Finsberg asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to announce his conclusions on the next generation of trunk exchange equipment.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he has yet received any decision relating to TXE 4 telephone exchanges from the Post Office Board; and whether he will make a statement.

The Post Office expects shortly to reach a conclusion about large local exchanges, after which the Government will take their decision as soon as possible and I will then inform the House.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Has he completely ruled out the idea of laying a White Paper before the House giving his conclusions, so that the House may consider the matter in some detail?

No, Sir. At this stage I have not ruled out any idea, but I have not yet received an account of the Post Office's own thinking on these matters.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is important for him to press on the Post Office Board the importance of taking a decision as quickly as possible? Is he aware that any defer- ment of the decision will lead to a lowering of the quality of service, which in turn will be attacked from the benches behind him?

I am not aware of any desire by the Post Office to delay a decision but, as the hon. Gentleman knows very well, it is one of considerable importance, not least to industrial and employment matters.

Talking of new equipment, will my right hon. Friend accept compliments upon the enormously improved equipment available to hon. Members?

I am sure that the Post Office will be grateful for my hon. and gallant Friend's comments.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many sub-post offices were closed in November 1972.

This is a matter for the Post Office, and I regret that I do not have the information for which my hon. Friend asks.

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great resentment in Dunstable at the Post Office's decision to close the Downs sub-post office. Is he aware that the proposal to close main post offices in Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard on Saturday afternoons as from February 1973 means that there will be four sub-post offices open on Saturday afternoons in Leighton Buzzard, and three in Dunstable? Given that Dunstable is the larger town, will my right hon. Friend look again at the closure of the Downs sub-post office? I think that as the larger town we are entitled to have more sub-post offices open, especially on Saturday afternoons.

I am aware that my hon. Friend has made vigorous representations to the Post Office since it made known the decision to close the sub-office in question, and that he has received a full explanation of the reasons behind it. I well understand the strength of local feeling in such cases, but the Post Office Act 1969 makes it clear that the nature and scale of counter services in a given locality are management matters for the Post Office, and therefore it would be wrong for me to intervene.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been much concern at the closing of Knighton sub-post office, in my constituency, and that that concern is as much about the lack of consultation and the procedures gone through as about the loss of facilities for pensioners to draw their old-age pension benefits?

I am sure that the Post Office will take note of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, but it is the practice of the Post Office to consult local interests before closing any of its offices. As for the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, arrangements of that kind are more directly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that although it is a management matter for the Post Office, sub-post offices provide an important Government service in helping old-age pensioners to draw their pension, and that in places like my own constituency of Lewisham, West it is becoming increasingly difficult, because old-age pensioners have to travel long distances to draw their pensions? The Government cannot just say that it is a management matter for the Post Office.

The Government do not just say that. I just say that arrangements for the payment of pensions, family allowances and such matters are in the first instance questions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now announce the name of the new Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now announce the new Chairman of the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The Prime Minister announced last week that the new Chairman of the BBC will be Sir Michael Swann.

I do not wish to pass judgment on Sir Michael's capacity for maintaining the integrity and independence of the BBC, and I welcome the reversion to the previous pattern of a part-time appointment. Will the Minister draw the attention of the new Chairman of the BBC to the BBC's regrettable decision to sack Mr. Charles Parker, a most distinguished radio producer and winner of the Italia Prize, whose main fault seems to be that he wishes to go on producing creative programmes rather than being a cog in a machine creating mass-produced ones, particularly bearing in mind that there is likely to be industrial action after Christmas by his fellow professionals, who feel very strongly about this dismissal?

Appointments or replacements of the kind to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not a matter for me; they are entirely a matter for the BBC.

rose—

Order. I must follow the advice of the Select Committee. The Question simply asks whether the Minister will announce the name of the new Chairman, and I am not prepared to have other different questions hung on to it.

On a point of order. May I revert to Question No. 7, Mr. Speaker?—not just your point that no more supplementaries should be allowed but the ruling that you gave at the time? As we understood your ruling, it was to the effect that since the answer—the name of the person involved—had been given, no further supplementaries would be in order, arising out of the Select Committee Report—

Order. May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman? There was no question of a supplementary question being out of order. It is my discretion, which the House gives me.

I made that clear, Mr. Speaker. We are not challenging your decision to refuse supplementaries. What I am talking about is the ruling which you added to that, and your explanation for stopping questioning at that point.

I try very hard to be patient with the House. I am constantly told to hurry up Question Time. The recent Report of the Select Committee said that I should restrict supplementaries when I could. Here was a Question which simply dealt with the announcement of a name. I exercised my discretion. I am at once criticised, and more time is wasted. All I would ask hon. Members who take the view that I should allow supplementaries ad infinitum is to say so when this matter is being debated. As the moment the Report of the Select Committee has been accepted by the House, and I do my best.

On a point of order—

Order. There can be no point of order about the exercise of my discretion.

Further to my point of order. I feel that I must revert to this. No one is questioning your right to review supplementaries, Mr. Speaker. What we are asking about is the ruling that you gave in refusing them. We ask you to reconsider that ruling, because many regarded it as very serious.

Of course I will reconsider anything at any time, and I will take each Question on its merit. This was a simple Question about a name. The name had been given I exercised my discretion, and no matter of order can arise.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will consider varying the appointment of governors to the British Broadcasting Corporation so as to include representatives with specific responsibility for suitable geographical regions of England, bearing in mind population distribution as well as cultural and other factors, distinguishing the Northern Region among others.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister satisfied with a situation in which, for example, the North-Eastern region is still dominated by Manchester, although part of that region is further from Manchester than is Manchester from London? Is it not time for a bit of English nationalism, instead of endless pandering to the Celtic fringe?

The position of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is different, and fully recognised to be so. The other appointments to the board of governors are designed to give the best possible comprehensive range of skills and qualities that can be brought together in such a body.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is his estimate of the number of persons avoiding payment of the television broadcast receiving licence; what revenue this represents; and if he will propose changes in the procedures and method of collecting licence fees.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what progress is being made in detecting those evading the payment of television licences; and if he will give estimates of the revenue currently being lost by the British Broadcasting Corporation because of such evasion in England and Scotland, respectively.

The estimated number of evaders fell from 950,000 at 31st March 1972 to 700,000 at 30th September. Loss of revenue is now about £5 million. Separate estimates for England and Scotland are not available. I am not at present proposing any changes in the methods of collecting licence fees.

I am grateful for that answer, and I welcome the trend, but since about 17 million television licences were issued in the last 12 months for which figures are available, representing about 90 per cent. of the households in the country, does not my right hon. Friend think that there might be a case—in order further to reduce evasion—for people to be asked to opt out of paying rather than opting in? The money might be collected in a different way—with the rates, or by the Inland Revenue with income tax.

As I have said, I have no plans at present to propose any changes in the method of collecting fees, but of course I will consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

How on earth does the Minister know how many people are not paying for licences? How does he count them?

This is an attempt to try, by means of detector vans and other devices, to get as complete a coverage as possible. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome not only the trend but the vigorous attempts which are made to ensure that everybody pays what is due from them.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (1) what percentage of casual postal staff employed over the Christmas pressure period this year will be students and what percentage will be from the unemployment register;

Information is not available about the proportions of students and unemployed. It is, however, Post Office policy to give preference to persons on the unemployment register.

The Minister's reply brings out the facts that I want to highlight. The number of casual postal staff employed at Christmas time has been steadily declining over the years. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even at this early stage of the Christmas period there is evidence that this year parcel traffic has increased by 10 per cent. and letter traffic by about 5 per cent.? Would the Minister like to pay a tribute to the full-time postal staff who carry this load and make sure that the Christmas traffic is delivered on time? Surely this would be a good opportunity to do so?

I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the immense effort involved in getting the bulk of mail and parcel deliveries to their destinations in time for Christmas. I am sure that every hon. Member will wish to join me in that tribute. The employment of casual staff has to have a direct correlation to the anticipated volume of traffic to be dealt with.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement indicating his policy in relation to the renewal of the licence of the Hull Corporation to continue to operate a telephone system.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement regarding his policy relating to the continued operation by the city of Kingston upon Hull of its telephone system.

Hull's present Post Office licence does not expire until December 1977. The future of the Hull local telephone service will be in the first instance a matter for negotiation between the Post Office and the successors to the present Hull Corporation.

Is the Minister aware that, despite the achievements of the municipally controlled Hull telephone system and the justifiable pride in the system of my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Kingston upon Hull. West (Mr. James Johnson), the reorganisation of local government will create a completely new situation? Is it likely to influence the Minister's thinking about the renewal of the licence?

As I said, in the first instance this is entirely a matter for negotiation between the Post Office and the successors to the Hull Corporation. That is a perfectly proper procedure, and I must leave it at that.

Whatever the motives behind my hon. Friend's question and whatever the content of the Minister's answer, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Hull and half a million Humbersiders not only enjoy this facility but are jealous of it and proud of it, and will stand by it for decades to come? Is he further aware that the exchange is not only more efficient than other exchanges but much cheaper, and gives amazing facilities such as bedtime tales for kiddies? It even gives the speeches of parliamentary candidates. Is the Minister aware that no one either in Humberside or outside wishes to change the existing system?

All these are factors which will be fully taken into account in the negotiations.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) are subscribers to the Hull Corporation system, and use it? Is he further aware that there would be a great deal of resentment at any suggestion of removing this unique example of municipal socialism from the control of Hull Corporation? What we want is not an increase in the licence fee to the Post Office but royalties from the Post Office for the lead that we give to it in supplying services.

Both hon. Gentlemen have properly paid tribute to the enterprising entrepreneurial spirit of an independent operation.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he intends to publish the Television Advisory Committee's report to him; and if lie will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he has yet received the report on the technical future of broadcasting.

The report of the Television Advisory Committee is being published today. Copies will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon. I am extremely grateful to Sir Robert Cockburn and his colleagues for the work they have done. Their main conclusions are that the first priority is to complete as soon as possible after 1980 the coverage of the UHF 625-line television service, and that new technical developments are unlikely to have a significant impact on broadcasting during the present decade.

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving the House the opportunity of reading over Christmas this fascinating document. Will the broad conclusions which he announced as being contained in the report inhibit the industry from pressing on with new and revolutionary ideas?

I am sure that they need not inhibit anyone from pressing forward with new developments. The report will help to put into technological perspective the nature of some of these advancing techniques.

Is the Minister aware that if there are no technical developments which will have an impact within the next decade there is no reason why there should not now be a committee of inquiry into broadcasting after 1976? Is the Minister further aware that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries recommended an inquiry into the unified transmission of broadcasting services, and does he have that recommendation under consideration?

The question of an inquiry was not before the Television Advisory Committee.

The Minister will recall that in answer to a recent question which I put to him on this subject he said that he was waiting for this report to decide whether he would have a full-scale inquiry. Now that he has the report, will he have the full-scale inquiry as soon as possible?

I am now giving close attention to the observations which are contained in the report of the Television Advisory Committee. The Government will then make their conclusions about the wisdom or otherwise of having an inquiry.

But now that the Minister has indicated that there is nothing to prevent a broadly-based inquiry, and bearing in mind that we are now in December 1972, will he set up such an inquiry as quickly as possible?

I have already answered a question relating to whether there should be an inquiry and, if so, in what form, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the charter and the Acts do not expire before 1976.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average price of a new house sold and the average size of mortgages arranged in the first quarter of 1971 and the third quarter of 1972, respectively.

The average price of new private dwellings mortgaged with building societies was £5,462 in the first quarter of 1971 and £7,899 in the third quarter of 1972. Corresponding average mortgage advances are estimated to have been about £4,100 and £5,800 respectively.

Does not that answer show that the Minister's Department has presided over one of the worst aspects of the most vicious inflation in British history, so that hundreds of thousands of people are bearing crippling burdens of debt? Will he now abandon the claim that the ordinary worker on ordinary earnings can purchase a new house? If such a worker could purchase his own house in 1970, he certainly cannot do so in 1972.

No; I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. All of us deplore the rise in house prices but, in spite of that rise, the number of people who obtain mortgages as first time purchasers has increased, the number of those under 25 who obtain mortgages has increased, building society lending is up and the amount of advances has also increased.

Does my hon. Friend realise that one of the most important factors in the regrettable rise in the cost of houses arises from the difficulty in obtaining planning permission on existing sites? This is particularly true of rural constituencies. Will the Minister do all he can to expedite the granting of planning permissions, which should be granted rather than that reasons should be put forward against them?

I appreciate what my hon. and gallant Friend says, and I am anxious that planning permissions should be granted in the speediest possible time.

The figures are appalling and the Minister knows it. Since he frequently tells the House that one way of dealing with the situation is to build more houses, will he now explain the extraordinary fact that in the White Paper on Public Expenditure, which was published yesterday, the amount to be spent on housing in the next five years is to decrease below its present appallingly low level.

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the question is related to the average prices of new houses sold—that is to say, houses in the private sector. He will be pleased to learn that the figures of starts and completions in the private sector are substantially up on 1970 and 1971.

Does not the Minister realise that the enormous increase in house prices will be regarded as the scandal of 1972? Will he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment ask the building societies to stop granting second mortgages and also to look into the enormous amount of money lent to land developers?

The best way of dealing with house prices in a situation where demand has been increasing is to increase the supply of private sector houses. I have already told the House that both starts and completions are substantially up.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the Channel Tunnel.

I have nothing to add to the replies given by my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Dodds-Parker) on 20th October and 28th November.—[Vol. 843, c. 150 and Vol. 847, c. 100.]

I welcome the move towards turning the Channel Tunnel into a reality. Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is strategic planning madness to have two different Departments planning both the Channel Tunnel and Foulness Airport? Are not the two schemes bound to interact upon each other? Will he further agree that the Foulness decision should be delayed until we know whether we are to have a Channel Tunnel?

My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that it would be strategic planning madness if the two were separated, but the whole point in having a Department of the Environment is that transport and land use planning have been brought together. Therefore, on that point my hon. Friend, with the greatest respect, is wrong. Of course there is an interaction between these matters, and we are keeping that aspect under the fullest review at all times. We shall make known to the House our conclusions as soon as it is practicable to do so.

In any planning for the Channel Tunnel will my hon. Friend bear in mind the interests of the North-West and the North, and particularly the rail links round London?

Yes, Sir. The Channel Tunnel, at least potentially, should give to British Rail a considerably new additional opportunity to move goods and trains into Europe. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will obtain information from local authorities indicating what percentage of council tenants are paying more rent, after allowing for rebates, as a result of the Housing Finance Act.

No, Sir. To do so would only add to the work of local authorities when they are busy with the implementation of this Act. Moreover, overall figures would not be meaningful.

Is not the real reason the Minister will not ask for this information the fact that he knows that if it were obtained it would show that all the Government's propaganda about the Housing Finance Act is sheer baloney.

No, Sir. The real reason is that which I have already given the House, namely, that administratively it would be extremely difficult, that it would demand a special return from local authorities which they would not welcome, and that the information would not be meaningful because it would depend upon whether authorities had operated rebate schemes and also on the amounts by which the rents of dwellings had increased in October.

Will my hon. Friend insist that local authorities which send round scare-tactic letters to tenants at ratepayers' expense should be forced, like the borough of Lewisham, to send round a letter explaining that there is a large number of people who have benefited from the Act and emphasising that many old people are now able to live decently for the first time for a very long time?

I have not seen the Lewisham leaflet, but I agree that the extraordinarily misleading propaganda of the Labour Party is already backfiring.

Did the Minister see the article in this morning's Guardian which indicated a severe backlog in the GLC area in dealing with applications for rent rebate? Will he take action to suspend the operation of rent increases under the Housing Finance Act in Greater London until this backlog is sorted out?

I have not seen the article, but I shall look at it with great care. The rent increases have already taken place and I cannot change those—they have already happened.

Will the Minister make a simple admission to the House that apart from those who are on social security, who are not affected in any case, the overwhelming majority of tenants have had an increase in rent. Will he answer yes or no?

Even the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell), if I understood a supplementary question put by him last week, pointed out that some 30 per cent. of the tenants of Southampton presumably were paying less.

No: that is not true.

Is it not a fact that the overwhelming majority of tenants are paying vastly more money in rent? The Minister knows this, he knows that it is happening in London, so why does he not admit the truth?

The hon. Member knows full well that the overwhelming majority of tenants are not paying vastly more money [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] It is no good saying "Rubbish". The facts are quite clear.

Come to Liverpool.

I do not need to go to Liverpool to tell the House the facts. Hon. Members know perfectly well that the maximum amount of increases were laid down in the Housing Finance Act. No one can be compelled to pay more. The misleading and utterly ridiculous propaganda put out by the Opposition is designed to cause upsets to tenants, most of whom are now beginning to learn the truth.

The Minister began by saying that he was in no position to provide this information at a reasonable cost or in reasonable time, but he then went on to say quite confidently that the facts we have been putting forward about rent increases are inaccurate. If the Minister has not obtained this informa- tion, how does he know that that is the case? Will the hon. Gentleman use his powers under Section 105 of the Act to put a stop to further rent increases in the coming year? The powers are there. Will he use them?

I complain about what hon. Gentlemen opposite say because they talk about vast increases when they know that the absolute maximum limits of rent increases are laid down in the Act. This is wholly misleading and utterly mischievous. What is more it is designed to be misleading. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I are determined to achieve a situation in which those who cannot afford to pay a rent will be protected by rent rebate. I think that everyone in the House will support that. We also believe that those who can afford to pay a fair rent—a system invented by the party opposite—should be required to do so.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the hon. Gentleman's replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now hopes to announce his plans to implement the recommendations of the Wheatley Committee Report on Crowd Safety at Football Grounds.

I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on 13th December.—[Vol. 848, c. 173.]

Now that it is almost two years to the day since that melancholy afternoon at Ibrox Park, does anyone seriously dispute the minimum recommendations of the Wheatley Committee on Safety? Is not the question not so much can we afford to do it as can we afford not to do it?

I am sure that the whole House is well aware of the tragedy at Ibrox Park and the Report of Wheatley Commission, which has been discussed fully by my own Department and by the Home Office. I have told the hon. Gentleman, and I repeat, that legislation is to be introduced as soon as possible by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Is the Minister aware that there are many football clubs in Scotland—not least the Falkirk club, about which I am in contact with the Secretary of State—which want to modernise their grounds but are afraid to go ahead until they see the form and type of legislation that the Minister talks about publishing as soon as possible? When is "as soon as possible" likely to be?

I shall be surprised if any football club seeking to modernise its ground is inhibited by the Wheatley proposals. I hope that every club in Scotland, England and Wales will recognise that the modern trend in sport is towards participation and not just watching. In whatever they do for their grounds, I hope that they will have regard to multi-purpose facilities on the grounds.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Tinsley Viaduct has now been treated for aspergillus fumigatus.

A contract for the removal of this fungus is about to be let.

It should have been sprayed on that lot on the Government benches.

Bearing in mind that this matter was debated in the House six months ago, is not this an unwarrantable delay? May I ask the hon. Gentleman three questions? Are these fungus spores airborne? Do they present a health hazard not only to maintenance personnel but to others living in the vicinity? Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that there will not be a recurrence?

Without notice, I cannot say whether the fungus is airborne. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the contract will bring about a procedure for scraping, brushing and vacuuming the facility in question. There is no health hazard in the vicinity.

The Minister seemed to dismiss lightly the question whether this fungus was injurious. Does he realise that my constituency is very close to the Tinsley Viaduct? Can we have a categorical assurance that there is no health hazard to the South Yorkshire area surrounding the Tinsley Viaduct?

On that count, Yes, Sir.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to amend the General Rate Act 1967 to permit exemption of constant attendance allowance payments from calculation of gross income for the assessment of eligibility for rate rebates.

I must ask the hon. Member to await legislation to reform local government finance.

While the House awaits that legislation local authorities are hiding behind the lack of exemptions in the General Rate Act 1967 to charge people who receive constant attendance allowance a sum if their gross income has gone up, which takes away with one hand that which this House has given with the other in the form of the constant attendance allowance. Is not that an absurd situation?

My right hon. and learned Friend is in close touch with local authorities about this matter, and we are sympathetic to the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. However I think that he must await the legislation on local government finance which has been promised for this Session.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if, on the completion of new valuation lists under Section 68 of the General Rate Act 1967, he will introduce legislation to remove the limitations in terms of rateable values from Section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

No, Sir. This is not necessary. The rateable value determining whether or not a dwelling is within the provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is, for houses which were then built, the one shown in the valuation list on 23rd March 1965.

Will not my hon. Friend recognise, regardless of his reply, that all I am asking of him is the fulfilment of a pledge given by the Conservative Party Front Bench spokesman while in opposition?

Without notice of it, I am not clear which is the point to which my hon. Friend is referring. But I shall be glad to take it up with him and to get my right hon. and learned Friend to reply in detail.

Is my hon. Friend aware that during the Committee stage of that Bill this disqualification of higher-rated properties was removed and that it was only put back for some peculiar reason on Report in spite of the almost unanimous wish of the Committee?

My hon. Friend will recognise that this Act is by no means of our devising. Nevertheless, we are confronted with the situation that there is this arbitrary rateable value limit of £200 outside London, and it is difficult to change it since so many transactions have taken place under the existing provisions.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is aware that the Freshwater Group is offering new leases at increased rents during the period of the freeze; and if he will take action to prevent this.

The Freshwater Group has assured us that as soon as it knew of the contents of the order on rents, it took immediate steps to comply with it.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and I am grateful for the letter that he was kind enough to send me dealing with the problem. May I press him a little further? Since I tabled the Question, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has intervened in the gas dispute, and it is becoming clear that wage negotiations are not to be carried to the point of a specific offer. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is right, therefore, that rent increases should not be carried to the point of a specific offer? May I also ask my hon. Friend for an assurance as to both regulated and unregulated tenancies in phase two in the light of what has been said about wage negotiations?

My hon. Friend will not expect me to anticipate what will happen in stage two. That is a matter that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be considering. I shall note my hon. Friend's view.

How can the Minister talk about counter-inflation and about curbing prices when next year he will have a deliberate and unnecessary rise in the rent of hundreds and thousands of working-class families?

This is a matter that we should and no doubt will debate. However it does not arise out of this Question.

The Freshwater Group, having been told that it was morally offending the spirit if not the letter of the law, has now withdrawn an offer made to one of my constituents of £1,350 and has said that the rent will now be £2,000. What steps can my hon. Friend take to stop this gazumping of £650 in three weeks by the Freshwater Group?

I cannot comment on an individual case without having the details. I am assured by the Freshwater Group that it is complying in every way with the terms of the Counter-Inflation (Rents) Order and the legal obligations imposed upon it. If my hon. Friend has evidence to the contrary, I hope that he will produce it.

It is not simply a matter of complying with the terms of the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act. Will the hon. Gentleman recognise—what I thought we demonstrated clearly when discussing the Act—that by far the largest majority of private tenants are not covered by any provisions in the Act? They are in fact effectively outside the scope of the Act. Will he look at this matter again? While wages are coming under more and more severe pressure, private rents are substantially outside the Act.

I do not agree that private rents are substantially outside the Act. In the debate we gave a whole list of categories of people who are included. Naturally I will consider any representations that the right hon. Gentleman cares to make in both this and, indeed, any other context.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the names of the local authorities which are still refusing to implement the Housing Finance Act, the names of those councils for which the Government Auditor is taking or has taken an extraordinary audit, and the names of the local authorities where a housing commissioner has been instructed to take over the housing responsibilities.

The London Borough of Camden and the urban district councils of Clay Cross and Conisbrough are the only English authorities not implementing the Act. An extraordinary audit of the Housing Revenue Accounts of Clay Cross and Conisbrough is in progress. No housing commissioners have been appointed in England.

Why is not the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend playing fair and just with every local authority in England, Wales and Scotland? Why have Merthyr Tydfil, Bedwas and Machen had housing commissioners appointed to them while authorities in England have not? If the Act is so fair and just, why do not the Government appoint housing commissioners so that they can carry out the Act immediately?

My responsibility extends only to England. No housing commissioners have been appointed in England, and my right hon. Friend will be reluctant to appoint them. I understand that it is the general view of the House that commissioners should be appointed only as a last step.

With great respect to what the hon. Gentleman said, is not the Government's policy the same in England as in Wales? Does not exactly the same Act apply to both countries? Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government adopt one policy in Wales and another in England?

The Housing Finance Act applies to England and Wales, but not to Scotland. My right hon. Friend has to judge what is the best situation in Wales. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) is suggesting that we should adopt the Welsh practice, but I think the right hon. Gentleman's view is that he should adopt the English practice.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date the first notification arrived at his Department from the Clerk of the Conisbrough Urban District Council, saying that that council would not implement the Housing Finance Bill or Act; and if he will make a statement as to why he has not acceded to that local authority's request that a housing commissioner should be appointed to take over its housing responsibilities.

24th August. It is the duty of local authorities to carry out the housing responsibilities laid on them by Parliament. The action to be taken against local authorities in default depends in each case on the particular circumstances. My right hon. and learned Friend is under no obligation to appoint a commissioner.

But what do the Government expect to achieve by the action they have taken? What is the objective behind it? Is it to try to make certain that local authorities are in the position that no local councillors want to take over the responsibility? Why did not the Government, at the request of the council, send a housing commissioner to Conisbrough so that the Housing Finance Act could be put into operation? Is it true that it was a low, mean and squalid action by the Government to try to compel councillors to do a job which they think they are not warranted to do?

The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Local authorities have some statutory duties imposed upon them by Parliament, and it is the duty of local authorities to comply with them. They cannot pick and choose between statutory duties and decide to abide by some which they like and not to carry out those which they do not. Local authorities have a duty to abide by all statutory obligations placed upon them.

What criteria did the hon. Gentleman use in the exercise of his discretion under the Housing Finance Act not to send a housing commissioner into Camden council but to try instead to blackmail the council by his threat to withdraw all housing subsidies?

There is no question of blackmail. There are many housing authorities in England, and only three are in default of their duties under the Housing Finance Act. It is the duty of local authorities to comply with their statutory obligations, and anyone who tries to take a different view is doing a great disservice to his constituents and to the local authority concerned.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what facilities he has available to control and supervise the activities of dredgers dredging for gravel from the sea bed.

None, Sir. Licences granted by the Crown Estates Commissioners for dredging gravel from the sea bed define the areas to be dredged and impose limits on quantities to be removed.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the concern felt by the Solent Protection Society and others about what may be the long-term effects if dredging is carried on outside the areas and limits properly allocated?

I note what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I have heard of a number of complaints. This is pri- marily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and I shall draw his attention to my hon. and gallant Friend's comments.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest estimate of the cost of the current works at the Palace of Westminster associated with the underground car park.

£2·2 million.

Is not this a bad example of estimating, as the original estimate was £1·3 million? Is it not also a bad example of the choice of priorities in the London area for the House of Commons to spend this vast amount of money on a car park?

The estimate is the same as the original sum. There has been no increase in the original estimate. The original figure was £2·2 million, and that is the estimate now. The contract is a firm price one. I know of no reason why costs should increase. This was a decision of the House of Commons, not of the Government.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the affair of the car park will probably mean that people will vote for the new office block opposite, which is no doubt a very good thing?

There are divided views in the House about the new office block.

Are not the Government well bogged down in the mud over the whole project? Has the hon. Gentleman seen figures which suggest that the capital cost per car parked will amount to £10,000?

I think that that is an exaggeration. I have the figures and perhaps I could give them on the next Question, which is more relevant. But whatever the figures are, the House of Commons was told of them at the time of the debate. My right hon. Friend gave the House the facts and the House accepted them without a Division. The Government, are merely fulfilling the wishes of the House of Commons. I did not think of this project. It was the House of Commons Services Committee that did that.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many cars the new underground car park at the Palace of Westminster will accommodate.

Rather more than 500.

That is a fairly high cost per car. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree, in view of the Prime Minister's strictures about the build-up of traffic around Westminster, that it is desirable not to encourage more cars to come into this area? Has he considered giving vouchers for free travel on public transport to Ministers and Members of Parliament?

I estimate the cost per parking space to be about £4,450. The decision to build the car park was taken not by the Government but by the House of Commons, without a Division. Hon. Members who are criticising the project now did not vote against it when it was debated. On 13th June the House of Commons unanimously accepted the recommendation of the Services Committee that the car park should be built, and it is being provided to suit the convenience not of the Government but of hon. Members. The decision was taken in the full knowledge of the facts. The estimate has not been increased. I am merely carrying out the instructions given to my Department by the House of Commons.

Is the hon. Gentleman slightly kidding the House? Is it not clear that this proposal was slid through by the Government without hon. Members really knowing, because of the wording, precisely what was involved? Will the hon. Gentleman now ask his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who is sitting near him, to give the House a clear and definite statement that in future there will be no more mucking around with the House of Commons without the House properly debating what is actually happening?

I do not accept that. The House had a full debate on the issue on 13th June. Those hon. Members who now criticise the project had the right to come to the House and vote against it on that occasion. If they chose not to exercise their right to do that they can hardly blame me.

In spite of what the Minister has said, does he not recall that in that debate it was stated that the Government got the effective decision approved on a Friday morning, on the nod at 11 a.m., having put the matter on the Order Paper at 9 a.m.? Will he not now agree that that was a shameful, deceitful trick of the House?

No, the hon. Member is really going too far—

No, it is true.

The hon. Member had a perfect opportunity, if he wanted to object to something in the House of Commons. We all know how these procedures work. If hon. Members do not like something, they speak and vote against it—

We had two hours' notice.

It is a bit rough that I should be criticised in December for a decision that the House of Commons took unanimously in June.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many civil servants have now been recruited for service within the European Economic Community.

So far the only appointments of civil servants have been to the cabinets of the two British Commissioners. Interviewing candidates for other posts in the Commission is continuing and further appointments will be made after we have joined the Communities.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us why civil servants are so reluctant to take posts within the Community? Will he consider the protests which have been made by Aims of Industry and other bodies about the relative lack of business experience within the qualifications required? In view of the great importance of having business experience, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to take urgent steps to remedy this deficiency?

There is little reluctance among civil servants to apply for consideration for posts in Brussels.

How many women have been appointed? Will my hon. Friend ensure that we have a better proportion of women in the civil service in this area than we have in the higher reaches of the civil service at home?

I cannot accept the implied criticism of my hon. Friend's question. In fact, there are several women senior civil servants. I assure my hon. Friend that we are anxious to ensure that there will be quite a large number of women in the senior posts of British people who are going to Brussels.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding future changes in the total number of non-industrial civil servants.

To employ no more than are required to carry out efficiently the tasks laid upon the Civil Service.

As my hon. Friend, like me, is committed to the reduction of this figure and as it has gone up considerably since 1970, may I ask by what date he expects the figure to be as low as it was in 1970?

On 1st July 1970 the total number of civil servants was 701,790. On 1st October 1972 the comparable figure was 690,985. Therefore, there has been a modest reduction.

Should not the hon. Gentleman be more honest with his hon. Friend and answer the question which he rightly put to him? Is it or is it not the Government's intention to reduce the numbers of non-industrial civil servants?

I have stated clearly the total number of industrial and non-industrial civil servants. I am very surprised that hon. Gentlemen opposite should try to retain the distinction between blue-collar and white-collar jobs. I assure the House that since taking office I have seen Ministers in each Department, I have reviewed their forecasts for the next two years, and substantial reductions have been made in those forecasts.

When my hon. Friend is briefed to give the answer to the question that has been asked, may I ask whether the numbers will include those who are in the cabinets? What does he mean by "cabinets"? Could he not use an English word?

My hon. Friend never gives up. British civil servants who are appointed to positions in Europe will no longer count as British civil servants. They will be employed by the respective bodies for which they work in the Community.

By his constant refusal to answer the question put to him by his hon. Friend the Minister has put himself in some difficulty. Is it not the fact that when the Government do not like figures they tend to fudge them in a number of areas? Are they now fudging them between industrial and non-industrial civil servants? These figures were always kept separate.

These figures are published every quarter. The hon. Gentleman knows they are published separately.

Tell us them.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave giving the figures for 1st October. They are published separately. I make no pretence at trying to fudge the figures at all. We are proud of the efficiency with which we have attended to the problem of numbers in the civil service.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on his plans for the Central Computer Agency to develop the use of computers in Government.

We have decided to set up a Computer Agency Council, under my chairmanship, to advise on the development of automatic data processing in Government. The membership of the council will be drawn from industry, commerce, the nationalised industries, local authorities, and other sources, as well as from Government Departments. I will circulate the terms of reference and details of the membership in the OFFICIAL REPORT today.

I very much welcome that statement. When does my hon. Friend hope that this Computer Agency Council will first meet, and will he confirm that security and confidentiality of information is of paramount importance?

Yes indeed. I intend to call a meeting of the Computer Advisory Council in January. I should stress that the Government are the biggest users of computers in this country, but we feel that we should keep in close contact with other big users of computers in the private sector.

When considering the purchase of computers will the Government make a point of placing their orders with ICL, whose headquarters are at West Gorton in my constituency, and which badly needs the employment?

The hon. Gentleman will know that on large computer orders the Government are following a policy of single tendering, and the single tender is in all cases placed with ICL.

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is more than a suspicion that confidentiality has been abused?

Yes. This point goes rather wider than the Question. The House will have to await the White Paper on the Younger Report. I am absolutely satisfied that there is complete confidentiality within the computerised records of civil servants.

In his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) relating to ICL, will the hon. Gentleman give serious thought and consideration to the special development areas? Will he reconsider the situation about tendering, allow private firms the opportunity to tender, and place the order with the person who submits the lowest tender?

The policy for the support of the British computer industry is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industrial Development. However, I reaffirm that Government policy on single tendering to ICL will certainly be continued.

Arising out of what my hon. Friend has just said in answer to the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), may I ask whether he will assure the House that, notwithstanding any regulations or directives which may derive from the European Economic Community discouraging preferential tendering, it will still be Government policy to favour a British national computer industry?

I assure my hon. Friend that when we join the Community the British computer industry will not be in any worse position than the French or German computer industries. As my hon. Friend knows, there is considerable support from each of those Governments to their computer industries, and I assure him that we are very keen to ensure that British national interests are protected here.

When the hon. Gentleman answered the supplementary question asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, he began his answer by saying "Yes, indeed". This was on the subject of a breach of confidentiality. Anybody reading that answer in HANSARD tomorrow will think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with his hon. Friend. Will he now set that answer right? Does he agree that there is cause for thinking that there is a breach of confidentiality?

I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) asked two questions. My reply "Yes, indeed" was to the latter one. I must