asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made by his Department in improving the status and prospects of civilian dilutees in Admiralty employment.

Agreement has been reached on the Shipbuilding Trades Joint Council to extend the limit of merit pay of dilutees from 9s. a week to 12s. a week in June, 1955, and to 15s. a week in April, 1956. Certain talks about improving the status of dilutees have taken place with the unions concerned, and I am hopeful that some further progress may be possible in this field.

Will my hon. Friend treat the remainder of this problem as urgent? Will he remember that some of these men have been in this status for fifteen years, and that if the engineering needs of the armament programme should be reduced before this problem is solved the Admiralty will be faced with some very acute and embarrassing personal problems?

Yes, I hope it will be possible to do something in the way of recognition of the skilled men who have done their work satisfactorily for a number of years.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that nothing will be done without full consultation with the trade unions concerned?

Certainly. I said in my reply that we are now having consultations.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now grant a compassionate release to E. M. Docherty, about whose case he was informed on 11th November last.

No, Sir. A further report is awaited, but in the meantime he has been granted compassionate leave.

Will the hon. Gentleman expedite consideration of this matter, for it is a very distressing domestic case, and he was informed of it early in November?

Yes, we are making inquiries, but they do take a little time.

Why treat this man differently from the First Lord of the Admiralty?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many persons employed in his Department were on duty at the Admiralty when the recent fire broke out there.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many people were on duty in the Admiralty at the time of the recent fire.

Fifty, Sir, of whom 14 were employees of the Ministry of Works and four of the General Post Office.

What were these employees supposed to be doing at the time the fire broke out? Why was it left to a chance passer-by to nip in through a window to try to do what he could to arrest the conflagration?

I can answer only for Admiralty employees, and a question that concerns Ministry of Works employees should be addressed to the Minister of Works. The Admiralty employees were engaged in another part of the building.

Though the hon. Gentleman may be a respecter of demarcation lines between Ministries, is he aware that fire is not, and is it not possible for somebody on duty in the Admiralty, in the part belonging to the Admiralty, to transfer his duties for a moment to that part belonging to the Ministry of Works without getting into difficulty with the present Government?

As the right hon. Gentleman knows from his experience at the Admiralty, fire risk is taken over from 8 o'clock to 8 o'clock by the Ministry of Works. It is the position that it becomes a Ministry of Works responsibility.

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is impossible for people in the Admiralty to move across to another part of the building because for the time being that part belongs to the Ministry of Works?

I am certainly not saying anything of the kind. I was merely saying that the Admiralty people were working in a different part of the building from which they could not see the fire.

Could they not be more careful at the Admiralty? Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that it is very near the Scottish office?

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the present position with regard to the claim by oil companies for compensation for oil stocks which disappeared in the closing days of the fighting in the Far East in the Second World War.

The claim was heard by a Singapore court in August and, on 9th September, judgment was given against the claimants. An appeal has been entered and is expected to be heard in February, 1956.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that additional information, may I ask whether the claim is in connection with the oil that we captured from the Japanese at the end of the war?

I do not think it would be right for me to comment on this matter at all as it is sub judice, and there is even the possibility of further appeals after the next case is heard.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if, before deciding to dispose of a number of large fleet units including aircraft carriers, he approached Commonwealth Governments to find out if they would maintain them either in commission or in reserve in their own countries.

The condition of these ships was such that we could not have recommended their acquisition by any other Navy. For the same reason there would have been no purpose in keeping them in reserve either here or overseas.

Is it not the case that the Admiralty is going to dispose of a number of other ships, including carriers, which are post-war ships? Will the Civil Lord undertake to approach the Commonwealth Governments before he disposes of those ships, to see whether we can disperse the Reserve Fleet in that way in the Commonwealth?

I think this Question deals with—

No, it does not. The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood it.

We are, of course, in the closest touch with Commonwealth Governments and are well aware of their needs, and if the occasion arises we should, of course, offer them one of these ships.

Does the hon. Gentleman not realise what an insipid, unimaginative, uninspiring approach this is? If there is to be a nuclear war, for goodness' sake let us disperse the Reserve Fleet. Will he take active steps? Will he approach the Commonwealth Governments to try to get some energetic action, now that the First Lord, it seems, is to have greater leisure?

The hon. Gentleman's Question related to disposal, but now he is talking of the dispersal of ships by putting them in reserve, which is a different question that we are examining at present, including the suggestions which the hon. Gentleman made during, I think, the debate on the Navy Estimates.

Is it not a fact that other Commonwealth navies are certainly full of energy and very alert, particularly the Canadian Navy, and that if they want ships from us they will make application to find out whether there are some for disposal? Surely it is not the policy to sell our ships to other countries simply because they are for disposal?

The Canadian Navy authorities certainly are in the closest touch with us and they are very well aware of what we have to dispose.

But were they actually offered these particular ships?

No, Sir, they were not, for reasons stated in my original Answer.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the known shortage of qualified naval constructors, he will give consideration to the formation of an intermediate corps of officers with professional experience in the fields needed in Her Majesty's Dockyards.

Requirements for professional officers, both in the Dockyards and elsewhere, are at present under consideration by the Admiralty. A number of complicated and difficult issues are involved and proposals similar to that which my hon. Friend has in mind are being examined, but I can hold out little hope of an early decision.

Is my hon. Friend aware that his answer gives some satisfaction, but that my object in putting the Question was to point out to him that in private industry efficiency has been increased by extra supervisory staff? Will he try the same method in Her Majesty's Dockyards? Can he include this in the dockyard scheme in order that dockyard employees may have the benefit of the increased wages in industry?

The question is being looked at in connection with the position in other departments in the Dockyards.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty how many homes have been built by his Department for the families of the Royal Navy in each year since 1945; how many are in the process of being built; and what is the programme for 1956–57.

As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Are the wives and families who are having the benefit of these houses allowed to have security of tenure when their husbands are posted overseas?

That is a rather different question, but as a rule that would not be the case. I should like to point out that we are undertaking at present a larger programme of building married quarters than ever before.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, in view of the reduction of the size of the Royal Navy, if he will state the future policy in regard to Her Majesty's Dockyard in Devonport.

If my hon. Friend is concerned to know whether there has been any change in the development plan for the Dockyard, the answer is "No, Sir." The plan remains as I outlined it to the Plymouth Corporation on 22nd February last. Progress depends solely on capacity to execute the work and the availability of funds.

Is my hon. Friend aware that £17 million worth of work which could have been obtained for the naval Dockyards has been put out to private industry? Is he aware mat my object in bringing the matter to his notice is that a quarter of the families in Plymouth depend for their livelihood on Devonport Dockyard? Is he aware that it is the only major industry there and that we are rather disturbed about future policy?

I can assure my hon. Friend that there was no shortage of work for the Dockyard. We have plenty of work, and if it is necessary to go outside to commercial yards it is because we have more work than we can put into existing Dockyards.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that what has been said about Devonport is equally true of Chatham?

We are well aware of Chatham's needs, and there is plenty of work for the Dockyard there as well.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the recent Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General states that work in the naval Dockyards was done considerably cheaper than in private dockyards?

That consideration is very much in our minds.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what method is used for ensuring that persons entering that part of the Admiralty now occupied by the Ministry of Works cannot, unless so authorised, enter the rest of the Admiralty.

That portion of the Admiralty building in the hands of the Ministry of Works contractors is partitioned off from the occupied part. During working hours doorkeepers are on duty at the entrances into the occupied portions and passes have to be produced to gain admittance. Ministry of Works custodians patrol the occupied portions of the building during the silent hours.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that, in fact, a man got into the Ministry of Works portion? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, instead of putting out the fire, which he kindly did in the absence of the Admiralty people who were responsible, this man might have chosen to go to another part of the Admiralty? What was to prevent him?

He probably would have been able to get there, but he got into the building in a rather curious way. He climbed in through the roof into the part where the fire had broken out.

asked the Postmaster-General the annual amount to be charged to the notional trading accounts of the Post Office in recoupment of deficienscies in the past provisions of the hypothetical pension fund.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Commercial Accounts for 1953–54 which explain that a provision of £6·8 million a year is at present necessary to make good the deficiencies in past provisions.

While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on the fact that he is still in his office and able to answer this difficult Question, may I ask whether he has considered the fact that the inclusion of this sum to make up past deficiencies in a fund that does not exist will have the effect of exaggerating the current loss of profit to the postal services?

It is quite right that Post Office pensions should be paid out of revenues of the Post Office and not by the taxpayer; and, similarly, when deficiencies are reported by the actuary it is right that they should be met out of Post Office revenue.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this deficiency arose over past years during which the Exchequer took very substantial profits from the Post Office? In these circumstances, ought not the Exchequer to make the contribution, and not the Post Office?

No, Sir. It is still a sound principle that there should be paid to the Exchequer amounts estimated to be the deficiency, bearing in mind that the pensions are paid out by the Exchequer.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Post Office has paid to the Exchequer about £50 million over the last 10 years? I should have thought that that would have covered any deficiency on the pension fund.

Is there not a great difference between a charge for the current actuarial cost of the fund and making up the deficiency of a fund that does not exist?

The hon. Member will appreciate that as wages rise so the pension commitment rises, and it is a sound principle that what is necessary to meet the deficiency, as to meet the cost, should be paid from the revenues of the Post Office.

asked the Postmaster-General who has been appointed as the new Chairman of Cable and Wireless Limited.

Sir Godfrey Ince, who is shortly retiring from the post of Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

While not in any way denying the ability of Sir Godfrey Ince or his right to take the post, may I ask the Minister on what ground of equity, if the new Chairman is to be paid, the Government defend their position, when an old-age pensioner cannot earn more than £2 a week without having his pension reduced?

I think that the parallel is scarcely a fair and proper one. Sir Godfrey Ince is believed to be the right man for this post, and we are fortunate to have obtained his services.

Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman the grounds for that extraordinary statement? Why should anyone with more money be allowed to keep that money and add to it, whereas those who have the least of all our people are not allowed to earn more than £2 per week extra?

I am answering a Question in relation to the appointment of a Chairman to this body. I defend the appointment as right and proper. That is the limit of my obligation in the matter.

Would it not have been better to promote a younger man from within the concern? What incentive can there be to the employees in the firm to do their work when such things as this are done?

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a second full-time managing director was appointed to this body in March last year. This is the appointment of a Chairman, and the broad experience of Sir Godfrey Ince is believed to be needed.

Do I understand that Sir Godfrey will draw a second pension as a result of his service with Cable and Wireless Limited?

Sir Godfrey's service with Cable and Wireless Limited will be non-pensionable.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the latest leaflets available in banks and post offices about National Savings Certificates are dated November, 1954; and, in view of the need for stimulating National Savings, he will see that up-to-date leaflets giving information about the additional number of units of the current ninth issue which may now be held, will be made available as soon as possible.

Yes, Sir. The existing leaflets, of which there are large stocks, are being amended as fast as possible pending their replacement by a new issue.

I am delighted that a new amendment slip has been issued since I put down my Question on 6th December; but will my right hon. Friend call the attention of the new Chancellor of the Exchequer to the fact that the current issue of National Savings Certificates was first available on 1st February, 1951, when the Bank Rate was 2 per cent., and that the Government should now make a further issue available at more favourable terms, which would be more in line with current interest rates and would encourage small savings?

I am concerned with the first part of the supplementary question. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be disappointed to learn that the issue of the slip began before he put down his Question.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the decision of the Universal Postal Union that books should receive the same postage reductions as newspapers; and whether he will take action to implement this.

The Universal Postal Convention relates to rates of postage on articles which are being sent overseas. The overseas rates are not being changed.

Did not the agreement reached in 1952, to which we were a party, by the Universal Postal Union Congress state that there should be reductions on book postage similar to those granted in respect of newspaper postage?

The hon. Gentleman is correct, but it refers to overseas and not to inland post. I would tell him that in our overseas post books enjoy the same rate as newspapers and periodicals.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider the proposed increase in postal charges, in view of the representations of the National Book League.

asked the Postmaster-General what reply he has sent to the protest of the National Book League against his decision to increase the postal charges on the transmission of books and periodicals by post.

I have carefully considered the increases in inland postal charges for books and periodicals, approved by this House on 14th November. I have felt bound to conclude that, bearing in mind the loss of some £2 million on the inland printed paper service, the new scale is inevitable.

Does not the Postmaster-General agree that this places an unfair burden on book postage, and that it means that other not so essential matter which is sent through the post gets preferential treatment? Should he not bear in mind that we want to encourage greater dissemination of literature and culture through the post, particularly to rural and backward areas, than occurs at the moment?

I am in sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's general sentiment, but £2 million is being lost on the inland printed paper rate. As the House approved the White Paper, the only reasonable course to be followed is to seek to reduce that loss. Even with the proposed increased rates, there is still a loss on the inland postal services.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the continued dissatisfaction in the village of Beckley with the postal service introduced on 26th September last, he will arrange for an investigation into the working of the present service to be undertaken by an inspector who is unconnected with the area and, in particular, to restore the previous arrangement for collections at 12.30 and 18.30 as the present collections at 10.35 and 16.15 have proved not to meet the local needs.

I am having the services thoroughly reviewed and will write to my hon. Friend early in the New Year, when the review has been completed.

asked the Postmaster-General when he will select the outside organisation to review the Post Office's methods of handling mail, as foreshadowed in paragraph 19 of the Report on Post Office Development and Finance, Command Paper No. 9756; and if he will now give an estimate of the cost involved.

Messrs. Harold Whitehead and Partners has been asked to undertake the assignment. The time required cannot be clearly assessed at this stage, but I estimate the probable cost at about 10,000.

Will the Postmaster-General say why it is necessary to bring in this outside organisation to do this job? Is there not a very efficient organisation in the Government service called the Organisation and Methods Division which has done exactly this kind of job and done so on a much more economical scale? Why bring in an outside body?

There are internal organisations in the Post Office and there is the O. and M. branch of the Treasury, as the hon. Gentleman suggests; but it seemed to me that it would be useful if there were a detailed scrutiny of some sample sorting offices by an external body, in order that we might be certain that our methods are the most efficient.

asked the Postmaster-General what representations he has received from, or on behalf of, blind persons or from interested organisations in respect of a decrease in the charge for domestic telephone installations used by blind persons.

About a dozen letters have been received. Much as I sympathise with blind persons I could not justify charging them less than the standard price for their telephone service.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some reduction in licence fees for wireless for the blind? What is the difference between that and my proposal?

There is, of course, a reduction in the composite licence fee and a free sound licence for the blind. Also, there is a reduction in postal costs for braille books. However, any step in the direction which the hon. Member suggests would open the door wide to many other claims of equal, or nearly equal, validity, and would raise grave difficulties for the Post Office.

asked the Postmaster-General when telephone kiosks will be provided on the Sparrow Farm Housing Estate, Feltham, and the Butts Farm Housing Estate, Hanworth.

Two kiosks will be provided on the Sparrow Farm Estate by next summer; two more will be provided when the pavements in the shopping centre are made up. There are already five kiosks on the Butts Farm Estate, and a site for a sixth has been tentatively agreed with the local authority.

While appreciating the desire of the Postmaster-General to help these two large housing estates, I should like to ask him whether the Post Office could not look ahead regarding these estates. Some of these large housing estates often take four or five years to build. Why should they be finished before the Post Office comes along to instal public telephones? Surely while the estates are being built, public telephones could be installed. I ask the Postmaster-General to give consideration to that.

I appreciate the point. In neither of the two cases which the hon. Gentleman has quoted has the estate been finished. The Post Office itself has considerable difficulties—problems anyway —with the local authorities which cannot be resolved until the estate is under way.

asked the Postmaster-General the total cost of the untreated telegraph and telephone poles bought during the last three years; and the total cost of their storage treatment and classification.

The figures for the three years ended 31st December. 1954, are £1,101,000 and £383,000.

asked the Postmaster-General how many telegraph and telephone poles have been put up on an average each year for the last three years; their total cost, excluding the cost of erection; and the average cost for each pole.

For the three years ended 31st December, 1954, the figures are 124,000, £1,360,000 and £3 14s.

Can my right hon. Friend give any estimate by his Department of how much these very large sums of money could be reduced by using poles which were not carefully chosen to be as straight as are present telephone poles, but which are more in conformity with the customs of other countries?

I have been trying to obtain figures for crooked poles, but I must say to my hon. Friend that there are amenity considerations, the increased cost of transport and storage and the increased cost of creosoting. There are also safety considerations to be taken into account.

asked the Postmaster-General when it will be possible for those telephone subscribers on exchanges in the toll areas, whose numbers can be dialled by subscribers in London, to dial London numbers.

Subscribers on 32 of these exchanges can already dial numbers in central London. This facility will be made available to subscribers on about 40 more exchanges in the next five years.

asked the Postmaster-General the increase or decrease in the number of incidents of malicious damage to telephone installations in kiosks in Leyton during the past 12 months, compared with the previous three years; and how many culprits have been detected and prosecuted.

During this year 110 cases of malicious damage to apparatus have been reported; corresponding figures for previous years are not available. No culprits have yet been detected.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman rather concerned about this trouble which, I presume, applies also to other areas? Can he say what efforts are being made to prevent this malicious damage and to apprehend the culprits?

I am very concerned. Without having a statistical basis, I would say that this is a bad area, especially in the matter of broken windows in kiosks—

Only in that respect.

I was referring to that only. The detection of culprits is exceedingly difficult, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, because of the very character of the kiosks. We are doing what we can.

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the pilfering of directories and damage caused to them when they are left in these kiosks? Would it be possible to do something about chaining them up?

There is a great deal of damage. I will look into that suggestion.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he is aware of the poor radio sound reception in the borders of Scotland, and of the serious interruption caused by interference from foreign stations; if, in view of this, he will make a statement regarding the setting-up of a very high frequency transmitter in the area; and when the work will commence;

I am aware of this interference which is caused by a station in Spain. We are doing our best to persuade the Spanish authorities to clear the trouble.

But is my right hon. Friend not aware that there has already been some form of anouncement on the Border that a V.H.F. station is to be established, possibly in Galashiels, and that the question is when the work will commence on it? In relation to the second Question, will the Government give to the B.B.C. support which it is reported to be seeking from the Government to assist it in connection with the existing station?

The station to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers in his first Question is in contemplation. A decision has not been finally reached but I hope that it will be reached soon, when I will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend.

In view of the statement that interference is coming from Spain, will the right hon. Gentleman give careful and urgent consideration to proposals for a broadcasting station for Gibraltar?

I am at the moment giving consideration to that proposal.

asked the Postmaster-General what action he is taking with the Independent Television Authority to prevent a repetition of the extension of advertisements beyond natural breaks in the programme such as occurred during the televising of a boxing match on the evening of Tuesday, 15th November.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that there was a breach of Section 4 of the Television Act, 1954, during the broadcast of "Sports-view" by the Independent Television Authority on Wednesday, 16th November; and what action he is taking in the matter.

With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 19 and 28 together. The responsibility for ensuring that the programme contractors comply with the Television Act, 1954—

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the two Questions deal with entirely different principles, ought the right hon. Gentleman to ask for permission to treat them as one in his Answer?

That is not a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman should listen to the answer. If it does not cover both Questions, we will see what we can do about it by way of supplementary questions.

The responsibility for ensuring that the programme contractors comply with the Television Act, 1954, rests on the Independent Television Authority.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that he has some responsibility to ensure that an Act passed by Parliament is enforced, and that this breach must have been deliberate because the duration of advertisements and the duration of the interval betw1een rounds of a boxing match are known beforehand accurately by the programme contractors? It must have been a deliberate breach of the law.

Technically, in law, the responsibility rests on the Authority. In the particular case, the Authority informs me that, due to an error of timing, a 60-second advertisement ran over into the actual boxing. The Authority is doing its utmost, as far as is possible, to ensure that that sort of thing does not happen again.

Might I ask the Postmaster-General, in regard to Question No. 28, which deals with another day, whether the same condition applies, and what reasons were given to him for the insertion of an advertisement about Esso petrol in the middle of the "Sportsview" programme, for which there was no necessity at all?

The hon. Lady, in her Question, did not make clear the exact advertisement to which she was referring. I will gladly look into the point which she raises, and pass it to the Independent Television Authority.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not seriously putting that one over to the House? He knows that there was only one advertisement pushed in. He knows that the programme was broken by the very person who was running it in order to get this plug in the middle of "Sportsview." There was only one advertisement. Surely there can be no mistake? Is it not time the right hon. Gentleman tried to get the I.T.A. and the programme contractors to conform with the undertakings given in this House?

I assure the hon. Lady that I quite honestly assumed that it was another incident which she had in mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many more have there been?"] I will gladly look into it, and pass it to the Independent Television Authority.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter? It is a deliberate process of exploiting the provision of the law about natural breaks. Everybody who looks at the programme realises that the spirit of the law is being broken. Surely the right hon. Gentleman has some responsibility to the House in the matter?

I recognise my responsibility. It would be a pity for the right hon. Gentleman to speak of "deliberate breaches of the law." Parliament has established the Independent Television Authority, and I suggest that we should give that Authority our full confidence and support in the difficult task that lies before it.

Arising out of what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to a supplementary question, is it within his knowledge that there have been lots of cases in which the law has been broken?

I did not say that. What I said to the hon. Lady was that the instance of a certain advertisement for Esso petrol which she quoted was not the one to which I surmised she might be referring. I did not suggest that the other was illegal. I merely gave the frank answer that I thought she had something else in mind, and I added that I would look into the point which she raised.

Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what cases there have been, within his knowledge, besides those referred to by my hon. Friends?

No, Sir. Thank goodness I do not watch all the television programmes. If hon. Members have doubts or points, they will no doubt raise them.

Will the right hon. Gentleman watch very carefully, if not the actual programmes, these instances of a breach of the law, which are becoming increasingly frequent, and which many of us regard as being the thin end of the wedge? Will he ensure that the wedge does not get any thicker?

I will deal faithfully with such instances as are brought to my notice, provided that it is borne in mind that the Television Act places the responsibility upon the Independent Television Authority.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many breaches of the law have been brought to his notice?

I think I am right in saying that three or four alleged breaches of the law have been brought to my notice.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the intrusion into every broadcast of a programme known as "Double Your Money" of an advertisement which is a breach of Section 4 (6) of the Television Act, 1954; and if he will exercise his power under Section 4 (5) of the Act to prevent this form of sponsoring.

The responsibility of ensuring that the programme contractors comply with Section 4 (6) of the Television Act rests on the Independent Television Authority and is not dependent on the issue of directions under Section 4 (5) or any other Sections of the Act.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is really a breach and that this is in fact a system of sponsorship about which we had continuous undertakings from the Government side of the House that it would not be allowed on commercial television? Will the right hon. Gentleman exercise his responsibility to this House, whatever may be in the Act, to ensure that the American system is not further introduced into commercial television?

There is nothing in the Act —if I may state this objectively for a moment—that prevents live appearances, and nothing which prevents the appearance of the same person in an advertisement and in a programme. At the same time, there is the requirement that the advertisements should be distinguishable, the requirement about breaks, and, of course, the requirement that the advertiser should not influence, or appear to influence, a programme. I have brought this to the notice of the I.T.A. I am informed that programme contractors are experimenting, with the approval of the I.T.A., in the various types of advertising. The I.T.A. is watching the position very carefully. I shall keep in touch with the I.T.A. in order to prevent what the Act does not allow—sponsoring.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is about the fifth time that this sort of thing has happened in that programme; that now it has been carried one step further, and the person conducting the programme will himself receive payment from the advertiser? How can it be said that the advertiser is not influencing the programme when his instrument is being intruded into the programme itself?

If there is evidence—and it is not yet forthcoming—that in fact the advertisers have influenced the programme—that the advertisers have paid towards the programme—and if the right hon. Gentleman will give me that evidence, then, of course, I will pass it to the I.T.A. and ensure that the Act is observed.

asked the Postmaster-General what consultations he has had with the Independent Television Authority concerning the classes and descriptions of goods or services which must not be advertised.

I would refer the right hon. Member to my hon. Friend's reply on 14th December to the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards).

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has in fact held such consultations, and, if so, whether he is to inform us of their outcome?

Under Section 8 of the Television Act, 1954, the Independent Television Authority is required to consult the Advisory Committee. It did so consult, and in broad terms accepted the recommendations of that Advisory Committee. These were reported to me in early summer. It seemed to me that the recommendations were sound. I agreed, in so far as I was concerned, and the code was placed in the Library in June this year.

asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the delay in obtaining agreement between the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority about televising events of national interest, he will issue regulations under Section 7 of the Television Act, 1954, so that Parliament can decide the issue.

I would prefer the two broadcasting authorities to reach a voluntary agreement in this matter and I therefore propose to await the outcome of the discussions now proceeding between them.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that a British commercial programme company has applied for the exclusive rights to televise next year's Olympic Games? Will he, in the interests of fair play, allow Parliament to decide when these rights should be shared with the B.B.C., which alone can provide nation-wide coverage?

That supplementary question is the subject of a separate and later Question on the Order Paper. In general I would say that I prefer voluntary agreement to be reached on this matter rather than make regulations.

asked the Postmaster-General why he invited the Director-General of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Director-General of the Independent Television Authority to meet him on 14th November to discuss the televising of Test matches.

To receive a first-hand report of progress on the talks between them about the televising of sporting events of national interest. The meeting was on 11th November.

Does the Postmaster-General appreciate how widely he has created the impression that he has intervened on behalf of commercial interests when public enterprise has clearly won the day? Does his action in this instance not sharply contrast with his failure to intervene in the case of the Olympic Games, to which I have just referred?

The hon. Member is most unfair on the subject of the Olympic Games, as he will see when I subsequently answer the Question to which I referred. The position was that last August I asked the two broadcasting bodies to get together to discuss an appropriate list of themes for non-exclusive showing to be presented to me. While these discussions were proceeding, I read that an exclusive arrangement had been entered into, and so I invited the bodies concerned to come and explain to me the progress of the discussions. In fact, it was found that it was not an exclusive arrangement which had been entered into, but I really must be free in such matters to meet the two bodies and discuss problems arising.

Is it not desirable that Test matches should be transmitted on the B.B.C. television service, the I.T.A., in broadcasts in sound, and, indeed, through all other available media?

The appropriate Section of the Television Act contemplates a number of events of national interest—sporting and others—which shall not be the subject of exclusive showing. I am seeking, with good will and common sense, to reach an agreement with the bodies on the subject.

Is the Postmaster-General not aware of the fact that he has given the impression that he showed great and indecent haste in protecting commercial television on this occasion? As this matter has been hanging about for quite six months, ought he not, in an objective way, himself to decide what regulations shall be agreed and what instructions shall be carried out in relation to the non-monopoly of these events of national interest?

That suggestion comes oddly when on the Order Paper today there are invitations to me to intervene by making regulations. I am seeking to act fairly between the two bodies. The suggestion of intervention in protection of one body against the other is unfounded. As for the time, I hope shortly to receive some agreed suggestions from the two bodies.

Does that mean that the Postmaster-General will report to the House the nature of that agreement, and seek its approval?

In one form or another, yes.

Will not the effect of the Postmaster-General's intervention be that there will be no variety and no competition and that all these stations will be broadcasting the same programmes at the same time, whereas if the B.B.C. had a second programme, there would be real variety for the viewers?

I am carrying out the terms of the Television Act.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that British commercial television is negotiating for exclusive world rights in next year's Olympic Games in Melbourne; and if, in view of protests against the granting of sole rights which have been made by the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Newsreel Association of Great Britain, he will make a further statement concerning his policy on the making of regulations under Section 7 of the Television Act, 1954.

These negotiations came to my notice within the last day or two and I am making inquiries.

Will the right hon. Gentleman be a little more explicit? Is it true that representatives of commercial television are now in Australia to discuss matters with the people concerned? Further, can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether it is true that the option expires this week, and, if that is so, when does he propose to look into the matter?

I have begun to look into the matter. So far I have had conflicting reports, one that an arrangement has been entered into and another that the discussions have broken down. I assure the hon. Lady that I am much concerned about this matter and I am looking into it so as to get the facts right. Then, in the light of the facts, I will determine what shall be done.

The right hon. Gentleman is empowered to take action under Section 7. If the option expires this week and if this right is granted to commercial television, what does he propose to do about it?

I have a good deal of sympathy with what is in the mind of the hon. Lady. I must get the facts right first. I assure her that I will take the necessary action to secure that the appropriate Section of the Act is observed.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether, in view of their unusual technical performance, he will consider extending the use of the Prestwick Pioneer and Twin Pioneer aircraft by the Royal Air Force.

rose—

On a point of order. Is this the Under-Secretary of State for Air?

It does not matter to me: I know nothing about these things. One member of the Government is entitled to answer for another. Certainly, to my recollection, the hon. Gentleman was Under-Secretary of State for Air when the Question was put down.

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to reply.

As these Scottish machines demonstrated their quite unusual capacity at Farnborough this year, as was vouched for by the former Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, does not my hon. Friend think that there is a wider scope for their use throughout his former Department?

This aircraft has been of particular value in Malaya, because of its short take-off and landing run. We have learned a lot from operating it there, and we appreciate the excellence of its performance, but I cannot promise that we shall be able to extend its use to other theatres.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what action has been taken, as a result of investigations by the Committee of Public Accounts, to improve the standards of accountancy and economy in his Department.

Before the Public Accounts Committee reported on this matter, improvements had already been made in the distribution of stocks, in the manning and equipment of the depots, and in methods of store accounting. The question is being further examined in consultation with the Treasury in the light of the Committee's Report and a full statement will be furnished to the Committee in the usual Treasury Minute. As the hon. Member knows, the normal practice is for the Committee to present this Minute to the House shortly afterwards as an appendix to one of its own Reports.

While personally wishing the hon. Gentleman well in his new post, may I ask him whether he will draw the attention of his successor to the very severe strictures in the latest Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, published on 17th November, in which attention is drawn to the fact that his Department, and the other Service Departments, have done nothing about the Report of five years earlier? Is he aware that the latest Report says that:

"… serious shortcomings in administration and in storekeeping and accounting still persist in all the Services some five years after the comments of the Public Accounts Committee of Session 1950."

Yes, Sir, we have taken quite extensive measures to put matters right. I think that it would be better to wait for the details until a full statement can be made to the Committee of Public Accounts, but I can say that auditing test checks over the past year have confirmed that supervisory measures at stocktaking are now satisfactory, that the stocktaking programme is running to schedule, that the stocktaking results are much more reliable and that recording errors are comparatively rare. I assure the hon. Member that we are not complacent about this and we shall continue trying to improve the machinery wherever we can.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how much money has been spent on rain-making experiments on Salisbury Plain this year; and what results have been achieved.

The experiments carried out so far have cost about £800. As I explained to the hon. Member in June, many more of these experiments will need to be made before we can be sure that the rainfall is affected. We are now proposing to extend the tests to hill country in the North of England.

Will the Under-Secretary of State look at this in future particularly from the point of view of having experiments in those parts of the country which have not had rain and which would benefit very much? Since he is now going to the Admiralty, will he take his rain-making experiments with him, as the First Lord has just "gone up in flames"?

I am afraid that I cannot take the responsibility for rain-making experiments away from the Meteorological Office, but I shall certainly take my enthusiasm with me. Regarding the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, we are to try these tests on the Pennines first, because we think there will be an advantage in having these burners on the high ground where, if the experiments work, they will benefit that part of the country, but there is no guarantee that they will work.

is my right hon. Friend aware that in Dorset we are congratulating ourselves on the dry weather which we have had this year, and that we attribute it to his success in producing showers on Salisbury Plain?

Can the Minister give the water authorities in County Durham any information about whether his experiments are likely to succeed there in the near future?

I wish I could. All I can say is that we shall do our best, but these things are purely experimental.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that doctors who served at weekends at the Home Office Civil Defence Training Establishment, Washington Hall, Chorley, Lancashire, had their contracts cancelled without notice and without compensation although they had been assured in writing that their services would be required for at least two years and had made arrangements accordingly; and if he will make a statement.

Three civilian doctors were employed at Washington Hall, Chorley, to examine Royal Air Forces reservists undergoing initial training as fire-fighters. As a result of the recent decision to restrict the Reserve training of National Service men, airmen who are allocated for training as fire-fighters will in future complete the course at Washington Hall during their whole-time service. Before beginning it, they will be examined by Royal Air Force doctors at their units. The three civilian doctors are therefore no longer required, and their contracts were accordingly terminated at one month's notice. If claims for compensation are submitted, we shall, of course, be willing to consider them.

Is the Minister aware that, as indicated in my Question, the doctors received a written assurance, signed by a group captain, that the jobs would subsist for not less than two years? Will that fact be taken into account when considering the question of compensation?

Yes, but we must also remember that less than a month later these doctors signed a formal agreement which in my view made it reasonably clear that the agreement could be terminated at one month's notice; and the letter from 63 Group, to which the hon. Member refers, was, I think, merely an expression of intent given in good faith without knowledge that there was likely to be a change in policy.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air why his Department, after consenting to a few days early release for an airman, whose name has been sent to him, to take up residence at college, subsequently only allowed an early release conditional upon the loss of a month's pay, a month's ration allowance, £8 clothing allowance and railway fare home.

For reasons which I have explained to the right hon. Member in correspondence, this airman was not entitled, in the circumstances in which he was released, to discharge leave or the benefits which normally go with it. He was told that this would be so before his release was approved.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this young man was told in February this year that he could have his release to go to college and that, as he admits in his letter to me, the whole matter was badly handled at Command stage? Ought not this to have been avoided by giving the boy weekend leave to take up residence in college and then for him to have come back to serve the rest of his time in the Forces? Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that it is a scandalous business to give a young man release a few days early and then penalise him to the extent of nearly £40? As the hon. Gentleman is going to another Department, and as it is Christmas time, could he not do the decent thing, and try to remove this scandalous stain on his Department?

This airman's application was not approved until the end of September. Immediately before then he was interviewed by an officer of his unit, and it was explained to him that he would not be entitled to these benefits, and the man confirmed that he wished to go. There was no question of earlier consent or failure to make clear the conditions. However, as there seems to have been some misunderstanding in the matter, we have taken steps to see that, when a man puts in an application of this kind, it is made clear to him exactly what it entails and also that it is not definitely approved until he has something in writing.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that in his own letter he admits that the situation was extremely badly handled? He has already put that in a letter to me. Further, is he not aware that this young man was told in February that release would be arranged for him to take up his college studies? Does the hon. Gentleman mean that this young man should forfeit twelve months of college life in order to satisfy the ridiculous demands of his commanding officer and the Department?

This matter arises on a difference on fact between the right hon. Gentleman and myself. I assure him that my information is that the application was not approved until September, and therefore he is not entitled to think that it was approved in February.

Would not the Under-Secretary agree that in all three Services it has always been the custom to allow release in time to take up an educational course? That has always been done. Is he aware that to penalise a young man heavily financially is just the sort of thing which makes National Service intolerable?

This man is a Regular, he is not a National Service man. The rules have not been changed. They are exactly the same as, I have no doubt, they were in the right hon. Gentleman's day. Of course, whatever rules are laid down —and we must make rules—there are bound to be some people who will fall just on the wrong side of the line. While I sympathise with this man, I must say that if we altered the rules to suit him, we should get into a muddle.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we feel that this is a most unfair action on the part of the Air Ministry? We cannot see why this man should be deprived of a month's pay and a month's ration allowance and so on. Will the Minister intimate that he will have another look at the case? It is not a great deal to ask, and as he is leaving the Ministry, it would be a nice gesture on his part if, before he went, he could put this matter right.

There is nothing that would please me more than to make a nice gesture before I leave. But this is a matter affecting all three Services. These rules are not peculiar to the Air Ministry. If we altered the rules for the Air Ministry, we should have to alter them for all three Services, and that is not a gesture which I can make now. These rules have been in force for a long time, and this is the first case of any difficulty which has arisen.

Would not the Under-Secretary agree that in practice this has never been done before in the Services? Certainly I do not remember any such case when I was at the War Office, and I do not remember any in the time of my successors. Will not the hon. Gentleman look into the question of there being any necessity to do this? I do not agree that there is any necessity, and I am sure that the rule could be applied quite agreeably.

Somehow or other we have to draw a line, and a line has been drawn. This man fell short of it by eight days. I agree that it seems hard, but there will be a lot of similar cases. We have to accept the fact that if we made an exception for this man, we should have to do it for everyone else. I am not prepared now to give an assurance that we should do that. There are implications in such a decision which go beyond the Air Ministry, as I have tried to explain. Certainly, I shall bring the matter to the notice of my successor and ask him to have a look at it, but beyond that I cannot go.

Certainly there has to be a rule of some kind or another, but we have the impression that the rule has been harshly administered in this case. I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is now the ex-Under-Secretary of State for Air, to confer with his right hon. Friend the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the Treasury are also involved—and incidentally, we warmly welcome the right hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Leader of the House—to see whether something cannot be done to meet this case.

In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, I shall refrain from attempting to raise this matter on the Adjournment—it would be the first time I had given such an intimation in ten years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do the decent thing in this case.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is satisfied that the rate of mechanisation in handling shipments in British ports is keeping pace with that in Continental ports; and if he will make a statement.

The pace of mechanisation must depend on the local conditions, which vary from port to port, and no absolute comparison can be made between United Kingdom and Continental ports. But I think the United Kingdom ports have made some progress, especially in the handling of bulk cargoes.