Postal Rates.

– in the House of Commons at on 1 May 1922.

Alert me about debates like this

5.0 p.m.

I come to a subject which interests a much greater mass of people, and is of concern to that particular class of the commercial community whose success depends on getting down the cost of their manufactured goods The matter to which I refer is that of postal rates. Last year it was found that postal rates were not sufficient to make the revenue meet the expenditure without subsidy. The rates were increased. Certain promises were made at that time as to what might happen when it appeared that the happy position of a surplus was assured. These promises have received very exaggerated shape in the discussions which have taken place upon the matter, but I do not propose to go into that controversy now. I am convinced of the vital necessity of cheap communication for the commercial community and I propose to meet the claims that have been made to the fullest extent in my power. Accordingly I have agreed with the Postmaster-General to make the following changes.

First, Sunday collections (but not deliveries) to be restored. This will cost about£250,000.

Second, the postcard rate to revert to 1d. This will cost about£550,000 per annum.

Third, printed papers, subject to certain conditions as to hours of posting, to be reduced from 1d. to ½d. on packages not exceeding 1 oz., this costing about£1,500,000 per annum.

Fourth, the minimum charge for letters to be reduced from 2d. to 1½d., this costing£3,500,000 sterling.

Fifth, certain reductions to be made in telephone charges costing approximately£1,000,000.

The total cost of these concessions will amount to£6,550,000 on the revenue side for a full year, and£250,000 on the expenditure side. It will not be possible to bring these changes into effect until the end of May. The cost for 1922–23 will be about£5,650,000. I wish hon. Members—because there is great confusion in the public mind between the figures of the commercial accounts of the Post Office and the cash accounts—to realise that the figures I give refer to the Post Office cash accounts. The cost against the Post Office commercial accounts—which are often quoted in public—is considerably greater. I hope and believe that these changes will ultimately bring increased revenue. If, unhappily, the result should be otherwise, and the revenue and expenditure do not balance in 1922–23 it must be understood that the charges will be increased again. We cannot have a subsidised service. We must be able to preserve the position on a commercial basis, this including the taxation which an ordinary business would pay.