HC Deb 20 March 1905 vol 143 cc445-9
*MR. NOKMAN (Wolverhampton, S.)

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any person has been reprimanded, dismissed, or otherwise punished in connection with any of the transactions to which public attention is drawn in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.)

No person has been, or will be, reprimanded, dismissed, or otherwise punished until a full inquiry has been made, and until his responsibility for any malpractice has been established. When this responsibility has been established the Army Council will immediately take such steps as may be necessary. Perhaps I may take this opportunity of informing the hon. Member, and the House, what is the actual history of these transactions. Many of the transactions appeared originally to be justified by the explanations given by the local military authorities. In 1904, however, attention was drawn by the Comptroller and Auditor-General to other alleged errors or malpractices; and in investigating these reason was seen for questioning the accuracy or relevance of the explanations previously accepted. The cases were, therefore, taken up as a whole and minutely investigated de novo by the newly formed Accounts Branch. On January 17th I was informed that, as a result of these inquiries, there was reason to view some of these transactions with great suspicion. On the same day, therefore, I decided to appoint a strong Committee, of which General Sir William, Butler is the Chairman, to make a careful investigation into the cases, and to report to the Army Council. This inquiry has been proceeding since that date, and a large number of witnesses have been examined. I am fully alive to the necessity of relieving the Army from any general imputation of malpractice, and the House may rely upon it that individuals against whom misconduct or neglect of duty may be established will be dealt with without fear or favour. At the same time, I would point out that it is necessary to proceed with care where the reputation and character of individuals, whether in the service or not connected with it, are concerned. Perhaps I may remind the House that an officer who was selected for frequent animadversion by hon. Members, brought his case before a Court of law and obtained the withdrawal of the charge, and an apology. In conclusion, I may say that the best guarantee against incidents such as those now the subject of complaint is the establishment of a proper organisation for dealing with purchases, contracts, and payments in time of war. The Army Council are fully sensible of this, and last year established a new organisation expressly charged with the duty of dealing with matters of this kind in the field.

*MR. NORMAN

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very full reply, but may I remind him that the Question referred only to the past, and many of the alleged malpractices are of very long standing.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I hope the hon. Member will pardon me for having made an addition to the actual Answer to the Question.

*MR. NORMAN

I have already thanked the right hon. Gentleman.

*MR. NORMAN

I beg further to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will furnish the names of the contractors mentioned anonymously in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General; and, in the case of any name not being given, will he state the reason for withholding such name.

CAPTAIN NORTON (Newington, W.)

At the same time may I ask the Secretary of State for War if he can state the names of the firms refered to in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General, under the heading "Sales of Surplus Supplies as, A, B, and C."

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

The reply to this and a similar Question by the hon. Member for West Newington, is that the names of the three firms are: Messrs. E. Stepney, Messrs. Meyer and Co., Messrs. Wilson and Worthington. I am aware of no reason for withholding the names of these, or of any other firm. I have already furnished them in response to a request by another hon. Member of the House.

*MR. NORMAN

asked if the names as now given corresponded with the alphabetical order of the anonymous contractors in the Report.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

That is a Question I am unable to answer now; perhaps the hon. Member will give notice of the Question?

*MR. NORMAN

That is the whole point of the Question—to enable us to identify the coutiactors.

DR. MACNAMARA (Camberwell, N.)

Is it a fact that the names of two of the three contractors are on the list for 1904–5?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I must ask for notice of the Question; but it must not be assumed from the fact that firms are mentioned that it is proof that they are in any way guilty of misconduct.

CAPTAIN NORTON

. Seeing that during the late war contractors who had been guilty of malpractices were replaced on the list, will the right hon. Gentleman take care that for the future the names shall be permanently struck off?

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

I make no admissions as to the correctness or otherwise of the hon. and gallant Member's statement.

*MR. NORMAN

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that quantities of stores, many of them of an imperishable nature, such as wire netting, sent out for the service of the troops in South Africa, after remaining for some time upon the quays of certain South African ports, were reloaded upon steamers and jettisoned at sea; if he can state the amount and the value of these stores; by whose orders they were thus destroyed; what sums wore paid to the owners of the steamers for these services; and why such of these stores as were not of a perishable nature were not sold.

MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER

Nothing whatever can be traced at the War Office of the matter alluded to in the Question. I shall be much obliged if the hon. Member will communicate to me the source of his information to enable me to make further inquiries.

*MR. NORMAN

I will, so far as I am at liberty to do so.

*MR. MACONOCHIE (Aberdeenshire, E.)

I beg to ask the Prime Minister a Question of which I have given him private notice, viz., whether he will expedite the discussion on the question of the liability of the contractors in regard to the disclosures made recently, as they are suffering severely by the delay.

THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)

I can quite understand the very great anxiety of all those who, even in the most distant way, have been touched in connection with the subject of these Army contracts to have a discussion in this House as soon as possible, and I can assure my hon. friend, as I assured the House last Thursday, that it is our earnest desire to bring on the discussion at the very first moment at which it can be fruitfully and profitably undertaken by the House. My hon. friend will, however, see, as the House, I think, sees, that to bring it on before all the facts are in such a state that the House can deal with them would be neither in the interests of the House itself, in the interests of the public, nor in the interests of the contractors; but I will do my best to meet my hon. friend's views.