§ 46. Mr. Moelwyn Hughesasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the Motion (Irregularities in Administration of Air Ministry) standing in the Order Book in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen and other Members; and if he is prepared to give time for a discussion of this Motion.
[That a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the allegations made in this House on 19th December, 1944, by the hon. Member for Mossley concerning irregularities in the administration of the Air Ministry.]
§ The Prime MinisterI am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for giving me the time I needed to inform myself adequately on this matter. I am now in a position to tell the House that there is no ground for the allegations which were made against the British Overseas Airways Corporation. I cannot therefore 962 advise the House to set up a Select Committee, nor will the Government give any special opportunities for the discussion of a Motion to that end. There are, however, in the normal course of Parliamentary business various opportunities when the question can be raised, and it is to those occasions that I would direct the attention of my hon. and learned Friend and others who may be associated with him.
§ Mr. HughesMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is not aware that the allegations made not only concerned the British Overseas Airways Corporation, but affected matters intimately touching the conduct of the Royal Air Force, much wider than the B.O.A.C.; and is not that a proper subject to be looked into by a committee?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. We do not take that view. So far as what is called the "farm case" is concerned, that has already been discussed in the House and statements have been made by the Secretary of State. So far as the allegations about the B.O.A.C. are concerned, I was asked, before we separated for the Recess, that there should be a clear statement by the Government whether they supported the officer in question or not, the officer being General Critchley. I have taken pains to make myself thoroughly acquainted with the matter, and the answer is as I have given it, that we do not find any grounds for the allegations which have been made.
§ Earl WintertonWill the right hon. Gentleman have regard to this point? I would ask him whether it is not an almost invariable rule, although there may have been, I admit, some departures from it, that, when a charge is made in Debate by an hon. Member of this House against the personal conduct of a Minister of the Crown—in this case, the Secretary of State for Air and I express no opinion whether the charges are ill or well-founded—and when a demand for a Select Committee, or some inquiry, is put down by hon. Members, including Privy Councillors, in all parts of the House, the Government agree to have the inquiry?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think so. I think that the question has to be judged individually. I understand that the hon. Member who made the allegations, on 963 the last occasion when he spoke about the B.O.A.C., referred to what is called the "farm case" as trivial or trifling, and that is the position in which I consider it stands. The Government take their view about these matters, and will certainly adhere to it.
§ Mr. Austin HopkinsonIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this Motion refers to an inquiry into irregularities at the Air Ministry, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the B.O.A.C.—
§ The Prime MinisterBut that is under the Air Ministry.
§ Mr. Hopkinson—and that I suggested, in the last Debate on this subject, that there had been a very grave dereliction of duty on the part of the Air Minister and his subordinates, and that the B.O.A.C. question was only introduced into the Debate in order to give examples of the serious consequences which might follow, or have followed, from that neglect of duty?
§ Mr. KirkwoodWhy is the hon. Member allowed to make a long statement like that?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman has, for a long time, persisted in making these allegations and charges. So far as the "farm case" is concerned, they have been fully answered by the Secretary of State, who, in the most frank manner, explained to the House the minor irregularity into which he himself had fallen. The House, at the time, fully accepted his explanation. After that, the hon. Member has continued to make other charges. I understand that the hon. Member obtained the Adjournment of the House on the question, not of the "farm case," but of the B.O.A.C., and, therefore, he ought not to pretend this morning that the B.O.A.C. had nothing to do with it, and that what he is in pursuit of is the Secretary of State for Air. He ought not to do so, because it was to the B.O.A.C. that the question referred. I was asked to say "Do you defend your officer or not?" the officer being General Critchley. I have taken pains to put myself in a position to take the responsibility for saying that we do defend the B.O.A.C. against the allegations made in respect of the conduct of this officer.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think we can pursue this matter any further.
§ Earl WintertonI beg to give notice that I shall raise, on the Motion for the Adjournment, the question of the refusal of the Government to adopt the ordinary practice of the House of holding an inquiry into charges made by an hon. Member against the personal conduct of a Minister.
§ The Prime MinisterWith great respect, I hope I may be permitted—
§ Mr. SpeakerAs notice has been given of a Debate on this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, that closes the matter, surely.
§ The Prime MinisterI thought I might be permitted to ask—
§ Mr. KirkwoodOnly if Mr. Speaker allows it.
§ Mr. HopkinsonOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker.
§ The Prime MinisterI thought I might be permitted to ask you, Sir—
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the Prime Minister rises to say something, I think the House should hear him.
§ The Prime MinisterI put it to you, Mr. Speaker, whether I am not entitled, in view of the very grave words used by the Noble Lord, to ask what is the charge which he is going to make against my right hon. Friend on the Motion for the Adjournment. Surely, it is only fair to say what the charge is. Will the Noble Lord tell us what is the charge which he will make this evening?
§ Mr. KirkwoodOn a point of Order.
§ Earl WintertonI am most anxious not to have any discussion with my right hon. Friend. I made it plain that I express no opinion on the merits or otherwise of the charges. I am calling attention to the constitutional position. I allege that the constitutional position is that, when a charge of the gravity of the one made by the hon. Member below the Gangway is made against the conduct of a Minister, the Government should give their reasons, which may be very good ones, for not following the ordinary process of allowing 965 an inquiry to be held, which goes back into the roots of the age-old procedure of this House.
§ The Prime Ministerrose—
§ The Prime MinisterI think that is a cowardly way. I have never seen the Noble Lord do a thing like that before.
§ Mr. SpeakerAs the matter is to be raised on the Motion for the Adjournment, it cannot be further discussed here.
§ Mr. GallacherOn a point of Order. I want to ask you, Sir, why it is that the hon. Member for Mossley (Mr. A. Hopkinson) and the Noble Lord can get away with all this, when you know that—