§ 30. Sir K. WOODasked the Postmaster-General whether he will state the circumstances under which an employé at the foreign trunk exchange, German board, of the London telephone service, was recently informed that his membership of another organisation was inconsistent with his position as a civil servant; and what position is now held by such employé?
§ The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith)The communication to this officer was made in accordance with existing practice at the time. He has been transferred to another exchange, where the work is not of the same special character.
§ Sir K. WOODWas not this man informed by the Postmaster-General that his membership of the Communist party was inconsistent with his position as a civil servant; did not the Postmaster-General receive in reply a very impudent letter; why has the hon. Gentleman not stuck to his original arrangement that this man's position as a member of that party is inconsistent with his being a civil servant, and why is he being transferred from one position to another?
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHThe statement to this officer was not made by me, but it 206 was made in accordance with the practice of the late Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "And yours."] It is the first case that has arisen under the practice started by the late Government, and, when the question was put to me, I saw all the papers and I decided that in this case the matter was best settled by transferring the man to another exchange.
§ Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSONDo we understand that it is the hon. Gentleman's intention to vary the practice?
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHI shall use my judgment, but I shall not lay it down as an invariable rule that a man shall not be in the service because of his political opinions, provided that those political opinions do not in any way damage or interfere with his work.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNDoes not the Postmaster-General realise that what has happened in this case is the imposition of a definite penalty upon a man because he is a Communist; does the hon. Gentleman not realise that if a Labour Government applies penalties to the Communists you may have a Tory Government applying penalties to Labour men; and had we not better get back to some basic principle?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLMay I ask the hon. Gentleman, since he says that he is going to deal with these matters himself, and at his own discretion, whether he will take some opportunity in the near future to inform the House of the principles by which his discretion will be guided?
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHI have done so. With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. W. J. Brown), he is under a misapprehension. There has been no penalty, but, as I have explained, this man has been transferred to another exchange.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHThat is incidental.
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHHe happened to hold a position in connection with which there were special allowances, and he has lost those allowances.
§ Sir K. WOODWhy does the hon. Gentleman take up the attitude that a Communist ought not to be a member of the Labour party, but that he ought to be retained in the Civil Service?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWill the hon. Gentleman take an opportunity at an early date to explain more fully why he has punished this man for his political opinions by depriving him of certain allowances, if the view which he takes is that which he has just indicated?
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHMay I explain to the House that this man has not been punished by being deprived of certain allowances. He has been transferred from one exchange to another exchange. It happened that at the exchange where he was working previously a knowledge of German was needed and for his knowledge of German he received certain allowances. His transfer to the other exchange means that he loses those allowances, not as a penalty, but merely because, as in the case of other officers transferred, those allowances do not attach to the ordinary work in the other exchange.