HC Deb 07 November 1961 vol 648 cc768-73
Mr. Speaker

Mr. Royle —Question No. 2.

Mr. Allaun

On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to something rather unusual? There are five Questions on the Order Paper today in connection with Question No. 2. Some of these appeared on the Order Paper as early as last Wednesday, but yesterday there was an Answer to a Written Question which had been put down after my hon. Friend's Question had appeared on Friday. It is not for me to say that it is a stooge Question, but it certainly looks like it. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether there is not some redress for hon. Members about this kind of thing. May I ask whether there was any consultation between the Minister and the hon. Member —a Conservative hon. Member —who put this Question down in his name, because it does not seem to me a strictly ethical thing to do?

Mr. Speaker

I have not got the circumstances in mind. I will look at them, but prefer not to deal with the matter now.

Mr. Woodburn

Is there any rule, Mr. Speaker. about the anticipation of Questions? If an hon. Member has a Question down, is it in order for another hon. Member to anticipate it?

Mr. Speaker

It does not apply in ordinary circumstances, but if some concrete case arises I will rule about it. However, let us get on now.

Mr. Hoy

Further to that point of order. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House will be grateful to you for looking into the matter and perhaps, Sir, you will look into the point of where the Question came from which appeared on the Order Paper on Friday, a Question of such importance that the Postmaster-General produced a reply to it on Monday.

Mr. Speaker

I will look into the matter.

Mr. Ellis Smith

Further to that point of order. My hon. Friend, who has consulted me, Mr. Speaker, does not desire to cast any shadow of suspicion whatever on the officials of the House for whom we have the greatest possible respect —we have learned that from experience —but it is quite obvious that something has gone on behind the scenes, apart from the officials, and we are grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for promising to look into the matter.

Mr. Speaker

I must look into the matter before I can find out what has happened.

Mr. W. R. Williams

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you are being good enough to consider this question, might it be possible for you to consider at the same time the advisability of Ministers —not the Postmaster-General in particular, but all Ministers — using their discretion, because they are not bound to answer Written Questions on any particular day? When they have before them a number of important Questions like this for answer in the following week, it might be better to postpone the Answer to a Written Question until the Oral Questions have been answered.

Mr. Speaker

There are a number of important Questions to get on with today. Mr. Royle.

2. Mr. C. Royle

asked the Postmaster-General if he will take steps to reduce the rentals for direct broadcasts of sporting events to patients in hospitals as in the case of the broadcasts from Salford Rugby Football Club to Hope and Ladywell Hospitals, Salford.

13. Mr. Hoy

asked the Postmaster-General what decision he has reached regarding telephone charges to the hospitals football broadcast committees in Scotland.

16. Mr. Darling

asked the Postmaster-General, whether he will reconsider his decision to raise the rental charges on telephone lines used by voluntary sports commentators to patients in hospitals and residents in institutions for the blind.

17. Mr. Allaun

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that the telephone rentals for direct broadcasts from Salford rugby ground to Hope and Lady-well hospitals have been raised from £32 last year to £61 this year; and if he will reconsider this and similar increases elsewhere.

20. Mr. Fitch

asked the Postmaster-General if he will reconsider his decision not to exempt football clubs, who rent private telephone circuits for the sole purpose of broadcasting football matches to hospitals, from the recently imposed additional rentals.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Reginald Bevins)

In reply to my hon. Friend, the Member for Acton (Mr. Holland), I said that I was making some changes, the effect of which would be to moderate the increases substantially and would help the renters of hospital commentary circuits and similar networks. I have asked telephone managers to work out the details with the renters.

Mr. Royle

Does not that Answer completely justify the point of order which has been raised by my hon. Friend? In the course of his reply to me will the right hon. Gentleman give some explanation of what has already been done? May I say to him as courteously as I can that the reply which was given to his hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Holland) will give some satisfaction at least to the people who are responsible for the broadcasts and to those who receive them, but will he give us some more definite information? What sort of figure has he in mind? For example, in the Salford case it is a rise from £20 to £60. Can he indicate what the reduction will be as a result of what is going on?

Mr. Bevins

First, I should like to make it clear that there was no collaboration of any kind between myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Holland). While I take the point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams), I did feel that there was so much general interest in the matter that the Question ought to be answered at the earliest possible moment.

With regard to the second part of the supplementary question asked by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), I prefer at this moment not to give details of the moderated increases for the various hospitals, but I can say to the House clearly that the concession that I am making will cost the Post Office about £20,000 and that, on the average, the increases will be halved.

Mr. Hoy

I will not refer to the other matter; the House can draw its own conclusions. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposed increase in the case of the hospital committee in Edinburgh is 60 per cent. —an increase in the charge from £403 to £671? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this money is raised by people's hard work to provide a service free of charge to those who are so unfortunate as to be in hospital? Would the Minister consider removing altogether this increase? When he talks about £20,000 for the whole country, surely he ought not to allow the reputation of the Post Office to be besmirched by a sum of this size?

Mr. Bevins

When this matter was brought to my attention I naturally gave consideration to the possibility of waiving these increases together. Of course, they are tied up with the increases which apply to private telephone circuits as a whole, and it would have been exceedingly difficult to have singled out certain classes for total exemption. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that in the case of the hospital in which he is interested the increase on the new basis will be relatively very modest indeed.

Mr. Darling

So far as I can gather from a quick calculation, the right hon. Gentleman's increase will cost the Sheffield area about £120 a year. In these circumstances, does he not agree that the Government could very well make a contribution to this excellent voluntary service and that the cost, as my hon. Friend has said, would be very small indeed? This is a matter where surely the Government could be as forthcoming as the people who are called upon to make contributions to cover the cost. Is it impossible to separate the rental of a telephone line so as to keep it to the original charge?

Mr. Bevins

I have already made it clear that I would have liked to have done what the hon. Member and various others have in mind, but it is really impracticable to do it in the case of various groups of private circuit renters.

Mr. Allaun

May I repeat the plea for the complete waiving of these charges? If they can be reduced, surely they could be abolished. Is it not true that although the Post Office has made on average £5 million profit a year for the people of this country over the last twenty years, as a nationalised concern in contrast to a commercial company it exists to provide a service and not only a profit? Therefore, as in the case of remote farms which are provided with telephones, could not the Minister provide this service without any increase in charge?

Mr. Bevins

I think I have already answered that question, but I should like to make it clear that on the basis of these moderated increases, the Post Office will lose on these services.

Mr. Fitch

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to draw up individual contracts with these sporting organisations concerned?

Mr. Bevins

We shall have to revise arrangements with the renters of the service.

Mr. W. R. Williams

I should like to ask two brief questions. First, when do these new rates come into operation, and secondly, will there be retrospection in regard to rebates to the people who have already paid?

Mr. Bevins

The answer to the first supplementary question is that I have already instructed my telephone managers to approach the renters and discuss with them the best means of getting prices down to the lowest possible level. As to retrospection, that will apply back to the time of the last account.

Mr. Royle

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