HC Deb 26 April 1888 vol 325 cc585-6
MR. HANBURY (Preston)

asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether tenders have recently been issued for the "purchase of condemned Army and Militia clothing in Great Britain and Ireland;" whether this clothing includes some 350 different kinds of articles, many of which each amount annually to tens of thousands in number, the blue tweed trousers of the Infantry alone being 140,000 annually, or 420,000 in the three years of the contract; whether the whole of this enormous quantity of clothing (with the possible exception of great-coats which may, if specially directed, be sold in a separate contract) is to be sold in one lot; whether it is to be sold in advance for three years ahead from the 1st of June, 1888; whether the system of selling for long periods in advance articles of which neither the quality nor the exact quantity can be known beforehand is found in practice to be economical; whether the system of selling enormous quantities in one lot is found to tend to limit competition, and also limit the prices which the Government might otherwise receive; and whether, before accepting any such tenders, he will consider the possible advantage of selling Government stores as they actually become condemned, in quantities which will admit of competition, and where possible in the neighbourhood of the various depôts, with a view to affording Volunteers and others, who now purchase from the contractor, an opportunity of purchasing at fair prices direct?

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY, WAR DEPARTMENT (Mr. BRODRICK)(who replied) said (Surrey, Guildford)

The facts as stated in my hon. Friend's Question are correct. The business is a peculiar one. The Army has not storehouses where used clothing can be stored. To construct them and appoint the necessary storekeepers would involve heavy expense. The contractor is required to pay for, and remove, all such used clothing, whether worth removal or not, whenever called upon, from any Home Station. For this purpose it is found to be convenient, and believed to be economical, to have the whole transaction in the hands of one contractor, who can be held responsible for promptly carrying out the contract wherever action may be required.