HC Deb 15 November 1951 vol 493 cc1297-306

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]

10.0 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton (Coventry, South)

Waiting for an Adjournment Motion in this House is, I think, a most salutary experience, not only for the Member concerned as for the Minister replying, but for you, Mr. Speaker, or whoever is in the. Chair. The matter which I wish to raise tonight is one on which, I think, nobody will regret spending a little additional time, particularly as it concerns our Forces overseas. The problem that I wish to pose, tonight is that raised by the air parcel postage rate to His Majesty's Forces overseas.

It is, of course. a matter for the Minister of Defence. The Prime Minister assured me that the Financial Secretary to the War Office would be replying on his behalf, and I think that it is important that I should make that point because, with respect, this is not a matter for the War Office but for the whole Ministry of Defence. I hoped that it would not be necessary to raise this matter again. I raised it several times in the last Parliament, and I hoped that for one or two reasons it would not be necessary to do so again. The first was that I hoped, in common with everyone else, that most of our men overseas might have been able to come home and the problem would not then have arisen, or alternatively, that the Government of the day—preferably a Government from this side, but now I am hoping for kind words from the present Government—would agree that this matter should be put right.

I want tonight to stick closely to one main argument, and that is that the present position is quite unfair and 'completely indefensible. I should like to mention two places which are very much in the public eye today, one is Korea and the other Egypt. If the comparison would not be disrespectful, I should like to say that if you, Mr. Speaker, were a Service man in Korea and your family wished to send to you a parcel by air, it would cost 63s. to send one weighing four pounds. If you could then be transferred to Egypt and be a Service man there, to send that same parcel would cost 22s., but if, by some relative good fortune, you were a Service man in Germany, to send that same parcel it would cost 6s. 6d.

Whatever the answer is going to be from the Financial Secretary tonight, I should like to tell him what I am sure he knows, that the British public and Members of this House on all sides believe that it is quite unfair that these rates should vary —63s., 22s. and 6s. 6d. Having said that. I should like to clear some hurdles first, in case the Financial Secretary offers them to me in his reply. The first point is the matter of cost. There are very few Members in this House today who would say that it does not matter what something costs. I believe that the British public do not care what it would cost to put these Service men on a similar footing everywhere, and, moreover, I am quite convinced that there are no people in this country who would not be willing to contribute to that, if it were necesary.

The second point, concerning transport, is a very valid one. If the Financial Secretary were to stand up and say that this was not possible because there would be so many parcels requiring so many aeroplanes that they could not be found, I would point out that we have never had this concession refused on the grounds that transport could not be found. I hope that the Financial Secretary will not follow what I must call, I think, the bad example of the Minister who replied to me in the last Government, who gave as one of his excuses the fact that air mail to the Forces was cheaper than to civilians. I hope that it is, and I think that is quite beside the point.

I have now reached my fourth hurdle, and that is a matter of surface mail. The Financial Secretary knows as well as I do that surface mail costs the same anywhere to Service people wherever they may be stationed. The last hurdle, and the fifth, is this matter of second-class mail, with which the Minister may deal in his reply. There is in existence a concession by which His Majesty's Forces outside Europe may have sent to them by second-class mail small packets at a standard charge of 3d. per half ounce, to a maximum weight of two pounds, which costs 16s. I have the leaflet published by the Post Office and it says this about this second-class mail: Second-class mail must he packed so that it can easily be examined and must not contain a letter. With that matter about a letter I should like to come to the human side of this problem, and it is one on which I think no argument about finance or transport can prevail. Last Christmas this House was able to persuade the Government to allow our men in Korea to have one postage free parcel at Christmas, and that was done primarily because of this extortionate rate for air mail parcels. A journalist on a national daily paper, not I may say agreeing with me in my political views, wrote to me after that, and I should like with permission to quote three sentences from his letter. He was out in Korea last Christmas, and he said that as a result of that action taken by the House there was a perfect avalanche of parcels. I had seven parcels sent to me for handling, and my main difficulty was finding anyone who had no parcel. I gave one to a fellow with the most woebegone face in Korea. He had just moved to a new unit and his mail and parcels had not caught him up. When I gave him one of the parcels his whole outlook changed. I should like to quote two definite examples given to me by people concerned out of the many which any other Member of this House could also quote. The first is from a sergeant in Korea and the other from the parents of a lad serving in Malaya. When this sergeant in Korea wrote to me in March of this year—I do not propose to weary the House with the letter, but I should like to take two points from it—he said that the previous week he had received a very small air mail parcel from his wife containing two rolls of film, two tins of boot polish and a couple of chocolate biscuits. It cost her 7s. which was more than the contents of the parcel were worth. He sent me this piece of paper which I shall be glad to give to the Under-Secretary of State for War, which is from the actual parcel and which has stamps on it to the value of 7s. I submit it is disgraceful that the families of our men who have been sent to Korea should be faced with such charges.

Secondly, going into the matter of surface mail, he stated that his mother sent him two parcels of food by sea and they took so long—it will be recalled that the minimum period is five or six weeks —that he had to throw them away and tell his mother not to send him any more. He says: All we out here have to look forward to are our letters and parcels from home. I think that that must melt even the heart of the Treasury, and if we can persuade the Under-Secretary to take the matter up that heart may dissolve completely.

The parents who wrote were parents of a lad in Malaya. He went out there in September 1949, and his parents wrote to say that every week since they had sent him a small parcel. In that parcel there was a weekly magazine, a radio book and a few cuttings. The cost was 6s. or 7s. for each parcel.

These parents wrote to say that they had sent 76 parcels to that boy since he left these shores, and it had cost them £26. They said they did not begrudge the money, but they just had not got it. I am sure that the Under-Secretary—his record in the war is well-known—must be aware, as we all are, of these matters. I have had to see me many men and women who have lads out in the Far East, asking me if the Government could not do something about this matter. I am asking for the removal of a principle which is wrong, and which is admitted to be wrong by everyone, both in this House and outside.

If we take the special concession for the Forces outside Europe, the second-class mail, one can send a 2-1b. packet by air to the Far East at a cost of 16s., by this concession, If one sends a 2-1b. packet to the Forces in Germany, it costs 4s. If the Under-Secretary is unable to recommend the Ministry of Defence to adopt my suggestion, I would like to hear him defend a principle by which the cheapest concession available for our Forces in the Far East means that a 2-1b. parcel costs 16s. to them, while it costs only 4s. to the men in Germany.

We all know that this matter is very difficult because of the cost, but I believe that our Forces overseas are part of the defence programme. It would be fitting and seemly, when we are allocating so much money to that defence programme, to suggest that a sufficient amount from it might be given to make sure that the relatives of our men out there do not suffer financially because of the decision of the Service Departments to send these men out to different parts of the world. I accept completely that a maximum weight would have to be given. If 4 lb. is not possible, I am willing to substitute 3 lb. or 2 lb.

That concludes the case I want to make. I do not know how wise it is, when one is asking for a loaf, to mention a slice of bread at the same time. I am not now suggesting an alternative, but if the Under-Secretary feels that this matter of a uniform air parcel postage rate for H.M. Forces overseas must wait a little longer, during the period of decision, would he recommend that the men might have a free parcel, so far as postage rates are concerned, sent by air mail overseas now that Christmas is drawing near? I hope he will be able to agree to a uniform rate. but if he is unable to give us that now, then in common humanity to the men out there let him see that they have at least one free parcel this side of Christmas.

10.14 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. R. H. Hutchison)

Nothing can be more disappointing to one who comes for the first time to this Box than to have to say "No," or largely to say it, when every inclination and desire within him is to say "Yes." The hon. Lady and her friends have pursued this quest throughout the past year with persuasion and perseverance. Indeed, an array of predecessors of mine, now on the other side of the House, came under their fire during 1951. Every one of them was impressed with the arguments that were put forward, but they were all forced or impelled to say "No" to any major project which would increase the costs to the Services, which are already heavy.

Let us see for a moment what the provision is. The hon. Lady has put the position perfectly fairly, but leaving out, I think, consideration of what is already being done. I do not think she would want me to spend a great deal of time on the European situation, for I believe that the troops in Germany are largely satisfied—concessions of some value as compared with civilian rates are already given in that theatre—but mainly upon —as she has concentrated her speech—the theatres of war or operations or of troops billeted outside Europe.

First of all, for hon. Members who have not taken part in earlier debates, I should like to point out that the details of all the facilities which are available by the different methods of transport were set out in HANSARD on 30th May last, and that they still apply. It would be wearying to the House if I were to go through the rather complicated illustrations given there, where hon. Members can find what they need. Considerable concessions in those rates will be found already to have been made. For example, the concession on air letters is something over 50 per cent. compared with what civilians pay.

Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley)

It is 62 per cent.

Mr. Hutchison

It is rather over 50 per cent. It depends on the destination. On second class mail—that is the type of mail to which the hon. Lady has referred —which consisted in its original conception of printed papers, a smaller concession is allowed, but within the category of the printed papers type of mail the Forces are allowed to receive small parcels up to 2 lb., though I should recommend relatives who are making use of this facility to consult the Post Office on the details of packing before they send the parcels. I was not aware—I should like an opportunity of looking into it—that they are precluded from sending any written word in that parcel.

Mr. Hobson

It is quite true.

Mr. Hutchison

Perhaps I might be allowed to look into it. By a further concession, they are also allowed to send up to 4 lb. by letter rate. By using these facilities, parcels can be sent to the Far East by air at, say, 2 lbs. for 16s. compared with the civilian rate of 26s. 8d. I agree that those are fairly high rates, but I feel that we must remember in all this that the surface rates to which the hon. Lady also referred are really very reasonable and that the same parcel could be sent to that same destination at 1s. 3d. whereas a 4 lb. parcel could be sent for 2s. 3d.

Miss Burton

I do not wish to interrupt the Under-Secretary, but I should like to make one point clear. I am not arguing about surface mail. I do not think that the comparison between rates for civilians and rates for the Forces is possible. I am complaining that it costs 16s. to the Far East and 4s. to Germany, and I say that the cost ought to be the same in both cases.

Mr. Hutchison

I have carefully read the other statements that have been made on the subject, and I think that there has throughout been a tendency to forget that there is any surface mail facility at all. I agree that perishable goods cannot be sent by surface mail to Korea, for the time is generally too long and they have lost their value or their attract on, but there are many other things which, with a little foresight, can be sent to troops in the, Far East at very reasonable rates indeed.

Let me just point out to the House that the total of all these concessions given in all theatres is already over £1 million a year. Under the pressure and persuasive appeals of the hon. Lady and her friends my predecessors have made an examination to see if they could find some sort of solution to the problem with which they and certainly my right hon. Friend and I have the greatest sympathy.

They considered the scheme which the hon. Lady has close to her heart, the bulk flat-rate system by air, and they came to the conclusion that this could not be faced because it 'presupposes one of two things happening. If we were to put the bulk flat rate by air on to a basis where it could approximately make ends meet, on the present calculations we would have to put up the rates to Europe stiffly, to use a conservative term. The proportion that the rates would have to go up would depend upon the strength of the Forces in the various theatres of war. Then we would have the paradox of the civilians in Germany paying less than the Forces in Germany, so clearly a situation of that kind would not be tenable.

On the other hand, if the present flat-rate for air parcels to Germany was to be taken as the basis for troops all over the world I am advised that one four-pound parcel per man per year would cost an extra £300,000. That means that if the troops abroad were all to get one parcel per man per month the extra cost involved would be £3½ million a year. That seems to be something which at present we cannot face up to. So they cast round for some other form of mitigation of the situation and in 1951 they finally adopted a scheme whereby relatives and friends could send postal orders up to the value of £2 a day to the troops in these theatres. These postal orders can be converted either into the local currency or into N.A.A.F.I. coupons and used by the recipient as he thinks fit. In the month of October 1,200 men benefited by this system, so it is not fair to leave the impression, and I should not like it to go out from this House that we have not endeavoured to do something in order to improve the position of the men on the Korean front.

Now I come to the question of post-free Christmas parcels inaugurated last year. Under this system post-free Christmas parcels up to three pounds were permitted to men in the Services in Korea and for those in Malaya who left this country after the last date of posting for surface mail. I can say this, that my right hon. Friend hopes to be able to repeat that system again this year.

Mr. Hobson

I am rather alarmed at the use of the word "hopes". Why is not it possible to give an assurance?

Mr. Hutchison

I was coming to that point, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. I cannot give a definite promise at this stage. The matter is under most sympathetic review, but with the pressure of the Far East and the Middle East which has developed recently, transport difficulties have been encountered. As I say, I hope they may be able to be overcome, but I cannot go beyond that statement tonight.

I cannot hope that hon. Members will be completely content with this, indeed I am not content myself. Having served in various theatres in various wars, I know how important it is to the man in the field to know that he has not lost the consideration and the sympathy of those at home. But we simply cannot face the increased expenditure in which we would be involved by the scheme which the hon. Lady has in mind. One Minister after another has had to refuse it. The concessions already being given are, I think, greater than is realised by the public. If it was necessary to refuse these concessions early in 1951, it is certainly not easier to grant them now.

The hon. Lady said that she hoped that time would be spent willingly on this matter. Certainly, my time will not he grudged, but it is much more difficult to find the money. I end by saying that when a decision has been made on the free Christmas parcels scheme, an announcement will be made. In that rather indefinite, and, I am afraid, perhaps in her view unsatisfactory, position I must leave the question.

10.26 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley)

First I wish to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for War for dealing very ably with a most difficult problem. In the last Parliament I myself had to deal with this question from the Despatch Box before the War Office finally realised that the cost of sending parcels to the Forces was their responsibility and not that of the Post Office.

The point that rather alarmed me was that I failed to see why a categorical assurance cannot be given that Christmas parcels may be sent free to the Forces in Malaya and Korea. I realise the increased commitments due to the increased number of Forces now in Egypt and the Middle East. But one must realise that the cost of sending parcels to Egypt and the Middle East is considerably less than the cost of sending them to Malaya and Korea.

There is a further point of importance. Greater use can be made of the surface route to Egypt and the Middle East because the time taken is shorter. Therefore, I think that there is still a special case for Korea and Malaya. I know that the hon. Gentleman, with his real sympathy for those men who do the fighting, will use his great powers of persuasion to try to get his right hon. Friend to approve the free postage of parcels for Christmas scheme for Malaya and Korea.

If that gesture was made, it would be in line with what happened last year, and it would be fully appreciated by the troops serving in those dangerous theatres of war.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. S. S. Awbery (Bristol, Central)

On almost the last day before the Summer Recess this matter was discussed and a promise was made that the Minister would consider, not only the question of parcels, but the sending of newspapers. A promise was made to see whether the boys who wanted newspapers from home could receive them quickly by allowing the senders to take advantage of the cheap air mail rate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will consider newspapers at the same time as he considers parcels.

Question put, and agreed to.

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