asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will announce the criteria which will determine his allocation of the fourth national television channel.

The prior question is whether the fourth channel should be allocated at all at the present time. The criterion is what is in the best interest of the public as a whole.

Will the Minister accept that I agree entirely with that answer? In the regrettable event of his deciding to allocate the fourth channel, Will he undertake to publish a Green Paper setting out the Government's view of the various alternatives before any final decision is taken?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, no final decision has been taken. That is the purpose of the reference in the White Paper to the fact that the whole question is the subject of a separate study. I cannot be specific at present about the exact form in which conclusions will be presented to Parliament.

Will my right hon. Friend assure me that when the Commission which is dealing with this subject considers matters in relation to Wales it will hear the views not only of the vociferous minority but also of the ordinary public, as well as of the broadcasting organisations, which have their own axes to grind?

There is a later Question on the subject of the terms of reference of the study group which will look into matters in relation to Wales. In so far as its study will take it into considering possible applications of the fourth channel, that is one thing. The position about the future of the fourth channel is a separate matter, which is reserved and is outwith the broad terms of the study group.

Does not the Minister accept that, although it is important that all sections of Welsh opinion be heard as to the allocation and the arrangement for the fourth channel in Wales, some arrangement is nevertheless needed, perhaps more urgently than in England, to ensure that both English- and Welsh-speaking Welshmen have justice in their own land?

Having made a decision to set up a study group to consider specifically the broadcasting needs and the existing plans for areas such as the Principality, it is right to allow that study to proceed. It will be taking into account all sections of opinion and not those related exclusively to one interest.

If the right hon. Gentleman believes in open government at all there should be no hesitation on his part in declaring that there will be a Green Paper. Will he go further and state that he will hold a public inquiry into the possible allocation of the fourth channel? Will he at least confirm today that he will be prepared to publish any evidence that is presented to him to assist him to arrive at his conclusion?

There is nothing to prevent anybody who wishes to bring views to my attention about the fourth channel from making those views public. I hope that such a person will do so. I see no difficulty about that. However, that must be a matter for the organisation or the individual presenting views to me for this purpose. I have made it clear that Parliament will be given an opportunity to consider a number of matters which were specifically reserved for this purpose in the terms of the White Paper before Parliament was invited to take a decision about extending the franchises for the future of the BBC and the IBA for five years. I cannot be specific about the exact form that that will take until my own studies of all these matters are further advanced.

The Minister has had a good deal of time to reflect on this matter, even since the publication of his White Paper. Why is he still being so dogmatic? He is being as dogmatic about the question of the Green Paper as he was about the public inquiry. What is his contribution going to be towards open government?

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman waits and sees.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what major investment decisions are under consideration by his Department at the present time; and whether he will make a statement.

i am currently engaged in the annual review of the Post Office's investment programme for the next five years. I am also considering Post Office proposals for the modernisation of large local telephone exchanges.

Is the Minister aware that the current discussion on cable television clearly shows the need for a national telecommunications policy and the introduction into Britain of an integrated telecommunications network?

My studies on cable television are leading me to take account of the views which have been put forward in a recently published document by the Cable Television Association. I will then seek the views of many other interested parties, including the broadcasting authorities and the Press. At this stage it is early to talk about the development of a national cable television system. It is more likely that this will grow naturally out of the extension of local television broadcasting.

Do the major investment decisions envisage the certainty that postal charges will go up in the very near future?

No. The whole question of the Post Office's investment plans are currently being studied, and the nature of those decisions will appear in the White Paper on Public Expenditure later this year.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many old persons' homes licences have been issued for each of the past three years; and how many elderly people have benefited from this scheme.

In December 1972 there were 7,994 licences in force, under which 172,075 retired people benefited. I will, with permission, circulate the figures for the two previous years in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Have the Government any intention of extending the concessionary television licence to every old-age pensioner throughout the country? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is tremendous dissatisfaction amongst those old-age pensioners who do not qualify for this concession? Will he take a progressive step forward himself and, as a temporary measure, grant to married couples living on their pensions a licence at 50 per cent. of the present rate and to the single pensioner living on his own a licence costing not more than £2 a year?

As the hon. Gentleman will recollect, the Government's view on this matter has already been announced. Although there may be a degree of satisfaction in moving in the direction which he has suggested, to exempt all old-age pensioners entirely from paying licence fees would cost about £25 million.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that many old people, particularly in my constituency, would appreciate, as much as a reduction in the fee, the chance to receive the service of their choice? Are we to read my right hon. Friend's proposal for a commission to study this matter as a delay in any efforts to resolve the territorial problems of frequencies?

My hon. Friend is asking a question about another matter.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what further steps he has taken to give publicity to the reasons for his decision not to alter the present system of television licence fees.

None, Sir. The reasons for my decision are well known.

May I remind my right hon. Friend that on 12th March he said that he would try to give further publicity to the fact? Does he not agree that what the present system needs is not more publicity, but reformation? Is he aware of the widespread dissatisfaction at the present television and broadcasting licensing system, and will he not take the initiative and put forward some proposals for an alternative system?

I have no proposals to put forward at present. I recognise that the present system gives rise to a number of difficult situations, particularly affecting special categories of persons. I am sure, however, that my hon. Friend recognises the need to devise a system which is not too expensive to collect and is reasonably simple to operate.

Will the right hon. Gentleman now accept the reservation of many hon. Members that the regressive nature of the licence fee system generally and not all this beating about the bush about pensioners is at the root of the problem? Will he set up a departmental inquiry to consider the question of the funding of public service broadcasting, which in itself is relevant to questions like the destiny of the fourth channel?

Notwithstanding the last part of the hon. Gentleman's observation, I recognise that this is in itself an extremely important matter, and, as I explained in answer to questions a few days ago, there is no reason why this should not be separately considered.

Will my right hon. Friend make clear that he has not closed his mind to the abolition of the black and white television licence fee and the collection of the revenue in some other way?

My mind is certainly not closed.

My right hon. Friend did not exactly answer the question put to him by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) who asked whether there was a departmental inquiry—I think that is what he said— into the whole question of the abolition of the licence fee? May we have an: assurance that such a thing is being done and that he is working towards the abolition of the licence fee and the raising of revenue in another way?

I must refer my hon. Friend to the debate that we had on this subject a short while ago.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the dissatisfaction that was expressed in all sections of the House during the course of that debate, and that the victory on that occasion was due more to the Whips than to the force of argument presented by the Government Front Bench? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is still considerable feeling in this House that something ought to be done about licence fees for old people? Secondly, will he do as many have suggested and hold a general inquiry into the whole system of financing the public sector of broadcasting? Such an inquiry would be greatly welcomed by both sides of the House.

The views of the Government were clearly expressed during that debate, in which the position held by previous Governments was reiterated, namely, that it is better to attend to the needs of elderly people by payment in cash rather than in kind. So far as that question was invoked in the context of the overall financing of the BBC, I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that there is no doubt where the Government stand.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce the setting up of a British offshore oil drilling capability as recommended in the IMEG Report.

A number of British companies have already announced steps they have taken to enter the field of offshore drilling. Some further possibilities are being discussed with my Department.

Does the Under-Secretary realise that one of the key recommendations of the IMEG Report, published in January of this year, was that British companies ought to get in on the ground floor, so to speak, in offshore drilling for oil and gas? Can he confirm or deny the report by Chapman Pincher which appears on the front page of the Daily Express, that the Government have sold British companies short once again and have given away North Sea oil and gas to another American company?

The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that it was one of the recommendations. The hon. Gentleman may have seen that Mr. Gibson, of the Offshore Supplies Office, told the Aberdeen Offshore Conference two weeks ago that the IMEG recommendation which appeared to be the most difficult is developing as one of the easiest to implement.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is not much point in trying to force oil companies to give more orders to British firms when our own nationalised British Steel Corporation cannot provide the overland as well as the undersea pipes? Will he do what he can to ensure that our steel industry is in a position to take orders which are offered to it on a plate?

Yes, Sir.

Does the Under-Secretary accept that there is grave disquiet throughout the country at the way in which the gas situation, in particular, is now being handled? Will he undertake that when events are clarified he will make a full and frank statement to the House on who has got this company which is to be transferred from Gulf Oil?

Order. I have allowed considerable latitude, but that supplementary question is really about gas and not oil.

The Minister cannot get away with it like that. He has accepted some responsibility, because he has answered a supplementary question. It concerns the North Sea, whether it be gas or oil. Will the Minister tell the House whether a decision has been taken to—

Order. I must adhere to my decision. The Question deals with British offshore oil drilling. We must stick to that. There may be another opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to raise his other question.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I submit that it concerns both gas and oil. Both gas and oil were struck in this instance, and the oil companies are involved—

Order. The Question deals with the British offshore oil drilling capability, and I can allow supplementary questions only arising out of that.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully respect your ruling, but the Question refers to the IMEG Report and, with great respect, I submit that that covered the potentiality of British industry to serve all aspects of North Sea developments.

In fact, the Question is limited to a certain section of the IMEG Report. Perhaps there will be a later opportunity to raise the other matter.

It concerns offshore drilling, Mr. Speaker, and we are asking the Minister, first, whether a decision has been taken already to transfer the Rough gasfield—

Order. Even the Front Bench must obey my ruling.

Reverting to the Minister's answer, in which he spoke of a full and fair opportunity, may we know whether such full and fair opportunity was given to British firms in what has turned out to be the Amoco contract?

As I told the House earlier, the Department and the Government wish to do everything possible to ensure full and fair opportunities for British firms. No decision has yet been made on the transfer of Rough.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your ruling and the answer I received from the Undersecretary of State, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter of the Government's administration of Continental Shelf production and exploration licences on the Adjournment at a suitable time.

Well, at all events, the hon. Gentleman has got away with that.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the order book of the shipbuilding industry.

The recent improvement in shipbuilding orders is welcome. The value of outstanding orders in British yards is probably the highest it has ever been.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this dramatic transformation in the shipbuilding scene reflects great credit on what the Government have done over the past two years? Second, as a good chunk of this work is represented by orders placed provisionally by Maritime Fruit Carriers, has my hon. Friend any news whether these important orders have been confirmed?

It is of particular interest that the order books stand at the record figure of about £1,000 million at the moment. Swan Hunter is negotiating contracts with the Maritime Fruit Carriers group for an initial order for 20 vessels, worth about £150 million. Negotiations are still continuing.

Although the shipbuilding side shows encouraging signs, the picture is not the same in ship repairing, which is closely allied and is usually carried out in the same yards. Does the Minister recognise that there is a severe crisis in ship repairing, with a loss of orders and widespread unemployment developing? What do the Government intend to do about that side of it?

If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question about ship repairing I shall be delighted to answer it.

These orders will take several years to complete. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the cost escalation clauses are adequate?

It is not entirely for the Government to vet the escalation clauses which may be arranged, but they wish to make quite clear that it is essential that orders when placed should be able properly to reflect possible increases in costs.

Does the Minister agree that Clydeside is now playing its full part in achieving this new and increasing output in shipbuilding?

I am delighted to be able to tell the House that Govan Shipbuilders is currently negotiating contracts for four cargo vessels and four bulk carriers, worth over £27 million.

Thanks to the Tories.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the increase in steel prices following the end of the standstill, indicating what will be the largest percentage increase to customers in Eastern Scotland; and whether he has confirmed with the Brussels Commission that the British steel industry will henceforth be operating in compliance with the rules of the European Community.

I understand that the British Steel Corporation will be making an announcement on steel prices later this month. The order made yesterday under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 exempts from control prices charged by producers of products covered by the ECSC Treaty, and my right hon. Friend is so informing the European Commission.

I am grateful for that reply, but it hardly answers the Question. The important question is whether the British Steel Corporation and the private sector are to be allowed, without Government interference, to charge prices which will enable them to obtain the 8 per cent. return on assets which has been set for them as their commercial target, and whether the European Coal and Steel Community, since it has been in communication with the Government, has agreed that the corporation and the private sector are to be allowed to charge the commercial rates which they are required to charge by the rules of the Community.

There are two parts to that question. First, the pricing factors which will be taken into account by both the BSC and the private sector must obviously reflect their desire to be able to get on top of the inflationary spiral. Second, the steel industry is well aware of the treaty obligations which it has to match up to.

Will the hon. Gentleman say specifically whether the corporation's announcement will be made after, or as a result of, consultations with the Government?

The matter is entirely for the corporation.

Has my hon. Friend had any consultations with the corporation on this matter of pricing, and has it intimated to him what it thinks will be its price structure as a result of the decision it will be taking later this month?

The corporation has had consultations with my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, as it normally does about all matters which affect its investment plans.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consultations he has had with the British Steel Corporation regarding the regional policy aspects of siting a steel mini-mill in the Greater Manchester area.

Regional policy aspects of the British Steel Corporation's 10-year development strategy, including the siting of mini-mills, were fully considered in the consultations leading up to my right hon. Friend's statement on the 10-year development strategy for the BSC—[Vol. 848, c. 1576.]

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that since the Government came to power male unemployment in the Greater Manchester area has risen by 63 per cent., that the situation will be seriously aggravated by the forthcoming closure of steel manufacture at Irlam, that the only aid held out by the Government has been one advance factory, described by the Manchester Evening News as a shed, and that the hope of a mini-mill held out by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry last December has been disposed of in the statement made by Lord Melchett at Shelton last week? What will the Government do to bring us some work in Manchester?

The Government have taken more measures to assist the Manchester area and to bring industry to areas of high unemployment than were taken by any previous Government. When he visited Shelton last week the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation said that although Shelton was also a possible site for another electric arc plant it would not be possible at that stage to make any further statement.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government's efforts have so far been singularly unsuccessful and that even if they were able to bring 30,000 new jobs for men to the North-West Region the unemployment level would still be reduced only to the national level, and that if they wished to bring it down to the level in the South-East they would have to bring 65,000 new jobs for men to the North-West? Has the hon. Gentleman grasped the magnitude of the problem facing him there?

Not only do the Government appreciate the problem but they have been taking positive steps to deal with it. The decline in unemployment and the rise in job opportunities in the area are welcome and helpful signs.

Will the Minister clear up the question of the second mini-mill? On 25th January the Minister for Industry made a categoric statement to the House that two mini-mills would be required, one in Scotland and one elsewhere. Last week Lord Melchett said at Shelton that it was not yet clear whether the second mini-mill would be required. Are we to believe Lord Melchett or the Minister for Industry?

May I take this opportunity of making the situation absolutely clear? Perhaps I can remind the hon. Member that it states quite clearly in Command 5226 that

"perhaps two new smaller electric arc steelworks"—

"should be built, one of which should be located in Scotland."

Is the Minister aware that Lord Melchett said that the mini-plant is to go to South Wales? Last week Lord Melchett announced the sacking of 1,600 men at Shelton, and he has made it clear that steel production will end at these works years before any arc furnaces are installed. Is the Minister also aware that these decisions have followed quite clearly from the low steel targets set by the Government and that men in all these areas are looking to the Government to provide alternative work before their jobs disappear?

The hon. Member is talking about the need to enlarge steel-making capacity. If that line were to be adopted there would be a greater redundancy factor, because there would be a move to more modern plant and that would mean even greater closures. In that sense, Labour Members are misleading the country. I do not believe that the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation has stated where the mini-mill intended to be built outside Scotland will be placed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will replace in the Members' Dining Room the remainder of the portraits of distinguished parliamentarians which used to hang there before it was redecorated.

On the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on Works of Arts, portraits for this room are being cleaned and reframed in my Department's studio. The portraits of Palmerston and Pitt the Younger are already back in place; and those of Walpole, Onslow, Speaker Turner and Hansard will be in a week or so. The others will be returned as soon as they are ready.

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the walls facing the window and at each end of the room look very bare at the moment, particularly for visitors who use the room at weekends?

That is something which the advisory committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, South (Mr. Batsford) will certainly consider.

Will the Minister tell us what has happened to the Duke of Devonshire?

I do not think that he ever appeared in this dining room, but if the hon. Member would like to have a self-portrait painted I am sure that that would be considered.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has had any further discussions with representatives of the building societies concerning mortgage interest rates; and if he will make a statement.

Discussions with representatives of the Building Societies Association are still proceeding.

Is the Minister aware that there is a crisis situation on mortgages? A number of building societies have already increased their lending rates to 10 per cent. Will he give an assurance that if any much-needed help is given to the building societies or to borrowers by the Government in the course of the next few days it will be matched by comparable help to council tenants who have already been suffering from the effects of the Housing Finance Act?

Discussions with the representatives of the Building Societies Association are still proceeding. When the hon. Member mentions the Housing Finance Act he should remember the high percentage of take-up of rebates and allowances which has developed and the great benefit this is giving to a large number of low-income families.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation on mortgages in areas like my constituency is extremely serious, and is made the more serious by the policy adopted by my local authority, which is to refuse planning permission to any private development in order to deprive people of the right to buy their own homes?

I have noted the view which my hon. Friend has expressed.

Has the Minister noticed that Sir Stanley Morton, President of the Building Societies Association, said that whatever the Government might propose it is likely that interest rates will go up? Do the Government see that as any reason for being discouraged from making new proposals?

The hon. Member should not invite me to consider hypothetical questions. We must wait and see what happens on 4th April.

When the Chancellor announced a public sector borrowing requirement in excess of £4,400 million in the current year, was it the view of the Department of the Environment that this would have the impact upon building society rates which is now taking place?

I shall certainly note very carefully the implications of my hon. Friend's question and report back to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

In addition to considering the interest rates of building societies' will the Minister also consider the position of finance companies, and what they are doing to people who, unfortunately, are unable to get a mortgage from a building society? In one instance a loan of £1,300 was sought and the building society said the interest charges would be £680 over 10 years. The finance company said that the interest charges for a similar loan would be £1,800 over 10 years. When will the Government do something to stop these sharks from fleecing the public?

In his question the hon. Member illustrates the value of the work done by building societies. The question about finance companies is another matter. I understand very well the hon. Member's anxieties in that respect, and if he puts down a Question I shall be pleased to answer it.

In the Government's discussions with the building societies will they bear in mind that 20 per cent. of the depositors with building societies have no income tax liability, and the 6·3 per cent. rate being offered to them at the moment represents a public fraud, given the rates of interest which are available on the Government's own stocks? In the light of this will my hon. Friend assure the House that nothing will be done by the Government to prevent a proper rate of return being offered to depositors with the building societies?

My hon. Friend left out of account certain considerable advantages which accrue to depositors in building societies—for example, rights of withdrawal, convenience of deposit, security, and similar matters. However, I shall certainly report his other words to my right hon. and learned Friend.

May I declare my interest in this matter as one who has already been clobbered by interest rates and who will be clobbered again, no doubt? Does the Minister realise the seriousness of the situation? A newly married couple will simply not have the opportunity of purchasing their first home if things continue as they are.

Although one or two individual societies have said that they will increase their mortgage lending rates above 8·5 per cent., the Council of the Building Societies Association has not made any recommendation, and we shall have to wait and see what happens on 4th April. I have noted the anxieties expressed by the hon. Member.

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that if a proposal is put forward which might have the effect of relieving people from what appears to be an all-time record in interest rates the Government will not turn their minds against it, and that they have not closed their minds to the problem? Will he make it clear that the Government have open minds on the proposals which might come out of the meeting?

I still have to tell my hon. Friend that it is best for me not to consider hypothetical questions, and that we shall have to wait to see what happens at the meeting on 4th April.

Will the Minister consider what can be done in direct approaches to the Building Societies Association, and will he take account of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. John Silkin), who normally speaks on these matters, said over the weekend? Will he also put it to the Chancellor that it is the Chancellor's direct responsibility, because it is as a result of his Budget that building societies are having to compete at the high levels of interest which they now face for money which the Government are trying to borrow because of the vast Budget deficit?

I shall report to my right hon. and learned Friend the views which have been expressed on both sides of the House.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the Staff Association on Civil Service pay.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member's Question on 19th February.—[Vol. 851, c. 18–19.]

In the discussions with the Civil Service could consideration be given to the position that has developed at Swansea, where the provision of provisional driving licences has been centralised? Is the Department aware of the chaos around the country for those who are applying for provisional licences? Can something be done in the interim, by restoring the old method of providing the licences locally or issuing temporary licences on the cashing of a cheque? Cannot something be done about a very difficult situation?

The reorganisation of the issuing of driving licences is too far advanced to put that whole administrative reform into reverse. The difficulties arose in the past fortnight because of sporadic industrial action, but the reports I have received today show that no civil servants—or hardly any—are continuing that action.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he intends to announce the results of his review of the conditions under which civil servants may taken positions in private firms after their retirement.

My right hon. Friend is answering a Question on this subject today from the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart).

Does not my hon. Friend agree that there could be concern if, after they retired, civil servants approaching retirement age were offered employment by industries for which they now have some responsibility? Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that my right hon. Friend's reply, to which he has referred—which I have not seen—and continuing surveillance will take account of the risk and make sure that it does not occur?

The gist of my right hon. Friend's reply will be that there has been a careful review of the existing rules, that in general we are satisfied that they are working satisfactorily, and that at present, therefore, we have no proposals to alter them. But I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks that the rules will be kept constantly under review.

Will the Minister give an assurance that retired civil servants will not be allowed to take up jobs with firms that are in contractual relations with the Government? There is a good deal of concern in Scotland about the matter. Incidentally, will the hon. Gentleman tell us the latest stage of play with regard to Mr. Pottinger?

The latter point does not concern retired civil servants. It concerns gifts. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I answered several questions on that matter last year. Police inquiries are continuing. The rules are that all officers of the rank of under-secretary and above —that is, down to the third tier from the top in the Civil Service—must obtain the Government's consent before accepting, within two years of retirement, offers of employment in business and other bodies with which their Department or branch of government is in contractual or special relationship. Where the positions held are of a special or technical character, a similar requirement below under-secretary applies. We are satisfied that these rules are fully carried out.

I think that my hon. Friend will agree that in recent years the occasions have been pretty rare when approval has not been granted. Will he assure us that attention is being paid to the evidence that is forthcoming from the Poulson bankruptcy case, including one instance in which it was suggested that an official had left the Ministry of Housing to work for Mr. Poulson and then returned to the Ministry of Housing afterwards? Surely that is a bit much?

The reason why, on retirement, civil servants are allowed to join companies was reinforced by the Fulton Report, which said:

"civil servants do have valuable contributions to make to other areas of our national life; it should be natural for others to wish to employ them."

Now that the Government's policy is in the direction of greater involvement between Government and industry, added impetus is given to the need to watch the position much more carefully than might have been necessary a year or two ago. Is the Minister aware of the great misgivings of a number of people about those senior civil servants who join industry having had previous involvement in the granting of considerable sums of money, as a result of the discretion that civil servants have today? Is a record kept, even after the period of two years, of where senior civil servants have gone, and what kind of employment they have taken?

That would be quite difficult to do. In the case of civil servants who have left the Civil Service it would be difficult, practically, to trace each person's subsequent career. But I shall consider the possibility of placing in the Library details of the specific cases we have had over the past few years, if that will help the hon. Gentleman.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to Question No. 16 for oral answer today. You will recall that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department said that he could not give an answer but could only refer to an answer which was being given to a Written Question from the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart) today.

I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said and will look into it.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if the arrangements made by the Civil Service College for special training for British civil servants concerned with EEC matters are sufficient to meet the needs of Departments.

In the current year there are 12 courses on general EEC matters at the Civil Service College, attended by over 400 civil servants, and a further seven courses on specialist matters, attended by over 200.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the facilities for training civil servants in the affairs of the smaller Community countries, particularly Holland and Denmark?

At present I am not entirely satisfied with the arrangements for the other countries in the Common Market. We are arranging, in the course of this year, further exchanges, particularly with Holland, Italy and Denmark— that is, courses going from those countries to here and back again.

Will my hon. Friend see that those civil servants in our immigration services who deal with EEC nationals entering this country are also given courses, so that we can get rid of our present reputation for being one of the rudest countries that visitors can enter?

I have not heard that criticism before about the conduct of our immigration officers. If my hon. Friend has any evidence that they are being discourteous or over-official I shall be pleased to examine it.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he now expects to publish the report of the Hardman Committee on Civil Service dispersal.

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Mr. Sutcliffe) on 22nd February, we expect to publish the report in due course and to announce decisions on it during the summer, after consultations with staff representatives.—[Vol. 851, c. 173–4.]

When the Government prepare their response to the report, will they bear in mind the long-standing resentment that has been felt in many areas of high unemployment that so many civil servants, whose jobs are generated directly by taxpayers' money, should be concentrated in London? Will he also bear in mind that South Yorkshire is one of the few areas that have not so far benefited from the de-centralisation of Government functions, and that new jobs of this kind would be a welcome offset, in this area, to the present high unemployment, which is a result of its over-dependence on heavy and often declining industry?

Only three out of 10 civil servants work in London. The rest work in the various regions. I give the assurance that Yorkshire and Humberside have been considered, as have all the other regions, by Sir Henry Hardman.

The Yorkshire and Humberside area has one of the lowest proportions of population in the public service in the country. Therefore, if the economy is to be more broadly based in that region it would be a good thing if Government offices were dispersed to a greater extent to Yorkshire and Humberside.

I shall bear my hon. Friend's views in mind.

What criteria will determine the dispersal of Government offices in the provinces and determine what area gets what Departments?

The whole purpose of the Hardman exercise was to balance the gain to the regions of dispersal and the loss to the efficiency of the central Government machine. The criteria that the Hardman Committee considered were the size of the area, whether there were sufficient school leavers to sustain steady recruitment for the Civil Service, the housing situation, and things of that kind.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he is satisfied with the progress made in implementing the report of the Committee on the Employment of Women in the Civil Service.

I am satisfied but not complacent. The Civil Service's treatment of its women employees makes it one of the leading employers in the country in this respect. The recommendations of the committee are being implemented and mean equality of pensions and allowances, more generous maternity leave, and encouragement for women to resume their careers after the early years of marriage. All Departments have been asked to eliminate working arrangements which may hinder the career development of women.

I thank my hon. Friend for that fairly encouraging report. Is he satisfied that women are given the opportunity to reach the upper echelons of the Civil Service, as opposed to the middle and lower ranks?

My hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the announcement on Saturday that Miss Eleanor Emery has been appointed High Commisioner of Botswana. I can assure my hon. Friend that over 300 women have posts in the Civil Service with salaries over £4,000 a year.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will seek to provide a specific time for Oral Questions on London.

I am always willing to consider suggested changes to the Question roster, but I think that alterations such as this should first be examined by the Select Committee on Procedure.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give his blessing to the consideration by the Select Committee of this proposal? Is he aware that it is completely incongruous that London, with a population greater than Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, has no special day allocated for questioning?

I do not think it necessary for me to give my blessing to this proposal. Once we start on this path we shall be on dangerous ground.

Will my right hon. Friend consider allotting a special time for Oral Questions on Cirencester and Tewkesbury?

My hon. Friend has made the point.

asked the Lord President of the Council what has been the average interval of time between the publication of a report from a Select Committee and the publication of the departmental reply; what has been the longest interval in the last two years; and if he will take steps to expedite replies from Government Departments.

Since the Session 1969–70 the average time taken to publish the departmental replies to Select Committee reports was seven-and-a-half months. The longest interval between publication and reply was twenty-two months, which was in the case of a report published in Session 1968–69.

The right hon. Gentleman no doubt knows that some reports are more politically embarrassing to the Government than others. The report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) on the abuse of the National Health Service by private practice has been deliberately delayed by the Department because of the political embarrassment which the report would cause. Is it the case that the reply to that report will be produced tomorrow? Why the delay? Why will the right hon. Gentlement not give a firm direction to all Government Departments to ensure that replies are given in the current Session or within 12 months, whichever is the shorter period?

I reject what the hon. Gentleman has said. The fact is that the reply to the report to which he referred is coming out very shortly. I cannot think that from the point of view of political embarrassment to the Government it would have mattered whether it came out six months ago or six months hence. I am sure that the Government have a very good reply to the report.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is more important to have a report debated in the House than await the Government's reply? Is he aware that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has produced four reports in this Parliament, and that none of them has been debated? Does he agree that that is a serious state of affairs?

I only hope that when we have such debates in the House hon. Members will turn up and take part in them.

asked the Lord President of the Council what is his policy about moving to refer Bills to Second Reading Committees.

The procedure for referring Public Bills to a Second Reading Committee is a useful one; it enables suitable Bills to be accommodated in the legislative programme when time can not be found for them on the Floor.

More in sorrow than in anger, may I rebuke the Lord President for not referring upstairs—it would have been, to use his own definition, a suitable occasion—the agreed measure on the pollution of the North Sea? That measure is one that the right hon. Gentleman wanted when in a previous incarnation as Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It is now wanted by my right hon. Friends. It will not take up very much time. On his own definition, contained within his answer, it is an ideal measure to go upstairs. Why will not he so refer it?

I stand rebuked. I should like to see the Bill taken as quickly as possible by the House either on the Floor of the House or in Second Reading Committee. The difficulty from my point of view is that it is quite a long Bill. The preparation of the Bill is not yet finished. It is always difficult to have Bills available just when we wish to have them. I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said.

The right hon. Gentleman said that it was ready.

No, I did not say that it was ready. I said that the Government would introduce the Bill at the earliest possible moment.

In view of the general dissatisfaction about procedure on Friday afternoons, will my right hon. Friend consider seriously the suggestion that when Bills are introduced to the House under the Ten Minutes Rule the Member in charge of the Bill should have the right to ask for it to be submitted to Second Reading Committee?

I should like to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. My experience is that a good many Bills introduced late on a Friday afternoon tend to be highly controversial. I doubt whether they would find wide acceptance for Second Reading Committee. My hon. Friend's suggestion is something that we can consider.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has now completed his consultations in regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the report from the Select Committee on Members' interests; and if he will make a statement.

The consultations on this matter are still continuing, but will be completed as soon as possible.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that in the last Parliament the Select Committee spent many hours on, and gave much study to, the scrutiny of the evidence and the consideration of the material factors affecting the issue, and thereafter reached a conclusion which was unanimous, except for one hon. Member who failed to survive the General Election? Does my right hon. Friend accept that, without prejudice to the details of draftsmanship, the Select Committee's conclusion should form the general guideline to the further consideration and action which is taken?

Not entirely, because the resolutions reached by the Select Committee were so restrictive that it would have been almost impossible for large numbers of hon. Members on both sides of the House to take part in debates. On 10th February 1971 my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland told the House that he did not feel that they were very suitable. That apart, there are other considerations which my right hon. and learned Friend knows were discussed during the Select Committee's deliberations, which I think the House now feels should have a further airing.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the passing of the two resolutions suggested by the Select Committee would make it easier for many hon. Members to speak in the House, as they are now inhibited by a very vague rule?

I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that I am reconsidering the matter. I agree that this is a matter which, in due course, the House will wish to discuss. I feel that it will be better for the House if there are further consultations within the parties before the matter is debated on the Floor of the House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that virtually all my right hon. and hon. Friends want a compulsory public register containing all the outside financial interests of hon. Members? Such a register would be feasible if it were desired. Anyone who has nothing to hide need have no fear of any such register. The more that the Government procrastinate the deeper are the suspicions of people outside.

I am not going to let the hon. Gentleman get away with the suggestion that the Government are procrastinating. There are many views on this very important matter on both sides of the House. On this occasion, as on some others, the hon. Gentleman would not be right in assuming knowledge of what all his right hon. and hon. Friends wish to do.

In making his review of this important and contentious subject, will my right hon. Friend undertake to grasp the nettle of trade union-sponsored Members, who are explicitly committed to speak for an outside interest which is not necessarily their own constituency?

I think that my hon. Friend has illustrated only too well the need for very careful thought about the way in which we draft any resolution of this nature. It was generally agreed that the resolutions drafted by the Select Committee would have been too restrictive in this respect.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Select Committee's report is quite inadequate to deal with the situation that many of us want to see ended? Does he appreciate that most of us—certainly on the Opposition side of the House—want to see a situation in which Members have imposed upon them no less a standard than that which is imposed upon civil servants? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if it is right that civil servants should not take jobs in industry within two years of leaving their Department, that should go for Ministers, from Parliamentary Secretary level upwards, in that they should not take employment in any private industry which is concerned with matters that they have been dealing with as Ministers, and may be called upon to deal with again as future Ministers?

That is a very different question. What we are all concerned to see is that the good reputation of the House and of its Members is protected from unfair imputations from outside. That, to my mind, would be the main purpose of having any register or any change in the rules as we now have them.