asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation whether, in view of circuit danger, it is intended to cease flying at Northolt Aerodrome when British European Airways have completed their removal to Heathrow.

I have nothing to add to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) on Thursday, 15th February, 1951.

May I take it that flying will not take place from Northolt in these circumstances and that the Ministry of Civil Aviation will resist all attempts to resume it?

The hon. Member can take nothing beyond what I have said in my answer.

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what are his proposals for the development of Prestwick as an international airport.

I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend, the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) on 15th February.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am getting very tired of having to put this Question and of getting very unsatisfactory replies? Would he tell my why the recommendations of the Clydesmuir Committee have not been accepted in their entirety since, as all Scottish Members know, they represent the real wishes of Scotland in regard to civil aviation?

I am surprised when the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that the replies are unsatisfactory, because in the answer to which I referred him there are two columns in HANSARD much of which are occupied by details of recommendations which were made by that Committee and which were accepted by us.

Yes, but not the recommendations which were not accepted.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in spite of two columns in HANSARD and every other assurance, this great airport is being wasted? How long is this going on?

asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what proposals he has for the future of the Southampton Marine airport.

The water-area licensed for aircraft operations will remain under the control of the Southampton harbour authorities. The passenger handling buildings will be disposed of to the best advantage.

Could my hon. Friend be a little more explicit? He has several times said that the airport is to be kept on a proper care and maintenance basis— a care and maintenance basis for what? What is the use to which the airport will be put?

The decision to keep these buildings on a care and maintenance basis was made on the understanding that we would operate the Princess flying boat. As my hon. Friend has heard, this flying boat will now be used for military operations.

asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the marriage laws.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the Government's intentions concerning the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into divorce law reform.

asked the Prime Minister whether a decision has yet been taken by His Majesty's Government as to the setting up of a Royal Commission to examine and report upon the divorce laws.

asked the Prime Minister whether he will recommend the appointment of a Royal Commission to investigate the marriage laws.

I have decided to recommend to His Majesty the appointment of a Royal Commission to review the law relating to divorce. I am not yet able to announce the precise terms of reference or the names of members of the Commission, but I will make a further statement on these points as soon as possible.

While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to assure the House that the terms of reference will be sufficiently wide to cover not only the law directly relating to marriage, separation and divorce, but also such cognate matters as pensions, insurance and marriage guidance and advice, so that people may be helped to avoid broken marriages? May I also ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government, who have shown some hesitation in reaching a further decision on this matter, recognise that it is very undesirable for the public to be kept for so long in uncertainty on questions which affect the lives and futures of so many thousands of men and women? May we have an answer to these points as soon as possible?

I will certainly take into account the points put forward by my hon. Friend when considering the terms of reference. I know she would not expect an answer now. But in my experience people have had to wait a considerable time on these questions of the divorce laws. I cannot promise how soon we shall get a result, but we shall appoint the Commission as soon as possible.

Will the terms of reference be sufficiently wide to enable the Royal Commission to consider what can be done to increase the public regard for the sanctity of marriage?

I have always understood that that was one of the points taken into consideration by Royal Commissions on this subject.

Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that this Commission, which cannot possibly report for some years and which, in any event, binds no one to anything, will not be made the pretext for murdering the Bill passed in this House on Friday with a decisive majority and with widespread public approval?

asked the Prime Minister why advance information was given by his office to the "Daily Herald" in regard to the retirement of the right hon. Member for Woolwich. East, from the post of Foreign Secretary.

The hon. Member is mistaken. No such information was given by my office.

While, of course, I fully accept the Prime Minister's assurances with regard to his own office, may I ask him whether he is aware that in the first or country editions of the London morning newspapers for Friday, 9th March, the "Daily Herald"—and the "Daily Herald" alone—carried an authoritative statement on this important event? Will he order an investigation into this apparent leakage, having regard in particular to the importance of avoiding any suggestion of discrimination in favour of a party-controlled newspaper?

There was no authoritative statement. There was no authority whatever in that statement. I can assure the hon. Member that if he looks at the papers, as I do, he will realise that I am always getting completely authoritative statements about things which have not happened. Guesses are made and every now and again a guess comes off right. I have been looking into these things. It is impossible to trace them. I get statements about Cabinet meetings and decisions which have never happened—all reported in the most authoritative way.

Would my right hon. Friend indicate what advance information was given to the "Daily Worker" about the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. John Rodgers)?

Does the Prime Minister not realise that there is a distinction between statements which turn out to be inaccurate and statements which turn out to be completely accurate? Will he institute an inquiry as to how this information, which was not apparently officially issued, reached that newspaper?

I am aware of the difference between accurate and inaccurate information, but there are so many speculations made that every now and again an intelligent journalist is bound to ring the bell.

Was not this just a case of what is always called intelligent anticipation, on the part of the "Daily Herald"?

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on operations in Korea.

Does the Minister intend to make one of the periodic statements which he makes from time to time to the House? If so, would it not be better that it should be made at the end of Question Time?

I would put that observation into the category of intelligent anticipation. I have not yet answered the Question. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not mind if I first answer the Question. The answer is that I hope to make a further statement before the Easter Recess.

I gladly make my acknowledgment to the right hon. Gentleman.

asked the Minister of Defence whether the speech made by the First Sea Lord at Gibraltar on Monday, 5th March, with regard to the appointment of an American admiral as Supreme Atlantic Commander, was made with his approval; and under what arrangements the wide and immediate official publicity was given to this speech.

asked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the statement of Admiral of the Fleet Lord Eraser of North Cape, he will take steps to ensure that personal statements of opinion are not made by senior officers in His Majesty's Forces on matters of major Government policy while such matters are under consideration by this House.

I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) on Monday last. No action was taken by the Admiralty to give publicity to this speech.

May I draw the attention of the Minister to the King's Regulations, paragraph 17 (2):

"All persons belonging to the Fleet are forbidden to write or otherwise to communicate to the Press, or publish or allow to be published, directly or indirectly, any matter or information relating to the Naval Service, or anything of a controversial nature affecting other departments of the public service or relating to matters of public policy, unless the permission of the Admiralty has been first obtained."

On a point of order. Mr. Speaker, will you inform the House whether we are still on Question Time, because it seems to me—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—that the right hon. Gentleman is not trying to ask a question.

I think we had better carry on. After all, it is my responsibility. I do not want more heat raised today than necessary. Let us get on.

I will continue.

"They are further forbidden, without first obtaining Admiralty permission, to deliver publicly or broadcast any lecture or read any paper on such subjects, or, in any published speech dealing with such subjects"—

"to express opinions which are likely to give rise to controversy."

rose——

I am in possession of the House as long as you permit it, Mr. Speaker.

There is so much noise that I cannot tell whether the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), is raising a point of order or not.

On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] On a point of order.

It is no good the hon. and learned Gentleman saying "On a point of order" and then not raising the point of order. I was waiting to hear him.

My point of order is this, Sir. Is it fair to other hon. Members who have Questions later on the Order Paper to have to hear a speech made in the middle of Question Time?

We ought to be able to discuss these matters. In view of this perfectly clear paragraph in the King's Regulations, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Admiralty gave permission to the present First Sea Lord to make the speech attributed to him?

Since the right hon. Gentleman has raised the question of King's Regulations, I would point out that I understand that the governing regulation is 541 (b), which, in view of what the right hon. Gentleman stated, I venture to read to the House:

"No officer or soldier or member of Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service is permitted to take any active part in the affairs of any political organisation or party either by acting as a member of a candidate's"—

Is this for the Navy or the Army?

It says:

"no officer or soldier or member of Queen Alexandra's Imperial Military Nursing Service is permitted to take any active part.…"

"either by acting as a member of a candidate's selection committee, or by speaking in public or publishing or distributing literature in furtherance of the political purposes of any such organisation or party, or in any other manner until he or she has retired, resigned or been discharged or, in the case of a field marshal, until he has relinquished any appointment that he may be holding."

I have read a passage which entirely contradicts that and which was taken from the King's Regulations for the Naval Services. Surely that is relevant——

On a point of order.

Surely that is relevant in this matter and what I ask is this——

On a point of order. Is not the right hon. Gentleman imparting information rather than seeking it?

I think we had better get on with it. I want to hear the end of it.

What I ask, arising from that, is this: Was permission given by the First Lord of the Admiralty or other Ministerial authority to the First Sea Lord to enter upon this subject in the manner which has been attributed to him?

As regards the alleged contradiction in King's Regulations, I must not be held to be responsible for King's Regulations as a whole. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I must not be held to be responsible for the whole of King's Regulations; I have to interpret them. I did not prepare them. As regards the second part of the supplementary question, I understand that there was no consultation between the First Sea Lord and the First Lord of the Admiralty; indeed, there was no occasion why there should have been. The First Sea Lord, at a gathering of naval personnel, merely stated what had been stated by the Prime Minister in the House on a previous occasion.

But is it not very desirable to keep the high naval and military professional authorities, actively serving, out of matters of controversy in Parliament?

I am quite certain—and the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of this—that in the three Services high ranking officers, and, indeed, all personnel, are anxious to keep out of political controversy. But they did not start the political controversy. It was the right hon. Gentleman.

Now, with very great respect, I put this question to the Prime Minister. Does he approve of the Minister of Defence deliberately justifying what has been a breach of King's Regulations?

I take my stand on the Regulation which I read to the House. I stand by the Regulation to which I have referred, and, what is more, so far as I can ascertain, the First Sea Lord did not in any sense, or in the spirit or in the letter, violate King's Regulations.

Does the right hon. Gentleman repudiate—[Interruption.] It does not worry me at all to be interrupted: I like it. Does the right hon. Gentleman repudiate the Regulation which I read from the Navy Regulations, by which officers have to be guided from day to day? Does he, as head of the defence Services?

I do not seek to repudiate any section of King's Regulations, but I take my stand on that passage in King's Regulations to which I referred; and, perhaps, I should add this, because I think it ought to be said——

What?

Perhaps I should add this, that if the First Sea Lord had made a statement contrary to the statement which he made, which was merely a reaffirmation of what the Prime Minister had said, I doubt very much whether the right hon. Gentleman would have raised it on the Floor of the House.

But——

rose——

On a point of order——

On a point of order——

It is quite impossible for me to know what any one is saying. I cannot hear a single word. Suppose we have a little silence, so that I can hear something. Is the right hon. Gentleman rising to a point of order?

Yes, Sir; it seems to be the only way one is allowed to speak in this House. [Interruption.]

We are getting very excited. After all, perhaps that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman likes to see—everybody getting up at once. Try, not to play that game.

On a point of order. Is it not a very insulting charge for the Minister of Defence to make, that I should have adopted—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite are afraid to hear the case put—a totally different view of King's Regulations, if the First Sea Lord's opinions had been of a very different nature from those which have been expressed? Is it not very much better that all parties should join together to keep the professional heads of the Services out of political matters?

rose——

A point of order has been put to me. I was going to say something about it. It seems I am not allowed to say a word in the House. That question was not a point of order at all.

rose——

On a point of order. This Question——

Again, I am not able to hear a single word. Let me hear.

On a point of order. This Question was put down by a Tory back bencher, and immediately the Question was answered by the Minister of Defence the Leader of the Opposition barged to the Despatch Box—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and has since taken all the supplementaries. We want to know what rights back benchers have in this matter. Is it not the case that it is the hon. Member who puts a Question down who asks the first supplementary? The back benchers have not been allowed to put supplementary questions. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has asked them.

I have no authority over that. That is a matter between the baok bencher and the Leader of the Opposition.

I merely wish to say this in defence of the First Sea Lord, that it seemed to me and to the First Lord of the Admiralty that what the First Sea Lord had done was to comment, and quite naturally, to a meeting of naval personnel on a matter affecting the command organisation in which he is vitally interested. There was no question of intervening in a political controversy. I should just like to add that I regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman thought that I was conveying any sinister motive or imputation into what he said. It may well be that the right hon. Gentleman would have adopted a different course, but he might have adopted the right course. If I suggested he might have adopted the wrong course, perhaps I was wrong.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will endeavour, as Minister of Defence, to keep the professional heads of the Services as far as possible outside—in accordance with the Regulations—matters of high and controversial public policy which have to be debated in the House of Commons?

Unless the Leader of the Opposition agrees with them.

To the right hon. Gentleman's direct question I give an affirmative reply. It is desirable that high ranking officers—indeed, all those in the Services —should not embark on political controversy or intervene in such matters; but I am bound to say that I cannot see that the First Sea Lord did anything which can be regarded as improper.

rose——

In my judgment we have had enough questions on this subject.

No.

After all, it is my responsibility. We have now had ten minutes on this matter. We shall have half an hour if we go on like this.

On a point of order. With great respect, Sir, all the supplementary questions that have occupied the time you have complained about been put by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill). Is that fair?

All the answers have been by the Minister of Defence. I prefer to leave it at that.

rose——

On a point of order. The right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) distinctly said that we wanted not only a new Parliament but a new Speaker. Is that permitted. Sir?

I never heard it; and anyhow the noble Lord is entitled to his own opinion. It does not matter much to me. I think we had better get on now.

If, in conversation, I indicated that I thought it would be in the interests of the country that we should have a new Parliament which would involve a new Speaker, I apologise.

Mr. Bartley.

Could we have just one back bench supplementary question?

I thought the time had come when it would be much better to get on. We are going to debate this matter, and we had better debate it in due course. We have had Question Time going on far too much as a kind of irregular debate, and it might be continued as such. I therefore thought we had better stop it. Mr. Bartley.

Further to that point of order——

No, I am having no more points of order on this. Mr. Bartley.

With great respect——

The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat and not rise again. Mr. Bartley.

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Fuel and Power whether he is in a position to make a statement to the House in regard to the accident that occurred on Tuesday, 13th March, at South Birtley colliery, in which there are seven miners entombed.

Yes, Sir. South Birtley is a licensed mine, from which clay is extracted for making bricks and tiles. Yesterday afternoon there was a fall of roof in the main surface drift. The fall was being cleared, when a further fall took place, which blocked the drift and imprisoned seven men. Rescue work began at once, and has continued ever since; at 8.30 a.m. today a passage was cleared large enough to allow food and drink to be passed through. His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines and the officers of the National Coal Board have given all the assistance in their power. I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that the imprisoned men are in no immediate danger; but I must add that the ground is difficult, and I cannot yet say when they will be brought out.

In view of the public and personal anxiety that there is about this matter, I am sure that hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House will be glad to hear the hopeful prospect of the safe release of these men; will express appreciation of the work that is being done by the rescuers, both management and workmen; and will hope that their work will meet with success at a very early hour.

Do not these real tragedies make it more than ever shameful that the Opposition should continue to denigrate the miners in their efforts to obtain coal?