§ 3.24 p.m.
§ LORD CROOKMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the robbery at the Kennington Lane Sub-Post Office near Vauxhall Station, the Post Office will now reconsider their consistent attitude not to provide a main post office at or near the Albert Embankment, but to insist that all the newly developed offices on the Albert Embankment between Vauxhall Station and Lambeth Bridge, and the re-developed areas in the rear, must rely for their postal services on the two sub-offices, namely, that at Kennington Lane, Vauxhall Station, and at Black Prince Road.]
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, the considerations behind the Post Office decision not to provide a Crown Office in this area are unaffected by the recent robbery. The level of business in the area would not justify the additional cost of a Crown post office even if one or both of the two existing sub-post offices were closed. Nor would the service given be so convenient. These offices serve not only the business area between the Waterloo railway line and the Albert Embankment, but also the residential area behind the railway line. If either was closed, residents in the vicinity would be put to inconvenience.
§ LORD CROOKMy Lords, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that the big business and commercial organisations which developed the area on the Lambeth Embankment have been pressing ever since the commencement of development more than ten years ago for the facilities of a main post office; that at the moment there are large numbers of homes going up behind; that the Greater London Council is about to conclude its Lambeth Walk comprehensive development scheme and that if the General Post Office misses the boat this time, as it did on the Albert Embankment, the chance of any new post office in the area is completely "out" for very many years? Will my noble friend ask his right honourable friend to look at the matter again and not keep on telling the joint committee of the organisation which was set up that, after all, they have three post offices at Lambeth, Kennington Park and the Elephant and Castle each of which is a mile away?
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, I am quite prepared to ask my right honourable friend to have a look at this matter again, but I must tell my noble friend that a great deal of consideration has already been given to this subject, as I believe my noble friend is aware, and that the latest information received from the G.L.C. about future development in the area is that it will be largely residential and the pattern and level of business will not change very much. My right honourable friend is of the opinion that the service given at the moment with the two sub-post offices is adequate. I would remind my noble friend that the financial position comes into this matter as well. At the moment, the two sub-post offices annually cost £7,500, and the estimated cost of a Crown office would be in the region of £10,000 to £12,000. As it is not considered that the service would be any better, my right honourable friend is of the opinion that he cannot accede to my noble friend's request.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, whatever justification there may be for retaining these two sub-post offices, may we take it that the Postmaster General is giving serious consideration to a situation in which £50,000 worth of postal orders and insurance stamps are kept in a safe the combination of which is 235 known to a lady, the sub-post mistress, who keeps the key? As we all know, the Kennington sub-postmistress was compelled to disclose the combination of the safe, and thugs got away with a vast amount of loot. Is it necessary to keep such a large amount of cash, insurance stamps and postal orders in a sub-post office for the purposes of business?
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, my right honourable friend is aware of the facts as outlined by my noble friend. The loss was approximately £83,000, but of this amount £75,000 was in fact in National Insurance stamps. This was an exceptionally large stock of these stamps because the post office had just restocked, and the amount carried was far in excess of normal. But there was this amount of £75,000 in National Insurance stamps alone.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, with great respect, my question was: what is going to be done to prevent there being this temptation to these thugs to set about a lady carrying out her lawful duties? Surely it is not necessary to keep £75,000 worth of stamps, et cetera, in a sub-post office.
§ LORD CROOKMy Lords, before my noble friend replies, as a supplementary to that question may I very relevantly ask whether the Minister will not agree that the real reason that this large stock is carried in such sub-post offices as these is that there is this large demand by industrial and commercial concerns, and that a proper post office with facilities for looking after the stamps has not been provided?
§ LORD HILTON OF UPTONMy Lords, in reply to those two supplementaries I would remind my noble friend Lord Rowley that in view of the interesting debate which he initiated yesterday I am sure he would be the first to agree that there are few safeguards against this sort of robbery. Yesterday we had described the kind of gentlemen who indulge in this kind of raid; and all the time my right honourable friend was trying to work out ways and means to prevent robbery of that sort. But I am sure that both my noble friends will appreciate that it is a very difficult matter to try to prevent.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, would the Government not agree that the proper method of prevention is to abolish completely the sticking of stamps and arrange a different system of payment altogether?