asked the Minister of Defence what percentage of the total working population is at present engaged on defence work.

4·6, Sir.

Does this rather modest figure not show that our demands on manpower since the end of conscription have not been considerable in this country, and are they not a factor which should influence us before we seek the help of our allies with regard to forces?

I think that this is a proper contribution to make to the defence of the country but not an excessive one.

asked the Minister of Defence what percentage of the gross national product is now being spent on defence.

Seven.

As this figure is not a very high one compared with what we were spending in 1952, does it not put in proper proportion the total amount of defence expenditure for the coming year, which shows an increase?

It compares with a figure of 9·8 per cent. in 1952–53 and shows quite a reduction.

Does the 7 per cent. expenditure include next year or only the current year, as asked? If not, what will the figure be next year?

This is what is being spent on this year at the present time, and it looks like staying around 7 per cent., though there may be one point either way. The figure, of course, depends on the growth of the national product.

asked the Minister of Defence if, in accordance with his intention to see that Transport Command will continue to have adequate means to carry out its rôle, he intends the strategic freighters already on order to meet all future needs and whether he will alter his order for Belfast aircraft to include provision for a higher ceiling to that of the 10 at present on order.

Strategic freighters now on order will meet our needs for the foreseeable future.

Will my right hon. Friend, in addition to the present order for the ten Belfasts, think ahead and, as a matter of development, consider a new Belfast designed to meet the needs of a higher ceiling, and possibly with jet engines?

I will always consider any proposal that my hon. and learned Friend puts in front of me, but, looking at our present needs and our needs for the foreseeable future, I am bound to say that it seems that we have ordered an adequate number of strategic transports.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Government will reach a final decision on the HS.681?

I was proposing to answer a Question on that later.

asked the Minister of Defence how many helicopters were in operational service in the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, respectively, one year ago; how many are in service now; and how many are on order.

It would not be in accordance with normal practice for me to quote the figures which my hon. and gallant Friend asks for but I can say that the number of helicopters in each of the three Services is considerably larger than it was a year ago and is steadily increasing.

In thanking my right hon. Friend for that instructive reply, may I ask whether he is aware that he can count on a very wide measure of support for his efforts to overcome what my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) used to describe as resistances to meeting the operational requirements of the Services? Can my right hon. Friend say when these requirements for helicopters will be met?

Some hint of this support had reached me, and I would agree that helicopters today are a very important addition to the requirements of the Services, particularly in limited war. I am fully aware of that, and I think that we may have an opportunity of debating the matter in somewhat fuller detail later in the month.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is the present outstanding shortage in our equipment and that wherever one goes one is asked, "Can we have more choppers?" Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that this very urgent need of the Forces will not take a back place to the idea that one must always buy British?

I can assure the hon. and learned Member that it will certainly not take a back place.

asked the Minister of Defence what consideration has been given to putting some British overseas combined headquarters afloat.

If the hon. Member is referring to the Unified Headquarters in Aden and Singapore, I do not think that there can be any question of establishments of this size and complexity operating afloat.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that it would be wise to con sider the American development of a headquarters ship? Might that not well be used to house the operational and communications side of a joint headquarters, such as in the Middle East?

I am certainly prepared to consider the matter of headquarters ships, but the headquarters at Aden and Singapore, which I am discussing here, are on a rather larger and more complex scale.

asked the Minister of Defence what defence expenditure was incurred in Cyprus from 1952 to 1963; and what is now the strategic purpose of maintaining a base in Cyprus.

About £200 million. The strategic purpose of the base remains as described in the Statement on Defence, 1962. Cyprus remains the main base for our air strike force in support of CENTO and for certain essential parts of our world-wide network of military communications.

Could the right hon. Gentleman say what the British taxpayer has for this enormous expenditure of £200 million? Do we not now seem to have locked up a great deal of the British Army there with no very clear strategic purpose? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it would be a good thing if we handed the whole matter over to the United Nations?

If the hon. Gentleman will study the White Paper of 1962 he will see the arguments for it set out.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement about the recent change in the command of thy: British forces in Cyprus.

I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday in answer to a Question by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley).

Does the Minister realise that this still does not explain why an officer who, by all reports, was doing, with the men under his command, an exceptionally good job in that theatre is suddenly relieved of his command after an implied rebuke to him from the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations in the House? Does he accept that this is hardly the way to inspire confidence and encourage our soldiers and officers who have been doing such good work in Cyprus?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave. There is no reflection whatever on General Young. The commander of the British forces is neither General Young nor General Carver but Air-Chief Marshal Barnett, and there is fully room for two officers of general rank in Cyprus at the present time where our troops are under some pressure.

Is it not clear that an unfortunate muddle was made with this announcement? Would it not be far better to leave to the War Office announcements about Army commands and not have other Ministers stepping in to make them?

No, Sir; I do not think that any muddle was made about it. If there were any misunderstanding, I am happy to have cleared it up. I should now like to do what I am sure the whole House will approve, and that is to pay a tribute to the work which General Young has done.

asked the Minister of Defence what decision has been reached about the replacement of Sea Vixen aircraft for the Royal Navy.

asked the Minister of Defence when he will make a statement regarding aircraft to replace the Hunter and Sea Vixen.

I have nothing at present to add to previous statements but propose to announce future plans in the defence debate next week.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the importance of providing for the Royal Navy aircraft which are not hybrids and the equal importance of redeveloping the P.1154 as rapidly as possible?

I will bear those considerations in mind.

To ensure that Her Majesty's Government cannot be accused of deceiving the House by publishing Defence Estimates which do not take into account the new projects, can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that when he announces his decision about these matters he will also state the cost falling on Her Majesty's Government in these respects during the coming financial year and the estimated cost over the next five years? As the right hon. Gentleman thought that I had tabled a Question about the Hawker Siddeley 681, would he answer my previous query about that?

What I have been proposing to do—I think it would be for the convenience of the House—is to make a comprehensive statement about these aircraft in the debate. I will include the Estimates point at the same time, but the Estimates are accurate for the forecast.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will make every effort to ensure that the requirements of the Navy in this respect are met from British home production and that the order does not go abroad even if it means some delay?

I will give full consideration to that. I do not want to prejudge the statement which I shall be making in some detail on a fairly wide front later.

Might I press the right hon. Gentleman on what he has just said—that the estimates are accurate for the forecast? Did he mean to imply that the Estimates already presented to the House include provision for these aircraft? If so, why on earth did he not announce his decision, since he has already taken it, in the Defence White Paper, instead of springing it on the House as a surprise in the defence debate and trying to distract attention from the obvious weaknesses of the White Paper as a whole?

Perhaps we can go into that in the debate.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will give details of the proposed increase in arms expenditure of £265 million a year by 1967–68.

No, Sir, but the figure takes account of rising living standards for the Service man as well as the growing cost and complexity of equipment.

Surely that is not right? There is an increase of only £30 million a year for soldiers' pay. Since the Government have decided to increase the arms burden by £160 million a year, plus millions of pounds of hidden expenditure in a single year, is it not a fact that the £265 million estimate is a serious understatement of the Government's arms expenditure?

No, Sir.

Does this figure make provision to replace the military aid so misguidedly cut off by the Americans?

That is a rather minimal aspect of these matters.

The right hon. Gentleman replied to me "No, Sir". But how can he agree to £265 million being a reasonable estimate for three years—it is a fantastic figure in the opinion of many people—when he will spend nearly that in the first year alone?

I think we could debate the cost of defence when we come to the debate. That will be better than starting a wide-ranging discussion at Question Time.

asked the Minister of Defence if he will introduce legislation to place a contingent of British military forces at the disposal of the United Nations, under conditions similar to those contained in proposals submitted to the United Nations by the Norwegian Government.

Legislation would not be necessary.

In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman take immediate steps to assign a contingent of British forces to the command of the United Nations and available at call, as is now being done by Norway and a number of other countries? If the British Government were to take this step, which would be setting a very good example, would it not also considerably relieve the Government of some of the embarrassments that they are now suffering over Cyprus?

No, Sir. Whatever else may be said about British forces or the British Government, I do not think anybody would say that we were under-contributing forces to peacekeeping throughout the world.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are spending a very large sum of money on defence in various parts of the world which we can ill afford, and that in some of these places we are not wanted at all? Would he consider the possibility of the United Nations taking over some of these responsibilities instead of this country carrying them alone?

The Question is concerned with whether I would legislate in order to put forces under the command of the United Nations. No legislation is required. Wider discussions on the rôle of the United Nations had, I think, better be left to a foreign affairs debate.

Has not the right hon. Gentleman missed the whole point, that the forces which Norway and other countries are proposing to put at the disposal of the United Nations are specifically assigned contingents, allotted for that purpose, which are to be handed over to the. United Nations command when called upon by that organisation, and financed by that organisation while they are under its command? Is that what the right hon. Gentleman says can be done without legislation? If so, why does he not do it?

Certainly it could be done without legislation. While the Norwegian proposal was supported by us, I think, at the United Nations, it was not considered appropriate that permanent members of the Security Council should as a general rule make their forces permanently available upon this basis. As I have said, we really are making very large numbers of forces available throughout the world for keeping the peace.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the most important principles of war is economy of force, and that all our experience of the United Nations seems to lead us to believe that this principle would not be maintained?

asked the Minister of Defence what effect the recent announcement on the lengthening of the life of the V-bomber force will have upon the Polaris programme.

asked the Minister of Defence if, in view of his decision to extend the life of the V-bomber force, he will bring forward the hunter-killer submarine programme.

The answer to the former is None, Sir, and to the latter is No, Sir.

Yes, but if the V-bomber force is to remain a credible deterrent up to and into the 'seventies, does this not give an opportunity to the Government to rephase the Polaris programme in a manner which would avoid some of the problems in connection with skilled manpower and equipment in the Service which at present appear to be likely to arise?

No, Sir.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if there is a gap such as the Secretary of State for Air has indicated, he might have an opportunity of rephasing the hunter-killer programme, which would remove one of the big obstacles which the Minister mentioned previously to distributing properly and in the national interest orders for submarines throughout the various shipbuilding rivers of the country? Will not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter more carefully so that we get, not only for defence reasons but for mercantile reasons, the advantage of building atomic-propelled submarines in the rivers of this country?

While I appreciate this support and also the importance which the hon. Gentleman attaches to bringing the V-bomber force up to date, I think our answer must be that we must try to keep all weapons systems as up-to-date and as viable as possible. But this does not justify us in scrapping the Polaris programme.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Navy ships have already been laid up through lack of skilled manpower? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the First Lord concerning the position with regard to skilled manpower in the Navy at the present time?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's reliance on the V-bombers, but the hon. Member should not overstress this point.

asked the Minister of Defence what further measures he intends to take in order to meet British commitments by raising land forces to a higher level.

British forces are today meeting our commitments to the full.

Could not the right hon. Gentleman be a little less laconic? Is not he aware that the purpose of Questions is to gain information and that so far from his replies to several Questions we have gained nothing? In view of his statement, which has been repeated quite often, that our troops are stretched almost to the limit, what about the "Ever-Readies"? What are they ever ready for? Is not our scepticism at the time when the idea was initiated by the then Secretary of State for War justified?

I do not think that brevity in Answers necessarily makes them less informative.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman being a little contemptuous of the House? Will he be good enough to reply to the Question I put? If our troops are being stretched to the limit, as he and others have said, what about the "Ever-Readies"? What is their purpose? What are they ever ready for?

That is a different question from the one on the Order Paper, because the measures to establish the "Ever-Readies" have already been taken. The "Ever-Readies" provide a very useful reserve if we need to call upon them.

asked the Minister of Defence how many civil servants in all Ministries involving defence have left since 1951 to take up senior posts with companies with contractual relations with those Ministries.

Eighteen.

Is not this an undesirable practice for both senior civil servants and Cabinet Ministers? Will the Minister consider increasing the present bar for civil servants from two years to five years before they can take a post and consider also imposing some bar upon Ministers or former Ministers?

The general rules governing this are set out in the White Paper Cmd. 5517 of 1937, and the number concerned is 18. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down a Question about amending the policy in the White Paper, perhaps he will put it on the Order Paper.

asked the Minister of Defence why he has agreed to 18 months as the period for his experiment in a mixed-manned force.

The period has been agreed by the countries considering the mixed-manned surface ship proposal as a result of military advice tendered to them.

Could not we have acquired in three months all the knowledge we need regarding the workability of the mixed-manned force? Did the right hon. Gentleman accept 18 months without demur because that period placed this important issue beyond the ambit of an election and because the Cabinet themselves on this issue have become a mixed-manned force in which no two speak the same language?

I did not fix the period; it was fixed by military advice to an international committee meeting to consider these matters. Whatever else I have done, I do not think that I could have cut it down from 18 months to three.

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that on every occasion the advice of the military experts is always accepted without question by himself and his colleagues in the Cabinet?

This advice was not even tendered to me; it was tendered to an international committee.

Is not 18 months a convenient time to forget this bit of nonsense?

asked the Minister of Defence if he will state the criteria on which he assesses the nuclear damage a potential aggressor would accept.

No potential aggressor would be likely to regard any major nuclear exchange as acceptable.

Does it occur to the right hon. Gentleman that the potential aggressor is also thinking in the same terms as he is and making the same sort of assessment? If it is true, as the Prime Minister assures us every day, that Russia is the potential aggressor, is the Minister of Defence saying that we could accept the same amount of nuclear punishment which Russia can accept, particularly in view of the fact that Russia controls her nuclear weapons and we would use them only by permission of America?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has stumbled upon part of the truth in saying that it is this mutual and provident fear which is the essence of a deterrent.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to match his replies, brevity in supplementary questions from some parts of the House would be greatly welcomed?

Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that at any period in history man has ever feared the weapons which he used?

I should have thought that all mankind today feared a nuclear explosion.

asked the Minister of Defence how many military and civilian staff will be transferred in the current year from the Service Departments to the Ministry of Defence under the scheme for the reorganisation of defence.

The lot, Sir.

Will this streamlining, co-ordination or effective co-operation—all terms which the right hon. Gentleman has used with reference to the scheme for the reorganisation of defence—mean that more staff will be employed at the Ministry of Defence and in the three Service Departments or that fewer will be employed?

The difference is about 70 between 1st April, 1964, and 1st April, 1963.

More or less?

Seventy more.

asked the Minister of Defence what revision has been made of the information in the possession of his Department regarding the anti-aircraft defences of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, following that published by his predecessor in 1960.

My predecessor, on the occasion which the hon. Member appears to have in mind, was speaking of defences against high-level attack with Blue Steel. I have no reason to amend what he said on this subject four years ago. The capabilities of enemy defences against both high-level and low-level attack are, of course, kept continuously under review.

Are we to understand that it is not now considered feasible to use Blue Steel or the V-bombers in any high-level attack in Soviet territory? Secondly, is it not a fact that, since the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor made his statement in 1960, the Soviets have got in service a fighter aircraft capable of flying at nearly twice the speed of Blue Steel?

No, Sir; the answer simply means that it was a very prudent investment to ensure that they are capable of attacking at both high and low level.

asked the Postmaster-General what formula or calculation his Department employs to anticipate demands for the installation of telephones.

Separate forecasts of the likely demand for telephones are made for each exchange area, and it is on the basis of these forecasts that the provision of plant is planned. The forecasts take account of past trends and future prospects, including probable business and housing developments, population changes and general expectations about economic conditions.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that information. However, I ask him to bear in mind that in parts of my constituency there is a delay of three years in providing a telephone. These machines are no longer luxuries but necessities. With the dispersal of business and commerce, it is urgent that some more accurate forecasting should be made and that instruments should be more expeditiously provided. Will my right hon. Friend look at his formulae again to see whether they are really reliable?

What has been at fault in the past has not been the formula or the forecasting but the paucity of capital. This is what has held matters back. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that in her constituency half of those now waiting for telephones will have their orders met by June this year.

asked the Postmaster-General when he expects subscriber trunk dialling to begin in Banbridge, County Down.

My right hon. Friend plans to introduce subscriber trunk dialling at 13anbridge during 1967.

Why is the provision of this service so slow in Banbridge? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the head postmastership there has been recently downgraded and that it is important that the people of this community should not feel that they are being victimised?

I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that there is no question of victimisation. As he knows, Banbridge is already an automatic exchange and the reason why this service cannot be provided earlier is that we cannot provide subscriber trunk dialling at Banbridge until additional switching equipment has been installed at the Portadown exchange. This will be completed in 1967.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that people in a number of districts do not want subscriber trunk dialling because it costs the average subscriber more to make his local calls than has been the case hitherto? The hon. Gentleman need not worry about areas which passionately desire to have this service. He can give them priority and let the other people wait, because they will be glad to do so.

The hon. Member is sadly misinformed if he believes that that is the general impression. In fact, exactly the opposite is the case. If people are reasonably brief in their telephone conversations, they are finding that they are saving a great deal of money in making the same number of calls under subscriber trunk dialling than under the old timed system.

asked the Postmaster-General whether the installation of pay-on-answer telephone boxes is being restricted until a decision is made on decimal coinage.

No, Sir.

Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the machines now being installed are capable of inexpensive adaptation when we have decimal coinage?

We have ordered pay-on-answer boxes which will meet our needs until about the beginning of 1965. However, if and when decimal coinage is adopted, all these boxes will require substantial modification.

Can my right hon. Friend assure me that they are being designed so that their adaptation will not be an expensive and lengthy process?

That is a factor which will be taken into account when new orders are placed.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to facilitate the sale of telephone directories to the general public.

Copies of any telephone directory can be obtained, for a small charge, on application to any telephone manager's office. I believe that this arrangement works satisfactorily, but, if my hon. Friend knows of any difficulty and will give me details, I will gladly look into it.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most members of the public find it so difficult to obtain telephone directories for other areas that they are forced to steal them from telephone boxes? Clear evidence of this is afforded by the number of telephone boxes which do not have directories in them. Would it not be very much better to advertise telephone directories for sale rather than to try to persuade the public to send more letters?

I can only speak for people in England. I should have thought that, on the whole, we were a pretty honest bunch. I do not think that people begrudge paying 2s. for a telephone directory.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. H. Clark)—and I represent a constituency in Antrim, too—comes from searching in English telephone kiosks without being able to find a directory so that we can telephone over to Northern Ireland?

asked the Postmaster-General what would be the cost per telephone to fit all new telephones on the subscriber trunk dialling system with a meter which will readily indicate the charge for each call as it accrues, together with the cumulative total.

Even on the basis of universal provision, rather than, as at present, provision on request, the cost could not be substantially less than the present rental of £4 a year per telephone.

Does my right lion. Friend accept that there would be no great technical difficulty in installing in a telephone some kind of meter? While recognising the advantage of the S.T.D. scheme, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he feels that this would be of some advantage to householders in keeping check of expenditure on the telephone?

Yes, I think it might be advantageous to householders in checking telephone expenditure, but I am bound to say that only about ¼ per cent. of people on S.T.D. have applied for the use of these meters.

asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the cost and frequent difficulty of travelling to post offices authorised to pay retirement pensions, he will provide facilities for the payment of such pensions on one day in each week at outlying, villages not having a post office.

My right hon. Friend has consulted the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance about this matter. We are sorry we should not be justified in providing the additional facilities for paying pensions for which my hon. Friend asks. But, if he has in mind any particular case of difficulty and will let us have details, we will gladly see whether there is anything we can do to help. I should mention that all post offices pay pensions.

That is a very disappointing reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that even in my constituency, which is only 13 or 14 miles from London, there are many hamlets several miles from the nearest post office at which pensions can be drawn? Is he also aware that the cost of travelling on country buses is quite high and that a large proportion of the pension is taken in travelling to a post office? Furthermore, these pensioners do not like asking other people to collect their pension on their behalf, especially if they are in receipt of National Assistance. Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again?

I can see my hon. Friend's point, but we already provide post offices in rural areas on as generous a scale as we think we can justify. Normally, we regard two miles as a reasonable distance between post offices in these areas, but we do not keep rigidly to this. If we made this special arrangement, it would have to be by agreement with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance for whom we act only as agents in this matter.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the cost of a return fare on a country bus to travel two miles to a post office can be 3s. or more?

asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to ensure that General Post Office stamp machines are maintained in working order at all times.

Standing instructions provide that these machines should be tested daily and cleared and refilled as often as necessary. Faults are dealt with as soon as possible. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular difficulty in mind we will gladly look into it.

I am grateful for that reply, but it is a fact that in a vast number of areas half these machines are empty and that the coins in other machines vary from halfpennies and pennies to threepenny bits. One never knows what one may expect to find in them.

The normal stamp machine should be looked at once a day and refilled if necessary. In addition to the daily test, all stamp machines are inspected and cleaned every month and overhauled every three months. If they are used to a large extent they are inspected more than once a day. The fact that people use bent coins, foreign coins, and all those things which tend to jam up the works of stamp machines is a problem, but, by and large, we believe that the maintenance is as good as we can possibly provide.

asked the Postmaster-General what proportion of the staff of the Post Office Savings Bank will be expected to move permanently out of London when a new location for the offices has been decided.

It is too early to give an estimate of the numbers who will volunteer to move.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that any movement from Central London will be of great benefit to the country as a whole? I only hope that the jobs of those who move will not be taken by others coming in to fill the posts so created.

That is very much in our minds.

Is it the case that the decision on whether to move or not will depend solely on the number of employees prepared to move?

No, not at all. The number of volunteers will depend partly on the popularity of the location which is chosen and partly on the timing of the building. Obviously, some staff will have to move out of London in the interests of the efficiency of the bank, and staff preferences are only one of the factors which we shall take into account.

asked the Postmaster-General if a decision has yet been reached about the removal out of London of the Post Office Savings Bank.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a further statement on his proposal to move the Post Office Savings Bank administration out of London.

A decision on the location of the Savings Bank has not yet been reached, but I hope to be able to make an announcement by the middle of next month.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that in the west of Scotland area established civil servants, in particular, are very anxious about vacancies to be created in the area for their children who wish to carry on in the Civil Service but, according to the results of the last April examination, to fill a vacancy in their home area their children must be 9 per cent, brighter than London children and 7 per cent. brighter than Newcastle children? Is this not a good case for considering the west of Scotland as a location for transferred offices?

That is one of the many factors considered. We are concerned to go to the most appropriate places where we can get the best site, housing for the staffs who move, school accommodation for their children, and so forth.

On the question of staff preferences, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the staff concerned are fully informed of the facilities offered in the various alternative locations in view of the assurance given on this point by the Lord Provost of Glasgow, for example? Is the Postmaster-General aware of the information given that the further the location from London the less chance then is of staff choosing to go there? This is an important factor. Will the right hon. Gentleman make full allowance for it?

The position is that the Post Office gave a great deal of information to sty ff associations and members of staff about the three principal possible locations. Since then representatives of the staff associations have visited those three locations to see for themselves what conditions are like.

Can my right hon. Friend give further consideration to Tees-side, where there are adequate facilities? Will he bear that in mind when he makes a decision?

Tees-side is one of the locations.

asked the Postmaster-General whether, with the introduction of the Household Delivery Service, he will ensure a second daily delivery of addressed mail in rural districts.

The Household Delivery Service will not affect the number of deliveries of addressed mail. A second delivery of this mail is already made in rural districts when it can be justified.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in new estates in rural areas a second delivery more frequently than not is not available? In view of this and the inconvenience it causes to people living on new estates, will the Postmaster-General undertake to give a priority to the provision of the second delivery of mail in the day-time before he introduces the Household Delivery Service?

As I said before, these particular items can be spread over five days, so obviously there is a lot of room for local postmasters to manoeuvre. We carry out the second delivery wherever it is justified. I am prepared at any time to look at any particular area brought to my notice by the hon. Member to see whether we can justify a second delivery there.

The Assistant Postmaster-General said that a second delivery is carried out in rural areas "where it is justified." Can he tell us the principle of justification which his right hon. Friend has adopted? Is it merely numbers or importance?

The principle is the average cost to us per letter in a particular area. This is the basis of the calculation.

asked the Postmaster-General what guidance he proposes to give to postmasters to meet the position where householders instruct them not to deliver unaddressed mail to their homes.

They have been told to explain that it is not practicable to act in accordance with such instructions.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is rather an infringement of the privacy of the individual? Is he suggesting that the householder has no right to determine what shall be delivered at his home? Is it not true to say that the householder has the right at the moment to refuse to accept delivery of ordinary mail? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter and try to live up to the right of the individual to determine his own particular life?

There is no infringement of anyone's freedom. As the hon. Gentleman points out, anyone can give notice to the Post Office that he does not wish to reecive mail; he can give notice that he wishes his mail to be redelivered to another address. What the hon. Gentleman is doing in this case is asking us to maintain special records, which will show which householders have opted out, and, to deal with complications where, perhaps, there is more than one occupant, keeping records up to date to show changes of occupancy or, possibly, changes of mind, and the records would have to be checked by the postman each delivery, to make sure that these notices were not mixed up with redirection notices affecting ordinary mail. These are important points. Moreover, it is wrong to assume that all the material sent out by this service will be unwanted. In fact there are many items which we have already been asked to deliver. [An HON. MEMBER: "By Aims of Industry, for instance?"] So this service will be welcome, particularly—

How does the hon. Member know?

The hon. Member asks how do I know. Let me put it this way. Let me say, then, that I think so. For instance, many of these things will be notifying matters of social consequence, such as notices about visits of mass radiography units, and so forth. Therefore, I think it is wrong to assume that these deliveries will be unwelcome.

rose—

If it is not practicable for householders to opt out of this scheme for unaddressed mail, what instructions will be given to postmen where a householder has placed a "No Circulars" notice on his gate or door?

Well, of course, it is important to remember that legally all the matters which the Post Office carries are postal packets, and so obviously they are not circulars—postal packets within the meaning of the Act.

On a point of order. In view of the fact that the House has had five previous opportunities to discuss this subject, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Woodburn, next Question.

On a point of order. Did not I understand you already to have called me on this Question, Mr. Speaker?

No.

I think the hon. Member is right. I think I did call him. He is entitled, therefore, in spite of the notice, to ask a supplementary question.

Is not what the Assistant Postmaster-General has just informed the House likely, in view of the fact, as he has said, that householders have a right to refuse to accept delivery of mail, to create a great deal of disturbance in the relationship between the postmen and the householder—if the householder has to tell the postmen to take every item of this kind back?

No. I do not think that this is going to alter the very happy relationship which has always existed. The ordinary householder, if there are ordinary householders who object so violently to this material, would not, I think, associate it with his local postman. I do not think that this will lower the good relations.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will print more stamps with illustrations from other plays by William Shakespeare in connection with the 400th anniversary.

No, Sir. My right hon. Friend will, however, be issuing two Shakespeare air mail letter forms, one of which will feature further illustrations from Shakespeare's plays. Details of these designs will be published shortly.

Is the Minister aware that there seems to be general approval that the Post Office has discovered William Shakespeare but that there is a certain amount of criticism of the design of the stamps? Is he not carrying his well-known prejudice against Scotland too far by boycotting or banning Macbeth? Would he consider doing justice to Scotland by bringing Macbeth into one of the new supplementary issues he proposes making?

In fact, very high tribute has been paid to the design of the stamps by all sorts of bodies, including the Council for Industrial Design. As to the choice of subjects, I must be quite ignorant, because I did not associate not using Macbeth with being anti-Scottish. I can assure the hon. Member that was not the reason why we did not include Macbeth. We had many subjects to choose from we could choose only six; and so we did.

Is there not a play which it night be suitable to commemorate, perhaps some time later in the year, the title of which escapes me but which has something to do with labour lost?

asked the Postmaster-General, whether he will give a direction to the British Broadcasting Corporation, under Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement to refrain from broadcasting sound programmes unsuitable for children between the hours of 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation under the terms of Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement to refrain from sending out, in their sound broadcasting service between the hours of 5 and 6 p.m. on any day except Sunday and Saturday, matter that would reasonably be thought inappropriate for children.

asked the Postmaster-General what representations he has received respecting the content of radio programmes between the hours of 5 and 6 p.m.; and if he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation under Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement not to broadcast adult material during this period.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will give a direction to the British Broadcasting Corporation under Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement to refrain from broadcasting adult sound programmes on the Home Service between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give a direction to the British Broadcasting Corporation under Section 14(4) of the Licence and Agreement to refrain from broadcasting sound programmes designed for adults between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m.

I have received representations from a number of hon. Members on this matter, and I am bringing them to the attention of the B.B.C. I do not think it would be right for me to issue a direction.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that considerable public dismay has been expressed about the B.B.C.'s decision to discontinue the broadcasting of Children's Hour? Is there not a matter of pubic interest involved, since this seems to be a question of the B.B.C. deliberately avoiding its obligation towards a genuine minority listening audience? In the circumstances, and considering the fact that some of the information put out by the B.B.C. about this decision has been tendentious in the extreme, will the Postmaster-General intervene to make representations to the B.B.C.?

The view of the B.B.C. is that the audience for Children's Hour on sound radio has dwindled to a very small number—about 24,000, it reckons, compared with about 4½ million who watch television at the same time. What the B.B.C. has in mind to do—it has not actually done so yet—is to devote roughly half an hour to programmes for elderly people between 5 and 6 o'clock and half an hour to programmes which appeal to both children and adults. I realise that there is a certain feeling both in the House and in the country on this matter. While it is only right that I should say that programme planning is a matter for the B.B.C., I am quite sure that the B.B.C. will heed what is being said in this House today. If the House so wishes, I am perfectly willing to discuss this with the chairman of the B.B.C.

Would the Postmaster-General draw to the attention of the B.B.C. the fact that one of the justifications for its existence in the form of a public corporation is that it caters for minority tastes and interests? Will he draw its attention to the fact that we regard the interests and tastes of children as of great importance and wish to see them catered for in the best manner possible?

Yes, Sir.

When considering this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that in a large part of Scotland television is not recieved? There is no question of television viewing increasing and radio listening declining because many cannot get T.V. Will he bear in mind that there is this minority in Scotland and in a large part of rural Wales where the only entertainment for children is Children's Hour?

That is one important consideration, and also the fact that in many homes there are not television sets but only sound radio sets. Of course, there is the particular difficulty of blind children.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman will lay particular emphasis on that last point, that blind children will be completely deprived of radio entertainment if this service is not maintained?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, apart from television programmes, children themselves have opted for the alternative sound programme "Play Time" on the Light Programme? Over 1 million children are listening to that programme today compared with 20,000 who listen to Children's Hour. If that is why the B.B.C. is now choosing this narrow point of time for a programme for old persons, is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that many people who love the Children's Hour programme are worried that programmes of this quality should disappear, whatever happens?

I entirely agree with the hon. Member.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this will be a great deprivation for blind children and also sick children in hospital and that this programme has a real therapeutic value?

Yes. I am expressing a purely personal point of view when I say that I should not have thought one can decide these matters purely on the basis of figures and numbers.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, irrespective of listening and viewing figures, many parents of young children consider that the programmes put out on sound radio are superior to those on television?

Why has the Postmaster-General not more positive things to say to the House today? Is he aware that the B.B.C. made this announcement more than three weeks ago? Is he aware that there was a Motion on the Order Paper signed by 40 hon. Members and Questions were put down for him to answer a week ago? There was a deluge of letters in the Press and letters to him and to the B.B.C. which have been published. Why has he not made representations to the B.B.C. before he came to the House so that he could positively say that he was intervening on behalf of the House of Commons when there is this public concern? All minorities are being ignored, blind children and people in fringe areas which are not receiving television and those without television sets. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should have used the reserve power to intervene before today?

The short answer is that there are sometimes more effective ways of doing things than that of using a big stick.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will now authorise the educational television experiment for which application has been made by the Independent Television Authority in conjunction with Ulster Television and Queen's University, Belfast; and if he will make a statement.

A whole range of experiments in educational television, of which this is one, have been proposed. They raise important questions of a technical, organisational and financial character and are of concern to several Departments. I am at present discussing these questions with my colleagues. Meanwhile, I am afraid the answer to my hon. Friend's Question must be "No".

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the valuable pioneer work which Ulster Television did about two years ago in this field with the University of the Air? Is he aware that the Independent Television Authority last summer authorised a considerable sum of money for this experiment which Ulster Television and Queen's University, Belfast, have carried on, and can he give some indication when a decision will be reached?

Yes. I hope my hon. Friend win not take my reply as implying any lack of enthusiasm for educational television. We have in fact been most interested in the proposals which have been put up to us by Ulster Television and Queen's University. The reason why we have turned down this particular application is that we believe that in the first place we should settle the principle as to who should produce and transmit these programmes and who should pay for them as well.

Did I understand my right hon. Friend to use the phrase "turn down" in his supplementary answer? I understood from his original reply that t was still under consideration.

I said in my original Answer that the answer to my hon. Friend's Question must be "No".