HC Deb 05 July 1957 vol 572 cc1552-60

Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

3.18 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

I wish to draw the attention of the House to a much more local and, in a way, less controversial topic than the groundnut scheme and its sequel, which we have just been debating. In view of the atmosphere of harmony and unanimity which has pervaded the recent debate I feel it almost a duty to introduce a note of healthy criticism into the proceedings, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not take it amiss if I do so.

The subject which I wish to raise is that of Post Office box numbers. I was always under the impression that a person applied for a Post Office box number if, for some reason or other, he did not want to use his name and address—and that that was the whole object of the exercise. I was therefore rather surprised to hear from one of my constituents that this is very far from being the truth, and that, indeed, nobody can use a Post Office box number unless he also uses with it his full postal address.

That is a surprising state of affairs, and I naturally sought information as to the reason for it. I was informed by the Postmaster-General in the following words: We have made a rule that the full postal address must be used on all correspondence received into the box otherwise it would be possible for the private box holder to conceal his address from the public. We feel it is very important that the Post Office should guard against its facilities being used in this way since it opens the door for fraudulent activity. In the first place, I should have thought that an organisation like the Post Office purveying facilities to the public might very well relieve itself of the responsibility of inquiry into the motives for which people are using its facilities.

I do not know, but I strongly suspect that the ordinary delivery of post is used for some purposes which the Postmaster-General would not approve if he knew of them. I can imagine that all kinds of deplorable activities, as well as many laudable ones, go on through the post. and I would think it very unwise of the Postmaster-General to try to see that the facilities of the Post Office in that direction were not misused by people with improper motives.

The Postmaster-General also provides a telephone service. We all know from our proceedings in the House that some scrutiny is kept of what goes on over the telephone. But that, apparently, is done by a Secretary of State and not by the Postmaster-General. As far as I know, so far as the Postmaster-General is concerned, one can use one's telephone for whatever improper purpose one thinks fit.

It is only when it comes to Post Office box numbers, which are merely a form of convenience for a subject in a particular circumstance, that these twinges of conscience upset the Postmaster-General. They upset him so much—I do not mean the present Postmaster-General in particular, because the rule is of long standing—that it is laid down that no one may use a Post Office box number unless his full postal address is added after it on the envelope.

It follows, therefore, that a commercial body, company or firm using a Post Office box number in advertisements must also use its full postal address, because, otherwise, the letters and parcels directed to it, and addressed too shortly, will, presumably, not be delivered. It is a very remarkable argument and it is all done in the cause of preventing fraudulent use.

Conceding for a moment, as I certainly do not, that it might be legitimate for the Postmaster-General to scrutinise the use of this facility—not to insure against fraud but to try to do so—why should it be necessary to have the full postal address, because no shortened form of address is sufficient to satisfy the Post Office, even though that shortened form of address is quite adequate to identify the person and to enable someone to find him? What is called for is the full address such as is required by the Post Office for the purpose of ordinary postal delivery by the postman.

In the particular case on which I have been approached the full address of the company in question runs to ten words which would normally be written as an address on an envelope in five lines. That must be prefaced by the words. "Post Office Box No."—so-and-so, raising it to a total of fifteen words, normally written on six lines one below the other. It is obvious that no commercial enterprise seeking to build up a mail order business can reasonably advertise an address of that prolixity. It is difficult enough in Press advertising to give an address of that length but in advertising in television broadcasts, which my constituents also want to do, such a thing is unthinkable. Either they must have a short address or they cannot engage in such advertising. In effect they have been told by the Post Office that they cannot do it.

It seems a little unreasonable and, naturally, I asked what was the object of a Post Office box number if it could be used only when followed by the full postal address. I wished to know what in fact one paid one's money for. I am told by the Postmaster-General that when one uses a box number one pays one's money for the privilege of collecting one's mail instead of having it delivered. Most people would expect to be paid by the Postmaster-General for that operation, but it is the only advantage which one obtains.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General will be as helpful as possible about this. I do not agree with the basic objection of the Postmaster-General that he has to regulate the use of Post Office facilities by reference to the motives of those who use them, but, assuming for the moment that that be right, it is still the duty of the Post Office, as I see it, to try to meet any reasonable public demand. In relation to the delivery of mail the Post Office is a statutory monopoly and that imposes quite a heavy duty. The private subject is not here benefited by competition. He is dealing with a monolithic body and therefore the monolith must try to think out a way to meet the need for short addresses.

What is the difficulty about allowing the use of a Post Office box number, whether in advertising or on an envelope or the label of a parcel, followed by an address sufficient to identify the person —not perhaps an address convenient for the ordinary purposes of daily delivery by the postman? For that purpose the Post Office insists, and rightly so, on a stereotype address for each district, so that the letters may be quickly sorted and so that the postman does not have to waste time looking for an address. Far more is needed than is sufficient to identify a person.

On the other hand, in publications like the Post Office telephone directory one finds addresses which are described officially in the introductory pages as merely for the purpose of identification, and they are much shorter. Anyone who wishes to check on the good faith of a limited company can always find its address from the register of joint stock companies. Nevertheless, a little more may be called for than that. My constituents happen to operate in a village or a small town called Beaconsfield. In the case of Beken Supplies, Limited, surely the single word "Beaconsfield" afterwards would be quite enough to enable anyone who went to Beaconsfield to find the firm, and quite enough to identify it.

I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to meet this difficulty. I hope he sees the merit and validity of my argument and is convinced by the argument of expedience. A mail order business which is established in a district for which the delivery address is long and involved is at a disadvantage. One should not be deterred from establishing a mail order business there because of an unduly rigid rule of the Post Office in the exercise of its State monopoly of the mail delivery service.

3.31 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson)

We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for bringing this matter before the House. It is of some complexity and importance. The correspondence which my hon. Friend has had with my right hon. Friend has caused my right hon. Friend to have the whole matter looked into in the hope of finding a satisfactory solution to a not very easy situation.

We want my hon. Friend to understand that the Post Office is not a monolithic body obstructing the legitimate demands of his constituents. It might help if I briefly described the private box and bag system of the Post Office. I endorse what has been said to my hon. Friend that this is not a scheme to furnish a convenient, snappy and short address for people who would take advantage of modern advertising techniques. There may be a need developing for some such system. The present private box and bag system was not intended for that, nor is it operated in a way which is capable of facilitating the operation of such a system.

For an annual fee, the mail or parcels addressed to a box number—there may or may not be an actual physical box—is set aside to await the requirements of the addressee box-number holder. The holder can come to the Post Office at an early hour, take away his mail and get to work on it. The purpose of the system is to enable him to do just that. He can come early, get his post out of the way and start his business at a time convenient to himself. He does not have to await the movements of the normal delivery service of the Post Office. He can come early and frequently to remove his mail. If it were only a question of allowing some one to relieve the Post Office of part of its work the remark of my hon. Friend about our paying people for doing it would have some force.

In order to get the mail addressed to the box and bag holders out of the normal flow of letters and parcels that go through the Post Office we are involved in extra expense of varying kinds. We have to give what is called "special treatment" to these items as they go through the enormous flood of mail with which the Post Office has to cope every day. Whatever system we devised for meeting the requirements of those who want to get their post early or frequently, we should have to insist that the system fitted into the general service for handling of mails in this country. Otherwise all those who use our service in the ordinary way would probably find that their mail was impeded and that they would suffer inconvenience.

The fitting of all this into the general Post Office services may account for what may appear to my hon. Friend as being obtuseness on the part of the Post Office, but I must remind him that the sorting offices have to fit in a very great amount of work into a very small amount of time. The circulating, sorting and delivering processes of the Post Office are a concentration of system, skill and effort, and the demands which we make, including those relating to the private bag and box system, are the simplest with which we can manage in keeping the whole thing working smoothly. We make the smallest demands possible and get on with the rest. The least we can manage with, in order to get mail circulating conveniently, quickly and efficiently in the country, so that people can get their letters and parcels in a regular service, is that we should have a clear and complete address on every item that is put into the post.

It will not do any harm if I inform the House that the Post Office has 50 million customers in this country. We employ 80,000 postmen, and we have 1,350 sorting offices—not just the problem of relating our box system to the conditions that apply in Beaconsfield, for example.

Mr. Ronald Bell

But the hon. Gentleman must remember that he has no competitors; otherwise, he might not have 50 million customers.

Mr. Thompson

We must recognise the force of that argument, but it does not alter the fact that at this day we are dealing with 50 million customers, and so enthusiastic are our customers about the services we offer them that we handle on their behalf 10,000 million letters and parcels every year, with a surprisingly small amount of complaint or, at any rate, vocal dissatisfaction.

I invite my hon. Friend to consider how all this enormous variety of 50 million customers, 1,350 sorting offices, 80.000 postmen and 10,000 users of the private bag and box system has to fit into the whole operation. Our 10,000 private bag and box users do not even all use them in the same way. Our problems would probably be less if they did. Some users want all their mail put into their boxes and require it to be collected by their own employees. Some of them require only part of their mail to be put into the bag or box to await collection, and require the rest to be delivered in the course of the ordinary postal service. When it comes in the night mail, for delivery first thing in the morning, some collect it at a very early hour and the rest takes its turn in the ordinary delivery services of the Post Office. Some people clear their post from the box once a day, while some collect it more frequently.

Some bag and box users have a number of addressees using the same bag or box number, so that there are different names on the items, although the box number is the same and the treatment to be accorded to the items is the same. That happens mostly in the case of a parent company and its mail and the mail of its subsidiaries. Some people, although they have private bag and box facilities, use their full address and omit to put on their correspondence, or to ask their correspondents to put on letters to them, the box number appropriate to the licence they hold.

I digress for a moment to say that this is a very great inconvenience to the Post Office. Just as we have asked that the full address should be used in the case to which my hon. Friend referred, so it would be a great convenience, not just to the Post Office but to all Post Office users, if those who have a box number would ensure that it is used as regularly as possible on their letterheads and also used by those who write to them.

It would not be quite so bad if we could expect that the postmen in the sorting offices would gradually get used to the idea so that the company in my hon. Friend's constituency, Beken Supplies Limited, could be identified quickly as belonging to a certain box number, hut postmen change and we are in the hands of postmen. It is postmen who deliver the mail and the wastage rate of the postman force is quite considerable. In Inner London, in terms of numbers, the whole of the postmen have changed within a period of four and a half to five years. In other parts of the country it is even worse. In Coventry in 1956–57, 59 per cent. of the postmen changed, while in Luton, 34 per cent. changed in the same year.

We have to take account of the fact that from time to time, and sometimes frequently, there are new men dealing with items passing through the sorting offices. These are practical difficulties in operating the system. I quite see that it is the job of the Post Office to organise itself to handle these difficulties whilst giving the sort of service which industry and commerce require us to give them, and that is what we seek to do.

I do not want my hon. Friend to think that my right hon. Friend spends his whole time in a private office brooding over the possibility of fraudulent activity among the mails and telephones. It is not like that, but it would be wrong—I think my hon. Friend, in his calmer reflections, will agree that it would be very wrong—if the Post Office organised itself in such a way as to make fraudulent activities either possible or easier for those who wanted to take advantage of them. We must take into account the fact that there is a minority for whom, perhaps, anonymity would be a very convenient facility. I do not think the Post Office is called upon to encourage them to work in that way.

My hon. Friend is aware that we are not the only postal administration which takes this kind of action. It is fairly common practice among postal administrations throughout the world to be prepared to take steps to prevent postal services being put to a use for which they are not intended. We do not, however, want to impede either Beken Supplies Limited, or trade and industry in general. Some of the rules we cannot relax for reasons I have given. I hope my hon. Friend will accept them as being reasonable. He raised one or two interesting points and I wish to assure him that we are very anxious that our service should meet the requirements of customers and potential customers.

We are here to render a service. Our communications services, telephones and the postal services, are the tools of trade, the cement of our society. We want them to fit the needs of those who use them. We are always ready to listen to, and take account of, useful and constructive suggestions. I promise my hon. Friend that I will go again with the Postmaster-General into the points he has raised and if there is a possibility of rendering a better service to those, like his constituents, who want a change, we shall do our best to bring it in if we can do so without departing from the necessarily strict rules we must maintain.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at a quarter to Four o'clock.