§ 22. Mr. HAYESasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that an officer of his Department called on a firm in Liverpool, in response to an inquiry as to the character of Mr. George V. Hudson, a former Post Office official, and informed the head of the firm that Hudson was dismissed for suspected theft; that there was ample evidence to take the matter to Court; that the Postmaster-General was satisfied that Hudson had been guilty of theft; and, in order that Hudson may have his case properly tested by a competent tribunal, will the Postmaster-General proceed with the charge of theft in a Court of Law, or, alternatively, waive Crown privilege, so that Hudson may commence a civil action against the Postmaster-General for wrongful dismissal?
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir William Mitchell-Thomson)I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the hon. Member's question. The information, which was given to the head of the firm personally and in strict confidence, was that Mr. Hudson had been dismissed for suspected theft. No reference was made to the question of the evidence available for prosecution. As the hon. Member has previously been informed, no doubt was entertained that Mr. Hudson had on several occasions acted dishonestly, though it was deemed inadvisable, owing to certain technical difficulties, to institute criminal proceedings against him in respect of a particular charge. I can find no grounds for modifying that view, or for revising the decision which was taken 3½ years ago.
§ Mr. HAYESIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that an official of the Department informed the head of the firm in question that the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Hayes) was also satisfied that the man was improperly dismissed? I was not so satisfied, and will he reconsider the question that if this man is to 220 be tarred and branded as a thief for the rest of his life he should have an opportunity for taking civil action for wrongful dismissal?
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONI am not aware of the first question and it does not bear out the information I have already given. I regret if that information was given. As regards the second part of the question, I can only say that this case was considered by two predecessors of mine and by myself. I have considered it carefully again and I find no ground for any modification of the decision.
§ Mr. HAYESWill the right hon. Gentleman see that this man who has his living to get, and a wife and children to keep is not branded for the rest of his life by such statements as these?
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYMay I ask if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it right that a Government Department should follow and hound this man and prevent him getting employment?
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONThere is no question of hounding him. An application was made for information to the Post Office, I understand, as to this man's character. The information was given in confidence by letter in the ordinary way, and I regret that by a lapse it was communicated to others.