§ 2.40 p.m.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether allegations by two ex-employees of the National Coal Board have been brought to their notice to the effect that between 1969 and 1972 an extra £70 million, that could not be accounted for by higher costs, was spent on materials; from which firms these materials were purchased, and who are the directors of the firms involved.
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of allegations that the Board have bought too many spare parts at too high prices. These allegations were investigated by the Board's auditors who are appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The auditors found that there was no substance in them, but recommended some minor improvements in procedures which the Board are considering. The auditor's report has been released by the Board.
The Board yesterday announced that Mr. E. C. T. Humberstone, Sir Henry Benson and Sir William Slimmings have been appointed as independent experts to conduct a general review of the Board's purchasing procedures. I have seen Press reports that a union representative has stated that the Board overspent by over £70 million but he did not say how this figure was calculated. I am assured by the Board that there is no justification for this statement.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord thinks it remarkable that in the first instance, round about the time that I asked my previous Question on the subject, the Board decided to refer the matter to their own auditors, who refuted the allegation? Now they have been forced to appoint an independent board to investigate because of allegations by two very high-ranking employees who, incidentally, have been dismissed from their employ 640 ment, at any rate temporarily. Is it not remarkable that this should have happened? Are not the Government concerned about it? I think that Members of your Lordships' House must be concerned, as I certainly am, about the credibility of public ownership, because that is a matter of primary concern. May we have an assurance that the Government will watch the process of this independent investigation and inform your Lordships' House of the consequences?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, as to the first point, the auditors were, of course, appointed because it was alleged that there was corruption or deliberate deception by suppliers, and they looked into that aspect of the matter. The committee that has now been appointed is looking into the efficiency of purchasing, which is a quite different matter. On the second point, which the noble Lord raised incidentally, I am informed that the employees have not been dismissed. As to the third point, of course the Government will watch the outcome of the investigation very closely because of their great interest in the success of the operations of the Coal Board. But it is essentially a matter for the Coal Board.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, will the noble Lord accept it from me that I am grateful for his latter assurance? In regard to the implication contained in the latter part of my Question, can the noble Lord explain this reluctance to disclose the names of the directors of the firms involved? Is he aware that when I asked a previous Question on the subject I was referred by the noble Lord to the National Coal Board, and he assured me that they would reply. That was several weeks ago, and I have had no reply. It is obvious that they consider me, as a Member of your Lordships' House, of no importance. That may well be so, but is not the subject one of primary importance?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am sure that no-one in this country would consider the noble Lord to be of no importance, and I am sorry to hear that he is still awaiting a reply. I shall try to expedite that for him. However, I think he will agree that, since the allegations are not accepted in any way, it would not be right or fair for me to name names in this respect.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, if there is a question of honesty involved here, it is not a matter for the auditors either of the Government or of the Coal Board, but a question for the police?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, in the first place, it would be necessary for the Board, possibly by the use of the auditors, to find out whether there was any evidence on which the matter could be referred to the police.