NEW CLAUSE.—(Power to Suspend Officers for Inefficiency.) (Hansard, 27 July 1916)

Mr. HAZLETON
I beg to move "That the Clause be read a second time."
I hope the Secretary of State for India will see his way to accept it.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
No, Sir.

Mr. HAZLETON
I am sorry for that decision, because there is a point of real substance and importance in it. The chief point is that there may be men in the public service—either the Army, the Navy, or the Civil Service—who have certain responsibilities for the mismanagement or incompetence that has gone on in connection with the campaign either' in the Dardanelles or Mesopotamia. In the course of their investigations, these Commissions may find that a certain percentage of these men still hold responsible positions in the public services. I dare say some of them have been retired or removed to other spheres, but we are led to understand that there are men holding responsible positions in this country and elsewhere who have grave responsibilities in connection with parts of these misfortunes. If the Secretary of State for India will not accept this Clause, perhaps he will tell the Committee what is to be the procedure in regard to those officials—whether they be officers of the Army, Navy, or Civil Services? Are they to be allowed to hold their positions and to continue in them, it may be to add to the incompetence and mischief they have already done? We have had an instance on more than one occasion in the last few weeks where charges were made against public servants in Ireland, and they were investigated by an Advisory Committee which made its recommendations with regard to them. Those officials then went home to Ireland. Some of them were reinstated in their offices, but later on the Home Secretary comes along and appoints a Special Commission to go over to Dublin to investigate these cases, and, in the meantime, these men are suspended from the duties of their offices in Ireland. Why should these Irish officials be suspended while the officers of the Army and Navy who are responsible for these misfortunes and perhaps for the loss of thousands of lives, are allowed to draw large sums in salaries and to continue there until the end of the War, when a great many of them ought to have been court-martialled already?
I do not ask in this Clause that these officers should be dismissed from the public service, although the Government in many 1973 cases did dismiss officials in the public service in Ireland without waiting even for a trial before the Commission they have now appointed. If the right hon. Gentleman will not adopt the suggestion I make in this Clause, what is to be the procedure? These Commissions will investigate these cases and will find that certain men are responsible. The recommendations of these Commissions cannot be made for the next twelve months, eighteen months, or even two years. Are we to wait until then to rid the public service of men who have made these blunders and shown this incompetence? If they make an interim recommendation, will the responsibility lie on the heads of the various Departments to whom they belong? Will the Commission make certain recommendations, and will it be for the Secretary of State for War or the First Lord of the Admiralty to act upon those recommendations? By far the simpler, the more straightforward, easier, and better plan would be to give these Commissions power to deal with these cases provisionally themselves until they have had an opportunity of considering the cases fully. In the interests not only of the persons concerned, but of the officials of the public service, this is a workable arrangement, and I would urge the Secretary of State for India to reconsider the decision to which he has come not to accept this new Clause.

§ Mr. ASHLEY
While listening to the hon. Gentleman, and also to his neighbour (Mr. Lynch), I was reminded of an advertisement which struck our eyes so often in London a few years ago, which said: All roads lead to Earl's Court. It seems now that all roads, whether they come from the Dardanelles, from Mesopotamia or Australia, at once, for some magic reason, all lead back to Dublin. I imagine that I should be as much out of order as the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hazleton) was if I referred to Dublin and the Irish officials he mentioned. In all seriousness, I would say that it must be apparent to the hon. Gentleman that it is quite impossible for such powers as he proposes to be given to these two bodies. Surely we are not going to imitate the deplorable custom which prevailed during the French Revolution of allowing roving bodies of Parliamentarians to go up and down the Armies, sending generals home, interfering with military operations, and generally being a nuisance and helpful to the enemy! We 1974 ought not to accept this new Clause. We ought to rely upon the military and naval authorities here in England dismissing any incompetent generals and admirals there may be. When the Report comes out—I hope it will come soon—then is the time to get rid of people who are inefficient and to take such steps as may be necessary to make the public services more efficient.

§ Mr. CHAMBERLAIN
His Majesty's Government could not possibly accept this Clause, which proposes to give executive powers to the Commission. If either of the Commissions feel that it has found and proved a case of gross unfitness of a person still in a responsible position which he has already filled, or who has filled a similar position, they can make an Interim Report on the subject; but as to the executive power of suspending officers or the punishment of those concerned, the Government cannot accept a proposal to entrust that to the Commissions.

§ Mr. LYNCH
I am partly in accord with my hon. Friend (Mr. Hazleton) and also partly in accord with the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Ashley), except in one part where he was distinctly out of order—that is, where he strayed out of his course to throw aspersions on the French Eevolu—tion. If it were in order, I could give the Committee, a discourse on that matter, be. cause I consider that the French Revolution was one of the most saintly works of moral sanitation the world has ever seen. The main force of the hon. Member's argument was, however, correct. The alternative put forward by the Mover of the new Clause, although it puts the Government in a bad light in regard to Ireland, should be a warning to us not to give these excessive powers to these particular Commissions. Let the whole responsibility rest entirely with the Cabinet, just as responsibility for all proceedings in Ireland also rests with the Cabinet. If I can use my powers of persuasion to induce my hon. Friend to withdraw, I would do so.

§ Mr. FLAVIN
If there has not been incompetence shown by some of the leading generals in connection with the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia, why set up these two Commissions at all? It is quite evident, from the public point of view, that there was gross incompetence and negligence by the Home Department or by the General Officer Commanding the Forces. There must be some evidence in the Admiralty or in the War Office as to the people who were responsible for incompetence 1975 neglect, and want of foresight in connection with the loss of valuable lives and stores in the Dardanelles and Mesopotamia campaigns. In refusing to accept this Clause the right hon. Gentleman takes the position that it will only be after the evidence is heard and the Report made by these Commissions that they will be able to get at those people who are guilty of the great loss of life. The proceedings may be taken on the Report of the Commission the same as has been taken in connection with the lamentable affair in Dublin by a countryman of our own, Captain Colthurst, who rendered service at the front, and who, during his military career, for all we know, may have caused the loss of many valuable Irish lives fighting for the freedom of small nations during the five or six months that he was at the front. We have able men to-day holding responsible military positions in His Majesty's forces coming up before the military tribunal in Dublin and swearing that this man was of unsound mind.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is not discussing the Clause which is before the Committee.

§ Mr. FLAVIN
I am discussing it in so far as my hon. Friend has moved an Amendment giving this Commission power to deal with those who are guilty of negligence and who are incapable of carrying out the trust which is reposed in them. I am illustrating my argument by pointing out what had been done in Dublin. It is only after this Commission hears the evidence and makes its Report, according to the right hon. Gentleman, that the House of Commons or the War Office or the Admiralty will be able to know who are the guilty parties, and make them amenable. In the meantime, what may happen if these suspected parties who are to-day in command of the Army or Navy are still in command, and sacrifice more valuable lives? What is to prevent the friends of these military commanders coming up three, four, five, or six months after the Report is laid, and giving evidence in connection with the mental incapacity of these men who are responsible for these valuable lives being lost, the same as military experts gave evidence in the case of Captain Colthurst. I see no reason why the same procedure should not occur in connection with the Report of this Committe, and evidence be given that the mental capacity of these men was such that they could not be held responsible 1976 for the valuable lives which were lost in connection with gross blundering and miscalculation.

§ Mr. LUNDON
I desire to support this Clause. The hon. Member (Mr. Ashley) said that all roads lead to Ireland. To me all roads do lead to Ireland, though they may not lead the hon. Member in the proper direction, and therefore I am at one with my hon. Friend in stating that what is good enough for a junior Civil servant in Ireland ought to be good enough for an officer in the Army or the Navy. After all, it is a question of suspension. It does not matter who the individual may be. Even though he was a general drawing a salary of £3,000 or £4,000 a year, junior Civil servant in Ireland drawing £100 or £150 is entitled to the same treatment at the hands of the Government. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his Clause, because, after all, it is merely wasting the time of the House, and we are not here to obstruct business, but at the same time I hope the right hon. Gentleman will suggest to the heads of the various Departments that something in the nature of what is suggested by my hon. Friend may be carried out.