§ Sir ROBERT THOMASOn the suggestion of the Leader of the House, I beg to repeat the question which I put yesterday as to whether the Government are now prepared, in view of what occurred in the other House last week, to agree to set up a Committee of Inquiry in respect of Miss Douglas-Pennant's dismissal?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe Government have given most careful consideration to the opinion expressed by the House of Lords that a Judicial inquiry should be held into the circumstances in which Miss Douglas-Pennant was removed from her appointment under the Air Ministry in August of last year. The Government see no sufficient reason for departing from the decision already taken by them. The responsibility of instituting such an inquiry must rest upon the Government. It would involve a large expenditure of 2018 public money, it would be contrary to the general principles of Departmental administration, and it would establish a very undesirable precedent, for if an inquiry were agreed to in regard to this lady, who has great personal influence, it would be difficult to justify the refusal to take a similar course in the case of many others who are not in an equally influential position. In these circumstances His Majesty's Government have decided that they cannot assume the responsibility of setting up this tribunal.
§ Sir R. COOPERIs it not a fact that in this case there has been made public the suggestion that there are grave irregularities in this particular Department, and, if that is so, will not the right hon. Gentleman's answer rather confirm the belief, which holds very widely in the public mind, that there is something very bad behind it?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI am not the least afraid of that belief being entertained. The reasons I have given are quite sufficient. If such a precedent were established, I cannot see where it would end.
An HON. MEMBERDoes not the decision of the Government mean that a Minister has the right, in the exercise of his authority, to destroy, set aside, and abrogate entirely the personal rights and safeguards which are given under the Regulations under which people are serving?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIt means nothing of the kind, but it does mean that the head of a Government Department, like the head of every other administrative business, must be free to make changes in regard to those who assist him, if for reasons which seem to him good a change is necessary.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTIs it not a fact that Miss Douglas-Pennant was not superseded, but was dismissed, which is a very different thing?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI do not think it is possible to argue the question. I believe it was admitted, and Lord Weir made an apology, as to the method in which the decision was announced, but the point goes far beyond that, and it is whether the officer responsible for the Department is justified in making a change.
§ Sir R. THOMASIn view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's reply, and having regard to 2019 the very important and even vital letters which have been omitted from the White Paper which has been laid on the Table of the House, letters which affect very materially this case, I beg to ask permission to raise this matter at a quarter-past eight this evening as a matter of definite public importance.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has omitted one of the most important words in connection with that Standing Order—namely, the word "urgent."
§ Sir R. THOMASI beg to add that word.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member can hardly ask me to say that this is an urgent matter, because it has been before the House for the last two or three months, and has been discussed here more than once. Therefore, I could not accept a Motion of that sort as being within the Rule which says these matters must be urgent
§ Sir R. COOPERMay we give notice that we shall raise this on the Adjournment of the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERYes, as often as you like.