NATIONAL EXPENDITURE. (Hansard, 9 October 1941)

§ Sir Adam Maitland (Faversham)

In usual circumstances a Motion of this kind really involves a rearrangement of our domestic affairs, but in these circumstances there are perhaps wider issues involved, and the House is entitled to some explanation why four Members whose names have been mentioned of the Air Services Subcommittee now in a body ask to be discharged from the Select Committee on National Expenditure. That Committee was set up in December, 1939, and the operative part of the terms of reference was to examine current expenditure defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament for services directly connected with the war, and to report what, if any, economies, consistent with the execution of the policy decided by the Government, may be effected threin. This is an important Committee, presided over with conspicuous skill and ability by my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Sir J. Wardlaw-Milne). It was an honour to be a member of that Committee, a privilege to serve upon it, and a pleasure to be associated with its members, individually and collectively. The Committee have earned the confidence of the House and the country, and I hope that nothing I may say will impair their usefulness. From time to time they have reported, and in their first report they describe to the House their procedure in forming Sub-committees to deal with the 1202 different Departments of State and also inform the House of the appointment of a co-ordinating Sub-committee comprised of the chairmen of all the Sub-Committees. The Air Services Sub-committee, whose function and sphere of influence was that connected with the financial affairs of the Air Ministry and later also the Ministry for Aircraft Production, was presided over by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Sir W. Jowitt), and my hon. Friend the Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon), and my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) and myself were the other original three members of the Air Services Sub-committee. On the appointment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne to the position of Solicitor-General, the Subcommittee was joined by a former Undersecretary for Air, the hon. Member for Central Bradford (Mr. Leach), and I became chairman of that Sub-committee.

May I be permitted to say how diligent and devoted have been the services which my colleagues have rendered on that Subcommittee? I pay the highest possible tribute to the self-sacrifice that they have made in order seriously to discharge the duties with which they were entrusted, and the House as a whole is under a debt of gratitude. I hope that that may be said of every member of the Committee on National Expenditure itself, and not merely refer in particular to my hon. Friends now because they, with me, are asking to be discharged from this Committee. I would like to inform the House of my conception of our responsibilities as members of that Select Committee. The first part of what I have to say will be generally applicable to all my former colleagues. I believe that in many respects we were in the position of trustees for this House. No detailed Votes were being submitted to the House particularly in regard to the Services. We had token Votes, so that there was a particularly heavy responsibility upon members of the Select Committee to exercise the greatest care and diligence in the discharge of their not easy task. I think too that there was common agreement that it was part of our function, as best we could—and I use the word "function"—to confirm what the Treasury is expected to do by seeing, as far as we could, that the taxpayer was getting value for his money.

1203 I am not sure from what has happened that my further attitude of mind in regard to our duties was generally accepted by all members of the Committee. At any rate it was my conception that we were, first of all—and I attach great importance to this—an independent Committee distinct and apart from the executive authority, and that we should conduct our inquiries in our own way and as we best thought fit to enable us to discharge those duties honourably, effectively and efficiently. I also thought that, in cases of maladministration, extravagance, or waste, it was our primary duty in some form or other to report those cases to this House. There have been at times occasional conflicts between the Subcommittees concerned and the Departments. It would be indeed strange if that were not so. My colleagues who have worked with me will, I think, agree that I have not sought conflicts with the Departments with which we were particularly concerned, and I hope they will also agree that when those conflicts have arisen I have not attempted to evade them. I recall with some quiet amusement that the only person who has described me as formidable is my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Air, and I think he described me as such more in sorrow than in anger, because at the end almost of a very agreeable hour's conversation, he found he had to accept the finding that my views did not coincide with his.

I would like to say that the Air Services Sub-committee are very conscious of the magnificent work which has been done by the Air Force on the operational side. We had the privilege of seeing something of it, and we were impressed. It almost inevitably happened that much of what we saw was good, but it was not our business to spend a lot of time on what was going on well. Our main and immediate task was to find out weak places in the organisation and, so far as we could, strengthen them. I hope the House will not attach—or think that I am attaching—too much importance to the personal aspect of our resignations, but my colleagues and I believe that certain issues involved in them concern the House, and it is upon these issues that I would like to dwell for a few moments. We were convinced—and I hope the House generally will endorse this convic- 1204 tion—that in the dark days the country not only looks to Parliament but relies on Parliament as well as the Government to play its part with determination and vigour. Influenced by that belief, the Air Services Sub-committee felt most strongly that with regard to certain matters they had investigated it was not only our duty to inform the House but that the House had a right to be informed. After all, influential and constructive criticism can only be based upon knowledge.

I would like to refer to the special Order which was passed by the House in May, 1940, under which the Select Committee was empowered to inquire into certain matters which it was felt need not be communicated to the House but could be communicated to the Prime Minister by means of a private report. That was an innovation in our Parliamentary procedure. I am not opposed to innovations, but we should watch carefully how they operate. They must be judged by experience, and I say that there are latent dangers to the House in this innovation. Are hon. Members aware how exactly this new procedure operates? If a subject matter is referred by way of memorandum from a Select Committee to the Prime Minister, the Committee are entitled to have an answer to that communication. Are hon. Members generally aware that members of a Select Committee cannot raise the subject matter of their report in this House? Are they also appreciative of the fact that in such circumstances, that can only be upon the instigation of the Government? This power ought to be used with the greatest discretion, and only in most exceptional circumstances; otherwise the House may be prevented from forming and expressing opinions upon important and vital matters. In the case which led to the resignation of my hon. Friends and myself it was made unmistakably clear that the Committee responsible for the investigation were absolutely opposed to the suggestion immediately it was made—that it should be the subject of a report to the Prime Minister. In their judgment it was a matter which ought to be reported to the House, and from that they have never wavered.

The subject matter which I cannot refer to was part of the case embodied in the Report from the Committee which was considered in conjunction with the 1205 19th Report of the Select Committee, which had been published. But the first part of the case I can refer to. It referred to a factory, and it was known that this factory, which was to be erected for the purpose of manufacturing certain aircraft and accessories, was 12 months behind scheduled time, that only 25 per cent. of its machinery had been placed in position and that the housing conditions of workers for the factory were most unsatisfactory. Then there was a further Report arising from our investigation. This is all on record, and I speak with a sense of responsibility. We made further general inquiries into other matters, and we obtained certain information upon which we made certain recommendations, which are published in that 19th Report. One of them was that from time to time schemes of the Air Ministry and the Ministry of Aircraft Production should be reviewed and that where the Minister concerned was satisfied that the original purpose of a scheme could not be served, it was important that it should be abandoned at the earliest possible moment. No one sugested that a recommendation of that kind was not within our terms of reference, and no one suggested that it was not a serious matter for the attention of the House. Too much talk about letting the Germans know could become a bogy.

In order that I might give the House some indication of the kind of things in question, and do so in such a way that not even those responsible for the investigation and those responsible for the initiation of the scheme could recognise it, and also put the matter in terms most favourable to the executive authority I have committed this part of my remarks to writing. Experimental work had been carried on over a long period involving very great expenditure, still being continued, and it seemed to us certain that after three years no useful result could accrue, and accordingly we recommended unanimously that the experimental work should be stopped. That was our recommendation. It is true that the terms of our report did, in fact, disclose some indication of the nature of the work, and it may be that this caused a number of Members of the Select Committee to think that the disclosure would be undesirable. On the other hand, we took the view that it could be of no use whatever to the enemy, and that the House and the 1206 country ought to be informed of the deplorable and considerable waste that had already taken place and was continuing to take place.

I wish to raise here another point which I believe to be of very considerable substance in regard to our Parliamentary procedure. It is the situation which arises when a Minister whose Departmental affairs are being investigated is put in the position of being able to exercise influence on the Members of a Select Committee as to whether or not their report should be published. Here was a case, we believe and still believe, of bad administration, official negligence and wasteful extravagance in money, material and man-power.

I do not want to put too high the principle upon which we have resigned. The pages of Parliamentary history from time to time bear the names of humble Back-Benchers who have stood up for the assertion of the rights of Parliament. I believe that the service which my hon. Friends and I are now attempting to render to the House is not anything in the nature of a quarrel between us and our hon. Friends on the Select Committee, but a profound difference of opinion as to how we can retain and sustain, even in wartime, the best traditions of Parliamentary life. In the decision we have taken we have been fortified by the commendation of our friends who, from the nature of things, know little of the case, and we have been chastened by the condemnation of friends who know as little and possibly less. We have been termed foolish, obstinate, undemocratic, and stubborn; but in a matter of this kind each man concerned must decide for himself. If I have one satisfaction, it is that on this matter my hon. Friends and I, who ought to know the facts, having made all the investigations, stand absolutely united. However our action may be criticised, I say that, in our judgment, we have taken the only honourable course consistent with the traditions of our Parliamentary life.

I wish to make two constructive suggestions. The first one is that the Select Committee should reconsider its procedure to prevent or minimise the possibility of the recurrence of such an episode, but I do not attempt to enter into discussion or debate as to the procedure adopted in this particular instance. I think it was unfortunate, although I accept my share of responsibility for it. However, I make 1207 that as a contribution. Secondly, I submit that the House should consider the wisdom or otherwise of insisting upon more details of matters submitted by the Select Committee under its special powers. One difficulty the Committee have, and this should be fully realised, is that immediately they report to the House, the Report is published to the world. In wartime that is a very serious difficulty. Perhaps the solution would be to provide a communication to this House, giving in the broadest possible terms the nature of the transaction which has been made the subject of the communication to the Prime Minister. At any rate, these are practical suggestions which I hope will be received in the same spirit of friendship as that in which they are made. We have been interested in our work, and we have enjoyed our researches. At the back of my mind is the thought that in this particular case our recommendations appeared too drastic for some of our more timorous colleagues. I am not in a position to enjoin my former colleagues but I appeal to them not to be too timid in their recommendations. The Committee is part and parcel of our war machinery. Ministers are overworked—I am not thinking in terms of excessive hours, because some can achieve in eight hours what would take others days. As I say, Ministers are overworked, and I think the recommendations of these committees can help in revitalising them and influencing them rather than members of the Committee being influenced by them. The House and the country will always respect fearlessness and courageous independence.

At the moment some people may regard this affair mainly as a matter of unfortunate disagreement between the members of the Committee. That would be a mistake. I should like to see emerging from this difference something accruing of immediate and great advantage in the pursuit of our common aim to win the war. This Report is not available to the House, but it is available to the Government. I say to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who I hope will communicate this to his right hon. Friend, that when he asks for specific cases, here is a specific case of a substantial waste of money. I say to the Minister of Labour that here is his specific instance of misuse of man-power, and I say to the Ministers of Supply and Air- 1208 craft Production that here is a case of wastage and misuse of vital and important material. It is not a matter of a personal issue between members of a Committee. This House is very jealous of the recommendations of its Committees. It is a resignation brought about in the belief that, even at war, Parliament has its place, and that even in time of war Members who have the honour to serve on responsible Committees must not hesitate to be courageous and strong. If our resignations have the slightest effect in creating and instilling greater zeal in our effort to win this war, then they will not have been in vain.