HC Deb 18 September 1886 vol 309 cc935-7
MR. SHAW LEFEVRE (Bradford, Central)

said, that as the Postmaster General was at that moment in his place, he would take the opportunity of putting the Question to him which he had intended to put on the Report of Supply. He wanted to know what had been the financial result of the introduction of 6d. telegrams? It was now nearly a year since the cost of telegrams was reduced; and he thought it would be for the convenience of the public and of the House if the right hon. Gentleman would state whether the result had been satisfactory or not? He believed there had been a great increase in the number of telegrams sent; but he wished to know whether there had been any actual increase of revenue? It was desirable to know what the total result of the change had been; and whether the total income derived from this source had resulted in an increase or in a loss to the revenue?

THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. RAIKES) (Cambridge University)

said, he must apologize to hon. Gentlemen for his absence at the moment when the Report of Supply was brought on. He had not expected that the Resolution relating to the Post Office Vote would have been reached so early. He was afraid that he could not at present give a perfectly complete reply to the right hon. Member for Bradford; but he might say that the estimate of last year of the receipts from the 6d. telegrams had been exceeded. It would be indiscreet to say that this increase would continue, or even that the number would be maintained, because it might have been due to special causes. The experience of the Department was too recent to enable a conclusive opinion to be formed; but, as a matter of fact, during the first part of the year it appeared as if the estimate of loss, which had been fixed at £20,000, would be exceeded. But—owing, perhaps, to the General Election and other causes—the number of telegrams had been materially increased during the last quarter, and during the last 12 weeks he believed the number was more than 1,000,000 a-week, the largest number under the 1s. system having been 750,000 in one week. But he could not strike a balance of profit and loss, or say whether the recent increase was due to the action of only temporary causes, until he saw more of the results of the financial year. Of course, this great increase had entailed increased expenditure; but he must refrain from giving any speculative opinion upon the matter for fear that he might mislead the House. On the whole, he might say that the experiment which had been made in reducing the price of telegrams to 6d. had, it appeared to him, borne fruit more speedily than was anticipated. He was inclined to hope that, instead of exceeding the estimate of loss as was at one time feared, the loss due to the new system in the present year would certainly fall short of the estimate; and that, in fact, there was every reason to hope that, in a comparatively short time, the revenue would be equal to the expenditure.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

asked the right hon. Gentleman to say what the percentage of increase in the telegrams had been in the course of the year—what, for instance, was the percentage in the increase of the number at present over the number last year before the rate was reduced?

MR. RAIKES

I will endeavour to obtain the information.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

I told the right hon. Gentleman privately that it was part of the information I should ask for.

MR. RAIKES

said, that he was sorry that he had been unable to obtain the information, and that he was, therefore, prevented at that moment from giving it; indeed, he was afraid it would be impossible, for the purpose the right hon. Gentleman desired, to attempt at the present moment to give any comparison between the number of telegrams received in any one week in the present year with the number received in the corresponding week last year before the reduction came into operation. He could only promise that he would make an endeavour to procure the information which the right hon. Gentleman desired.

MR. SHAW LEFEVRE

said, he would repeat the Question on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill.