§ [Sir E. CORNWALL in the Chair.]
§
Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question,
That a sum, not exceeding £15,323,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Munitions.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ Mr. J. E. DAVISONI have listened with some degree of interest to the discussion which has taken place with regard to the Estimates of the Ministry of Munitions during this afternoon and evening, and I desire in the first place to congratulate the Ministry of Munitions 1952 on the magnificent services that they have rendered to the country during the hour of its greatest need. I also wish as emphatically to condemn the attitude that they have adopted with regard to the disposal of the depot to which many references have been made in the Debate. It is rather astonishing that in every case in which reference was made to the Slough Depôt that the conclusions of the Parliamentary Committee appointed to investigate that particular depot were not referred to. I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to what was said by the investigation committee with regard to Slough. They pointed out:
That the anticipation of other uses adombrated in the speech of Lord Inverforth in the House of Lords have as yet taken no definite shape, and they believe that the provision of this large central depôt well equipped for dealing with all forms of motor transport may prove to be a national necessity and a national asset. The future transport requirements of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force cannot fail to be considerable. The Post Office will probably develop its road transport, and may well hire from the Ministry of Supply rather than from a private contractor. The future activity of the proposed Minister of Ways and Communications are as yet in embryo, but may also involve further transport requirements.I want to know whether the sale of the Slough depôt has been forced upon the Government by the vested interests in this House? If the depôt was a profitable concern, as we have been told by the hon. Member responsible for the introduction of the Estimate, why, in the name of goodness should the Government sell it to other people who will make profits for private interests? We on the Labour benches during the last few months have been lectured time after time by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, upon the necessity for increased production in the national interest, and the disciples who have preached that doctrine have been the disciples of private enterprise. We have been told again and again that it is in the national interest that there should be increased production. Everyone on the Labour benches will agree with that doctrine, and it is because we do agree with it, that we say that the national factories which have been erected at the expense of the taxpayers of this country should be retained in the national interest.Labour Members have been twitted very often by hon. Members with the fact that their rules restrict production. We desire to draw the attention of the Committee 1953 to the further fact that the policy of the Government in selling these national factories is also calculated to restrict production. According to the "Board of Trade Gazette" for March, there were at the end of February no fewer than 289,000 ex-service men walking the streets of this country. What is to prevent the employment of these ex-service men in the national factories in the possession of the Government in order that they may assist increased production in the national interest? I venture to say that any and every individual who has risen to condemn the policy of the Labour party in this country would be the first to go into the Division Lobby and to record his vote against the employment of ex-service, men in the national factories. It is not alone for these reasons that the Labour party oppose the Estimates that have been introduced so far as the Ministry of Munitions are concerned. We believe that the national factories can be utilised for the progressive development of our national life, and for reconstruction, and it is because we believe in these things that we desire to urge upon the Government the retention of these factories. I know it will be argued that if we retain these national factories, and manufacture for sale some of the necessities that are so essential for the life of this nation, we shall be competing with private enterprise. Good old private enterprise! It does not matter in the least how the nation is to be developed so long as we retain private enterprise in all its essentials, as it was known before the War. I desire to enter my emphatic protest, on behalf of the Labour party, against the sale of the Slough depot or any other national factory now in the possession of the Government.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTThe very interesting speech to which we have just listened from the Labour benches must have convinced everyone in this House that the hon. Gentleman is speaking very enthusiastically for the employment of ex-service men, quite regardless of the fact that, in the long run, it is very immaterial for the country if these factories are used, whether they are under Government or under private enterprise, for the absorption of labour. I do not, however, want to go into that question now, because there are more important questions with regard to the Ministry of 1954 Munitions and the Disposal Board to which I wish to refer. We have had speeches this afternoon which suggest that the Ministry and the Disposal Board have managed to find one or two champions from the ranks of controllers and others who have been assisting in the operations of this great Department, although there is not the same enthusiasm from those not connected with these two administrative bodies. We also have had a lecture from the hon. Member for Barrow (Mr. Chadwick) on the business man's opinion with regard to the conduct of the Ministry and the Board. In my opinion, if one wanted to find a pattern of administrative inefficiency, he should search for it in the Ministry of Munitions and the Disposal Board. As one who has had some eighteen years' connection with business,. I can only say that for sheer incompetence the Ministry and the Board, in the way in which it has carried on its business affairs, is certainly unequalled in the history of business. I would like to suggest to the hon. Member who has just sat down that if any argument could! convince one who is still in doubt as to the unwisdom of State trading, it is the method of business administration to which I hope shortly to refer. Before quoting some instances which are not in the nature of back-biting, as suggested by the hon. Member for Barrow, but which I hope it will be agreed are real criticisms on mal-administration, I will say one word with regard to the broad question.
It is 18 months now since the Armistice, and I think any ordinary humble man may well ask why does the Ministry of Munitions still exist? We are told that £27,000,000 is necessary under this Estimate. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) told the House earier in the evening that a much larger figure than that is required. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman who represents the Ministry now, and I am sure he will represent it far more successfully than his predecessor, why it is necessary to ask for a sum of £27,000,000, when we have been told that the Ministry is an expiring force likely to become a corpse in the near future? Reference has been made to the Press, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow (Mr. Chadwick) made an onslaught against the Press of this country, conveying the idea that 1955 nearly all the Press were engaged in wanton criticism of this Ministry hat is rather like the mother of the private soldier, who, when she saw a battalion marching by, in which her son was proudly taking his part, remarked that all the battalion was out of step, "except our Tommy." When we remember that, even from quarters friendly to the Government, there has been criticism of the Ministry of Munitions, I venture to think it is not sufficient to sweep on one side the whole Press of the country, and say that its criticisms are illegitimate. Quite recently I took the opportunity in public of inviting the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kellaway) who was recently the Deputy Minister of Munitions, to state whether it was not a fact that there were still some £600,000,000 or £700,000,000 worth of goods to be disposed of by the Disposal Board. The answer to that was a speech at Bedford, when he poured ridicule upon the suggestion, and said that, as a matter of fact, you could divide that figure by 7. Then, a little later, he said that they expected to get from £120,000,000 to £150,000,000 from the stores that were still not disposed of. I am not going to ask the hon. Gentleman how that calculation is explained, but I want to put before him this fact, that, at the end of last year, the Secretary of State for War and the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of Transport informed this country that the surplus stores were estimated at nearly £1,000,000,000 sterling. We were told by the hon. Member for Bedford, a week or two ago, in his speech at Bedford, that they have sold £320,000,000 worth.
Mr. HOPECan the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when the Secretary of State for War said there was £1,000,000,000 worth?
§ Brigadier-General CROFTIt was in a speech towards the end of last year. I will get the reference for the hon. Gentleman. I take it he will not deny that the Quartermaster-General's Department declared that the property and stores in that Department, at the time of the Armistice, amounted to over £1,000,000,000 sterling, of which about half was of a high marketable value. Those were the exact words; and to this, I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, we have to add the surplus stores held by the Admiralty, the Air Force, and 1956 the Ministry of Munitions itself. The hon. Member for Bedford told us that there was only £120,000,000 to £150,000,000 worth of stores to dispose of. I ask my hon. Friend on the Front Bench (Mr. Hope) where has the balance of this vast sum gone to, and how is it accounted for, and what is the approximate value of the surplus stores still held by the Ministry of Munitions, the War Office, the Admiralty, the Royal Air Force, and the Disposal Board? Those figures would be very interesting to the country as a whole.
I challenged the hon. Member for Bed ford, when he was still Deputy-Minister of Munitions, to deny that there was a large quantity of timber in this country still unsold, and he replied in his speech at Bedford that there was only £750,000 worth—a very large proportion of which was ply-wood, for which there was very little demand. I say that there is a demand for ply-wood, and that that demand, as is the ease frequently with the Disposal Board, is not known to them. It has been alleged that quite recently a very considerable contract for ply-wood was made, and large quantities were sold, without putting it up to tender, and I suggest that the largest firms in this country who deal in plywood were never even approached, while one firm, which had asked to be informed when a sale was taking place, was not informed. I am also told that this plywood, which was said to be worth from £150,000 to £160,000, has been resold at a profit of £30,000 by the gentleman who was fortunate enough to get this contract, whilst the trade as a whole did not know that tenders were going to be asked for. Yet the late Deputy-Minister of Munitions wrote an article in the Press, I think of last Sunday, under the title "Fighting the Profiteers." I venture to suggest that the hon. Gentleman and those associated with him are not appointed, nor are their salaries granted by this House, to fight the profiteers, much less to encourage them. They were appointed in order to dispose of the surplus stores of this country, so that the country's credit might be restored.
Another quite recent statement made by the hon. Gentleman in reply to his critics, was in answer to a charge made of dila-toriness with regard to disposing of these stores. He said, "Recently we have been selling £5,000,000 to £8,000,000 of stores 1957 a week." That is 16 months after the Armistice, and he takes great pride in the fact that he is selling stores of that value per week. I venture to think that that will not commend itself to this House at this late date. I know that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been, figuratively, up to their necks in this business all through, and quite properly so, and that they are anxious to see that their Department is defended; but I venture to say that the House as a whole will not be content that the late Deputy-Minister should take credit to himself for that at the present time, when, after all, munitions are hardly the order of the day.
10.0 P.M.
I want to refer to some other cases, and, if the hon. Gentleman can definitely prove that I am wrong, no one will be better pleased than I shall. I think it will be agreed by the hon. Member for Barrow that my criticisms are not carping criticisms, but that, if there is any foundation for what I have to say, they are cases which have to be met. In the case of the factory at Coventry, the working of which the Government entrusted to a certain firm, and upon which a large amount of money was spent, the firm which had been working the factory applied to the Disposals Board or to the Ministry of Munitions—I am not sure which—and asked to be permitted to purchase it at 75 per cent. of its original cost price. Their offer was not accepted, but they kept the machinery warm, and every member of this House knows how imperative that is, if machinery is not to deteriorate. An official of the Ministry of Munitions went down to Coventry and said: "It is costing money to keep this machinery warm, and it must stop." The firm protested, but were not permitted to continue, and to this clay, or at any rate up to a week or two ago, that factory has remained unsold, and the machinery has deteriorated enormously. The result is that this factory, which might have employed many hundreds of men in making marine engines and engines for motorcars, has been lying idle. I submit that that is not a businesslike method of procedure. I want to ask what steps have been taken to encourage private enterprise to take over Holton Heath, because there are thousands of men starving in the neighbourhood of Bournemouth and East Dorset who, if private enterprise could 1958 be encouraged to take it over, would find immediate employment.
Now I want to come to the Noble Lords of this Board. Of course, there are many Departments in the Ministry of Munitions and the Disposals Board, and Members of the House who have given their services so splendidly from almost the commencement of the War need not necessarily be responsible for any one of these particular Departments, but those who are at the head of affairs are responsible; and if there is inefficiency one cannot excuse them or free them from blame. Is it realised that recently there were vast stores under the Disposals Board of which the central authorities in London were apparently unaware, and that when offers were made and contracts proposed no knowledge apparently existed at Headquarter of these great stores? I heard four or five months ago of a gentleman who desired to buy a large quantity of barbed wire. He went to Richborough and saw a considerable quantity and fixed the whole business up with the local controller. He came to London and went to Headquarters to have the contract sealed and signed and was told the wire did not exist. They sent for the index book and nothing was found of it there. This was a contract running into hundreds of thousands of pounds and that gentleman was never able to complete the contract.
I pass from that to the question of motor cars and heavy transport wagons at Cologne. A responsible firm offered a largo sum of money to the authority controlling the disposal of these motor lorries and no answer was given to the letters of that firm.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTI am prepared to give it to the Minister or to an individual man, but it is undesirable to bring out names. I have actually seen copies of the correspondence, and firms have made offers to the Ministry of Munitions for the purchase of the motor lorries. My complaint is that they did not receive by return of post an answer as to whether this great contract could or could not be made. For some considerable period nothing was done until the firm itself went to the head of the Department for the disposal of the lorries, and he had never heard of this great offer. Then various 1959 staff officers were sent to find out how it occurred, and the letter was then produced. That is hardly conducive to good business.
I come to a far more serious question, and that is the question of the motor lorries at St. Omer dump. I am not exaggerating when I say that the firm which I have in my mind is one of the greatest in this country, a name famous throughout the length and breadth of the land. Therefore, any offer coming from this firm would naturally, one would have thought, have been sympathetically received by the Disposal Board. This firm went to the Disposal Board and stated that they were ready to purchase 1,158 Leyland motor vehicles which were at that time in the St. Omer dump. Although this motor transport dump had been for disposal for a very considerable time, when this firm approached the proper authorities they were apparently unaware of what existed on the ground, again showing a complete lack of business evidence. The extraordinary part of it is that that authority on the Disposal Board apparently had to accept the figures stated by the intending purchaser as to how many motor lorries there were on the St. Omer dump. A meeting was held a little later on, and at this meeting it was stated to the intending purchasers that the total value of this dump, including the stores, was estimated by the Ministry of Munitions to be of not less value than £500,000. The purchasers pointed out that they were basing their figures on a list which showed 1,158 Leyland vehicles present at the time of their visit to St. Omer on 29th November of last year, but that since that date the number Had been reduced to 961, a fact of which the Disposal Board was apparently not aware. The balance has been taken away by the authorities for shipment to England, and presumably they were vehicles either fit to run on their own power or vehicles that were towable, and consequently, generally speaking, they were the more valuable portion of the dump. The authorities then stated that as there were 200 less motor vehicles, the value of the dump would be £450,000. I am sorry to weary the Committee with these figures, but they are of supreme importance. In the end this particular firm offered £375,000, which the authorities refused, and the meeting then adjourned. On 1960 13th December, 1919, the managing director of this great firm wrote to the Disposal Board as follows:
Dear Sirs, With reference to my interview with you on Tuesday, the 9th instant, regarding the purchase of vehicles, stores, etc., in charge of the Royal Air Force at St. Omer, I have consulted with my firm and I am prepared to make a firm offer to purchase these vehicles from His Majesty's Government at the price of £450,000 on the terms suggested by you to one of our firm, the sum to be embodied in the contract, and if the offer is accepted the contract to be signed and the material to be handed over at the earliest possible moment.In reply to that letter the following telegram was received from the Disposal Board:Reference to your offer of £450,000 for mechanical transport, St. Omer, regret unable to accept same. Providing unsold, will accept £400,000 cash.To that wire the firm replied:Your wire received declining my offer of £450;000 deferred payment for mechanical transport, St. Omer, but offering to accept £400,000 cash. We will give the latter amount in cash, namely, £400,000. Please wire acceptance.They were all written out in words. The principal of the firm then proceeded to London to complete, as he thought, the contract. On arrival he was met by a member of his firm who handed him a copy of a telegram which had been sent to this firm in his absence, which evidently, owing to some blunder on the part of the Disposal Board, had been incorrectly despatched, and as a consequence the principal of this firm wrote as follows:On arriving in London this morning one of my firm handed me a copy of a letter addressed on such and such a day dated the 18th instant, in which I learn that your offer is not for £400,000 cash, as stated in the telegram I received from you, but for £500,000 cash. It is unfortunate when dealing with sums of this magnitude that amounts should be telegraphed in figures and not in words which is the usual practice adopted by business men. The result is that I have been put to grave inconvenience and loss of time in coming to London. From a business man's point of view it is difficult to conduct any satisfactory dealings with His Majesty's Ministry of Munitions. After the late negotiations, I was informed by you that the amount which had been recommended for the consideration of the Ministry should be the sum of £450,000, and at the same time I was informed that the Ministry were prepared to accept payment in the form of bills maturing through the year. After due consideration, my Board decided to offer the above sum. On visiting the Ministry under the impression that the deal would be closed on these terms, I learned, much to my sur- 1961 prise, that the sum arranged had been raised by anothr £50,000, and when I interviewed the Minister, Lord Inverforth, I was informed by him that we must leave the whole matter in his hands.This firm was then informed, on a further call at the Disposals Board, that they had had a further valuation and that it had been decided that the smallest sum which could be accepted was £500,000.It now appears that, during the whole period of these negotiations, the chief official who was selling these motor lorries in this extraordinary manner happened to be the brother of two directors in another firm. This particular firm were very anxious to obtain those motor lorries, and the extraordinary part of it is that that particular firm purchased those motor lorries at the higher figure, £500,000, when the price had been suddenly raised after the contract had been, as was believed, in fact, accepted. These are things which require explanation. I have purposely endeavoured to keep out the names of the firms, but I have given two specific instances where men have made every effort to purchase these motor lorries. In one case the offers were not even acknowledged until, apparently, a sale had take place. In the other the offer was practically finally accepted, when suddenly the old price was raised by a very large amount. Looking at this case, one naturally hopes that there is nothing in it which denotes corruption. But if not, I think that it denotes inefficiency of the most extraordinary character that has ever been known in British administration.
To show how this kind of thing goes on in various Departments of the Ministry of Munitions, I may mention the case of blankets at Tilbury, which have been occupying a very useful shed for a considerable time. Everybody knows how warehouse room is required at Tilbury, and yet 16 months after the Armistice these blankets are still there deteriorating, and have not been put on the market. A purchaser went to the Ministry of Munitions and offered to purchase the whole of these blankets. The purchaser was informed that the blankets could only be sold—he offered to buy the whole of these blankets and clear them out of the warehouse—in small lots of 100 at 8s. 6d. per blanket. The purchaser thereupon called upon the Controller of Textiles, and asked for a sample of these blankets. There 1962 was no sample there at the moment, and he asked that a sample should be sent. He was told that they could not do that, as it might cause confusion. He then went and got a sample for himself. He then went back to the Disposal Board, and was told that the blankets were all gone, and that he had better go and make a bid for some blankets at Woolwich. Later on he discovered that, far from being all gone, they were still there. But they were not now for sale, because they were a mixed lot. The purchaser next called on the official responsible for the second-hand blankets, but he was told that these were not for sale because they were wanted for the Army Department. He made further inquiries and discovered that the blankets were not wanted for the Army Department, but that they had in fact been ordered to be sent by barge from Tilbury to Dagenham. It was thought, I suppose, that it would be good for the blankets to have a sea Voyage. He again made an offer and was told he must pay 10s. a blanket for the whole lot he was prepared to take, although they had confessed that they had sold them in small lots of 100 at 8s. 6d. per blanket. The purchaser said that before he gave 10s. per blanket for the lot he must consult his principals. It seemed to him a very extraordinary rise in price. They said, "No, we cannot wait until tomorrow, because we are actually going to sell them at that price to-day." He went away; he was told he was too late, as the Prime Minister always told the ex-Prime Minister. On going down next day he discovered that they had not been sold and that he was not too late. Once more he endeavoured to make a purchase. I am informed that as a matter of fact the whole of those blankets, if they had been put into the hands of a real business man, would have been cleared off within a week. [HON. MEMBERS: "At what price?"] At a price, however, higher than that at which the small lots were sold.
Lieut.-Colonel BUCKLEYI think if the hon. and gallant Member made further inquiries he would find that he has been entirely misinformed.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTI should be very glad if my hon. and gallant Friend, who from below the gangway speaks for the Government, could tell me at this moment that I can purchase to-morrow 1963 the whole of these blankets at 8s. 6d. each.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTHow is it, then, that they sold them in lots of 100 at 8s. 6d. each, when he knows that the cost of transport and everything else must have been very much higher? He must settle that with his business con science. I asked a question the other day, quite innocently. It was whether the Deputy-Minister of Munitions would state that it was a fact that a large number of canned rabbits were in this country. A large number of tinned rabbits have, I believe, been imported into this country. Excellent rabbits they are! The then Deputy-Minister of Munitions apparently thought it was a most monstrous suggestion that tinned rabbits were coming into this country. He said, "No, we have none of these tinned rabbits; we are not holding tinned rabbits at present." Then I asked him, why were they advertised for sale in "Surplus"? I asked him why the Government advertised things they did not possess. We want to know. It is not carping criticism. I could go on for two or three hours, but I must not detain the Committee. The Ministry of Munitions was built up in a very patchwork manner and obviously there was no permanent staff, and men were placed in positions and I have no doubt conscientiously tried to do their best, but they were untrained in departmental work and did not understand the is political chiefs and got into habits which were unusual. The effect of this is that amongst big business firms of this country which had dealings with the Ministry and the Disposals Board there is very grave unrest. On one single day four men came to me. Two of them had recently left the Ministry and the other two were thinking of leaving. There is a general feeling throughout the Department that somehow or other the most business-like arrangements were not carried out. We could understand that during the War, but now it is absolutely disastrous. We were encouraged to learn that the Ministry was probably to be brought to an end, but we are now shocked to find that that was merely encouragement to Members of the House. When we realise that there is this extra- 1964 ordinary discontent throughout the whole of the country at the way things are carried on month after month, and soon it will be year after year, surely we are entitled to demand that the Ministry should be brought to an end in the immediate future and not some months hence. Are we entitled under those circumstances to vote £58,000,000 for the carrying out of a business which we see is inefficient. It is only the great advance in world prices which has saved the Ministry, as otherwise it would have been driven to close by the force of public opinion and the work handed over to permanent Civil servants who understand their job. When the hon. Member who was recently Deputy-Minister is ready in this House to condone a case where an official was prepared to come forward to ask that certain irregularities should cease, and when that hon. Member does everything in his power not to help to solve that question and treats that man as if he were a criminal and allows him to be summarily dismissed, and when we see what is going on throughout the length and breadth of the country, can we not demand that the Ministry should be brought to a close.
§ Mr. INSKIPI am sure that the Committee has enjoyed the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who has-just spoken almost as much as he enjoyed it himself. I am not sure that the Committee shares his views as to the Ministry of Munitions being wholly incompetent from top to bottom. The Ministry has been getting high prices for the goods, but that,. according to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, is due to the rise in world prices. Apparently they are to be blamed for everything that has gone amiss and to get no credit for things that have gone well. I think the Committee realise that the Ministry had an exceedingly difficult task, and, on the whole, coped with it satisfactorily, with no doubt glaring mistakes in some cases and possibly incompetence in some quarters. I want to call attention to what I think has been a less satisfactory part of the operations of the Ministry of Munitions than some others, in the hope that some statement may be made showing that the proper steps are being taken to realise those stores which are not yet realised in France. In France, I believe, the position, according to the confession of 1965 the Ministry, if the truth were to be told, has been the least satisfactory part of their operations, and I should like the Financial Secretary, it; he is able to say so, to assure the Committee that I am mistaken in making that statement. If I thought all the stores had been disposed of, I should not trouble the Committee, but I believe there are stores still undisposed of, and that transactions might be reopened with advantage to the country. When we know the vast values of these stores, it is seen to be important that they should be disposed of to the best advantage. I am informed that amongst the stores in France, the surplus assets, there have been a large quantity of barges, and amongst them those barges which are in frequent demand in France, Holland, and Belgium, river and canal barges, which are unsuitable for a sea voyage. For some reason the large demands by the inhabitants of those countries for these barges, in many cases by persons who owned the barges originally, were not acceded to, and they were instead sold in the autumn or winter of last year,' payment being conditional on their delivery at Ostend. These barges were gathered in the Tancarville Canal, near Havre, and a sea voyage was necessary for them to be delivered at Ostend according to contract. I am informed that an attempt was made to deliver some of these barges, that some of them sank on the sea voyage, and that the rest of the barges have not been delivered, but are lying rotting in the Tancarville Canal and in other canals in the north of France. When one asks who was the gentleman responsible for this transaction, I do not suggest that the Disposals Board has shown incompetence or carelessness; obviously they cannot transact these sales in France, but the question is whether the Disposals Board has been well served or not in France, and whether the necessary steps have been taken to appoint gentlemen who are competent to deal with these transactions. I am told that the gentleman appointed in this case has been dismissed or has ceased to occupy his position. Has one more competent taken his place, or is it possible to re-open the transaction? As anyone who goes to the north of France may see, these barges are lying in the canals, idle and rotting. It may be, as I say, that they have already been sold, and there is the contract. Cannot that contract be re-opened, and 1966 cannot these barges be sold on reasonable terms?
That is not the only case where unsuitable persons have been given very large powers. I might give another illustration out of several. There was an enormous quantity of metal scrap in the north of France collected in dumps. One of the largest was several square miles in extent. It was arranged that the sale of this metal scrap should be entrusted to a gentleman who has also ceased to occupy his position. I have no desire to pillory persons, or to raise a scandal. I do not know whether "scandal" is the right word to use, but, rightly or wrongly, this gentleman was entrusted with the sale of these enormous dumps, and he conducted merchants in order that they might have an opportunity of seeing what they could purchase. The largest of all was not shown to these merchants. It was sold to a firm of dealers, Thos. Ward & Co., of Sheffield, or, if not sold, it was put into their hands for disposal, and the gentleman who did not show this dump to the merchants and reserved it for Messrs. Thos. Ward & Co. to deal with, was afterwards found to be connected in some way with that firm. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name!"] It is useless for hon. Members to call for the name. Even if I gave it, it would convey nothing. I have given the name of the firm, and I have mentioned the facts in order that more attention may be given at the Disposal Board to the choice of proper persons to carry through the sale of such assets as still remain for disposal. I believe it is not the fault so much of the Disposal Board, as it may be their misfortune that, for the enormous surplus stores to be disposed of, it has not been easy to obtain the right persons What I think the Committee ought to be assured of, with the diminishing quantity of stores still to be sold, is that additional care should be taken to see that the undesirable adventurer, the man interested commercially in the future of these stores, should not have any part or lot in dealing with them, but that the sales should be entrusted to gentlemen of tried integrity in the public service, and of business experience and ability, so that the best may be made of what remains.
I want again to ask a question relating to part of our assets in France which I hope will be useful. I am not referring to matters which are dead and buried, and 1967 cannot be amended, but I am informed that in France there were very large wagon repairing depots, three in number, which were the subject matter of favourable offers from the French Government, and from a large French railway; that the offers of purchase were made on terms which would have ensured the maintenance of the depots at the expense of the French purchaser; that British wagons and rolling-stock would have been repaired at the expense of the purchaser by French workmen; and that in each case purchase has been delayed, or offers have been refused. It may have been due, and I am informed it was due, to the decision that the whole of the transportation assets should be sold in one block, but, in any case, the offers were not accepted. One man came almost on bended knee with a guarantee of a French bank, so that he might be allowed to purchase. The depots are now either in part derelict, or are being maintained by British workmen, numbers of whom had to be taken from this country to France to man the depots, at British expense. Why are not depots of this sort handed over to people on the spot, especially when they are prepared to pay favourable prices for them. I hope the Minister may be in a position to say that the whole of these wagon repairing depots are to be dealt with in the favourable way I have suggested, instead of remaining derelict or semi-derelict, as they are at the present time.
I desire to refer to one other matter, namely, the sale of the transportation assets as a whole. I do not know whether I am correctly informed, but I am told that these transportation assets have been sold to the great prejudice of the British taxpayer at a sum vastly below their true value, due to the decision to attempt to sell them in one block, and that a delay took place from June down to a very late date in 1919. I am asking about this, because there was a British Transport Liquidation Commission appointed in June, 1919, and a man eminent in his own profession (Sir Ernest Myers) went out to France to attempt to sell all these transportation assets, sidings, port developments, railway lines—hundreds of millions of assets, I am told—which were urgently desired by French purchasers. The British Transport Commission failed for 1968 four months to effect the sale of the whole or any part of the assets. They resigned, and Sir Ernest Myers returned to England. Another body was appointed, and they in turn resigned. A further new body, I am told, has been lately formed to deal with such transportation assets as remain. Why has this third new body been formed and who are the gentlemen in charge? Are the lessons of the past to be taken to heart, and is France to be made as satisfactory a part of the Ministry of Munitions as is to be found at home, I believe, in spite of what the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Brigadier-General Page Croft) has said. I should not have risen to make these remarks if I had not felt that something useful can be done if the lessons of the past are taken to heart in regard to France. If the hon. Member tells us that France is perfectly satisfactory, that, on the whole, very good results have been obtained there, and that I have been misinformed as to these matters, I shall be perfectly satisfied. I believe the Committee is satisfied that Lord Inverforth, on the whole, has performed a difficult task with devotion and ability, and that the officials of the Ministry in nearly all cases have served with equal devotion and ability. It would be unfortunate if it went out that this Committee was of the opinion which the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth indicated as his opinion, and I hope that it will not be thought, when I mention these matters with regard to France, that I share his opinion that there has been either incompetence or default in the performance of the duties falling to their lot.
Mr. HOPEI entirely appreciate the spirit in which my hon. and learned Friend who has spoken last has dealt with this subject. I confess frankly that I am in some difficulty in dealing with these cases, because they refer to matters which up to the present have been entirely outside my purview, and I can only assure hon. Members, if they will send me the details of any primâ facie cases for inquiry, that I will see that inquiry is carried out to the bottom. I can give some information as to some of the cases that have been referred to. My hon. and learned Friend referred to railway transportation assets. I am informed that the whole of the transportation assets in France have been sold to the French Government. That, I think, really answers his last inquiry. As to 1969 Audrincq, it was used for repairs of motor vehicles that were to be brought into use or were being used for the time being in France and disposed of. However, that use has now ceased; but the only offer made for the depôt is only 35 per cent. of the value. As to the barges, they have been sold to the Belgian Government. The two that were lost were covered by insurance, and, of course, the Belgian Government will get the benefit. I cannot help thinking that my hon. Friend who spoke previously assumed rather an unusual course. He flung case after case at us without any notice, in some cases without giving names, and in all cases relying on ex parte statements. I think I have some reason for complaint of his action in that respect—
§ Brigadier-Colonel CROFTI told the hon. Member that I should be very glad to give him names.
Mr. HOPEBut for all that, what I have said to the right hon. Member applies equally to him. If he will send me something like prima, facie cases, I will see that they are probed to the bottom. It is obvious that we cannot range over the whole region, and that I cannot be expected to disprove charges that the hon. and gallant Member has not attempted to prove. There are one or two other matters to which I should reply. Reference has been made to certain offers made to local controllers which Headquarters kept turning down. These negotiations between men of business and local controllers at the local depot, to say the least, are open to objection. It is not the policy of the. Disposal Board to encourage sales of this description. Their policy is to test the market, find the best price, and then take any good offer approximating to the market price. We favour sales by public auction or by public tender, also with a view to getting the best price. I really cannot admit any liability on the part of the Ministry of Munitions because certain persons approach certain local controllers and do not succeed in getting their temporary bargains ratified
§ Brigadier-General CROFTBut how can a possible purchaser succeed in bringing an offer to Heaquarters if the latter know nothing about the existence of these stores?
Mr. HOPEIn the case given, of Richborough, I would suggest that it is probable they had just arrived from France. If the authorities at Headquarters do not know of the stores and the matter is brought to their notice it-is their duty to make inquiries. The St. Omer dump was referred to. With regard to the £400,000 in cash, or £450,000 by deferred payments, referred to by the hon. Member, in the end the Exchequer actually got £500,000, and therefore there is nothing wrong about that. In this case I also offer to have a full inquiry made. In the course of the afternoon, a great number of other criticisms have been made. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) referred to the bad treatment of the Great Northern Railway, but as he is not in his place I will let that pass. With regard to the question of private secretaries, I must apologise for a clerical error, although the amount is not very large. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir R. Cooper) dealt with the question of repairs. I have already dealt with the galvanised iron fence. In regard to what he has said about time and line contracts, they are adequately checked under the agreement by the cost system inaugurated at the Ministry of Munitions during the War, which is certainly not likely to be forgotten now. I have already answered the questions with regard to Enfield and Waltham Abbey, but as to the policy adopted, that is a matter for the War Office. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Davison) criticised the sale of Slough being influenced by vested interests. I repudiate that suggestion entirely, and the Ministry are quite strong enough to stand up against any vested interests in this matter. The hon. Member said that where the Government had a national factory created by the War they ought to maintain it, and find work to do in every case, no matter whether it is entirely unadapted for this purpose and must result in a heavy loss. This question was argued on principle last year, and I think the Committee will agree with me when I say that it would be disastrous in the national interest and unfair to the traders of the country to adopt that policy. I have been asked what are we still doing? When we have disposed of 1971 the Government factories there will still be an immense volume of work to be done. We expect during this year to raise a revenue greater than the whole revenue of the country used to be only a few years before the War. We are budgeting to raise £200,000,000 during this year. Somebody will have to raise this money; a staff has to be found, control must be provided for the staff, and as to the suggestion that the Board of Trade should take over the work, I do not think my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to that Board would exactly relish having to act as chief liquidator by having this business of the Disposal Board transferred to him. I cannot but think that 5 per cent. on the amount realised is not an excessive charge for the work as compared with the cost of private liquidation. I can only say in conclusion that I will see if a revised Estimate cannot be produced before June. If it cannot be, the rights of hon. Members will not be affected, as I am quite content that the Vote should not be passed to-night and they will be therefore in a position to call for it again if necessary. I beg formally to ask leave to withdraw the Vote.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progres; and ask leave to sit again." [Mr. Hope.]
§ The CHAIRMANOrder, order. The Vote has been withdrawn. No objection was audible.
§ The CHAIRMANThe Question now is that I report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. PALMERThen I will address my self to that Question. I have to congratulate the Opposition on being at last an Opposition, and I congratulate the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) on the speech he made to-night and the effect it had in inducing the Government to withdraw the Vote.
§ The CHAIRMANThat has nothing to do with the Motion to report Progress.
§ Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGShall I be in Order in informing the Ministry of Munitions that, having regard to the fact 1972 that several Members wished to address the Committee on this most urgent public matter, we propose to call attention to the question on the Motion for the Adjournment?
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.