asked the Postmaster-General why the same charge is made for telegrams which are telephoned to the addressee as is made for those delivered by special messenger at greater cost to his Department.

Because a reduction for telephone delivery could not be justified in face of the heavy loss per telegram. This loss far exceeds the average saving from such delivery, as compared with delivery by hand.

Is not my hon. Friend's reply really too defeatist? Is it not time that the Post Office went out and tried to get some more revenue? Would it not be a fair experiment to see whether we cannot revive the decaying telegraph service by trying to make the rate cheaper for those who do not ask the Post Office to provide a special messenger for delivery? That surely must be the cause of the bulk of the cost.

We are not defeatists in any way in this matter. The fact is that in many cases telegrams delivered by telephone cost as much as, and sometimes more than, telegrams delivered by messenger, and we have to be free to choose which is the more economical way of delivering a telegram in order to give the most efficient service.

Will the hon. hon. Gentleman make a further statement if a Question is put down upon this subject? It seems almost unbelievable that a telegram telephoned to a person's address is dearer than or even the same price as one delivered by hand, particularly in view of the facts given by the right hon. Gentleman concerning the loss involved in the delivery of telegrams by hand; indeed, he makes that the chief reason for the loss in the telegraph service.

I shall always be pleased to answer any Questions which the hon. Member or any other hon. Member cares to put down, on this or any other subject. I gave my Answer after a very careful analysis of the cost of delivering telegrams by various means.

asked the Postmaster-General how much revenue he estimates that he would lose if the proposed new charge for inland letters were to be 3d. for two oz. and 1½d. for the next two oz. instead of the scale set out in the General Post Office paper of 18th July.

asked the Postmaster-General what would be the estimated cost to the Revenue of his Department of making the new charge for letters 3d. for 2 oz. instead of only 1 oz.

The Answer is nearly £3 million in a full year.

Does not my right hon. Friend consider that this, again, is something that may be worth while? The proposed increase in postal charges is not merely the halfpenny that it was put up; in fact it means that a letter weighing two ounces will cost 4½d. instead of 2½d., and is likely to encourage less use of the service. Whereas Members of Parliament may be pleased to see their postbags getting smaller, I do not think that it is for the good of the country.

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but I am bound to say that, according to the Daily Telegraph, one can for one ounce get in 11 octavo sheets, and experiments that I have made show that it is possible to get in 16 octavo sheets for under an ounce. I can place samples in the Library for hon. Members to see. The main point is that with this increase in postal charges there is no need, if people are so minded, for a reduction in their letter-writing activities.

asked the Postmaster-General on what basis it is estimated that the increased postal charges will only increase the retail price index by one-tenth of one per cent.; and to what extent in these calculations the direct and indirect effects of such increases on local authorities, nationalised boards, Government Departments, and private business, in addition to the effects on private individuals have been included.

The figure I gave was a rough estimate of the effect on the retail price index in so far as Post Office charges enter directly into the calculation of that index. Indirect effects through the prices of other components of the index could only be guessed, but would be quite small.

If the Postmaster-General does not know, how can he guess whether it is larger or smaller? Can we be assured that his action in again increasing these prices is but another step in the implementation of his promise to reduce the cost of living, "mend the hole in your purse". and make the £ worth something?

The increases in charges was made to correct the wages of Post Office workers and to bring them into line for the first time with those of outside industry. If the hon. Member does not want that he should oppose the wage increases.

asked the Postmaster-General (1)the extra sums he estimates that he will receive for each item of the recent increased charges this year, and in a full year;

(2)which of the Post Office services will be making a profit and which a loss, and what is the amount in each case, consequent upon the changes proposed in the recent White Paper on Post Office Finances.

asked the Postmaster-General the estimated profit or loss on the telephone and postal accounts. respectively, for 1956–57, 1957–58, and 1958–59 after allowing for the proposed new charges.

As the Answer involves two lengthy tables, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered abolishing the extra charges asked of telephone subscribers who live three miles or over from a telephone exchange or to increase the radius from three to five miles or more.

Yes, Sir; but these lines are very costly to provide and it would be unreasonable to ask all other subscribers to share the whole burden. I understand that in most other countries an extra charge is made for lines much shorter than three miles.

Would the Postmaster-General look at this matter again in view of the fact that it is one of the factors which retards the re-population of the countryside? It is rather important. It has been on the Statute Book, at least by regulation, for a very long time.

A survey was made in 1955 and it showed that the annual charges for maintenance, interest on capital, and depreciation totalled £16 to £29 per mile. The present charge is £12 per mile—£6 for a shared telephone—and the new charge still does not always meet the actual cost.

asked the Postmaster-General what rearrangements or economies in the postal service he is considering that may enable him subsequently to modify the prospective increase in postal charges; and how far economy is possible through the institution of certain deliveries of letters at lower postal rates outside peak delivery hours.

We shall continue to look for all practicable economies, but I see no prospect of modifying the increases in charges which I announced recently. Schemes of the kind the hon. Member mentions in the second part of his Question have been gone into very thoroughly on many occasions in the past; they have always been judged to be impracticable and uneconomic but we are going to look into the possibilities again.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the large number of Questions on the Order Paper on this matter indicates a fairly widespread concern in the community that the services administered by his Department, particularly the telephone service, should not increase in cost in future years or at an early foreseeable date? Would he agree that, despite the increases in wages to which he has referred, the general prosperity of the country since the war has enabled the Post Office, and the monopoly services administered by his Department, to acquire a great number of new customers, and should not that be taken into account?

asked the Postmaster-General why he has increased the postal charges to provide an estimated surplus of £5 million by March 1958.

The hon. Member is mistaken. The prospect of a £5 million surplus does not arise before 1959.

Will the Postmaster-General nevertheless explain why the poor old British public has to be soaked to the extent of £5 million more than is necessary to maintain the present postal services? What is the right hon. Gentleman going to use this £5 million for?

As the turnover of the Post Office is £400 million a year, the surplus of £5 million is not excessive. When the Labour Party was in office the Post Office had a surplus of 8 per cent. of its turnover. If we had budgeted for that surplus we should have been budgeting for a surplus of round about £80 million.

Would the surplus be increased very much if less transparent envelopes were supplied at the post office to hon. Members? We could almost have a system of letter tapping as well as of telephone tapping, the envelopes being so transparent that anybody might read the letters.

In view of the complete failure of the Postmaster-General to answer this Question satisfactorily, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange for Form G, on which tenants must list repairs they think necessary before they pay increased rent under the new Rent Act, to be available and on sale in Post Offices.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made last night by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government.

I did not hear that statement but I am quite sure that it did not meet the purpose of my Question. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman why his Department is so reluctant to do anything to help the tenants when he and his hon. and right hon. Friends have been so anxious to do everything they could to help the landlords. Does not he realise that there are far more post offices than town halls and that it would be much more convenient for people if they could get this form from the post offices which most of them visit at least once a week?

That is a gross and provocative distortion of the facts. In his statement my right hon. Friend made it clear that the form would be available very widely through local authority offices, and I have nothing to add to that.

asked the Postmaster-General the number of prizes, and their value, won by unsold bonds since the inception of the Premium Bonds Scheme.

None, Sir. The whole prize fund goes each month to the eligible bonds, and a bond is only eligible when it has been sold.

In view of that, does not the hon. Gentleman think that his public relations officer has been a little bit slow? Has not he seen letters in the Press which have been consistent with my Question, and does not he think that, if he wants Premium Bonds to be a success, when erroneous letters and statements are made it would be as well if his public relations officer gave the public the correct information?

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for helping us to have our public relations deficiencies put right, and I hope that the attention he has drawn to this matter will correct any misapprehensions there may be.

asked the Postmaster-General what would be his estimate of the commercial account surpluses for the years 1958, 1959, and 1960 if he presented them in the form prevailing for the years 1946 to 1955.

There are two differences in the form of the accounts. First, at present the £5 million annual contribution to the Exchequer is charged as an expense before arriving at the profit or loss. Secondly, the eventual surplus or deficit is carried forward for the benefit of the Post Office. Previously all surpluses were in fact surrendered to the Exchequer. These averaged £15 million a year under the Labour Government and compare with £5 million paid now. If the old system had applied to present estimates, the cumulative surplus at 31st March, 1959, would have been £20 million instead of £5 million. But of course all this surplus of £20 million would have been paid to the Exchequer and the Post Office would have been £5 million worse off.

Is it not then the fact that by changing the form of the accounts a profit of £20 million has been made to look like a profit of £5 million? Has not that been the basis of the right hon. Gentleman's increased charges?

No, I could not accept that assumption. What has really happened is that since 1955—I repeat myself again—for the first time depreciation of Post Office assets is on current costs, so that when a telephone exchange breaks down in Caerphilly we have sufficient money to renew it. If we do not make such provision it cannot be provided when the exchange has broken down.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a bookkeeping account that we are talking about—a commercial account, and not a cash account—and that irrespective of whether the cash is or is not in the commercial account, the money is there to repair the telephone exchange in Caerphilly? I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, is not it the case that what he is doing is something that the Inland Revenue never allows either he or his friends to do, that is, to regard supplementary depreciation as a charge on the current account?

What I should like to know from the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—a whole series of Questions put down on the Order Paper by a previous Postmaster-General have been against the principle of providing for depreciation at current cost. Does the right hon. Gentleman object then to the principle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Order. I am aware that some of these questions may be of the rhetorical variety, but the right hon. Gentleman should not reverse the rôles of questioner and answerer.

May I put it again? The right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards)when he was Postmaster-General did provide additional depreciation over and above historic costs. The amount he provided was to replace the assets.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House of any firm of chartered accountants which insists on commercial firms charging depreciation at current cost? Can the right hon. Gentleman cite any example where the Inland Revenue will allow that as a charge against Income Tax for any commercial firm in this country?

I agree that the Inland Revenue does not allow it. All I say is that the latest Labour Party pamphlet recommends the nationalised industries, such as electricity and coal, to generate more of their own capital, and that is precisely what this nationalised industry is doing.

rose——

Order. I am in some doubt about which Question the right hon. Gentleman is answering. Is it Question No. 15 or Question No. 16?

It is Question No. 15.

Depreciation seems to cover the next Question, and if it is depreciation that we are talking about, perhaps we might get an answer to Question No. 16.

asked the Postmaster-General why he has raised the supplementary provision for depreciation for the £12,500,000 provided for in the White Paper to £18 million this year when it is estimated that a loss of £6 million will be sustained.

As two of the three figures in the Question are wrong the right hon. Gentleman places me in a difficulty. The gross supplementary provision estimated to be required in 1956–57 was not £12½million, but £14 million. The loss of £6 million refers not to this year but to last year. The increase in depreciation from £14 million in 1956–57 to £18 million in 1957–58 was determined by the Post Office in accordance with the principles laid down in the 1955 White Paper—paragraph 5 (ii)of appendix 2. It takes account, of course, of the growing size and value of the system.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reference to £12½ million in the White Paper was to the amount that was in the White Paper, and that the reference to £18 million in the Question relates to a figure which the right hon. Gentleman gave last week in an Answer to me? Will he explain how it is that in a year when he has budgeted for a profit of £1·1 million he increased his supplementary depreciation by £5½ million? Is it in order to transform the size of the surplus?

It is to provide for the growing volume of assets to be replaced when they fall into disuse and disrepair. If the right hon. Gentleman will look again at the White Paper, three lines above where the figure of £12½ million is mentioned, he will see the words:

"To place the system on a sounder economic footing it is thus necessary to budget for a supplementary provision of £14 million."

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman has misread the White Paper.

Is not it ordinary commercial prudence to provide depreciation at current cost and is not my right hon. Friend to be congratulated on adopting that method?

I think it only prudent to provide that the present assets when they fall into disrepair shall be replaced out of income.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that we agree it is prudent to provide for the replacement of worn-out capital, but that what we object to is the fact that he takes this extra money for supplementary depreciation out of his surplus before calculating his surplus, and in that way he falsifies the accounts?

If I am to provide a depreciation account, I must do it out of gross income. There is no other way of doing it, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Will the Postmaster-General agree that the complicated nature of the commercial accounts of the Post Office, especially in relation to depreciation, calls for a much more radical change in their presentation? Will he assure the House that in future the commercial accounts of the Post Office will faithfully record the transactions of the Post Office, including its relationship with State Departments?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that supplementary question, because I think that the commercial accounts as they stand at present are too complicated. For that reason I called in a prominent firm of chartered accountants—there is a Question on the matter later on the Order Paper—to advise the Post Office what to do. I received its report this week, and I hope that if I accept most of it, the result will be an improvement and simplification of the accounts.

In view of the statement which he has made, will the right hon. Gentleman make available the report of the firm of chartered accountants so that hon. Members may know the opinion of experts on these complicated accounts?

There is a Question on that subject later on the Order Paper.

asked the Postmaster-General the name of the firm of chartered accountants which he has called in to examine the Post Office accounts; when the report of its examination will be ready: and if it will be made available to the House.

The firm to which I referred is Messrs. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. Consultations are still in progress and I should not wish to restrict the form or content of their advice by undertaking to publish any documents that may be exchanged. I hope, however, that the results will be seen in future issues of the Post Office accounts.

May I ask the Minister first of all why, if the Post Office is paying for this investigation, the results of it should not be revealed to the House of Commons; and secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]—

Not yet.

I meant "may I ask the Postmaster-General" what area of the Post Office accounts will be covered by this examination?

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it would help the firm in question if the report were published. I asked it if it would make this investigation and report direct to me. It never considered that the report would be published, otherwise it might have done differently. I did this on my own initiative and I hope to incorporate most of what is recommended in the actual accounts. I think that hon. Members in all parts of the House will realise, when they see the commercial accounts, what an improvement they are.

May I compliment the Postmaster-General on his initiative in this matter? These commercial accounts are extremely difficult to understand and they have always been a mystery in this House. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing or making available to Members, even if it is only placed in the Library, the recommendations of the chartered accountants? If he does that he will assist the House.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his complimentary remarks about my initiative. I realise that quite a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen do not understand the commercial accounts. For that reason I called in the firm of chartered accountants.

As this investigation is being paid for by public money, why should not the report be published?

Because when I asked the chartered acountants for the recommendations they agreed, on the understanding that the report would be confidential.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will do his best, consistent with the public interest, to appoint ex-Service men, and especially disabled ex-Service men, as sub-postmasters when vacancies occur; and if his officers will consult the local British Legion officials.

A determining factor must be the position and suitability of premises offered by applicants for appointment; otherwise preference is given to ex-Regular and disabled ex-Service men. Any representations that local ex-Service men's organisations may make about a particular appointment are carefully and sympathetically considered.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the proposed increases in postal rates, he will amend his regulations concerning the registration of newspapers and periodicals to allow monthly journals to qualify for registration and lower rates of postage

No, Sir.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter, in view of the very great difficulty experienced by the publishers of monthly journals without this additional very severe charge on their postage? If these monthly periodicals can be sent to Canada under these arrangements, why cannot they be distributed in this country?

If monthly periodicals were included we should have to include fortnightly, yearly and half-yearly journals, and the loss of revenue of £1¼ million could not be afforded.

asked the Postmaster-General what will be the weight, respectively, of an envelope, A and C, which he proposes to put on sale at a cost of 4d. each from 1st October.

About·13 and·12 oz. respectively.

Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that these envelopes, which previously were franked, will be of less weight in future in order to take account of his new provisions?

I will look at that, but I do not think so, because I am not sure that that would not compete with many firms in the stationery trade producing these envelopes.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the difficulties which will be caused to old people with small fixed incomes who are living alone by the proposed increases in telephone charges; and if he will consider the possibility of allowing them to pay reduced rates for telephones in their houses.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the problem arising from increased telephone rentals for the aged and invalids of small means who have had the telephone installed on medical advice as a lifeline rather than a convenience; if he is aware of the anxiety which many of these are now expressing; and what steps he proposes to take to assist them.

asked the Postmaster-General if, when the increased telephone charges come into force, he will permit elderly people with small fixed incomes who are living alone to continue paying for the telephone service in their houses at the existing rates.

I have every sympathy with people in such circumstances but, much as I would have liked to avoid tariff increases, it would, I think, be impossible to single out groups for special concessions. Reduced charges to particular groups would need to be made good by higher charges to other telephone subscribers, and this could not be justified.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that these telephones are not a luxury? They are possibly the only means of summoning aid in case of sickness, and this increase is a very real hardship to these old people. Is he further aware that an ounce of help is worth a pound of sympathy?

I quite agree with my hon. Friend in his last remark but, in practice, it is awfully difficult to know where to draw the line. There are the disabled, the blind and then there are the charitable and social services—and if we have a large category of people and say that we will give them cheaper telephones we will have to look into the bona fides of every applicant and have them continuously under review, which would be rather repugnant to us.

Would my right hon. Friend consider those who use a telephone as a lifeline and, if it were found that a small number required them, upon a doctor's certificate, would he be prepared to consider anything in that line?

I do not think that I would.

May I ask my right hon. Friend not to brush aside these requests quite so brusquely? Does he realise that there are many thousands of people in this country to whom the telephone has given a real feeling of security against illness, accidents and housebreaking, and also a relief against loneliness? These new charges will really be crippling to those people. Does not he feel that this concession would provide concrete evidence that the Government are sincere in their many protestations that they have the interests of this class of people really at heart?

Quite honestly, it that class of person has to be helped, I think it would be better if they were given direct assistance rather than subsidies by the Post Office.

Will the Minister try to convince his hon. Friends behind him that tomorrow there will be an opportunity for them to assist the old-age pensioners in a much more practical way than the ways they are suggesting this afternoon?

asked the Postmaster-General (1)the cost to his Department of the labour and installations required for tapping the telephones and recording the conversations of Mr. Billy Hill;

(2)tinder what headings in the commercial accounts of his Department are to be found the cost of the premises, installations and labour used for tapping telephones and recording conversations.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Home Affairs has told the House, it would not be in the public interest to give information about these operations, either individually or as a whole. As with other expenditure the cost is distributed between appropriate headings in the commercial accounts according to its characteristics, and an equivalent credit is taken under income.

Is it not outrageous that the House should be denied this information and this possibility of exercising restrictive control over the finances of a Government Department? Is it not a fact that a special room has been opened in London by the Post Office for the tapping of telephones, where there is tape recording machinery installed at considerable cost and where Post Office engineers are involved in the maintaining of these tapping services? Therefore, cannot it be deduced that a considerable part of the increase in telephone charges is due to the increase in telephone tapping?

I can assure the hon. Lady that any services rendered by the Post Office to other Government Departments are adequately accounted for on the credit side in our accounts.

To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), is it not a form of deception of the House when an item of this sort is buried in the accounts? Does it mean that we are passing accounts of which we have no knowledge? Is that the effect of the hon. Gentleman's reply, and is not that really being unfair to the House?

I cannot recall protests made by the right hon. Gentleman when previously Government Departments have concealed as much as £100 million of expenditure in a year.

Will the hon. Gentleman answer the Question? Is he aware that he is deceiving the House in not disclosing the amount which the House passed for this specific purpose?

It is proper and in accordance with respectable and well-established precedent that in the public interest certain matters should not be revealed.

Will my hon. Friend tell us how much tapping was done between 1946 and 1951, and what was the cost of it?

I have no details of the activities of my predecessors.

Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the gentleman referred to in Question No. 9 was apparently the subject of telephone tapping not for security but for police purposes? While one recognises that there has been a long tradition about not answering Questions even about expenditure where the security services are concerned, this has never applied to the police. The accounts of the criminal investigation department and all the other necessarily secret services of the police department have always been subject to the scrutiny of this House. Would he explain further in what way this tradition which he has in mind prevents him from giving the information asked for in Question No. 9?

Quite clearly it would not be possible to separate some small section of the activities referred to in the Question in the way required, and I have nothing further to add to my original reply.

asked the Postmaster-General how many telephone subscribers in Scotland have asked for their telephones to be withdrawn since his recent announcement of increased charges.

One thousand and twenty-nine. This figure includes withdrawals for all reasons, and represents less than one quarter of one per cent. of all the telephones at present working in Scotland.

Can the Postmaster-General tell us if he has made any estimate of the unemployment that may come to Post Office workers if people stop using the telephone? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while he has been posing as fairy godfather to the Post Office workers some of them may be getting the sack as the result of his policy? Also, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although we all agree with increasing the standard of life of Post Office workers they are going to suffer as the result of the Government's failure to deal with inflation?

The general secretary of the major union concerned with the Post Office is consulted on important questions of redundancy quite in the early stages and long before it occurs. I can assure the House and the hon. Member that redundancy in the Post Office is dealt with in a very humane way indeed.

How many telephone subscribers have cancelled their contracts in the London area?

I could not say without notice, but in Scotland, where the people know how to get value for their money, cancellation is relatively less than in England.

asked the Postmaster-General how the number of telephone subscribers who have given notice to discontinue their telephones since the announcement of increased charges compares with the number before the announcement; and how many of those on the waiting list have cancelled their applications.

Between my announcement on 18th July and the 26th July about 20,000 withdrawal notices were received. The previous average, for the same length of time, was 4,500. Two thousand outstanding applications were cancelled between 18th and 26th July, this being 200 more than the previous average.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give special consideration to the need for a rural telephone kiosk at Ventonleague, Hayle, Cornwall, as recommended by the Hayle Parish Council and by the West Penwith Rural District Council.

I shall be glad to do this as soon as a line is available. A new cable will be needed.

While thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him to bear in mind the fact that a lot of old people live in Ventonleague and that there is great need for a kiosk?

Yes, we hope to deal with the matter early next year.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will abolish the charge for an emergency call to the fire, police or ambulance services made from a private telephone, in view of the fact that similar calls from a public call box are free.

No, Sir. I would refer my hon. Friend to my Answer of 3rd July to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wembley, North (Wing Commander Bullus).

Would it not be more in keeping with the spirit of the age that the Department should be prepared to provide this service free of charge to all people in distress rather than to some of them?

Strictly speaking, a charge should be levied on all forms of emergency call but because of the difficulty of finding coins to operate a call box we allow these calls free.

asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been drawn to the breakdown of negotiations between the Television Writers' Council and the independent television programme companies; and what action he proposes to take, in view of the fact that the behaviour of the companies in treating written material sold to one of them as being automatically sold to all of them is a contravention of Section 5 of the Television Act.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the Independent Television Authority is in breach of its statutory duty under Section 5 (2)of the Television Act, 1954, in so far as it is allowing programme contractors to set up a cartel preventing competition between them for the rights in television scripts; and what action he is taking.

I understand that this dispute between the Television Writers' Council and the programme contractors has now been brought to the notice of the Independent Television Authority. Section 5 of the Television Act does not apply and my right hon. Friend has no power to intervene.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this widely representative body has been trying to reach agreement with the programme companies for two-and-a-half years, and that it has become increasingly clear that the programme companies are opposed not so much to any particular terms of the agreement as to the principle of the agreement as such? Is not the one principle on which they appear to stand that written material sold to one programme company is automatically, without any further payment to the author, the property of all the other companies, a clear breach of Section 5 of the Act which says that the companies shall compete?

I am advised that it is not in contravention of Section 5 of the Act which does not apply to this aspect of what the hon. Gentleman has referred to as competing. In any event, we had better await whatever developments there are from the meetings which probably will follow from the attention of the Authority having been drawn to this dispute.

asked the Postmaster-General what discussions he has had with the governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation regarding proposals put forward by a deputation from the Sound Broadcasting Society and communicated to him.

None. Sir. These are matters for the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Is the assistant Postmaster-General aware that the deputation included Mr. T. S. Eliot, Dr. Vaughan Williams, and Sir Laurence Olivier and reflected the very serious anxiety felt among serious listeners to sound broadcasting? Did not the suggestions made by the deputation merit more than the somewhat offhand reply sent by the Chairman of the B.B.C. Governors? Could not the Postmaster-General at least give an assurance that the B.B.C. will not be forced on grounds of economy to depart from the very high standard of sound broadcasting that has been set in the past?

We discussed this matter on an Adjournment Motion not very long ago, when I think the burden of what I had to say then to the hon. Gentleman was very much in satisfaction of the question he has now asked.

Could not the Postmaster-General have answered this Question, dealing with a matter of very high policy for his Department? Will he assure the House that he is aware of the public disquiet on this matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson)?

My right hon. Friend did me the honour of asking me to reply for him. I think it is within his province to decide that sort of thing, and that it is not for outside interests at all. The fact is that these matters are very properly left to the B.B.C. to decide, and that, unless there is any major departure from general policy by the B.B.C., we must leave it where it is.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that television and wireless licences have not been available in post offices in Sheffield for some days; that applicants have been told that licences will not be issued until 1st August; and by what authority persons are thus encouraged to have a television or radio set without the proper licence.

Television licences renewable on 1st August will not be available until that date. We have asked those seeking to renew in advance television licences not expiring until 31st July to renew them on or shortly after 1st August.

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this action on the part of the Post Office, making people renew their licences after the due date with a view to getting extra money, has created a bad impression? Does he realise that it is not really understood by the staff and that people seeking new television licences have been told to wait until 1st August? Is that part of the policy of the Government?

There would have been little or no advantage to anyone who sought to take out a licence in advance of 1st August. Since licences are dated the first of the month in which application is made for them, we could not issue August licences before 1st August. We should require the Royal Assent to the Finance Bill before doing so.

asked the Secretary of State for Air how many airmen's married quarters there are in Habbaniya, Iraq; how many married airmen are waiting for quarters; and when it is expected that those waiting will be accommodated.

There are fifty-four married quarters for airmen at Habbaniya. One hundred and five airmen are on the waiting list. The average waiting period is between nine and twelve months.

asked the Secretary of State for Air when he expects to have the English Electric P1 fighter in squadron service.

Development of the P1 is going well, but it is still too early to give a date for its entry to squadrons.

Will the Secretary of State carefully avoid the ridiculously optimistic delivery forecasts which his predecessors gave in respect of the Hawker Hunter, because those optimistic forecasts caused great disappointment in the Air Force?

Yes, Sir. I think it is always very dangerous to prophesy in these matters.

Has an exact study been made of the likely tactical and strategic rôle of this weapon in any conceivable war we are likely to fight? Surely the programme of equipping the Royal Air Force at this time when we are making substantial economies in defence in a rather more vital held should be looked into very carefully?

We have studied very carefully the likely threat in the various years ahead and I can assure my noble Friend that we certainly shall need this aircraft.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether the nationalised air Corporations were allowed to tender for the air trooping contract between Singapore and this country awarded to Airwork and recently extended for a year.

The current contract for air trooping to the Far East and the new contracts which will replace it next September are all long-term contracts and the Corporations were not therefore invited to tender for them.

Why are the Government so persistent in their campaign not to provide the nationalised air Corporations with the same opportunities for tendering as private firms? Are not Service men entitled to the best possible air trooping facilities quite irrespective of who provides them?

Yes, and there is no reason why they should not be provided with the best possible means of transport by these charter companies, provided the companies are encouraged and not killed.

Will the Secretary of State really look at this matter? Why should not the Service men have the best trooping facilities which can be provided by competitive tender open to all British aircraft?

They will be getting them.

Is it not the case that one of the classical doctrines of the Government is to encourage competition? Why is it that in this instance the public Corporations are forbidden to tender by the political acts, discriminatory acts, of Ministers? Why should there be this discrimination merely for the purpose of the Government protecting their friends in private industry?

The policy of the Government has been made quite clear on many occasions, both by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and myself. We believe that the Corporations should concern themselves primarily with the operation of scheduled services.

Will the Secretary of State look again at this matter and consult with his colleagues? It is quite ridiculous that because they are long-term, and, therefore, profitable, these contracts should be given entirely to private companies. Why cannot we have the best that can be produced in British aviation?

Answer.

I have already answered that there is no reason on earth why troops being flown by the civil charter companies should not fly in aircraft every bit as good as those which the Corporations can provide.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that under the compensation scheme set out in Command Paper No. 231 a Royal Air Force general duties officer will receive less terminal grant and special capital payment than a Royal Navy officer or an Army Officer retiring at the same age after the same number of years of reckonable service; and whether he will raise the terminal grant and special capital payment for these Royal Air Force officers.

As explained in paragraph 2 of the White Paper, one of the factors which had to be taken into account in devising the scheme of compensation was the period by which service was cut short.

R.A.F. officers of the general duties branch normally retire at an earlier age than officers of equivalent rank in the other Services. At a given age therefore, their expectation of further service is less and it is reasonable that the special capital payments compensating them for premature retirement should also be less.

The rates of terminal grant are the same in all three Services.

Will the Secretary of State look at this again, because it seems to these general duties officers—and, I understand, it applies also to certain N.C.O. pilots—that they get less compensation than equivalent ranks in the other two Services who have served for the same period of time and who are the same age? It really seems most anomalous.

The comparison is complicated because the scales vary between different branches of each Service to take account of the different retiring ages. We must compare like with like in these matters. If the hon. Member looks, for instance, at the scale for squadron leaders in the R.A.F. Regiment he will find that normally they retire at the age of 45. Therefore, what they get compares with what an Army major who also retires at that age gets.

It does not help the general duties officer if the R.A.F. Regiment man does well.

They retire at an earlier age, so they are not giving up so much service.

asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the hardship imposed day and night last week on the people of Newbury and the neighbourhood by the persistent low-flying of jet aircraft operating from Greenham Common airfield; why the noise and vibration have become worse than when this base was in operational use last year; and what action is being taken to mitigate the nuisance.

The programme includes no more flying than took place last year, and the aircraft are of the same type. The U.S.A.F. authorities are doing all they can to reduce the disturbance to an absolute minimum.

Even though that be so, will my right hon. Friend remind visiting United States Air Force men that ever since his predecessor in office in 1950 agreed to the use of this airfield—only two miles from Newbury—by heavy jet bombers, repeated undertakings have been given to the people of Newbury that everything will be done to restrict, limit and check the amount of noise and nuisance caused? We do not want to have a repetition of the kind of hell that was let loose last week.

I am in constant touch with the United States Air Force authorities on his problem and I am satisfied that they are doing all they can to minimise the noise, but this is a very important N.A.T.O. base. I am sure that anything else they can do they will do.

Can the Secretary of State say whether any progress has been made in the research work that is being carried on with a view to reducing the amount of noise caused by jet engines? Is close contact maintained with the United States authorities, who apparently have stated that they are making very great progress in that direction?

Yes, research is going on to minimise noise on the ground and in the air. Progress is being made on the ground, but noise in the air is a much more difficult problem. Research is continuing.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a general direction to the British Transport Commission that the concession now extended to disabled ex-Service men of free journeys on British Railways for their invalid tricycles should be extended to disabled civilians, including sufferers from poliomyelitis.

While I have every sympathy with disabled civilians, it would not be appropriate that I should give a general direction to the British Transport Commission on this subject.

I am sure that reply will have been heard with disappointment on all sides of the House. While welcoming the fact that disabled ex-Service men get free transport for their motorised tricycles, may I ask if the needs of polio victims and victims of injuries are not just as great? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the cost of transport of these tricycles for a single journey is actually more than the cost of an ordinary passenger's ticket? Cannot the Minister at least enable this to be done once a year for a return journey for a holiday for these people?

The hon. Member and I, with the Commission, have had some correspondence on this subject. He knows, and rightly says, that the Commission is making a good many concessions already to disabled ex-Service men. I am perfectly willing to draw the attention of the Commission to this matter again, but it is only fair to it to say that it has already looked at the question very carefully.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what conclusions he has now reached regarding the maintenance of privileged taxi-cab ranks at railway stations following his discussion with the British Transport Commission.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will make a further statement about taxi ranks at stations.

I regret that my consideration of this problem with the British Transport Commission is not yet complete.

As we have been communicating with the right hon. Gentleman's Department on this issue for seven years, will he speed up a decision about it? Does he think that when we resume in November after the Recess he will be able to give a reply to these Questions?

The undertaking was given on 5th June, not seven years ago. I then said that I would look into the matter personally with the Chairman of the Commission. Perhaps during the Recess I shall have an opportunity to do So.

In considering the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account the fact that it is not only the amount paid which is in question, but that only a selected few taximen are able to ply for hire?

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now state when the Privy Councillors' report on telephone tapping will be published.

I have been asked to reply.

I am not in a position to make any statement today.

That means that we shall not get any statement for many months. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance, first, that the report of the Privy Councillors, when it is presented, will not be too savagely censored by the Prime Minister, and, secondly, that it will be published, if necessary, during the Recess and not held up until the House reassembles?

I can give no assurance until I see the report and my right hon. Friend sees it, but it is certainly the intention of the Prime Minister to make known all that can be disclosed consistent with the public interest. There is no question of savage censoring.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Prime Minister giving the House an assurance that the decision about what should be published would be left to the Privy Councillors themselves? Will he confer with his right hon. Friend and find out what the position is? Might I also ask him whether, assuming that the report is published during the Recess, the Government will find time for a debate in the first week after we resume?

The latter point, I think, should be discussed through the usual channels, which we might do quite conveniently very soon so that we are able to consider debating this matter at the earliest possible opportunity, if necessary, after our return. With regard to the former point, the interests of the Privy Councillors are, of course, of paramount importance in publishing the document. We must be satisfied that they are satisfied with what is published, and we must also be satisfied that what is published is in the national interest.

The right hon. Gentleman is really evading my question. I asked him whether he will confirm that the Prime Minister told the House that it will be left to the Privy Councillors themselves, with a full sense of responsibility, to decide what to publish in the report?

The right hon. Gentleman has asked me to confer with my right hon. Friend, which I will willingly do. [HON. MEMBERS: "Confirm."] I will both confer and confirm with my right hon. Friend. I cannot divest Her Majesty's Government of all interest in what is published, because of the national interest, nor should I divest the Privy Councillors of the responsibility of publishing what they think is right.