HC Deb 09 May 1956 vol 552 cc1200-1
30. Mr. Dodds

asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that of the 220,000 gallons of paint sold recently at the Woolwich and Melton Mowbray Government surplus auction sale, only 36,000 gallons consisted of low-quality ammunition paint; and why the remaining 184,000 gallons were unsuitable for use by his Department.

Dr. Hill

The Post Office sampled the paint, which it thought might be useful. What it sampled turned out to be low quality ammunition paint. The bulk of the rest was, from its description, not suitable for Post Office use. I have been through, with meticulous care, the description of the lots which were not sampled. It is conceivable that had we extended our sampling tests and those tests proved satisfactory we might have taken about 2,000 gallons. The remainder was not useful to us.

Mr. Dodds

Will the right hon. Gentleman apologise for the very seriously misleading Answer given to the House on 21st March to the effect that the paint at the two sales was low-grade ammunition paint when, in fact, the overwhelming quantity was high-grade paint of many colours? Is it not a clear-cut case not only of misleading the House but of wasting taxpayers' money?

Dr. Hill

I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Question which was answered related to the paint which was sampled. I have tried in my Answer to give a candid statement of the position in relation to the paint not sampled.

Mr. Langford-Holt

Will my right hon. Friend look into the possibility of making his purchases on the basis of a continuing supply from a number of suppliers, which would mean that the storage and the condition of the paint would be the responsibility of the supplier rather than his Department, and would prevent these occurrences?

Dr. Hill

As a result of the detailed analysis that I have made—I recognise the part which the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) has played in this—I am re-examining the whole of our arrangements in this respect. Even though the amount was marginal, I am re-examining the arrangements in order to ensure that nothing of the kind can happen again.

Mr. J. T. Price

On whose authority has this vast quantity of paint, worth at least £500,000, been purchased and then found to be unsuitable afterwards?

Dr. Hill

That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply. I am concerned with the point about the Post Office purchases of surplus paint.

Mr. Dodds

Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, I should like, if you will agree to it, Mr. Speaker, to raise the matter on the Adjournment.