I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a petition which they have to submit to this House annually, explaining the financial position and praying for aid. The petition recites the funded income of the Trustees, and points out that the establishment is necessarily attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds, and the Trust cannot with benefit to the public be carried on without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with the Prayer:

"Your petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet."—[ King's Recommendation Signified. ]

Referred to the Committee of Supply.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill is not an ambitious Measure. It is designed to effect a number of useful extensions and improvements in some of the services of the Post Office, as well as to make certain minor amendments which experience has shown to be necessary in the interests of the Post Office and of its servants. I do not propose to call attention to every Clause; that can be further examined in Committee. I would like, however, to call the attention of the House to one or two Clauses which, I think, are of some importance and of some interest.

Clause 1 deals with postal orders. As hon. Members may be aware, there have been many requests from the public and from traders that the maximum amount of postal orders should be increased. We sell some 222,000,000 postal orders every year, and the use of the facility offered by the Post Office for the remittance of money has increased during the past year, I am glad to say, by some 3½ per cent. There was also a marked increase in the 2s. 6d., 3s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. postal order denominations last year. We believe that more business could be done and that the public would be better served if the present maximum denomination of a guinea could be increased. It might, for instance, be very useful if I were allowed to issue additional orders, rising by one shilling steps to 30s. The Clause does not put a limit, but allows the Post master-General, whoever he may be, discretion to meet the public needs in that respect. I have also had many requests that postal orders of low denominations issued in books would be convenient to the public. People often make use of the Post Office remittance facilities for sending sums of money by post for a variety of purposes—

As a contribution to the family, for example.

Under the law as it stands at present, postal orders are only valid for three months from the last day of the month of issue. After that, additional poundage has to be paid. Under my present powers, a book of postal orders, some of which might be out of date by the time they were used, would not be of much use. The proposal in Clause 1 is designed to give the Postmaster-General power to extend the period of validity of postal orders for the purpose which I have just mentioned, and I hope that the House will favourably consider this Clause.

I would like briefly to refer to Clause 2. I think the House will have sympathy with this proposal, which implements a promise which was made some time ago in regard to books for the blind. The Clause extends the special rates of postage, which are applicable to the finished books, to the paper posted for the purpose of being impressed. At present, Braille and similar reading matter for the blind, can, I am glad to think, be sent by post at specially low rates. Scattered throughout the country are a large number of voluntary workers engaged on the excellent work of copying books, and so on, for the blind to read, but the special paper which they have to use has to be sent to them by ordinary parcel post at the usual rates. If the House assents to it, this Measure will provide in future for the raw material to be sent to people who are working for the blind at the same specially low rates as the finished article is sent to the blind at present. I believe that every hon. Member will be in agreement with the proposal.

Clause 3 might be called the green label service Clause, and is a matter of some interest. It would permit the introduction of a new service known as the green label service which, at the present moment, is being usefully conducted in all the Dominions, in India, and in most of the Colonies, as well as by a number of foreign countries including the United States, Argentina, France and Germany, and many other countries in Europe. The matter arises in this way: Under the provisions of the latest Postal Union Convention, letters containing dutiable articles may be sent by letter post to those countries which have agreed to admit them, but in order that it may take proper effect, a green label must be affixed by the sender to each letter sent under this arrangement. This label serves as a Customs declaration, and also gives the sender's permission for the letter to be opened for Customs examination. Letters posted in this country containing dutiable articles are accepted for transmission abroad, but they cannot be admitted into this country, because, under the present law, there is no authority to open them for Customs examination without reference to the addressee. Under the proposals of the Clause, the Customs authorities would be given the same authority to open such letters with, of course, the sender's permission, as they now have in connection with small packets under the Post Office Parcels Act, 1882. There is no question in this proposal either of Tariff Reform or Free Trade, nor has it anything to do with sweepstake tickets. I hope no one will get unduly alarmed or excited about it. This would be a simple and, I believe, a very useful matter, which works very well indeed in other countries.

Clause 4 is introduced because the Post Office is now very considerably engaged in connection with the air services, and applies the Post Office Act generally to aircraft. Clause 6 deals with a matter which is not at present satisfactory. It arises in connection with letters which are addressed to a dead person. At present the Post Office has no power to deliver such letters to anyone except in due course to the legal personal representatives of the deceased. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) knows, the best legal advice that can be obtained from the most experienced solicitors often takes some little time to go through, as does the getting of letters of personal administration granted—

My right hon Friend knows as much about that as I do.

It is often found to be vexatious to persons who are properly dealing with the estate of a deceased person to be unable to obtain delivery of such correspondence before the grant of probate or letters of administration which, as I have said, often takes some considerable time. Generally the Post Office, in order to meet the wishes of the public, delivers the correspondence on an undertaking to produce such documents, but the position is not very satisfactory, and the Clause is designed to regularise the practice which we are now adopting. The next Clause also, I think, marks an improvement. It relates to one of the most useful services that the Post Office now undertakes, namely, the Cash on Delivery Service. This is a comparatively recent service, and it is a very popular and continually growing one. The number of parcels carried on this service has increased from 1,500,000 in 1927 to over 2,500,000 during the last 12 months. The Clause provides for the making of the necessary regulations in regard to the conduct of the service, and really confirms in many respects the present position.

Clause 8 will, I know, be of interest to my hon. Friend opposite, because he has often been to see me on the subject. He is a very enthusiastic philatelist, and he represents a very large body of people who are interested in that way. I have inserted Clause 8 to meet his wishes and those of his friends. It will permit the the Postmaster-General to allow the reproduction of certain stamps for purposes connected with that subject. At present it is the practice of the Post Office to allow the reproduction in black of foreign and obsolete stamps but not of current stamps of the United Kingdom for the purpose of illustrating stamp dealers' advertisements, and to allow these reproductions to be used in stamp albums, catalogues, and the like. The Clause will regularise the practice which I recently introduced, and will also, in case my hon. Friend comes along with any further request, give the Postmaster-General some latitude should experience show that further modification of the present practice may be desirable. I think that this is another useful Clause, which will be welcomed by the large body of people who are interested in this matter.

Clause 10 relates to our staff at the Post Office. It is designed to give them some further protection. With the increased use of the telephone, which I think everyone will agree has been very valuable for trade and business and social purposes, we have had, I am sorry to say, an increasing number of cases where miserable people have indulged in the use of improper or obscene language to female telephonists. During the last 12 months we have had to use a very cumbersome process in endeavouring to deal with these, as I think, disgraceful actions. We have had to bring a number of cases, but hon. Members who are concerned with the law will know that at the present time the remedy we have is a very unsuitable one. We either have to proceed under the Larceny Act, on the sort of device that the person concerned has fraudulently used electricity, which is obviously unsatisfactory, or we have to endeavour in some way to bring these people within the law in relation to obstruction.

Could it not be used for insulting people?

The Clause will meet my hon. Friend's suggestion. If it is passed, we shall be able to deal with these people. Further, while I hate to bring in Clauses which increase penalties, yet at the present time the only penalty for which we can ask in a disgraceful case of this kind is a fine of £2, which I do not think is at all satisfactory, especially when a person has repeatedly misbehaved himself in this way. The Clause will permit of, as I think, an adequate penalty, of course in suitable cases, and I do not think that anyone in the House will object to that.

I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for East Birkenhead (Mr. White) is not here to-day, because he had a great deal to do, as well as my hon. Friend the present Assistant Postmaster-General, in dealing with the complaints which have come from the public in relation to a certain amount of loitering. It is not a very serious amount, but from time to time, in London and in the Provinces, members of the public complain that they are obstructed in entering post offices by hawkers and others who loiter about and appeal to them as they go in. At present the only remedy available to us is the very cumbersome and, indeed, impossible one of asking for an injunction, which would only inflict hardship and considerable cost on the person who had been obstructing the public in that way. Clause 10 will permit the same law which is now in force so far as the General Post Office is concerned to be applied in the case of crown offices up and down the country.

Clause 11 makes it clear that proceedings for the recovery of sums due to the Post Office may be taken in a county court as well as in a police court. I think everyone will agree that the county court is far more applicable to proceedings for the recovery of civil debts of that kind. There are also a number of Amendments, to which I myself attach importance, with a view to the introduction later of a Bill for the consolidation of the various Post Office Acts, which I think is very desirable. I have explained to the House, I think, the chief provisions of the Bill. As I said at the beginning, it is not what one might call a great Bill, but I think it is a useful Bill, and one which will give to the public a still further and better service from the Post Office, and also—and I am equally concerned about this—some protection to the servants of the Post Office, who are so admirably, as I consider, serving the public at the present time.

11.24 a.m.

The right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Bill in a very clear manner. I do not think there is anything in the Bill to which one can object; indeed, I think that all its proposals are extremely useful; and I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having managed to get the Bill brought forward in the present Session, because I know the difficulty that there is in getting a comparatively small Departmental Bill fitted into the general programme. I would like to draw attention to some particular points. With regard to Clause 1, I see that it is proposed that the Postmaster-General shall have the power to regulate the matter of poundage. I wonder whether he will consider the question of reducing the amount of poundage charged on the lower denominations of postal orders. It is a matter that he might well consider.

The only other point that I would draw attention to arises on Clause 10, dealing with the molestation of officers. I thoroughly agree that we ought to do everything we can to protect Post Office officials from this kind of offensive molestation. I do not know whether it is possible to extend the protection to the customers of the Post Office. I have been informed that there are quite a number of instances where persons get on to a number, someone they do not know at all, call a lady to the telephone and proceed to use all kinds of obscene language. I do not know what the remedy is. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is watching and endeavouring to catch these persons. I take it that he will have power under this Clause to deal with them if they are actually molesting a telephone operator. They might not, however, make any remarks, except strictly proper ones, to the operator but get through to a customer of the Post Office and then offend. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say if it is possible to include in the Clause some protection for telephone subscribers from molestation in this way. As for the rest of the Bill, all the proposals are useful and necessary and are mainly caused by developments of the service and developments of modern science, and I hope that the Bill will become law.

11.27 a.m.

In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. White), I should like to say a word of congratulation to the Postmaster-General on the progress that he is showing in his Department. We who sit on this bench have always believed that it is possible to transform a somewhat rigid Government Department into a progressive and profitable commercial undertaking. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have been the first to take our advice to such an extent that I cannot help thinking that he must keep the Liberal Yellow Book alongside his telephone book.

11.28 a.m.

I should like to join with others in offering sincere congratulations to the Postmaster-General, not only on the introduction of this useful Bill, but upon his general conduct of the Post Office since he assumed the post of Postmaster-General. It seems to me that he has made the Post Office a really efficient business concern catering for the interests, the demands and the requirements of the public. He has emphasised that side of his work far more than merely making it a Government Department. Our posts have always compared very favourably with those of other countries. Anyone who tries to communicate by post with the United States would very soon learn how efficient the posts are in this country. The telephone service is a Department in which we were some way behind other countries, but in the last few months even that service compares, both in efficiency and in price—this is by no means an unimportant aspect—very favourably with that of other countries. We often hear criticism of the telephone service and how much better it is in the United States, Sweden and certain other countries, but when you come to look into it you find that, although there may be certain technical improvements which we still have not got, certainly in the matter of price, which is the governing factor in the long run, we compare very favourably with the telephone system of other countries.

In regard to Clause 6, which deals with the disposal of letters addressed to persons who are dead, this very often entails great hardship upon a family in cases where quite small sums of money mean the whole difference between comfort and misery. Letters and their contents have been held up for a long time. I am glad the Postmaster-General is going to take steps to remedy the situation. I do not quite understand, either from the Clause or from what he has said, what steps he is going to take and how they will be put into execution so as to make available to many of the very poorest families the cash that happens to be in a letter addressed to someone who is dead.

Clause 8 deals with my own particular hobby of philately. I have long taken an interest in this pursuit, and I am quite aware that many people regard it perhaps merely as a mild form of lunacy and some almost as a positive vice, but it is very easy to under-estimate the interest that is taken in the subject. I have made careful inquiries as to the number of people who will be interested in the practical effect of the Bill. There are between 200,000 and 300,000 serious philatelists—those who examine watermarks and perforations, who daily or weekly look through their albums and compare the prices of their stamps today and a year ago and congratulate themselves on having made a good bargain or not as the case may be. If we put the number of those who collect stamps at a million, that is certainly a conservative estimate. There are 20 weekly or monthly journals dealing with this subject, auctions are held in London every day of the week, sometimes twice a day, almost throughout the year. London is the philatelic centre of the world. It is very curious that London is and should have been for many years the philatelic centre of the world—I do not know whether it reflects the honesty or other moral qualities of the people—because there is no country in the world where up to a few months ago the sale and advertisement of stamps was more controlled and impeded by official regulations and red tape.

For ten years I have endeavoured humbly to fight the archaic regulations that have prevailed in this industry. It was only when the present Postmaster-General took office and very courteously and attentively went into these complaints that the regulations were changed. With his business ability, he altered in a few days what had been a stumbling block for years to philatelists. I need not go into the details of Section 65 of the Post Office Act of 1908, but it will be almost inconceivable that the facts should be as I state. Before a few months ago it was legal to write an article about stamps and illustrate it with photographs, but it was illegal on the opposite page of the same magazine to put the same facsimile of a stamp if you put a price under it. In other words, advertisers could not advertise their stamps in a philatelic magazine unless they also wrote an article describing the stamps on the other side of the page. It was fantastic, and yet, and hon. Members, I hope, will believe me, for 10 years I tried to get this regulation altered without success.

You did not apply to me.

I am surprised if I missed a Postmaster-General. I suppose I had been so accustomed to the refusal of the hon. Gentleman's predecessors. I dare say that the hon. Gentleman was there for such a brief period that he never got my letter. Perhaps it was unstamped. What happened was that dealers who desired to advertise their stamps and who were incapacited from doing so by the regulations in this country, advertised them in foreign journals and had their clients circularised with those foreign journals. I need not go into the matter in greater detail because the present Bill will do away very largely with those misunderstandings and archaic regulations. I understand that Clause 8 will render legal certain things done by philatelists which at the present moment are illegal. The position is not clear, and I would call the attention of the Postmaster-General to Sub-section (5) and ask him to what he refers in line 12, which says:

There is another point. I see that the Bill substitutes the Postmaster-General for the Commissioners of Inland Revenue as the authority on these matters. Formerly all matters dealing with the printing of stamps and the making of facsimiles were under the control of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. We are very grateful that at last the proper authority and the proper person will have to do with this particular subject, and we feel certain that we shall get a more ready and efficient service from him than from that rather austere body of people, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. This is only another instance of both the energy and common sense of the Postmaster-General in dealing with this matter, and I am sure a very large number of people will be grateful to him for the action he has taken.

11.40 a.m.

My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has a most happy way of bringing his Measures, great and small, to this House. No Minister has combined the two virtues of good ministerial administration and of letting people know what good work is being done as has my right hon. Friend. I would recommend that to the House as being a matter of supreme importance in the art of government. I only want to make one observation upon the Bill in general, and that is to welcome the provision which shows that the Postmaster-General is proposing to make every possible use of Air power. Those who are interested in the development of Air power will welcome the way in which the Postmaster-General has made concessions for its use and has gone out of his way to help its development.

I want to offer him the thanks of the blind community for the proposal in Clause 2, Sub-section (2) which makes a small concession to them. I say small because it is small from the point of view of cost, but to the members of the blind community concerned it is a concession of very real value. The fact is that a book prepared for Braille reading by the blind is from 10 to 20 times as bulky as the ordinary novel, and, unless Parliament had though fit some 30 years ago to permit such books to be sent through the post at a very low rate, it would not have been possible to develop libraries for the blind and place in the hands of blind people throughout the land the very great facility of reading. As the Postmaster General said, many of these books are prepared by volunteers who learn the Braille system and transcribe from ordinary novels books in the Braille system which subsequently go into the library. The paper which many hundreds of them use will, if this Bill be passed, also be included, and it is a concession of material importance.

There is another point which the Postmaster-General did not mention. The blind people themselves use this paper for writing business letters to the societies with whom they deal, and to each other, and they will benefit directly by the concession which is proposed. I should like to thank the Postmaster-General, and, if the House approves of the concession, I should like to thank the House. The finger with its senses is not the only gateway to the mind of the blind person. There is the ear, and, in fact, the method of communicating information and reading matter hitherto used, namely, that of finger reading, is not perhaps the most efficient that can be thought of. Within quite recent months developments such as those exemplified by broadcasting, electrical gramophone recording and the talking film have made it possible to conceive of the setting up of" a library of what we have come to call "talking books." I am able to inform the Postmaster-General and the House that the two principal agencies for the welfare of the blind, the National Institute for the Blind and St. Dunstans, have combined in recent months with the object of exploring this new method. Their researches, aided by some of the great companies concerned with sound reproduction, have led to a position in which almost immediately, say, within a few weeks, it will be practicable to set up a library of records upon which speech has been impressed so effectively that the books can be read aloud by suitable machines to the blind people in their own homes.

Very shortly, blind people will be able to have a machine similar perhaps to a gramophone or a small talking machine which will read aloud for a substantial period, and clearly. One method, for example, involves the use of a disc like a gramophone record upon which the reading matter will run for something between 30 or 40 minutes on one side, so that a whole novel may be recorded on as few as eight gramophone records. That is a very remarkable development, and when it is realised that perhaps two-thirds of the blind people do not read Braille with great facility, because they have lost their sight in adult life, it will be understood that reading aloud will bring to them something of the pleasure which Braille opened up 50 years ago to the children and the more efficient blind persons. Most of my particular friends, the war blinded men, do not read Braille with great facility, because their education was done with ink print, and their fingers, roughened by service and toil, do not enable them to master this difficult art. To them particularly this new system will be a great boon.

I should be glad if the Postmaster-General would accept an Amendment to this Clause which would make it possible for books of recorded speech to be sent at special rates to blind persons, following the provision of 30 years ago whereby books for tactile reading were so despatched. By doing so he will be conferring a boon and we can assure him that it is no impractical dream but a process of providing reading matter for the blind which is within our immediate grasp. I may add that the societies concerned have committed themselves to the establishment of this library and that the heads of the Society of Authors and the Publishers' Association have given us hope that when their societies meet within the next few weeks free copyrights may be granted to us for the re-production of these books. I hope that the Postmaster-General will give consideration to this matter, and if he finds it to be possible, as I believe it is, I hope the House will endorse an Amendment in the Committee stage.

11.48 a.m.

I welcome and support the Bill, especially the Clause which gives the Postmaster-General power to issue postal orders of a greater value than 21s. There is one point to which I would direct attention, and that is in regard to insufficiently stamped letters. It is always a difficult point to deal with.

That is not in the Bill.

No, but on a Second Reading one is allowed to put forward points which might be added to the Bill by an Amendment. My experience is this, that letters are sent to Members of Parliament which are stamped insufficiently, and one wonders whether they are genuine or not. I have been "had" so often that I refuse to take them, and I am always full of doubt whether or not I have turned down a genuine letter. I have wondered often whether there is some means of getting over the difficulty, and whether such a letter might not be handed to the person to whom it is addressed, so that he might look at the address and see whether it is worth accepting, or whether it is one of those anonymous letters which make one more disgusted than ever. I think I am voicing a complaint which is common to all, although it is one of those small matters which one does not like to bring forward for fear of being ridiculed.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the efficiency of the Postal Service. I agree that it is efficient. Sometimes I think that it is too mechanically efficient. Take the telephone service, for instance. You give your number, and before you know where you are it is rapped back at you. You begin to wonder whether you have given the right number, because it is repeated to you almost unintelligibly by the operator. You are then kept waiting, and, finally, someone says: "I think you have the wrong number." You begin to think that you have, and you wonder whether the mistake has been made by the operator or by yourself. On such occasions I wish that the operator would go a little more slowly, to give one a chance of knowing whether or not one has given the right number.

The Bill is one to be welcomed. It is on the right lines. The researches which have been made by the Postmaster-General have been for the benefit of the community. The postal service is one of the best possible services and is of great value to the community. It is a service of which we are proud.

11.51 a.m.

I should like to join in the general chorus of praise to the right hon. Gentleman. The only doubt I have is whether I am right, seeing that I am in agreement with the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and the hon. Member who has spoken as representing the Liberal party. However, on this occasion we may all think alike. It has been a remarkable year of postal development, for which the whole House can thank the right hon. Gentleman. Before dealing with one or two Clauses of the Bill I should like to say generally, how much the community has benefited from the reduced telephone rates which have recently come into operation. In the London area alone during October 10,000 new lines were opened, which is a record for any period. For the period of 1934 as a whole we find an increase of six per cent. of new lines as against three per cent. for the year before.

This is a minor Bill, but it is an extension of a progressive policy, and a policy which has been pursued through the last year with great success. I should like to ask my right hon. Friend two questions with regard to the telephone service. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). The first question is, whether he has found as the result of the reduced charges for the use of long distance calls at night a real increased demand, and whether the increased demand under the cheaper rates has been sufficient to show a greater profit than existed before. Secondly, has the new system by which telephone calls can be charged to the person who is being called up, proved popular or not? I can understand that in certain circumstances it may be useful, but I have a horrible feeling that if one's constituents get it into their minds that they can always call up their Member at any period, and charge the call to him, life will not be worth living as a Member of Parliament. Perhaps we shall learn a little about that later.

In regard to the Bill itself, I entirely agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for St. Pancras North (Sir I. Fraser) has said in regard to the concession to the bind. It is one of those little human touches which I should expect from the right hon. Gentleman, who is a very human Minister. In connection with that, I think he also deserves the thanks of the members of the staff in his Department for the way in which he has encouraged the staff salesmanship scheme which was inaugurated just before he came into office, which has led to a very large increase of the orders which the staff has been able to get for apparatus in the last three years.

I now come to the one Clause about which I feel a little anxiety, which no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be able to allay. It is Clause 10, which deals with the extension of the prohibition against loitering around general post offices to any post office in the country. I should like to know whether this prohibition is to extend to loitering outside places which are not used solely and completely for postal purposes, places which are also used as shops in provincial centres. I can imagine nothing more disturbing than if, say, the Prime Minister himself was supposed to be lurking outside the little post office at Lossiemouth, I presume they have one, on the 14th February, looking at cards in the window with the idea of sending a valentine to one of his most fashionable and beautiful lady friends. I should like to know whether he could be had up for loitering, and, if so, whether he would be at once released on his assurance that his intentions were romantic rather than felonious. The hon. Member for Leigh has referred to the efficiency of the Post Office. It is undoubtedly of importance that letters should be sent as swiftly and as speedily as possible. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered in his capital estimates for the year any provision for making use of mechanical appliances on the postal side in order to expedite postal work? In conclusion, I should once again like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the Bill and to wish him an even more successful year in 1935 than he has had in the past year.

11.59 a.m.

Hon. Members on this side of the House have to be exceedingly careful in what they say in regard to a Bill introduced by the Government. If we eulogise ministers they take down our speeches, index them, and then when a General Election comes along they are always used against us. Therefore, I am going to be a little careful about what I say about the Postmaster-General. Nevertheless, I think this is one of the best Bills introduced into this House by the present Government. It proves that the Postmaster-General has great faith in his Department. I hope that when the next General Election comes along neither he nor any of his colleagues will say that if a Socialist Government is returned they will pinch all the savings in the Post Office. I agree with the Postmaster-General in what he said about the beastly communications which are sometimes sent to operators. If I had the power—I have the will—I would like to drop across the individual at the time the communication was made, and I am hoping that some method will be found by the police or the Postmaster-General for dealing with these people in a more expeditious way. It is a shocking thing to send these beastly and insulting remarks to the operators.

I hope also that he will be able to reduce the commission on postal orders. I am pleased to hear the suggestion that there is to be an extension of the denominator up to 30s. or £2. I hope he will be good enough to extend the amount up to £2. It would be very useful. The suggestion of a book is also very useful, because it will save a good deal of time at the post office and also a good deal of time for those who are sending out postal orders.

The only other matter to which I want to refer is in connection with raids. Is it not possible to have an official in uniform standing outside some of the larger post offices, and possibly the smaller ones as well? There have been raids by burglars and bandits on some of the smaller post offices, and we should be grateful to some of the employés for the courage they have shown on these occasions. There are thousands of employés in all parts of the country who are grateful to the Postmaster-General for the concessions he has made in regard to pay. I suppose he will take that down and file it, and use it at the next General Election. However, I thank him very sincerely for introducing what I think is a very beneficial Bill.

The Postmaster-General is a standing contradiction of the newspaper adage that there is no news value in virtue. To-day he is happy in having discussed those parts of the Bill with which we are agreed. As a rule they pass without comment, because it is only the things we disagree with that we want to talk about. We are all joining in a tribute to the Postmaster-General because we recognise the splendid way in which he is doing his job. He has made a stimulating start. I find on going into ordinary Post Offices in the first place that they are much cleaner and brighter than they used to be. [HON. MEMBERS: "The offices or the staff?"]. The offices. If my words are examined in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow I think it will be found that my grammar was perfectly accurate. I am certain that having a clean office is a stimulus to the efficiency of the staff. Most Government departments, under all Administrations, look like the offices of companies that are shortly going into liquidation. The external appearance of some of our great departments is good, but inside they look like dust heaps. I am glad that the Postmaster-General is doing so much to improve the appearance of the post offices and the conditions under which the staff work.

Having said those nice things, let me turn to one or two minor matters that call for criticism. There has been great improvement in the telephone service. But that remark does not apply to the manually operated exchanges. I do not think one can blame the staff, but when one engages in conversation with people and the question of telephones comes up, one observes that each person declares that his exchange is the worst in the London area. The real truth of the matter is that the exchanges are overloaded. It is obvious that the business of a telephone exchange does not increase in proportion to the number of people connected with the exchange, but tends to increase in proportion to the square of the number of persons connected. If you double the number of subscribers the chances are that you quadruple the number of calls and you reach a point at which delays are inevitable. I hope that the Postmaster-General will push forward with all the energy at his command the conversion of manual exchanges into automatic exchanges, the operation of which, it seems to me, is very good indeed.

I would like to mention one other telephone matter. In this country it is the practice when one has a trunk call to be warned at the end of each period of three minutes that the three minutes are up, so that you know exactly your liability as to charges. But in the United States and a number of other countries they do not have this practice, as I learned to my cost when telephoning from Toronto to New York, at a charge, as I thought, of 5s., but I had somewhat of a shock when I got a bill for 25s. In this country we maintain the practice of warning subscribers, but, judging from one or two cases recently reported to me, although the practice prevails, it has not always been done as definitely as it should be. The other day I communicated with the chief of the London Telephone Service about someone who was involved in a large charge, he having inadvertently thought that the operator had been rather kind and allowed a long three minutes. I hope we shall not follow the bad example of other countries and discontinue the warning.

I want to say a word or two about Clause 10, which amends Section 68 of the Act of 1908 by omitting the first two Sub-sections and retaining and extending Sub-section (3) to any post office vested in the Postmaster-General. I take it that that means what is called a Crown Office and not a sub-post office, that is, a post office carried on in a tobacconist's shop or any other kind of shop. Everybody knows that there are a great number of these sub-offices. If it is to apply at all it ought to be universal, for there is just as much and even greater danger in those cases if the object of this Clause is to protect the staff against raiders.

The Sub-section of the Act, as amended, would now apply to any hawker, newsvendor or idle or disorderly person loitering opposite any post office vested in the Postmaster-General, that is, any post office over which I have control.

Then it would, in fact, cover these offices?

If vested in me.

That would be most of them. The Sub-section in the Act reads:

"If any hawker, newsvendor, or idle or disorderly person stops or loiters on the flagway or pavement opposite the General Post Office in London or in Sackville Street, Dublin, or any part thereof respectively, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds."

I am not sufficient of a lawyer to know what an idle person is, but I presume such a person at that particular moment has no very particular occupation; he is not doing anything except standing on what they call the flagway or pavement. To stand on the flagway or pavement is something that we are not entitled to do to-day under the general law, as I understand it. The rights of the pedestrian are to pass along the street and not stop in the street, and therefore there is the general prohibition against loitering under the existing law on the ground that it may cause obstruction. There is also a general prohibition under the law against loitering with intent to commit a felony or misdemeanour, and there is also the offence of being a suspected person. Not being a lawyer, I am not fully acquainted with the precise significance of this Clause, but reading the ordinary police court news one occasionally finds persons charged with this offence, and therefore it seems that the existing law gives the Postmaster-General all the powers he wants. Although it is an offence in one sense to loiter on the flagway or pavement people are not customarily charged with that offence, because the law has to be enforced with a reasonable sense of discretion. But if you make it a specific offence to loiter outside certain buildings, obviously the police will say that no one is to be allowed to stop outside those buildings. A large number of Members, no doubt, in days gone by, when younger and gayer, would probably have what is called a "date" at a given time, probably fixed outside the Post Office at Charing Cross Station, and it was rather a sad experience of mine, and, no doubt, of other hon. Members, that the lady was freqeuntly late, and then one would be found loitering outside Charing Cross Station.

You would not be idle.

You would be idle in the sense of this Bill or the existing Act of Parliament, and then the representative of the Home Secretary could come along and apprehend you for being an idle person outside the Postmaster's institution at Charing Cross Station. That seems to me to be a dangerous challenge to the liberty of the subject. I really do not think that the Postmaster-General ought to proceed with this part of the Clause, because I can see in it very grave danger to the liberty of the subject. It does not seem to offer any protection at all against bandits or others who smash into post offices and threaten people in charge with a view to stealing money, sometimes inflicting injury. If they are acting in a suspicious way, the existing law gives the police all the necessary powers. Then I notice that this is to apply to newsvendors. Most of us buy our evening papers from street newsvendors, most of whom have their well-recognised pitches, some of them having been in the same family for years, and they have a kind of prescriptive freehold. Some of the pitches are, in fact, outside post offices. All these people, who have been carrying on their businesses in a perfectly respectable way, and whose actual presence on such spots is, in fact, a protection to the post office, are now to be ordered away on the ground of loitering.

Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that persons of that kind fall within this category?

Hawkers, newsvendors and idle persons are mentioned in the original Section. An idle person is not necessarily disorderly.

Of course, if one proceeded against a person of the kind mentioned by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), it is obvious he would have a reply by saying that he was engaged in such a business. There is no intention of using these powers in such a case. There is no intention of disturbing the people whom my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon has mentioned.

The Postmaster-General says that he is taking power which he has no intention of using.

Only in suitable cases.

Why does he want the power at all? Why not amend Sub-section (3) of Section 68 of the principal Act by applying it in respect of suspected persons? Why this wide power, which may have the effect of bringing some innocent citizen into the police court on a very unpleasant charge? I have a great respect for the Assistant Postmaster-General as well as for his chief, but it is no use saying that it is not their intention to do any of these things which I have suggested. Postmasters-General come and go but the Act goes on for a long time. The principal Act has gone on since 1908. Declarations by the Minister as to the use which he proposes, during his period of office, to make of any powers given to him are not binding on his successors. Therefore, it is undesirable that this serious challenge to the liberty of the ordinary citizen should be encouraged in this otherwise admirable Bill. There is no reason for it. It does not confer any necessary power which is not already possessed by the police, and I would urge the right hon. Gentleman either to drop this provision or else drastically to amend it.

12.27 p.m.

May I be allowed to join in the congratulations which have been offered to the Postmaster-General on the very useful Measure which we have before us. I am sure that it will help him considerably in carrying on the Post Office in a thoroughly business-like way. I wish however to mention specially to him Sub-section (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill relating to the poundage payable in respect of postal orders. I join in the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member for Plaistow (Mr. Thorne) to the Postmaster-General that he should consider a reduction in the poundage. True, it is a small sum but it is only for a small service. The Post Office run no risk of losing a penny of the money which is handed to them whereas they get the benefit of many thousands of pounds regularly from these sums. In addition it should be remembered that nearly every postal order which is bought involves the sending of a letter with a 1½d. stamp and an acknowledgement from the recipient carrying either a 1d. or a 1½d. stamp. Thus there is considerable revenue in respect of these postal orders, apart from the poundage, and I hope that the Postmaster-General will take those considerations into account when fixing these charges under Clause 1.

12.29 p.m.

I would support that suggestion. Indeed, I think the Postmaster-General could easily do away altogether with the charges which are now made for postal orders. There is always a considerable sum floating through the Post Office as it were, and at all times there must be a large sum actually in the possession of the Post Office in respect of postal orders. No doubt that money goes through various Government Departments and draws income and the amount which is available to the Post Office, during the passage of the money from sender to recipient, should compensate for any expense incurred either in the work within the office or in the actual issue of the orders. I do not propose on this occasion to pay any tributes to the efficiency of the Department or to the Postmaster-General himself. I did on one occasion pay a high tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, and one which I believed to be deserved. It got into print, and if during the next General Election he desires to use it in evidence against me, it is there for him, and no doubt he will be able to find it. But I believed then that the words which I said were justified and an answer given in this House last week seems to prove that I was right.

I wish to refer to Clause 5, Sub-section (1) containing provisions as to the acquisition of land by purchase or otherwise, while Sub-section (2) refers to the compensation obtainable, either through arbitration or agreement, by persons whose land has been affected by any action of the Post Office on adjoining land which comes into the possession of the Department. In that connection I would draw the Postmaster-General's attention to the injury which is done to the beauty of the streets—at any rate in the area in which I live and I understand in many other areas as well—by the ugliness of the poles erected by the Post Office. There is considerable dissatisfaction in regard to this matter. The local authority in the area in which I live naturally desire to have the streets looking as well as possible and they take every opportunity of trying to improve the appearance of the streets, but they are always confronted by this difficulty of the extremely ugly poles erected by the Post Office from time to time. I raised the matter a long time ago in the House and I would now ask the Postmaster-General to communicate with the department of the Post Office concerned on this matter, to give some consideration to the lack of beauty and, I think, the lack of strength also in these poles, and to find out whether some better type could not be substituted. I think the best solution of the difficulty would be to have underground instead of overhead wires, but where it is essential to have overhead wires, I suggest that the poles should be as handsome as may be.

12.33 p.m.

I wish to reinforce the argument put forward by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) regarding the alteration in the terms of the principal Act which is proposed in Sub-section (2) of Clause 10. After all the Postmaster-General is not the only person who has large offices and large establishments fronting on the streets and if the House gives him power to make it a criminal offence for any person, idle or not, or any newsvendor or hawker to stand upon the pavement outside Post Office premises, it may be difficult for us to resist the argument of somebody else who comes forward and asks for similar powers. Some of the banks carry out a tremendous number of money transactions from day to day and their premises might offer a great temptation to people to attempt robberies. If the bankers come along and demand the right to prevent any honest and respectable hawker or newsvendor selling his papers or other wares on the pavement outside their premises, what is to be the reply to them? If the Postmaster-General can exercise powers of this kind in regard to some tiny little post office which happens to be vested in him, it will be difficult for this House to refuse similar powers to a large commercial organisation or, say, the proprietor of a large jewellery shop with valuable diamonds displayed in the window. It will be difficult to say that they are not to have exactly the same right in this respect as the Postmaster-General.

After all, these smash-and-grab raids and other raids on post offices are not done by people who loiter outside so that everyone can see them there and identify them. It is a very dangerous principle to say that because a person owns or has vested in him in any capacity certain premises, he shall be given rights and powers over the pavement, which is open to everybody in the neighbourhood. The Postmaster-General has plenty of work to do without looking after the pavements, but that is what he is seeking to do here. One could understand it in regard to the General Post Office, which is another matter, but it seems to me that it is idle for the right hon. Gentleman to ask for these powers on the ground that he is not proposing really to use them except in certain cases. If that be so, let us have the certain cases defined in the Bill. When you are creating a criminal offence, let it not depend on whether it is an offence in the opinion of the Postmaster-General, but let this House be the arbiter of what is to be the criminal offence.

I do not know whether we are going to have beacons on the pavement. Are we going to have blue beacons, with studs across the pavement, so that you can say, "It is opposite the post office, but I am one inch on this side of the studs, and I have got my fingers crossed and am therefore not guilty"? I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way not to press this Sub-section, because in the case of any person likely to be idly standing outside a post office, there would be only two questions for the Court to ask—( a ) "Was the man idle?" He might reply, "I was; I had nothing to do that morning." And ( b ), "Was he outside the post office"? The answer would be, "Yes." There is one other point which I am sure the Postmaster-General will look into, and that is in Clause 11, Sub-section (4), which provides: I think that Sub-section goes a little bit further than the Postmaster-General intends because he certainly, of all people, whatever his staff may do and whatever other Government Departments may do, does not wish to possess money to which he is not legally entitled. I am not at all sure that under that Sub-section a court would not be compelled to say that the sum of money, merely because it was stamped as being due in respect of that postal packet, was recoverable. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman means to say that if the sum is legally due to the Postmaster-General in consequence of the postal mark, then the evidence produced by the certificate shall be primâ facie evidence to the court, which shall decide the question whether the sum is due or not, and if it is due, the court shall order the sum to be recovered; but as the Subsection is at present drawn, I am inclined to the opinion that it goes a little bit further than the right hon. Gentleman intends.

12.39 p.m.

I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General on his very excellent work, but I would like to warn him, if anyone comes to him and asks him to give postal orders free of poundage, not to do it in any circumstances, because the Post Office is a very fine service, and it is appreciated because you pay for that service. Once you begin giving away things like that, it will not be appreciated in the same way. With regard to the point made so ably by the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) and by other speakers, I think the House should look with very great suspicion on anything which gives powers to deal in a summary way with people who are on the pavements, certainly in the case of the smaller post offices. I have a very excellent friend in this House to whom I go occasionally for advice, and he has always said that when you have a particularly good Minister, and he brings in a Bill, you should look at that Bill very carefully, and if there are any small things in it that you do not like, you should press the matter on him very hardly and should in no circumstances accept the official answer that is put up to you. My friend has given me that advice over and over again in the past. That friend is the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), and if he were here, I have no doubt he would convey to the Postmaster-General what I have said and be quite certain that our suspicions were justified.

These arbitrary powers grow up very quickly and easily, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to look into this question very carefully between now and the Committee stage and to put down some Amendment which will clarify the position. We have at the present time, and probably shall have for a long time to come, a good Postmaster-General, but I have lived long enough to see one or two very bad ones and to see that you get great changes, and it is not only the great changes that we have to look after, but the unfortunate acts of some over-officious person who does a thing under the rules and regulations that is absolutely outside the desire of the Postmaster-General. That is the kind of thing that you want to avoid and the kind of thing that brings discredit on the postal service. The Post Office in general never misuses its powers, but it is the unfortunate accidents that we ought to guard against.

I desire to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member who has just sat down, and with the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams). I do so because I interrupted the hon. Member for South Croydon a few minutes ago under a misapprehension as to the precise terms of the Section of the Act to which he was referring.

12.42 p.m.

It is a real pleasure to be connected with a Department whose rare incursions into the field of legislation meet with the general approval of the Members of this House. In view of the numerous congratulations justly offered to my right hon. Friend, if we were living in pagan times, when the jealous gods had a disconcerting habit of resenting human success and prosperity, I should tremble for the welfare of the Postmaster-General. We are very pleased to have the valued approval of the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) of what is really a commonsense Measure designed entirely to regularise certain small illegalities, and generally to save the time, the money, and the convenience of the Post Office, the public, and the House of Commons. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) raised some matters which are not entirely covered by the terms of the Bill, such as a possible reduction in the poundage on postal orders, and other Members have referred to telephone poles, improvements in telephone arrangements, and so on. Taking them all together, my right hon. Friend is quite prepared to consider all those points and to give his best attention to them.

A series of hon. Members referred to the vexed question of Clause 10. It has been pointed out that whereas at present the Clause only deals with the molestation of Post Office servants, something should be done to prevent similar molestation of the public from telephone boxes. Perhaps it would be well if I said a word or two with regard to other parts of Clause 10, in reference to points raised from various parts of the House. The Clause only applies to Crown property. At present our difficulty is that if such an offence as is suggested is committed on Crown property, our only course is to proceed by way of an injunction. These Clauses give us the opportunity of proceeding by way of summary proceedings. The maximum fine inflicted in the case of the second of the Clauses is not £10, but £5. The sort of people about whom we are thinking in this connection are not, of course, the innocuous hawker or the harmless loiterer, nor do we want to interfere with any assignations, romantic or otherwise. We are thinking of the trouble we have had from hawkers placing their goods on the window sills of post offices and making themselves a thorough nuisance, and newsvendors who at times block the entrances to post offices. Such people have sometimes given us a good deal of trouble. At the same time, after listening to the admirable speeches of the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Thorp) and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams), my right hon. Friend and I agree that the Clause cannot well be left as it stands, and that any necessary Amendments can be moved on the Committee stage.

General approbation came from the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Rea) and I can only asure him that we are ready to deal with all sources of information, whether old deals or new deals. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) enlightened the House on the subject of philately, and I was amazed to hear that there are no less than 1,000,000 followers of the hobby in this country. We are prepared to do anything that the hon. and gallant Member and his brother philatelists bring forward for our consideration to improve matters in the light of experience.

The appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member for North St. Pancras (Sir Ian Fraser) falls on willing ears. It is that the present postage rates applicable to Braille should be extended to gramophone records intended for the blind. I fully share the anxiety that everything possible should be done for people who are robbed of the blessing of sight, but there is always a certain risk that, if we extend a concession to one section of the community for certain specific reasons of sickness or misfortune, similar concessions will be demanded on behalf of others in distress and difficulty. Sound human feeling, however, will admit that the blind always stand in a separate category for public sympathy and consideration. I am glad to be able to say that the Postmaster-General is prepared to agree to the principle of my hon. and gallant Friend's proposal and to introduce the necessary Amendment in order to bring in gramophone records. A word of warning may be uttered in that connection. As I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend will understand, we have not yet been able to examine in detail the consequences of such a concession, and we shall have to make sure that the gramophone records are really intended for blind persons.

That would be fully understood, but perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to say, in view of the fact that the Department will be looking into the matter, that no greater difficulty will arise where records are going to blind persons than arise in the case of paper sent for the purpose of being impressed for the blind.

I am glad to receive that assurance. We have every hope that this concession will be found to be practicable. The other points raised by the hon. and gallant Member fall in the general list of those with which we are prepared to deal outside the terms of the Bill. The points raised by the hon. Member for South-East Essex (Mr. Raikes) did not fall so much under the Amendment Bill as under the Money Resolution. We do not propose to make it possible to charge a telephone account to the receiver without his consent. There must be consent in advance.

Will my hon. Friend deal with a suggestion which I made in regard to Sub-section (4) of Clause 11?

Yes, that point will be dealt with by my right hon. Friend.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

This Resolution deals with a more important matter than the Bill which we have recently been discussing, involving particularly the future of the telephone service of this country. We confidently anticipate that during the next few years there will be a considerable telephone advance in this country, but if our present anticipations are exceeded—although we are prepared for a good advance—there will be no hesitation in coming to Parliament to ask sanction for further expenditure which I think is generally regarded as useful and remunerative. The exact details of the financial proposals are to be found in the White Paper, but it is desirable that I should amplify them and state the considerations on which they are based. In the first place, we base our expectations of the acceleration of telephone development on the general improvement in national conditions, the marked success of the recent reduction in telephone charges and the considerable extensions of and improvement in the efficiency of the telephone service which have been effected in the last few years. This is also a favourable time for acceleration for other reasons. Money is cheap and as compared with previous years, the current prices for telephone plant are appreciably lower than those obtaining a few years ago and we can obtain a great deal more for our money. Taking prices in 1929 at 100 the present-day cost of telephone exchange equipment is now only 75 and the cost of cables is only 80. There has also been another interesting development. During the last few years we have been able to effect progressive reductions in the cost of cabling, not only in our purchasing arrangements but also in the departmental costs and there is a saving to-day as compared with three years ago of some 12½ per cent. in that very important branch. Further, during the last three years there have been developments in the direction of employing light gauge cable for circuits for which heavy gauge conductors were formerly necessary, and that has meant a reduction in cost. I want to say, and I think my hon. Friend who preceded me in my office may very well agree with me, that we have to take precautions that the service does not carry too much surplus plant. Idle plant is wasteful and adds to our overhead charges. Science and invention also move rapidly to-day and plant and machinery may soon become obsolete. We must therefore take due care in that direction. I suggest to some of my hon. Friends who are present and who have considerable knowledge of business affairs, that the skilful management of telephone development consists in maintaining the right balance between a number of conflicting factors. If provision of plant runs too far ahead of demand, capital, on which interest has to be paid, and in connection with which obsolescence is taking place, lies idle. There is also a risk of laying the plant in wrong places through error of judgment as to where development is coming. The advantage of the latest technical improvements and inventions is lost. On the other hand there is a substantial advantage in spending capital as far as possible when money is cheap and prices are low. I think I can draw this general conclusion so far as these proposals are concerned, that the capital expenditure for which the Bill provides reflects a reasonably optimistic view of the course of development during the next few years.

If we look back on telephone development in this country we find that the year 1929 was the peak year for actual telephone capital expenditure, but I am glad to say that our telephone programme for next year anticipates more work being actually put in hand than at any time in the history of British telephone administration. We shall be spending nearly £3,000,000 more next year than in the present year. Hon. Members will see from the White Paper that there is an unspent balance of £2,500,000 from the Money Act of 1931 which we anticipate will last until June, 1935. The estimated expenditure for the next three and a half years will be approximately £37,000,000, rather more than £10,500,000 a year. After absorption of the unspent balance of £2,500,000 a further £34,000,000 is required for which I am asking to-day. We hope with this sum and the spare plant that we have in hand to add 750,000 to the number of telephone subscribers in this country during the next three years. I hope that may be possible. Our present rate of development is already 200,000 new subscribers a year, and I venture to hope that with improving national conditions we shall be able to better even that figure. We base that estimate on our recent experiences. The last two or three years have been difficult years for every telephone administration in the world. In 1933 for instance there was a further decrease in the number of telephones in the world. The reduction was rather more than 500,000, as compared with a reduction of 2,000,000 in world telephones in 1932. For instance the United States of America lost over 800,000 telephones and Germany, it was estimated, lost over 50,000, but I am glad to say that in both those countries there is an upward trend again. In other countries in Europe there were considerable increases. France, Great Britain, Switzerland, Belgium, Italy and Sweden all showed increases during the five year period 1929–34. But Great Britain had the largest numerical increase of any country. Having said that I would like to add that all of us at the Post Office recognise that in this country we have a lot of lee-way to make up. It is true that there are great differences in the conditions in various countries which render difficult comparison with the telephone development in this country, but in my judgment we do not occupy the position we ought to occupy among the telephone countries of the world, and whatever progress we have been making in recent years we cannot afford to be complacent and to rest on our oars.

It is gratifying to note that last year we achieved the highest number of new telephone stations in any one year in this country and that we had a record increase in telephone traffic. What is more important still from the point of view of future telephone development in this country is that with our new small user tariff we are reaching a new section of the public. Some very interesting particulars were given to me the other day about the new kind of subscriber who is now coming on to the telephone in this country. About 80 per cent. of the orders for residence installations obtained during the last December quarter were for subscribers with estimated incomes of £500 per annum or less and nearly one-third of those were in the under £350 a year category. It shows that the telephone is now going to other homes in the country where we believe it will be found just as useful and profitable.

I suppose that was the result of the special publicity campaign.

That helped. The special expenditure which we are now asking the House to approve falls into four main groups. We are going to embark upon an extensive underground trunk programme and we shall spend about £3,000,000 there in the coming year. We are going to provide a number of new telephone exchanges and systems on which £2,000,000 will be spent. We are going extensively to increase the local line system and the circuits to and apparatus in the subscribers premises themselves; those items during the next 12 months will warrant the expenditure of nearly £3,225,000. Our main trunk work next year will provide for cables between London and Liverpool, Leeds and Hull, Cambridge and Norwich, Birmingham and Northampton, Grantham and Grimsby, Liverpool and Manchester, London and Tunbridge Wells, York and Scarborough and Glasgow and Falkirk. We have a long list which is too long for me to read to the House of new exchanges where the new automatic system will be installed. We are also embarking on a large number of telephone exchange extensions.

We are not forgetting telephone development in the rural areas in this programme, and a considerable amount of capital expenditure will be devoted to this important matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) did his part in this direction and I am glad to say that there has been a steady development in the rural areas. There are in the rural areas to-day 3,848 automatic and manual exchanges. Last year 72 new exchanges were opened in the rural areas and 75 were converted to automatic working. During five years, 5,500 call offices have been established in the rural areas of the country. I can claim that due regard has been paid to this important aspect of telephone development. The development of exchange lines in the rural areas between September, 1933, and September, 1934 was 7 per cent. as compared with 4 per cent. in urban areas. We have had a greater development in that connection in the rural areas than in the urban areas. Although telephone development in the rural areas is not financially profitable to the Post Office and involves a loss to the telephone account, there are good national reasons for steadily pursuing further development in the rural areas and we shall do our best in that direction.

The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) said something just now about the publicity campaign. In asking hon. Members to authorise the expenditure of this considerable sum of money, I assure them that we still intend to aid our work in the way we have been doing, and the way which was initiated by the hon. Member for Limehouse. As will appear from the estimates when we produce them to the House we shall be spending considerable sums of money in various ways to develop the telephone by way of publicity, such as press advertisements and exhibitions which have been most successful. Our press advertising has paid us over and over again and I hope that we shall be able to continue it. We have also increased our staff of telephone salesmen who number very many hundreds. I should also like to say what a splendid response was made to the tariff reduction which was recently announced, owing to the excellent work that has been done for some time now by the salesmen and particularly during the last few months. Apart from our salesmen the post office staff themselves who are not immediately concerned with salesmanship have done remarkably well, especially the engineering staff who have voluntarily supplemented the efforts of the salesmen. I could give the House if there were time particulars of how they have obtained large orders for exchange lines, extensions and other apparatus. It has really been a splendid effort on the part of the post office staff and I think the House would desire me to thank them on our behalf.

The other sum I want to mention is in regard to the postal and telegraph side where there will be an expenditure of some £4,000,000. While we are talking a great deal about the telephone I hope that the House and the country will not forget the telegram. I am one of those who believe that the days of the telegram are not over and that it is still a great social and business convenience. It is true that the telephone is endeavouring to elbow it on one side, but there is a great advantage in the written record. I hope to be able at some future date to announce further steps and improvements in relation to the telegraph service. I should be very sorry indeed to see the telegraph service disappear—in almost every country in the world, telegraph traffic is declining—if only from the point of view of the very large Post Office staffs whose interests, happiness, and future are wrapped up in the telegraph service and we ought to make a real effort to improve that side of our work. I am very glad that we are proposing to apply a further large capital sum to the postal and telegraph services. During the next three years we shall have a very considerable amount of site and building work to do in order to provide for Post Office requirements such as the progressive conversion of manual exchanges to automatic work and other developments. The House can feel perfectly safe in authorising the expenditure in this connection.

I want to make only two further observations with reference to the purchase of our equipment and material. Practically every pennyworth will be obtained from British sources; that has been the constant policy of the Post Office. For instance apart from unrefined metal such as copper and lead ore, which are not mined in this country, so far as manufactured products and purchases by the Post Office last year are concerned, only 0.2 per cent. was obtained from foreign sources—a negligible quantity. I think, therefore, we can quite safely anticipate that the whole of this considerable sum will be expended in Great Britain, and we shall, of course, retain that policy and practice, which has been adopted by successive Postmasters-General. While this programme will do a good deal for telephone and other development in the Post Office, it will also help in other directions. I am glad to think that it will give additional employment in many trades, because I think it can be said without much dispute that, of the total capital spent, some 70 per cent. will be spent on direct and indirect labour in this country. That is another advantage which comes from a forward policy at this time in connection with real remunerative work such as telephone development, and I think that for all these reasons the Resolution will commend itself to the Committee.

1.16 p.m.

We on this side are entirely in favour of providing money for the development of the Post Office services. The last time that this Resolution came on, I was in charge of it. At that time we were in the middle of the slump, and at the same time we were being pressed to undertake a very large expenditure on the telephone services in order to provide employment. That was, I think, one of the thickest planks that came from the Yellow Book. It was obvious, that while the mere putting down of a vast amount of underground cables and so on in the country might provide employment, it would be unremunerative employment, and that what was required was to go out after new business. In my view, it is this part of the money that has been best spent, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to develop the selling side and also the publicity side of the undertaking. I was interested to note the steady rise in sales indicated by the figures he gave, and I was also particularly interested by what he said, and what I read in the reports, with regard to the energy with which various sections of the staff have thrown themselves into this work of salesmanship. We have also been gratified by the fact that it has been possible to make advances in the pay of the staff, because it is essential, for a big push of this kind, to have their whole hearted co-operation.

The right hon. Gentleman will probably agree that one of the most remunerative items of his expenditure is that of newspaper advertising. We have seen in the last two years a very distinct change of atmosphere. When one reads one's newspaper now, one finds in it the good done by the Post Office, whereas formerly one only received the bad. The little bits of advertising money have had their effect in many editorial and news columns. I think the right hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on the development that has taken place, and particularly on the reduction in charges. He has to find his purchasers, and he has to sell a good article. He has got a good article; we are providing money so that he may be able to supply that article; and he has an organisation for selling it. I am sure that he has learned a great deal in his campaign for popularising the telephone. I understand that, in his spare time, he is going to try to "sell" the National Government, which, however, will probably not be so popular an article as the telephone. No doubt he will find that the experience which he is now gaining will be very useful to him when he is operating on a rather "bearish" market.

I think we can all take credit in this country for the way in which our great postal services have stood up to the conditions of very difficult years, and particularly the telephone service. Where other telephone services have shown serious losses there has always been a slight and an increasing gain in our own. I am sure however that the right hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that in the development of this service a balance must be kept—a reasonable balance in the provision of plant, the development of salesmanship and the constant consideration both of the prices charged and of the services given. There is one point that should be made and that is the great increase in the efficiency with which telephones are delivered when they are ordered. That is a most important matter. There is nothing that puts customers off more than having to wait weeks before they can get it, and the very high proportion of rapid service in this direction that is given by the Telephone Department is very greatly to the credit of the engineers and officers of that Department. I have very much pleasure in supporting the Resolution.

1.23 p.m.

It is rather a fortunate arrangement that has been made by those who arranged the business for to-day. Yesterday we spent much time in talking about development. There were sharp differences of opinion yesterday in the House, but to-day we are agreed, for we see exact sums of money put down for development which will give employment of the very best kind—employment of skilled people in their own craft, and probably in a workshop in the district in which they already live. I noted with very great interest the figures which the Postmaster-General has set out, and, if I may add one more word of compliment—the right hon. Gentleman must be getting suspicious in hearing complimentary statements—his clear and rapid survey of the figures set out in the Financial Resolution was of great benefit to the Committee. It appears from the figures, if I make them out correctly, that for the year 1935–the expenditure on development will be £2,750,000 more than last year; and I think it is extremely encouraging to see that apparently the expenditure in the same year on telephone services alone will amount to a total of £9,500,000.

The recent drastic reductions which the Postmaster-General has made in the charges for the renting of instruments, and the arrangements with regard to trunk calls between certain hours, have been and are being watched by the great semi-monopolistic services in this country and abroad. There can be little question that, whenever powers have been sought, fought for and won, either in this House or upstairs, to increase rates should it be found necessary to do so, whether in the case of the Post Office services or of gas, electricity or transport services, and when the rates have been raised, it has been found that in a very short time any temporary gain thus obtained has disappeared, and the net revenue has eventually been reduced. Therefore, this very bold move on the part of the Postmaster-General is of national importance and is watched very carefully. It was a very plucky thing to do. I hope it will be followed by other monopolistic services, whether private or Government-owned. Of course, the press and poster publicity campaign which the right hon. Gentleman inaugurated has undoubtedly been of enormous value, so has the free use of the British Broadcasting Corporation. The service that the Post Office had to offer was really good, which after all is the main essential in any advertising campaign. But the advertising has been very well done.

I take it that the extra expenditure of £9,500,000 on the telephone service is largely necessitated by the marked success of the recent reduction in telephone charges. I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman could give us a few figures, because they would be useful, not only to the Committee, but also to encourage other people to reduce rates with a view to increasing turnover and net profits. I should like to know what has been the effect of the reduction in telephone charges and telephone rentals, and whether the temporary spurt that followed the reduction in the rates for trunk calls and for the hire of instruments can, in his opinion, be expected to go on rising at about the same rate? In short, does he estimate that in the next year the increase in subscribers will grow at the same accelerated pace? When the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) took up the office of Postmaster-General he, as I am sure the Assistant Postmaster-General will agree, did much very fine pioneer work, and left behind him many friends in the Post Office. There is something about the General Post Office which makes everyone connected with it an enthusiast. Now in the Money Bill there is an ominous reference to the fact that spares and replacements have run down considerably. This is more or less a technical and engineering matter. One would like to receive an assurance that the spares which will be put in hand will provide an adequate margin of spare plant for 1935–6. To get too much spare plant in any industry naturally retards the introduction of innovations or new inventions. We had some evidence of that in the long time that elapsed before we could get the new portable type of telephone receiver. But we should like an assurance from the Postmaster-General that there will be an adequate margin for spares.

The right hon. Gentleman received praise and I should like to say a word for the staff of the Post Office. The great effort that has been made could not possibly have reached the height of success that we are acclaiming without generous and complete co-operation right through the Post Office Service. The Postmaster-General mentioned the engineers and their help in selling the telephone. At my house in the country we have now not a bell in place. The Post Office engineer who was sent to repair my installation pointed out to me that with a small staff in a house in the country every time you ring a bell a man has to come in to see what you require, and that if I put a telephone in each room it would save your servants a lot of trouble. I have tried it, and I can recommend it to some of my friends who, like myself, cannot afford a large staff. It is a very useful arrangement. It saves a journey for every request that you make to your servants. It saves time and tempers and costs very little indeed.

1.32 p.m.

I hope that the Committee will refuse to pass this Resolution unless the Postmaster-General is prepared to give an undertaking that he will take such steps as may be necessary to make the telegraph service self-supporting. I have long thought it a lamentable thing that, at a time when other great industries are being compelled to contribute large sums to the State for general purposes, which renders it most difficult for them to carry on at all, this great sheltered industry, instead of contributing its share to the common revenue, should be itself adding to the burden. I have not the very latest figures of the percentage of loss—I have no doubt the Postmaster-General could give them—but it is not long since an expenditure of 1s. in the telegraph service represented a loss somewhere about 2¼d. I believe the figure is not so bad to-day, but it is still very serious. No doubt, we shall be told that this is a vital service in which cheapness is more important than profit, but that argument might equally be applied to most of the big industries. The supplies of food, clothing, fuel and transport are all vital industries, and if the principle were applied to them, that there was no need to earn profit and contribute to the general revenues of the State and that they should be carried on at a loss, from where would the money come to maintain our telephone service and our social services, and all the other purposes for which money is required by the State? I would point out that the argument that the telegraph service is a vital service can very easily be overdone. Let me give two examples.

Take the case of Press telegrams. Everybody knows that Press telegrams are carried at a heavy loss to the service. Is anyone prepared to suggest that if the nauseous nonsense which forms so large a proportion of the news in our popular Press was considerably curtailed it would be any loss to the State, and indeed to any reasonable individual in it. I cannot see how, particularly at such a time as this, we can, with justice to the country as a whole, continue to carry these Press telegrams at a heavy loss. After all the Press is a wealthy institution. It is perfectly well able to pay for the services it requires, and the Postmaster-General should insist on such a rate for Press telegrams as would at any rate cover the cost of the service given. Take another case, that of betting telegrams. I do not know if it would be possible for anyone on behalf of the Department to tell the Committee what proportion of the revenue from telegrams is represented by betting telegrams, but in any case I think that it will be generally agreed that it is a very substantial proportion. Can anyone suggest that the provision of these facilities for betting telegrams is a vital service? The argument that the volume of business and not profit is all that matters in the telegraph service can very easily be overdone.

There is another argument why the service should be made to pay, and that is that it is an old-established service. It is not as though it were something, like, for example, television, where the responsible Minister might come and say that you must face a loss for a few years, in order that it might develop and take its place with other industries, and until the industry is fully established. The industry is old-established, and that is an additional reason why it should be carried on on reasonable business principles. As with other countries, it is no doubt difficult, and no doubt there is force in what the Postmaster-General said as to other countries finding the use of the telegraph system suffering from the extension of the rival system of telephones. In the case of America, we find that the great Corporation, the American Telegraph and Telephone Co. succeed in making the telegraph system pay, and I have yet to learn that the telegraph system in America is in any way inferior to that of our own. No doubt there is force in the argument that an enterprise of this kind carried on under private management is likely to be more efficient than the enterprise carried on, as is our own telegraph system, by the State, but even allowing for that I find it hard to believe that it is necessary for us to lose money on a service which can be made to pay in America.

It is true to say that there has been a great disadvantage in the postal, telegraph and telephone systems being all controlled by the same Department. There are obvious advantages, but there are also disadvantages. Hon. Members will remember that in the early days of the telephone in this country, development was deliberately hampered and starved in the interests of the telegraph. Now it would appear that the telegraph is to be carried on as a burden on the postal and the telephone services. That is an aspect which should not be forgotten. I could imagine the advantages of the three services being in one department outweighing the disadvantages, but steps should certainly be taken to prevent those services which are being run at a profit from having to carry the burden of another service which is not. After all, if the whole of the Post Office makes a profit, it simply means that the people who use the postal and telephone facilities are paying for those who use the telegraph facilities, and it does not seem to be a reasonable proposition.

We have at the Post Office a Postmaster-General who has earned widespread praise, not only in this House, but among the public generally, for the energy and enterprise that he has displayed since he took over his office. I hope that I shall not be considered to be casting any reflection upon any past Postmaster-General in this House when I say that not for many years have we had at the Post Office a Minister who has done so much for the development of the great department in his charge. Is it too much to ask that the Postmaster-General should make yet a further effort, and that he should endeavour to overcome the inertia of his Department where telegraphs are concerned. It seems to be a sort of condition at the Post Office to-day that the telegraph service cannot be made to pay. I appeal to the Postmaster-General to try and overcome that feeling and to regard it—as it really is—as a separate entity and to see that, even if it cannot make any great contribution to the common burden of the State, at least it ceases to be a burden itself. I hope that the Committee will press the Postmaster-General for some undertaking to the effect that he will endeavour wihin a reasonable period—I suggest 12 months—to make an effort to see that the losses are at any rate substantially decreased if not done away with altogether.

1.43 p.m.

Many telephone users will be grateful to the Postmaster-General for the concession he made on Christmas Day and New Year's Day of the cheap rate for telephoning before 2 o'clock on Christmas Day of 1s. a call, and also on New Year's Day from 5 o'clock and later, also at 1s. a call. I hope that he will keep up the concession in future years, because I am sure that a great many people were very much indebted to the Postmaster-General for that arrangement. I notice on examining the figures that some £2,750,000 more is to be utilized for telephone and postal services next year than was the case during the current year. The Postmaster-General has told us that he is going to run many cables about the country, and I should like to obtain an undertaking from the Assistant Postmaster-General that when the Post Office run cables about the country they will try and put them underground as much as possible.

The Postmaster-General in his wisdom has developed the carrying of mails by air, and it has been most successful as fas as it has gone. In fact, the whole of the General Post Office is becoming air-minded, but it is no use carrying mails by air and establishing more aerodromes, if we put up more obstacles. Therefore, I ask the Postmaster-General to go into the question of the advisability, whenever they run any cables either for the telephone or the telegraph, of putting them underground as much as possible. Last October the rentals of telegrams were reduced. Can the Postmaster-General tell us if that has been beneficial or not? An important concession was made in reducing the rentals and I hope that it will help the telephone service. In regard to the automatic working of telephones, I understand that the Post Office are extending the zones of the automatic service. I think they have got as far as Croydon, and I hope that they will extend them to my constituency in Hertford. I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Postmaster-General on getting a very efficient telephone service.

1.46 p.m.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) raised the subject of the loss in connection with the telegraph service. It is easy to commend those things that are doing well in the Post Office but, as I pointed out on the last occasion that we had a Post Office Vote before us, hon. Members generally are anxious to see an improvement in the net result of the telegraph department. Perhaps the Postmaster-General rather anticipated my hon Friend the Member for Colchester, because he said that he hoped shortly to have something to say with regard to changes respecting telegrams. I am not quite certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester is sound in his suggestion that there should not be a reduction with regard to the charges to the Press. I have no connection with the Press, and therefore I can speak with freedom, but I regard the Press in this matter as something in the same way that the hon. Member who has had large business experience would regard one of his largest customers. Naturally, as a business proposition, one would look kindly on the suggestion that such a customer should have preferential rates. I am afraid that if the Postmaster-General were to adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend, he might find not a reduction in the loss of the Post Office on the telegraph service, but an increase. I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent, that the loss on the telegraph service is borne by the charges made in respect of and the revenue received from postages and telephones. The losses, therefore, are being carried by another section of the Service.

May I, in passing, say one personal word, and that is to express my appreciation of the business-like way in which the Post Office, particularly those who are responsible, help the Members of the House. I am particularly grateful to the Assistant Postmaster-General for the very kind way in which he received a deputation from my Division. As this morning we seem to be in a spirit of acclamation, I think my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General has imbued every member of the staff of the Post Office with a new spirit. One finds that even the most forbidding purveyor of postage stamps seems to have a new idea of the value of her public service.

One word in regard to the Financial Memorandum which has been issued in connection with the Bill. We are now asked for a sum of £34,000,000. The procedure is that the money is borrowed from the National Debt Commissioners. I have not given notice to the right hon. Gentleman that I intended to raise this matter, and I apologise for doing so, but it would be interesting to know the terms on which the Post Office can now borrow this money. Is it for a long term, and what rates of interest are being paid to the National Debt Commissioners? We must keep an eye on that aspect. As the Financial Memorandum explains, there has been something like £177,000,000 borrowed. With regard to the proposed capital expenditure outlined in the Memorandum, I have made a rough calculation and it seems to me that if we pass the Vote to-day, and if the provisional anticipations are realised, we are going to spend during the next three years something in the neighbourhood of £11,000,000 or £12,000,000 a year. I would ask the Assistant Postmaster-General, who is to reply, whether he is satisfied that that amount is sufficient. This is the time when this particular type of service can be very useful not only in advancing the interests and the influence of the Post Office but in helping it in every direction.

I am certain that if this money is spent in the development of the telephone service, that before the period that is anticipated the Postmaster-General will have no hesitation in coming to the House and asking for further powers. I wish him every success and thank him for the information that he has given to us regarding the activities of other countries. From that information we are able to get a wider view of the place which the Post Office plays in our public and social life. I congratulate him on the success which has so far attended his efforts. My hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) referred to the right hon. Gentleman's spare-time occupation. Some of us are not surprised to hear of that, and we wish him the same measure of success in that capacity as he has had in his official capacity. Whilst we are talking about publicity, may I wish him publicity in that connection also?

1.52 p.m.

I should like to say a few words in regard to the telephone service which was referred to by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis). I am not prepared to accept his statement regarding Press telegrams. It may be true that the Press are well able to afford to pay the full charge for the telegrams that they cost the Post Office, but I am not convinced that they are not already paying a sufficient charge to cover the cost of the telegrams. I do not think that the Postmaster-General, or his Department, would treat the Press in such a way as to incur an actual loss, as is suggested by the hon. Member for Colchester, on the telegrams sent for Press purposes.

Is the hon. Member aware that in October, 1932, the Postmaster-General, in answer to a Question, admitted that Press telegrams were carried at a loss?

The hon. Gentleman referred to a loss of 2½d. out of every 1s., but he said that that was a long time ago and he understood that the loss had since then been reduced. The same argument could probably be applied to Press telegrams. It may have been that at one time Press telegrams were carried at an actual loss.

Is not the real answer this, that the net result of the telegraph service shows that every telegram, whether sent by the Press or anybody else, is being carried at a loss?

That may be true, but I am only dealing with the special reference to Press telegrams. If there is a loss on the telegrams generally, then all telegrams would incur part of the loss. Apart from that question, the Press give us a service which the people look upon as a necessity. It may be that there is a great deal of news given in the Press which it would be better if the public were not able to read—

I am in considerable doubt as to whether the question of Press telegrams is in Order. I really think that any detailed discussion ought to arise on the Estimate of the Department. I have had some considerable doubt in admitting some of the Debate, but as the money asked for is for telegrams the question as to whether they are sent at a loss may be in order. I do not think we can go beyond that.

I accept your ruling and am only sorry that I am not allowed to pay my tribute to the Press. I should like to ask the Postmaster-General if he is going to apply the policy adopted in the case of telephones to telegrams? The reductions which have been made in the charges for telephones have undoubtedly been a success, a greater number of people are now using the telephone service. It has been the policy in recent years to reduce the charges on telephones and to increase the charges on telegrams, but if the policy of reduction has been so successful in the case of telephones I would suggest that serious consideration should be given to a reduction in the charges for telegrams. The 6d. telegram was apprecated, and possibly the same effect would accrue to the Post Office in the case of a reduction in the cost of telegrams as has been shown in the case of telephones. I hope that the Postmaster-General will give consideration to this matter and see whether it is not possible to reduce telegrams to the old charge of 6d.

The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) has drawn attention to the somewhat stepmotherly attitude of the Post Office in regard to telegrams. I should like to mention one curious anomaly which I have already indicated to the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General, and that is the charge of 6d. for inland telegrams on Sundays and Christmas Days—

That question clearly does not arise. It is a matter which must be raised on the Estimates. I think the discussion generally is getting quite outside the Resolution altogether.

1.59 p.m.

I will endeavour to keep within your ruling, and perhaps I shall succeed in doing so by making a general observation on the services which are to be extended by the money we are asked to vote. I am surprised that the view should be put forward that the services of the Post Office can be assessed in figures. I suggest that part of the value of the services of the Post Office is in the advantages given to the community, an observation which applies not only to individuals but also to the Press. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the publicity campaign to encourage an extended use of the telephone. The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to ask hon. Members to assist the campaign in their constituencies, and as far as Nottingham is concerned I should like to say that it went forward very success fully. But there is a practical difficulty in getting persons unaccustomed to telephones to adopt their use. Where they have been extensively adopted they have become the friend of man and are likely to become the daily companion of women. But it is astonishing how many persons are still under the impression that the telephone is something that kicks, which is dangerous to use. It is, of course, absurd, but there is no doubt that many persons are still under the impression that the telephone is a dangerous thing to touch. I would suggest that the Post master-General in any further campaign for an extension of the use of telephones should pay special attention to this prejudice which still prevails in some parts of the country and should endeavour to remove it, so that the public may be satisfied that they are not going to run any serious injury. We have also given the Post Office further powers to deal with persons—

That again does not arise.

I will only add this. I have felt it my duty to make some criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to some matters connected with the Post Office, but now I see the reason for the procrastination of which I complained. He has been so deeply engaged in these matters that he has not been able to give attention to another important department of the Post Office—I should be out of order if I said any more—but as he had now succeeded in completing these matters I hope he will give his attention to other departments of the Post Office which require attention.

2.3 p.m.

I feel sure that the Committee and the whole country will be delighted to know that the Postmaster-General is able to make a very substantial contribution to capital expenditure, which will be useful to a great business department and will assist in finding employment for our people. I merely rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he can, to give us an assurance that as far as possible this money will be spent on the purchase of British-made goods and materials, and that in the specifications for contracts this will be inserted. I should like to add my congratulations to the Postmaster-General upon the businesslike way in which the Department has been run and the excellent results achieved.

2.4 p.m.

The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has contributed some interesting remarks not only on the selling side of our gigantic business but also on the value of publicity, and the hon. and learned Member for Nottingham South (Mr. Knight) has also called attention to the necessity for more publicity. If some of his constituents are still frightened of the telephone I must leave them to the hon. and learned Member himself; they are, I am afraid, victims of invincible ignorance—

I was not referring to the people of Nottingham. The suspicion has been completely dispelled in Nottingham.

The hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) paid a well-deserved tribute to the energy and loyalty of the staff. I need not say that in that he has the full endorsement of my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. I know that when the time comes for my right hon. Friend to leave the Post Office for other spheres of work one of his and my happiest memories, if not the happiest memory, will be the fact that during our time at the Post Office substantial advances were made in the pay and the welfare generally of at least the poorer members of the staff. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) referred to the value of newspaper advertisements and said that such advertisements had helped to produce the general feeling of popularity that the Post Office now enjoys. It is an interesting experience at odd moments to look through old copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT and to notice the type of question put to the Postmaster-General in the old days. Ten or fifteen years ago questions were asked by aggrieved Members of a very different character from the suave and reasonable questions of to-day. To-day the only discordant note in our discussion has been that of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. O. Lewis). He stated, as regards the telegraph service, possibly as regards the Post Office generally, there is to-day a state of inertia. His diatribe against the Post Office on the ground of the tele- phone service has little foundation. Inertia is a malady I have never discovered in the Post Office. I only wish the hon. Member would come in and help us in the matter. The telegraph difficulty exercises the best brains of the Post Office experts to-day.

I do not think the hon. Member can have looked adequately into the facts and figures relating to telegraphs. The figures he gave about the United States are very misleading. He spoke of telegrams in the United States as a paying concern. As a matter of fact the company to which he alluded deals not only with telegrams but with telephones. The bulk of its service is with telephones, and telephones and telegrams lumped together produce a profit. There is another company, the Western Union, which deals with telegrams but mainly or very largely with international cables also. Therefore the hon. Member's illustrations from the United States simply fall to the ground. Of course, the deficit on our telegraph service is a regrettable fact. This year I think it is something like £650,000. We have already checked the decrease and there is every prospect of reducing it further in the future.

I believe that on several occasions the suggestion has been made to the Postmaster-General that the telegraph service could be profitably amalgamated with the telephone service of the Post Office. Many of us believe that the figures shown in the accounts are more or less fanciful. It is difficult for anyone who examines the Post Office accounts to see on what basis the Post Office can possibly generalise and allocate profits or losses between the telegraph and telephone services. I want to know whether the Postmaster-General has given any further consideration to the idea that the telephone and telegraph services should be amalgamated?

Whether they are amalgamated or not, anyone can easily see the profits or the losses of the one or the other. The whole Post Office service comprises a number of different enterprises. Most of them pay very well, but others do not pay. Take for example the rural telephones. We are doing our best to create a great and cheap national service, but at the moment the rural telephone service is run at a very heavy loss. In other words, the towns pay for the country districts. So in the case of the whole work of this great nationally owned institution, the Post Office, you have to face the fact that telegrams are run at a loss.

The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) in a short and interesting speech asked about the borrowing rates of the Post Office. I am happy to tell him that we are now borrowing money at the rate of 2⅞ per cent. The average rate of interest which we paid on money borrowed in the past was 4¾ per cent. Another hon. Member asked a question which has already been answered by my right hon. Friend as to the source of goods purchased by the Post Office. All but an infinitesimal portion of these goods is of British origin. A further point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Hertford (Rear-Admiral Sueter) referred to cables being put underground. Already on the main routes nine-tenths of our cables are underground.

Where new aerodromes are being established will the Postmaster-General be careful to put all the cables underground near those aerodromes? It is very important The aerodromes may be right out in the country and there will be many more of them in the next few years.

I will inquire into that. There is an increase in the number of telephone subscribers since the reduction of rentals in October last which is very gratifying. The net gain for the last quarter of 1934 was 60,000 and for the whole of 1934, 139,000. We believe that that rate of increase will be maintained in the coming financial year; and we think that the existing and anticipated increase I have mentioned has justified our programme of capital expenditure. We shall be doing all we can in the coming year to accelerate the improvement in the standard of service. The conversion of the telephone system to automatic working is being speeded up and we anticipate that within the 10-mile radius of London the area will be completely under automatic working by 1942. We hope, too, that the Manchester and Birmingham districts will be in the same position by that time. Among other improvements which we propose to introduce in the coming year is the virtual completion of the demand system. At the present time approximately 98 per cent. of non-local traffic is disposed of while the caller remains at the telephone and during 1935 we hope to extend this method to the remaining 2 per cent.

The hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Pybus) made a number of interesting points. He spoke of the increase of night telephone trunk traffic as the result of the reduction of rates. I may say that an increased traffic to the extent of 130 per cent. has resulted, while the day traffic has shown an increase of 11 per cent., partly from the normal growth and partly owing to improved service. The increase of telephone subscribers since last October has been most gratifying. As I have said the net gain in the last quarter of 1934 was 60,008, and for the whole year 139,200.

Another point that was raised by the hon. Member was the question of spare plant. During the recent years of depression we have been steadily building up a reserve of spare wires, and we are now able to provide service for more than 90 per cent. of our new subscribers from this spare plant. Moreover, 85 per cent. of new subscribers are now on the telephone within a week of their placing an order, which is a great improvement. In view of the importance of rapid provision of service to new subscribers, I think the Committee will agree that that is very satisfactory. The question of the replacement of obsolete and outworn plant was also raised. Our current expenditure provides not only for the installation of additional plant, but also for the substitution of obsolescent by modern plant. With regard to the difficulties which have been mentioned in connection with telephones, the best answer I can give is that we should get on to the automatic telephone as soon as we can. The country is being rapidly converted to the automatic system. There are now more than 1,500 automatic exchanges serving more than 850,000 subscribers as compared with 300 exchanges serving 400,000 subscribers in 1930. The magneto exchanges now serve less than 5 per cent. of our subscribers, and in a few years will be a thing of the past. It is rather curious that the only surviving magneto instrument in this House, is, I think, that in my own room.

2.21 p.m.

My hon. Friend allowed me to interrupt him during his speech, but, unfortunately, I do not think I got an answer to my question. I have to make it quite clear that I have not risen in any hostile spirit towards the administration of the Post Office. On the contrary, I am a very great admirer of that administration, and I think everyone agrees that remarkable progress has been made. The point which I wish to raise is one of accountancy. I would ask whether the time has not arrived when the telegraph service should be definitely amalgamated with the telephone service. I believe it is a fact that a very large portion of the equipment has already been turned over.

I really think that the hon. Member cannot have read the Resolution. He seems to be getting very wide, and raising a matter of general policy.

On that point, may I draw attention to the fact that the Resolution authorises £34,000,000 to be spent, of which £30,000,000 will be required for the telephone service and £4,000,000 for the postal and telegraph services. I submit that, under the present system of accounting, that statement is misleading—not intentionally, but in fact.

In any case, I think the hon. Member might raise it on the Second Reading. It appears to go far beyond the Financial Resolution. He is really raising the question of the reorganisation of the Post Office, and that must come on the annual Estimates.

Would I not be in order in asking for some explanation as to how the £4,000,000 which is allocated to the postal and telegraph services can, in fact, be shown to cover expenditure on behalf of the telegraph service, because anyone studying the Post Office accounts must come to the conclusion that the expenditure on behalf of the telegraph service in the way of new development is obliged to be through the telephone service. Part of this money, presumably, is to be used for new cables, and it appears that the present arrangement is that these cables are to be used for both services. If, therefore, the money allocated for the postal and telegraph services is being used mainly, if not purely, for the Post Office services I want to know how the money is allocated to the telegraph service? Perhaps the simplest way would be to ask the Minister if he can give me some indication of the manner in which it is proposed that some proportion of the £4,000,000 allocated to the postal and telegraph services can be applied to the purpose of the telegraph service?

It seems to be a matter of accountancy, and all I can say is that I will bring it to the notice of my right hon. Friend and see whether it can be raised at subsequent stages of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

On a point of Order. Are we to understand that the Question which has been just put includes all the Votes on the Paper?

There is only one Vote put down on the Paper for Committee of Supply, and it is only that Vote which has been dealt with.

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next; Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

I gather that this Vote is in respect of additional provision which is being made in connection with the Ordnance Survey Department, and I imagine that it arises from the operation of the Rights of Way Act, a Measure which I had the honour to conduct through this House, and which includes provisions for a survey of the public rights of way of the Kingdom.

I find no reference in the Vote to the Ordnance Survey.

Yes, Sir. It is to be found on page 9 of the details.

I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon.

I should not raise the matter at all unless I were satisfied that it was proper to do so. I was about to say that this Vote arises in connection with the Rights of Way Act, and that this Department has provided survey maps which have been of great advantage throughout the Kingdom in carrying out the Measure. Under the Act local authorities and other persons are called upon to survey territory and to register rights of way or claimed rights of way in various areas. It is in connection with that work that the Ordnance Survey Department has provided these maps, and it is in respect of that additional service by the Department that this amount is now asked. I take this opportunity of pointing out the great advantage which it has been to the country to have had this additional service from the Ordnance Survey Department, and to thank the officials responsible for it.

2.33 p.m.

While not disagreeing with this Vote, I think it is only right that the House should take cognisance of the fact that this Supplementary Estimate is consequent upon the Measure to which the hon. and learned Member has just referred, and that, in addition to this extra cost to the Department concerned, there is also involved additional work and therefore additional expense on the part of the local authorities. I am not quarrelling with this Vote but I think it is an excellent illustration of how sometimes comparatively harmless and even good Measures promoted by Private Members may be found afterwards to involve burdens on the community.

This expense is directed towards the establishment of public rights.

I agree, and I am only pointing out that sometimes a Measure which may appear to be quite innocent and free from expense, in the end is found to involve, perhaps considerable additional expense both to the Exchequer and the local authorities.

Question put, and agreed to.

Third Resolution agreed to.

Fourth Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

2.35 p.m.

On page 16 of the Estimates there is this item: "Calculating and other machinery, £5,000." It is difficult to know whether that means much or little machinery, but I should like to ask how many employés will be discharged when this machinery is installed. It is the fashion now to instal machinery wherever it is possible and so to displace labour, but I think a Government Department ought to be the very last, at a time like this, to instal machinery that displaces labour. The one important thing in this country today is to decrease unemployment, yet it seems to me that the Government here is following the current practice outside of installing machinery and displacing labour. I think we ought to be told, not only what the capital cost, but what the maintenance costs, of this machinery will be, and what will really be the saving effected by its instalment. I can understand industry that is in competition installing machinery, although I believe it is very questionable, when you remember the capital and maintenance costs, whether that step is justified. But this is altogether different. In the recent debates in this House we have heard of the black-coated workers who are out of employment. This seems to me to be a step towards displacing more of the black-coated workers, and I think the Government should hesitate in taking that step, especially at a time like this.

2.38 p.m.

I cannot on the spur of the moment give the hon. Member any exact figures as to the number of people who might be employed in this connection—this machinery has not been introduced—and I cannot say what saving will be effected, but if the hon. Member wishes for figures, they can no doubt be obtained for him. His idea of what might be much or little machinery might, I am afraid, be different from mine, but with regard to his complaint that the Government ought not to instal machinery, but should continue to employ as many hands as possible, I do not think, on reflection, he would really urge that it is the duty of the Government to set an example to the trading community not to do this and to refuse to adopt any novel invention that may lead to greater efficiency and economy in public affairs. I do not think any Government, even a Government that would be supported by the hon. Member, could possibly proceed for long on the principle of turning its back on all modern inventions and refusing to adopt modern machinery.

Question put, and agreed to.

Fifth Resolution agreed to.

I beg to move,

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1935, dated the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-eighth day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved."

There are four Orders already in force but requiring affirmative Resolutions, and I hope that the House will agree to follow the previous practice and take them all together.

The last Order raises a rather separate question.

I understand that the hon. Member will have an opportunity of raising a point on that Order. These Orders relate to signs and enamelled plates, sodium nitrite, doors, and certain varieties of flowers. The goods covered by the first Order, that is to say, signs of all kinds and plates, are at present dutiable at a variety of rates and, owing to the different tariffs, anomalies result. The present Order has been made on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, with the twofold object of simplifying and unifying as far as possible the anomalies of the position, and also of protecting the industry from the effects of foreign competition. The duties are being raised by this Order to a uniform level of 25 per cent. ad valorem. The industry has a number of efficient and progressive firms well equipped to supply these goods.

The subject of the second Order, sodium nitrite, has been previously liable to a duty of 2 per cent. ad valorem, and the House is being asked to approve a general duty of £4 per ton, which means approximately 30 per cent. ad valorem. The House need have no concern, in the opinion of the Committee, that the British consumers of sodium nitrite will suffer exploitation as a result of this step, as the Committee has full assurance from the British manufacturers in regard to the price of this commodity.

The third Order deals with certain wooden doors for dwelling-houses. These have been dutiable at the rate of 2s. per door since June, 1933, and the present Order raises the duty to a rate of 2s. 6d. per door. Mass-production factories have now been established in this country, and beside these factories there are joinery shops in many parts of the country which make doors, but in spite of the existing duty the importation of foreign doors has largely increased. The Committee recommends this increase and is confident that there will be no harmful effects on house building as a result of it, the production in this country having been considerably improved and being now adequate to deal much more largely with the requirements of the market.

The last Order deals with flowers, whether cut or imported with bulbs, as detailed in the order. The previous duty of 9d. per lb. is now increased for these flowers to 1s. 3d. per lb. from December to February and to 1s. per lb. from March to April. The previous duty resulted in a very considerable increase in flower-growing in this country, and consequent value to employment, but it has been found that, as the great majority of the flower growers in this country have to rly for their raw material, bulbs, on foreign sources, they have been affected by the fact that the bulbs were only obtainable in this country at considerably higher prices than in the foreign countries where they were produced. That has had the result of diminishing the protective effect of the duties in this country, and the home producers are, in the opinion of the Committee, entitled to be protected against the expedients by which their foreign competitors have been circumventing the effects of the duties imposed previously. The increase proposed will, in the opinion of the Committee, assist the home grower and stimulate home production. I therefore recommend to the House that they should approve these four Orders.

2.45 p.m.

I wish to raise a point with regard to the Order dealing with flowers. May I congratulate the Government on this Order, which does something to help get people back to the land. While other people have been talking about it, the Government have been active in sending many hundreds of people back to the land in this way. This Order is particularly balanced so that we get the higher duty from the 1st December to the last day of February. That is helpful to an important branch of horticulture in the glasshouse industry. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) ought to be the last to complain about that because it means that a great deal of extra coal will be used in this industry.

We have heard all that before.

I hope the hon. Gentleman will tell his miners what we are doing about it. I am not sure why the duty of one-third is taken off at the end of February. It is a great advantage to the glasshouse industry, but it is not very much good to those who grow flowers out of doors. For the sake of the extensive growing trade in the West country, and notably at St. Ives, where flower growing is absorbing labour rapidly, the date should be until the end of March. It would be a great advantage to them if their cut flowers could have the advantage of the additional duty. I wonder why polyanthus narcissus are left out, for they are closely allied to the others. I could ask some questions in connection with the alliances of the different sorts, but I will forbear, and will merely ask my hon. and gallant Friend why polyanthus should be left out, because they are much easier grown out of doors and are usually grown by the smaller people rather than by the larger glasshouse people. I would also ask my hon. and gallant Friend to go carefully into the matter to see if the date could be made to the end of March in view of the tremendous advantage which the present arrangement gives to the glasshouse people and to the Scilly Isles and the Channel Islands.

The 1st March was proposed by the National Farmers Union. That is why the Committee recommended it. I note my hon. Friend's views with regard to polyanthus.

I know that is the point of view of the National Farmers Union, but I do not think the Government ought always to be led so much by them. There is another point of view held by people who have not the power of the National Farmers Union.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 1) Order, 1935, dated the seventh day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-eighth day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 2) Order, 1935, dated the fifteenth day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the twenty-eighth day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved."

Resolved,

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 3) Order, 1935, dated the twenty-ninth day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said twenty-ninth day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-five be approved."

Resolved,

"That the Additional Import Duties (No. 4) Order, 1935, dated the sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, made by the Treasury under the Import Duties Act, 1932, a copy of which was presented to this House on the said sixth day of February, nineteen hundred and thirty-five, be approved."—[ Lieut.-Colonel Colville. ]

On a point of Order. May I ask why this Motion appears on the Paper on a Friday afternoon in view of the fact that, in reply to the leader of the Opposition on Wednesday last, the Prime Minister stated what would be done on Friday, and there was no reference whatever to a substantial alteration of the Standing Orders at that time. In view of the statement of the Prime Minister, which implied that this was not to be taken on a Friday afternoon, why has it been put down, and why have the interests of the House not been consulted?

2.51 p.m.

My hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) informs me that he had no knowledge that this was coming on on a Friday. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) will want a long discussion on the Motion, and we ought to be able to take it on Monday. However much we may agree between ourselves, the House of Commons has some right in a matter of this kind, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse has been negotiating on behalf of those who sit on this side, I think he should have had information that this matter was coming on to-day. Our Chief Whip knew nothing about it. I suggest that it should be postponed until Monday so that the House may know it is coming on.

When the Prime Minister made the announcement of business for the week there is always the tag at the end, "If there is time other Orders may be taken." It is now 10 minutes to 3. This Order is on the Paper, full notice has been given of it, and it is an agreed Motion in the common form. It was agreed by the Committee upstairs. The Prime Minister made the announcement last Wednesday:

"The only Motion which the Committee has agreed should be proposed to the House is one providing for a series of consecutive Clauses, to which no Amendment is proposed to be put as one Question instead of a separate Question for each Clause, and further providing that any opposed Private Business set down by the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration on any day when the Government of India Bill is being considered should be taken at the end of the sitting instead of at 7.30 p.m."

That met with general approval, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said:

"May I congratulate the Prime Minister upon taking a notable step towards reviving the ancient flexibility of the House of Commons Procedure?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1935; col. 1941, Vol. 297.]

I only wish to safeguard the position by repeating that every Thursday the statement is added to the announcement of business, "If time permits, other Orders on the Order Paper will be taken." This Motion has been on the Paper, it is an agreed Motion in conformity with what was said last Wednesday, and there is time to-day for other Orders to be taken.

2.53 p.m.

I know that everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said is true, but we were certainly under the impression that this was the sort of Order that would not be taken in the last hour on Friday afternoon. Some Members who are parties to the agreement may desire to say something, and we really ought to have notice of the Motion. We ought to be able to take it satisfactorily on Monday. So far as I and my hon. Friends are concerned, we do not want to take up an attitude of opposition to it, but we do want to preserve the rights of the House of Commons. This is an important question, and we all hope we are going to work through the Government of India Bill on altogether different lines. Do not let us start in this way.

2.54 p.m.

On a point of Order. When I got up to mention this matter to the House the Patronage Secretary referred to me in an offensive term. I will not repeat it, because I do not wish to advertise it, but it is not in accordance with the dignity of the House or anything else.

2.55 p.m.

I certainly have no intention of proceeding with this Motion this afternoon if there is any feeling in the House against it. We agreed to this going on to the Order Paper because I had assumed that the statement which I made on Wednesday was an agreed statement, and that these proceedings would be little more, if anything more, than a formality. Everything in this Motion was in my statement. As a matter of fact, if hon. Members look carefully at the Motion they will find that it gives rather more power to the House of Commons than was suggested in the announcement I made on Wednesday. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) raised two points which I said then, and I still think, are matters for the ruling of the Chair; but, in order to make it quite clear that the Government do not want to take advantage—no advantage at all—of the House giving it these powers, the two points to which he referred have been embodied in the first clause of the Motion—so anxious are we to carry out all our transactions on the India Bill in the very best spirit and in accordance with the splendid agreement that was come to by the Committee which dealt with this matter. If there be any division of opinion, I do not propose to move the Motion. But is there a serious division? If there is not, I ask the House just to use the minute or two that is at our disposal—[HON. MEMBERS: "Now"]. It will only take a minute or two to do it, if there is no objection. I think I shall move the Motion.

2.57 p.m.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persevere in his proposal to move the Motion. I took it for granted that we were going home, and I made an appointment to go to see someone who is ill. Evidently some discussion is going to take place. I am prepared to say that, so far as we are concerned, whatever time is necessary on Monday, whether it be after 11 or before 11, can be taken, we are perfectly willing to agree to that.

Very well, on that, I will say that as I do not wish to destroy the good spirit which I hope will continue throughout the discussions on the Bill I shall not move the Motion.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.

Adjourned at Two Minutes before Three o'Clock until Monday, 18th February, 1935.