HC Deb 15 April 1970 vol 799 cc1381-3
35. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Lord President of the Council if he is now satisfied with the operation of the free postal facilities provided for hon. Members; and whether he will consider limiting the number of pre-paid envelopes to a fixed figure per week for each Member.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart)

I am sure this facility has been of service to Members in dealing with their Parliamentary correspondence. I will continue to keep a close watch on its use, but I hope any limitation such as that suggested by my hon. Friend will not prove necessary.

Mr. Hamilton

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a letter, obviously a circular letter, has come into my possession sent out by a former Chairman of the Tory Party, the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann)? Obviously, 4,000 or more have been sent out at the taxpayers' expense. Is that the kind of facility which my right hon. Friend had in mind when he introduced the system?

Mr. Peart

I assure my hon. Friend that there had been no misuse of the facility by Members before the Services Committee came to a decision about how to interpret the concession as regards letters to new voters. However, I believe that use of the facility for this purpose was becoming excessive. For that reason, I raised the matter with my colleagues on the Services Committe and issued my instruction.

Sir A. V. Harvey

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has made a serious charge against my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mt. du Cann). It is an old-established custom of the House that the hon. Member concerned is given notice when it is proposed to make such a charge. May I ask whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton was given notice?

Mr. Hamilton

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I gave the right hon. Member for Taunton such sufficient notice that he sent me a reply in which he said "Personally, I think it is fatuous to impose a limitation on free postage." Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity of being informed on the Question.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is courteous to give notice when an hon. Gentleman intends to refer to another Member. Apparently that has been done.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) referred to the letter as a circular. In the interests of Members, may I ask whether it was a parliamentary circular or an outside circular? It is a drastic imputation if it is suggested that it was not parliamentary. It has been suggested that the Minister for Posts and Telecommunications sent similar letters to his constituents. Was it the same circular or a different one? We should know that.

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order; it is a point of argument.

Sir G. Nabarre

Would the Leader of the House bear in mind, if any further consideration is given to this matter, the extraordinary inequality numerically in the size of constituencies? For example, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mr. Lawler) has only one-fifth of the number of constituents of other Members, who may have up to 100,000 electors in their constituencies. Therefore, would it not be grossly inequitable to put a limit on the number of official-paid letters which may be sent?

Mr. Peart

I thought that I said that. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.