§ MR. HUDSON (Newcastle on Tyne)I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that Mr. W. E. Patrick, of Newcastle, on 16th March,. 1907, informed his superior officer that, owing to the number of circulars he had to deliver he would be unable to return in time to perform certain duty; that in consequence of this extra work: he was unable to return, and as the superior officer had made no provision considerable delay occurred; whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick was accused of deliberately delaying his work and was heavily punished, first by extra duty without pay, then by the stoppage of 1s. 6d. a week for a year, and then a further stoppage of Is. a week stripe money for an indefinite period of not less than two years; whether he is aware that Mr. Patrick appealed, pointing out that he drew attention to the large number of circulars he had, and that in reply he was informed not only that his punishment must be maintained, but that it was considered to be too light for his offence; whether he is aware that this addition is likely to have the effect of intimidating men who desire to appeal against punishments; and whether he will inquire into the whole case.
§ MR. SYDNEY BUXTONThe matter referred to was fully investigated on the postman's own appeal, and the 1759 inquiry showed that the delay had been easily avoidable and merited severe punishment. Apart from the case in question the postman's record had been by no means satisfactory. No addition was made to Patrick's punishment on appeal, nor would this be the case. The loss of the yearly increase of pay and the deferment of his good conduct stripe followed necessarily from the fact that the conduct of the officer in question could not be certified to be satisfactory. He was aware of this when he appealed.