MOTOR TORPEDO BOATS (INQUIRY). (Hansard, 31 March 1938)

§ 81. Captain P. Macdonald
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is to be the nature of the inquiry into the allegations recently made with regard to the high price and inefficiency of certain boats supplied to the Royal Navy by the Power Boat Company; and what steps will be taken to call for and obtain evidence from all material quarters?

§ Mr. Shakespeare
My hon. and gallant Friend the Civil Lord, and I, in accordance with the undertaking given by the Civil Lord, are making an immediate and full investigation into the charges made by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) in the light of all the information available. If any hon. Member is in possession of information relative to these charges which he would like the Admiralty to examine, we should be glad to receive it immediately as we intend to report the result of our inquiry to the House at the earliest opportunity.

§ Captain Macdonald
In view of the dissatisfaction existing in naval and boatbuilding circles, will the hon. Gentleman consider the necessity for a public inquiry in order that people who otherwise would not feel disposed to give evidence would do so, and be protected as a result of it?

§ Sir Waldron Smithers
Would it not be better that the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut. - Commander Fletcher), rather than take advantage of his privilege as a Member of this House to make such statements here, should make them outside?

§ Mr. A. V. Alexander
Before the Parliamentary Secretary replies, may I ask him, in view of his announcement, whether it is not a fact that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) did ask for a judicial inquiry, and that he asked that any evidence submitted to 2188 the Admiralty should be under such conditions as gave proper security and immunity to those who offered it?

§ Mr. Shakespeare
That is so. The allegations were made in the course of the Debate on the Navy Estimates as regards the conduct of the Admiralty, and my hon. and gallant Friend, in replying, offered the fullest investigation, conducted by himself and myself. That was accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), and I think he took what is the usual course when such allegations are made. I will quote his words: I think it is essential that they should be publicly refuted if they are not true, and that if it is not possible to give a full explanation there ought to be a full and detailed inquiry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th March, 1938; col. 731, Vol. 333.] The hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton did not submit evidence, so that it is very difficult for my hon. and gallant Friend to determine whether there is a prima facie case for another form of inquiry. Unless that is done it is very difficult for him to decide. In the meantime, we are carrying out a full investigation, and if any Member has information in his possession and will submit it to us, we shall be very grateful for it.

§ Mr. Alexander
Is the Minister not aware that, on the examination of the evidence, and the accumulated evidence, possessed by my hon. and gallant Friend, it has become apparent that only a judicial inquiry can be satisfactory; has he not received requests for a judicial inquiry and, if so, will he say what is the decision of the Admiralty on those requests?

§ Mr. Shakespeare
I am trying to make it plain that the request made by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton for a judicial inquiry was an afterthought, and that an inquiry asked for in the course of the Debate, and, I think, accepted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough, has been carried out. When that inquiry is finished and a report laid before Parliament, if the House of Commons thinks that another form of inquiry is necessary, then, of course, my right hon. Friend will consider that position.

§ Mr. Leslie Boyce
Has the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton been asked 2189 to submit evidence before the inquiry and refused to do so to support his own allegations?

§ Mr. Shakespeare
The position is as stated by the right hon. Gentleman. He was unwilling to submit the evidence on which he based his allegation except to a committee presided over by some judicial authority?

§ Captain Macdonald
Is it not a fact that most of the evidence would have to come from people who would run the risk of being victimised?

§ Mr. Shakespeare
That may be so, but charges are frequently made against Government Departments, and when they are made by Members of this House it is according to custom and precedent that Members submit, at least to the head of the Department, in confidence, the evidence on which such charges are based. The head of the Department, being naturally jealous of the honour of his Department, has to decide whether there is a prima facie case. That has not been done, but we are carrying out our promise.

§ Mr. Thorne
In the event of anyone giving evidence before the hon. Gentleman or anyone else, if they are victimised in consequence, are you not entitled, Mr. Speaker, to call them up to the Bar of the House in order that they may be admonished?

§ Mr. Speaker
I should not like to decide that now.

§ Mr. Alexander
In view of the statement that has been made by the Parliamentary Secretary, may I ask whether he is aware that the practice to which he has just referred was not adopted in the case of the Cadman inquiry? It is essential, in the light of the facts which were brought to the notice of the House by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneaton, that witnesses should be called and papers sent for in circumstances in which there can be examination and cross-examination, and on that we demand now a judicial inquiry.

§ Mr. Shakespeare
The charges in this case are of a rather different nature. They