Ah ha: Cranfield.
If Parliament is going to consider Mr Dunne's motion, then it should first be referred to a select committee, rather than relying on a report written by a judge who was in the process of losing his marbles.
A case could be made for exonerating F/O Lucas and the two flight engineers, but not the captain and the yes-man seated to his right. ("Might have to drop down to 1500 feet here" "Yeah, probably see further anyway" - "Might have to turn around and climb back to MSA" "Yeah, probably won't kill everyone on board")
I would hope that Mr Dunne does some homework before diving in: "So while no one today accepts the preposterous notion put forward at the time that they deliberately and knowingly flew their aircraft into the side of a mountain ..." No such notion was put forward. It appears that the only research Dunne's done is to read Holmes' book, but the value of that book as an objective reference tool is made clear on page 30:
"Finally, I make no apology for the emphatic views expressed in this book. I have not consulted some who for thirty years have held Mahon to be wrong and have called for the pilots to shoulder at least some of the blame for the Erebus disaster. I have not tried to contact those who for thirty years and for their own various reasons have denied the truth. Above all, the simple logic of Mahon, endorsed by the Privy Council, exonerates the aircrew."