HC Deb 30 April 1947 vol 436 cc1921-3
1. Mr. Pritt

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on whose responsibility four officials of the Control Commission for Germany, whose names have been given to him, who were charged on 17th March, 1947, with conspiracy, are still at work and exercising authority over subordinate officials who may have to give evidence against them; and whether he is satisfied that this is consistent with good discipline and efficient administration.

The Minister of State (Mr. McNeil)

These officials have been suspended from duty following the preliminary hearing of their cases and committal for trial.

Mr. Pritt

On what date were they suspended?

Mr. McNeil

They were suspended immediately after the inquiry by the magistrate, and, within my recollection, they were suspended on 21st April

Mr. Pritt

Will the right hon. Gentleman look into this further, because I have evidence of eye-witnesses that they were working in the Control Office, and were drawing their salaries until a week ago?

Mr. McNeil

I think that the hon. and learned Member would agree that it would be unfair to suspend them until they had been committed for trial. However, I am very willing to consider any evidence which the hon. and learned Member has.

Mr. Pickthorn

Can it be explained to the House how eye-witnesses could know that these persons were drawing their salaries?

Sir Waldron Smithers

is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is a typical instance of the behaviour of some members of the Control Commission, who, by their behaviour, have lost the respect and confidence of the German people?

3. 3. Mr. Pritt

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the skilled engineer who was put to sort letters in the Control Commission for Germany, in February last, for two to four weeks only is still engaged on the work and only sorting about eight letters daily; how long he is to continue this work; and whether steps will be taken to clear up the position, since this engineer was sent to this work by an officer against whom he may have to give evidence on a criminal charge made against the officer.

Mr. McNeil

This officer was taken from his duties in the statistical and information rooms at Hanover last month, so that he could give evidence in Dusseldorf. He was released from attendance at court towards the end of March, and has since been on leave in -this country. I am assured that he was not sent to Hanover by an officer against whom he may have had to give evidence, but by the head of his branch.

Mr. Pritt

Would the right hon. Gentleman say how much longer he intends to cost the country £1,000 a year in allowing this man to sort eight letters a day, when he is a skilled engineer?

Mr. McNeil

I have already pointed out that he is not at present engaged on that task.

Mr. Pritt

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept it from me that he is not on leave in this country, but went back a few days ago to sort his eight letters a day?

Mr. McNeil

I should be delighted to consider any evidence which the hon. and learned Gentleman has to offer, but I am surprised that he has immediate information about what this engineer is doing.

Mr. Bramall

Is my right hon. Friend aware that this man was sent there by the head of his branch, who is one of the officers against whom the man preferred charges?

Commander Noble

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this engineer is working a five-day week?

Back to