HC Deb 05 June 1934 vol 290 cc734-5
22. Mr. DOBBIE

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether, in view of paragraph 56 of the report of the board of inquiry into certain statements affecting civil servants (February, 1928), stating that a civil servant may not so order his private affairs as to allow the suspicion to arise that a trust has been abused or a confidence betrayed, he will cause inquiry to be made into the case of the Military Secretary to the Secretary of State for War, who is the largest ordinary shareholder in a private banking company which in 1929 purchased a firm on the lists of the War Office, the Admiralty, and the Air Ministry, and which is closely associated with the manufacture of armaments, and which banking company since that date has subscribed all the new capital for that firm?


No, Sir, I see no reason for causing any such inquiry to be made. The appointment of the distinguished officer to whom the question apparently refers has recently terminated, but I may add for the hon. Member's information that the post of Military Secretary has not the remotest connection with the purchase of armaments.


Is the Financial Secretary aware that the firm referred to in the question, a Sheffield firm, is one which went into liquidation during the period of office of the late Government because of foreign dumping; has now been reorganised and is slowly regaining prosperity under import duties?


May I ask whether the resignation of this gentleman took place since the Financial Secretary knew of this question being on the Order Paper?


No, Sir. He has not resigned; his appointment has terminated, as I have already said.


But terminated since the Financial Secretary knew this question was to be asked?


No, Sir, terminated in the ordinary course of his duties. It was a four years' appointment and was terminated long before.


Why is the Financial Secretary to the War Office so angry in his replies?

Forward to