HL Deb 16 October 1968 vol 296 cc1341-2
LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government:

(1) how many telephones connected to the Chobham exchange were put out of order by the heavy rain on September the 15 to 16;

(2) by what date they had all been restored;

(3) why it was not possible to put an "out of order" signal on to the affected lines.]

LORD BOWLES

My Lords, the heavy rain on September 15 flooded Chobham exchange and damaged its cable network, causing loss of service to all Chobham lines, totalling nearly 1,200. Nine hundred and fifty of these were restored by 3 p.m. on September 16, the next day, and all by September 24. Putting the "out-of-order" signal on faulty lines would have required the diversion of a disproportionate amount of effort from the main primary task of repairing them. I am sorry that people were not able to use their telephones. I should like to take this opportunity of mentioning the sustained response of Post Office staff under very trying conditions.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that reply. Can he explain why it was not possible to put the out-of-order signal on those telephones which were not rectified until right at the end of the rescue operation? My telephone in particular was not rectified until September 26, contrary to his information, and it had no out-of-order signal during any of that time.

LORD BOWLES

My Lords, to put an out-of-order signal on faulty lines and remove it when the lines are repaired demands identification of all the lines concerned. In the case of Chobham, to put the signal on would have been relatively easy, as all the lines were affected. However, our jointers were restoring service, line by line, and it would have required considerable effort in the exchange to identify each of those lines as it was repaired. Had an out-of-order signal been connected, restoration of service would have been delayed in varying degrees for almost every customer.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the flooding of the Chobham exchange could have been prevented if there had been adequate early warning of the flood?

LORD BOWLES

My Lords, I cannot say anything of that kind. I should think not, because whether the warning had been given or not there is nothing you can do if you get some parts of the area with 11 feet of water, and even the Chobham exchange itself, I believe, with 18 inches. The warning would not have stopped the flooding.

LORD TREFGARNE

My Lords, could the noble Lord say what precautions have been taken to prevent flooding of the Chobham exchange that may occur in future? Is he aware that the exchange, which was only recently opened, is sited at the lowest part of the village?

LORD BOWLES

My Lords, without referring specifically to Chobham, I would say that flood damage normally affects the underground cable network. I think the noble Lord himself is very learned in the matter of wires and things of that kind. The modern technique is to force dry air into main cables and maintain them under pressure, and this gives a good degree of protection. Pressurisation cannot be applied to the small cables which distribute service to the customers' premises, and therefore a new type of plastic-sheathed, insulated and jelly-[...]lled cable is being introduced to protect this part of the network. Such measure; do not protect an exchange when the building is flooded, as happened in Chobham.