asked the Minister of Works what annual rent his Department will pay for State House, Holborn, and for the Empress State Building, Earls Court, respectively.

It is not my policy to publish details of commercial transactions such as leases, and I cannot therefore disclose the rent of the Empress State Building. The rent of State House has already been published in a company prospectus. It is £312,000 a year.

Would the Minister agree that the rend of the other one is £299,000 a year, and why is it that if other people can make this information public, he cannot tell the House of Commons? Further, is not it the policy of the Government to discourage the multiplication of office employment in Central London? Why is it that the Government let it be understood that if the builders of office accommodation cannot find a market the Government will take it off their hands?

A lot of Government office personnel has been placed out of London, and we shall do all we can to continue this. Obviously we must have some in London so long as London is the headquarters of the machine. I cannot add to what I have said about rents. I am sure it is in the interests of the taxpayers with regard to future commercial transactions that I should not divulge what rents I am trying to get on their behalf.

asked the Minister of Works (1) to whom Mawley Hail, Shropshire, has been sold as a result of his Department's activities; what was the price obtained for the hall; and how much land was sold with it;

asked the Minister of Works if he will make a statement concerning the circumstances involved in the sale by his Department of Mawley Hall, Shropshire.

asked the Minister of Works what discussions he has had with the new owner of Mawley Hall, Shropshire, and with the previous owner, on the subject of improvement grants; what offers have been made for the property; and what is the amount of public money involved.

asked the Minister of Works why his Department have taken part in the sale of Mawley Hall, Shropshire.

With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 together.

Why?

I think it is better to tell the whole story at once. Mawley Hall, an early 18th century house of outstanding architectural importance, was bought by my hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) in November, 1960. He agreed to defer proposals to demolish it and redevelop the site so that attempts could be made to find a purchaser who would preserve it. I then referred the case to my Historic Buildings Bureau, which helps to find uses for historic buildings. I did not undertake the sale, but because the situation was urgent I decided in July, 1961, to advertise the property. The cost was £433 15s. and was borne by my Department. Several inquiries were received and were referred to the owner's agents. The property was bought by Mr. A. M. G. Galliers-Pratt at, I understand, the district valuer's valuation.

Is not it monstrous that in the middle of a pay pause the Minister's hon. Friend the Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) should be assisted by the Ministry to the tune of £33,000, plus a gift to the purchaser of £60,000 to put it in order, making a capital gain for him of something approaching £10,000? Is it not the fact that the hon. Member for Brierley Hill bought this Hall and 121 acres of land for £15,000 and that in fact the Hail and 80 acres were subsequently sold by the Ministry for nearly £22,000, so that if we take the cash gain plus the land gain a capital gain in all of about £10,000 has occurred in the middle of this pay pause, as a result of the activities of the Ministry, to the hon. Member for Brierley Hill? Is it not further scandalous—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Is it not scandalous that one of the byproducts is that the hon. Member for Brierley Hill did not live in this house and never intended to live in it but asked Ludlow District Council to terminate the water supply to one of the tenants of—

Order. All the previous questions in that one supplementary question were in order but the last one was not.

It is not for me to express opinions about anyone's motives here. I cannot do that. What I did was my duty as I conceived it to save this house from destruction. I have told the House that as far as I understand—and this is not really my business—the price was the district valuer's valuation. If incidentally there was a profit involved that has nothing to do with me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—nothing whatever. I cannot and will not refuse to try to save a building of this sort of quality because someone may say to me in the House of Commons, "You should not have done this because someone has made a profit". That would not be the right nor the courageous way to go about it.

Will the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that we all agree with the general principle of his action and hope that he will repeat it in principle in similar cases, but with a safeguard for the taxpayers' money? What I should like him to tell us is why £430 odd which was spent on advertising this property was borne on his Vote and why he was not reimbursed out of the capital profit made by the original owner of the property?

Time was of the essence here. It was urgent to prevent demolition. That is what I mean. I realised that unless I acted quickly and advertised there might not be advertisement, and it would have been wrong for me to shirk that as well.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it became urgent? Did it become urgent before the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) purchased or subsequent to that purchase? Can he answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) as to whether when the hon. Member for Brierley Hill subsequently got a seller he made a gain of so many acres of land—above 40 acres—apart from the profit he made on the building? Is it not a thoroughly disreputable practice that a Government Department should appear to be conniving at a capital gain made by one of the Government's friends?

I do not quite know what the hon. Member was driving at in his last sentence, which seemed to be an unnecessary and rather offensive innuendo. The urgency arose after the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) had purchased this building.

Will my right hon. Friend accept from a member of the Shropshire Planning Committee that the future of this building had been an urgent critical matter for a long time before any of the transactions mentioned in these Questions took place? Will he also accept that there is widespread gratitude in Shropshire for the help he has given in preserving this artistic and important item of our national heritage?

While the grant appeared to be a large one, may I ask if the new owner has not taken a large and recurring obligation for the maintenance of a building of outstanding importance?

Yes, he has. Had someone not come forward who was prepared to do that, very much more expense might have fallen on the taxpayer.

Had the Minister no power to buy this property and, if he did, to resell it and keep the profit for the public?

If I tried to do that and went for compulsory purchase the obligation on me—and therefore on the taxpayer—to repair the property and keep it going would have cost the taxpayer far more than he will now have to pay.

rose—

rose—

I cannot receive more than one point of order at once. My impression was that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) rose first.

The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Talbot) is a constituent of mine. He is an alderman of the Borough of Kidderminster. In addition, the postal address of the property we have been discussing is Mawley Hall, Kidderminster, although it is in Shropshire. Would it not be appropriate for the hon. Member for Kidderminster to be called on such an important occasion?

That does not involve a point of order. I did allow a question by the hon. Member in whose constituency the building is situated.

I beg to give the customary notice that I shall raise this matter again as soon as possible.

asked the Minister of Works whether any persons were exempted from the parking fee payable on the Horse Guards Parade during the Christmas period.

Those occupants of the surrounding buildings with permits to park on Horse Guards Parade were allowed to park without charge during the Christmas period in the area usually assigned to them, which was roped off from the area available to the general public.

Is not this quite wrong? If it is appropriate that the general public should park on this place—which is debatable—should not my right hon. Friend see that in future all those admitted at this time should pay the same fee?

The reason—apart from custom, which is not always absolute—why one justifies the public paying on the occasions when this place is open to the public is that all the cars going in and out during the day and filling the whole parade ground causes considerable expense through it having to be put right afterwards. It does damage to the rather soft surface of the Horse Guards Parade. That, I think, justifies the charge.

In view of the fact that one man is kept permanently at this place now—which was not necessary before—to look after the 100 or so cars which are kept there, is not my right hon. Friend putting forward a case for charging them on every other day of the year?

I do not think so.

asked the Minister of Works what was the cost of repairing and renovating Nottingham Cottage.

The cost was £4,130, of which £3,110 was met from the New Works Subhead of the Royal Palaces Vote, £370 from funds at the disposal of the Sovereign, and £650 by the occupant.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what useful national service this occupant performs that he should have access to this kind of national assistance? Can the Minister tell us whether any rent is paid to the Ministry to recoup it for the cost of redecoration? Is it true that the occupants were allowed by the Ministry even to choose the colour of the decorations although, according to their admission as reported in the Sunday Express, they did not pay for the decorations?

I am not responsible for the services rendered by occupants of these grace and favour houses nor for answering for them. During occupation a resident of these houses is responsible for interior decoration and rates, water, lighting and heating charges.

Can the Minister say whether a rent is paid?

No.

Can he say why not? Why should people like this be a burden on the taxpayer? The taxpayer is sufficiently burdened without this. These people, like everyone else in London, should have to pay their own way.

Grace and favour buildings are not my property.

asked the Minister of Works if, in the interests of economy and personal management, he will establish closer liaison with local authorities insofar as the maintenance of ancient monuments is concerned.

My right hon. Friend is always ready to advise local authorities on the treatment of ancient monuments in their charge and to seek their cooperation where appropriate in connection with ancient monuments in his own care. He is also anxious to encourage local authorities to exercise their own powers under the Ancient Monuments Acts.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in some parts of Scotland equipment and staff are moved miles in order to maintain these monuments while local authorities are maintaining similar monuments in the same areas? Would not what I have suggested lead to much more co-operation than exists, and greater economy, and, perhaps, to the democratisation of the Ministry of Works?

No, Sir. The present degree of co-operation is extremely good. Of course, if the hon. Gentleman gives me an example of what he has in mind, I will be glad to look into it. But there are many cases in which the local authority concerned already bears part of the work necessary in maintaining a monument or its surroundings. I am sure that that is as it should be.

asked the Minister of Works what is the total amount of money advanced as grants under the Historic Buildings Act, 1953, to date; and how much of this has been spent on industrial monuments.

Up to the end of February, 1962, repair grants totalling just over £3,700,000, have been offered under this Act. This figure includes £4,700 for grants towards the repair of four windmills. Grants for industrial buildings which are no longer usable are not made under this Act.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the preservation of our industrial monuments need not call for the expenditure of large sums of public money? Also, would he agree that it is urgent to prevent the destruction of these monuments which are of two classes—first, buildings and structures, and secondly, machinery and plant?

Yes, Sir. However, as my hon. Friend probably knows, the Minister is still awaiting the completion of a pilot survey of industrial monuments in Staffordshire, undertaken by the county council in collaboration with the Council for British Archaeology. Until he has that information it is difficult to formulate a policy.

Is it not time that the Government had another look at this Act and re-examined the principle of giving huge subsidies to wealthy property owners?

No, I do not accept that at all. When my right hon. Friend makes a grant it is on the advice of the appropriate Historic Buildings Council. The work which those councils have done has won universal praise.

asked the Minister of Works if he is satisfied that the present deliveries of building materials by manufacturers are adequate to meet the building programme which the Government have in view for the remainder of this year; and if he will make a statement.

Yes, Sir. I expect the general level of building activity to be rather higher this year than it was in 1961. The producers of building materials have assured me that they will be able to meet the higher demand, and I have no reason to think that shortages of materials will hold up the building industry.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his informative reply. Will he try to ensure that the demand for building materials generally remains steady and continuous instead of fluctuating periodically, which has happened in the last few years, so that manufacturers may be given the opportunity to plan ahead with confidence?

Yes, Sir; that is certainly the Government's policy.

Is the Minister aware of the number of unemployed building trade operatives in Scotland? Is the reason for plenty of materials being available in Scotland the cut-back in municipal housing which is due this year?

No, I do not think so. It applies to the whole country.

asked the Minister of Works what are his intentions concerning the vacant plinths in the Members' Lobby.

A statue of Lord Balfour will shortly be placed on the plinth at present occupied by Sir William Harcourt, and a statue of Earl Lloyd George now under commission will eventually be placed on the vacant plinth on the left-hand side of the Churchill Arch. No other decisions have been taken.

Would it not be a good idea to reserve one of these plinths for the late Sir Waldron Smithers, since he was the only Conservative who could hold Orpington?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to table that Question after the General Election.

Was it not Sir William Harcourt who said, "We are all Socialists now"? Therefore, would it not be a good idea to put him in the basement?

I think that we are getting rather far from the plinth.

asked the Minister of Works when he now expects the reconstruction of 10 Downing Street to be completed; and to what extent its cost will exceed the original estimate.

The contract period for this work has now been extended from August, 1962, to February, 1963. The current estimate for Nos. 10, 11 and 12 Downing Street is £600,000. This is an increase of £100,000 over the original estimate, owing to unforeseen structural defects and to additional labour costs.

Will the Minister say why the Answer to this Question, which appeared on the Order Paper last Thursday, was released to a special Press conference on Sunday? Apart from this affront to the dignities and established conventions of the House, will the right hon. Gentleman admit that this is one more example of Government bungling, waste, extravagance and all-round incompetence?

The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is "No, Sir". The answer to the first part is that the Press conference was arranged long before the hon. Gentleman tabled his Question.

Is this work being done on a cost-plus basis?

Yes, it is.

By adding the extra £250,000 which is now being incurred on the Treasury buildings part of the same job, we get an overall increase of 28 per cent. First, does not the Minister know that all that is being found now was disclosed by the Report of his own Committee, which appears as an appendix to the Crawford Committee's Report? There is nothing new in this. Secondly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the labour disputes were taken to the London Regional Joint Disputes Commission, which referred to the extent to which the client, by which it meant the Minister, was responsible for the basic difficulties on this contract? What has the right hon. Gentleman done about this other than make an offer which was not to be negotiated at all and which did not appeal to those concerned?

In answer to the last part of the supplementary question, there is a statement by the contractors in The Times this morning which explains the situation perfectly well. I do not think that it is for me to interfere in the matter between the two sides now. In answer to the first part, it is untrue that nothing new has been found since the Crawford Committee reported. In fact, a great deal has been discovered after stripping. In other words, whole walls—by that I mean the brickwork—have had to be taken down and renewed. No one could tell that they were in that condition until they were seen.

Is it not true that the trouble has been dry rot in the fabric of 10 Downing Street? Even if this is true, is not £1-million odd an astonishing sum? Could not the whole façade of the old Treasury building and Downing Street have been rebuilt for this sum, or, in fact, could not the whole block of buildings have been rebuilt from scratch for this sum?

No, Sir, I do not think so.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) what plans he has for the utilisation of ultra high frequency television wave bands; and

As my hon. Friend will realise, these are two of the major issues on which the Pilkington Committee on Broadcasting will presently report. I think we must wait and see what it recommends.

In view of the multiplicity of channels which have become available with the development of ultrahigh frequency wave bands, in considering the Pilkington Committee's Report will my right hon. Friend carefully consider the possibility of making available two channels for the duplication of existing programmes by using the 625-line system and another channel for experimental purposes?

Yes, Sir. All those possibilities have been put to the Pilkington Committee and presently they will all be considered by the Government, although I cannot say yet what will be the result.

asked the Postmaster-General when he will authorise the British Broadcasting Corporation to provide a further sub-station in order to improve their television transmissions to North Cornwall, particularly the Bude area.

The B.B.C. now tells me that it is hoping to make certain changes in transmission techniques which will lessen the interference now occurring between its transmitters at Holme Moss and North Hessary Tor, which use the same channel, and which affects reception in Bude and other places in North Cornwall. When this has been done the Corporation will be better able to judge whether a satellite station is needed in North Cornwall.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the B.B.C. has said that it does not hold out much hope of improving the situation as things stand at the moment? Will my right hon. Friend be sympathetic towards any appeal from the B.B.C. for additional funds to put up new satellites in this part of the country?

With respect to my hon. Friend, I think that the important thing is to see how these new techniques operate and whether they improve matters in North Cornwall. If they do not work well we can consider a satellite.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the decline in standards in television programmes owing to the heavy reliance on old films; and whether he will take powers to control the content of television programmes.

I am aware that more feature films than usual are being shown at present on I.T.A. programmes, but responsibility for programme content is a matter which successive Governments have felt it right to leave to the broadcasting authorities.

While that may be all very well in normal times, does not the Postmaster-General realise that the advertisements are much more interesting than the old films? Will he take steps to prevent the advertisements being further interfered with in what are called natural breaks?

I think that that is a view that many hon. Members on both sides of the House take.

If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take powers to control the content of programmes, does not he think that this is a matter which should be referred to the Television Advisory Committee?

I am not sure which committee the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

The sub-committee which deals with advertisements.

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that any such committee exists.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will give a direction to the Independent Television Authority, under Section 9 (2) of the Television Act, 1954, to refrain from broadcasting programmes which include contributions by prominent people on controversial topics, unless such people have given their specific consent to the actual broadcasting of their contribution.

No, Sir.

Has the Postmaster-General taken note of the protest of a number of distinguished people who were asked to contribute to the Associated Television's programme "The Four Freedoms" and found that subsequent to their contributions the script was altered to enable their contributions to be criticised by another person? Is not there a danger of abuse here? What safeguard has the individual who is making a contribution to a programme against an abuse to which he cannot reply being introduced?

I have made inquiries about this case, and I am told that in line with the normal practice the revised script was sent to all those who had participated in the programme before the letter appeared in The Times, and their decision to withdraw from the programme was honoured by A.T.V. without question. In fact the letter to The Times was dated 15th February and appeared on the 16th, but the revised scripts had been sent to those concerned on 14th February.

Is it clear that the consent of the contributor has to be obtained before his broadcast contribution can be used?

Yes, certainly.

asked the Postmaster-General when a decision will be reached on the proposal to restrict tobacco advertising on commercial television.

asked the Postmaster-General what decision he has now made about the need to restrict tobacco advertising on television.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, under Section 4 (4) of the Television Act, 1954, he will now request the Independent Television Authority to consult him with a view to making new regulations banning cigarette advertising.

This question is now under consideration by the Government, but no decision has yet been reached. Meanwhile, the I.T.A. is also studying the implications of the Report of the Royal College of Physicians and will be consulting with me as soon as possible.

But is not this inquiry, sponsored by the I.T.A. through its Advertising Advisory Committee—which is itself dominated by the advertising firms—bound to be biassed and, therefore, completely unsatisfactory? Does not the responsibility lie clearly with the Government?

I do not quarrel with that view. I had hoped that in the first part of my Answer I had made it clear that the primary responsibility here is the Government's.

As answers to questions have indicated that there is a serious growth in the number of deaths from lung cancer among females of advanced age, does the right hon. Gentleman think that we can afford to wait for a report? Does not he realise that medical opinion associates smoking with lung cancer? Is it not time he acted determinedly by taking the strain himself instead of leaving it to Capstan?

I realise what was said in the report. This raises very large issues both for the Government and for the public. Any decision to prohibit tobacco advertising on commercial television would raise much wider questions of advertising generally, not only for tobacco but for other substances as well.

Has not the I.T.A. an obligation, under Section 4 of the Television Act, 1954, to consult the Government on the methods employed in advertising? Is it not the case that the I.T.A. has abandoned subliminal advertising? In view of the fact that advertisers of tobacco now seek to entice the young by subtle mixtures of sex and snobbery, is it not time for the right hon. Gentleman to intervene and to take action?

The answer to the first part of that supplementary question is "Yes". The romantic advertisements are being considered both by the Government and by the I.T.A.

Is there not also danger of coronary thrombosis by over-eating? Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind, in considering the wider question, the need to keep the matter in perspective?

In his original Answer, the right hon. Gentleman said that the I.T.A. was making an inquiry into this question, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) pointed out that this could not possibly be an independent or objective inquiry, he agreed with that view. Is he aware that the I.T.A. has officially said that its relationship with the programme contractors is one of partnership? Would it not be much better if this inquiry were made not by a partner of these companies but by a totally independent body?

As I have indicated, whatever may be the final view of the I.T.A., the Government themselves will take an independent view and will be guided solely by considerations of the public interest.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will state to the nearest convenient date the number of telephone subscribers in Roxburghshire, Selkirkshire and Peeblesshire; and how many applicants are awaking the installation of telephones in each of the three counties.

The number of subscribers on 28th February was 6,771. The number of applications under inquiry or in course of being met were 27 in Roxburghshire, 9 in Selkirkshire and 10 in Peeblesshire. No applications were held up by shortage of plant. In the past 12 months 396 telephones were installed.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is satisfied that the letter and parcel services in Peebles are fully efficient and up to normal Post Office standards in regard to deliveries and security, following the recent closure of British Railways services throughout the country; and if he will make a statement.

Yes. Apart from minor changes, letter and parcel services have been maintained virtually unchanged, and normal security arrangements have been made for the mails. If there is any particular point which my hon. and gallant Friend would like us to consider, my right hon. Friend will gladly do so if he will let him have details.

In view of the declared policy of the Chairman of the British Transport Commission that many of these local branch railway lines are to be closed, can the hon. Lady say whether the overall effect on postal facilities is under special consideration to meet the changed circumstances?

We have had a committee which has reported on the handling of mail between post offices and stations, and we are keeping the whole situation under close review the whole time.

asked the Postmaster-General what prospects there are of a new post office being established in Blyth; and if he will make a statement.

My right hon. Friend would not be justified in opening another post office in Blyth at present; but, as I have promised the hon. Member, we will review the matter if there are further major developments in the area.

Is the hon. Lady aware that her reply will cause a great deal of dismay not only to the townspeople but to the head postmaster and his staff who are operating under extreme difficulties? Will the hon. Lady undertake to look into this matter more closely with a view to reversing her decision?

We are keeping this under review, but it might be a good idea to look at it on the spot and make certain that we have the best arrangement possible.

I gladly undertake to invite the hon. Lady to visit my constituency at the earliest possible moment.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will publish the figures of labour availability on which his decision as to the proposed location of the Savings Certificate Division will be based.

My right hon. Friend's decision about the future location of the Savings Certificate Division will not be based solely on labour availability, but he will give my hon. Friend information on this aspect when the decision is announced.

May I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that the population of Morecambe and Lancaster is no less than 90,000, and expert opinion agrees that there is sufficient labour available for all the needs of the Savings Certificate Division to be met? Further, will she scotch any rumours that Durham might have been chosen for the location of the Savings Certificate Division? This must obviously be nonsense, as the population of Durham is only 20,000.

I assure my hon. Friend that we will keep all his arguments in mind, and I also assure him that a decision has not yet been made.

asked the Postmaster-General what rates of commission for banking services performed for the Post Office were agreed with the clearing banks on 1st October. 1960.

It would be contrary to established practice to disclose the terms of commercial contracts or agreements for particular supplies or services. My right hon. Friend can, however, inform my hon. Friend that the Post Office Accounts for 1961–62 will show a total payment of about £700,000 by way of bank charges.

Is my hon. Friend aware that my information is that in fact the rates agreed are 6d. per item collected and paid, 1s. per cent. on cash paid in and out and out-of-pocket expenses, and even allowing for the 2½ per cent. per annum on the average cleared balances allowed to the Post Office, at a time when she and her right hon. Friend are increasingly making the Post Office competitive is not this a fee that she should look at closely?

I cannot comment on the figures given by my hon. Friend, but I assure him that we looked at this very carefully and we believe that we have a good bargain.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) on what date he approved the transfer of a contract given by his department to the Automatic Telephone and Electric Comany, Liverpool, to Plessey's, Ilford, Essex, resulting in redundancy of almost 180 workers;

The redundancy mentioned by the hon. Member has not been caused by a transfer of work from the Automatic Telephone and Electric Company to the Plessey Company. My Department gave approval to the A.T.E. on 1st March for the sub-letting of a contract to Plesseys, but the work covered by that contract would not in any event have been carried out at Liverpool. I understand that the present redundancy at Liverpool is the result of action initiated by A.T.E. and accelerated since the merger with Plesseys. This action is designed to reduce overhead costs and to secure greater efficiency. I have been approached on this matter by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) and by three of my constituents, and I am replying to them in the sense of this Answer.

Is not the Postmaster-General aware that those who have been dismissed are of the opinion that the contract given to the Automatic Telephone and Electric Company was a contract that would keep them employed for quite a while? In view of the possibility of further redundancy because of the merger that has taken place, what action does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take about further contracts with the Automatic Telephone and Electric Company?

The position is that it is simply not true that the sub-letting agreed to by the Post Office has resulted in any redundancy whatever at the works in Liverpool. The redundancy is due to the desire of the firm to cut out excessive overheads. I have my eye on the possibility of future redundancies in an area such as Liverpool or Merseyside, and I give my assurance that I shall do all in my power to prevent work from leaving Liverpool.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether adequate compensation is being paid to the staff?

Yes, indeed. I have made the most careful inquiries with regard to compensation, and I shall be very happy to give my hon. Friend detailed particulars.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that Parliamentary papers posted early on Friday are not delivered in Leicestershire until late on Monday morning; and, in view of the fact that postal deliveries were quicker than this 100 years ago, what steps he is taking to improve and quicken postal deliveries generally.

Parliamentary papers posted in London early on Friday should be delivered in Leicestershire next day. If my hon. Friend would let me have the covers of any papers delayed in delivery, my right hon. Friend would be glad to look into the matter.

I will certainly give the cover to my hon. Friend. Since I am one of her constituents and had still not received the folder I signed on Thursday afternoon for Parliamentary papers when I left home at 9 o'clock on Monday morning, is she satisfied that this is the best sort of service we can expect?

I appreciate the inconvenience caused to my hon. Friend in this matter. As he says, Rothley is a very important part of my constituency, but this is the first complaint I have had about the postal service there.

You should come in on Fridays, Cyril.