§ 32. Captain GARRO-JONESasked the Postmaster-General whether he has now examined the facts which were disclosed in the recent case of Gronow v. Water-low and, in particular, the action of the last-named company in connection with tenders for Post Office printing contracts; whether the directors responsible for that action are still associated with Waterlow and Company; and, if so, whether this firm is still on the list of Post Office contractors?
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONI have examined the facts referred to, most of which had already been disclosed in previous litigation and were then the subject of severe criticism by the Court. In consequence, the position was fully investigated by the Committee of Inquiry into Government Printing Establishments, which reported last year, and I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to pages 96–101 of their Report, Cd. 2828 of 1927. The Committee came to the conclusion, with which I agree, that the tenders for the current contract, which was made with Messrs. Waterlow and Sons in 1923, were really competitive. I understand that one of the present directors of the firm was a director at the time when these incidents occurred.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESWith regard to the last part of my question, which the right hon. Gentleman has not answered, does he think that it would be right to enter into any new business relations with a firm which has been guilty of these malpractices while it remains under the same executive control?
§ Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSONThe incident to which the hon. and gallant Member refers in his question is not an incident which occurred yesterday or the day before, but is one which occurred 30 or 40 years ago, and I should hesitate to say, from the account of that past history, that it would not be desirable to enter into future contracts. At the moment, however, no question of that kind arises, because the existing contract is a continuing contract, which has something over five years to run.
§ Captain GARRO-JONESIf the same people are in control, can the Ethiopian change his skin?
Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELLIs it not the fact that the directors in that particular case are not now directors of the company?