§ Mr. ARTHUR LEEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that no orders were given by His Majesty's Government during the months of November, December, January, February, or March last to either of the firms of contractors upon whom the Admiralty was dependent for its supplies of gun-mountings of the largest type, requiring them to increase their plant for the construction of such mountings, he will state what was the precise nature and date of the further communications made by His Majesty's Government to these contractors which led them to give instructions in February last for the enlargement of their plant for the construction of gun-mountings?
§ Mr. McKENNAI have nothing to add to the full statement made on this subject on Monday last.
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEEMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the fact that the Government based its explanation of the misstatement made with regard to the orders given in January, upon these further communications, whether it is not due to the House that it should be now placed in full possession of the facts?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes, Sir. I believe I placed the House in fullest possession of the facts on Monday last. The hon. Gentleman uses the term "order."
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEEThe Prime Minister used it.
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is obvious that it was used by the Prime Minister in an interjection in a speech delivered by the Leader of the Opposition. It is not, on consideration, the word which he himself would have chosen. It is obvious that no order is given to a contractor to lay down plant which will be the contractor's own plant. The contractor is invited to do so, or offer to do so, upon the knowledge that he will receive orders which will necessitate the use of further plant. That knowledge was already discussed with the contractors as early as November last.
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEEHave the Admiralty the authority of the two firms which he named, the Elswick Ordnance Works and Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim, to make the statement that they gave instructions to increase their plant?
§ Mr. McKENNAYes, Sir, I have the authority of both firms to make the statement that immediately after the communications in the middle of February between the Government and the contractors both firms of contractors gave the necessary orders for the laying down of plant.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINWhat were the orders upon the knowledge of which the contracting firms took this action? The right hon. Gentleman has just stated that they took this action upon the knowledge that they would receive orders?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, Sir, they took action from the knowledge that the circumstances were such that orders were probable. It would be quite impossible for the Admiralty in November to give orders which Parliament would only sanction in March. But the anticipation that the circumstances would be such that orders would be required was brought to the knowledge of the contractors in November.
§ Mr. CHAMBERLAINDoes that refer to the orders other than those that the House has been informed will be given—that is, the four battleships?
§ Mr. McKENNANo, Sir; the circumstances of the situation were known to the contractors as well as the Admiralty in November last. Judging from the probabilities that would arise in consequence of that situation, discussion arose between the Government and the contractors as to the necessity of an increase of their plant.
§ Mr. ARTHUR LEEIn view of the fact which is now admitted by the Government that no orders were given in January last, will the Government consider the advisability of withdrawing the imputations that they made against the veracity of the Leader of the Opposition?
§ Mr. McKENNANo imputation was made on the veracity of the Leader of the Opposition. As a charge is made against the Prime Minister, perhaps I may remind hon. Members that what occurred was that the Leader of the Opposition definitely stated, on the authority, as he alleged, of the contractor, that no communication had been received by the contractors until the period of placing on the Table the Motion 1155 for the Vote of Censure. The true fact is that the contractor to whom the Leader of the Opposition referred is a contractor who had never been employed by the Board of Admiralty. The only two contractors who have been employed by the Board of Admiralty had been communicated with long before the Vote of Censure was tabled.
§ Mr. GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the present estimated annual capacity of the United Kingdom to provide gun-mountings for heavy guns for ships of the "Dreadnought" type; and if he will state what steps the Government proposes to take to immediately increase the present capacity to provide gun-mountings?
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is not desirable in the public interest to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. With regard to the second part, I must refer the hon. Member to the replies given on Monday on this subject.
§ Mr. GRETTONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of statements have been made in the Press and elsewhere that have caused great uneasiness in this country on the subject of gun-mountings. To ease the public mind, will he consider the advisability of giving some further information?
§ Mr. McKENNAWell, it has been definitely stated in this House that an adequate increase of plant has been, is being, undertaken by the contractors. It would not be proper to divulge the extent of that capacity.