asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether the proposed increases in charges for postal services, as notified to his Department, will comply with the Government's counter-inflation policy, phase 2; and why the recent increased telephone charges as a result of the introduction of VAT have not allowed for the abolition of selective employment tax.

Under the Price and Pay Code the Post Office may apply to the Price Commission for increases in postal tariffs in line with the increase in its allowable costs, but no such application has been made. As to the second part of the Question, the telephone service did not pay selective employment tax.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that with each of the past two price increases for postal services there has been a resulting drop in volume and use of the facilities, which has not been recovered subsequently? Does it make commercial sense to increase postal charges again by a proposed 20 per cent., which will only price more postal services out of the market?

I am sure that the Post Office will have considered the point raised by my hon. Friend. I cannot comment on the figure of 20 per cent. or any other figure of that kind.

Does the Minister recall that we raised this matter during the Committee stage of the Post Office Bill and that I asked him then, as I ask him again today, whether he has thought in terms of giving any compensation to the Post Office because of the effects of the phase 1 and phase 2 policies? Will he tell the House whether he has been thinking about this, rather than just a straight increase in postal charges?

As the hon. Member knows, that matter has been and still is under consideration by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the position of all nationalised industries.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on the reasons for the withdrawal of concessionary television licences for groups of elderly people supervised by voluntary wardens within the voluntary warden scheme and the social services department of the Teesside County Borough.

None has been withdrawn but some are being reviewed because it seems possible that they may have been issued to people not eligible for them.

It would seem that some people have been receiving the benefit outside the scope of the regulations, but if that is so it serves only to illustrate once again the anomalies created by the regulations. Will the Minister reconsider the matter and appreciate that nothing more incenses pensioners than the fact that those who are living in local authority sheltered accommodation receive such a valuable concession while those less fortunately placed do not?

I fully understand the points made by the hon. Member and, of course, I also accept that strong feelings are aroused by the position as he has described it. However, the anomalies to which he refers arise out of the situation which was created to overcome even worse anomalies, and I am concerned to ensure that if there were to be any change it would not make the position even worse. It is therefore probably right to leave things as they are at the present time.

Surely, as my hon. Friend said, so many anomalies are created by this concessionary licence for old people living in warden accommodation, and so much bitterness is caused, that the only way to tackle the matter is to abolish television licences altogether in this context, or give free licences and recoup the lost revenue from other sources.

I am sure that the hon. Member recognises that his suggestion raises much wider issues. However, it would be helpful in operating the present scheme if, before people were informed about their eligibility for the cheap licence, the conditions were carefully examined and related to the terms of the licence.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received from the Edmondsley Parish Council on cheap television licences for the aged; and what reply he has sent.

A petition asking for half-price television licences for aged people.

My reply has explained that it is not Government policy to grant licence concessions to particular groups of people, but, instead, to help the needy by giving them cash through the social security system.

Is the Minister aware that the petitioners of Edmondsley are speaking for the majority of old people when they ask for cheap television licences for old-age pensioners? Is he aware that television has become so important in the lives of many old people that pressure for action on the matter will continue until either the Government give way or pensions are raised to a reasonable level? Will the right hon. Gentleman change his mind?

No, Sir. I think that the hon. Gentleman will equally well recognise the enormous amount of real and practical help that the present Government have given to elderly people.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office that special consideration should be given to the availability of services for the disabled.

No, Sir. The Post Office already does what it can to meet the special needs of the disabled.

I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me so fully on this subject, and to his Department for probing it. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1964, when I raised the question of the charge made to the deaf for the transistorised handset, the Labour Government reduced it by 33⅓ per cent.? For the rest of the telephone service the Post Office has an equalisation system under which the subscriber is charged the same amount whether he lives in the outer Hebrides or London? Why, therefore is there a differential charge for the deaf? As £3 is charged for altering an ordinary set to a transistorised set—a charge that must produce only a piffling amount in total—will the right hon. Gentleman seek to get the Post Office to change the arrangement?

An aid specially tailored to meet the needs of a particular form of disablement can readily be identified. Then it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services and the local authorities concerned to operate the powers they already have under the various relevant Acts. Where a device is of more general application, as in the case of amplified receivers, which would be available not only to those who are hard of hearing but to those in other circumstances, I think it is right that the Post Office should operate on a commercial basis and seek to cover its costs.

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

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many public telephone kiosks exist; what was the revenue derived from them in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what is the current average cost of providing and fixing one ready for use.

The Post Office Report and Accounts for 1971–72 show a total of about 76,000 telephone kiosks in the United Kingdom, which brought in income of £34·8 million. The average cost of providing one kiosk is £500.

As the price we pay for vandalism of public telephone kiosks is now running at £500,000 a year, will my right hon. Friend seriously consider giving a direction to the Post Office to reduce the number of kiosks where appropriate and increase the number of facilities in places like all-night cafés and 24-hour petrol service stations, with appropriate signs outside, as they would seem likely to save the Exchequer a considerable amount of money?

No, Sir. I do not think it is a matter on which I should give a general direction. I am aware that it is very much in the mind of the Post Office, which naturally takes great care in siting telephone kiosks and is continuing to do the maximum amount of research possible in the hope of finding new ways of preventing damage from vandalism.

May I strengthen the right hon. Gentleman in resisting the pleas of his hon. Friend? On new council estates being built in my constituency there are as yet, unfortunately, no shops, all-night cafés or other places where telephones might be installed, and the lack of a telephone for calling hospitals, ambulances and things like that would be greatly felt. The telephone manager has been very helpful in installing telephones on the new estates.

That is just one of the factors that the Post Office must have in mind when determining where kiosks should be sited.

I have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman), but if the number of kiosks in the Petersfield constituency were reduced great hardship would be caused.

That is probably a widely held view.

For some months hon. Members on both sides have been asking the right hon. Gentleman to put to the Post Office the necessity for putting telephones in multi-storey blocks, which we think would reduce vandalism and offer an excellent service to people who cannot get telephones in their own homes. No doubt the Post Office has heard our pleas. Will the Minister tell us whether it intends to do anything about it?

No, Sir. I have said throughout the period that the hon. Gentleman has referred to that it is entirely a matter for negotiation between the Post Office and the landlords—in most cases the local authorities concerned.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what information he has received from the BBC concerning total broadcasting licence revenue during the year ended 31st March 1973; what was the BBC deficit for the year to that date; what is its anticipated deficit during the five years to 1978; and how he proposes to finance such a deficit.

I must ask my hon. Friend to await the publication this autumn of the BBC's Accounts for 1972–73, which will show whether there was any deficit in that year. The BBC has made no representations to me about its revenue in 1972–73 and no forecast for the five years to 1978. No action is called for now.

But these accounts are published long in arrear of the conclusion of every financial year. Meantime, the House is becoming increasingly apprehensive about the mounting losses of the BBC, which have already been put at a sum of £25 million or more, on account of broadcasting fees. Surely a statement of my right hon. Friend's intentions should be made in the House before the end of July.

I think that it would be much more helpful to my hon. Friend to have the full figures before him when they are published.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that on at least six occasions in the past 10 years the corporation has had to ask the Government for an incerase in the licence fee? Is not that a thoroughly objectionable degree of dependence on the good will of Ministers? Is it not time the licence was replaced by a different form of financing, along lines put forward by several hon. Members on previous occasions?

The Question refers to the existing arrangements for collecting the licence fee, not alternative ways of raising the money for the BBC.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that licence revenue is the proper way to finance the BBC? It happens to be one of the cheapest licences in Europe. I should think it deplorable if the BBC were driven to borrowing large sums of money to keep its services going.

The points my hon. Friend has made are certainly extremely relevant and need to be borne in mind when considering the cost to the licence-holder of financing the BBC's services.

The Minister continues to evade the whole question of the financing of the BBC. He has done it today, and he did it in his speech during the broadcasting debate, when he referred to a comprehensive package of action from the Government in broadcasting and said nothing about financing. May we take it that he has this matter under active consideration? If so, when shall we have a statement from him?

The hon. Gentleman does not make clear what he means by "this matter". The Question is whether the total broadcasting revenue during the year ending 31st March 1973 has been the subject of representations to me. I have said that it has not.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of those thoroughly unsatisfactory answers, I beg leave to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what plans he is considering for expanding BBC regional television in Newcastle-upon-Tyne; and if he will make a statement.

This is a matter for the BBC and not for me.

Will the Minister tell the policy-makers at the BBC that Manchester is not in the Northern Region? Is he aware that the only old building in Newcastle that seems to be escaping demolition is the one that houses the BBC studios, and that there is an urgent need for purpose-built studios in Newcastle? It is intolerable that in 1973 I have to ask when Mike Neville and his colleagues will be available in colour to northern viewers.

I can only advise the hon. Gentleman to approach the BBC direct on the matter, which is wholly within its responsibility.

We do not want the Minister to engage in politics with the BBC, but he must have some idea how it should socially cover the country. Does he recognise that the BBC promised that it would split the Midland Region, and has not yet done so?

The question of coverage is a matter that can be brought under consideration by the special study under Sir Stewart Crawford, which I announced the other day.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to inform senders of parcels that, unless they pay a compensation fee at the time of dispatch, the corporation declines to accept liability for their loss.

No, Sir. This is clearly within the direct responsibility of the Post Office and a general direction would not be appropriate.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that as from last September the Post Office decided to cease to pay for packages or parcels lost in transit unless the poster had paid a compensation fee in addition to the normal postal charge, and that it did so without embarking on a widespread publicity campaign to inform postal users? If he will not issue a general directive, will my right hon. Friend at any rate exert his influence to ensure that Post Office users posting parcels see an advertisement making their liability clear, so that we do not have post offices, like the House of Commons post office, where there are no signs to inform the public?

There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says, and I am sure that the Post Office will wish to take careful note of it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Post Office the importance of this matter? Is he aware that I was a victim of the new system? I sent the usual Christmas parcels to my friends in America. Those parcels were never received. I then wrote to the Post Office asking for some sort of compensation. I was told, "You should have paid the compensation fee." That was something about which I knew absolutely nothing. I am sure that if that applies to me and the House of Commons post office it must apply to many thousands, or hundreds, of people throughout the country. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the point made by the hon. Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) is taken up?

I said at the outset that this is a matter for the Post Office. I am sure that it will take careful note of what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and my hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (Miss Quennell) have said.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Irish Minister of Posts and Telecommunications concerning the availability of programmes from the Republic and from the North of Ireland being seen in Northern Ireland and the Republic, respectively.

The proposals put to me by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications of the Irish Republic require a great deal of study before any view on them can be taken.

Is the right hon. Gentleman's initial reaction one of sympathy to the proposal? Does he agree that the proposal could do a great deal to decrease suspicion and hostility between different parts of Ireland, and could help to bring a more ecumenical understanding in both parts of Ireland?

That is one of the points which need further study. The proposals were just put to me and I made it clear that I should be prepared to look at them more closely.

Instead of saying that that is one of the points to be considered, will the right hon. Gentleman at least accept in principle the point made by my hon. Friend that this kind of interchange of information would be helpful?

In advance of a closer study of the point put to me, I am not prepared to accept or reject anything.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what recent representations he has received concerning the exercise of his powers under the Television Act 1964 and the Sound Broadcasting Act 1972.

None, Sir.

Bearing in mind the debates in Committee about what is now Section 6 of the Sound Broadcasting Act 1972, does the Minister accept that it may be regrettable that some of the companies which have extensive interests in commercial television have been allowed by the IBA to take an interest in radio companies in the same area? Does he agree that while we need the technical expertise of companies like Rediffusion and Granada it would be better if that expertise were deployed in other areas, if IBA is giving out these contracts, so that there is not the danger of a conglomerate of monopolies?

Section 6 of the Sound Broadcasting Act 1972 made it clear that the companies to which the hon. Gentleman referred would not be given a controlling interest and would not be allowed to run stations in the areas in which they operated. It did not proscribe them from having any shareholding.

asked the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement defining the administrative status of the Island of Bardsey, off the county of Gwynedd, as a result of the Local Government Act 1972.

The island is part of the county of Gwynedd but not part of the district of Dwyfor.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the island is a national shrine and has been a place of pilgrimage for many centuries? Is he aware that there is widespread and growing concern about the apparent erosion, in recent years, of public rights of access to the island, and to movement upon it? Does he agree that it is high time—he was given the opportunity in the 1972 Act—he made a definitive statement which would make it clear that the island is not only administratively but effectively part of the mainland and part of the county of Gwynedd, subject to the same statutes and byelaws and with the same protection of public access, including rights of navigation across the sound?

I am fully aware of the great historical importance of the island and of the affection in the minds of the people of North Wales for the island. The Local Government Boundaries Commission for Wales will be able to propose under Schedule 10 of the Local Government Act 1972, should it consider it appropriate, that Bardsey Island should be part of the district of Dwyfor.

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give a fuller reply to my right hon. Friend? Is he aware that Welsh people have enjoyed access to this treasured and historic shrine from time immemorial? Is he further aware that there is widespread concern far beyond Caernarvonshire that access is now to be denied? Will he do all in his power to safeguard public rights and to clarify generally the position, which is causing considerable apprehension in the area?

By reason of correspondence which I have had with the right hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts), I have gone into the question of access. I do not see how the issue of access rights is affected by the fact that the island is not in the district.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom about a scheme of investment incentives of mutual benefit to the shipping and shipbuilding industries.

There have been no such discussions. The Government have not contemplated reintroducing a general scheme for investment grants for shipowners.

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the clarity, at any rate, of what he said. As we now have the Booz-Allen Report and as there will be a lot of speculation about the future of shipbuilding and investment grants, or other ways of helping shipbuilding, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that discussions are held as early as possible, and that the Government will take a decision as early as possible? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that uncertainty causes a great deal of harm?

I certainly accept that uncertainty can cause harm. The right hon. Gentleman may like to know that we are inviting representatives of the industry, the unions and other interested parties to send to the Department of Trade and Industry written observations on the report and its implications not later than 15th June. Of course, as soon as we get those written observations we shall have any necessary discussions and will then proceed to form conclusions about policy.

This is an important matter both to shipbuilding and to shipping. I realise that some time must elapse for this very important report to be considered, but will my hon. Friend give an undertaking through the usual channels that he will ensure that there is a full-scale debate, in which those on both sides of the House who are interested in this important issue can give their views, as well as Booz-Allen, the shipbuilders and the shipping people?

I do not know whether I can answer for the usual channels.

Oh, you can.

I think that I can assure my hon. Friend that a futher statement will be made when consultations are completed. No doubt those who are interested in these matters will take all the steps that seem appropriate to press the need for further debate.

It is noticeable that the Booz-Allen Report which has been laid before the Government does not take us any further than the Geddes Report of 1966. That is probably because of the conservatism of employers and trade unions—management and men—in the shipbuilding industry. That makes it inevitable that the industry will have to be publicly owned. Is it right that the hon. Gentleman had no discussion with either the Chamber of Shipping or the federation on the implications of the Booz-Allen Report during the stage when it was being prepared?

I know about the right hon. Gentleman's consuming passion to nationalise everything. However, I think he will agree that as the report has only recently been made available it is reasonable that we should have time to study it before we come to any conclusion.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he has yet reached a decision on what action he will take with reference to outlawing the practice of pyramid selling.

I am still exploring the possibility of including the necessary measures in the Fair Trading Bill.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that whilst all this delay is going on people are being conned daily out of large sums of money which they cannot afford while others wax fat on their misery? Why does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman take over my Bill, alter it as he pleases and get it passed swiftly by both Houses? Does he not do so because I am a Member of the Opposition? If I were to cross the Floor of the House, would that make it easier for him? As he knows, I am always most accommodating.

I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman were to cross the Floor mixed emotions would be excited on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman knows, because we have discussed it several times in debate, that for a number of reasons his Bill and its basic definition cannot be expanded so as to cover all aspects of the abuse that he wants to tackle.

The House knows that some weeks ago we published a consultative document about pyramid selling. We have received a great deal of useful information and comment. We are anxious that ways should be found of regulating pyramid selling as soon as possible, in the light of the information and comments that we have received. I echo the warning to the public that they should not be led into joining schemes of the kind in question. Nobody should enter that kind of marketing scheme except after the most careful thought and after receiving independent advice.

I appreciate the difficulties, in that the consultations have only recently culminated and that the Fair Trading Bill is not about to go to another place, but when will the right hon. and learned Gentleman be able to announce his proposals to the House? Will he be putting them forward as amendments to the Bill in another place? In view of the initiative that many hon. Members on both sides have shown on the issue, will he concurrently make a statement in the House?

I hope to be able to come to a conclusion as soon as possible, and I will consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion about ways of making it known.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make it his policy to prohibit the import into the United Kingdom of South African produce and products using convict or prison camp labour.

The Government would use their powers under the Importation of Foreign Prison-made Goods Act 1897 and the Customs and Excise Act 1952 in appropriate cases.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman satisfied that products particularly emanating from Western Cape and South West Africa, including furs and wines, do not come into this category? If they do, is that not against the GATT? Will he conduct a thorough examination into the question whether such products are coming into this country? If they are, will he use his powers accordingly?

I have read certain writings about these matters. The Government are prepared to say that any suggestions of this kind will be closely examined. If the hon. Gentleman has any evidence in relation to particular imports, or can direct our attention to such evidence, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will arrange for the matter to be investigated.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to interest and encourage oil drilling companies to explore the potentialities for oil and gas in the North Irish Sea.

Eight companies already hold licences, covering about 1,800 square miles, in the North Irish Sea. They were committed to drill eight exploration wells and to carry out seismic surveys under work programmes laid down when the licences were granted.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in a minor way oil has been pumped for many years from Formby, and that the discovery of oil or gas in the North Irish Sea would be a tremendous boost to industry in Lancashire, on Merseyside and in North Wales? Will he galvanise into action the companies that have been granted these licences?

Under the terms of their licences, these companies must complete their drilling programmes within six years of the grant. On that basis, five wells will have to be drilled in the next three years and a further two in the next five years. So far, two wells have been drilled, but both were dry.

The appointment of Lord Polwarth was announced outside this House. We understand that he has been designated as a trouble-shooter in relation to the North Sea oil exploration activities. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House of Commons how it is to be informed when Lord Polwarth finds trouble? May we be informed exactly whom he will shoot once he finds trouble?

If the hon. Gentleman takes the trouble to turn up next Friday morning he can make his speech about it then.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information he has as to the working of non-tariff barriers to trade such as fiscal incentives given to United States shippers using domestic international sales corporations and as to the extent to which this is resulting in loss of foreign exchange to British shipping.

The fiscal incentives of the American DISC system could reduce British shipping earnings by encouraging preferential use of American ships. It is difficult to quantify their effect, nor is it easy to assess the effect on British shipping of other discriminatory practices applying elsewhere in the world. We keep in close touch with the industry about this situation.

Are not these so-called "DISCS" a serious threat not only to our seaborne but to our airborne freight? Is it not a bad example to other, less affluent exporting nations? Will the Government consider retaliatory measures?

It is too much to ask that the Government should commit themselves to retaliatory measures, but I assure my hon. Friend that we have on several occasions made representations to the United States Government about the effect of their measures.

I am obliged for that reply. This type of non-tariff barrier DISC is not only affecting the foreign earnings of our shipping but is frustrating the efforts of exporters who want to get into the United States market, especially in major products. I hope that the Government will keep up their pressure on the United States.

It does not militate simply against British shipping interests. The EEC Commission raised the question at discussions in the GATT last year and there will be an opportunity to raise the matter again in the GATT Council at the end of this month.

This is not simply a question of providing us with knowledge. My hon. Friend's answer does not say what action will be taken. I am rather keen on action. I have heard this argument for a long time and I should like to see a little more action.

I know my hon. Friend's desire for action, but my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Wingfield Digby) asked only for information.

I am asking for action.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will hold an inquiry into the chain of circumstances leading to the appointment of a receiver and the subsequent liquidation of Multiplex Designs Limited, following an industrial dispute and complaint to the industrial wages board, which was later dismissed, and into the speed of the sale of this company and into the sum for which it was sold.

Complaints about the appointment or conduct of the receiver or about the liquidation fall to be resolved in the liquidation. I have received no evidence that would justify any other form of inquiry into these matters.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that is quite the most unsatisfactory answer I have ever had from him? Is he further aware that in the course of an industrial dispute, subsequently decided in favour of the company, his right hon. Friend, in answer to a supplementary question, by a slip of the tongue used the word "orders" when he meant "contracts"? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that that one word put Multiplex out of business?

My right hon. Friend most honourably wrote correcting his slip some days later, but immediately following that HANSARD reply staff of the Service Departments and Barclays Bank read it, all orders were stopped, and Barclays slammed in a receiver, who has since sold a company worth £105,000 for £20,000. This is an intolerable injustice to my constituents who, having been found to be acting honourably in regard to industrial wage affairs, and found solvent, have now lost their entire life's work and company? Will my right hon. and learned Friend, under the Companies Act, examine this matter and see whether something can be done?

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend should direct so much of her anxiety at me. I know, from the correspondence we have had and from what I have read in a number of other places, of the extent to which she has striven to bring the difficulties of those connected with the company to the attention of the Departments concerned.

The difficulties originated, I think, with the application under the Fair Wages Resolution which was subsequently determined by the Industrial Arbitration Board. As far as my responsibility is concerned, the position is that the debenture holders exercised their right to appoint a receiver after several meetings with the company to discuss it, and my function does not permit me to intervene in relation to the activities of the receiver.

If the activities of the receiver are to be questioned, they may be questioned by the liquidator, who has also now been appointed. It is in that context that I said that any complaints fall to be resolved in the liquidation.

I appreciate the extent to which my right hon. Friend has raised this matter in a number of ways, but the position remains as I have stated. I have seen no evidence in relation to the conduct of the receivership and of the liquidation that could justify any form of inquiry into these matters that I could establish.

Has not my right hon. and learned Friend a responsibility under the Companies Acts and, through that, a receiver responsibility, not only to pay creditors but to husband the assets and see that a proper return is provided for those who, having paid all their dues to creditors, are entitled to their savings and investments in their company? Can he not investigate the ridiculously low sum which has been provided for this company without the issue going to tender?

As I have indicated, I have certain responsibilities under the Companies Acts. I have looked at those and at their scope, in the light of all the facts that my right hon. Friend has drawn to my attention and in the light of the point that she has just mentioned. Having done so, however, I find that there is no evidence that would justify any form of inquiry in respect of which I have a responsibility.

This is something which can be raised—and, no doubt, is being raised—by the liquidator on behalf of the other creditors and people interested in the company. That is the way in which the matter remains to be resolved in the context of the liquidation.

I have studied my right hon. Friend's correspondence and the background of this case as closely as her anxiety would justify.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many persons are employed in his Department to advise him in matters of safety concerning exploration of North Sea oil and gas.

Nine technical staff and six administrative staff are available to advise on safety questions as part of their wider duties. The technical staff is being expanded.

What part has the Department to play in the co-ordination of safety matters, particularly in relation to oil rigs? Are inspections being made regularly, and is he satisfied that the inspectorate has the staff to deal with this new but important problem?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the importance of the problem. Inspectors make regular visits to offshore installations to ensure that the conditions are complied with, and as offshore activities develop so the staff will be expanded.

Is my right hon. and learned Friend's Department geared to cope with pollution caused by North Sea oil exploration?

That is more a matter for the Department of my right lion. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what efforts are being made to encourage the motor car industry in Lanarkshire.

The motor industry, in planning development, is able to take into account the facilities and Government financial assistance available in the assisted areas, which include Lanarkshire.

I think the hon. Gentleman for that reply. Does he appreciate that in Lanarkshire 7·2 per cent. of the insurable population are unemployed? Will he try to sell to those concerned the fact that already in Lanarkshire we have Honeywell, General Motors and the Caterpillar Company, and they have authorised me to say that the workers in Lanarkshire are second to none? Will he try to reduce the figure of 7·2 per cent. unemployed and to bring something worth while to the county?

It is basically a matter for the motor industry to formulate its own proposals in the first instance, but I am sure that it will take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the quantity of solid smokeless fuel imported into the United Kingdom, from EEC countries, since 1st January 1973.

Smokeless fuels are not separately distinguished in the trade statistics, but imports of anthracite, briquettes of coal and of hard coke totalled 108·3 thousand metric tonnes.

Is the Minister aware that smokeless fuels are coming into the country from West Germany and being invoiced to people in London while at the same time the National Coal Board is considering closing down two recently established smokeless fuel plants, installed at a cost of £10 million of public money? Is he aware that we are allowing this capital to be eroded in this way without any protection, and that this competition is coming from plants which have probably been established in Germany and other parts of Europe for 20 or more years?

As I understand the situation, imported fuels are currently only about 5 per cent. of the smokeless fuel market and it would be inappropriate to ban those imports while we support home production at a financial loss. But any question of closure would arise only after careful examination of the financial prospects of the plants in question.

Will the Minister say whether we are still exporting anthracite dust to the Continent and re-importing it as smokeless fuel?

I should like notice of that question, but I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what pay increases he has recommended to the Pay Board for civil servants within the jurisdiction of his Department in phase 2; what will be the cost; how many persons are involved; and whether he will make a statement.

Pay increases ranging from £2·15 to nearly £4 per week for those who are 21 or older have been approved by the Pay Board for most non-industrial civil servants. These increases will be paid from 1st April. They cover nearly 490,000 staff and are estimated to cost about £63 million in a full year.

Are the civil servants satisfied with this settlement or is it to be only an interim settlement pending renewal of all the claims or a major part of them under phase 3? Will my hon. Friend assure the House beyond peradventure that there will not be any further threats of strikes and the withholding of payment of pensions and other similar facilities from the elderly?

With regard to my hon. Friend's latter point, I think that the union concerned is now having second thoughts about having a strike to prevent the payment of pensions. I am sure that it is wise to have those second thoughts.

Regarding the question of anomalies, the Pay Board will report in September, or possibly before then, on the general question of anomalies. The anomalies related to the Civil Service are among those to be considered. The Government will then consider how the principle suggested by the Pay Board can be applied to civil servants.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the gravest anomaly of all is the fact that the failure of civil servants to get their reward on the comparability basis has permanently deprived them of part of their pension and that this has aroused great bitterness among them? Is he further aware that this matter requires not merely the Pay Board but the Government to assure civil servants that they will get the full pension that they would have earned had it not been for phase 1?

The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. He will recognise that it raises a difficult problem, which the previous administration also faced and for which they were unable to find a solution. Discussions on this point are continuing with the National Staff Side, and perhaps a way through will be found.

Is it fair to deduce from my hon. Friend's answer that the maximum increase for an accountant employed in the Civil Service is about £200 a year? Does he consider that an increase of that magnitude will anything like keep up with the increase in the going rate for accountants in the private sector?

My hon. Friend touches upon the fact that in this settlement there has been a deliberate attempt to move wage increases down the scale to some extent. The National Staff Side as a whole decided on a plan to give the lower-paid bigger increases, and we were glad to accede to this because it accords with Government policy.

Is not the point made by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) absolutely valid? If these people were not inside the Civil Service but were self-employed, they could negotiate exactly what they wanted. Is not this totally unfair? Is it not time that the Government recognised the unfairness of their policy, particularly as the self-employed can get precisely what they like without any Government control?

I do not accept that it is unfair to direct what assistance may be given in the pay settlement this year to the lower-paid in the Civil Service. As I said in an earlier reply, the Government have referred to the Pay Board the question of the anomalies of the higher-paid civil servants.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what is the present number of persons employed in the Civil Service; and what is the percentage change compared with the position in June 1970.

On 1st July 1970 the number was 701,790. By 1st April 1973 this had fallen to 700,152. I will, with permission, circulate the usual analysis in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is my hon. Friend aware how much pleasure his answer has given to the Government side of the House, as it was one of our promises that we would reduce the size of the Civil Service? Will he remind the House how much the Civil Service grew during the period of the previous administration?

I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. As I have said, in our first two and three quarter years the size of the Civil Service has remained roughly the same. In the same period under the Labour Government it rose by 3 per cent.

Before the hon. Gentleman starts congratulating himself too loudly, will he bear in mind that the number of non-industrial civil servants, the figures for whom were always used

I am not conscious of muddying any waters. My comparisons have been absolutely accurate. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk only about non-industrial civil servants he should remember that under the Labour Government's first three years their number increased by 41,000, whereas under the Conservative Government's first three years they increased by 15,000.