asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give a general direction to the Post Office to examine the possibility of providing answering service facilities for taking telephone messages in the absence of subscribers.

No, Sir. Certain absent subscriber services are, however, already offered by the Post Office and by private firms.

Did the Minister see the film "Sunday, Bloody Sunday" in which the use of an answering service featured prominently? Is he aware that several hon. Members make use of answering services, although not for the same purposes? Is he also aware that not all the private firms which offer such services are very efficient—though I have no complaints about the one that I use? Does he not feel that this is a rather profitable field of telephone activity, and that the Post Office Corporation should seriously examine whether it should extend its activities into this sector?

I understand that the Post Office takes the view that this is a field which can adequately be served by private enterprise, and that it does not intend to move into this area of activity

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this is supposed to be a great reforming Government, and that a useful reform would be achieved by causing this service to be made available through G.P.O. channels? I want to see a G.P.O. service rather than a service provided by a private firm.

I am sure that my hon. Friend's proposals for extending the public sector will be looked at by the Post Office. All I am telling the hon. House is that the Post Office has no proposals for such a service and believes that it can be done by private enterprise.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will give a general direction to the Post Office to improve its international telephone services.

No, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that it is the experience of some who try to telephone Paris or Brussels during the business day that they have to dial forty to sixty times, and that if they try to get through to other places in Europe, especially Southern Europe, they wonder whether it would not be quicker to fly there? If the right hon. Gentleman is earnest about going into Europe, does he not feel that he should oblige the Post Office once again to look not merely at the level of investment intentions but at its programme?

We have been looking, with the Post Office, at its investment levels, and I was recently able to announce an appreciable increase in the level of approved investment in the Post Office over the coming years. The Post Office is pressing ahead fast with the provision of I.S.D. in this country, but the level of performance throughout Western Europe depends on the performance of telecommunications services there.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that at the weekend it is not unusual to have to wait 20 minutes to contact the international telephone exchange? Will he please confirm that there has been no large-scale cable breakdown for other than technical reasons in London during the last week?

I am afraid that I cannot deny or confirm it, but I am sure the Post Office will take account of what my hon. Friend says.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what conveniently available figures he has for vandalism in telephone kiosks for February, 1972; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir, but the Post Office tells me there were 39,274 incidents of kiosk vandalism in the quarter ending December, 1971.

Could the statement be checked that vandalised telephones which are out of action for normal service nevertheless can be used for 999 calls? In fact, some of my constituents have tried in emergencies and failed to do so.

Certainly I will check that point. The Post Office is going ahead as fast as it can with measures to protect kiosks from vandalism. In fact, more than half the kiosks in the country have now been fully or partially fitted with strengthened equipment to resist attack.

Are the figures of vandalism rising or falling? Can my right hon. Friend say whether progress was made in the talks that he intended to have with his colleagues in the Home Department about penalties for people who engage in this type of vandalism?

In the last 18 months the number of public telephones out of order has been just about halved. I have concluded that the maximum penalties provided for by the law do not need strengthening. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department on 2nd December.

I am sure that the Minister will agree that the figures are deplorable. Will he have discussions with the managing director of the telecommunications branch about the letter sent to him today which might help deal with this shocking problem? The Post Office could easily put matters right by a relatively small expenditure. The money would be well spent if the Post Office got on with the job.

I know that the Post Office will want to examine carefully any suggestions put to it by the hon. Gentleman. It has made substantial progress in protecting kiosks and reducing the number which are out of order.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what is the comparative cost, from information available from international sources, of telephone rental and installation in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and countries in the enlarged European Economic Community.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the table of comparative figures of rental and installation charges for telephones in this country and comparable high density telephone countries in the rest of the world shows us already well down in the bottom half of the league? When the proposed increased charges come into force we shall be about the most expensive country for telephone rental and installation charges. Is not this too high a price to pay for subsidising other services, such as postal delivery and Giro?

That is not the case. I know that my hon. Friend has seen a number of these figures already. I ask him to look at them again very carefully. He will see that even if the increases in rentals proposed by the Post Office were accepted, our charges would still compare favourably with those of the majority of Western European Countries. But in making these comparisons one has to take into account the fact that a number of the charges listed here for other European countries are not up to date. A number have proposed increases since, and the profitability or otherwise of the telephone service and the call charges also have to be taken into account.

Is the Minister aware that all studies in the past have shown that the level of charges in the British telephone service compares favourably with that in the United States of America and on the Continent? Is he further aware that the reason for this has been the high increase in productivity in the telephone service over the last 10 years?

There has been a great increase in productivity over recent years, for which the Post Office and its staff are to be congratulated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will pass on his views to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Barons Court (Mr. Richard) who, despite the fact that he supports the largest wage claims that are made, none the less described the proposals to increase the revenue of the Post Office by 3 per cent. after two years as shameful.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give a general direction to the Post Office Corporation not to levy retrospective telephone rental increases when the rental for a particular quarter has already been paid in advance in accordance with Post Office requirements.

No, Sir. This is a matter for the Post Office, which tells me, however, that it now proposes to bill higher rentals wholly in advance.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that basically rather unsympathetic reply, but may I ask him whether he agrees that this practice is even more vicious than the practice of gazumping? Once payment has been made, surely a contract has been entered into. This practice very severely affects old people, and people on low incomes.

I know that considerable misunderstanding arose as a result of the way in which the last increase was made in 1970. When my hon. Friend looks at my reply he will see that it is not unsympathetic. In fact, it says "Yes" to what he wants.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office that the design of all future telephones will be such as to enable the subscriber to adjust the volume of noise made by the bell.

No, Sir. This is a management matter for the Post Office.

Is it not an enormous waste of skilled manpower when people have to get an engineer to go to their homes to adjust the volume of the telephone? Sick people and others often need to have the volume turned up or down. This is an absurd waste of manpower. Will the right hon. Gentleman think about it again.

I am sure that the Post Office will want to consider what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am informed that there is no appreciable evidence of a demand for this facility, and obviously the Post Office must make choices between the different services that it may develop.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what representations he has received regarding the proposal to increase rental and connection charges for telephones.

I have received, over 350 letters from hon. Members and from members of the public.

Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to consider these letters from hon. Members and members of the public and act in accordance with the submissions in them, or is he considering the letters and then choosing to ignore them?

Certainly I carefully consider all letters which are sent to my Department.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will protest to the Universal Postal Union concerning the Soviet authorities' interference with or interception of mail and cables sent from Great Britain to Jewish people in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

No, Sir. I have no evidence that any breach of the relevant international regulations has occurred.

Is the Minister aware of the shocking interference by the Soviet authorities with cables and letters directed by people in this country to Jewish citizens in the Soviet Union? Is he further aware that this applies to mail sent by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by the Parliamentary Committee for Soviet Jewry? Is he also aware that the first letter to reach the distinguished and harassed Jewish scientist Vladimir Slepak occurred only after a Question on this subject had appeared on the Order Paper? Will he undertake that if evidence is given of such interference, he will raise it with the Soviet authorities in whatever may be the proper manner?

I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that if there is evidence of this kind the Post Office will pursue it vigorously with the U.S.S.R. postal authorities. I have every sympathy with the hon. and learned Gentleman and, as I have told him in correspondence, Her Majesty's Government would deplore any unwarranted interference with the delivery of mail wherever it occurred.

I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has just said. It will give great comfort to many whose letters have not been received. I understand that even Mr. Kosygin does not receive letters addressed to him.

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. The fact is that the U.P.U. Convention permits postal authorities to prohibit the importation or circulation of items they choose, but where an item is not delivered the Convention requires that that postal administration should notify the postal administration of the sender country.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will issue a general direction to the Post Office Board to change the rules on relations of staff with the Press.

No, Sir. A direction would not be appropriate. It is essentially a management matter for the Post Office.

Does not the Minister accept that in view of the changed status of the Post Office the time is now ripe to extend to its employees the freedom to write to the Press about the Post Office, which is a freedom enjoyed by employees in other industries?

This is a matter for the Post Office. I understand that it is reviewing its rules on matters such as this, in consultation with the unions.

Does the Minister agree that the main problem with the Post Office is that it appears to have no relations with the Press?

The Question referred not to relations between the Press and the Post Office as a body but to relations between Post Office employees and newspapers.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he has now received the Post Office's proposals for revision of the Giro tariff structure to conform with the recommendations of the Cooper Brothers report; and if he will make a statement.

As an essential part of the restructuring foreshadowed in my statement of 17th November, the Post Office proposes substantial increases in a number of Giro charges from 1st July, 1972; but many businesses and most private customers who receive their pay through Giro will be little affected.

As the House knows, Giro is at the moment running at a loss of over £6 million a year; published charges have not been varied or raised since they were set in 1965 and introduced in 1968; and viability depends on a realistic tariff structure. In these exceptional circumstances, and after consulting me, the Post Office is today referring its proposals to the Post Office Users' National Council and the Government will meanwhile reserve judgment on them. I have agreed with the Post Office that the financial objective of Giro should be to make a positive contribution to Post Office finances within a year of introducing the new tariffs and to cover its overheads including depreciation and interest on both assets and losses within five years. Details of the proposals will be placed in the Library.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that information. Can he say whether the recommendations that the Post Office has made fully substantiate the recommendations in the Cooper Brothers report, which we have not seen? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that no steps will be taken by the Government to adjust the tariff increases to allow for the C.B.I.'s so-called price initiative?

These increases have been regarded as a wholly exceptional case and they have been dealt with accordingly. They are in line with the recommendations of the consultants. They mean that the Post Office believes that within a year Giro will be covering its own variable costs and making an increasing contribution to the fixed costs of the Post Office. In short, the Post Office hopes that within a year the position will be such that it will be better off with Giro than without it.

Is the Minister aware that what he has said about the targets for Giro will act like a dagger hanging over its head? Since the right hon. Gentleman has kept Giro hanging round for so long in the past, ought not he now to be able to say something more encouraging?

I do not accept that. This Government have always taken the view that Giro should continue only so long as it was able to pay its way. That is also the view of the Post Office. The Post Office has set these targets because it is convinced that Giro can be a viable proposition. My Department will monitor its progress towards break-even.

As my right hon. Friend, in conformity with the Act, is referring the proposals to the Post Office Users' National Council, will it be possible for that body to have a copy of the Cooper Brothers report under confidential cover?

I will consider that point. There are difficulties about it, because the report was commissioned on the basis that it was to remain confidential to the Post Office and the Government. It is extremely frank about individuals, and written in such a way, I believe, as to preclude further circulation.

Does the Minister agree that it would be wrong if the P.O.U.N.C. had a copy of the report and this House was denied it? Obviously we shall wish to consider these proposals when we see all the details but, on the face of it, to turn round from a loss of £6 million to what would seem to be an operating profit in 12 months appears to be an optimistic target. Is that in accordance with the report, or is it a decision by the Post Office outside the report?

It is broadly in accordance with recommendations made to the Post Office by its consultants. At the end of a year, it will only be in a position to make a positive contribution to Post Office finances. It will not be covering its overheads. It will be some time before it reaches that point.

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

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what discussions he has now had about the appointment of a new Chairman of the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether the procedures for selecting a new Chairman of the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation will be the same as on the occasion of previous appointments.

I have nothing to add to my replies of 9th February to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) and of 1st March to the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Charles R. Morris).—[Vol. 830, c. 1319; Vol. 832, c. 380.]

Will the Minister make it clear that he has no intention of appointing a politician whose job it will be to placate some of the more neurotic anti-B.B.C. Members on the other side of the House? Does he agree that the less interference the B.B.C. gets from either side of the House the better it will be for all of us?

No, Sir. I should not want to rule out any specific category, least of all politicians, for whom I have a high regard.

Will my right hon. Friend consider offering this job to the Leader of the Opposition?

It is an interesting suggestion, but one would want to think very carefully about it before committing oneself to a reply.

If the usual consultations are under way, is not the real problem the executive nature of the job as exercised by the present incumbent? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear in the consultations which must now go on that the B.B.C. is searching for a Chairman of Governors and not an executive head whose activities have to some degree, I think, damaged the previously healthy relationship between the Chairman and the Director-General of the B.B.C.?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a balance has to be struck here. The Chairman and the Governors have the ultimate responsibility not only for running the B.B.C. but for acting as trustees for the public.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what his estimate is of the number of radio stations currently transmitting illegally in the United Kingdom.

It is not possible to form an estimate. In the past 12 months, 116 people were successfully prosecuted for taking part in illegal transmissions; 78 were pirate broadcasters.

Does the Minister recollect, only a fortnight ago, hearing the tones of Radio Jackie in Committee on the Sound Broadcasting Bill, when I played him a selection of the music being transmitted twice weekly within three miles of the Palace of Westminster? Does he further recollect the list of stations and transmission times in publications that I read out in that Committee? In view of all that, can he honestly say that his Department is doing enough to stop these pirate radio broadcasts?

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has given some valuable publicity to this organisation. However, I can assure him that, as the figures for prosecutions show, my Department is fulfilling its duties in this respect and seeking to prosecute wherever it can.

Is the position getting worse or better?

It is difficult to say. [Laughter.] By the nature of these operations it is extremely difficult to form an estimate of the number that there may be. I certainly would not want to mislead the House by saying that there had been an improvement without the figures to back it up.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (1) why the Central Religious Advisory Committee was not consulted by him on the cancelling of the regulations releasing the authorities from the restriction on hours and the obligations to observe the closed period;

(2) in view of the concern of Christian people, what guidance he has given to the Independent Television Authority over his cancelling of the regulations releasing the Authorities from the obligation to observe the closed period, in connection with his introduction of unlimited broadcasting hours.

Both the B.B.C. and I.T.A. have indicated, following my announcement, that they have no plans for changing the present pattern of religious broadcasts. If any such proposals were made they would of course consult their Central Religious Advisory Committee. It is not its function to advise me.

Does the Minister agree that it would have been better to consult the Committee which was set up for this very purpose? Will he bear in mind that any change would be regretted by many people who feel that time should be set aside for religious broadcasting and the promotion of any faith?

I entirely appreciate that view. I know that large numbers of people would regret any change in the present arrangements. However, the Central Religious Advisory Committee was set up to advise the broadcasting authorities. It would have been almost improper for me to approach the Committee to ask for its views. I know that the two broadcasting authorities will have in mind the point made by my hon. Friend.

Is the Minister aware that many people concerned with religious broadcasting take the view that the extension of hours could lead to more broadcasting of a very high quality from the religious departments and give them much greater freedom and scope?

It is true that the extension of hours ought to give new opportunities to broadcasters in most categories.

In view of the success of this body in its advisory capacity and the similar success of the education advisory body, will the Minister now support the dissemination of health education along the lines proposed in my Bill? If it could be obtained voluntarily it would help enormously.

Order. I do not think that that arises from the Question.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether his interdepartmental committee on the technical aspects of broadcasting has yet reported; and whether he will make a statement.

My Television Advisory Committee has not yet reported. The Chairman, Sir Robert Cockburn, tells me that he expects to present an interim statement to me soon.

At one time the Minister told us that we could expect the report in the new year. Is he now telling us that, following metrication and decimalisation, we are also to get a review of the calendar? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a very important subject, and that the quicker the committee reports the better in order that decisions can be made before 1976?

The committee is looking into the technical factors which may be likely to affect broadcasting in the post-1976 period. Therefore, I should have thought it more important that it should do a thorough job and report fully than that it should meet any deadline.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will give a general direction to the Post Office, in receiving pre-decimal stamps for costing at a discount, not to refuse to accept amounts less than £1.

No, Sir. I understand that so far as £ s. d. stamps are concerned, the minimum quantity prescribed is either a quarter sheet or a half sheet, depending on the denomination. A face value of as little as five shillings can therefore be eligible for re-purchase.

Will the Minister look at this matter again sympathetically? I have received a letter from an old-age pensioner in my constituency, together with all the forms that she has filled in, which involve the sum of 3s. 4d. The trouble is that there are no special arrangements to take in the pre-decimal stamps. The Post Office is using the standard form for the re-purchase of stamps. Would it not be simpler to allow people to hand unused stamps over the counter and be given the equivalent decimal value stamps in return? Surely there is no need for this bureaucracy.

I am sure that the Post Office will take account of the hon. Gentleman's views. The Post Office gave substantial notice—

It did not.

—of the date on which £ s. d. stamps would cease to operate. Last July the Post Office announced when these stamps would cease to be valid. That was six months after the date on which pre-decimal currency ceased to be valid.

Is the Minister aware that, unconsciously, he has not spoken the truth? Is he aware that the Post Office has not issued proper Press notices and publicity? It issued only two Press announcements, which were not published in all the newspapers. In fact, if anyone in private industry were to promise something—as the Post Office did concerning stamps—and then withdraw that promise and try to make a profit, he would be charged with extortion. What the Post Office is trying to do is not really the proper way to run the establishment.

There is no question of making a profit. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it has been the practice of the Post Office for a long time to make a discount to cover administrative charges. If it did not cover the administrative charges in that way other Post Office users would have to bear them. The Post Office made its announcement last July and, I am told, took considerable steps to publicise it.

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

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications if he will add to the members of the Post Office users' councils one person with experience of the needs of those users with impaired hearing.

No, Sir. It would be impracticable to appoint members with experience related to each type of disability that may affect the use of Post Office services, but there are at least two members of the council experienced in the needs of disabled persons generally.

Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider that reply, in view of the need of 2¼ million deaf people who have special knowledge about the use of the transistorised handsets which the Post Office provides and a special expertise in the question of acoustics and audiology which could be helpful not only to deaf people but to people whose hearing is good?

I appreciate that it is extremely important that the users' council should take account, and be in a position to take account, of the needs of people with various types of disability. But I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be impossible to have one representative for each type. However, when making the last appointment to the Post Office Users' National Council, we consulted 22 organisations before appointing a handicapped person who has a wide range of interests in this field.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what percentage of letters sent to areas where the new postal codes are in operation has the postal code written on the envelopes, in the most recent monthly period for which figures are available.

This is a matter for the Post Office. I understand that no overall figure is available but the use of post codes is increasing.

Can my right hon. Friend state the total cost of this exercise, whether he believes that the benefits which have accrued to the Post Office justify it, and how and when we might get a percentage figure?

The Post Office has figures for individual areas, but no overall figure. It is concerned, as post codes are introduced, to assess area by area the rate at which the use of the codes is increasing. I will send my hon. Friend the figures that he wants. But the Post Office in this country, like the post offices in nearly every developed country, considers that special economies are to be gained by mechanisation and that mechanisation is possible only on the basis of post codes.

Is the Minister aware that the slowness of the introduction of postal mechanisation is proving self-defeating and that it is thought within the business that much of the equipment being ordered will be obsolescent by the time it is used? There is particular concern because so few of the codes are being put on the envelopes.

The Post Office will no doubt wish to consider that point. But it will inevitably take time for the post codes to be introduced generally. It must be a gradual process, and the Post Office in assessing the levels of investment, must apply the same criteria as it applies to other investment. It must be satisfied that each investment is likely to yield an adequate return.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will make a statement indicating what the anticipated quinquennium financial deficit of the Post Office Corporation is likely to be by March, 1973.

I do not expect the Post Office to be in deficit over the five years ending in March, 1973.

Is the Minister aware that one estimate of the deficit which has been published in some journals is £184 million? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the accuracy of that figure for the postal services? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that if that staggering figure is correct it will be viewed with alarm by the public? If it is right, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to write off the deficit?

I understand that the Chairman of the Post Office has forecast a shortfall from the financial target of £180 million over the five years and that that is based on certain assumptions. That forecast, together with the other relevant statistics, is being considered within the context of the review which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced of all nationalised industries as a result of their observance of the C.B.I. initiative.

How will this shortfall in the financial target affect the postal mechanisation programme?

It could have some effects on it, but I do not think that they would be direct.

The House will wish to be clear about the Minister's last answer. Is he saying that in the five years up to the end of 1973 there will be an estimated shortfall of no less than £180 million on the postal services? If so, does he hope to make it up on telecommunication services? Is he considering writing it off? If this is the projection, what does the right hon. Gentleman propose to do about it?

As I have said, I am considering, in the context of the discussions referred to by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement of 9th November—which covered all the nationalised industries—the possibilities which are open to the Post Office. The House will know that observance of the C.B.I. initiative has posed particular difficulties for a number of nationalised industries, including the Post Office.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what investigations he is currently sponsoring into the impact of television and broadcasting on behaviour.

None, Sir. I am not persuaded that sponsorship of such investigations by my Department would be justified.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the recent report of the Churches' Committee on Gambling, which points to an alarming increase in compulsive gambling in the last 10 years? Is he further aware that objection is taken to the B.B.C. and I.T.A. repeatedly reporting betting odds during horse racing programmes? If my right hon. Friend does not intend to sponsor an investigation, will he urge the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to shout the odds a little less loudly?

As my hon. Friend will know, these are matters for the Authority and for the Governors of the B.B.C. However, I shall draw their attention to my hon. Friend's fears.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the very extensive studies which have been carried out, notably by Professor Halloran's unit at Leicester University, have not shown any causal connection between television programmes and behaviour patterns?

I should have thought it would be a bold man who stated that there was no such connection.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is particular public concern about the portrayal of violence on television? Does he agree that this is a question not only of research but of day-by-day reviewing of programmes? Is not this another argument for an independent broadcasting council?

Whatever the case for an independent broadcasting council, there is no doubt that the two existing authorities take their responsibilities in this respect very seriously. The B.B.C. is revising its code on the treatment of violence and is spending money on internal and independent research, while the I.T.A. has also revised its code and carries out surveys on public reactions to its programmes.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications how many professional telecommunication engineers are employed in his Department.

Twenty-two.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that this staff is large enough to monitor the dispute which is taking place at present over the TXE4 equipment installation? Can we expect a Green Paper, a White Paper or some other discussion paper which will examine the claims of the telecommunications equipment manufacturers—Plessey and G.E.C.-A.E.I.—that they can produce cross bar equipment cheaply enough and giving sufficient variety of service to compete with the Post Office TXE4 equipment?

In answer to previous questions I have described the procedure which I think should be adopted in arriving at a decision about the next generation of exchange equipment. The staff to whom the question relates are concerned with the main operational function of my Ministry, which is the manage- ment of the frequency spectrum. Inevitably, the relevant engineering expertise in relation to exchange equipment is largely concentrated in the Post Office and the equipment manufacturers, but the Government also have considerable technical resources on which I can draw if necessary. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, a number of other considerations, aside from the technical, will play a major part in arriving at the final decision.

Would my right hon. Friend define "professional engineers" in the context of this Question?

These are professional radio engineers. I could give my hon. Friend the exact qualifications that they possess if he really wished it.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications what was the average time spent by customers waiting to be served in post offices in the most recent annual period for which figures are available.

This is a matter for the Post Office, which tells me that the information is not available.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that this is rather a serious point and that as the Post Office has a monopoly position it is important that it should have special regard to the interests of consumers and the service available to them? Is he satisfied that (he Post Office takes its responsibilities in this matter seriously enough? Does the users' council provide adequate machinery for protecting the public?

The Post Office Users' National Council has, I think, established for itself in the past two or three years a considerable reputation. The Post Office tells me that it has individual figures for offices under inspection and is continually investigating individual offices. What it does not produce—my hon. Friend will recognise, I think, that it might be a fairly meaningless figure—is any overall national figure of this kind.

asked the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications whether he will allow Mr. Richard King to continue to operate a mail delivery service.

My consent has not been sought by the Post Office.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Post Office has threatened to prosecute Mr. Richard King for operating his Post-Haste messenger service, although that service is probably no more illegal than other services which are now being conducted by other organisations, such as Securicor and De La Rue? Is it not time that this Government acknowledged that a little competition is justified? Is the Post Office not using its monopoly powers in a rather coercive way?

Under the 1969 Act, the letter monopoly is vested in the Post Office. My hon. Friend will recognise that private companies would be bound to concentrate on the provision of services in and between major centres of population if the monopoly were totally abandoned, that that would leave the rest of the country to be served by the Post Office at greatly increased cost, and that that is presumably the reason why every country in the world operates its letter services as a public monopoly.

Bearing in mind the statutory monopoly that the Post Office has in the provision of postal services, will the Minister encourage the Post Office Corporation to take action against these pirate postal services, in the interests of the long-term security of employment of Post Office staff?

I am not aware that there is any appreciable threat to Post Office staff from this quarter. The Post Office has certainly not told me that there is any development of that kind.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether the erection of crash barriers on the central reservation of motorways is proceeding on time in accordance with the national programme announced on 16th December, 1970; and whether he will bring forward the date of the erection of barriers on the M1 motorway between Kegworth in Leicestershire and Pinxton in Nottinghamshire.

Yes, Sir. The programme is on time. It has been prepared on the basis of equipping the busiest motorways first. Conditions on M1 between Kegworth and Pinxton are not such as to justify priority given to it over other motorways carrying more traffic.

I congratulate my hon. Friend for that part of his answer which reveals that his important national programme is indeed on time. Would he not take steps to identify the most dangerous as well as the most busy sections of motorway? As this section seems to be one of exceptional danger, can he not consider bringing it forward?

We do equate danger with the busiest sections. There was an accident on this section which was of concern to my hon. Friend. However, when I tell him that the people concerned had blood alcohol levels of over 160 mg./ml., he will understand that there is a particular issue in this case.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now arrange for sections of motorways where fog prevails or is forecast to be closed until visibility returns to normal.

No, Sir.

While appreciating the disadvantages of closing the motorways in these circumstances, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that until better precautions are devised one must consider whether there is any other means of preventing the terrible loss of life which occurs from time to time on the motorways?

The best way to save lives on the motorways in fog is for those who drive on them to do so very much more safely than a minority do at the present time.

Does the Minister agree that one of the hazards of driving in fog or wet conditions on the motorways is the spray thrown up by long lorries, so making visibility even more difficult? Will he look into methods of reducing this spray?

Yes, Sir.

Is the Minister aware that when we were discussing this matter last Friday his right hon. Friend, in response to a suggestion from me, said that to initiate fog squads would cause a manpower problem? Is he aware that over the weekend it was reported in the newspapers that such fog squads already exist? For example, we read that in the North of England they have contributed greatly to reducing the number of accidents. Will the hon. Gentleman consider making fog squads a national feature, so that we can start to prevent these ghastly accidents?

If by "fog squads" the hon. Gentleman is referring to police patrols which assist vehicles to move in convoys in fog, then I agree that there is some place for them. The West Riding Constabulary already operates such a patrol, with some success. This is a matter for each chief officer of police to decide, in terms of the situation of his area, his manpower capabilities and his view of the most appropriate methods of employing that manpower.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many buildings are listed in England; how this figure compares with five years previously; and how many listed buildings were demolished in the last five years.

137,000 buildings were statutorily listed at 31st December, 1971, compared with 91,354 at the end of 1966—an increase of nearly 10,000 a year. No central records of demolitions were kept before 1969. The number of listed building consents for demolition granted in 1969 was 266, in 1970, 198 and in 1971, 203.

I welcome the dramatic increase in the number of buildings of architectural and historic interest which have been listed in recent years, but would not my hon. Friend agree that it is a shame and disgrace that so many listed buildings have been demolished in the last few years? Would he not think it proper and right that the Government should reinforce the existing legislation to safeguard these buildings? Would he not think that the proper Measure under which to do this is the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill, now before Parliament?

The hon. Member is talking to philistines.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that since the mid-1960s, despite the very large increase in the number of listed buildings, the number of those that have been demolished has been halved.

In endorsing entirely what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) has said, may I ask the Minister to go further, to widen the criteria and to act more firmly, so that episodes such as occurred in my constituency, when a very handsome Georgian building was scheduled for demolition by the Conservative Council and is therefore lost as a building of beauty, can never happen again?

The hon. Gentleman does not serve the issue by trying to turn it into a cheap party matter. We are widening the definition, as I am sure the House will be pleased to hear.

Can the Minister assure us that among the listed buildings which will not be demolished are Richmond Terrace and New Scotland Yard?

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would expect me to say that that is a specific question, and that he should put down a Question dealing with it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if his reply to the letter from the Inland Waterways Association, South-East England Branch, dated 25th January, was not sent until 29th February; why the invitation for a representative of his Department to attend a meeting of the branch on 3rd March was refused; and what steps he now proposes in order that he may hear the views of those who use the waterways for recreation.

The earliest date on which a firm reply could be sent was 29th February. It is not practicable for the Department to be represented at the many branch meetings of voluntary bodies, but I welcome the views of the Inland Waterways Association on this subject. In addition, I held a national conference on 28th February to explain and hear views on the Government's proposals.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the four-week delay and the refusal to send an observer to this conference ran completely counter to the Government's policy of providing more recreation on the waterways? Is he aware that a statutory body specifically concerned with navigation is the only way to safeguard navigational interests in the proposed reorganisation?

I am sure that the new arrangements will safeguard, wherever appropriate, navigational interest on the waterways. It is not physically possible for my Department to be represented at the branch meetings of every voluntary organisation, much as we would like to do so.

Is my hon. Friend aware that many members of the Inland Waterways Association who were initially alarmed at the proposals have now, thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend, come to realise that the Government's proposals will have positive benefits for navigation and other forms of recreation on our inland waterways?

I think that is right.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will seek powers to enable him to grant compensation for loss of use of motor cycles purchased by or for persons aged 16 years of age at the end of 1971; and for whom valid driving licences were then issued.

I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) on 29th February.—[Vol. 832, c. 90–1.]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this matter has been handled most clumsily by his Department, and that persons who bought motor cycles and who had perfectly valid licences issued to them before the end of last year are entitled to be compensated, not only for the loss in terms of the value of the machine but in terms of the loss incurred in the use of the machine, which makes this amount to retrospective legislation?

We have announced that claims for unavoidable losses will be considered. What precisely constitutes an unavoidable loss will, of course, vary from one case to another, but I am sure that my Department will give sympathetic consideration to any matter.

Will the Minister ensure that the Department gives a great deal of publicity to this issue, remembering that a lot of young people suffered loss as a result of the ill-considered introduction of these regulations just before Christmas, without prior warning? May we have an assurance that at the end of this operation the House will be told how much this ill-considered decision cost the taxpayer?

I do not accept that a decision which seeks to save young lives by preventing people from obtaining licences to drive motor cycles at an age when they are likely to be injured can be described as ill-considered. I shall, of course, see that the House is advised of the appropriate cost of meeting unavoidable losses.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations he has issued to improve the safety of vehicles since he took office; and what further safety measures he has under consideration.

Vehicle safety regulations have been issued concerning seat belts, rear markings for lorries, motorway speed restrictions, prohibition of defective vehicles and extensions to the test scheme. A wide range of further measures is under consideration.

Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the new regulations are being carried out with reasonableness? Has he borne in mind the need for heavy lorries to have really efficient braking systems? What consideration has he given to the suggestion that all motor cars be fitted with wing mirrors—a suggestion that could prevent many accidents which are believed to occur when vehicles pull out?

The increase in the conspicuousness of rear markings on long vehicles has proved an asset to road safety. I accept the need to consider how best to manage the improvement of braking systems, and we are doing that now. I shall certainly examine the other point to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what time limit he has imposed on the ban of demonstrations about the problems of Northern Ireland being held in Trafalgar Square; and if he will make a statement;

(2) how many demonstrations on the problems of Northern Ireland have been held in Trafalgar Square since August. 1969; and how many such demonstrations have ended in violence.

There have been no reports of violence connected with any of the 11 occasions on which Trafalgar Square has been used for meetings on Irish matters since August, 1969.

My right hon. Friend has, however, decided, with the advice of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that in view of the situation in Northern Ireland and the recent incident at Aldershot it would be wrong for the Government to grant permission for further meetings in the Square for the time being. The situation will be kept under review by my Department, in conjunction with the Home Office.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that freedom of speech and assembly, and the use of public facilities, are fundamental rights of civil liberties in this country? Does he accept that great care must be exercised by those with responsibility for banning peaceful demonstrations lest disorder be encouraged by what would appear to be unfair and unjust discrimination? May we have a fuller explanation, with as much proof as possible, about the reason why these demonstrations and marches have been banned? Does the Minister think that aggrieved applicants in these cases should have a right of appeal?

No, Sir; I do not feel that any right of appeal arises. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for care and the liberal application of the rules in relation to meetings in Trafalgar Square. These are highly exceptional times in Ireland, and in the very exceptional situation that applies now I feel that my right hon. Friend was right to ban these meetings.

asked the Lord President of the Council on how many occasions he has now answered an Adjournment debate himself during this Session of Parliament.

Twice, Sir.

Has the right hon. Gentleman detected a trend for Ministers, when winding up debates, more and more to give a catalogue of departmental pronouncements rather than actually answer the debate? Since the Leader of the House seems to have acquired a taste for answering Adjournment debates, may I ask him, in the interest of parliamentary scrutiny, to consider having two debates rather than one such debate each evening?

It would be very dangerous indeed if all the things for which I acquired a taste in life I then indulged in.

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will introduce cats into the House of Commons to combat the growing numbers of mice.

While the introduction of cats might well help in dealing with mice, it would also raise some new problems.

I am sure that we could cope with the problem of having cats running about the place rather than lots of these small unhygienic creatures whose numbers have been alarming of late. Is my right hon. Friend aware that as the mice now seem to be resistant to poison, cats seem to be the only answer?

These matters can, of course, be considered by the House authorities. It is important to appreciate that the introduction of cats would mean, first, that they would have to be fed; secondly, that they would have to be provided in various parts of the building with earth boxes, and thirdly, that they would probably breed, which would create further problems. Indeed, we might find them intruding into various parts of the building where they would not be wanted.

asked the Lord President of the Council what representations he has received for increased facilities in the international section of the Library, in view of the United Kingdom's impending entry into the European Economic Community.

The hon. Member has made his own representations to me about this matter. I understand that the Librarian is shortly to apply for additional staff in this section.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are many hon. Members who, while paying tribute to the wonderful service with which we are now provided, feel that there is an inadequacy of translations into the various European languages and that an urgent increase in the staff would be highly desirable, and acceptable to most hon. Members?

I note what the hon. Gentleman says. The Librarian is looking into these questions.

I pay tribute—I am sure on behalf of the whole House—to the wonderful services that we get from the Library, but is the Leader of the House aware that one cannot get from the Foreign Office translations of the directives from the E.E.C.? When one tries to get them from the Library, as helpful as that establishment is, one finds that it has not got sufficient staff. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot help with regard to the Library, can he help with regard to the Foreign Office, to ensure at least that we get these directives in English translations?

I am very glad to endorse the tributes that have been paid by both hon. Members to our Library staff. I think that that is a view widely shared throughout the House. I will certainly look into the hon. Gentleman's second point.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that the Chair always has great difficulty and that you do your best in judging how to keep the balance between the number of supplementaries that you allow together with the need to cover as many Questions as possible. However, I am a little worried, and I seek your guidance, because presumably you try to exercise some judgment as to the importance of a matter and the interest that the House may show in it.

I am a little alarmed that we went on to spend some time on the issue of cats and mice, having had one supplementary only—from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard)—on the vital issue of civil liberties raised in Question No. 33. I repeat that I am worried about this, and I seek guidance from the Chair as to how the situation can be resolved when a matter of such vital importance appears to be passed over much too quickly.

The Chair is always in this difficulty. I try to get through as many Questions as possible. In fact, I allowed one supplementary to Question No. 33 and one to Question No. 36, although in both cases a number of hon. Members rose. I do the best I can.

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about increases in social security benefits. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already announced the main increases in benefit and contribution rates to take effect in the week beginning 2nd October. After the Easter Adjournment I shall be presenting a White Paper to the House together with a Bill and the Government Actuary's report, and I shall be laying instruments for the war pensions and supplementary benefit improvements.

I am circulating details of the new rates of benefits and contributions and of three minor changes in the Official Report. These, with the copies of my statement, are available in the Vote Office.

The increase of 75p in the standard single rate of retirement pension one year after the last increase represents a bigger annual rate of increase than the £1 extra given last September after a two-year interval. The married couple's rate will go up by £1·20. Other associated benefits will go up broadly in proportion to the main increases, although, as I shall explain, nearly 2 million pensioners—that is, those with supplementary pensions—will on this occasion receive an extra 10p, making their increases 85p single and £1·30 married.

The war and industrial disablement pension for 100 per cent. assessment goes up from £10 to £11·20; the normal maximum of constant attendance allowance goes up from £4 to £4·50. The exceptionally severe disablement allowance will also be increased from £4 to £4·50. Standard war widow's pension will be increased from £7·80 to £8·80 and the industrial injuries widow's pension from £6·55 to £7·30.

We will raise from 33½p a day to 75p the level of earnings a person is allowed from a subsidiary occupation before title to unemployment benefit is affected and make corresponding changes in the similar earnings limits for sickness and invalidity benefits and for the unemploy- ability supplements. None of these limits has been changed for over 10 years.

As the Chancellor mentioned yesterday, we intend, as a move towards the contribution structure proposed in our White Paper "Strategy for Pensions", that the uprating should be financed mainly from graduated contributions, with some addition to the employer's flat-rate contribution, because it is not practicable under the present scheme for employers and employees to pay different rates of graduated contributions. But there will be no increase in the employee's flat-rate contributions. The effect is that the highest increases in contributions will fall on those earning £48 a week or more, who will pay an extra 39p; the £40 a week earner will pay an extra 9p a week; the £30 a week earner an extra 5p a week; for the £20 a week earner the increase will be only 1p a week. The man or woman earning £18 a week or less will pay no extra contributions. The employers will, of course, have to match these increased graduated contributions as well as pay the extra flat-rate contribution for each employee—this will be 10p for each man, 9p for each woman and 8p for each young person under 18.

The increase in the main scale rates for supplementary benefits will be the same as, and will operate from the same time as, the increases to the main national insurance benefits. Thus the scale rate for a married couple will go up by £1·20 to £10·65 and that for a person living alone by 75p to £6·55. We will not therefore have the old "ups and downs" problem of the retirement pension going up but the supplementary pension coming down.

With the agreement of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, we propose two additional changes for older adolescents. Those aged 18 to 20 who are not householders will be assimilated to the corresponding adult rate, which will be £5·20, and those aged 16 to 17 will, for the first time, receive the non-householder rent allowance, which is being raised to 70p.

The Supplementary Benefits Commission also intends to increase certain special additions which are paid at fixed rates. Those for extra heating will go up by 20 per cent. and there will also be increases in those for special diets.

The long-term addition will be increased by 10p—the amount needed to restore its purchasing power—and the amount of the increase will not be taken into account in deciding the amount of any special addition. The increase in long-term addition, allowing for this change, will cost about £12 million a year and will mean that, while the general increases for pensioners will be 75p single and £1·20 married, for those on supplementary pensions the increases will be 85p single and £1·30 married.

The new attendance allowance for the very severely disabled which first became payable in December, 1971, will be increased from £4·80 to £5·40.

This allowance is paid, broadly speaking, to those who need a great deal of attention both by day and by night. We have always made it clear that the restriction of the allowance to those who satisfy that very stringent condition was only the first stage. The Government now propose to extend the scope of the allowance to bring in broadly those whose need for attention arises either by day or by night. For them the allowance will be at two thirds of the day and night rate—that is, £3·60 a week. The allowance is, of course, tax free.

Supplementary benefit claimants who qualify for the new allowance will get the full benefit of it except in a tiny minority of cases where they are already getting a special addition for the cost of personal attendance.

Very large numbers will be involved in this extension—as many as 250,000 may qualify and as many as half a million may claim. This will be a formidable task. Furthermore, although we started the process of take-on for the present allowance as long ago as last June, claims are continuing to come in and there is a heavy load of outstanding review applications. Both have to be dealt with at the same time as we start work on the preparations for the extension. It is, therefore, inevitable that we must phase the extension, and the only practical way is by age groups. The whole process of extension from this winter when we are ready to receive claims will take two years because of the heavy medical and administrative task involved in assessing perhaps half a million claims.

We propose to take those of working age first, then children, then in two stages, the elderly; I will circulate details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The total cost of the extension is likely to be about £11 million in the financial year 1973–74 rising to £45 million in a full year when all the new groups have been taken on.

This is the first of our annual reviews. The total cost of our proposals will be about £480 million in 1973–74, of which about £395 million will fall on the insurance funds. The main increases—in general, 75p on the single rate and £1·20 for a married couple, but 85p and £1·30 respectively for the poorest on supplementary pensions—will not only restore the value of pensions and related benefits, but will also give a real improvement, more substantial than we were able to achieve last year. When the extension of the attendance allowance is complete we shall be spending about £70 million a year on this special tax-free benefit for those needing care because of severe handicap. We shall have made during the first half of the 1970s a substantial advance towards the proper treatment of the civilian disabled.

This is a very comprehensive statement, which will need careful examination and debate. May I just make two points at this stage—

Congratulate the Minister.

May I first say how much we welcome—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—the change in the provision for the disabled, in particular the changes in the size and scope of the attendance allowance, for which we have been pressing for so long—

What did the right hon. Lady's Government give?

—and on which we had to divide the House only a few weeks ago? But here again we shall want to examine on another occasion the details as to phasing and so on.

We on this side consider the retirement pension increase to be pitifully inadequate in the context of what the Chancellor has boasted about as the most generous give-away Budget in our fiscal history. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the remaining seven months before the pension increase comes into effect pensioners will be worse off than they were at the time of our last increase in November, 1969? Is he aware that if the current rate of inflation continues a single pensioner will be 20p worse off by the time of the increase than he was in November, 1969, and that in the context of this Budget it is obscene for us to delay relief to this poorest and most helpless section of the community?

We deeply deplore the failure to introduce the increase at an earlier opportunity. We consider that October is far too late, and that it is quite wrong for the House to stand back and see this section of the community get steadily poorer over the next few months. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even with the increase in real terms of about 55p in the pension, pensioners will be falling further behind national average earnings, and that the House should not be content until they keep pace? When the Chancellor is pouring out £300 million in reliefs for unearned income, could he not have found an extra £1 a week by an increase in the Exchequer contribution above the figure of £72 million gross, which is all that the cost to the Exchequer will be of the proposed increase in national insurance benefits?

I accept that the attendance allowance changes will be welcomed very warmly on both sides of the House.

As for pensions, the House will recognise that the Government made a substantial step forward in moving to annual upratings. As a result of that decision, for which pensioners have asked for years, it is fair to add together the increases that will have been made in the 13-month period from last September to this coming October, during which no less than £1,000 million will have been added to social security benefits. It is true that always between upratings the buying power of the pension is eroded. That was true in times past as well as now. But I think that the erosion in the four months for which we have the figures since the increase last September is less than was the case in the four months after two of the Labour Government's upratings.

The right hon. Lady is absolutely right in drawing attention to the ratio between the single pension and average industrial male adult earnings. Since the Labour Government's good uprating in March, 1965, after 13 years of Conservative Governments left them in a position to do a good uprating, in the subsequent two Labour upratings and in the first Conservative uprating the ratio between the pension and the earnings to which I referred has fallen. I think it will be found when we reach October this year that that fall will have been halted, and I hope reversed, because I believe that when we can measure the rise in prices between now and October the increase of 12½ per cent. announced yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will produce for all pensioners and those on social security benefits a real, though modest, improvement in buying power.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend most warmly on his statement. I believe that all right-minded people welcome the fact that he does not play politics with disability but actually gets something done. May I ask him in particular when he publishes the White Paper dealing with the criteria for the newly-extended disability attendance allowance to be as specific as possible, with a view to avoiding disappointment to those who may apply without being justified?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is quite right in focusing on the importance of defining as precisely as possible the degree of attendance necessary—it is not disability, but the degree of attendance—to attract the newly-announced benefits. We shall do our best to define it precisely.

Why on earth do successive Ministers occupying the right hon. Gentleman's position have to maintain the average Exchequer contribution? Why on earth should not Governments do more for pensioners by increasing the Exchequer contribution and, by direct taxation, laying the consequent burden on the broadest shoulders? The right hon. Gentleman could then meet the needs of the pensioners and let the richer members of the community bear the heaviest burden.

The contribution strategy which the Government are following puts a larger share of the burden of paying for social security benefits on the better-off contributor and the employer. That is already happening. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor must obviously make a judgment about the way in which he distributes the various moneys available. The Exchequer is bearing its share of the rising costs.

In view of the rather churlish reaction of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), may I ask whether it is not clear that, with the increase in the pensions now announced and the Government's decision to have annual upratings in future, pensioners now have more assurance than at any time since the war not only that they will keep up with the cost of living but that they will keep well ahead of it?

Precisely so.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in previous years when there have been pension increases there has always been confusion among many pensioners who also receive supplementary benefit, who seek advice from Members of Parliament because they have not received the full advertised increase, and that his decision to end that will be particularly warmly welcomed? The disablement benefit extension is also warmly welcomed. But the right hon. Gentleman must have a large number of cases, some of which have already been drawn to his attention by hon. Members, of people who have already been medically assessed for the present benefit and found not to qualify but might well qualify without further assessment for the new benefit. Is there any way in which he can give such cases priority? Does he accept that the one weakness in the Budget and his announcement today is that working families below the present tax-paying level who are suffering poverty are those who receive no help at all from the announcements?

I think all right hon. and hon. Members will be glad, in their constituency as well as their corporate functions, of the ending of the "ups and downs" anomaly. But I think I must tell the hon. Gentleman that it will not in my view, be fair to take on the payment of the new allowance to those who happen to have applied early for the existing allowance. It would be unfair, it seems to me, to all those people who fall in the same age group but just have not applied early. But I would nevertheless like to consider what the hon. Gentleman has said.

The hon. Gentleman has given currency to a misapprehension about the Budget. My right hon. Friend and I announced several months ago that the family income supplement would go up by £1 per household in receipt of the supplement—the lowest wage earners with children—in April this year. That closes the gap which the hon. Gentleman referred to and means that low wage earners with children will get the benefit already announced from April next.

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that under the Labour Government from 1965 there were three rises in the old-age pension for the single person of 12s. 6d., 10s. and 10s. respectively, totalling £1 12s. 6d., whereas in just over two years the present Government have increased it by the equivalent of £1 15s. which is £l·75p? Therefore, in real terms, have not our two years of office been better for the pensioners than the six years of the Labour Government?