he will not allocate the fourth television channel until after there has been a major public inquiry into the whole future of broadcasting?

No. Indeed, that is the major question which, as I have continually said, the Government must decide. Indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman himself rightly said earlier that it was one of the two questions which we have now to determine.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will ensure that no salaried employee of the British Broadcasting Corporation is recommended to the Queen for appointment to the chairmanship of the Corporation.

When the time comes, the best available person will be recommended.

A most innocuous reply. Is not this the most important appointment in the gift of the Government—and that is saying something. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, although there must be a career structure which might well include the Director-Generalship, beyond that further inbreeding is undesirable, and that we want a fresh mind with a fresh approach?

I accept that there would be very strong arguments against an employee of the B.B.C. becoming the Chairman. That would be a departure from all past practice.

Is the Minister aware that some of us think that in certain circumstances such a departure would be a good thing and that this post should be open to a salaried employee of the B.B.C.?

I am inclined to agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are very strong arguments in that direction as regards other nationalised industries. However, the Chairman and the Governors of the B.B.C. are there primarily to act, and to be seen to act, as trustees for the public. In that case, probably one looks for people with rather different experience.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what proposals he has to reduce the television licence fee for the people in Cornwall who cannot receive a satisfactory signal without a relay system.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Members of Parliament for Cornish constituencies have been waging a longstanding campaign on this matter, for good reason? Does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that many television viewers should have to pay more for the cost of the supplementary assistance that they get from the television retailers in order to get a signal at all than they pay to the Government in licence fees?

People choose for a variety of reasons to receive their television on relay. If I may say so, I do not think the hon. Gentleman necessarily acts in the best interests of his constituents by arguing that we ought to move away from the standard licence fee. In conurbations the capital cost per household in providing a picture is a matter of shillings, but in some rural areas the cost of providing not even a perfect picture rises to £20. If we were to move away from the standard licence fee there would be a strong argument for charging the cost of getting the picture there.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement on the progress of mechanisation of the postal services.

This is primarily a matter for the Post Office which is, I understand, currently reviewing its programme.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during the next few weeks millions of people will be searching frantically for the correct postal code in order to address their Christmas cards properly? Is he further aware that during 16 years only seven postal centres have been capable of sorting by automated processes the letters which are posted in their respective areas? If we proceed at this rate the machinery will be outdated by the time it is installed.

I do not accept that that would be the case. The British Post Office, like the majority of post offices in other countries, believes that post coding can yield substantial benefits, and the investment on postal capital requirements is, in fact, rising.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have some doubt about his last few words? is he further aware that I should like the whole of the post code system to be scrapped, because it is impossible to understand and most people do not know how to use it?

The benefits are bound to be longer-term. There are economies in sorting. This is the basic advantage and it is the reason why, not just in this country but in every country which is in a similar stage of development, postal codes have been introduced. It is not a particular vagary of the British Post Office. I accept that however it is introduced, there are bound to be difficulties and customer resistance in the early years.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the economies which will inevitably lead to a reduction in manpower will not entail the Government in having to spend more than they save in providing work for those who are displaced by the new system?

I do not think there are any serious dangers of any employees being displaced by these developments. As I understand it, the union concerned is pressing for the faster introduction of postal coding.

May I express the hope that in further mechanisation by the Post Office we shall not all be compelled to use exactly the same size of envelope?

I am sure the Post Office will bear my hon. Friend's views in mind.

No matter what one may feel about postal coding, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the current circumstances it does not work because there needs to be a great speed-up in the mechanisation programme, and the sort of thing that we are currently planning will be obsolete before it gets off the ground?

May I suggest that the Minister should ask the Post Office to introduce a much simpler postal code system? I have seen such a system in other parts of the world and I am sure that it could be employed to great advantage here.

Although some of them are, I think, ill-founded, I am sure that the Post Office will pay careful attention to the hon. Gentleman's views.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if, in accordance with Article 18(2) of the Licence and Agreement, he will direct that the British Broadcasting Corporation shall include in its annual report the uncensored findings of the Queen's Counsel appointed by them to inquire into allegations of bribery within the Corporation.

I take it my hon. Friend is referring to Article 18(2) of the B.B.C. Charter. I do not think such a direction would be desirable. The B.B.C. tells me it has not yet received Mr. Neill's report. When it does, it will consider what, if any, public statement it would be appropriate to make.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that these allegations were made nearly a year ago? In February last the Government themselves appointed a distinguished Queen's Counsel to investigate the matter. In fairness to those who are implicated, having regard to the fact that the investigation commenced in February last, is it not time that a public statement was made?

I am sure the Governors will take note of that observation, but I understand that police investigations are not yet complete.

Without prejudice to the results of this inquiry, would my right hon. Friend agree that the reputation of the B.B.C.'s financial integrity is unrivalled anywhere else in the world?

Yes, Sir; I think it can be claimed of British broadcasting as a whole that charges of corruption are extremely few.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) over a period of years has been conducting a one-man vendetta against the integrity of the B.B.C.? Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that the influence of the ethical and cultural standards of South Dorset is kept outside the British Broadcasting Corporation?

I would certainly not accept those remarks about my hon. Friend. Indeed, I think it to be extremely important for the healthy functioning of our system that the Governors should be told, and told clearly, what sections of the community like and do not like about their programmes.

May I assure my right hon. Friend how gratified I was and, indeed, flattered to be joined in my observations by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), the former Leader of the Liberal Party.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, what plans he has to strengthen the powers of the Alkali Inspectorate.

The Inspectorate's powers are adequate, but my right hon. Friend has recently extended their scope by applying the Alkali Acts to a number of industrial processes not previously scheduled. My right hon. Friend is also increasing the strength of the Inspectorate.

Can the hon. Gentleman say what improvements, if any, there have been as a result of the policy of voluntary co-operation between industry and the Inspectorate, and whether he is satisfied with the result?

Yes, Sir. In spite of the expansion of industry between 1958 and 1970, the annual emissions of cement dust diminished from over 100,000 tons to about 36,000 tons; grit and dust from electricity works from over one million tons to about 200,000 tons; and solid emissions from the sintering of iron ore from 85,000 tons to under 40,000 tons. I doubt whether any country has achieved such a considerable improvement in its industrial clean air policy.

While welcoming what the Minister said, may I ask him whether he will consider directing the Alkali Inspectorate to make available to the public the data which it gathers on air pollution?

No, the Alkali Inspectorate works with industry and achieves very good co-operation voluntarily. I think it would be wrong to coerce the Inspectorate into revealing commercial information which is given to it in confidence.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why the recently opened M1/M6 motorway junction at Catthorpe was not designed to permit traffic to proceed from the M6 motorway northwards on the M1 motorway, and vice versa.

Because there are more direct routes for such traffic.

On reflection, would not my hon. Friend agree that it is a bad thing that traffic cannot go from the M6 northwards on to the M1 at one of the hubs of the motorway system? Is it not bad planning and also false economy? If, on the other hand, he says that it is not, may we know why the Government are spending so much on improving the A426, which is the only route which traffic can now take?

The A426 is a much more direct route. There is also the A46. There is the M69 motorway in preparation, and the M42 motorway in preparation. To provide this facility at Catthorpe would have cost an extra £1 million.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make grants to amenity groups objecting to developments hostile to local amenities at public inquiries.

No, Sir.

Will my hon. Friend think about this again? In the light of growing public concern and the heavy cost of defending local amenities, will he consider giving at least £1 for £1 to the costs of the principal local amenity society, provided that it be a recognised society?

I appreciate the valuable part which amenity societies play at inquiries, but the provision of grants for this purpose would put them in a more favourable position than any other party at an inquiry.

Although amenity groups must be given fair scope to object, is it not equally important to speed up the present planning machinery, which too often works too slowly, both locally and in Whitehall? Will my hon. Friend look into that?

I am working on it, and I hope to be able to make an announcement soon.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will confer with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and local authorities with a view to launching a national reclamation campaign designed to clear all the nation's industrial waste land during the next 10 years.

Close touch is maintained with the Department of Trade and Industry and the local authorities. A vigorous reclamation drive is well under way, with the aim of clearing existing problems in the priority areas within 10 years.

I thank my hon. Friend for that encouraging reply, but will he make sure that a firm target date is fixed and that maximum publicity is given to this problem?

If local authorities not within priority areas wish to undertake an energetic and systematic scheme, we shall give them all the help and encouragement that resources will permit.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the next progress report of the Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents to be published; and, on publication, if he will make a statement.

The Committee expects to present my right hon. Friend with its next progress report by the end of the year, and it will be published as soon as possible thereafter. We shall decide whether a statement is desirable when we have considered the report.

Having read the first 12 reports, I am not expecting much fresh in the 13th. Will the hon. Gentleman now get down to it and do one of two things: either introduce legislation to compel manufacturers upstream to use the softer-base detergents, thus eliminating the foam altogether; or, if that is not financially possible or economically just, channel extra resources into my constituency so that we ourselves can deal with the problem and so eliminate the foam?

I appreciate the serious nature of this problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Good progress is being made with an undertaking to limit the use of—if I have the right term—the non-biodegradable anionic detergents which are causing the trouble with foam on the river in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. There is an undertaking on its way, and I hope to make an announcement quite soon.

asked the Secretary ct State for the Environment whether he will make use of road bumps to slow traffic where necessary on trunk roads.

No. Sir. On these roads they would cause more danger than they would prevent.

But does not my hon. Friend feel that there should be some control over lorries which thunder through villages on main roads at high speed? Has he noticed that the bumps used in Belfast succeed in slowing traffic down quite considerably?

I cannot speak about the bumps in Belfast. If bumps on the road were high enough to reduce the speed of very large vehicles, they would be too high for smaller vehicles and, in particular, cyclists.

Are not the bumps on most of our trunk roads already there?

If they are, they were left there by the previous Administration, and we are engaged in removing them.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the measurement of lead in sewage sludge is included in the studies he is making on lead pollution; and when he expects to be able to publish his conclusions as to the safety of this substance when used as an agricultural and horticultural fertiliser.

The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes"; to the second part, that the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service already gives advice on the suitability of any particular sludge for agricultural and horticultural purposes.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but may we be told when we shall have the report of this special study, since, although advice may be given to farmers, there is widespread lack of public knowledge at present about which sludges are safe from lead and which are not, and there is concern also about the construction of housing estates on former sewage works land which may be heavily contaminated by lead? There is need for much more official guidance and information.

I understand that there is some lead in all human sewage. I take it that the report to which the hon. Lady refers comes from the Ministry of Agriculture, that is, the Report of its Working Party on the Monitoring of Foodstuffs for Mercury and Heavy Metals. It has already been published. As regards housing, it may well be that some former sewage works land is not suitable for houses with gardens, but it may nevertheless be suitable for large blocks of flats.

I mean the Department's own report on lead.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment why he will not introduce legislation to prohibit labour-only sub-contracting in the building industry.

Because the industry has amended its working rules to deal with bogus self-employment, and the Government have taken steps to control tax-evasion by the self-employed. Bona-fide labour-only sub-contracting is a long-established and essential part of the building industry.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this is still a device to discourage trade union activity, that it is encouraged by organisations such as Labour Force, that it is a device to avoid national insurance contributions, and that, generally, it is a practice which ought to be thoroughly deplored?

The hon. Gentleman will know that earlier this year the National Joint Council for the Building Industry agreed to amend the national working rules on this matter. The Government have taken the measures which I have outlined.

But would not my hon. Friend care to say a word in defence of labour-only sub-contractors and agree that they have speeded up building and lowered costs, and have given independence to a lot of men who now have control over their own work schedules?

As I said in the first place, bona fide labour-only sub-contracting is a long-established and essential part of the building industry. To abolish it would put up prices.

I recognise that bona fide sub-contracting is acceptable in the building industry, but will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is the reduction, after the steps which have been taken of which he now boasts, in the number of people engaged as lump workers in the building industry?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the provisions in the Finance Act will not operate until later next year, so it is hardly possible for me to answer that point.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the non-availability of statistics kept by his Department relating to the number of controlled tenancies in England and Wales which are without bathrooms or showers and internal lavatories.

This information could not be obtained without an expensive special survey. Much information about private unfurnished accommodation in general will be available from the 1971 Census.

How can the Government legislate about controlled tenancies when, apparently, they do not even know the size of the problem? How many decrepit tenancies are likely to be affected by the substantial rent increases which the Government are encouraging?

What the hon. Gentleman should be concerned about is that, since the Housing Act, 1969, came into force, there have been only 5,000 controlled properties moved into rent regulation following improvements. His Government expected 200,000.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise the value of Questions put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), but I should like to have your guidance, and I imagine that the House would, too. I am under the impression that two consecutive Questions to the same hon. Member are not permitted.

Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to raise that at the end of Question Time?

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is proposing to prevent the continued upward trend of land prices for house building; and whether he will make more suitable land available to help ease the shortage.

There are substantial regions of the country where the supply of land is adequate for house building but, in certain areas, the upsurge in the demand for housing has accentuated the shortage of land and has caused exceptional rises in prices.

The supply of land for house building is a responsibility of local authorities. Within the guidelines of Circular 10/70 local authorities have sold off land for private house building, have released land from planning restrictions and have planned comprehensive development schemes. The Government have altered the arrangements for loan sanctions and have in action working parties on land surplus to defence requirements, on forms of partnership between local authorities and private enterprise, and, with local planning authorities and developers in the regions, to identify land suitable for housing. Major areas for long-term development have been set out in an approved strategy in the South-East Region and my right hon. Friend will have the strategy very much in mind in exercising his planning responsibilities.

As the price of building land is rising because we now have a Government who are building houses again, would not my hon. Friend consider urging nationalised industries, local authorities and Government Departments to release suitable building land more speedily, rather than reluctantly in dribs and drabs so that the supply can be improved?

Yes, Sir. We are, indeed, doing so.

Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that, when the Government so precipitately abolished the Land Commission, in an orgy of self-congratulation, they promised the House and the country that this action would reduce the rises in the price of land at once and dramatically? Is he aware that, for all that the Government purport to be in favour of owner-occupation, the current rate of rise in the price of land is pricing houses out of the reach of a large section of the population? Does the hon. Gentleman have no policy of any kind except a lot of committees and a lot of exhortation?

There has recently been an upsurge in demand for houses and an upsurge in building. Therefore, there is bound to be shortage in certain areas. But this does not apply throughout the whole country.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that, particularly in Hampshire, long-term area planning is one of the reasons why so much land has become sterilised? Will he take steps immediately to work in conjunction with the South Hampshire Planning Committee to release further land?

Those who complain that local planning authorities are creating a shortage of land by refusing permission to developers have not identified to me land where development has been refused. They have a right to complain to my right hon. Friend, and the point of setting up the working parties in the regions is to try to identify where there is shortage through local planning authorities having refused planning permission. I have not been told where this is so.

Is it not a fact that, since all controls have been removed, prices are at an all-time record? Is it not a fact also that the G.L.C. average flat now costs £1,800 for the land alone before a single brick is laid, which means £1·65 a week on the rent? Does not this mean that some form of public ownership of land will be necessary to deal with this problem?

The form of public ownership devised by the last Government only sent land prices higher. It can be said that over the last two decades the price of land was at an all-time record at any particular time.

We have heard a lot of verbiage from the hon. Gentleman today, but is it not the plain fact that the price of land in the last year has risen at a record rate? Does not this mean that the pledge given by the Government to the country when the Land Commission was abolished has turned out to be a complete deception?

The promises made by the previous Government were a complete deception because, when setting up the Land Commission, they said that it was for the purpose of reducing the price of land. Under this Government, the increase in the building industry over the past few months has created a shortage of land in certain areas, and the result of the shortage is, of course, to increase the price within those areas. But this does not apply throughout the whole country.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects work to begin on the construction of a third lane on the M1 on the two-lane stretch of this motorway south of Bedfordshire.

My Department is still investigating the best means of providing additional capacity, or otherwise improving conditions for traffic, on this section of the M1. I hope to be able to announce my intentions soon.

The Government have gone to considerable expense to widen the M4. As this section of the M1 is the most overcrowded section of any motorway in Britain, will my hon. Friend accelerate his investigation programme and begin construction work as soon as possible?

It is a complex problem to decide whether to widen the existing road or to lay a new road altogether. I hope to have the report before Christmas.

Has my hon. Friend received the representations from the Hertfordshire County Council about this stretch of road? If so, when will he be in a position to reply?

I have said that I hope to have the recommendations of the experts on this before me before Christmas and I will then study them and hope to reply very soon. I have received representations from many people about this very serious part of the M1.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment in which areas in the country the supply and demand for rented accommodation are in balance.

Information in this form is not available.

But the Minister knows very well that nearly the whole of the country is affected by an acute housing shortage. As the Housing Finance Bill is based on so-called "fair rents", which are supposed to ignore the shortage factor but do not in fact do so, will he look at page 58 of the Francis Committee's Report, which says that this factor can only be guessed at? Thus the whole of the Bill is based on a very doubtful conception.

As the Bill entirely follows the provisions of the Rent Act brought in by the last Government, the hon. Gentleman might have raised this point at that time.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will now install a time-elapsed clock on each side of the Chamber, with the object of encouraging shorter speeches.

The Services Committee has not yet completed its consideration of this proposal.

While this may be too drastic an innovation, will my right hon. Friend look sympathetically at any proposals likely to be acceptable to the House that would reinforce the pressures already being exerted by Mr. Speaker in the direction of shorter speeches?

I am prepared to consider any proposal which would have the backing of the House as a whole. I cannot but reflect that, when the comparatively small innovation of the television annunciators was introduced, there were objections even to that. Yet I think that they are satisfactory and that everyone now likes them. The idea of clocks in the Chamber would have to be considered very carefully.

Would my right hon. Friend consider cuckoo clocks?

asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in view of opinions expressed to him since 8th November, he will now move to amend the Standing Orders of the House to permit the introduction of a period in major debates during which speeches of not more than five minutes' duration can be made, on a voluntary basis.

The House will have an opportunity to consider such proposals when the Procedure Committee's suggestion for limiting speeches on certain occasions is debated.

That is a very encouraging reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the immense difficulty—sometimes the impossibility—of being called in a major debate? Is he aware that the Chair is being placed in an impossible position in view of the large number of hon. Members who wish to participate? Is he further aware that this practice is carried out in several other Parliaments and is sympathetically referred to in the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure? Would not he agree that speaking for only five minutes would be a salutary experience for many hon. and right hon. Members?

What I do know is that this proposal should be considered by the House and must be a matter for the House as a whole. It is very controversial indeed as between various Members in all parts of the House.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us think that this matter is very difficult to settle by altering the rules of the House? Might it not be better settled, as in so many cases, by—if I may dare to say so—a certain myopia on the part of the Chair?

I think the answer must be that the House should at a suitable time—and I have promised time—discuss this question and come to its own decision. I realise that this is a matter for right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House, and it should be considered on that basis.

Would the right hon. Gentleman and the House be careful about this proposition, because we could get into a situation where some hon. Members, endeavouring to make extremely powerful speeches, might find the effect lost because of the time limit? As one who confines himself to about 10 minutes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—10 minutes to a quarter of an hour—[Laughter.]—this is no laughing matter but an important issue. There may well be occasions when Members could influence the decision of the House and it would therefore be wrong for the House to introduce a rule which could inhibit Members in deciding the policy of the country.

The hon. Member makes an important point that will certainly have to be considered when the matter is debated. I do not in any sense regard this as a laughing matter. My only interest is to be careful not to express any view one way or the other on the proposal.

On a point of order. Is it not disgraceful that an hon. Member opposite should attempt to influence your conduct in the Chair, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting that you should pretend myopia in order to cut out some speakers whom other hon. Members may dislike?

That is not a matter of order, although it may be a matter for the Chair.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that far and away the most effective way of reducing the length of speeches is to make certain that the supply of power to the microphones is cut off after five minutes?

My only comment is that the most effective way to decide the length of speeches in the House is for hon. Members themselves to decide how long they wish hon. Members to speak.

Would the right hon. Gentleman publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of eminent back benchers in past years, headed by Winston Churchill and Aneurin Bevan, whose whole political careers would have been cut short and whose most important speeches would have been gagged if a rule such as this had been operative? Would he take into account that a limitation on the speeches of back benchers is the best way for the Front Benches to have an advantage over the back benches, and that that is a matter which should be seriously considered when any such issue is to be settled by the House of Commons?

If the hon. Gentleman would like any supporting information before the debate and he puts a Question to me, I will be only too pleased to provide any information I can. I must continue to preserve the most careful neutrality possible in this matter and say simply that I note what the hon. Gentleman said, which, of course, is the argument on the other side of the case.

Without departing in any way from the impartiality of the Chair, may I say that the Chair is rather more worried about the length of Front Bench speeches than about the length of back bench speeches?

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in order to address questions to you on your obiter dicta.

It would be very dangerous for me to allow such questions.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he will make better provision for constituents seeking to visit the House of Commons.

The arrangements for admitting constituents to see Members of Parliament are currently being examined by the Services Committee at the request of Mr. Speaker.

Is it not time that constituents were able to visit the House as electors rather than as strangers? Would it not be a good thing for Westminster Hall to be used as a place where constituents could wait out of the wet and out of the cold?

There can be no doubt that the House treats members of the public who wish to come and see their Members here, particularly if they have given notice to their Members, as electors, and there are always opportunities for them to come into the House. I think that they are properly cared for in this respect.

As to some of the difficult occasions which we have had and which I know are in the hon. Gentleman's mind, it is worth reminding him yet again that even on a recent difficult occasion some 3,000 electors saw their Members of Parliament in the House in the proper way, and in a way which was well organised and which reflected great credit on all concerned. The use of Westminster Hall can be considered, but there are great difficulties if it is to be used on some of the occasions to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention.

Would my right hon. Friend agree with me that if hon. Members wish to see their constituents about an important topic in a way which is likely to lead to constructive discussion, they should discourage their constituents from coming on days when a mass lobby is taking place?

It is not for me to pronounce on how Members conduct their arrangements with their own constituents.

Can I tell the Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Can I point out to the Leader of the House—[Hors. MEMBERS: "No."] May I ask the Leader of the House—[H0N. MEMBERS: "Yes."]—whether he is aware that my own experience as a "stranger" in the House over many years is not that about which he has any information? Is it not time that all attendants and police and so on, many of whom are extremely good and admirable, nevertheless had it pointed out to them that this Parliament is the people's Parliament and that the people who come here are coming to their Parliament and should be treated as such, rather than as guests allowed in on sufferance?

I appreciate that the Galleries have not as much space as many Members would wish, but, with that reservation, I should have thought that the arrangements for people to visit the House were properly conducted. I am only too ready to look into proposals for improving the arrangements, but I think that we owe a great deal to all those who work for us in the House for the way in which they conduct the arrangements.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am dismayed by the complacency of his replies on this matter? Does he recall my evidence to the Services Committee, when I made serious criticisms of the arrangements for the reception of visitors and suggested that other Parliaments elsewhere treated their visitors, their constituents, as honoured guests, not as persons coming to this place are often treated—under the suspicious eyes of the police?

The last thing I wish to be is in any way complacent about a matter which I regard as of great importance to Parliament. If I have appeared to be so, I must apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I was referring to recent particular problems. I will certainly take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received following damage to employees' and Members' cars in the precincts during the demonstration on Wednesday, 24th November.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have received representations from a member of the Post Office staff the roof of whose car was severely damaged and who is hardly in a position to cover such damage by insurance? If the right hon. Gentleman receives representations, will he consider whether the cost could be paid out of some form of voluntary fund of the House?

I have not received any such representations, but if I do, I will, naturally, consider them in the normal way.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether, in time for the debate on the televising of proceedings, he will prepare and publish a scheme for ensuring that televised programmes would remain under the direct control of Parliament.

These are matters which, I suggest, must await consideratoin by the House in the course of the debate. The Select Committee on Broadcasting of the Proceedings in the House of Commons of Session 1965–66 in its First Report, paragraphs 57–66, recommended a scheme for the control of televised programmes by the House of Commons.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the major fears among hon. Members about televising the proceedings of the House is that their presentation on television will be beyond the control of the House?

These are matters which may be discussed in the debate. Dependent on the decision of the House, these matters could then be further considered in deciding what would be done if the House were in favour of such a proposal.

Is the Lord President aware that one of the greatest dangers of televising the proceedings of the House is that he may well have a demand for speeches from the front and back benches to be reduced to two minutes?

I am sure that there is a very subtle point behind that, but I am afraid that my simple brain has not perceived it.

asked the Lord President of the Council how many Statutory Instruments have been made, and laid before Parliament, up to the latest convenient date for which he has details, since June, 1970; and what were the numbers subject to affirmative and negative procedures, respectively.

During the 1970–71 Session, the number of Statutory Instruments laid before the House of Commons totalled 1,074. Of these, 150 were subject to Affirmative Procedure, 846 were subject to the Negative Procedure, and 78 General Instruments were also laid, which are not subject to Parliamentary proceedings.

Up until 1st December of the 1971–72 Session, the number of Statutory Instruments that had been laid before the House was 96. Of these, 23 were subject to Affirmative Procedure. 66 were subject to the Negative Procedure, and seven were General Instruments.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it would have been literally impossible for hon. Members and right hon. Members to have prayed against each of those Orders? I do not blame one Government for this, because other Governments have done the same thing. Hon. Members are robbed of the opportunity of dealing with back-door legislation and, on the figures which the right hon. Gentleman has just given to this House, this position is likely to get worse. Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the two Select Committee Reports, which I hold up for the right hon. Gentleman's observation, and do something about this matter?

Yes, Sir. I said that I would do so. I said that the Government accepted the proposal in the last Report of the Select Committee on Procedure that a joint committee of both Houses should inquire into the procedure and practice in each House over delegated legislation. I hope to bring before the House shortly the proposal to set up just such a joint committee.