HC Deb 22 October 1918 vol 110 cc596-8
52 and 90. Brigadier-General CROFT

asked the Prime Minister (1) whether his attention has been called to the charges of Commander Colomb, R.N., with reference to the protection of young men employed in responsible positions at Woolwich Arsenal and the favouritism alleged towards certain relatives of officials; and whether, having regard to the fact that there is a direct conflict of evidence between the Ministry of Munitions and Commander Colomb, he will cause an independent inquiry to be set up, as requested by the Shoreditch Tribunal; (2) asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether his attention has been called to the dismissal of Commander Colomb, R.N., from the supply branch of the Air Board; and whether such dismissal was due to the fact that Commander Colomb had reported to the Shoreditch Tribunal certain matters in connection with the comb-out of Woolwich Arsenal?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway)

Commander Colomb was employed at Woolwich Arsenal from 23rd January, 1917, to 20th March, 1918, and commenced work in the supply department of the Air group of the Ministry of Munitions on the day after he left the Arsenal. His services in the Air Department were terminated because, without permission of the Ministry, he communi- cated to an outside body a criticism of the administration of another branch of the organisation in which he was working. He thereby committed a serious breach of discipline.

The substance of Commander Colomb's complaint was that certain men in the Department of Woolwich Arsenal, in which he was formerly employed, were protected from Military Service because they were related to persons in authority. Careful investigation of these statements showed that they were unfounded.

Commander Colomb further suggested that in engaging new hands, due consideration was not given to the claims of discharged soldiers. This statement also is unfounded. In May and June of this year, which were typical months, 522 men were engaged, of whom 343 were discharged soldiers—a very high proportion, considering that much of the work cannot be done by disabled men.

In view of the careful investigation already made my right hon. Friend does not consider that any further inquiry is called for. If my hon. and gallant Friend desires, I shall be glad to send him a detailed reply on each of the points raised by Commander Colomb.

General CROFT

Has the hon. Member's attention been called to Commander Colomb's further reply in which he states the actual names of these assistant foremen; is it not a fact that a large majority of them are of military age; and that five of them are related to foremen and others in high positions; and has he any answer to make to this last charge?

Mr. CHANCELLOR

Is the inquiry of the kind asked for, namely, an independent inquiry and not one by officials?

Mr. KELLAWAY

With regard to any second statement by Commander Colomb I have not had my personal attention drawn to it, and I cannot deal with it now. We had the names of all the foremen before us, and we found that the allegations, as far as they were concerned, were unfounded. The inquiry was a Departmental one, and not a public inquiry.

Colonel ASHLEY

It is not only the foremen who are concerned, but is a question of those foremen having given to their friends and relations all sorts of jobs.

Mr. KELLAWAY

I was asked with regard to the foremen and my answer was in reference to them.

Mr. G. TERRELL

Will the hon. Gentleman consent to a further inquiry by some impartial person?

Mr. KELLAWAY

If new facts are elicited I shall be glad to have them inquired into, but it would be an impossible situation if in every case of a difference of opinion between a Minister and an official we have to hold an independent inquiry.

Mr. TERRELL

This is not a question of a difference of opinion between an ordinary individual and the Ministry but one in a high position in the Department, and the inquiry which has been held is simply a departmental and not an impartial inquiry?

Mr. KELLAWAY

The fact that an official holds a high position does not justify him in having any more consideration than if he held a humbler position.

Sir H. CRAIK

Is it not chiefly due to the consideration of the many heads of Departments that these exemptions have been made, and are they to be judges in their own case?

Mr. KELLAWAY

These instances are controlled by the Schedule of Exemptions.

General CROFT

Is the House to understand that this officer was dismissed from the Royal Air Force because he gave these facts to the Shoreditch Tribunal concerning a Department he had already left?

Mr. KELLAWAY

I have already answered to that effect.

General CROFT

Is this officer to have no impartial inquiry whatever of an impartial character?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. and gallant Member had better put down a further question.

General CROFT

I will put this question down again at an early date.