asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what action has been taken by his Department to bring naval transport and ferry pilots into line with Royal Air Force transport and ferry pilots, as to the granting of aircrew stars, as promised by the answer given to the Parliamentary Question put by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale on 25th June, 1947; and how many naval aircrew have received these stars as a result of this action.

An Admiralty Fleet Order was published on 4th July, 1947, stating that naval aircrew appointed or drafted for transport and ferrying duties between 1939 and 1945 would qualify for Operational Stars, as appropriate to their service, on the same terms as officers and men of the Royal Air Force on similar duties. I regret that the number who have received Campaign Stars since could not be ascertained without a disproportionate amount of work.

If there were a small number of pilots who had rendered the appropriate service but might have fallen between two stools, as between the Admiralty and the Air Ministry, would the First Lord consult with the Secretary of State for Air to see that justice is done and possibly that the benefit of the doubt is given to them?

I certainly will consult with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Air if the hon. Gentleman will let me have the details of any particular cases he has in mind.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the staff requirement for the Gannet aircraft was first issued; why this requirement was subsequently altered; and what is the estimated lapse of time between this first staff requirement and the equipping of the first Fleet Air Arm squadron with this aircraft.

The original conception of the aircraft now known as the Gannet (not then intended for primarily an anti-submarine role) was the subject of a Staff requirement issued in December, 1945. The Staff requirement was later altered to make an anti-submarine role its primary purpose and to enable the aircraft to carry a third crew member and newly developed weapons and equipment. This altered and final Staff requirement was issued in January, 1951. I regret that it is not in the public interest to answer the last part of the Question.

Is the First Lord aware that these alterations in staff requirements are not limited to the Gannet aircraft, and that these long delays which occur in the production of aircraft are a great source of disappointment to those who fly them? Can he tell us exactly what measures he proposes to take to see that these delays are shortened in the future?

If the hon. Member will give me particulars of other cases I am quite willing to go into them. I can assure him that we are in constant touch with the Ministry of Supply in an endeavour to avoid all unnecessary delay, but in the case of the Gannet there was a change of policy in that the aircraft was converted from a reconnaissance aircraft to an aircraft which, as I said in my original answer, must be used primarily for anti-submarine work.

Will the First Lord bear in mind the fact that the Admiralty has a very bad reputation for aircraft production, and this is not being allayed by reports received in regard to the very latest aircraft? Will he seriously look into this matter, which is causing great disturbance?

I am afraid that I cannot accept the stricture contained in the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question, but I can assure him that, as far as delay is concerned, in the whole general policy of naval aircraft we are in the closest touch with the Ministry of Supply.

While the First Lord cannot accept the strictures of his hon. and gallant Friend, will he accept my assurance that they are perfectly justified? Will the First Lord really look at this matter again and consider whether some new effort cannot be made to put right something which is entirely wrong at the present time?

I admit that there have been difficulties in the past, but I can assure my hon. Friend that every possible step is between taken between us and the Ministry of Supply to try to see that they do not occur again.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what consideration has been given to the proposal to change the name of Naval Aviation to the Fleet Air Arm.

Use of the term "Fleet Air Arm" was discontinued because it was felt that it suggested something separate from the Royal Navy. Consideration will, of course, be given to any proposals to revise the present title of "Naval Aviation."

Would the First Lord be assured that the fact that the name "Fleet Air Arm" conveys something separate from the Navy occurs only to those inside the Admiralty and is certainly not the view of those who serve in the Fleet Air Arm? Would he seriously consider whether he should not make this final and last change, in view of the fact that the title of this fine Service has been changed so many times in the last few years?

I will take note of the hon. Gentleman's assurance. It is the kind of statement which I am perfectly prepared to take into consideration in looking at any proposals to revise the present title of "Naval Aviation."

Is it not a fact that the Service, whatever it may be known as in official quarters, is still known amongst those who serve in it as the Fleet Air Arm?

I was rather inclined to make that sort of statement myself when in opposition.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the compulsory retention of Regulars in the Army and Royal Air Force is to terminate at the end of September, 1953, and new procedure to enable these personnel to purchase their discharge is to operate from that date, why similar facilities are not to apply to the Royal Navy until April, 1954; and if he will review this and arrange for the date for the Royal Navy to be brought forward to that of the other Services.

The scheme under which all Regulars compulsorily retained in the Royal Navy will be released not later than April, 1954, was drawn up after careful consideration of the commitments which the Navy has to meet. I regret that I can see no prospect of being able to improve on that date.

While that is much appreciated, is the Minister aware that grave dissatisfaction is felt by the men likely to be affected by this delay of some six months compared with the situation in the other two Services? In view of the fact that only a very small number of men are likely to be affected, will he look into this matter, because they feel that they have a sense of hardship compared with the other two Services.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am always looking at this problem with the greatest possible sympathy and that all cases receive very careful consideration. I must tell the House, however, that the Royal Navy depend on experienced men of long service with knowledge of the sea and ships, and it is not possible to send ships to sea with- out them. That is why the Royal Navy have had to get rather out of step with the other two Services.

But this involves only six months. It will be only a short period before the new arrangements apply and it is just a question of closing the gap of that six months.

I will go into any specific case which the hon. Gentleman chooses to give me.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will consider reducing the 18 months' service with the Royal Navy of the Royal Fleet reservists who have been recalled.

I cannot at present promise any reduction in the period of 18 months' service with the Royal Navy required of Royal Fleet reservists who have been recalled. These reservists, who have been in receipt of a retainer for service in emergency, are in shortage categories and the numbers on service will in any case decline since no further reservists are to be recalled. The situation will however be kept under careful review and the House can rely upon it that, if presently I find it possible to reduce the period at all, I will immediately do so.

While I thank the Minister for the latter part of his answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that the recalled Fleet Reservists are the only people in the Forces now covered by the Emergency Regulations?

I think I am right in saying that they are also the only body concerned who get a payment for being retained.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty to make a statement outlining the main effects which the new policy for defence expenditure will have on the Royal Navy.

I hope my hon. and gallant Friend can agree that it would be improper for me to anticipate the Defence White Paper or the more detailed Navy Estimates which will be presented about the same time. In the meantime, I can assure the House that the existing priorities in the anti-mine and antisubmarine field will continue.

Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable misgiving in the country in case the Navy is very seriously to be reduced? Could he not consider giving rather more information than he has given in answer to my Question?

It is very difficult for me to anticipate my statement on the Navy Estimates or the White Paper on defence, as I told the hon. Member for Stepney (Mr. W. J. Edwards) last week. All I can do is to repeat what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said—that this policy of re-armament is extended over a longer period but with the same priorities.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when H.M.S. "Wave" will return to service.

Because of a reorganisation of the Home-based Minesweeping Squadrons, Her Majesty's Ship "Wave" will remain in Reserve when she has been repaired.

Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that she is not structurally a total loss? Can he give any information about the estimated cost of repairs?

I can certainly assure my hon Friend that H.M.S. "Wave" is by no means a total loss. In fact it was an extremely good salvage operation by the Royal Navy, and we are also grateful to the local people for a great deal of help in many ways given to the crew of the "Wave" at that time. I am afraid that without notice I cannot give my hon. Friend the figures for which he asked.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the success of the salvage operation was the measure of the damage which the vessel had sustained? Is he further aware that it is common knowledge among dockyard workers that she needs a complete reconstruction.

I can assure the House that H.M.S. "Wave" is at the moment at Devonport Dockyard for permanent repairs. She goes in next month. I understand that the work will take about eight months, and she will then go into a high class of reserve and will be available for service at very short notice.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only his statement today but their Lordships' expression of thanks will be extremely welcome to all those who did such a wonderful job in the salvage operation, both the local people and the salvage people?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the basis on which the contract is let for collection of pig swill from Brawdy Royal Naval Air Station.

Three offers, each at the current maximum price, were received: one from a full-time pig farmer, one from a dairy farmer, and one from a part-time pig farmer holding a similar contract elsewhere. It was decided to award the contract to the full-time pig farmer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a part-time pig farmer has been receiving their Lordships' swill over a considerable period of time and that the contract was terminated quite suddenly? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable feeling in the district about this and some belief in the district that this is partly due to local politics? Is this a case of swill for the boys?

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it is nothing of the sort. The part-time pig owner, Mr. Martin, did not hold a contract, and he was warned that as soon as the quantity of their Lordships' swill increased a formal contract would have to be made. The present contract expires on 30th June, 1953, and it is intended to issue fresh invitations to tender to all interested parties.

Can the Minister explain to the House how these farmers conduct their operations in respect of part-time pigs, as apparently they do according to the statement.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman must inquire from his hon. Friend who asked the Question and who has the local knowledge.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty why the naval armament vessel "Amherst" has not been made a Royal Fleet auxiliary.

The "Amherst" is manned and managed in the same way as was the "Bedenham," which she replaced; but the conditions of service of the officers and crews of the "Amherst" and of other smaller naval armament carrying ships are now under consideration.

Is it not a fact that this ship is used to some extent for trooping duties, as she is a very old and rather decrepit passenger ship? Would she not be more effective if she could be brought under the Royal Fleet Auxiliary so that the passenger accommodation, of which there is very much, could be more thoroughly used than by the use of only 12 cabins, as at present?

The whole question is under consideration. I must admit to my hon. and gallant Friend that certain anomalies exist in this case. I am quite prepared to take them into account during my further consideration.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many officers of the rank of rear-admiral and above are qualified to fly.

Four, Sir.

Does not my right hon. Friend think that if more senior officers of the Navy were qualified to fly we should have more young officers taking up this art? Will he see that their Lordships try to promote more officers to the rank of captain who have been through the Fleet Air Arm or the Navy Air Arm?

I certainly agree with the sentiment of the first part of that supplementary question. I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that, while only four admirals have the qualification for which he asks, about 50 captains are coming up who have this qualification.

Will my right hon. Friend promote some of the captains to senior rank?

I will look into that.

Would my right hon. Friend consider making it a prerequisite, or at least a convention, that those appointed to command aeronautical units, such as carriers or carrier forces, have aeronautical training as a pilot, as I believe is the practice in the United States Navy?

There are two sides to that question. Of course, this really leads up to the point of why the Fleet Air Arm has been integrated into the Navy in Naval Aviation.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what prohibitions are imposed by his Department against the allocation of contracts to Coventry; and whether he has considered the case of a Coventry company, particulars of which have been sent to him, which although possessing the necessary labour, materials and capacity, has been informed by his contracts department that it may not tender for Admiralty work, in spite of the fact that in the past it has done such work for many years.

Certain restrictions on the placing of Government contracts in the area have been in force for some time, because the demand for skilled labour so far exceeded the supply that it became desirable, in the interests of defence and export production, to ease the load of work in the area. The present need for continuing these arrangements is being examined, and the firm to which the hon. Member refers will be invited to tender for Admiralty work should the restrictions be removed.

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him if he is aware that, owing to the slump in the motor industry and the lack of defence contracts, in Coventry there are skilled men being diverted to semiskilled work? Will he not make a contribution to guard against that danger?

Those are just the points that are under consideration at the present time. I should just like to remind the hon. Gentleman that in October—and these are the latest figures I have—there were still 2,301 vacancies unfilled. However, those points he has made and all other relevant points are under constant review at the moment.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will ensure that part of the viewing facilities in his Department's office on the Coronation line of route are reserved for serving naval personnel and disabled ex-Service men and women from Her Majesty's Senior Service to enable them to view the Coronation procession.

The arrangements to be made for the use of windows in the Admiralty offices which have a view of the Coronation route are not yet decided. I will take into account the suggestion made by the hon. Member with the many other suggestions which I have received on the subject from other sources.

I shall be very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, and I am sure the whole of the House will be, if he can in fact adopt the suggestions contained in the Question. May I further ask him whether he will consider the practicability of the children of men who lost their lives on service having some of this accommodation?

I will certainly add that to the matters for consideration in the whole general policy. I think I may take this opportunity of warning the House that, in spite of the constant mention of Admiralty Arch and the Coronation route, less than a quarter of the windows of the Admiralty face the route.

Yes, but the First Lord will, I think, appreciate that if he could give even some of the limited amount of accommodation for disabled ex-Service men and some of these children whose fathers lost their lives on service it would be preferable to it going to a lot of higher officers at the Admiralty, and so forth.

I have already said that I will take the hon. Member's suggestion into consideration, with the many other matters that arise on this question.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General, in view of the widespread erection of television aerials, what action is being taken to check the register of television licence holders to prevent a loss of revenue; and to what extent it has been revealed that an aerial is no guarantee that it is connected with a receiver.

The register of licences is continuously being checked and inquiries made, where necessary, and supplemented by the use of television detection vans. I have no precise information about the number of television aerials without sets, but over the country as a whole the proportion appears to be small and mainly accounted for by aerials abandoned by previous occupants of the premises or put up in anticipation of a set being installed.

Does the Assistant Postmaster-General say that he has not had any reports about, for instance, the town of Windsor, where a big percentage of the people with aerials are without sets? Will he give an assurance that, in view of the fact that there will be in the next few months a greater incentive not to take out a television licence because of the substantial increase in fee that is coming, he will keep a particular watch on this matter?

I did not say I had not got information. All I suggested was that I could not see why anybody should go to the trouble and expense of putting up an aerial if he did not propose to possess a set.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what counties in Wales are within the area of effective reception from Wenvoe television station.

Glamorgan, most of Brecknock and part of Pembroke and Carmarthen; Monmouth is also covered. The strength of reception may vary considerably from place to place because of the mountainous nature of the country. The station is at present on low power, but the B.B.C. informs me that work on the high-power transmitter is well advanced and the Corporation hopes to bring it into service shortly. The high-power service will give improved reception, particularly in fringe areas. It will not, however, materially increase the area in which reception is already possible.

As such a considerable part of Wales is within the radius of reception from this station, can my hon. Friend say whether it is intended in future to increase the number of those programmes which are of some peculiar interest to the people of Wales?

The Post Office has no responsibility whatever for the B.B.C.'s programmes. That is a matter for the B.B.C. entirely.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what site or sites for a television broadcasting station or stations other than north Hessary Tor have now been reconnoitred in Devon and Cornwall.

The B.B.C. is making a detailed examination of one or two particular sites apart from north Hessary Tor, but no final decision has yet been reached.

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind during these surveys that even though they are sparsely populated there are parts, in West Cornwall particularly, that ought to be borne in mind in this way?

Yes, certainly.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) if he is aware that all military and naval cars are now fitted with suppressors; and why a compulsory requirement to this effect is not to be applied to civilian cars now in use;

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why the use of suppressors to obviate interference with the reception of television programmes is not being made compulsory for old as well as new cars.

The Government hope that as a result of extensive propaganda already begun the co-operation of car users will be such that it will be unnecessary to introduce legislation for old cars. The regulations exempting old cars were seen and agreed to by the Advisory Committee at the draft stage.

Is it not true that on 9th July the Television Advisory Committee recommended to the Postmaster-General that suppressors should be fitted to all old cars as well as new cars, and will the hon. Gentleman not consider making an Order applying to old cars as well?

It was not the Television Advisory Committee. The point is that it is no good the House passing an order unless they are prepared to face up to all the implications of carrying it out. If we were to make it compulsory for old cars to have suppressors, it would mean having to recruit a number of inspectors—call them what you like—to go round poking their heads under the bonnets of cars. I should have thought the British people had been hectored and pushed about enough for a bit. I am very hopeful that this approach which is being made on a voluntary basis will prove successful.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the cost of this device is in the neighbourhood of only half-a-crown, and that therefore no hardship would be imposed on the users of old cars, which will continue to be in the great majority for many, many years to come; and will he say whether, by way of example, all Post Office vehicles are fitted with this device?

I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that I assured myself that the Post Office was blameless before I answered this Question. It is not a question of the cost of the suppressors, but whether we should bring in a scheme under which it would be necessary to recruit inspectors to go round looking under the bonnets of cars. I do not think that is required, and I think the House would object to it.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General not aware that that is what he has already done; that an Order that has been laid on the Table of the House provides for inspection; and why is it that he has no objection to the inspection of new cars but suddenly discovers this objection to the inspection of old cars, especially in view of the fact that the special committee have advised that old cars should be fitted?

In the case of new cars, the suppressors will be put on by the manufacturers. That is quite a different thing from recruiting a number of people to go round insisting on old cars having these suppressors.

Do I understand from that that no inspectors will be employed to see that people do not take suppressors out of the new cars?

We do not anticipate that it will be necessary to add to the staff of the Post Office in order to deal with the new cars, but it would be necessary to do so if we were to insist upon the fitting of these suppressors to old cars.

Would my hon. Friend consider fitting suppressors to one or two back benchers on the other side of the House, whose names I will gladly supply to him?

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware of the local feeling that Aberdeen should not be regarded as a fringe area and forced to rely upon makeshift arrangements for their television reception; and what arrangements are projected for the establishment of a permanent full-power transmitting station to serve this area.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to consider the installation of a repeater station on Portsdown Hill, Portsmouth, in order that people living in the Isle of Wight and the Portsmouth area may be able to enjoy television and view the Coronation.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) to authorise a reasonable increase in capital development for the promotion of television, in order that as many people as possible may view the Coronation; (2) whether he has any statement to make on the provision of television to Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland for the Coronation.

I cannot add to the general statement about television which I made on 8th December.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he himself stigmatised North-East Scotland as a "fringe area" for which he is making makeshift arrangements for television; is he running away from that, and does he realise that that kind of observation about such an important area is very offensive to the people there?

The term "fringe area" is purely a technical term, and there is nothing in the least derogatory about it. There are many fringe areas in England, if that helps the hon. and learned Gentleman. The reason the Government have come to this decision is the one I gave the House the other day, which is that we must be assured of the proper use of all our capital resources at the present time.

Is my hon. Friend not aware that his statement the other day and his statement today are quite contradictory, because he said the only difficulty was that the Government did not wish to allow further investment in the manufacture of television sets, and yet in the same breath he tells us that the manufacture of television sets has more than doubled recently? Will he, therefore, explain why he will not press forward with the extension of this service to Aberdeen and the North-East; and will he further say whether he is going to postpone the service indefinitely, or whether we may expect it definitely by 1954?

I hope that it will not be necessary to restrict this service indefinitely, but I cannot go over again —and I hope the House will not ask me to—all the reasons which led the Government to come to this unpopular decision.

rose—

Mr. Follick.

On a point of order. My Question, No. 29, was answered at the same time as No. 26, and I did rise to ask a supplementary question.

I am sorry, but I did not see the hon. and gallant Gentleman rise. I have now called Question 27.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will install a rediffusion station at Portsmouth to relay the televising of the Coronation naval review.

Even if the naval review is televised I regret that the reasons which for the time being prevent the extension of television to new areas will also prevent the programme being relayed back to Portsmouth.

Would my hon. Friend answer three questions? First, does he appreciate that private enterprise is quite prepared to put up repeater stations, at no cost to the Government; secondly, does he appreciate that the trade has ample television receiving sets to accommodate everybody who wants one; and, thirdly, will he make the television broadcast from Portsmouth a two-way service so that people there can see the Coronation?

On the last point, as I explained to the House last week, there are certain technical difficulties with regard to that matter. As to the first point, that is, I am afraid, governed by the decision which the Government have made with regard to the extension of television generally.

Will the Assistant Postmaster-General bear in mind that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion will be much the most effective way of letting the public know on this occasion whether the fleet is "lit up"?

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to require the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain at all times from sending, either by visual image or sound, any matter which will damage one industry as against another.

The policy of successive Governments has been to preserve the B.B.C.'s independence in programme matters, and I have no reason to doubt that the Corporation will continue to act impartially in this as in other matters. If my hon. and gallant Friend should wish to pursue the matter, I would suggest that he do so direct with the Corporation.

Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent demonstration on the television showed a new synthetic textile fibre emerging undamaged from an acid bath, whereas cotton fabrics were shown disintegrating; is he further aware that this was deeply resented by the cotton industry; and that there was deliberate advertisement of a proprietary fabric, the name of which was mentioned in the demonstration?

I have seen the Press comments of the broadcast to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers. I would urge him to make his representations to the B.B.C. if he feels strongly on the matter.

Will the hon. Gentleman at the same time also take up the question of the denigrating remarks made by this Government against the British Transport Commission?

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) whether, when considering the granting of licences for commercial television, he will ensure that no director of a licensed company will be allowed to sit on the Television Advisory Committee;

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 9 of Command Paper 8550.

While thanking the Assistant Postmaster-General for that reply, may I ask if it means that on any new committee that is set up there will not be appointed any director of a licensed company?

It does not mean that. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the Television Advisory Committee. I am pointing out to him that the body which will have control of commercial radio is an entirely different body to the Television Advisory Committee, the members of which have not yet been appointed.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that there is very widespread satisfaction that on the new Television Advisory Committee there are at least two people who have both knowledge and enthusiasm of their subject, and that this is a great improvement on the previous Television Advisory Committee which was moribund for six years?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he is apparently by this kind of appointment making the G.P.O. look like Tammany Hall?

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman means. I can see nothing wrong in appointing to the Television Advisory Committee, which is largely a technical body, members of the industry which has to make the sets.

Since the Government are apparently contemplating commercially sponsored children's television programmes, to the dismay of all responsible people, why is there no single representative of either teachers or parents to do battle with the five businessmen on this Committee?

I would suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper. No decision has been reached whatever with regard to the form that commercial television will take, whether for children or others. What we are talking about now is the Television Advisory Committee, which is a technical body.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that his assurance that the Government are not contemplating commercially sponsored children's television programmes will be widely welcomed and carefully noted? Is he also aware that commercially sponsored television programmes for adults will be seen by hundreds of thousands of children throughout the country, and will he, therefore, appoint on the Television Advisory Committee a representative of parents and of teachers?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has remembered the White Paper, about which he discourses so eloquently. The body which is now being appointed is a technical body. The body to consider commercial television has not yet been appointed to consider children's or anyone else's television programmes.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why he has not appointed to the Television Advisory Committee any representative of theatrical interests.

The reason was given in my reply of the 30th October, 1952, to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport).

Will the Minister consider this question? Is he not aware that the future of successful television in this country must depend upon all the entertainment industries being co-operative, and will he also see whether he cannot now appoint a representative of the theatre industry to the Television Advisory Committee?

If the hon. Gentleman studies the terms of reference of this Committee, I think that he will realise that it is very largely technical, and that the particular point he raises is not really covered by its terms of reference.

Even on the technical question, the televising of shows from existing theatres would be vastly superior to the televising of shows from studios, and, therefore, on the technical side, it is very necessary that there should be a representative of the theatres on this Committee.

I have no doubt that the Committee will be prepared to receive any representations which the entertainment industry may make.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the total amount of capital investment authorised for television and sound radio, respectively, for the years 1946–50, inclusive, and for the years 1951 and 1952.

I assume the hon. Member is referring to capital investment by the B.B.C. Information is not available before 1949. Subsequently, the total capital investment authorised for all B.B.C. services was: 1949—£1.6 million; 1950—£1.7 million; 1951—£1.8 million; and 1952—£2 million. Television and sound have never been separated for this purpose.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why it has not been possible to reply to the hon. Member for Coventry, South concerning the Sports Television Advisory Committee, about which he received letters on 1st July and 17th November.

It has not been possible to send a final reply for the reason mentioned in my correspondence with the hon. Member.

While I admit to a vested interest in this reply, is the Minister aware that I put the Question down in desperation because I could not get an answer? I have still not had one. Does he not think it a gross discourtesy to the Committee that it should have taken five months to decide when its next meeting will be, and he has not even given an answer today?

The hon. Lady, who is a member of the Committee, should know that the calling of its meetings depends very largely on the Chairman, and I suggest that she writes to the Chairman asking when the next meeting is to be called.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why persons in the Whitchurch area of Glamorgan who have hitherto enjoyed the exclusive use of private telephones for which they have been subscribers for many years are now being called upon to accept share telephone services, though other persons in similar circumstances are being given the exclusive use of private telephones for the first time.

Since the beginning of 1948 all new and removing residential subscribers have been liable to share their lines if called upon to do so. Individual subscribers may be given exclusive service when the telephone is first provided, if there is no other applicant in their immediate neighbourhood, but they are still liable to share their lines.

Does not the Assistant Postmaster-General consider that a person who has been a subscriber—a customer—for many years should be given some special consideration?

I look forward to the day when we can do away with all these shared services, but there have to be some rules laid down, and we have, unfortunately, to provide shared service only for anyone who moves, as well as for a new applicant.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the continued inadequacy in the provision of private telephones to householders in the Whitchurch and Rhewbina areas of Glamorgan; and if he will make a statement.

I regret that there has been delay in providing telephones in these areas, owing to shortage of underground plant. Some cables have been laid recently and more are now being laid. During the past two and a half months, 186 telephones have been provided, and we are trying to maintain this rate of progress.

While thanking the Assistant Postmaster-General for that reply, may I ask him if he can possibly give the figure of applications now outstanding compared with the number a year ago?

The number of applications now outstanding is 1,224. 1 think I should want notice of the second part of my hon. Friend's supplementary.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to give instructions that long telephone conversations may be intercepted by the supervisor if an urgent call is waiting to get through.

Telephone operators are already instructed to interrupt telephone conversations in order to offer calls of particular and recognisable urgency, such as emergency calls, and also certain calls where there are semi-technical factors of which I shall be pleased to give the hon. Member particulars if he so wishes. If the hon. Member has a case in mind and will let me have details I shall, of course, be glad to make inquiry.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General not aware that neither the supervisors nor the superintendents know about this regulation that prolonged calls may be intercepted; that I have made inquiries and they tell me there are no technical difficulties; and would he. therefore, send round circulars to the exchange managers directing their attention to the fact that in the case of emergency calls prolonged conversations may be intercepted.

I will look into the point the bon. Gentleman makes. I will send him the particulars I have promised, and I should welcome his comments on them.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephone installation in the Borough of Wood Green have been dealt with in the last 12 months; and how many are still outstanding.

In the Bowes Park exchange area, which serves the greater part of the borough, 327 applications were met during the 12 months ended 30th September last and 1,749 applications were outstanding at that date. Some new cables will be ready early next year, and new exchange equipment in the late autumn.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether, in view of the urgent need for increased telephone facilities in the Matlock area, he will authorise early completion of the development work already started.

The new cables required will be laid as soon as possible, but I regret that owing to the many claims on our limited resources their early completion cannot be expected.

Does my hon. Friend realise that £14,000 has already been spent on preliminary work and that only another £10,000 is required to complete it? Is it not a pity to leave the project in an incomplete state?

It is not leaving it quite as bad as that. It is hoped that it will be possible to get on with the work in the middle of next year and that it will be finished before too long.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what labour-saving devices to speed up the issue of stamps and change in post offices have been installed; and if he will state in which post offices experiments are now being made.

There are in use approximately 18,000 stamp machines operated by inserting coins, 100 machines on post office counters for selling 2½d. stamps and a further 100 on order, and 100 machines which issue priced labels for sticking on inland parcels. It is hoped that soon there will also be about 100 machines for selling books of stamps.

Is my hon. Friend aware that, speaking generally, with the exception of the 100 machines on counters which he has mentioned, the system of issuing stamps in the post offices is precisely the same as it was 100 years ago, and that any progress which he made towards modernisation could not, in the circumstances, be considered revolutionary?

I answered a Question on this matter last week, and I can assure the House that any opportunity of mechanisation is being used and has been used, but this is rather different from the type of business that is done in, say, a cinema. We deal with far more things, whereas a cinema sells only tickets. There is a limit beyond which it is not economical to press mechanisation, quite apart from the fact that these machines are very expensive.

Is it not a fact that a joint committee of the Official Side and of the Staff Side has been working at this continuously for many years and has given the fruit and benefit of its expert knowledge for guiding the Postmaster-General and his Assistant in the way this should be done?

That is so.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General to make a statement with regard to the tampering with the mail of Flight-Lieutenant Strachan, retired, of N.W.6, who addressed an inquiry to him on 6th December.

I am looking into this matter and will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that after the receipt of this complaint the gentleman concerned, Flight-Lieutenant Strachan, had his morning post delivered for the first time in 12 months? I want to ask this simple question? Is there any censorship of the mail received by this individual?

I would prefer to look into all the details of this case before I give the hon. Gentleman any answer on this point.

Is there any censorship of the mail sent by the hon. Member for Willesden, East to this gentleman?

I should imagine not, but I have not looked into the case at all yet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The hon. Gentleman will understand that I have given him all the information to which he is entitled.

I want to follow this up. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a letter addressed to a local firm, postmarked, "London," was delivered inside an envelope which had been received from Hungary; and, apart from the question of the censorship of my constituent's correspondence, has the hon. Gentleman made recompense to the London firm concerned and sent his apologies for the delay in the delivery of their correspondence?

When all the details of this case are investigated I shall then be in a position to give the hon. Gentleman all the information he wants.

It is thoroughly unsatisfactory.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he is aware of complaints that parcels sent to soldiers in the British Army of the Rhine are arriving in a damaged condition; and whether he will ensure more careful handling in future.

No, Sir; but I will inquire into the complaint which the hon. Member has forwarded to me and will write to him.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that the usual time taken by parcel post from Sheffield to London is between two and three days; and if he will take steps to expedite this service.

No, Sir; but if the hon. Member will let me have details of any case he has in mind I will have inquiry made.

is the Minister not aware that the general reply which one receives from the officials at the Post Office is that this is the usual time to be expected for a parcel to be delivered, and, in view of this fact, will he take steps to expedite the service, or see that the officials give more satisfactory replies to inquiries?

The hon. Gentleman's information is not correct. We have had exactly two complaints about delay in the delivery of parcels from Sheffield to London since last August. The matter is nothing like as serious as he suggests.

One does not complain if one is told that this is the usual service. It is for the Post Office to take steps to expedite the general service, as complaints are only made if there is an exceptional delay over and above the normal delivery. It is the normal delivery which I want the hon. Gentleman to take steps to expedite.

Is it not time that the Minister got into discussion with the Railway Executive in order to bring back something more approximating the excellent pre-war service in connection with parcels?

I have had inquiries made. I find that, under normal circumstances, it is usual for a parcel which is posted in Sheffield up to 5 p.m. to be delivered in London the following day.

I should like to press this point. That may be so. But I should like to ask the Minister what efforts are now being made to go back to the service which we had before the war, and which everyone acquainted with those times knows was a very good service.

That might mean going back to certain conditions of service of which the hon. Gentleman would not approve.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many new post offices have been opened in the developing mining area in Fife, comprising the villages of Kelty, Lumphinnans, Lochgally, Ballingry, Cardenden, Oakley and Valleyfield, in the last 12 months; and what were the corresponding figures for each of the last three years.

There are post offices in or close to each of the villages mentioned by the hon. Member, but no new ones have been opened in the last three years.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is one of the most important developing mining communities in the whole of Britain and that there are continuous demands from villages like Kelty for additional Post Offices? When will the Government do something to recognise the economic importance of areas of this kind?

We certainly recognise the importance of the area, but the number of post offices there now is not less than the average for similar regions throughout the country. However, I should like, in any way I can, to help the hon. Gentleman. If he cares to see me about this I shall be glad to arrange to have a discussion with him.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the population of these villages is increasing and will increase very rapidly in the next few years and that if these facilities do not exist, then the possibility of attracting additional miners from West Fife will be jeopardised?

I can give the hon. Gentleman every assurance that we shall do our best to meet the changing circumstances as they arise.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the possibilities of improvement in the House's conduct of its business.

I do not think that the appointment of such a Select Committee would serve any useful purpose at present.

In view of the very wide number and variety of opinions which have been expressed by hon. Members in every quarter of the House on this very serious topic, will my right hon. Friend afford us opportunities for formal debate in which we can test one another's opinions, even though he thinks the time is not yet ripe for a Select Committee?

I think a debate on this subject might well be useful, but we have no time at present for it, and, in any case, all questions of that character must be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that nothing has taken place in the conduct of the House of Commons during the present Parliament which was not approved of by the Government in its own conduct in Opposition?

Might I ask my right hon. Friend if he will reconsider his original answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis)? Is he aware that many of us feel that a Select Committee might be advantageous? Would he also bear in mind that one of the main factors in causing the present unsatisfactory state of affairs is the narrow division between the two parties in the House, and that that lies in the hands of the electorate?

Forgetting political differences of view, will the Prime Minister agree that there is widespread public disquiet and disgust with procedures in this House under which important matters are discussed in the early hours of the morning? If he is not prepared to make the gesture for the satisfaction of Members of Parliament, will he agree that the public are entitled to expect us to discuss at an early date the incongruities of our present Parliamentary procedures, and particularly the time of starting, at 2.30 p.m., when 90 per cent. of the people have done a good half-day's work?

I think all these things should be considered, and there is no reason why friendly discussions should not take place, not only through the usual channels but through any channels which may be open. But while such a close balance exists and such bitterly developed party differences rule, it might be very difficult to arrive at any advantageous solution to our present difficulties.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand about defence in the Pacific and South-East Asia, with particular reference to the proposal for a joint approach to the United States of America.

No, Sir. I do not wish to add anything to the statement which was issued to the Press on 15th December.

Can the Prime Minister say whether this means that any approach to the United States Government now from this country has to wait until the new Administration is in office? Can he say what objections there have been from the American side so far to our taking part in the defence talks in the Pacific?

I think the hon. Member's supplementary question suggests some of the difficulties which I should have to encounter in making a full reply to him.

Can the Prime Minister say what objections there have been from the American side so far to our taking part in the discussions?

I have already said that I do not wish to add anything to the statement which I made. I have nothing to add to that.

Is it not rather discourteous not to tell the House this?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a White Paper embodying the submissions made by Her Majesty's Government to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council, which began its meetings on Monday, 15th December.

No, Sir.

Can the Prime Minister at least say whether or not he has given N.A.T.O. the reasons why he thinks the danger of war has receded during the last year, as General Ridgway has said that it has not and as Lord Ismay on Sunday said that the international situation is as bad today as it was last February? Can he at least tell the House of Commons why he thinks the danger of war has receded and what information he has given N.A.T.O. about that?

The hon. Member selects one topic out of a vast number of important topics and asks me to select it from all that were discussed at N.A.T.O. and give an answer upon it. I could not attempt to do that in reply to a supplementary question. I might also say that the papers circulated to the North Atlantic Council by its member governments contain much secret information. Her Majesty's Government's submissions are, therefore, not capable of being published. The late Government never published similar documents.

Does this mean that the Prime Minister does not know why he thinks the danger of war has receded?

I do not think a great issue of that kind ought to be thrust in as a self-advertising supplementary question.