§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Sir R. Sanders.]
§ Mr. HOGGEAt Question Time to-day I repeated a question to the Leader of the House with regard to a matter which interests practically every Member of the House. Practically every one in the country has received some consideration as a result of the War. Members of this House have had cast upon them, as a result of the War, an ever-growing correspondence—a correspondence which, in my humble opinion, has helped the Departments materially to clear up grievances and to put their own cases in order. I asked a very simple thing. I suggested that Members, when they raise questions with the Departments affecting their constituents, should, when the final reply came from the Department, receive a franked envelope in which to carry that reply to the correspondent who had addressed them. That has been refused by the Leader of the House. This afternoon I gave notice to the Leader of the House that I would raise this question to-night. The Leader of the House is not here. The Postmaster-General is here, and I suppose he may give us some reasons, from the Post Office point of view, with regard to the carriage of mails, as to why we should not have this concession. I am not really interested in what the Postmaster-General has got to say. This is not a question for him at all, it is a question of policy which ought to be decided by the Leader of the House, and it is not fair of my right hon. Friend not to be here when Members of the House wish to discuss a question of policy. I know a great many Members wish to speak on this subject. When I discussed this question personally with the Leader of the House, he said that he was perfectly certain if this were raised the average Member would not be in favour of my view. My opinion is exactly contrary, and every Member of the House to whom I have spoken is absolutely in favour of this commonsense proposal. I desire to deal with one argument which the Leader of the House made against this He pointed out that if Members of the House wished to save the cost of postage they could ask the Departments to send the reply to the correspondent. I went through my own correspondence at 400 random to-day and I picked out a letter which came to me by the 5 o'clock post this afternoon. I said at Question Time that no Member could really trust any Department to deal with his correspondence. This is a case which went to the Ministry of Pensions through the hon. Member, who really does take great pains in dealing with all these matters, and he writes to me:
With regard to this, I am glad to say that payment of arrears has now been arranged, and I am sorry for the delay. Mr. —'s letter returned herewith.Mr.—'s letter says:I have been waiting three months for my money.If I or some other Member did not take up this and similar cases, these men would not get their money. If a Department cannot pay the money in three months, how long will it take them to send a reply? They are going to take the rest of their natural lives, that is the experience of every Member. The case is quite simple. Every Member of the Government can frank his letters. We are doing Government work as Members of this House. We are not asking for free postage for our own purposes, but we are asking for the same privileges, as right hon. Gentlemen opposite. While we are drawing one-tenth of the salaries they are drawing, we are making a much greater contribution than they are. This is a matter which concerns our constituents, and it seems ridiculous that in the case of correspondence, in the last process the expenditure of money is involved on the Member concerned. I therefore suggest that the Government should reconsider their decision in this matter, and do an act of simple justice.
§ Mr. STURROCKI rise with great pleasure to suport my hon. Friend on this question. I was astonished to hear the reply which the Leader of the House gave, in which he said that if Members of the House wished, the Departments would reply direct to the constituents of Members. If a constituent addresses us, we must in due course reply to him, and we cannot possibly, without seriously abrogating our duty to our constituents, allow any Government Department to deal with what is really our correspondence. There have been serious delays in dealing with correspondence from Departments, and a Member 401 receiving a communication or a complaint and addressing it to a Government Department could never feel satisfied in his mind that the matter was having any consideration whatever, and I cannot see why the Government should oppose the very reasonable suggestion put forward by the hon. Member for East Edinburgh {Mr. Hogge). It will cost the country nothing, and it is only common justice and fair play, and it appears to me that it is only because of the entire reasonableness of the idea that it has been rejected. Parliaments throughout the Empire have been substantially increasing the stipends which their Members enjoy, and have been giving every sort of concession to Members, and here, when we come forward with a very moderate proposal indeed, it is turned down in a very offensive fashion. I plead with the Government to consider the position of Members who have a very serious burden to face. If the present attitude is maintained, the House of Commons will no longer be a possible place for men of moderate means. It will become the haunt either of multimillionaires or of my hon. Friends on the Labour Benches, who are handsomely treated by the organisations which they represent.
Mr. PALMERI should like to make a practical suggestion. In many of the letters which we receive from Departments in answer to the complaints, which we forward from constituents, and in which we are therefore facilitating the work of the Government, very often we get a duplicate, which we are asked to forward to our constituents. That costs us 2d., and I say it is putting upon the ordinary, common-place, middle class Member of moderate means a tax which the Government have no right to expect him to pay, and I would make a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General, who, I am sure, will meet this view in the most sympathetic way. This is really not a Post Office matter at all, but a matter of the internal policy of this House. I have received to-day some twenty letters from the various Departments of the Government, and particularly from the Pensions Department, something to this effect: "Dear Mr. Palmer,—Thank you for your letter of such and such a date, but your constituent has not sent sufficient particulars. If you will write to him again, and let us have full 402 particulars as to his regimental number, etc." Now, that is almost formal, as my hon. Friend says. The reply could be sent to us with a franked envelope, typed with the address of the person to whom we are sending it. The suggestion that any unfair use is going to be made of this was unworthy of the Lord Privy Seal.
Dr. MURRAYWith regard to the argument addressed to the House by the Leader of the House, namely, that the Department concerned should send the reply direct to the constituent, that is fraught with some danger, especially in connection with the Ministry of Pensions, because sometimes the Ministry of Pensions have got a reply which, if sent to the constituent, would cause unnecessary pain. I know of one or two cases in which I got a reply which I could not send to my constituents, because the Ministry of Pensions were bound to tell the bare truth. If I sent that letter to the relatives it would cause a great deal of unnecessary and life-long pain. That sort of thing could be saved.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTI think the House is indebted to my hon. Friend for raising this subject, but I do not think the matter is quite so simple as he believes. I understand his suggestion is that the Department answering a Member with regard to some point raised by a constituent should send a franked envelope, so that the Member could reply to his constituent in that envelope without incurring the expense of postage. That would open the door to illimitable abuses. I understand that, when one posts a letter of that kind in a franked envelope, it is not enough to have the envelope marked "On His Majesty's Service" and addressed to some private individual, but it is necessary to have, in addition, the name of an individual in some Department. In order that that should be franked through the Post Office, it is necessary that it should be posted in some recognised way in the Department and by the Department, before it can be passed through the Post Office. Otherwise, any individual in the country could simply get a number of these envelopes and print on them "On His Majesty's Service" and the name of some Department, and post them, and they could go through the Post Office without check. [HON. MEMBERS: "Post them in the House."] That would not work through 403 the vacation, and, so far as this suggestion of posting is concerned, I think that the Government have met it in the only possible way in which this particular difficulty can be met, namely, that these should be posted through the Government Departments. I do not think that that will meet the requirements of Members. Personally, I would not be content to be a mere receiving officer, or a mere post office handing on letters from my constituents to the Department, and taking no further interest in them. I should certainly want to see the reply, to exercise a discretion in regard to it, as to whether I forwarded it to my constituents with or without comment, or whether I pursued the matter further. This is really part of a larger subject. If the Government grant this concession to the limited extent to which they are prepared to grant it, and which is the only extent to which they can grant it—in regard to the Post Office, how much more should they grant it in respect to the railway? The increase in Members' expenses in regard to Post Office matters is only a tithe of the increase of Members' expenses in regard to railway fares. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, my railway fare—as, I think, the railway fares of other Members of Northern constituencies—has increased by more than £5 every time I visit my constituents.
Mr. SCOTTNo, I will not. I say that this is merely part of a far larger subject This concession is a camouflaged increase of salaries. If it be going to be done, it is far better that you should do it by an honest, straightforward increase of the salaries of Members.
Mr. SCOTTI will give him all the time that I think he will require. There is one other way in which it can be done. At present the salary to Members is nominally £400 a year. Out of that, £100 is considered to be not salary, but allowance for expenses, and is not subject to Income Tax. That allowance is certainly not adequate just now. One way to meet this charge would be to increase the proportion of salary that is allowed free of Income Tax. That is not a matter, I 404 know, that is subject to the Postmaster-General. It is really a matter for the Government, and I regret, for that purpose, that the head of the Government is not present now.
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth)The hon. Member for East Edinburgh said that he was not disposed to trust the Departments to reply to his letters. That is hardly a sound argument.
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHThose who have had experience of the trouble of finding out the details of all these things know that it must take a considerable time, as it frequently does. Inquiries have to be made all over the country, various files have to be consulted, and also people at a distance. The hon. Gentleman also said—though, I am sure, he was under a misapprehension, or he would not have said it—that Ministers sent their replies to their constituents franked. The hon. Member is quite mistaken. The rule and custom is that a Minister replying to one of his constituents can only send a franked reply in connection with matters attaching to his Department.
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHThe hon. Member said a Minister could send any reply to any constituent, but he cannot, and if he does, he should not. All the letters I send in reply to my constituents have a postage stamp, except those which apply to my own Departmental matters. The hon. Member said a Minister could post a reply on any question affecting any Department. He cannot do so.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has made his speech. Surely he might listen to the right hon. Gentleman's reply.
§ Mr. ILLINGWORTHThe experience of the Post Office is that when these official-paid envelopes are allowed to be dealt with by Departments they have been very much abused, even by people one would not expect to do so. I know a case of a mayor who had the means of getting hold of these envelopes, posting them from his own private business correspondence. In that case, and in others I have known, 405 franked invitations sent out for dances and all sorts of things, and that was only discovered on account of the carelessness of the people in not gumming down the envelopes and the contents being seen by the Post Office officials. We have to face the possibility of having a large number of envelopes in various Departments. I agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. MacCullum Scot) that probably what is suggested would result in getting a very great deal more correspondence to Members. I think the offer which has been made is a very generous one. If any hon. Member does not wish to pay the postage, he has only to send to the Department and to ask that that reply shall be sent from the Department. I think that that meets the point entirely. Hon. Members who have spoken have simply wanted to save the expense of postage. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"] Well, that has been mentioned in several speeches. They want to save the expense of the postage and our offer will enable him to do so.
406 I think I have fairly met the hon. Member on the point of postage. What is aimed at is a reduction of expenditure. The Government offer will enable that reduction to be made, but to do as the hon. Member suggests would only be to encourage expenditure which hon. Members would otherwise avoid. I do not think the Government should be pressed any more. The question has been very carefully considered not only by myself and by my Department, but also by the Government as a whole. I have stated the decision we have come to. I think it is a quite reasonable one, and one which should satisfy the requirements of the hon. Member.
§ It being Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Orders.
§ Adjourned at Half after Eleven o'clock.