§ Mr. HOGGEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the original papers connected with the case reported by an accounts officer to the head of his Department as to the evidence of boxes being sold to a. contractor for 6d. each and being bought back by the Ministry at 5s. 6d. each were asked for and furnished to a Departmental Committee of Inquiry appointed by the Minister several months ago; if so, why no explanation has yet been made as to why no action was taken on the Report; and whether the official who failed to do so has since been honoured, on the recommendation of the Ministry, by a knighthood?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYA similar question was put to me by the hon. Member for the Western Isles on 24th November. I then said that I should be very grateful to be furnished with any information on the subject. I regret that I am unable to take the matter further until the information is supplied.
§ Mr. HOGGEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the offer of a West End firm of estate agents and auctioneers to provide their own staff and prepare an account from Ministry records of all the boxes supplied to Ministry contractors and to dispose of them at contractors' works on terms to be discussed was actually considered; if so, by whom, the reason for its non-acceptance, and why no reply was ever sent to the firm; whether, while rejecting this offer made, a Ministry Controller held two auction sales of boxes at Immingham and another place, which turned out a failure, boxes being sold for as little as 1d. each, when further sales were discontinued; whether he is aware that the Ministry was warned by one of its officials that the method of disposing of boxes adopted by a Controller, and doing so by employing a large staff of inspectors and sub-inspectors all in England to dispose of boxes, would be an impossible and equally unprofitable thing 439W to attempt; whether, in view of the fact now admitted that the receipts from the sale of boxes recovered from contractors did not cover the cost of recovery, he will ascertain who the official is that is responsible for the loss entailed by his method of disposal in the face of the warning given and the offer made by a firm who were already disposing of large stocks of surplus stores for another Government Department; and whether this Controller can be made personally liable for the loss?
§ Mr. KELLAWAYI would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the hon. Member for the Western Isles on 1st December.