HC Deb 04 November 1968 vol 772 cc625-53

10.12 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Inland Post Regulations 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 1253), a copy of which was laid before this House on 20th August, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled. I am aware that the 50 regulations and seven Schedules which comprise the document before us contain quite a number of proposals which are wholly innocuous and, indeed, involve simply a re-enactment of pre-existing regulations. On the other hand, the admirably clear Explanatory Note at the back of the Statutory Instrument—the only agreeable feature of it—makes it clear that this bundle of regulations contains a substantial number of proposals which are new, highly controversial, and, in my view, pernicious.

We cannot amend a Statutory Instrument. The only course open to those of us who feel that these proposals are ill-judged, inappropriate and wrong is to move to annul the whole body of Regulations, it being clearly understood that it is open to the Government, if the House accepts the Motion, to reintroduce those parts of the Regulations which are a repetition of pre-existing ones.

If I may say so in fairness to him, the Postmaster-General has shown a considerable willingness to reverse many of the sillier actions of his predecessors. I hope, therefore, that he will listen to the argument on these Regulations with the same open-minded approach that he has shown, for example, in respect of the opposition to the extraordinary idea of one of his predecessors that the London telephone directory should be divided into 36 separate parts.

The House must appreciate that although the right hon. Gentleman now bears technical responsibility for them, these Regulations are not regulations for which he was in any ordinary sense of the term responsible. They were plainly the work of his two predecessors, and connoisseurs of the Minister of Technology will immediately appreciate that the silly-clever undergraduate gimmickry of much of them is the clearest possible indication that the Minister of Tech-

If hon. Members will study the regulation, they will see that the right to with- hold applies not only to delivery, but to nology had a hand in them. I hope, therefore, that in words which are not wholly unfamiliar to the Minister of Technology the House will appreciate it if the Postmaster-General will take the view, that Her Majesty's mails are too important a matter to be left to the Minister of Technology.

The introduction of these regulations, as the previous debate made clear, has undoubtedly done an enormous amount of harm to the reputation and morale of the Post Office, and no one should be more aware of that than the right hon. Gentleman. It has also done a great deal of harm to the economy.

I want to go straight to what seems to me plainly the worst of these regulations. It is Regulation 17, which is short and pithy: Any second-class letter or printed packet may be withheld from despatch or delivery until any subsequent despatch of delivery. This is, first of all, wholly contrary to the honourable tradition of the Post Office, the tradition that the mails get through as quickly as possible, the tradition of the mail trains racing through the night, the tradition of the postman trudging his way through the snow to make sure that the mail gets through to the most isolated cottage.

The seriousness of this regulation is that the word "withheld" has a nasty implication. It does not merely mean not using the fullest speed or expedition. It means deliberately holding back, and one wants to know, and one wants to get from the right hon. Gentleman, why he is the first Postmaster-General for 300 years to come forward with a proposal for the deliberate holding back of Her Majesty's mails.

A reason was put with characteristic vigour by a trade union leader, Mr. Fitzgerald, the General Secretary of the National Guild of Telephonists, who called it penny blackmail by holding up Her Majesty's mails. Without necessarily accepting that peculiar phraseology, I think that hon. Members who heard the earlier debate will appreciate that the reason for this deliberate holding back is to try to induce or compel the ordinary citizen to use the 5d. rate.

If hon. Members will study the regulation, they will see that the right to with- hold applies not only to delivery, but to despatch. Why is it desired to have a power to withhold letters even from despatch, in other words, to sit on them and not send them forward?

The Government are clearly in a position which they would condemn with great vehemence if any private company—above all, a monopoly company—adopted it. If a private company which held a monopoly deliberately lowered the quality of its service without any reduction in price so as to compel its customers to use a more expensive service, not only would Ministers denounce them, they would haul them either in front of the Restrictive Practices Court or the Central Criminal Court on a charge of conspiracy to extort money.

The same must apply to a great public service protected by monopoly powers which is clearly and deliberately worsening its service, and taking power so to do, to compel people to buy its more expensive service. That is the gravamen of the charge against these Regulations.

The House will have noticed the words that I have read out, "until any subsequent dispatch or delivery." There is no time limit. It is not limited to a delay of two or three weeks. It is absolutely indefinite. That is an enormous power to take, and one which surely demands an explanation. It is a power to delay to the Greek Kalends, or, to use a more modern idiom, until the occasion when the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity makes a speech at a by-election which does not contain a worthless pledge. I see that the right hon. Lady has come into the Chamber. Her sense of timing is, as always, admirable.

I want to know from the right hon. Gentleman, who is to make his third speech of the day in reply—an example of the loneliness of the long-distance runner—why he wants to take this power. He has told us that he does not wish deliberately to hold up mail; indeed, in the closing moments of his speech in the previous debate he told us that he would take action to secure the delivery of second-class mail, at any rate in London, by the first post. Why, then, is he seeking from Parliament power indefinitely and with no limit whatever to delay Her Majesty's mail—both its dispatch and its delivery? These Regulations have caused confusion and damage to the economy of the Post Office, as we heard in the earlier debate. Their purpose is to improve the revenues of the Post Office—a rather curious purpose in respect of the letter mail, which are one of the Post Office's profitable activities. I wonder how far even that object has been achieved. If the Post Office withholds one letter and send on another, under these Regulations, there has to be a separate sorting activity. The first class has to be sorted from the second.

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how this is done? Will he also tell us how much of the extra overtime worked by the Post Office during recent weeks has been directly related to this?—because this is an extra operation over and above all the others that the Post Office has to undertake.

Perhaps he will explain how any saving is achieved by the sort of operation affecting mail from the Shetland Islands that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) described vividly the other day, as reported in the Press. According to the right hon. Gentleman, prior to these forms all mail—first and second-class—which was going to Aberdeen, went by air. First-class mail so continues to do, but second-class mail is taken by air from Shetland to Orkney, put in a van and driven across Orkney, put on a boat at the other side of Orkney and taken to Scrabster, in Caithness; then put on a train which takes it to Perth and not to Aberdeen, and then returns northward from Perth to Aberdeen. This will no doubt serve the purpose of delay most effectively.

But I should like to know what economy is achieved in a labour intensive service by this kind of thing. There are innumerable examples of the labour cost in delay of these operations. There is the example which my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip gave of solemnly collecting second-class mail from a village in Cumberland, taking it 25 miles to Carlisle and then bringing it back. This again effectively withholds, but also seems to be lacking in value as an economy.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he had stopped some of the sillier operations, like the Lincolnshire postman re-posting, but I know of a number of cases in my own constituency of second-class mail taking three or four days to move within the London area. In one case, a letter took four days from Epsom to Roehampton, a distance of about nine miles, or an average speed of 2¼ miles a day. Apart from the inconvenience of that to the public, does that save labour? Someone presumably was looking after that letter for four days, when he could simply have delivered it the next day and got rid of it. There is also the: curious, and in some way sinister, devaluation of the post mark. Many hon. Members have heard from their constituents of cases of a double postmark on a letter. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Sir Ian Orr-Ewing) gave me an interesting example just before the debate, of a letter proceeding from Manchester Square, W.1, to Mill Hill, which received one post mark on 24th October at the London W. Post Office and another two days later at the London S.E.1 Post Office, before finally reaching Mill Hill three days after that. These cases are too frequent and too many are now arising to be due to the difficulties which, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, one would expect in a major service. They have been multiplied by these regulations. They are a direct and logical consequence of the regulations. They should have been foreseen, they were not foreseen, and this is what had done the damage to the postal service.

Another of these regulations has an effect to which little publicity has been given, and that is the treatment of postcards. All the advertisements, those which the right hon. Gentleman approved and those which he did not, suggest that the citizen is given a choice. The right hon. Gentleman and the House will recall what has happened in respect to the choice over postcards. Until 16th September, they went for 3d. From then on, the price was raised to 4d., a 33⅓ per cent. increase, for an inferior service, or a 66⅔ per cent. increase to 5d. for more or less the same service as before. This is an enormous increase when everyone else is being asked to exercise price restraint.

This is made none the better by reason of the fact that the postcard is the type of communication which the old, the poor and the children use in particular. When the right hon. Gentleman talks of price increases, is he really saying that the Post Office alone in this country is entitled to a 66⅔ per cent. increase for the same service?

I should like to ask two questions arising equally on these Regulations. First how are they being applied to mail for the Armed Forces, sent to British Forces Post Offices? It has always been the tradition that the mail is sent to our forces abroad with the utmost speed, for reasons of morale as well as common humanity, since the people concerned are, by the nature of their duties, often separated from their families. If a second-class letter is sent to somebody addressed "care of B.F.P.O.", will the right hon. Gentleman exercise his power to delay it? If he intends to do so, has he consulted the Secretary of State for Defence about the effect on the forces?

Perhaps also he will tell us what is to happen to the elaborate price structure contained in these Regulations when the currency is decimalised. That is only two-and-a-half years ahead. In a very courteous letter to me, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that when that occurs the structure of charging in the Post Office will have to be reconsidered. Are we to go through all this elaborate and damaging process only for a short time? If he were by some unhappy chance still to be in that office at that time—it is only two-and-a-half years ahead—would it be his intention to have another series of charges imposed? The new decimal currency will be completely inappropriate to Post Office charges of this kind, as the right hon. Gentleman admits.

One other regulation calls for some comment—that which provides that the Postmaster-General may fix a higher rate even than these, though not exceeding 7d. for first-class or 6d. for second-class mail, for minimum weight letters which do not conform to the conditions of size, shape and material of a preferred letter. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to do that without any reference to Parliament. He will be able to lay down what he means by the kind of letter for which he will make a further additional charge. Is he contemplating making yet another increase in postal charges in respect of that category of correspondence without necessarily referring to Parliament at all? The House and the public are entitled to be told a little about that.

In opening the debate I acquitted the right hon. Gentleman of responsibility for this shambles which has been created in the Post Office. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Barber) said so well earlier, these Regulations and the way in which they were introduced have done a good deal of damage to the Post Office and to the country. No one expects the right hon. Gentleman to run his Department at a loss and to let it become the same sort of incubus on the taxpayer as the railways have become. But surely he must realise that these Regulations have got off to a hopeless start. Is not the best thing, in his interests and the interests of his Department and of the country, for him to take them back? He can console himself with the thought that the shambles is more that of his predecessors than his own. Ought he not to start again or, in words familiar to most of us when we were a good deal younger, "Rub it out. Try again and do better."

10.34 p.m.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) was quite right when he said that the Postmaster-General had inherited a shambles. But the right hon. Gentleman did not inherit the speech which he made less than an hour ago, and there was one sentence in that speech which requires explanation because, as it remains within my recollection, it verges on the despicable.

The whole point of my right hon. Friend's suggestion that we should annul these Regulations was to emphasise that the nation is disturbed at the way in which this once excellent service has been brought to a level which can be described only by the word "shambles". It was fair enough of the right hon. Gentleman to want to defend his Department. It was understandable that he should want to put as good a gloss as he could on the mistakes made by his colleagues when they occupied his office. But he deviated from the standards we expect from a Minister when, instead of giving explanations, both technical and apologetic, so to speak—to his credit, he did apologise —he began to attack the people who use the Post Office.

I was particularly disturbed at the sentence in which he seemed to suggest that people who used franking machines and who had apparently made a mistake about the date might in some way be penalised. He referred to using all the powers given to him in regulations—I do not know if they are these Regulations or others—and he used a tone of voice which gave me the impression that he would inflict some hardship or penalty on customers of the Post Office who were only doing what they had previously done, and had no doubt made a mistake.

Mr. F. A. Burden (Gillingham)

It was interesting to note how the Postmaster-General tried to explain away mistakes made by the Post Office, and admit that that organisation sometimes made mistakes, and then say that those who use the service might be penalised for making mistakes.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

That is my point. The right hon. Gentleman gave me the impression—I gather that other hon. Members felt the same—that out of pique, because we had used the Parliamentary platform to draw attention to grievous mistakes, he would use powers under certain regulations in an arbitrary fashion as a punishment, simply because he had had to answer criticisms which it was right for us to make. What did the right hon. Gentleman have in mind in uttering that sentence? Were his words as ominous as I have suggested, or have I misunderstood the emphasis which I have placed upon them?

In addition to that, which is his mistake, the House should support my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames in asking for a full explanation of this Instrument. I do not see how, in this day and age, Parliament can, for the first time, give the Postmaster-General powers to deliberately hold back the mail. We appreciate that there are occasions—in times of flood, the rush at Christmas time, special overloading of the system and so on—when it is fair for him to withhold the mail. But to give him power to do this without previously giving sound reasons to Parliament is too much to ask.

Have we reached the end of the story? We now have a 5d. postage and it has been pointed out that when decimalisation arrives the 4d. stamp will automatically become 4.8d. Does this mean that the 5d. stamp will cost 6d.? Is the right hon. Gentleman taking power to, if necessary, raise it to 7d.? To expect the House to give him such overriding powers, a blank cheque, on a service which affects almost every member of the community is too much to ask. I refer to people who cannot look after themselves. They are not a section of the population who are well organised and wealthy. They would not want the right hon. Gentleman to have powers to charge them what he likes without even first referring the matter to their representatives in Parliament.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who apologised without reserve in a tone which was acceptable to the House, will feel that he is no more responsible for the detailed terms of this Instrument than he was for the shambles for which he had to answer tonight. He should withdraw those terms and redraft them in terms more acceptable to the House.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown (Glasgow, Provan)

I must admit that I was impressed by the speech made by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), at least when he suggested that my right hon. Friend should rub things out and try again. My impression so far in this debate is that the second team playing in the second half of this match is no better than the first lot.

The debate exposes the petty-minded attitude, the small-mindedness of the thinking of hon. Members opposite, not only in selecting this subject in the earlier part of the day, but in continuing the discussion at this late hour. Their small-ness of mind is matched by the letters of protest that have been given prominence in some newspapers. This is part of a deliberate campaign, obvious to most people, to discredit not just the Post Office, but any form of public enterprise.

The kind of sixth-form debating that we have heard this evening has been an insult to Parliament. No wonder public opinion polls are not favourably disposed to the Tories. [Interruption.] It is obvi- ous from an examination of them that, whatever shortcomings we may have, we have at least responsibly tackled the problem, while the manner in which the Opposition are going about their business has not endeared them even to their own supporters.

I suggest that this kind of small-mindedness, raising such issues as this is one of the reasons. I do not see why I should give hon. Members opposite any advice. [Interruption.] Of course, there is a case for the two-tier system. To some extent it fits in with the philosophy of hon. Gentlemen opposite, in providing freedom of choice. I have had the good fortune to have worked for a time in a sorting office. Hon. Members opposite should spend some time working in a post office to improve their knowledge of Post Office matters, rather than listening to some of the prejudiced views—and they can be got, even from Post Office employees—that have been expressed tonight.

It would serve them better if they took some time to examine the problems of staff and labour. The point has been made that the bulk of the mail is posted, and obviously collected, in the evening. Have hon. Members opposite given thought to the fact that it is difficult to get staff to work late at night or all night, or to get up at half-past four in the morning to go to work? Is no thought to be given to the problems that this creates in terms of competing in certain areas where labour is in short supply, to the credit of this Government? People can earn much more in more congenial circumstances. Hon. Members opposite are quite unaware of this. Naturally, in these circumstances, apart from any argument about needing more revenue to finance capital expenditure required—

Mr. Burden

On a point of order. It would seem to me that there is no mention in this Instrument about the terms and conditions of Post Office workers.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

The hon. Gentleman is a little wide of the Instrument, but I was assuming that he was about to relate his remarks to its terms.

Mr. Brown

I was getting round to whatever number regulation it was that the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames quoted, about withholding mail, because this is relevant. Why should there be second-class mail? Of course there should be second-class mail; there always has been. What are the Opposition complaining about? What is second-class mail? It is mainly bills, advertising material and stuff which is of no consequence in terms of urgency. There has always been this preponderance of second-class mail and in many cases people do not care whether they receive it or not, never mind about it being delivered on time. There has always been deferred matter and mail deliberately withheld, even under the control of hon. Members opposite when they were in charge of Post Office affairs.

I do not say that this is a perfect system. Perhaps it has not been properly understood, or the reasons have not been properly "sold", but it makes sense to me. If I were running an industry—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is unlikely."] I do not know what business the hon. Member who interrupted me runs, but if he adopts his supercilious, arrogant attitude towards his employees he is not a good employer. I do not think that he could run an efficient business.

Mr. Peter Mahon (Preston, South)

Does my hon. Friend remember the Zinoviev letter? Was that not withheld?

Mr. Brown

I do not suggest that this move by the Opposition is as sinister as the Zinoviev letter, but it is certainly part of a campaign by some hon. Members who are aware of the possibility of extending the field of private enterprise in Post Office matters if they think the public will "wear" it. We shall have plenty of time to discuss that when the new Bill comes.

Surely it makes sense to try to organise affairs in such a way that the staff can cope with the work at a time suitable to the staff and to the public. We have already established that second-class mail is not in a hurry.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley (Cheadle)

Surely the logic of what the hon. Member is saying is that we have had a price increase of 25 per cent in the ordinary mail which last year made a profit of £11 million.

Mr. Brown

I am not disputing that [Laughter.] There is nothing funny about this. Of course it has been ad- mitted. All the Reports by the Select Committee make the point—that the Post Office had to have more money. No one denies that. From where else can that money come?

Dr. Winstanley

The point is that the item of Post Office services whose price has been increased is the item which made a profit of £11 million last year. That would not seem the most logical item of which to increase the price.

Mr. Brown

As the hon. Member knows, there is more to it than taking what appears to be one simple point and drawing conclusions from that. I shall not be tempted into replying to that point. We shall have plenty of time to argue about broad principles of cross-subsidisation when we have the new Bill. I am firmly convinced that this is an intelligent attempt to rationalise the use of labour at a time when it is difficult to get labour of the necessary quality. This is no reflection on Post Office staff. It is difficult to find good labour for unpleasant work, whether in transport or in the Post Office. Unless the public are made aware of some of the difficulties, they will fall victim to the kind of campaign which is being conducted.

I am satisfied that hon. and right hon. Members opposite are conducting a deliberate campaign to discredit the Post Office service generally, and this debate is part of it. There is no lowering of morale among the staff of the Post Office. On the contrary, the staff welcomed this plan. They know the implications of it, and, perhaps, the implications if they had not welcomed it. Other schemes with unfortunate consequences for the staff might have been introduced as an alternative to this attempt to rationalise the use of labour in the Post Office.

The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) has been making a good many speeches lately. I am satisfied—he does not make them in a personal capacity—that hon. Members opposite have ideas, whether in commercial radio or some Post Office functions, for hiving things off to private enterprise. We shall soon hear about it if my suspicion is correct. It is only in that context that the time spent on these matters today makes sense.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Campbell (Moray and Nairn)

I shall take only a minute or two, because I was fortunate in having the opportunity to speak about the new postal services on a previous occasion, but I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) because it is clear that he did not follow the points which were raised in that debate on 17th October. I shall not go into them now. The hon. Gentleman can read the report of the debate in .

I then pointed out that there was a problem and a challenge in the congestion of post which collects in the evening. I accepted that, and I went on to show that the second-class mail under the previous system was, as the hon. Gentleman himself admitted, in a quite different category, much of it mail of little importance and, therefore, not the kind of second-class mail which is now the preponderant type under the new system Also on that occasion I made clear, as have my hon. Friends today, that no blame attaches to the postal staffs or to the postmen, who are simply trying to carry out the instructions which they have received to the best of their ability. That pretty well demolishes everything which the hon. Gentleman said.

One of the ways by which the Postmaster-General sought to defend the way the system was introduced was simply to praise the postal service as it has operated in recent years. There is no argument between us on that. It has been a good service. That is all the more reason why one deplores that the standard should now be so reduced in a few weeks.

I support the cogent argument regarding Regulation 17, put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). It is this Regulation—the Postmaster-General confirmed it in a Written Answer to me—which alters Section 58 of the Post Office Act, 1953, to which I referred on 17th October, which would otherwise have the effect of making it an offence for any officer of the Post Office, contrary to his duty, to detain, delay, or to procure or suffer to be delayed, any postal packet, and under which someone guilty of such an offence is liable to fine or imprisonment. Now, under Regulation 17 we have provisions which would allow mail to be positively delayed.

In reply to the debate on 17th October, the Postmaster-General stated categorically that post was not being deliberately delayed. On the following Tuesday, he was reported in the Press to have said that he was flabbergasted when an incident was brought to his notice. Apparently, as he told us this evening, he issued a new directive on that occasion. But almost any of my right hon. and hon. Friends could have told him that that was happening. I tried to do so on the previous Thursday. Our criticism is not necessarily of a two-tier system, which may be an improvement, but of the way in which it has been introduced without any preparation or thorough investigation. A kind of groundnut mentality has been behind it.

The Postmaster-General has not yet answered the point raised in the earlier debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), that it seems that under Regulation 17 second-class mail could be withheld for a week, two weeks, or more if the first-class mail continued to come in in such numbers that it had to command initial attention. I hope that he will answer the point tonight. We must know what the effects of the regulation are. He may answer that delivery of the second-class mail can always be guaranteed after a day's delay, but that does not tie up with what is in Regulation 17.

The other argument that the Postmaster-General has given is the one that astonishes me, namely, blaming the public and producing examples of some irregularities. The public—including, for the benefit of the hon. Member for Provan, the public in Scotland—know very well that things have been going wrong since the scheme started., and that this is not because they have by mistake put the wrong date on a letter or because they have been examining their mail more carefully—another of the reasons given.

The public will be appalled by the complacency of the Postmaster-General in his reply. He has admitted tonight to several ways in which he has taken action since the debate of 17th October. We welcome this as far as it goes. He announced some more tonight, but all this was done after his reply on 17th October, when he said that he was satisfied with the system and that there was no deliberate delay. I hope that tonight he will agree to withdraw the Regulations and think again so that this system, if it is to work in this country, can have a good send-off and the blessing of the public.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts (Bedfordshire, South)

I was astounded when the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) suggested that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General was speaking for the third time this evening, because I have heard the same arguments tonight—and I have not been here all the time—at least six or seven times from the Opposition. The argument has been based solely on the suggested delay associated with the fourpenny mail. But there has been very little stress on the considerable improvement in the first-class mail.

When I first heard figures quoted of 92 per cent. next day delivery originally, rising to 95 per cent., I was a bit sceptical. I thought that statistically this was nonsense, because I believed that within the limits of statistical error these differences were negligible. But I made inquiries of the Post Office as to the methods by which it calculated those percentages and was astounded by the intricate system it uses to obtain them. They were not based on a sample of 1,800, 2,000 or anything like that, as I suspected. The figures are genuine estimates of the past achievement of the first-class mail and expected achievement of the new system. Here we have a considerable improvement in the delivery of the first-class mail.

To be fair in a debate of this sort, one must consider the improvements as well as any delays that may occur in the fourpenny mail. I also feel—and I am certain that my right hon. Friend will assure us of this tonight—that the aim of the changes is not only to produce a 95 per cent. first-class next day delivery, but that perhaps ultimately the four-penny second-class deliveries may reach the 92 per cent. position of what used to be the top-class mail under the original system. The result in the long term—the system has been with us only a very short while—may be a considerable percentage increase in the effectiveness of next day deliveries not only for first-class mail but also for second-class mail.

It has been suggested by the Opposition that they have had a great number of complaints about the postal system.

Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)

Thousands of them.

Mr. Roberts

I have a considerable mail and I have had a number of complaints, but the number is not astounding considering the number of letters that go through the post.

Sir G. Nabarro

Will the hon. Gentleman permit me?

Mr. Roberts

No. I shall be only one minute.

Considering the vast flow of mail, it is a very small percentage of complaints, particularly when we consider the deliberate attempts made by the Opposition to highlight this issue for political purposes. This is the only issue here. Of course I have had a number of complaints, but I do not believe that the number is considerably greater than it would have been if the same focus had been brought on the mail system when the previous arrangements existed.

Sir G. Nabarro

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down—

Mr. Roberts

I have not yet finished.

The only thing that has rather alarmed me during the debate is the stress that my right hon. Friend has laid upon the profits of the Post Office. Of course I believe in systems which run at a profit rather than a loss, but I deplore the fact that we have had what is simply, initially, a price increase. I believe—I am sure many of my hon. Friends would agree—that the first essence of a body like the Post Office is to provide a social service by ensuring that mails are delivered. If it can do that with a profit, all the better. But I have been a little concerned by the stress laid on the profit angle of the service.

The price increase may be undesirable, but the development is basically a progressive one. I feel that the aim of the change to the two-tier system has not been to delay any section of the mail. The simple aim has been to provide the public with a top class first-class service with a better percentage delivery on the second day than hitherto and also a top class second-class service.

Sir G. Nabarro

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, is it not a fact that the reason why he has attracted such a very small volume of complaints about the mails is that the general public would not write to a political innocent? They would write to a man in the Opposition upon whom they could rely—

Mr. Roberts rose—

Sir G. Nabarro

Sit down. Wait till I have finished. They would write to a man in the Opposition upon whom they could rely to blow the roof off with their complaints, which is the reason for our debates this evening.

Mr. Roberts

I do not know how many people write to political innocents; I am not aware how many letters the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) has received on the subject.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins (Derbyshire, West)

It is quite a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Gwilym Roberts), though I disagree with almost everything of what I understood him to say. His ignorance is only outweighed by his verbosity, and his ignorance is shared by his right hon. and hon. Friends.

He says that there is no doubt that there has been an improved delivery of mail, and that the whole purpose of our Prayer is to mount a petty campaign against the Post Office. That is rubbish. There has been no improvement in deliveries of first-class mail. In fact, there has been no improvement at all in deliveries—

Mr. Gwilym Roberts

Yes, there has.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

There has not, and the hon. Gentleman has only to come to some of our constituencies to see the appalling mess created by what the Postmaster-General did in September. Indeed, he has only to go to post offices in his own constituency to see the troubles and difficulties of the men and women working in them, owing to the two-tier system having been brought in without sufficient attention and preparation.

It is Regulation 17 which is causing the trouble to our constituents, and the Postmaster-General must explain it more fully to the House before the end of the debate, because there is no mention of a space of time during which mail can be delayed. At present, there is no doubt that it is being delayed, both at the post office of dispatch and at the post office of delivery. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that point.

Turning to one or two small matters which cause difficulty, I notice in Regulation 23 (2) that all packages and parcels sent to the blind must be capable of being opened for inspection by Post Office staff, whereas Regulation 20 says that ordinary parcels must be secure against theft or pilferage while in transit. I think that Regulation 23 is the wrong type of regulation to apply to the blind, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look at it again.

Regulation 26 concerns the express delivery of mail, and it seems extraordinary that second-class mail cannot be sent in this way. The same applies to registration: only first-class mail can be sent by registered post. The three shilling registration fee has to be paid on top of the ordinary postage. Why should not registration be available to second-class post as well?

Every time, one comes back to the fact that the Postmaster-General has brought in these Regulations without preparation and thought. The result is that our constituents receive a worse service from the Post Office, no matter what the right hon. Gentleman may say, and I for one will join with my right hon. and hon. Friends in condemning the Regulations.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Paul Bryan (Howden)

I want at the outset to assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), if he needs assurance, that he has the support of the Front Bench on this side of the House. Second, if my right hon. and hon. Friends need any advice, I advise them to support the Prayer in the Lobby. Third, I ask one question, and I do so for the second time, because the Postmaster-General has not answered more than a fifth of our questions tonight.

My one question bears on Regulation 17. I said earlier that under the old system something like 60 per cent. of all second-class mail received first-class treatment owing to the flexibility of the system. At the beginning of the two-tier system practically no second-class mail got first-class treatment. Gradually, as the Postmaster-General is making concessions, a little more is getting into the first-class stream. Now that he sees what is happening, can he give some sort of forecast of how far he hopes to go in the direction of flexibility? What hopes has he of a large proportion of second-class mail being assured not of first-class treatment but of getting into the first-class stream as used to be the case?

11.11 p.m.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

Unexpectedly called as I am, I should like first of all to draw attention to Regulation 43 of the Inland Post Regulations concerning recorded delivery packets. These, I believe, cost 9d. above the first-class postage rate. But, in the event of any loss or damage, Regulation 43 states that a sum not exceeding £2 may be paid in compensation as the Postmaster-General "may think just."

The right hon. Gentleman has in his Department a letter from me complaining about the loss of a recorded delivery letter containing 15 or so cheques which were sent on the death of one of my constituents in lieu of flowers and wreaths. It has taken since June until now for the loss to be admitted, and this seems an extraordinarily long time. My constituent has been offered, I think, 2s. 4d. in compensation. This is not enough for the serious disappointment and unhappiness caused to my constituent in having to write again to her friends who sent the cheques and asking whether they would like to subscribe yet again to the charity concerned. I suggest that the sum of £2 mentioned in Regulation 43 ought to be increased to £10 or £15. At 9d. a go for recorded delivery, I would have thought that the Postmaster-General is making a pretty good thing out of it.

My next point relates to election addresses. Will these be sent by first-class or second-class mail, or will recorded delivery be necessary? In view of the present unpopularity of the Government, I have asked my agent to prepare a list and start to address envelopes now, because I do not want any of my constituents to miss my election address when the time arrives.

Turning to Regulation 17, in the last few exciting and rather deafening minutes of the Postmaster-General's speech in the previous debate, I think I understood him to say that he is now sending out instructions to sorting offices that second-class mail may be dealt with as soon as first-class mail has been dispatched. Am I right in so thinking? If he has done that, I think he has at last made an honest man of himself, in view of his Press conference of 5th September. I am not sure whether this applies only to the London area. If this is so, why should it not be extended to other areas?

The right hon. Gentleman will know, because I told him, that I visited Harrow Post Office and found that while the 5d. letters had been dispatched the 4d. letters were still being withheld unnecessarily on his instructions. This had nothing to do with the courteous staff at that post office. When I said, "Surely this stuff is being delayed", I was told by the staff "No, no. This stuff is merely being deferred on the orders of the Postmaster-General."

In his statement of 15th September, the right hon. Gentleman said, "I have no intention of blackmailing the public into using a special kind of post." If the withholding and delaying of deliveries of the second-class mail is not blackmailing the public, I do not know what is. As a business man, I think that there would have been something in it if he had said that he intended to blackmail the public into using the 5d. post and that he would delay the 4d. post in order to make as many people as could afford it use the 5d. post. That is what he has done, and to deny five times previously that that was his intention is shocking.

Despite what the Harrow Observer may have said in the report which the right hon. Gentleman quoted in the earlier debate, my constituents have complained in their hundreds about the present situation. I conclude by quoting the London Borough of Harrow Education Committee which said: A letter posted in central Harrow on Thursday 3rd arrived here, 2½ miles away, on the morning of Tuesday 8th. I have sent it back to the local Head Postmaster suggesting he recruits a few ancient Romans. That shows the classical touch which the Education Department tries to bring intellectually to these problems.

11.17 p.m.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse)

I am glad that the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) has been able to get his say in. I will certainly look into the problem raised by his constituent if the hon. Gentleman will let me have details of the case. He asked whether the inclusion of second-class items in first-class deliveries would apply only to London sub-districts. The answer is that it will apply all over the country. First deliveries will be filled up with second-class items where that is without prejudice to the first-class mails and without prejudice to the completion of the first delivery by the appointed time.

I am grateful for the courteous way in which the right hon. Member for Kingston upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) introduced this subject this evening, and I am grateful to him for what he said at the beginning of his speech. However, I must correct him on one or two points. He said that Regulation 17 was wholly contrary to the tradition of the Post Office and that the present Postmaster-General was the first P.M.G. in 300 years to hold up the mails, and he quoted from the regulation.

I draw his attention to the previous regulations. Regulation 53 of 19th September, 1967, said: Where the despatch or delivery from a post office of letters would be delayed by the despatch or delivery therefrom at the same time of printed packets, sample packets or postcards, such printed packets, sample packets or postcards, or any of them, may be detained in the post office until any —and I emphasise "any"— subsequent despatch or delivery. In other words, the holding back of the mails has applied in the past to printed papers, which before 16th September were second-class mails.

Furthermore, going back a few more years, the regulations which were introduced by Mr. Bevins on 30th December, 1963, were laid during the Recess just after Christmas and they came into operation on 20th January, 1964, one week after the House reassembled, so that there was no opportunity for the House to debate them before they came into operation. Regulation 17 reads: Any printed packet on which postage of 2½ d. only is payable, if posted after such hour as the Postmaster General may from time to time fix, may be withheld from despatch until any subsequent despatch or delivery, unless an extra ½ d. postage is prepaid thereon. All that I wish to demonstrate is that Mr. Bevins, as Postmaster-General, and other P.M.G.s have introduced similar regulations to that which I introduced during the Summer Recess.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Surely the two regulations that went out refer purely to printed letters, which are second-class. In Regulation 17 of these Regulations second-class letters refer to ordinary business letters which happen to have a 4d. stamp on them.

Mr. Stonehouse

The hon. Member for Peterborough has got it absolutely right. This was the whole point of the two-tier system: to make the second-class mails similar to the printed papers of the past, subject to some delay in order to give priority to the first-class mails.

The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames referred to certain delays in deliveries of mails in Orkney and Shetland, giving a description of the way these mails are dealt with. I assure him that there is no question of second-class mails being sent by any route that is more expensive than the first-class mail route. If there is, we will change it, because the whole essence of the two-tier system is to secure economy and efficiency. If second-class mails can be delivered more economically by using first-class mail routes, they will be transmitted by those routes.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to what he called the "devaluation of the post mark". I do not accept that in any way. Of course, the second-class mails do not now have the time stamp. All first-class mails do, and it is right that they should have the time stamp. But second-class mails will only have the date stamp, because this is appropriate. If there are particular examples of envelopes that have been date stamped several times, I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not hesitate to send them to me, because we should want to investigate them to see what went wrong.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

I have already done that.

Mr. Stonehouse

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the increase in the cost of sending a postcard. Indeed, it has increased from 3d. to either 4d. or 5d., depending on the standard of service which the customer wants. But as the Select Committee recognised, and as every independent assessment of the work of the Post Office has recognised, we cannot have uneconomic services in the Post Office subsidised by another. The service on postcards last year made a loss of £1.3 million. It was obvious that we needed to increase the cost of sending postcards to eliminate this loss.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The increase in the cost of sending a postcard is 66⅔ per cent. How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that, for example, with the action of the Government in prohibiting very much smaller proportionate rent increases by local authorities on the ground that prices ought to be held in the present situation?

Mr. Speaker

Order. That is a little wide of the debate.

Mr. Stonehouse

The right hon. Gentleman talked about Forces mail. There is no unnecessary delay of this mail.

The subject of post office preferred envelopes is extremely important, because it will enable us to standardise the way that we deal with the mail and it will assist us in installing new machines to sort the mail.

The hon. Member for Peterborough referred to what he described as my pique in dealing with the meter posters. I assure him that there was no pique on my part. All that I said was that I must now consider, within the Post Office, what we should do about these flagrant irregularities on the part of some meter posters who put dates on the envelopes that in no way correspond with the actual date they deliver the mail to the post offices. There is no pique on my part. We simply want to ensure that when an addressee receives an envelope with an incorrect date on it the Post Office does not get the blame.

I want, now, to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Gordon Campbell). The hon. Gentleman is usually moderate and sensible in these things, but he made a deliberate distortion in his speech. In no way was I blaming the public, as he suggested. I was pointing out that there were some firms, indeed a great many firms, which were putting dates on envelopes, when using their meters, which did not correspond with the dates on which they delivered the mail to the Post Office. Surely I am entitled to make that point in the defence of the Post Office, without being accused of attacking the public, because that is what I was not doing.

Mr. Gordon Campbell

That was not all. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the public's fault because they were examining their mail much more closely.

Mr. Stonehouse

I did not say it was the public's fault. I said that there were a large number of complaints because the volume of mail was so huge. With a failure rate of only 1 per cent., that can cause 350,000 complaints a day because of the 35 million envelopes which we deal with a day.

There has been some complaint that we had to make the Regulations during the Recess. I should like to explain why they were made then and not before. Our original intention was to lay the Regulations before the House went into recess. This would have meant a very tight timetable, but we could have done it. However, shortly after I became Postmaster-General I was approached by the Periodical Publishers Association about the effect of the new postage rates on the publishers of the heavier technical and specialised magazines whose distribution overseas plays an important rôle in promoting British exports. The Post Office Users Council also made similar representations on behalf of the expanding mail order book industry.

Because the limit of weight in the second-class service had to be fixed at 1½ lbs., people who previously posted printed paper mail between 1½ lbs. and 2 lbs. would have been forced to use either the first-class service or the parcels service. I was very conscious of the need to assist the export drive, and the limitation on the profitability of the periodical publishers would have been a very serious handicap on that, so I agreed to continue for the next two years, at a cost of about £500,000, a concessionary printed paper rate for items of post weighing between 1½ lbs. and 2 lbs. This caused a delay in the drafting of the Regulations, and it became impossible for us to lay them before the House before the Recess.

We have had a great many complaints about the postal service. The hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) accused me of not taking into account the interests of the rural areas. I have had a communication from a gentleman at Trem-y-Foel, Llandyrnog, Denbigh, who says that the new two-tier system gives him a much better service than he had before, and I am sure that this gentleman, Mr. A. T. Roberts, is supported by a great many people in rural areas as well as in towns who welcome the service with which the two-tier system is

providing them. Of course this is a price increase, but within that price increase the customer now has a wider choice.

Sir John Rodgers (Sevenoaks)

With hindsight perhaps, would not the right hon. Gentleman now prefer to go back to the old system and put the price of mail up to, say, 4½d., instead of introducing the two-tier system?

Mr. Stonehouse

I am satisfied that the two-tier system has been introduced very successfully, is proving successful, and will be recognised by the whole country as a great success.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 265.

Division No. 3.] AYES [11.30 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Jopling, Michael
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Emery, Peter Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Astor, John Errington, Sir Eric Kaberry, Sir Donald
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Eyre, Reginald Kerby, Capt. Henry
Awdry, Daniel Farr, John Kershaw, Anthony
Baker, Kenneth (Acton) Fisher, Nigel Kimball, Marcus
Balniel, Lord Fletcher-Cooke, Charles King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Fortescue, Tim Kirk, Peter
Batsford, Brian Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Kitson, Timothy
Beamish, Col Sir Tufton Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Knight, Mrs. Jill
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Gibson-Watt, David Lane, David
Berry, Hn. Anthony Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan Langford-Holt, Sir John
Bessell, Peter Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Biffen, John Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Biggs-Davison, John Glover, Sir Douglas Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Black, Sir Cyril Glyn, Sir Richard Loveys, W. H.
Blaker, Peter Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Lubbock, Eric
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.) Goodhart, Philip MacArthur, Ian
Body, Richard Gower, Raymond Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Grant, Anthony McMaster, Stanley
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Grant-Ferris, R. Maddan, Martin
Brewis, John Gresham Cooke, R. Maginnis, John E.
Brinton, Sir Tatton Grieve, Percy Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Marten, Neil
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hall, John (Wycombe) Maude, Angus
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Mawby, Ray
Bryan, Paul Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J,
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Bullus, Sir Eric Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Burden, F. A. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Miscampbell, Norman
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Harvie Anderson, Miss Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Carlisle, Mark Hastings, Stephen Monro, Hector
Channon, H. P. G. Hawkins, Paul More, Jasper
Chichester-Clark, R. Hay, John Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Clark, Henry Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Clegg, Walter Heseltine, Michael Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Cooke, Robert Higgins, Terence L. Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Cooper-Key, sir Neill Hiley, Joseph Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Corfield, F. V. Hill, J. E. B. Neave, Airey
Costain, A. P. Holland, Philip Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Crouch, David Hooson, Emlyn Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Crowder, F. P. Hordern, Peter Nott, John
Cunningham, Sir Knox Hornby, Richard Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Currie, G. B. H. Howell, David (Guildford) Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Dalkeith, Earl of Hunt, John Osborn, John (Hallam)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hutchison, Michael Clark Page, Graham (Crosby)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Iremonger, T. L. Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Digby, Simon wingfield Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Pardoe, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Doughty, Charles Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Peel, John
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Percival, Ian
Drayson, G. B. Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Pink, R. Banner
Eden, Sir John
Pounder, Rafton Silvester, Frederick Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Sinclair, Sir George Walker, Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Price, David (Eastleigh) Smith, Dudley (W'wick & Limington) Wall, Patrick
Prior, J. M. L. Speed, Keith Walters, Dennis
Pym, Francis Stainton, Keith Ward, Dame Irene
Quennell, Miss J. M. Steel, David (Roxburgh) Webster, David
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Stodart, Anthony Wells, John (Maidstone)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Rees-Davies, W. R. Summers, Sir Spencer Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Tapsell, Peter Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Ridsdale, Julian Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow. Cathcart) Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Teeling, Sir William Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Rodgers Sir, John (Sevenoaks) Temple, John M. Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Royle, Anthony Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy Worsley, Marcus
Russell, Sir Ronald Tilney, John Wylie, N. R.
St. John-Stevas, Norman van Straubenzee, W. R.
Scott-Hopkins, James Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Sharples, Richard Vickers, Dame Joan Mr. R. W. Elliott and
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Waddington, David Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
NOES
Abse, Leo Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Alldritt, Walter Eadie, Alex Jones, Rt. Hn. SirElwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Allen, Scholefield Edelman, Maurice Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Anderson, Donald Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Archer, Peter Edwards, William (Merioneth) Judd, Frank
Armstrong, Ernest Ellis, John Kelley, Richard
Ashley, Jack English, Michael Kenyon, Clifford
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Ennals, David Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Lawson, George
Barnes, Michael Faulds, Andrew Leadbitter, Ted
Barnett, Joel Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Bence, Cyril Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lestor, Miss Joan
Bidwell, Sydney Forrester, John Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Bishop, E. S. Fowler, Gerry Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Fraser, John (Norwood) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Freeson, Reginald Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Boston, Terence Galpern, Sir Myer Lomas, Kenneth
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Gardner, Tony Loughlin, Charles
Boyden, James Garrett, W. E. Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Ginsburg, David Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Bradley, Tom Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) McBride, Neil
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony MacColl, James
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Gregory, Arnold MacDermot, Niall
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Grey, Charles (Durham) Macdonald, A. H.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) McGuire, Michael
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Buchan, Norman Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Mackie, John
Carmichael, Neil Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mackintosh, John P.
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Caste, Rt. Hn. Barbara Hamilng, William McNamara, J. Kevin
Chapman, Donald Hannan, William Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Coe, Denis Harper, Joseph Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Coleman, Donald Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Concannon, J. D. Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Haseldine, Norman Manuel, Archie
Crawshaw, Richard Hattersley, Roy Mapp, Charles
Cronin, John Hazell, Bert Marks, Kenneth
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Herbison. Rt. Hn. Margaret Marquand, David
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hilton, W. S. Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Hobden, Dennis Maxwell, Robert
Dalyell, Tam Hooley, Frank Mayhew, Christopher
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Horner, John Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mendelson, John
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Mikardo, Ian
Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Millan, Bruce
Davies, Harold (Leek) Howie, W. Miller, Dr. M. S.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hoy, James Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Delargy, Hugh Huckfield, Leslie Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Dell, Edmund Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Molloy, William
Dempsey, James Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Moonman, Eric
Dewar, Donald Hughes, Roy (Newport) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Hunter, Adam Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Dickens, James Hynd, John Morris, John (Aberavon)
Dobson, Ray Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Doig, Peter Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Murray, Albert
Dunn, James A. Janner, Sir Barnett Neal, Harold
Dunnett, Jack Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Newens, Stan
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Norwood, Christopher Robertson, John (Paisley) Tinn, James
Oakes, Gordon Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'cras) Tomney, Frank
Ogden Eric Rodgers, William (Stockton) Urwin, T. W.
O'Malley, Brian Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Varley, Eric G.
Orbach, Maurice Rose, Paul Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Oswald, Thomas Ross, Rt. Hn. William Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Owen, Dr David (Plymouth, S'tn) Rowlands, E. Wallace, George
Owen, Will (Morpeth) Ryan, John Watkins, David (Consett)
Page, Derek (King's Lyon) Shaw Arnold (Ilford, S.) Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Paget, R. T. Sheldon, Robert Weitzman, David
Palmer, Arthur Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Wellbeloved, James
Parker, John (Dagenham) Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Whitaker, Ben
Pavitt, Laurence Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Whitlock, William
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Silverman, Julius Wilkins, W. A.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Skeffington, Arthur Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Pentland, Norman Small, William Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Perry, George H, (Nottingham, S.) Snow, Julian Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. Spriggs, Leslie Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Price, William (Rugby) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Probert, Arthur Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Rees, Merlyn Swain, Thomas Winnick, David
Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W. Swingier, Stephen Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Rhodes, Geoffrey Taverne, Dick
Richard, Ivor Thomas, Rt. Hn. George TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Thornton, Ernest Mr. Charles R. Morris and
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) Mr. Ernest Perry.