Lord Faulkner of Worcester:
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. A number of Members of this
House and another place visited MailRail at the invitation of the Post Office
two weeks ago. Every member of our party was greatly impressed with the quality
of the track and tunnels and of the infrastructure generally. Does my noble
friend agree that it would be regrettable if this unique facility were to be
closed permanently given the fact that it is capable of transporting significant
quantities of freight under the streets of London in an entirely environmentally
friendly way? Are the Government prepared to support the attempt, which I
understand the Post Office will shortly be making, to change the
legislation—particularly the Post Office (London) Railway Act 1913—to allow
for freight other than mail to be carried on the railway?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville:
My Lords, the Royal Mail has agreed to pursue a legislative route to widen the
scope of usage for the system. If it decides to seek an appropriate order under
the transport and works legislation, my department would support such a move.
Lord Methuen:
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Post Office railway is beneficial
from a congestion point of view? Would it be practical to extend the line to
Willesden, where the main Post Office sorting centre is located?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville:
My Lords, as regards transport it makes very little difference. The company
envisages using only a handful of extra vehicles after MailRail is taken out of
service because a huge proportion of the mail it now carries will be transported
on existing vehicle routes. As regards extension, MailRail used to connect nine
different stations but, with the movement of sorting offices to new areas of
population, it now covers only four. Extending it would make no economic sense
at all.
