HC Deb 26 October 1944 vol 404 cc470-82

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Captain McEwen.)

5.35 P.m.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson (Mossley)

On this occasion the matter I am raising appears to me a very serious one; so with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I shall adopt a custom which I have never adopted before, and that is, the custom of using notes in the course of a speech. In the first instance, and in order to prepare the minds of the Members of the House to receive what I have to put before them, may I make reference to a series of Questions I have put to more than one Minister during the past few weeks, and more particularly to two Questions, one to the Secretary of State for Air yesterday, and the second to the Minister of Food on the same day.

The Question which I asked the Secretary of State for Air was, Whether the censure of the Air Council had been passed upon such of its own members as had been concerned with certain offenees. The right hon. Gentleman chose to take that as an accusation that he and one or more of his colleagues had been guilty of offences. I ask the House to judge fairly. Do I, in my question, impute any offences whatever either to himself or to any member of the Air Council? When I say "concerned with those offences" I simply mean that they were acting in a way which might be termed as "concerned in the offence" and thus subject to censure by the appropriate body; and I propose to do my best to prove that that is the case. As I said, I make no accusation of any criminal or civil offence against the right hon. Gentleman or his colleagues. The interesting point is this, that in answer to a further Question of mine later in the day the Minister of Food, as far as I can make out, stated that the right hon. Gentleman was guilty of an offence. He cited, for instance, the Accessories and Abettors Act, 1861, and the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1848, obviously intending to convey to the House that in an offence those who aid and abet are liable to be prosecuted. If the food offence is an offence of distributing food to persons to whom it ought not to be distributed, it is obvious that one can regard the persons who receive it as abettors, because the offence itself could not have been committed unless persons had abetted it by receiving the food in question.

Having made that explanation, in order not to waste the time of the House, so as to give the right hon. Gentleman the longest possible time to make a reply, which I humbly hope he will be able to do in a manner satisfactory both to himself and to the House, I wish to say this. By the time I have sat down, probably many Members of the House will think that I have unduly taken advantage of a certain privilege of this House—the privilege which is granted to us, as to counsel in court, of being protected against the possibility of libel actions if we dare to tell the truth. The subject seems to be of such importance that I feel fully justified in making the fullest possible use of that privilege while I place before the House certain things. I am tempted to call them facts and I hope that I shall be able to show that they are facts; but perhaps it would be better if I said certain information which I have received regarding 54 Group Training Command of the Royal Air Force, at Regent's Park. I want to inform the House that for months—and when I say months, I mean many months—I have been collecting from innumerable sources information as to what was happening. The first information, if I remember rightly, came from airmen of that unit, who found themselves and their comrades getting into very serious trouble for offences which, in their opinion, were exactly the offences which their officers were committing with impunity.

Having obtained a large amount of information, I then did my level best, within the compass of my ability, to sort out everything of doubtful veracity or that which appeared to be coloured by prejudice. Hon. Members who have had to deal with such matters will agree that that is a tremendous task, and that one gets an immense amount of information, obviously malicious, and an immense amount prejudiced by some feeling, even by perfectly proper feeling. Therefore, it has taken me a long time to bring this matter before the House. I want, further, to add that every single item of the indictment which I propose to bring this afternoon has been submitted to at least two independent witnesses of repute, in many cases to three, and I make no statement which has not been thus confirmed by persons of repute, some of them hon. Members of this House, some of them people outside.

The circumstances of the case are these. In order to relieve the food shortage, and to secure good quality food for the personnel of our Fighting Services, the latter have wisely been encouraged to produce vegetables, meat, even fish, for the consumption of themselves and their comrades. However, I think the House will agree that if such foodstuffs are diverted from those entitled to receive them, and are used to supplement the dietary of persons in official positions, a somewhat grave state of affairs arises, and natural resentment is caused to soldiers, naval ratings, or airmen who are thus deprived of, at any rate, some of their due. That is how the trouble arose. Number 54 Group undertook food production on quite a large scale. It not only trained the young airmen in the way they should go, but it also conducted piggeries, sausage and curing establishments, market gardens, and even a fishing fleet. Much of this is known to the House but some is not. In order to conduct these operations it held a licence from the Ministry of Food to produce food for the consumption of the airmen of the unit only, but not for distribution to other persons. I hope the House will remember that fact and get it quite clear in their minds—the licence said, "This food may be produced for one purpose only, for consumption by the airmen of the unit."

Now I make the following allegations: First, with the knowledge of the Commanding Officer of the unit, the Air Commodore commanding 54 Group, and of his Senior Air Staff Officer, food produced by and for the unit was, over a long period, distributed by sale or otherwise to persons who had no claim or right to receive it. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I may perhaps be allowed to hand a copy of these allegations to the Secretary of State for his own convenience. Second, records of sales were kept in a book and apparently monthly accounts rendered. I have examined what purports to be a photographic copy of the entries in that book, showing the names of the recipients of the food together with the quantities, the dates, and the prices. Third, the majority of those names are of persons in official positions, in positions where they could either break the offenders, or exercise vast powers of patronage in their favour.

Doubtless, some of those who acquired this food did so thoughtlessly, and without appreciating the possible consequences; they did not realise then that by doing so they were putting themselves in the power of those who sold it to them. Fourth, the list includes—and for convenience a man and wife are assumed to be one—(a) two Air Force officers of status superior to that of the Air Commodore then commanding the Group; (b) five officials of various Ministries concerned with one or other of the activities of the Group; (c) two Ministers and their immediate subordinates. As I have said, a great deal of the affair was known to all ranks of the unit, and nearly a year ago an officer of the Air Force, in the course of his duty, gave information about it to the Ministry of Food. They, I understand, expressed the opinion that there had been serious breaches of the law, but, in conformity with a common practice when the Provost Marshal of the Air Force requested that the matter should be dealt with under the Air Force Act, instead of by the ordinary criminal law, they acceded to that request. So far so good. That procedure may be convenient, indeed, in many cases desirable; but even in ordinary cases it may lead to abuse and, especially, as in the present case, when officers of high rank are involved. I think the House will agree with that.

Training Command, the appropriate authority, gave instructions that a summary of evidence should be prepared with a view to bringing four officers before a court-martial. I do not know how serious were the attempts to bring the offenders to justice, but I have no reason to suppose that they were not sincere, and I do not know to what extent efforts were made deliberately to obstruct them. Whether the book in which the entries of the names were made is still in existence, and whether knowledge of it ever came to those lawyers whose duty it is to advise on cases for court-martial, I do not know, but it must be very obvious that the opportunities for suppression of the evidence showing the scope of the scandal were very great indeed. According to answers given in this House, it appears that some disciplinary action was taken, action with which the Minister of Food expressed himself as satisfied. I wonder whether he would have felt that satisfaction if he had known the whole picture? Certain officers have been reprimanded, but it would seem to me that the real culprits—those who organised this racket to benefit their friends, to increase their own power, and to compromise their superior officers and others—have not been brought to justice.

I ask the House, if it agrees with what I have put forward, and in the absence or an adequate defence by the Ministers concerned, for a full public and impartial inquiry to be made into this matter, so that if it be proved that any persons, whatever their positions, in the service of the Crown have broken the law, they shall be brought to justice, and thus the House will make it certain that attempts to compromise responsible officials and Ministers will not succeed in future.

5.52 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair)

The last thing I want to do this afternoon is to make light of the disregard of important regulations and rules of the Food Ministry at a Royal Air Force station. I deeply regret it. I have insisted on the most thorough investigation into these transactions, and steps are being taken which I hope will result in making it impossible for the same kind of mistakes to be committed again. Nevertheless it is not true to represent what has occurred as, to quote the words of the hon. Gentleman, "an organised racket." There was no evidence of fraud or any improper motives. The food-producing activity at this station was, in its inception, as I think the hon. Gentleman admitted in his speech, a thoroughly praiseworthy enterprise, in the conduct of which, however, certain officers were carried away by excessive zeal into breaches of the regulations which could not be overlooked. The hon. Gentleman said that in the Question which he addressed to me yesterday he intended to bring no accusation against me. Well, I should not object if he did—I should have no right to do so.—but I must say that I thought he did. He suggested that he brought no accusation against me, and then went on to say that I had acted in such a way as to invite censure because I had committed an offence as an abettor. That is an accusation.

Mr. Hopkinson

The Minister must not misrepresent me. He said that I brought an accusation against him that he was an abettor. What I did was to draw attention to the fact that one of his fellow-Ministers said he was an offender and quoted the Act of Parliament to prove it.

Sir A. Sinclair

The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. If he thinks I did commit an offence—in which case it is quite right for him to come here and give me the opportunity of answering—do not let him make out that he was not making any accusation at all. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he had obtained, over a period of months, information that airmen were being punished at this station for offences for which officers were getting off scot free. Why did he not bring the information to me? I would have acted at once if he had. It was most unhelpful, if he had such information, not to bring it to me at once.

Mr. Hopkinson

Is the right hon. Gentleman merely asking a rhetorical question or one to which he wants a reply? If he wants a reply it is because during the whole of that period inquiries were being conducted on the station with a view to courts-martial. Surely he does not expect me, when regular official in- quiries are taking place, to come to him. As he has raised this point he must get this: I went to him nearly 18 months and warned him, most definitely and seriously, as he will possibly remember, of what would happen and the difficulty in which he might find himself by employing certain people.

Sir A. Sinclair

I certainly remember very well that the hon. Gentleman warned me against employing certain people, but he never gave me the slightest warning that anything was wrong on the particular station with which we are concerned. If he had this information, he should have brought it to me as the Minister responsible to this House for what was going on. Incidentally, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that it was 54 Group which undertook this food production. Actually it was No. 3 Aircrew Receiving Centre at Regent's Park which undertook it. The only relevance of making that correction in the hon. Member's statement is that it is the officers who are responsible for the administration of that station who are responsible for the offences committed, and that it is, in my opinion, not right to bring in the Air Officer Commanding 54 Group. The hon. Gentleman handed to me, dramatically, across the Floor of the House—

Mr. Hopkinson

May I have your protection, Mr. Speaker, against these silly sneers on the part of the Minister?

Sir A. Sinclair

I merely wanted to refer to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. Gentleman did hand to me, across the Floor of the House, a typewritten statement of certain charges which will be in the minds of the House. There is no need to read through them again. He sent me a message yesterday stating that he would give me a statement before the Debate and I was waiting all day to know what charges I would have to answer. I did not realise that I would have to wait until he was making his speech. All the hon. Gentleman's charges amount to this one charge: that food was sold outside the unit contrary to the regulations of the Ministry of Food and the licence which was given by that Ministry to this unit. Yes, that charge is true, and it is a charge which I very greatly regret.

Now let me tell the House exactly what happened. This farm enterprise began in 1942. Vegetables, eggs and pig meat were produced there and sold to the airmen's messes. The hon. Gentleman has suggested that a very large proportion of the meat did not go to the airmen's messes at all, but was sold outside. Actually, the great bulk of the food went to the messes, and only a small proportion was sold outside.

Mr. Hopkinson

That is absolutely an untrue statement. I did not say that a great proportion had been improperly disposed of.

Sir A. Sinclair

I am very glad if I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I do not think there is any disagreement on the fact that the great bulk was sold to the airmen's messes, and that a certain amount was sold outside. This started in 1942, at the time when the policy of the Government was to make the greatest possible drive for food production. We in the Air Ministry had large areas of land under our control on our airfields, and we were urged by the Ministry of Agriculture to bring as much of this land into production as we could, and to facilitate the production of garden and agricultural produce. It was, of course, a side-line on many busy stations. It was a sideline at this Aircrew Receiving Centre in Regent's Park. Among the many tasks with which we were confronted at the time was the simultaneous expansion and consolidation of our training organisation, in which this Aircrew Receiving Centre had to play a great part. In this connection it is only fair to the officers whose conduct, I am afraid, must come under criticism, that that part of the work was done by them with magnificent energy, scrupulous care and a high degree of efficiency and success. They carried the same energy into this enterprise of food growing, but I am sorry to say that it was with less than the scrupulous care that they gave to the discharge of their primary duties.

The hon. Gentleman suggested that I and a number of other people became abettors in the infringement of the food regulations by accepting this food. Let me tell the House exactly what happened in my case, although I must confess to some difficulty in charging my memory with the exact incidents which took place in the early months of 1942. While I was inspecting the station I was shown the piggeries in Regent's Park. I was told—and I am sure that it was in good faith at that time, because it was the beginning of the scheme—that it was possible for them to dispose of their surplus to people outside the station. I asked specifically about that, and they said that it would be all right. They had not at that time received their licence, and had based themselves on informal conversations.

It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Sir A. Sinclair

They said it would help to dispose of the surpluses which were bound to arise in feeding a very large number of airmen, and it seemed to me ungracious not to show practical interest, and so I said I would very gladly have a small quantity from time to time. To me it was only an incident in the day's work. There was no secret about it. Ministers, high officers, all sorts of people were invited to come down and see what was going on. We have had from time to time exhibitions of the produce of the farms and gardens that we have on hundreds of stations all over the country. On one occasion this unit provided a lunch which was given to official visitors, just as the other day the cookery establishment at Halton provided a tea for official visitors at a similar exhibition of produce grown on Royal Air Force stations. It was all done in the light of day, and it so happened that a number of officers and others thought it right to show their interest and give such little help as they could by buying small packages of food from time to time, and fair market prices were charged, as has been proved, for this food.

Mr. Hopkinson

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "from time to time"? He has gone back to 1942. Does "from time to time" mean regular weekly and monthly accounts?

Sir A. Sinclair

Yes. Surpluses were bound to arise weekly or monthly and a number of people took small weekly and monthly parcels.

Mr. Hopkinson

The right hon. Gentleman says it was in the light of day. Were these things conveyed to the recipients in such a way that the airmen employed in conveying them, in the transport of the Royal Air Farce, knew what was in the packages that they were bringing when they delivered them?

Sir A. Sinclair

I have no reason to believe they were not. There was no secret about that as far as I know. Unfortunately, some of the unrationed pig meat was sold to customers outside the station and that, I am not hiding from the House, was contrary to the Regulations of the Food Ministry and to the terms of the licence issued by the Ministry. All this happened many months ago. As soon as it came to light, about the end of last year, the Commander-in-Chief of the Command started an investigation and brought it to my attention. I said at once that the investigation must be thorough and that nothing should be left out. I asked the Minister of Food at once to arrange for my own purchases to be examined and I assured those whose duty it was to conduct the investigation that they would have my full support in pushing it right through to whatever length they thought necessary in order to serve the interests of justice. As the hon. Gentleman has said, a summary of evidence was taken. I tendered my own evidence and would have been willing, if there had been a court-martial, to give evidence there too.

The Commander-in-Chief reviewed the summary of evidence. He is the officer who holds the King's warrant for convening courts-martial, and he was responsible for deciding whether or not it was necessary to hold a court-martial in this case. He is a very experienced man of strong and unimpeachable integrity of character, and he decided on the merits of the case, in the light of the legal advice of the Air Force Deputy of the Judge Advocate-General, who is the highest legal adviser available to the Commander-in-Chief in the Royal Air Force. I would add this about the only other occasion in which I intervened. The first occasion was to say that the investigation was to be thorough. The only other occasion was when I suggested—I did not order—to the legal authorities in the Air Ministry that, as this case dealt not solely with Air Force law, but with Regulations outside the Air Force—the Food Regulation—it would be as well to get the advice of the Treasury Solicitor, who is the highest legal adviser to the Public Departments. The legal advice which the Air Force Deputy of the Judge Advocate-General gave to the Commander-in-Chief was supported by the Treasury Solicitor, and the Commander-in-Chief came to the conclusion that the institution of a courtmartial was not warranted. He also found, however, that breaches of the Food Regulations had been committed and that they could not be overlooked. Accordingly, he awarded reproval to the officers concerned, and in the case of the two senior officers this was coupled with an expression of the Air Council's severe displeasure, which involved an entry on the official records of the officers' service and is equivalent to a severe reprimand.

There was one point which the hon. Gentleman made to which I intended to refer earlier. He said that, while a summary of evidence was taken, he did not know what obstruction or opportunities of suppression of evidence were afforded. I resent that insinuation. I for my part have taken every step I can to make sure that the investigations were thorough. I am absolutely confident in the integrity of the Commander-in-Chief and the legal advisers of the Air Ministry who conducted this inquiry.

Mr. Hopkinson

Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat that accusation against me? I did not get it quite right.

Sir A. Sinclair

The hon. Gentleman said that he did not know what obstruction had taken place in the gathering of the summary of evidence—

Mr. Hopkinson

May I repeat what I said? It was, "How serious were the attempts to bring the offenders to justice I do not know, nor do I know to what extent the efforts made were deliberately frustrated."

Sir A. Sinclair

No efforts made were deliberately frustrated.

Mr. Hopkinson

Why, then, were two of the officers asked to leave the station because they were obstructive?

Sir A. Sinclair

The hon. Gentleman now says there was obstruction. I do not know. I understand that the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting that officers at the station, presumably some of those officers who were in some degree concerned with the events— [interruption]—that they did attempt to obstruct. Therefore, they were told to leave the station at once and their obstruction was swept aside. That is exactly what I was saying that I and my legal advisers were determined to ensure.

In conclusion, let me again express my deep regret that the authority of a sister Department should appear to have, been disregarded and its Regulations infringed by officers for whose actions I am responsible to Parliament. I would, however, ask the House to accept my assurance that the investigation has been thorough and the disciplinary action appropriate, and further, that we have strengthened our administrative safeguards against anything of the same kind happening again.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven minutes after Six o'Clock.