§ DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will state who were the contractors who supplied 1,350,816 tins of jam for South Africa, each tin containing 12 ounces of jam instead of 1lb. as per contract; who were the inspecting officials responsible for testing the delivery of the goods; whether the War Office has yet replied to the request of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of 26th April,1904, for further particulars on this and other cases of deficiency; and, if so, what is the date and nature of the reply.
§ The following Questions germane to the subject also appeared on the Paper:—
§ DR. MACNAMARAI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his 17 attention has been called to the statement at page xiii. of the Third Report (1904) of the Committee of Public Accounts, to the effect that, out of the total sum granted, £1,265,000, to the Imperial Yeomanry Committee during the South African War, it appears that for more than one-third, £460,000, no details or vouchers were produced; and whether, since the issue of the Report, 28th July, 1904, any of these vouchers have been forthcoming.
§ CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what answer, if any, has been sent to the query of the Comptroller-General, as set forth in the Army Appropriation Account, 1903–4, respecting certain large sales and repurchases of forage by one and the same contractor at the same station in South Africa, who bought oats from the Army at 11s. and sold oats to the Army at 17s. 10d. per 100 lbs
§ CAPTAIN NORTONI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what reply, if any, has been sent to the query of the Comptroller-General in his Report upon the Store Accounts of the Army, 1903–4, respecting 1,350,816 tins of surplus jam sold at Durban, South Africa, held on charge as containing 11b. of jam each and found short of weight by 4 ounces.
§ MR. LEVY (Leicestershire, Loughborough)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that the Director of Supplies in South Africa from October, 1902, to December, 1903, disposed of stores which realised £474,000 to three firms, two of whom were forage contractors to the Army; what was the loss to the Government by these sales; who these contractors were; whether they are still on the list of Government contractors; why oats and oat-hay, which had been purchased during January, 1903, at 17s. 11½d. and 17s. 8½d. per 100 lbs., were sold to the same contractor who supplied this forage for 11s. and 10s. per 100 lbs. respectively between January and March, 1903; and whether the amount of £21,232 allowed 18 for deterioration was in respect of forage supplied by the self-same contractor; and why the contracts asked for in reference to these transactions have not been transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor-General.
§ MR. LEVYI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War why the requests made by the Comptroller and Auditor-General during 1904 for copies of certain contracts for supplies of stores, etc., for the South African War have not been complied with; and whether it is the intention of the War Office to supply copies of these contracts to the Auditor-General.
§ MR. LEVYI beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Comptroller and Auditor-General that on the sale of surplus jam after the South African War 1,350,816 tins supposed to contain 1lb. of jam contained only 12 ounces each; what percentage of the quantity supplied is represented by the 1,350,816 tins; who were the contractors who supplied this jam; what steps, if any, have been taken to obtain repayment of the amount overcharged; whether these contractors are still on the list of Government contractors, if so, why have they not been removed from the list.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSE (Huddersfield)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has addressed any reply to the letter of inquiry by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of Public Accounts, dated April 26th, 1904, as to the reported deficiency of 337,704 lbs. of jam supplied to the War Office for South Africa; and, if not, will he say why an answer has not been sent; and what is the name of the contractor concerned.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI beg to refer the hon. Members who have put down Questions relating to the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General to the Answer which I gave yesterday† to the hon. Member for North Camberwell.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLER (Wolverhampton, E.)The right hon. Gentleman did
† See (4) Debates, exlii., 1370.19 not give the names of the contractors yesterday. Why does he refuse to give the House this information to-day?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERAs far as I am concerned, I do not think if that is made a special Question I can possibly interfere with the discretion of the House in dealing with it, if I have notice of the Question.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEThat is my Question on the Paper.
§ CAPTAIN NORTONThat very Question is asked.
§ DR. MACNAMARAMay I draw attention to the terms of my Question, which asks who are the contractors?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI rather regret these interruptions. I assure the House that there is no desire on the part of the War Office to hold back information. I shall be happy to give the information to the hon. Member.
§ DR. MACNAMARAI beg to ask for the information now.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI am afraid the only Answer I can give is that I have not at the moment got them with me. If the hon. Member desires to separate that part of the information desired from the rest of the Question I will gladly answer.
§ DR. MACNAMARAI will put it down again.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEThe right hon. Gentleman has not answered the part of my Question as to the name of the contractor, and also he has not answered why the War Office neglected to reply to the questions of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of Public Accounts for many months, the Comptroller-General being the officer directly responsible to Parliament.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERDelay in replying to the Auditor-General's in- 20 quiries has been caused by references having had to be made to South Africa in the matter, and pending inquiries which are being made with a view of ascertaining the best means of preventing such occurrences in future campaigns. The reply to the Auditor-General was delayed until this had boon decided.
§ DR. MACNAMARAMy Question was: When was the reply made to the Auditor-General? Has it been made yet?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERNo, Sir, I think not.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSENearly a year's delay! May I ask when a reply will be sent to the Auditor-General?
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThe whole of this matter has been under inquiry at the War Office. It is under investigation at this moment.
§ SIR HENRY FOWLERI understand that the War Office are now contemplating the proper measures to prevent a recurrence of these incidents. But we want to know whether proper measures are being taken to punish the guilty persons? I think that is a proper Question.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERThe right hon. Gentleman is quite right. That is a proper Question. It is a matter that has not been neglected by the War Office. The moment I became aware that there were any incidents of this character I ordered a strict inquiry to be made. That inquiry has been in progress for some time past—for four weeks. A larger question is that raised by the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General. That, I understand, will be inquired into by the House. The House may rest perfectly assured we have not the slightest desire to shield any person, or any other desire than to make the most careful, full, and searching inquiry into all the circumstances of this case, which, apparently— although I do not wish to pronounce an opinion prematurely—have done no credit to the administration of this, campaign.
§ SIR JAMES WOODHOUSEWe have not yet got the names of the contractors.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERI have asked permission to postpone that information till to-morrow. ["Why?"]
§ CAPTAIN NORTONAre we, then, to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he only made an inquiry into this matter some four weeks ago? [Cries of "No" and "He said so."]
§ MR. NORMAN (Wolverhampton, S.)Will the Secretary of State for War also give the names of other contractors who are mentioned anonymously in the Auditor-General's Report?
§ MR. ARNOLD -FORSTERI must ask for notice.
§ MAJOR SEELY (Isle of Wight)This is surely an unprecedented affair. [Cries of "Order."] A Question on the Paper has not been answered, and no reason has been given why it was not answered. [Cries of "No."] It is obvious from the Answer given that the right hon. Gentleman knows the names. He will not give the names. ["Order," and cheers.]