§ 33. Mr. Prenticeasked the Postmaster-General what rules are laid down as to the financial liability of sub-postmasters for thefts on their premises leading to a loss to the Post Office; if he will define the precautions they are expected to take; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. MawbyUnder Post Office rules a sub-postmaster is responsible for all losses caused through his own negligence, carelessness or error, and also for losses of all kinds incurred by his assistants. In burglary cases, we seek a contribution from the sub-postmaster only when it is considered that there has 198 been some lack of reasonable care. We give sub-postmasters general advice on security precautions, and head postmasters are always ready to discuss with them questions specifically affecting their offices. It would be impracticable to define precautions precisely to suit widely differing circumstances in some 23,000 sub-post offices.
§ Mr. PrenticeWill the hon. Gentleman confirm the information which I have had from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters that on appointment a sub-postmaster is given no account of the rules that the Post Office expects him to observe in these matters and is not told that he will be financially liable in cases of this kind? Will there be a review of the whole arrangements in consultation with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters in the light of the Phillips case, which I have quoted in Question No. 32? May I again particularly ask the hon. Gentleman to compare the rules which are insisted upon by the Post Office with the rules of the joint stock banks, which on the whole seem to be more reasonable in these cases?
§ Mr. MawbyA number of forms are given to a sub-postmaster on taking office and one is "Hints to Sub-Postmasters", which gives a lot of instructions and advice about how sub-postmasters should try to manage their business.
§ Mr. BellengerWhile not wishing to condone negligence anywhere, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that in all probability no insurance company would have refused to pay a claim on grounds such as those which my hon. Friend has mentioned? Is it not a little bit harsh, therefore, for the Government as employers to insist upon a condition like this?
§ Mr. MawbyThe right hon. Gentleman refers to the Government as employers, which in this case we are not. The sub-postmaster acts as an agent for the Post Office and is, therefore, in a different position from a normal employee of the Government. One of the things which we have to make certain is that the sub-postmaster is at all times aware that he is responsible for the matters under his care. In cases of negligence, we 199 simply ask for a small contribution, which in relation to the amount of money lost is reasonably small.
§ Mr. ProudfootCan my hon. Friend say how many sub-postmasters take the wise precaution of insuring their stock—which, indeed, is the stock of the Post Office—against an event of this kind?