§ 39. Mrs. Castleasked the Postmaster-General on what basis he allocates telephones among applicants in any particular area; whether he operates a points system in deciding the priority to be given to applicants; and to what extent business needs are taken into account.
§ Mr. Wilfred PalingAs I explained in my reply on r8th December, 1947, to the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) and on 30th January last when I introduced the Post Office and Telegraph Money Bill, priority is given to certain categories of subscriber for whom telephone service is regarded as essential in the public interest. Business applicants not in these categories are in general given preference over residential applicants. The idea of a points system has been carefully examined, but is considered impracticable for deciding relative priorities for telephone service.
§ Mrs. CastleIs my right hon. Friend aware that when subscribers move to a new area and wish to transfer their telephone they are in every case told that the senior awaiting applicant has priority? Does this mean that the first person on the list has priority regardless of the fact that the telephone may be needed for business purposes?
§ Mr. PalingBusiness people have priority over residential subscribers in any case.
§ Mr. Leslie HaleCan my right hon. Friend tell us what priority is given under this system for a person who have been serving abroad continuously for six years, who has had no opportunity of applying for a telephone, and now makes application for one?
§ Mr. PalingIf a person had been serving abroad for six years and because of that, might have had to give up his telephone, he would have priority. Disabled ex-Service men have some priority also.
§ Mr. Price-WhiteIs any preference or priority given to business or private users who take over properties or premises in which a telephone is already installed; or is it at all times insisted that the telephone should be first removed and that the persons then take their place on the list?
§ Mr. PalingBecause there is a telephone in either an office or a house into which a person moves it does not necessarily mean that he will have the telephone that is already there. There may be a person on the list whose claim is much stronger, and in such cases the telephone would be removed.
§ Mr. BramallWould my right hon. Friend make known to the public the categories which his Department consider to have priority, in order that the applicants themselves may know that the allocation is fair between one individual and another?
§ Mr. PalingThat has been done on one or two occasions.
§ Mr. Langford-HoltWill the Postmaster-General explain why, when a person moves out of a house, the telephone is taken away and, when the next tenant comes in, another telephone is installed? Would it not be much easier to leave it where it was in the first place?
§ Mr. PalingIf the hon. Member knows of such a case I should like to hear about it. I have not heard of one.
§ Mr. KeelingUnder the system described by the Postmaster-General might there not be so many men engaged in taking away telephones that there would not be any left to put them in?
§ Mr. PalingThe matter of taking a telephone out is not, as some people seem to imagine, a matter of days or weeks.