I beg to move,

That the Postmaster General be authorised, as provided for in Section 5 of the Post Office Act, 1961, to make payments out of the Post Office Fund in the financial year ending with the 31st March, 1967.

It might be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if, with this Motion, we discussed the next Motion on the Order Paper standing in the name of my right hon. Friend.

I have no objection, if the House has no objection.

As the House knows, these Motions are normally taken later in the month of March, but they have been brought forward because of the impending Dissolution. It is essential that they be passed before Dissolution if the Post Office services are to be carried on after 1st April.

My right hon. Friend is sorry that because the debate has been brought forward hon. Members have had little time to consider the annual White Paper on Post Office Prospects, which was published yesterday. I do not intend to trouble the House with anything further, but invite the House to pass these essential Motions. If, however, there are any matters which hon. Members care to raise, my right hon. Friend will be glad to answer them.

We on this side of the House give a fair wind to these proposals. Naturally, in this vast and important part of the national services, the money is required for the Post Office service and we quite understand why the Motions have been brought forward.

It may be that the Postmaster-General is like others who were caught off their feet by the speed of the announcement of the impending General Election, but I should have liked to see the White Paper in the Vote Office rather earlier. It was not until 10 minutes ago that I realised it was there. It may have been there yesterday or this morning. From a brief look through it, I think there is nothing very revolutionary about it. It admits that there are still several services running at a substantial loss. I shall not overdo that, but merely say that within the functions of the Post Office it is the duty of the Postmaster-General to weigh up the various way in which he will decide which are the loss leaders and how far those which make money should carry those loss leaders.

I do not think we shall learn very much from this While Paper which we do not know already. I am glad that the Postmaster-General has abstained from producing any particular election gimmick at the last moment from what I would call the rather mundane operations of this important part of the national services.

I beg to move,

That the Farmers' Machinery Syndicates Grants (Extension of Period) Order 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.

As hon. Members will know, grants of one-third are at present available towards the cost of certain buildings occupied by farmers' machinery syndicates. Provision for this is contained in Section 6 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1963. The grants were in fact first introduced after the 1961 Annual Review in which the then Government stated their intention to encourage suitable forms of co-operation among farmers. The arrangement made at the time was that the grants should run for a five-year period, up to the end of March 1966. The 1963 Act, which I have mentioned, accordingly provided for the period for grant approvals to end in March this year, but provision was also made for the period to be extended up to, but not beyond, the end of March 1968. The purpose of the Order at present before the House is to effect this extension.

We have decided that the most convenient course is to extend the period for approving grants until 1968 as permitted under the 1963 Act. The Order will therefore permit us to continue making these grants to machinery syndicates, pending the enactment of the provisions in Clause 52 of the Agriculture Bill setting up a Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation. We intend that, after these provisions take effect, this Order would be replaced by a scheme which would cover grants to co-operatives, including grants towards the cost of various buildings used by syndicates or co-operatives.

Hon. Members may be interested to know, before I sit down, what progress has been made with these grants. When they were first introduced, it was thought that up to £250,000 might be needed. In fact, to date 23 schemes have been approved, and it is estimated that by March 1968, expenditure or commitments will amount to about £100,000.

As I have said, the purpose of this Order is to continue the payment of grants which have already proved their value over the past five years, and, with the explanation I have given, I recommend the House to approve the Order.

I welcome the fact that this Order has been brought forward. I think it a little disappointing to hear the information the Parliamentary Secretary has given to us concerning the amount of the grant taken up and the amount which we hope will be taken up to 1968. Our original estimate was £250,000, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly said. I was in charge when we were putting this scheme through in 1963. To hear that it is expected that only £100,000 is to be used is rather disappointing.

Why?

One would hope that more use would be made of the grant by farmers' syndicates to improve the holding, storing and handling of grain which is the main purpose in this context. This was one side of the industry which one would have thought would benefit from these grants. I would have expected that they would be using the grants to a greater extent.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman welcome any economy in public expenditure?

This is not an economy. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) did not quite understand. The point is to improve the efficiency in the handling of grain, particularly in farm syndicates. It is not an economy if the grants are not taken up. One hopes that by taking them up efficiency will be improved. I think the hon. Member has got the argument back to front.

The Parliamentary Secretary will realise that this is the only grant which at the moment is running at the rate of one-third. His right hon. Friend cut the farm improvement grant to 25 per cent. I gather that it is to be brought back to 30 per cent. When it was originally brought in this grant was to be on all fours with the farm improvement grant, which was then running at 33⅓ per cent. The Minister has cut that to 25 per cent. and this is remaining at 33 per cent. I point out the advantage which has been left to the farm machinery syndicates. I am delighted that this is so. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will take the point and will bring the other grants up to this level.

I do not wish to argue further on this but welcome the fact that the length of time has been extended. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will bear in mind the points I have made.

The estimate of £100,000 is simply based on what has happened since the scheme came in in 1961. Like the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) we welcome the fact that the £250,000 will be available until 1968. I correct him, however, on one point. We have not cut the farm improvement grants but have altered the grants.

It is exceedingly strange that there is no Minister from the Scottish Office here to sponsor the Order. I presume that the Order has been moved by another Minister, perhaps by the Assistant Whip, the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Harper) and I hope that I am thus in order in speaking to this matter. I am sorry that there is no Scottish Minister here to listen to my remarks, because this is a most important Order for Scotland, particularly for the north-east of Scotland. The hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), the only hon. Member now on the Government back benches, does not represent a Scottish constituency, but I know that he is a Scot and will appreciate that this is a very important Order for Scotland.

I know the Tay Bridge very well, so if I can be of any assistance I shall be glad to help.

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we deplore the fact that there is no Minister from the Scottish Office here to give explanations on the points I wish to raise. I see that the Under-Secretary has at last arrived. I am glad that I have been able to prolong my opening remarks to this moment. I now wish to put some questions to him about the Order.

I note that the Scheme has been agreed by the councils concerned on the basis that they will contribute 25 per cent. to any extra borrowing and the Secretary of State will contribute 75 per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us more about the need for the extra borrowing? The Order and the Explanatory Note indicate that the original expenditure of £4 million on the bridge has had to be extended to £6 million, and the Order seeks approval for borrowing powers for up to £6½ million.

The reasons are given as, first, rising costs. That is well understood, given the tremendous rise in costs during the past year or so. Another reason given is additional works. I presume from this that there has been a need for extra buildings, or that it has been decided to build some extra works connected with the bridge. I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary would tell us about the additional works which are foreseen and which necessitate the extra borrowing.

Most of the first page of the Schedule deals with the method of borrowing. A very significant part of the Schedule is paragraph 7, which seeks to vary the purposes for which the revenue received from tolls will be used. The whole question of tolls on the bridge is related to the probable date of the bridge's opening. Can the hon. Gentleman give us either a definite or an estimated date of opening? The 1962 Order, which provides for tolls, stipulates that within 12 months of the expected date of opening of the bridge a scheme should be prepared on tolls and that the scheme should be put to the Secretary of State for approval.

The scheme itself does not appear in the Order, but some figures have been published which indicate that the tolls for motor cars would be 2s. 6d. but that there would be a rising tariff and that for most commercial vehicles the toll would be as much as 10s. The information which has appeared in the Press has indicated that for vehicles over a certain weight—quite a low weight—the toll would be 10s., which is a large sum. Under Section 87(3) of the 1962 Order, the Secretary of State may approve a scheme put forward to him. What is the present position? Has the scheme, as one would imagine from the Press reports, yet been put to the Secretary of State? Has he himself approved it or modified it?

If the Press reports are correct, will the hon. Gentleman explain why tolls rising from 2s. 6d. to 10s. have been decided upon? We know the Labour Party's position on tolls in general. We certainly know what the Labour Party's position was before the last election. In "Signposts for Scotland", which appeared before the last election, the Labour Party said this on page 10:

"The Government's projected imposition of tolls to finance the building of the Forth road bridge, to be followed by the Tay and Erskine bridges, is indefensible…"

On page 11 the Labour Party said this:

"Tolls must, therefore, in the first instance be abolished wherever their imposition is likely to prove a handicap to plans for industrial expansion."

If it is correct that most commercial vehicles crossing the Tay Bridge will have to pay a toll of 10s., would the Under-Secretary think that this is likely to prove a handicap to industrial development? Many people in Scotland will have anxieties about whether it will be a handicap. I will give a few examples. Suppliers of goods from Fife to Dundee will have to pay a 10s. toll per commercial vehicle, whether they supply market garden produce for the city or supplies for industry there. The question of the amount of tolls is an important matter, not only for Dundee, but also for Aberdeen and the whole of the northeast of Scotland. Why should it be necessary to have a schedule of different tolls and not a flat rate toll of 2s. 6d. like that on the Forth Bridge?

Paragraph 7 of the Schedule, in setting out the variations of the purposes and priorities on which the money raised from tolls can be spent, has a new sub-paragraph (i). This takes into account the extra borrowing, and the repayment made necessary by that, under the Order. There are also other variations in paragraph 7 of the purposes and priorities in the 1962 Order. What is the purpose and expected effect of the other variations which are being made? The effect of sub-paragraph (i) is obvious.

I am glad that, although the Under-Secretary was not here at the beginning, he was here in time to hear all the points I wished to make, and I hope that he will be able to answer them.

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for moving the Order formally. I am also deeply obliged to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for responding as he has done. I am glad that I was lucky enough to hear all his points—points that I suspected would be raised anyway in the form in which he has raised them. He made one or two comments which I am not sure were strictly in order, but since they have been allowed by you, Mr. Speaker, I presume that I shall be permitted to comment on them.

Order. The Chair will decide whether comments are strictly in order or not.

Yes, I recognise that, Sir. I hope that I shall be able to comment on those points without getting into trouble with you, Sir, which I do not wish to do.

The purpose of the Order, as the hon. Gentleman has recognised, is to deal with the situation that has arisen as a result of developments that have taken place in the construction of the Tay Road Bridge. This Order is required because the cost of constructing the bridge has risen since 1962 when Parliament made an Order covering a capital cost of £4½ million. The 1962 Order provided that any excess expenditure should be defrayed by means of a scheme agreed by the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board and its three constituent local authorities—Dundee Town Council, Fife County Council and the Angus County Council—and approved by the Secretary of State.

The increased expenditure has resulted partly from additional works. I think the hon. Gentleman recognised that there must be some element of rising costs here since 1962, these years not having been particularly good so far as the position on wages is concerned. The increase is not entirely due to what happened in 1965. If I give an example of the sort of costs that have increased, the hon. Gentleman will see that the largest part relates to changes or additions to the original construction and design.

For example, in 1962 the estimates on land were £150,000 as against the £200,000 as it now stands. The cost of levelling and laying out of the land is the same, but the main bridge and the northern approach cost has risen from £3·671 million to £3·810 million. The Fife approaches have involved us in a little more expenditure, and, instead of £350,000, the cost is £630,000—not quite double but getting close to it.

There is the element of compensation to the ferry operators, which was not in the original estimate, of £260,000. There are small items such as toll equipment and the administrative building, all adding up to about £180,000. This is the reason why the estimated figure in the 1962 Order of £4,386,000 has gone up to £5,333,000. I hope that answers in detail the points that the hon. Gentleman made about the difference in the price. It has been due not to rising costs as such but largely to the additional works which have been agreed upon.

The Joint Board, naturally, acting with the full knowledge of the Government, considered that it would be prudent to make a scheme providing for a possible capital expenditure of up to £6½ million. The scheme has been agreed between the Joint Board and the local authorities and submitted for the Secretary of State's approval by means of this Order.

As the hon. Gentleman said, Section 76 of the 1962 Order laid down that the draft Order must be approved by Resolution of each House of Parliament, and I hope the House will agree to this. If the hon. Gentleman, in asking a number of questions, is anxious about the reasons for the Order being as it is, he will see that the Government have been generous in seeking to help the Joint Board. It is true that we have perhaps not gone as far as we would have liked, but I think we have gone much farther than I suspect the previous Government would in this regard. However, that is a matter for argument. All I would say is that the Joint Board has been very happy to accept the allocation of cost which I have explained.

The local authorities' share of the capital cost of £5,333,000 is £3,208,250, of which £425,750 interest will be deferred by the estimated date of the opening of the bridge, which I hope will be in August. There are other factors which could influence this, but the hope is that it will be in August. This interest must, under the 1962 Order, be added to the capital debt making the local authorities' share £3,634,000. The Exchequer's share of the capital cost is £2,124,750 on which £133,250 interest will be due when the bridge opens. Only £5,250 of this interest is, however, to be capitalised, making the Exchequer debt £2,130,000 and deferred interest £128,000. The total debt to be met at the opening of the bridge is likely to be £5,892,000.

That is about as much detailed information as I can give the hon. Gentleman. I am going as far as I can in explaining this matter. He will see that there has clearly been a division of responsibility as a result of the rising costs. We do not want to get involved too much in interest on interest and such other matters of capitalisation. This is, I think, a very generous gesture on the part of the Government to try to help the local authorities in this way in ensuring that the burden of increased costs does not fall completely on them.

The other matter with which I can deal is tolls. All that the hon. Gentleman has said on this point has been said before. I cannot discuss in detail the toll tariff. I am not responsible for the newspapers and for what they say. I am certainly not going to comment on anything that the newspapers have alleged is in the submission that the Joint Board has made to the Secretary of State—

As I was saying, the hon. Gentleman raised a number of points about tolls. The Secretary of State is not responsible for what appears in the newspapers and for what is alleged to be in the submission of the Joint Board.

I raised the matter in order to obtain confirmation from the Under-Secretary that the Joint Board has made a submission. The hon. Gentleman now says that it is confidential at this stage. I wanted to know what the position was, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

The hon. Gentleman must be fair. He proceeded to argue a case about tolls, the level of tolls and how they would effect the matter if there were a certain figure involved. I hoped that we would not be discussing this point, but now that we are, we have to make clear what is the position of the Government. Under Section 89 of the Tay Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act, 1962, the procedure is that the Joint Board submits a proposed schedule to the Secretary of State. That has recently been done. This schedule, after the Secretary of State has considered it, is to be published. As the Act says, it is to be published

"in the Edinburgh Gazette and in such one or more newspapers as the Secretary of State may specify."

As the hon. Gentleman knows, under Section 89(3) of the Tay Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act, 1962, the Secretary of State has to do certain things once that has been published. The decision will be shortly taken about publishing it, but there are indications already that there are certain points which have been drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State, not necessarily by the Joint Board, which may necessitate my right hon. Friend assuming his statutory position. It may involve a local inquiry. I do not know this yet. It remains to be seen. It depends on how the objectors respond during the discussions between the various parties once the Secretary of State has taken the step of publication.

Clearly it would be wrong for me to be dragged into discussion here about the merits of this or that with reference to tariffs for commercial lorries or private vehicles. I hope that I shall not be obliged to answer further on those lines if there is further debate. I must, however, respond on the question of the principle of tolls. The figures of industrial development in Fife are remarkably good. Last year has been a good year for Fife and this February shows one of the best figures for employment in Fife over the last ten years. Clearly therefore the incidence of bridge tolls at this stage—and I grant that it is possible that circumstances could alter—cannot be seriously alleged to be inhibiting economic development. What would be the position of my right hon. Friend if it were to do so, remains to be seen.

The Secretary of State is statute bound to discuss these matters with the Forth Road Bridge authority. Similarly he is at this stage going through the correct procedure as laid down in the Confirmation Act in connection with the Tay Bridge tolls.

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the Forth Bridge toll which is a flat rate of 2s. 6d.

Order. We cannot discuss the Forth Road Bridge. We are on the Tay Bridge.

The only point that I was making was that the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn dragged me into this in relation to the comparison between the Forth and Tay Road Bridges in the matter of tolls. These discussions are going on in the correct way and it would not be right for me to anticipate what attitude the Secretary of State will take in the light of representations being made to him, and which no doubt will be made, when he publishes the schedule in the Edinburgh Gazette and other selected newspapers. I think that for this purpose I have covered all the questions that have been asked me.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer my last question about the variations of the purposes which appear in paragraph 7 of the new Order? There is a new sub-paragraph (i) which is straightforward but there are other variations there and I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to tell us the purpose of the other variations. I realise that perhaps this may be too short notice, but that was my other question.

I think that I covered that when I described the apportionment of the responsibility regarding the increased interest total which there would be as a consequence of seeking permission to borrow more money. We are not having complete interest on interest in relation to the total. The Government are sharing one part and the Joint Board the other part. This is the result of discussions which the Secretary of State commissioned me to have with the Joint Board. They were very amicable discussions and we came to this conclusion. I admit that that was not all that the Joint Board would want, but it is as much as my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Government could provide in the circumstances. It was welcome as such, and I am glad to know that our relations with the Joint Board are as cordial as ever.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland gave the impression that the Secretary of State would listen to representations before he decided on the level of tolls—not whether there should be tolls—on the Tay Bridge. We hope that the bridge will link with the Forth Bridge to provide a trunk road system for the whole of the east of Scotland, and it seems to me quite ludicrous that the Government should seek to create virtually the whole of Scotland into a development area and at the same time seek to impose quite heavy tolls on the two links in the trunk road up the east side of Scotland.

I hope that if he cannot be convinced now of getting rid of tolls altogether, the Secretary of State will be consistent in the application of a tolls policy by putting tolls on the Tay Bridge comparable with those on the Forth Bridge. It would be absurd if one were four times the other, as seems likely at the moment.

I should like my hon. Friend to give an undertaking that his right hon. Friend's mind is not closed to the possibility of eventually getting rid of tolls in the event of the development of Fife, which he quite rightly says has gone forward up to now with reasonable speed, proving in the end not to be going as fast as we would like. My hon. Friend talked about development last year, but in the current year there will be expedited pit closures which will jeopardise the position somewhat. At the moment there do not seem to be enough jobs in prospect to take all the miners who may be made redundant. I hope that the Secretary of State will bear that in mind when making the decision not only about the Tay Bridge but on toll policy in general.

These are very reasonable comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton). All I can say to him on the actual procedure is that he will see that under Section 89(3) there is every opportunity for any person concerned to make representations about the tariff of tolls proposed.

Once it is published in the newspapers, subsection (3) becomes operative in that the Secretary of State, before exercising his powers under Section 87(3), or making an Order under Section 88

"shall, if requested to do so in writing by the Joint Board, or by any of the Councils, or by any body who made objection as aforesaid, and has not withdrawn such objection, and in any other case if he thinks it necessary or desirable, cause a local inquiry to be held, and the provisions of section 355 of the Act of 1947 shall apply to any such inquiry."

I think that answers the point, but these steps must be taken in sequence and they cannot be taken at this stage. I am not in a position to comment on a Schedule which has not been published or to take responsibility for what has been said in the newspapers.

I take my hon. Friend's point about difficulties which possibly could be encountered in Fife this year, but I am glad to say that I had a meeting, as he knows, with Fife County Council and the burgh councils of Cowdenbeath, Lochgelly and Leven, all of which are vitally concerned in the projected closures in 1966, 1967 and 1968. I was glad to assure them, from information which we have gathered from the Board of Trade and from past experience in Fife, that the Government do not envisage that these pit closures will cause any appreciable rise in unemployment, and if industrial development in Fife continues as it is we shall see a repopulation of some of the older communities in Fife and therefore these tolls would not be an impediment to the industrial development.

But I reaffirm to my hon. Friend, nevertheless, that, although we hear a good deal from the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) about page 10 of the manifesto on this subject—

"Signposts for Scotland"?

Yes, "Signposts for Scotland", which the hon. Gentleman often calls the manifesto—he does not always remember page 11. Page 10 covers the history—

Order. We are not discussing "Signposts for Scotland". I hope that page 11 has something to do with the Tay Road Bridge.

It certainly has, Mr. Speaker. Since you allowed this com- ment, Sir, I feel obliged, particularly in view of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West to acknowledge the point and give our reply. My hon. Friend has asked me, on the question of principle, how the Secretary of State approaches this matter.

The observations on page 10 of "Signposts for Scotland" are historical in the sense of discussing what had happened in relation to the Forth Road Bridge and the Tay Road Bridge and what was, therefore, irredeemable and could not be corrected without new legislation. These matters being so, we are operating the legislation as best and as reasonably as we can, but the pledge on page 11 stands. If tolls were shown to be an inhibitor of industrial development, then, I am absolutely certain, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would wish to review the position and review it as favourably as my hon. Friend would wish.

Will my hon. Friend undertake to send me a copy of the detailed statistics on which he bases his optimism for the future of Fife in 1966 and 1967?

I shall be happy to provide this information to my hon. Friend I have no doubt that he will find it very useful in the forthcoming struggle.

I beg to move,

That the Police Pensions (Amendment) Regulations, 1966, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th February, be approved.

The Police Council has been consulted about these draft Regulations. They amend the Police Pensions Regulations. 1962, and they fall into two parts. Part I is consequential on the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1965, and serves to increase the pensions of police widows and the allowance payable to children of deceased police officers, pensions of retired police officers themselves being increased directly under the 1965 Act. For technical drafting reasons, this is the usual way of applying pensions increase Measures to the police service.

There are two classes of police widow's pension. One is related to the late husband's pay and length of service, the other is the flat rate amount depending upon his rank. The draft Regulations now before the House follow the precedent of earlier increase Measures by providing in the former case that the awards shall be treated as though they had been specified in the Schedule to the Pensions Increase Act, and in the latter case by substituting new rates.

The cases related to pay and service are covered by draft Regulation 4, and the flat-rate cases are covered by draft Regulations 1, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The flat rate amounts now provided are the existing amounts increased by 16 per cent., the highest increase for which the Act provides. Draft Regulation 2 which relates to the additional increase in pension at age 70, provided by the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1962, and the increase payable on it under the 1965 Act, and draft Regulation 3 which relates to the duration of a child's allowance, are consequential upon the main provisions. These are thoroughly desirable Amendments on which, I am sure, both sides of the House are entirely agreed.

Part II of the draft Regulations contains in draft Regulation 10 a technical Amendment with respect to the construction of the 1962 Regulations where part of a police area is transferred to another police area in consequence of local government reorganisation. Draft Regulation 12 provides that Part I, that is, the Part relating to pensions increases, shall have effect from 1st January last, the date from which the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1965, took effect, and that draft Regulation 10 in Part II shall take effect as from 1st April, 1966, the date on which the draft Regulations themselves are to come into operation.

The House is grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for that explanation. As he has said, the Regulations have been approved by the Police Coun- cil and, in so far as they increase the pensions payable to widows and dependants of police officers, we on this side, naturally, give them full support.

I have, nevertheless, one comment to make about the presentation of the Regulations. If one wants to find out what these extremely complex Regulations do, one has to refer not only to the principal Regulations but to the amending Regulations of 1963 as well. I have looked at a great number of these Statutory Instruments, and the Explanatory Note at the end of these Regulations is probably as obtuse as any that I have ever seen. Without the lucid explanation the hon. Gentleman gave, it would have been impossible for anyone outside the House, without a great deal of study, to discover what these Regulations are intended to do.

For example, the Explanatory Note tells us that

"Regulation 3 of the present Regulations contains a supplemental amendment relating to the duration of an increase in a child's allowance".

It is quite impossible to tell from that whether the child benefits from the Regulation or whether the duration is to be cut. Regulation 3 itself refers, first, to the principal Regulations, which one then has to look at, then to the amending Regulations brought in in 1963, and thereafter to the Pensions Increase Acts of 1959, 1962 and 1965.

When complex Regulations of this kind are brought before the House, there is a duty upon the sponsoring Department to make the Explanatory Note clear so that it can be understood without the enormous amount of back reference which one otherwise must do. In your Ruling of 21st February, Mr. Speaker, you intimated that, in order to save the expense of reprinting large numbers of Regulations which were out of date, it would be for the convenience of the House if Departments putting forward Measures of this kind were to deposit in the Library an easy reference to the back Regulations for interested Members. In this case, I made inquiries and found that it had not been done. Perhaps I may add, without going out of order, that it has been done in very few cases indeed. I hope that, in future, sponsoring Departments, when bringing forward complex Regulations of this kind, will undertake what one might call the courteous act of taking the trouble to put such notes in the Library for the benefit of Members. In this case, I was not able last night to obtain copies of the previous Regulations from the Vote Office.

Having said that, I repeat that the Opposition welcome, as we always shall, Regulations of this kind, which give benefit to widows and dependants of police officers.

I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Sharples) for the unfailing courtesy which he brings to his task. I sympathise entirely with the points that he has made, and will ask the Home Office to continue to set an example to all other Government Departments by ensuring that there is available some explanation of the papers involved. This is the seventh set of Amendments to the 1962 Police Regulations. It is time to consolidate, and we intend to do so before the autumn.

I can undertake to meet the wishes of the hon. Gentleman in all that he has said because I have the advantage of a great Department to help me understand the archaic English in the Statutes, and I realise how difficult it must be. Cruel as it sounds, I hope that he will be on the other side of the House for a long time, but I will make it as easy as I can for him.

The Chair has noted what both hon. Gentlemen have said about the provision of papers. I have made quite clear in a previous Ruling what I think the responsibility of Departments should be.

I beg to move,

That the Payments in Aid of Agricultural Schemes (Extension) Order, 1966, dated 15th February, 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd February, be approved.

The purpose of the Order is to renew the special assistance granted to Northern Irish agriculture for a further five years and to increase the grant by £500,000 to 1¾ million. This is a substantial increase which, I know from my experience in Northern Ireland, is deeply appreciated by the farming community there.

The grant originates in the decontrol of food marketing and of agricultural produce which took place in 1954. During the period of control farmers throughout the United Kingdom received from the Ministry of Food the same fixed price for their produce sold off the farm. The system introduced in 1954 gives farmers throughout the United Kingdom the same deficiency payments based on the difference between the average market price for the country as a whole and the guaranteed price. This means that when a deficiency payment is made each farmer receives the same addition to the price he obtains from the market irrespective of the actual difference between the price he himself has obtained and the guaranteed price.

This presents a special difficulty for Northern Ireland because of its remoteness from the main markets in Great Britain. Northern Irish farmers tend to get lower prices on average than farmers in many parts of Great Britain. This was recognised in 1954, and the Government decided to make a grant each year to the Government of Northern Ireland for the purpose of assisting agriculture in Northern Ireland. The grant is now payable under Section 32 of the Agriculture Act, 1957. This provides for the grant to be extended for periods of up to five years at a time, and for the amount of the grant to be varied in respect of any extension period, subject, of course, to Parliamentary control and approval.

In 1957 the grant was fixed at £1 million a year. It was renewed for a further period of five years in 1962 and raised to £1⅓ million. At the 1965 Annual Farm Price Review the Government decided to re-examine the rate of grant, and, after doing so, announced last October that it would be raised to £1¾ million from the 1966–67 financial year. I should explain that the Agriculture Act does not give Ministers the power to vary the rate of grant during the period of extension of the grant. That is why this Order brings the current extension period to an end—it would otherwise still have a year to run—and starts a new extension period at the higher rate.

The Government have taken two points into account in deciding to increase the rate of grant. First, they have examined the market prices obtained for the guaranteed agricultural commodities and concluded that the difference between farmers' returns in Great Britain and Northern Ireland has increased somewhat since 1962. Secondly, the Government have considered what amount of money could be effectively spent. I should emphasise that the grant is not intended merely to be a means of supplementing farmers' prices in Northern Ireland. The schemes financed by it are also designed to give constructive help to Northern Irish farmers to overcome their remoteness disadvantage. The schemes are described briefly in a statement laid before Parliament each year, and a statement for 1965–66 will be made shortly. I would add that it had better be in a hurry.

Finally, I will say just a word about the way in which the grant is used. This is in the hands of the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, subject to general approval by the three United Kingdom Agriculture Ministers. Approval by United Kingdom Ministers is required because the special assistance is part of the total assistance given by the United Kingdom Government to the United Kingdom farmers and must be consistent with the Government's agriculture policy. Subject to this, the disbursement of the money is a matter for the Northern Ireland Ministry of Agriculture.

It has been a great privilege for me in this Parliament to have a great deal to do with Northern Ireland. I respected it before; I have learnt to love and honour it. It is a very great part of the United Kingdom. I had a great deal to do with the farmers when I went over there, and I shall always have happy memories of them. I am glad to think that my last official task in this Parliament is to move an Order which is designed to help that hardworking and thriving community.

I welcome the Order, of course, because it fulfils our election pledge to the Northern Ireland agricultural community that we would make the strongest possible representations to the Government for an increase in the scheme.

I should like briefly to give an assurance to the House that the money under the scheme is spent in a most worthwhile and responsible way in order to promote and further special growth points in production. For instance, last year £830,000 was spent to encourage beef production, for which there is a great demand in the United Kingdom at the present time. Also, a payment of £170,000 was made to improve the seasonality of marketing, which will be of direct benefit to the consumer.

However, the disparity in prices between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom is still very considerable and the gap is in no way closed by the extension of this scheme.

The Northern Ireland farmer is subject to a far greater degree of price differentiation than is borne by producers in the rest of the United Kingdom. In 1963, the total loss of farm income through selling at Northern Ireland farm prices amounted to over £5 million and the 1964 figure was similar. Again, we in Northern Ireland are at a distinct disadvantage since we are forced to import a considerable quantity of essential feeding stuffs, the price of which has risen rapidly, if not dramatically, in recent years.

In 1963, grain cost approximately £14 per ton. The import price today is £23 per ton. Again, this distinct disadvantage is extenuated since the Northern Ireland farmers have to market the great majority of their production on this side of the Irish Sea, thereby incurring ever-increasing freight rates, especially during the last two years.

I believe that this House must appreciate the real disadvantages and problems facing the agricultural industry in Northern Ireland—an industry that is a particularly important part of the economy of Northern Ireland. This was strongly stressed by Lord Beeching during his recent visit to Belfast. The problem of farm income is also acute and serious because there are approximately 23,000 farmers whose output in production is too low to provide an income equivalent to the minimum agricultural wage.

I can assure the Under-Secretary of State that the Northern Ireland fanner cannot continue to contend with increased costs and falling prices. He is not in a position to do so. Finally, It is of vital importance that the Government should not regard this extension to the scheme as a substitute for the fair, realistic price review for which there is no genuine substitute.

As a Northern Ireland Member, I want to begin by saying how glad I am to have this opportunity to express our thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for the sympathetic, always charming, friendly and co-operative way in which he has dealt with matters concerning Northern Ireland. I know that I speak for all my Ulster colleagues in saying so. Well I remember the meeting at which he announced this increase in what we call the "remoteness" grant. It was in a large hall packed with farmers, but not even the hon. Gentleman's charm would have kept them happy if he had not been able to produce this £500,000 addition to the grant.

I am sure that he himself did not make this decision but that it was arrived at by his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, because £500,000 is a pretty small proportion to get for the 1965 season, which was about the most disastrous year that the Northern Ireland farmers have experienced. This increase represents about £10 per head per farm and about £5 per head for the people employed in the Northern Ireland agricultural industry.

It is not much. It does not quite make up for the increased cost of living during the past year nor for the rise in industrial wages in the same period. It is perhaps wrong to compute the amount directly to the increases in cost of living and industrial wages but it is a way in which one must look at this. There is no question that the increased costs on the farm have cut very deeply into farmers' profit margins in the last two or three years.

My noble friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Marquess of Hamilton) has detailed some of the increases in costs. Can we have from the Under-Secretary of State a statement of how the figure of £500,000 was arrived at? I believe that the remoteness grant is computed in a purely arbitrary fashion with, as far as I can see, no real attempt to compute losses to the Northern Ireland farmers as against the remotest parts of Great Britain.

There have been successive increases in freight charges and the Northern Ireland farmers have to suffer as well an undoubted psychological barrier. It is not just freight rates that make beef in Scotland get 30s. a hundred more than the same beef in Northern Ireland. Nor is it a question of Aberdeen Angus quality. Too often beef sold in Scotland is Irish beef from the same farms and fattened in identical conditions. Yet Northern Ireland farmers get 20s. a hundred less than the Scottish.

When the remoteness grant was introduced it was considered a triumph for the Ulster Farmers Union. It was the first clear recognition we had that the Northern Ireland farmers are in a less favourable position than the farmers throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. But I am frightened that the grant, which bears no real relation to the facts, is becoming a sop to the consciences of successive Ministers of Agriculture because they know that the Northern Ireland fanner is worse off than his colleagues on this side of the Irish Sea.

The negotiations in 1957 were carried out in an atmosphere in which we in Northern Ireland were importing grain from the world market. So was Great Britain. On the whole, if anything, our feed prices were rather lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Since then a certain number of feed grains have been replaced or are supplied by British production here and feed prices have on the whole been kept down. But we in Northern Ireland have suffered considerably from the minimum import prices enforced at all British ports. Perhaps it would be better to do away with the remoteness grant and to accept the peculiar position of Northern Ireland. One of the easiest and most straightforward things that the Government could do would be to reduce the minimum import charges at Northern Ireland ports.

Order. We cannot discuss alternative policies.

I will try to adjust my remarks to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. It is a question of feedingstuffs and of reducing the cost of imports and, equally well, of a policy to encourage the production of grain of a different standard quantity which would begin to put right the difficulties of Northern Ireland farmers.

We welcome this Order, but I do not think that the increase is a solution. Perhaps, as his last act for Northern Ireland—for I cannot see the hon. Gentleman sitting on the Front Bench in many weeks' time—he would make the firmest possible representations to the Minister of Agriculture either to pay the grant on direct quantities or tackle Northern Ireland's agricultural problems and farm incomes on a more direct and positive basis that would give the small farmers the proper return for their work.

I hesitate to intervene in a debate which has been so ably conducted by my hon. Friends, who have great knowledge of the conditions in Northern Ireland, and the Under-Secretary of State who has acquired a great deal of knowledge in the last few months when he has been fulfillling this responsibility.

Like my hon. Friends, I welcome the Order and these increases. I hope that the Under-Secretary has had his attention drawn to the remarks of my noble Friend the Member for Fermanagh and County Tyrone (Marquess of Hamilton) who spoke of rising costs of feedingstuffs and so on, and of increased freight rates, also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark). It is true that the extra money to be given to Northern Irish farmers by the Order will recompense them for increased costs which the Government have imposed upon them.

The Under-Secretary may have made a slip of the tongue, but I thought that he said that the details for 1965–66 would be ready very shortly. That work should already have been done and we should already know how the 1965–66 grant of £1,250,000 was allocated as between the various products. I think that the hon. Gentleman meant 1966–67 and I hope that details of the allocations for that year will be ready as soon as the agreements have been reached.

However, the main issue which I want to raise concerns the hon. Gentleman's control over the allocation of this money. It is a considerable sum which is being spent to help Northern Irish farmers and three matters are mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum—the making of silage, payment for fat cattle marketed, and payments to certain farmers not engaged in milk production.

Presumably, that is a reference to 1965–66 and it would be interesting to have the actual allocation of the funds within the £1,250,000 presumably spent in that year. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what is to be the allocation for 1966–67 and whether it will still be on those three headings? If so, can he say how the £1,750,000 will be split among the three, or does he intend to include extra headings after consultations with his hon. Friend?

I am much obliged to the three hon. Members opposite for the kind things they have said. We are dealing with a matter which means a great deal to the hard-working farmers in Northern Ireland. The remoteness grant has never been intended to represent the total amount of the disadvantage of Northern Irish farmers. It is intended to promote constructive schemes to offset the disadvantage which farming suffers in Northern Ireland.

I tried to explain earlier that the amount of the grant is decided by establishing the difference between market returns in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. We try to redress the balance to help as much as we can. The money is dispersed by the Northern Ireland Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Harry West, with whom I have worked in very close consultation and with whom it is very easy to work in close co-operation and who is a master, as one would expect, of his own subject. He guides and he and his colleagues in Northern Ireland decide how the money is to be spent.

The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) was quite right to say that the silage payments scheme was one of the matters on which help is given from the remoteness grant. The cattle breeding herds scheme, helping with the breeding and rearing of calves, the cattle headage payments, the herbage seed improvement scheme, which provides for grants to be made to the Herbage Seed Marketing Board for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland seed potato scheme and the sugar beet development scheme are others.

The agricultural authorities in Northern Ireland, among whom I include the Ministry and the Ulster Farmers Union, discuss what is best for the industry and I think that they themselves agree how best the money can be used.

Surely the hon. Gentleman has the final say-so about what the Ulster Farmers Union and the Ulster Ministry agree. It is his responsibility, is it not?

It would be very churlish of us on this side of the Irish Sea to say that we knew better than the people in Ulster when they advise us how best the money can be spent over there. As long as there is a Welshman in this office, we shall be very tolerant of the proposals of the Irish.

I do not think it is generally known that the Post Office is in the process of withdrawing the free telephones at taxi ranks throughout the Metropolitan area and proposes within a measureable time to withdraw them all. I learned about this only at the end of last year, although, as I now know, it has been the policy of the Post Office for some considerable time.

It was brought to my notice by several of my constituents who had heard that the Post Office was proposing to withdraw one particular telephone, that at the taxi rank at Aberconway Road, Morden, whose telephone number is Cherrywood 5013. They wrote to me in some distress and asked whether I could do anything to persuade the Post Office to change its mind.

Since then, I have made a number of inquiries. I have asked the Postmaster-General several Questions, I have been in touch with the London Motor Cab Proprietors' Association, the Motor Cab Owner-Drivers' Association, and with the Cab Section of the Transport and General Workers Union, and I have also discussed the matter with the hon. Member for Ilkeston (Mr. Raymond Fletcher), who has been pursuing some inquiries on much the same lines.

As a result of these inquiries, I understand that the position now is that there are still remaining in the Metropolitan area 73 telephones at cab ranks, that eight of them, including no doubt the one at Aberconway Road, Morden, which is my principal concern, are in the process of being withdrawn and that it is Post Office policy to withdraw them all.

I understand that these telephones have two things in common. First, they were installed originally at the request of the Post Office. This was not something for which the cab trade asked. The trade was approached originally many years ago by the Post Office and offered this service free of charge, no doubt in order to help the Post Office to attract custom for its other telephones. Secondly, all of them are of a type which will accept incoming calls only and outgoing calls cannot be made from them.

I am told that the Post Office approached the cab trade in 1959 with the proposition that all these telephones should be withdrawn unless somebody could be found to pay a rent. When I say that it approached the cab trade, I mean that it approached the London Cab Trade Joint Committee, which is the body which speaks for the cab trade in London. Discussions ensued and at the end of them it was agreed that the telephones would not all immediately be withdrawn, but would be progressively withdrawn if the Post Office found that they were being little used.

Since that time, seven years ago, the Post Office has been regularly in contact with the trade about the removal of these telephones, with the result that over the seven years some 40 have been withdrawn leaving, as I said only 73.

There are four questions which I want to ask the Postmaster-General. The first question is, will they please reconsider this policy? In answer to two Parliamentary Questions which I have asked he said that there is no reason why the Post Office should subsidise the cab trade. It is nonsense to suggest that this service is simply a subsidy to the cab trade. It helps it to obtain business, but it benefits a great many other people as well. For example, the telephone with which I am principally concerned at Aberconway Road, Morden, is used by many of my constituents who have written to me to say that the ability to call up a cab is a tremendous advantage.

It does not require much elaboration from me to point out how useful a service this is for elderly or infirm people, or for anyone in an emergency. Another group of users who find these telephones very valuable are the hospitals. I have a letter from the Secretary of the St. Helier Hospital, just outside my constituency, who tells me that both the hospital and its patients find this telephone invaluable. I also have a letter from the Secretary of the Nelson Hospital, which is in my constituency. He says that an appreciable number of patients would suffer if this telephone were to disappear.

The Post Office goes on to say that it is a public service required by Parliament to pay its way and that it cannot be expected to provide services, however beneficial, to the public at a loss. This is precisely what it does. The most obvious example is the public call box. This is a public service available to all, and just before Christmas the Postmaster-General said in a Written Answer that the total loss on public call boxes last year was £4·2 million. He also said that local calls from private telephones are unprofitable and lost £11½ million in the year ending 31st March, 1965. There are other telephone services which are running at a loss. There is the speaking clock, the weather reports and the Test Match report service. No one pays rent for such services, and since the Postmaster-General says that local calls are unprofitable, he must be providing this public service at a loss.

What I want to know is why the Post Office are picking upon this particular service? The loss involved cannot be very great. There are 73 telephones with an average maintenance cost of £18 a year, about £1,400 overall. I do not know what the loss on the other services I have mentioned is, apart from call boxes and the ordinary local calls, but I do suggest that to pick on this particular service is wrong. It may be nice to ring up and get the Test Match score, but it is a great deal more helpful to many more people to be able to ring up and get a taxi. I do urge the Postmaster-General to reconsider this policy.

The second question relates to the undertaking which I understand the Post Office have given to the trade, that it will only withdraw those telephones which are little used. On the 22nd December I ask the Postmaster-General whether he kept records of the calls made on these telephones and how much income would be lost from their withdrawal. He did not answer the first part of the Question, but he did say:

"We do not know the income which might be lost."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd December, 1965; Vol. 722, c. 455.]

He clearly implied that he does not keep any records. I do not understand this, because I have reason to believe that he does keep some kind of record, and I can only suppose that that record is very incomplete; in other words it may be observation of calls made to a particular telephone for two or three days only.

This is not the way to determine how much a particular telephone is used, because it could easily be misleading. If no record is kept, how does the Postmaster-General do it? By guess-work? I would like him to explain this, because of the contradictory nature of the information I have, and the Answer given.

The third question has to do with his discussions about the withdrawal of the telephones. I do not know why, in these discussions he deals only with the taxi drivers. The original discussions in 1959 were with the London Cab Trade Joint Committee. So far as anyone represents the cab trade in London, then it is this body, because it has on it representatives of the London Motor Cab Proprietors' Association, the Motor Cab Owner-Drivers' Association, and the Cab Section of the Transport and General Workers Union—in other words the proprietors and drivers.

It is with this body that the Home Office negotiates when it is discussing matters affecting the cab trade. Since 1959 I understand that the Postmaster-General, when discussing withdrawals, has only been in touch with a body called the Joint Ranks Committee, and that the letters proposing the withdrawal of any telephone are addressed to the Secretary of that Committee: I understand that this Committee represents the drivers of cabs, the owner drivers and the journeymen drivers, and that the police discuss matters affecting siting of ranks, how big they should be and so on with it. I can understand that it might be appropriate to discuss whether a rank or telephone is used to any great extent with the drivers because they will know the answers, whereas the proprietors might not. When it is suggested that the telephones might be rented instead of withdrawn, I do not understand why the Postmaster-General suggests that it should be the drivers who pay the rent.

This brings me to my fourth point, which is in connection with the rental demanded by the Post Office if this telephone service is to be continued. The Post Office says that it is prepared to let these telephones remain if someone will pay a rent of £4 a quarter, that is the normal business rate. This seems to be too high. For the normal business rental of £4 per quarter one gets a telephone which works both ways so that one can ring people up as well as being rung up oneself. This telephone service which we are discussing is a one-way service, and it seems unreasonable to demand the same rental for only half as much use. I should like the Postmaster-General to clear this point up when he answers. I cannot understand why the Post Office should insist that the driver or drivers should rent the telephone. In correspondence relating to the telephone at Aberconway Road, I understand that the Post Office want to know whether the drivers concerned will pay the rental.

This is where the Postmaster-General seems to miss the point. All drivers are concerned. Taxi ranks are not restricted to certain drivers only. All drivers may use all ranks, and it is totally unrealistic to expect one or two drivers to bear the burden of the rental which will benefit all of their colleagues, particularly when they have no means open to them of recouping this cost. If the Post Office puts up the rent of a telephone to a business, that business could recoup the cost by charging more for whatever it was selling.

But the cab trade is so closely regulated by the Home Office that the drivers have no means whatever of recouping this extra cost, unless they are forced to demand higher tips or something of that sort, which none of them wants to do. It is not only the drivers concerned. They are not the only people who make a profit out of the cab trade and, therefore, share in the benefit of these telephones. It is the whole trade. I admit that it is difficult for the Post Office to be absolutely fair about this, because there are certainly cab proprietors who are not members of the Proprietors' Association, some owner-drivers are not members of the Owner-Drivers' Association and some journeyman drivers are not members of the Transport and General Workers' Union.

Nevertheless, I am sure that it is up to the Post Office, this great Government Department, to make arrangements which are clearly seen to be fair to everybody. I suggest that their present approach to the problem of demanding rent from individuals in the trade is not fair. I ask the Postmaster-General first of all to reconsider his policy and allow the original policy of his Department, which was to provide this service free of charge for the benefit of the community, to stand. If he declines to do that, I want to urge him to reconsider the way in which he is applying this policy, which is at present arbitrary and unfair.

The hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) has been most clear in his exposition of the case about cab rank telephones. I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this question and to try to give clear and direct answers to his questions about my Department's policy. As the hon. Member is aware, it has been the subject of many letters between hon. Members, my right hon. Friend and myself, and I would like to make quite clear what our intentions are and the reasons for them.

There are three points that I think need emphasising straight away. The first is that the withdrawal of telephones from taxi ranks refers specifically to free telephones: there is no question of withdrawing telephones which are rented, and the telephones will not be withdrawn if they are paid for.

My second point is that the withdrawal of free facilities is not confined to cab ranks in the Metropolitan area alone. It is our intention that all free cab rank telephones in the country will eventually be withdrawn. Thirdly, I must mention that there is nothing new in our withdrawal of these free facilities: it has been a gradual process over a number of years in respect of a completely indefensible anachronism.

This history of cab rank telephones goes back to the year 1905—the days of the horse-drawn cab—when two telephones were provided at cab ranks in London. The object in those early days was to encourage the use of the telephone. From this beginning the practice grew and spread to other parts of the country until in 1958 there were approximately 120 in Greater London and about 40 in the provinces.

There was never any formal agreement, as the hon. Member knows, about the provision of free telephones, and, from an up-to-date look at it in 1958, it was decided that no more free telephones could justifiably be supplied. The reason then was basically the same as it is today: free telephones cannot be provided unless they are subsidised in some way, and there is no justification for asking ordinary subscribers—who might or might not be taxi users—to bear the extra cost. The cab trade was told of the decision and the reason for it.

Existing telephones were allowed to remain, subject to periodic review of the use being made of them, and the practice has been to remove those free telephones which are least used. Since 1958 the number has been gradually reduced from 120 to 73 in London, and from 40 to 15 in the provinces.

I fully appreciate the disappointment of the cab trade at the removal of a concession so long enjoyed, and I am aware of the advantages of having a telephone at a cab rank. As the hon. Member for Merton and Morden has argued there is a social advantage in having telephones at cab ranks. People can ring for a cab, and there is an advantage for the cab trade in that cabs can station themselves at cab ranks instead of cruising around, although they can and do do this without a telephone anyway. In other words, the benefits of cab rank telephones do not accrue solely to the cab drivers but to the general public as well.

This may be true but the argument applies with equal force to many others who give a service. For example, chiropodists, hairdressers, and the like can be said to be meeting a social need, but that does not mean that the Post Office must pay for their communications, which are also likely to be mostly incoming calls.

The telephone service recognises its social function and provides, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, public telephones and call offices at a loss of some £4¼ million a year. My right hon. Friend and I have repeatedly told the House the amount of money which is being lost, even on telephone kiosks. The inland telegraph service is maintained, despite its loss. It cannot be said that the Post Office is unmindful of social obligations.

But there is a difference in the cases quoted. They benefit the community as a whole and anybody in any part of the country can make use of the services provided. These are not cases of privileged sections of the community being subsidised by the general user of the service.

The hon. Member stressed that cab rank telephones are used for incoming calls only and cannot be used to make calls, but this is not an argument for their being free, nor even for their being provided at a rental lower than the standard business rental of £4 per quarter. In the first place, as I have said, many other people require telephones only to receive incoming calls and these telephones have to be paid for. I think the hon. Member would agree that we could not run a service otherwise.

Second, it is more costly to provide cab rank telephone service than the normal service, because cab-rank telephones are heavy-duty out-door instruments which are more expensive than ordinary telephones.

Third, although the hon. Member has argued that the profit made on the calls to these telephones should pay for their upkeep, this is not the case. The calls in question are of course local calls only. Local calls do not make a profit, and all these telephones are unprofitable. We must face this. The cost of these telephones is, therefore, carried by other telephone subscribers, with the result that a particular section of the community—the cab trade—is being subsidised. Many people would like free or subsidised telephones and, as the hon. Member is aware, hon Members have tried, by Questions, to get my right hon. Friend to give way to requests from the elderly, the housebound, and the incapacitated for concessions in telephone rentals. These requests have had to be refused; concessions create anomalies. Free cab rank telephones are an anomaly, and they cannot continue indefinitely.

We have no wish to remove these telephones willy-nilly, and would be willing to retain them on a rented basis, as has been done in cases where free facilities have ceased. The sum of money to be found, if spread over the number of cabs and drivers, would not be large.

The rental for these telephones is, as I have said, the normal business rate of £4 per quarter. All the free cab rank telephones in London could be rented for less than £1,200 a year. This works out at about 3s. 6d. per year per cab, or since there are more drivers than cabs, about 2s. 6d. per driver per year. The hon. Member said that the organisation of the cab trade makes collection and apportioning of moneys difficult, but I cannot believe that with the sums involved, a satisfactory solution could not be found within the trade. It is not necessary for one single driver to pay all the rental charge. The cost can be shared. But surely this is a matter for the drivers concerned and not for the Post Office. My right hon. Friend has no desire to make difficulties for the cab trade but, as the hon. Member for Merton and Morden is aware, we have a duty to other users of our services and, in common with other nationalised industries, we have an obligation to run our business economically and to make a proper return on capital.

Finally, the hon. Member argued that the Post Office had not discussed this issue with all the parties concerned. Let me say at once that there has been no formal agreement or obligation in this matter. The removal of the free concession is not confined to London. We have made our intentions clear and have had discussions with various representatives of the cab trade. Their case has certainly not gone by default. We have had, as the hon. Member said, representations from the London Cab Trade Joint Ranks Committee. If others wish to discuss the renting of the telephones in London, then we shall be glad to do so, but we must hear from them quickly.

The hon. Member put his case clearly and concisely, and explained his reasons for raising it. But in conclusion, I hope that, from all that I have said, the hon. Member will agree that we cannot allow some sections of the community to have service for nothing, and that therefore we must maintain the policy which we have already announced in the House. Recently I met a deputation who argued more or less along the same lines as those used by the hon. Member in putting his case this afternoon. I told that deputation that neither my right hon. Friend nor I could make an announcement to the House that something would take place and then, after hearing the deputation, automatically go back on the undertaking which we had given to Parliament. When I met these people they were very disturbed, as the hon. Member is disturbed.

But we must keep to the policy which was laid down by the previous Adminis- tration, because we think it right in this respect. Other subscribers ought not to be placed in the position of subsidising this section of the community who have the advantage of facilities which have been afforded to them for so long.