asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage home ownership, in view of the recent increase in mortgage interest rates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to increase home ownership, in view of rising mortgage rates.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage home ownership, in view of the recent increase in mortgage interest.

The best way of encouraging home ownership is to increase still further the number of houses for sale. The measures set out in the White Paper "Widening the Choice: The Next Steps in Housing" will help to ensure an adequate supply of mortgage funds and building land which are essential for a high and stable level of house building.

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that the first priority should be to encourage home ownership. What is the latest position on private sector starts, to the latest convenient date? Is he sure that the proposals in the White Paper will produce enough land? Does he feel that the building societies themselves are assisting the Government's aim of encouraging home ownership, especially for those who have never previously owned their own homes?

On the last part of that question, discussions have begun with the building societies and I am sure that they will be carried out helpfully and cooperatively. As for the other parts of the question, I believe that the steps proposed in the White Paper will ensure an adequate supply of building land being available. As for the number of private housing starts, if the rate of the last three months, from December 1972 to February 1973, were projected at an annual rate, we would have over 250,000 private starts this year.

The county elections, of course, are now over. What will the Minister do if, as is still possible, building societies increase their lending rate to 10 per cent. at their next meeting?

It is a long-established rule in the House that one does not answer hypothetical questions.

What steps is the Minister taking to encourage public sector house building? Does he not think that the whole process would be encouraged if he compelled councils to sell their houses to willing buyers?

We give every encouragement to local authorities to sell their own houses and I strongly support them in doing so. I hope that the Government will not be driven to taking compulsory steps, because the management of their housing stock is one for local authorities themselves. But I must say that my patience is sorely tried by the activities of some local authorities. As to the question of encouraging the public sector, I had a meeting yesterday with some of the local authority associations to discuss a number of matters. As I have made plain again and again in this House, I am anxious that in areas of housing stress there should be an active public sector house building programme.

Has the Minister considered the establishment of a Government building society in order to pump in money provided by the Government and attract money for the Government, so as to bring down interest rates? What precise plans has he if the rate goes up to 10 per cent. as my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) suggested?

I do not think we need assume that it will go up to 10 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman was being uncharacteristically pessimistic. So far, I see no evidence of the need for a Government building society. There seem to be enough building societies already.

Has my hon. Friend any ideas on the supply of land for self-build groups? Does he recognise that they, at least, can produce houses without putting a strain on the building industry, which is one of the bottlenecks in the further provision of houses?

I am very keen on self-build groups. They provide only a small number of houses at present, but I will consider what my hon. Friend says to see whether there is any way in which they can be further helped. This is really up to the local authorities.

Would not the best way of helping owner-occupiers be to keep down the soaring cost of building land? Would not the most effective way of doing that be by the public acquisition of land at its existing use value, as farmland or waste land, instead of at the enormously inflated market value that it acquires once planning or building permission is given?

No, I cannot agree. The hon. Member's proposals would cost the country hundreds, if not thousands, of millions of pounds. They would be wholly impracticable and would fail to achieve their aim. What is essential is that there should be an adequate supply of building land, so that houses can be built on it. If that is done, it will stabilise the price of both houses and land.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement about Government aid to ease the special financial problems of the great cities.

I have nothing to add to the reply given by my right hon. and learned Friend to a similar question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) on 6th March.—[Vol. 852. c. 94–6.]

Is the Minister aware of the anger felt by the people of Manchester at the Government's failure to make an adequate contribution towards paying for services provided by the city of Manchester to hundreds of thousands of people who do not live in the city but use those services and who do not contribute towards their cost? Is he further aware of the anger of the people of Manchester at having to pay an increased rate in order to cover the cost of Government legislation of which they disapprove, such as the Housing Finance Act? When will the Minister take some action to help us, instead of just waffling complacently?

The hon. Gentleman appears not to appreciate the purpose of the rate support grant, which is a global figure arranged with the local authorities, in November or thereabouts each year for the following year, so that local authorities may have freedom to decide on what they spend their money and need not ask the taxpayer or ratepayer for more. It is reasonable for the Government to ask them to keep within that estimated expenditure.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in any case, 60 per cent. of local government revenue comes from the central Exchequer, and that if there is any problem, it is surely a problem of the rating system itself, which is illogical, unfair and out of date?

I would not go so far as that. The contribution from the taxpayer is substantial. It is, after all, worked out by agreement with the local authority associations.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the city of Manchester is in a rather special position? Has he observed that, as a result of the fall in population and the elimination of the rate resources element, it is estimated that Manchester has lost £1·9 million during the period 1972–73? Will he reconsider this problem and give some relief to the burdened ratepayers of the city?

The problem of Manchester is not unique. We are taking account of the problems of the large cities in considering a new formula on which to distribute the rate support grant, which I hope will shortly be put before the House in new legislation.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he now expects to announce a decision about the future of the special environmental assistance scheme Operation Eyesore.

I hope to announce my decision shortly.

Is the Minister aware that I make no apology for raising yet again the urgent need to extend Operation Eyesore beyond 30th June? This is the third time that he has given me this reply. Is he aware that some nervous local authorities have already stopped accepting new Eyesore projects, cutting the scheme from 17 to 14 months? Are not the work forces engaged on Eyesore projects in local authorities entitled to know now what the future holds for them?

I appreciate the concern expressed by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members. It has been a very popular and worthwhile scheme, but it was announced as a short-term measure and it must be regarded in that light at present.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend remember, in consultations with his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Scotland, that this scheme has been of particular value to those parts of the country which were disfigured by the Industrial Revolution of the past and whose environment has suffered disfigurement through the operations of our older industries?

That is certainly true. I am sure that it has been a very valuable scheme and has served the purpose for which it was introduced.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of Early Day Motion No. 267, in my name and the names of a number of hon. Members representing constituencies in the North West, from both sides of the House, regarding the need to continue this scheme for a further 12 months?

As this feeling is so widespread, will the Minister give a very sympathetic answer at an early date?

I shall certainly bear in mind the views expressed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his proposals for dealing with those property developers making substantial profits from house improvement grants.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the Committee on Housing Improvement Grants.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the Committee on Housing Improvement Grants.

My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet completed his comprehensive review of policy on older housing, which includes improvement grant policy. A statement will be made as soon as possible.

Does not the Minister agree that a problem exists here and that there is a scandal which needs to be dealt with? In so far as there is the scandal of profiteering and speculation, nothing, or very little, is being done to solve the housing problem for which the housing improvement grant scheme was instigated. In view of that, will the Minister take urgent steps to deal with this matter as expeditiously as he can?

The hon. Gentleman slightly exaggerates the position. I think it would be common ground throughout the House that the improvement grant scheme has been a major step forward in improving our older and obsolescent housing, and the ghastly conditions of many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people who have to live in appalling housing conditions.

I agree that there is a problem, but the hon. Gentleman exaggerates its importance.

On the subject of scandals, is not the real scandal in this context the fact that housing grants are limited to only £1,000 and that from the point of view of the Government it would be a far better investment if the limit were at least doubled, in order to induce an even greater number of people to improve their house properties, thereby increasing rateable values and lessening the burden on the central taxpayer?

I note my hon. Friend's view. Very few improvement grants come anywhere near the present £1,000 limit.

Is the Minister aware that his reply will disappoint thousands of people throughout the country and, more particularly, those in areas such as mine, in inner London? Does he really understand the racket that is going on in conversion and improvement grants in inner London? Does he know about the squatting problem, and the difficulties of squatters? Did he read in the Press this morning about the eruption of violence in my constituency arising out of this problem? Does he know about the problems of evictions, and of youngsters seeking a home in Camden Town, where a one-bedroomed flat costs £12,750? Does he know about the problems of teachers and other workers who are searching for the last few furnished tenancies which are available in inner London? Does not the Minister appreciate—

Order. That is quite a good go.

Will the Minister consider—

Order. I think that the Minister already has enough for consideration on his plate.

I am well aware of the problems that exist in the stress areas of our big cities, and, in particular, in inner London—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will do me the courtesy of listening to the answer, as he put such a long question, he will have noted that the White Paper just published promised that the Government's proposals will be brought forward following a review of the policy on older housing.

If improvement grants were included in assessing liability for income tax, those who need it most would receive it at practically no deduction and those who need it least would pay a heavy rate of tax on what they receive, would they not?

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

Returning to the Minister's reply, is not he fully aware that we are opposed not to housing improvement grants when they are being properly used but to the callous indifference shown by property speculators to the people living in those properties in trying to get them out by any means that they can and thus make substantial profits? Already throughout London, in spite of the inquiry that is taking place, properties are being bought up and left to remain empty for weeks and weeks at a time. There are 100,000 empty properties in London. When will the Minister do something about it?

I had a meeting with the hon. Gentleman's borough on this very topic yesterday. We discussed the problem of empty houses. I made it perfectly clear that I hoped local authorities would make the best use of their own properties and that in cases where private people were blatantly leaving their properties empty for long periods my right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider a compulsory purchase order.

I must point out, however, that if there is this great scandal about improvement grants in inner London it is the boroughs themselves which make the improvement grants.

In view of what my hon. Friend has said, will he encourage local authorities in areas where there is acute housing shortage to purchase such premises and make use of improvement grants to provide extra housing much more quickly than would otherwise be done?

As always, my hon. Friend has made a most helpful and useful suggestion.

Why does the Minister have to wait until he has completed this review, for which we have been waiting so long? Does not he agree that at least two points can now be clearly accepted by all of us? On the one hand, there is abuse in certain areas in London, and possibly elsewhere in the country, to which my hon. Friends have been referring, and, on the other, large areas of landlord-owned twilight property are not being tackled. Does the Minister agree that that is so? If he does, in order to tackle both problems will he accept the recommendation of the Layfield Report and the policy which has been advocated by the London Labour Party, of a massive takeover of these properties by municipalities, in order to get the job done?

I should be much more inclined to accept the Layfield Report than the advice of the London Labour Party. The wholesale policy of municipalisation suggested by the Labour Party would not add one house to the housing stock. What the White Paper promised was that we would bring forward proposals for housing stress areas following the review of older housing policy. If the Opposition will promise us the time to complete it by the end of the summer, that will be a great help.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what communications he has received concerning the construction of a strategic lorry park, the construction of a related link road and the widening of existing roads in North Portsmouth; what replies he has sent; and whether he will make a statement.

I have received from the hon. Member a petition from local residents. On the siting of a lorry park, I cannot usefully add to my right hon. Friend's reply given to a similar Question from the hon. Member on 7th February 1973.

Will the Under-Secretary take an early opportunity to come with me to see for himself the rape of the living communities of Portsmouth by the totally unnecessary and disruptive road building? In keeping with the Report of the Public Expenditure Committee on Urban Transport, will he urge the city council of Portsmouth fundamentally to think again about its road building programme and to improve its public transport system with park-and-ride schemes?

Further, will the Under-Secretary now tell his special working party on strategic lorry parks that, unless the Ministry of Defence can make the firing range at Tipnor available, there can be no strategic lorry park on the already overcrowded Portsea Island?

The last part of the question is a matter for my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As to the first part, at this stage it is for the Portsmouth City Council to proceed. I have today written a very full letter to the hon. Gentleman explaining the position. I do not think that it is my job to tell the city council what it should or should not do about its own road schemes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he sets before allowing local authorities to sell council houses at 30 per cent. below market value.

I am prepared to authorise sales at up to 30 per cent. below unrestricted market value in cases where the local authority can show that there have been substantial rises in the market value of their houses. Sales on this basis have to be accompanied by resale conditions for a period of eight years and costs have to be covered.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that one of the criteria on which the Greater London Council approached the Minister's Department to have the percentage reduction increased to 30 per cent. was the difficulty of selling housing on certain estates? In view of the stress conditions of inner London, is it not scandalous that the pool of housing which produces 12,000 vacancies a year to deal with the problems of the area is being dissipated in this way?

No. The hon. Gentleman should take account of the varying aspirations of people in housing matters. Local authorities should be prepared to sell to tenants who want to buy and are able to do so, and should at the same time build or otherwise provide accommodation to meet the needs of those needing houses to let.

Is my hon. Friend prepared to apply the same criteria in the case of new towns, where there may equally well be conditions in which a 30 per cent. discount would be highly suitable?

The circumstances in new towns are rather different, and the requirement that houses should not be sold below cost does not allow much scope in the respect that my hon. Friend has raised.

There is a blockage here. Does not the Under-Secretary agree that we are very concerned, not only with the total housing condition but with the supply of rented accommodation? Is he aware that the supply of private rented accommodation is continually declining and that both starts and completions of public rented accommodation are lower than they have been for 10 years? In those circumstances, not only to allow but, indeed, to encourage the sale of badly needed rented property is a disastrous policy.

The difference I have with the right hon. Gentleman in this respect is that the tenant who wishes to buy is not normally prepared to live elsewhere. It therefore follows that one meets his aspirations by allowing him to acquire the family asset—the house he lives in.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the adequacy and effectiveness of existing controls on the safety of car seat belts that are sold and fitted expressly for use by children.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to make the public aware of the legal requirement only to install in cars children's seats and belts that are of a design and standard approved by the British Standards Institute.

I am satisfied that child seat belts approved to the British Standard are effective and that the law is right in permitting only such belts to be installed for safety purposes in cars. I am considering how best to supplement recent publicity about the sale and use of belts not so approved.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of the utmost gravity, in which many traders are unwittingly in breach of the Trade Descriptions Act by attributing safety properties to these harnesses which they do not have, and that parents are lulled into what turns out to be a false sense of security about their children by using belts which are not adequately fitted, as has been proved in recent tragic accidents? Will my right hon. Friend please reconsider this question very urgently, as a matter concerning the health and safety of thousands of children?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and hope that further publicity will result from what she has just said. The difficulty is that we are dealing with two kinds of appliance—one to restrain the child, to keep it from moving about in the car, and the other to protect it. The standards applied to the latter are those which are intended for the purposes of safety, and those which have a British Standard are safe and reliable. The other ones are the traps, when it is represented by retailers that they fulfil a purpose for which they were not made.

Does the Minister see any sense in the extremely expensive campaign which has been mounted to encourage people to use safety belts, while, as the same time, an additional tax is imposed on their purchase? I refer to value added tax.

The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question is one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Is it not an absurd state of affairs that it is legal to sell harnesses and children's seats which, once fitted in a car, break the law? Will my right hon. Friend have consultations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs to see whether the sale of non-standard belts and seats can be prohibited? Will he give publicity to the regulation about the illegality of fitting non-standard seats and belts?

I shall certainly consider the point my hon. Friend has made. It would be difficult to take overall action to restrain people from employing useful devices which simply keep a child anchored in a car. It is important that parents should be aware when buying these seats that only a limited number— and those are particularly the ones that conform to British Standards—are designed for safety purposes.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received about the working of the rate rebate scheme.

Various representations have been received about the rate rebate scheme, including proposals that its terms should be aligned with those of the scheme of rent rebates and allowances, and that assistance should be available higher up the income scale.

Is the Minister aware that in one inner London borough where the housing association of which I am chairman operates the district valuer has recently fixed rateable values at such a level that the rate payable is more than £4 a week on a large flat and more than £3 a week on a smaller flat—[Interruption.] It is indeed Camden. At that level of rates, does not the Minister realise that the rate rebate scheme is meaningless, even for families with below-average incomes? How does he expect ordinary families to pay that amount of rate? Does it not make a mockery of all the effort now being put into helping low-paid families to continue living in central London?

I appreciate the various representations which have been made about the rate rebate scheme, including proposals that its terms should be aligned with those of the scheme of rent rebates and that assistance should be available higher up the income scale. We are considering these matters, with a view to legislation shortly being brought before the House.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what further representations he has received concerning the inner ringway and radial motorways proposed by the Layfield Committee and if he will make a statement.

I have received various representations from members of the public and interested bodies. There will be a formal opportunity to make representations about my proposed modifications to the Greater London Development Plan when I publish them in draft.

Has the Minister included in the representations he has received the most forceful possible representations from the electors in Greater London last Thursday? Are not the schemes now finally dead and buried?

Various representations are made in various ways. No doubt the new Greater London Council's majority will have views to express in due time. At this stage I can act only in a formal capacity in regard to these matters.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend read the comment of the new Leader of the GLC about new motorway construction in London? Has he noted the effect that that will have upon access to the proposed new third London airport at Maplin Sands, which, apart from the high speed link, will be very dependent on road communications?

In regard to all these matters it would be wise to give the new majority party on the GLC an opportunity to consider its position. It will have to take matters rather further than its election statements.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us an assurance that there will be no question of the Government's trying to browbeat the new GLC into accepting Ringway 1 when it has declared itself completely against it?

In my original statement I said that phasing and timing are matters for the GLC.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in view of past reports by the Council on Tribunals, including that on London Airport plans in February 1968, what further public inquiry he now proposes to hold into the revised plans for London motorways put forward by the GLC and the Layfield Panel.

Any modifications which I propose to make to the original motorway proposals in the Greater London Development Plan will be published in draft and an opportunity given for public comment. There will be a further inquiry or inquiries only if objections to the proposed modifications raise issues not already considered by the Layfield Panel.

As these proposals have been plainly and drastically modified and the inner ringways abandoned, will the Minister assure us that any proposals for radial motorways to be brought into London will be the subject of an overall public inquiry in each case?

The right hon. Gentleman has shown that he is hopelessly muddled about the legal position—which I have tried to explain to him in this House and in letters—just as he was hopelessly muddled in his question about the relevance of the Stansted inquiry. I shall do my best to write him another letter to try to explain the situation, but it seems a pretty hopeless task.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend now be willing to reconsider the possibility of constructing Ringway 3—the outer London ringway?

I cannot at this stage add to the statement I made when the report was published. I shall make further statements in due course about the whole or part of the proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to publish the report of the inspector who, in July 1972, held a public inquiry about St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington, and the proposal to fill in most of the three acres of water in the Paddington Basin.

The inspector's report is being considered. I cannot yet say when a decision will be reached and the findings published.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a matter of national and not merely local concern? Will he confirm that the Government stand by the statement made last August supporting the development of urban canals as a public amenity?

I accept that it is an extremely important matter, about which there has been a public inquiry. The matter has far-reaching effects, which is why it is taking a long time for the public inquiry to come to a conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to announce his decision concerning the future production of the 2·-in.-to-the-mile Ordnance Survey maps.

My right hon. and learned Friend expects to be able to announce a decision on completion of his conferences on this matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reports that there is a possibility that the production of 2·-in. maps will be discontinued have caused considerable concern among ramblers' organisations and others who make great use of these maps? Will he undertake to consider very carefully all the representations made to him, and not necessarily to make his decision on purely commercial grounds?

Yes, indeed. All representations will be taken into account. The review is being undertaken to discover what use is made by Government Departments, statutory undertakers and local authorities. We are faced with the fact that 2,015 sheets of the 2·-in. maps are produced and of only two-thirds of these are more than 200 copies sold.

May I reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. R. C. Mitchell)? If sheets covering certain parts of the country were no longer published, would not there be a danger of footpaths in those parts being used less and less and eventually disappearing from local knowledge? That would be a great tragedy.

I appreciate that. The question is whether we should reproduce all the 2,015 sheets or whether there is a demand for a part of them which can be commercially viable.

The Minister says that he is considering Government Departments' and local authorities' reactions. Will he bear in mind the public need for the maps, and their growing use by the public, as well as the needs of Government Departments and local authorities?

Yes, Sir. I am considering that need as well. I wanted to be quite frank, and to say that the review was to ascertain the demand from Government Departments—a demand that we would subsidise. In addition, we are taking account of representations from schools, ramblers' associations, and so on.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is a big gap between the 1-in. and the 6-in. maps, that the 2·-in. series has only fairly recently been coming out in a folder form, which is convenient to people to buy and use, and that it will not really have had a fair trial on the market until it has has covered a substantial area of the country?

I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is right. That is the sort of thing we want to review. The commercial demand does not exist at present. Whether that is because the demand has not built up properly, I do not know. That is what we shall find out from the review.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will now publish his White Paper on the future of the railway system.

I have nothing to add to my reply to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) on 14th February—[Vol. 850, c. 343.]

Is not the Minister aware that, with a management reorganisation only half completed, with the advanced passenger train perhaps two years behind, and with the Railway Board's willingness completely to shuffle off commuter railway services to the new metropolitan counties, thousands of railwaymen and millions of railway passengers need some certainty injected into their lives? When will the Minister do that?

I do not accept the multitude of premises with which the hon. Gentleman preceded his question, but I entirely appreciate the need for clarification. The problem is complicated and difficult. A statement will be made to Parliament as soon as possible.

Will the White Paper include information about expanding the electrification of railways, bearing in mind the likely shortages of diesel fuel over the next 15 years? Will it include the need for higher-speed inter-city services, such as I have seen in Japan in the past few weeks?

I should not like to anticipate the contents of the paper, whether white or green, but it will, of course, be comprehensive.

Can the Minister give us no indication of the likely date of publication? The matter is one of great public concern and causes anxiety, which was unfortunately fostered by leaks from his Department. There is great public concern about the future of the railways. The matter affects the planning of roads and all manner of things. Will publication be before Whitsun? Will not the Minister at least commit himself roughly to a date when the great public interest in the subject can at least begin to focus on positive proposals?

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's anxiety. I should not like to give a firm commitment, but I hope that publication will be before the Summer Recess.

Does the Minister agree that great concern was caused by the somewhat premature disclosure of a document which came to his Department about the possible future size of the railway network? Does he appreciate that in the absence of a White Paper giving some idea of the future size there is great concern about lines such as that between Sunderland and Middlesbrough and various others which it was suggested could be closed?

I have said time without number that the document which leaked, and which was accompanied in its subsequent publication by a wholly unauthorised map, had no official foundation whatever.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations have been made to him about the future of London and provincial theatres, in view of the threat of demolition; and what action he proposes to take thereon.

My right hon. and learned Friend met a deputation from the Theatres Advisory Council on 23rd February. A number of London theatres were added to the list of protected buildings last year, and my right hon. and learned Friend has agreed to consider the points the deputation put to him.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Will the Minister bear in mind that every theatre closure means fewer opportunities for work for actors and theatre staff, and that we are in a crucial situation? Is he aware that the Shaftesbury Theatre is the latest to appear to be under threat, and that the company there is under notice for closure in September? Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will work closely with local authorities, especially the new GLC, which is equally concerned about the preservation of theatres in London?

I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Lady says. My right hon. and learned Friend is always prepared to work closely with local authorities on this and many other matters. I agree with the hon. Lady about the great importance, not only to actors but to us all, of having a good number of live theatres in London.

For every 10 theatres that have been knocked down since the war, only one has been rebuilt. Will my hon. Friend ensure that a Conservative Government give every support to a local council when it wishes to build a new theatre for its community centre?

I shall certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says, which is true, but does not, luckily, apply to Greater London, where I think there are no fewer theatres now than there were at the end of the last war. Of the 57 theatres in the Greater London area 33 are listed, 19 of them as recently as in the last 12 months.

I agree that a number of these theatres are listed but that is not a complete protection against demolition. When requests are made for their demolition, will the Minister bear in mind that most London theatres are outstanding examples of Victorian and Edwardian architecture and for the most part have an irreplaceable atmosphere of warmth and welcome? Will the Minister turn his back on any suggestion that they should be replaced by the building of some cold, modern theatre auditorium in a new office block?

The whole House has the greatest sympathy with what the right hon. Member says.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many appeals to rent assessment panels against the determinations of rent officers are at present awaiting decision.

About 3,450 in England and Wales, inclusive of appeals in respect of applications for certificates of fair rent.

If rent officers generally take the view of the Thames Valley rent officer in the case of which I have sent my hon. Friend particulars, the appellants are wasting their time. If success on appeal against applications made before 6th November last and ordered by the panel to take effect from the date of application, as in due course of law they would be. are nevertheless set aside by the rent officer in view of the counter-inflation legislation, what is the point in these people appealing?

My hon. and learned Friend may be aware that the limitation and standstill applied only until 29th April this year. He referred to the position of the Thames Valley panel. I understand that 115 cases are outstanding, of which 95 were lodged by or on behalf of tenants of a housing association on 7th March and that another nine were lodged on several dates between 16th and 21st March.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many planning applications he has received for out-of-town shops and shopping centres in Yorkshire and Humberside; and how many he has allowed.

I have been informed about three applications under the terms of Circular 17/72 for out-of-town shops or shopping centres in Yorkshire and Humberside. None has yet been allowed.

Is the Minister aware that Labour swept the board at last Thursday's elections in South Yorkshire and that one of its planks was a balanced shopping development that would provide for all housewives, and especially the old and those without cars, and would generally have regard to all social factors? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the new South Yorkshire Metropolitan County that in spite of Chandler's Ford it can undertake sound structure planning?

If the Labour Party swept the board on that policy it stole Conservative clothes, because this is a principle which we have applied in any application for out-of-town shopping—that it should not affect the High Street to the extent of destroying it. We treat each application on its merits.

Out-of-town shopping centres are becoming more and more acceptable in this country, but are steps always taken to approach the developers of such sites for a contribution towards the improved roads which are often needed if the development is to be successful?

That is just the subject which is included in the White Paper on land availability.

asked the Secretary of Slate for the Environment what his plans are for the Broad Sanctuary site near Westminster Abbey and Central Hall: and if he will make a statement.

I am still considering the future use of this important site. I will make a statement as soon as a satisfactory scheme has been agreed.

We have been getting answers on this topic occasionally over 25 years. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is far too long a time. It was proposed after the war that the site should be used for Government offices, and in the 1950s a conference centre was suggested which was the subject of an architectural competition sponsored by the Department. Yet today it still remains an eyesore in the centre of London when it could become an amenity. Rather than wait for another 25 years, would it not be wise for the present car park to be decked over and turned into a public open space, thus providing an amenity in central London?

The second part of the question raises an interesting possibility. However, neither side of the House can take much credit for what has been done in Broad Sanctuary for the last 25 years. But I have to bear in mind what the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) said in a previous supplementary question.

What are the three major schemes which are being considered by the Minister?

I do not think that I said that three major schemes were being considered. A number of schemes are being considered. I would not limit them to three. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question I will give him the details.

Would it not be a good idea to keep Broad Sanctuary as a Member's car park and to hire out the parking space in the car park being built close to the House, because medical opinion has it that since MPs have had to undertake that little walk they are likely to live a great deal longer?

Certainly the hon Member is looking extremely well. I shall naturally consider that suggestion with the seriousness it merits.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will call in on environmental grounds the application for the siting of a lead recovery plant at Clifton Junction, Swinton; and if he will make a statement.

The planning application is for the replacement of plant in an existing factory within an industrial area. It is for the local planning authority to decide. The advice of my Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate is available to it. There is no reason for me to intervene in the planning application.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is great concern amongst the people of Prestwich and Whitefield about this development on their doorstep? Is he satisfied that the present statutory limits on lead emission leave a sufficient margin of safety? Will he assure the House that this new plant will not constitute a danger to public health?

It is now a matter for the local planning authority to weigh all the considerations involved and to decide whether or not to refuse planning permission. It would not be right for me, this afternoon, to go into the merits of a particular proposal.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of land were sold by British Rail in 1972; and how this compares with 1970 and 1971.

7,165 acres, compared with 6,118 in 1971 and 6,600 in 1970.

Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with this very small increase, and that where some of our railway lines are being closed enough of the available land is turned over for housing or industrial purposes, so that it can be put to a full and proper use?

I do not think one is ever satisfied, but I think that the railways take every reasonable step to get rid of land for which there is no likelihood of any railway use.

In view of the great problem of land in the conurbations, will the right hon. Gentleman have further conversations with the British Railways Board urging that the land available in great conurbations, such as Liverpool, should be given priority for housing, which is our greatest need?

It is the policy of nationalised industries and the Government that the nationalised industries should first offer their land to local authorities. The need for land for housing purposes is completely understood.

Will my right hon. Friend say what proportion of the latest figure is railway land in the assisted areas, because in undertaking industrial projects those areas which benefit from the Industry Act are often impeded by the lack of suitable land for development?

No, not without notice.

Will the Minister approach British Rail on the question of derelict railway land at Broome Lane, Manchester, asking the board to tidy it up and to turn it into a children's playground or amenity, or sell it to somebody who would do the job for British Rail?

I have no doubt that the Chairman of British Rail will take due note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will introduce legislation to prevent the eviction of caravan owners from holiday sites because they refuse to buy new caravans from the site owners.

I do not think such legislation is the appropriate way to deal with the alleged abuse.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that planning permission for caravan sites is now almost at saturation point and that this situation puts owners in a monopoly position? Is he further aware that many caravan site owners are also caravan manufacturers, and that three years after somebody has bought a caravan on the site the owners threaten to evict ordinary people, including pensioners who have invested their savings, if they will not buy a new caravan.

The question of the adequacy of sites is a matter for local planning authorities. On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman, I remind him that if Parliament approves the Fair Trading Bill this kind of practice could be drawn to the attention of the Director of Fair Trading.

Does the Minister concede that it is reasonable that many people should feel anxious about this matter and are entitled to receive some reassurance, since the sort of practice outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has been widespread, for example, on many parts of the East Coast? Has the hon. Gentleman received any correspondence from people who are anxious about this matter?

Administratively, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place is primarily responsible for this matter, but I have carefully noted the hon. Gentleman's assertion about the number of cases which have come to his notice.

Is the Minister aware that some months ago I drew his Department's attention to the extortionate rents that were being demanded from those who had placed their caravans or chalets on these sites? His Department replied that it considered this not to be a fitting subject for legislation. Since these increased rents were imposed in the very week that preceded the standstill, and since they are still continuing, it is not time that legislation was brought forward to protect these people?

The matter of increased charges on holiday caravan sites is one for the Department of Trade and Industry, and is another question.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that caravans situated on permanent sites represent the one area of home ownership that is without any protection or security? Is he further aware that there is growing evidence of action by site owners to deprive people of security and to impose intolerable conditions upon occupiers, on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton)? Does he know that certain owners refuse to allow co-operative societies on to the sites to serve goods? Will the Minister undertake to set up an inquiry into the situation, since the Opposition will be glad to co-operate to see what can be done to protect the interests of occupants on permanent caravan sites?

I have carefully noted what the hon. Gentleman said. The original Question relates to holiday caravan sites. The difficulty in that respect is due to the transient nature of occupation of holiday caravans. With regard to permanent sites, there is some protection for the occupier under the Caravan Sites Act, 1968, since a court order is necessary before eviction can take place.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many prosecutions were brought in 1972 under Section 1 of the Accommodation Agencies Act 1953.

Figures for prosecutions in 1972 are not yet available.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many agencies in London charge one or two weeks' rent illegally by way of commission? Does he realise that most tenants are students and young people who pay without demur? Will he consider increasing the number of prosecutions in this respect?

Prosecutions in 1970 numbered four, and in 1971 they rose to 39. But it is evident that properly conducted accommodation agencies meet a real need on behalf of potential tenants. They can save people a great deal of time and trouble in their search for premises. The courts have not found it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal fees.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I can show him columns of newspaper advertisements in which advertisers are breaking the law by offering rented accommodation to tenants on condition that they pay commission of some kind?

I shall be interested to study carefully any specific matter the hon. Gentleman wishes to send to me, but the Act prohibits only certain actions by the agent. There is a wide field of useful activity which an agent can follow and provide a service which merits a fee.

Is the Minister aware that this is an area of growing concern in the big cities, particularly in inner London, and that the problem is not confined to abuse by agencies, in terms of students and other single people? One of the largest groups of people affected by the situation is the unsupported mother—the single-parent family. Will he consider amending the Act to establish a licensing procedure to make sure that only properly-run accommodation agencies are allowed to operate?

I am prepared to consider any detailed proposal that the hon. Gentleman wishes to make, but as at present advised I understand that the form of the law is not unsatisfactory in this very difficult matter. Furthermore, I would point out that private individuals as well as the police can prosecute.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to the EEC draft directive which proposes to raise the age for a driving licence from 17 to 18 years; and what view he has expressed to the Commission about it.

I have considerable sympathy with the reservations which have been expressed in this country since the publication of the draft directive. I intend to express these in Brussels at the appropriate time.

I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend's reply. Will he make it absolutely clear that this Parliament— this sovereign Parliament—will not tolerate this fussy interference in our way of life? The raising of the driving age from 17 to 18 years is not a negotiable matter, and that is that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) has his own way of making his views clear, and does not need me to comment upon them.

Will the Minister ensure that the English texts of this draft directive are made available? Is he aware that, while there are grave objections to this particular proposal, there are many other proposals in the so-called draft directive to which one can also take objection, and that probably the only thing one can commend is the suggestion that we should lower the age for driving motor cycles, back to the age which obtained before the Minister changed the situation a year ago?

I have already said that I have considerable reservations, or that I share the reservations which have been expressed in this country, on this directive. I am not quite sure whether my powers extend to the immediate provision of a copy in English of the draft directive, but I shall look into the situation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while that particular topic is being discussed, the question of lowering the age at which people may drive a bus from 21 to 18, to make sure that we have some bus drivers in London, should also be discussed?

That is an exceedingly interesting proposition, but it does not arise out of this Question.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the operation of the Travel Concessions Act 1964.

Very few, Sir.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it must appear unreasonable to the elderly, the disabled and the blind that some areas have adequate schemes for concessionary travel while others have none at all and still others have very bad schemes? Is it not desirable for the Minister to have powers to collect information from local authorities about the schemes which they provide, so that he may issue guidance to local authorities where inadequate or no schemes are in operation?

I am under very little pressure from local authorities to produce a uniform policy stretching over the whole country. In regard to my powers to collect information from local authorities, I may have many complaints, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not one of them. I can always collect the information I want.

The right hon. Gentleman will realise that when we last had a uniform policy it was his party's policy, in a former Government, to forbid all concessions.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken.

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act, 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Gaming (Amendment) Act, 1973.

2. Supply of Goods (Implied Terms) Act, 1973.

3. Cost in Criminal Cases Act, 1973.

4. Administration of Justice Act, 1973.

5. Education Act, 1973.

6. Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act, 1973.

7. Humber Bridge Act, 1973.

8. Derby Friar Gate Chapel Act, 1973.

May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for the week following the recess?

Yes, Sir.

The business for the first week after the Adjournment will be as follows: —

MONDAY 30TH APRIL—Second Reading of the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefits Bill.

At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed Private Business for consideration.

Motions on the Rating of Industry (Scotland) Order, the Furnished Lettings (Rateable Value Limits) Order, the African Development Fund (Immunities and Privileges) Order, and the motion relating to the Local Government Super- annuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations.

TUESDAY 1ST MAY—Progress on the remaining stages of the Water Bill.

WEDNESDAY 2ND MAY—Completion of the remaining stages of the Water Bill, which it is hoped to finish by seven o'clock.

Afterwards, motion on the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) Order and motions relating to Counter-Inflation Orders on Remuneration of Teachers, the Notification of Increases in Prices and Charges and on the Modification of Agricultural Wages Acts.

THURSDAY 3RD MAY—Debate on a motion to take note of the Second Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, Session 1971–72, on the Independent Broadcasting Authority, and on the relevant Government Observations.

Motion on the Regulation of Prices (Tranquillising Drugs) Order.

FRIDAY 4TH MAY—Private Members' Bills.

The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have seen the extremely serious trade figures today, which I believe are the worst ever. When are we to have a statement from the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or both, on what the Government intend to do about the extremely serious and deteriorating state of the economy, and when are we to have time for a debate on it?

I shall convey the right hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend, but I should tell him that the Government intend to keep their nerve, to keep the economy expanding and to keep prosperity going.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that about a fortnight ago it was proposed to debate the motion on the draft directive concerning driving licences.

[That this House rejects the proposals contained in a draft directive of the Commission of the European Communities (No. C 119/1 dated 16th November 1972 in the Official Journal of the EC) namely, the Raising of the Age for a Driving Licence from 17 years to 18 years and other related matter.]

The reason given for postponing the debate was the absence of the draft documents from the Vote Office. Two or three weeks have elapsed. Surely the documents have been printed. Why cannot we debate the motion? I should be very grateful if we could.

I have told my hon. Friend and the House on various occasions that the motion will have to be debated at a convenient time, but there is no particular hurry about it. My hon. Friend will have heard the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries this afternoon. I am sure that a proper opportunity will be found at the right time to debate the motion.

When are we to have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the outcome of the marathon talks in Brussels which ended at half-past six this morning and the effect they are likely to have on our cost of living?

The talks have not ended and therefore there is no outcome at the moment to report, but my right hon. Friend will make a statement to the House when the talks have finished.

Has my right hon. Friend seen the Early Day Motion standing in the name of 100 Members on both sides of the House about raising the exemption limit on prescription charges from the age of 15 to 16 to coincide with the raising of the school-leaving age?

[That this House is deeply concerned that Her Majesty's Government feels unable to grant free National Health Service prescriptions to all children up to sixteen years of age who are attending school; and calls upon the Government to grant this concession as soon as possible.]

Will he ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement to the House after the recess to the effect that he has decided to increase the limit to the age of 16?

I do not know about the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, but I shall convey his views to my right hon. Friend.

Will the Leader of the House indicate when we are to have a debate on the Robens Report dealing with the question of safety, particularly as it affects the construction industry, and when we are likely to get the proposed legislation?

I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House are keen to have such a debate, but I cannot promise one in the immediate future. I cannot undertake to give a date for the introduction of legislation, but there will have to be legislation and I have already told the House that the Government accept the need for it.

Will my right hon. Friend say when the Oaths and Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order will be debated? [HON. MEMBERS: "Tonight."] I already have the answer to that question. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that Northern Ireland orders are not taken late at night and bunched together, making it difficult for Northern Ireland Members and, indeed, other hon. Members?

I hope that my hon. Friend realises that he, too, causes certain difficulties to hon. Members on both sides of the House. I think that we have done Northern Ireland pretty proud in the last 12 weeks, and I hope that Northern Ireland Members will wish to co-operate with other hon. Members as well as with themselves.

Will my right hon. Friend indicate when the House is likely to debate the fifth directive on managerial and supervisory boards in industry? This matter is being debated in Europe and is regarded as exceedingly important in this country.

I cannot promise immediate time. I shall consider the matter and get in touch with my hon. Friend.

Unless English words have lost their meaning, the Leader of the House talked gibberish when he replied to my earlier question. We have the worst trade figures ever in any one month. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government will keep their nerve and will keep prosperity going. Will he tell us what they will do about these figures— the worst trade figures we have had in any one month in our history?

I am not sure of the relevance of the right hon. Gentleman's question to business. That might be a suitable matter to discuss on the Adjournment Motion which we are to take next. I shall be very happy in the next debate to put the Government's case, which I think is a superb case.

On 7th February I informed the House that the Post Office had submitted plans for modernising the telephone network. These envisage, first, a gradual replacement of Strowger equipment by more modern systems capable of providing not only improvements in service quality but also additional customer facilities; second, the early participation of the established suppliers in the production of a new large electronic exchange known as TXE 4; third, depending on further discussions with industry, the development of both electronic and Crossbar systems, both to meet future domestic requirements and to assist exports; and, last, the eventual development, in close collaboration between the Post Office and industry, of even more advanced exchange systems for introduction in the 1980s.

In consultation with the other Departments concerned and with the fullest cooperation from the Post Office, these proposals have been thoroughly examined. Possible options, comparative costs, effects on overall capital investment and other aspects, including in particular the industrial, export and employment implications, have been investigated. I am satisfied that it is right to introduce TXE 4 into the network. It is a modern system capable of meeting economically all current requirements, and capable of progressive development for the future.

The Post Office plans are accepted by the main firms in the supplying industry who are now anxious for their early approval and implementation. The Post Office has fully consulted the Post Office Engineering Union and other staff associations, who have expressed their support.

The export prospects for British manufacturers should be improved by this further move into electronic equipment. For the future a high level committee is to be established under the Managing Director, Telecommunications, to work closely with industry in ensuring that export considerations are borne fully in mind in the further development of exchanges for domestic use.

In terms of jobs, the Post Office's proposals mean that the supplying industry will employ at least as many people on the manufacturing of exchanges for the British network as they would have done under existing plans. But the gradual change-over from electromechanical to electronic production is bound to mean, in time, a shift in the type of skills required and conceivably some changes in the distribution of manufacturing facilities. Production will, as now, be largely concentrated in the development areas. The Post Office will collaborate closely with the manufacturers with a view to minimising any local employment difficulties.

In the light of all these factors, not least the prospects they offer for improved service to telephone users, I have therefore approved the Post Office's proposals within the context of their total investment programme which will, of course, continue to be subject to annual review by the Government. The Post Office and industry will also keep me informed and consult me as necessary about the progress of these plans, about the pace of modernisation, about the progress of technical development and generally about any major industrial, employment and export matters.

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) may I say that the Minister's statement will generally be welcomed? As he said, it is fully supported by the trade unions in the industry. May I ask him, first, about the local employment difficulties he mentioned? Can he assure the House that staff interests will be fully safeguarded in this respect? Secondly, could he put some figures to the comparative costs which he mentioned? Thirdly, I wonder whether he would give the House some basis for his optimism about exports, not least in view of the quite appalling trade figures which have just been mentioned—because we certainly need those exports?

I am grateful for the welcome which the hon. Member has given to the decision announced in the statement. So far as it lies within the power of the Post Office and the industry, I am sure that both will be concerned to take staff interests fully into account. I have been immensely impressed by the overall approach of both the Post Office and the industry to any employment implications in this decision.

I cannot, I regret to say, give figures on comparative costs. It is an extremely complex business. That is why it has taken me some time to come to these conclusions. It has involved, as I think the hon. Member recognises, elaborate variations on a computer model which has been in the hands of the Post Office and feeding into it a number of differing assumptions. I can say that all the variations which have been analysed point very markedly in the direction of the decision I have taken.

With regard to exports, I am optimistic that the move to electronic equipment which this indicates will make it increasingly possible for British exchange equipment to be sold successfully overseas. As the hon. Member knows, it was because of the need to go in this direction that the industry itself has been anxious to see the decision taken quickly.

He would be an extremely brave man who would advance a judgment on such a complicated and technical matter, but may I at least congratulate my right hon. Friend on having had the courage at last to take a decision upon it? May I ask him two short questions? First, are these views on exports fully shared by the industry? Do all the companies in the industry feel that this system does have an export potential? Secondly, how soon will the new equipment have an impact on the operating efficiency of the system as a whole?

I confirm that it is the view of the industry that the opportunities to export British manufactured exchange equipment will be helped by this further move into electronic systems. It is the progressive development of fully electronic systems which offer a real help for exports in the future. This is because, as my hon. Friend knows, this is a highly competitive market environment in which they have to compete against other developed systems manufactured in other countries.

With regard to the timetable for the impact of the more efficient exchange system, it will mainly be felt towards the end of this decade. It will take some time to build up manufacturing capacity for the new exchange system, but the intention is that the old or existing mechanical Strowger system will be replaced and the process will be completed by the end of the century.

May I press the Minister further on the question of the time scale? The Minister says he expects that the Strowger equipment will be replaced. Would it be correct to say that the existing Strowger equipment will be replaced by the Crossbar equipment which in turn itself will then have to be phased out to make way for the TXE 4 equipment? What additional telephone service facilities will be made available as a result of the introduction of TXE 4?

Finally, on the question of costs, the Minister said in his statement that the TXE 4 system would be a much more economical system to operate. Will this go right through to the telephone account bill at the end? May we have an assurance at this stage that installation costs and telephone charges will certainly not be increased as a result of the decision to introduce the TXE 4 equipment—a decision which, incidentally, I, too, welcome?

The first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question is, broadly speaking, correct, in that there will need initially to be a considerable build up in the order book for Crossbar. It is the intention further to develop Crossbar, and this is now being discussed urgently between the Post Office and industry. There will also be the need, in the short term at any rate, for further orders for the Strowger equipment. This is because of the great growth in demand for telephones. One has to meet that at the same time as building up the manufacturing capacity for TXE 4, the new system. TXE 4 is itself to be seen as an interim step leading on to the fully electronic system in the 1980s.

With regard to the second part of the supplementary question, there will be a wide range of terminal equipment which the move to fully electronic switching will enable users to attach to the telephone system, but, of course, this will facilitate the introduction of the key-phone, for example, or an improved version of it.

With regard to the last part of the question about the telephone bill, the modernisation decision is not in any way associated with tariff questions directly. Indeed, the modernisation is expected in the longer term both to improve service and to reduce costs.

While welcoming the decision the Minister has announced may I ask him to give the House two assurances? Can he say that as a result of this programme the scandalously long waiting list will be reduced? Secondly, can he assure the House that he will not allow the Post Office to go as slowly as perhaps it has in the past and that there can be some progress on the system X which is the real answer to all our problems?

The waiting list in the earlier years will not be directly affected by this decision—again, for the reason I have given in answer to earlier questions, namely, the time needed to build up manufacturing capacity before the new system can be introduced. The waiting list will depend, as it does now, upon the increasing ability of the manufacturers to supply the exchange equipment required and of the general programme to be met on time. I am glad to say that this has been working extremely well. Both the Post Office and the industry have been working very hard on this point.

There is certainly no intention on the part of the Post Office to delay system X. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Post Office—particularly the telecommunications side—on the enormous amount of work it has done on this. It is an immensely creditable performance. The Post Office will move as fast as possible towards the fully electronic system, but it is right and sensible, and it is not excessively cautious, to have this interim stage on the way to that.

I, too, welcome the Minister's statement about the introduction of TXE4. Will he say a little more about what he has described as the development of manufacturing capacity? Is he aware that constituents who complain about the need for extension of the telephone system have for years had to put up with the reply that the delay is caused by shortage of equipment. What assurance can the right hon. Gentleman give that the production of equipment will be speeded up? For example, is he prepared to allow the Post Office Corporation, if necessary, to set up its own specialist manufacturing units in the development areas?

The last part of the hon. Gentleman's question does not arise. Manufacturers and the Post Office together are tackling this question very successfully. With respect, questions in this style tend to relate back to a situation which has for some time been well on the way towards improvement. Manufacturers and the Post Office together are concentrating, in the short term especially, on improvements to the proprietary Crossbar exchange. These two things together will, I am certain, facilitate the onward development and improvement of the exchanges generally, and they are part of the £4,000 million modernisation and improvement programme which I announced some time ago.

As my right hon. Friend said that this new arrangement will provide an improved service to the telephone user, will he give us some idea of the way in which it will do so?