HC Deb 14 April 1915 vol 71 cc8-9
27. Mr. BOOTH

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office, if House, George, Limited, have a clothing contract with the Government; what is the extent of the same; whether the firm has substantial machinery; and if its premises bear the inscription "George House, 1875"?


This firm has two comparatively small contracts for Army clothing. It has an excellent, though small, clothing factory, with an adequate number of power-driven machines. I am informed that the premises bear the inscription stated in the question.

28. Mr. BOOTH

asked if any firms purporting to be manufacturers of clothing have taken contracts for Army clothing and then passed on the work to other firms connected with the Government by other contracts?


All tenderers for Service dress clothing contracts are now required to give an undertaking that the work will be carried out on their own premises. I am not aware of any cases of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers. The position of Messrs. Glan-field and Son is explained in my answer to the next question.

29. Mr. BOOTH

asked whether a clothing contract has been given to Glanfield and Company; if this firm is a new organisation without machinery; what is the size of this contract; and whether the firm has any connection with Glanfield and Son?


In September last a contract to provide uniforms of an emergency pattern was made with Messrs. G. Glanfield and Son, who have long been important contractors for Army clothing. The intention was that they should create and organise new sources of supply from firms with which the War Office was not then in a position to deal directly. Subsequently, in order to avoid confusion in correspondence and simplify the task of organisation, a new firm, Robert Glanfield and Company, was formed for the purposes of this arrangement, but the constituent partners of both firms are the same. The order in question covered the supply of 1,000,000 suits of uniform and 1,000,000 greatcoats.