HC Deb 15 February 1911 vol 21 cc1028-9
Lord CHARLES BERESFORD

asked whether the work carried out in the building of H.M.S. "Thunderer" was satisfactory in every particular; and, if so, whether it was intended to accept a tender to lay down another battleship at the Thames Ironworks?

Mr. McKENNA

The "Thunderer" has only just been launched, and while the Admiralty have every hope that she will be satisfactorily completed in every particular, it is impossible to express an opinion on the work so far as it has not yet been done. With regard to the second part of the question, there are no outstanding orders for ships of any kind, and I have no power to issue further new invitations to tender until the shipbuilding programme for the year 1911–12 has been approved by Parliament. When new tenders are issued, the Thames Ironworks will be considered with other contractors.

Mr. BURGOYNE

Is it not the fact that in tendering for five new ships, including two "Dreadnoughts," a lower tender was sen in by the Thames Ironworks Company than by the northern yards?

Mr. McKENNA

There is a question on that particular point to be answered later on.

Mr. WALTER LONG

May I ask whether, having regard to the fact that the Thames Shipbuilding Yard is the only one available for repair work near London, he will be able to take into consideration the desirability of retaining in that yard the men employed by the Thames Shipbuilding Company, instead of bringing about the result which has already begun to operate—the discharge of a large number of men?

Mr. McKENNA

I think the right hon. Gentleman must have forgotten Chatham and Sheerness. The Thames Shipbuilding Yard is only one of the yards, and I would ask hon. Members not to press the claims of individual firms as against those of other firms who have precisely the same claims with regard to future contracts.

Mr. FRED HALL (Camberwell, Dulwich)

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the tender of the Thames Ironworks Company, Limited, for construction of a new "Dreadnought" was the lowest; and, if so, why the contract has been given to another firm?

Mr. McKENNA

It is neither in accordance with precedent nor in the public interest to disclose the tenders for Admiralty work. The state of facts suggested in the hon. Member's question must not be assumed to be correct.

Mr. FRED HALL

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 600 or 700 men who were employed on that work already have had to join the ranks of the unemployed?

Mr. McKENNA

If the Thames Ironworks had had the contract another firm would have been deprived of it, and precisely the same state of things which has happened in the case of the Thames Ironworks would have happened with regard to another contractor.

Mr. MARKHAM

May I ask why it is in the public interest that all Government contracts should be kept secret while in the case of municipalities and corporations they are made public.

Mr. McKENNA

That is really another question of which I must ask for notice.