HC Deb 09 April 1918 vol 104 cc1320-2
37. Mr. ANDERSON

asked the Minister of Munitions whether charges have been brought to his attention that an engineering firm in Aberdeen engaged in the manufacture of munitions were faking 6-inch shells and were in the possession of special marking tools for this purpose, a consignment of shells costing £4,000 being involved; whether Colonel Stansfield, of Woolwich Arsenal, was sent to Aberdeen by the Ministry; whether it was discovered that discarded shells were being marked as if they had been passed and approved; whether these engineering works have since been taken over by the Government after a military investigation had taken place; whether he is aware of the name of the electrical engineers in Aberdeen who produced a tool for markings similar to the inspector's mark; and will he say whether there has been or will be prosecution of any or all concerned?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway)

The answer to the first parts of the question is in the affirmative. No definite information has been obtained as to the manufacture of a tool for reproducing an inspector's mark. The question of a prosecution of the persons concerned has been under consideration, but the Ministry are advised by the legal authorities whom they have consulted that, owing to the circumstances in which the works were taken over as a national factory, they are, unfortunately, precluded from instituting a prosecution.

Mr. HENDERSON

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, having regard to the seriousness of the charge made against this firm, he will afford the firm an opportunity of producing the ample evidence which they have to rebut the charges made at an independent inquiry?

Mr. ANDERSON

In view of the seriousness of these charges, will the hon. Gentleman have a full investigation made into all the facts of the case involved?

Mr. KELLAWAY

I quite agree as to the serious nature of the charges. They were, in fact, investigated at the time the arrangement was come to. As to whether any further investigation is required, I will consider.

Mr. ANDERSON

Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the result of the investigation made at the time the changes were carried out was. in fact, to substantially substantiate the charges involved in the question?

Mr. HENDERSON

Will the hon. Gentleman not admit that the investigation was made by the Minister of Munitions, and nobody else, and that the firm had no opportunity to meet these charges, which they say they have ample evidence to rebut in every detail?

Mr. KELLAWAY

The firm had full opportunity of stating their side of the case when it was investigated by the local committee, and the decision was come to. On the other point, I will consult the hon. Member (Mr. Anderson) as to whether further action should be taken

Mr. HENDERSON

Is it not a fact that when the local question arose the investigation was made by an inspector of the Ministry of Munitions, and that they had no appeal?

Mr. KELLAWAY

I am not aware of that.