§ 32. Mr. Prenticeasked the Postmaster-General why the Post Office required Mr. D. Phillips to pay £50 towards the loss incurred when his sub-office was robbed in March, 1961.
§ Mr. MawbyThe burglary at Mr. Phillips's office, which led to the loss of over £3,600 in cash and stock, was made easier by some lack of care in safeguarding the keys of the office and the safe.
Mr. Phillips was required to make good £50 of the loss in accordance with our practice in cases where there is contributory carelessness or negligence.
§ Mr. PrenticeDoes the hon. Gentleman recall that Mr. Phillips was in the habit of giving the keys to his assistant, that he gave her instructions to take them home and put them in a safe place, and this she did regularly, and that he was found to be at fault only in the sense that he told her not to keep the keys in her bedroom in case there should be a burglary and she was subjected to attack during the night? Was this really unreasonable? Will the Minister compare the view taken by the Post Office in this case with the view taken by the joint stock banks in similar cases and see whether it is reasonable to demand of a man who was making a very modest living from his sub-post office a fine of this kind?
§ Mr. MawbyThese cases are always difficult, as the hon. Member will realise. In this case, however, it is important to point out that upon leaving the office the lady put the keys into her shopping bag and then left them in the pantry. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that an intended thief might have seen that take place. In our opinion, it contributed, or could have contributed, to the loss and, therefore, is was carelessness or negligence.