asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now set up a commission to inquire into the charter and finances of the British Broadcasting Corporation after 1976.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now announce his decision relating to the holding of an inquiry into broadcasting.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now establish a committee of inquiry into broadcasting.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now set up a commission to inquire into the method of financing the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The Government's reply to the report on the IBA from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries is now available in the Vote Office. Its main conclusions are that there should be no general inquiry into broadcasting at the present time; that the Television and Sound Broadcasting Acts and the BBC Charter should be extended until 1981; and that an independent study of the coverage of the broadcasting services in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and rural England should be commissioned forthwith.

While commending my right hon. Friend on his solicitude in providing me with a copy of the White Paper a few seconds before he replied, may I ask him two questions? First, has he omitted altogether any reference to a further delination and definition of the word "offensive" in the context of broadcasting generally and television in particular? Secondly, what provision does he propose to make for the mounting losses of the BBC, which I am told will amount to a sum of not less than £25 million by the year 1976?

On the first point raised by my hon. Friend, he will be aware that the actual form of the programmes and their content is the direct responsibility of the respective chairmen and governing bodies of the two broadcasting authorities. The second point relates to a different question.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer will be seen here today as a rebuff to the recommendations of the Select Committee of this House? Is he further aware that a statement of this magnitude should have been made as a statement to the House after Questions—with no disrespect to the important statements that are to be made at 3.30 p.m.?

The Television Advisory Committee recently reported, indicating that new technical developments were unlikely to have a major impact on the structure of broadcasting before the early part of 1980s. That is one reason why this decision to extend the franchise has been taken. Secondly, a new Chairman of the BBC has just been appointed. Thirdly, as the White Paper notes, the question of the fourth channel is the subject of separate study, and conclusions will be brought before Parliament when that has been concluded.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the effect of the White Paper is to say that no changes will be proposed in, or that there will be even a review of, the specific question of the financing of the BBC? Does he not agree that there is a case for a specific review of this subject, as the licensing system is discredited, very unpopular and expensive to administer?

The licensing system is a separate matter. As I indicated in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), there is a later Question on the Order Paper relating to this matter. However, I can say that the decision not to have a general inquiry does not prevent any other decisions on this or any related matter being taken before 1981. This matter does not rest upon the decision about a general inquiry.

Is the Minister aware that many defects in the present structure emerged during the debates on the Sound Broadcasting Bill, and that many defects in the structure of the IBA emerged during the hearings of the Select Committee? Is he also aware that undertakings were given to reconsider the defects in a committee of inquiry? Will he assure us that the public debate that the Select Committee deemed to be necessary will take place on the allocation of the fourth channel, and will he publish a Green Paper on the subject before the final decision is taken?

The exact form in which proposals will be presented to Parliament is something which I will decide upon nearer the time when I am ready to present them to Parliament. I have made it clear in the White Paper that the Government intend to put forward their proposals on all these outstanding matters before Parliament is invited to approve the extension to 1981.

On the point about the BBC's finances, is the Minister aware that the television and radio licence fee is still among the cheapest in Europe and that I should hate to see the BBC driven into the position of borrowing money extensively at present interest rates?

I have no proposals before me from the BBC about its finances and, as I think is clear, I have certainly no proposition to put to the House to alter the present licence fee arrangements. But, as I said in answer to earlier questions, the method by which the BBC is financed need not wait upon any general review. It is something which could be dealt with separately.

Is the Minister aware that the White Paper is a tragedy of missed opportunity? It is deplorable in that it flouts quite clearly the central recommendation of an all-party Select Committee of this House, namely, that there should have been a far-ranging inquiry into the future of broadcasting, into access, structure and accountability, quite apart from the technical aspects. Although the Minister says that he is not yet allocating a fourth channel, it is clear from the White Paper that that channel will be allocated without the benefit of having had that inquiry, and that is crucial. Will he give us an assurance on that?

I am aware, of course, that hon. Members who put forward certain recommendations through the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries will be unhappy that all their decisions have not been accepted, and that this particularly important one has not been adopted by the Government. I understand that. It is not a case of flouting. The Government carefully considered all this—and it must be a matter on which the Government decide. It is a decision for Government, and not for the Select Committee. I can assure the hon. Member that no decision has been taken about the fourth channel—not even that it shall be allocated. So it is still wide open. It is one of the matters which, again, are reserved for Government decision.

Order. We must move on.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I know why the Chairman of the Select Committee was not called to ask a supplementary question on a matter of this importance.

It is a matter for my discretion. We have spent 10 minutes on this subject and there were four Questions put down by other hon. Members.

Outrageous.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is satisfied with the television reception in the Folkestone and Hythe area.

Reception of the VHF services is good but there are a number of small areas where reception of the UHF services is not entirely satisfactory.

Will my right hon. Friend advise me what I should tell those of my constituents who complain that when they ring the BBC they get no satisfaction? May I remind him that this complaint is in addition to the complaint about radio interference from taxi services in the Folkestone area? Can he not make a helpful suggestion as to what may be done to improve the service?

The BBC is considering plans for a relay station for Hythe, but little can be done for such areas as Folkestone because frequencies are scarce and suitable sites for relay stations in urban areas are difficult to find. The answer must lie with viewers to install as elaborate receiving equipment as may be necessary for their purposes.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what complaints he has had about television reception in the Hull area of Yorkshire.

I have received no complaints.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the IBA intends to deprive Humberside of the privilege of receiving Anglia Television programmes? Has he not had complaints from hon. Members, chambers of commerce and local authorities about this? Is he further aware that the high-handed and bureaucratic action of the IBA will not be tolerated? Will he bring this strong feeling to the notice of the chairman?

I have received complaints about the point my hon. Friend raises. As I think he knows, these have already been brought to the attention of the Chairman of the IBA. Matters of coverage could most certainly be taken into account by the independent study to which I have referred in connection with questions on the White Paper.

Is the Minister aware that the Humberside area has perfect coverage from the Anglia studios, which is what it wants? I do not challenge him on this point, but will he find out whether there is a single dissentient voice in the whole of eastern England which says that Anglia Television should not continue to serve the people of Humberside and Lincolnshire?

I do not dispute the point which the hon. Gentleman makes. I am merely emphasising that this is the responsibility of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. The independent study which I announced in the White Paper could well look into the question of coverage in this part of the world.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Anglia has made a film on this subject, which has been confiscated by the IBA, and that we, as Members of Parliament representing our area, have been told that we may not see it? Is he allowed to see that film?

That is entirely a matter for the IBA.

Because of the unsatiscactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to ensure that the postal coding system operating in Great Britain is widely publicised in the other EEC countries.

This is a matter for the Post Office, and a general direction would not be appropriate.

Is the Minister aware that he is being unduly complacent on this point? Is he also aware that there have been serious difficulties in this country in getting consumers of Post Office services to use the postal coding system? There is a widely-held view in this country that the system should be scrapped altogether. Is it not therefore necessary for the Government to give a direction to the Post Office to make sure that European countries at least understand our postal coding system, otherwise there will be a serious breakdown which could then only be the responsibility of the Minister?

The question underlines the importance of concentrating publicity in this country first, especially as internal mail constitutes about 95 per cent. of all mail delivered in this country.

Has my right hon. Friend any indication of the percentage of people who use postal codes?

No. I do not know whether that figure could be obtained. If it can I shall send it to my hon. Friend.

Does the Minister agree that the present British postal code is the most unmemorable jumble of figures and letters that it is possible to devise? Will he have an informal word with the Post Office to try to get it to switch over to something more akin to what is used in Europe, which is more likely to encourage public use of it.

The form of the postal code is a matter for the Post Office. It is its responsibility. It devised the system to ensure speedier delivery of mail. It is a system which, after very careful study by Canada, is now being adopted by that country.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now introduce an independent element into the handling of complaints from the public against broadcasting organisations so that members of the public can appeal to an independent body.

No, Sir.

That is a deeply unsatisfactory reply. Have not other Government Departments accepted the case for an independent review of complaints from the public? Is not the latest sign of this the Home Secretary's announcement about complaints against the police? On what grounds should broadcasting organisations be exempt from such a check?

My hon. Friend was asking whether I would now introduce this independent element. As he is well aware, there is already a Programme Complaints Commission and there is the IBA's Complaints Review Board, both of which now provide some independent element. My hon. Friend will also have noted that I am discussing with the chairmen of the BBC and the IBA ways in which the viewers' interests can better be represented.

Will my right hon. Friend explore a way in which there could be fewer complaints? Notwithstanding the extension to 1981 of the BBC Charter and the other companies, if there were more channels long before then there could be a greater variety of views broadcast and there would not be the same reason for complaint that there is now.

That is a view held by my hon. Friend which I respect. But the matter is one primarily of the method of representation and the extent to which views are taken into account by those responsible for the content of programmes.

There is a very widely held view that we probably have the best broadcasting organisation in the world, envied by almost every other country in the world. Will the Minister say how many complaints are received by the organisations, on average, each week or each month as a proportion of the total number of viewers or listeners?

I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman. If I can obtain the information I shall send it to him. But it is primarily a matter for the broadcasting authorities. What the hon. Gentleman says about the quality of broadcasting services in this country is absolutely right, but I am sure that neither he nor any other hon. Member would expect us to be complacent about that. It is the need to continue to observe high standards and quality in programmes that obviously he and others have in mind.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many new National Giro accounts have been opened since the recent increase in charges; how many accounts have been closed; and what has been the effect on the current trading deficit.

Information of this kind is normally published in the Annual Report and Accounts but the Post Office published figures in October last showing that the number of accounts had risen then to 465,000.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been substantial increases in service charges since then, and that the East Midlands Electricity Board claims that there has been a drop of 25 per cent. in the number of customers paying their bills by National Giro since those increases? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Giro service is still competitive?

Giro balances have increased by 20 per cent. Its weekly turnover has increased by 25 per cent., and agents' deposit business has increased by about 50 per cent. That indicates a movement in the right direction. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the profitability of Giro does not depend on the number of accounts alone. Other aspects and factors are just as important.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that he has not weakened in any way on the obligation placed by his predecessor on the Giro to make a positive contribution to Post Office finances within a year of the increase of tariffs? Will that objective be achieved?

I remain steadfast on the subject, with the active support of my hon. Friend, and have not weakened on the objective set for Giro.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Opposition Members at least are delighted to hear about the progress of the Giro? May we press him a little further, as we have often done in the past, to try to persuade many more local authorities to use Giro, and certainly to persuade more Government Departments to use it?

I am certain that the hon. Gentleman does not want me to feather-bed Giro, but expects it to stand on its own feet and compete.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will publish a White Paper setting out the reasons for his recent decision not to alter the present system of television licence fees.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the debate on 21st February. I doubt whether this would be a suitable subject for a White Paper.—[Vol. 851, c. 488.]

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that an ever-growing number of the public feel increasing bitterness about the whole system of television licence fees, and that it would be a good thing if he gave the widest publicity to his reasons for rejecting the alternatives? That at least would remove some of the public's misconceptions.

I shall try, with my hon. Friend's help, to give further publicity to the reasons deployed during the debate on the matter. It is a complex subject and, in view of some of the anomalies arising from the way in which the present system has developed, it gives rise to deep-seated emotions on both sides of the House.

Is the Minister aware that no answer was given in the debate to the question that his hon. Friend asked? Is he also aware that the collection of the licence fee is very wasteful and costly, that money is lost through evasion, and that six times in the past 10 years the BBC has had to beg Ministers for an increase in the fee? What kind of independence from the Government is that? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the BBC is more dependent on the Government under the licensing system than are many universities using general taxation as a source of finance?

The hon. Gentleman put forward views of that kind during the debate, and I then said that I would consider them most carefully.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general instruction to the Post Office to establish that priority over private installations be given to the installation of public canopy type booths in residential blocks of council flats.

No, Sir.

Will the Minister reconsider that answer? As it is very unlikely that every household in the country will have a telephone before the end of the century, is there not a need to give priority to the installation of public telephones, particularly on council housing estates where there are large blocks of flats, many of which have no telephones? Will he ask the Post Office to open discussions with local authorities—first, giving priority to the installation of telephones and, secondly, asking municipal architects to incorporate within their designs provision for public telephones?

That must be a matter for the owners of the premises concerned, because it would add to the cost of the installation. The Post Office would naturally wish to promote the hiring or rental of coin-operated telephones, but it places call boxes in as central a position as it can devise to ensure that large numbers of people have access to them, and therefore that the call boxes are a more paying proposition than they would otherwise be.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a special problem in multi-storey flats? Will he give an assurance that if a local authority wishes to install public telephone kiosks in the foyer of such flats the Post Office will give them priority?

That is a matter for negotiation between the local authority and the Post Office.

Is the Minister aware that there are two problems associated with the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson)? First, there is the problem of the number of people in multi-storey blocks of flats who do not have, and cannot obtain, a telephone. There is the allied problem of vandalism in a number of areas. Some of us strongly believe that if there were telephones of the type my hon. Friend suggested in multi-storey blocks of flats, under the care of a caretaker, that would be to the advantage of everyone concerned.

Vandalism is an important aspect, but the House should be under no illusion about the cost of installing hooded or other telephone boxes in separate blocks of flats. Not only would there be an additional £5 connection charge and £10 annual rental, but the hoods would cost about £25 each.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what progress has been made to date in providing public telephone kiosks which are vandal-proof.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many public telephone kiosks are located in the United Kingdom; and what number of these are out of order in an average day from vandalism, or other reasons.

Of a total of about 76,000 kiosks in the United Kingdom, 54,000 have been fitted with strengthened equipment. The number out of order for any reason in an average day is not known.

When will the new vandal-deterring kiosks be the norm throughout the country? What evidence is there that they significantly deter vandalism?

I cannot say when the process of replacement will be completed. It will inevitably take a considerable time. I said that there was a total of 76,000 kiosks. About 4,000 of the new, improved design are in operation, so it will clearly take some time before the programme can be completed. The recent figures show a reduction in the number of incidents, but it is difficult to read too much into them, because over a period of time they tend to fluctuate.

As my right hon. Friend has agreed that vandalism is a serious problem is it not rather ridiculous that he cannot give an estimate of the number of kiosks out of order on an average day? Surely, it must be possible to give some indication. Does not he agree that one way to reduce vandalism is to have public telephone kiosks in sheltered places, and that the foyer of a multi-storey block of flats would obviously be an ideal place? Will he reconsider the question whether we can help to reduce vandalism and improve the service to the public by having more kiosks in such blocks?

As I said in answer to a previous question, it is a matter for the owners of premises to negotiate direct with the Post Office. I cannot give my hon. Friend the information about the number of telephone boxes out of order because of vandalism or for any associated reasons on an average day.

Why not?

Because it is a vast problem involving the collection of statistics, which it would be out of proportion to seek to have supplied to my Department. Surely my hon. Friend agrees that the best cure for such attacks on the property of the community is improved educational and local community services, to ensure that youths or others do not perpetrate such crimes.

Will the Minister consider advising the Post Office to place a notice on all telephone kiosks pointing out that interference with the telephone could cost a human life? Is he aware that I believe that many people destroy telephones for kicks, and that if the facts of life were brought home to them by such a notice they might be prevented from doing this?

In the light of the questions put to me today I will certainly discuss with the Post Office ways in which it can take account of the views of hon. Members and improve the safeguards it operates against vandalism.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received from the BBC concerning the screening of road safety films on television.

None, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these excellent road safety films shown on Independent Television perform a useful public service? Will he make representations to the BBC asking it to show the films too, so that they get a wider audience?

The BBC broadcasts specific notices which are required for public information but it does not normally repeat advertisements or notices, of whatever kind, which appear on the commercial channel.

Why not? Is not the entire question of public information broadcasting one which needs debating in a committee of inquiry? Is it not absurd that we should have to depend on the commercial channel for public information of this sort?

It is a matter of the purchase of peak viewing time. The BBC makes use of many public service announcements as "fillers" outside peak times. It takes the view that its peak time is better devoted to other purposes. Advertising space on ITV is purchased by the various Departments concerned to ensure that a certain message receives maximum attention.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this subject? Is he aware that his first answer might seem unconvincing to some who are aware that this House considers that identical party political broadcasts should be carried on both channels? There might be those who consider that road safety should receive equally important treatment.

Under the licence and the agreement with the BBC the Government can already require the corporation to broadcast announcements whenever requested to do so by any Minister in the Government. It would be carrying that procedure considerably further if we were to require the corporation also to carry full-scale advertisements. I will certainly consider these matters.

asked the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications if he will dismiss the Chairman of the Post Office Board for failing to carry out his statutory duty regarding the provision of a reliable telephone service.

No, Sir.

Will my right hon. Friend accept that the Chairman of the Post Office Board will find that a most reassuring reply? Is he aware that in certain rural parts—and this is since Christmas, of which we have certain memories—telephone communications have been out of commission one day in eight, which is not at all satisfactory? Is he further aware, to refer to correspondence, that the Post Office is using as an excuse for non-delivery of letters within my constituency the suggestion that the letters contained invoices which suppliers did not wish to pay, and that therefore those letters were lost? Does he realise that the Post Office is now recommending that a recorded delivery service should be used to overcome this difficulty.

I am aware of many of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend refers, and also his personal experience in this matter, for which I am extremely sorry. As he knows, these issues are the direct responsibility of the Post Office. I am sure that it is doing its best to provide a satisfactory service.

Instead of spending so much time talking about vandal-proof telephone boxes, will the Minister fix a target date by which everyone in this country can have a telephone, as is the case in some other countries?

This is one of the main objectives behind the substantial additional borrowing permission which the House has authorised for the Post Office. It will develop from the improvement in exchange equipment, plans for which are now well advanced.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to institute a study of the methods used for the cancellation of letters and postcards.

No, Sir. This is a management matter for the Post Office.

Does the Minister not agree that having paid for a postcard and the postage a person is justifiably annoyed when the method of cancellation adopted by the Post Office incorporates advertising material which defaces the written message on that card? Does he not consider there is a case for the Post Office and the card manufacturers reserving the top 1½ inches of a postcard so that people writing a message may keep clear of that area?

I am sure that the Post Office will take heed of the views of the hon. Gentleman. If he has any specific point that he would like to bring directly to the attention of the Post Office perhaps he will do so.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he has any further plans for the development of cable television; and if he will make a statement.

I am considering the proposals, published this morning, of the Cable Television Association for the development of cable services. I shall be glad to consider comments from any organisation that wishes to offer them.

Is my hon. Friend aware that any extension of television services resulting in a multiplicity of views and a move away from the situation whereby people have to listen to the two BBC channels and only limited competition would be welcomed by the public, and that half the complaints would disappear?

The development of cable television, particularly at a local level, would provide for a wide range of viewing choice.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that quantity is not necessarily a substitute for quality?

I agree that quality is entirely another matter, but I think it might be helpful to give as great a freedom of choice to the viewers as can be devised technically.

Is not the development of cable television again one of those subjects which should be considered by a committee of inquiry? It is no substitute for public discussion of the use of technical developments of this sort for the public to be told that the Minister will take their views into account in a private document.

The Minister must very properly take into account the views of interested organisations and individuals in the development of any new means of communication, whether for entertainment or other purposes, but this, at the end of the day, depends upon decisions by the Government, and the Government will put their proposals before the House.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now make a statement indicating when BBC television viewers in the North-West may now expect to view the BBC regional programmes transmitted from Manchester in colour.

I have nothing to add to my reply of 8th February to the hon. Member.—[Vol. 850, c. 188.]

Has the Minister observed that over 1 million television viewers in the area of Greater Manchester, North-West Yorkshire and North Derbyshire are denied the opportunity of seeing their regional programmes in colour because of a dispute dating back to August last year, which has now developed Gilbertian proportions? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these programmes are filmed in colour and that at 10 minutes to 6 o'clock each evening somebody throws a switch and the viewer sees his picture in black and white? If the BBC has difficulty in persuading its staff to accept its views on this issue, will the Minister use his power to get both sides to agree to an impartial arbitrator to make a decision?

Naturally, I am anxious for the dispute to be resolved quickly. Discussions have been taking place, and I understand that a meeting with the Association of Broadcasting Staff is to be held this week.

Without in any way detracting from the view of the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris), may I ask the Minister whether he will bear in mind, before settling the problem of some people who cannot see colour programmes, that in other parts of the country, particularly in my constituency, viewers would be very grateful to have programmes in black and white or in colour in a language which they understand, because at peak viewing periods all the television programmes in my constituency are in Welsh?

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that earlier this afternoon I published a White Paper which announced, among other things, the establishment of an independent study of coverage in rural parts of England. No doubt the study will wish to take the right hon. Gentleman's views into account.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what further strike action has been threatened by civil servants deprived of pay increases.

Members of the CPSA employed in some Departments have started selective strikes and have stepped this up today. Departments are arranging to carry on as much essential business as possible. There will inevitably be some inconvenience to the public, which the Government regret.

Has my hon. Friend considered what he should do in preparation for phase 2, and how he proposes to disseminate information as to the advances in pay which will be allowable to the Civil Service generally, because there is widespread ignorance on this topic? Does my hon. Friend recall, for example, my recent petition from the Inland Revenue in Worcestershire showing that the great majority of the civil servants employed had no knowledge of phase 2 and did not know to what they were entitled?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. We have given as much publicity as we could to the fact that as from 1st April all members of the Civil Service will be eligible for the guideline in phase 2—namely, £1 plus 4 per cent., with an upper limit of £250. For many civil servants that represents an increase of between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent.

What precisely are the Government telling those civil servants who say that the Government have gone back on Priestley? What is the hon. Gentleman's present attitude on Priestley?

I made it clear in Committee upstairs. On the first occasion on which we negotiated with the Civil Service unions—Easter 1971—we made it clear that we would accept Priestley but that the acceptance had to be subject to any overriding national policy, and that is what the Government have introduced.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this type of selective strike in various ports, quite often by just one person—which is what has happened, apparently in Great Yarmouth today—is not only putting out of work Customs and Excise people who are not striking but is threatening to close the whole port and put many other people out of work in an area already fairly hard hit by unemployment?

My hon. Friend is quite correct. Only a few hundred are on strike today, but they are at fairly strategic points. The Departments have a duty to try to ensure that essential tasks are carried out in these difficult circumstances.

Several points baffle civil servants. Can the hon. Gentleman explain to them how it was that at the time of the last election the Conservative Party supported a claim by doctors for £30 a week extra, on the ground that negotiations had taken place and that the increase should be implemented, whereas the Conservative Government are not prepared to honour the negotiating procedure and machinery to which civil servants have been tied since time immemorial? Civil servants cannot understand this difference in attitude. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain it?

It is not from time immemorial. As I have said, in our very first negotiations we made our position clear—that we would accept Priestley, but that it must be subject to any overriding national policy.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what percentage of civil servants is covered by incremental scales.

Seventy-eight per cent. overall: 98 per cent. of non-industrial civil servants.

Does not that answer indicate that while civil servants feel that they have a grievance over the interference with their previous negotiating arrangements they also enjoy a privilege under the incremental scale which the vast bulk of industry does not enjoy? Is not this a factor which the civil servants should recognise?

It is a feature of phases 1 and 2 that increments payable to civil servants will continue to be paid. The reason for that is that increments have been part of the salary system since the middle of the last century and recognise age and experience in the post. I agree that this is not a very common practice in private industry, but a report published on Friday showed about 2 million employees in the private sector are also getting their incremental scales.

Was it Sir Louis Petch's idea to write that letter?

Yes.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will send a communication to all civil servants countermanding Sir William Armstrong's recent letter, in view of the resentment felt by many civil servants at the implied threats contained in this letter.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will send a communication to all civil servants withdrawing the threat of possible victimisation contained in the third paragraph of Sir William Armstrong's recent message.

No, Sir. I do not accept that the message contains or implies any threat of victimisation.

Is it not quite disgraceful that Sir William Armstrong, as the senior civil servant, should have got himself involved in an industrial dispute of this kind? Surely, if the Government had felt that such a letter to civil servants was necessary, it should have been signed by the Prime Minister, or at least by the hon. Gentleman?

It was Sir William's idea to send the letter and it had the full support of all the Ministers concerned with the Civil Service. I see nothing wrong, in a situation in which trade unions communicate with their members, with the Head of the Civil Service writing to all members of the staff.

The average civil servant considers Sir William Armstrong to be the voice of the Civil Service in the Cabinet and in the Government. Will the hon. Gentleman remind Sir William that civil servants do not want to see him change his rôle and become the Government's voice in the Civil Service?

I reject that implication That was not the idea behind the letter at all. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Sir William was also writing not just to those who were on strike, or were likely to strike on 27th February, but to many hundreds of thousands of civil servants who did not strike.

But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that there is some conflict here between the rôle of the Head of the Civil Service doing his job in the Civil Service and his rôle as economic adviser to the Government, which he now seems to be, on matters of pay and prices? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it causes some resentment amongst those suffering from this multiplicity of rôles?

The hon. Gentleman is referring to a letter from Sir Louis Petch, which was sent to the staff of Customs and Excise on Friday. There have been discussions today. Sir Louis reminded the staff that they have to discharge certain duties laid upon them by the House of Commons and that it is his responsibility to ensure that those statutory obligations are carried out.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service why staff who were absent on Tuesday 27th February were asked to give the precise reasons for their absence on a form which is to be attached to their personal files.

When staff are away, Departments need to know the reason, particularly for purposes of pay. Absence on uncertificated sick leave, for instance, might be expected to involve filling in a form. This is a matter for Departments but most of them have not asked those known to be on strike to complete a form.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is evidence that members of the Civil Service who were out on strike on 27th February have been asked to give reasons and to provide the information on a form which has a certain code on it, and that the code implies that the information will be transferred to their personal files?

A very good thing.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that this will not be done, since it would amount to discrimination and victimisation?

Members of the Civil Service on strike on 27th February, or thought to be on strike by their Departments, have been asked for the information because their pay had to be stopped for that day. The record is being kept on their pay records and pay files. In nearly all cases in the Civil Service, this is not the same as the personal records file.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that there will be no victimisation?

There will be no victim—may I say this? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The House will appreciate that if action has taken place of intimidation and that sort of thing—of which I am glad to say I have had no reports at all—I can assure the House that the civil servants who went on strike today or on 27th February will lose one day's pay or pay for as many days as they are out on strike, and that also means that they will lose the pension entitlement that that day or days would have earned.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will now take steps to implement the recommendations of the Select Committee on Members' Interests (Declaration) of 4th December 1969; and what discussions he is having to ascertain the feasibility of establishing a compulsory public register of Members' outside financial interests.

I have nothing further to add at this stage to the Written Answer which I gave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on 19th February. Discussions on this matter are continuing. [Vol. 851, c. 14.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate when these discussions will be concluded? Will he, in the course of the discussions, direct his attention to the recent proposals put to the West German Parliament about a code of conduct for its members? Will he provide time for a debate on the report, which has now been before the House for nearly two-and-a-half years? The situation is extremely unsatisfactory. Hon. Members who have nothing to hide will not take objection to the compulsory public register for which I am asking.

I do not feel that the British Parliament will necessarily want to be guided by what other Parliaments are doing in making up its own mind on the issue, but of course I will consider what the German Parliament is doing. I think that it would be sensible now to proceed with the discussions that have been going on in both the Conservative and the Labour Parties and, I think, in the Liberal Party, and that they should be brought to a conclusion before much longer. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is keen that the vast majority of hon. Members should be protected in the way he thinks necessary, and I am certain that a good many others share his concern. It would be for the convenience of the House if we could come to a decision on all this before very much longer.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that if this public register is introduced it should cover not only Members of Parliament but local councillors throughout the country?

That is a rather wider question, for which I am not certain I have responsibility. Certainly, I believe that the reputation of Parliament in this respect is extremely high and that the main purpose of any register would be to see that hon. Members were given proper protection against some of the imputations made against them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider adding to this potential public register all those other lobbyists operating within the precincts of Parliament, including journalists?

That is a much wider question, and one which requires a good deal of consideration. Members of the Parliamentary Lobby have told me that they believe that they should be included in some such register. I think that we had better see how the consultations between Members of Parliament go before we proceed further on that course.

Will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that a wide variety of business and professional men in the House earn their living outside the House by a variety of professional means, and that they include notably, authors?

Yes. What is more, I think that the House would be very much the poorer place if they were not here.

During the consultations which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned, will he seek to establish the principle that it is wrong for the Government to be able to practise their patronage by giving thousands of pounds to back benchers on both sides of the House and to use their influence in the appointment to Government-sponsored jobs, whereby many back benchers hold appointments and receive large amounts of money handed out by the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman seek an opportunity to stop this practice?

The answer to that is a firm, "No". I also strongly reject the imputations in what the hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales on how many sites in Wales toxic chemicals have been deposited by firms contracting to dispose of them.

This information is not at present available but the Welsh Office, in co-operation with local authorities, is making a full survey of all waste disposal sites, including those where toxic chemicals may have been deposited. I hope the results of this survey will be available later this year.

May I express the hope that a code of practice for the clumping of chemicals will be drawn up to avoid environmental damage such as that caused by the careless dumping of such chemicals in the past?

I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend and I are equally concerned about the case he has raised and the matter in general.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in view of the recommendation of the Monopolies Commission in 1969 and British membership of the EEC, he will now seek to end or modify the tied house system.

I would ask the hon. Member to await the outcome of the consideration by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the Report of the Erroll Committee.

We have been waiting for that for a long time. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of free houses is getting less, the number of tied houses is getting more, and the number of licensees being replaced by managers is increasing? The Government are giving the impression that they want to murder the traditional English pub.

All these matters will be taken into consideration by my right hon. Friend. However, as the Erroll Committee reported only in December and covered a very wide range of matters, I do not think that the delay has been unreasonable.