§ Mr. BOWERMANasked the hon. Member for Southampton, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he is aware that an inspector from the Office of Works stated that the firm of Messrs. Hampton and Sons, in reference to a complaint that the horsehair in the seating in the Gallery of the House had not been properly treated and purified, stated that he was satisfied with the explanation of the firm, notwithstanding the fact that the complaint was still under investigation at the time; what steps have been taken in the matter; and whether any answer will be given to those who lodged the complaint.
Mr. DUDLEY WARDNo such statement as is suggested in the question has been made by any officer of the Commissioners of Works. I hope that the hon. Member will allow me to answer the last part of his question in connection with the other two questions on the Paper on the same subject.
Mr. POINTERasked whether complaints had been made against the firm of Messrs. Hampton and Sons, in reference to the upholstery seating in the Gallery of the House of Commons; whether, in the renovation of such seating, it was found that the horsehair had not been properly treated or purified; whether the firm is still on the list of contractors to the Department; and what steps, if any, have been taken in the matter?
Mr. DUDLEY WARDMessrs. Hampton's have admitted defective work as regards the horsehair. At present no further orders are being entrusted to them. As regards the last part of the answer, a 1798 final decision can only be made after the conclusion of the legal proceedings which are now pending.
Mr. POINTERMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether it is not a fact that the seats in the gallery were examined by an inspector of the Office of Works, who declared that the horsehair had not been purified and cleaned, as it ought to have been, and consequently is he not prepared to say that there was ground for complaints? Am I to understand that no complaint has been made by the officer?
Mr. DUDLEY WARDI have already stated that no complaint was made as suggested in the first part of the question of the hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Bower-man).
§ Mr. LANSBURYasked whether the upholsterers employed by the firm of Hampton and Sons in the work of renovating the seating in the Gallery of the House of Commons were not able to average more than 7d. per hour; and whether, having regard to the fact that the average minimum rate per hour in London for upholsterers is 10d., any action has been taken by the Department to secure compliance with the fair-wage clause in this instance?
Mr. DUDLEY WARDThe First Commissioner has instituted inquiries which show that over 10d. an hour was paid to the workmen at Messrs. Hampton's. It is not possible to discover from the books of the firm whether this rate was paid for the work in question. The First Commissioner stipulated for that rate in the contract.