§ Mr. WILLIAM YOUNGI desire to call the attention of the House to a matter which, since it became public, has given rise to considerable comment inside these walls, in the public Press, and generally throughout the country. I refer to the appointment of a certain gentleman, by name Mr. Montague Meyer, as sole purchasing agent for the timber requirements of the War Office—a matter in regard to which I addressed several questions to the Under-Secretary for War, which questions were answered by the Financial Secretary to the War Office. This appointment the hon. Gentleman informed the House had been made by the Office of Works after consultation with the War Office. I gather therefore that the War Office is responsible for the appointment. That, I presume, is admitted by the Financial Secretary.
§ Mr. H. BAKERNo, it is not admitted.
§ Mr. YOUNGVery well then, the Office of Works made the appointment after consultation with the War Office. I do not propose to base my argument upon some kind of inquiry into what seems to me an extraordinary appointment: how it came to be made, and who is really responsible for it, but it would be an interesting thing to find out who was the person or firm who introduced Mr. Montague Meyer to the Office of Works. I do not, as I say, propose to base my argument for inquiry on his merits or demerits, his qualifications or lack of qualifications, as the case may be, for the very lucrative post which he had obtained. My own opinion, if I may venture to give it—and in passing let me say I am in no way connected with or interested in the timber trade in any direction whatever—my own opinion is that Mr. Meyer possessed no special qualifications that should have entitled him to the selection which has been made. My main reason for bringing the matter before the House is the extraordinary, and, taking into account all the circumstances, the excessive and exorbitant, terms on which Mr. Montague Meyer was able to obtain the appointment. He may or may not be an important importer of soft timber, and successful or otherwise, but I have been informed that he has been successful in obtaining a very lucrative appointment for himself and one which, looking at the matter from the point of view of the general interests and those of the British taxpayer, is the reverse of advantageous. It is certainly a matter on which this House is entitled to get more information than we already have.
The House was informed by the Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Baker), in reply to a question put by myself a day or two ago, that the value of the timber so far purchased on account of the War Office by Mr. Meyer—the hon. Gentleman was very careful to say the value as stated by him was only approximate—was £600,000. This, though only approximate, is a fairly respectable figure. On the other hand, he went on to state that Mr. Meyer's own stock had been taken over by the War Office at what he called an ascertained cost price. This having been done, I presume that Mr. Meyer's commission of 2½ per cent.—that is the figure—had to be paid on the ascertained value of his own stocks. That is a very convenient arrangement for any timber merchant. This operation therefore would, I 1358 think, without doubt materially, increase the figure given by my hon. Friend and at the same time increase the remuneration of the buying agent.
What I desire to ask in this particular connection is, How comes it that this gentleman is selected by the Office of Works, or by the War Office, or by both Departments acting together, as the one and only timber merchant in London, or in the country, whose stock of timber is to be taken over at a so-called ascertained cost price, plus the commission of 2½ per cent? The figures given in the House yesterday or the day before by the Financial Secretary are, of course, as we all know, those given to him by the Office of Works. I am rather inclined to think, in view of what I have said, that they may have, not intentionally, been understated; in fact, I doubt whether they are correct or anything like correct. It is freely stated by those who know the trade, and in the public Press—and the House will remember that timber, like coffee, copper, cotton, or sugar, is one of the great staple articles of trade and industry, and the volume and movements of timber are continually being watched and are perfectly well known to timber merchants and brokers in the timber trade—it is freely stated in the market, with all the knowledge they have, that the value of the timber purchased by Mr. Meyer on behalf of the Government is at least double that of the figure given to this House. But if we take the approximate figure of £600,000 given by the hon. Gentleman—I have already stated that I believe it to be more—it means that within the short space of some three months or so, on the basis of the commission arrangement of 2½ per cent., this poor unfortunate timber-buying agent finds himself in pocket only to the extent of a miserable £15,000! Without entailing any financial responsibility whatever on the buying agent, and, so far as I have been able to find out, very little work, this gentleman makes as much as the nation—I should say a grateful nation—pays a Cabinet Minister, for example, or even the Prime Minister himself, over a period of three years, and for what, all of us admit, is most trying work, involving the greatest kind of responsibility.
I want to ask if the House realises that even if it be admitted that a timber agent or expert was necessary and expedient in the circumstances for the requirements of the War Office—and I am not now arguing or 1359 stating that such was not the case—there are, at least, I imagine, a dozen or twenty—it may be more—established firms, or brokers, of the highest reputation and well known throughout the whole country who would have jumped at the business for a commission of, say, 1 per cent. I am told on the best authority that they would have done the business for even ½ per cent., and done it, in my opinion, and I think in the opinion of this House, at least quite as efficiently and quite as economically as it is being done by Mr. Montague Meyer. I leave out of account the offers which, from patriotic motives, may or may not have been made by well-known firms to the War Office to do the necessary work practically free of charge, because I consider even in time of war and stress it is advisable to pay a reasonable figure for work which is well and efficiently done. Had the War Office thought it necessary to appoint a buying expert, I am informed that probably the best timber expert in Great Britain could have been got for a salary of £1,500, or certainly £2,000 per annum. At the latter rate, for the three months' work, there would have been a saving to the British taxpayer of something like £14,500. One is inclined to ask whether this system which has been followed by the War Office or by the Office of Works is followed in other directions? I certainly hope that the case which I have given—and it is not an agreeable task to bring up matters of this kind at present—may be an isolated case. Be that as it may, it is certainly one about which this House is entitled to ask a very full explanation—if it is not forthcoming—into the whole of the circumstances of this extraordinary and unbusinesslike proceeding. It should be fully inquired into by this House so that an arrangement which is so flagrantly opposed to the public interest may be speedily terminated.
It might be thought that out of the excessive remuneration to which I have referred for the work done for the War Office, the buying agent might be keeping up a staff—it might be a considerable staff—for the purpose of carrying on the work. I am informed that nothing of the kind is the case. I am told—and I am open to contradiction if I am not right—that a room at the Office of Works has been put at the disposal of Mr. Meyer, and that he has there the assistance of the principal architect and his assistants. It would appear, in other words, that, at 1360 any rate, all the detail work is done by the Office of Works, and that Mr. Meyer is enabled to keep his full commission of 2½ per cent.—this excessive commission!—without any expense whatsoever, or very little to himself and such expenses as would, if it were borne by any ordinary firm, be borne out of the commission or remuneration paid. We were reminded, in a rather timely manner, the other day, by the. Leader of the Opposition, to the very evident surprise of the Government Front Bench, and, perhaps, more than any other, to the surprise of the Prime Minister, that there are still some capable and competent business men left in this country, and even in this House of Commons. Speaking as a business man, it is certainly to me one of the most extraordinary appointments that I ever heard of in the whole of my experience. It was alleged by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, in reply to one of my questions, "that the arrangement with Mr. Meyer had also resulted in a great economy in the purchasing of the necessary material."
If such belief exists it certainly does not extend beyond the horizon of the Office of Works or the War Office. On the contrary, there is every reason to believe that the arrangement has had the inevitable effect of sending up the price of timber in every market where it could be procured. It cannot be denied that such has been the case. This might not be a very perturbing factor in the mind of a buying agent, because it will be evident to the House that the higher the value of the timber the more remuneration and commission under this arrangement will be secured by the buying agent. There is, likewise, this important matter, that there is no evidence that Mr. Meyer, this buying agent, has stopped doing business on his own account—a most dangerous position in this connection in regard to the War Office and in the public interest, and most unfair—and I will add, most un-British towards other long-established firms in the timber trade who can lay claim to far more knowledge of the trade than Mr. Meyer can possibly lay claim to. I do not wish to go outside the specific case, but there can be no doubt whatever that a good deal of uneasiness does exist throughout the country with regard to the whole question of War Office contracts, and it would be interesting if the hon. Gentleman would, or could, inform the House whether, in connection with the purchase of other materials and supplies, 1361 such as equipment and Army clothing, similar arrangements for paying exorbitant commissions do or do not exist.
It is not necessary to remind the House that the War Office has suddenly, and of course rightly, been converted into the most gigantic purchasing agency of practically all kinds of material that the world has ever seen, and it is of the utmost importance, and it is surely our duty—this House having voted hundreds of millions of money—to see that the money is expended in the most economical manner, and that the great spending Departments of the State are not being conducted by men who are really amateurs in business; and, further, that if blunders such as the one I have referred to have been committed through lack of knowledge or business experience, or, it might be, overwork, they are not allowed to pass and to continue to the detriment of the British taxpayer. We who have the great honour to be Members of this ancient and representative House, boast, and I hope rightly boast, that we are the custodians of the public purse, and we are sent here, as I understand it, in that capacity. Whilst we can, I am sure, afford to be just, we certainly cannot afford to squander those resources which are being provided for the nation at such great sacrifice by our people, especially the poorer classes of the community—sacrifices which will, I fear, have to be borne even unto the third and fourth generation of those who come after us. It is for that consideration, and that only, that I have been induced to bring this matter to the attention of the House, and I apologise for having done so at some greater length than I anticipated.
§ Mr. HASLAMThe hon. Member has placed the matter so clearly before the House that I fear I have very little to add. I do not rise with any idea of casting blame upon the War Office, but I rise merely to obtain an explanation of the case which has been so ably laid before the House. We are, as the hon. Member said, in our position of Members of this House the custodians of the public purse, and in that capacity it is our duty to endeavour, to the utmost of our ability, to find out whether money which is provided by the people is spent to the best possible advantage. We are fully aware of the enormous responsibility and extraordinary amount of work and pressure which has been placed upon the Government Departments, especially upon the War Office at the present juncture. Therefore it appears 1362 to me the more important that we, who are the ordinary Members, should endeavour to help as far as we can the War Office and other Departments in their endeavours to spend the national revenues in the best possible manner. Now it appears that, in this particular case which has been brought before us to-day, the agent appointed is paid a commission of 2½ per cent. on all his purchases of timber, whatever the amount may be.
The first criticism I have to make is that it appears to me 2½ per cent. is far and away more than ought to be paid for transactions of that character. I have some considerable knowledge of business, and I may say I have never heard of a business of that character being carried out at such an exorbitant commission. Whether I am right or wrong in what is to follow I do not know, but I have been informed that, in addition to the commission of 2½ per cent., a brokerage commission is also paid on each transaction, or on some of the transactions. If that is so, then the 2½ per cent. really amounts to 3½ per cent. Up to now we have been told the purchases have exceeded £600,000. That means that in a few months £15,000 of public money has been paid to one agent. It is probable that in the course of the War very much more timber will be required, and that means that the amount of commission will be continually increased. Now it is possible that arrangements might be made to pay a lesser commission for future orders than has been paid in the past. That might be some safeguard.
I rise more particularly, however, to ask the Under-Secretary to inform the House whether this method of paying commission for purchases extends to other portions of the requirements of the War Office than timber, and, if so, I think we have a right to ask him to give us particulars of all the classes of goods for which payments are made to agents for purchases. For a week or more various questions have been asked in this House with regard to the nationality of Mr. Meyer, who is the appointed agent. So far as I am aware, we have never yet been informed. I presume he is an Englishman, but, if that is so, I am astonished the Under-Secretary was not aware of the fact and could tell the House that that was so, because, after all, if a man in the employ of the Government is getting remuneration to the extent of £15,000 you would expect, at any rate, that those in authority would know to what nationality he belongs, especially as 1363 he happens to have a name which, to say the least of it, is not encouraging or reassuring. In addition to that, I am told that four years ago, or a little over four years ago, he was in service with another timber merchant, I believe of the name of Bamberger. Bamberger may be an Englishman too, and probably is, but, at the same time, the name of Bamberger is hardly encouraging at a time when we are at war with Germany. I want to see if we can get some satisfactory reply from the Under-Secretary to show that this commission has really been justified, and that if there are other commissions being paid of a similar character we shall know in what direction they are being paid and the reasons for the adoption of that principle. I would certainly say, in conclusion, that I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he stated that he considered we ought to have more business men appointed to go into questions of this kind, and that it would be a good thing if we could have more business men brought on to Sub-Committees as an Advisory Committee, I think he said, to advise the War Office on these questions.
§ Mr. BAKERI gladly recognise the very fair way indeed in which the hon. Member for East Perthshire (Mr. W. Young) presented the case against Mr. Meyer. I think he put it without any undue prejudice of any kind, and I think it is a very good thing that this case should now be withdrawn from the atmosphere of misstatement in newspapers and of innuendo in question in which it has been too long. I hope that to whatever conclusion hon. Members may come in their own minds in regard to the business methods of this arrangement, at any rate there will be no points of any importance left obscure when I have finished the observations I have to offer. It is necessary to describe in a sentence or two the circumstances which preceded the selection of Mr. Meyer by the Office of Works. The position in the early stage of the War was that the War Office found itself in need of very large quantities of timber, mainly for the huts in camps. The Office of Works is a Department which has considerable expert knowledge of the timber trade, and deals with it practically without interval, and the War Office consulted them as to what the best method of procedure would be in view of the very large purchases it was necessary to make. The Office of Works, I think in 1364 the spirit of pure helpfulness and no more, suggested that they should relieve the War Office of this task as the War Office had their energies very fully occupied in other directions, and the Office of Works was able to bestow its energies on their behalf. The War Office agreed to that proposal—and I say this only in order to fix responsibility—and at that point the actual responsibility of the War War Office ceased, and the Office of Works made all further arrangements. Apparently the first step that happened was that the Office of Works made inquiries from the leading merchants in the timber trade to see what timber they could get, and at what price. Almost all the answers consisted of prices so excessive and so exorbitant that it was necessary for the Office of Works, as the custodian of the taxpayer, to consider the position.
At this stage Mr. Meyer appears. He was one of those who had been asked to quote, and he pointed out to the Office of Works that these inquiries were having a disturbing effect on the market and suggested the difficulty would be very largely overcome if the Office of Works employed the device of using one single agent to purchase, not from, merchants at home, but direct from the shippers in Sweden. The Office of Works approved of that idea, and Mr. Meyer offered to undertake the task. The Office of Works did not at once accept him in that capacity, but, in view of the obvious attempt on the part of a large section of the trade to squeeze them to the utmost they could, they agreed to give Mr. Meyer a trial and to see what he could do. Mr. Meyer, as I shall show by a few figures, carried out the trial so satisfactorily that the arrangement was continued; but I do wish the House to observe that the Office of Works did not resort to the method of a single agent until older and larger contractors had shown that the prices they were attempting to press upon the Government were so great, that really it was their duty to see what was the alternative.
§ Mr. BAKERI will deal with the question of commission if you will allow me later on. Perhaps I ought to say a word or two about Mr. Meyer himself. The hon. Member for East Perthshire very frankly disowned any interest in the personality of Mr. Meyer, but the question of his personality has been used very largely in the 1365 Press and in this House, and it was referred to just now by the hon. Member behind me (Mr. Lewis Haslam). So far as my personal information goes, I think the hon. Member is asking a little too much of even the humblest Member of the Government that he should know the nationality of all the people who are working in other Departments at this time.
§ Mr. BAKERYes, but the question was never put to me except extempore as a supplementary question, and I cannot be expected to answer it without notice. I am ready to answer now that I have had an opportunity of inquiring. I agree it is not really relevant to this Debate, but Mr. Meyer, it appears, is a British subject and is the son and grandson of British subjects. That is the answer on the question of nationality. Mr. Meyer is not an unknown personality who has obtruded himself on the Office of Works. He was known to them before and he had, as a matter of fact, executed other contracts for the War Office previously in a satisfactory manner. Apart from his nationality, the question has been raised as to his position in the timber trade. I do not know that that is of great importance, because, after all, if Mr. Meyer has performed his work efficiently and saved the nation's money, the fact that he is not a person of great eminence in the trade surely ought not to be urged as an objection against him. Various misstatements, however, have been made in that connection, therefore it is right to state that I am informed that he has had experience of the trade for eighteen years and has been in business on his own account for about eight years; I think seven or eight years. The statements which have been made in various quarters that he had only had four and a half years' experience are, therefore, like other statements, not true. His firm, I understand, has had very considerable dealings and cannot be described as unsubstantial.
The right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) who interrupted me a moment ago has asked me whether other firms had offered to do similar work. I am told that two other offers were made and that they were carefully considered by the Office of Works before Mr. Meyer was appointed, and they were considered less satisfactory than his offer. Of course, in a matter like that I cannot hope to interpret to the full 1366 the mind of the Office of Works, but they did not take Mr. Meyer without carefully balancing the advantages of the course which they pursued. I come now to what is really the gist of the discussion, and that is the agreement itself—whether it was a good agreement or not. It has been stated, in reply to questions, that the agreement was that Mr. Meyer should receive 2½ per cent. on the purchases he made, and that the Office of Works was to receive all discounts or commissions that he might receive himself. Those have been described as exorbitant terms. I will deal with the service that Mr. Meyer renders, but before doing that, I should like to point out that the statement that the brokers from whom he buys receive 1 per cent. is in a sense true, but requires some explanation. This 1 per cent. is paid by the seller, but it was only in a very small number of contractions that the broker was employed at all. Mr. Meyer only used a broker after timber had been declared contraband, and then only when for some particular reason in the market it was necessary to conceal the fact that the Government buyer was buying at all, because the forces that were operating earlier were still operating to put up the price against the Government as far as they could. The commission of 2½ per cent. is not all profit.
A great number of services were rendered by Mr. Meyer in return for the commission. He had to make practically all the necessary arrangements connected with the transport of the timber and other matters. It was left to him entirely to make arrangements abroad and in this country, to make arrangements at the docks and in regard to railway consignments, and to deal with the checking of the timber at each camp. Again, it devolved upon him to deal with all matters connected with the conversion of the timber, the checking of the schedules and sizes, and the arrangements for the conversion of the timber into the sizes required. He also arranged the insurance, and dealt with all complaints and with all matters of delay as well, which inevitably arose in the abnormal state of transport and the congestion of the railways. Moreover, it cannot be denied that beyond the bare fact of purchase Mr. Meyer had to spend considerable time and labour in travelling. He had to employ a very considerable staff also, and I must contradict at once the suggestion which has been made that he has been given either a room or a staff by the Office of Works. He has 1367 provided them himself, and any statement to the contrary I am authorised by the Office of Works to contradict. What the Office of Works have done, and all that they have done, is to put a few clerks in his office so that they may check every transaction which he is doing and see that everything is in order and that no objection can be taken. That is a very necessary step, and it would have been necessary whoever had been employed for this purpose.
The other question is whether this has proved an expensive arrangement or not. That is really, I think, the point which most hon. Members who are doing me the honour of listening to me desire should be cleared up. Of course, it is difficult to prove definitely at this period that the arrangement has been entirely one of economy, because a good many transactions are not yet through, but I am assured by the Office of Works that in every case which they have been able to test they have found that purchasing through Mr. Meyer has led to economy and not to extravagance. When Mr. Meyer was given his trial, before he was actually chosen to carry out all these operations, the quotations made to the Office of Works by leading merchants averaged £14 10s. per standard. Mr. Meyer set to work, and bought all the timber that was then wanted at from £10 to £12 per standard. The hon. Member for East Perthshire said that employing an agent had sent up the price; but I thought it was common knowledge that what did send up the price was the declaration of contraband on the part of Germany.
Even after the price had risen, from whatever cause, the fact remains that on every occasion on which comparison could be made it has been found that the price at which Mr. Meyer purchased was more favourable than those offered by large merchants in the timber trade itself. I will give an example. A ship recently arrived from Norway containing a consignment of timber for Mr. Meyer, and a consignment of timber belonging to another contractor. The other contractor offered his part of the shipment to the Office of Works. Now that contractor was known to be a fair man, and one who was less inclined perhaps than others to ask an unreasonable price, but if his price had been taken on that one small consignment alone, it would have meant an extra cost to the Office of Works of £850. I have given two instances, and I will not weary 1368 the House with more, but I will again point out that every case in which comparison has been possible, has shown that Mr. Meyer has been purchasing more cheaply than if application had been made to the ordinary trade. It has been suggested that the Office of Works should have conducted these operations in some other fashion. The alternatives, I suppose, to employing a single agent were, either to purchase direct themselves, which, in view of what did occur, would have been disastrous from the point of view of economy, or to have purchased through a committee. I agree that a committee was a possible alternative, but this House and the country are constantly urging us not to put ourselves into the hands of rings, and if we had done that I think very likely this same Debate would have taken place, but the hon. Members who have criticised would have been compelled to put their criticism upon other ground.
In this matter I cannot be anything more than the mouthpiece of the Office of Works; but I do venture to think that after what I have said, anyone who puts aside racial and commercial bias will be bound to admit that this arrangement cannot be described as one that has been unsatisfactory to the taxpayer. No doubt there are many other people who would have been glad to stand in Mr. Meyer's shoes, and there are some no doubt, but I do not think there are many, who would have acted as efficiently as he has done, judging by results. Of course there remains the point of the 2½ per cent. commission which hon. Members seem to think is excessive. When these transactions first began I do not think it was contemplated that they would reach to the very large figure which they have reached, but recruits have come in and the amount of hutting required has been very largely increased. I believe it is now under consideration at the Office of Works whether, seeing that the transactions have reached such large dimensions the arrangement should not be modified in some way. On the facts as they stand it seems to me that anybody who cares to examine them—and you must look behind, even further behind than I have gone this afternoon—and anyone who cares to examine into all the conditions of the timber trade at that time, and sees the prices that were quoted, will be compelled to agree that, objectionable to some hon. Members in form as this arrangement may seem, in the result it can be described as satisfactory.
1369 The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Lewis Haslam) raised a more general question as to how far this represents a common method on the part of the War Office. He suggested that the War Office was still in the position of amateurs so far as business is concerned. On the few occasions that I have had the opportunity I have endeavoured, but I fear without success, to explain to the House that we have the advantage of the assistance of a large number of men of first-rate business ability. Most of them come in from outside; they are men who know their trade, and are prepared to give advice, and disinterested advice, to us, and to suppose that the War Office, with this gigantic task which has been thrust upon it, is still conducting its operations solely through a few skilled civil servants and a few highly trained soldiers is a mistake I have endeavoured to dispel, and I am now again endeavouring to dispel. We have advice on all branches of trade. It is impossible, of course, to represent that publicly as one could wish. It is obtained, now in one quarter, now in another. Apart from invitations to individuals for advice, there is also more permanent machinery, which I hope will be made more efficient, for keeping constant check, by outside civilians, on the great problems which come up for decision. One other point asked me was whether this method of commissioning buyers at 2½ per cent. was the universal method that was employed. I stated the other day that the practice varies according to the nature of the article required to be purchased. Some buyers are remunerated on a salary basis, some on the basis of the value of the transaction, and others at so much per unit. In some cases a buyer is not employed at all. It is impossible for me to give details at the moment, but there was one striking instance published in the newspapers a short time ago, when the Government decided to appoint one buyer on percentage commission for the whole of their purchases in America. That was a decision taken after careful and full consideration by a large number of people, and it was one which I think hon. Members would approve.
§ Mr. BAKERI am afraid I cannot do that at this moment, but I would say about that matter, as I would about this, that the rate of commission depends 1370 entirely upon the services which are performed in return for it. In the particular case with which we are dealing this afternoon, the rate may be high, but, in estimating fairly whether it is high or not, you must consider that there are a large number of services being performed in return for it. I hope that I have not omitted any important questions put to me by the hon. Member. If I have it is not from any desire to avoid them. I think I have met as fairly as I can the main question whether this particular operation of the Office of Works has been properly carried out and has resulted in advantage or disadvantage to the taxpayer. The figures which I have quoted, and which, after all, are only specimens, are evidence that the Office of Works avoided a great danger which was being prepared for them and acted in the interests of the country.
Sir H. DALZIELI am sure, whatever view may be taken on the subject, that the whole House will agree that my hon. Friend has been well justified in taking the action which he has taken. I am sure we all congratulate him upon the announcement which has has been made by the hon. Gentleman to the effect that the agreement to which he has called attention is to be modified. I understood that to be the statement of the Financial Secretary to the War Office.
Sir H. DALZIELWell, between being under consideration and being modified there is not a very great distinction.
§ Sir G. YOUNGERThey might increase it.
Sir H. DALZIELNot at all. I imagine that any Government office, especially the Office of Works, which gave any consideration to the matter could only come to one conclusion—that the agreement must be modified. Unless the hon. Gentleman means that it is going to be modified, he had no right whatever to make a statement of that kind that the question of its being modified was under consideration.
§ Mr. BECK (Lord of the Treasury)As I have the honour, to-day for the first time, to represent the Office of Works, I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. The position of the Office of Works was this: They were asked to procure wood 1371 for the War Office, and to the best of their belief they made a good bargain. They were asked for a certain limited quantity of wood, but now, as my hon. Friend has very clearly explained, the amount of wood wanted has increased enormously, and seems likely to increase further. It is obvious that a sum which was handsome payment for a man whom we believe has done good service to the country becomes over-handsome as the transaction in—creases. Therefore, the matter is under consideration. I believe Mr. Meyer is perfectly willing to consider any reasonable agreement. [An HON. MEMBER: "Agreed!"] If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, he was trying to pin my hon. Friend and myself down to a definite pledge, and I cannot allow the Office of Works to be pinned down to any definite pledge.
Sir H. DALZIELI congratulate my hon. Friend on his intervention, and I especially congratulate him on the rapidity with which he has assumed the official manner. We have got to this point, as far as I understand him: The Office of Works are going to consider the matter, because they consider the commission is much higher than they ever thought it would be. But not for a moment will my hon. Friend allow us to assume that any modification is going to be made. We may leave it where it is. It is a pity that the two offices could not have conferred before a matter like this was brought forward and have agreed upon the same story. The hon. Member who has just sat down said, "The War Office came to us, and asked us if we would undertake it." The Financial Secretary to the War Office, however, said, "The Office of Works went to the War Office, and they offered to undertake the responsibility with regard to the purchase of wood."
§ Mr. BAKERThe War Office went to the Office of Works, who then suggested that they should undertake it.
Sir H. DALZIELThere still seems to be a mystery whether the War Office went to the Office of Works or the Office of Works went to the War Office. I suggest that the representatives of the two offices met half-way. At any rate, it appears to me that they are not quite agreed as to the real origin of the matter. I suspect, although I know nothing whatever about Mr. Meyer, who had some relation with 1372 the Office of Works before, it may be Mr. Meyer suggested that there were not sufficient brains at the War Office, and that the Office of Works, with his assistance, would really do better than they would do in Whitehall. I think we may take it that there is going to be some modification. The Government have no other alternative. The fact that a man who is almost a total stranger to the War Office should be making at the rate of £60,000 a year—it is now nearly three months, and he has made £15,000; it is good payment—is a subject for inquiry when taxation is so considerable. Let us see exactly how the matter stood with regard to Mr. Meyer, according to the statement of the Under-Secretary. He was one of those asked to quote. It would be interesting to know how many firms were asked to quote. Why was not a public announcement made as to what was required?
§ Mr. BECKI am informed that the Office of Works made inquiries—500 inquiries—and found out the price of wood.
Sir H. DALZIELI suggest to the War Office and to the Office of Works that, in stead of keeping a staff to write all over the country five hundred letters about any one little point, they should make a public advertisement of the matter in the trade papers. I would ask, further, whether Mr. Meyer was one of those asked to quote? We have it on the admission of the Government that they were not satisfied with any of the firms who made the quotation, so that Mr. Meyer's firm was much too high at that moment, from the point of view of the Government. That is obvious. If Mr. Meyer had quoted a price—
Sir H. DALZIELI am only assuming it because of the interpretation we placed on the statement of the Under-Secretary. We all took that as what he stated; then he denied that he stated it.
§ Mr. BAKERI deny that I said it then or a moment ago. I said that he was asked to quote, and that he then made a suggestion that this other method should be adopted.
Sir H. DALZIELThen we may assume that Mr. Meyer did not quote, that Mr. Meyer got the invitation to quote, but said, "I will not quote. I do not think that this is a sound way of doing business. I suggest that you appoint me, and give me a commission." That is exactly the position, as I understand it. I wish to know this: Who fixed the commission? Did Mr. Meyer say, "I will take 1½ per cent." and did the War Office or the Office of Works insist upon 2½ per cent., or did he ask for 5 per cent. and compromise at 2½ per cent.? We ought to know. It is very important whether only Mr. Meyer was asked to work on commission. There are scores of great British timber firms, who, with great respect to Mr. Meyer and the War Office, have had much longer experience than Mr. Meyer, who is not a member of the Timber Trade Federation.
Why were not all these firms asked to say what they would do this purchasing for? Surely that was a reasonable thing to do, instead of having this hole-and-corner arrangement with Mr. Meyer! I want to ask the Under-Secretary this: Was Mr. Meyer paid commission on his own stock? Perhaps the new representative of the Office of Works will answer me. Was he paid commission on his own stock? I am sorry, although they 1374 have been rehearsing it the whole afternoon, that they have not that bit of information. Has Mr. Meyer, on behalf of the Office of Works, buying from Mr. Meyer at the City, charged himself 2½ per cent. for the procedure? Who fixed the valuation of Mr. Meyer's stock? These are all pertinent questions with regard to this matter, and I think we ought to have answers to them. My hon. Friend really complained of this. The same complaint can be urged on many matters in connection with the War Office. No one criticised them until three or four months after the War started, and Heaven knows that no one wants to make difficulties for them now. Everyone wants to be helpful. I urge upon the Government the necessity for further inquiry, that public competition be invited, and that as soon as possible satisfactory arrangements should be made.
It being One hour after the conclusion of Government business, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House of 3rd February, until Monday next.
§ Adjourned at Fourteen minutes after Six o'clock, till Monday next, 22nd February.