HC Deb 24 October 1968 vol 770 cc350-1W
Mr. Arthur Lewis

asked the Postmaster-General by what authority servants employed by the Post Office are permitted to hold up and delay mail sent to Members of Parliament by constituents and their Members' replies; and whether he will cause an investigation to be made into the effect of this change on the normally accepted practice in operation for many years of expediting the delivery of mail to and from Members of Parliament.

Mr. Stonehouse

The instructions to Post Office officials on the handling of second class letters are issued under the authority of the Inland Post Regulations, 1968, which are made under powers conferred by the Post Office Act, 1953.

By Section 58 of the Act it is an offence for an officer of the Post Office, "contrary to his duty", wilfully to detain or delay a postal packet in course of transmission by post. An offence is not committed in carrying out instructions. There has been no change in the arrangements for frequent collection and delivery of Members' mail at the House.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that retirement pensioners, the sick, disabled and others suffering hardships who often have to write to Members are unable to afford the 25 per cent. increase in the postal charge to ensure first-class mail service; and whether he will take steps to assist these types of persons to ensure that mail to Members shall receive the first-class service.

Mr. Stonehouse

Apart from any question of principle, such a concession would in practice be virtually impossible to operate.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

asked the Postmaster-General whether he will give an assurance that mail posted by Members of Parliament in the Members' post office bearing a 4d. stamp is not, as with the general mail, held up for collection and delivery, and that all efforts are made to deliver this mail as expeditiously as possible and with the same speed as that operating prior to the introduction of the two-tier system.

Mr. Stonehouse

I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave to his Question on 21st October.—[Vol. 770, c.220–21.]