asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications by what percentage the average cost of letter post has increased since June 1970.

Fifty-three per cent., the tariffs in force in June 1970 having remained unchanged since September 1968.

What further increases does the right hon. Gentleman now have in mind and what proportion of such increases does he propose to allocate to those whom many of us feel need them most, namely, the postmen?

The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that proposals to increase the tariffs are now before the Price Commission, and they have recently been considered by the Post Office Users National Council. The matter raised in the second part of his supplementary question is one for negotiation between the Post Office and the unions concerned.

As the postal service is a labour-intensive service, may we be informed by roughly how much, on average, wages have risen in the service?

Not without notice.

How do postal prices in this country compare with those in other developed countries?

I shall try to give that information if a Question is put down.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he has now been able to assess the performance of Giro in achieving the first financial target set for it by his predecessor; and if he will make a statement.

The short-term target agreed with the Post Office by my predecessor required Giro to make a positive contribution to Post Office finances within a year of introducing new tariffs on 1st July 1972. I can now inform the House that this target has been achieved. Though too much cannot be read into short-run figures, the contribution made by Giro to Post Office overheads during the last part of the target period was about £500,000 per month.

That is welcome news as far as it goes, but will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that this was a somewhat imprecise objective, and will he ascertain that the Giro has not been taking on substantial contracts in the past year involving an element of indirect subsidy, because they were taken on at a substantial discount?

The objective, as my hon. Friend knows, was never to create a sort of make-or-break situation, and, as he recognises also, this is part now of the long-term objective of achieving viability which is to cover the five-year period. The matter raised in the second part of his supplementary question is one of detail and is a responsibility of management.

The right hon. Gentleman's news will give great satisfaction on Merseyside, especially in the areas where Giro is situated. Will he go a little further and give the House an assurance that the future of Giro is now assured, on the basis of the statement that he has made—and will he be kind enough to give us that answer in the House, without talking about coming outside afterwards to explain it?

I have always made clear that the decision, in principle, to maintain Giro subject to its ability to meet the targets that have been set means that the Government are now anxious that business shall proceed as effectively as possible. That is why a new appointment to the Post Office main board was recently made in this connection. But the ultimate test of this business must be its profitability, and Giro's progress towards that goal will continue to be monitored by my Department as part of its normal sponsorship function.

May we have the accounts for the last financial year presented in such a form as to enable us to analyse precisely what contribution is made by this service—which many of us regard as a waste of time and money—and to see whether it is truly profitable and in the national interest or ought to be supplanted by a different form of service altogether?

The Giro accounts will form part of the Post Office report and accounts for 1972–73, which will become available shortly. Of course, there are certain details of management accounting and other such matters which it would clearly not be appropriate for a business to reveal.

May I express a genuine welcome to the information that the Minister has imparted to us today? Since he has mentioned the new appointment to the board, will he say whether he sees any scope for further development, particularly on the lines along which we have been pressing him for some time in connection with the Government's own interest in the service, and the interest of local authorities?

I have always taken the view that the development of this business is a matter for those who are appointed to run it, and I have no doubt that the new appointee will take note of what the hon. Member has said.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he next plans to meet the Chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

I saw Lord Aylestone last Thursday, and another meeting has not yet been arranged.

When the Minister next sees Lord Aylestone will he discuss with him the breach of Section 3(1)(e) of the Television Act involved in the joint opinion poll conducted by the ITN and The Times? Will he also take into account the undesirability of ITN, a body required by statute to be impartial, sponsoring a joint polling operation with a newspaper that in recent months has shown itself quite ready to fiddle its presentation of opinion poll findings?

I read the hon. Member's article, and in any case Lord Aylestone had told me that the hon. Member had written to him and that he was looking into the points raised. Section 3(1)(e ) of the Act refers only to programmes being broadcast.

Did the Minister take up with Lord Aylestone on Thursday the remarkable Press statement put out by the IBA on 11th July, which stated that there would now be only 18 commercial radio stations on the air by 1976? Does that not show that in Committee the Opposition were right in saying that what the Government would end up with in commercial radio was a regional network and not local radio?

Progress with the independent local radio stations is primarily a matter for the authority. It is obviously concerned with the costs involved in the development of the programme, but as the hon. Member has a later Question on the Order Paper about this matter I shall be giving him an answer later in the day.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the latest estimate of the proportion of letter mail sent second class, and what proportion of this arrives within two days of posting.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what are the latest figures he has for the average time taken to deliver second-class mail.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is his latest estimate of the proportion of first-class mail which is delivered the following morning.

The latest Post Office figures show that about 92 per cent. of first-class letters are delivered on the next working day after posting and about 88 per cent. of second-class by the second working day. About 56 per cent. of inland letters are sent second class.

As the proportion of mail sent second class is likely to increase if the costs of postal services rise, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the duty of the Post Office to see that mail is delivered as soon as possible and that it should be an exceptional case if second-class mail does not arrive within 48 hours of being posted?

I am sure that the Post Office would only too readily endorse the objective set out by my hon. Friend, namely, that it is the aim to deliver all letters by the first possible available post the following day.

One of the great difficulties the Post Office has is in recruiting staff because of the deplorably low wages paid to postmen. In order to overcome this difficulty it is necessary to set aside a proportion of the mail—that being second-class mail—in order that it can be handled when staff are available—usually during the evening.

The point raised by the hon. Member is a matter of certain representations by the unions concerned to the management of the Post Office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the standard of delivery of first-class mail between this House and other addresses in London is getting worse? If the excuse used by the Post Office is shortage of labour, what will my right hon. Friend do to make certain that in the London postal region the union concerned withdraws its restrictive practice on the employment of women?

I shall certainly bring to the attention of the Post Office Corporation the points that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend. As he will recognise, the Hardman Committee recommended more flexible manning practices.

The right hon. Gentleman said that 92 per cent. of first-class mail was delivered the following day. What percentage of the balance is delivered the same day? I have in my hand a letter that was posted in my constituency at 9.30 this morning and delivered through my letter box, in the same constituency, at 11 a.m. Will the right hon. Gentleman offer my congratulations to the Post Office for that?

The figure I gave was the main one, referring to the speed of delivery of first-class mail. The 92 per cent. figure of successful deliveries implies that as many as 1·1 million first-class letters are not delivered by the day after posting, but although that represents a large number of letters it must be related to the substantial total number of letters handled by the Post Office.

Sainsbury's prospectus urged that all applications should be posted by first-class mail and allowed two days to arrive. Is it not difficult for provincial business to operate in that way?

I can only repeat that every effort is being made by the Post Office to ensure an efficient delivery system. Obviously there are areas where this is more difficult, and I know that that is something that the Post Office management will be discussing actively with the unions. Certain references have already been made by the Government to the Post Office Users' National Council for a close examination of the complete structure of the postal services.

Would not the chances of a quick delivery in future be greatly increased if the Post Office would go over to a postal code that people could understand and, therefore, remember? Will the Minister not bring home to the Post Office the many criticisms that have been voiced in this House about the difficulty of remembering the present code?

The Post Office is publishing booklets containing the postal codes. The point about a postal code is that it should give as much information as possible, in as simplified a form as possible, so that the machine can digest the information and speed delivery of the letter concerned.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will now have discussions with the Independent Broadcasting Authority concerning his powers in relation to television advertising.

No, Sir. The IBA's responsibilities and my own are clear. The recent allegations in the Press that the IBA's own rules on advertising have been broken have been examined in consultation with the IBA. I am satisfied that the IBA's policies are right, that it has adequate machinery for ensuring that the programme companies abide by these policies or guidelines, and that on the rare occasions when they have been breached, the IBA has sought and received a satisfactory explanation.

The Minister may be satisfied with the IBA's application of its policy, but is he satisfied with the six-minutes' rule and its observance? Has it not been breached with considerable frequency? If the rule has been breached, is the Minister satisfied that the programme companies have not made excess profits? Those are the allegations that have been made, based upon the industry's own figures.

It certainly appears to be the case that the six-minutes' guideline, averaged over a period of one day, is observed. The difficulty of flexibility applies to the seven-minutes-in-the-hour rule, and that is the guideline that provides flexibility in the interests of better programme planning. But I can give an assurance that even in that instance it does not mean more money to the companies, because it is on a totally different basis and the form of contract does not allow for more money to be earned.

Is it not a fact that the recent Sunday Times inquiry ended with a denial of the allegations made by the IBA and, basically, an admission of error by the newspapers concerned?

I cannot comment on the newspaper reports. I can say that it is always dangerous to use statistics for purposes for which they were not intended. The JICTAR reports are produced for the advertisers and do not provide a basis for working out the total broadcasting time and the amount of advertising time permitted in a day. The authority is careful to make checks each week, and if there are any discrepancies it follows them up immediately.

Is it not a fact that while we must enforce a proper proportion between advertising and programmes over a long period we can, over a short period, injure rather than assist the integrity of programmes, which is not desirable? Is it not a fact that advertising is rather liked by housewives, as it gives them a chance to make the coffee, and that it is rather liked by men because they often think that the advertising programmes are better than the other programmes?

The practice has changed slightly in recent years, to take into account the need to minimise interference with programmes, with the result that in recent months there has tended to be fewer but longer breaks rather than frequent short breaks for advertising.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give authority to the Post Office to increase its planned investment by £30 million in the 1975–76 financial year of its five-year programme.

No, Sir.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the waiting list will get longer and longer until the Post Office is allowed to get rid of the waiting list by increased investment? Further, is he aware that there is great disappointment in the Post Office at the recently announced cuts in investment? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that not only the waiting list but the quality of service will deteriorate? When it occurs, that will be the responsibility not of the Post Office but of the Minister.

I recognise the tremendous amount of effort that the Post Office and the manufacturing companies together have been making to try to shorten the waiting list. The cutbacks referred to in the capital expenditure exercise will have some impact on the reduction of the waiting list. I expect it still to go down from its present figure of about 200,000 but after that it may well begin to come up again. At this stage it is terribly difficult to tell what will happen. The situation depends enormously on the success that is generally attendant on the efforts being made by the Post Office and the manufacturing companies, which I do not expect will in any way be diminished as a result of the cutback.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents have been waiting a long time for a telephone? At the moment it looks as if they will have to wait even longer. Further, those who have a telephone find that the Post Office is not very helpful when it says that persons who dial will get through 99 per cent. of the time—because that is not true. The fact is that because we have not invested enough in the past—and it is a reason why we should invest in the future many people with a telephone find that the instrument does not enable them to get through the first, second or third time. Will my right hon. Friend consider that point again? There is considerable dissatisfaction with the telephone service. It is felt that it is not being run as well as it might be.

My hon. Friend has misunderstood or over-exaggerated the impact of the cutback. We are talking about a 4·5 per cent cutback in the total planned capital expenditure of £662 million. That will not have a dramatic effect.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that other statutory undertakings, such as gas, electricity and water, have to make provision for their services on new housing developments? Why does not the Post Office have to make the same provision for telecommunications? Is not it about time the Government made the finance available to the Post Office to do so?

The finance is available and the Post Office makes provision for new housing development. All that is happening is that in the growth of the programme, which is a very substantial one, there has been a small cutback as part of the contribution from this sector of the economy owing to the need for restraint in capital expenditure. All sections have contributed to that and it is right that the Post Office should have done so, too.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that despite the proposed cutback the level of expenditure is still vastly greater than that envisaged by the Opposition when in Government? Will he say what the waiting list would be if we were stuck with the level of investment that the Opposition had in mind?

I cannot give an answer to the last part of my hon. Friend's question, except that it would be very much greater than it was when the present Government took office. My hon. Friend is absolutely right in suggesting that there is a programme of growing capital investment in telecommunications.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the 4·5 per cent. that he has just mentioned—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—relates to the fitting of telephones and not to the overall investment programme? That would make a substantial difference to the answers that he has just given. Will he clarify the position now?

The 4·5 per cent. relates to the cut of £30 million from the total investment programme of £662 million. The major part of that cut falls on telecommunications, which is the major part of the capital-intensive operation. It will affect those operations which are short-lead time ones and can therefore be reasonably easily controlled. It does not in any way affect the major investment programme in new equipment, which I described in my statement on 18th June.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will invite evidence from interested parties on the subject of broadcasting coverage, and submit it for study to the Crawford Committee.

No. It is for Sir Stewart Crawford to invite people to submit evidence to the committee, and he has already done so.

I do not think that Sir Stewart has done so with any great publicity. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people living in some areas of the country are still not receiving clear reception on all three channels, and that they are irate about the matter? Such people welcome the setting up of the committee, and would like to know where to send their evidence. That aspect should be given wider publicity.

Sir Stewart did give considerable publicity to that matter at the time. The address, if I can help the hon. Gentleman, is "The Committee on Broadcasting Coverage, 85 Whitehall". I know that Sir Stewart will welcome any submission.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that some people in my constituency and other parts of Derbyshire, including the northern part, and the High Peak area, have been waiting an intolerable time for proper coverage? We may set up 100 committees, but they will not do any good unless facilities and money are made available for the BBC to extend its coverage. I wish my right hon. Friend would do something to hurry it up.

It is because I realised the force of the representations that my hon. Friend has consistently made to me on behalf of his constituents that I established a Committee on Broadcasting Coverage to consider the matter throughout the country.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the findings of the committee will be published and taken into account by the Government before any decision is taken on the fourth channel, bearing in mind the possible implications for the use of that channel?

I have already indicated that I will be bringing proposals or conclusions before the House and inviting the House to authorise the extension of the franchise to the IBA and the BBC. The Crawford Committee's report will, of course, be published.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to receive the report of the Committee on Broadcasting Coverage.

I expect to receive the report early next year.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing resentment that Humberside is to be deprived of 50 per cent. of its television programmes next year? The matter is now in the hands of the committee. Will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the Chairman of the IBA to see that no action is taken about the Belmont transmitter until the committee has reported?

I referred to this point in the debate on 19th April, reported at column 692 of HANSARD. I am sure that the IBA and broadcasting generally will be sensitive to parliamentary opinion, as has been expressed in this instance.

Is the Minister aware that people on both sides of the Humber are puzzled at the reason why their desire to have both Yorkshire and Anglia still within their vision, so to speak, cannot be satisfied? The sooner we get a statement on it the more people will be happy on Humberside.

Meanwhile the hon. Gentleman may wish to make representations, or encourage others to make submissions about the matter, to the committee.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will seek powers to prevent the distribution by the Post Office Corporation of mail bearing postage stamps which carry warlike and politically propagandist messages.

No, Sir. The Post Office already has powers to deal with a wide variety of prohibited items but the stamps which I believe the hon. Member has in mind do not infringe any postal regulations.

Is that not just the point that the right hon. Gentleman is missing? Has his attention been drawn to the stamps issued by the Egyptian authorities and circulating in this country and elsewhere, which are deeply offensive not only to people who hold different views from those of the Egyptian authorities, but to the whole spirit in which the International Postal Union has operated over 100 years? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter? I recognise his difficulties, but he should at least make representations in the right quarters. We do not like this kind of conduct in respect of the issue of postage stamps by any country.

I have seen the stamps in question and I understand that they give rise to considerable offence. The normal recourse in cases of this kind is for the principal injured party to lodge a protest with the International Bureau of the UPU and to request that that protest be circulated to all member countries. My understanding is that no such circular has yet been received in the United Kingdom.

Is the Minister saying that no matter how offensive a foreign stamp may be to British standards of public decency he will take no action?

No, Sir. The stamps do not at this stage infringe any United Kingdom postal regulations. It is a matter that should be raised through the UPU procedures. [Interruption.] It is not for me to raise it. It is a matter for the country that feels aggrieved by the practice—and I fully understand why it should so feel.

While the right hon. Gentleman's mind is concentrated on stamps and postmarks, will he tell the Post Office that the slogan on many letters celebrating what is called the Anglo Portuguese 600 hundred years of friendship causes a great deal of offence to many people in this country and takes away much from the impartiality of the Post Office? We should be grateful if he would raise the matter with the Post Office.

We shall always find that the marking of almost any anniversary gives offence in some quarter or other. I think that it is fitting that such an anniversary as the hon. Gentleman has referred to should be marked.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will issue a general direction to the Post Office instructing it in the public interest to continue to use British Rail wherever practicable in despatching its mail.

The Government will naturally expect to be informed before any major changes are made as a result of the discussions taking place between the Post Office, British Rail and the National Freight Corporation, but I have no reason to suppose that a general direction will be appropriate.

But at a time of growing public anxiety about the adverse social implications of the growing volume of heavy road traffic, does not the Minister agree that a decision by the Post Office to switch the movement of mail from rail to road would not be in the public interest? Will he give an assurance that wider environmental and social interests than the immediate short-term profit motives of the Post Office will be at play, and that no step in the latter direction will be taken?

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries put the environmental considerations into perspective in his speech on 4th July. But these are points that obviously need to be borne in mind in the event of any proposition coming before Ministers. At present it is a matter for commercial consideration between the bodies concerned.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is yet in a position to announce the revised financial targets for the Post Office postal services.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 9th April to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding).—[Vol. 854, c. 229–30]

Is it true that the Post Office is limited to 2 per cent. profit on the counter services it provides for other Government Departments? Is not that a pathetic return for very valuable services? Should not my right hon. Friend support the Post Office in seeing that it gets a more realistic return for the services it provides?

The counter services were the subject of an observation in the recently available report of the Post Office Users' National Council. The five-year target for the Post Office postal services business has been 2 per cent, return on expenditure.

Did the Minister note the observation of the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation about the Post Office's proposals for postal tariff increases? Was he aware that the chairman was to make a statement saying that even if the Post Office's proposals were accepted there would still be a deficit of £50 million in 1973–74? On the assumption that the latest proposals are accepted by the Price Commission, how soon shall we face a proposal for yet another increase in postal tariffs?

I was aware of the observations by the chairman. The proposition about the tariff increases has been studied by the Post Office Users' National Council and is still before the Price Commission. I must reserve the Government's position until those studies have been concluded.

If the proposed tariff increases now before the Price Commission are confirmed and implemented, will the Post Office then be meeting the financial targets referred to in the Question?

Those targets were for the five years that expired in March 1973. The question of future targets is still under consideration.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when the new medium-wave regional news broadcasts will commence in the West Country.

The BBC tells me that it hopes to open the relay stations at Barnstable, Plymouth and Torquay in the autumn. The others will take rather longer.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great pleasure that the decision to reintroduce local news broadcasting on medium wave has given to the people of the West Country? Will he ask the BBC to reintroduce some of the excellent programmes, such as "Midday Parade" and "The West at Westminster", which disappeared in April at the same time as the reintroduction of these medium-wave broadcasts?

That is obviously a matter for the BBC, and I have no doubt that it will note what my hon. Friend has said.

I am appreciative that some parts of the region will be covered, but when will all parts be covered so that people without VHF sets—who include many pensioners—can receive regional programmes without buying new sets?

I cannot give a firm date for the time when all the relay stations will be in operation, but there will still be places outside their range. However, it is intended to extend them as far as practicable.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received about his policy regarding the timing of a decision on the fourth television channel.

In addition to the views expressed by hon. Members, only the TUC has suggested that a decision should be postponed until a general inquiry into broadcasting has taken place.

In view of the recent lavish Press campaign for the so-called ITV2 and the activities of the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and others, will the Minister place firmly on the record today that his mind is still open and that he is still considering other uses for the fourth channel, including further education and linguistic and regional minorities?

Yes, Sir.

When inessentials are stripped away, is it not seen that the question is not a technical broadcasting one but a constitutional one? Is it not always dangerous in a democracy when too much power is in too few hands? Is it not a fact that the amount of power already concentrated in the BBC, however it may be used, has become dangerous, and that, whatever view hon Members may take about the way in which that power has been exercised in the past, or may be exercised in the future, it is undesirable that any further power should be placed in the hands of that body?

That is certainly a point of view to be borne in mind.

Is the Minister aware that a very representative national conference convened by the Lord Mayor of Cardiff on 4th July resolved that Wales should be given a national television channel? As the Minister said in his article in the Western Mail in February that he had difficulty in knowing what Wales really wants, will he take note of that resolution and take action in accordance with the near-unanimity of Welsh opinion?

I have already written in answer to representations made from those quarters, and I should be happy to receive a deputation.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is the unanimous view of my constituents and neighbouring constituents that they already have to receive too much Welsh broadcasting in Somerset? Will he treat the suggestion of the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. John Morris) with a great deal of caution?

That is one of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) and his constituents will no doubt wish to bring to the attention of the Committee on Broadcasting Coverage.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he is aware of the delays experienced by hon. Members and probably by the pubic in obtaining replies from the main telephone switchboards of Government Departments; and if he will set up an inquiry with a view to improving efficiency in this respect.

I am aware of these delays, which are primarily due to the use of manual switchboards. Plans are in hand to replace these by automatic ones, as part of an automatic network covering the whole of the Whitehall area.

I am glad to have that reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that the day before I tabled this Question I was asked to call the private office of a Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security at 5 p.m. and that at 5.15 p.m. I could get no reply? Is he further aware that next morning it took 10 minutes for the switchboard to reply and, later that afternoon, five minutes for the Department of Employment to reply? Has he tried telephoning some Government Departments himself recently? Is he also aware that since I tabled this Question the service has improved enormously?

It all goes to show. I am aware that my hon. Friend has had this inconvenience, but I assure him that there is a substantial investment programme in automatic switchboards, that these will start to come into service in January 1974 and that the system will be substantially completed by the end of 1975.

Will the hon. Gentleman take action with regard to the standing instruction to the Department of the Environment, whereby no telephone calls from hon. Members or others are put through to any Minister's private office but are, instead, referred to an inquiries office, with which the call terminates, since it promises to transfer a call but never does?

I am surprised to hear that. I shall look into it and see whether there is something I can do. Normally, calls get transferred direct to Ministers or their departments.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service whether, in deciding his policy on dispersal of Government work from London, he will ensure that priority is not given to new towns at the expense of the older industrial intermediate areas in North-East Lancashire.

We will give careful consideration to both new and old towns in the light of the evidence presented by the Hardman Report and after consultation with any who wish to comment. In the meantime, it would be wrong to anticipate how the balance should fall between new towns and other areas.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of North-East Lancashire have been puzzled by the Hardman Report's proposals to disperse a further 3,000 Government office jobs to the central Lancashire new town in addition to the 3,000 already allocated there, while ignoring completely the claims of the North-East Lancashire intermediate area, which badly needs office jobs to give it more balanced work opportunities? Will he therefore give a guarantee that North-East Lancashire and other intermediate areas will not have their claims sacrificed to the new towns?

I guarantee that I shall consider any representations made to me. Perhaps it is a little ungenerous of me, but I remind the right hon. Lady that when she held responsibility she made no recommendations for the dispersal of her staff anywhere in the country, let alone North-East Lancashire. But under the Hardman proposals the North-West region stands to gain 20 per cent. of the total recommended to be dispersed—6,300 jobs. Of these, 3,000 go to the Lancashire new town, 2,000 to Liverpool and 1,400 to Manchester.

But none to North-East Lancashire.

Will my hon. Friend not be led unduly astray by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)? Will he keep in mind always the claims of Lancaster?

Yes, Sir. I am glad to receive such blandishments from both sides of the House. The central Lancashire new town is very close to Preston and other towns in North-East Lancashire, and only about nine miles from Blackburn.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what discussions he has held with the Civil Service National Whitley Council Staff Side concerning the Hardman Report.

I discussed the report with the national staff side at the time of publication. Sir Henry Hardman joined in the discussions. There have been contacts with both departmental and national staff sides throughout the review, and these will continue.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that it will be essential to retain the good will and co-operation of the staff side if this dispersal exercise is to be carried out successfully, and give an assurance now that there will be no redundancies among London civil servants resulting from dispersal?

I agree that without the good will of the staff side dispersal of any sort could not take place. I gave an undertaking to the staff side of the National Whitley Council on 13th June that there will be no redundancies among civil servants in the non-mobile grade arising from any dispersal decisions under the Hardman recommendations.

Hardman proposes to disperse thousands of civil servants to places like Milton Keynes, within commuter distance of London. This is a damned nonsense in terms of regional policy. Will the hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to this matter before deciding on the Hardman Report, and tell his civil servants that the North-East of England is one of the most pleasant parts of the country?

I think they know already, because Newcastle-upon-Tyne has the highest concentration of civil servants outside London. I shall receive representations from various regions and am willing to continue doing so while the period of consultation goes on. I have already received one delegation and representations from the North-East of England.

I am somewhat mystified by my hon. Friend's reply to the supplementary question from the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John Grant). Is my hon. Friend aware that it was part of the Conservative Party's policy that there should be substantial redundancies among non-industrial civil servants? When are these going to be achieved?

Taking non-industrial and industrial civil servants together, the last figures I published, on 1st April, showed a small reduction. I ask my hon. Friend to await the next figures, which may be even better.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the Stationery Office printing dispute, indicating the increase claimed in rates and earnings and the corresponding employer's offer.

The claim by the Parliamentary Press linotype operators involved an adjustment between the flat sum and piecework rate which make up the earnings of the operators, and would have involved an increase of approximately £9 on the average earnings of £80 per week. Work was resumed on the basis of an increase of £4 per week for the average operator, which is within the limits laid down by Government incomes policy.

During the dispute, was my hon. Friend able to determine what were the earnings of printers involved in broadly corresponding work in the Metropolis, and how this settlement compares with the level of earnings of linotype printers' operators not working for the Government?

That goes rather wider than the Question on the Order Paper. My hon. Friend is asking me about earnings in Fleet Street, possibly, or of other operators in the printing industry. They tend to be substantially higher, but I would not know exactly by what amount.

Great inconvenience was suffered as a result of this dispute, elements of which still continue. Has the hon. Gentleman examined the possibility of dividing certain parts of the work into two parts—that which concerns the printing of Order Papers and of HANSARD for the House and Standing Committees, and the other part, consisting of less urgent matters, which could be delayed a little longer?

I think that if there were to be a division it would have to be on that basis, between the time-critical Order Paper, for example—without which the House cannot meet at 2.30 p.m.—and the more substantial printing work, such as HANSARD and Bills, whose printing involves the employment of several hundred people. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said about three weeks ago, I am looking into the possible division of the work.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service when he intends to establish a new standard region for Government Departments in the central South of England, based on the new non-metropolitan counties of Hampshire, Wiltshire, Dorset and the Isle of Wight.

As I said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend on 25th June, the regional boundaries followed by Departments will need to be reviewed both in the light of the new local government boundaries and in the light of the forthcoming report of the Commission on the Constitution.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Wessex area—part of the ancient kingdom of Wessex—has for too long been bracketed with the London area in what is called the "South-East Region" and that the population of Wessex is 1 million greater than that of the Province of Ulster, and larger than that of 40 members of the United Nations? I hope my hon. Friend will take that on board.

I thought it was King Alfred who founded Wessex. I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said. The area he has grouped together falls between the South-East and the South-West. The Government would not wish to change the basic structure of the economic planning regional boundaries in advance of the report of the Commission on the Constitution.

In any consideration, will the hon. Gentleman ensure that Wiltshire remains in the South-West, where it wishes to be?

I will also bear that in mind.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service how many copies of the consultative document on the control of firearms were published before 1st June and have been published or will be published after that date.

About 6,700 copies of the consultative document on the control of firearms were distributed before 1st June 1973 and 1,600 copies have been distributed since then. There are 4,200 copies in stock. If there is a substantial rundown further copies will be printed.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government erred in not producing enough copies of the document, and also in appearing to maintain their insistence that comments on it should be received before the end of June? Does he not agree that the announcement of an extension, on a Friday in answer to a Parliamentary Question when HANSARD was not published, is hardly a gracious way of reassuring those concerned about the comments and policies proposed in the document?

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. The time span in which comments may be received is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I cannot imagine where the rumour began about a shortage in the number of documents available. There have been sufficient documents from the start. Over 12,000 copies were printed and there are still 4,000 in stock.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that there is a general welcome for the democratic decision of his right hon. Friend to take full account of the many representations received within the extended period that he has allowed for this purpose?

I am aware that this document has drawn a considerable number of comments from all types of constituencies and not just from country constituencies.

Considering how researched the document turns out to be, would it not be easier to have another one and start again?

The hon. and learned Gentleman has got the wrong Minister in his sights. If he wishes to complain about the content of the White Paper he can make his own representations—but not to me, to the Home Secretary, please.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a further statement on his proposals for a register of Members' outside financial interests.

I have already assured the hon. Member that the House will be informed of the outcome of the discussions that are still in progress on this matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if all reports are true the proposals that the Government have in mind will be completely ineffective? Is he further aware that many Opposition Members agree that there are two basic principles required of such a register before it can be effective, namely, that it be compulsory and that there be some indication of the figures involved? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that if we do not get this pledge he may as well scrap the whole idea?

The hon. Member has stated what would be considerable objections in other parts of the House.

From your side.

No. Not from only one side but in all parts of the House. It is precisely because we are trying to work for the benefit of the House as a whole that these discussions are taking some time.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, although I personally have no objection to a register of Members' interests, this was only one, and the least preferred, of two possible courses considered by the Select Committee? Has he still got in view the main recommendation of the Select Committee for a prohibition or regulation of paid promotion of particular interests, which is much more the heart of the matter than the mere disclosure of a Member's personal interests where those do not affect the discharge of his parliamentary duties?

I have the views of that Select Committee very much in mind. All that has happened so far is that talks have been going on within parties and between parties, helping to crystallise what is undoubtedly a difficult subject for hon. Members on both sides.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Select Committee, which issued a long, detailed and well-reasoned report, came to the conclusion that any compulsory register of Members' outside interests, while attractive at first sight, would be damaging to Parliament as a whole? Will he therefore dismiss that as a possibility in his considerations?

All this goes to show how difficult it is to arrive at a satisfactory solution. I have noted carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has said and I hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has done so, too.

asked the Lord President of the Council what additional losses have been sustained by the Strangers' Cafeteria since unaccompanied strangers have been excluded.

I have been asked to reply.

Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that this additional loss will not be used as a reason or excuse for increasing the already horrific prices that obtain in the cafeterias of this House?

I am under very heavy pressure from the Treasury to try to recoup it in that manner.

Will the Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee tell us where strangers may now eat?

Since they are not allowed to come into that part of the building unaccompanied they must either pick up some hospitable friend or, I am afraid, go outside.

asked the Lord President of the Council what is the present price paid by the Refreshment Department for 1 lb of apples, 1 lb of bananas, and 1 lb of oranges; and what is the current price now being charged in the Members' Tea Room for one apple, one banana and one orange.

I have been asked to reply.

May I suggest that the hon. Gentleman changes his greengrocer? Is he aware that, even allowing for overheads, the prices charged in fruiterers and greengrocers throughout London. and, I am sure, throughout the country, bear little comparison to the prices he has quoted? Does he appreciate that many Members believe that there is gross overcharging in the Members' Tea Room? Is he further aware of the widespread criticism, existing on both sides of the House, of the price, quality and selection of food available to Members? Will he agree to meet a group of back-bench Members fully to discuss these points?

Let's have a General Election.

That is a lot to answer at once. We can look after the selection of dishes. We are always ready to accept advice, which is never slow in coming forward. We do some fairly hard bargaining with our purchases. There are certainly plenty of tradesmen who think we do. We shall certainly see whether we have been bargaining as hard with these commodities as we do, for instance, with meat and fish. The specific profit that we make on one of these fruits is between ½p and 1p. That is not very much.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will give the price of a ham sandwich, a slice of bread and butter, a sausage roll and an egg sold in the Members' Tea Room last November and the price today.

I have been asked to reply.

There is less ham.

A slice of bread and butter in November 1972 was 2p; it is now 2½p.

It is the same bread.

In 1972 a sausage roll cost 5p; it is now 5½p. The price of an egg in November 1972 was 6p; it is now 6½p.

I am obliged to the hon. Member for confirming what every hon. Member who uses the Tea Room knows from personal experience—unlike the hon. Gentleman of course. Do not these prices show that, compared with the price of the basic materials from which ham sandwiches are made, there is either gross profiteering or gross incompetence, or both, in the management of the Members' Tea Room? Is it not time that the hon. Gentleman had more regard to the proposals put forward by hon. and right hon. Members and attempted to see that better food, of a better variety, was served and that we occasionally get fruits that are in season—which we never do now? Will he do something about it?

We do a lot about it. I do not think that the prices in the Tea Room have risen faster than the price of the materials or faster than increases in wages.

Can my hon. Friend tell me why an orange in the Members' Dining Room costs 10p?

Because it has to be brought by a waiter.

When was the hon. Member last in the Members' Tea Room? I have not seen him there for years.

It must have been during one of the hon. Gentleman's infrequent absences, but I have gone in quite a lot because we hope to do some work on it in the near future.

Can my hon. Friend say whether there is a world shortage of ham sandwiches?

We have been hoping to shift some of our stockpile, but they have become a bit turned at the edges.