HC Deb 06 July 1949 vol 466 cc2139-41
58. Mr. Baker White

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that at 12.15 p.m. on 16th May two plainclothes Post Office officials called at 45, Linden Avenue, Herne Bay, the residence of Miss G. I. Clarke, and asked why she had an unlicensed wireless receiving set; that although they produced no authority to prove that they were Post Office officials, and although Miss Clarke told them that she had no wireless set, they entered the house, threatening Miss Clarke with prosecution if she refused entry, searched two rooms, and departed without apology or explanation; and if he will make a statement on this action by his officials.

Mr. Wilfred Paling

As the answer is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, read it now."] I would, however, like to take this opportunity of personally reinforcing the apologies which have been tendered to Miss Clarke for what was a most unfortunate incident.

Mr. Baker White

May I ask the Postmaster-General if the House may be acquainted with the nature of this answer? Does not this disclose a most extraordinary state of affairs, when plainclothes officers, obviously without producing a warrant or card of identity of any sort force their way into a house, search the house—in which there is no wireless, anyhow—and leave without a word of apology of any sort or kind? May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Post Office have powers of search and entry not given to the Police?

Mr. Paling

This is a very long statement. I do not quite agree with some of the points stated by the hon. Member, but it is a fact that one of our officers did make a rather unfortunate statement, for which we apologise.

Mr. Eden

May I make a suggestion? We quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to read a long reply now, but could we have it at the end of Questions?

Mr. Paling

indicated assent.

Later—

Mr. Wilfred Paling

On 16th May two Post Office officers engaged in inspecting wireless licences called at Miss Clarke's house. They explained who they were, produced their official cards and asked to see the licence. On Miss Clarke's replying that she had not a set, one officer asked permission to enter. Miss Clarke, who was holding the door ajar, was indignant but, when the request was repeated, opened the door. The officer entered and looked into two ground floor rooms through the open doors, and, being satisfied, returned to the doorstep and apologised for having troubled Miss Clarke. It was at this stage that, in the course of further conversation the officer remarked that a warrant to enter could, if necessary, have been applied for. I am sorry that in this case the officer was mistaken in thinking there was justification for this remark and I deeply regret the annoyance caused to Miss Clarke.

Following a written complaint by Miss Clarke, the Assistant Postmaster of Canterbury called on her to discuss the occurrence and to tender apologies. I should like to add that officers employed on the difficult task of detecting those listeners who avoid their obligations to take out wireless licences are chosen for their tact and good sense, and that the incident complained of is almost unprecedented.

Mr. Baker White

Is the Postmaster-General aware that Miss Clarke was quite emphatic that no warrant of any kind was produced when the men arrived, but that they did attempt to produce what she described as "some sort of paper" when they were leaving? Is the Postmaster-General also aware that I can send him details of two cases, one from Surrey and one from Kent, outside my constituency, where almost precisely the same thing has happened?

Mr. Paling

I should be glad to look into such cases. The statement in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is obviously in conflict with what I have just said. This is the first case of which I have heard in over two years since I have been at the Post Office. This is the first complaint to come to my notice.

Mr. Marlowe

As the right hon. Gentleman has said that these officers are selected for their tact, good sense and, presumably, knowledge of their powers, and as, presumably, this gentleman is obviously lacking in all those capabilities, has he been sacked?

Mr. Paling

indicated dissent.

Captain Crookshank

On a point of Order. Quite irrespective of the merits of this matter, the Postmaster-General asked permission not to read the answer because it was so long. The House protested, and when he did read it, it was extremely short. What protection has the House got, Mr. Speaker, against the Minister shielding himself and using that rather easy way of getting out of something? Have you any power to direct the Minister not to do it again?

Mr. Speaker

No; I have no power. I thought that the House exerted its authority on this occasion and determined that the answer should be read.

Mr. Levy

Further to that point of Order. In the light of my right hon. Friend's reply, is it not apparent that far from shielding himself he was shielding the hon. Gentleman who asked the original Question?