HC Deb 22 December 1954 vol 535 cc2742-4
25 and 26. Mr. Callaghan

asked the Assistant Postmaster-General (1) why he does not insist upon some proof of identity before Post Offices cash telegraphic money orders in view of the opportunities for forging and impersonation afforded by the present system;

(2) what recompense he will make to an Arab seaman, whose case he knows, who has been robbed of£100 after his Department had failed to deliver a telegraphed money order to a responsible person aboard ship, and the seamen's mark has been subsequently forged at the Post Office by an impersonator.

Mr. Gammans

The essential proof upon which the Post Office relies is the ability of the person presenting a telegraph money order to give correctly and convincingly the name of the sender. This test has served well over very many years, and we have no evidence that it is inadequate. Exhaustive inquiries have been made in the case to which the hon. Member refers, and we are unable to accept the allegation either that the telegrams were incorrectly delivered or that there was any failure to take proper precautions at the time of payment. I regret, therefore, that no compensation can be paid.

Mr. Callaghan

As the hon. Member told me in correspondence that he cannot say to whom the telegraph orders were delivered, how can he possibly claim that there was no negligence? Why should we accept a lower standard of proof in a matter like this than that which would be accepted by an ordinary commercial bank? This is a large sum of money; and one could not just walk into a commercial bank and cash an order for£100.

Mr. Gammans

This Post Office practice has been accepted and has proved satisfactory—

Mr. Callaghan

It is not satisfactory.

Mr. Gammans

—for many years. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that this case is a somewhat odd one. We are dealing with an Arab seaman—

Mr. Callaghan

Who is illiterate.

Mr. Gammans

—and the telegram was delivered, as is usual in such cases, to the ship's officers.

Mr. Callaghan

No.

Mr. Gammans

Four months went by before anything whatever was said. It was not until after four months that the matter was raised at all.

Mr. Callaghan

If the hon. Member bases his case on the four months' delay, may I ask him whether he is not aware that this Arab seaman is at the moment in Australia, and, because he is illiterate, is having very great difficulty in getting his case across to the Post Office? Does not the hon. Gentleman feel that there is some moral obligation on him in that he cannot prove to whom this sum was delivered? He has told me in correspondence, not that it was delivered to the ship's officers, but that he cannot say to whom it was delivered. If the Post Office do not ask to see a seaman's discharge book, which is an elementary precaution, does he not feel that it at least has some moral obligation in this matter?

Mr. Gammans

I have every sympathy with this case. I have looked at it very carefully and sympathetically. The fact is that with this telegraph money order we have followed the normal procedure which we always follow in these cases—that is to deliver to a ship's officer. That was done in this particular case.

Mr. Shinwell

In view of the fact that the seaman could only make his mark because he was illiterate, or assumed to be illiterate, was it not a defect on the part of the Post Office not to have asked for proof of identity by asking for his discharge book? If the discharge book had been asked for the man could have probably applied for the money therefore, is not the Post Office at fault to some extent?

Mr. Gammans

No, Sir, I do not think so. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is concerned now with the actual cashing of the money order. That was done and the clerk who cashed the money order satisfied himself, according to the procedure in force for many years, that this was the man entitled to it.

Mr. Callaghan

In view of the fact that I have been unable to clear up this matter satisfactorily by correspondence and in view of the unsatisfactory attitude of the hon. Gentleman this morning, I beg to give notice that I must raise the matter on the Adjournment.