POSTAL AND TELEPHONE SERVICES (Hansard, 6 July 1950)

§ Mr. Carson (Isle of Thanet)
I wish to raise the question of the oldest nationalised industry, the Post Office, and the only nationalised industry in which the Minister is responsible for day-to-day affairs, as indeed he should be. Our telephone system is one of the best in the world. I do not want to bring any false accusations against it. It is excellent for those who have a telephone, but I propose to deal with those who, I regret to say, have not one. I wish I could say the same about the postal system. I hope to start by being polite to the Assistant Postmaster-General about the telephone system, but I am afraid I shall end up by being less polite about the postal system.
The telephone system is good. I have been round Europe and seen a good many other systems. I remember waiting patiently—how patiently!—for a call in Barcelona, in Spain, only 30 miles from where I was calling, and I waited very patiently for 2½ whole days—and finally got a call to the wrong number. Because we have a good telephone system, that is no reason why we should rest on our laurels and say that God's in His heaven— All's right with the world! If we do that, others will pass us and become more efficient and we shall be left standing.
The waiting list for telephones on 30th September, 1949, was 552,415 people, and I noticed that the Postmaster-General yesterday at Question time said it was still about half a million. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he will give us the exact figure, because although 552,000 is almost the same as half a million, we should like to know whether the waiting list is growing less. Is it going up or down? Is any change taking place, and are we improving the position? As to the number of telephones in operation, culling my figures from statements of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend, on 31st December, 1949, we had the following: Government lines, 44,000; business lines, 1,379,000; and private 809 lines, 1,511,000. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman divides business and private lines. For example, I suppose Members of Parliament would be classed as business lines, but I do not think they would consider themselves business lines when faced with their telephone bills and when they ask their wives why those bills are so large. Forty-four thousand seems a large number for Government Departments, and I should like to ask whether this could be brought down. I realise that it was brought down a year ago, but is there a constant effort on the part of the Post Office to bring down the number of telephone lines in the employment of the Government?
I do not want to make a constituency speech, but I should like to give one or two facts about my own constituency, as I think it is comparable with any other part of the country. Our waiting list is 800, which is large for a small, compact body of people. Of these, 714 have been told that they will have to wait until underground developments are possible. I understand that that means they may have to wait two or three years, possibly four years. That is a pretty hefty time to have to wait.
I realise perfectly well that the hon. Gentleman and his staff will consider urgent cases at once, and I know of many cases of people like nurses and doctors who have been given telephones in two or three weeks when it was really urgent. That is good, and I commend the Post Office for it; but there are other urgent cases constantly cropping up with the changed conditions. For example, I know of a farmer in my own constituency who, being on the priority list for his farm, was given a telephone at his farm. He had the misfortune, because of the housing difficulty, to live seven miles from the farm and although the farm was a priority, his house was not, and therefore he could not communicate from his house to the farm. This is the sort of case—and there are many, far too many—which should be taken into consideration by the hon. Gentleman.
Another case is that of the many ex-Service men who are trying to open private hire-car businesses. They are now able to open them without petrol restrictions. The only restriction they still find is the lack of a telephone. If a person has a private hire-car business he is not 810 allowed under the existing law to ply for hire in the street. He has to sit at home until called for to do a specific job, and he cannot be called for unless he has a telephone. When people want a car, they want it quickly and cannot write for it one day and hope to get it the next. They might not even get it next day, as we shall see when I deal with the postal service.
How long does the hon. Gentleman think this enormous waiting list is to go on? When will it be dealt with? It really is no good for the hon. Gentleman to get up and say how many lines are being laid now, as compared with before the war. That does not affect the argument at all, because we produced what was wanted before the war and are not producing what is wanted now. That is a basic difference. I appreciate the difficulties. We had six years of war during which no lines were laid and very few new subscribers were put on, and I realise the task the Government have to face; but at the same time it is not a fair analogy.
We have had a good many debates on this subject, and the Government have tried to ride off on the question of the export of equipment. I have taken a certain amount of trouble to get figures of what we exported. Last year—I am quoting from the United Kingdom Trade and Navigation Accounts, December. 1949, page 195—we exported £8,093,481 worth of telephones and ancillary equipment. Of this, only £285,000 went to dollar countries and if that is reckoned in as a percentage—I could not work it out myself and four other hon. Gentlemen could not work it out either—it is 3.7 per cent.

§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson)
I intervene because this figure is rather important. The exact figure was given by the President of the Board of Trade in answer to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt). It was £602,000.

§ Mr. Carson
If I am wrong, I withdraw, but I am quoting from the United Kingdom Trade and Navigation Accounts. I copied them out fairly carefully, but I will look at them again. That is 3.7 per cent. on my figures, and on the hon. Gentleman's figures it would still not be a substantial amount of the whole figure. 811 I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that if that is so, things can be speeded up in our programme at home. He must realise there are new priority classes constantly being produced.
The question of the postal services ties up with that of the telephone service, and I have had a good many complaints in my area recently. Again, I think my constituency is an example of the whole country. We have in our three main towns—Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs—two deliveries a day. We do not complain about two deliveries a day, provided they are at the right times. But they are not at the right times. We get two deliveries both in the morning before noon. That is not good enough and really does not serve the people in this part of the country. The second delivery is a waste of time unless it can be made later. So far as collections are concerned, they are not nearly late enough and they do not serve the villages in the rural areas—and part of my constituency is a rural area.
May I give the hon. Gentleman an example? A letter posted in Ramsgate after 4.30 p.m. will not arrive at the village of Minster, which considers itself a substantial village and which is only five miles away, until the following evening. That is 24 hours for a five-mile journey. The hon. Gentleman must realise that it is possible for Id. or 2d. to phone that distance. Therefore, I think there is a case for speeding up deliveries from and to big towns, and from and to rural areas. I see that the hon. Gentleman said, in the Debate on 24th March, that he was looking into this matter. I should like to ask him whether he has had any results.
The last matter I want to raise is that of the 2½d. postage. This becomes rather ridiculous when we remember that it is now five years since the end of the war, and that the whole object of raising the cost from 1½d. to 2½d. was to stop people writing too many letters, thereby easing the work of the Post Office. I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General whether something cannot be done. I ask him to look at the suggestions of the Postal Reform League to see whether anything can be done on those lines, whereby letters posted before a certain time at a 812 cheaper rate are not delivered until the following morning.
I have tried to make a few constructive suggestions. It is natural that in a Debate one should be critical, but we do not desire to harry the hon. Gentleman or to be unreasonable. We know how much he is interested in the efficient running of the Post Office. Our only object is to help him to do what I know he has at heart, and that is to make the Post Office as efficient an organisation as possible.

Major Hicks-Beach (Cheltenham)
We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) for raising this important subject tonight. Those of us who have opposed nationalisation for a great number of years have always accepted the fact that the Post Office is a good example of a nationalised industry. There is a great danger today of the good example falling to the ground because of the great criticism that is being levelled at it due to the lack of energy in delivering the goods by the Post Office services. We all appreciate that they are suffering from the difficulties from which everyone else is suffering today, the lack of equipment, labour and the like; but if the Assistant Postmaster-General would really apply the brains of his Department to this problem, a great number of the difficulties could be overcome.
All of us are continually having complaints from our constituents because telephones cannot be supplied within a reasonable time. Is that really necessary, when the war has been over for five years? Cannot the telephone service be made a priority? The Assistant Postmaster-General indicates that it cannot, but I believe that it could be if this problem were tackled in a big way. The telephone today is an essential part of our national life. I hope we can have an assurance that some arrangement will be made so that the customers of the Post Office can get the priority they deserve.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport (Knutsford)
I wish to ask the Assistant Postmaster-General the question which I asked the Postmaster-General yesterday, and which he refused to answer. The question is this: May I ask this special question on behalf of the Knutsford division, and I implore the 813 Minister to give a straight answer? How does this increasingly bad service, at greater cost to the public, square with the Chancellor's exhortations to industry to produce more at less cost? Should not Government Departments set a good example instead of a very bad one?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th July, 1950; Vol. 477, c. 452.] I hope that the hon. Member will now give the answer to that question.

§ The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson)
I want first to thank the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Carson) for informing me beforehand of the specific points on which he required an answer. That makes my task infinitely easier, and I appreciate his action very much indeed. We have had many debates in this house on the shortages of telephones. Let me say that it is obviously in the interest of the Post Office to instal as many telephones as it can. That is apparent. What precludes us from doing that? It is the control of capital investment. That is the reason. There are many other industries urgently crying out for capital for development. For example, there are the mines, the railways, the refineries, the Post Office, and private industry. They all have to be considered in the light of the capital investment available.
As far as the Post Office is concerned, we have this year got 44½ million pounds to spend upon capital investment. The bulk of that will be spent upon telephones, because there is very little capital investment required as far as the postal service is concerned. Anyone who has been round a sorting office will appreciate that immediately. With regard to the wiping out of the waiting list for telephones, I had better give the exact figures. The exact number of people waiting for telephones in Britain today is 547,765.

§ Mr. Carson
It has gone up?

§ Mr. Hobson
Slightly, though compared with last month there has been a reduction. If one goes by the figure of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet there has been a slight increase. To reduce that waiting list to infinity would require capital expenditure of more than £300 million When that figure was stated in the House during the Debate on the Estimates, there were cries of amazement; and quite rightly. I want the House to appreciate that it is not only a question of liquidating the waiting list 814 but of keeping pace with the growth of the trunk network. The trunk traffic today is 100 per cent. above the 1938 traffic, and it is growing at the rate of between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent. annually. We have kept pace with that growth. Hon. Members therefore will appreciate that the problem is a difficult one.
I think we are entitled to give credit, as indeed the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet gave credit, to the Post Office engineers for what they accomplished in difficult circumstances. One in three of the telephones in Britain has been installed since 1945; 1,400,000 telephones have been installed in the last two years; 12,000 farmers have been connected with the telephone service in each of the last two years, and 5,000 kiosks have been provided in rural areas. That is work at a far greater pace, and with far greater regard for the needs of the community, than was shown before the war. That is the position.
With all these people waiting for telephones, what does it indicate? First, it indicates the buoyant economy which is only brought about by control of capital investment. Frankly, I do not think that humorous, if the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks-Beach) does. Those who were unemployed before the war did not think it humorous. That is the reason that people today can afford the telephone, and are demanding the telephone. Those who have used the telephone in the Services have come back and are in the position to have the telephone. This amenity is increasingly common to all classes, and this is as it should be.

Major Hicks-Beach
Those who came back from the Forces want telephones, but how long does it take them to get telephones?

§ Mr. Hobson
Not every person gets them, but there is greater demand than there is equipment available. There is, I would remind hon. Members, a system of priorities.

Major Hicks-Beach
They fill in a form.

§ Mr. Hobson
A cheap gibe about filling in a form shows the hollowness of the comments of the hon. Member for Cheltenham. We have a system of 815 priorities, and it is a system which we think is fair and equitable and just. First, there is what I may term the "lifesaving" services—doctors, nurses, midwives; they get top priority. Then come public utility undertakings; businesses concerned with export; ex-Service men; people who were connected before the war and, finally, private residents. That is fair and equitable, and every time the point is raised in the House it has been appreciated.

§ Mr. Hobson
I cannot give way; I have little time left, and hon. Members opposite know that I am not used to burking any point raised by hon. Members. If the hon. and gallant Member will restrain himself, I want to speak of exports. In answer to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt), who recently asked a Question on the subject, it was stated where the telecommunications equipment is exported. Fifty per cent. of the equipment manufactured in this country goes for export; £602,000 goes to the dollar area, and £10,640,000 to the sterling area. This, while not a direct help in the dollar problem, does save dollars in so far as these countries in the sterling area, if they could not get the equipment from British firms, would get it from manufacturers in the dollar countries and the hard currency areas.

§ Mr. Carson
Does not the hon. Gentleman think that if the firms in the Empire could not get the equipment they wanted from us, they would realise the dollar difficulties and have a waiting list, and share the equipment out with us?

§ Mr. Hobson
I disagree. I believe that there is a very considerable saving to the non-dollar area by virtue of the fact that our telecommunications equipment is exported to these sterling countries. Now I should like to refer to the postal services.

§ Brigadier Clarke
Before coming to that, will the hon. Gentleman—

§ Mr. Hobson
I really cannot give way. I have only five minutes left. The postal services in the Isle of Thanet area compare very favourably with those existing 816 in other parts of the provinces. While tribute is paid to the efficiency of the British telephone service, we can also pay tribute to the British postal services. There are not, it is true, the same number of collections and deliveries as there were before the war, because of the limitation of manpower. That is the reason.

§ Brigadier Clarke
What about unemployment?

§ Mr. Hobson
As far as unemployment is concerned, there are far more jobs in this country than there are people to fill them at the present time and that is a very healthy sign. I have been into this very carefully, and I know of no other country where the postal services are as efficient as they are in Britain; but I agree with the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet that this does not mean that we should not strive to improve them. We are always striving to improve them. Regarding the demand made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet for a later delivery in his area, in our view that is not a practical proposition. I have been into this matter very thoroughly, and there would be three times more letters delayed than there would be accelerated if we accepted the hon. Member's proposition. Therefore, we think the business people of Margate and, indeed, the denizens of the boarding houses of Margate, would far rather prefer to have the present arrangements than to have a delay in the delivery.
The hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham raised a point about the telephone service which I think I have answered completely. There is just one other matter and that is about the delay with regard to the delivery of letters from one village to another in the constituency of the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet.

§ Mr. Carson
From a village to a town.

§ Mr. Hobson
That is the first I have heard of it, but I am not complaining. After all, this is the hon. Member's Adjournment Debate. But let me give this assurance. If he will let me have details of that, we will look into it and if any steps can be taken to improve the service, they will be taken. In the Post Office, we always regard very kindly any suggestions that come either from my hon. 817 Friends or from hon. Gentlemen opposite whereby we can improve the service. The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) raised a question which, quite frankly. I was not quite able to grasp. I know that he has been having controversy with the Department with regard to parcels between Knutsford and Portsmouth—

§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport
And letters.

§ Mr. Hobson
And letters, and I think my right hon. Friend has given him an assurance that he is looking into the matter. We are still endeavouring to deal with that problem. It is not easy. After all, delivery of letters and parcels is always a tricky business for the simple reason that it is dependent not only on the postal service but on the railway service and road transport, and if one has a breakdown, one gets a delay.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport
Can the hon. Gentleman answer the question I asked him?

§ Mr. Hobson
Quite frankly. I did not quite grasp the question, but it was something about efficiency in the Post Office.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport
If I may repeat it, I asked the hon. Gentleman how does the increasingly bad service of the Post Office, at greater cost to the public, square with the Chancellor's exhortation to industry to produce more at less cost? Should not Government Departments set a good example?

§ Mr. Hobson
Certainly they should. They should do everything to bring about an improvement, and we are doing so. With regard to the question of cost. I was asked whether we could reduce the postal rate from 2½d. to 2d. If we did that, we would wipe out the postal surplus.