asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many occasions members of the Civil Service have been attached to private industry for a limited period to gain wider experience of industrial and scientific matters; and how many members of private industry have been temporarily attached to the Civil Service.

During 1961–63 inclusive, 32 members of the home Civil Service of various classes and grades were attached for periods of one month or more to private industry and commerce. Seventy-four people from these fields were attached temporarily to the home Civil Service.

While welcoming these figures, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that they still appear to be rather low? We as a nation really need to break away from the attitude which so often seems to inhibit the Civil Service that it will not touch anything tainted with trade, and, similarly, in free enterprise there are a lot of people who seem to think it is dangerous to be polluted with a public service. Cross-fertilisation in this field would be absolutely invaluable. Would not my right hon. Friend consider initiating discussions with, say, the National Union of Manufacturers and the Trades Union Congress to see how this can be achieved?

I agree very much with my hon. Friend on the principle involved. It is, in practice, difficult to fit people in, for a limited period, either to big business or a Government Department, but I am sure that we should press on with this as much as we can.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much profits and earned incomes, respectively, have increased since this time last year.

I regret that figures for the first quarter of 1964 are not yet available. Even when they are known, comparisons with the corresponding quarter of 1963 would be misleading because of the exceptionally severe weather at the beginning of last year. The figures for the last quarter of 1963 were published with a commentary in the Economic Report, 1963.

Is the Chancellor aware that, quite apart from the first quarter, 235 companies declared their results in April, and this week the Economist reported that their profits show an increase of over 15 per cent. on last year? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Does the right hon. Gentleman really think that with profits increasing like this, and with no step on the part of the Government to introduce any control of profits by a Profits Tax, we have a firm basis for an incomes policy?

I think that this is the misunderstanding. One must look at profits over a period of years, because they fluctuate in both directions. In 1961–62, when they were falling, it was not then suggested, I think, that we should reduce taxation.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is not only 1961–62, but that since 1958 industrial profits have fallen as a unit from a position of about 15 to 8? Would it not, therefore, be completely understandable that industry should attempt to get back to the level of profitability it knew in 1959?

It all shows that much depends on the base year one takes, but the simple fact is that one must assume that sometimes profits should rise faster than wages because, at others, they are falling when wages are going up.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much speculative gains tax has now been collected.

I regret that this figure is not available.

Is it not available, or is it zero?

I think that the hon. Member heard my reply; I said that it was not available.

May I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will disclose to the House the figures he has? Surely he has some information—cannot it be disclosed to the House, with whatever qualifications and reservations may be needed?

I am answering the Question on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put down another Question, I shall be delighted to try to answer it.

In this context, are football pool winnings regarded as speculative gains? Is, it not a fact that if a savage and vindictive tax were imposed, the tendency would be to dry up all forms of savings?

I am afraid that I have to give my hon. Friend the same reply as I gave the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).

Does the Financial Secretary's reply mean that he is unable to give the House any guidance at all about the amount of the speculative gains tax, or is he, in fact, concealing information that would enable him to give some information to the House?

This matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows quite well, has been explored on a number of occasions already and, of course, I do not object at all to further exploration. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well, because the reasons have been given, why it is not possible at this time to give in precise terms anything other than a misleading reply, and it I am afraid that I do not choose to give a misleading reply. Of course, it would be possible to speculate about the size of this tax, but I do not happen to want to speculate about it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether Government Departments and public bodies are situate in Northern Ireland, other than those used for local administration; and if he will state the total number of persons employed.

All the Government offices and public bodies in Northern Ireland are concerned in some way with local matters. There are no dispersed offices there.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with this position?

As I think my hon. Friend knows, we always keep under real review the possibility of getting some central Government work into Northern Ireland, and this we will certainly go on doing. I regret very much that it has not yet been possible to do it.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will inform the Government of Northern Ireland when Government Departments and public bodies are considering transferring offices to, or opening offices in, new locations as part of the Government policy on distribution of offices.

The Treasury was in close touch with the Government of Northern Ireland at the time of Sir Gilbert Flemming's dispersal inquiry last year. We have the situation there well in mind and will certainly inform them whenever there might be prospects of moving Government work, or opening new Government offices, there.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what decisions have now been reached about methods of disposing of redundant bank notes in Scotland and the provinces instead of sending them to London for pulping.

Responsibility, so far as Bank of England notes are concerned, lies with the Bank of England, which advises me that local destruction by it would not appreciably increase security, and would be less efficient and more costly than the existing system.

Would not the Chancellor agree that this project is worth considering as, in view of recent experience, there is no guarantee that these types of redundant notes ever reach the south of England? Is it not the case that there was at one time a disposal unit operating in the City of Glasgow, and would he not agree that if there were one now it would provide additional employment in Scotland?

I do not think that it would necessarily be the type of additional employment in Scotland that one would aim at. Bank notes cannot be destroyed until they have been examined by the Bank of England. Any notes coming to the provincial offices of the Bank of England are defaced before being sent to London for destruction.

Is there any case known in history of a Scotsman destroying a bank note? [Laughter.]

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many applications have been received from landlords by the valuation office in Liverpool in the last 12 months for an increase in the rateable value of their properties.

About 150.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that it is being said on Merseyside that landlords are doing this because they want to avoid rent re-control, which is regarded as a likely occurrence in the near future? Will he indicate how he regards applications made for this purpose?

I do not think that there should be fears on this matter, because whether the rent of the building is controlled depends on its value in the rating valuation list on 7th November, 1956, and cannot, therefore, be affected by what is suggested.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will authorise the installation of duty-free shops in the incoming, as well as the outgoing, lounges of international airports in the United Kingdom.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this proposal would, first of all, prevent aircraft from flying out with their bellies filled with cigarettes, scent and spirits for sale on the way home; that it would beguile passengers awaiting the Customs, and that it would assist airlines like British European Airways which do not seem to have as much time to sell duty-free goods to their passengers as do other airlines?

It is an interesting and novel proposal, but there is no real analogy with the duty-free shops for outgoing passengers, whose purpose is to assist exports by getting people to buy our goods and take them away. As for the carriage of these goods on aircraft, I have, in my Budget, made some advances in the matter.

But does not my right hon. Friend agree that Scotch whisky, for example, sold to incoming Finns is as valuable as it is when sold at London Airport to outgoing passengers?

I would rather take the duty as well as the price.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will review public service pensions in order to make the necessary adjustments to meet the increase in the cost of living since the last review in the Pensions (Increase) Act of 1962.

I have nothing to add to the replies which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) on 5th May.

Is the Financial Secretary aware that the cost of living has risen by 2½ per cent. since the last increase was put on these pensions? Does not he agree that the least we can do for former members of the police force, or other public service pensioners, is to see that there is a regular annual review of their pensions so that they do not suffer an actual reduction in their standard of living?

These are very difficult matters and they are constantly under review, as the hon. Lady knows. It is true, of course, that the increase in the last Pensions (Increase) Act very substantially exceeds any subsequent increase in the cost of living.

In view of the Answer I was given on the last occasion, can my hon. Friend tell me whether he has now considered the problem of the increase in the price of coal? The problem is that these people do not have a place to store coal in the summer, and will therefore have to pay highly increased winter prices. What is the answer to that?

I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer off the cuff because, in fact, my right hon. Friend is considering the matter now.

Does not the Financial Secretary think that it is time that the Government took into account the growing arrangements existing in the public services and elsewhere for a regular review of remuneration? Is he aware that there is a strong and growing feeling that there should be a similar arrangement for a regular review of the pensions of public servants? Would he please undertake to examine that possibility, and give the House a report?

This subject has been discussed on previous occasions in this House, of course, and I do not think that I can add to the previous answers that have been given. Apart from anything else, hon. Members on both sides make quite sure that this kind of issue does not escape notice.

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a growing feeling that hon. Members should not have to importune Ministers on this sort of matter every time? While the hon. Gentleman says that there have been discussions in the past, may I ask him the specific question whether the Government are going into the matter now to see whether there can be a regular review of public service pensions at fixed intervals as in the case of other public service remuneration?

This has been debated many times in the past. No entirely satisfactory form of review machinery has yet been devised, as my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has already informed the House. It does not follow that because one has a regular reviewing machinery pensioners are necessarily better off. It depends upon the terms under which we have that review, and this is one of the matters which are being considered.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to train technical costs officers for service in all branches of the Civil Service.

None, Sir. As the Prime Minister indicated in his reply to the hon. Member's Question on 5th March, the two main employing Departments, Ministry of Aviation and the Post Office, already have training arrangements to supplement—where necessary—the pre-entry qualifications and experience of their technical costs officers.

Is not this, in the light of the Bloodhound episode, a rather complacent view of the situation?

I trust not, but among other things we want to make as sure as possible that we have the training arrangements right. Sir John Lang has been asked to look at this as well. If he has recommendations to make they will certainly be considered.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many temporary civil servants are involved in the new settlement for pensions; and what is the estimated cost.

About 600 temporary civil servants should benefit from this scheme immediately and about a further 7,500 could do so over the next 15 years.

Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks for this rather belated decision? As this is one of the concessions which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Sir J. Pitman) and myself and other hon. Members have been pressing on successive Chancellors of the Exchequer for years, can my right hon. Friend say why when the announcement is made he should not point out that this is an obligation now accepted by Her Majesty's Government which was refused by a Socialist Government?

My hon. Friend has been extremely active in these matters and I know that all concerned will be grateful to her for the support which she has given. We go on progressively under Conservative Governments improving things year by year.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while this settlement is very welcome indeed though belated, as the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has just said, nevertheless, in giving credit for past service the handicap of counting only half unestablished service for pension is still retained in this settlement for all service up to July, 1949? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to remedy that signal omission from the agreement?

As the hon. Member knows, that is part of a very much wider question.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there will be a certain number of temporary civil servants who missed the deadline by a few days or a few weeks? Will he treat their cases sympathetically?

I appreciate that this is always the trouble in introducing new arrangements. One has to draw a line somewhere and somebody is bound to get on the wrong side of it. I cannot see a solution to that problem.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an approximate estimate of the cost of making an Income Tax concession in favour of the physically and mentally handicapped and for incontinent patients for renewal of clothing limited to a maximum of £20 per year.

I regret that I cannot provide an estimate of the cost.

While appreciating the hon. Gentleman's difficulty in this matter, may I ask whether he does not agree that this type of patient suffers financial hardship in respect of the extra cost of wearing apparel and bedclothes? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to give this matter earnest and serious consideration before the Committee stage of the Finance Bill?

I am sure that my right hon. Friend, sitting next to me, has heard what has been said. I know that the hon. Member will appreciate that however sympathetic one may be, and ought to be, with these cases of disability, it is frightfully difficult to draw the line and to be sure that one has drawn it at a point where one can keep it without being unfair to other people who may be similarly circumstanced.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the total grant to the Arts Council was allocated to the London Opera Centre.

0·3 per cent. in 1962–63, 0·8 per cent. in 1963–64 and just under 1 per cent. in 1964–65.

I am grateful for the correction which the right hon. Gentleman has made. Is he aware that at the present time there is considerable public concern about the policy at the London Opera Centre and that only three days ago seven members of the staff resigned? In the light of this, when making future allocations will the right hon. Gentleman review the whole question of policy in respect of that Centre?

I am aware that there is considerable concern about this matter, but I feel that when one gives people, like the Arts Council and other important bodies, responsibility for policy one must leave them to carry it out. As long as one has confidence in them, as I have—

But I have not.

—one must leave them to do their job.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has obtained about the total cost of advertisements for the post of a new director of the London Opera Centre, and about the number and nationality of the applicants.

The post was not advertised and no applications were received.

Does not this indicate that there is still something radically wrong with the policy when a post of this importance is not advertised? Would it not have been more appropriate to seek someone of standing in the musical world, such as Sir Adrian Boult, in competition with others to make sure that public money is spent in the best possible way? Whilst not wanting to interfere with the stand that the right hon. Gentleman has made about the Arts Council having the right to run its own affairs, may I ask whether it is not his responsibility to act as the taxpayer's watchdog in these matters?

This was a matter for the Board of the London Opera Centre. I understood that it took the view that advertisement was unnecessary because in this specialist field the suitable candidates were known to it. Once again, I must emphasise that if we give people responsibility it is a pity to interfere with them in their exercise of that responsibility.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to put his Question when seated?

One ought to observe the fact that there are amplifiers in the back of the seats. Subject to that difficulty, one effects as much rising in one's position as one can.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance? I am satisfied with the answers that I have received from the right hon. Gentleman on this matter; yet I want to take the matter further concerning the London Opera Centre. Therefore, without wishing to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether I am entitled to ask for an Adjournment debate in spite of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has dealt fully with my Questions?

The hon. Gentleman must decide whether or not he wishes to give oral notice. I will treat it as though he had.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will advise the appointment of a Royal Commission to examine the most effective way of helping the arts.

No, Sir.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when there is a genuine industrial dispute, Ministers and trade unionists and conciliation officers and almost everybody else are called in to try and bring the parties together? Presumably my right hon. Friend has confidence in the trade unions and in his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. Can my right hon. Friend therefore explain why when there is a professional argument, and two good women of great integrity on the staff wish to protect the interests of the taxpayer and the taxpayers' money, my right hon. Friend should decline to intervene in what I think is a most sickening process? I hope that the whole thing will be blown sky-high before long.

I cannot share my hon. Friend's sentiments on this point. These are matters which must be sorted out by the Arts Council if it is carrying out its responsibilities, which I think it is doing very well.

Nonsense.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the anticipated loss to the revenue in a full year as a result of the tax relief schemes now being offered by hire purchase companies which have the effect of giving tax relief in respect of interest on hire-purchase agreements.

This will depend on how widely the schemes are adopted.

Does my hon. Friend think that the Hire-Purchase Bill which is at present before Parliament will stop up this loophole? If not, what other steps does he propose to take to do so?

The best thing that I can say to my hon. Friend is that I have noted his suggestion. I will certainly consider it, but I have to say to him that at first sight I am not too sure that I can justify adopting it.

Is not it an interesting example of unconscious bias that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) should want to stop tax relief on hire-purchase payments when no doubt he and other people have managed to get tax relief on their bank interest payments year after year?

I suppose that there are two forms of bias to be disclosed across the Floor of the House.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government Department is responsible for the forward planning of external economic policy.

This responsibility rests with the Treasury, in consultation with other Departments concerned.

Can the right hon. Gentleman say, in particular, how the Foreign Office is drawn into the picture and who is responsible for carrying out policy and for negotiating with foreign Governments at international economic conferences such as G.A.T.T. and the Geneva Conference on Trade and Development? Who is responsible for bringing the foreign policy of this country towards countries like China in line with external economic policy?

Obviously it varies in different cases. Primary responsibility for the forward planning of external economic policy rests with the Treasury, but of course the Foreign Office, the Board of Trade and others are consulted. Responsibilities for conducting negotiations also vary. For example, in G.A.T.T. they normally rest with the Board of Trade, and in the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund they rest with the Treasury. It depends upon the nature of the negotiations.

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the amount of money paid to Messrs. Ferranti for the Bloodhound missile, what further steps he will take to scrutinise and supervise such expenditure in future.

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) on 11th February.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us where were the watchdogs of the Treasury when this bloodsucker operation was going on? Does not this show that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury, or whoever looks after our finances, has allowed a grave scandal to develop? What is going to be done about it?

The answer to the substantive question that the hon. Member has put is that the Treasury does not seek—and I believe it would be very bad organisation if it did seek—to handle in detail contracts that are in fact the responsibility of another Department.

Does my hon. Friend think that hon. Members opposite fully realise that at least 53 per cent. of this money, and possibly up to 78¼ per cent., automatically comes back to the Government by way of taxation?

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will give the amounts spent on roads in 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963, respectively, as percentages of the revenue received from road users by way of fuel tax and licence duty; and if he will give a comparable estimated figure for 1964.

Public expenditure on roads as a proportion of the yield of road fuel taxes and motor vehicle duties in Great Britain was 52 per cent. in 1960–61, 50 per cent. in 1961–62, 54 per cent. in 1962–63 and 56 per cent. in 1963–64. The estimates for 1964–65 yield a comparable proportion of 57 per cent.

Does not the hon. Gentleman believe that the Treasury is taking too big a slice out of the amount of money that is received from motorists? Does not he also agree that congestion on the roads today is costing the economy of the country quite a few hundred million pounds each year? Would not the hon. Gentleman consider making a greater grant to the Ministry of Transport so that more roads can be constructed? So far this year only 7½ miles of motorway will be opened. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that more money should be spent on the roads?

I think that the hon. Gentleman has asked me two separate questions. The revenue from motor vehicle duties, petrol tax and so on paid by the motorist as such goes to the common Exchequer pool. It is not hypothecated—I believe that is the correct term—to a specific purpose. The question whether we should devote more of the total yield of taxes—not just one class of tax—to roads and road services is really a matter for my right hon. Friend, but it does involve the whole balance of investment in this country. I agree that one could have a separate debate on that.

asked the Postmaster-General if lie will require the Independent Television Authority, under Section 9(2) of the Television Act, 1954, to refrain from broadcasting misleading medical advertising.

There is already such a duty on the I.T.A., and for some considerable time now it has been the practice for all medical advertisements to be referred to an appropriate consultant for advice before they are broadcast.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is not aware of the possible injurious effects and consequences of encouraging the practice of self-medication? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that several television advertisements can, by implication, lead the viewer to imagine that there is some almost miraculous cure by some lightning revitaliser? Will not he look into the question very thoroughly in case we become a nation of hypochondriacs?

All these advertisements are vetted by an expert medical man, but as from July of this year there will be a full advisory panel of medical and pharmaceutical people who will consider advertisements.

asked the Postmaster-General what discussions he has had with the British Broadcasting Corporation about the continued use of Alexandra Palace for television, and about putting these arrangements on a permanent basis so as to maintain alternative television facilities in the event of a breakdown at the main television centre or in other emergencies.

The maintenance of television services in the event either of a breakdown in any of the B.B.C.'s centres or of other emergencies is a matter for the Corporation rather than for me. The Corporation has, however, told me that it is retaining Alexandra Palace for television news services until 1967 at least.

Since the centre at Alexandra Palace demonstrated its value in the recent black-out at the main television centre, and since the service at Alexandra Palace is to go out of use, I understand, after the date which the right hon. Gentleman mentions, would it not be appropriate for the Postmaster-General to have discussions with the Corporation to ensure that the service there is continued, as this is a matter of national importance and there is great value in having more television centres?

I agree that this is a matter of public importance, but the Corporation's lease of Alexandra Palace expires in 1967 and it will then be for the Corporation, not for me to decide whether it is renewed or not. In this connection, of course, one ought to weigh the expenditure on a future lease with the risk of a further breakdown, which, on any view, is really rather remote.

asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the fact that tendering by companies for reservation clause business materially alters the condition of tendering and the risks involved for non-ring manufacturers, what steps he takes to advise non-ring companies that tenders are to be invited from ring companies' subsidiaries; and what further steps he proposes to take.

The whole industry has been well aware of Post Office practice since I answered a Question put to me by the hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) on 31st July last, and I do not think that any further steps are necessary.

Will not the Minister agree that permission to ring subsidiaries to apply for reservation clause business strikes at the very root of giving protection to some firms, especially in the development districts or growth areas in Central Scotland, for example? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless some effective steps are taken, we shall have complete monopoly and domination on the part of the ring companies to the detriment of the employment prospects in areas like North Lanarkshire?

No, I do not agree. I see nothing wrong in allowing subsidiaries of the companies which are parties to the bulk supply agreements to tender for reservation clause business. The wider that we can open the field the better it will be.

Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many companies, while linked with the ring firms, have received contracts under the reservation clause for exchange equipment and telephone apparatus? In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman allows this to happen, does he think that he is getting competitive tendering?

In 1963–64, out of 46 firms invited to tender for telephone apparatus, 11 were subsidiaries of the agreement firms, and six out of 37 were invited to tender for exchange equipment. I think the prices that the Post Office is currently paying are evidence that this practice is right.

Did not the Public Accounts Committee recommend that firms outside the ring should be given an opportunity of tendering? Does it not go against this recommendation when subsidiaries of ring firms are considered to be outside the ring? It is nonsensical.

I do not agree with my hon. Friend. What the Public Accounts Committee recommended was that the Post Office should invite tenders from firms outside the agreements. These firms are outside the agreements up to the full limit permitted by the agreements, and this is evidence of determination to widen the field of supply. It is important that the Post Office should observe the practice of making sure that these subsidiaries are effectively independent production units.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) what examination he has made of the advantages of Moulton bicycles in connection with postal delivery services;

There are no Moulton bicycles in use in the Post Office. I do not think we would be justified in introducing them into our service, for the reasons which I have already explained to my hon. Friend, but we intend to purchase a model for further study.

While thanking my hon. Friend for buying at least one of these new bicycles, may I ask him to compare the weight of the Moulton bicycle with the standard model that the Post Office possesses? May I also ask him whether he realises that this is the first advance in cycle design for 80 years? If he were to obtain some more, it might help our exports.

This is the reason we are purchasing a model for further study. But it is important to note that the basic feature of the Moulton machine is the very small wheels which would obviously be a disadvantage in rural areas on rough tracks. Nevertheless, we are purchasing a model and we shall study it very carefully.

asked the Postmaster-General on how many occasions during the past five years the Post Office has paid compensation in respect of parcels damaged as a result of inadequate repacking by Customs officials after exam nation in this country; and what representations have been made to Customs and Excise with a view to a higher standard of repacking.

Parcels selected by Customs for examination are unpacked and repacked by Post Office staff. Records of compensation cases in the form referred to by my hon. Friend are not kept, and such records as we have do not, in any case, go back for five years; but I can say that, during the past 12 months, 187 claims for compensation have been paid in respect of damage to incoming parcels said to have resulted from inadequate repacking after Customs examination.

Is my hon. Friend satisfied that nothing can be done to improve the repacking of these parcels, since it is very disappointing to the recipient of a present to find that it has been damaged as a result of carelessness on the part of the Post Office?

No, I am not satisfied with the position at all. Instructions are given to our staff that they should not disturb the packet more than is absolutely essential and that they should take care to make certain that the package is properly repacked. We shall do everything we possibly can to see that these instructions are properly carried out.

Is it not most unfair to blame the Post Office for this damage? Is it not largely due to British Railways?

It all depends on how the parcel travels. Obviously, at some point it will usually travel on the railways. However, neither the railways nor we are completely satisfied with the way things are handled and we are doing everything we can to make it better.

asked the Postmaster-General what plans he is making to give free telephones to elderly disabled persons.

While I am sympathetic to the needs of elderly disabled people, I do not think that the provision of free telephones is the best way of meeting these needs.

Since many old and disabled people are completely cut off from contact with the outside world, would it not be a boon if free telephones could be given to them, especially in view of the very generous offer which has been made by members of the Post Office Engineering Union to install and maintain these telephones free of charge in their own spare time?

We have discussed the proposal of the Post Office Engineering Union with the union. What it had in mind was a very limited number of cases of people who were within eligibility for National Assistance. It is the fact, of course, that the National Assistance Board is prepared to help in certain cases in providing money for the provision of a telephone. We have had further talks with the Board and the question is presently under review.

Why does not the right hon. Gentleman, having expressed sympathy, conduct a survey to find out how widespread this problem really is and then, after consultation with the Post Office Engineering Union, which is very sympathetic to the idea, try to find out whether it is possible at least to assist with free installation or with rental-free telephones?

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman is that the Government's view is that the right way to help elderly people is by cash payments rather than by free services.

Does my right hon. Friend recall that he was proposing to investigate the possibility of putting in alarm bells for elderly people? Has his Department made any progress in that direction?

This is still under consideration. However, I must say that, once the Post Office departs from its traditional practice of charging for its services, the door is wide open and no one can say where the process might end.