§ 46 Brigadier-General CROFTasked the Prime Minister (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that grave irregularities have taken place in the Archives Department of the Ministry of Munitions; that the superintendent who called attention to these irregularities has been dismissed; that signed statements by at least eight members of the staff supporting his charges are in the hands of the Ministry: and what steps he proposes to take; (2) whether, in view of a direct conflict of evidence with regard to irregularities in the Archives Department of the Ministry of Munitions, he will publish with the Parliamentary Papers the signed statements of eight members of the staff of the Department which substantiate the charges of Mr. Hankinson, the dismissed superintendent?
89. Colonel NEWMANasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the fact that evidence supporting the contention of Mr. Hankinson, late superintendent of the Archives Department, is in the possession of the Ministry; and what steps he proposes to take in view of that evidence?
§ 90. Mr. BILLINGasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether, in view of the fact that the superintendent of the Archives Department was superseded to make room for an ex-service man, he will state the name of his successor and also his services in the forces of the Crown?
§ The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway)The points raised in the first of the questions have already been dealt with in my replies of the 9th and 15th March and in the statement on the Motion for the Adjournment on the 15th. It is not proposed to publish the statements as suggested. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth will recognise that it would be impossible to secure effective reductions in the staff of the Ministry if a precedent of the kind he suggests were established. I am aware of all the evidence available and do not propose to take any further steps in the matter. The superintendent referred to was not superseded to make room for an ex-service man in the same post, but his discharge renders possible the retention of one additional ex-service man in another part of the Ministry. The successor to the late superintendent is Mr. H. L. Durrant, a permanent civil servant, who was classed as medically unfit for active service during the War.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTIs the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been stated by the Ministry that there is no evidence; whether it is not a fact that there are eight signed statements, which the Ministry holds, declaring that this evidence is substantiated; and whether he can now state that the sister of the accused was asked to hold an inquiry into the female staff of that Department?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYAs I stated, when my hon. and gallant Friend raised this question on the adjournment, there was a difference of opinion amongst different members of the staff there, but whilst we could not form our opinion on one side of the evidence a decision was taken on the whole of the evidence. It is a fact that the sister of the ex-soldier, the discharged soldier against whom certain charges were made by Mr. Hankinson, was sent down when the inquiry was first made to take a statement from the female members of the staff. As Mr. Hankinson objected to that, another inquiry was made, and it confirmed the findings of the first inquiry.
§ Sir R. COOPERIs the hon. Gentleman aware that there is primâ facie evidence of corruption in the administration of his Department, and would it not be better to have a straightforward 38 inquiry into the facts and settle the matter once for all?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYA straightforward inquiry was held—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. no!"] The second inquiry confirmed the findings of the first inquiry. I am sure my hon. Friends will sec that it would be impossible to carry out the demobilisation that this House requires if every time a Member of the staff who has influential friends in this House is able to pack the Order Paper with questions.
§ Sir R. COOPERIs it not a fact that the sister of the accused was requested to, and actually did, take part in the inquiry itself? That is not a bonâ fide inquiry.
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI have already said that that was the case. Because of that, another inquiry was held. The staff has been reduced from 25,000 to 6,000. It is not surprising if, in the circumstances, some members whose services are no longer required think they are badly used.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTIs it not a fact that in this so-called impartial inquiry neither the Superintendent nor his deputy was permitted to be present at the time the inquiry was taken? How could it be just?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYMy hon. and gallant Friend is only repeating the original question. If the first inquiry was not satisfactory, there was no question as to the second inquiry being properly constituted, and it confirmed the result of the first inquiry.
§ Brigadier-General CROFTI beg to give notice, Mr. SPEAKER, that I will call attention to the whole question of the administration of the Ministry of Munitions on the Consolidated Fund Bill.