§ Lord NINIAN CRICHTON-STUARTasked the Postmaster-General whether he will state whether he proposes to raise the telephone rates above the amount charged by the National Telephone Company; if so, at what date the revised rates will come into force; and what the rate will be when in force?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELAs I have frequently stated, it is my intention to revise the rates for telephone service after the price to be paid for the National Telephone Company's system has been settled. The rates will, to a considerable extent, depend upon that price, and if they are not generally acceptable they will be the subject of public inquiry either by a Select Committee of this House or by some other Committee of a representative character.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Postmaster-General whether the memorandum recently issued by his Department in reference to rural party-line telephones for farmers is intended to mean that no farmer living within half a mile of an existing telephone exchange can obtain the benefit of the reduced scale of charge for telephone facilities, or merely that such farmer will not be reckoned in the minimum of three prospective customers without which a party-line system will not be installed?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI am sending to the hon. Member a set of the papers containing full particulars of the rural party-line telephone service. A necessary precedent of a rural service is the existence of an exchange serving subscribers who rent exclusive or two party-lines at the ordinary rates, and it would therefore be impracticable to serve all subscribers by means of the multi-party lines intended to meet the needs of residents in more isolated districts. I am, however, considering in connection with the forthcoming general investigation as to rates whether a four-party line service cannot be provided for residents who live near small exchanges at rates corresponding with rural party-line rates, but with a rather more convenient method of service.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTDo I understand from that that it is the fact that a farmer living within half a mile of the village where there is an exchange does not get the benefit of the lower terms?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELUnder the present system he does not get the benefit of the existing tariff on the rural party-line service. It is impossible to draw a distinction between farmers and other residents. If we were to include farmers within half a mile of the exchange we should have to include everybody, and the consequence would be that the growth of the number of those exchanges would be very much hampered.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTDid not the right hon. Gentleman put forward this as a scheme for the special benefit of farmers?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELIt is expected that farmers generally will support it more than anyone else. If you included people in the neighbourhood of a village it would only mean that you would have to apply it to all the residents of the village.
§ Mr. NIELDasked whether, in the arbitration between the Postmaster-General and the National Telephone Company to ascertain the price to be paid for the acquisition of the telephone system of the company, the agreements for wayleaves are or will be treated as subsisting and continuing obligations to be taken into account for the purpose of obtaining a reduction in the price to be paid to the company for the undertaking?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI cannot make any statement in anticipation of the 408 proceedings as to the course which will be taken before the Railway and Canal Commissioners.
§ Mr. NIELDasked (1) whether the Postmaster-General is aware that his name has been used by his Departmental officials as repudiating agreements for wayleaves for telephone poles and wires entered into by the National Telephone Company with public bodies and others; and, if so, in view of such repudiation exposing the Department to charges of a gross breach of faith, will he reconsider the matter and direct that such agreements shall be duly observed in the same way as other obligations transferred to the Post Office with the undertaking of the company; (2) if the Postmaster-General will state why agreements entered into by the National Telephone Company with public bodies and persons for wayleaves for telephone poles and wires are not binding upon him; why any distinction should be made when the service rendered is precisely the same; on what ground and in pursuance of what statutory authority or contractual rights does the Post Office demand to have a continuance of a service and repudiate the obligation to pay for the same, and thus place itself beyond and above the Common Law and that relating to contracts in force as between the subjects of His Majesty in this country?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI am advised that the agreements relating to wayleaves on private property negotiated by the National Telephone Company are not legally binding either upon me or upon the property owners, but in the majority of cases I am continuing similar arrangements. The Postmaster-General's rights of constructing telegraphs on public roads, railways, and canals, are regulated by numerous Statutes and Agreements, and I should not be justified in continuing payments made for the user of public roads, railways, and canals by the company, who had no such rights.