HC Deb 03 December 1908 vol 197 cc1660-2
MR. W. THORNE (West Ham, S.)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will have printed with the Votes the names of the firms that contracted for the cruisers and destroyers; and the amount of each tender.

MR. MCKENNA

The tenders for the cruisers and destroyers have only been provisionally accepted, and the tender prices cannot, therefore, be given. It is not in accordance with usual practice to publish in the Navy Estimates the total cost of ships during the first year of their construction, and therefore it would be undesirable to give this information in another form.

In reply to Mr. CURRAN (Jarrow),

MR. MCKENNA

said the orders had been allocated with due regard to the interests of the Navy, the prices tendered, and the desirability of distributing the work. It was not the custom to place orders without regard to cost.

MR. JENKINS (Chatham)

Are the lowest tenders accepted?

MR. MCKENNA

Yes, so far as is consistent with the other considerations I have mentioned.

MR. CURRAN

Do the Admiralty also investigate whether the firms tendering pay trade union rates of wages?

Yard. Week ended 19th November, 1898. Week ended 21st November, 1908.
Portsmouth 8,268 10,609
Devonport 6,879 8,999
Chatham 6,770 8,767
Sheerness 2,045 2,031
Pembroke 2,495 2,064
West India Docks 235 217
Haulbowline 217 792
Total 26,909 33,479
The only men who would be entitled to pension are those on the established list.
MR. T. F. RICHARDS

pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had not stated how many of the hands were on the established list, neither had he given the figures for certain victualling yards.

MR. MCKENNA

I regret I am unable to give the information.

MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)

How far is the right hon. Gentleman's Answer consistent with the under-

* MR. SPEAKER

That does not arise out of the Question on the Paper.