asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that representations by retirement pensioners have been rejected for installation of a post-box in the Old Hollow and Lower Road area, West Malvern, which is notoriously hilly, thus requiring pensioners to walk considerable distances to the nearest post-box, causing undue strain and fatigue; and whether he will reconsider his decision and instal a postbox at a convenient point in that area of West Malvern.

There are posting boxes some 300 yards to the north and south of the area in question. Although there are hills, circumstances generally do not justify the installation of a third posting box in the area, and I am sorry therefore that I cannot do as the hon. Gentleman asks.

Will the hon. Gentleman re-examine this position, having regard to the fact that 300 yards for very elderly men and women living in these old people's homes and in a notoriously and extremely hilly district in Malvern represents real hardship, and that many old-age pensioners are just not able physically to struggle to the postbox where he now has it sited?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of this, but on 6th March, 1967, the West Malvern Road sub-post office, which closed temporarily last October when the sub-postmaster resigned, reopened on a new site only 320 yards from Old Hollow, and the posting box attached to this office was resited from its previous position to a site only 410 yards from the bungalows where the aged people are. There is also another box at the site of the previous sub-post office which is only 300 yards from the bungalows. I have every sympathy with the application of the hon. Gentleman in regard to aged people, but we have to try to reach a position whereby we can keep this within reason.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement concerning a fraudulent conversion by a Post Office employee of moneys officially deducted from pay slips, which has led to the freezing since 27th August last of all payment from the National Savings holiday club funds at Stafford Head Post Office, into which some £6,000 had been paid; and if he will state his proposals for restitution to those robbed.

A joint investigation by the Union of Post Office Workers and the Post Office has revealed that when all the loans have been repaid to the club there will be sufficient funds to meet all known commitments.

asked the Postmaster-General why no rise in letter and parcel traffic is expected in 1967–68.

This was, of course, only our estimate at the time the Prospects White Paper was published. Postal traffic is affected by various factors. Present trends suggest that we may have been over cautious in the White Paper estimate.

Was the original estimate based on the idea that because there had been increased costs the law of diminishing returns should be brought into operation?

No, Sir. It was based on the trend at that time. Since the White Paper was written, which was some weeks ago, there has been a slight upward trend in postal traffic, so it looks as though we erred on the cautious side.

asked the Postmaster General whether he will issue instructions that in all towns of over 50,000 population at least one post office should remain open until 6 p.m. from Monday to Friday, inclusive.

No, Sir. We keep offices open until 6 p.m. in exceptional cases, but this is done on the basis of an examination of the business transacted at each office.

Is my hon. Friend aware that in most towns a large number of people, due to their working hours and conditions, find great difficulty in getting to the Post Office between the normal hours of nine and five? In his drive to make the Post Office efficient, will he remember that the element of service should always remain within the Post Office?

Yes, Sir. This is one of the things which we take into consideration, and after looking carefully at local conditions here we decided that there was not sufficient business at any office in Southampton to justify a later closing time than 5.30 p.m.

asked the Postmaster-General what consideration he had given to a reduced charge for parcels offered in bulk for postal delivery; and if he will make a statement.

Several methods of assessing postage on bulk postings of parcels are being considered and I hope to be able to announce a scheme fairly soon.

Does the Postmaster-General agree that, as a result of the introduction of a discount of this kind, there would be a substantial transfer into the Post Office of parcels from mail order firms and manufacturing firms producing small components, and that this would have the healthy side effect of transferring traffic from the roads to the railways?

We already do a substantial amount of business with mail order firms. This is the reason why we want to introduce this scheme. We feel that it can be made to work. I am grateful for the help given me by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) in drawing up this scheme.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement on the pay negotiations relating to Post Office staff; and how they will be affected by the prices and incomes policy of Her Majesty's Government after 30th June, 1967.

Negotiations are now continuing on a number of pay claims. Any pay increase resulting from them will be implemented in the light of the White Paper on Prices and Incomes Standstill: Period of Severe Restraint.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he gave me a similar answer to a similar Question on 26th October last year? Is he aware that the claim of the Post Office engineers has been outstanding for long before the pay freeze came in? Can he assure the House that there will be speedy action on this matter?

The last answer I gave was similar, but I now say that negotiations are proceeding on these pay claims.

Have not Post Office employees resented the fact that the Government ignore the prices and incomes policy when they put up their own charges but abide by it when they negotiate with their employees?

The Post Office employees have given splendid support to the Government, and they are among the best and most public-spirited employees in the country.

asked the Postmaster-General what replies he has had to his inquiries about the establishment of local radio stations.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will give details of the way in which the British Broadcasting Corporation's requirement that the cost of the experimental local radio stations should be met from local sources will be positively and substantially satisfied.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will now give further details of the financial arrangements for the experimental local sound radio stations.

Before the White Paper was published, I made inquiries in order to establish whether local financial support was a real possibility. The replies were such as to justify an experiment designed to show, among other things, whether enough local financial support would be forthcoming for a general and permanent service. On the financial arrangements, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 17th March to Questions from the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry).—[Vol. 743, Col. 167.]

Will the Postmaster-General consider laying on the Table the replies which he has had in response to the inquiries? Is it not evident that his policy is a law for the rich and not for the poor among local authorities? What kind of replies has he had from East Anglia?

The replies go to the B.B.C. It is a matter for the B.B.C. to decide, and I cannot lay on the Table letters that the B.B.C. gets from towns up and down the country. It is not one law for the rich and another for the poor. The purpose of the experiment is to see whether we can run genuine communal stations in this country.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the answer to which he referred me gives no information at all in reply to my Question? Since he has failed to give any information about money being supplied by local chambers of trade, religious bodies and other people named in the White Paper, one can only assume that all the money will be found by the local ratepayer. Can he answer that question?

All the money is not coming from the local ratepayer. One of the purposes of the experiment is to find whether a station can be financed in this way. If we knew the answer, there would be no need for an experiment. If one takes Merseyside, for example, a whole variety of organisations and bodies on Merseyside are contributing to the local station.

Although money from local chambers of commerce, presumably, will be welcome, will my right hon. Friend give the House a categorical assurance that at no time and in no circumstances will the sponsorship of local programmes ever be permitted?

Yes, Sir. The B.B.C. is not allowed to do that. I can give that assurance.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that the Director General of the B.B.C. held a conference of local authorities to describe and discuss the financial conditions under which this experiment might take place and invitations might be sent? A verbatim account was made of that conference and was sent to the authorities not present. Would it be possible for that verbatim account to be put in the Library and made available to hon. Members?

Certainly I will look into that. I have not seen a verbatim account, but I will see if anything can be done.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that the station known as Radio Scotland has moved from her anchorage? What does he intend to do about that?

I saw a Press Report that, after the Procurator Fiscal's successful prosecution, Radio Scotland was moving to the Firth of Forth, but I hear from an hon. Gentleman that it is moving near the Irish Coast. We shall have to wait and see where it ends up.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I, too, shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to make consultation with him obligatory before the award of contracts with the Independent Television Authority.

The present arrangements derive from the Television Act, 1963. It would be premature to make any change at least until I have seen how they work in practice. I am watching the present position with care.

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that, since the introduction of commercial television, millions and millions of £s have been made by people who have no interest in the medium other than for a licence to print their own money? Would he not agree, further, that the Chairman of the I.T.A. has far too much power and authority to decide who should receive the next commercial television contracts?

Without being drawn into the first point, the Chairman of the I.T.A. is carrying out the duty laid upon him by this House. Until that is changed he has to carry out that duty.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has given a very good reply and that this country would be very anxious if it were thought that pressures from Parliament were being put on the genuinely Independent Television Authority?

asked the Postmaster-General whether he proposes to issue directions to the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority not to send broadcasts containing obscene language; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will instruct the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority not to send broadcasts containing obscene language.

No, Sir. The broadcasting authorities are already under a duty to satisfy themselves that, so far as is possible, the programmes for which they are responsible should not offend against good taste or decency, or be offensive to public feeling.

I appreciate the undesirability of censorship, but is it not equally undesirable that the Postmaster-General should incite the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. to use four-letter words? Can he say whether he really meant those words which he uttered at that luncheon, or whether they fell out inadvertently?

I neither condoned the use of the words nor suggested that they should be used. The Daily Sketch made this quite clear. I personally very much deplore the use of these words. I was making two points. First, what is acceptable on television is based on a consensus in society, and Parliament has laid on the two broadcasting authorities the duty to interpret this consensus without any Ministerial censorship or directive, or any watchdog committee. My second point was a plea for honesty in art, and I might have added in politics and in life generally. So long as I have breath in my body, I shall advocate honesty and attack cant, hypocrisy and humbug.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's denial will receive as much publicity as his original statement. Will he bear in mind the effect on children, and that by the use of bad language on the B.B.C. a lot of youngsters are only too keen to be able to justify their own bad language?

As a parent myself, I agree with that, but I am saying that it is the duty of the two broadcasting authorities to deal with this. This duty has been laid on them by Parliament, and they must carry it our without Ministerial direction, or censorship, or any watchdog committee.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the thin line between liberty and licence is gradually being eroded by the television authorities? Would it not be wise to call their attention to the fact that in the country there are many people of that opinion? I respect what my right hon. Friend has just said, but the fact remains that licence is now on the increase in these programmes.

The best way to subject these two authorities to the full blast of public opinion, and opinion in this House, is not to put any kind of body between them and public opinion, but to leave it to them.

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that at the moment the B.B.C., in particular, is breaking the terms of its original charter? Surely he should take some action to see that it does not break it?

I do not agree with that. I think that we can leave this to the good sense of the authorities.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his adult attitude and integrity? Does he not think that one reason why we prefer British television and radio to that of the Rhodesian régime which the hon. Member for Hal-temprice (Mr. Wall) supports is that it is, happily, free from day-to-day meddling by politicians?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members who also object strongly to obscenity or other lapses of taste on television would object equally strongly if there were any intervention by the Postmaster-General, or any other Minister for that matter, in programme content, whether on I.T.V. or B.B.C.?

While generally accepting what the Postmaster-General said, may I ask him to think again in the case of a television film such as "Up the Junction", which gave widespread offence and was then repeated to give even more offence? If it is known that a film gives offence, why repeat it?

I am not going to start intervening in programme content. I repeat that Parliament has laid this duty on the two broadcasting authorities, and until Parliament changes that they must carry it out.

asked the Postmaster-General what loss of revenue occurred in the year to 5th April, 1967, in respect of evasion of payment for radio and television licences what further steps he is taking to improve the position; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the results achieved in the last two months in the increased numbers of television licences taken out as a result of governmental action; and what has been the amount of additional revenue accruing.

The loss of revenue was about £10 million.

In January and February, 1967, the last two months for which figures are available, the number of combined sound and television licences in force increased by about 41,000 and 27,000, producing an increase in revenue of about £205,000 and £135,000. I cannot, of course, say how much of these increases resulted from action by my Department, but as the House is aware, I have intensified the existing measures against licence evasion and on 8th March I introduced the Wireless Telegraphy Bill.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that a £10 million loss is a massive sum of money, and that as this approximate rate of loss has been going on for at least 15 years, representing a cumulative loss of about £150 million, the honest licence payers are being very heavily soaked, especially if the licence fee is put up? Can he not stiffen the penalties against licence evasion?

The Bill which I have put before the House stiffens the penalties as well as doing a lot of other things. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct—12s. of every licence fee is imposed because of people who do not take out licences.

In view of the very large amount involved through evasion, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a sound investment substantially to increase the number of detector vans on the road? What steps is he taking in that direction?

We are doubling the number of detector vans, as well as introducing the Bill which I have already placed before the House.

Will the Postmaster-General tell us how the B.B.C. arrived at the figure of 2 million licence evaders? I believe that it is far higher than that. Secondly, in view of the dramatic effect of the introduction of more detector vans, allied to the threat of higher fines, would it not be wise to reconsider the proposal to impose upon dealers this cumbrous, inefficient and frustrating obligation to provide 13-million lists of various sorts to the Post Office?

The figure of 2 million is the discrepancy between the number of sets sold and let out on hire and the number of licences taken out, so it must be fairly accurate. As for the hon. Member's second point, we have had a great deal of co-operation from dealers. They do not want this system, but they have co-operated. I have discussed the matter with them at great length. We have had their co-operation in drawing up the Bill and their assistance on a great many points.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that part of the difficulty is that for many people the payment of the television licence fee represents the spending of a substantial single sum? Is he examining means of spreading the payment of this sum over a longer period?

This can be done now. It is possible to obtain a card from any post office and to stick on one savings stamp a week, which will be roughly sufficient for the licence fee at the end of the year. I hope that pensioners, in particular, will make use of this facility. These cards are available in every post office.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from sending current affairs features containing interviews given in confidence or obtained by the use of concealed recording devices.

asked the Postmaster-General, in view of the heavy damages the British Broadcasting Corporation has had to pay to settle an action for damages brought against it by Mr. Emile Littler, if he will issue a direction to the Corporation to refrain from broadcasting libels.

No, Sir. These are matters of programme content for which the broadcasting authorities are wholly responsible.

Is my hon. Friend aware that the true facts leave a very bad taste in the mouth from the point of view of the B.B.C.? The BBC. was granted permission and facilities by the Hammersmith Borough Council for a sequel to "Cathy Come Home". There was no implied acceptance or otherwise that recordings of a confidential nature would or should be used, but in its researches the B.B.C. selected six families, one of which was in arrear in the payment of rent to the extent of £65 in respect of private furnished accommodation. It is the policy of the Greater London Council not to rehouse families which are in arrears in rent. As a consequence, furtive suggestions were put to the woman concerned that the B.B.C. would discharge her contract if she would take part in the programme, and in confidential interviews with the—[Interruption.]

Order. Questions must be reasonably short.

This is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker, which affects every professional body.

Every Question is important to the hon. Member who asks it.

As a consequence the B.B.C. secreted transmitting equipment upon this person and monitored to a taxi-cab in an adjacent street details of private conversations, causing great concern—

Order. I must treat all Members alike.

I am given to understand that the B.B.C. gave the town clerk an immediate assurance that the recording would not be broadcast, and that it was not used when the programme in question was later broadcast. I have nothing further to add.

On a point of order. I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the programme—[Laughter.]—of the answer—and both words are correct—I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that many householders in Stranraer are unable to receive British Broadcasting Corporation television except by subscribing to a piped relay service; and whether he will allow the cost of such subscription to be deducted from the annual television licence fee.

The BBC., which is primarily responsible for the coverage attained by its services, tells me that the B.B.C.1 transmissions from Divis in Northern Ireland can be received by most viewers in Stranraer provided an adequate aerial is used. To allow a reduction in the licence fee for people with poor reception would in practice be quite unworkable.

Will the hon. Gentleman take it from me that reception in Stranraer is very bad? Does not he think it grossly unfair that the licence fee paid by the people of Stranraer should be used to subsidise extra channels, including those carrying coloured television, in places like London? Can he give a firm date when reception will be improved?

The quality of reception varies not only from area to area but from street to street within a town. There would be endless arguments if cheaper licences were allowed for areas of poor reception. The only workable system is to have a standard rate of licence fee from everybody installing a television set. Questions relating to reception are constantly being brought to the notice not only of the B.B.C. but the I.T.A., and they are doing everything possible to improve standards.

On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange for telephone box machinery to be manufactured in such a way as to ensure that the voice of the answering user is audible long enough for the identification of his number before the pay tone pips begin to operate.

No, Sir. As such an arrangement would allow short messages to be passed without payment, the STD coin box was designed so that pay-tone began as soon as practicable after the called person lifted his receiver.

Is my hon. Friend aware that this is most unsatisfactory? It really is most infuriating to make a call, to have a person lift the receiver at the other end, and then find that before one can decide whether one has the right number the pips start to drown that person's voice. Numerous wrong calls are made, which means that the Post Office gets a lot of revenue which it does not deserve.

My hon. Friend is wrong in assuming that the Post Office is getting a lot of money to which it is not entitled. The length of time before the pay-tone is connected varies because of the different characteristics of the line and equipment in various call boxes. As far as possible the pay-tone is connected as soon as the called person answers. This is done to prevent abuse.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will invite both management and the trade unions involved in the telephone service to consider with him the recent international survey of these services by the Research Institute for Consumer Affairs, a copy of which has been sent to him;

I have examined the survey with interest. Indeed I have my own battered copy here. I do not necessarily accept all its conclusions—particularly those based on comparisons with other countries. There is machinery for staff consultation about the service, and special arrangements are therefore not necessary.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he consider the possibility of making further inquiries with regard to those sections of the report dealing with the quality of the service and the failure rate of both manual trunk calls, which is considered to be 15 per cent., and S.T.D. trunk calls, which is 21 per cent? This is shocking.

There is a great deal more to it than that, but improving the quality of the service is one of our main preoccupations on the telecommunications side of our business.

asked the Postmaster-General what statistics are available of the number of private telephone subscribers in 1964 and 1966; and what forecasts are available of the numbers of telephone subscribers by 1968, and 1970.

There were 3·4 million residential connections in service at March 1964 and 4·2 million at March 1966. Our forecasts for March 1968 and 1970 are 5 million and 6·2 million, respectively.

Does not the Assistant Postmaster-General agree that there has been a failure by private manufacturing companies producing telephone equipment, and that this is part of the trouble, in spite of the enormous efforts that have been made? Does not he agree that this is an example of private industry failing to meet a public need? Does he further agree that, in view of the recent revelations about the position in the aircraft industry, there should be a close examination of the profits made by private manufacturers of telephone equipment?

It is true that manufacturers have been unable to keep up with delivery dates in the building of new telephone exchanges. That is one of the major reasons for the Post Office not having been able to provide the expected number of telephones for applicants in the period in question.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what progress has been made towards a new agreement on teachers' salaries in the Burnham Committee.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the representations which he has received from teachers organisations about the suspension of negotiations on teachers' salaries.

I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) and to my hon. Friend on 23rd March.—[Vol. 743, c. 1903–4.]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government's prices and incomes policy contained no provision for the suspension of negotiations but that this is what has happened in the case of teachers, and it is causing considerable resentment among teachers? Is he aware of the urgency of improving the basic scale for teachers, particularly the lower end, if the teacher shortage is to be satisfactorily overcome?

My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend had a meeting recently with the Burnham Committee, which, in the circumstances, was very agreeable. My hon. Friend will be particularly glad to know that a formal meeting of the Burnham Committee is likely within the month.

But is the hon. Gentleman not aware that not only the White Paper but also the Remuneration of Teachers Act, 1965, contained no provision that negotiations could take place only with the gracious permission of the Secretary of State? Would he not agree that if successive Governments had tried to negotiate the new machinery on that basis they would have met with very strong opposition?

Those are considerations which have been expressed to my right hon. Friend and were expressed at the meeting to which I referred.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what discussions have taken place, and with what result, about the possibility of the appointment of vocation officers in schools or groups of schools with particular regard to helping with the employment problems of coloured school-leavers.

I do not know of any such discussions but in providing a vocational guidance and employment service for school-leavers, youth employment officers pay particular attention to the difficulties of coloured young people and teachers help and advise them with special reference to pupils' suitability for different kinds of employment.

Has not there been—and have not other Members of the Government expressed some support for the idea that there should be—some particular help in these areas for young people, particularly children of immigrants, and that people specially trained for the job should be made available to offer the advice?

As I have explained already to the House, I am at the moment engaged on visiting all the local education authorities mainly involved in this question. I can assure my hon. Friend that this is specifically one of the questions which I raise. It is extremely important to strengthen youth employment staffs in advance of the large numbers of people coming through the schools. I am anxious to encourage that in every way.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science by what means and to what extent the pamphlet, "The Commonwealth in Education", prepared by his Department is being circulated to the teaching profession; and what assessment is planned of its impact on history and geography curricula in schools.

The pamphlet was sent to all local education authorities and to the national and educational Press. 3,000 copies were purchased in four months. It is impossible to assess the impact on school curricula of particular publications, but experience has shown that teachers value publications such as "The Commonwealth in Education".

But would it not have been a good idea to circulate this to schools instead of waiting for local education authorities to farm it out? Is my hon. Friend aware that this is one of the ways, by associating the Commonwealth with the curricula, in which we can cure a great deal of racial prejudice?

We circulated this pamphlet to every local education authority, but it sells at 5s. 6d. and a free distribution to all schools in the country would have been difficult to justify. We hope, of course, that they will take it up, and there are now signs that they are doing so.

asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to encourage greater transferability between students and teachers studying scientific and technical subjects in this country with their European counterpart.

We would like to see an increase in European scientific inter-change particularly at post-doctoral level, and we are discussing how this might best be achieved. The Department makes funds available, through the Research Councils, for post-graduate studentships and fellowships in science and technology and these can be held in Europe.

I welcome that reply, but would my hon. Friend not agree that, if technological co-operation is to be meaningful, there is an urgent need for closer integration of education, particularly between this country and the Six?

Indeed, we strongly support that view, and in the various European organisations of which we are a member we are doing our best to initiate this sort of inter-change.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the issue of educational interchange between Britain and Germany was recently brought up at the Anglo-German Parliamentarians' Conference at Koenigswinter? Is he aware that there is strong feeling that not enough has been done to follow up recent meetings of European Education Ministers? Will he draw this question to the attention of his right hon. Friend, as it is one to which many hon. Members on both sides of the House attach importance?

I was not aware of the discussions at Koenigswinter; I am glad to take note of what the right hon. Gentleman said, and I will certainly draw it to my right hon. Friend's attention. There have been specific discussions in respect of the attitude of Germany and ourselves on this matter, and we are very anxious to do everything we can to help.

Would the hon. Gentleman draw to his right hon. Friend's attention the lack of support for the French business school in Paris which some of our people are attending? It is very disappointing and the Government could do much more on this.

I will take note of that point and have it investigated by the Department.

Would my hon. Friend consider approaching those local authorities which have town twinning arrangements, where this aspect of the original question might be assisted?

That may be a very useful suggestion and I will certainly note it.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when his decision on the petition for a free pardon on the grounds of new evidence having become available since conviction will be conveyed to Mr. Trussell of Longwood Gardens, Ilford; and how long the matter has now been under consideration.

Mr. Trussell's petition, which related to a conviction in 1963 and was accompanied by voluminous supporting documents, was received in the Home Office on 24th November, 1966. After considering a report of the very detailed inquiries that have been necessary in this case, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that there are no grounds on which he would be justified in recommending a free pardon, or in referring the case to the Court of Appeal. A reply to this effect is being sent to Mr. Trussell's solicitors today.

May I inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that I cannot believe my ears? Is he aware that anyone who studies the evidence which he has had before him sees that fresh evidence has come to light since this conviction and that it is absolutely impossible to substantiate the previous conviction? Would he take this back and look at it again?

There was a most detailed report of this case prepared by the Metopolitan Police. I cannot possibly go into the issues of it now as it is well over 120 pages long. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter has been most carefully considered.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state his plans to amend further the Merchant Shipping Acts and the Merchant Shipping (Load Lines) Bill so as to deal effectively with the discharge into British waters of oil and other pollution.

The Government have already announced their plans for dealing with these problems. The question of legislation, whether by amending the Merchant Shipping Acts or otherwise, will be for later consideration.

But does my right hon. Friend not realise that this has been dragging on for far too long and that the problem has been made more urgent by the imminence of the holiday season and by the disaster off Cornwall? Will he therefore act promptly before the summer?

We understand the real problems which are created here. My hon. and learned Friend is asking for legislation. This is a matter which we are urgently considering.

asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the number and value of live monkeys imported into the United Kingdom month by month since January, 1965.

I regret the information is not available.

Is that not rather extraordinary? If monkeys are being imported, surely some count is made of the numbers?

Yes, Sir, but unfortunately they are not separately distinguished in the import statistics.

asked the Minister of Social Security if she is aware that increasing family allowances will be one of the only ways in which the extra cost in food, following a successful entry into the European Economic Community, could be offset; and if in anticipation she will seek to restructure the present system and extend payment to the first child.

No, Sir.

Would my hon. Friend not agree that the family allowances system and structure is under great criticism at present, and that, although many of us believe that its unpopularity is unjustified, we should like to see radical changes urgently introduced by this Government?

I welcome what my hon. Friend says about the criticism of the unpopularity of family allowances. I, too, feel that it is unjustified, but so far as the Common Market goes, it is far too early to commit ourselves. In any case, the whole question of family allowances is under consideration at present on the whole issue of child poverty.

Is my hon. Friend aware that whether or not we go into the Common Market there is a great case now for increasing family allowances, and that if we should go in there would be a case for increasing them still further?

As I said, this matter is now being considered by the Government and I cannot be expected to go further than that today.

Is not my hon. Friend aware that if we unfortunately go into the Common Market there will be no hope whatever of our increasing family allowance, unless with the consent of people who know nothing about conditions in this country?

I am not so sure that that is an accurate statement of the position.

Would my hon. Friend assure the House that his Department is not waiting for a decision to be made by the Government about whether or not we go into the Common Market before it makes an announcement about increasing family allowances?

I think that I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The position is that we are at the moment considering the whole question of family allowances without any relationship whatever to the position of the Common Market.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if we go into the Common Market and carry out the Treaty of Rome obligations in relation to social security benefits there will be bound to be an upward trend in family allowances in view of the fact that most of the E.E.C. countries have better family allowances than we have?

There may well be an upward trend in family allowances. We are attempting to deal with such a hypothetical situation that it is hardly possible to say what will happen.

asked the Minister of Technology for what reasons the estimate for research and development of the Anglo-French variable geometry aircraft has risen from £200 million to £250 million since March, 1967.

As I indicated in the debate on 22nd March, it is not until the project definition study has been completed that I can give more precise estimates of development costs for this aircraft.

Is it or is it not a fact that the R. & D. estimate is now put at £250 million? Is my hon. Friend aware that it is the experience of those of us who have served on the Public Accounts Committee that estimates tend to be exceeded in reality by a factor of at least two and half? Is he further aware that some of us who have talked to Lockheed engineers, who have experience of some of the problems at first-hand, believe that the final cost may be at least £500 million?

I cannot accept that at all. Much more work has been done on preparing the possible R. & D. costs for this aircraft than on any project developed in the past. I cannot comment on any figures that have appeared in the Press. No official figure has yet been given.

Is not this a medium-range nuclear bomber and not just an interceptor? If so, could not we save many millions of £s by adhering to our official policy of renouncing the so-called independent nuclear deterrent?

As my hon. Friend knows, these are questions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and should be addressed to him.

Questions to the Prime Minister are not normally taken until 3.15 p.m. We have, however, reached the Prime Minister's Questions and the Prime Minister and hon. Members with Questions are here. If the House has no objection, we will continue with Questions to the Prime Minister, although it is a few minutes before 3.15.

asked the Prime Minister what has been the total cost to public funds of his decision in 1964 to set up a separate Ministry of Land and Natural Resources; and what saving in annual cost of Ministerial and official salaries, respectively, will be derived from his decision to end this Department's separate existence.

If, as I assume, the right hon. Gentleman is concerned with the cost of establishing the Department rather than the implementation of Government policies for which it was responsible, the cost was about £170,000. The answer to the second part of the Question is £875. No precise answer can be given to the third part of the Question, but the saving is probably of the order of £80,000 a year.

Does the fact that the Prime Minister abolished this Department—which he created—after a very short life indicate that he accepts that it was a mistake to create it?

No, Sir. Certainly not. I have been asked that question before and I have answered it. Although I know that the right hon. Gentleman is very allergic to the Land Commission proposals, which are now the law of the land, they have saved the taxpayer many millions of £s—[Interruption.]—because of the levy on land speculation and savings in costs to local authorities and the Government when they buy land. The right hon. Gentleman is also allergic to the leasehold proposals, which he thinks are legalised robbery. But these have been very fine returns for the work of the Ministry.

Why did not the Prime Minister take the opportunity of the merger to reduce the size of what is now the largest Government in the world? How can he talk of savings when the cost of administering the Land Commission will be at least £4 million a year?

We have debated this matter thoroughly. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has still not got into his head the fact that as long as land speculation, which was not only encouraged but started by previous Conservative Administrations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Started?"]—yes, when they abolished the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. The cost of that to the Government, local authorities and owner-occupiers was so great that we have had to deal with the matter by these measures. The new Government will be responsible for all these very beneficial pieces of legislation which this Ministry introduced.

asked the Prime Minister what progress he has made with his policy of a national dividend.

The Government intend to discuss the idea of a national dividend with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.

Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he referred to the national dividend as

"a new concept unique in democracy".

Reading.

Order. Quotations must not be made in supplementaries.

—as a unique concept in democracy? Since his remarks received a rather frosty welcome from Mr. George Woodcock, does the right hon. Gentleman still think that it is a practical proposition?

Yes, Sir. The fact that it fell on somewhat stony ground on the first night does not mean that it should not be pursued. This is something which any Government would want to do in the circumstances—to work out how much can be afforded by the nation, not only in wages, salaries and other incomes but also in additions to the "social wage" through an increase in the social expenditure programmes of the Government and to see that the claims on that do not exceed the amount that is available.

May I press the Prime Minister further on this question? In defining the national dividend, is he now saying that the Government want to see the national dividend based on the real creation of wealth in the country, as measured by a net increase in the gross national product, or is he still of the view that it should be based on some anticipated increase in productivity this year or some ensuing year?

This stems originally from the proposal of the T.U.C., which we greatly welcome, of having a discussion each year, I think in the autumn, between the Government, the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. to see how much in total could be afforded for all these purposes. Where I think we had gone wrong under successive Governments in the past is that the total amount of claims on what was available in the country had outrun what was available, and this has led to the grave measures that have had to be taken.

The Prime Minister has told us a good many times that it is impossible to say what the nation can afford. Does he now mean that he has changed his mind and that he can tell us what the nation can afford by way of growth?

I did respond, or I failed to respond, to previous questions asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on this issue, but we are getting into the position when this question can be answered. We had to get through the serious difficulties of this past winter. We had to get a balance of payments surplus. Then an answer could be given. However, I would not want to anticipate what I might happen to know, or have reason to think, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say on this subject, dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's question, next Tuesday.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Rhodesian situation.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Rhodesian situation.

I have at present nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 7th March to a Question by the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison).—[Vol. 742, c. 1254.]

For how long is this war of attrition to continue? Is the right hon. Gentleman proposing to take no initiative to break the deadlock, particularly in view of the agreement on the six principles? Is he content to leave the whole matter to the United Nations?

This is not a war of attrition. Nor is the whole matter left to the United Nations. Indeed, we took the initiative, although many people thought, or might have felt, that it was wrong to treat with people in rebellion with the Crown. The agreement reached on H.M.S. "Tiger" was thrown over by the extremists in Salisbury. Mr. Lardner Burke, who won the day on that occasion, condemned the six principles. I know, from the way in which the hon. Gentleman voted in the Lobby, that they were supported by him, but we did not support them.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that sanctions appear to be biting, and biting hard, in Rhodesia? Would not he also agree that if the Smith regime were to be defeated, there would be many disappointed people on the benches opposite?

I can only judge by how they spoke and voted last December. It is certainly the case that Mr. Smith has himself now admitted the very grave effect of sanctions in that country, but I am sure that there is no hon. Member in any part of the House who wants sanctions to continue or who wants this situation to continue. It could have been avoided if illegality had been avoided. It could be avoided tomorrow if Rhodesia would return to legality.

Can the Prime Minister say how many members of the United Nations have responded to the Secretary-General's request to let him know what they are doing to implement this Resolution?

Ninety, Sir.

When my right hon. Friend says that it is now all in the hands of the United Nations, is not that just what we warned him of, and now is not the position that the injury to us, to Zambia and to Rhodesia just has to wander on?

No, Sir. I said that it is not—I was picking up a question put by an hon. Member—entirely in the hands of the United Nations. We have kept it in our hands. But the sanctions, approved by this House with the wide support of hon. Members in all parts, had been frustrated by the actions of other countries. This is why we took the matter to the United Nations.

Can the Prime Minister say whether he has made inquiries as to the accuracy of the allegations that regular units of the South African Army have moved into Rhodesia in civilian clothes, and are now serving with the Rhodesian Army?

No, Sir. I had not heard those allegations. I have no reason at all to think that they are true, but since the right hon. Gentleman has raised them I will, of course, make inquiries.

In view of the substantial concession my right hon. Friend endeavoured to make to the Rhodesian Government last year, will he now do something more positive and try, either through diplomatic channels or otherwise, to get the Rhodesian Government to renegotiate?

The Rhodesian régime had the opportunity in December. The terms we put forward were fair—to many people we were unduly fair in what we suggested—in the sense that we were giving them the chance of independence within four months and leaving them free, despite their act of illegality, to go on running the country in return for certain assurances that not every hon. Member here was as prepared as we were to accept. Since then, they have been told repeatedly, and I have said it in this House, that they can come at any time to the Government and say they want to return to the 1961 Constitution or to the 1961 Constitution amended to give effect to the six principles agreed on H.M.S. "Tiger".

Can the Prime Minister give the House any details of the effects of sanctions to date? Does he intend to propose any new initiative, or merely continue to let events take their course?

We are naturally considering all the time whether new measures are needed to tighten up the sanctions, and if any Orders are required the House will be asked to pronounce on them. But I think that the Rhodesian regime now know—they had their chance last December—that we are prepared to go on with these sanctions as long as illegality continues. The existing sanctions are already having a serious effect— the second tobacco crop, and the rest—and they must draw their own conclusion from this. The whole thing means that they were concerned only to get their so-called independence, which no one else recognises. That was more important to them than progress on the honourable terms we offered them.

In order to amplify his earlier reply that 90 nations have replied to the United Nations question about sanctions, can the Prime Minister publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the nations that have replied, and whether they have replied in the negative or the affirmative, or have procrastinated?

This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but if an appropriate Question is put down I will certainly see that one or other of us answers it, and gives the information for which the hon. Gentleman asks.

asked the Prime Minister what study he has given to alternative courses of action open to Her Majesty's Government if membership of the European Economic Community proves impossible at the present time; and, in particular, what study he has given to the possibility of a form of association for a period of years.

I would refer the hon. Member to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 16th November, and to my Answer on 31st January to a Question by the hon Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr).—[Vol. 736, c. 446–57; Vol. 740, c. 244–7.]

Does the Prime Minister agree that if, as some of us fear, full membership may not be possible to the present Government, some form of association might provide an acceptable second best, and have the Government made any examination of this possibility? Can he say whether it has been canvassed by him in any of the capitals of the Six?

As I said in answer to a Question in January, any alternative, compared with getting into the Community on the right terms, would be very much second best. I do not think that the question of association is one that the House will be very ready to contemplate. It means having to carry out all the rules of the Treaty of Rome without having any say about those rules, how regulations are drafted, and so on. Mr. Macmillan said in this House that Britain was hardly the sort of nation that could be a country member of a club of this kind.

asked the Prime Minister under which articles of the Treaty of Rome Her Majesty's Government intend to negotiate adjustments to facilitate British entry into the European Economic Community.

No decision has as yet been taken by Her Majesty's Government on whether or not to seek entry to the European Economic Community.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that only six Articles of the Treaty of Rome must be changed automatically on the entry of any new member; and that all I ask is whether, in fact, Her Majesty's Government will, in principle, ask that any of the remaining 242 Articles should be altered to help them?

I have said before in this House that, so far as the actual drafting of the Treaty of Rome is concerned, apart from those Articles automatically affected consequentially on entry of a new member under Article 237, the Treaty of Rome of itself, necessarily, need not be an impediment. We still have substantial difficulties to overcome, and I have never sought to disguise that. We are evaluating those difficulties and seeing what decisions we should take.

asked the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government will now make a formal application for membership of the European Economic Community under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome.

asked the Prime Minister whether he has further considered the question of making an application to join the European Economic Community; and if he will make a statement.

I have as yet nothing to add to the Answer I gave on 4th April to a supplementary question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas).—[Vol. 744, c. 30.]

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the procedures of the European Community for dealing with applications for membership and association from non-members are extremely slow, and that it would be to the benefit of the country for the matter to be decided one way or the other as quickly as possible? Will he therefore, with his other right hon. Friends, give consideration to an early decision in the matter?

We are pushing on with this matter with the urgency that is required, and with the desire not to lose momentum, but this is a tremendously important decision affecting the interests of the country and the Commonwealth in a number of important degrees, and I believe that it is more important to get the answer right than to do it unnaturally quick. Of course, there may be long delays—one hopes that they will not be as long as on another occasion—if we decide to make application, but we have to study the best means if we decide to apply to go in on certain conditions.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that the momentum built up as a result of his and his right hon. Friend's visits to the European capitals will be lost unless we make an early application? Would it not be better to make an application, certainly before May, which would give us an opportunity to get the thing settled within a reasonable time?

As I made clear, I am very concerned about the problem of momentum. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been discussing these matters further with representatives of the Six who were at the W.E.U. meeting in Rome this week. I should not like to put a date on this. We shall come to a decision as quickly as possible. There are other consultations going on—the Kennedy Round, and other things—and we have to get the timing right. At the moment, it is the thoroughness of the inquiry that is taking the time.

Last Tuesday the Prime Minister said that he would consider publication of the information he and the Foreign Secretary had gathered from their visits to the capitals so that the whole House and the whole country could read it as well as could private party meetings. Can he say what proposals he has for publication?

Not yet. I will certainly go on considering that question. What we are concerned with is that, whether at private meetings or anywhere else, we do not breach confidences entrusted to us by expressing what was said by the six leaders of the Governments with whom we spoke. We are trying to decide in some way or another the form in which it would be suitable to make the information available.

Does not my right hon. Friend find it rather embarrassing to resist these repeated and impassioned appeals to pitchfork us into the Common Market? Does he not find it rather difficult not to give a definite reply? What is wrong? Can we not come clean about the matter? Where do we stand?

I am not in the slightest degree embarrassed, and I am sure that I am not in any way embarrassing my right hon. Friend with my replies, but since hardly any hon. Member now considers that we should think of joining unconditionally—that has never been our position—and since we have now, I think, identified the main points, we are considering how they can best be dealt with before coming to a decision.

We appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman will not breach confidence in regard to any information he gives party committees, but in this case is there any objection to giving information to the public in the form of a White Paper?

As I have said, I will certainly consider that, either by statement in the House or any other way. I am still in the process of deciding what may be said by my right hon. Friend and myself later in the day. We shall find out how meaningful it is and how it can be done without breaching confidence. I will certainly consider it.

Can my right hon. Friend tell us yet whether one of the problems which has been identified by the Government is the problem of the theory and practice of central countries in the European Economic Community applied to assist development areas? Will he give an undertaking that before we ever consider any application, apart from all the other considerations we have said we shall insist on, he will give a report to the House on what has actually happened in the Community on these matters and how it would conform with the assistance which this Government give to the development areas?

Yes, this is one of the important questions. My own impression is that this is less of a worry than I thought it was going to be because of the practices which the Six countries permit themselves to take, which go in certain respects a great deal further than anything done in this country by any Government. If we add to that the so-called "Green Paper" published a few days ago, there are still some anxieties about that, but I feel more happy about it than when we started on the tour.

While it is true that no one in this House wants to join the Common Market absolutely unconditionally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—why did the Commonwealth Secretary, when he was in New Zealand, tell his audience that it would be several years before we got in and that was confirmed to me by the Prime Minister as being Government policy?

He said it might be several years. We do not know how long the discussions, if we are to make an application, would take. On the last occasion they took a great deal longer than we or our friends in Europe would want. If an application is to be made, the House would want it to be a fairly straight basic application with three or four main issues to be dealt with in the negotiations and very many of the problems left for settlement after entry. But the biggest ones would have to be dealt with now.

Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that a skilled man does not need momentum to maintain balance and that speed is a major cause of accidents?

It is getting a bit difficult. I used to find in the days when I rode an ordinary bicycle that it was easier to maintain balance at speed than when the bicycle was almost stalling.