§ 24. Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many civil servants have been found to be bad security risks as a result of security checks.
§ Mr. H. BrookeSince the introduction of the security procedure on 15th March, 1948, 124 civil servants have been removed from their former posts for security reasons.
§ Mr. GrimondIn view of the enormous number of civil servants, does not the fact that the figure is so small reflect very great credit on the Service? Will the Minister keep this matter under review so that the number who are subject to these checks can be reduced?
§ Mr. BrookeI quite agree that the figure reflects the utmost credit on the Civil Service as a whole. I think that the whole House is satisfied that this very unpleasant and delicate procedure has been and is being applied with the greatest care.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesCan the Minister say how many were Fascists and how many were Communists?
§ Mr. BrookeNo, Sir.
§ 25. Mr. Grimondasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what form and with what Civil Service organisations the increase in the number of civil servants subject to security checks was discussed.
§ Mr. H. BrookeI would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Droylsden (Mr. W. R. Williams) on 2nd November.
§ Mr. GrimondDoes that reply mean that, while the Staff Side of the Whitley Council were informed of the extent of the check, they were, in fact, not consulted?
§ Mr. BrookeThey were consulted. They were informed precisely of what was proposed and were given opportunity to express their views. They have, in fact, asked for certain further information and are being given it.
§ Mr. W. R. WilliamsWhen the Financial Secretary answered a supplementary Question of mine on 21st October, he assured this House that there had been discussions with the Staff Side on the National Whitley Council. Does his present reply mean that he completely misled the House on that aspect of the matter? Secondly, what is the reaction, of the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council to what many people regard as a very hysterical proposal?
§ Mr. BrookeI certainly did not mislead the House in any way. The Staff Side did, as I have said in my reply, ask for certain points to be clarified, and that is being done.
§ Mr. WilliamsI asked the Minister whether there had been any discussions with the Staff Side of the National Whitley Council. May I ask him now if there has been any discussion at any time? Does he know the difference between discussion and consultation by letter?
§ Mr. BrookeThe Staff Side were told of these proposals on 4th October, and they were given an opportunity to say what they wished to say.
§ Mr. JayAre we then to take it from the Financial Secretary that no opportunity for conversation was given at all to the Staff Side?
§ Mr. BrookeI do not think that is right. There has been no closing down on discussion. There has, in fact, been every anxiety to bring this proposal in by agreement. The situation now is, as I say, that the Staff Side have asked for certain matters to be clarified.
§ Mr. BrookeThere has been a meeting. Certain questions have been put and are now being further looked into.
§ Mr. WilliamsThis is a very serious question. I think the Minister has evaded a reasonable question, and I therefore give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.