§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what Government contracts have to the present knowledge of the War Office been wholly or in part executed by Messrs. Ross since that firm was struck off the list of Government contractors; whether, when the contract with Colonel Wallace for Army accoutrements was given to him, any provision was made against his making sub-contracts with or employing firms struck off for supplying bad goods; and what is the precise provision now made on that point in this and other War Office contracts; what proportion of his contract was manufactured previous to the insertion of such provision, and what increase of cost has been entailed by the enforcement of such provision in the future; and why does it entail any increase of cost at all; was the contract given to Colonel Wallace before he had provided a factory of his own; what security was taken against sub-contracting and sweating in such contract; and why has Colonel -Wallace recently felt the necessity of raising his rate of wages by nearly one-third—viz., from 3¾d. to 4d. in the case of certain pouches, and from 6d. to 8d. in the case of others; is Colonel Slade a partner with Colonel Wallace in executing any part of the contract; and has a subsequent order been given for about 5,000 valises to the same person?
§ *THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. BRODRICK,) Surrey, GuildfordIt is understood that Messrs. Ross & Co., since they have been struck off the list as contractors, assisted Messrs. Pulman in the execution of a contract for buff accoutrements, which was given out before they were removed from the list. They also made 500 Cavalry waist belts for Messrs. Almond, as stated by me last November in answer to the hon. Member for East 8 Finsbury; and it appears from evidence given before the Committee on the Sweating System that they made 1,000 sets of equipment for Colonel Slade last June. The contract for accoutrements with Colonel Wallace provides against sub-letting, inasmuch as it requires all the work to be done in his own factories. No portion of the contract was carried out before this provision was made. On an inspection of Colonel Wallace's factory, it was found that he was buying his buff cut out and pricked from Messrs. Ross & Co. He was informed. that this was not contemplated in his contract; and ultimately, as he was able to show that he would be put to an. increase of cost in hiring premises to do the cutting out, and that he had not estimated for this in his contract, it was arranged that 9d. per set of accoutrements should be allowed to meet the charge. The contract was not given to Colonel Wallace before he had provided a factory of his own. Sub-contracting was forbidden, and sweating was prevented by fixing a scale of prices to be paid direct to the workpeople. Experience proved that some of these prices were too low, and they have been raised. Nothing is known in the War Office of any partnership between Colonel Slade and Colonel Wallace. An order for 3,000 valises has recently been given to Colonel Wallace.
§ MR. HANBURYWas the contract given at Colonel Slade's request?
§ *MR. BRODRICKColonel Slade had originally a contract for 1,000 valises, and it was in regard to that that no course of action was taken.
§ MR. HANBURYIs Colonel Slade, to whom the contract was virtually given, an officer on full pay?
§ *MR. BRODRICKI was not aware that the hon. Member was going to ask that question, and I am unable to say whether Colonel Slade was at that time,. on full pay or not.
§ MR. HANBURYIs he connected with the War Office, and a Member of the Small Arms Committee?
§ *MR. BRODRICKI am not aware.
§ MR. HANBURYI beg to give notice that on the Vote for the Director of Army Contracts I will move the reduction of the Director's salary.