699
Postal Packets
HOUSE OF COMMONS
[MR. BOYD-CARPENTER.] it may be that the arrangements inside his Department are so admirable that disclosure of them will quiet that appre- hension. I profoundly hope that is so. But the hon. Gentleman must realise that the persistent refusal of his right hon. Friend to disclose anything about this inevitably leads people to the very natural conclusion that what is concealed is concealed because it is discreditable. I have far too great a respect for the administration, at any rate the permanent administration, of the Post Office to believe that these proceedings are dis- creditable, but it is owed by the right hon. Gentleman to the very loyal and devoted band of public servants under his control to disclose to the public what is done, the precautions taken and the scale of these proceedings.
are
I want to give the hon. Gentleman plenty of time to deal with the matter because I realise that in the very restricted time available in an Adjournment Debate, Ministers often handicapped by shortage of time and I appreciate that this is quite a large subject covering a large administrative sphere. So I will close and I hope the House will acquit me of repetition if I repeat the questions to which I want an answer. The approxi- mate number of postal packages opened during the course of the year, the number of post office officials permitted to do this, the other Departments to whom per- mission is given to do this and the pre- cautions taken to ensure both privacy and freedom from loss.
I do not see how it is possible to suggest that any public interest will be prejudiced by full and frank answers to those questions. I believe, on the con- trary, that the more it is known what the Post Office is doing the more effec- tively will potential wrongdoers be de- terred, because the sight of the machinery of enforcement in action is generally accepted as being one of the most effec- tive deterrents of all. Equally, the vast number of people outside who are wholly innocent of anything other than a desire to write to their friends will be reassured if they can be told as to the limit which is put upon this interference with the mails. The hon. Gentleman has know- ledge of and feeling for the long and honourable history of his Department. He knows that it has built up across the
109 0 2
(Examination)
700
7701
centuries а considerable tradition public service. I believe that tradition is being somewhat damaged by present ten- dencies, and it is therefore peculiarly the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman to rebuild that tradition and restore that morale.
10.12 p.m.
The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): I wish to say first that I wel- come the courteous manner in which the hon. Member has put forward his case. I also welcome this opportunity to define the position of the Post Office in relation to the question of opening of letters. I have been doing a little research and I find that almost the same Question which the hon. Member asked in the House a few weeks ago was asked on 9th April, 1924, by none other than the late George Lansbury, so we seem to be faced with the position Plus ca change plus c'est la même chose. Post Office packages are opened in the case of those letters which cannot be delivered. Printed matter can be opened because it is pos- sible that letters may be included. We have in the first instance the duty of seeing, if at all possible, that the letters are returned to the senders if we are unable to deliver them. In the second case we have to consider the revenue of the Post Office.
This system has been in operation since 1908. I was enacted by the Liberal Gov- ernment of that day, and I am sure that they would have been the last Govern- ment in the world to have enacted any legislation which would affect the liberty of the subject. I regret that none of the Liberal Party are present.
I am sure
66
33
that they would hasten to intervene to support my argumen. in that regard. The position since 1908, so far as dead letters and the question of printed matter are concerned, is that there has been no alteration.
I turn to the present position. Is there any departure, and if so what departure is there? It is that under the Exchange Control Act we are empowered to open outgoing and incoming mail to and from overseas, but the Post Office as such only acts as the agent for the Depart- ment concerned. Our servants physically open the letters but they open them on the authority of the Customs and Excise, and the authority is given by an officer of that Department. I have been asked
፡
Postal Packets
9 DECEMBER 1948
what grade of person opens the letters. It is the higher grade officers on the manipulative side, who open the letters on the instructions of the Customs and Excise. Our authority for that is, firstly, Article 6 (2) of Statutory Instrument 562, 1948. I would remind the hon. Mem- ber that while it is perfectly true he voted against the Exchange Control Act, he did not avail himself of praying against this Statutory Instrument when it was laid on the Table of the House.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Do not provoke
me.
Mr. Hobson: That is rather unusual so far as the hon. Member is concerned, because I know of no one who is more diligent in observing what instruments are laid on the Table of the House. submit that the arguments he has adduced this evening could have very well been made on a Prayer against this particular order.
I
The object of the order is obviously to prevent the exporting of currency from this country. The only way in which this order could operate is by the physical opening of the parcel or the letter after it is posted, in order to avoid the sending of £1 notes out of the country. I do not think that the hon. Member is particularly aggrieved with that action. What he does seem to be very worried about is that we will not disclose the number that are opened. I regret I shall have to remain adamant so far as that is concerned, because we do firmly believe that if we give that information it will enable wrongdoers to assess their chances of whether they will be caught or not. We are thoroughly convinced of that, and all the advice we can get leads us to believe that that would be the case.
After all, a person who desires to evade the Exchange Control Act has the sort of tenuous mind that would pay attention to the figures, if we did give them, in order that he could get the currency abroad. Therefore, compelled not to give the information. The hon. Member may not agree with us but that is the reason.
we are
Let me say, so far as the opening of mail is concerned, that we are merely the agents for the Customs and Excise. It just happens that it is our servants who
109 0 3
702
I suggest
(Examination)
physically open the letters. that the quarrel of the hon. Gentleman, or the disagreement between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend is purely one with regard to the fact that we will not divulge this information. So the position is this, that there has been no change since 1908 in what the Post Office does, with the sole exception of what we do under the Exchange Control Act. I regret, therefore, that it is en- tirely impossible for my right hon. Friend to give the information.
I must say that the Post Office have always regarded as of fundamental im- portance the preservation of public con- fidence in the secrecy of the post. We have done everything in our power to preserve the privacy of the sealed letter. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that it is an offence for our servants to open letters otherwise than on the authority of the Exchange Control Act or on a Home Office warrant. I wish to make
that perfectly clear. If the hon. Gentle- man has any evidence to the contrary, we shall be only too pleased to look into the matter, and if we can trace the offender disciplinary action will be taken, and taken quickly. We only open these letters subject to Statute and statutory regulations. So far as the privacy of the sealed letter is concerned, it remains in- violate.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, can he confirm that the only Department which his Depart- ment assists in this opening of corre- spondence is the Customs and Excise, and that no other Government Department is concerned?
Mr. Hobson: As far as the Exchange Control Act is concerned, yes.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, as far as the mail is concerned.
Mr. Hobson: Under Home Office war- rant we can open mail. That practice has applied since 1908.
Mr. McCorquodale (Epsom): When the mails are opened to see whether or not there is currency inside, are the letters read? Directly the people con- cerned see that there is no currency there, is the mail immediately shut?