41. Lieutenant-Colonel Sir JOHN HOPEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether his Department has kept a list of contractors who have been struck off the Government rolls for misconduct in connection with war supplies; and, if so, whether he will lay the list upon the Table of this House?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYA black list of Contractors, whose names have been removed from the List of Contractors employed by the Minister on account of misconduct in connection with war supplies, is kept in the Ministry of Munitions. That list however, is treated as strictly confidential, and it is not in the public interest that it should be published.
Sir J. HOPEIs it not in the public interest to punish those firms who have endangered the lives of our soldiers and sailors, and obtained fraudulent profit at the expense of the nation; and has any promise been made to those firms that their names shall not be disclosed to Parliament?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI examined this question carefully from the point of view put by my hon. and gallant Friend, and I was advised that the difficulty was largely a legal one, that any publication of names might involve us in considerable litigation, which would have the effect of restricting the liberty of officials in placing contractors on the black list.
Sir HENRY DALZIELIn the event of the names being asked for in a question, would the hon. Gentleman feel justified in refusing to give the names?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI think I had better give an undertaking that I shall be prepared to consider the whole question in view of what has been said.
Sir F. HALLMay I ask, as I have a question down to-day—not an oral question—asking for names, whether the names are going to be suppressed?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will wait until that question comes.
Sir J. HOPEWill the hon. Gentleman say what the legal difficulty is in publishing these names, and whether the House is not privileged if the names are laid on the Table of this House?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI have stated what I was advised was the legal difficulty, that if this information was published, it might have involved the different Government. Departments in litigation, and to that extent would restrict the freedom of action of officials, and so have the effect of limiting the number of names placed on the list. But I am quite prepared to consider the whole question.
§ Sir J. BUTCHERThis is very important. May I ask if the Law Officers have been consulted?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYThe Law Officers shall be consulted. The legal opinion so far taken was the legal opinion of the officials of the Ministry, and I may say in this respect our practice at the Ministry is on all fours with that of other Government Departments.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEAre we to understand that the Government are afraid to publish these names because of the consequences? Is that to be the policy of His Majesty's Government?
§ Mr. DEVLINIf the hon. Gentleman has been justified in removing these names, what is he afraid of in connection with legal action?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI have given the explanation.
§ Sir E. CARSONIn view of the answers given by my hon. Friend, I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether, after what has been put forward as the practice of all the Departments, he would have the question reconsidered with a 1363 view to making public the name of every contractor who has committed breaches of his obligations during the War?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe subject is new to me. I have listened to the questions and answers, and I will suggest to my hon. Friend that it does require reconsideration, which he has promised.
§ Mr. BILLINGWill the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of setting up a Committee to hear the various eases? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]