§ Baroness YOUNGMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the loss of stamp revenue due to the discontinuation of weekend collections of mail, covering a period of nearly 48 hours.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett)My Lords, in discussing the discontinuation of Sunday collections with the Post Office last year, the Government accepted the Post Office view that there would be no measurable effect on postage revenue. This is obviously one of the factors the Post Office will consider at the end of the one year trial period.
§ Baroness YOUNGMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether he means to say that last week when he gave the Answer to my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing—in which he said that the Post Office expected to save £8 million by the discontinuation of the Sunday collections—he had no idea how the finances of the Post Office would be affected by the discontinuation of the sale of stamps for the Sunday collections? Was the figure of £8 million to include or exclude this sum?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I think the noble Baroness misunderstood my original Answer. I said that, in discussing this with the Post Office, the Government accepted the view of the Post Office that the ceasing of Sunday collections would have no measurable effect on postage revenue. In other words, the saving of £8 million which the Post Office expect in a full year as a result of this measure would not be reduced by reduced revenue from postage stamps.
§ Lord ORR-EWINGMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will draw the attention of the Post Office to the law of diminishing returns? Is it not possible that fewer people would buy stamps and post letters if there was no outgoing mail at all between Saturday morning and Monday morning? Is it realistic to say that it will have no measurable effect on the posting of letters?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I have expressed the Government's view of the calculations made by the Post Office. It may be that it would be wise for all of us to wait until one year has elapsed and then we can see the actual results rather than make our own personal estimates.
§ The Earl of ONSLOWMy Lords, is there no estimate in pounds, shillings and pence—
§ The Earl of ONSLOWMy Lords, I shall withdraw that. Is there no estimate in pounds and new pence of the decline in stamp revenue?—since it appears to me that the noble Lord has not answered my noble friend's original Question.
§ Lord MELCHETTI am sorry, my Lords; I am not making myself very clear. What I said in the original Answer was that the Government accepted the Post Office view that there will be no measurable effect on postage revenue.
§ Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEYMy Lords, may I ask whether the Government realise that by this measure they have reduced our working week to Tuesday until Friday? Those of us who go home on Friday afternoon either have to sit up that night and write letters and get them off by the 9 o'clock post on Saturday morning or we can do nothing until Monday.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that my working week has not been reduced to Tuesday until Friday.
§ Lord KINNAIRDMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is anything further behind this Question I have heard that what the postmen are after is a five-day working week.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, so far as I know, this saving has been made so that the Post Office can maintain the present price of postage stamps. Indeed, the Post Office has undertaken to keep them at this level for the next few months. It is an attempt to reduce the costs of the Post Office, so that the cost to the taxpayer in general who is subsidising the postal 4 I services and the cost to users of the postal service will not have to go up.
§ Lord POPPLEWELLMy Lords, can my noble friend say how long he expects this to continue before the Post Office is able to make a firm assessment as to whether or not the service is profitable? When making that assessment, will my noble friend be able to assure us that the profit of £120 million that the Post Office has made on telecommunications will assist in balancing this labour-intensive side of the service?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, the Post Office has said that it will review this cut after one year. In the meantime it is of course perfectly open to the Committee sitting under Mr. Carter to review the cut at any time it wishes. As for the profits made on telecommunications, as I said in exchanges the other day when replying to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, it is my view that the profit of £120 million —if that is indeed the profit, and no figure has yet been published—is not very large when one considers the turnover in capital investment in the telecommunications industry and the need for further capital investment in telecommunications equipment. It is not the Government's view that one side of the Post Office should subsidise the other.
§ Lord SLATERMy Lords, so far as telecommunications or even the postal services are concerned, is my noble friend aware that if noble Lords look through the contents of the Bill that passed through the House they will find that telecommunications, the postal service, Giro and data processing all exist on their own footing as separate entities which are responsible for making their separate returns at the end of the financial year? Therefore the telecommunications side has no power whatever—nor has the Board any power —to utilise its profits to subsidise the postal service. Is my noble friend aware that, as I said in another place, a number of the noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite have forgotten that at one time it was the postal service that subsidised telecommunications? Now they are asking for it to be the other way round.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, as I said, it is certainly argued that the Post Office should be run in such a way that the 5 general run of taxpayers do not have to subsidise its operations.
§ The Earl of KIMBERLEYMy Lords, could the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, explain why, as he stated the other day, the Post Office says that to collect mail costs six times more on a Sunday than on a Saturday? I understand that there has to be some increase, but not one that is so large.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, in answering questions in your Lordships' House on matters relating to the nationalised industries, the difficulty in which I find myself is that if one tries to be helpful and to supply your Lordships with information, one is immediately asked, as on an earlier occasion by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the exact basis for the figures supplied publicly by the Post Office: these figures are not the responsibility of Government Departments, and the only way of getting that information is to go to the Post Office and ask them. If I offer, as I did to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, to pass on his letter to the Post Office so they can inquire about it, I am told that that negates my statement that we are not responsible for running the Post Office. On the other hand, if I stand here and merely say that these are matters for the Post Office, I am accused of being unhelpful. The figure that I gave the other day was made publicly available by the Post Office, and I was just drawing the attention of noble Lords to it
§ Lord BYERSMy Lords, is it possible to get a breakdown of that figure? That would be very helpful indeed.
§ 2.45 p.m.
§ Baroness YOUNGMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any proposals have been considered to enable members of the public to have their Saturday afternoon and Sunday mail cleared from one Crown post office in each postal district.
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, consideration of such proposals is an operational matter for the Post Office. I have 6 asked the Post Office to write to the noble Baroness on the point she has raised.
§ Baroness YOUNGMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Would he not agree that, although as he has explained he is in a difficulty about answering these Questions, as consumers we are in a great difficulty, too, because we are dealing with a monopoly and have no alternative service to turn to? Would he ask his honourable friends in another place to look, as a matter of urgency, at ways of resolving the very great public concern about the discontinuation of the Sunday post, and at the suggestion I have made for other ways?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, says about dealing with monopolies. On the other hand, I do not think that I, standing, at this Dispatch Box, am necessarily the right channel through which complaints of this kind should be made. There is the statutorily appointed Post Office Users' National Council. They are in a position to convey complaints. Noble Lords opposite may care to note that it was partly as a result of complaints from POUNC about these particular cuts that the Carter Committee was set up, and this Committee, in addition to POUNC, is in a position to review any of these cuts and the future plans of the Post Office letter service and telecommunication service. Therefore, there are plenty of channels available to consumers who are aggrieved at these cuts,
§ Baroness YOUNGMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that of course it is open to myself, or to any member of the public, to take up complaints through the Post Office Users' National Council, or another body to which my attention is drawn, the Mail Users' Association, which has just established itself because of the unsatisfactory nature of the Post Office? Is it not a fact that Members of this House or of another place are entitled to ask Questions about the nationalised industries and to seek the information they want?
§ Lord MELCHETTYes, my Lords. I am always willing to answer to the best of my ability, but I should point out to some noble Lords in this House that the 7 Post Office is justified in treating some of their advice with a little caution. For example, just before Christmas several noble Lords forecast that the Post Office would suffer very much reduced revenue if they did not introduce a cheap rate of postage stamp, and events did not bear those forecasts out.
§ Lord CARRINGTONMy Lords, I am sure we all realise the difficulties, but does the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, realise, too, that we are only using him as a post office?
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in another place only Questions are allowed which relate to the powers and general direction which can be issued by a Minister to a nationalised industry? Is not the provision of services for mail collection at the weekend a matter on which a general direction could have been given by a Minister to the Post Office, and therefore is it not subject to Questions in either House?
§ Lord MELCHETTMy Lords, I am not certain of the answer as regards the general direction, but the noble Lord may care to note that I did answer the first Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, which related to that. I said that the matter of whether the Crown Post Offices should be open at particular times of the week was a matter for the Post Office, and I think the noble Lord would agree that it is.
§ Lord SLATERMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that it was not the responsibility in the first place of the present Government to set up the Users' Council? That responsibility rests with the other side. The other Party, when they were in power, were responsible for setting up the National Users' Council, which had Dr. Kamm as its Chairman, and, not only that Council, but a District Usersd' Council. I am rather surprised that his Question should be raised here.
§ Lord SLATERMy noble Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am rather surprised that such Questions as this should be asked when the procedures is fully known?