HC Deb 22 June 1893 vol 13 cc1652-3
COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT (Sheffield, Central)

I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what steps were taken in placing with foreign manufacturers and workmen the Government orders referred to in Return 206 (Contracts with Foreigners, 1892–3)—namely, for £19,520 worth of armour-piercing projectiles; £886 worth of chairs; and £8,928 worth of preserved provisions; as also the recent order for £19,000 worth of Sheffield shells, to insure that such wages were paid by the contractors as are generally accepted as current for competent workmen, in accordance with the Resolution of the late Administration; and if, in calculating the nominal saving by sending such orders to foreigners while Englishmen are without employment and are reported by the official correspondents in many places to be suffering greatly, the cost to the relief funds of Public Bodies and Trades Unions, as also to individual moans of artisan existence, imposed by the Government displacement of home labour, was taken into account?

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

Only one order (not two orders) for armour-piercing projectiles has been given to a foreign manufacturer this year—namely, that dated February 28, 1893, amounting to £19,520, which is included in the Return No. 206. The question as to regulating wages paid abroad was dealt with in the Debate of the 14th March last (see Parliamentary Debates, Vol. X., No. 1, p. 70) by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As regards the last part of the question (as to steps being taken in the interest of certain individuals and Trade Unions to prevent the purchase of goods abroad), I cannot do better than refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which the First Lord of the Treasury gave on the 3rd February, 1893—namely, The Legislature has by a series of Acts made careful provision that the whole of the community shall have free access upon equal terms to all products whatever, in whatever country produced; and it appears to me that those Acts of the Legislature are presumably a guide for the Executive Government. It would be a singular step for an Executive Government, on its own discretion, to allow the course of legislative precedents to be infringed.

COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT

May I ask if the principles which are set forth in that statement are those which guide the Government in those matters?

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

I read that statement in answer to the last paragraph of the question. Admiralty action is based on general considerations.

COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT

But those are the principles which guide the Admiralty in placing contracts?

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

Certainly, Sir.

MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

I take it, then, that the Admiralty place the contracts at the cheapest place, be it English or foreign?

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

Preference is given, if possible, to the English manufacturer. But it was not possible sometimes, on account of the large difference in price, and it then became necessary to employ foreign manufacturers.

MR. MUNTZ (Warwickshire, Tamworth)

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what was the difference in price in this case—between the tender accepted, and the lowest English tender?

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

Considerably over 30 per cent.

MR. JACKS (Stirlingshire)

When the right hon. Gentleman says preference is given to the English manufacturer, does he mean also the Scotch manufacturer?

SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

Perhaps I ought to have substituted the word "British."