asked the Postmaster-General what is the hourly rate of pay of women part-time workers in sub-past offices.

No rate of pay is laid down for sub-office assistants. One of the conditions on which a sub-postmaster holds his appointment is, however, that conditions for his employees on Post Office work should not be less favourable than those agreed for shop assistants generally in the same district.

Can my right hon. Friend say what action is taken to ensure that sub-postmasters pay wages to part-time workers consistent with the shop assistants' scale? Does he not think that the time is probably right for a reconsideration of this scale with the appropriate body to make it more commensurate with the work that is actually done?

A sub-postmaster makes an annual return to the head-postmaster of the assistants employed on post office work, their pay and the average number of hours worked. If the wages seem out of line, representations would be made to him, but it is for him to decide whether payment above the general level is appropriate.

asked the Postmaster General what proposals he has to publicise the range of services and equipment provided by the Post Office telephone service.

A comprehensive information booklet will be delivered to new residential STD subscribers from May onwards, and full publicity will be given in Telephone Directories commencing in the summer. Further descriptive leaflets will be added to the 59 already available, of which over one million were distributed last year. Press advertising will be extended.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Prices and Incomes Board's Report seriously criticised the Post Office on this matter? Will he confirm that the announcement that he has made amounts to a major sales drive to publicise the equipment and services which the Post Office telephone service can at present offer?

It is true that the Prices and Incomes Board criticised the Post Office for not doing enough on advertising. But, in fairness to the Post Office, plans for increased promotional activity were in hand and some of these I have announced today.

Concerning publicity, is my right hon. Friend aware of the very favourable response given by the public to the telephone exchanges "Open Fortnight"? I refer particularly to Conway. Will he take steps to make other aspects of Post Office work visible to the public In a similar way?

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for those remarks. It is true that under previous administrations not enough advertising was done, but this was dui to a limitation of capital expenditure. It is our intention to advertise much more positively in future.

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny the almost unbelievable statement in paragraph 46 of the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board that the telephone sales manager's telephone number is not even in the directory?

The telephone sales manager's telephone number is the same as the telephone manager's. I have already looked into this, because it is farcical. I thought that if we wanted to sell, and sell positively, the telephone sales manager's telephone number should be different and should be differently portrayed in the directory.

asked the Postmaster General if he will make a statement on the National Board for Prices and Incomes Report on the Post Office.

asked the Postmaster General in what circumstances there is still a requirement that telephone rentals should be paid 15 months in advance.

asked the Postmaster General if he will make a statement on the proposed increases in postal and telephone charges recommended in the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

asked the Postmaster General if he will provide a reduced telephone rental for the elderly.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement I made on 10th April.—[Vol. 762, c. 1373–1402.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that a number of the increases which he announced in the House on 10th April were not considered in detail by the Prices and Incomes Board? Will he consider referring them to it for closer examination on these matters?

In view of the fact that there were 400 tariff changes, I do not think that it would have been possible for the Board to have examined them all. I do not believe, therefore, that any good would be served by going back on the matter.

What progress does the right hon. Gentleman expect to make to meet the criteria of the White Paper on Nationalised Industries, which suggested that there should be an 8 per cent. profit on the operations of the Post Office?

Is the hon. Gentleman asking that there should be a bigger profit on the operations of the Post Office?

An 8 per cent. profit was recommended.

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. On the postal side, our aim is to get a return of 2 per cent. on total expenditure. On the telephone communications side, our new aim is to get 8½ per cent. return on net assets.

asked the Postmaster-General by how much he estimates that the Post Office forecast of capital expenditure of £1,200 million over the next three years would be reduced by raising the discounted cash flow rate to 10 per cent.

Post Office capital expenditure over the next three years will aim to meet the demand for service at the revised charges I announced on 10th April. The effect of raising the discount rate for new investment to 10 per cent. would either be largely to stop providing telephones for new residential subscribers, as the charges are not designed to earn this return, or to raise charges further. In the former case the reduction in capital expenditure would be considerable. In the latter it would depend on how the higher charges affected demand.—[Vol. 762, c. 1373–1402.]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his own White Paper says that when the level of public investment is too great the discounted cash flow rate should be raised? Since the present expenditure level is beyond the capacity of the economy to support, why will not the right hon. Gentleman adopt the course suggested in the Question?

The hon. Gentleman is specifically referring in the Question to raising the discounted cash flow rate to 10 per cent. His suggestion—taking his figure of 10 per cent.—would mean increased prices all round or, alternatively, part of the service would have to be killed off.

asked the Postmaster-General whether it is proposed that the new Post Office Corporation will buy and construct its own buildings, or whether this will still be done through the Ministry of Public Building and Works.

I would refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 41 of the White Paper on Reorganisation of the Post Office.

Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to stop this demarcation dispute between the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the new Post Office Corporation? Is he aware that it is inefficient to prevent the Corporation from being allowed to construct, buy and sell its buildings, just the same as any of the other nationalised industries?

The White Paper says that since 1961 the Post Office and the Ministry have both been free to terminate or modify their relationship, subject to due notice and consultation. It is intended that this should remain the position when the Corporation is set up.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will meet the full cost of anti-bandit screens erected in sub-post offices in crime-prone areas.

asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to give sub-postmasters protection against attack by robbers.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will accept responsibility for the repair of anti-bandit screens in sub-post offices damaged by criminal action.

asked the Postmaster-General if, in view of the increasing number of attacks on sub-post offices, he will ensure that protective screens are made available free of charge to sub-postmasters with offices in officially designated crime prone areas.

I am keen that sub-postmasters should equip their offices with anti-bandit screens. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has accepted our offer which is to pay £50 towards the cost of the screen at up to 10,000 offices and to provide interest free loans to meet the balance of the cost at these offices. This I consider to be a fair and reasonable arrangement. As regards repair, once an anti-bandit screen is installed in a sub-post office it becomes the sole property of the sub-postmaster. As such it could be covered by his insurance of furniture and fittings and I think it reasonable that he should meet the cost of repairs.

Does my right hon. Friend appreciate the strength of public feeling that sub-postmasters should not be out of pocket in providing protective devices of modern types to protect the public's money? If my right hon. Friend will not meet the full cost, will he look again at the contracts and salaries of sub-postmasters with a view to ensuring that this matter is taken into account when they are engaged?

To answer the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, I remind her that her Question was put earlier to the Assistant Postmaster-General. To answer the first part, I remind her that the Joint Committee looked into this matter and that the anti-bandit screen idea emanated from that Committee. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has sought more and I recognise that there is democratic, legitimate pressure from a faction in London. Nevertheless, I assure my hon. Friend that we are going out of our way to assist these people.

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the danger of attack has been greatly increased because of the increased amount of cash and stock which postmasters are now obliged to hold under the present Government's policies, particularly S.E.T.? As the Government have changed the conditions of these people, surely the Government should make good in full any additional cost that is thrown on them. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this additional cost is not only the £100 but also the cost of installation?

The hon. Gentleman is wrong in the first part of his question. In the past two years there has been no noticable increase in attacks on sub-post offices. To answer the remainder of his question, I remind him that it will already be costing us £500,000 to aid sub-postmasters in the erection of anti-bandit screens and that we are already spending another £500,000 on other security measures, including burglar alarms, the anchoring of safes and so on. We are also spending about £80,000 a year on their maintenance.

In connection with attacks of this kind, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is not right to pass the cost on to the insurance companies but that sub-postmasters should be protected and helped by the Government in their endeavour to protect Government and public money?

Initially, as I have made it clear, we are already spending a lot of money, particularly in crime-prone areas. I suggest that we carry on with this and see how it works out.

Will not the right hon. Gentleman look at this whole matter again? Would he agree that bandits rob post offices for Post Office property and money? That being so, should not the Post Office pay the full price for defending that property?

As I said, I suggest that we proceed as I have outlined and see how things work out. We are erecting 10,000 anti-bandit screens and are helping sub-postmasters a great deal. This being so, we should proceed and see how this works out.

asked the Postmaster-General what improvements in postal services for first-class mail costing 5d. per letter, and 4d. for second-class mail, including greetings cards and printed matter, in unsealed envelopes, and postcards, will result from these increases in postal charges, respectively, 25 per cent. for first-class mail and 33⅓ per cent. for second-class mail; why he has approved such increases which are, respectively, over nine times and over seven times the Government's norm of 3½ per cent.; and whether he will make a statement.

The aim of the new letter service will be to give first-class mail a service which is as good as the best we give now, with improved reliability where necessary. Second-class mail will generally take a day longer than first-class. I have approved the increased charges for the reasons shown in paragraph 207 of the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on Post Office charges.

While not accepting any part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask him to recognise that the Post Office is now in the van of price increases and that the increase in letter post at nine times and seven times, respectively, the Government norm is shocking and reprehensible, and a very bad example to the country?

If the hon. Gentleman wants to be purely political about it, I ought to remind him and his hon. Friends that in 1962–63 we lost £8 million on the post, in 1963–64 we lost another £8 million on the post, and in 1964–65, the last financial year for which hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible, we lost £20 million. That meant that we lost £36 million in three years, but the hon. Member and his hon. Friends would do nothing about it purely for political reasons. We have, therefore, had to try to tackle the problem now.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the increase in alarm calls, not of 30 per cent. but of 300 per cent., is greatly excessive and should be reduced?

No, Sir, I do not. When we talk about price increases—and the hon. Gentleman earlier mentioned wage increases—he should realise that these increases are determined for a few years, and not for one year on its own.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the future of the telegram service.

The future of the inland telegram service is still under review.

Will the right hon. Gentleman take notice of the grave problem of the telegram service continually losing money? While a service is continuing to lose money, it is obviously constituting a drain on other profitable services which in the end will suffer.

That is one of our problems. We are losing between £2 million and £3 million a year on the inland service at the moment.

Will my right hon. Friend note that one of the problems is not the loss of telegraph traffic as such, but the uncertainty for the staff employed in the many telegraph offices throughout the country? I hope that he will make a speedy decision about the Government's policy as it affects the telegraph service.

I am aware of that, and we are treating it as a matter of urgency.

In this review of the telegram service, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are 1,300,000 people over 65 who live alone, out of whom only 18 per cent. have telephones, and that a telegram service means a lot to them?

This is the problem of the emergency service, and we shall keep that in mind, too.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on the question of the opening and closing hours of certain post offices as suggested by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

I am studying this suggestion along with the others in the Board's Report.

I am glad that due notice is being taken of that. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that in all the discussions which take place there will be room for different arrangements for different areas according to the commercial requirements of the areas, and that he will not stick to a rigid hour for opening and closing?

That is the position now. Certain cities and towns do not conform to the general practice which we have laid down. This is solely because of the pressure of demand, and we shall keep that in mind all the time.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will make a statement on proposed methods of improving the costing system of the Post Office.

asked the Postmaster-General what changes he proposes to make in the costing systems used by the Post Office.

asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to improve the costing system of the Post Office having regard to the criticism of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

The comments by the National Board for Prices and Incomes were not primarily directed at the costing system as such but at its use in tariff fixing. It said that the Post Office relied too much for this purpose on fully allocated costs and that the emphasis should be on long run marginal costs. I am adopting its recommendation to under-take further work on this subject.

The right hon. Gentleman will see from the Report which he has had of the investigation that this ought to be looked at in depth, because there is a lot of concern about it, and it is wrong that the Post Office should get a bad reputation because of the lack of attention given to it at administrative level.

As I said in my original Reply, although we do use this method, for example, for trunk calls and new information services, and for a few others, we are prepared to look at it further.

Was it not rather extraordinary that this system, which was the foundation on which these enormous tariff changes were to be made, did not even show how costs reacted to changes in the volume of traffic in any service?

I cannot go into those details now. There was a genuine disagreement between the National Board for Prices and Incomes and ourselves on our costing system, and we are prepared to look at the Board's proposal.

asked the Postmaster-General (1) how many computers have been installed under the Post Office data processing plan; where they are located; and which types of computers have been selected;

Nine existing computers have been taken over by the National Data Processing Service: six are in London and one each in Edinburgh, Derby and Portsmouth. The computers are two Elliott 405, six English Electric LEO 326 and one RCA Spectra 70/45. The Spectra is on loan from English Electric pending supply of their own 4/70. A certain amount of work is already being undertaken for customers outside the Post Office within the present limited resources. It would not be appropriate to advertise the service generally at present.

I thank my hon. Friend for the detail of that Answer. When does he feel that he will be able to advertise this very important service to industry? Also, would he note that the service could be of particular value to industry in the South-West? What is the additional number of computers used in the Post Office in N.D.P.S. services?

We are limited in advertising at the outset by a shortage of experienced assistants. However, a recruiting and training programme is under way, but it takes time to build up a service of this kind. Therefore, marketing policy will be geared closely to our development resources. In regard to additional computers, there are four more English Electric 4/70 in our plans, two in London and one each in Bristol and Leeds, and tenders have been invited from 21 manufacturers for two further computers for the London Heathrow Airport project.

When will an effective service of data transmission, as opposed to data processing, be available through the Post Office lines?

This is an innovation for the Post Office. We have started from scratch; what has been done up to date is very good and will proceed.

asked the Postmaster-General what has been the incidence of attacks by thieves on sub-post offices during 1965, 1966, 1967, and 1968, respectively.

I am circulating the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Is not the incidence of these crimes very worrying? Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that an advance of £50 towards the installation of anti-bandit screens, which cost well over £200, is less than generous, particularly since country postmasters are liable for the losses if money is stolen and many such post offices hold up to £7,000 or £8,000?

I went through these points earlier. In the crime-prone areas, there has been no increase in the past two years and we have now asked the Home Office to second a police officer to advise us further on security at post offices.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the police officer does not have to buy his own truncheon? Therefore, why should these sub-post-masters have to pay for the "weapons" which they require to defend public money?

I heard that point earlier, too. These sub-postmasters are our agents; they took on these post offices knowing full well what some of the dangers and risks were.

asked the Postmaster-General how many attacks during working hours were made by thieves on sub-post offices in the Greater London area in 1967 and in 1968; what injuries were sustained by sub-postmasters and their staffs; and what was the total value of the goods stolen.

In the London Postal Region, which is larger than the G.L.C. area, 37 and 34, respectively, in the years ending 31st March, 1967, and 31st March, 1968. In 39 attacks there was no injury to staff, in 21 there was slight injury, and in 11 there was more serious injury. Losses totalled £123,000, but this includes the face value of non-negotiable stock.

Although the Postmaster-General has indicated that in many cases there were no serious injuries to staff in that period, is he aware that there is much apprehension amongst the staff of sub-post offices in crime-prone areas? Will he now reconsider the statement he has made twice today to the effect that he will not bear the full cost of the loss as a result of these banditries?

I must again reject that suggestion. I cannot say that we will pay the full cost. We have gone a great way in assisting sub-postmasters. This has been agreed by their National Federation. In the area of the London postal region alone there are 1,625 sub-post offices and we are going out of our way to help them. That should be sufficient.

asked the Postmaster-General what particular considerations led him to require post office-preferred envelopes to have the longer side at least 1·414 times the shorter side.

Envelopes with one side appreciably longer than the other are most suitable for our sorting office machines. The proportions quoted are those recommended for stationery by the International Standards Organisation.

Is it really necessary to have this figure to three places of decimals? What will happen in a dispute between the postmaster and the person to whom a letter is delivered if there is an over-charge and the person wants to know how the 1·414 proportion has been arrived at?

The range of sizes which we have adopted was recommended in the first place by the Universal Postal Union, and it has been taken up by other countries; so we are in line.

asked the Postmaster-General how many complaints he has received about damaged postal packets in Scotland; and what action is being taken as a result.

In March 1968 complaints were made about 24 letter packets and 473 parcels. Where appropriate we advise the senders about the best methods of packing, and where damage was clearly caused by mishandling in the post we do all we can to prevent a recurrence.

Do not the figures reveal an unsatisfactory position? Will my hon. Friend consider the matter very carefully?

No, I do not think so. In the month in question over 5 million letter packets and 782,000 parcels were posted in Scotland. If anything, there has been a slight fall in the number of complaints. Hon. Members who have visited sorting offices will have seen, as I have, the way in which some parcels are wrapped and sent off. Our people are kept very busy trying to get the parcels to their proper destination.

asked the Postmaster-General when he proposes to deal with the claim made by Mr. Moss, of 2 Vicarage Close, Kingsthorpe, Northampton, in respect of a parcel lost by the Post Office on 8th January, and passed by the Northampton Post Office to the Controller, R.L.B., Mount Pleasant Post Office, London, on 8th February; and if he will state the cause of this long delay.

The claim was settled on 9th April. Some of the time was needed to complete inquiries at the offices which might have handled the parcel. Nevertheless, there was some inexcusable delay, which I much regret, and suitable action has been taken.

I am most grateful.

asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to prevent delays of more than one month's duration in delivery of first class mail within the United Kingdom, as in the example sent to him by the honourable Member for Antrim, South; and what action he intends to take to halt further deterioration in the postal services.

I am very sorry about the long delay to this letter. Unfortunately, it was delivered to a wrong address, and was not recovered by the Post Office until several weeks later. We shall do all we can to prevent mistakes like this, but we cannot entirely eliminate human errors.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this complaint other references were made to further delays? Has not the service deteriorated in the past year? What does he intend to do about it?

I cannot agree with everything that the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, although I am sympathetic about what happened in this case. Delay is inevitable with the vast amount of mail that we handle. Despite all the efforts made to give consistently good service, a small proportion will suffer in transit.

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that telephone conversations between London and some places in the South of France are almost inaudible; and if he will make representations to the French Government with a view to improving the service.

Complaints of difficulties with calls to a few small exchanges in the South of France have been referred to the appropriate authorities in France and are receiving attention there.

While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that Answer, may I ask him if he is aware that while a recent telephone conversation which I had with my wife from this area was almost inaudible, some years ago when I telephoned her from Wellington, New Zealand, the line was so clear that we might have been in adjoining rooms?

We are in constant contact with the French authorities in matters of transmission and we are at present awaiting information from them.

asked the Postmaster-General what representations he has received concerning the lack of capacity for new telephone subscribers on the Woking and Byfleet telephone exchanges; and what action he proposes to take.

We have received complaints from the hon. Gentleman about Byfleet exchange. Equipment extensions now being undertaken will enable some applicants to be given service at Byfleet in the summer and the remainder by the end of this year. There is ample spare exchange capacity at Woking.

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there is. nevertheless, a long waiting period at Woking and Byfleet, and that although some action has been taken, more is necessary? Will he take the opportunity of the so-called "Telephone Fortnight" to issue a public apology to frustrated subscribers?

No, Sir, I do not think so. I have written to the hon. Gentleman about his constituency. I think that what we are doing now and what is happening is in the order of advancement.

asked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to stimulate demand for telephones in those areas of the country where there is no waiting list.

Some experimental local schemes have been carried out during the past year. I intend to extend our efforts.

Surely the right hon. Gentleman can give us a little more detail than that? Has he written to people who have no telephones suggesting that they may like to have one?

Local schemes, including a direct mail approach, local exhibitions and displays and special inquiry facilities at post offices were tried out in 28 areas.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many parts of the country people are waiting for telephones but cannot get them because of a shortage of equipment? Does he agree that some of the factories in my constituency could be used to produce this equipment, which would be advantageous to the people who want telephones, and also would assist the problem of unemployment in my constituency?

I am aware of the demands of the development areas, and particularly of Scotland. Exchange equipment is in great demand, and we are not getting this quickly enough. One reason is that it takes five years from design to completion of a telephone exchange. Another reason why we do not have the necessary equipment is that hon. Gentlemen opposite never attempted to invest properly in the future of telecommunications.

asked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has for reducing the number of call failures and faults in the telephone service.

Most failures are caused by overloading. To remedy this, 12,000 trunk lines and 800 new exchanges and additions to exchanges will be added this year. We are now using automatic fault detectors to identify equipment liable to cause failures.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the average rate of failure is pretty considerable, and if the average rate is considerable the worst must be very bad? Will he keep on trying to remedy this?

That is why I said in my original reply that there is congestion and overloading, and this is particularly so in the hon. Gentleman's region. This will be reduced progressively over the next six months.

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the document "Post Office Prospects" in which he said that dealing with faults in the year 1968–69 would be the dominant task? Is there any evidence that there has been an improvement?

It is being improved. I made a speech last week when opening "Telephone Fortnight", during which I gave an indication of this. Secondly, I am setting up several network co-ordination centres throughout the country to maintain general surveillance of the trunk network, to locate and identify weak spots and remedy them.

asked the Postmaster-General what proposals he has for stopping the decline in use of the telephone by existing private subscribers.

The new call charges are designed to encourage greater use of the telephone at off-peak periods when private use predominates, and they are being widely publicised. There is no evidence of a decline.

Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the evidence in paragraph 136 of the Report which shows that there has been a decline? Can the right hon. Gentleman name any other country in the world whose people find they have more and more people to telephone but who use their telephones less and less?

On the first point, the latest figures before me show that this has now started to level off, and therefore it is starting to contradict that out-of-date passage in the Report. Secondly, we extended the hours of cheap calls from 6 p.m. in the evening to 8 a.m., a two-hour extension. We have cheap calls on Sunday, and in my recent statement I said that there would be marginally cheaper trunk calls on Saturdays as well.

asked the Postmaster-General on what conditions his regulations allow the nationalised industries to put their telephone numbers ex-directory; and if he will make a statement.

The Telephone Regulations, 1965, make no distinction between requests from the nationalised industries for "ex-directory" numbers and requests from other subscribers.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that many of the British Road Services' depots are applying to go ex-directory and that this is causing great inconvenience to customers? Is he aware also that a British Road Services official said that as a rule the organisation does not consider claims for compensation for goods if not made within 14 days of despatch? Goods often take longer to be delivered and therefore it is important that a customer should have—

Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

I appreciate the difficulties the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned, but it is not for me to issue a diktat to customers as to what they should do regarding directory or ex-directory numbers.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will continue the practice of selling advertising space in telephone kiosks to taxicab firms.

I do not sell advertising space in telephone kiosks direct. It is done through a contractor. I propose to seek an acceptable tender for a new contract later this year. If the contract is let there should be no change in the present practice.

Is the Postmaster-General aware that that answer will be very acceptable on many housing schemes, particularly, where people use the booths to call up taxis? Will he bear in mind that this is a very useful social service besides producing revenue?

I am well aware of that. This is why we intend to continue it.

asked the Postmaster-General how many colour television supplemental licences are currently in issue; what estimate he has made of the number in issue in 1970 and 1972; and, having regard to the growth potential, what steps he is taking to rationalise the colour television licence with black and white television and radio, in a single uniform annual charge; and whether he will make a statement.

At the end of March 1968, 20,400 colour television licences, which of course also authorise the use of black and white television and of sound radio, had been issued. Estimates made by industry of set sales suggest that this figure might grow to 625,000 by the end of 1970 and about one and a half million by the end of 1972. I would not wish to prejudge the issue but prima facie these figures do not suggest that the proportion of viewers with colour sets will be sufficiently large to justify abolishing the differential licence fee.

Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is confusing, discriminatory and undesirable to have this duality of licence fee as between black and white on the one hand and colour on the other? Would he consider, at any rate in principle, consolidating the position at an early date, perhaps within 18 months?

The hon. Gentleman has planted a thought in our minds, but perhaps it is a somewhat earlier thought than might have been suggested. I think that the licence differential between monochrome and colour will have to be considered. It will have to be done at some time in the future.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in various parts of the country believe that the principle of differential charges should be extended rather than reduced because of the differences in reception? Will he bear that in mind?

That is an indication of how easily the House, and particularly hon. Gentlemen opposite, could be divided on this issue.

Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems in this case is that rather than have a licence differential between colour and monochrome he should be stimulating the manufacture of colour television sets in larger numbers in an effort to keep down the cost of these sets?

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he does not at some time discontinue this differential licensing arrangement we shall gradually drift into a position in which a £10 licence will become general as colour television becomes more general?

I am aware of that.

asked the Postmaster-General if he will give an undertaking that future changes in the price of the broadcast receiving licence will be referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

asked the Postmaster-General if he now proposes to raise the licence fee for radio and television.

I cannot anticipate any decision about the level of licence fees, nor what measures might be decided on in examining the case for any future changes.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is not what I asked? I asked whether this matter would be put before the Prices and Incomes Board.

I think that the case for presentation to the Board will have to be considered nearer the time.

Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the British licence fee is the lowest in any country in Western Europe? Would he note that there would be strong opposition from this side of the House to any proposal to introduce commercial radio or television on the B.B.C. in preference to an increase in the licence fee or any other source of public revenue?

I am aware of that, but the House should know that the basic source of the B.B.C.'s financial troubles is that the Conservative Administration in 1962 authorised the Corporation to undertake massive new commitments on the understanding that it would be afforded sufficient income to finance them, and they never carried out that policy.

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied that the fees for appearances and performances on radio and television meet the criteria of the Government's incomes policy; and if he will make a statement.

Both the B.B.C. and the independent television companies invariably clear incomes policy aspects with the Department of Employment and Productivity when conducting negotiations about general rates of fees. It is difficult to set standards for fees for individual performances because circumstances vary so much, but the Government have made it clear that the call for substantial restraint over the next two years is intended to apply to all incomes.

Dealing with the particular cases, is my right hon. Friend not aware that excessively large fees appear to be paid to those whose notoriety is more impressive than their talent? In view of this, are the Government not accepting that their policy is not applicable to such star performers?

They do appear to be highly paid and are no doubt highly taxed, although that is not necessarily the answer. If my hon. Friend has individual cases in mind and will put them to me, we have the right to put them to the Prices and Incomes Board.

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if there is a case for a reduction in the high fees earned by some performers, there is also a case for an increase in the low fees earned by others?

This is not necessarily a question for me, but if hon. Members have individual cases, we will see whether they get referred to the N.B.P.I.

asked the Postmaster General if he will direct the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from broadcasting programmes the context of which is prejudicial to or contemptuous of matters that are sub judice; and in view of the action of the Corporation during the recent Richardson case, if he will dismiss the Chairman of the Corporation.

No Sir. The need to avoid such broadcasts is well understood in the B.B.C. This one happened because owing to a most unfortunate error the B.B.C. wrongly thought that all Richardson's appeals had been concluded. I know that the Chairman of the B.B.C. and the staff concerned share the grave concern of hon. Members and myself over the error.

As this was neither the first nor the last time that such a thing has happened—indeed, has there not been a gross abuse of this kind since, in a case where an appeal was pending?—would my right hon. Friend not whisper loudly in the Chairman's ear that any more incidents of this kind will not be tolerated, and, if they do happen, would he dismiss the Chairman and his egregious Director-General?

In view of the Richardson case, I have seen the Chairman and he has apologised to the Attorney-General any myself. He was perturbed about it. It was a stupid mistake. All concerned are aware of it, and I hope that the House will let it rest at that.

Would the right hon. Gentleman assure us that, before putting cut any other programmes like this, the B.B.C. will take full legal advice?

It was because of the mistake of a legal mind that this came about.

Why should we be gagged because an appeal is under way? Is it imagined that something said on the B.B.C. will affect Appeal Court judges? If something out of turn is said, can they not be sued for libel?

I would disagree with my hon. and learned Friend, as, I am sure, would the House. We cannot allow these trials on television before a mass audience before the person himself has had a chance to appear in court.

asked the Postmaster General if he will exempt elderly pensioners and people on small fixed incomes from any further increase in the television licence fee, and also make regulations to enable people to buy a television licence for periods of three and six months as well as for 12 months.

No decision has been taken to increase the licence fee. Much as I sympathise with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's motives exemption would create serious anomolies. Short term licences would call for more staff and add materially to the costs of the licensing service.

Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that television is a great boon to many elderly people and that, for many of them, relief from expensive television licence fees is just as important as relief from expensive bus fares? Would he seriously consider that? Second, in spite of the increased expense, would he not see whether he could spread the cost of the licence fee over a longer period, since the necessity to produce £5 and even more all at once does cause hardship?

The original Question asked me to fix individual licence fees, of which there are 17½ million, so the hon. Gentleman can imagine the time which would be consumed, and the expense and, above all, the work by the Civil Service which would be involved. As to cheaper television licences for old people, I beg the House to remember on this point that old people who have not got a television would receive no benefit at all, and they are probably more needy than those with sets.