Skip to main content

Telephone Service

Volume 498: debated on Wednesday 26 March 1952

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Shared Line Obligation

44 and 51.

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) what classes of telephone subscribers are exempt from the shared service obligation;

(2) on what basis decisions are made to compel residential telephone subscribers to accept shared service.

The only subscribers who are under obligation to share are new and removing residential subscribers since 1st January, 1948. This policy was announced in the House by the then Postmaster-General on 18th December. 1947, and 30th January, 1948, and is being continued by my noble Friend.

Rentals (Differential Increases)


asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why the proposed increased residence telephone rental goes up by £2 0s. 5d. in the London area, and by £1 8s. only in the rest of the country.

Telephone rentals in the London area have always been higher than in other parts of the country. The differential increases to which the hon. Member refers are only reflecting that fact.


asked the Assistant Postmaster-General why the proposed increase for shared exchange resident telephone service rental shows an increase for the London area of £1 1s. 11d. compared with 9s. 6d. for the rest of the country.

Shared service is at present provided at a uniform rebate of 11s. 6d. on the annual rental for exclusive service. It is proposed to increase this rebate to £1 10s. 0d. from 1st July, 1952. The differences between the proposed shared service rental in London and those elsewhere will therefore be the same as for exclusive service.

Industrial Applications (Priority)


asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what priority is given to applications for telephones put in by branch offices of nationalised industries, and if he will give an assurance that the available lines are shared fairly as between these applications and those of private businesses.

No priority is given to a nationalised industry simply because it is nationalised. The criterion for granting priority is that the industry concerned whether nationalised or not, is providing essential services to the community or engaged in re-armament or the export trade. Even so, only the essential needs of these industries are given priority.

Is my hon. Friend aware that it is widely believed in provincial towns that these lines are not being distributed fairly? Whereas many businesses which are carrying on important work have to wait a long time, a branch office of one of the nationalised industries has only to be opened in a town for a telephone to be put into every room forthwith. Will my hon. Friend look into this again and see what is the position?

I shall be pleased to look into any specific complaints, but I hope the answer I have given will give sufficient publicity to the fact that the nationalised industries are getting no priority.

May we take it that the term "nationalised industries" covers the Armed Services, too?

May I ask my hon. Friend whether, in his answer, he left out agriculture deliberately? Agriculture used to have priority and it seems from his answer that that is no longer so.

I do not think the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend comes within the ambit of the original Question. I was asked whether nationalised industries had any priority or not, and the answer is, "No."