§ 3.24 p.m.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy 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 to what extent letters and parcels sent through the postal service have gone astray or failed to be delivered between the year 1970 and the last available date.
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, these are matters for the Post Office, but I understand that about one in 60,000 of the letters and parcels handled in the financial years 1970–71 and 1971–72 were reported missing.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the first part of his Answer has staggered me so much that I have the greatest difficulty—probably for the first time—in framing a supplementary question? I am trying my best to recover. Am I to understand that a matter of this sort, which concerns the public interest to a remarkable degree, is to be left entirely to the Post Office? Is it not an appropriate subject to be raised in your Lordships' House? And may I ask—since I am now fully recovered—is not there an organisation called the 413 Post Office Consumer Council in existence, and have they not adequate information, which is conveyed to them from time to time, to enable us to judge to what extent letters go astray?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, the fact is that this House as well as another place passed the Post Office Act about two years ago, and these day-to-day matters are for the Post Office and not for my right honourable friend. If there were some really seriously bad results I think that my right honourable friend would certainly have a statutory duty to look into them. But I cannot think that a failure rate of 0…0016 per cent. is very serious.
§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYMy Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he would inform whichever Minister is responsible that the reply given by the Post Office is absolute and complete nonsense? Is he aware that since the introduction of the two-tier system of delivery the loss of postal letters has greatly increased? Is he further aware that if it is only one in 60,000 letters, I cannot think how many letters which I have had lost or mislaid must come into that figure?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, although the responsibility for the Post Office is not that of my right honourable friend, the responsibility for my reply is the the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and not of the Post Office. I cannot accept that the sort of worsening that the noble Baroness fears has happened. If the noble Baroness has any complaint about this, I only hope that she will get in touch with the Post Office about it.
§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYI am sorry, my Lords, this is not my Question, it is the Question of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, but I have been in touch for some ten years with the authorities about my post. Would the Minister consider the possibility of not having the two-tier system any longer but one tier, because there is a very considerable belief that postal deliveries would be enhanced if this were done?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I am sure that the Post Office will take note of what the noble Baroness has said, but the 414 question of the two-tier system is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, when the—
§ BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRYMy Lords—
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I think that on our normal principle of give and take between both sides of your Lordships' House it is now the turn of my noble friend Lord Conesford. I say that with respect to the noble Baroness.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, may I ask the Minister this? In computing the statistics which he gave in answer to the Question, did he consider only the reports of those who sent letters which did not arrive or those also who did not receive letters of which they did not know the existence?
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, unfortunatly the Post Office can know only when the items are brought to their notice and then the Post Office can inform Her Majesty's Government when Questions like this are being answered.
§ LORD WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that one in 60,000 was lost in the period under discussion?
§ LORD DENHAMReported lost.
§ LORD WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, to get some indication of how many letters were in fact lost, could the noble Lord say what was the figure of posting during that period?
§ LORD DENHAMYes, my Lords, about 10½ million in each year.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, is it not obvious from the percentage figures that the noble Lord has furnished that the postal authorities have a remarkable facility for covering up their mistakes and that they are very anxious to avoid anything that might be regarded as undue criticism? But does the noble Lord recognise that the postal service is a public service which concerns the public weal and that we are entitled to ask Questions about any administrative misdemeanour or error which affects the public interest?
§ LORD DENHAMYes, my Lords. I know that the Post Office is very conscious of the need to deliver the mail safely and to take all practical steps to that end, but it would be impossible to keep a special watch on each item when over 30 million are handled daily. Of course the noble Lord is quite entitled to ask questions on matters of this sort but it is always a little difficult, when dealing with national corporations, for a Minister at the Despatch Box to reply to matters which really appertain to the Post Office. However, I hope that the noble Lord will not inhibit himself from asking any questions that he feels it is in the public interest to ask.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, for clarification, can the Minister say, when he gave a figure of 1 in 60,000 covering two financial years, whether that was arriver at by aggregating the two years or whether the figure was exactly the same in each of the two years?—because if they were aggregated, we cannot know whether the situation was improving or deteriorating.
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I can give the noble Baroness the actual figures and perhaps she will work it out for herself. In 1970 to 1971, 85,000 were lost out of 10½ million, and in 1971 to 1972, 97,000 were lost also out of about 10½ million. That may seem a bit of a worsening of the situation, but I would tell the noble Baroness that in the first of the two years the postal strike took place, which could account for the lesser figure.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, the noble Lord has twice used the figure of 10½ million. What does this mean? If the Post Office are handling only 10½ million packets a year, they must be "bust".
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, if I am wrong about that—
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, the noble Lord must be wrong because he referred to 30 million in a day.
§ LORD DENHAMMy Lords, I think it must be 10½ thousand million.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, with this Government, a comparatively minor error.