Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1932. THE BRITISH POST OFFICE.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 228, 26 August 1932, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, AUGUST 26, 1932. THE BRITISH POST OFFICE.

Reforms in the system of administration of the British Post Office, considered by many to be long- overdue, are promised if the recommendations of a Special Committee set up by the Government to consider the subject are given effect to. This committee, consisting of Lords Bridg-eman and Blender and Sir John Cadman, had as its purpose an inquiry as to whether changes in the constitution, status, and organisation of the Post Office would be in the public interest. It has reported that a change to the status of a public utility company or statutory authority is undesirable. Parliamentary control, it holds, is essential in a business of such a national character, but over-centralisation could be overcome by the establishment of a board representative of the various functions, of which the Postmaster-General should be chairman, and which should decide the Post Office policy, “enabling- more freedom in the matter of detail and more authority to provincial officials.” The report goes further and touches upon what is perhaps the most important reform desirable, when it states that the other most serious defect (over-cen-tralisation is one) is that the Treasury, is taxing all profits and removing the natural incentive to progress and economy. The Committee Suggests that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should fix Biennially the sum which the Revenue Department should absorb, enabling any savings to be made available for improvements to the service. The Committee has evidently gone deeply into the matters of reference, for it was appointed on February 23 and has thus had close on six months to devote to its work. Its members lack nothing on the score of qualification: Viscount Bridg-eman has a long record of service in the Commons and filled the offices of Secretary for Mines, Home Secretary, and First Lord of the Admiralty, thus being well equipped, to realise how far full Parliamentary control of the Department is beneficial or otherwise; Lord Plender is a well-known chartered accountant and has had noteworthy service on various public bodies; and Sir John Cadman is chairman of the Ang-10-Persian Oil Company and a director of the Suez Canal Company. It is not difficult to understand the Committee’s reluctance to recommend that Parliamentary control of the Post Office should be removed, but those who have been most pressing for reforms will probably regard that as of little importance if the two major recommendations are put into effect. For a long time the Post Office has been regarded as far too hidebound by official regulations and

instructions which lack due regard for local conditions, and which make men who would otherwise be excellent executive officers in the provinces almost akin to the stamp-vending machines which the Department controls as part of its business. The Post Office is one of Britain’s biggest businesses; it employs 230,000 people and has a capital investment of £140,000,000; but its business constitution is, according to the memorial presented by over two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons who sought the inquiry, ill-de-signed to secure business efficiency in its services. For instance, it was pointed out, the Postmas-ter-General is frequently changdfl for reasons wholly unrelated to postal matters. The PostmasterGeneral holding office when the memorial was presented in 1931 was the fourth in that year. Further, the Department holds no reserves, since all its surpluses pass automatically to the Treasury. As a business, and it should be such, the Post Office, it is contended, should pass back its profits, after depreciation, interest charges and reserves have been provided for, to its customers in reduced charges. Whether the last mentioned principle will be observed under any change that takes place remains to be seen, but it can almost be taken as certain that the Government will not regard lightly the committee’s report, for it is the consequence of a request by four hundred members of the Commons and was prepared by Lord Wolmer, who was assistant Postmaster-General in the Conservative Government in 1924-29; furthermore, there is a large volume of public opinion which regards the Department’s methods as out of date and not in keeping with an enterprise of such magnitude.