asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make representations to the Soviet authorities concerning the continued interference with telephone communications between subscribers in the United Kingdom and Mr. Vladimar Slepak and other Jewish scientists in Moscow.

I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the answer I gave on 28th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman). The assessment of evidence of interference with the telephone service is a matter for the Post Office, and I suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman writes to the corporation in the first instance.—[Vol. 839, c. 1422.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the interference with communications between this country and Jewish scientists such as Mr. Slepak, which began at the time when President Nixon went to Moscow, is still continuing and is thoroughly scandalous? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the main brunt is borne by his own telephone operators whose patience is constantly and sorely tried, particularly when dealing with the scandalous behaviour of the Moscow telephone operators putting calls through to outside Moscow, to places like Sverdlovsk where the Markman trial is being held today?

I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman's points will have been noted. However, the detailed evidence which he has available should be directed to the Post Office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in attempting to speak to Professor Levich, a distinguished scientist who has been offered a fellowship at University College, Oxford, and who has been prevented from so doing and deprived of all his academic qualifications because his family wish to go to Israel, one is constantly told that his number is engaged?

This again is a matter which the Post Office itself would certainly wish to consider; and it is for the Post Office to determine whether representations should be made to the USSR.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this interference extends to the delivery of registered packets which the Soviet postal authorities appear to be illegally refusing to deliver?

I have had indications that this may be the case, but one again needs detailed evidence.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what communications he has had from the British Broadcasting Corporation about its proposal for a fifth radio network and additional television facilities, separately funded, for educational purposes.

None, Sir.

In that case, is the Minister aware that these interesting and, to some degree, revolutionary proposals which have been trailed by the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation are a valuable contribution to the debate about the future of broadcasting but that that contribution, like all other similar ones, would be better placed in the context of a full national inquiry into broadcasting?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. On his first point, I read the Director-General's speech with a great deal of interest.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make a further statement about arrangements to enable the IBA to extend 625-line transmission to Derbyshire by means of booster stations.

The IBA is hoping to start transmissions from a relay station at Glossop in mid-1973 and then within a few months from Ladder Hill, Buxton and Birch Vale. This will bring Independent Television on UHF to an additional 23,000 households.

That is indeed good news, but is my right hon. Friend aware that unfortunately not one of my constituents will be covered by this? Nevertheless the BBC, I understand, is pushing ahead with the erection of its low power transmitter on Stanton Moor, and will my right hon. Friend ensure that if the BBC can get this done in 1973 the IBA will be able to join forces and also broadcast on UHF from the same station?

They will be able to share facilities, so I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. Both the BBC and the IBA are pressing ahead as far as it is possible to do, given the scale of their resources and the availability of skilled labour forces.

After these facilities come into operation, can the right hon. Gentleman say what proportion of people in Derbyshire will then be unable to receive 625-line transmissions?

If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the original Question and my answer to it, it will leave another 22,000 households unserved.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to maintain records of delays in international calls.

No, Sir. It is for the Post Office to decide what records it needs to run its business efficiently.

Is the Minister aware that he keeps telling me that he does not have any record of delays on international calls? How on earth will he be able to find out what delays occur if he will not give the Post Office a simple directive like this? Does he not realise that the impossibility of using ISD facilities is now so intense that many of us have given up direct dialling altogether?

It is not for me to keep these records or to check on the detailed operation of the service. That is a matter for the Post Office, which attends to it. The hon. Gentleman will be aware—dealing with his general observations—that demand in the United Kingdom for international calls has been rising at a rate in excess of 20 per cent. per annum, and this is likely to increase. The Post Office and the industry are doing their level best to tackle this, but it is straining resources to the limit.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is something strange about calls to Portugal, on which there is a four or five hours' delay, whereas if one calls from Portugal one gets through in 10 minutes?

That may not be altogether to do with equipment in this country. It may have something to do with equipment in Portugal.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will seek to amend the Sound Broadcasting Act to exclude consortia, whose chairmen are, or have been, national officers of political parties, from eligibility for the franchise of commercial radio stations.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a consortium including the Manchester Evening News and business firms, with Baron Hewlett as its chairman, has applied for the Manchester station? While this applies to leaders of all political parties, does the right hon. Gentleman think it proper that a man who for six years has been chairman of the National Union of Conservative and Unionist Associations should be given such an influential position as this?

I do not follow the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Section 3(1)(e) of the Television Act, which applies to sound broadcasting, imposes a duty on the authority as far as possible to ensure due impartiality in controversial programmes. The hon. Gentleman referred to an application in connection with Manchester. He will know that although the gentleman to whom he referred is to be chairman of the consortium, Alderman Bernard Langton, a former Labour lord mayor, is to be a member of it. I think this is a reasonable balance.

Is there no way of protecting people from the smears which are so frequently cast at them by the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)?

Only by discouraging the sort of observation which was made by the hon. Member for Salford, East.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair to regard as a smear a remark pointing out that a man holds top office in the Conservative Party.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that all these difficulties, whether smears or worries about political influences, could easily be avoided if he were to withdraw the wretched Act which makes these abominable stations possible?

I think that is a rather futile question.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he has studied the interim report of the Committee on Broadcasting. established by the Council of the University of Wales, a copy of which is in his possession; and if he will make a statement.

I have studied the report with interest. Its recommendations will be considered when policy for broadcasting in the post-1976 period is formulated.

My right hon. Friend will be aware that this report recommends a Welsh language television channel, but is he aware that this would be welcome to monoglot English people living in Wales as well as to those who speak Welsh? Does he not think that it would be wise to grant gracefully this channel rather than yield to youthful pressures from unwanted guests such as those who visited him at the Post Office yesterday?

I do not think it necessary to yield to pressures of any kind. This is a matter which needs to be considered carefully in the context of the post-1976 period. I have read the report with a great deal of interest and I note the extent to which it calls for a subsidy. The fact remains that more is spent on broadcasting per head of Welshmen already than is spent per head of Englishmen.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if, as part of his consideration of ways of dealing with complaints, he will have discussions with the chairmen of the British Broadcasting Corporation and of the Independent Broadcasting Association about making the two organisations answerable to the Press Council for complaints made about them.

No, Sir. I do not believe that the Press Council would be an appropriate body for considering broadcasting matters.

May I press my right hon. Friend to look at the constitution of the Press Council again? Surely he will agree that the BBC and the IBA are essentially members of the Press and that the council, which was set up as a result of a Royal Commission and which can handle complaints procedure in the sort of way that many of us would welcome, could apply at present to the BBC and the IBA, which by their own monitoring of complaints are putting themselves in the position of Satan trying to rebuke sin.

I will consider the latter observation of my hon. Friend, but the Press Council's job is concerned with the treatment of individuals by journalists and such matters as invasion of privacy and misrepresentation. It has no qualifications for passing judgment on bias. balance, impartiality, taste and so on which are of such importance in broadcasting.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will write off past losses in the postal service.

I have nothing at present to add to the reply I gave to a similar question on 28th June.—(Vol. 839. c. 1415–6.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the view of the Post Office that if past increases are to be avoided the accumulated losses, expected to be £180 million by April, must be written off? Is he further aware that the Union of Post Office workers supports this point of view because of the worsening morale in the postal services? Therefore, will the Minister give us an early reply to representations from the Post Office?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the finances of the Post Office, in the light of the CBI price restraint and other matters, are under consideration. The UPW saw me the other day and made representations to me on this point, and I will undertake to make my position clear as soon as I am able to do so.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will state the financial results of posts and telecommunications, respectively, in 1971–72; what rate of return on telecommunication capital was achieved; and whether he will make a statement.

As the hon. Member will have seen from the Post Office's recent report, the telecommunications business made a profit of £58 million and its rate of return on capital was 8·6 per cent., whereas the postal business incurred a £12·6 million loss.

Will the Minister tell us what was the increase in productivity in telecommunications last year and, despite that good performance, by how much prices would have had to be increased last year for the telecommunications service to reach the target of 10 per cent.? Further, will he tell us for the current year whether he will be revising the target or whether he will be driving price increases high enough to make it possible for the service to reach the 10 per cent. target?

I have no price increase proposals before me at the moment. I believe the figures for which the hon. Gentleman has asked are available in the Post Office Report and he will also find them in the speech which was made by the Chairman of the Post Office at the time the report was presented. In considering this report, one has to face the fact that a higher level of pay and prices has added something like £65 million in costs, whereas higher charges to customers have brought in an extra £23 million. This has contributed very much to the adverse situation.

Hear, hear.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the Post Office always has the difficulty that its more modern side, in telecommunications equipment, does a large amount of the work, whereas on the other side, which is labour-intensive, there cannot be any change because of the nature of the postal services, and that with rising wages—whether they are too high or not, they are inevitable—it is more difficult to make a profit?

That is absolutely correct. Not only is the postal business labour-intensive and, therefore, very much affected directly by inflation but it has also been experiencing a decline in its business of about 9 per cent. on a working day basis.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what checks are made to ensure that commercial vehicles entering Great Britain, particularly from the Republic of Ireland, are in all respects roadworthy and to a stan- dard which is compatible with the Ministry of Transport test certificates issued in this country.

The Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act, 1972, gives enforcement officers the necessary powers to carry out such checks.

Are these checks being carried out? Does my hon. Friend realise that a number of vehicles of commercial types, usually landing at Preston, I believe, having come through Larne from the Republic of Ireland, are arriving in the hands of itinerant tinkers or gipsies but are simply not fit to be on the road, being a menace to the drivers and to the public as a whole, whereas commercial vehicle operators in this country would be jumped on from a great height if their vehicles did not undergo the Ministry of Transport test regularly?

The Act in question came into force only last week. However, I note what my hon. Friend says and I shall ask my Department's examiners to look into the problem which he mentions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will arrange to make an official visit to Long Eaton.

I have no immediate plans to do so.

Has my right hon. Friend noted that, egged on by Labour Members of Parliament, the Long Eaton council has misguidedly decided not to-implement the Housing Finance Act and, as a result, many hundreds of the least well off of my constituents living in rented accommodation, both private and council, will not be getting their rebates? If my right hon. Friend cannot come to Long Eaton, will he at least give me some guidance on how I may protect the least well off of my constituents, since the Labour Party obviously does not care?

I suggest that my hon. Friend advises the Long Eaton council to get in touch with some of the many authorities which brought in the national rebate scheme last April and can explain how successful it has been.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the Government's declared intention of reducing by up to £200 million a year the council housing subsidies which would have otherwise been paid by 1975 under the present system.

The Government never declared an intention to reduce housing subsidies by any specific amount. We have estimated that the effect of the provisions of the Housing Finance Act, 1972, will be to maintain subsidies at about their present level, or, in my latest judgment, somewhat above.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that on two occasions in the Chamber the Government stated precisely what I have set out in the Question? Is it not unjust to reduce such potential subsidies by a single penny when the Government, quite rightly, last year raised the relief to owner-occupiers from £300 million to £340 million a year?

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to misrepresent the situation. All I was trying to explain on previous occasions was that the reorganisation of the subsidy system, which will concentrate subsidies on people and areas in need, will leave subsidies maintained at about or somewhat above their present level.

May we clear this matter up? Is it not within the recollection of the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the mini-Budget of October, 1970, stated that he expected a saving of £200 million in 1975–76 compared with what would otherwise have been the case? Is it not within the recollection also of all members of Standing Committee E that similar figures were given by the Minister himself more than once in those proceedings? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give his present estimate as compared with those estimates of the likely savings in 1975–76?

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that what I have been at pains to correct is the suggestion that the declared intention was to make this saving. [HON. MEMBERS: "It was."] It has never been, and I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had long ago abandoned the idea that the object of the Housing Finance Act was to save money. That has never been its object. The object has been to reconcentrate subsidies where they are needed. As I have said, my estimate is that subsidies will remain at about or somewhat above the present level.

Deliberately or otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House. Does he not recall that the White Paper on public spending issued by the Chancellor in October, 1970, stated in terms that the saving would be between £100 million and £200 million a year on housing subsidies as compared with what they would have been if the Labour Government's subsidies had been continued? Will he now say what the current estimate is?

We have merely pointed out that the more rational and equitable subsidy system on which we are embarking happens to result in between £100 million and £200 million less than the old inefficient system would have produced, but this is not the motivating force behind the Act. What we are trying to do is to help people and areas in need.

If it was not at least the original motivating force behind the Bill, why on earth was the new housing policy declared not by the Secretary of State or the Minister but by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the context of a money-saving autumn Budget?

It was set out at great length in a statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, then Minister of Housing and Local Government, and elaborated in the White Paper "Fair Deal for Housing", as the right hon. Gentleman will recollect.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many requests he has received asking for him to reverse his decision to have the double white lines painted out on the A38 at Pastures Hill, Derby.

Three, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the local authority, the Derby Borough Council, applied two years ago for a 40 m.p.h. speed limit on this stretch of road and it put down double white lines—illegally, as it turned out—out of sheer desperation because of the number of accidents and the overtaking which seems endemic on this stretch of road? Will the hon. Gentleman now look sympathetically at a further application from the local authority for a 40 m.p.h. speed limit?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is important not to devalue double white lines by putting them in places where they will not be effective. The local authority has been told that we can agree to a 50 m.p.h. limit, and if it will put up a specific proposal in respect of the short section of bend in that stretch my Department will certainly look at it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from local authorities, organisations representing local authorities and other organisations concerned with housing urging him to defer the implementation of the Housing Finance Act.

As I would have expected, very few.

Is it not a fact that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the London Boroughs Association, among many such bodies, have protested about the early implementation of the Act? Is it not a fact also that the Government have done utterly inadequate research into the financial implications of the Act for council tenants? Are not the bogus figures which have been presented by the Prime Minister, representing an increase of 7½ per cent. for council tenants, totally misleading since if one excludes the 1 million council tenants who have already suffered an increase of 50p, the total increase will be likely to be about 13½ per cent.? Why cannot the Minister come clean about it?

As I understand the situation, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave a figure covering all tenants in all property, both council and private, and I believe his figure to be perfectly correct.

I am talking about council tenants.

Will my right hon. Friend take it that the poorer paid people in my constituency are anxiously looking forward to the implementation of this scheme, which will be of tremendous help to them?

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. Any local authority, association or other body which seeks to defer the introduction of the Act is seeking to defer the granting of rebates and allowances to those who need them most and the introduction of the slum clearance and rising cost subsidies to help authorities which have slums and overcrowding.

When does the Minister expect the Act to be published so that we may read it?

The Bill has been before the House over a long time. [HON. MEMBERS: "The Act."] The Act comes into implementation in a day or two from now.

When will the Act—not the Bill—be published?

I shall look into the hon. Gentleman's question. [HON. MEMBERS: "He does not know."] I shall write to the hon. Member precisely about publication.

This is a fantastic situation. Presumably the Act will be in operation as from today. It has received Royal Assent, or will do so sometime today at the very latest. Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that copies should be available for those who will have to implement it? This is the main point of my query. There are only two or three weeks between enactment and the implementation of all the procedures that local authorities will have to undertake to implement the provisions of the Act—irrespective of rebate schemes which in any event could be operated with or without the Act. It is an impossible situation for hundreds upon hundreds of local authorities. There is complete confusion about what the Government have in mind as the basis of their rental policy.

With his long experience of local government, of which he sometimes reminds us, the hon. Gentleman will know perfectly well that the associations and the local authorities have not only studied the Bill but have studied all the Amendments and know exactly how the Act stands. Implementation, as we discussed when we considered Lords Amendments, is to be a fortnight after 27th July. I have not done the sums to see whether we have reached that date, but the Act will be available in a consolidated form as soon as possible.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many, and which, local authorities in England and Wales have notified him since the Royal Assent was given to the Housing Finance Bill of their intention not to implement the legislation.

One, Sir: Camden London Borough Council.

Will my right hon. Friend consider telling this authority and any other that may decide to break the law that it is against the interests of its own tenants who may well suffer and against the interests of private tenants who may have rent allowances delayed? Will he also tell it that the housing commissioner, if appointed, might under the Act be given powers to sell council houses to tenants?

I share my hon. Friend's astonishment that Camden of all places should have taken this line. It seems that both tenant and ratepayer stand to benefit very much from the Act. I take my hon. Friend's point that any local authority which follows the line that Camden has so far taken would be extremely unwise. I cannot believe that Camden will persist with this line and there is plenty of time for it to take a more reasonable attitude.

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that by an earlier reply he must have caused considerable confusion in the ranks of the Conservative Party about the effects of the Housing Finance Act since it felt that the intention of the Act was to save subsidies and the taxation of millionaires and people getting up to that mark? Does his reply mean that there is no real reason for this anxiety in the Labour-controlled authorities because, as with other policies, the Government are now on an entirely new tack?

I cannot help feeling that the hon. Gentleman has not perhaps followed our debate and discussions on the Bill as closely as he might have done. If he had, he would have realised that the emphasis from the beginning has been on the need to provide more subsidy finance for people and areas of need, for rebates and allowances for individuals and for a better slum clearance subsidy and rising costs subsidy to deal with overcrowding.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a directive to all planning authorities that, until further notice, no planning permission to develop land for housing shall be granted unless it contains a condition that the applicant shall sell it at a price which allows him to obtain no more than a reasonable profit on the original cost of land to him.

No, Sir. The main way of tackling the problem of land prices is to increase land supply.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the suggestion in my Question is intended as a spur to the Government to face up to this modern phenomenon of exorbitant property prices which has become a scandal and an offence to all right-thinking people?

Yes, I certainly accept that that there was much that needed to be done in the situation of land prices in 1969, for example. The package of measures announced by my right hon. Friend last April and the fact that in the private sector housing starts last year were 26 per cent. up on 1970 and are running at record levels this year must be remembered. We are certainly not complacent and we have certainly not closed the door to further measures if they are needed.

The Government need not a spur but a whip. Are we to take it as a final statement of Government policy that after all the rise in prices over the last few months they still have no policy for land prices other than the minor tinkering policies announced by the Secretary of State in April?

For the right hon. Gentleman to describe the policies and the considerable package announced in April—totalling £80 million—and the other measures as minor policies is a bit much. If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to my answer he would have heard me say that we have not closed the door to any further policy if and when it may be needed. The fact remains that in the private sector starts were running last year at a record level of 26 per cent. over the levels of 1970.

rose—

Order. We are to debate the matter later today.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the East Midlands Economic Planning Council has informed him of its view that the expansion of Northampton, Wellingborough, Peterborough and Milton Keynes should be restrained to make sure that Corby has a chance to reach its population target and to become a properly balanced community; and whether he will make a statement on his recent official visit to the East Midlands Economic Planning Board.

The East Midlands Economic Planning Council has informed me of its views on the development of Corby compared with the other new and expanding towns in the area. My right hon. Friend met the council on 27th July in Leicester and discussed a variety of topics with it, including the question of industrial diversification and development at Corby.

What will the Minister do to see that valuable public investment in Corby is not wasted? A great deal of public money has been spent on encouraging expansion in towns which do not have the facilities that are readily available in Corby.

I do not think that public investment is being wasted. My informa- tion is that on both the housing and the industrial fronts things in Corby are looking extremely bright. Unemployment there is below the national average and I am convinced that the considerable public investment put into this town will be extremely effective for all the developments taking place there, particularly the new industrial developments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the effect of inflation on the value of the maximum fine for breaches of a closing order as originally introduced in 1919 and 1923.

The maximum penalty prescribed for letting premises in contravention of a closing order is a fine of £20 and £5 a day for a continuing offence after conviction. For a period of, say, three months the latter fine could amount to £455. The value of the £ today compared with 1919 is 29p and with 1923 23p.

Is the Minister aware that an Amendment to bring these fines into line with the demands of present-day money values was introduced to the Criminal Justice Bill in the House of Lords by Lord Stow Hill but was rejected purely on the ground that that Bill was a Home Office Bill and not a Department of the Environment Bill? Particularly bearing in mind that the Government accepted an Amendment to increase fines for harassment in that Bill, is the right hon. Gentleman able to explain why, on a purely procedural ground, that sensible Amendment was refused?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. As I understand it, the Amendment was not rejected but was withdrawn by Lord Stow Hill in view of an undertaking given by my noble Friend Lord Colville that the Government would consider the point made in the Amendment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning permissions for the building of private dwellings were granted by the London Borough of Bromley in each of the years 1969, 1970 and 1971; and how many of these have resulted in the completion of such dwellings.

This information is not available.

Why is it not available? Similar information for the city of Westminster was given in a Written Answer some time ago. I find this disturbing and not at all understandable.

The statistics available to us do not distinguish between planning permissions for public and private sector development and those for new buildings, extensions and alterations. Moreover, completions cannot be related to the number of planning permissions without detailed examination.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that private houses started in January, 1971, were sold for £9,000 and that houses of the same design being built by the same builder in Bromley are now being sold at £15,000?

Order. The Question relates to planning permissions in Bromley.

Is not the Minister aware that anyone may go to a local authority and get information from the register of planning applications which is available for public inspection? It should be possible for the Department to obtain that information from a local authority to show the number of private dwelling applications in any year and the number of houses completed.

That last question is a separate matter and I should like notice of it. It is true that Bromley may be able to supply the particulars and my hon. Friend may approach the council if he wishes, but I would not myself ask the council to undertake what would be a sizeable task.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what fee for each sitting is paid to members of rent assessment panels in London, apart from presidents and vice-presidents.

The daily fee payable thoughout the country is £27 for chairmen, £25 for professional members and £15 for lay members. Half-day fees are paid as appropriate.

How many of these people are there? Who appoints them and for how long are they appointed? Is any change in their status or duties contemplated for the near future?

There are 120 members of the London Rent Assessment Panel and 71 of them are qualified to sit as chairmen. Rent assessment committees are appointed from the panel and each committee normally has a lawyer, a valuer and what is called a lay member—that is, someone with general knowledge. Eleven rent tribunals in London are appointed by the president of the panel from this membership. I will supply the hon. Gentleman with details of their lengths of service and so on if he desires.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent he took into account, before agreeing to provide British Railways with £50 million to £60 million and to their proposals about their field organisation, the statement made by the Board's Chairman that Great Britain was in danger of losing its present railway system and the need to prevent further contraction in the railway network; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend could not on 27th July take account of something which the Chairman of the Railways Board did not say until 1st August. But the financial and organisational measures referred to in his statement of 27th July should be helpful in reducing the dangers mentioned by the Chairman of the Board.

Am I to understand that the Minister is so out of touch with the thinking of the Railways Board that he was not aware of the situation set out by the Chairman on 1st August? Will he say, now that he has heard that statement, what action he intends taking to see that the Chairman's prediction that the present railway system will not exist in 10 years' time does not materialise?

My right hon. Friend is well aware of the thinking of the Chairman of the Railways Board—indeed, he has frequent and useful talks with him. The hon. Gentleman must not mislead the House about what the Chairman said. He did not suggest that the railway system would not exist within 10 years and I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman imagines he said that. He said that it was necessary to rethink the rôle of the railways and that is precisely what my right hon. Friend is now engaged in doing with the Railways Board.

While we welcome the recent decision to provide funds for the railways to help with their cash flow, as well as the other measures which the hon. Gentleman has announced, may I ask whether he and his colleagues realise that what is wanted is a clear statement by the Government that since, for a number of reasons, the expectations of the 1968 Act have not come about, it is a matter of policy that the railways must be given the finances to remain a viable system? Otherwise, with all the opposition to and difficulties of extending roads, if we do not get as much traffic off the roads as we can by using the railways, we will allow decisions now which we will regret in 10 or 15 years' time.

My right hon. Friend is well aware of the points which the right hon. Gentleman very fairly puts. He is currently engaged with the Railways Board in seeking to identify those services which can be run commercially and, in the light of studies, to consider what action needs to be taken about those services which are not strictly commercial.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the future of the railways depends a great deal on the capital investment programme made available to them? Can he say whether this pro- gramme has been increasing or decreasing over the last five years and what he anticipates it will be in future?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reply he has sent to the further letter dated 2nd August addressed to him by Mr. Harry Hyams on the subject of Centre Point.

None, Sir.

While I understand my right hon. Friend's reluctance to pursue this public correspondence, may I congratulate him on so successfully flushing this elusive millionaire into the open, if only to defend the indefensible? Although Mr. Harry Hyams now appears to be getting the ministerial message, will my right hon. Friend say when he expects to be able to place before the House the details of his proposed legislation to deal with the scandal of the empty office blocks?

I said in my original statement that unless the majority of the office blocks concerned were occupied within a few months, we would introduce legislation. That is still the position.

When will the right hon. Gentleman do something? So far he has written two or three letters and said that he will do something in a few months' time. We want to know what he will do now.

This is a problem that has been going on for some years, including under the previous Government. When I made my statement I made it perfectly clear that unless this ended within a few months I would introduce legislation. I have only ever written one letter which was in reply to a particular request from this correspondent and as far as I am concerned the position remains quite firmly that I have given notice that unless it is ended within a few months I will introduce legislation. I was grateful to the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) for saying the other day that he would assist such legislation.

Will my right hon. Friend consider writing to one of the shareholders in the company owning Centre Point—namely, one of the organs of the Co-operative Society—to ask it to exercise its influence?

No, Sir. This legislation does not concern any specific project or building; it concerns the principle involved. I am not interested in any specific shareholder or company. I am just interested in trying to tackle this problem.

May I say to the right hon. Gentleman that we would not object to any such correspondence as is mentioned in the Question? If the right hon. Gentleman feels it necessary to present legislation to the House in the autumn, may I ask him not only to cover the question of office blocks being held empty because of questions of capital appreciation but also to pay close attention to the need for applying such legislation to residential property being held empty for similar purposes on an increasing scale? I have been to see some of them recently, within the last two days, and it is appalling.

Local authorities already possess considerable powers in respect of residential property by way of compulsory purchase order when they feel that residential properties are unnecessarily remaining empty. The legislation I have in mind is specifically for office blocks. The problem of empty residential property is something we will continue to examine.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the position of the selective schools in Glasgow, with particular reference to the intake of primary pupils for the forthcoming session.

My right hon. Friend is still considering Glasgow Education Authority's proposals for reorganisation of these schools. He has informed the authority today that, without prejudice to the long-term future of the High School of Glasgow, he is prepared to agree to there being no intake of new pupils to the primary department of the school in session 1972–73.

Is not my hon. Friend aware of a letter which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland wrote to the authority on 3rd May in which he said that he would enable Glasgow to continue with the status quo until such time as the plans of the authority to reorganise secondary and primary departments were approved? Why has there been a change of plan?

There is a different situation with the secondary and primary schools and my right hon. Friend has advised that the present proposal of the authority as regards the primary intake does not require his approval. It is not open to him to prevent it.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in the two years June, 1970, to June, 1972, in reducing the total number of non-industrial civil servants.

The Civil Service has been reduced by nearly 13,000 between 1st July, 1970, and 1st July, 1972. In this period there has been an increase of about 1,000 non-industrial staff and a reduction of about 14,000 industrial staff.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that that fulfils the Government's election pledge to reduce the number of civil servants? Has he taken into account the fact that the introduction of value added tax, apart from putting up the cost of living very substantially, will add 6,000 or 7,000 civil servants to the list he has given?

I am satisfied that our record in this respect is infinitely better than the record of the Labour Government. In their first two years of office, 1964–66, they increased the size of the Civil Service by 2 per cent. We have reduced it by about 2 per cent. However, I have made it clear to the House on other occasions that increases are in the pipeline, not only because of value added tax but also because of certain social security measures which we have introduced, such as family income supplement and the constant attendance allowance. Part of the increase has been in the Home Office establishment where we have increased the number of prison officers by 1,700 since we have been on iffice.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he has yet laid before Parliament a copy of the new Civil Service pension scheme.

Yes, Sir, on 15th June. As a result, we have now been able to add to the annual reviews of existing pensions under the Pensions (Increase) Act substantial improvements in the pension scheme itself, including coverage of unestablished staff, preservation of pension rights, the basing of pensions and other benefits on the final year's salary, and half-rate widows' pensions.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many retired civil servants living in my constituency, and will he continue to watch their interests carefully in relation to the rising cost of living?

Yes. The improvements made in the Civil Service pension scheme which have been approved by the two sides of the National Whitley Council make it one of the best schemes in the country and, as a country, we have every right to be proud of it.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is now able to announce the results of the analysis of the cost of answering parliamentary Questions.

The costs incurred in Government Departments in preparing answers for 1,385 Questions tabled for Oral Answer and 1,515 Questions tabled for Written Answer during the period 10th April to 5th May, 1972, have now been analysed. The average cost for those for Oral Answer has been calculated as £16 and for those for Written Answer as £10.

What is the largest number of Questions put by any hon. Member in the present Parliament, and what is the cost to the taxpayer?

The House will probably know who has asked the most Questions—the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). He is the last of the big askers. I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not present. Normally he does not miss Question Time.

He is writing them.

The cost of the hon. Gentleman's Questions in the first half of this Session was £13,296 and probably for a full Session it is between £25,000 and £35,000. That is roughly equivalent to the employment of about 12 clerical officers in my Department.

Why is the cost of answering Questions tabled for written answer so much less than the cost of answering those for Oral Answer?

Because officials in each Department have to prepare a much fuller brief on Questions for Oral Answer. This practice has continued for some years. This is the real cost. For Questions which are not answered orally less of a brief has to be prepared.

Will my hon. Friend note that some of us are having difficulty in knowing what Questions were asked and what answers were given on 31st July this year due to the fact that HANSARD for that day has not yet been published?

There was a short industrial dispute in the Stationery Office which led to the failure to produce HANSARD; but the staff are catching up on the publication of HANSARD. In replying to my hon. Friend's Question rather obliquely, may I point out that the full cost of Question Time over a Session is between £350,000 and £400,000. That is a very small price to pay for one of the basic ingredients of the British parliamentary system.

While agreeing with the hon. Gentleman's last comment, may I ask him whether he accepts that it is no part of anybody's duty to criticise any hon. Member for tabling Questions which he believes to be necessary in the interests of his constituents and that these matters can be judged only by the Member concerned? The information about cost which the hon. Gentleman has given is very interesting to us, but does he not agree that Questions are a very valuable means of obtaining the kind of information which it has become increasingly difficult to obtain? Despite the Government's protestations about open government, we have had very poor answers this Session. This point should be put on record.

That is a very unfair point to make. I agree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said. Question Time is one of the greatest safeguards of the liberties we enjoy in this country. The number of Questions tabled has increased enormously since the last survey in 1965. In the sample periods the number of oral Questions has increased by 57 per cent. and the number of Written Questions by 126 per cent. I pay tribute to the Officers of the House in the Table Office who handle all our Questions.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the progress being made on the re-examination of the code of conduct relating to civil servants and their receipt of gifts from firms or persons in contractual relations with Her Majesty's Government.

I have nothing at present to add to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member on 20th July, and to my reply to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) on 19th July.—[Vol. 841, c. 162 and 614–5.]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a degree of urgency about this matter? He has just referred to the cost of the Questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). I think he said that the total cost was about £38,000. One of those Questions was tabled to the Secretary of State for Scotland and asked whether Mr. Pottinger had obtained permission to receive the gift of £11,000 or so from the Poulson firm and the answer was a very short "No". In view of that, is it not monstrous that this civil servant should now be retired on full pay when it was quite clear that he was infringing the existing code of conduct and that if he had been dismissed it would have saved £10,000 of the total cost of £38,000 of the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North? Since more unnamed civil servants have been mentioned in the Poulson affair, will the hon. Gentleman treat this matter with a far greater degree of urgency?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, police inquiries are taking place into the Poulson affair. It would be unfair—and the Government take this view—for the Civil Service to take disciplinary action against any of the people mentioned until those inquiries are completed because it might be held that such disciplinary action would prejudice the people involved. I have already instituted inquiries about the other unnamed civil servants who have recently been mentioned in the case, but I am not in a position to say any more at this time.

Whatever the outcome of the Poulson case, is it not abundantly clear that the widespread public concern justifies the establishment of a full and comprehensive register of the interests of civil servants and people in local government?

That raises a much wider question. I am not at all satisfied that a register of the interests of civil servants would be manageable or appropriate.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Civil Service should not take disciplinary action in respect of a clear breach of discipline because perhaps criminal proceedings will be instituted in respect of more serious offences?

What I am saying is that if the Civil Service were to set up a disciplinary committee to examine the case and action followed, it might prejudice particular people concerned in the case, and it is the custom in cases of this sort for the police inquiries to be completed first.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what progress has been made in his consideration of ways of increasing the proportion of registered disabled persons employed by the Civil Service.

Departments have been asked to seek information about the availability of registered disabled persons from the local employment offices and, wherever they can, make it clear in advertisements for staff that registered disabled persons will be considered.

While I am grateful for that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend how many registered disabled people are employed in the Civil Service Department? If it is true that the number has increased, would he say that it would be a good thing to have a target of at least 3 per cent.? Surely it is important that the Civil Service Department should set an example to commercial and industrial organisations in this very important matter.

Yes, indeed, there is a target of 3 per cent. both in the public and in the private sector to move towards. I have taken specific action in the last fortnight to improve the numbers of registered disabled persons in the Civil Service. We shall be publishing a booklet upon job opportunities for disabled people in the Civil Service and we shall be issuing instructions to relax the qualifications in respect of disabled people for the appointment of clerical assistants.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I refer to Question No. 31. I feel aggrieved that you failed to call me to put a supplementary question when both the Question and the disgraceful reply given by the Minister affect thousands of people living in my constituency in the London Borough of Camden. It is a fact that the Housing Fnance Act—

Order. The hon. Member cannot raise a point of order on the fact that I did not call him to ask a supplementary question. I am sorry that I did not call him. I had called him earlier. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) rose several times and I wanted to call him. Then we had to get on. No point of order arises.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. That Question specifically applied to my constituency. I was on my feet, and I think I was entitled to be called, especially when the Minister made the most disgraceful attack on that London Borough—

Order. I have said that I am sorry that I did not call the hon. Member, but he cannot raise a point of order about it now. The calling of Members is a matter within the discretion of the Chair. Nobody has an absolute right to be called to ask a supplementary question.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a fact that my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras North (Mr. Stallard) is an alderman of Camden, and, that being so, there was a direct reflection on him and on other members of the council in the Question asked by the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg)—

Order. We cannot go on discussing this matter. Nobody has a right to be called to ask a supplementary question. Whatever may have been said, there is no right to be called. It is a matter for the Chair. I am sorry I did not call the hon. Member, and I have said so.