§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy 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 why, as the figures relating to letters for the customary three-week Christmas period in 1974, given in answer to her Starred Questions of 30th October and 3rd November, were apparently inaccurate and were questioned at the time and in a subsequent letter to the Minister, dated 24th November, no reply to the letter has yet been received; and what are the correct figures for 1974.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett)My Lords, I have now replied to the noble Baroness's letter and she will know that the correct statistics for the three-week Christmas period of 13th December 1208 to 2nd January are 904 million in 1972, 781 million in 1973 and 806 million in 1974. The Post Office statistics for 1973 and 1974 quoted previously relate to the whole of December.
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that I feel so indignant that it is hard to be coherent about this matter? Is he aware that some seven weeks ago, on 30th October (Hansard, column 608), I was told that these figures would be checked? I wrote again on31st October and 5th November setting out the facts. I then received a letter asking whether I would give the evidence on which I based these serious charges. I wrote and gave that evidence, together with my sources and I asked for a reply; I then heard nothing more. On Wednesday, 10th December, when my patience was finally exhausted, I put down a Question which appeared on the Order Paper on Thursday the 11th. On Friday I received by special messenger at my home from the Department concerned a letter which said, "Let me say straight away that your figures are right. "There was not one vestige of apology in that letter! Is my noble friend further aware that, had I not pursued the matter, the House would have been in possession of wrong information and that Question Time would be quite valueless?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, as to the history of this matter before I took on my present job. I am quite happy to take my noble friend's word. As she said, she put down a Question on Wednesday, which was the first that I knew about the matter. She had a reply on Friday, so I hope she will accept that I acted as quickly as I could after she had made me aware of the situation. As to the matter of wrong information—as I said in the letter to her and as I have said today—the statistics were given in the Post Office Annual Report, and it was from that published information that an Answer was given to by my noble friend's Question. It has subsequently turned out to be the case that statistics were given in different Annual Reports on a different basis.
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that the more we go into this the worse the Department appears? Is he further aware 1209 that I stated at the beginning that a different system of accounting had been used for these figures? Much more seriously, is he aware that I am really disturbed that any Member of this House should be treated in this manner? What is one to do? Is one to be thoroughly awkward, as I have been, pursue the matter and, in the end, get to the bottom of it? Or should one not be awkward, sit down, having received wrong information, and let the Departments get away with it?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, if I may say so, my noble friend is not being fair when she attacks the Department about this matter. The Department merely quoted statistics published by the Post Office in their Annual Reports. The facts are that the Department of Industry does not run the Post Office and I am not the Under-Secretary-General of the Post Office; nor is my right honourable friend in charge of the day-to-day running of the Post Office. If we are asked Questions about the Post Office and the Post Office direct us to published information, it is on the basis of that information that we answer Questions put down in this House.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, while accepting the fact that the noble Lord himself has nothing to do with it, may I ask whether it would not be proper for the noble Lord to apologise, on behalf of the Government, to the noble Baroness?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I should be happy to apologise if I felt that there was something for which the Department was responsible and over which we had misled the House. I am afraid that, if my noble friends ask Questions about the detailed running of the Post Office, the only source of information to which the Department can turn is the Post Office itself. The Post Office then refer us to published statistics and we give them in good faith.
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, perhaps I may put one more query, if the Minister does not mind. Is my noble friend aware that the Post Office gave one set of figures to POUNC, who gave them to me, and they gave another set of figures to the Minister who gave them to the House? One can only accept the figures one is given, and there 1210 fore I think that some retraction is necessary.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I have told my noble friend and have said this afternoon that the figures previously given were based on two periods of time. The Post Office did this, as I understand it, for very good reasons. They felt that, if they based one year's figures on a three-weeks period and the next year's figures on a four-weeks period, that was a more accurate way of saying how many letters had been posted. I am sorry that my noble friend received from these two sources of information figures which contradicted each other. However, I will not accept that the Department was at fault in giving my noble friend those figures.
§ Baroness PHILLIPSMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that, when the Post Office Corporation was originally set up, the question of whether there was Ministerial responsibility was gone into, and it was agreed that there would be Ministerial responsibility?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I am not aware that there is Ministerial responsibility for the day-to-day running of the Post Office.
§ Lord SLATERMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that I was one of the Ministers who was responsible for putting that Bill on the Statute Book; that there was never an undertaking given that a Minister would be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the Post Office; and that he is not responsible for answering questions on day-to-day management? Further, is my noble friend aware that, if any apology to my noble friend who first asked the Question is necessary, it ought to come from the Chairman of the Post Office Board, and not from the Minister or his Department?
§ Lord MELCHETTYes, my Lords.
§ Lord LEATHERLANDMy Lords, does my noble friend think that a fitting climax to this series of questions would be that all Members of the House should send a Christmas card to my noble friend Lady Burton?
§ Baroness BURTON of COVENTRYMy Lords, I know that we have had enough of this Question, but may I on one matter of detail ask the Minister—I 1211 appreciate that it is not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and that he has been landed with this—whether the request for an annual figure could be construed as day-to-day management on any construction whatsoever?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I think that the question of the number of letters posted over a certain period at Christmas and the way that those statistics are given probably is a matter for the day-to-day management of the Post Office. May I suggest that if anybody sends any cards this Christmas they send charity Christmas cards?