§ Lord Bethellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are aware of the large number of complaints from British people over the non-delivery of registered letters and parcels to addressees in the Soviet Union; whether they accept that the Soviet authorities are confiscating items whose 1039WA distribution in the Soviet Union is not prohibited under Soviet law, and are in violation of the 1979 Rio de Janeiro Universal Postal Convention; and if so, whether they will now raise this question with the Soviet authorities, making it clear that the Soviet Union would be acting improperly under the terms of the UPC; and whether they will look for ways through which compensation for any confiscated items can be obtained from enterprises owned by the Soviet Government.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth)We are aware of and understand the concern of those who have experienced difficulties with the delivery of mail to the Soviet Union. The Universal Postal Convention makes provision for the prohibition of the importation of articles whose importation and circulation is prohibited in the country of destination. The precise internal regulations under which Soviet customs or postal officials operate in confiscating items are not publicly available. But the Soviet notification to the UPU of prohibited articles is so widely drawn as to allow the Soviet authorities, in theory, to refuse entry or to confiscate items we would consider quite innocuous. We have made known our serious concern about their interception of mail to the Soviet authorities, most recently at the UPU Congress in July 1984 and during the Ottawa Human Rights Meeting in May 1985. We do not consider at this stage that it would be useful to seek compensation from the Soviet Union. But we shall continue to remind the Soviet authorities of their obligations under Basket III of the Helsinki Final Act and of what we regard as the unsatisfactory interpretation they give to the UPU Convention.