§ 41. Mr. HIGHAMasked the Postmaster-General whether he is in a position to state the round number of telephone calls which were sent through the exchanges of the United Kingdom during 1920; what proportion of these were on the flat-rate basis; will he state how many flat-rate users there are who originate less than 2,000 calls per annum; and whether, in regard to trunk calls, he can state how many users there are where the new rate will be less than the present one?
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHThe approximate number of telephone calls effected in the year ended 31st March, 1920, was about 850,000,000. Of these, about 40 per cent. were made by existing flat-rate subscribers. About 50,000 of the present flat-rate users (including the £8 residence flat-rate) do not originate 2,000 calls per annum. I have no figures as to the distribution of trunk calls between different users, but it is estimated that as regards 25 per cent. of the existing trunk calls the new charge will be lower than the old.
43. Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSasked the Postmaster-General whether he can give the approximate number of telephone calls with which he expects the telephone service to deal every year under his proposed universal measured rate; how many extra officials will be necessary for the registering and collection of charges; and what will be the annual cost of their salaries?
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHThe number of telephone calls is materially affected by the existing trade depression. Making due allowance for this and for a probable reduction in the calling rate, especially of flat-rate subscribers on the introduction of the new tariff, the number of calls in 1921–22 is roughly estimated at between 800 and 850 millions. The additional staff required for registering calls and collecting charges under the new tariff is estimated to be 150 at an annual cost in salaries of £23,000.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSDoes the right hon. Gentleman think that with a staff of 100 to 150 he will be able to ensure an accurate presenting of accounts and an avoidance of the present very prevalent 750 complaints that such accounts are inaccurate?
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHYes, I think so. I would remind the hon. Member that there are already 90 per cent. of the subscribers charged in this way.
Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESSCan the right hon. Gentleman say, in connection with the figure of 800,000,000 calls, what is the present number of cases dealt with and for what reduction allowance is made?
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHI think I said 850,000,000 in answer to the previous question.
§ 73 and 74. Mr. PENNEFATHERasked the Postmaster-General (1) if his attention has been drawn to a resolution passed by the Finance Committee of the Liverpool Corporation in regard to the proposed increase of telephone rates; is he aware that it is estimated that if these increases came into effect it would add some £7,000 to the rates; what steps does he propose to take in the matter;
(2) if he is aware that the proposed new telephone charges, if applied to the Liverpool Co-operative Society, would mean an increase of £506 per annum over the present charge of £536, or nearly double, and that this society, which had intended to increase the number of telephones in use in its business, is, in view of the proposed increase, considering a reduction in the existing number; and will he inquire into this?
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHAs the cost of the service will in future be based mainly upon the number of calls made, it is not possible to check the estimates of individual subscribers. Where the additional cost is heavy, it is due partly to the user being large, and partly to the advantage which the subscriber has previously enjoyed of a rate considerably below the cost of providing the service.
§ 75. Mr. MILLSasked the Postmaster-General, with reference to the assertions that the late National Telephone Company made a considerable profit on its operations, how much it cost the Post Office to raise the low rates of wage and pensions paid by the company to the State level?
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHThe cost of levelling up the wages of the transferred staff was £158,000 per annum in 1912, and the charge against the telephone accounts to meet the pension liability of the same staff was £243,000, as compared with the company's contribution to the pension fund of £13,000.