asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in the case of a contract of £50,000 for meat given to a foreign firm, any tenders were received from Australia; and whether any preference is given to the Dominions in such cases such as is given by Australia to this country?

The hon. and gallant Member is probably referring to a contract for preserved meat recently placed with a firm of Argentine packers. Two offers for Australian preserved meat were received on that occasion, but the lowest of them was over 35 per cent. in excess of the Argentine quotation. I regret that the prices quoted by Australian packers were too high to admit of their acceptance.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Australia gives us a preference of 45 per cent. in many cases and that it would be a great advantage to this country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech!"]—

Might I ask if the quality is the same?

asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether his attention has been directed to a complaint made on behalf of the Australian Commonwealth in respect to the placing in foreign countries of contracts for the supply of meat for His Majesty's Forces; and whether he will consider the desirability of at once confining all future contracts to fresh meat of home production and, when it is necessary to purchase supplies of frozen and chilled meat, to obtain such supplies from Dominion sources?

In answer to the first part of the question, I am glad to say that no complaint has been received from the Commonwealth Government on this matter. As regards the latter part I regret that in view of the very large extra cost involved it would not be possible to confine future contracts to fresh meat of home production. All recent Army contracts for frozen meat have provided for supplies of Dominion origin, but no undertaking can be given to purchase Dominion meat exclusively in future irrespective of cost. Chilled meat is not bought for the army.

Has not the Secretary for War just stated that the contract has been given to the Argentine?

Yes, it is true that a contract has been made with the Argentine, but that is not contradictory of my answer.

Is the hon. Gentleman maintaining the preference which has hitherto been given by the War Office in these contracts?

Will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of recommending the Government of Australia to follow the precedent which has just been announced in to-day's papers as regards Canada, and relieve the agriculturists of Australia from the onerous burden of Protection, so that they can compete with the Argentine?