§ 11. Sir G. Nabarroasked the Postmaster-General what improvements in postal services for first-class mail costing 5d. per letter, and 4d. for second-class mail, including greetings cards and printed matter, in unsealed envelopes, and postcards, will result from these 458 increases in postal charges, respectively, 25 per cent. for first-class mail and 33⅓ per cent. for second-class mail; why he has approved such increases which are, respectively, over nine times and over seven times the Government's norm of 3½ per cent.; and whether he will make a statement.
§ Mr. MasonThe aim of the new letter service will be to give first-class mail a service which is as good as the best we give now, with improved reliability where necessary. Second-class mail will generally take a day longer than first-class. I have approved the increased charges for the reasons shown in paragraph 207 of the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on Post Office charges.
§ Sir G. NabarroWhile not accepting any part of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, may I ask him to recognise that the Post Office is now in the van of price increases and that the increase in letter post at nine times and seven times, respectively, the Government norm is shocking and reprehensible, and a very bad example to the country?
§ Mr. MasonIf the hon. Gentleman wants to be purely political about it, I ought to remind him and his hon. Friends that in 1962–63 we lost £8 million on the post, in 1963–64 we lost another £8 million on the post, and in 1964–65, the last financial year for which hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible, we lost £20 million. That meant that we lost £36 million in three years, but the hon. Member and his hon. Friends would do nothing about it purely for political reasons. We have, therefore, had to try to tackle the problem now.
§ Mr. Ian GilmourDoes not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the increase in alarm calls, not of 30 per cent. but of 300 per cent., is greatly excessive and should be reduced?
§ Mr. MasonNo, Sir, I do not. When we talk about price increases—and the hon. Gentleman earlier mentioned wage increases—he should realise that these increases are determined for a few years, and not for one year on its own.