§ 71. Sir JAMES REMNANTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if the firm of E. J. Smith and Company are to receive compensation on the sale of brass to the British Metal Corporation which they themselves had contracted to take over at about £40 per ton more than the price paid by that corporation, but broke their contract and defaulted?
Mr. GRAHAMI would refer the hon. Baronet to the reply given to him to a similar question on the 29th April last. 1545 I would remind him this matter was fully gone into by the Public Accounts Committee of this House last year, and after consideration I see no grounds for reopening it.
§ Sir J. REMNANTIs the hon. Member aware that in the inquiry to which he has referred, the accuser in the case was not called before the Court, and that only one side, and that the interested side, was heard? How could that be called a court of inquiry?
Mr. GRAHAMMy hon. Friend has asked a great many questions on this matter. My predecessors in office have made very full inquiry and I have inquired personally. The matter has been considered at length by the Public Accounts Committee, and I am afraid I cannot go beyond that.
§ Sir J. REMNANTThey have never heard the other side. Is the hon. Member aware of the conditions which were imposed for the purpose of having the last inquiry into these matters, namely, that they should be considered private and confidential and that no information in reference to them should be given to the public? I think it is a scandal.
§ Mr. HANNONIs the hon. Member aware of the very bad impression which these transactions have made throughout the whole of the non-ferrous metal industry in this country?
Mr. GRAHAMThe difficulty is that there is bound to be difference of opinion among contractors and others regarding these arrangements. I have always asked for any specific charge. If that can be made, it will be investigated.
§ Sir J. REMNANTDoes the hon. Member consider that the payment of over £90,000 in commission on work which was not carried out by this firm of Smith amp; Co., is a proper and fair arrangement as regards the taxpayers of this country?
Mr. GRAHAMI can only repeat that the matter was considered by the Committee. If my hon. Friend will give me any additional information, it will be looked into. I can assure him that we have tried to meet every point he has put.
§ Sir J. REMNANTWill the hon. Member personally look into it if I give him me information?
§ Sir GRATTAN DOYLEIs there any reason why relevant facts should not be submitted to the public?
Mr. GRAHAMI cannot think of any reason, but it all turns on what was done by the Public Accounts Committee. If hon. Members refer to that Report, they will see at once that a very full inquiry was made at great length.
§ 72. Sir J. REMNANTasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what financial guarantees were received by the Disposal Board from Messrs. Aldridge and Hughes for the purchase of Andruicq and three other depots in France for £1,050,000; were such guarantees enforced; if not, whether he approves of the re-sale of these depots to one of these defaulting contractors with a loss of £928,000, and will he appoint an independent Committee to inquire into this and other contracts made by the Disposal Board?
Mr. GRAHAMThe general position in regard to this contract was set out in the reply given to the hon. Baronet by the right hon. Member for Twickenham on the 19th June last and in my reply of the 29th April last. This is one of a number of contracts which were readjusted by the Disposal Board with the approval of the Advisory Committee appointed by the Treasury. These contracts were dealt with in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General on the account for the financial year 1921–22, and came before the Public Accounts Committee of this House last year. In the circumstances, I do not think it is necessary—nor, indeed, is it possible within the limits of a question and answer—to discuss the details of a contract made in 1920, and in respect of which a revised agreement was entered into in 1922 and is still in operation The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.
§ Sir J. REMNANTDoes the hon. Gentleman consider it fair to the British taxpayer to put defaulting contractors into a better position after they have defaulted than they were in before?
Mr. GRAHAMThere is no desire to put the taxpayers in a bad position, but these matters were in the hands of the Disposal Board, which, after all, would do their best and, I am satisfied, did their best in the interests of the country in a very difficult position.