asked the Postmaster-General if he has yet completed his review of broadcasting and television services; what evidence he took to enable him to do so; by what principles he was guided; and if he will now make a statement on his policy regarding the moral, intellectual and other standards which he plans for future radio and television.

I am not yet ready to make a statement. I outlined the principles which would guide the Government in reaching its decisions in the debate on May 13th.

Does the Postmaster-General realise that television and radio are very powerful instruments which could be used for the national good but which are not so used because they are lacking in taste, in instruction and in other qualities which would benefit the nation? Will he, therefore, take steps to improve these services so as to conform to the items which I have just mentioned?

As my hon. and learned Friend knows, programme content is for the broadcasting authorities. While accepting the importance of television and radio for the future of the country, I think my hon. and learned Friend will agree that this constitutes an argument for great care before reaching a decision.

While accepting what the Postmaster-General has said about programme content being the responsibility of the authorities concerned, may I ask whether he will continue to recognise that the content of programmes shown at the hour when young children are still up continues to be a matter of considerable concern to the parents of young children? Will the right hon. Gentleman continue to exercise his supervision over this type of programme?

While very well understanding what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I must stress that I do not supervise, and neither has any Minister supervised, the programme content of the B.B.C. or I.T.A. But I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the comments made in this House about programmes are brought to the attention specifically of the governors of the two authorities whose responsibility it is in the ultimate.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the increase in the television licence to £5 presses harshly on people of bad hearing, especially old deaf people; and if he will make arrangements to save such people from paying the increased cost of television licences.

I have considered with great sympathy the possibility of introducing concessionary fees for various groups, including people of bad hearing. But I have been forced to conclude that it would be impracticable to do so without creating serious anomalies.

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that sympathy is not enough and that the scope of these services is narrowed as a result of people who are poor and who have bad hearing being deprived of the opportunity to use the services? Apart from sympathy, will he take steps to see that justice is done to them?

It was for the reasons which my hon. and learned Friend gave that I made inquiries about this possibility as soon as I took office. But the Post Office is not equipped to assess need. The increases in question come to about ¼d. per viewer per day, and I do not really believe that what my hon. and learned Friend proposes would be the best way of meeting the point he has in mind. The savings cards which are to be introduced in August will, I think, make some contribution to the solution of the general problem.

Is the Postmaster-General still attracted to the idea of getting the B.B.C. to secure part of its revenue at least from advertising?

The hon. Gentleman's question is not framed in accordance with the points I made in the debate on 13th May. What I said then, and I repeat now, is that the Government are seriously anxious to consider any proposal which may be put before them.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will suspend the fees for radio and television licences for retired persons living alone with incomes up to State pension level and National Assistance Board supplements.

I have examined this suggestion with the greatest possible care. However, I am now satisfied that such a scheme would create serious anomalies, and would involve administrative costs out of all proportion to its benefits.

While having no doubt in my mind that the Minister has treated this matter very sympathetically, may I ask him to look at it once again? Will he bear in mind that it should be a fairly simple operation to work out a scheme of application in co-operation with the National Assistance Board and his Department which should not be over-weighty administratively and which would benefit economically very many pensioners and people of that standing? Will he bear very much in mind the fact that a considerable number of pensioners may not be able to use their television sets as a result of this proposed increase?

As I said to my hon. Friend, I shared his desire to help, but I am satisfied that such a scheme would not help the neediest people. It would involve a complicated verification of the need of "living alone". It would put the burden on licence holders. The Post Office would be required to assess need. The benefits would be very small indeed compared with even the renting of television sets which runs between 7s. and 10s. a week as against about 4d. a day for the licence. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said in the debate recently, this is not the best way of meeting this problem.

Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again in the coming weeks? Why is it that local authorities in certain areas can provide free transport facilities to pensioners in deserving cases? There is no great administrative liability in this matter. Will he take into account the fact that, although the pensioners have had an increase in their pension, it is being rapidly eroded. The sum which they have to pay is a very serious hardship to most of these old people.

As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the increases recently announced amount to ¼d. per viewer per day. This is the amount with which we are dealing when we talk about relieving them of the increase. I have looked at this very carefully, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has other considerations in mind which I have overlooked, I shall be glad, naturally, to consider them.

In the light of the examination made by the Minister and his indication of sympathy, would he have discussions with the appropriate Minister for administering the National Assistance Board's scales to see whether something can be done through the Board to help this category of people?

I have considered the question of those who are on National Assistance, but the anomaly which would be created would be that a man who was not on National Assistance would not benefit whereas someone who was on National Assistance might benefit, and some people might be inclined or eligible to go on assistance in order to receive this type of benefit. I do not believe that this is practicable.

asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve television reception in Hafod and other areas of the constituency of the hon. Member for Swansea, East.

Improvements in the quality of reception of television services in particular localities are primarily the responsibility of the broadcasting authorities concerned. Both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are considering what can be done to improve the coverage of their television services in those parts of South Wales where reception is poor. Neither authority can yet say which areas any additional relay stations would serve.

That Answer is extremely disappointing. Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency there are many areas with no definite picture, and I have received representations from people in St. Thomas, Hafod, Bonymaen and other parts of the constituency? Will he use his good offices and make representations in the proper quarter for the erection of a booster station on Kilvey Hill in view of the mountainous terrain round about?

My hon. Friend's observations will be taken note of by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., but I must inform him that the information passed to me by the B.B.C. is that reception of B.B.C. Wales on Channel 13 is satisfactory in most parts of Swansea, although reception is poor in a few districts. The programme is estimated by the B.B.C. to be available to about 80 per cent. of the population of the Borough of Swansea. Reception in Swansea of B.B.C.-1 on Channel 5, the programme put out by West of England, is somewhat better than of B.B.C. Wales on Channel 13, except in a few pockets where reception is poor. The I.T.A. says that reception of its services is satisfactory in many parts of Swansea, although in a few districts reception is poor.

Will the Assistant Postmaster-General remember that it is not only in South Wales where there is need for booster stations for B.B.C. and I.T.A. transmissions—

Order. We cannot travel round the country visiting other places. The Question relates to the constituency of the hon. Member for Swansea, East.

Will the hon. Gentleman impress upon his right hon. Friend the need to see that these fringe areas with poor reception have their bad reception remedied before he accedes to the £6 licence fee which is generally understood to be agreeable and likely to be agreed upon in the not-too-distant future?

My right hon. Friend is always prepared to give serious consideration to any idea which may be ventilated for the improvement of services to the general public.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to set up a viewers' council for the British Broadcasting Corporation, on the same lines as the General Advisory Council of the Independent Television Authority.

The B.B.C. have had a General Advisory Council for very many years.

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many of us are thoroughly fed up with some of the programmes that the B.B.C. is producing? Even if it has the General Advisory Council, that Council is not very effective. Surely what is wanted is a strong Council which the B.B.C. will listen to.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of the I.T.A. General Advisory Council and, therefore, his experience of the work of these Councils is personal. I have put it to both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. since I have been in office that possibly the General Advisory Councils, might be used as a court of appeal if people were not satisfied with the views of the Governors themselves, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that not only did the B.B.C. reject that idea; so did the I.T.A.

Is it not a straightforward fact that the repute of the B.B.C., once the envy of Europe, has now reached as low a level as ever known in our lifetime? Are not devices such as councils suggested because we have a service of which we are ashamed?

I am afraid that, on this as on many matters, there are differences of opinion. A very large body of opinion in this country and throughout the world envies the standards achieved and maintained by the B.B.C.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people here and outside are far more concerned about the wholesale assault that seems to be being built up by the Tory Central Office and the leaders of the Conservative Party to influence the control and management of B.B.C. programmes on radio and television in the direction of Tory propaganda?

Whatever the truth of that comment may be, there obviously would be very great danger for everyone if political interference of any kind were to take over the control of broadcasting by the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will seek power to ensure that he is informed by the Governors of the British Broadcasting Corporation of the persons they propose to appoint as Directors-General in future.

No, Sir. The Governors of the B.B.C. have been given the responsibility for appointing their own staff. This is the best arrangement.

Is the right hon. Gentleman considering making any representations to the governors about the replacement of the present Director-General?

No, Sir. The House has approved the arrangements under which the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. are controlled by Governors who are thought to be and who are men of great responsibility. In those circumstances, for the Minister to come in and say who should and should not be appointed by those people to be their chief executives would be constitutionally unsatisfactory.

Could not the Minister be informed?

The same point would arise. If the responsibility for appointing their chief executives lies with the Governors, information about the appointment could come to me only after the appointment had taken place, and it is already made public.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in spite of the constant sniping from hon. Members opposite, many of us believe that the present Director-General of the B.B.C. does a good job? Is he further aware that if anything many of us think that the Director-General of the B.B.C. errs on the side of over-caution? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that, out of consideration for the excessive sensitivity of hon. Members opposite, last week the Director-General of the B.B.C. took off a play which was critical of hon. Members in the belief that it would have offended them and that the Director-General should be told that the B.B.C. is perfectly at liberty to criticise us and hon. Members opposite?

I do not think that it is for me to comment on the quality of the Director-General, but it would be wrong to assume from some of the Questions which have been tabled that the views which have been expressed about the Director-General are as widely held as might appear to be the case.

asked the Postmaster-General what are the reasons for the delay in implementing measures to combat the effect of interference by foreign stations on British Broadcasting Corporation television reception; and what steps he is taking internationally to deal with this problem.

The B.B.C. tells me that there is no general delay in implementing the measures it is taking to improve the reception of its television services in areas where interference from continental stations is specially severe. The assignment of the scarce frequencies available for television is already most carefully planned internationally to combine the greatest use with the least interference.

Does the Postmaster-General realise that intense annoyance is caused to thousands of people in the West Country and many other places by this interference on B.B.C. programmes which, in spite of what has been said quite a number of people still wish to see and hear? They wonder why the interference is not caused on I.T.V.? Could not the Postmaster-General do something internationally to stop this interference which is of great annoyance, over a prolonged period, to a very large number of people?

The allocation of frequencies, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is internationally agreed to order to maximise the use and minimise the interference. This is, in part, a seasonal problem. At this time of the year interference is more serious. As far as remedies are concerned, the B.B.C. has completed 36 relays, and 30 more will be completed in 1965 and 1966. For the high power Band-III transmissions there will be five transmitters. Two of them are open and three more are to come. This is a problem which can only be tackled where it is acute by the provision of more relay stations. I assure the hon. Gentleman that international reallocation would not solve the problem.

If the B.B.C. is in trouble, could not the Postmaster-General help it and get it to provide the relay stations more quickly?

When the B.B.C. gave me its latest plan for relay stations I invited it to prepare another one to deal with the areas badly affected, and a new stage of its relay scheme is in course of preparation.

When the right hon. Gentleman is looking into this matter, could he also look into reception of both B.B.C. 1 and B.B.C. 2 in the London area, which is exceptionally bad compared with I.T.V. reception?

If the hon. Gentleman has any particular point he would like to bring to my attention in this respect I will see that the engineers look at it. It depends very much on areas, and certainly in the area where I live reception is affected by overhead jet aircraft. Good aerials can perhaps eliminate trouble, even in the centre of big cities.

asked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for extending the coverage of B.B.C. 2 television to Scotland.

asked the Postmaster-General when he expects B.B.C. 2 to be available in Scotland.

Planning the extension of the coverage of B.B.C. 2 is a matter, in the first place, for the B.B.C. The first of its main UHF stations to bring B.B.C. 2 to Scotland is expected to open at Black Hill next December. This station will serve central Scotland including Glasgow and part of Edinburgh. A second station is expected to open at Durris towards the end of next year or soon afterwards, to serve North East Scotland. Further stations are being planned to extend B.B.C. 2 to the rest of Scotland, but it is too early to say when the additional stations are likely to open.

Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that, for a change, in the future when any new service is developed by the B.B.C., or by a public service organisation, the regions outside London will get first "go" and that London will come last? Does he recognise we are getting rather tired, in Scotland and the North-East and elsewhere, of London getting first choice and the regions lagging behind, although the regions are called upon every time to pay at the same time as London?

I can understand the feelings of my hon. Friend, and many other hon. Members in this respect and in respect of increased services. I have no doubt that the observations he has made will be brought to the notice of the B.B.C.

asked the Postmaster-General when B.B.C.2 will be available to Yorkshire viewers.

Planning the extension of the coverage of B.B.C.2 is a matter, in the first place, for the Corporation. One of its main U.H.F. stations, which will bring B.B.C.2 to viewers in South Yorkshire, is expected to open at Emley Moor towards the end of October. Another to serve North Yorkshire is expected to open in the Autumn of 1967. Together these two stations will make B.B.C.2 available to a large part of Yorkshire. Further stations are being planned to serve the remaining areas of Yorkshire, but it is too early to say when these additional stations are likely to open.

asked the Postmaster-General what is the cost per viewer of television services in each British Broadcasting Corporation region.

This is a matter for the B.B.C. I have asked it to send my hon. Friend the latest figures which it has available.

asked the Postmaster-General what further steps he proposes to take to enable the British Broadcasting Corporation to overcome its financial difficulties.

I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement I made to the House on 14th April in which I announced that, as part of its wider reviews of broadcasting policy, the Government would be giving further study to the problems of broadcasting finance. This study is proceeding but I am not yet ready to make a statement.

Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the reluctance of the last Government to face up to their responsibilities in failing to increase the licence fee at a time when the B.B.C. was expanding its services has led very substantially to these difficulties? Can he say whether in his review he is considering advertising as a source of revenue?

I have already dealt with a similar Question about this, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the speech which I made on the 13th May. It is true that the B.B.C. was losing money at the rate of about £40,000 a day when this Government took over, just as the postal services were losing money at the rate of over £50,000 a day when we took over. This certainly has accentuated the difficulties.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston)? Many of us take the view that the B.B.C. is quite right to reject advertising, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to support the Corporation in that.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that I was not advocating the use of advertising? I was asking him a question.

asked the Postmaster-General what were the reasons which led him to increase the fee of the Railex service from 6s. to 20s. a packet.

The fee was put up because of the very heavy loss we were incurring on Railex packets; even with the new charge, the service will not be paying its way.

What is the purpose of the Minister's right hon. Friends asking for price restraint when commercial, financial and legal concerns have to face this sort of increase? Is it his right hon. Friend's intention to price the service out of existence?

It is not the intention of the Post Office to price this service out of existence. Perhaps I should inform the House of what the position really is. Before the tariff increase, about 22,000 Railex packets were posted annually. Without the tariff increase the loss on the service in 1965–66 was expected to be about £23,000. With the increase, the loss is still estimated at about £4,000. It is not, therefore, the object to try to price it out of existence.

As the increase to 20s. has not eliminated losses but has eliminated many users of the service, such as myself, will my hon. Friend say what charge would have to be imposed so that the service "washed its own face"?

It is not so much that one is seeking to give the service, as it were, to one individual, but this is a service afforded to all the general public. I must ask the House to realise how the service actually operates on behalf of the general public. There has to be a messenger who goes to the railway station, and the packet is put on the first available train to the station of destination. The office of delivery is notified by service telegram, and that office in turn sends a messenger to meet the train and deliver the packet. If a packet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] I hope that hon. Members will take this seriously. It is no use their directing criticism against the Post Office and its operations if they are not prepared to accept the facts when they are presented to them. If a packet has to be transferred between stations at an intermediate town, this also is done by a messenger and the post office concerned is notified by telegram.

asked the Postmaster-General how many post offices were affected by the shortage of penny stamps on 17th May and succeeding days; what was the cause of the shortage; and when it was rectified.

This information is not available centrally. Most offices had plenty of stamps, and those which ran short were supplied within a few hours of ordering them. As the House knows, the shortage was due to unofficial action by staff in our supplies depots, from which stamps are issued to head offices. Emergency measures were set in hand at once, and almost all post offices were thus able to stock up again fully within two or three days. I want to make it absolutely clear that at no time was there any shortage in the stocks of stamps held by the Post Office supplies depots. Sufficient stamps had been ordered and printed to meet the requirements of the new tariff scales.

Does not the Postmaster-General realise that this sort of smokescreen is not much good and the general public were seriously inconvenienced over a long period? In his reply to me last week he admitted that he did not know how many stamps were printed. Is it not plain that he never took any steps to see that the shortage could not happen?

Nobody regrets the shortage of stamps more than I do, but the simple fact is that there never was a shortage of stamps held by the Post Office. Unofficial action in the supplies department prevented the stamps from being distributed in the normal way, and there was no shortage of stamps in the Post Office itself. I have explained this to the House, and I think that the hon. Gentleman knows it.

The right hon. Gentleman has said in the House that the unofficial action by members of the Post Office staff was of only very short duration. Will he not recognise that it is no good having stamps in the Post Office if the stamps are not made available where the public can get hold of them? Does not he look upon this as one of his most glaring administrative failures since he took office?

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have looked at the facts, which were that unofficial action began at the end of April and continued until quite recently. I was concerned solely in my reply with the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol. West (Mr. Robert Cooke), namely, that the Post Office had not ordered enough stamps to be printed.

I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said—[Interruption.]—but will he not also accept—[Interruption.]

Order. So much noise as this prevents progress at Question Time.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman also accept that, in face of the problems with which he and his Department were faced, this was an occasion for some remarkable steps in order to break the deadlock and therefore serve the public? Why was not that done?

The hon. Member apparently did not listen to my Reply, which was that emergency action was taken, that most offices were not short of stamps and that those that were short were supplied within a few hours. That was my original Answer and represents the facts of the situation.

asked the Postmaster-General in how many newspapers he advertised the increase in postal charges on 17th May; what was the total number and cost of such advertisements; and whether he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the amount of space taken in each newspaper and the cost thereof.

asked the Postmaster-General what was the cost of publicity advertising the increases in postal charges.

asked the Postmaster-General what will be the total cost of advertising the increased postal charges.

The total cost was £109,500, including £4,500 for posters and leaflets. The new charges were advertised in 130 publications, the total number of advertisements being 361. The detailed information asked for is too lengthy for the OFFICIAL REPORT. I am therefore placing it in the Library, and sending a copy to the hon. Member for South Norfolk.

Is not this a somewhat curious example of the right hon. Gentleman's alleged constant efforts to keep down expenditure? Was it really necessary to take twice the space required to set out the new charges in order to reiterate some well-accepted platitudes? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public fully appreciates that men and women are required to collect, handle and deliver the mails but does not wish to pay indirectly through Post Office deficits to be given that information?

The first advertisement only contained the outlined reasons which I think the public was entitled to know, and in this we reflected the decision reached by the House when the tariffs were adopted in March.

Are these advertisements placed in all the national newspapers, or is there any differentiation because of ownership or political persuasion? Was the Daily Worker included? If not, why not?

I have been into this question. The Daily Worker and the New Daily were not included. This was not a policy decision but was taken on the advice of the agents who represent the best way of covering the nation.

Surely Communists use stamps.

asked the Postmaster-General what transfers of postal departments are contemplated; and if he will site some in the new town of Peterlee in the county of Durham.

I assume my right hon. Friend is referring to any department of the Post Office. We are in process of making or planning several moves for which locations have already been settled. I am afraid my right hon. Friend cannot commit himself to particular locations for any other moves that may take place.

Has not the Postmaster-General already committed himself in various directions? What is the use of giving me that Answer? Does not my hon. Friend know that the new town is quite near the sea, is in lovely countryside, has wonderful people and is in the process of industrial development? Is he further aware that the Minister of Housing and Local Government has promised to step up the amenities? What more does my hon. Friend want?

I can appreciate the feelings of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) about Peterlee and I have great sympathy with him. But, in addition to the moves which have already taken place the following four are in progress or are planned and the location settled: the Savings Bank goes to Glasgow, the Research Branch to Martlesham, the London depots of the Supplies Department to Crayford, and the Savings Certificate Division to Durham.

Peterlee is in the County of Durham. My hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General represents a Durham County seat. Why does not he look after our interests?

My right hon. Friend has not taken note of the reply. I said that the Savings Certificate Division is going to Durham.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will now increase the range of products manufactured by the Post Office; and if he will set up new manufacturing divisions for this purpose.

I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend on 12th May.

So large an organisation as the Post Office, if in private hands, would naturally produce a much larger proportion of its own supplies. Will my right hon. Friend look into this again and see whether the Post Office can emulate some of the best examples of private enterprise?

As I said, I will study the possibilities and shall not hesitate to extend the range of manufacturing activities if I am satisfied that it is sensible to do so.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that envelopes which have been delivered to households in Welwyn Garden City and Hatfield are overprinted with offensive words suggesting that the recipients are bad debtors; and if he will take steps to ensure that such envelopes are not delivered.

I know of the circumstances to which my noble Lord refers. But my right hon. Friend does not think the words in question are, on the face of them, grossly offensive within the meaning of Section 11 of the Post Office Act, 1953, and he cannot, therefore, agree to do as the noble Lord asks. Whether the words may be grossly offensive when considered in relation to a particular addressee, the Post Office is not in a position to decide: but it is, of course, always open to an aggrieved party to start proceedings under the Post Office Act if he wishes.

May I assure the hon. Gentleman that these words are grossly offensive? Is he aware that envelopes have been delivered in Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City with printed on them in large red letters:

"Bad debt collecting service. We only call on those who do not pay."

In spite of what the hon. Gentleman says about being advised that these words are libellous, and—

By lawyers.

—it is not for me to say whether they are, although I realise that in certain circumstances the words could give serious offence, I am advised that, without knowledge of the circumstances relating to each recipient, it could not be said that on the face of them they were necessarily grossly offensive within the meaning of the Post Office Act.

Even though these words may not be libellous, they are certainly offensive. Ought not the hon. Gentleman to take them seriously and look at the matter again?

I am just as serious about this matter as anybody else and I agree that on the face of it it looks as though the words are grossly offensive, but I am advised by the legal department that they cannot be said to be offensive within the meaning of the Post Office Act.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) from what proportion of automatic stamp vending machines, other than those selling books of stamps, it is now possible to buy fourpenny stamps;

There are no stamp-selling machines dispensing fourpenny postage stamps. My right hon. Friend is reviewing the range of stamps sold through machines and the capital cost of any proposed changes will not be known until the review is completed.

Does not the Postmaster-General agree that it is rather ludicrous for a Government who claim to be the harbinger of the computer age to have to confess that they cannot keep their stamp-vending machines up to date? Does he not appreciate that they are often the first impression of public enterprise which visitors to this country have at airports and seaports? As the right hon. Gentleman does not have much time left before the 4d. stamp goes up to 5d., will he not take some steps to deal with the matter now?

The hon. Gentleman was very optimistic in the latter part of his supplementary question. I hope that it will not be very long before we are able to deal with this matter, but we have nearly 28,000 stamp selling machines of various kinds and the hon. Gentleman will agree that any wholesale alterations must be carefully considered. In the meantime, the existing installations meet the requirements of the new postage rates.

In view of the Labour Government's programme, would it not be much more economic to leave the machines as they are until the cost of the stamp has gone up to 6d., in which case one would only need to buy two 3d. stamps?

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all over the West Country we have had stamp selling machines selling no stamps at all because the stamps have been taken out of the machines by the Post Office and stuck on nails along counters because no other stamps have been available for sale?

The hon. Gentleman is a poor advocate of the Post Office service in this country when he makes statements of that kind which can be published.

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that what my hon. Friend is trying to do is to point out to the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend something which they have been utterly unwilling to face—that this has been the biggest monumental bog-up over stamps?

At least my hon. Friend has the moral courage to tell the general public, which is what hon. Members opposite never attempted to do.

asked the Postmaster-General whether regular checks are made to ensure that each premium bond prizewinners' draw includes all eligible bond numbers; and what complaints he has received on this matter.

I can assure my hon. Friend that a number of elaborate checks are regularly made. Occasionally bond-holders question whether their bonds have been included in the draws; but during the many years for which the system has been working no case has come to light in which an eligible bond has failed to get its due chance of a prize.

Does my hon. Friend recognise that this Question arose directly out of an article in the Daily Mirror a few weeks ago, and will he take this opportunity of affirming that there were inaccuracies in that report and that all possible steps are taken to ensure that every premium bond holder's number goes into the draw when eligible?

I am pleased my hon. Friend has given me an opportunity to follow up the question of the Daily Mirror article. I have no doubt that many hon. Gentlemen read this article. It was founded on two separate and isolated cases. One case reported in the Daily Mirror of March, 1964, alleged a bundle of completed application forms for the purchase of premium bonds had been retained at a bank for six months. This story could not be corroborated and the London Clearing Banks Committee could throw no light on the matter. In the second case a bond holder wrote to the Financial Times alleging that in 1961 two application forms relating to his bonds were kept in a drawer for eight months after being so mutilated that the bond owner could not be traced. The actual facts were quite different. In September, 1961, the account at Worksop Post Office indicated the sale of the two bonds, in total £6, but our checks showed that the application forms had not been received in the Bond Office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that my number seems to be constantly ignored? Will he be good enough to look into the matter?

asked the Postmaster-General what factors govern the permitted size of parcels sent by parcel post within the United Kingdom.

The size of the fittings and the machines used for sorting and handling the parcels, and the bags in which they are moved about the country.

In view of the difficulties of the shirt industry which the hon. Gentleman knows, can his Department make any suggestions to try to solve this problem?

Even if we could avoid expensive changes in machinery, fewer such parcels would go into the bag and handling costs would go up. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have had conversations with the people in Northern Ireland on this matter, and I hope soon to be able to give a more favourable reply.

Would the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend to speed up the delivery of parcels between Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

We are doing everything we possibly can even in regard to the parcels service.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that one of the difficulties in Northern Ireland, and especially in Belfast, is that there appears to be a little "Gestapo" at the post office in Belfast which is still censoring the parcels of a certain minority? Will he look into the fact that a room at the post office in Belfast is being used for this "Gestapo" purpose?

I do not think that that is a matter for us. I made a visit to Belfast during the Whitsun Recess and no operations of this type were brought to my notice.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a special stamp issue to commemorate the 40th anniversary next year of the General Strike.

No, Sir. As a participant in the General Strike I can well appreciate the significance of this historical event. It is something I shall never forget. However, it is not the intention of my right hon. Friend to issue a special commemorative stamp on this occasion.

Does not my hon. Friend feel that the commemoration of an event of this kind could make a very valuable contribution both to revenue and productivity? Will he have another look at this matter, and, in deciding whether political events can be commemorated, does not he feel that the commemoration of Parliament itself might have been a political event?

I assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend has every sympathy with the object of the Question and the reason for this commemoration. But it is a moot point whether the 40th anniversary of the General Strike comes within the scope of the policy announced on 15th December last.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that special issues of stamps are best and most appropriately confined to those occasions on which the nation was in unity and not deeply divided?

I do not think that it was united on Magna Carta. I think that all my hon. Friends would give added support to the sentiments expressed in the Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston).

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman over the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) has brought up this very touchy question of special stamps, but would he admit that a commemorative stamp for the 700th anniversary of the Simon de Montfort Parliament and for the death of Sir Winston Churchill are long overdue? Is he aware that, although a Sir Winston Churchill stamp has not yet been produced in this country, one has already been produced in the United States? And is he not ashamed—

Order. Difficult though it may be, we must confine this commemoration to the General Strike.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is satisfied with the development progress of British telephone equipment, and its availability to the public; and if he will make a statement.

British telephone equipment is constantly being improved and developed to take account of technological advance. It is being made available to the public as rapidly as possible as part of the big expansion of the British telephone system now under way. To meet rising demand and use, a new capital investment programme is now in course of preparation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress of the development of new types of equipment, such as those which have been available in the United States for some time, for instance, rapid dial systems and call directors, which are useful not only for efficiency at home but for exports? Moreover, will he give some indication of when deliveries of loud speaker telephones, which are currently running a long time behind schedule, will be resumed and returned to normality?

I will inquire about loud speaker telephones and write to the hon. Gentleman, because I cannot tell him offhand what the supply position is. As he may know, I especially arranged for an exhibition of subscriber apparatus in the House of Commons at Easter so that hon. Members would have the opportunity to see what was available, and it included not only trimphone, which has come into service, but also repertory diallers of the most modern kind and various other things, including press-button telephones, which are in the process of advanced development.

While recognising the importance of pressing on with new apparatus, will the right hon. Gentleman say when he is likely to be able to remove the backlog of orders for ordinary telephones, a backlog now running into thousands?

As the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, an accelerated capital investment programme was announced at the time of the 1963 White Paper, but was entirely outstripped by demand. The position when I came into office was that the forecast was that the waiting list was likely to increase rather than diminish as had been hoped. This is the problem—that the Post Office is installing more telephones than ever before, while at the same time demand is outstripping supply, even with an expanded programme. That is why a new capital investment programme is in course of preparation.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have been waiting for about six months for an ordinary 15 ft. lead to go on a loudspeaker telephone and that my example is typical of the many long waits of subscribers for new equipment? When will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for equipment to be delivered promptly and swiftly when ordered by subscribers?

I do not recall the hon. Gentleman's having brought his own case to my attention, but I will look into it to see what can be done.

To ask the Postmaster-General, what new proposals he has for improving the telephone system.

On a point of order. May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I hold in my hand a letter saying that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to answer my Question No. 66 with Question No. 21, which is in very similar terms but which the right hon. Gentleman is not here to ask.

The only guidance which I can give to the hon. Gentleman is that in these circumstances no question for me arises.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will list the benefits to which a subscriber is entitled in exchange for his telephone charges.

The opportunity to call and be called by practically all those people throughout the world who also have access to a telephone; subject to the usual limitations imposed by acts of God, human errors and technical breakdowns.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as between Dorset and London the benefit commonly provided in the morning is a synthetic voice which says, "All lines are engaged"? Would the Postmaster-General consider, if this cannot be improved, that subscribers should have some rebate on the rental they pay?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, trunk traffic is rising at the rate of about 17 per cent. a year. He will be glad to know that in the next five years more trunk circuits will be provided than in the last 50 years, and this should help to deal with the problem he has in mind.

I was not asking the Postmaster-General about his difficulties in providing the service. He has not answered my Question whether, if the service cannot be provided, which is what I understand him to say, then subscribers ought not to be asked to pay for it.

Subscribers who cannot get through because the number which they wish to call is engaged, or the line they need is engaged, are not required to pay and there will be nothing on which to give them a rebate.

In order to enjoy these benefits, and as a first step towards improving this service, would the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that it needs more improvement? It is one of the most frustrating features of modern life trying to get telephone numbers, and if his Department cannot improve the service, would he consider handing it over to private enterprise which, as in the United States, might be more successful?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been frank about the deficiencies of the service, which vary very much in different parts of the country. In the South-East and London, where there is congestion in schools and trains, there is also a very serious congestion in the telephone system. This is something that cannot be put right overnight, because one has to get the equipment and install it. I cannot believe that the limitations, which are now limitations of manpower, equipment and sites, would in any way be altered by a change of ownership in the service, and this view was evidently shared by the Conservative Party, which took no move in this direction in 13 years.

asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve the public telephone service at London railway termini.

Some public telephones have had to be withdrawn from some London railway termini because of rebuilding work: they will be replaced as soon as conditions permit. I regret that many of the call offices in these locations are misused or given rough treatment by some members of the public. We inspect them regularly and attend to faults promptly and my right hon. Friend is considering how best to make the inspections more effective. But it would be in everybody's interest and improve the service markedly if all who use these facilities were to leave them in a state suitable for others who follow.

Will the Postmaster-General consider this as a matter of urgency? Is he aware that the existing telephones are frequently very dirty, that a large proportion appear to be out of order and that over a test of ten occasions when I endeavoured to get the operator, it took me between one and five minutes to do so? Quite apart from the inconvenience which is caused to the British travelling public, does not this create an appalling impression to visitors from overseas?

We are doing everything we possibly can to speed up building and other work, but I must point out that the fault liability of call offices is greater than that of ordinary telephones because the equipment is more complicated and they are often abused by the public. Everything possible is being done to reduce the number of faults and prompt attention is always given to the faults that occur.

May we have an assurance from my hon. Friend that these problems have not just occurred during the last eight months but have been going on for 13 years or more?

That, I am afraid, is the position. This is another part of the inheritance that was passed to us.

Will the Minister think of providing machines for giving change in these stations, because it is sometimes difficult to have enough change to use in a telephone box?

I hope that the hon. Member has not overlooked the new facility that we have introduced in regard to the credit card.

I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 19, after "section", to insert "or otherwise".

"It is quite true, as the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) said, that that would simply create three classes of tenants—statutory tenants frozen here, mid-statutory tenants and regulated tenants. All that will have been achieved is the creation of a three-class State. I think that the two-class State is intolerable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th June 1965; Vol. 715, c. 439.]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle) for moving this Amendment so briefly, because, as he has pointed out, we discussed the substance of the Amendment when discussing new Clause No. 3, which we accepted late last night. There was only one thing which I thought was a little unfair in what he said. That was when he implied that our actions had had something to do with the Amendment. Of course, if the right hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Brooke), in his new mood, had had his way and a system of flexible rent control had been introduced in 1957, we should not have had this problem.

rose—

I will just finish this, if I may.

I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which he did not give way for me to put. We all appreciate the great problem of the decontrolled and the administrative matters involved in dealing with it. If one house which is decontrolled is dealt with by the rent officer and a half a dozen houses in the same road happen, because of the time of occupation—before 1957—to be still controlled, why should not the rent officer procedure apply to the whole lot in the same manner?

Apparently one has to say everything twice to be intelligible. I said that the reason was that there would be too many cases. We have put forward this system of regulation for administrative convenience and not for any difference of principle. This is the difference which I had with some of my hon. Friends who wanted to make a difference of principle here. I see no difference of principle.

The administrative convenience, in our view, goes so much to the principle that the Minister should have arranged the whole system differently. He could have avoided the crush about which he spoke by applying his regulated tenancy system to a lower rateable value limit and to specific areas.