asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that one Liverpool firm posted on 6th June, recorded delivery number 693636, im- portant documents due in Kettering by 3 p.m. on 8th June and that these were not delivered till Friday 9th June, thereby causing the firm a loss of several hundreds of pounds; and whether he will arrange for the public to be able to insure against losses due wholly to Post Office delays, or arrange to issue a stamp which guarantees delivery within 48 hours.

My right hon. Friend has written to the hon. Gentleman about the delay to this letter, expressing his regret. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No".

Does the Assistant Postmaster-General realise that many firms up and down the country, fearing that their letters may be in the 6 per cent. which may not be delivered the next day, are having to send their own couriers? It is as if we were in the days before Rowland Hill. Will he not allow private enterprise postal companies to compete or create some form of insurance company, on which the Post Office might make a profit?

We deliver nearly 94 per cent. of fully-paid letters the next weekday after posting. Nevertheless, bearing mind all the hazards of transit, it would be impossible to guarantee service even if it were run by private enterprise.

Is my hon. Friend aware that if every firm had a record of 94 per cent. success this country would not be in the economic position in which it often finds itself? Is he aware that many hon. Friends on this side of the House deplore this vendetta which is being conducted against the Post Office?

Does not this question tell a very deplorable story? Is not the whole purpose of recorded delivery—apart from recording—that it should be famous for its utter reliability? To what extent does the record show that the recorded service in in fact more reliable than ordinary first-class mail?

One point which the hon. Member and his hon. Friends fail to recognise is that we carry about 35 million letters a day. The Question asks about compensation for losses. To accept liability for the consequences of any mistreatment of mail would be quite impracticable.

On a point of order. Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I give notice that I shall raise the matter on the earliest possible occasion on the Adjournment.

asked the Postmaster-General what is the average daily delivery of letters in the county of Midlothian; and what complaints about delivery have been made to him during the last six months.

About 55,000 letters a day and nine complaints in six months.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him to tell me the nature of the nine complaints and precisely what was involved?

All nine were about delivery. Eight were about delays to letters, while the other was about a delivery being made later than the proper time.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the inadequate service rendered by his Department to the Labour Party Press and Publicity Department, and of the complaints in respect of this made by that body, details of which have been sent to him; and what action he proposes to take to improve deliveries of postal matter in London in the light of these complaints.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will publish figures to show the extent to which postal deliveries have become slower during the last two years; and if he will make a statement.

I am always concerned about failures to give a proper postal service, whether it is to Labour Party Headquarters or anyone else, and we are doing everything within our power to improve deliveries both in London and elsewhere. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry) suggests, the service has improved over the past two years. Then, 91 per cent. of fully paid letters were delivered on the day of posting or on the next working day. Today the figure is 94 per cent.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Labour Party Press and Publicity Department recently informed its customers that recent experience showed that letters posted on a Friday did not arrive until the Monday and that it advised them to send private messengers to collect the mail? In the light of such evidence—and from such a source—should not the Post Office do something to improve its service for all the rest of us in the country?

The right hon. Gentleman will also remember that The Times congratulated the Labour Party on its honesty in this matter. I inquired of Transport House about the use of the word "recent" in this context, and I was told that it was based on experience in 1956.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have sent him a number of letters on this subject in recent months? While it is important to look ahead to the future, is it not equally important to concentrate on giving a much better impression and better service to the public now?

The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. London is a difficult case, particularly in view of the labour shortage. We have greater labour problems in London than elsewhere. Further, the mail piles up on Friday, mainly because too many people post their letters at 4 p.m. or 5 p.m. on Fridays and expect them to be delivered the following morning.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the business interests represented by hon. Gentlemen opposite answered their letters as efficiently as the Post Office delivers them, this country would be a great deal better off?

Is the Postmaster-General aware that I wrote a letter to him a short time ago about the Conservative Publicity Department having a similar experience to that mentioned in the main Question?

I am not sure that it reached me—[Laughter.]—but I will look into the matter.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of serious and repeated breakdowns in the postal services in Westmorland; and whether he will instigate a special inquiry into these breakdowns which his Department have not so far been able to solve.

Although on occasions there is delay to some mail because of the late running of mail trains, there have been neither serious nor repeated breakdowns of the postal services in Westmorland.

Does the Assistant Postmaster-General realise that I have written letters to him quite frequently over the past year about these breakdowns, which are extremely serious and have given rise to loss of orders and, particularly, to loss of export orders? Does he not realise that this is quite intolerable, and will he not do what I have asked him in the Question, which is to set up a special inquiry, as he has been quite incapable of dealing with the matter already?

I can appreciate the hon. Member's feelings. I am aware of the letters he has written to the Department in regard to this matter, and we have made inquiries. I must point out that no matter what the part of the country, it is inevitable in the transit of mail, because of its volume, the late running of trains and human failings, that a small proportion of the mail will suffer delay. We do not run away from that fact. That is the position.

asked the Postmaster-General why letters posted in the House of Comomns on Friday do not reach their destination until Monday; and if this practice is happening to other similar postal services throughout the country.

Most letters posted in the House of Commons on Fridays are delivered the following day. If the hon. Gentleman will give me details of any particular cases of delay I will gladly look into them.

Is the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that under the Conservative Government letters posted on Friday morning were delivered in the London area on Friday afternoon? Does he realise that the technical reasons for this delay is that letter sorting offices in the London area close on Friday afternoon and it is not that we have any vendetta against Post Office workers?

I do not know if the position was as the hon. Member has quoted under the Conservatives but Friday is usually the heaviest posting day of the week and, in most places, there is only one delivery on Saturdays. These factors and others tend to make the service not so good as at other times.

Would my hon. Friend agree that the problem would be solved if the second Saturday delivery were reinstituted?

No, I do not think so. We have taken a consensus in regard to the position and we are satisfied that the line we have adopted is the right one.

Are not the many cases quoted just further examples of the failure of nationalisation?

The new proposals which have been made regarding the administration of the postal service will be a form of denationalisation.

asked the Postmaster-General why it takes two days or more for letters and postcards to reach Beverley from York, a distance of some 30 miles.

Letters and postcards posted in York should connect with the first delivery at Beverley the next day and this standard of service is generally being given.

Is not the Assistant Postmaster-General aware that this is not always the case? Will he investigate the evidence I have presented? Is it not fair comment to say that as charges rise the services decline?

No; that does not necessarily follow. Isolated cases of delay occur. If the hon. Gentleman will let me have details, I will look into the matter.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) what percentage of telecommunications equipment used by the Post Office in 1966, 1965, and 1963 was actually manufactured in Post Office establishments;

asked the Postmaster-General if he will seek to set up a factory in Dundee for the manufacture of telecommunications equipment, in view of he delay in supplies of such equipment to the Post Office by existing suppliers.

The manufacture of telecommunications equipment in Post Office establishments, excluding the cost of component parts purchased from industry, has averaged less than one per cent. of the total equipment purchases over the last few years. Precise figures for the output of the British telecommunications industry are not available, but, as regards the manufacturers who comprise the bulk of the industry, the percentage of their total output purchased by the Post Office for the three years in question has been 55, 52 and 50 respectively, at costs of £73 million, £55 million and £44 million.

Would not my right hon. Friend accept that, in view of the deplorable figures he has quoted, the time is long overdue when the Post Office should itself be manufacturing much more of the equipment it requires? Does he not now see the opportunity for opening State-owned factories in the development areas?

As my hon. Friend knows—I told him in reply to a previous Question, and we stated it in the White Paper—in the Corporation Bill, which will come before the House in the next Session of Parliament, we will ask Parliament for power to manufacture anything required by the Post Office.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the General Secretary of the Post Office Engineering Union has said that the extension of the telephone system is being held up solely because of the failure of private manufacturers to provide sufficient telephone exchange equip- ment to his Department? As a result, will my right hon. Friend again seriously consider using the powers he will have under the new Act to start a factory in Dundee or some other area?

I know Mr. Smith's view very well, and, of course, he is absolutely right. The lack of capacity in the industry is holding up the growth of the system but, to be fair to those in the industry, they lack capacity now because the forecasting of telecommunications needs when the party opposite was in power was inadequate.

Does the Postmaster-General intend, as a matter of broad policy, to use the powers proposed in the White Paper to increase really substantially manufacture by the Post Office?

That will not be a matter for me: it will be a matter for the Board, when it is set up.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will provide a mobile postal service in areas which qualify under his criteria for sub-post offices, which he is unable to provide due to lack of suitable available accommodation.

No, Sir. This would not be a satisfactory way to provide counter services.

is my hon. Friend aware that some business proprietors are giving up sub-post offices and, as there are no alternative business means of providing the service, whole housing areas have been bereft of these services? Would it not be a convenience to bankers and others if some mobile units were put into operation?

Our three mobile services are designed to provide a limited service at, for example, agricultural shows and similar events, but to give them a further liability would not be in the interests of the Post Office service.

asked the Postmaster-General what plans he has for developing drive-in post offices; and if he will make a statement.

There is a drive-in post office in Leicester and a suite of self-service machines for motorists in Luton, but we have no plans for extending this type of service.

Would not my hon. Friend agree that there is an urgent need to extend 24-hour self-service facilities? Does he not feel that drive-in arrangements have a contribution to make in this direction?

These installations are expensive in relation to the service they provide and we would find it difficult to justify the provision of such facilities.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to publicise the availability at post offices of envelopes franked with fourpenny stamps, at the same time reducing the charge per franked envelope to 4d., in order to reduce the time spent on buying and sticking on stamps.

I shall be considering more publicity for the stamped envelopes sold at Post Offices when they are changed to our preferred sizes at the end of this year. I certainly cannot reduce the charge to 4d. since this would amount to giving the envelopes away free.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that one of the principal difficulties in introducing electronic letter-sorting equipment is the varying sizes of envelopes, hence the Post Office preferred campaign? If the Post Office produced their own standard envelopes at 4d., would not this difficulty be overcome?

My hon. Friend has answered the question himself. The reason why we are introducing P.O.P. envelopes is to facilitate sorting.

asked the Postmaster-General by what percentage his Department has increased the price for sending a letter by recorded delivery; and on what date the most recent change was made.

The price was increased by 50 per cent. (from 6d. to 9d.) on 3rd October, 1966. This is the only increase since the service was introduced in 1961.

At a time when others who sell goods or services are being urged to keep prices constant, is not a 50 per cent. increase a quite deplorable example to set?

I do not think so, in regard to this particular service. [Laughter.] It must be borne in mind by hon. Members who jeer at the action we have taken that without an increase this service would have been running at a loss in the current financial year.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will commission a study to determine the practicability of financing the proposed telecommunications programme from the private capital market.

No, Sir.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a very large number of people who believe that the telecommunication activities of the Post Office are pre-eminently suitable for free enterprise? Would he not, therefore, commission the study I have suggested as a very useful preliminary move in developing such a debate?

This is a point that ought to be looked at; I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. He may have seen an article by Sir Ronald Edwards in the current Lloyds Bank Review. Various replies are possible to this article, but I think that it is a matter which can be looked at in the context of the financing of the nationalised industries.

Do we take it from that reply that there is to be a serious investigation into this possibility?

No. All I am saying is that this is the kind of question which should be looked at in the context of the long-term financing of the nationalised industries.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will seek to make arrangements with the Government of the Republic of Ireland for credit cards issued by him to be accepted for calls made from Ireland to a British telephone number, aid to accept reverse charge calls made horn Ireland to Great Britain.

My right hon. Friend bas already done so; but the Government of the Irish Republic have not so far been able to agree.

Surely it would be possible to put into action unilaterally in this country the proposals to accept reverse charge calls?

Yes. The Irish Republic were approached on both counts in October, 1965, and they have been asked for a decision on a number of occasions since then, but without success. The most recent reminder was on 6th July, 1967. This matter is under consideration.

asked the Postmaster-General what is the average number of times daily a telephone subscriber is called to the telephone in the Bristol area to find that the caller has the wrong number; and whether this number is higher than the national average.

Once in three months, on average. This is less than the national figure.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the number of mis-phone calls through errors of dialling is still too high? The dialling system is even more complex—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Will he make available propaganda and information courses to enable people to understand the system?

In response to the supplementary question and the constituency interest my hon. Friend has, I can do no better than to say that there have been seven complaints from the Avonmouth subscribers. Three were due to plant faults, one was a dialling mistake and three were due to subscribers' faults.

Mr. Paul Bryan.

Is it in order to give the substance of the Answer the second time round and give an hon. Member no chance to come back to it?

That is quite in order. Mr. Paul Bryan.

If this is less than the national average, may we know what the national average is?

Not without notice.

asked the Postmaster-General by what method the members of the local broadcasting councils will be appointed; what steps will be taken to ensure a balance of political opinion within the councils and to safeguard the interests of minority groups; and to whom the councils will be responsible.

I shall, after consultation with the B.E.C., appoint as members of the councils people selected from those now being recommended to me by a wide range of local organisations and by individuals in the localities to be served by the stations. Members will be appointed for the individual contributions they can make to their council's task of interpreting and representing to the station manager the various needs, aspirations and interests of all sections of the community. They will be responsible to local opinion as a whole for this purpose.

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's reply. Is he aware that there is considerable anxiety in some of these districts among minority groups, such as the Labour and Conservative Parties, about whether their interests will be effectively protected?

I have set my face firmly against representing the Labour Party, the Conservative Party or any other specific group. All that I want is bright, intelligent people who can produce good radio.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there may be some danger of these councils being dominated by local authorities which are putting up the money?

It is being made perfectly clear to local councils that if they are going to make contributions that does not entitle them to any given number of representatives; indeed, to any representation at all.

Will organisations, whatever they may be, which subscribe money to these stations be debarred from representation on these councils? Will they be able to influence programmes?

They will not be debarred, but the fact that they subscribe money will not necessarily entitle them to representation.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will now consider a British commercial satellite for television transmissions; and if he will make a statement.

We do not at present see sufficient reason to expend the resources necessary for a British project of this nature.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my Question was directed not to the present but to the future? In view of the enormous commercial advantages that could accrue to this country in terms of communications, will not the Government come down to earth on this issue of satellites and get on with the job of producing commercial satellites for communications and television?

Whether the hon. Gentleman's Question was directed to the present or the future, it contains the word "now", and I answered it accordingly. He knows that the Post Office is contributing heavily to the global satellite system and that these satellites are being used for telecommunications.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will introduce legislation to require the Independent Television Authority to publish the proposals presented to the Authority by successful applicants for television licences, and resumes of subsequent evidence secured from such applicants when presenting their applications to the Authority.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will introduce legislation to compel the Independent Television Authority to publish its reasons for refusing to renew, renewing, granting, or withholding a licence;

I would refer my hon. Friends to my speech in the debate of 28th June. Given the present system which Parliament has charged the I.T.A. to administer, I think it better that it should be left as free as it would wish from obligations which might inhibit it in choosing the companies it considers will produce the best service of television.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that he did not deal with these points in the speech to which he referred? While agreeing that there is much to be said for these hearings being in private, may I ask him whether it would not be desirable, in terms of the promises of greater regional identification and higher artistic and cultural standards made by successful applicants, that these promises should be made known to the public so that they may judge the performance of these successful applicants in years to come? Should not people in the Midlands know what A.T.V. promised about the closer identification of the Midlands in programmes and—

Order. No hon. Gentleman has a prescriptive right to ask long supplementaries.

The fact that a given company gets a contract indicates that it made a better bid than anyone else; and it must live up to it. All the matters mentioned in these Questions must be looked at when we start looking at the whole broadcasting system.

While appreciating what my right hon. Friend said in the debate to which he referred, may I ask him to appreciate that there is considerable disquiet about the apparently arbitrary way in which the I.T.A. made its decision about T.W.W.? Is it not extraordinary that 10 years' work could be thrown over on the basis of a couple of applications and a couple of 40-minute interviews? Does not the Postmaster-General feel that he Chairman of I.T.A. should exert rather less secrecy in these matters?

No, Sir. We must be fair to I.T.A. in these matters. Without saying whether or not one supports the present system, the fact remains that Parliament created the system and that I.T.A. must work it.

While I see the difficulty of publishing résumes of the oral evidence given to the I.T.A., could not the right hon. Gentleman, without legislation, simply ask I.T.A. now to publish the applications of the successful companies?

No, Sir. I do not think that I would have any right to do that. I have no doubt that Lord Hill will read these Questions and Answers. I feel that we should not inhibit the I.T.A. from selecting the company which it believes can produce the best television; and that is the object of the whole exercise.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that these Questions are of great interest to us in Bristol, where we are subject to a violent change in the regime? Is he aware that some of us are nervous because Bristol is a very English city and can come under too much Welsh cultural domination? What has my right hon. Friend to say on this issue?

The possibility of a change when contracts are reallocated is inherent in the system. Until the system is changed, the possibility of a company being changed at the end of the period remains.

Would my right hon. Friend consider having some arrangement whereby, perhaps halfway through the licensing period, there was a public inquiry so that ordinary people could make their views known before momentous decisions of this kind are taken?

No, Sir. So much is involved in mounting a programme of this kind that if a contract is given for five years, that contract should run for five years.

asked the Postmaster-General how many local radio stations, and where, have now been authorised and when they are expected to start broadcasting.

asked the Postmaster-General why no local radio station has been established in East Anglia.

asked the Postmaster-General what steps are being taken to encourage setting up a local radio for the Greater Bristol area.

I have authorised the B.B.C. to set up stations at Brighton, Durham, Leeds, Leicester, Manchester, Merseyside, Nottingham, Sheffield and Stoke-on-Trent. The Manchester City Council has, however, decided to withdraw its support for a station there. Local support for a station in East Anglia was not sufficient to justify my authorising a station there to the exclusion of one of the places chosen. The stations at Leicester, Merseyside and Sheffield are expected to start broadcasting in November or early December: those at Brighton, Nottingham and Stoke-on-Trent by the end of March. The stations at Durham and Leeds are expected to start by the end of May. This experiment is being conducted with a view to the establishment of a more general and permanent service; but it will be necessary to see how it goes before further stations are authorised.

While we all wish these stations well, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulty of finding nine local authorities willing to cooperate clearly indicates the insuperable difficulty of finding 70 or 80 local authorities for a subsequent phase of local broadcasting? Would he reconsider in the long term the financing of these stations with a view to the possibility of using licence fee revenue?

To take my hon. Friend's second point first, one of our objects is to see whether a truly communal station may be financed in this way. Frankly, I do not know whether or not it can be—that is why we are having this experiment. With regard to my hon. Friend's first point about difficulty in getting more stations, the difficulty was to select them. Actually, we had a very large number of applicants.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that the reason why it has not been possible to establish a station in East Anglia is that it cannot be afforded out of rate revenue? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the only practicable way to have local radio there is to have a commercial radio station? Will he look at it again, in order to help those who cannot afford it owing to the rate burden?

That is the most utter nonsense because the money comes out of the same pockets; whether it is licence fees or the profit on a packet of "Daz", the same people have to pay for it. I am, of course, quite aware of the interests of hon. Members opposite in commercial radio—[Interruption.] I said the interests of hon. Gentlemen opposite in commercial radio. I know their interest in that, of course, because there is a lot of money to be made out of it—[Interruption.]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I object to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Is it right that the Postmaster-General should by innuendo cast the aspersion on an hon. Member that he wishes to make money out of commercial radio?

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was casting an aspersion on the hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Ridsdale). He can cast aspersions unfortunately, on the whole of the other side.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has not the word "interest" a technical meaning in this House very different from that applied to my hon. Friend?

I thought the word was "interest"—not "interests".

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You have said that the right hon. Gentleman is able to cast aspersions on the whole of the other side. I would point out that I have never taken part in commercial television, I have no interest in it whatsoever, and I object to the slur of the right hon. Gentleman.

Order. We must not waste time. I can understand the hon. and learned Member's objection. It must have been the objection felt by Members of the Conservative Party when the late Winston Churchill cast reflections on the whole of the party.

Will my right hon. Friend advise me, in relation to Question No. 38, whether or not it is the practice of his Department to make a visit to the areas where local radio stations are possible to discuss the pros and cons in relation to broadcasting as a whole? Further, is it or is it not the fact that it is possible for any large potential user so to destroy confidence in the system that no radio station is, in fact, set up? Is not my right hon. Friend regretting the fact that there is no radio station for Bristol?

Order. Supplementary questions must be brief.

Yes, Sir. I regret that there is no station in Bristol. It is, of course, possible for one very active potential user to defeat the whole thing, and up and down the country we find that the activities of the Local Radio Association and also of chambers of commerce have prevented applications coming in.

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman said about withdrawal of the Manchester Corporation, is the name of this city now taken out of the list he read out?

No, Sir. I said that I had authorised a station there. All I said was that the city corporation had withdrawn its support, but I see from the Press that councils round about are interested. I am told that the B.B.C. have not yet reached any decision about the station yet.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a report on the financial arrangements for the local experimental sound radio stations.

I have nothing to add to the reply I gave on 17th March to the hon. Member.—[Vol. 743. c. 167–8.]

Is the Postmaster-General aware that he has evaded giving this answer over several months now? Is it not time that he referred back to his White Paper, in which he said that chambers of commerce and other bodies would help in the financing of these stations? Unless we have this information before we rise for the Recess, we can only presume that the ratepayers in these areas will have to find the money.

I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman does his best to discredit this experiment. He has done this ever since the beginning; so have his hon. Friends. What the hon. Gentleman is asking me for is the result of the experiment. How could I give the result of the experiment before it takes place?

What is my right hon. Friend doing to overcome the opposition in Manchester of the Conservative Council to his proposals to introduce a local radio station?

This is really a matter for the B.B C., but I hope that my hon. Friend and his colleagues will do a great deal to overcome this opposition.

asked the Postmaster-General why he instructed the British Broadcasting Corporation to postpone the showing of the television play depicting the trial of the Soviet writers Sinyavsky and Daniel.

No such instruction has been given to the B.B.C.

Is the Postmaster-General aware, nevertheless, that the B. B.C. has received approaches from Soviet sources which have caused the Corporation to alter its programmes? In view of the very grave implications of this form of censorship, will he take steps to see that the B.B.C. do not do this sort of thing again?

I think that all that happened here was that the Russian Government made known to the Foreign Office its view of the Sinyavsky and Daniel programme. The Foreign Office passed it on to the B.B.C. without any comment of any kind. I carried out a very careful check indeed, and no Government Department exerted any pressure whatsoever on the B.B.C.

None the less, would not the Postmaster-General agree that the B.B.C. showed a remarkable sensitivity to these representations from the Russian authorities which contrast very sharply to the barbaric treatment that the Russians are according Gerald Brooke?

I really do not see what the tragic case of Mr. Brooke has to do with it. But hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. Week by week they complain of the insensitivity of the B.B.C. I repeat, they cannot have it both ways.

asked the Postmaster-General how many pirate radio stations are still operating; and if he is satisfied with the operation of the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied with the operation of the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Postmaster-General when it is proposed to bring into operation the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Act.

There are nine pirate broadcasting stations operating; eight of them are off the United Kingdom. The Bill is awaiting the Royal Assent. It is hoped to bring it into force on 15th August.

Has the Postmaster-General seen reports that Radio Caroline, Radio London and three or four other pirate radio stations are setting up facilities abroad, collecting advertising abroad and preparing to operate from abroad, as we warned that they would when the Bill was going through the House? What plans has he to deal with this type of situation?

Of course I have seen the reports, and I know of the encouragement given by hon. Members opposite. After 15th August, if the Order is made, on that date the law will come into force, and anyone who renders assistance to these stations will be guilty of a criminal offence.

Can my right hon. Friend say how quickly he expects the Act will silence these pirate, radio stations?

This depends on our colleagues abroad. They have been cooperating and I think the only one which has not done so is Holland.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he is making his task of doing away with the pirates infinitely more difficult by bringing in the Order by 15th August before he has the new B.B.C. Radio 247 in operation?

One difficulty has been the support given by the hon. Member and many of his hon. Friends to pirate stations.

Could we have a straight answer to that last question?

No, Sir. That is the answer to the question.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will announce the name of the new Chairman of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Does the Postmaster-General recognise the importance of having a national figure who has not been linked in the past nor is at present with any political party? Would he consider redefining the powers of the Chairman of Governors of the B.B.C. so that he has greater control in practice as well as in theory over the Director General and the staff?

The last Chairman of I.T.A. was an ex-Tory Cabinet Minister who disappeared in the "Night of the Long Knives". I realise that this is a very important point, and the hon. Member can be assured that we shall get the right man for the job.

asked the Postmaster-General what guidance has been given to the British Broadcasting Cor- poration about programmes that might cause difficulty to Her Majesty's Government in their dealings with other countries.

So as to enable the B.B.C. to plan and prepare its programmes in the External Services in the national interest, Clause 14(5) of the Corporation's Licence and Agreement requires it to consult the overseas Departments. This consultation is a continuing process.

As the B.B.C. was prevented from broadcasting Svetlana Stalin's letter to Pasternak because of the Foreign Secretary's visit to Russia, will not the Postmaster-General agree that this sort of governmental pressure is highly undesirable upon a supposedly independent organisation?

No; the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about this. The reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Donnelly) applies to this Question as well. The B.B.C. was made aware of a comment made by the Russian Government to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he was in Moscow, but no pressure was put on the B.B.C.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that quite recently the Chief Whip, otherwise known as the Patronage Secretary, complained to the producers of the B.B.C. programme "The World at One", not only about the nature of the programme, which apparently he did not like, but also about those who participated in the programme, namely, right hon. and hon. Gentlemen? Does not my right hon. Friend think this is an unwarrantable intrusion?

The Question deals with external services. The Clause I quoted from the Licence and Agreement deals with external services as well.

asked the Postmaster-General on what date it is proposed to start the new British Broadcasting Corporation programme, Radio 247.

As I told the House on 29th June, the B.B.C.'s new music programme will start on 30th September.

Does not this prove what hon. Members on this side have been saying for a long time? Would it not be much better to accelerate the start of this programme in order that, when the pirates do go out of business, if they do, there will be a decent alternative to replace them?

It proves how enterprising the Government have been in doing something about it.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will authorise an increase in the hours of television broadcasting.

No, Sir. I cannot add to the statement in the White Paper on Broadcasting, which stated that the Government did not consider that any general increase in broadcasting hours would be justified for the present.

Now that the B.B.C. has been given a second channel, a monopoly of colour, and 80 showing hours on the two channels, as against 50 for I.T.A., it is not time that the public was allowed to have this extra broadcasting which is perfectly easily available, which the I.T.A. is perfectly willing to supply, and which would cost nothing to those who wish to use it?

We have the same old fallacy about its costing nothing. Of course it costs something. The question is one of priorities. In the past two months we have undertaken the two biggest technical changes ever made in television in this country since it started, in the change-over to U.H.F. and colour. The B.B.C. has not a monopoly. It is being given to all channels. It is a case of putting first things first. I think we are right to put this first.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister without Portfolio at Madingley Hall, Cambridge, on 18th June, on the social services, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made by the Minister without Portfolio, on the social services, at Madingley Hall on 18th June, represents Government policy.

My right hon. Friend made no statement of Government policy. He was discussing possible developments in the social services over the next 20 years.

After the 1,001 nights—the 1,001 days and nights—of story-telling, has not the Prime Minister now finally abandoned Socialism by being associated with his right hon. Friend's speech in favour of a selective Welfare State? Does that mean that the Prime Minister will now adopt the Tory policy in future?

The reference to 1,001 knights is a reference to the patronage policy of the Tory Government, not of this Government. So far as the policy question is concerned, my right hon. Friend was speaking at a seminar having a long look at the social services, and his main theme related to the likelihood of a move to wage-related pensions and wage-related benefits generally. There was certainly no retreat from any principle in the matter of social security that this side of the House holds.

Is the Prime Minister aware that this speech was in flat contradiction to the speech made by the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) in the House last Friday? Is this another case of a split in the party opposite? Or is it another case of this Government trying to face both ways at the same time?

No. My right hon. Friend was saying, obviously as a long-term development, taking up, indeed, a point which has been made several times by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), that when it is possible to have more fully developed computer services, it may be possible to have, as was originally proposed by Lady Rhys-Williams many years ago, the position of each individual, whether on a net tax liability or a net social security benefit position, on a single basis. This is what my right hon. Friend was talking about. There was certainly no suggestion of extending means testing in the social services.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the majority of hon. Members on this side that when the Minister without Portfolio spoke of making our social services selective he was at least excluding the National Health Service, since illness is neither a luxury nor a necessity and does not confine itself to particular income groups?

My right hon. Friend was not dealing at all in this seminar with the National Health Service. He was dealing with the social services as properly understood, and he was not proposing in them, still less in the National Health Service, any question of extending the means testing principle.

asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Lord President of the Council made at Coventry on 4th June 1967, on the prices and incomes standstill represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Yes, Sir.

Well, is not that peculiar? Is it really Government policy that even a restoration of the growth rate and improved social services cannot be achieved without a massive cut-back in defence—massive, repeat massive?

We have always said, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will have a chance of studying this, I hope, next week, that we cannot achieve economic viability and stability on the scale we want, still less the social service result, unless we cut our defence costs to the resources available.

Is not this a rare and refreshing example of a Minister blurting out the unvarnished truth?

I am very glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's support for what my right hon. Friend said about defence. I shall look forward to his opposition speech below the Gangway supporting the cuts in defence which will be announced.

asked the Prime Minister what progress has been made in the talks between the illegal Rhodesia régime and Lord Alport.

I have as yet nothing to add to the Answers I gave to Questions on this subject on Tuesday last.—[Vol. 750, c. 415.]

As the prerequisite to any conceivable settlement is that it is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole, would my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will not accept the charade of an indaba of chiefs but that all black Africans, including those in detention, will be required to give their consent before any settlement is agreed to?

The question of acceptability to the people of Rhodesia as a whole has long been one of the principles insisted upon by both the previous and the present Government. The idea of an indaba purporting to speak for the African population as a whole was very firmly rejected by right hon. Gentlemen opposite—indeed by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) on the last day that he held office. That has been the continuing position of this Government.

When he last answered Questions on this subject, the Prime Minister said that after Lord Alport returned he would make a statement saying what the Government intended to do about it. Would he give consideration to Lord Alport making a dispatch after his return setting out his conclusions, even if he could not set out the sources of his information, so that Parliament and the country could judge what his conclusions were and what action should be taken?

I will certainly discuss this with Lord Alport when he comes back. I do not know in what form his report will be made, but the House will be given very full information about his visit and its outcome in whatever form it may be given.

In view of the scandalous and utterly intransigent attacks made on Lord Alport by Mr. Smith's colleagues, will the Prime Minister consider whether the time has not now come to ask the United Nations to apply the full sanctions of Article 41, and will he remember that half-measures rarely succeed?

The quality of the attacks made on Lord Alport by certain of the extremist members of the regime will not be a surprise to hon. Members. They have no significance whatsoever in terms of the responsibilties which Her Majesty's Government have in the matter. The question of future United Nations action must be a matter for the United Nations.

Is the Prime Minister aware that N.I.B.M.A.R., which lies at the heart of the negotiations, is the most massive and monumental stumbling block since the Pharaohs tripped over the Pyramids, and that it shares with those edifices the ability to bury reputations? It is asffitial—[Interruption.]

The House should listen to metaphors more patiently.

I thought that the Pharaohs were buried in the Pyramids. As for N.I.B.M.A.R., Mr. Smith anti his colleagues had ample notice from the Commonwealth Conference afterwards that, as a result of a very hard struggle on our part, we had secured acquiescence by the Commonwealth to his having another chance to reach agreement. We gave him that chance. N.I.B.M.A.R. was not then in question. He could have accepted the "Tiger" proposals—I think he wanted to—but he was not allowed to, and his refusal was backed up by right hon. Gentlemen opposide in the Lobby.

asked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the date of the opening of formal negotiations for Great Britain entering the Common Market.

asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy with re- gard to the opening of formal negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community.

Her Majesty's Government hope that the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Western European Union on 4th July will enable negotiations to open as soon as the opinion of the Commission has been given.

Is the Prime Minister aware that the statement made by the Foreign Secretary has the overwhelming support of the majority of Europeans, including the majority of Frenchmen?

I think it had a very good response at the W.E.U. meeting and generally in the European Press, and it carried a great deal of acceptance on the Continent as well as in this country.

After the statement by the French Foreign Secretary to the Council of Ministers particularly opposing Britain's entry because of her role in sterling and the agricultural policy, because of the flat rejection on those two points, is it not time to bring our representatives home and work out an alternative policy to the Market?

Our representatives are not in fact there. The decision of the Council of Ministers was to refer this matter to the Commission. That is appropriate under the Treaty of Rome. There has been no flat rejection by the French Foreign Minister or anyone else. There has been no flat rejection and the matter is proceeding through the Commission. In the speech of M. Couve de Murville there were a number of fallacious statements. Those are matters which can be dealt with as time goes by. Indeed, they were dealt witty on the visit of my right hon. Friend and myself to Paris in January. We shall have to do more in that direction.

Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the speech of M. Von de Groeben, who said that the sincerity of those seeking to join the Community would be decided by the extent to which they were prepared to align their legislation in advance of joining the Community? Would he now undertake an intensive study of, for instance, the value-added tax?

I do not think that the legislative programme of the House can be settled on the basis of individual speeches of individual members of the Commission. We must wait and see what the report of the Commission as a whole may be. Regarding the value-added tax, I made it clear in the debate on the Common Market that we are studying intensively the problems raised by the fiscal harmonisation requirements of the Common Market.

The Prime Minister has said on many occasions that he expects by Christmas to be able to form a view about whether the application will be seriously considered. If by Christmas he has not any hope that the application will he accepted, will he then set about forming an alternative to it?

I have dealt with the question of alternatives many times and I do not propose to go over the same ground. We hope that we shall be in a position by the latter part of the year to know where we stand on the general question of negotiations. If not, we shall have to consider our position then. However, I cannot answer hypothetical questions now.

asked the Prime Minister whether, in his talks on 19th and 20th June with General de Gaulle about the prospects for technological cooperation, he discussed co-operation over the joint manufacture of aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

I have nothing to add to the reports I have already given the House on these discussions which were, of course, confidential.

Bearing in mind that when the Prime Minister saw General de Gaulle it was obvious to all, except perhaps the Secretary of State for Defence, that the French were going to cancel the AFVG, is it not almost treating the aircraft industry with complete indifference not to have discussed this fully and frankly with General de Gaulle?

There was no question of it being clear to everyone except my right hon. Friend. I discussed this matter with President de Gaulle, as I made clear in answer to a supplementary question last week, and we both agreed that the matter should be further discussed between my right hon. Friend and M. Messmer. It was after those discussions that my right hon. Friend was in a position to say something to the House and the industry.

Did the President, however, intimate to the Prime Minister at that time that it would be difficult for France to proceed with the variable geometry project?

I have already answered that. He indicated something of the budgetary difficulties affecting this decision, but as to the final decision this should be discussed between the two Defence Ministers.

Would the Prime Minister agree that the cancellation of the VG project is a serious blow to our helping Europe to bridge the technology gap? Would he further consider telling France that if she persists in making it difficult for our application to the E.E.C. to be considered, we will withdraw some of our offers of technological co-operation?

I do not wish to go so far as that. The decision that the House will be debating this afternoon is a matter which will have serious effects for France as well as this country. As for the technology gap, one of the biggest problems is the extent to which French research and development is already over-dependent on American industry, research and development on a scale much greater than ours. That was why I put to General de Gaulle a proposition for more co-operation in civil technology.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange to have the text of his speeches, in the television programme on The State of the Nation, broadcast on Wednesday, 21st June, placed in the Library.

asked the Prime Minister if he will arrange for a copy of his speeches made in the course of his television broadcast on 21st June to be placed in the Library.

I did so on 26th Jane, Sir.

Did my right hon. Friend a' so read a certain speech last weekend a pout the state of the nation which completely ignored the economic burden of defence and also the balance of payments?