HC Deb 04 March 1952 vol 497 cc385-94

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith.]

12.40 a.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

I rise to draw attention to the Enfield telephone service. I do so because I was shocked at the reply which I received from the Assistant Postmaster-General on 20th February when I asked him how soon the manual exchange in Enfield would be converted to automatic working. His reply shattered all hopes that there was to be an early conversion of the exchange. This was a terrible blow to the citizens of Enfield, an important industrial community.

Enfield has a population of some 110,000, and it is served by four exchanges, the Howard and Laburnum Exchanges, which are automatic, the Enfield Exchange, which is manual and serves the majority of the telephone subscribers in the area, and also the Waltham Cross Exchange, which serves a number of residents in the northeastern section of the community. Nearly 2,000 applicants for telephones have not yet been satisfied. Many of them applied as early as 1946.

There is a long history of the inquiry into the possibility of the Enfield Exchange being converted from manual to automatic working. I first raised the matter in the House on 24th January, 1946, when I was told that, before automatic equipment could be installed, the exchange building needed to be enlarged. It was added that there was spare capacity and that it was too early to say when installation could be undertaken.

I gave the Assistant Postmaster-General nine months before I made a further inquiry, and I was then told that the conversion of the Enfield Exchange to automatic working was dependent on a major extension of the building and that it was proposed to start the work in 1948. I pressed the Assistant Postmaster-General, and he said that automatic working would be put into operation when the spare capacity at Enfield had been used up.

I patiently waited until 1948, by which time I understood that further action was to be taken, and on 11th February of that year I again put a Question and I was told that the existing manual exchange had to be enlarged, that it was no longer possible to convert to automatic working on the same site and that a building on another site would be required, and that it was not then possible to say when the new scheme was likely to mature.

That was the first time we had heard of the necessity for a new building. The scheme had apparently then been postponed further, and in the meantime the manual exchange was coping with a certain proportion of the applicants although a very large number was left unsatisfied.

In March, 1949, I was told that the extension of the existing building and the switching equipment would be completed late in 1950, that this extension should meet development for some years, and that it was too early to say when the exchange was likely to be converted to automatic working.

The then Assistant Postmaster-General gave an assurance that the work of extending the manual exchange would be done as expeditiously as possible. That was three years ago. There are still nearly 2,000 persons in Enfield waiting for telephones, the manual exchange is still operating, and no action has been taken towards the erection of the automatic exchange.

I ask why there was this change of plan; why, after it had been decided to convert the manual exchange to automatic working and it was considered this would take place within the existing building, it was decided that the capacity of the manual exchange was inadequate and that a fresh building needed to be erected; why there was delay in obtaining the necessary site; and why there was further delay and no action taken apart from the allocation of the site?

Enfield is an expanding industrial area and some foresight could have been exercised. It would have been better to proceed with the conversion of the old manual exchange, with its out-of-date equipment. It is true that thereby certain applicants may have been kept waiting somewhat longer, but they would have understood the position and, in the long run, they would have been better off. It was waste to install old, out-of-date equipment at that time—a waste of materials and, to a certain extent, of manpower.

I would further ask why it is that a priority that appeared to be conceded in earlier days, when I asked Questions, has been pushed aside and other exchanges that were manually operated have been converted to automatic before Enfield. I find it difficult to believe that there are more important communities which are making greater contributions to production.

All manual exchanges are slow and have their disadvantages. That cannot be helped. The calls from outside queue up until operators are able to cope with them. In Enfield the average time taken to connect subscribers is about 11 seconds, and incoming calls take about 17 seconds on an average. The target with manual operation is about five seconds and I regret that it has been impossible to improve the speed of connection at Enfield.

I visited the Enfield Exchange and I want to make no criticism against the staff, who are operating efficiently and willingly under an able manager and chief supervisor. Within the limitations they are doing their best, but the time has come when some action should be taken and there should be a conversion of the exchange.

I know that the Assistant Postmaster-General will probably blame his predecessor and say that it is not his fault. That does not interest me. I want to know whether he will look at the matter afresh, consider Enfield's requirements, give an assurance that the highest priority will now be given, and that Enfield will be the next on the list for conversion.

I demand this because of the growth of the inconveniences which the business community in Enfield is experiencing. I have a large postbag from business people and people engaged in public service who are waiting for telephones. I do not want to burden the Minister with them now, but I propose to send them to him and I know that he will give me the answers where it is possible to do so.

I ask the hon. Gentleman to have another look at this matter to see whether rather than continuing the extension of the manual exchange he can give some indication that when the work now in hand is completed, immediately the erection of an automatic exchange will proceed.

12.52 a.m.

Mr. Iain MacLeod (Enfield, West)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) for curtailing his speech so that I might make it clear that in this matter East and West in Enfield meet. Despite our political differences, we are at one in pressing on the Minister, again of whatever Government, the importance of the essential needs of the thriving community of Enfield.

It was proper that the hon. Member for Enfield, East, who represents more the business interests, should press on the Minister the inconvenience which results to business men from the inadequate telephone system. I would sketch in the less obvious effects of denying fully adequate facilities to such an important district.

Much of Enfield, West, is a dormitory area for London. The pull of London is very strong. We have seen the bad results that come from out-county planning of London and other great areas in which inadequate amenities are provided for those living there. There is nothing more hampering to a sense of community life than bad internal communications. I would illustrate this by two letters from the number I have received. The writers of these two letters live within four doors of each other. The first states: I have given up some of my voluntary work, and I am afraid some of the other will have to go, too. I think it really annoying that as chairman of the Savings Committee of England's largest urban district"— it is actually the second largest— I cannot be put on the telephone. I am still on the Youth Employment Committee and the Enfield Employment Committee, but have given up my work on the Education Committee. It needs no imagination to realise the loss there is to the country particularly in view of his position with regard to the Savings Movement from this man not being on the telephone. The second letter is from the President and Secretary of the Enfield Schools' Music Association, who is also the President of the local branch of the N.U.T. But he does not base his argument on those facts. He says: The situation is fast becoming dangerous in this area. Should any emergency occur in this street—or in any particular house—it is about half a mile to the nearest call box. Woe betide us if fire or sickness should overtake us in the night. Those two illustrations which I have given come, not as one might expect from reading them, from some remote rural area, but from a place in the middle of a very populous and thriving urban district. After this debate I should like to give these letters to the Minister so that he may regard very particularly the position of this road, Burnham Close, in West Enfield, to which I have drawn attention before.

When I raised these matters with the previous Minister I was always greeted with great sympathy and I am certain I shall receive the same sympathy from the present Assistant Postmaster-General I know very well that the difficulties of capital investment must affect what the Minister says to us tonight, but I ask him to consider that there is a very serious brake, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East, has illustrated on the life and leisure of the residents in one of the most important towns in England.

I cannot but believe that a certain amount of money spent here would have very great results in productivity in one of the really vital areas in our export trade, and more particularly the re-armament industry. I should like the Minister tonight to hold out some real hope that the manual exchange will be abolished as soon as may be, and also that he will be prepared to look with as much sympathy as he can at the special cases that the hon. Gentleman and myself will bring to his notice.

12.56 a.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. David Gammans)

Before I try to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) I should like to correct him on a small point. I do not propose to blame my predecessor for the present state of affairs. If anyone or anything is to blame it is a whole series of circumstances which distressed my predecessor as much as it distresses me.

Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain MacLeod) have made speeches which might well have been made by any hon. Gentleman representing a constituency in Greater London. I might have made such a speech myself, because I represent a constituency which also has a manual exchange, and also has a very large waiting list. That is why I have every sympathy with both hon. Gentlemen, and I only wish I could give a more encouraging reply than I am able to make.

The hon. Member for Enfield, East raised two points. He wanted to know, quite rightly, when the Enfield Telephone Exchange will be converted to automatic working. Secondly, he wanted to know what the Post Office are doing to reduce the long waiting list of applications. I can only say to him on the automatic conversion that it is not going to happen in the near future, and so long as the re-armament drive goes on at its present intensity I see no chance whatever of that exchange being converted. I am sorry to have to say all this.

Mr. Ernest Davies

I am sorry to hear it.

Mr. Gammans

But I am sure he would prefer me to be blunt and honest about it, rather than pretend it is going to happen—when I know it is not—in the near future. Before conversion can take place a new building is required, and so long as the ban remains on new buildings except for housing I am afraid that new telephone exchanges are going to come low on the list.

I do not know whether the House realises what has to be done before one can convert a manual exchange to an automatic exchange. I did not realise it myself until I went to the Post Office. It is a most complicated operation, and, incidently, very costly. To convert the Enfield Exchange would cost about £350,000, and even if we were now in a position to start work on the site by erecting the building itself it would be at least four years before the exchange could be finished and the equipment manufactured and installed.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, what is happening in Enfield is that the site of the manual exchange, which was going to be used for the new automatic ex change, is not now available. He asked whether there had been any change of plan. There has been no change of plan in the sense that there has been no change of plan against conversion to an automatic exchange, but that particular site has been used to extend the manual exchange because of the demand by the local authorities and by the hon. Gentleman himself for more people to be put on the telephone. I would not like him to think that Enfield had been badly treated.

The hon. Gentleman asked why the priority has been lost. The priority has not been lost. Of the 12 exchanges in the Greater London area which are still on manual working, the Enfield Exchange was opened in 1925. The programme for early conversion includes only two exchanges which were opened later than that. Those two exchanges are in the fortunate position of having buildings available into which the new equipment can be fitted.

In some instances, of which Willesden is an example, no date has been fixed for conversion, although the Willesden Exchange was opened 15 years before the Enfield Exchange. I hope, therefore that the two hon. Members, when they convey this unsatisfactory news to their constituents, will make it quite clear that there certainly has been no differentiation against them and that no priorities have been lost.

I hope that the hon. Member for Enfield, East, will admit that, however disappointing this news may be, the Post Office have done their very best to accommodate him and his constituents on the existing manual exchange. Perhaps I may give some figures. Two years ago, there were over 3,000 applicants—3,116 to be precise—on the waiting list A year ago, that number had hardly come down at all and stood at 3,067. Now, it has come down to 1,871, which means a reduction of 1,200 in one year.

We plan to increase the capacity of the exchange by 1,600 lines and the new equipment to give this capacity will be installed at the rate of 200 lines a month. I hope that this will deal with some of the particular cases to which my hon. Friend has referred.

The hon. Member for Enfield, East, mentioned that recently he paid a visit to the exchange. I hope that he will keep in touch with the Telephone Manager, and I extend the same invitation to my hon. Friend, who also represents an Enfield constituency. I am sure both hon. Members will agree that within the limitations that are placed upon us, everything is done by the staff in Enfield to give the public a really good service. The time of waiting for a call, which the hon. Member for Enfield, East, mentioned, compares very favourably indeed with any of the other 12 manual exchanges in the Greater London area, both by day and also by night.

I am sure that I have not given either of the hon. Members the reply for which they hoped. They would like to know when we can convert the exchange to automatic working. Their guess is as good as mine. It does not depend on any unwillingness on the part of the Post Office to undertake the work, or on any lack of desire to do so. We want to get rid of these manual exchanges as quickly as we can. If the hon. Members can tell me when the country will be in a position once more to go back to large-scale civilian capital development, I could tell them when we can begin on the exchange at Enfield.

One thing I can promise is that as soon as we are in a position to do that, very high priority will be given, not only to Enfield, but to similar exchanges in London which are working manually and which we hope to convert to automatic working.

Mr. Ernest Davies

Does the hon. Gentleman estimate that the 1,871 applicants for new telephones will be satisfied within the current year?

Mr. Gammans

I would not like to say that. Merely because we increase the number of lines available does not, curiously enough, mean that the same number of people can be put on the telephone.

We have to consider not only the vacancies, as it were, at the exchange, but also the cable equipment between the subscriber and the exchange. What I think we can certainly do is by the end of this year to meet at least 800 applications for telephones in Enfield. If it is possible to go faster than that, we shall do so. I should like both hon. Members to realise that if we are able to do that by the end of the year, their constituents in Enfield will be in a very much better position, and the waiting list will be very much smaller, than that of almost any other constituency in Greater London.

Mr. Iain MacLeod

When my hon. Friend talks about the 1,600 additional lines being available, could he tell us in what period of time that will be?

Mr. Gammans

That is the additional places, as it were, in the exchange, and they will, I hope, be ready this year, but that does not mean, necessarily, that we can at once put 1,600 additional subscribers on the telephone.

Adjourned accordingly at Five Minutes past One o'Clock a.m.