§ 29 and 42. Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Postmaster-General (1) if he will state the minimum and maximum time taken for delivering a small parcel between London and Yorkshire, Lancashire and Cheshire, respectively; whether he is aware that some parcels take as long as eight days, and that in one case a parcel took four days to travel seven miles; and whether, in view of the bad service, he will either reduce the cost or effect an immediate improvement in the service;
(2) if he will consult with the British Transport Commission about delays to letters and parcels between London, Manchester, and Cheshire, during the past six months.
§ Miss PikeDependent on the time of posting, the parcels to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers should normally be delivered the next day or the day after, but if a weekend intervenes delivery may take a little longer. I am aware that some parcels and also letters are not getting through as quickly as they should and I very much regret this. Staff shortages and rail delays both make their contribution to this situation. In collaboration with the British Transport Commission, we are doing our best to overcome these difficulties.
I assure my hon. and gallant Friend that we shall not relax in our efforts to remedy these shortcomings.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-DavenportSupplementary to Question No. 29. Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is most unfair these days for the public to blame the Post Office for the disgraceful service that we all have to suffer and far the long time that it takes to deliver parcels which in some cases is worse than in the days of the Pony Express? Would she consider issuing a statement pointing out that this bad service is entirely due to the greatest money-wasters of all our nationalised industries, British Railways, with their dirty, late, draughty and dangerous trains?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe use of unnecessary epithets in a question is out of order.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-DavenportOn a point of order. I am terribly sorry but I did not hear what you said, Mr. Speaker, because of the noise made by hon. Members opposite. I am sorry if I did anything wrong, but what did I do wrong?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. and gallant Member asked a supplementary question which was out of order, and if he will be so good as to look in HANSARD at what I said, he will see why.
§ Mr. W. R. WilliamsWhile not wishing to associate myself in any way with the exaggerated statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport), but recognising that he has some virtue in the Question that he has put about the delays that are taking place, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that a high proportion of the delays, in parcel mails in particular, must be attributed to the reorganisation schemes that are going on now on the railways, the hon. Lady will not consider a temporary alternative whereby the Post Office itself will undertake some of the responsibilities now borne by the railways, especially in reducing the number of transfer points on the railway system?
§ Miss PikeWe would not wish to dodge any of our own responsibilities or the responsibility of keeping our own house in order. It is perfectly true that many of our difficulties arise from delays on the railway. We are in constant touch with British Railways about this and we are constantly getting them to improve their service. We are looking into every way in which we can improve the service that we give to the public and we are looking for alternative methods of speeding up mail delivery.
§ Mr. SpeakerLieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport.
§ Mr. LiptonApologise.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-DavenportGo and play "Animal Grab".
Supplementary to Question No. 42. Is my hon. Friend aware that before the war letters posted in the Knutsford division by the morning post were delivered in London the same evening? Would not she agree that it now takes, 398 in some cases, eight times longer at twice the cost? Is not this typical of nationalised industries and of British Railways which give the public a worse service at increased cost?
§ Miss PikeMy hon. and gallant Friend may be interested to know that we have been looking into the possibility of improving the service. One thing that we have been able to do is to put on a new train between Crewe and Manchester which helps to speed up the delivery of mail in Manchester. In this way we think we can help with the delivery of mail between Manchester and London.
§ Mr. ManuelIs not the hon. Lady being a little less than fair in not telling the House quite distinctly that there are contributory causes to delays in mail and parcel deliveries by the railways, such as fog-bound conditions holding up trains and addresses not correctly written, which is a very big complaint? Does not she agree that this ought to be referred back to the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport)? Knutsford can be very "nutty" sometimes.
§ Mr. SpeakerMy impression is that all that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) has done in the form of a question is to give information, and that is out of order.
§ Sir A. V. HarveyOn a point of order. The gist of the supplementary question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) refers to the efficiency of Macclesfield Post Office. May I make it clear that the post office there is highly efficient?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The efficiency or inefficiency of the Macclesfield or any other post office does not raise a point of order for the Chair.