§ 22. Dr. Howittasked the Postmaster-General whether he will reconsider the decision not to insure against the risk of enemy action on high-frequency apparatus, which has been confiscated by his order, in view of the fact that such insurance would not be a heavy Government expenditure and would do common justice to practitioners who have been deprived of the greater part of their income?
§ The Postmaster-General (Mr. W. S. Morrison)I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to a similar Question by the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) on 21st October. In view of the circumstances described in that reply, I see no sufficient reason for departing from existing practice in the matter.
§ Dr. HowittWill not my right hon. Friend approach the Home Secretary, at whose request he is storing these instruments, and ask whether, out of common justice, the instruments, which have been taken away from private citizens, cannot be insured by the Government rather than that further difficulties should be made for people who have already suffered through being deprived of them?
§ Mr. MorrisonThe position is not quite as my hon. Friend describes it. It was necessary for security reasons to limit the use of this apparatus, and as some people who were not allowed to use it found difficulty in storing it, the Post Office offered to store it for them.
§ Rear-Admiral BeamishCan my right hon. Friend give some indication of the number of sets concerned?
§ Mr. MorrisonI could, with notice.
§ Sir Francis FremantleAs these men did not ask the Postmaster-General to store the apparatus and the Post Office has taken them and stored them, surely the Post Office ought to insure them?
§ Mr. MorrisonI do not think that that question ever arises, for most people are glad to avail themselves of the storage offered by the Post Office.