asked the Prime Minister how many ministerial broadcasts he has made since June 1970.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) on 13th November.—[Vol. 864, c. 73.]

Since in a recent broadcast the Prime Minister rightly said that what is now at stake is Britain's rôle in the world, and since under the present policy it is virtually certain that the present Government cannot close the import-export gap or afford to devalue further, is it not now obvious that the country has voted with its feet for a different kind of society with less growth but more power-sharing and more fairness? Since the right hon. Gentleman is incapable of delivering it, ought he not to make way for those who can?

How the hon. Gentleman can draw that conclusion from the last four by-elections, when the total Labour vote was behind our vote at Hove alone, I cannot imagine.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many people feel that there is nothing this country cannot do if Government policy gets the support of the whole country? Is there not every advantage in his going on television as often as possible to put this across? Is it not also the case that, even if the Leader of the Opposition goes on television after my right hon. Friend, there is still an advantage to the Government?

I am greatly encouraged by my hon. Friend's request.

asked the Prime Minister when he plans to make his next ministerial broadcast.

The House should assume that, unless and until I make a statement to the contrary, I do not intend to make a further ministerial broadcast.

Will the Prime Minister seek to make a television appearance at an early date in order to explain to the nation the exclusion from the scope of the pensioners' bonus all those in receipt of invalidity and widows' pensions as well as an estimated 37,000 people who will become retirement pensioners by Christmas Day but will not reach pensionable age until after 2nd December?

I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Concerning those receiving pensions after the relevant date, this is bound to be so, whatever date is fixed. I can appreciate the particular difficulty about Christmas, but I know of no administrative way in which one can deal with such a matter. These arrangements were made, as the hon. Gentleman knows, after discussion with Post Office staffs. We chose the date most helpful to them. I am afraid that this is one of the anomalies that arise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has explained the other problems about going wider that the pensioners themselves. When one tries to carry out an operation of this kind, the administrative difficulties are very great.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that research will show that, in the first three years when his Government were in power, the Leader of the Opposition made eight or nine ministerial broadcasts, as against the three broadcasts of my right hon. Friend? I hope that my right hon. Friend will not pay attention to numbers but will maintain the quality, as he has done so far.

I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

Returning to the question of invalidity pensions, does the Prime Minister recall that 12 months ago one of his hon. Friends gave almost the same reason for not paying invalidity pensioners last year as the Prime Minister has given this year? In other words, it was said that there was not enough time to do it before Christmas. Does this mean that the Government require over 12 months to make these administrative arrangements, or is there a change in Government policy?

That is not really the point. When we had the discussions with the CBI and the TUC, the question was as to the best way in which we could then show that we wanted to give extra help to pensioners, additional to their annual uprating. We did a very substantial uprating, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the autumn, bringing the total payment to 55 per cent. above what pensioners were receiving in 1970. The additional amount which we were able to give was, I am afraid, limited only to pensioners.