§ 34. Sir K. WOODasked the Postmaster-General if he can now state the rule at present in force in the Post Office with reference to the position of employés who are members of the Communist party; what was the reason for the recent transfer of an employé previously at the foreign trunk exchange 984 German board to another exchange; what was the loss of remuneration to such employé on account of such transfer; and whether he is taking any further action in the matter?
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHThe rule on which I have acted is that employés of the Post Office should not be dismissed on account of their political opinions, provided that they do not interfere with the proper discharge of their duties. The officer in question was transferred to another exchange because I considered him unsuitable for the work in the trunk exchange which is of a special character. The transfer has involved the loss of an allowance, amounting to 7s. 4d. a week. No further action is proposed.
§ Sir K. WOODWhat does the hon. Gentleman mean by saying that he transferred this man from the foreign trunk exchange because he was not satisfied with him? Could he not trust the man there, or what was the reason why he was not suitable?
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHI do not propose to dismiss employés from any position in the Post Office on account of their political opinions, but there are certain positions of a very special character.
§ Sir K. WOODWhy does the hon. Gentleman consider that this man was unsuitable for work at this particular exchange?
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHIt was not only on account of his opinions, but because of certain disciplinary items in his record, which made it better that he should leave that particular position.
§ Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANSIs the work of that exchange peculiarly confidential, and is that the reason why he was not allowed to carry on?
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHIt is the exchange which communicates with operators abroad, over whom, since they are not in this country, we have not the same supervision as we have over our own operators.
§ Mr. W. J. BROWNIs it not a fact that the only disciplinary item in this man's regard was the record of certain Communist activities, and, if that is so, is not the correct inference to be drawn 985 from what has been said to-day, that the man has been transferred because he is a Communist; and, if so, may we not expect a similar kind of disciplinary action in regard to Socialists and Labour men when another kind of Government is in office?
§ Mr. LEES-SMITHNo, Sir. The disciplinary item was quite of a different character.