HC Deb 30 July 1896 vol 43 cc1044-5
MR. J. JORDAN (Fermanagh, S.)

I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, in view of the fact that the contractor for the supply of meat to the troops at Enniskillen was prosecuted at the Enniskillen Petty Sessions, and fined in the sum of ten pounds sterling, for having a quantity of unsound meat on his premises on the 14th instant, and which had been rejected on the morning of that day by the Military authorities as unsound and unfit for human food, will he state whether the meat supplied to the troops there is Foreign meat, and will he state on how many occasions has the moat been rejected by the Military authorities at Enniskillen since the contract was taken over by the present contractor, and on what dates; and what steps, if any, the Government purpose taking to secure that the troops in future will be supplied with sound and wholesome food?

* MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS

With the short notice given by the hon. Member, I have been able to obtain only a telegraphic report, which is as follows;— All meat rejected 14th July. Contractor allowed to replace whole. Contractor fined £10 by Civil authority for tainted meat seized same day on his private premises. The meat is American, slaughtered at Birkenhead. Four rejections altogether—14th June, 29th June, 6th July, 14th July; all under contract held by present contractor. The conditions of the contract secure that the troops shall be supplied with sound and wholesome food, and they appear to be rigidly enforced.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

Will that meat be English meat?

* MR. POWELL-WILLIAMS

I have frequently explained that there is no restriction as to the place of origin.

SIR HOWARD VINCENT

I shall call attention to the subject.

MR. W. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick)

Is this system to be allowed to continue in Enniskillen of importing American meat, when Irish meat is available?