asked the Postmaster-General whether, with the introduction of the Household Delivery Service, he will ensure a second daily delivery of addressed mail in rural districts.

The Household Delivery Service will not affect the number of deliveries of addressed mail. A second delivery of this mail is already made in rural districts when it can be justified.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in new estates in rural areas a second delivery more frequently than not is not available? In view of this and the inconvenience it causes to people living on new estates, will the Postmaster-General undertake to give a priority to the provision of the second delivery of mail in the day-time before he introduces the Household Delivery Service?

As I said before, these particular items can be spread over five days, so obviously there is a lot of room for local postmasters to manoeuvre. We carry out the second delivery wherever it is justified. I am prepared at any time to look at any particular area brought to my notice by the hon. Member to see whether we can justify a second delivery there.

The Assistant Postmaster-General said that a second delivery is carried out in rural areas "where it is justified." Can he tell us the principle of justification which his right hon. Friend has adopted? Is it merely numbers or importance?

The principle is the average cost to us per letter in a particular area. This is the basis of the calculation.

asked the Postmaster-General what guidance he proposes to give to postmasters to meet the position where householders instruct them not to deliver unaddressed mail to their homes.

They have been told to explain that it is not practicable to act in accordance with such instructions.

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this is rather an infringement of the privacy of the individual? Is he suggesting that the householder has no right to determine what shall be delivered at his home? Is it not true to say that the householder has the right at the moment to refuse to accept delivery of ordinary mail? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter and try to live up to the right of the individual to determine his own particular life?

There is no infringement of anyone's freedom. As the hon. Gentleman points out, anyone can give notice to the Post Office that he does not wish to reecive mail; he can give notice that he wishes his mail to be redelivered to another address. What the hon. Gentleman is doing in this case is asking us to maintain special records, which will show which householders have opted out, and, to deal with complications where, perhaps, there is more than one occupant, keeping records up to date to show changes of occupancy or, possibly, changes of mind, and the records would have to be checked by the postman each delivery, to make sure that these notices were not mixed up with redirection notices affecting ordinary mail. These are important points. Moreover, it is wrong to assume that all the material sent out by this service will be unwanted. In fact there are many items which we have already been asked to deliver. [An HON. MEMBER: "By Aims of Industry, for instance?"] So this service will be welcome, particularly—

How does the hon. Member know?

The hon. Member asks how do I know. Let me put it this way. Let me say, then, that I think so. For instance, many of these things will be notifying matters of social consequence, such as notices about visits of mass radiography units, and so forth. Therefore, I think it is wrong to assume that these deliveries will be unwelcome.

rose—

If it is not practicable for householders to opt out of this scheme for unaddressed mail, what instructions will be given to postmen where a householder has placed a "No Circulars" notice on his gate or door?

Well, of course, it is important to remember that legally all the matters which the Post Office carries are postal packets, and so obviously they are not circulars—postal packets within the meaning of the Act.

On a point of order. In view of the fact that the House has had five previous opportunities to discuss this subject, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Woodburn, next Question.

On a point of order. Did not I understand you already to have called me on this Question, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Members:

No.

I think the hon. Member is right. I think I did call him. He is entitled, therefore, in spite of the notice, to ask a supplementary question.

Is not what the Assistant Postmaster-General has just informed the House likely, in view of the fact, as he has said, that householders have a right to refuse to accept delivery of mail, to create a great deal of disturbance in the relationship between the postmen and the householder—if the householder has to tell the postmen to take every item of this kind back?

No. I do not think that this is going to alter the very happy relationship which has always existed. The ordinary householder, if there are ordinary householders who object so violently to this material, would not, I think, associate it with his local postman. I do not think that this will lower the good relations.