asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will postpone his decision, announced on 28th January, to transfer the accounts division of his Department from London to Hastings.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what were the considerations that led to his decision to transfer the accounts division of his Department to Hastings; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what administrative problems he expects to arise from his decision to transfer the accounts division of his Department to Hastings.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what savings he estimates will acrue from his decision to transfer the accounts division of his Department to Hastings.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works which other localities he considered before deciding to transfer the accounts division of his Department to Hastings.

asked the Minister of Public Building and Works which areas of Scotland he considered before deciding to transfer the accounts division of his Department to Hastings.

I have decided to move the accounts division of my Ministry to Hastings as one of my Ministry's contributions to the dispersal of staff from London. The accounts division is an integral part of the Ministry's headquarters so that for operational reasons it has to be within about one to one and a half hours travelling time from London.

Some dozen places within this radius were considered in consultation with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Not all of these could provide the facilities required and the list was reduced to three towns. As these three towns were equally acceptable for official purposes, the staff were consulted and expressed a preference for Hastings.

As it was necessary to have the accounts division within one to one and a half hours travelling time from London it was not possible to consider on this occasion any areas of Scotland.

It is not possible to estimate precisely the financial effect of the move. The only substantial saving is in the cost of accommodation which will be well over £100,000 per annum.

I do not expect any major administrative problems to arise from this move.

Is that the sort of example that the Government ought to set to the private sector?

Yes, Sir.

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman's policy has been determined according to the wishes of his staff, that they would like to live in a convenient place near to London, despite the reiterated policy from other members of the Government that they will use this particular power to reduce congestion in areas such as the South-East and to help other parts of the country? Is it not the case of some "old boy" network operating here?

No, Sir, to both supplementary questions.

Can the right hon. Gentleman give the reasons why it would be impossible to take it further than one and a half hour's distance? Does he not think that this decision is scandalous?

I have explained the answer to that already.

Am I right in thinking that the reason the right hon. Gentleman gave was that it had to be within one and a half hour's distance of headquarters? Is not that a good reason for changing the headquarters? Would it not be a grand idea to have the headquarters in Glasgow, where there is a seaside resort within 30 miles of Glasgow at Ayr, and thereby he could save the deposit of the Tory candidate?

There is, of course, an office of the Ministry in Scotland which is adequate for that purpose.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more specific about the operational reasons for making the office only one and a half hour's journey from London? Is he not aware that that is precisely the kind of argument used by private industry, and it is very important that the Government should give an example? if there are good reasons for this, the Government should be very forthcoming about them and let the House and private enterprise know them.

That is a very sensible question. The reason is that members of the accounts division are very frequently called to London, often at short notice, to deal with matters. The accounts division is an integral part of the headquarters division. We had some experience of this when the accounts office was at Rhyl during the war and just after, and this proved highly unsatisfactory.

The Minister said that the new branch had to be a one and a half hour's journey from London. Is he aware that quite a large part of central Scotland is only an hour's flight from London? What reason can he give for the complete and callous disregard of the possibility of siting this office in Scotland?

I should not like to rely on always being able to make the journey in that time. It must be borne in mind that this is only a part of the action which my Ministry is taking to help dispersal. The proposals I have made for decentralising more work to Scotland and Wales and other regions will assist further in dispersal.

Do I understand from the Minister that these civil servants in his Department were asked in which place they would prefer to work? If that is the case, is this a new principle which the Government have established? Is it applied to the workers generally? Are they to be asked where they prefer to work, and will the Government agree to what they want?

After consultation and discussion, there seemed to be three places which could make out a fair case for having a share of workers from London—Hastings, Swindon and Margate. In those circumstances, since they all had a case, we consulted the staff. I think that that is good staff relations.

In view of the completely unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I will try to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.