AIR MINISTRY SCANDALS

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 29, 29 October 1919, Page 7

AIR MINISTRY SCANDALS

FRAUDS AND WASTE REVEALED

" 70,000 MEN NOT EARNING THEIR PAY "

Further important revelations by thu British Select Committee on National Expenditure, deals mainly with the Air Ministry. Twenty-nine witnesses wore examined, and the* report includes the following statement:— j Your committee are of opinion that a very unsatisfactory slate of affairs ' has been revealed. In their opinion, wlie.ii eases of negligence or of fraud have been discovered, action should bo taken against the offenders regardless of whether they aro officials of the .Department or not. The report opens with a reference to the fact that the Sub-Committee on Ihe Air Ministry examined Sir John Hunter, K.8.E.. Administrator of Works and Buildings. Asked as to the work at Halton Park, lie informed them that it was begun in 1817. but. pending consideration of the future programme of the Air Ministry, it had, generally speaking, been stopped. Asked if he could give any explanation of the reason why such enormous wages were paid by the contractor, he (witness) stated that it was all settled by the Government, that there was no person who had written more strongly than he had done on the subject, and that he was of opinion that no man wlw had been employed on the erection of aerodromes had earned the money he had received-. Asked how many men would be covered by that statement, he replied: "The whole 10t—70.000 of : them." Asked whether that was not rather a sweeping assertion to make, he replied that ho was speaking in a general fashion. "A Conspiracy." Questioned as to whether he had como across any cases of fraud in relation to the carrying out of contracts, lie replied that he had, and that there was a conspiracy in which one Government man and three contractors men were concerned. Details were furnished in writing to tlio sub-committee by this witness of the cases to which he referred, and in the course of his letter he said: The Renfrew one is the most serious, where I found a conspiracy of Government, men and contractor's men, and I suspected the contractor was also in it. I had four men arrested, and. they have been on bail each for .£IOO for the past four months, but the Grown authorities declined to prosecute, end the men were freed from the charge on June 7. "I am, however, arranging a civil action against the contractor for, ioughly, ',£50,000, less the money we have in hand belonging to him for commission on work done. The sub-committee questioned the witness as to the reasons why the Crown Agent authorities refused to prosecute, and a letter dated March G last, addressed tn the Secretary, Air Ministry, from Mr. Miilar Craig, Secretary to the Lord Advocate, was put in. This stated that "the Lord Advocate, after full inquiry and consideration, does not see his way to order a prosecution. The evidence available is insufficient to afford any' strong probability of obtaining a conviction. , "There is no evidence at all that any of the accused applied to their own uses any of the money 6aid to have been improperly obtained from the Ministry. This circumstance, though it does not in itself provide an answer to a charge of fraud, makes the insufficiency of the evidence more formidable than would otherwise he the case. "Further, a prosecution would reveal what appears to be insufficiency and absence of control on the part of the representatives of the Ministry on the spot. In view of these considerations. His Lordship regrots that he . cannot oomo to any other decision than that intimated above." Upon receiving this communication Sir John addressed a remonstrance on the subject to the Secretary of the Air Ministry, in the course of which he said:— "It is admitted that the books or time-sheets were falsified by _ entering thereon the names of men said to bo employed on the job, but who did not, in fact, exist. AVages were drawn rcgu. laily and charged to th» Government as having been paid to these men. Where did thai money ;ro? "The Lord Advocate pays there is nn evidence that any of the accused applied to their own uses any of the money ?mid to have 'linen improperly obtained from the Air Ministry. But would not any jury on the facts above stated draw the obvious inference that the liersons responsible for putting these 'dead men' on the books awl drawing wages regularly for them from Government funds, had", in fact, nut the money in their own pocket? And is there not.evidenco that this was don« with the connivance of the Clerk of Works? "But T wish to carry the matter further and to uoint out that the position, if nn prosecution is attempted,"is. in_my opinion, more serious for the Air Ministry than if a prosecution should be started and fail, and I wish to explain tho nosition so that it may be put before the Lord Advocate. "After a personal inquiry on iwikin» the discovery of these irregularities, I informed the contractors that I would not authorise pavment to them of commission in accordance with the ternin of their contract, but would have the whole job measured up and pay them on such measurement on proper rates. Mysterious £60.000. "Mr. (the head of the firm of contractors), at an interview which I had with him and his law agent, agreed to this, and later agreed by letter. . A firm of measurers was engaged by me, and their work is now practically complete, and it appears that already there is a sum of about JC60.000 charged by the contractors to the job which cannot be accounted for. "If the suggested proceedings against the officials are now dropped, what is the position of the Government and myself with regard to the contractor? I can see that the Air Ministry will _ be placed in <i very objectionable position. Even if the prosecution should fail on whatever charge was formulated, the evidence must, be such as to strengthen the position of the Government against the contractor and save money to tho conntr.v. "When the warrants were issued by the Procurator-Fiscal of Paisley against the men now charged, another warrant against was also issued, but by arrangement with me no use has been made of this wr.rrnnt up to the present time. "It. is suspected (hat materials delivered on tho site were in fact diverted to private jobs of hie. but up to tho present there'is no evidence whieh could prove this. You will see, therefore, that the matter is a very serious one, and in the interests of the Government should not be dropped unless it is absolutely certain that no charge can be framed for a prosecution against the individuals now under ar.rest." Tho chairman of the sub-committee asked the Lord Advocate if ho would like : to appear before lliem to give evidence as to his reasons for refusing to prosecute in the Renfrew case. The Lord Advocate replied as follows 11/7/11)1 9. Dear Banbury,—Yours of Bth inst., has reached me bore in Edinburgh this morning. I cannot be in town until Wednesday morning of next week in any case, and my De» mrtment's letter speaks for itself. Sir John Hunter also informed the sub-committee that he had applied to the War Office, asking them to court-martial an otlicer employed by the Air Ministry on the same contract, whom he suspected of fraud, but that they refused to take any action, and informed him that ho ought to take criminal proceedings. Tho repori then sums up as follows: "Your eommilloo are of opinion that, a very unsatisfactory slate of alfairs has been revealed., In their opinion, when cases of negligence or of fraud have been discovered action should he taken against the offenders regardless of whether they aro officials of tho Department or not. They regret very much that) the Lord Advocate should have taken up the position that he did." i