§ 63. Sir JOHN RANDLESasked the Postmaster-General when the present tender for advertisements in the General Post Office telephone book expires and, before renewing the same, will the tenders be asked for publicly; and will he consider the question of dropping all advertisements out of this publication if a sufficiently strong representation to this effect be made to him?
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel)The present contract with the advertising agency in respect of advertisements in the telephone directories expires on the 31st January, 1915. Before renewing the contract, the question of asking for tenders publicly will be considered. I do not think that the large financial sacrifice which would result from adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member as to omitting all advertisements from this publication would be justified.
§ 64. Sir J. RANDLESasked by whose authority have telephone subscribers to pay an increased price for a special type entry in the General Post Office telephone book for an entry which has previously appeared gratis; and whether it is permissible for a telephone subscriber to have an additional entry at a cost of one guinea for any address he chooses, regardless of the fact that he may not have a telephone at the second address?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELThere has been no increase in the tariff for special type entries in the directory. A number of such entries and additional entries in ordinary type were, however, accepted at reduced rates, or free of charge, by the National Telephone Company. The Postmaster General is precluded from showing favour or preference, and since the transfer of the company's system to the Post Office full rates for all such entries must be charged unless they are covered by existing telephone contract. The answer to the remaining question of the hon Member is in the negative.
§ Sir J. RANDLESWould it necessitate any preference if everybody were treated alike and if the right hon. Gentleman 1630 followed the practice of the National Telephone Company?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELI understand that the National Telephone Company did give a preference, in certain cases, in charging less or nothing at all for certain entries. I cannot do that.
§ 65. Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYasked the Postmaster-General whether his attention has been called to the case of a subscriber in Halstead, Essex, to the telephone, whose printing works were destroyed by fire and whose telephone instrument was in consequence burnt; whether the Post Office are claiming the amount of the cost of the apparatus from the subscriber, although it was not his property and was not insured; and whether he will reconsider the circumstances with a view to withdrawing the claim for the accidental loss of the apparatus, not in any way contributed to by the subscriber?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELMy attention has been drawn to the case to which the hon. Member refers. The subscriber in question is, in common with all telephone subscribers, liable, under his agreement, for the destruction or damage by fire or other accident of his telephone apparatus—a risk which he ought to have covered by insurance—and I regret I am unable to waive the claim in this instance.
§ Sir F. FLANNERYDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think this is a hard and unconscionable use of the powers given him by the Act, where the loss of the instrument was entirely accidental and in no way attributable to carelessness?
§ Mr. HERBERT SAMUELNo, I think it a most reasonable and necessary regulation. The telephone instrument is lent to the subscriber, and it is his duty to insure against risk of fire and consequent destruction of property situated on his premises.