§ LORD SOUTHWARK rose to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the Postmaster-General has conferred with his Advisory Council of business men in relation to the immediate reduction of Postal rates; and whether they have made any recommendations; and if so, are they to be complied with immediately.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to refer to the urgent necessity of reverting to a cheaper postage. I desire to urge upon the Prime Minister and His Majesty's Government as a whole the vital importance of this question. It is not altogether a Postmaster-General's question; it ought to receive the prompt and serious attention of the Government as a whole. There is no doubt that industry is crippled and unemployment increased through the thoroughly unwise and disastrous policy of raising the postage rates. Last week the Postmaster-General is reported to have said that when he introduces his Estimates next year "he hoped to be able to take off the additional postage charges for which he had been responsible." It is against this delay that the whole commercial world protests vigorously.
§ Now is the time to act, and I hope the Government will have not only the courage but the common-sense to act at once. If you desire to stop unemployment and to get back to commercial prosperity there must be cheap postage. I ask the Government not to allow the losses on the telephones 226 to delay the development of the letter postage which would increase business, reduce unemployment; and result in making money. It would be better to pay for improving trade and bringing Income-Tax to the Chancellor of the Exchequer than to destroy trade and bring about the payment of unemployment pay. I am not attempting this afternoon to enlarge upon the question in detail; I only want to impress upon your Lordships and upon His Majesty's Government its great importance.
§
With regard to the penny postage itself, I should like to refer to a speech delivered by Mr. Gladstone, who all his life was a staunch supporter of postal reform and other great social reforms. He said—
I rank the introduction of cheap postage for letters, documents, patterns, and printed matter, and the abolition of taxes on all printed matter in the catalogue of … legislation … for promoting conditions of abundant employment. You should extend the area of trade by steadily removing restrictions. If you want to benefit the labouring classes and to do the maximum of good, it is not enough to operate on the articles consumed by them; you should rather operate on the articles that give them the maximum of employment.
That is what Mr. Gladstone said. If my noble friend, Lord Peel, had been here to-day I should have drawn his attention to the fact that his grandfather was opposed at one time to penny postage, but directly he came into Office, and they wanted to increase the rate of postage, he saw what a great benefit cheap postage had been and refused to allow it to be increased.
§
In the speech to which I have referred, delivered by the Postmaster-General, the speaker also said—
The only sound way of reducing posta charges is by reduction in expenditure. The reduction is going on. The staff is being cut down wherever it could be done without loss of I efficiency.
I suggest to the Government that that is not a wise policy, and that a better policy is to take steps to double, or treble, or quadruple the business of the Post Office by cheapening the rate of postage. That is much better than to bring about more unemployment and distress by discharging Post Office servants. The trade of this country has been made successful, as business men know, by the cheap postage introduced by Sir Rowland Hill. For all commercial and social purposes the penny
227
post has been of the greatest possible advantage, and instead of making postage dear, in times of bad trade, the Government, I contend, should revert to cheap postage in order to stimulate trade.
§ I sympathise very much with the present Postmaster-General. As I said when I addressed your Lordships a little while ago, he was called in simply to make both ends meet. That is not a pleasant duty. It was not his policy that increased postal rates, nor was it the policy of my noble friend behind me (Lord Illingworth). I recollect that when he had to abolish the penny postage he said that he did so with regret, and his predecessor as Postmaster-General, Sir Herbert Samuel, rose in his place in the House of Commons and Protested against the increase in postage rates. Nevertheless, it was done, and what advantage was gained?
§
I am to-day asking a second Question which stands on the Order Paper in these terms —
To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will state the amounts received from letter postage fur the quarters ending September 1913, September 1920, and September 1921; further, the cash value of receipts for the same periods from irk, ½ d., 1d., and 2d. stamps.
I want some return to show what has been the effect of this increase. I am asking what was the position in 1913 and in 1920 and 1921, to indicate the effect that the increased charges have had upon the returns of the Pest Office.
§ I am informed that my noble friend, Lord Stanmore, is to answer my Questions. It may be that he is going to dispel any notions that I have in my head as to the determination of the Government to persevere in their policy. I thought that probably, especially after the Question raised by my noble friend, Lord Chaplin, about the suspension of Standing Orders, the sittings of the House might come to a close almost immediately, and I rather hurried on this Question, because I did not want to wait until the Postmaster-General introduces his Estimates next year. He will probably have some other excuse then. I want to impress upon His Majesty's Government the importance of the Government itself seriously looking into this matter. I think they will find what a great advantage it would be not only to the Chancellor of the Exchequer but to the trade of the country if they were immediately to reduce the postage rates.
228§ I am asking whether the Postmaster-General has conferred with the Advisory Council in relation to the immediate reduction of postal rates; whether the Council have made any recommendation; and, if so, whether that recommendation is to be carried out immediately? I should be very glad to hear that they have done so, and I think that before Parliament rises we ought to know whether any action has been taken by that Advisory Committee whether they have made any suggestions; and whether the Government propose to adopt those suggestions. These high rates of postage are doing the business of the country so much harm that the question is a very urgent one. Your Lordships have only to read your newspapers to find that people are now sending their letters to the Continent to have them posted there and delivered here. It is absurd that they should be able to do that at a cheaper rate than by posting them direct in this country. I hope that in putting this Question I am appealing to a Government which will take the matter up seriously. I am not abusing the Postmaster-General. We have a Postmaster-General who, no doubt, wishes to do as well as he possibly can for the trade of the country, but I do not think this matter ought to be left till Parliament meets again. I beg to ask the Questions standing in my name.
§ LORD STANMOREMy Lords, I have been asked to answer these Questions by my noble friend, Viscount Peel, who is unable to be in his place to-day The increases which were imposed last year in the rates of postage had for their object the placing of Post Office finance on a paying footing. In 1920–21, the Post Office services were run at a loss of over £6,500,000. In the current year this loss will be materially reduced by a reduction of expenditure, and especially the automatic reduction of the war bonus consequent upon the fall in the cost of living; but this reduction would still leave a wide gap between the revenue and expenditure, and in view of the importance of securing that the Post Office services should pay their way and not remain a burden on general Taxes, the Government decided to make certain increases, principally in the rates for postcards, printed matter and foreign letters. The Postmaster-General stated at the time in the House of Commons that as soon as a surplus is assured on 229 the Post Office balance sheet reduction in rates would be brought into force, so that the user of the post should obtain the benefit.
Some discussion has taken place on the Post Office Advisory Council as to the possibility of reducing rates, but it has been common ground that the Post Office finances will not at present admit of the sacrifice of revenue involved, and the Council have not made any recommendation on the subject If the rates were reduced at once, as this Question suggests, it would merely mean transferring the burden of defraying a portion of the Post Office expenditure from those who use the post to the taxpayer, and the Post Office would continue to be a subsidised service. If the fall in costs continues, there is a reasonable prospect of the Post Office balance sheet showing a surplus in the next financial year, and the Postmaster-General hopes to be able then to reduce some of the charges.
As regards the second Question, the receipts from letter postage cannot be separated from those in respect of postcards, printed papers. parcels, etc. The total amounts collected in respect of postage, i.e., excluding receipts from telegrams, during the periods in question are as follows: — Quarter ending September 1913, £5,330,000; quarter ending September 1920, £9,880.000; quarter ending September 1921, £10,260,000. The receipts from particular denominations of stamps cannot be stated, and would not be of much value as stamps are used for telegrams and other purposes. It may be mentioned that the revenue during the quarter ending September, 1921, was adversely affected not only by the general industrial stagnation, but in the first month by the coal strike.