16. Sir MERVYN MANNINGHAMBULLERasked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the admitted importance of Empire trade, he can state why the recent contract for meat for the Army was placed outside the Empire?
§ 18. Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYasked the Secretary of State for War whether, with regard to the meat contract which has been awarded to an Argentine firm at a price below the cost of production, owing to the meat war in progress between the various South American meat firms, he will say what would have been the extra cost had the contract been given to an Empire firm, or if the meat had been supplied by British farmers?
§ 20. Mr. EVERARDasked the Secretary of State for War if, as the contract for 1,500,000 tins of corned beef for the Army 730 has been given to a firm whose factory is in the Argentine, he will say why the contract was not given to an Australian firm?
§ 23. Mr. RAMSDENasked the Secretary of State for War whether, before be placed a contract for South American corned beef, tenders received from Dominion firms were considered; and whether he gives a preference to British goods?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSTwo offers of Empire meat were received, but the prices quoted, which were respectively about 26 per cent. and 45 per cent. higher than those of the accepted tender, were unfortunately prohibitive, even after taking into consideration the preference normally given to Empire supplies.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURYIs the reason why this exceptionally low price was given the fact that there was a meat war between different Argentine firms that it represents below cost price, and with a view to Empire interest would not a small added cost have been a great help to Empire produce?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONWhen does that contract fall to be reviewed?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe contract has just been renewed for twelve months, so it will not be reviewed again for another eight or nine months. Of course I am very anxious to obtain Empire meat as against foreign meat, but there is a limit to the amount of the difference that can be paid in order to give an Empire preference, and neither the 26 nor the 45 per cent. enables us to place a contract so long as these prices prevail.
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIs the Government's fair wages and fair conditions clause imposed in these contracts upon Argentine producers?
§ Mr. JOHNSTONIs it not a clear violation of the instructions of this House if it is not?
§ Sir FREDRIC WISE.Is the depreciated exchange taken into account?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI do not think the depreciated exchange had anything to do with the price of this contract. It is a world price, and I do not think the depreciated exchange in the Argentine makes any difference.
§ Mr. EVERARDLast year when the contract was given to our own Dominions was there any difference in the price between them and the Argentine?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSOh, yes. Last year we placed a contract, with an American firm as a matter of fact for the sale of Australian meat and a preference was given. It was because of that preference that the contract went in the direction it did. It would otherwise have gone for meat that was tendered cheaper.
§ Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTEWhat sum of money does that 26 per cent. represent?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI do not think I had better give that, because on the whole it is fairer to tenderers not to give that sort of information.
§ Mr. KELLYIs the War Department aware of the conditions operating and the wages of those employed by this firm?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSNo, I cannot say that I am.
§ Mr. DENNIS HERBERTIs the firm in the Argentine that obtained the contract also an American firm?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSNo; the contract has been placed with a British firm for the supply of Argentine meat.
§ 17. Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLERasked the Secretary of State for War when the practice formerly observed of supplying the Home Army with British meat on certain days of the week was discontinued, and, if so, for what reason?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe practice was discontinued t the beginning of the War to facilitate collection, handling and storage, and on grounds of economy.
§ Sir M. MANNINGHAM-BULLERDoes the right hon. Gentleman not think 732 that, in the interests of the troops, they should be given periodical issues of home-killed meat?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThat is not quite tie question. The question is whether certain days of the week should be devoted to a particular form of meat. That causes a great many difficulties which seem to me to be unnecessary.
Vice-Admiral Sir REGINALD HALLCan the right hon. Gentleman say why certain days in the week are fixed upon for the issue of British meat?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSNo, I cannot, without notice.
§ 19. Mr. EVERARDasked the Secretary of State for War the approximate extra cost to the annual Estimates of his Department if home-grown meat were used by the Army, instead of imported supplies?
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThe estimated annual extra cost of supplying home-grown instead of imported meat to the troops would be approximately £500,000.