§ 68. Sir RICHARD COOPERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions what would be the constitution of any inquiry he might agree to institute into cases of alleged incompetency or malpractices in his Department where a prima facie case for inquiry is made out?
Mr. HOPEIf I am satisfied of the need of an inquiry I will consider what form such inquiry shall take
§ Sir R. COOPERIs it not necessary, when a primâ facie case is submitted, to assure hon. Members of this House that it will receive impartial considerations.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTWas not a primâ facie case in regard to Mr. Hankinson submitted within the last 24 hours?
Mr. HOPEI have received a communication from the hon. and gallant Member this morning, but have not yet had time to determine whether it constitutes a primâ facie case or not.
§ 69. Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether Colonel Spurrier, the chief officer of the Motor Transport Disposals Board of the Ministry of Munitions, is any relation to Mr. Arthur Spurrier, director of Leyland Motors, Limited, Mr. Henry Spurrier, chairman of Leyland Motors, Limited, and of Mr. Henry Spurrier, junior, a director of Leyland Motors, Limited; and, if so, what is the degree of relationship?
Mr. HOPEI understand that a Private Notice question on the subject matter underlying this question has been addressed to the Leader of the House, who will make a statement on the matter.
§ Major NALL(by Private Notice) asked the Leader of the House whether his attention has been called to the charges and suggestions made in this House and elsewhere against Colonel Spurrier, Controller of Motor Transport Vehicles under the Ministry of Munitions Disposal Board, and if he can make any statement on the subject?
§ Brigadier-General CROFTBefore the right hon. Gentleman answers that question, may I ask if it is to be regarded as the custom in future, when a question has been on the Paper some days, that it should not be answered by the Minister responsible for the Department, and that it should give way to a Private Notice question?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI suppose the matter is thought to be of such importance that it ought to be put into the hands of the 566 Leader of the House. That is the only explanation I can suggest.
§ Sir R. COOPERMay I ask if it is the custom of this House for a question, whether it be put to the Leader of the House or to the head of a Department, to be superseded by a Private Notice question?
§ Major NALLMay I say that I had not seen and was not aware of the question referred to, or I should not have given this Private Notice?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWWhen the House hears the answer it will be understood why I have been willing to give the answer.
The answer to this question is in the affirmative. Colonel Spurrier is Controller of Motor Transport Vehicles under the Disposal Board, but he cannot conclude sales on their behalf of the value of over £5,000 on his own authority, and acts under the instructions of Mr. Philip Dawson, M. Inst. C.E., of Messrs. Kincaid, Waller, Manville and Dawson, Consulting Engineers. Mr. Dawson is a member of the Disposal Board, and is responsible to that Board and to the Minister of Munitions. With regard to the sale of the St. Omer Dump, Colonel Spurrier has two brothers, who are directors of Leyland Motors, Limited, but he has, himself, no interest in the firm. I am informed by the Minister of Munitions that it was not on the suggestion of Colonel Spurrier, but by the direct instructions of the Minister himself, that Messrs. Leyland were asked to tender. I think that it is very unfair that suggestions which have no foundation should be made which reflect upon the honour of public servants like Colonel Spurrier, who has rendered very valuable public service.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTMay I ask whether the Cabinet approves of any gentleman remaining in any Government Department, in an important position with regard to sales or great contracts, who is related to the principals of the firms with whom those contracts are made?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWIt is quite obvious, I hope, to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, as to other hon. Members, that this kind of business cannot be done by ordinary civil servants. You must employ people who are acquainted with the trade. 567 All that the Ministry or the Government can do is to make certain that no improper use is made of their position. In this case it was especially at the request of the Minister of Munitions, who thought his subordinate had been very unfairly treated, that I looked into the question, and I am satisfied that he had nothing whatever to do with the sale to Messrs. Lever.
Captain TERRELLIs it not a fact that Colonel Spurrier rendered great services to the nation during the War and also has been of enormous value to the Ministry of Munitions?
§ Brigadier-General CROFTIs it not a fact that Colonel Spurrier entered into all these negotiations and that these contracts were in close competition with other most important industries in this country, including Messrs. Lever, and that being the fact, should not Colonel Spurrier have taken no part in the proceedings but resigned before any such negotiations were entered into?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWI think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is misinformed as to the facts. The Minister of Munitions tells me it was Mr. Dawson who alone had the responsibility of these sales. He told me also that it was because he was satisfied that he ought to have a larger sum than was offered by Messrs. Lever that he himself, on his own initiative, gave instructions to Mr. Leyland to be invited to tender.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTIs the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that Colonel Spurrier has been negotiating for the sale of vast numbers of motor lorries?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe answer I have given applies to that, surely. He has not power to make sales above £5,000. In addition to that you cannot possibly get a proper price for materials of this kind unless you employ men who are acquainted with the trade, and it is impossible to avoid their having some kind of connection.
§ Sir R. COOPERHas the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to the statements made in this House on the Ministry of Munitions Vote last week, in which it was shown that Colonel Spurrier himself had been negotiating with Messrs. Lever Brothers for a contract involving 568 £450,000, and if that is so, was he not acting contrary to the Regulations which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThere is a great difference between being employed by a superior in writing letters and concluding negotiations. On this general question I appeal to the hon. Baronet as well as to the House. It is not fair to make in any way, however indirect, suggestions of this kind unless one is absolutely certain that a public servant is not acting properly.
§ Major NALLIs it not a fact that the sale was effected at considerably more than Messrs. Lever offered?
§ Mr. E. WOODDoes not my right hon. Friend think that if these kind of insinuations are made, resting on no very secure foundation, it will become increasingly difficult to secure men to undertake public service?
§ Brigadier-General CROFTIs it not a fact that Colonel Spurrier himself has been in direct negotiations with motor lorries dealing with the Cologne dump, where also a very large number of lorries were concerned, far exceeding the amount mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Mr. BONAR LAWThe information I have given the House is given me by the Minister of Munitions. Colonel Spurrier was employed in carrying negotiations up to a given point. The final responsibility does not rest with him.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTI beg to give notice that I will call attention to this matter on Monday by further questions which I think will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman.