asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many retirement pensioners in Bolton are now entitled to old persons' homes television licences; and how many have availed themselves of them.

There are 45 licences benefiting 1,876 people. Information about the number of people who may be eligible but who have not claimed is not available.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that there are people who could take up this con cession and do not. Does not that really prove that not all old-age pensioners want television and that many who cannot afford the full licence fee do not get the concession while many who do get it can afford the full fee? Would not my right hon. Friend be well advised to have a word with his right hon. Friend the Chan cellor of the Exchequer with a view to giving all old-age pensioners the same benefits, irrespective of whether they want television?

Taking my hon. Friend's second point, the position of the Government is well known from debates that we have had in the House. On the first part of his question, it would be helpful to have as much publicity as possible given to the existence of this special licence. I am sure that as it becomes increasingly widely known those who believe that they can benefit from it will claim.

Is not the Government's attitude quite indefensible? Is not it unreasonable that private cinemas allow old-age pensioners to look at their screens cheaply when the Government do not assist pensioners to do the same in relation to a public service? Is not it inconsistent to say, at a time when old-age pensioners receive concessionary travel fares, that those who cannot travel should not be subsidised to watch television?

The Government's attitude is the view which was shared by the Labour Government, namely, that the proper way to help elderly people is through the social services.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many retirement pensioners in the Southampton area are covered by the concessionary television licences scheme.

The figure is 2,697.

Is the right hon. Gentle man aware of the very small proportion that that represents of the total number of old-age pensioners in the Southampton area? Will he seriously consider extending the concessionary scheme to cover all those in receipt of supplementary benefit, if nothing else?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, in the Government's view there is no way in which to extend the concessionary basis without creating further anomalies. I think it is better to provide cash benefits to enable people to spend them as they choose.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is his estimate of the damage done by vandalism to telephone kiosks during 1972.

The cost to the Post Office of damage due to vandalism was £473,000 in the year ended 31st March 1973.

I am grateful for that reply. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the Greater London area today it is almost impossible to find a telephone kiosk which is operative? Will the Minister say what research the Post Office is conducting into anti-vandalism equipment?

I am sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman's reference to the position in London. I am certain that the Post Office will wish to take into account the need specially to watch it. But the fact remains that a great deal of work is being done on vandal-proof kiosks, and this has improved the position. At the moment I cannot go further than that.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that even if it is costing £400,000 a year it is worth speeding up research on this anti-vandalism approach to the kiosk because, whether it is in Lon don or anywhere else, my right hon. Friend knows that many kiosks simply cannot be used because of vandalism?

It was the result of re search which led to the introduction of about 4,000 vandal-resistant kiosks which have been specially fitted with strengthened equipment, fluorescent lighting and large panes of toughened glass. Research is continuing. I emphasise that this is a difficulty which the Post Office itself is most anxious to overcome, and of course the help of local authorities, local education authorities and communities is greatly valued.

Will the Minister consider the placing of one kiosk in all blocks of council flats? Apart from discouraging vandalism it would provide a telephone for people who need one badly and in most cases cannot afford one of their own.

That is a matter for direct negotiation between the local authorities and the Post Office, because, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, the installation of telephone facilities in buildings has to be financed and paid for.

What consultations have taken place with the police on the subject of ways in which these vandal attacks can be prevented? Surely that is the best way of preventing this crime.

That is a matter primarily for the Post Office. I have no information to hand, but I will inquire for my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister going to leave undenied the assertion that nearly every telephone kiosk in London is un usable? Did the incidence of vandalism last year increase or decrease?

It is difficult to deduce from the figures for one year, but the indication is that vandalism is on the decrease. Although the costs tell a different story, we should bear in mind that the costs of materials have gone up. Therefore, it is not easy to analyse the true situation from a straight look at the figures from one year to the next. The trend is certainly encouraging. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's observation on the first point. Obviously, if there were as widespread a disruption in London as has been indicated it would be a matter of grave concern.

Does the Minister agree that the action of these hooligans in destroying telephone kiosks is most despicable? Will he guarantee that research will continue into finding a vandal-proof kind of kiosk and not cut away this form of passing emergency messages by people who might wish to use it? Will he also consider the application that has been put in for three telephone kiosks in my constituency, where at present three areas are without facilities for making telephone calls?

Many of the measures that have been suggested, not least by hon. Members, to combat vandalism, which I agree is a terrible crime, have already been tried by the Post Office, but I am afraid that most of them have been without any special degree of success. I am cautious about the statistics because the Post Office has recently introduced a new method for collecting statistics which is more efficient and thorough and therefore illustrates a more widespread degree of trouble in this area than had previously been shown However, the Post Office is extremely concerned about this matter and I assure the House that its research efforts are continuing.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will list in detail in the OFFICIAL REPORT those aspects of the work of the Post Office on which he is prepared to answer Questions.

No, Sir. I follow the rules and practices that govern Parliamentary Questions about the affairs of all nationalised industries. These follow recommendations of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries and do not lend themselves to particularisation.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there seems to be con fusion not only on both sides of the House but in the Table Office about what Questions may be asked of him? Is it not reaching the height of absurdity when supplementary questions may, apparently, be asked about matters affecting the Post Office as long as the main Parliamentary Question is prefaced by the remark, "Will he give a direction to the Post Office"?

One has to be very careful about the kind of questions one answers, to ensure that one does not trespass upon the day-to-day management responsibilities of those who have been appointed to run these businesses. My hon. Friend will find much fuller information on this subject if he turns to the conclusions in the First Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries for the Session 1967–68, pages 186 and 187.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us are quite satisfied with the reduction in the number of Questions that can now be placed with the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, thus avoiding the silly little questions—for example, about the late arrival of a letter from Knutsford to London—that we had in the previous Parliament? Does it not follow that he is grossly overpaid and that his salary ought to be reduced?

I have not considered the matter from that aspect. One of the great time-consuming factors involved in my present job is determining the right balance between ministerial responsibility and management concern.

Notwithstanding what the Minister has said about answers to Questions, a number of Questions have been put to him which, in my view, involve other areas—for example, Intelsat and our relationships with other countries on communications of that kind. In the circumstances, would it not be right for him to answer questions of this kind rather than to refer them to the Post Office as he has done in days past?

I endeavour to answer Questions concerned with a wider context than the detailed matter of management. With respect, I cannot give an affirmative or negative answer to the question that the hon. Gentleman has put to me, as that would carry me into just that degree of particularisation which I do not think the rules allow.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to grant concessionary telephone rentals to elderly citizens who are living on their own, and are not under the coverage of a wardens' system.

No, Sir. Subsidised telephone charges, whether as a general scheme to help a certain group of sub scribers or financial assistance to individuals in need, are a matter for the social services.

Will the Minister show a little more compassion for people who are housebound, incapable of leaving their homes, living alone and having none of the privileges which obtain in a wardens' scheme? Does he agree that it is time the Government did something about it? It is no good his passing on the problem to some other Department.

I agree that there are many people for whom a telephone or some similar means of communications is an essential link. I am not denying that. All I am saying is that the financing of such a scheme is a matter for discussion with the Department of Health and Social Security rather than with the Post Office.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the need for handicapped people to have communication with the outside world. Will he use his good offices to intervene between the Department of Health and Social Security and the Post Office to give some help to people for not only rental but installation costs, which are denied to many handicapped people if they have a small amount of capital?

The Post Office is willing to enter into discussions with the relevant authorities on these matters. As my hon. Friend knows, local welfare bodies have permissive powers to help certain people with the cost of a telephone, and they were given additional powers under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Per sons Act 1970 to provide telephones where appropriate. The Supplementary Benefits Commission may also consider claims for additional benefit to help towards the cost of a telephone. It is in these areas that work ought to be done.

If the Minister cannot make this concession, will he get rid of the monstrous situation in which a large percentage of old people have to pay more for installation charges if they are hard of hearing and need a transistorised hand set? Is it not time that such charges were reduced to the level that people without hearing disabilities have to pay?

I understand the human problems which lie behind the questions by the hon. Gentleman and others who have raised these matters, but the fact remains that by virtue of the passing of the 1969 Act the Post Office was converted into a corporation. As such, it is expected to make its business pay and to cover its costs. Therefore, it must be conducted on that basis.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now announce the membership and the terms of reference of the Government's commission to study broad casting services in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and rural England which was proposed in Command Paper No. 5244.

I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 2nd April.—[Vol. 854, c. 1.]

When the commission is set up will it be within its terms of reference to consider whether the next development in broadcasting facilities should begin at the end of the country opposite to London and be finalised in London, instead of the other way about, which is what all licence-holders have had to put up with so far?

I will announce the full terms of reference at the same time as I am able to announce the appointment of the chairman.

Will my right hon. Friend make sure that when the membership of the commission is announced it will not include people who are already so busy and occupied in other fields that they do not have time to watch television themselves?

I shall be appointing the best people to conduct the operations of the study group in order to bring conclusions to me as rapidly as possible.

Will the right hon. Gentle man consider examining this problem rather more urgently? Is he aware that there is a great deal of uncertainty in broadcasting circles in these areas mainly because of the Minister's failure so far to set up the commission and name the members to carry out the inquiry?

I need no encouragement to consider the matter urgently. It is with me almost hourly.

Will the commission consider the problem of reception particularly in remote areas, where it is very bad? In the larger part of my constituency, BBC1 can be received, but nothing else, and even the reception of that programme is appalling. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that under the present arrangements it is likely that by 1980 the situation will be even worse? There is a great deal of urgency in the matter, and I underline the points made by my hon. Friends.

That is to be one of the main purposes of the study group. It was that point that was highlighted in the recent White Paper.

Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that someone from Northern Ireland will be on this commission? Is he aware that in my constituency there is great difficulty in getting good reception on BBC1? We get Scottish Television, but just as we are anxious to press on with STV in our elections, so we should prefer to get BBC1.

The general point made by my hon. Friend will be considered by the study group. I shall announce the membership of the commission just as soon as I am able to do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that he will receive and publish the findings of the study group before he makes any decision on the allocation of the fourth channel, bearing in mind the possible use of the fourth channel for improving regional coverage?

I have already under taken to bring before Parliament as much information as I am able to do on this and other matters—including the question whether, and if so how, to allocate the fourth channel—before any decisions are taken.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many official meetings he has had in 1973 with hon. Members on matters concerning his relationship with the Post Office.

One, on 3rd April 1973.

Following that meeting with hon. Members from both sides of the House, will the Minister clarify the attitude of his Department, as distinct from that of the Post Office, towards the commendable proposal that the Post Office might assist in fund-raising for charities by the sale of stamps? In particular, will he make a statement on the attitude of his Department towards the problem surrounding the use of the Queen's head?

I should rather leave that. I found the meeting on 3rd April 1973 of considerable value and I am closely studying the representations that were then made to me.

Will my right hon. Friend state clearly why he appears to have ended the experiment, particularly as the vast majority of charities consulted last year by the National Council of Social Service supported it and particularly as the Post Office originally decided that it found the experiment administratively feasible?

I cannot add to my supplementary answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd).

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the estimated impact on the revenue of the postal services of the proposal of the President of the European Commission, M. Francois Xavier-Ortoli, that Great Britain should charge domestic rates for ordinary letters and postcards despatched to foreign countries which are members of the Common Market.

The Post Office estimates the loss of revenue at about £2 million a year assuming that this concession were applied, as the Commission envisages, to letters at the first weight step and postcards.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that M. Francois Xavier-Ortoli shows a charming innocence with regard to the finances of the Post Office to make such a suggestion at this time? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the Post Office will carry out a comparative study of the cost involved in the dispatch of domestic mail within this country and mail to other countries within the Community before undertaking any such form of cross-subsidisation, as is seemingly implied in this suggestion?

I am sure that the Post Office will wish to conduct full studies into the matter. The concessionary postage rates in force between certain EEC member countries stem from separate agreements which were made outside the Treaty of Rome, but this is something which we are prepared to discuss with individual countries.

But since the Common Market is spending between £30 million and £50 million on subsidising Polish barley and other sums on subsidising Russian butter, has not the right hon. Gentleman asked for a subsidy for this purpose—or has he asked and been re fused it?

Barley and butter are not matters for me.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that this has nothing to do with the Treaty of Rome, and that the agreements which exist between some of the member countries of the EEC were concluded outside that treaty? Will he further confirm that the Post Office and Her Majesty's Government would have to conclude separate agreements with EEC countries before any such concession was allowed in this country?

I confirm what my hon. Friend has said. This is a matter for bi lateral discussion and agreement, if it can be concluded. These matters do not derive from the Treaty of Rome, which contains no specific provision relating to postal rates and imposes no new obligations upon Her Majesty's Government in this respect.

Does the right hon. Gentleman consider this to be a management or a Government matter? If he considers it to be a Government responsibility will he assure the House that he will resist the proposals and will, in the process, point out to the Common Market countries that any reduction in the cost of mail to them would increase the cost of mail inside this country?

This matter is obviously of interest to both the Government and the Post Office, and it is something which would have to be carried further through bilateral discussions.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is in a position to make a statement on the talks he is having with the broadcasting organisations on relations between them and the public.

My discussions with the broadcasting organisations are continuing and I would welcome suggestions from other organisations and members of the public on the ways in which viewers' interests can best be represented.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Perhaps I may make one suggestion. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the idea of an independent broadcasting council to hear complaints from members of the public who believe that they are aggrieved is one of the subjects under active consideration at these talks? Will he also recognise that many of us believe that that would be one of the best ways of improving relations between broadcasting organisations and the public?

All matters concerned with the representation of viewers' interests are pertinent to the discussions that I am having. I must point out that these talks are likely to continue for some months and that I am not likely to be in a position to arrive at an early conclusion on this matter. The fact remains, however, that the broadcasting authorities themselves are anxious independently to make whatever improvements they can in the formal representations procedure that they have introduced.

Will the right hon. Gentleman treat with a great deal of caution the complaints of moralising busybodies outside, who want to be self-appointed censors for the rest of us? Does not he recognise that the number of complaints to broadcasting authorities is minute compared with the millions of people who watch and listen to broad casts for hours every day and that, with out any controversy at all, we have the best broadcasting services in the world?

I listen with great and equal respect to all views which are represented to me and I do not judge the quality of a particular opinion by the volume of representation accompanying it. It is important to have a balanced view on this vital subject.

In the course of those talks, has there been any discussion about the decision announced in today's Press by the IBA, to the effect that when a programme contains sadism or violence it will be marked by a little badge so that viewers may know what they will be seeing? Does the Minister agree that that would be giving a licence to the Authority to permit sadism? Is this not a deplorable suggestion, likely to do far more harm than good?

That is a matter for the IBA.

The Minister says that he is still welcoming suggestions in this matter, yet the Government's recent White Paper turned down flat the Select Committee's suggestion of a communications council, which it called undesirable. Can he say why?

That, of course, is another matter, but the suggested communications council went far wider than just broadcasting. It would also have included the Press. But this is a matter which I believe is to be debated later this week.

Will my right hon. Friend make it clear to the broadcasting authorities that there is widespread concern about the character of much of what is put out, especially by BBC Television, and that much of what is broadcast is harmful, or in bad taste? Will he also make it clear that if the broadcasting authorities want to improve their relations with the public they should look critically at what they are doing?

There is scope for more than one opinion on that subject, but I have no doubt that the broadcasting authorities will take careful note of what my hon. Friend has said.

When considering the representations of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) about those people outside the House who moralise about things that appear on "the box", will the Minister be guarded in his attitude to the moralising of some people in the House, on programmes like "Tom and Jerry", which are greatly enjoyed?

As I have said, there are different points of view both within and outside the House, and I take account of them all.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will publish a six-monthly information sheet detailing, with statistics, the impact of the Industry Act on the Northern Region.

No, Sir. Information on the discharge of the Department's functions under the Industry Act 1972 will appear in the annual report to Parliament which is pro vided for in Section 16 of the Act.

I am sorry to hear that. Is the Minister aware that he has not yet come up with any decent information at any stage to Questions put down repeatedly by Opposition Members? Is he further aware that this silence is now accompanied by some disquieting rumours about the way in which the Industry Act is operating in practice?

The arrangement whereby reports are made annually was approved by Parliament in framing the Act. That report will come forward. It is very important not to take up the time of too many people in settling information rather than getting on with the job of making grants. As for the success or otherwise of the Act in the Northern Region, its success is shown by the fact that un employment there has declined since March 1972 from 6·6 per cent. to 5·4 per cent. in April 1973.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that this is a very good suggestion by the Opposition? Is he aware that there are many things that I should like done under the Industry Act? How am I going to know whether they have been done or not if I have to wait so long? Will my hon. Friend consider this matter again? Of course we knew that unemployment in the North would be reduced under this Government, but that does not mean that it has been sufficiently reduced. There are always things to be done, so I hope that my hon. Friend will take a little more interest in this question.

With respect, the Opposition did not suggest that reports should be six-monthly. When the Bill was going through, they agreed that reports should be made annually. In the first instance, I think that an annual report is more useful.

Does the Minister believe that the withdrawal of money from the Northern and other regions, following the ending of REP, will not impose greater penalties on those areas than any help which they may have received under Industry Act procedures?

No, I do not agree with that. Nor is there necessarily any evidence to suggest that. The whole question of REP and its phasing out will be discussed between both sides of industry and the Chancellor in the near future.

What information will be given in the annual report? In particular, will the aid to individual companies as well as areas, and the jobs created, be listed?

The exact form of the report has yet to be settled, but it will pro vide for commentaries by the regional boards as well as by the Industrial Development Board itself, although at this stage I cannot say whether individual companies will be mentioned.

The Minister says that he is not prepared to publish these statistics, Is he sure that his Department has not given similar statistics to the EEC Commission, as it is by law required to do?

I do not think that that arises from the original Question, which referred to the publication of a six-monthly information sheet on the Indus try Act.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with steel users in Eastern Scotland regarding the extent to which they may pass on the increase in the prices of their raw materials during phase 2, and with the European Commission regarding the compatibility of this increase with the rules of the ECSC Treaty.

None, Sir, in either case. The first issue is a matter for the Price Commission to deter mine in accordance with its responsibilities under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973; the second is for the British Steel Corporation.

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I say that I do not find that answer altogether satisfactory. Will he assure us that customers of the steel industry in Eastern Scotland who are facing cost increases running into double figure percentages will be allowed to pass on those cost increases to the full to their customers during phase 2 without being told by the Price Commission, in excess of the authority given it by this House, that they are acting illegally in so doing? Has he yet heard from the Commission in Brussels whether the new pricing schedules are in conformity with the treaty?

In selecting its basing points, the BSC has been concerned to reduce to a minimum the disturbance to its customers. As for east Scotland, Glasgow is the basing point of a wider variety of products than anywhere else in the kingdom. This is not expected to cause greater increases than 4 per cent. in the price of any products in east Scotland. Thus, when it comes to passing on prices, the position will be exactly the same under stage 2 for firms in east Scotland as anywhere else. The commission has been notified and we have had no comment.

Does the Minister agree that there are still considerable misgivings in the steel-using industry about the stocking of steel in advance of the price increase, in order to take advantage of that increase? Will he have this situation thoroughly investigated?

It has been drawn to my attention, not only in regard to Scotland, that there has been some concern. I am examining that question at the moment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is aware of the position of the newspaper industry as a result of the newsprint supply situation, in particular following the closure announcement of Peter Dixon and Sons; and what action he is taking to resolve the problem.

Yes, Sir. I am in touch with the industry, which is taking active steps to alleviate the situation and to assist any newspapers which may be in a critical situation over supplies.

I thank the hon. Gentle man for that reply. Is he aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) has been in touch with him on this matter, since he has a constituency interest? Is he further aware that about 40 newspapers may be affected unless urgent action is taken, and that the pegging of the price of newsprint, in spite of the rising costs for pulp, is a factor? Will he assure us that he will take an urgent initiative in this matter, so as to ensure not only that people do not lose their jobs but that the serious threat to democracy of possible closures is avoided?

As regards urgent action, the United Kingdom Newsprint Users Committee has taken certain action itself, and it is confident that this will deal with the situation in the short term. My Department has seen the firm in Grimsby which the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but it has not indicated that it needs selective assistance; indeed, it says that it would not welcome it at this stage. We are keeping a close watch on the situation generally. In the first instance, we should leave the industry to deal with the matter itself.

My hon. Friend will know that an American company has shown an interest in reviving the Peter Dixon firm. May we be assured that he will give every assistance to that company, to ensure that those in my constituency who are in danger of losing their jobs will be helped?

We are in touch with the firm in question, and we shall listen very carefully to anything it wishes to put to us.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that among the customers of Peter Dixon is a group of local newspapers with a circulation well in excess of 100,000, circulating in my constituency and in neighbouring boroughs, and that this group has to date been unable to find an alternative source of supply, so that the continuance of those newspapers beyond 30th June is now under serious threat? Will the hon. Gentleman institute an urgent inquiry into the whole question of the production, pricing and supply of newsprint?

I think that the newspapers to which the hon. Gentleman refers may well find that they are helped in their immediate position by the proposals put forward by the United Kingdom News print Users Committee.

Does my hon. Friend realise that the newspaper industry is threatened as a result of arbitrary Government interference in the economics of the newsprint industry? What representations did he receive following the measures taken last autumn which pre vented a rise in the price of newsprint? Does my hon. Friend believe that the present state of newsprint economics justifies the price being frozen at its pre sent level, and will he make a statement to reassure people in the industry that it will not be used as a sort of political whipping boy?

I certainly give my hon. Friend that last assurance. On the specific question of Peter Dixon and Sons, my information is that the firm's difficulties have not arisen by reason of the counter-inflation measures. The general opinion, which is shared by the firm itself, is that the causes of its difficulties are, however, deep-seated.

The Minister will be aware that 300 jobs in my constituency are at stake, and I have already made representations. Will he be rather more positive and forthcoming than he was in previous answers? Will he say not merely that he is listening with interest to any proposal which may be put to him for purchase of the company as a going concern but that he will himself actively seek out a possible buyer both to help the local employment situation and to maintain the supply of newsprint?

My Department will do everything it can to help within the frame work and the need for any proposition to be viable.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he proposes to take on the Monopoly Commission recommendations in respect of the tied house system in the licensed trade.

The Monopolies Commission's only recommendation in its Report on the Supply of Beer was that the licensing system should be substantially relaxed. I would ask the hon. Member to await the outcome of the consideration by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the report of the Erroll Committee, which was set up to examine the social implications of changes in the licensing laws.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Erroll Committee has absolutely nothing to do with that matter? Is it not clear that the Government intend to do nothing and that the brewers are blatantly using the tied house system for a variety of reasons, the most devious of all of which is the kicking out of hundreds of public house tenants and their replacement by managers? What protection does he intend to give these unfortunate people?

The hon. Gentleman knows of my reply on the Floor of the House about the brewers' code. As regards the first part of the hon. Gentle man's question, the Monopolies Commission expressed no view about tenanted as against managed public houses.

Neither did Erroll.

Is the Under-Secretary aware that among the most recent disturbing aspects of the brewers' monopoly are, first, its callous disregard for the consumer—namely, the draught beer drinker—and, secondly, its drive to close regionally-based breweries, as instanced by the Imperial Tobacco Group's recent decision to close the Barnsley Brewery? Is the hon. Gentle man aware that there is a callous disregard for the consumer, that the result will be a loss of 200 jobs in my constituency, and that these organisations are forcing on draught beer drinkers oxygenated swill which is to be trundled all over the country? Why does he not make representations to the Brewers Society that consumers and jobs matter, as well as profits?

Certainly, jobs matter. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the rationalisation of the beer industry has meant a considerable amount of centralisation. I do not think that this question particularly raises the matter of the Barnsley Brewery. It is important for us to remember that, on the whole, brewers want to supply the drinking public with that which is demanded. The fact appears to be that the brewers are supplying the demand that exists.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the visit to Japan of the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs.

My right hon. and learned Friend visited Japan last week for talks with Japanese Ministers and leaders of the business community, during which he was able to urge that Japan should further open her domestic market to world and British trade.

May I express the hope that the urging was rather more powerful than that which the hon. Gentleman expressed in his reply? Is he aware that there is extreme dissatisfaction at the manner in which Japan has used its position to amass very large balance of payments surpluses arising from its over-aggressive trade practices, and that even the floating of the yen is felt by many to be far from clean? Will the hon. Gentle man press his right hon. and learned Friend to pursue this matter more vigorously in the future than he has done in the past?

I do not agree that this matter has not been pursued vigorously. My right hon. and learned Friend saw Mr. Nakasone, Mr. Ohira and Mr. Shintani—who are respectively the Minister for International Trade and Industry, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Transport—and, in addition, Mr. Aichi, the Finance Minister. My right hon. and learned Friend has been pursuing the matter very fully.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that despite the talking that is taking place there is grave concern about the matter? What talks did the Minister have with the British ball-bearing industry regarding its future rôle?

It would be unfair to pick out any industry at this moment. My right hon. and learned Friend has not yet returned to this country. There will be other opportunities for dealing with this matter.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what representations on Civil Service jobs he has received from the north-east development council.

On 9th April I received, at its request, a deputation from the North of England Development Council to discuss the possibilities for more dispersal of Government work from London to the Northern Region. I assured the deputation that the case for the Northern Region would be considered as carefully as that for other regions.

I thank the Minister for his answer, but does he not accept that the Government have a special responsibility to disperse their own Departments to regions such as the north, in which the percentage of the work force employed in white-collar jobs is much lower than it is in other regions? Will he confirm that at least some of the 151,000 Civil Service jobs now in the London area will go to the north and other development areas?

We should not have set up the Hardman review if we did not believe that more jobs could be dispersed. We are looking at 86,000 jobs in central Government, not 151,000. There are, in addition, about 70,000 regional jobs in the London area. The share of the North-East and the Northern Region generally for Civil Service jobs is com mensurate. About 32,000 civil servants work in the North-East, and that is 6·6 per cent. of the total of the Civil Service, which corresponds roughly with the relationship of the population of the North-East to that of the rest of the country.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be helpful if we had more civil servants in the North-East, since we should then be able to convey to the House of Commons the importance of our Northern Region, which sometimes seems to be over looked by the immense number of people who represent other constituencies? Civil servants are very good at helping to advertise our part of the world, and I want my hon. Friend to realise that we should welcome their help.

The interests of the North-East will never be overlooked so long as my hon. Friend remains a Member of Parliament. I assure her that the one city outside London which has the greatest number of civil servants is New castle, which is part of the North-East.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the latest available figures show that Yorkshire has the lowest relative proportion of civil servants and almost the lowest relative concentration of Crown properties by rateable value? Is there any good reason why the hon. Gentleman should not now help York shire to attract to its territory one major Government office?

Hardman has been looking into these matters. One of the difficulties is that there are conflicting claims from each part of the country.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many persons who were successful in Civil Service examinations applied for posting in Scotland during the last annual period for which figures are available; and how many were able to be given posts in Scotland.

The Civil Service Commission annually deals with over 100,000 applicants, and no records are kept of posting preferences, but it reports that in the executive officer scheme for 1972, to which, I think, my hon. Friend is referring, there were 800 successful Scottish candidates and 300 vacancies in Scotland. Most Scottish candidates would prefer to work in Scotland, but about 75 per cent. were willing to work elsewhere.

Is this not further evidence of the availability of suitable staff in Scotland and of the need to transfer more Civil Service jobs to Scotland? Will my hon. Friend confirm that all the offices which have been transferred have been very successful? Bearing in mind the availability of office space, the lower costs and the easier housing situation in many parts of Scotland, will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that Scotland has full consideration for any jobs that are going?

I agree with my hon. Friend that the availability of qualified staff is an important factor, but I am sure that he will agree that many factors have to be taken into account in the dispersal of Civil Service offices. I also agree that the dispersal of, for example, the National Savings Bank to Cowglen has been particularly successful and that, on the whole, those who have gone there do not want to come back.

For far too long the trend has been for young people to leave the west of Scotland and come south for jobs. Would it not be a good innovation if the present Government reversed that trend and took some jobs up to the people who are qualified and ready to take them?

It was the previous Conservative Government in 1963 who instituted the former dispersal review—the Fleming review—which resulted in the dispersal of the National Savings Bank to Cowglen. If we did not think it right to disperse Government offices we should not have instituted the Hardman inquiry.

Did I understand my hon. Friend aright? Did he say that only 75 per cent. of Scotsmen wished to work outside Scotland?

I can only speak for those who are successful in the Civil Service examination.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that an added attraction in Scotland is that the great bulk of the country, nationally and locally, is Labour-controlled?

There are many added attractions in Scotland, but I should not put that at the top of my list.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service on how may occasions in the last two years printing required by the House of Commons has been delayed on account of difficulties at Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

There have been delays in normal delivery time for some papers in this period on 120 occasions. Of these, 26 were due to industrial action in the press, 48 to excessive work load, and 46 to other reasons. In most cases the delay was short, and on all occasions the House was provided with essential working papers by one means or other.

First, in the light of that reply, is my hon. Friend aware that his response to me on 19th February last, when he gave the figure of 16 occasions of delay, must have been wildly inaccurate? Will he look into the source of the advice which he then received? Second, is he aware that the position in which the Deliverer of the Vote is now being placed is becoming impossible? Third, will he tell the House how he proposes to deal with the growing difficulties, and whether he will consider seeking alternative sources of supply?

I am not aware of any discrepancy between this and the earlier reply. The facts are as I have stated them. I am glad to take this opportunity to thank the Vote Office and the Deliverer of the Vote for coping very well with the difficulties in getting essential papers—the Votes and Proceedings and the Order Paper—to the House during the industrial disputes. On the question of alternative printing arrangements, I remind the House that the Parliamentary Press, just on the other side of the river, is a major operation, employing about 600 people, which prints only material for Parliament. It would be impossible to bring that sort of operation into the precincts of the House. Any basic rearrangement of printing services for the House is a matter not for me but for the Services Committee.

Is the Minister aware that the Parliamentary Press suffers from serious environmental disadvantages for the workers, in that the temperature control in many of the print shops varies from very hot to very cold? What action are the Government taking to remove some of the causes of the industrial stoppages at the Parliamentary Press, such as environmental difficulties?

Last year the Government spent a considerable sum of money on a new central heating and air conditioning plant. I am advised that the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman refers have now been virtually eliminated.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the total of Press and information officers now employed by Government Departments; and whether he will make a statement.

The total number of staff at all levels in departmental information branches was 1,109 on 1st April 1973.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, which I was not expecting. Is not one of the extraordinary features of the number of information officers now employed by Government Departments their distribution between Departments? Can my hon. Friend explain why at the last count the Department of Defence needed 10 times more information staff than the Home Office, and the Department of the Environment needed five times more information staff than the Treasury? Are not these extraordinary discrepancies?

Whether or not they are extraordinary, they are not a matter for me. If my hon. Friend wishes to persuade my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to have more information staff, it is for the Home Secretary to decide. I am concerned with only one direct area of Government information, namely, the Central Office of Information.

Is it true, as indicated in an informed Press article last week, that one of the duties of the Prime Minister's Chief Press Secretary is to organise a roster of Cabinet Ministers to make party political speeches defending the Government? Is that a suitable function for a civil servant?

The hon. Gentleman must not draw upon his memory. I am responsible only for the Central Office of Information. We in the Central Office of Information are not concerned with putting out what may be described as party policy; we are concerned with putting over Government information services. Since 1970 we have reduced the staff of the COI by over 200.

Do the figures the Minister has just given include those who have been seconded by the Conservative Central Office to work in Government Departments to maintain links between the Conservative Party and the Government—such as Mr. Cope, at the Department of Trade and Industry?

These figures do not include those people. There are literally only two or three of them. If the hon. Gentleman wants to put down Questions about those people I shall be very pleased to answer them.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether he will make a further statement on the implementation of the Hardman recommendations on the Dispersal of Civil Service Departments.

The Government are considering Sir Henry Hardman's recommendations, which raise complex issues. In considering them, the Government will be consulting the Staff Side. Their decisions will be announced when the process of consultation is completed.

Is the Minister aware that private enterprise in Scotland is making ambitious provision for office accommodation and that we will expect the Government to match this with Civil Service employment?

As I said earlier, in reply to the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), there are 32,000 civil servants in the North-East. The North-East, of all the regions, has done very well; it has 6·6 per cent. of the total Civil Service, which is higher than the proportion that its population bears to the total population of the country.

When dispersing the Civil Service following the Hardman Report, will my hon. Friend bear in mind that not only development areas need a certain amount of Civil Service office facilities? Areas like Derbyshire, which are white areas where unemployment generally is low but unemployment amongst white collar workers is fairly high, have equally urgent requirements for this type of employment.

Sir Henry Hardman has been looking not only at the more remote regions but at the question of dispersal of Civil Service work from London to all the areas outside the South-East.

Is the Minister aware that there is ample scope for moving out of London a whole Department, and not only part of it, and that that applies particularly to heads of Departments and in relation to oil?

When the Hardman Report is published—I now confirm that it is to be published—the right hon. Gentleman will find that the proposal for removing a complete Department is considered. He will know that I saw the Lord Provost of Glasgow about six weeks ago. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the claims of west central Scotland and Glasgow have been given equal treatment with the claims of cither regions.