asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many sub-post offices have been closed down in the United Kingdom in each of the past five years.

With permission, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many of these sub-post offices were closed because the remuneration to the sub-postmasters was insufficient? Will he bear in mind that sub-postmasters have to bear the heavy cost of lighting, heating, rates and rents? Can he take action to help sub-postmasters who have to obtain the services of another assistant when the amount of business transacted does not cover the amount of wages to be paid?

I am well aware, and most appreciative of, the contribution of sub-postmasters. I tried to speak on this point in the Adjournment debate on 13th December. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has studied the report of that debate, from which he will see that the Post Office is trying to take fully into account all the extra duties which sub-postmasters are often called upon to fulfil.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this is a subject in which the Post Office Users National Council takes a continuing and active interest?

Yes, Sir. I am well aware of the point which my hon. Friend makes. He will be aware that the Post Office also takes a continuing and active interest in this subject and watches carefully over the needs of consumers when determining policy in relation to sub-post offices.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some of the larger cities the closure of sub-post offices and smaller post offices has been detrimental to old-age pensioners? Is he further aware that many pensioners who previously went round the corner to get their pensions now have to travel long distances? Will he consider this matter further and try to ensure that there are no further closures of sub-post offices affecting older people? Will he consider reopening some sub-post offices where there is a need to help old people?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is a matter within the operational responsibility of the Post Office. I can assure him and the whole House that the Post Office is aware of the sort of problems to which he has referred and that it watches these matters closely.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of great concern to a large number of small communities? Does he agree that a particular problem arises from the closure of sub-post offices in rural areas when people are unable to travel to the nearest town to obtain postal facilities? Will he make sure that this is one of the most economic ways of carrying out the Post Office function? Rather than decreasing the number of such offices, will he consider increasing them?

I ask my hon. Friend to be good enough to look at the report of the Adjournment debate of 13th December, from which he will see that there are many factors which the Post Office takes into account, including the position of elderly people in areas where there are closures and the difficulties experienced in rural areas concerning postal services. The fact remains, however, that there are many different factors which the Post Office must bear in mind when considering policy relating to sub-post offices.

When the Minister discusses the matter, as I hope he will do with the Chairman of the Post Office Corporation, will he draw the chairman's attention not only to the substantial number of sub-post office closures but to the failure to open new sub-post offices on many new housing estates, including council estates? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a considerable number of people are completely bereft of sub-post office facilities and that this situation is particularly difficult for old people on housing estates?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter about which the Post Office is already fully aware and which it is watching most closely. The hon. Gentleman's point is very well taken. The Post Office must, however, balance economic factors against other matters. The overall position is that the provision of sub-post offices is more favourable in this country than in any other European country.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will take steps to alter the present television licensing system so that any person acquiring a colour set in place of a black and white one may continue to use the lower cost licence until its expiry.

There would seem to be no justification for doing so.

Will my right hon. Friend explain why the Post Office finds it administratively easy to collect extra money for a licence yet administratively impossible to refund part of the cost of a licence when people change from colour to black and white or give up television altogether?

The first point that has to be borne in mind is the statutory position. It is a matter of law, not of cost or operational convenience, that a colour licence is needed for colour reception. That is the point to which my hon. Friend's Questions was directed.

Not a very good answer.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will list the approved suppliers of telephone main exchange equipment to the Post Office.

General Electric Co., Plessey Telecommunications. Standard Telephones and Cable, and Pye/Telephone Manufacturing Company.

Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that Pye TMC will be included in the discussions which will take place on the future of System X telephone exchanges? When are the manufacturers likely to come together to discuss that development?

As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, this is a complicated matter involving the sharing of commercially valuable information among manufacturers. It is for the industry to negotiate satisfactory arrangements which will enable Pye TMC to participate.

Could the right hon. Gentleman have a sharp word with Plessey, which, I understand, supplies the telephone equipment allegedly connecting this House with the outside world, and inform it that never have so many attempted telephone calls been connected to so few respondents? Will he try to do something about this?

That does not arise on this Question.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will now answer Questions relating to programme content.

As the House knows, the broadcasting authorities are responsible for programmes and their content.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under the curious rules we frame for ourselves, it is necessary to ask the Question in this form even if most of us do not want him to interfere in particular programmes? Is he further aware that many of us feel he has a duty to see that the authorities maintain their task in keeping a proper balance and that there are those of us who feel that the balance has not been kept by the broadcasting authorities? Will he keep a firm eye on the authorities to see that they carry out the duties which he quite rightly says are theirs?

If there were a general consensus in the House that the governing authorities of the broadcasting bodies were not carrying out the responsibility placed on them, that would be a grave matter which would involve the Minister of the day.

Even though my right hon. Friend will not consider answering Questions about programme content, will he nevertheless—when it comes to a consideration of the virtual collapse of London Broadcasting and any reorganisation which he might deem desirable or necessary—bear in mind that there would be great disapproval in this House if he were to make any arrangements permitting a London newspaper which so far is not represented on the board of that company to take over control or even greatly to influence its programmes?

There are later Questions dealing with this subject.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he is satisfied with the current position with regard to the delivery of Christmas mail.

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Post Office has had to restrict parcel services because of the disruption on the railways, but I am satisfied that it is doing all it can to get the rest of the Christmas mail through in increasingly difficult circumstances.

If, as happened last year, Christmas is spoiled for a large section of the community because of the late delivery of Christmas mail and parcels, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that the public are made aware of the cause of this inconvenience and know that it is not due to the Post Office or to Post Office workers, who are doing everything possible in difficult circumstances to get the mail delivered? Will the blame please be put on to the ASLEF train drivers?

I am satisfied that everyone in the Post Office has done his level best to ensure that there is not a repetition of the situation experienced last year. Unfortunately, other circumstances have arisen this year, primarily as a result of the disruption to rail services. This is bound to have a direct effect on the movement of mail over Christmas.

When was the decision about parcels taken and why was it announced only very late apparently on Saturday night in a confusing form, so that it could reach only the later editions of the Sunday papers? Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify what is being refused and where?

I have to ask for the indulgence of the hon. Gentleman. The Post Office naturally has to watch this situation not only day by day but literally hour by hour. It is most anxious to avoid taking any decision which would lead to interruption in the movement of mail over Christmas. It is holding off taking final decisions for as long as possible. The Post Office gave a lot of prior warning about the likelihood of its being forced into taking such a decision as it has had to take over the weekend. It naturally regrets it very much indeed, but it needed a breathing space if it was to have the slightest chance of catching up on the vast backlog which had accumulated as a result of the disruption of rail services.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be right to drop the 3½p postal rate, since there is no priority for it, and revert to the 3p stamp for letters?

I do not think that would help in the present state of confusion.

Bearing in mind the splendid job being done by Britain's postal workers in clearing the Christmas mail this year, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will now endorse the action taken by the Chairman and members of the Post Office Board in supporting the application by the staff of the Post Office to have its pay considered as an anomaly by the Pay Board?

That is another matter, which does not arise on this Question.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he was consulted before the Post Office took the decision to stop accepting parcels for London and the Home Counties? Can he also explain why, if an item which previously would have been posted as a parcel comes within the size and weight limits, it can now be posted at letter rate? How does this relieve the position?

The hon. Gentleman knows that the Minister is not responsible for the day-to-day operation of the Post Office. The public were urged in advertisements in the national Press as early as 9th December to post parcels immediately.

With respect, that does not answer my hon. Friend's question. Why can a parcel now be sent by letter post, at a very much greater cost to the sender, when it cannot be sent as a parcel? Maybe some people at the Post Office over-reacted.

There are special trains operating all these services. Letter post and Christmas cards are being given priority at the moment. The situation at the weekend arose as a result of the failure of some essential trains to run. This caused a great backlog of parcels.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will estimate how much it would cost to grant a concessionary penny postal rate to all retirement pensioners.

This would be a matter for the Post Office, but it would be impossible to ensure that only pensioners' correspondence was sent at the concessionary rate.

While I accept there would be great administrative difficulty in any such suggestion, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider such a scheme over the Christmas period?

I do not see how on earth one could tell whether an old-age pensioner had written the letter.

Will the right hon. Gentleman consider supplying old-age pensioners with a few pre-paid envelopes—there would be no great administrative difficulty about that—which they could get when drawing their pensions? Is not this a reasonable suggestion which could be implemented almost overnight?

That is a matter which the hon. Gentleman should address to the Post Office Corporation.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received from the Independent Broadcasting Authority regarding the financial affairs of the London Broadcasting Company.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what requests he has received from the IBA for a variation of any of the undertakings given by the Government regarding the commercial radio all-news station in London on 12th April 1972; and what reply he has given.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he last discussed the question of the London Broadcasting Company with the Chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority.

I have received no representations from the Independent Broadcasting Authority about the London Broadcasting Company, nor have I discussed this matter with the chairman, since nothing has arisen which calls for Government intervention.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a major financial crisis in the London Broadcasting Company and that the National Union of Journalists has already asked the Independent Broadcasting Authority for an inquiry? As the IBA will not contact him, will the right hon. Gentleman contact the IBA and say that, while it is obviously true that the company must have time to find its feet, its feet will be kicked from under it by any one or more of three or four major threats—mass redundancies, which are now being threatened, a cut-back in the reporting standards to a rolling news programme, a shift in ownership or newspaper control? Will the Minister ensure that that does not happen and that in return the IBA will allow LBC to get the money it should have from Capital Radio for the new service which it provides?

The union situation is a matter for direct negotiation between the unions and the employers concerned. I am satisfied that the IBA is watching the situation closely.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the debate on 12th April the Government gave an assurance that, if the standard of news on the station was not adequate, it would be permissible for other stations not to take its news services? Can he give an assurance that none of the stations either contemplated or already in existence need continue to take this inadequate service? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that there will be no question—as was also repeated in the debate—that anyone else will have to bear the cost of subsidising this station, whether it be other contractors, the Treasury or the IBA itself, from a loan?

It is still much too early to apply blanket condemnation. This station is experimenting with a format completely new to British radio, and we must give it every encouragement to develop.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give a categorical assurance that, no matter what the pressure or cajoling, he will not permit this station to be turned into anything other than the news and information service it is required to be and that, if the choice is between turning it into a news plus pop station and allowing it to go under, he will allow it to sink unmourned beneath the waves?

If the company wanted to make any major changes in format, it would have to discuss its proposals with the IBA, and the Chairman of the IBA would have to put them to the Minister.

Will my right hon. Friend remain quite firm on this and accept that the public like this station and do not agree that he should contemplate its sinking beneath the waves?

I can confirm that I have had many letters of appreciation from listeners who value the contact that is given to them with the outside world and with sources of information as a result of the broadcasts put out by LBC.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take care in this matter not to show the same remarkable complacency as seems to characterise the IBA's handling of it? Does he not think that the anxiety shown on both sides of the House justifies an independent inquiry into the whole unfortunate affair? Does it not underline his need to sweep away the secrecy which surrounds the way in which franchises are awarded by the IBA, so that we can see what sort of criteria the IBA is using in these matters?

The awarding of franchises is the responsibility of the IBA, not of the Minister, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, and that is the way it should be. There is no complacency whatever on anyone's part. One should not conduct a campaign against something which has only recently been launched, which is still going through fairly early difficulties and troubles but which none the less offers fairly good prospects for a bright future.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how much money has been spent in the past year on granting concessionary television licences to retirement pensioners.

Retirement pensioners as such do not receive concessionary television licences. About 190,000 people have old persons' home television licences; the value of this concession amounted to about £1 million.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, in the new situation created by the present crisis, one of the least costly gestures of good will that the Government could make would be to give all old-age pensioners cheap television licences? Is he aware that most old-age pensioners would regard a change of heart on television licences as a real Christmas present, better than the one they are getting at the moment?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to study the figures rehearsed in this House on a number of occasions, but to give all retirement pensioners a free television licence would cost £30 million a year. I do not think that can be contemplated.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications when he expects to make a statement about the fourth channel.

Next spring.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Independent Broadcasting Authority is the only organisation which can provide an additional service without an extra direct charge to the viewer? Will he also confirm that some of the existing contractors have a great deal of spare studio capacity?

I bear the last point in mind. It was one of the aspects of the representations made to me by the independent television companies. If the decision were taken to assign the fourth television channel, one could only avoid making a charge on the consumers' part by having an alternative source of revenue—for example, from additional advertising.

As the Government are now about to preside over a major recession, and since the first casualty of any recession is always television programme expenditure, is not this the time to say to the ITV companies once and for all that we do not need a fourth channel and we do not need ITV2?

That is a point of view.

Before the channel comes into operation, will my right hon. Friend look at the question of censorship? Has he seen the letter in The Times from Mr. Woodrow Wyatt saying that one of his programmes was gravely censored, which is scandalous?

That is a matter for the authority and not for the Minister.

Even at this late stage, could not the right hon. Gentleman consider possibly extending the terms of reference of the Crawford Committee, so that it can look at regional possibilities for the fourth channel? That committee and its witnesses are suffering some difficulty because of the inhibitions placed upon them in that they cannot discuss the fourth channel properly.

The terms of reference have been set, as the hon. Gentleman knows. In so far as it might regard the prospect of using the fourth channel as applicable to particular regional situations, I have no doubt that the committee would find it possible to comment on that aspect.

The Government are rightly spending many millions of pounds more on the arts. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the fourth channel could bring the subsidised arts to a far wider audience?

That is one of the more interesting propositions submitted to me as justifying the application of the fourth channel at present. I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what instructions he has given to Sir Stewart Crawford regarding the priority he should give to reporting on local area coverage as distinct from the other problems his committee is investigating.

None. It is for the committee to decide what priority to give to the various problems it has been asked to consider.

Can my right hon. Friend tell the House when he expects the committee to report on that part of the overall investigation? Will he undertake that the IBA will grant no new contracts to programme companies until the report has been received by him and action has been taken by the Government?

I hope that the committee will report early next year. However, I cannot undertake to bind the IBA in any matter for which it has direct responsibility.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office to install amplified telephones for the use of those suffering from partial deafness in selected Crown post offices and some public places where the technical problems can be surmounted.

No, Sir. The Post Office is fully aware of the needs of the hard of hearing and is already conducting trials of suitably modified coinbox equipment.

Is the Minister aware that I am most grateful for the conversations I have had with senior technicians in the Post Office, who have assured me that the subject of my Question is a possibility in the very near future? Will he exert pressure to make such that the near future comes very shortly, and see at the same time that the research into induction coil and loop reception is exploited so that when the new behind-the-ear aids become available this will be available in telephones, too?

I am glad for what the hon. Gentleman said. The Post Office has agreed to proceed with trials at selected sites throughout the country as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what he estimates to be the number of people in North Northumberland who are unable to receive local news and weather forecasts on BBC North-East Radio 4 VHF; and whether he has considered any proposals for extending the range of this service.

Approximately 23,000, according to the BBC's latest estimates. I shall consider any proposals put to me by Sir Stewart Crawford's Committee, which is considering this and other problems of broadcasting coverage.

Will the Minister, who did not await the report of the Crawford Committee before taking away the medium wave frequency, initiate discussions with the IBA and BBC to see whether urgent facilities can be provided at the Chatton television transmitter? Is he aware that the news was broadcast on medium wave by mistake on 4th December? Will he tolerate that mistake being continued temporarily until a permanent arrangement can be made?

Decisions affecting the medium wave were taken some time ago and were not affected by the appointment of the Crawford Committee. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that, having appointed the committee, I would be well advised to await its findings.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement indicating the number of vacancies in all grades of the Post Office at the present date.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement indicating the number of vacancies in the postman, telephonist, telegraphist and postal officer grades of the Post Office at the present date.

The Post Office tells me that the latest figures are: postmen 9,300; telephonists 3,100; telegraphists 150; postal officers 1,100 and clerical staff 1,100.

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that those figures give no reason to be satisfied with the state of recruitment in the Post Office? Is he aware that the present situation is due to the fall in morale in the Post Office, and that Post Office workers look to him as the Minister responsible to support the Post Office Board in making representations to the Pay Board for justice for all grades in the Post Office?

I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question but not with the second and third.

Can my right hon. Friend say what are the percentages involved and whether there are a larger number of posts vacant in the South-East of England than in the rest of the country, which is the normal situation?

I cannot give my hon. Friend the geographical distribution, but the total national position is as follows: postmen 9·5 per cent., telephonists 7·5 per cent., telegraphists 9 per cent., postal officers 4·8 per cent. and clerical staff 3·8 per cent.

Does the Minister agree that the shortfall of 15,000 staff in the Post Office is very serious? What does he propose to do to relieve the situation? Does he propose to support the Chairman of the Post Office Board in the application to the Pay Board? Is he aware that there is another serious problem inasmuch as staff turnover is now much higher than ever?

The question of wages and remuneration of staff is, first, under negotiation between the unions concerned and their employer. Secondly, there is the question of the relativities report. Thirdly, there is ample scope within the flexibility provided under stage 3. Fourthly, I have no doubt that the future of the Post Office will improve as more and more people come to recognise the valuable service that can be given in its employment.

Is the Minister aware that that answer will be received with a sneer by Post Office staff? Is he aware that the international telephone service is in dire difficulties? The fault rate is very high because of the shortage of telephonists. Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the Government the need to deal with the wages question as quickly as they can?

Yes, Sir. The particular position affecting certain aspects of the telephone side involves other factors which are certainly of concern in the present situation. The Post Office is very well aware of this. It is doing its best to overcome the manpower shortages in every possible respect, and the question of wages is under direct negotiation.

No matter how dedicated the staff of the Post Office may be to their task in life—and they are—we should all like to hear, and the employees of the Post Office would like to hear, that the Minister will stand up for them on the question of wages. Otherwise we shall have no people working in the service at all.

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, he must recognise that the scope for negotiation is set down by the terms of stage 3. I cannot depart from it, nor can anybody else. It is the law of the land. There is ample scope for negotiation within it.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will introduce legislation to bring in a specific television licence for sets used by hotels and business premises.

There already are some such licences. If the hon. Gentleman has any problem about them I shall be pleased to do my best to try to resolve it.

But why should the Savoy, with 450 television sets, pay for only one licence? Why do we have a situation, under the 1949 and 1970 Wireless Telegraphy Acts, in which the Grosvenor with 200 sets, Claridge's with 200 sets, the Churchill with 100 sets, the Inn on the Park with 100 sets and the Dorchester with 50 sets each pays only one television licence for the lot, when we are telling old-age pensioners that they cannot have a cheap or free television licence? Will the Minister do something to stop this racket? Will he charge the people who are staying at those places on expense accounts with the full cost of the television, and give the concession to the pensioners?

There are various forms of multiple licences. Their purpose is to reduce the amount of paper work which individual licences would entail. The full information about multiple licences is given in Statutory Instrument 1970 No. 548.

Does not the Minister realise that the meaning of what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) has told us is that he has extended to the wealthy patrons of very prosperous hotels the same facilities that he has extended to pensioners living under warden supervision? Is not that completely wrong? When we are to have announcements such as are to be made later this afternoon, how can the right hon. Gentleman justify the fact that people who are in a position to rent suites in those hotels are having television for almost nothing?

This has been a longstanding and very practical arrangement. The fees for hotels and business premises are the same as for domestic premises. The guidelines affecting multiple licences are clearly laid down.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that many of us on this side of the House still think that it is grossly unfair that pensioners in groups and pensioners individually pay a different sum for their licence and that we would like to see the situation resolved once and for all?

As my hon. Friend well knows, the matter has been considered many times before and has been debated in the House. The difficulty has been to try to define a system which is administratively simple and cheap to operate and which does not produce new anomalies greater than those which already exist.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what new instructions he has given to members of his Department for the saving of electricity.

All staff in my Department are being instructed to apply strictly the restrictions on the use of electricity recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

As it is all too easy to criticise the public service, will the Minister make clear what is the truth, namely, that the public services, including the Post Office, probably do more than their share and not less than their share in the current situation?

Yes, Sir. I accept and agree with what the hon. Gentleman says.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service by how much average earnings in the United Kingdom have risen since the General Election; and by how much salaries of Government employed science graduates in technical employment and salaries of graduate scientists in the Atomic Energy Authority have risen in the same period.

Average earnings rose by 47 per cent. between June 1970 and September 1973. During this period a science graduate entrant to the scientific officer grade received pay increases of 11 per cent. in January 1971, 7½ per cent. in January 1972 and 7 per cent. in April 1973. The problem over scientists' pay is that they did not agree to a substantial pay research review in January 1973 since they were dissatisfied with the basis of comparison, and we have now asked the Pay Board for its advice on the criteria for determining scientists' pay.

Does not that reply reveal a disturbing position—an 11 per cent. or 7 per cent. rise as against a 40 per cent. rise? Does it not reveal an unacceptable disparity? When entering the Government service, did not scientists think that they would be treated on a par with others? That has not been so.

My hon. Friend cannot have heard me correctly, because the figures are better than that, but I fully acknowledge the importance of scientists in the Civil Service and I am sorry that this disagreement has stretched out for so long and that scientists have not come within the anomalies review. But I assure my hon. Friend that we are deeply concerned about this dispute and we hope that the Pay Board will report soon.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the items in the Prime Minister's platform for the General Election was that he would seriously examine and cut back the number of civil servants? Can the hon. Gentleman now tell the House what number has been cut back and what additional numbers have had to be taken on to administer the vicious Housing Finance Act and the Industrial Relations Act?

That question is rather wide, but I have answered similar questions on this subject frequently and the last figures I gave, on 1st October 1973, showed that, taking industrials and non-industrials together, there had been a fall in the total number of civil servants since we came to office.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that scientists in the pay of the Atomic Energy Authority are extremely angry about the Government's policy and that the Government's excuse about the Pay Research Unit is wholly unacceptable to them, as was made clear more than two years ago? Is he aware that the fact that the Pay Board will not be in a position to make its announcement until the middle of January—apparently at the earliest—is regarded as yet another breach of faith? What are the Government doing to accelerate a settlement of this dispute?

The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair. I am as concerned as the IPCS about this subject. We want to agree a new basis for determining relativities for scientists' pay and that is what we have asked the Pay Board to do.

Are not scientists in atomic research establishments of great importance at present when we are talking about increasing nuclear energy?

I could not agree more, but I wish to reassert that we are as concerned as other hon. Members about the fact that the dispute should have dragged on for so long. We are keen to agree a new way of determining the relativities for scientists' pay.

Is that enough, given the present situation? Is it not a fact that what happens in determining the pay of scientists is that the Pay Research Unit makes comparisons with the pay of outside scientists; but as the Government are the predominant employer of scientists, this kind of comparison has less validity, so that the Government scientists have fallen sharply behind as a result and something has to be done outside that framework?

I take the point. Scientists have said that a comparison with outside employment was not suitable for them though suitable for the rest of the Civil Service. That is why we have jointly referred the matter to the Pay Board, and I hope that it will report soon.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service by what percentage the average wages of secretaries and typists employed in the Civil Service in London have increased since 1st January 1972.

The average wages of all secretaries and typists have been increased by 19 per cent. since 1st January 1972, including the increase on that date. I am glad to say that a settlement has just been reached which, if the Pay Board approves, will give an average increase of about 8½ per cent. from 7th November 1973. There will be a stage 3 increase on 1st January 1974.

While this may not be the best day to ask for an increase for anyone, does not that reply mean that the allowance to a Member in respect of his secretary should have risen by about £160 since January 1972? Will the hon. Gentleman discuss the matter with his right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council?

There are Questions later today to my right hon. Friend on the subject of allowances for Members for secretarial services. I am responsible for Civil Service secretaries, and the figures I have given show that their salaries have risen reasonably well over the past 18 months.

As the hon. Gentleman has one of the few Departments able to breach the principle "For them that hath may more be given", will he consider the subject of differentials so that block increases given to secretaries are not extended to men with £10,000, so that differentials are based on the strategy for other sectors of the Pay Code?

We did that in the past when we shifted increases further down so as to give the lower-paid, such as junior typists and secretaries, a greater amount than was available to those earning, say, £4,000 or £5,000 a year.

Have the Pay Board and the Price Commission been able to fulfil their clerical functions at these rates of pay, or have they been obliged to use outside agencies?

To some extent they have been obliged—as have all employers in London, both public and private—to use secretarial agencies. [Interruption.] It is not entirely a matter of pay. Many girls who become secretaries and typists want a life style different from the past. I do not speak from personal experience. They want much longer holidays, and when they work they want to work for very much longer hours. That is one of the reasons why secretaries and typists in London find that agency work gives them the sort of things they want—independence and longer holidays as well as more pay.

asked the Minister for the Civil Service what new instruction he has given to members of his Department for the saving of electricity.

My Department has instructed all Government Departments, including the Civil Service Department, to apply strictly the restrictions on the use of electricity announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. All staff are being instructed accordingly.

Can the Minister assure us that the life style of civil servants in relation to matters of electricity is not different from that of the rest of us?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that civil servants will not receive any special treatment, either up to 30th December or in the régime that operates in the New Year. I should like to emphasise that civil servants will work with electricity for three days and for the remaining days offices will have to stop when it gets too dark or when they cannot continue their work. As there is some feeling that there will be special exemptions for the Civil Service, I should like to emphasise that there will be few exemptions and that such exemptions as are made will be made entirely for essential public work or for services to the public and not for the convenience of civil servants.

That was a serious statement. Does the Minister mean that those offices that have no natural light facilities will find themselves having to stop work early as the result of fading light? How does that apply to the Department of Employment, which will be particularly concerned with its problems, and the Pay Board, which may be similarly placed? Will not the hon. Gentleman give them exemptions? On the general question, what does he intend to do about the minimum heating regulations that are laid down for the service?

The heating question is covered by the order which is already in force. Heating which is oil-fired, coal-fired or gas-fired will be permissible up to a certain temperature. Heating fired by electricity will not be permitted at all. I emphasise that working hours in the Civil Service will not be treated any differently from those of clerical workers in industry.

asked the Lord President of the Council what is his policy towards the setting up of a Select or Joint Committee on private business procedure.

I believe that an inquiry into this subject is probably due, but I am not sure that it would be appropriate to undertake such a commitment this Session. If such an inquiry were set up, the Government's view is that it might be appropriate that it should be undertaken by a Joint Committee of both Houses.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he appreciate that the present system is hopelessly antiquated and bears heavily on people who have to make objections to Private Bills? If the Government are unable to announce the appointment of a Joint or Select Committee, will they refer the matter forthwith to the Procedure Committee?

On the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, this matter would not be within the normal terms of reference of the Procedure Committee. But, as I have said, a joint review of this matter might be useful. I agree with what my hon. Friend said in the earlier part of his supplementary question.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that Parliament should retain the right of full scrutiny of all private measures? Does he also agree that one area of private business which is well overdue for review is the fees that are charged, which I understand have not been reviewed for the past 50 to 60 years?

I will consider the latter part of what the hon. Gentleman has said. On the first part, scrutiny, yes; obstruction, no.

If my right hon. Friend refers this matter to a Joint Committee of the two Houses, will he include in the terms of reference the matter of reporting on the circumstances in which Ministers should or should not intervene in proceedings on Private Bills in this House?

Yes, Sir. I should be quite happy for that to be part of the terms of reference and, in view of what my hon. Friend has said to me on previous occasions, I should ensure that it was.

asked the Lord President of the Council what representations have been received from the Secretaries' Council about the pay and conditions of work within the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement.

I have received several communications from the Secretaries' Council raising a wide range of subjects, and I have also received a communication informing me that a substantial number of Members' secretaries do not wish to be associated with its representations, especially as regards terms of employment.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be appropriate for the Compton Inquiry to take this question under its wing?

I think that, on the whole, it would be better for the Compton Inquiry not to take this matter within its terms of reference. It is one which Members must decide for themselves and, if necessary. refer to the Boyle Committee.

asked the Lord President of the Council who is respon sible for the appointment of Ashworth's Secretarial Bureau and the conditions under which it works, and for the appointment of its successor.

A contract with the bureau is entered into by the Serjeant at Arms, acting under the direction of Mr. Speaker, who is advised by the Services Committee in these matters. In the past the outgoing owners have made arrangements for the transfer of business, but this has not been done on this occasion. Inquiries are therefore being pursued under the aegis of the Services Committee with assistance from the Civil Service Department.

The bureau has rendered invaluable service to hon. Members for more years than any Member can remember. Is my right hon. Friend taking energetic steps to ensure that a successor is appointed, because it would be wrong if no such service was available to the Palace of Westminster? If it is necessary, as it may well be, to improve the conditions, will my right hon. Friend ensure that they are improved?

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Services Committee is doing all it can to ensure that a successor is appointed, but it is not proving all that easy. There is a general shortage of secretarial staff in the London area and agencies are understandably cautious about taking on new commitments. However, I am hopeful.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Ashworth's situation makes it even more urgent and important for hon. Members to be properly remunerated to enable them to employ adequate secretarial assistance? Will the right hon. Gentleman hurry his investigations into this matter?

A large number of people think that there is never an appropriate time to improve Members' secretarial or other allowances. But I am certain that today of all days is not the best day to consider the matter.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, quite rightly, the House of Commons has spent I do not know how much money on providing accommodation for private Members' secretaries, with which we all agree, whereas the conditions for Ashworth's are such that it is no longer able to continue its service, which I very much regret? I am very annoyed about it.

I hate my hon. Friend to be annoyed about anything, and I will do my best to ensure that the successor to the present agency, if we are lucky enough to obtain one, receives the assistance which it requires.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will take steps to extend the provision for the bicycles of hon. Members in the Palace of Westminster.

Yes, Sir; there are already plans in hand to do this.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that most encouraging reply. Is he aware that today five bicycles, presumably belonging to hon. Members, were crushed into three bunks, one of them ostensibly reserved for my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden)—not that I begrudge him that? Is it not a reasonable expectation that a great many right hon. and hon. Members will be following the example of those of us who discovered years ago that a bicycle is much the most efficient way of getting around London? Will he reserve a portion of the new car park—say, half—for the use of bicycles?

It may be a reasonable expectation, but I shall be very surprised if it is fulfilled.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the situation regarding plans for the resurfacing of New Palace Yard.

The Services Committee is taking further advice and will report to the House in due course.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Government have got into a terrible mess over this matter? Would it not be better to have a moratorium and leave the surface of New Palace Yard alone for the time being until wiser counsels prevail?

No, Sir. It is not the Government who have got into a mess; it is the surface of New Palace Yard.

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is aware that Members attending the European Assembly are paid, in addition to their £25 a day attendance allowance, a £10 travel allowance in excess of their actual costs incurred; and whether he will propose that all Members should be paid on this basis.

The rates of travel allowances for attendance at the European Assembly are a matter for that Assembly. I understand, however, that this allowance is based on the distance travelled.

Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate a report in the Observer yesterday that a group of City financiers and bankers were addressed by the Secretary of State for Defence in order to raise money from the banking houses in the City to pay the expenses of Tory Ministers and Tory back-benchers who go to the European Assembly? If that is true—and the report says that Government facilities were provided—many of us on this side of the House think it disgraceful that City financiers should have been called together and asked to pay the expenses of a selected few Members who are getting per day, tax free, more than the miners get in a week.

It would be much more appropriate if hon. Members on both sides of the House went to the European Assembly and their expenses were properly covered from this House.

Is the Minister aware that when these City people met last week and were addressed by the Secretary of State for Defence on the question of raising funds to assist those Conservative, Liberal and other assorted Members of Parliament who attend the European Assembly—

Withdraw.

it was argued that the money was needed because the Labour Members of Parliament were boycotting that Assembly? I ask the Minister, and you, Mr. Speaker, whether that is a breach of privilege.

If the hon. Member wishes to raise a matter of privilege, he must do it at the proper time and in the proper way.

Perhaps I should start by congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his new Parliamentary Private Secretary. I gather that, as usual, the hon. Gentleman has not got his facts right.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the convention to introduce questions on breach of privilege immediately they are discovered or made clear to Members of Parliament?

Order. May I help the hon. Member? If he wishes to raise a matter of privilege, he may do so after the statement.