HC Deb 09 December 1948 vol 459 cc694-700

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

It has become increasingly well known to the public outside this House during the last few months that letters entrusted by them to the Post Office have been opened in transit for a variety of purposes. The apprehension to which this interference with mails in transit has given rise has been somewhat accentuated by the mystery with which the Postmaster-General has tried to cloak this proceeding. Certainly, that disquiet and apprehension outside this House was in no degree diminished by the reply which the Postmaster-General gave to a Parliamentary Question on 3rd November. On that date—at Column 838 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—I asked the Postmaster-General: How many letters in transit have been opened by, or with the connivance of, his Department since 1st January, 1948. In his reply the Postmaster-General said this: The information desired is not available and, if it were, publication would not be in the public interest. In the days when I used to practise in the courts of law it was generally accepted that if a defendant put in two quite separate defences it usually meant that he was not particularly confident about either. That is precisely what the Postmaster-General tried to do on that occasion. His defences, moreover, are quite inconsistent. If he really does not know how many letters he opens, how can he form an opinion that it would be dangerous to tell the public how many he opens? If he does not know the figure, how can publication of it be dangerous? It seems that that answer was yet another attempt to avoid discussion 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 principle 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 numbers hanged—would not, in fact, serve the public interest by revealing—I suppose this is the argument—the extent to which escape from detection was possible, 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 unsound. Surely if this is an efficient process—and I do not suppose the Assistant Postmaster-General is going to say that it is inefficient—it would be most salutary for potential wrongdoers to know 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 constituent 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 Departments 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 communicated 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 outside are unhappy about this matter and it may be that the arrangements inside his Department are so admirable that disclosure of them will quiet that apprehension. 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 discreditable, 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.

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 are 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 approximate 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 permission is given to do this and the precautions 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 contrary, that the more it is known what the Post Office is doing the more effectively will potential wrongdoers be deterred, because the sight of the machinery of enforcement in action is generally accepted as being one of the most effective 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 knowledge of and feeling for the long and honourable history of his Department. He knows that it has built up across the centuries a considerable tradition of public service. I believe that tradition is being somewhat damaged by present tendencies, 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 welcome 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 possible 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. It was enacted by the Liberal Government of that day, and I am sure that they would have been the last Government 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 that they would hasten to intervene to support my argument 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 Department 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 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. Member 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. I submit that the arguments he has adduced this evening could have very well been made on a Prayer against this particular order.

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 mind that would pay attention to the figures, if we did give them, in order that he could get the currency abroad. Therefore, we are compelled not to give the information. The hon. Member may not agree with us but that is the reason.

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 physically open the letters. I suggest 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 entirely impossible for my right hon. Friend to give the information.

I must say that the Post Office have always regarded as of fundamental importance the preservation of public confidence 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. Gentleman 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 inviolate.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, can he confirm that the only Department which his Department assists in this opening of correspondence 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 warrant 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 concerned see that there is no currency there, is the mail immediately shut?

Mr. Hobson

The Customs officer actually examines the envelope to see what is inside. On the question of reading the letters, I am sure that we can rely on the decency of the Customs and Excise people not to read the letters but merely to extract currency if it is there and then to report the matter to the appropriate authority. I would add that after the letters are opened, everything is done by the Post Office to expedite their delivery as addressed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-one Minutes past Ten o'Clock.