§ 23. Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will arrange for a full public inquiry into the allocation of the Grantham factories; and that authority be given to send for all the files, secret reports, persons and papers.
§ Mr. H. WilsonNo, Sir.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithIs my right hon. Friend aware that if an investigation was made it would result in an indictment against two previous Presidents of the Board of Trade; and that it would reveal an attempt at aristocratic blackmail and the fact that guns were sold to both sides?
§ Mr. SpeakerImputations and insinuations are out of Order at Question Time.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithIn this case, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that they are justified, and in view of that statement, will my right hon. Friend consider having an investigation made?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member has continued his imputations and insinuations. I direct that no answer be given.
§ Mr. EdenAs these imputations have been made, is it not desirable from every point of view that there should be an inquiry to see whether there is justification or not?
§ Mr. WilsonThis matter was very fully debated in the House on 30th July last. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made a full statement of the history of this allocation, and I am satisfied that no further inquiry is called for.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithIn view of the serious statement—
§ Mr. GallacherApart altogether from the accusation made today, is not the President of the Board of Trade aware that there is very grave suspicion as to what has happened in connection with this factory, and would he not accept the proposition and hold an inquiry to clear up the matter?
§ Mr. WilsonNo, Sir. The matter has been very fully debated and I do not see any reason for reopening this question. The factories in question are about to be reallocated and I think it might be left at that.
§ Wing-Commander HulbertOn a point of Order. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Ellis Smith) has made a serious charge against two former Presidents of the Board of Trade—one of them being the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton). Should he not withdraw that?
§ Mr. Ellis SmithYou, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members of this House know me sufficiently well to know that a statement of that character would not be made unless there is justification for making it.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is really making the matter worse. I have protested against imputations and insinuations against Precedents of the Board of Trade in this 1985 Government or another. They ought not to be made. We did debate this matter, and, although it may have been left unsatisfactorily, from the point of view of many hon. Members, it was debated. I do not think the matter should be raised again by imputations and insinuations.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithIn view of your position, Mr. Speaker, I respect that, but, at the same time—
§ Mr. Ellis SmithAll I am asking for is a full public inquiry, and on the results of that inquiry I am prepared to stand. I also remember that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), in that Debate, did make imputations against other people who could not be present.
§ Mr. EdenI should like to know where we are, Sir. Imputations have been made against former Presidents of the Board of Trade. I do not know whether they apply to this side of the House or to that side, but they have not been withdrawn. I have no doubt of the sincerity of the hon. Member who made them, but there are only two choices—either the imputations must be investigated or they must be withdrawn.
§ Mr. WilsonI have already said that this matter has been fully debated, and, if I remember rightly, there was a Division, though my memory may be at fault. Certainly, I do not consider there is any case for further inquiry at this time.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf there is to be another Debate about Presidents of the Board of Trade, I think the hon. Member ought to withdraw his imputations and insinuations. I rather thought that he was prepared to do that, and I think it is the proper way.
§ Mr. George ThomasOn a point of Order. Is there not a difference between a Debate in this House and an inquiry? A Debate in this House consists of respective points of view being put forward by speakers. I do not know what my hon. Friend has in mind, but I suggest that the House should bear in mind—with due respect to you, Mr. Speaker—that an inquiry 1986 and a Debate are two entirely different things.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe only other course, of Course, is for the hon. Member to put down a substantive Motion, putting on paper the charges which he makes against former Presidents of the Board of Trade.
§ Colonel RopnerAm I not right when I say that, although an hon. Member may be out of Order in making insinuations at Question Time, there is nothing unparliamentary in the remarks which he has made?
§ Mr. Ellis SmithIn view of the need to maintain respect for the Chair, in particular, I am quite prepared to withdraw, but, at the same time, I think a full public inquiry should be held.