asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether it was with his approval that the Medway Chamber of Commerce was told by the Admiral Superintendent of the Royal Dockyard, Chatham, on Wednesday 28th January that in selecting Chatham as the first yard for the reorganisation and modernisation of the Royal Dockyards its own future was assured.

The Admiral Superintendent's speech was intended to emphasise that Chatham Dockyard is not being closed, as was made clear in my noble Friend's Explanatory Statement on the Navy Estimates last year.

Does not the Civil Lord think it would have been better for the First Lord to have accepted the invitation of the civic authorities to make this statement himself?

I am not certain what the right hon. Gentleman is getting at. The statement about Chatham continuing as a naval dockyard was made a year ago in the Explanatory Statement of my noble Friend. Having said it once, there was no need for him to go all over the country to every place which was not to be closed in order to say it all again.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware of the great anxiety in the Medway towns, particularly at the time when the closing of the dockyard was first announced, when the First Lord was invited to come by the civil authorities but failed to do so.

My noble Friend made a statement in the Explanatory Statement, which I reiterated during the debates on the Navy Estimates last year. I do not see what more one can do than that.

Is it not a fact that on 19th March last year a deputation from the Medway towns was received and that the First Lord gave a solemn undertaking to that deputation, which included the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) and myself, that the future of Chatham dockyard was assured, which was stated in the local Press, and that since that date both the right hon. Gentleman and myself have been advised that this was to be a pilot yard?

I think that is true.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will cause an inquiry to be held into the reasons for allowing the Royal Marine Barracks, Chatham, to deteriorate for so long before allowing them to be used for industrial purposes.

No. Sir.

Is it not monstrous that this Royal Marine Barracks has been lying idle and rotting for seven years, with the consequent waste of public money, and that there is to be no inquiry?

There is no need for an inquiry when the facts are perfectly well known and when the sale of these premises has been achieved with very satisfactory results not only for the Admiralty but for the people of Chatham and the Medway towns.

Is it not the case that when the Royal Marine Barracks were closed by the party opposite it was estimated that the cost of putting them in a state fit for habitation at the standard of habitation for personnel which was then enforced would have been about £500,000?

I believe that is so.

Is it not a fact that the First Lord said that the Royal Marine Barracks would be used and that H.M.S. "Ceres" would be placed there? In view of the fact that that assurance was never carried out, what further safeguards have we that the First Lord's assurance about the dockyard is accurate?

My answer to that is, "Wait and see."

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the reason why dental surgery assistants have been recently classified and paid as unskilled workers in Her Majesty's Naval Barracks and the Royal Naval Hospital, Devonport.

A mistake was made over the payment of a recent wage increase to some of our dental surgery assistants. The amount involved was 8d. per week. The mistake is being corrected, with full payment of arrears. Dental surgery assistants in the Royal Naval Hospitals were not affected.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether this means that they will now be semiskilled and not unskilled workers, because it makes a lot of difference to their establishment in the future?

Yes, they are semiskilled workers.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) if he is aware that local authorities in Fife have refused to take over Admiralty houses on the grounds that they are substandard; and whether, in view of the recent rent increases, steps will be taken to bring all Admiralty houses up to standard;

(2) to what extent the rent policy of the Department is operated with provision for rebates for needy tenants.

The local authority gave no reason for declining to take over the Admiralty houses at Rosyth, but it is presumed that one consideration was that the rents were too low to cover maintenance costs. The increased rents reflect the general standard of the houses and if the standard were to be improved the rents would have to be further in creased. If in particular cases the increase in rents already notified causes hardship, the facts should be represented through normal official channels. Some temporary concession may then be made if circumstances warrant it.

Is the Civil Lord of the Admiralty aware that one of the reasons specifically given by local authorities for not taking these houses over was that many of them were in a bad state of repair, and that the Admiralty has now inaugurated a rent scheme at the instigation of the Treasury—on the hon. Gentleman's own admission—whereby the tenant gets no redress from the certificate of disrepair procedure under the Rent Act? In other words, the Admiralty is, at the instigation of the Treasury, operating a rent scheme in a way which gives less protection to a tenant than he has even under the miserable Rent Act?

I do not think I could agree with that statement by the hon. Gentleman.

Would the Civil Lord undertake to receive representations from tenants, if need be, on this issue, because there are increases of up to 350 per cent, on decontrolled houses? Is it not scandalous that people should have to submit to this treatment without recourse to the certificate of disrepair procedure under the Rent Act?

I am quite willing to receive any representations on this subject.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps are now being taken to manufacture Polaris in this country.

None, Sir.

Can my hon. Friend assure the House that close touch is being kept with the American experiments with this weapon, and can he say whether future British missiles, as they are developed, will be capable of underwater discharge?

I can readily give an assurance on the first point, but I should want notice of the second.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what has been the approximate total expenditure on new construction and on major refits or modernisation, respectively, between V.J. Day and the most recent convenient date.

About £370 million and £230 million, respectively, excluding repayment services, up to the end of November, 1958.

Does not the magnitude of these figures show that such deficiencies as there may be today cannot be laid at the door of Parliament for not having enough money?

I think it is true to say that both Parliament and the nation have always been sympathetic to the needs of the Royal Navy.

How many millions of pounds has it cost to modernise H.M.S. "Tiger"?

And the "Ark Royal"?

Is it true that several million pounds have been spent on modernising H.M.S. Tiger"? Is there any justification for that? Is this vessel of any value in a future war?

It would be better to wait for our debate on the Estimates, which I believe is to take place next week, when I intend to enter into discussion on the subject of H.M.S. "Tiger" and how very much worth while it is for the Fleet of the future.

Hallett asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty which branches of the Royal Navy offer special openings to boys who have obtained one or two General Certificates of Education at Ordinary Level and leave a secondary modern school at 16 years of age plus.

The artificer branches, which include the categories of engine room, ordnance, electrical, aircraft and shipwright artificer. Boys under 17, with a General Certificate of Education at Ordinary level in mathematics and a science subject, or its equivalent in Scotland and Northern Ireland, are exempt from the Admiralty educational examination for entry as artificer apprentice.

Could not the great opening for boys of this educational standard in the artificer classes be more widely publicised, and could not consideration be given to exempting boys who have the General Certificate of Education from the necessity of passing the educational test for petty officer, after joining?

On publicity, I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend has received some publicity for his Question. I hope to deal with the subject in my Estimates speech to give the matter more publicity. It is true that we want more artificers in the Navy, and the more publicity we can get on the matter the better. I should like notice of the second part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what special openings there are in the Royal Navy for young men who have obtained a diploma at a technical college but are below graduate standard.

Men holding diplomas which are recognised as approaching degree standard may be considered for short-service commissions in the Instructor Branch. Those obtaining a suitable higher national diploma after full-time study at a technical college may be considered for entry to commissions in the supplementary list as electrical specialists. Both offer the opportunity of obtaining a permanent commission.

Could not rather more use be made now of this supplementary list of officers, as was originally recommended? Would not my hon. Friend agree that young men with this qualification from technical colleges are ideal material for this list?

My noble Friend and myself will certainly consider the first point. I thoroughly agree with my hon. and gallant Friend's second point.

Is it not the case that the Navy is raising the standard of qualification for entry into some of the colleges?

That subject does not arise under this Question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has the thought of Dartmouth in his mind. My noble Friend said in his Explanatory Statement that we were contemplating raising the standard of entry to Dartmouth.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that Plymouth has more than the national average of school leavers, if he will consider increasing the intake of apprentices for the next five years in Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport.

The apprentice entry must be related to the number of craftsmen we need in the future, and we cannot undertake to enter more than we need. The entry approved for Devonport this year is in fact a little higher than the entries made in the last two years.

In view of the fact that in answer to a Question which I asked the Civil Lord last week he said that there would be a reduction of about 200 in the next twelve months, does he not think that it is the duty of the Admiralty to train boys, as private firms have done, so that they can go to firms other than in the Plymouth area?

While I have a certain amount of sympathy with the point of view of the hon. Lady, I think it would be a great mistake to train more apprentices than there are likely to be vacancies for in the Royal Dockyards.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the Naval Estimates for 1959–60 show an increase of £33 million for contract work and that Plymouth is a D.A.T.A.C. area, if he will ensure that extra contracts are given to Her Majesty's Dockyard, Plymouth, in order to help to decrease the high rate of unemployment.

Work to the full balanced capacity of Her Majesty's Dockyard, Devonport, is already planned for the next financial year.

As there was a reduction of 400 persons employed in the dockyard in 1958, and as we are likely to see further reductions in the coming year, especially in view of the fact that further land has been taken to extend dockyard work, may I ask why my hon. Friend will not accede to my request to employ more people?

The hon. Lady must remember that the size of the Fleet is coming down and that various dockyards have been completely abolished. When I say that the dockyard is working to full capacity, I mean in order to keep the Fleet up to proper service conditions.

Does not the Civil Lord agree that these figures show that the closing of the Sheerness Dockyard might easily have been avoided?

I am sorry to say that I cannot reach the same conclusion as the hon. Gentleman.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty which of Her Majesty's Ships will visit Welsh ports during 1959; and if he will give details of these ships.

The full programme of visits by Her Majesty's ships to ports in the United Kingdom this year is now under consideration. A number of visits to Welsh ports are being arranged, and I will let my hon. Friend have the details as soon as they are available.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate that most of these towns make preparations to receive and entertain officers and men of these ships, and that it is helpful to them to have this information as early as possible in the year? Has he no details?

The hospitality which my hon. Friend has mentioned is very welcome to the Fleet. The only details I can give at the moment are: Two coastal minesweepers will be visiting Cardiff from 21st to 24th March; five coastal minesweepers will go to Fishguard from 27th to 30th March; and two submarines will go to Cardiff from 29th May to 1st June. I will circulate the names in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what was the increase in the yearly rate of output of British shipyards during the years 1955–58, inclusive.

Output of new merchant ships from United Kingdom shipyards, both in terms of launchings and completions, has remained fairly stable over the last four years at around 1·4 million gross tons.

Would not the Civil Lord agree that these figures are disappointing, in view of the fact that world output of shipbuilding has practically doubled in this time? Will he do his best to persuade the Government to promote an international discussion on the question of world capacity in relation to shipbuilding?

Certainly I will think about the question of an international discussion. As the hon. Gentleman knows, throughout the whole of this period a lot of modernisation has been going on, and that has prevented any sharp increase in output, though the demand for ships a few years ago was very high.

What responsibility has my hon. Friend's Department for the output of British merchant ships in British yards?

The Admiralty is what is called the "sponsoring" Department for the shipbuilding industry. We have obviously no responsibility for output, but we are the sponsoring Department and have a responsibility for trying to help to provide information about the shipbuilding industry.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that plans have been completed for some time for the construction in Japan of a tanker of 80,000 tons to be powered by a pressurised water reactor and a 20,000-ton atomic-powered liner; if he is satisfied that British shipyards are planning their work with similar foresight so that this country can be in a position to compete in the world's markets in the future; and if he will make a statement.

I am aware that preliminary plans have been drawn up in Japan, but I have no information that work on an economic ship has yet been started there. British shipbuilders are represented on the committee, of which I am chairman, and are actively concerned in studying the problem of how to get an economic nuclear propelled ship to sea.

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the very serious position into which the shipbuilding industry is falling? Now that we are in third position instead of being the first in the world and the largest ships on the stocks are being built by Japan, it appears that we are to lose our lead on the technical and scientific side. Will the hon. Gentleman look at this and see what can be done to improve our position?

This matter is under my personal review because I am chairman of the committee looking into nuclear propulsion for ships, but I could not accept the view of the hon. Member that the British shipbuilding industry is not aware of the position and doing all it can to improve it.

Can my hon. Friend give any date when there is a likelihood of an atomic-powered engine suitable for tankers or merchant ships having sea trials?

I should not like to go further than what I said in the Navy Estimates debate last year.

Could the hon. Gentleman say whether his committee has yet come to any decision as to what type of reactor would be most suitable for further development?

Not yet, Sir.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many orders for new tonnage to be built in British shipyards have been cancelled in the last six months; and what is the total value of the orders so cancelled.

Under existing procedure details of merchant shipbuilding orders received or cancelled in United Kingdom shipyards are reported to the Admiralty at quarterly intervals. Information regarding the first quarter of 1959 is not yet available; in the last quarter of 1958 nine orders were cancelled, for 138,000 gross tons. The value of these orders is not included in the information which is given to the Admiralty.

Would not the Civil Lord agree that this is a very disturbing figure? Would he look rather more sympathetically at the many constructive proposals I have made to him over the past few years?

I would not necessarily accept the adjective about proposals that the hon. Member has made to me, although of course I am glad to receive them. It is true that cancellations in the last quarter were higher than in any of the previous four quarters, but I think it is impossible to trace any particular line, either up or down, in the cancellations over such a short period.

Will the hon. Gentleman say how many of these cancellations have been of ships on order to North-East Coast shipyards?

Not without notice.

asked the Secretary of State for War if he will reconsider his decision to move the Scales Branch of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers Technical Services from Chilwell to London, having regard to the fact that this decision will further concentrate his Departments in the London area, will interfere with the close liaison between the Scales Branch and the Royal Army Ordnance Corps Stores and the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, and will cause hardship to the staff who would be forced to move into an area where they will be under great difficulty in securing reasonable housing accommodation.

The R.E.M.E. Scales Branch at Chilwell is one of four establishments which are doing related work but which are scattered in different parts of the country. For greater efficiency they should and are to be brought together.

A new organisation has therefore been formed, called R.E.M.E. Technical Services. Its exact location has not yet been decided but we are expecting to put it on the outskirts of London. There are three reasons for this. First, the majority of the staff concerned already live near London, so that domestic upheaval will be reduced to a minimum. Secondly, the Technical Services require day-to-day contact with research establishments and Government Departments in or near London. Finally, there is likely to be suitable accommodation for the unit in this area without the need for new building.

While thanking the Secretary of State for his very full and careful reply, may I ask if he has consulted the professional trade unions concerned and taken into his confidence in this matter the men who will be particularly affected, because I understand that the staff is very disturbed about this aspect of the matter?

Yes, the staff side has been consulted, beginning as long ago as 1957. I am sorry about the personal inconvenience which will be caused to these men and their families in moving South; but whereas about 100 are affected by doing it in this way, 1,000 would be affected if we did it in another way.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give some special consideration to the possibility of assisting these men in obtaining alternative housing accommodation?

Those moving to the London area to homes there will be eligible for grants to meet the extra cost of moving in respect of such things as lodging expenses, removal and storage of furniture and legal and other expenses. We shall do all we can to help them.

asked the Secretary of State for War how many men are employed as batmen and as servants to officers' wives.

No central record is kept of the number of soldiers employed as batmen. The scale is laid down in regulations which make it plain that batmen are provided solely to give personal service to officers.

Is there not a considerable misuse of manpower in that many batmen are doing services for officers' wives which really ought to be done by paid help? Cannot this be looked into, because it is causing considerable alarm among certain of the men?

It is impossible to cover the duties of batmen by specific regulations. It must be a matter of commonsense arrangements between the officer and his batman. My experience is that arrangements between the officer and the batman are arrived at by mutual voluntary agreement, and I do not think it helps to make general allegations of this nature. If the hon. Member has specific details of cases where he thinks a batman has been misemployed and will let me know, I should be glad to look into them, because I am as anxious as he is to stop any misuse of manpower.

asked the Secretary of State for War who authorised the special reception for 23604106 Rifleman Williams when he reported for National Service at the Winchester depot of the Kings Royal Rifle Corps on 22nd January; and what he anticipates will be the effect on morale and recruitment.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave on 28th January to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall).

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this was a most unsatisfactory reply and conflicts entirely with Press reports of its relations with his Department in this matter? Is not the truth that his Department made a complete ass of itself in this case? Would it not he more graceful for him to admit that? Will he confirm the rumour that he has promised to write a foreword to the forthcoming book of memoirs expected on this?

I would assure the hon. Member that there is absolutely no question of publicity being sought by the Army for recruiting purposes in this connection. The whole history was set out in the Answer and I do not think it needs repeating.

asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will convey congratulations to the commander and troops of the British Berlin Brigade for their exemplary behaviour during their recent manoeuvres on Luneburg Heath, which enabled these manoeuvres to be completed without damage to the woods or farmlands; and

(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the reports of serious and widespread damage caused to farmlands and woods on Luneburg Heath by British troops, other than the Berlin Brigade, during the recent exercises; what representations he received from the West German Government in this connection; and what orders have been issued to prevent a repetition of avoidable damage in future exercises.

I agree that credit is due to the Berlin Brigade for avoiding unnecessary damage during its summer training. It would be a mistake, however, to compare its record with that of other formations, because the Berlin Brigade was not required to use tanks, whereas many of the exercises near Luneburg involve the extensive use of armour and damage to land is inevitable. It was aggravated last summer by the wet weather.

Before every exercise the troops taking part are instructed to avoid undue damage to land, and many formations have trained over this area without incident or complaint. There is a claims office maintained in the training area so that claims for compensation may be dealt with promptly in conjunction with the German Federal authorities.

At their request the civil authorities were given an assurance last July that the troops had been instructed to avoid unnecessary damage.

I do not know how far the Minister is aware of the damage that was done and the amount of unnecessary litter, with probably some dangerous stuff being left lying about. Would he be prepared to look at some pictures of this damage and tell the House whether the instructions issued years ago have been carried out as far as possible? Will he make arrangements for ensuring that damage is avoided as far as possible and that these instructions are enforced?

Certainly we try to keep damage down to the absolute minimum, but when moving large numbers of tanks over heath and agricultural land there is bound to be some degree of damage. The troops do their best not to cause any more damage than is necessary.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is general concern about the lack of training areas in Germany at present? Has any representation been made to the other Allies in Europe with regard to making training grounds available for these exercises?

Yes, Sir. The general question of training areas and their use by N.A.T.O. Forces is under discussion and is to be put on a footing which will be acceptable to both sides.

The Minister has not replied to one of the main points in Question No. 26—what representations, if any, have been received from the West German Government? Will he answer that?

I said that at their request the civil authorities were given an assurance last July that the troops had been instructed to avoid unnecessary damage.

asked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the amnesty being granted to Cypriot internees, he will review the case of Private Brian Ford and consider reinstating him to the rank of corporal, making it retrospective to the time of his court-martial with full rights of pay.

No, Sir. Signalman Ford pleaded guilty to an offence under military law and his conviction cannot be affected by the subsequent amnesty in Cyprus.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for a dusty reply, may I ask how he reconciles it with the fact that Cypriots and Turks have been released from prison, to which they had been committed for vile offences, whereas all that Private Ford did was to distribute some leaflets? Will he review the matter and take into account the fact that twice the corporal's sentence was reduced after the court-martial? Why was that done, unless the War Office were unhappy about it?

There are two points which I should like to make about this Question. First, Ford was convicted, after a plea of guilty, of distributing leaflets inviting members of the forces to intimidate Greeks with violence. The leaflets also accused a judge of being on the payroll of E.O.K.A. Ford was sentenced to nine months' detention and reduced to the ranks. On review, the detention was first reduced and then remitted. In view of the offence, he was not harshly treated.

On the general question, I can see my hon. Friend's point of view, but I think that he will see, on reflection, that what he proposes could not be justified. The remarkable record of our Security Forces in Cyprus is in itself a tribute to the very high standard of discipline in the Army, and it would be fatal to that discipline if we created an impression among Service men that they could disobey orders or break military law during the process of an emergency in the expectation of having their convictions set aside by an act of amnesty at the end.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that this is a most unsatisfactory answer? Surely he is aware that an amnesty has been granted to many Cypriots who had been found guilty of the most atrocious crimes. If there is to be a general amnesty for people who have committed heinous offences, how can he justify retaining in detention or otherwise penalising men of Her Majesty's Forces who have been provoked, to a very large extent, by the circumstances in Cyprus? Will he please reconsider the matter?

No, Sir. I have considered it very thoroughly. I should first make it clear that this man is not in detention. Secondly, the provocation is no excuse for breaking military law.

Would my right hon. Friend look at this again in the light of all that has happened and thus show that the House and the country congratulate all those of the security services who have behaved so well in very trying circumstances? Surely he will agree that an exception could be made in this case when a general amnesty is being granted? That would be appreciated both in the House and throughout the country.

Of course, I will consider whatever is said in the House, but I must adhere to my belief that military discipline must be maintained.

Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will reconsider the matter?

I said that I would consider everything said in the House but that I adhere to my belief.

As I am unable to obtain a clear answer, and as the Minister's reply was very unsatisfactory, I shall have to raise this matter again at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Postmaster-General to what extent, in the efforts tie is making to secure general use of the new standard letter box, he is taking account of the fact that doors made wholly or partly of glass often prevent the letter box being placed in a suitable position.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this question of glass doors, which present a serious and growing problem for the Post Office. Our postmen suffer great inconvenience and delay when they have to manipulate letters and packets into letter boxes placed often little above ground level. We are in discussion with the British Standards Institute, manufacturers of glass doors, architects and builders, in an attempt to get letter plates put in these doors at a reasonable height. If that cannot be done, then a separate letter box, sensibly sited, seems to be the proper solution.

I am grateful for the consideration which my hon. Friend has given to this matter because of the difficulties caused to our postmen in delivering letters and messages at ground level, especially when they have to carry these heavy bags. Will my hon. Friend emphasise this point with the builders' associations and the architects, who can exercise control?

We are trying to get as much concentrated effort into this as possible to relieve the problem.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will make special issues of stamps for sale during June to place on record the centenary commemoration of the Big Ben clock.

No, Sir.

I thought so.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he has now given full consideration to the proposal for establishing a sub-post office in the shopping centre at Stradbroke Drive, Strad-broke Estate, Sheffield, in view of the special considerations applying in this district, in particular, the large number of old-age pensioners.

I have considered this proposal very carefully but I am sorry I should not be justified in meeting the hon. Member's wishes.

Is the Postmaster-General allowing himself to be tied to red tape in these matters? Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that, although this area may be within a mile or three-quarters of a mile of the next nearest post office, it is in a very special situation? It is an old persons' community, and it is a great hardship for them to have to travel the distances which they have to travel to collect their pensions and do other business at the post office?

I went into all those details in considering the application. There is less than half a mile between the suggested site for this office and the nearest existing office, which is no great hardship and is well below the average standard.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will authorise the establishment of a sub-post office at 8, Kingswear Crescent, Leeds.

I am sorry, but I should not be justified in providing another post office in this area.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the inhabitants of this estate have been pressing for a post office for three years and that 1,300 of them petitioned for it last year? In view of the fact that it is nearly a mile by foot, there being no public transport, to the nearest sub-post office, will not the hon. Gentleman reconsider this decision?

My information is that the nearest sub-office is 700 yards away. There is another one less than a mile away, and another just a few yards more than a mile away. Our trouble is that we have many claims for sub-offices of this kind in estates such as have been mentioned today. The service would become hopelessly uneconomic unless we kept a careful hand on it.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) whether he is aware that, at 7.30 p.m., approximately, on Southern Television on 31st January, an unnatural break was made for advertisements in the film, "Cheyenne", the film being interrupted at its climax, just as one character was listening to the start of an Indian attack and being resumed with another character, alongside, also listening; and, as this constitutes a breach of the Television Act, what action he is taking against the Independent Authority;

(2) whether he is aware that, at 9.20 p.m. approximately, on 7th February, during the Southern Television programme, an artificial break was made for advertisements, the screening being interrupted at Mr. R. Beatty is seen arriving at a house in a car, and being resumed as he gets out of it; and, as this is a breach of the Television Act, what action he is taking against the Independent Television Authority.

The Authority assures me that in both cases the breaks in which these advertisements were inserted were natural breaks, in compliance with the Television Act. It is its responsibility under Section 4 (3) of the Act to ensure that this is so.

How can this be the case? Is it not a fact that the Authority has at last committed itself to saying that a natural break in a film occurs when there is a significant change of scene or lapse of time? Does the hon. Member believe that that happens when, in a film such as that mentioned in Question No. 30, one of two men standing alongside each other is shown watching an event and a break of one second in the action takes place, when the advertisement is inserted, and the second man is then shown watching the same event? How can that be a natural break, even by the standards set by the Authority itself?

This shows how difficult it is to agree on what constitutes a natural break even when watching the same programme. I have before me an account given by the Independent Television Authority of this scheme. There were close-ups of the faces of a beleaguered party preparing for a mass Indian attack, with shots of vultures wheeling round the sky and so on. The break then occurred. Immediately following the break a single member of the party was seen in close-up, and the prevailing indecision about when the Indians would attack was resolved by the cry, "Here they come!"

I hope that the hon. Member is not suggesting that commercial vultures caused the break. Is it not a fact that more and more the Independent Television Authority is failing to discharge its responsibilities under the Act? Ought not his right hon. Friend to take steps to change the membership of the Authority?

As I have often said in the House, it is a matter for the Authority itself to guard against this in its observance of the terms of the Television Act.

Would the Minister answer the question which I put to him? The Authority said that there must be a significant change of scene or lapse of time. How does that square with the account which he has given of the scene which I mentioned? Was it not a case of continuous action, with no lapse of time and no change of scene?

As I have said, it is often a matter of opinion as to what constitutes a lapse of time or a significant change of scene. I am bound to say that in this instance the Authority has a good deal on its side in its case.

Are not the public likely to be the final arbiters in this matter by switching over to the B.B.C. if they are as annoyed by these breaks as hon. Members opposite have suggested?

I am sure that the finger on the switch is by far the best controlling instrument.

asked the Postmaster-General what machinery he has at his disposal for ensuring that all advertisements on commercial television conform to the four conditions laid down in Principles for Television Advertising, approved by him, namely, that they should be legal, clean, honest, and truthful.

This is a matter for the Authority which has a duty under the Television Act to comply and secure compliance with the recommendations of its Advertising Advisory Committee. As the foreword makes clear, the principles are based on the recommendations of that Committee.

In view of the fact that the Postmaster-General has to approve the principles for advertising, do I take it that he has no machinery by which to ensure that the principles are applied by the Independent Television Authority?

It is the responsibility of the Authority, as is clearly set out in the Act, to see that the principles of the Committee are adhered to.

Do I take it from that answer that the Independent Television Authority can completely fail to carry out the principles which the Postmaster-General has approved and that no action can be taken?

If the right hon. Gentleman will let me have some evidence of failure, I will attend to it.

asked the Postmaster-General what directions he has given under Section 4 (5) of the Television Act, 1954, relating to the claims made for patent medicines in commercial television advertisements.

None, Sir. The principles for television advertising contain the rule that the advertising of medicines and treatment must comply with the basic standard of "The British Code of Standards in relation to the Advertising of Medicines and Treatments".

Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that for the past two years the dentists' association has been complaining about the false claims made for certain tooth powders and that sort of thing? Do I understand that their association has no remedy whatever in applying to the Postmaster-General himself?

The same rules are accepted by the Television Advertising Advisory Committee as apply to advertising generally. They are constantly under review.

In this case, an appeal has been made by the professional association, which is recognised by all parties, to the I.T.A. It has made its objections against these false claims. Do I understand that the Postmaster-General can do nothing about it?

The responsibility rests firmly upon the Authority.

How does the British Code of Standards, which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, relate to the proprietary drugs which are now advertised and which have no therapeutic value at all?

All advertisements and claims for these proprietary drugs are considered by the Committee and would not be approved if they were wildly extravagant.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that, despite its own regulations that advertising at peak hours shall not exceed eight minutes in the clock-hour, the Independent Television Authority broadcast 9½ minutes of advertising, bringing extra revenue of over £2,000, between 9 p.m. and 10 p.m. on Saturday, 25th October, and that it again exceeded the limit during the same period on Sunday, 26th October, and on various subsequent weekends; and whether, as the Authority does not effectively control programme contractors in this matter, he will issue his own regulations under Section 4 (4) of the Television Act, giving the exact advertising time which must not be exceeded.

From the beginning there has been a definite arrangement that the overall daily average of advertising should not be more than six minutes an hour and the amount of advertising is always within this limit. The eight minutes to which the hon. Member refers was part of the arrangement made by the Authority at the beginning of 1958. Under this the amount of advertising in any one hour was broadly limited to eight minutes subject to the overall average which I have mentioned. The Authority regards some flexibility as reasonable depending on the different types and lengths of programmes. The answer is the last part of the Question is "No, Sir."

Where will it end if it goes on like this? If the Authority says that eight minutes must be the maximum, is 9½ minutes too much? Can it be ten, 11 or 12 minutes? Is eight minutes in the hour to be exceeded every Saturday, as it has been recently? Are these abuses never to be checked by the I.T.A. or by the Postmaster-General?

The Authority has a responsibility to see that the amount of advertising is not such as will detract from the value of the programmes. This is a matter which the Authority can judge in conjunction with the listening and viewing figures, which it has constantly to watch.

Is it not a fact that if there were no advertising these programmes would cost the taxpayer an awful lot of money?

asked the Postmaster-General on whose monitoring and transcription service he relies for ensuring observance of the regulations on advertising, agreed by him with the Independent Television Authority.

This is a matter for the Authority, whose duty it is to secure that the provisions of the Television Act in regard to advertising are complied with.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Authority has no monitoring or transcription service? Can he confirm that the transcription services used by the I.T.A. and by himself are, in fact, the transcription services of the programme contractors?

I am not sure what is the purpose behind the hon. Member's supplementary question. The fact is that the Authority itself watches every programme and every advertisement, as it is required to do. When it is called upon, as it has been recently, and as the hon. Member knows, to provide a transcript of a broadcast, it is able to do so.

Will the hon. Gentleman make plain that the transcript to which he refers and which he sent me when I made a complaint against Associated Rediffusion was not a transcript made by Associated Rediffusion itself? Will the hon. Gentleman confirm this?

I will look into that.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the assurances given by Her Majesty's Government at the time of the passage of the Television Act, he will use his powers under the Second Schedule of the Act to prevent the broadcasting of more than six minutes of advertising in an hour.

From the beginning the Independent Television Authority has had a definite arrangement that the overall daily average of advertising should not be more than six minutes an hour and the total amount of advertising is always within this limit. The Authority informs me that in January, the last month for which national figures are available, the average amount of advertising per hour was, in fact, under four minutes.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that at the time of the passing of the Act the Government gave an assurance that the amount of advertising should be six minutes in the hour? Is he aware that the I.T.A. interprets this to mean that programme contractors may broadcast eight minutes and more advertising at peak hours when sets are switched on, provided only that they broadcast less than six minutes of advertising at other times when no one is watching? Is this a fair interpretation of the phrase "six minutes in the hour"?

It was always intended that it should be averaged over the day.

No.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in a film of the Erskine-Pastrano boxing broadcast by the Independent Television Authority on 25th February, rounds five and seven were cut out in order to make room for advertisements; and, in view of the fact that the provisions regarding breaks for advertising are no longer closely observed, or firmly enforced, whether he will use his powers under the Second Schedule of the Television Act to prevent the insertion of advertisements, otherwise than in natural breaks, in programmes.

The Authority tells me that the programme to which the hon. Member refers was billed in the Television Times as showing only the highlights of the contest. There was no intention to show the whole of the fight. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir."

In general, if we accept as natural breaks the intervals between the rounds of a boxing match, is it a natural break when the rounds are left cut altogether?

I imagine that it depends upon the type of programme. In this case, it was not intended to be a full broadcast of the fight.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the alarm caused to viewers when a special announcement was made by the news broadcaster on Friday night on Independent Television; and if he will make a direction under Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, requiring the Authority to refrain from broadcasting in fictional programmes passages purporting to be news announcements.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the offence given to the public by the screening on Independent Television on 20th February of the item entitled "Before the Sun Goes Down," and if he will use his powers under Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, to direct the Independent Television Authority to refrain from broadcasting fictitious news broadcasts of a sensational nature.

I am aware of the concern caused, and I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin) on 26th February, 1959.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that this form of panic viewing has shocked everyone who watched it? People in the North East, who have had a new station for only a couple of months, wonder whether this is the type of thing they are to have. Will the hon. Gentleman either see to it or issue a direction to I.T.A. that his kind of thing will not happen again?

There is no need to issue a direction. The Authority has issued instructions to the programme company that this shall not be done. That seems to me to deal with the situation.

If the use of fictional news broadcasts for the purpose of sensation is to be permitted, an incident might occur in which very many more people would be seriously misled than happened on this occasion. Does not the rather silly vulgarity of this episode suggest that, in general, the Authority's judgment is not to be trusted?

I fear the hon. Gentleman misunderstood my probably inadequate language. "The Authority has issued instructions that this shall not be done again."

asked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been directed to a breach of statute in respect of the programme "Quiz 21", by Granada, all of which has recently formed the subject of a report by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey, a summary of which Report has been sent to him; what action he now proposes to take to require that the Independent Television Authority secure from Granada full compliance with statutory provisions; and whether he will make a statement.

I am aware of the Report to which my hon. Friend refers, but my attention has not been directed to any breach of statute. As regards action on the Report, the Independent Television Authority informs me that the Report's recommendations are being taken into account in connection with its current review of the arrangements for the proper conduct of all programmes with prizes.

Will not my hon. Friend concede to the House at once that the many unsavoury and insidious aspects of the conduct of this programme contractor, in the form of grave impropriety, represent a breach of the Statute? Now that we have seen Independent Television in action for a few years, is it not desirable that consideration should be given to the strengthening of the Statute in order to increase the powers of I.T.A. to deal with malpractices and defalcations of this kind?

The Television Act gives the Authority perfectly adequate powers, and the Authority is quite ready to use them. I have dealt with the situ- ation relating to the specific programme to which my hon. Friend refers and to the general question of prize programmes. If my hon. Friend has any other specific complaints to make which appear to him to offend against the Statute, I should be grateful if he would let me know.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that this sort of thing has been going on for a long time? The Independent Television Authority was quite aware of it, but it was not until one of the programme contractors, under the pressure of public opinion, arranged that this inquiry should be held that the Independent Television Authority woke up. Is it not about time that we stopped the Director-General of Independent Television Authority cocking a snook at the House every time a complaint is raised?

I have repeatedly warned the right hon. Gentleman against vague generalisations. [Interruption.] I repeat that I have warned him against vague generalisations.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that one's conduct in the House should be governed by warnings from the Chair and not from the Floor of the House.

Hon. Members are in the habit of uttering exhortations and advice to each other in a way which I would not dream of doing.

If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to go beyond the specific point raised in my hon. Friend's Question, which I have dealt with, —

You have not dealt with it.

he has a proper recourse by putting a Question on the Order Paper, when I will do my best to deal with it.

Will the hon. Gentleman consider for once in a while warning I.T.A.?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that two specific instances have been put before the House this afternoon, one from this side and one from the other side, where the I.T.A. or its constituent programme companies have not been behaving as they should? The hon. Gentleman says that the I.T.A. will now warn them, or has warned them, that this must not happen again. Can he tell us why the I.T.A. does not act in accordance with the principle of the Act of Parliament, which the House, I think wrongly, approved? Is it not time that he gave the I.T.A. a warning that they had better behave themselves?

The I.T.A. is daily keeping its hand on the activities of the programme companies so far as it is required to do so under the Act. If now and then something happens which draws the attention of a wider audience, including Members of the House, to some incident which appears to them to offend, then we have this sort of situation.

A few moments ago my hon. Friend used the words "vague generalisations". Is it not the fact that this case involved financial dishonesty? As large numbers of competitors were involved and the general public have a direct interest, surely it is a Ministerial responsibility under the Act to take further action to prevent financial dishonesty of this kind?

I have informed the House that the Authority is reviewing the whole structure of the prize programmes. Until we know what its proposals are, there is clearly no field for Ministerial intervention.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will state the number on the waiting list for telephones in the Chester and North Wales areas; what percentage this forms of the total number of subscribers; and how this compares with the national average.

In the Chester telephone area, which includes North Wales, 995 applications are on the waiting list, excluding those under inquiry or in course of being met. This is just over 2 per cent. of the total number of subscribers in the area. The figures for the City of Chester are 70 and 0·9 per cent., respectively. In the United Kingdom as a whole, 67,808 applications are waiting.

This is 1·5 per cent. of the total number of subscribers.

In view of what the Minister has said and also of the very high incidence of unemployment in certain areas in North Wales, will he not consider accelerating this work and thereby killing two birds with one stone?

We are doing a very great deal in that area. The hon. Member and the House might like to know that over 3,500 telephones were connected in that area last year. We hope to do as well in the current year. We are also putting new equipment into fifteen exchanges in the next twelve months. New cables are being laid in nine different areas.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) the average time a new applicant for a business telephone has to wait in England, Wales and Barry, respectively; and if he will make a statement;

(2) the average time a new applicant for a domestic telephone service has to wait in England, Wales and Barry, respectively; and if he will make a statement.

Separate statistics are not kept for the time taken to meet business and residential applications, and with permission, therefore, I will answer these two Questions together.

When plant is available, the average time both in England and Wales is about twelve weeks. Business applications have priority and in their case the average time is slightly less. My information is that the average time in Barry is similar to that elsewhere. We connected 192 telephones last year and are dealing with 49 new applications at the moment.

In thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether it is not a fact that in large numbers of places, in South Wales at least, there is a shortage of equipment? Will my hon. Friend look into this aspect of the problem?

Yes, we have many areas where there is shortage of either line plant or exchange equipment. We are working hard to keep pace with the demand and to improve the service.