§ 18. Mr. Dribergasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will examine the possibility of charging a higher rate for betting telegrams than for ordinary business or personal telegrams.
§ Mr. GammansNo, Sir. It is not possible to discriminate reasonably between one type of business message and another.
§ Mr. DribergIf it is possible to discriminate between different classes of telegrams—greetings or priority or Press —why could there not be a special surcharge for betting telegrams? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although many of us usually place our few small bets by telephone rather than by telegram, none the less any decent gambling man would gladly pay a surcharge of 5s. or more for each telegram, if that would be the means of saving some unfortunate bereaved family from being overcharged?
§ Mr. GammansI think that the hon. Gentleman is over-optimistic. All that would happen would be that betting telegrams would then be sent in code.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the bookmakers regard him as the man who stabbed them in the back, and does he realise that he is regarded by the bookmakers as a traitor to his class?
§ Mr. GammansI have never been a favourite of the "bookies" so I regard that criticism with complete equanimity.
§ 22. Mr. Sorensenasked the Assistant Postmaster-General, in view of the increased charge for telegrams, if he will consider providing a code by which conventional or familiar messages can be sent at a lower rate, as with cables, by the employment of three or four code letters.
§ Mr. GammansNo, Sir. The use of such a code would not reduce costs, because any saving on transmission costs would be offset by the cost of decoding messages at the receiving office. Delivery costs, which constitute 45 per cent, of the cost of handling inland telegrams, would be unaffected.
§ Mr. SorensenCan the hon. Gentleman say why it is, when code is used for cable purposes, obviously with some advantage, financial and otherwise, the same principle cannot operate with profit in the case of conventional and family messages?
§ Mr. GammansThere is nothing to stop people from using private codes if they want to do so, but the cost of an external telegram is, of course, greater than the cost of an internal one.
§ Mr. W. R. WilliamsIs it not clear from the Minister's reply to this and other Questions that what he ought to reconsider is the unsocial decision to put another 100 per cent, increase on telegraph charges?
§ Mr. GammansI am painfully aware of the fact that my announcement on this subject last week was not popular.
§ Mr. K. ThompsonWill the Minister take into consideration the great advantages that would accrue to both business interests and senders of various kinds of telegrams if we restored the late collection of ordinary mail in the big cities?
§ Mr. GammansThat would cost a vast sum of money, and is a matter which I could not possibly discuss in answer to a Question.
§ 26. Mr. Lewisasked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he is aware that during the last eight years there has been a 50 per cent, decline in the number of telegrams sent; and whether, since the increased charges have meant a diminishing return to the Post Office revenues, he will now reduce the charge for telegrams.
§ Mr. GammansNo, Sir. There is no doubt whatever that a reduction in charge would increase the loss.
§ Mr. LewisIs the Minister aware that he has not attempted to answer the point of my Question, which is that there is already a 50 per cent, fall in the number of telegrams and that if this rise in charges continues obviously the service will have to be abolished eventually, as nobody will be able to use it?
§ Mr. GammansThat is not the view of the Government. We expected a falling off in the service every year and that has continued since the war.
§ 27. Mr. Lewisasked the Assistant Postmaster-General whether he will publish in HANSARD the papers, documents and minutes of the Post Office Advisory Council, showing where that council had been consulted and agreed to the recently announced increases in the price of telegrams.
§ Captain DuncanOn a point of order. I notice that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) is asking in this Question for the publication in HANSARD of all the documents and minutes of a 2216 certain Council. As you, Mr. Speaker, are responsible to this House for what appears in HANSARD, do you not think that it is an abuse of this House to ask for such voluminous documents to be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot deal with that point until I hear the answer to Question No. 27.
§ Mr. LewisAm I not right in saying that if the Clerks of the Table have accepted the Question it is, therefore, in order?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think we ought to hear the answer.
§ Mr. GammansThe answer to the Question is, "No, Sir."
§ Mr. LewisWill the Minister explain why he cannot adopt the suggestion in the Question? Perhaps then we shall have an answer to the point raised last week and we shall know whether the Minister was right or one of my hon. Friends was right.
§ Mr. GammansAs far as I know, there is no answer relating to last week, because the minutes to which reference has been made have not been roneoed and have not been distributed.
§ Captain DuncanMay I ask you now, Mr. Speaker, whether in your opinion it is not an abuse of the procedure of this House to ask for the publication of such voluminous documents, especially as the OFFICIAL REPORT is published under your authority?
§ Mr. S. SilvermanFurther to that point. I have no knowledge—and I do not know that the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) has either—of how voluminous the correspondence may be, but in view of the fact that when the Assistant Postmaster-General made his announcement last week, and in the course of exchanges which took place on it, he did purport to refer to and to report to the House an actual decision of the Advisory Council, would not that cure any defect such as that which the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus contemplated in his point of order?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs the answer to the Question was in the negative, these matters still remain in the hypothetical 2217 stage. Had it been an affirmative answer I might have had to consider the subject more carefully.
§ Mr. LewisFurther to that point of order. Surely, we axe entitled to know whether an hon. Member is able to put a Question requesting information which he feels that the House or he himself is entitled to have without any hon. Member, who may or may not know whether it involves a voluminous document, raising a point of order. Surely if the Table accepts the Question, it is in order.
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is nothing wrong with the Question. The only point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) was whether it would be proper to permit publication of a voluminous document in the OFFICIAL REPORT. That is quite a different matter, and it does not arise now as the answer to the Question is in the negative.
§ Mr. ManuelFurther to that point of order. This is most interesting. You have ruled, Mr Speaker, that the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) was in order in raising this point. Do I take it that when any Minister indicates that he will have something printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT we shall be in order in asking whether it is voluminous or not before it is printed?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat again is purely hypothetical. Most statements and answers published in the OFFICIAL REPORT are very brief, and are for the convenience of hon. Members.
§ 30. Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Assistant Postmaster-General to what extent the increased cost of telegrams can be attributed to increased expenditure due to the defence programme.
§ Mr. GammansNot at all.
§ 20. Mr. Dribergasked the Assistant Postmaster-General approximately how many telegrams are sent each year, by wholesalers and others, in connection with landings and distribution of fish.
§ Mr. GammansRather under two million a year.
§ Mr. DribergDoes that mean that the extra charge will cost the industry something like £200,000 a year more, and, coming on top of other increases in costs. 2218 extra freight charges and so on, will not this tend to promote a not insignificant increase in the price of this important food?
§ Mr. GammansI am afraid that it will cost more but I cannot see any conceivable reason why the fish trade or any other trade should be subsidised by other users of the Post Office.
§ Mr. OsborneAs this will fall heavily on the Grimsby Fish Merchants' Association, who calculate that it will cost £150,000 a year extra, will my hon. Friend look at this matter again, if representations are sent to him from the industry?
§ Mr. GammansI cannot make any promise to look at this particular industry on its own account, unless I destroy the whole value of raising the telegram charges.