§ Major COLFOXI beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the word "thirty-two," and to insert instead thereof the word "twenty-five."
The effect of this Amendment is, of course, to reduce by £7,000,000 the amount of money which the Government are to be entitled to use for capital purposes for developing the postal and telegraph services. I move it in order to call attention to the fact that the nation's finances are in a perilously dangerous condition, a fact which appears to have escaped the notice of every Member of the Government and of every one of their supporters. Of course, I recognise 2126 that this money is to be spent, partly, at any rate, if not entirely, on remunerative services which, it is hoped at any rate, will earn a return on the capital invested in them. I do not pose as an authority on the subject of how much capital the Post Office can usefully, at this present juncture, invest in these works, but I do say most emphatically that the present is not a time to go in for any reckless extravagance, nor is it a time to go in for any capital outlay except that which will earn an immediate and direct and substantial return. It is in order again to try to persuade the representatives of the Government to give the House some inkling as to their ideas and their intentions and the way in which they hope and expect to be able usefully to invest this money that I move the Amendment.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKI support the Amendment in order that we may get a further explanation from the Postmaster-General in addition to what we heard on Friday. The Assistant Postmaster-General said that all but £2,800,000 of the sum required was for telephones, but the House never heard any more about that £2,800,000. It would be a pleasure to all of us to know exactly the part of the postal service for which that sum is earmarked. £25,000,000 is a very vast sum. We have got accustomed to talking in millions, even the millions of people unemployed since the Government took office. We rather lose sight of how vast a sum it is. Taking it at its normal, or even 2127 abnormal development which was promised, and which will certainly not be realised by the present Government, that would represent over two years' expenditure. The Government are not likely to last two years, and it is as well to put some sort of statutory limit, less than the amount that they demand but sufficient to carry on the hand to mouth existence which is unfortunately their lot.
The whole question of the telephones is one which the Government have always talked a great deal about but have done very little for. The same may be said of the Liberal party. The two watch-dogs from Cornwall are here to see that anything that appears in a yellow or any other kind of book is supported by the Government in regard to telephones. I have never been able to understand, whether £32,000,000 or £25,000,000 is to be expended in the period in question, why the Government and their allies think it is going to be a great help with regard to unemployment. The great proportion of this too vast sum is obviously to be devoted to buying sites for new telephone exchanges, and one reason for moving this Amendment is to draw attention to what I am sure is well within the knowledge of great masses of Members of the House, the apparently uneconomic system under which the Post Office Telegraphs Department purchases sites. Of course, it does it in conjunction with the Office of Works, but if you ever go up the North Road, as I do, you would be surprised, as I am, to find how in different places brand new telephone exchanges have been built.
I do not want the excuse that it was done by their predecessors, because the same policy is still going on, and I blame their predecessors, if it is their fault, as much as hon. Members opposite. I say that in order to forestall any kind of criticism of that sort. I know the ineffectiveness of the present Government. They always shield themselves behind what someone else has done. You will find examples, for instance, on Finchley Road; and when you come to Hendon you find the same thing. I admit that they are very beautiful, very nicely built in the best Georgian style, red-brick, telephone exchanges, bang upon those big trunk roads on sites which must be of very great value if we are to believe 2128 what is said on the Finance Bill with regard to site values arising out of trunk roads. I cannot for the life of me see why telephone exchanges should be put upon the main road at all. There has been a great deal of talk with regard to Employment Exchanges being put upon main roads, and the explanation is that you have to have them somewhere handy for the unemployed, but, when you come to telephone exchanges, there is no point in it, because the only people who appear to go into telephone exchanges are visitors. That is no excuse for putting them upon the trunk roads. Any place is just as good for wires coming in and messages going out as main roads.
Keeping one's eyes open as one drives about the countryside, and in our big cities, and in this great metropolis of ours, I can quote other instances. I quote the instance of the exchange outside Sloan Station on the Underground which has been placed upon an admirable site. It is quite unnecessary there. There is a lot of property in the neighbourhood which I should say is not worth one-fifth of the land upon which the telephone exchange is built. I hope that by reducing this sum to £25,000,000 there will be a little less to jingle in the pockets of the Postmaster-General or the First Commissioner of Works, so that between them they cannot carry on this policy of putting telephone exchanges upon sites which are found to be too valuable. There is a great deal more to be said about the telephones than that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If there is one thing which has been remarkable it has been the speeches of the Assistant Postmaster-General and the Postmaster-General during the past week on the subject of telephones.
I assume, in the absence of information to the contrary, that some part of the £2,800,000 which is not going to telephones, and which would not be part of the £7,000,000 which we propose should be cut out, must in some way go towards the postal services. The Assistant Postmaster-General prided himself upon the efficiency and the actual speed with which letters which are posted get delivered. If any of this money is going towards developing that service—I do not quite know in what way, as there was no explanation given—I warn the 2129 Postmaster-General to be a little careful. If the postal services are so good as was claimed, there is very little ground for spending any more money. It would be pure waste. As a matter of fact, I join with the Postmaster-General for once in a way and congratulate him about the postal services.
I think that the speed with which letters are delivered in London is quite amazing, but I leave it at London. I will given an instance which happened to me last week. Someone rang me up at half-past ten, and, as a result of a telephone message, they wrote a letter which came through the post and was delivered in another part of London to my house by the one o'clock postal delivery. I think that that is astounding, but I wish it were true of other parts of the country. It is not true by a very long way. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is the Labour Government!"] The Labour Government have not captured London yet, and I suppose that that is why London services are so good. In some of the cities, and in the rural areas outside the Metropolis the deliveries are pitiful beyond words. The absence of deliveries over the week-end is a matter to which some of the £2,800,000 might well be devoted, but how it may be done I do not know, because it is a capital charge.
I suppose that one of the objects on which some of the money will be spent will be telephone kiosks, as the Post Office, under the present régime, pride themselves on having built kiosks. I do not think kiosks ought to be encouraged. That is one of the reasons why I support the Amendment. Of all the abominations that have sprung up in the last two or three years nothing could be worse than these wretched telephone kiosks along our main streets. Very often they are placed in unsuitable positions from the point of view of communication, and also from the point of view of amenities, whether urban or rural. If at any time there was a queue of people waiting to telephone at any of these places, it would have a very dangerous effect upon the traffic control. I do not think there is any system about putting up the kiosks. If there are 10,000 of them along our public thoroughfares, I am very sorry, and I hope that no more of them will be put up.
2130 If it is intended to improve rural call offices, I hope that a proportion of the £25,000,000 will be spent in that way. Instead of the Post Office saying how they are linking up the countryside for big business, we find that again and again the call office is put in a small post office. If you want to telephone something of a special nature, something of an intelligent anticipation of the result of the three-thirty, something that you do not want known by everybody, you go into the call office, which may be in a grocer's shop, or a chemist's shop, and the conversation is not private at all. The whole point of telephone conversation is that it should be private between yourselves and the gentleman or lady at the other end. If you go into the small shop and try to get your message through, you hear a succession of people buying patent medicines, or jujubes, or a thousand and one things, and the numerous occupations or pastimes of the village shop go on. That destroys the whole point of having a call office there. It is either a waste of money from the point of view of the telephone user to have the call office there or, alternatively, the Post Office must spend some of the £25,000,000 which we propose to allow them on the improvement of the privacy of the rural call offices.
If there is one thing of which everyone connected with a rural constituency, as I am, complains in regard to the telephone service, it is the delay which elapses if you want to be linked up to the telephone. I have in mind a case which I put before the Postmaster-General, or it may be his predecessor, because Postmasters-General come and go so quickly that one hardly knows with whom one is corresponding at any given moment. The Assistant Postmaster-General, with his usual courtesy, still stays on, and we are sure, in an uncertain world, to find him at the other end of the telephone. The case in question is, of course, still incomplete, and it is that of a doctor, a constituent of mine, who bought a practice, and 15 months have passed, and he is still without a telephone. The death of every man, woman or child that has occurred in the district with which that doctor is concerned, I put down to the account of the Post Office. The doctor is willing 2131 to pay for the telephone, but he cannot get connected. First they send one lot of inspectors, then another lot of inspectors, and they say: "If you will wait three months we are going to have a new system and it will be cheaper." That happens all over the place. The only point of having a telephone at all is that if you are prepared to pay for it—and they are not given away by any means—you should be linked up with the national system as soon as possible. The countryside has quite a good deal chalked up against the Post Office, and if the Department is going to be granted the power to spend £25,000,000, we who sit for rural constituencies have not only the right but the duty to ask that something more should be done in regard to telephones in the rural areas. All this party line business, the question of having three, or four, or five people on the line, and every time the bell rings having to listen whether it rings twice, or three times, or four times, with your heart beating as you listen for the rings, is very unsatisfactory. It may be cheaper, but, unless it is very much cheaper and more effective, it is not a good way of having a telephone connection, because you are, again, depriving yourself of a certain amount of privacy. Someone else may be wanting to ring you up and at the same time gets all the other people on the party line. That is not satisfactory. I suggest that some of the £25,000,000 might be used towards doing something in that direction. If the telephones in London were run on that system there would be such chaos that it would come to an end within a month, but anything apparently is good enough for the countryside. Poor people in the country districts have to put up with antics which the citizens in the great towns and cities would not tolerate for five minutes.
I do not know, although I have done my best to find out, for what exactly this money is to be used. Advertising is not covered because that is not capital expenditure; and intensive advertising of "use the telephone more," or "we have nicer and brighter instruments," would come under the Vote. The Postmaster-General says that they now have a large number of spare parts; I mean the Post Office, not the Postmaster-General. The 2132 hon. Member expressed his pride that the Post Office had enough spare parts to go on for a long time. If that is so I do not see that they require so much money. The country is going through an economic crisis. That is all that hon. Members opposite can say. They call it an economic blizzard. Obviously it is not a good thing to borrow too much for capital for public services in an economic blizzard. At any rate, we on this side do not think it is, and a fortiori it is a bad thing to borrow a lot of money on spare parts if you have all the spare parts you want. I want to hear a good deal more from the hon. Member about spare parts. He is pleased with the Post Office. He has not been there very long; and I suppose he will not be there very long. If we have had 25 Postmasters-General in 50 years we are just as likely to have 26 in 51 years.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESPosting is a moveable thing.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKThat must be a quotation from the Yellow Book, because I do not recognise it as a very valuable interjection to my remarks. The Postmaster-General is very proud of his Post Office. He said that the Post Office already supplies a good service. He told us that the other day, and said that he would not stand in a white sheet about telephones. He must be the only person in the world who is not prepared to stand in a white sheet about telephones, because the more one hears telephones discussed, the more one goes into the matter oneself, the more convinced one becomes that it is a very bad service, and that it ought to be immeasurably better for the price that we have to pay for it. Of course, if it was a cheap and nasty thing, one might be inclined to say, "It does not cost very much, and we cannot help ourselves," but it is a frightfully expensive service. From 10,000 to 12,000 subscribers give up the telephone service every year because they cannot afford to pay any more, and because the service is so bad, and they are charged for all sorts of fancy calls that they know they have never had. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will use some of the £32,000,000 or £25,000,000 on a little more experimenting to see, for example, whether he cannot get some better system of checking calls. Before 2133 the War, I believe, the Post Office used to keep some kind of record of the letters sorted per minute per person, and there were comparable statistics. They may still exist, for all I know. Is there anything of the kind done with regard to the connections made by telephone operators? Could not some of this money be used for experiments. It ought not to be beyond the wit of man to devise some automatic system recording for each telephone instrument how many calls are made. It might be possible to invent some method by which every time a receiver is taken off there would be some kind of automatic check on an instrument to show how many times a call had been made. [Interruption.] I must apologise for interrupting the conversation amongst hon. Members opposite.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKI have summed up the case that I wanted to put to the Postmaster-General. I hope that he will realise that £32,000,000 is rather too much to ask this House to part with at present. It has to be remembered that if the Bill goes through—and we do not know much about it—the Estimates will be approved by the Treasury and Parliament will not be concerned with it again until the next demand, after a period of two or three years, when this money has been exhausted. We think that £25,000,000 is quite enough. We think that there is ample ground for doing a great deal more development work in the rural areas with regard to telephones. We think that the sites bought for exchanges are in many cases far too valuable for that kind of purpose. We think that there are grounds for improving the call boxes in the small post offices in the countryside. We think that a case has been made out for reducing telephone charges; we would like to know what the £2,750,000, which is not for telephones, is for, and we adhere to the view that, in spite of the fact that the Postmaster-General is not in a white sheet, or any fancy garment of that kind, he has not yet proved the case which he set out to prove. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harwich (Mr. Pybus) is very vocal. I understand that he is advertising in Holland "Come to Britain," and he seems to think that this House is a good 2134 place in which to advertise "Come to the Liberal party."
§ Mr. PYBUS rose—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he must not remain standing if the hon. Member who is addressing the Committee does not give way.
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKSOn a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to turn his back to the Chair and address another hon. Member?
§ The CHAIRMANIt would be better if hon. Members on both sides of the Committee made a practice of always addressing the Chair.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKI was just about to finish by reminding the right hon. Gentleman of exactly why we were moving this Amendment. The Postmaster-General says that he is not in a white sheet, but he said nothing on Friday in answer to the points which were raised. I am waiting optimistically to hear whether he has anything to say now in reply to what hon. Members on this side have so conclusively proved—that owing to the way in which the telephones have been run during the last decade, the time has come for the Government seriously to consider whether the whole service should not be divorced from the Post Office and put into some form of public utility corporation.
§ The CHAIRMANThat matter does not arise on this occasion.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKI apologise if my last words were out of order but I had finished.
§ Sir DONALD MACLEANI do not know where the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) spent the week-end, but the change in his attitude to-night, from that adopted by hon. Members above the Gangway on Friday last is so complete as to provoke in an ordinary Member like myself a certain amount of wonderment.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKMay I tell the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Sir D. MACLEANI do not think that I require any information from the hon. and gallant Member. [Interruption.] I 2135 do not require any more information from the hon. Member, because on Friday the Noble Lord who was then leading his party was very dissatisfied with the amount of money which the Government proposed to spend, and on two points on which he addressed the House he made some very interesting remarks. He said, referring to the unemployment aspect of the scheme:
How have America dealt with the situation? Although there has been this great falling off in telephone demands in America, in 1930 the American Bell Company spent £117,000,000 on telephone development.Why did they do that? The Noble Lord went on to say:In the first place to give employment to their fellow countrymen at a time of unemployment; and, secondly, in order that they may be prepared in every part of their 6ysiem to take advantage of the demands which they know will come directly times improve. I commend that example very respectfully to the Postmaster-General."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1931; cols. 1506–7, Vol. 252.]But there must be some other reason than the reasons which he has stated why this Amendment has been moved, and why the House has been kept to this late hour and will, I suppose, be kept a considerable time still.
§ Viscount WOLMERI am sorry that the Postmaster-General has not risen, because I should have been in the happy position of being able to support him. I rise to say that I am afraid that I shall not be able to support my hon. Friends in their Amendment, and I hope that they will not press it to a Division. Of course, I recognise, and we all know, that the constitutional method—and I think that is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down—of drawing attention to grievances is to move a reduction of the Vote, a thing that we have all done, even though we did not desire to see the total expenditure reduced. Therefore, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) was perfectly in order in making this proposal, and I am in thorough agreement with many of the criticisms that he made with regard to the Post Office, but in my view these matters could really be better raised on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," because on that very big question all these matters can 2136 be discussed, and ought to be discussed; and I am sure that hon. Members opposite, who believe in Parliamentary control of the Post Office and who are always boasting of the opportunities that we have in this House for raising these matters, will not grudge us two or three hours in which to discuss these questions.
Personally, I could not vote for a reduction in this expenditure. I am just as keen on economy as is my hon. and gallant Friend, but this is capital investment, and my complaint against the Government, and against the whole system on which our telephones are run, is that we are not developing that great industry anything like as fast as we ought to be developing it. That is a question which can be discussed on the Question, "That the Clause stand part," and I hope we shall discuss it on that Question, and discuss it fully, because there is a great number of points which were left unsettled as a result of the speeches of the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General on the Second Reading of the Bill. I am sure it would be a great mistake to try to curtail the amount of money at the disposal of the Government for developing telephones. I want to give them all the money that they can usefully and profitably spend. I quite agree that we must not spend money unremuneratively, but the telephone service, when properly run, can make a profit. I want to see the amount of capital invested in the telephone service greatly expanded; I want to see it giving more employment and making more profits for the State, or for the public utility company, whichever it is. I want to see the service develop, and we cannot do that by limiting the amount of money at the disposal of the Postmaster-General. The hon. Gentleman is not making anything like an adequate contribution towards solving the unemployment problem. I want to give him no excuse that we have any responsibility in the matter. The more money he asks for, provided he can say that it will be economically and profitably spent, the better pleased I shall be, but he must show that he is capable of running the service at a profit.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYI desire to bring to the attention of the Postmaster-General a matter in connection with 2137 telephones that affects my constituents. If this money is to be devoted to the development of the telephone service, we must have an efficient service to offer to the new subscribers, and unless we can satisfy those who are already subscribers, many of them will discontinue using the telephone, and we shall not have to use this money on development. I want to draw attention to the money that has to be deposited by subscribers against their trunk call accounts.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is a matter that arises on the Post Office Vote, and not on this Bill.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYI am suggesting that this will deter the development of the telephone service. Owing to this question having come so prominently before subscribers, and the fact that they have been threatened in some cases with a discontinuance of the service, I am satisfied that we shall not require this large sum of money for development because we shall have the telephones of the people who have given up using them, and these can be let to people who are not yet using them. There is the question whether this money is required. I was told by the Postmaster-General on the 11th May that he had £2,804,000 in hand belonging to subscribers, and that it was yielding £133,000 in interest a year. In my constituency, we have over 600 fish merchants who have to use the telephone extensively; many of them are in a small way of business, and it is a serious inroad on their capital to have to find this deposit. If they increase their business, that means an increased use of the telephone, and the deposit is increased accordingly. The hon. Gentleman said he was inquiring into this matter. Is he doing it now, or will he do it at some later date? It is a matter of great urgency, particularly in view of the fact that we are asked to vote a large sum of money for development. The best advertisement you can have for the telephone is an efficient service. Another point is that if we are to get people to use the telegraph service more and so justify us in going in for developments we must deal with the question of losses occasioned by errors on the part of operators in the transmission of telegrams. I have had on many occasions to bring to the notice of the right 2138 hon. Gentleman cases in which mistakes have been made in the prices of fish—
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member must reserve those references to the Post Office Vote. We are dealing here with developments.
§ Viscount WOLMERIs not my hon. Friend in order in advocating an extension of the telegraph service, so that these errors may become less frequent?
§ The CHAIRMANHe may advocate an extension of the system, but questions of administration cannot be raised.
Earl WINTERTONI do not wish to contest your Ruling, but with some experience of the House it seems to me a somewhat novel Ruling and I am anxious to know what it entails. The proposal before us is to spend a sum of £32,000,000
as may be required by the Postmaster-General for developing according to estimates approved by the Treasury, the postal, telegraphic and telephonic systems.I submit that when the Committee are considering a proposal of this kind it is open to any hon. Member to discuss how the money shall be spent, and that the existing telegraphic system may well be taken into account. How can hon. Members decide to authorise the expenditure of the additional money if they cannot express their satisfaction with the way in which the existing system is being carried on? This is a proposal to spend money on the postal, telephone and telegraph systems and I submit that, within limits, it is in order to discuss the existing system.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Noble Lord has just said "within limits" and I agree, but the hon. Member for Grimsby was going beyond the limits.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYWe are asked to vote money for the benefit of the postal, telegraph and telephone services—
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYYes, it is a fact that we want to develop the fish trade, because it is the one industry in this country which has increased employment in the past year.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYNo.
§ The CHAIRMANWe cannot have a discussion as to the merits of Hull and Grimsby.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYSurely you will give me the right to reply? Grimsby was the pioneer that made the fishing industry. I suggest that a development of the telegraph service can be brought about by an increased use of the service by the people engaged in this industry, but that we shall not get it unless there is satisfaction with the service. In some cases there has been a difference of 4s. a stone in the prices of the fish, and the man who has received the inaccurate telegram has ordered three times as much fish as he otherwise would have done, and that has meant a tremendous loss. I have been requested by my constituents to oppose this proposal unless we get some satisfaction from the Post Office.
§ Mr. HALL-CAINEIt has become a fashion among certain hon. Members to say that the telephone system of this country is atrociously bad. I have often been in the United States, over a period of 14 or 15 years, and I have understood that, according to Americans, the system in the United States is the worst in the world. I can only imagine that the people of each country have the impression that their own particular system is the worst there is. I should like to ask the Postmaster-General whether this money will enable him to make some provision for facilities for telegraphing money on Sundays. There are cases which might arise which might be of a serious character. I happen to know one case which occurred only last Sunday, in which it was desirable to call a certain person back to this country beause a relative was dangerously ill, and it was necessary to telegraph money to enable that person to return. On inquiry at the telegraph office it was found that there were no facilities for sending the money. The result was that a delay occurred in getting the person back and the relative died without seeing him. Even if it is a question of only one or two lives, I suggest that these facilities ought to be granted, and, if this money would help the Postmaster-General to do so, I should strongly support it. I have only given one instance, but there are many cases in which it is necessary to send money in this way. Therefore, I do ask the right 2140 hon. Gentleman whether he proposes to use any of this money to give these facilities on Sundays. After all, it is not a banking transaction, and there is no reason why the money should not be telegraphed.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGEWe all have grievances against the Post Office, and naturally put the case of our constituents. I would like to put the case for the rural areas. In Lindsey a year ago there were 16 parishes with over 200 inhabitants which were without a telephone. There is one close to me, an ecclesiastical parish with over 300 inhabitants, which is four miles from the nearest telephone call box. Why does not the Postmaster-General cast his bread upon the waters and try to get an interest in telephone development in those parts? I would also like to draw attention to the instructions given to his inspectors who are sent round to put forward an impossible case. I am on a party line because that is the only way we in rural areas can get a telephone. An inspector called on me and proposed that I should go on an automatic exchange, which needs a minimum of six or eight subscribers. In the first place, the cost would be £6 or £7 a year more. Secondly, I should have to pay twopence a call. The third snag was that the people who were left on the party line would have to pay the amount of my subscription. Those are three bad snags. Why should the other subscribers have to pay if one man leaves a party line, especially to go on an automatic exchange?
One of my constituents had an experience about call boxes similar to that already described. It was one of those kitchen telephones, and he could not get-through because there was an infant there who was going to have convulsions. It is absurd to have this kind of call box where infants and cats and clogs and hens can come in and interrupt. We want an assurance from the Postmaster-General that he will put these rural call boxes in proper places.
12 m.
We do not know, from the statement of the Minister, how he distinguishes between capital expenditure and ordinary year-to-year expenditure, and I can see the difficulties of the Chair in deciding whether these matters should be discussed on this Bill or on the Post Office Vote. 2141 Is this money to be spent on putting up telephone stations, or on automatic exchanges Is every telephone that is installed in a house a matter of capital expenditure or year-to-year expenditure? We should be better advised as to how we should vote if we heard how the distinction is to be made, because, from the point of view of economy, there is nothing so wrong as to be unable to separate capital from yearly expenditure. That has been the fault of the whole Department in the past, and I hope that a new system will be instituted, so that the House may know what is capital and what is yearly expenditure.
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Attlee)I think the Noble Lord the. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) will recognise that the attacks which have been made from the back benches on his side of the Committee have been attacks more on his administration than on mine, and he has pointed out their errors. As a matter of fact, I was going to give the Noble Lord a first-class advertisement, for I was going to ask the hon. and gallant Member for West Dorset (Major Colfox) to read the extremely eloquent speech which the Noble Lord made a few days ago on that subject. On the whole, I think the hon. and gallant Member has been fully answered by the Noble Lord. I do not think that anyone could answer completely the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank). He gave us a rather long and chatty account of his life history with regard to the telephone, and, between him, the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) and the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), we have had placed before us a series of rural scenes in Lincolnshire and a number of more or less interesting stories. Most of the complaints were, as was recognised by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth, complaints relating to administration, and, accordingly, would not come within the scope of discussions on this Bill, which, as the hon. and gallant Member said, deals with capital expenditure. I shall be very pleased to deal with those points on the proper occasion, but I should be out of order if I attempted to deal now with 2142 the fish and kitchen points, because they are purely points of administration.
§ Mr. WOMERSLEYSurely the hon. Gentleman will agree that, if the Committee which is inquiring into the question of development makes a favourable report, he will get more subscribers.
§ Mr. ATTLEEI know the case which the hon. Member has sent me, and it is receiving constant attention, but it would not be in order for me to discuss the details of the matter, nor to discuss the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Everton (Mr. Hall-Caine), which, again, was a point of administration. I confess that I did not, perhaps, quite fully grasp the details of that complaint. I think it is abundantly clear that the subject of this Amendment is no party question—that the Division is not on party lines, but merely between hon. Members on the benches opposite, who have happened to be present, one at one Debate and one at another, and who have not heard all that has been said. I leave them to cancel out, and I rest my case against the Amendment on the ground of the long experience of the Noble Lord, some five years—much longer than the average tenure of office of a Postmaster-General. The Government cannot accept the Amendment.
Earl WINTERTONThe Government is so united, its supporters so thoroughly agree with its policy and are so friendly with each other that they can afford to speak of the very small differences between my hon. Friends behind me and my Noble Friend in the contemptuous tone that the Postmaster-General has employed. As a matter of fact, the difference of opinion is very small if it exists at all. What my hon. Friends have endeavoured to ascertain are the reasons for which the House is asked to authorise the spending of this large sum of money. My Noble Friend has pointed out that he has no objection to the spending of money if it is productive expenditure. As far as I know, my hon. Friends have exactly the same view, but they want to know what are the reasons which have induced the Government to come forward with these proposals. The hon. Gentleman has been talking about questions which have been answered. There is one question which 2143 has most emphatically not been answered in any of the Debates that we have had in connection with the Bill. That is the mystery—for it is nothing less—which has arisen over the statement made originally by the Lord Privy Seal on the subject of telephone development, the actual results which have followed that speech and, further, the request for this large sum of money. May I recall what the right hon. Gentleman said in 1929:
We have no right to say to a private employer, 'You speed up' without making a similar appeal to Government Departments. Consequently, we asked the Post Office what they would do. In response to the appeal we made, the Post Office have decided to accelerate their programme, and they propose spending £750,000 this year and £750,000 next year on extensions of the telephone programme.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1929; col. 666, Vol. 231.]That was in the days of the Dominion Secretary's most splendid expansiveness, when everything in the Government garden was lovely and promised the most wonderful blooms in the future. After that speech we naturally expected that there would be some attempt to put what was a definite pledge into operation. What are the figures of the actual expansion that has taken place? They were given by my Noble Friend previously but no answer of any kind was made by the Postmaster-General. In 1929 the money spent on telephone development was £10,199,000, in 1930–31 £10,054,000 and in 1930–31 £10,000,000. So that for the financial year that has just closed it was less than the last year when the late Government was in office, though the Lord Privy Seal said that they were going to spend £750,000,000. [Interruption.] There is some excuse for that slip, because in the same Debate the hon. Baronet the Member for Smethwick (Sir O. Mosley) gave figures which at one period of his speech he described as £7,000,000 and at another as £70,000,000. The actual figure was £750,000. In view of this statement and of the serious issues involved, one would have supposed that the Postmaster-General, in the course of the previous discussion, would have given the reasons for this remarkable gap or the complete difference between the promise which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and what actually has occurred. 2144 I understand that on a previous occasion the Postmaster-General did say that the alteration in what was promised was due to the fact that the costs of production of telephones had greatly decreased. Does it account—and this is a question which I hope will be answered either by the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General—for the whole of this vast mistake in the Estimate? That is to say, is it a fact that they have actually developed the telephone system to the extent promised by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, and that the great fall in the cost of materials is responsible for the fact that the sum of money is not greater? If that is so, I hope that you will allow me to ask the following question of the Postmaster-General. Why has this remarkable fall in the cost of construction not been passed on in some way to the consumer—that is, the user? That is a substantial point which ought to be answered, and can be answered very shortly. In the absence of any reply, my hon. Friends are entitled to move the reduction that they have moved, because it would not seem, on the face of it, to be necessary to vote this extra sum of money in view of the fact that the Government have not expended the money that they said they would expend.
§ Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTESome years ago I was successful in the Ballot for Notices of Motion in this House and was fortunate in drawing first place on Civil Service Estimates. I introduced a discussion on the question of the Post Office, and I was able to make certain suggestions at that time. I am glad to say that great developments have taken place since then. I am not one of those who are always running down the Post Office and the telephone system and saying that they are very bad, but there is still a great deal of room for improvement and development. Reference was made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) to the economic blizzard behind which the Government are trying to take shelter. I am sorry to say that the officials of the Post Office have got into the same habit. When telephone lines break down they take shelter behind the blizzard.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member is getting rather wide of the Amendment.
§ Lieut. - Colonel ACLAND - TROYTEI will leave that point. I wish to say something with regard to the postal service before I come back to telephones. The postal service is another thing which might be improved by a certain amount of capital expenditure. There are many villages round me which do not get a second post. They have only one post in the morning.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member is clearly going beyond the limits of the discussion.
§ Sir KINGSLEY WOODOn that point of Order. I have been looking up exactly what was allowed on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I find that on several occasions the Postmaster-General brought the Service into the discussion. He said:
We believe that we are already supplying a good service."—[OFFICIAL REPOET, 15th May, 1931; col. 1553, Vol. 252.]And he devoted a considerable portion of his speech to that particular matter, as also did the Assistant Postmaster-General. I think that Mr. Speaker was in the Chair. The Assistant Postmaster-General actually commenced his speech by saying:We are anticipating, as a result of an intensified system of canvassing and so on, that we shall be able to increase the demand for the telephone service, and we shall be able, we hope, at no distant date, to justify our asking for a further sum."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1931; col. 1495, Vol. 252.]I have marked other pages, in which the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster - General brought these matters into consideration in asking the House to gave a Second Reading to the Bill.
§ The CHAIRMANThis is not the Second Reading stage. This is the Committee stage, and we cannot traverse the whole case for Second Reading.
§ Viscount WOLMERSurely my hon. and gallant Friend is entitled to argue that there should be greater capital development to improve the postal service in particular villages by the provision of more vans, or more post offices, or any other things that could be provided by capital expenditure.
§ The CHAIRMANThe breaking down of wires has nothing to do with capital expenditure.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND - TROYTEMay I not refer to development of the postal service by means of motor bicycles?
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member can deal with development, but not with past administration.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEI will show where that development is necessary. Many villages have no second post. A second post might be provided by means of more vans or more motor bicycles. Papers arrive at a certain postal town at nine o'clock in the morning, but they are not delivered in a neighbouring village until next morning. If the postman was supplied with a motor bicycle he might go back and fetch the papers.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. and gallant Member is going beyond the scope of the business before us.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEShould I be in order in referring to the telephone charges made to nursing associations?
§ The CHAIRMANIf it affects development.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND- TROYTENursing associations are very important in country areas, and it is very important that the nurses should be on the telephone, but the Postmaster-General is very hard-hearted in regard to the matter. If a woman belongs to a nursing association or is a nurse whose name appears in the telephone directory, he insists on charging the business rate.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is purely administrative. This Bill is for the purpose of development.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND- TROYTEIf he did not make that charge more telephones would be used and more development would take place. I hope that he will make a cheaper charge in these worthy cases. I should like to know how much of the money will be spent this year, and how many men he considers will he employed.
§ Lieut.-Colonel GAULTI had no intention of intervening in this Debate, but the question is of so much importance to the country as a whole that I must say a few words in support of the Amendment and emphasise the necessity of improving telephonic communication in rural areas referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte). The committee presided over by Lord Weir reported that many economies could be effected if telephone and telegraphic communications were transferred from the Government to private ownership.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Postmaster-General is asking for this money for the development of the present services.
§ Mr. BRACKENIs it not in order to argue that the development of the telephones would be much quicker if it was placed in the hands of a public utility corporation?
§ The CHAIRMANIt is not in order to discuss the advantages of one system as against another. The Postmaster-General has come down to the Committee with a Bill for the development of the services over which he has control.
§ Lieut.-Colonel GAULTIf you compare the development that has taken place in other countries as compared with England you will find that it is much more rapid, and the Postmaster-General would be well advised to follow a progressive policy and not wait until he gets a certain number of subscribers in an area before going forward with the development of the service. In Canada, as a result of the progressive development of the telephone system, people living in the most remote areas are able to communicate with their neighbours in urban districts, whereas in England there is still room for improvement in that regard. The Postmaster-General would be well advised to concentrate upon a policy which would encourage subscribers far more than is the case at present. The costs of the telephone system in this country compared with other countries are very high, and if our telephone communications are to be developed satisfactorily, the Postmaster-General must pay great attention to the necessity and desirability of lowering these costs. I sincerely trust that he will bear these two points in mind and will endeavour to see both that the costs 2148 to the consumer are reduced on the general basis of getting a larger number of subscribers, and that progress is made with a policy that will give satisfaction to the rural districts.
§ Mr. ALBERYI want to raise a question that has to do with Post Office development and is of particular importance to part of my constituency. I was not fortunate enough to be called before the Postmaster-General made his reply, but it happens that in this particular case the Assistant Postmaster-General, probably, is more conversant with the facts than is the Postmaster-General. In my constituency there is the urban district of Northfleet, which has a population of more than 20,000.
§ Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—
§ Mr. ALBERYI was about to say that this urban district council have taken every step in their power to draw the attention of the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General to the inadequate postal service which at present exists in that district. There is no Crown office in that district, which is an industrial area, indeed, a rapidly increasing industrial area. I can conceive of no district in which postal facilities are more necessary and where trade and industry are more likely to be hampered by inadequate Post Office facilities. That they themselves are warmly convinced of their need in this matter, is shown by the fact that the urban district councillors asked for a deputation to visit the Assistant Postmaster-General; and he received it. Various industries in that district also subscribed to a petition which was sent to the Assistant Postmaster-General. They have failed, however, and I myself am unable to discover up to the present what is the policy of the Post Office in the matter of granting a Crown office. All I can gather is this: they seem to think that unless a postal business exists for which postal facilities do not exist, they are not called upon to provide a Crown office. That does not take us very far. It is obvious that when the facilities are not available locally very great inconvenience is caused, as well as delay. One has to go and seek these conveniences elsewhere.
Most of the people in that district have to seek in Gravesend facilities they cannot 2149 get at Northfleet. The Post Office appears to think—quite contrary to any-ordinary industrial undertaking—that they only have to supply facilities when the want of them has long been definitely felt and shown; and I suppose they have some kind of charts or graphs which show that a certain state has at last been arrived at. The place seems to be developing and opportunities are seen for sinking fresh capital and putting up buildings to supply obvious new demands. His friends in the co-operative movement would tell the Postmaster-General that their method of doing business is very different from that. In an attempt the other day to get a little information as to what might be the governing factor of the Post Office in this matter, I asked the Postmaster-General to give me the number of urban district councils with a population of over 20,000 which have not got a Crown office and also the number of urban district councils with a population under 20,000 that have got one. The reply was that the information was not available. That appears to me to be a very remarkable state of affairs, because it seems to imply that either the Post Office do not know the populations of the districts they serve or do not know the districts in which they have got Crown offices. If that is the case, how can they exercise any sound judgment in this matter? This is a matter of real urgency, and I hope that we may have some reply.
§ Mr. BRACKENI have the great honour to speak to-night from a prominent position on the Liberal benches, and I do so with great zest because at the last General Election the Liberal party devoted a great part of their programme to the development of telephones. I intervene only because of the remarkable intervention of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), who raised some points of enormous public importance. One of these points, and the most important, was that the Lord Privy Seal's predecessor informed us that large schemes had been brought forward for the development of the telephone system. We were told that the Government had at last tackled this problem and were showing greater vigour than their predecessors. I do ask the Assistant Postmaster-General—and I protest against the gross discourtesy of the 2150 Postmaster-General in not being here in a Debate of this importance—
§ Mr. BRACKENI apologise, because I understand from the Lord Privy Seal that the Postmaster-General is getting something to eat. An opportunity now arises, however, for the newly appointed, active and busy Lord Privy Seal himself to contribute his quota to a Debate such as this. We are told that the Government have large schemes in hand for developing the Post Office system. Surely, we are entitled to know what those schemes are. The Debate has been singularly barren in ideas from the Government. We have had no help or guidance. I take my duties extraordinarily seriously, and I am bound to recur to the point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] If I am out of order I would direct your attention to the monstrous conduct of an hon. Member at the Bar in interrupting me.
§ The CHAIRMANI notice that one hon. Member is certainly out of order.
§ Mr. BRACKENI notice that, too; and I would like to call your attention to it. I recur to the point raised by the Noble Lord. You permitted the Noble Lord in your charity to raise it, and surely you will permit a more humble Member to do so.
§ The CHAIRMANI must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that this is not the first time he has asked that question.
§ Mr. BRACKENYes, indeed.
§ The CHAIRMANAlso that it Is a rule that there shall be no repetition.
§ Mr. BRACKENI am not a skilled debater, and I also know from experience that you have to address a question in four or five different forms before you get an answer.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is not answered four or five different ways, and that is why I am checking the hon. Member.
§ Mr. BRACKENI wish to reinforce the question that has been put to the Assistant Postmaster-General. We all realise that the Post Office in England 2151 is an entirely moribund institution and that we are, in regard to telephones, in a worse position per capita than Iceland. To be behind Iceland in our telephone development is a very serious charge against the Poet Office. It is sheltering behind the economic blizzard in a monstrous way. I do hope that, in addressing this appeal to the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has been left in such mute inglorious solitude, that we shall be told whether he thinks we are doing enough for our telephones. I do not think that we are. I am sure that the present Government who have pleaded for a vigorous economic development will not let an opportunity such as this pass without putting real force behind this idea of telephone development. I appeal to the Lord Privy Seal to treat this matter seriously. There he is sitting, joking and sniggering with the First Commissioner of Works. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order."] Many Members on both the Liberal and Socialist benches envy you your office, Mr. Chairman, and are attempting to intervene.
§ Mr. KIRKWOODYou know what we call weeds in Scotland—bracken?
§ Mr. BRACKENI will not call your attention to the monstrous personal gibes of the hon. Member opposite, because I am addressing myself to a serious point, and I ask the Lord Privy Seal to rise and tell us—
§ The CHAIRMANReally, the Lord Privy Seal's schemes for development do not arise. It is the Postmaster-General's schemes that we are discussing.
§ Mr. BRACKENI entirely agree with you, or I may say that I respectfully agree with you, but unfortunately the Lord Privy Seal intervened and boasted about his schemes.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member has said that several times now.
§ Mr. BRACKENBut I have not referred to the present Lord Privy Seal's remarks. He told us that there are these large schemes, and I merely call attention to them now, because I am thirsting for information. It is a late hour and we are put to inconvenience waiting here, and I will now sit down in 2152 the sure and certain hope of having a clear and definite reply.
§ Mr. BOWENWe are accustomed at this hour, or perhaps a little earlier, to hear flippant speeches from the hon. Member who has just sat down.
§ Mr. BRACKENOn a point of Order. Is it open to an hon. Member to come down to this House and accuse another Member of being flippant in matters of grave importance?
§ The CHAIRMANIt is a word that may be used.
§ Mr. BOWENThe hon. Member also referred to sniggering on occasions such as this. He has accused the Postmaster-General of being absent. He himself has not been in the House for very long. I saw him coming in and seeking information from Members around him as to what was happening and jot down notes. We have something to be thankful for that he has not used them all up. We are accustomed to hear this sort of speech on matters of great importance, and I suggest that he might address himself to matters of importance. This is not a time to be talking in this futile fashion. We had an opportunity to discuss this matter last Friday.
§ Mr. ALBERYOn a point of Order. Is this in order?
§ The CHAIRMANIt is a great deal more in order than some of the other speeches.
§ Mr. BOWENIf hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to speak, I have no objection to stopping and to taking part in the fun. I can assure them that I can be as happy as they are in regard to attacking the Post Office. I am amazed to find, even from the Front Opposition Bench, protests against this Amendment, and our hon. Friend from Woolwich—
§ Sir K. WOODI bog your pardon.
§ Mr. BRACKENOn a point of Order, 1s it fair to accuse me of being Lord Beaverbrook's representative from South Paddington? I am the Member for North Paddington, and I object.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is not a point of Order.
§ Mr. BOWENThe hon. Member is childish. I was pointing out that there is a difference of opinion on the benches opposite to-night and I am trying to assimilate it, but I have some considerable difficulty in doing so. The attacks which have been made upon the Post Office have not carried us very far, because there is nothing concrete about them. The suggestion that too much money is now being asked for has been contradicted by other speeches as to the smallness of the amount. I would like to join with hon. Members opposite and ask the Postmaster-General to take them at their word and spend, not £32,000,000, but £132,000,000, and then see where we would get. Many of the propositions made, however, would involve the Post Office in millions of expenditure without any fresh development. If the country desired Sunday delivery of letters, it would involve millions of expenditure which was cut down by a Tory Government because the expenditure was too heavy. If the Tory Opposition desire its restoration, so far so good, but a good many of those who suggest this change in practice do not mean it. Attempts have been made to deride the Post Office for the purpose of continuing the Debate. [Interruption.] I do not often speak in this House, and I listen patiently to wearisome speeches from the benches opposite, so that at least I am entitled to a turn and to make some comments on the situation. In the proposals which have been made for the Sunday delivery and the extension of postal services by means of motor vans, an expenditure of millions would be involved. The Post Office at present is emerging from the policy inflicted upon it by a Conservative Government. I happen to know something about these things, because for years before I got into Parliament I read the Debates in this House on this subject. When the 2154 Conservatives were on this side, one never heard speeches of the type we have heard to-night, especially when they involved expenditure. I do not believe that the Post Office staff is spending sufficient. I would like them to spend very much more.
There is, however, an air of unreality about all this Debate, because the whole explanation was given on the Money Resolution and was repeated last Friday, so that the Committee ought to be in no doubt at all as to the position. It is a process of triennial development and there ought to be no difficulty about it at all. I would, of course, like to see the £32,000,000 much increased. If that were proposed, would hon. Members share with us the desire that that should be done? If the test came, and the Post Office had the chance, we should see some remarkable results and developments of the telephone and telegraph services. In conclusion, I would urge that, if we are to have a discussion on the Post Office, it should be a real discussion in which we can consider the matter from the constructive point of view. I would then be prepared to deal with the question at any time hon. Members opposite desire to discuss it. There ought to be no difficulty in getting a real discussion on the Post Office, and not one which is not likely to lead anywhere, which is a mockery of a discussion, and which ought to be ended.
§ Commander SOUTHBYThe hon. Member charged us with keeping this discussion going and said that he seldom spoke in this House. That may be true, but, when he does, he speaks at some length. In the Debate on Friday it was impossible for many hon. Members on this side to speak, in view of the wish of the Postmaster-General to reply to the Debate, for more than a few moments whereas reference will show that the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mr. Bowen) filled some 10 columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT. It ill lies in his mouth therefore to reproach hon. Members on this side of the House with the few remarks that they wish to offer to the Committee to-night. We have as yet heard nothing from either the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General as to where exactly this money is going to be spent. The Assistant Postmaster - General drew 2155 specific attention to one figure, a sum of £2,800,000 which would not be spent on the telephone service. He has not given us any details as to how that is to be spent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Russian timber."] The hon. Members who said that have perhaps some inside information culled from the "Daily Herald." The Assistant Postmaster-General paid a tribute to the work of the postal officials. That is one matter on which there is strong accord in this House. There is no Member on either side of the House who would not wish to pay his tribute to the work of the postal officials in all departments. Their work is beyond praise and their efficiency and courage beyond dispute. But the hon. Member was perhaps a little unfortunate in the examples he drew from the excellencies of the postal service.
§ The CHAIRMANThe subject under discussion is the development of the postal service.
§ Commander SOUTHBYI am anxious to avoid any point of Order. The Assistant Postmaster-General pointed out—
§ The CHAIRMANHon. Members must not make Second Reading speeches tonight.
§ Commander SOUTHBYWould I be in order in asking how this money is being spent? The Assistant Postmaster-General said it was to be spent on the development of the postal service. What is this £2,800,000 to be spent on? How is it going to be spent to develop the postal service as distinct from the telephone service? I suggest that one of the ways in which there might well be development is in the increased use of the telephone service. In order to do that the sound policy is to reduce the cost of it. Speeches from both sides of the House have pointed out that the one thing that prevents the further development of the telephone service is the high cost of the installation and the high cost of the call. If this big sum of money is to be spent on development, then some of it at least should be spent in the reduction of the cost of installation so that people in humbler circumstances may instal it as they would if the cost were reduced.
2156 One speaker has said that if we vote this £32,000,000 we lose all control and that makes it doubly necessary that we should find out what development the Minister has in mind. The hon. Member for the Everton division (Mr. Hall-Caine) drew a comparison between the telephone service in the United States and in this country, saying that people in the United States praised our service. Anyone who knows the telephone service in the United States will admit that it is far ahead of ours, so that they must have some secret of development, some method of working which gives that excellent service. The Postmaster-General might with profit study their methods and adapt them to this country in order that we may in due course have a telephone service comparable with the excellent service which now obtains in America. That development and high pitch of efficiency is, I may say, due to private enterprise. The Assistant Postmaster-General in his speech on Friday said that it was no uncommon thing, when one was paying a visit to friends, for the telephone bell to ring, but he would not repeat the words which were used when the telephone bell rang. I suggest that the words most often used when the telephone does ring, are "Sorry you have been troubled." There should be some means of improving the telephone service, so that we do not get the tremendous number of wrong numbers and wrong calls with which everybody is persistently troubled. The telephone service is nothing like as bad as some people make out or as perfect as others try to make out. The Postmaster-General should endeavour to mitigate the nuisances to which people in this country are now subjected. In conclusion, would it be possible in the improvement of the postal service for a certain amount of money voted now to be used in cheapening the postage on Braille paper for the blind?
§ The CHAIRMANThat would not be in order.
§ Commander SOUTHBYI was afraid of that and will obey your Ruling. I shall conclude my remarks by saying that I deprecate remarks of hon. Members like the hon. Member for Crewe—
§ The CHAIRMANOrder, order! Gentlemen beyond the Bar might be a little more quiet in their conversation.
§ 1.0 a.m.
§ Commander SOUTHBYIn conclusion, may I say that I deprecate that the hon. Member for Crewe should wish to deny us an opportunity which offers to-night to put our point of view, even although the hour is late. It is the duty of the Committee to examine the way in which money is being spent, and it seems to Members on this side of the House that if reasonable points are put forward they should not be accused of obstructing the business of the House. When the right hon. Gentleman is spending money upon the improvement of the telephone service, he should consider the use of some of this money for the placing underground, instead of above ground, of telephone lines. It is infinitely more convenient, and poles constitute a great danger on high roads. The excuse in the past was that there was not sufficient money. It was stated that it could not be carried out on account of the high cost. I hope the right hon. Gentleman has in view the introduction of an underground service to take the place of the present above-ground service which necessitates the use of telephone poles. I hope we shall get from the Assistant Postmaster-General a little more information than the Postmaster-General has given us this evening as to how the £2,800,000 which is not earmarked for the telephone service is to be spent.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ The CHAIRMANI call no further Amendments on Clause 1.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ Mr. SMITHERSThe first point that I wish to make is that the development is taking place more rapidly in some of the areas around the big towns, especially round London. As houses go up new exchanges have to be organised and country districts taken into the London area. I want to ask the Postmaster-General whether, when he does this reorganisation, and uses money for this development, he will see that no subscriber already on a London exchange is in the reorganisation put on an exchange outside. When a subscriber has once been on a direct London exchange he should not, simply because of some piece of red tape under this reorganisation, have this 2158 facility taken away, so that it should cost him more money by being put on a toll exchange. A large sum of money is being asked for, and I beg of him to use it wisely and not be bound by too much red tape. I want also to call his attention to a different type of case where a country village, with a small exchange, has developed. I understand that, under the present rules, if the pressure of the service gets too big for the postmaster, his wife and family, then the only alternative, if he is a sub-postmaster, is to build a new exchange, put in a caretaker and his wife and two or three operators at a capita] cost of £2,000 or £3,000, when possibly the whole thing could be overcome by allowing the existing sub-postmaster to have one assistant to live with the family at a cost of about £75 a year.
The hon. Member for Epsom (Commander Southby) raised one point which I want to reinforce. It is the question of looking ahead. I want the hon. Gentleman to learn from the experience of the past. I know one instance in my division where small poles were originally put up and then larger poles were put up after a few years. [Interruption.] Mr. Chairman, I do protest. I am trying under great difficulty to state a point and I get rude and insulting remarks. I was referring to the case of small poles originally put up and larger poles being substituted in a comparatively short time—within, about a year, if my memory serves me. The whole of the expenditure was wasted. The poles were pulled down, and the whole thing was put underground. I do beg of the hon. Gentleman not to fall into these faults. He should try to look ahead and see that wayleaves are obtained and that wires are put underground, or put in in a manner that will last. Again, in this reconstruction there will be a great deal of surplus material to be disposed of. I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that the way in which some of the surplus material of the Post Office is disposed of is a perfect scandal.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is not a very good illustration, surely.
§ Mr. SMITHERSThere must be a certain amount of pulling down to be done. I only wish to call attention to the way this material has been disposed of. It 2159 has not been economical or businesslike. Is it not in order to speak about the way the money has been used?
§ The CHAIRMANThe Motion now is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. ALBERYI put an important point in the last Amendment debated. I agree it was under unfortunate circumstances. The Postmaster-General went out to get refreshment. The Assistant Postmaster-General remained behind. By the time for the reply the Assistant Postmaster-General had gone out and the Postmaster-General had come back. I want to know what is the Post Office policy regarding this question. What is the approximate population of a district which the Postmaster-General considers to be sufficiently large to justify him in making expenditure for a public Crown office in that district. I have no desire to continue if I can get a reply from the Postmaster-General or the Assistant Postmaster-General.
§ The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant)I am sorry I had to go out and could not reply to the question of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery) before. The hon. Member referred to a question placed on the Order Paper to which he received a written reply. We cannot lay down any hard-and-fast line in respect of population and allow that to determine whether a Crown office shall be opened or not. Many factors have to be taken into consideration. I know the hon. Member has in mind the position in Northfleet, a neighbouring district to Gravesend. He will be aware that we received a deputation from that area and went into the matter thoroughly. The fact of the matter is that the units of business at present done in Northfleet do not warrant the opening of a Crown office, more especially in view of the fact that there are already three sub-offices in the area. If we had, as desired, opened a branch office it would have meant a considerable decrease in those using these sub-offices. [Interruption.]
§ The CHAIRMANOrder!
§ Mr. VIANTIn view of these circumstances, we should not be justified in 2160 opening a Crown office in Northfleet. The matter is still being kept under observation, and immediately the business can justify the opening of a Crown office steps will be taken.
§ Mr. ALBERYHow can the units of business be done so long as the facilities for doing it do not exist? Much of the business is done in Gravesend, because there are no facilities for doing it in Northfleet.
§ Major COLFOXI want to call attention to the fact that this money is to be spent on Estimates to be approved by the Treasury. It does not seem to me that that is nearly a sufficient safeguard, because I believe that all Estimates—and particularly Estimates for such a large sum of money as this—should be approved by Parliament and not by the Treasury. In that connection, I think we ought to have had a representative of the Treasury on the Front Bench to-night. If the time had not been so late, I should have had a great deal to say on the subject of control by Parliament, but I will curtail my remarks by reason of the late hour and will merely say that, whatever may have been the case in the past, the Treasury to-day is certainly not the watch-dog of the nation's finances. Whether the House of Commons is or is not, is certainly open to doubt as well. At any rate, the House of Commons should act as the responsible body—though very unfortunately the Members opposite do not do so. Consequently, these Estimates should be submitted to and passed by the House of Commons and not merely by the Treasury.
§ Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.