CO129-624-14 Finances- relief stores- Hangover stores and Siamese free rice 1-7-1948 - 31-12-1951 — Page 59

Mode

Orig. on

54126/13

INWARD TELEGRAM

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES

57

FROM HONG KONG (Sir A. Grantham)

D. 1st May, 1950. R. 1st

tf

12.45 hrs.

AMMEDIATE

Beginning of Part 2 of my telegram No. 473.

Begins.

5. War Office stores were shipped on W.0. bills of lading of which it was rare for Government to receive a copy, and sometimes consigned to D.C.R.E. 144 and Ordnance in some cases on composite bill of lading. Result was that delivery was often taken by the military in the first place, who naturally showed a tendency to retain anything for which the Services had a use. For which (?reason omitted) one consignment of cement shipped as a Schedule A commitment was received by C.R.E. who used some and issued the balance on repayment locally to us. Thus, while unpriced R. unpriced W.0. Issue vouchers were eventually received for about 90% of reduced scale Schedule A supplies, it proved impossible to establish whether all these stores had been received by the Government, particularly as Stores Department unable to relate contents of cases to issue vouchers and

stimates in savingram No. 320 may include some stores retained by the Services. The position was complicated by undocumented arrivals of Australian Mission Supplies. Because no prices were received by 31st March, 1947, many stores were not on charge at that time.

6*

Load

As you know, the Fitzgibbon Board of Surrey was appointed to establish what stores were in stock on 1/4/47 and what was the value of them. Owing to the magnitude of the task, the Board did not report until January, 1949, and found after valuing unpriced stores at local wholesale market price, less 20 per cent,

that stock on hand amounted to $9,670,858. As Government paid $20,167,579 (812,000,000 of this to Crown Agents) for goods which arrived by 1st April, 1947, and priced issues at $13,459,822, had free stores not been received the value of stocks would have been $6,707,757. The difference between this figure and Fitzgibbon valuation, namely $2,963,101, ostensibly is a rough appropriation of value of B.M. A. stores received without charge. This sum probably should be increased but not it is thought substantially for items treated as allocated stores and issued without charge to Departments. In addition, the value of harbour craft and railway stocks ($2,900,000) has to be taken into account. On the other hand, it is not proving possible to realize surplus stocks at survey price.

End of Part

2

Part 3 follows.