HC Deb 27 January 1954 vol 522 cc1742-3
11. Mr. Lewis

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the average time an applicant must now wait before having a telephone installed; and how this period of waiting time compares with a similar date in each of the last six years.

Mr. Gammans

Where exchange equipment and lines are available the average waiting period is about a month for priority applicants, and two months for residential applicants. There has been some improvement recently, but detailed information for previous years is not available. It is not possible to make an estimate of the average time when new plant is required.

Mr. H. Hynd

When the Assistant Postmaster-General says that the average time of waiting for a telephone by non-priority applicants is two months, will he convey that information to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre); in other words, tell it to the Marines'?

23. Mr. George Craddock

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what additional amount of capital would be necessary to supply the existing list of applicants with telephones in the next two years.

Mr. Gammans

A figure would, I think, be misleading. New plant must provide, not only for existing applicants, but also for current and future demand. Our capital programme is being increased next year, but a further increase would not of itself enable the waiting list to be abolished in two years because many projects, e.g., new exchanges, take several years to complete.

Mr. Craddock

Has the Minister made any representations to the Treasury in relation to this matter with a view to securing the necessary capital so as to increase the efficiency of the country?

Mr. Gammans

Yes, Sir, and, I am glad to say, made them successfully. The difficulty in answering the hon. Gentleman's Question as set out on the Order Paper is due to applications for new telephones. Last year there were no less than 400,000 such applications, which is an all-time high record.

Mr. W. R. Williams

Is the Minister aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) recently stated in this House that workers in some of the cable undertakings were to be dismissed because there was insufficient work for them to do? As this is a very serious matter, does not he think that he ought to consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer in line with the main argument of the Question before us?

Mr. Gammans

As I have told the House, we have consulted my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am glad to be able to inform hon. Members that we have an increased allocation for next year.

Back to