§ 43. Sir J. Duncanasked the Postmaster-General whether he is represented before the transport users consultative committee in all cases where it is proposed to close railways for passengers and mails; if he offers to make increased payments for the carriage of mail in all marginal cases where such increased revenue might lead to keeping open the lines; whether he states at all such inquiries the increased cost to him and inconvenience and delay to the public if alternative road transport has to be used and what is his general policy in relation to the speedy transmission of mail in view of the Beeching Report.
§ Mr. MawbyThe effect of a proposed railway passenger closure on the Post Office is a matter which my right hon. Friend would, if necessary, normally expect to take up direct with the British Railways Board or with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport rather than by making representations to the transport users consultative committee. But it would not be appropriate for us to make increased payments for the conveyance of mails simply to enable an uneconomic railway line to be kept open.
We are in direct consultation with the British Railways Board about the implications for the Post Office of the proposals in the recent Report. It is too early yet to assess the precise effects on postal services of the reshaping of the railways; but in general we should expect to maintain the present standards of the letter post and improve the reliability of the parcel post without incurring additional expenditure.
§ Sir J. DuncanWill my hon. Friend reconsider the first part of his Answer because the inquiries at the transport users consultative committee stage will be of considerable importance locally? If Post Office representatives give evidence in support of the speedy delivery of mail, it may help the committee to come to the right conclusions.
§ Mr. MawbyWe will certainly consider that point, but we must bear in mind the point which I made in my Answer. Obviously we should have to consider what the effect on us would be in each case, particularly whether alternative methods of transport would be available.
§ Mr. MasonSince we are suffering a loss on the parcel service, is the hon. Member aware that, if the Beeching proposals were ruthlessly carried out, they would either kill the parcel service completely or plunge all the G.P.O. services into the red? What protest is the hon. Gentleman's Department making to the Minister of Transport to ensure that these proposals are not so quickly carried out?
§ Mr. MawbyI could not agree with the hon. Gentleman on either of those points. There is no reason that we can see why either of those two things should happen. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that we are fast developing the use of modern forms of transport and are 226 using the railways for bulk transport, and so on. We are following the railways' line of using motor transport for the shorter distances, even regardless of the proposed closures.
§ Sir J. DuncanWill my hon. Friend consider, on demand by Members of Parliament, giving this information about the delays in delivering mail if railways or stations are closed?
§ Mr. RossIs not this a bit awkward in that we do not know exactly what will happen? We understand that the Post Office may or may not make representations to the Minister of Transport in respect of certain lines. Would it not be much better if this were dealt with by the Post Office in exactly the same way as anyone else would deal with it so that people in the locality concerned know how they will be affected?
§ Mr. MawbyAs I said earlier, the fact that we are very close consultation with British Railways on the whole question is, overall, the best possible way of dealing with it. Obviously, our view on each closure must be, and will be, taken into account by British Railways. On the individual matters, it is possible that we will want to be represented, and we are not closing our minds to this. What I am saying is that we will look at each closure on its merits.