CO537-3702 — Page 106

697

Postal Packets

9 DECEMBER 1948

ngerous? It seems that that answer was yet another attempt to avoid discus- sion of this matter. That is why I went through the usual procedure, with which hon. Members are only too familiar, of treading the lengthy corridor to inscribe my name in the Ballot book.

This is a question of considerable constitutional and public importance. If the Postmaster-General deems it a

necessary part of his duties to open letters entrusted to him by the public for delivery he should be prepared to come to this House to admit the scale of the process and say what safeguards he introduces for the interests of the public. I hope, now this matter has been raised, that the Assistant Postmaster-General, in his usual disarming style, will tell us a little more about these so far rather mysterious proceedings. I hope he does not try to ride off on the answer of the Postmaster-General, because the right hon. Gentleman sought to justify his answer, in reply to a supplementary question, with a wholly untenable proposition. When asked why it was not in the public interest to reveal the scale of his transactions he said this:

"The public interest would not be served by helping potential wrongdoers to assess their chances of escaping detection." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1948; Vol. 457, c. 838.]

I think that is a miscalculation. If it is an accurate calculation, however, it goes contrary to almost every other prin- ciple of enforcing the law. If there be any force in that contention it would not be in the public interest to disclose the number of murderers who are convicted, because if the publication of the numbers who are convicted-still less, the num- bers hanged-would not, in fact, serve the public interest by revealing—I sup- pose this is the argument the extent to which escape from detection was pos- sible, surely it would be unwise to publish those figures; but all those figures and those for all the other offences which citizens commit-and in these days they are manifold statistics-- are given.

Therefore I think the Postmaster- General's argument is throughly un- sound. Surely if this is an efficient pro- cess-and I do not suppose the Assistant Postmaster-General is going to say that it is inefficient-it would be most salu- tary for potential wrongdoers to know

109 0 1

(Examination)

698

the grave risks they run thanks to the inspired vigilance of His Majesty's Postmaster-General. I hope we shall not be ridden off on that argument. Even if there were force in the argument, it seems wrong to me that this act taken by the Minister on an important matter should not be fully acknowledged and fully avowed and explained to the House of Commons. I think it is quite intolerable that the holder of this ancient and honourable office, entrusted by His Majesty and the country with high responsibilities, should conduct quite a large part of the affairs of that office under this veil of secrecy. I hope we are going to hear a little about it tonight.

There is no doubt at all that there are a considerable number of cases of the opening of mails. There is the one to which I earlier invited the attention of the House of a highly respectable nursing sister in a hospital in North London whose wholly innocent correspondence with a Swiss hotel at which she was going to spend a holiday was opened and closed so clumsily that the Swiss hotel wrote and drew her attention to the matter. There was the case of another friend of mine whose wholly innocent correspondence with a relative in New Zealand was opened and closed in the same clumsy manner, and I think other hon. Members have had this kind of thing brought to their attention.

Will the Assistant Postmaster-General tell us who is permitted to open letters in transit? Which officers, of which grade and how many of them, are given authority to open letters in transit? I am sure he appreciates the importance of that. How wide is the authority to do what we would have thought would be against the instincts of a good postal official, to open mail? For what other Departments does the Post Office act in this matter and to what other Depart- ments do they hand over letters which it is their duty to hand to the recipients? What precautions are taken to secure the privacy of the contents of letters opened? To how many people is information com- municated as to what is in these letters, who has the responsibility of reading them and under what precautions?

I am sure the Assistant Postmaster- General must realise that the public out- side are unhappy about this matter and