HC Deb 01 June 1967 vol 747 cc232-3
2. Dr. Winstanley

asked the Postmaster-General if he will remove the provision requiring regular telephone subscribers to pay a year's rental in advance on removing to a new address and transferring to a line already in existence at the new address, in those areas in which waiting lists are small, and in all areas when the back-log has been overtaken.

4. Mr. Fisher

asked the Postmaster-General whether, when a telephone subscriber of modest means moves to a new address, the year's rental in advance and the connection charge can be spread over four quarterly payments instead of being payable by a large initial lump sum as at present.

Mr. Edward Short

In the light of the representations I have received from many quarters, including the Post Office Users Council, I have decided that as from tomorrow a year's rental in advance will not be required from customers who take over an existing telephone in situ provided that no work needs to be done on the installation.

I am sorry that I cannot spread the payment of connection charges and rental in advance, as suggested by the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher).

Dr. Winstanley

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his reply will give great satisfaction to the citizens of Cheadle and to many hon. Members, including me?

Mr. Fisher

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am grateful to him for going as far as he has? But could he not extend the principle a little further? Is he aware that a constituent of mine living on a small pension has been asked to pay a lump sum of £25, which she cannot possibly find? Why cannot this be spread over four quarterly payments of £6 5s. each? Is there no heart or flexibility in his Department?

Mr. Short

There is a great deal of heart and flexibility in the Department, but this proviso was introduced to restrain consumer demand as part of the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 20th July.