§ Earl CARRINGTONMy Lords, I beg to ask the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War what portion of the meat supplies for the British troops in South Africa has been procured from Argentina; on what authority was the statement made that Australia and New Zealand were unable to furnish adequate supplies of meat for this purpose; and whether the contracts from the Argentine cannot be cancelled in view of the protests of the Premiers of New South Wales and New Zealand.
* The UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord RAGLAN)My Lords, there has been no statement as to the insufficiency of Australia and New Zealand to meet the requirements of the troops in South Africa, and no contract has been made for the supply of meat from the Argentine. Perhaps it may be agreeable to the noble Earl if I give him the information I have been able to obtain as regards the history of these contracts. Hitherto the arrangements for the supply of meat to the army in South Africa have been made by the military authorities on the spot. They have included three consecutive contracts with the Cold Storage Company, the last of which will not expire until the 31st of March next. These contracts, as usual, have contained no stipulation as to the sources from which the meat should be drawn, but, of necessity, a very large portion of the supplies has consisted of frozen mutton from Australia and New Zealand. It is believed that, in the course of the two and a third years during which the contracts have been running, a certain amount of Argentine beef has also been supplied, but as the contracts have been worked entirely at the front it would be difficult to say in what proportion. In November last the Secretary of State decided, after consulting Lord Kitchener, that in view of the more settled state of affairs the time had come when an attempt should be made to secure a wider competition for 161 this important supply. Tenders were therefore invited by advertisement and otherwise, not only in South Africa, but also in this country and in the Colonies of Australia and New Zealand. No steps were taken as regards the Argentine. The tenders were made returnable in this country, in order, amongst other things, that the Colonies might have the opportunity of putting their offers through the various Agents-General, and that the Secretary of State might be in possession of all the circumstances before the new contract for the supply from the 1st of April next was entered into. In the interests of the Colonies, it was specially announced that offers by cable would be considered. Only three tenders were received, which provided for the distribution of the meat to the troops. This is an essential part of the contract, which is not for the supply of meat only, but for its distribution to the troops on the spot. The lowest of these was from a firm working in association with a syndicate having close and intimate connections with Australia and New Zealand. The Secretary of State, after satisfying himself fully as to the financial standing and general capability of the first named, accepted their tender.
The original tenders, as usual, contained no stipulation as to the sources from which the meat should be drawn, the condition being merely that frozen meat and fresh meat should each be supplied at a price to the satisfaction of the military authorities. Before, however, the contract was finally signed, an undertaking was obtained in writing to the effect that, as far as possible, the supplies should be drawn from Australia and New Zealand in preference to the Argentine. Anything further than this would have unduly hampered the contractors in the execution of this most important contract, and, if inserted as a condition when tenders were invited, would probably have resulted in a very large increase in the prices quoted. It will be seen that there were no grounds for any protest from New South Wales and New Zealand; but that, on the contrary, everything has been done which reasonably could be done to encourage the 162 supply of meat from British Colonies. If the prices charged are reasonable, they should furnish the bulk of the requirements under the coming contract.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI am much obliged to the noble Lord for his statement, which will be received with great interest and satisfaction, not only in this country but in the Colonies. As he has been so good as to give me such full information, I would ask him if he can supplement that information by answering the following Questions. If it is not convenient to answer them now I will give notice, but I should be much obliged if he would let the House know what is the contract price per 1b. in the Government contract with the South African Supply and Cold Storage Company, which, as the noble Lord knows, made a million of profit on the transaction last year. I should also like very much to know what is the contract price with Messrs. Bergl & Co., the company taking the present contract. No doubt the noble Lord is aware that Mr. Bergl is the person who, on May 22nd, 1901, was fined £10 at the Liverpool Police Court for selling meat falsely described as coming from New Zealand, and that on that occasion the Magistrate observed:
The fact that the tin label 'Prime Canterbury' attached to the lamb was a misrepresentation and a false trade description.The noble Lord has told us that the contract made no stipulation as to the place of origin, and I understand him to say that the undertaking in writing by the contractors in this last contract that Colonial meat should, as far as possible, be imported, was made before the protest of the Prime Ministers of New Zealand and New South Wales was received.
§ EARL CARRINGTONI should be glad if the noble Lord could give me an assurance that this was put into the original contract, and not inserted after the protests that were cabled out from the Premiers of New South Wales and New Zealand. If he is not disposed to answer these Questions off-hand, I beg to give notice that at the next sitting of 163 your Lordship's House I shall put them on the Paper.