§ Mr. LANSBURYasked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that a contract for the supply of stamps was entered into between the Government and a private firm in the year 1901; that no competition was invited; that the amount paid on account of this contract was £97,000 a year; that it has now been discovered that the firm holding this contract are estimated to have made a profit of over £40,000 a year, which is now to be saved owing to competitive prices having been obtained for this work; and, in view of this loss of public money—namely, £400,000, will he cause an inquiry to be set on foot in all Government Departments, in order to ascertain if there are any other contracts either in force now, or likely to be given, without open competition; and if he will say what Minister or other public official was responsible for giving the stamp contract in 1901 to one firm without any competition whatsoever?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThe contract in question was entered into in 1899 without a competition being invited, and the amount 1207 payable thereunder has been about £100,000 a year. The saving on the new contracts for stamps and postal stationery will exceed £40,000 a year, but how much exactly of this sum was actual profit to the late contractor I am unable to say. It does not follow that because this saving has been secured for the future a similar saving could have been made By a competition in 1899, and it is therefore not correct to say that there has been a loss of £400,000 of public money. The contract of 1899 was entered into by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with the approval of the Board of Treasury of the day.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHWould the right hon. Gentleman answer the second part of the question?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThat is why no competition was invited. It is pointed out that there was no competition invited.
§ Viscount CASTLEREAGHWhat about the other Government Departments?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI should like notice of that.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWill the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the other Departments as is asked in the question. That is the real point of the question. If we have discovered this how much more is there we have not discovered?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEI may point out that it was the Treasury itself which discovered this omission. The contract, I think, might well not have been entered into at that time. I will have no objection of any sort or kind to discover any similar omissions.
§ Mr. LANSBURYHow is it to be done. Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to inquire?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEYes, I certainly will.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODIs not this due to the list system of public departments which prevents competition?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEThere was another question which I do not think can be entered into by means of question and answer. It had reference to what is called fugitive ink, and the possible reuse of stamps which had been already made use of by some fraudulent person. That complicated the question.
§ Mr. MORRELLIs it now the invariable practice of the Treasury to insist on competition in cases of this kind?
§ Mr. HOBHOUSEAs far as I know, but I should like notice of that question.
§ Mr. MARKHAMIs fugitive ink worth £40,000 per year?