§ 81. Mr. C. BATHURSTasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the payment to Sir John Jackson's firm for work carried out at the military camps on Salisbury Plain and elsewhere in the South of England was by way of commission based upon the firm's outlay upon labour and materials; if so, what was the rate of such commission; if not, what was the mode and rate of such payment; and how much has in fact been paid and is now owing to the firm in respect of the above work?
Mr. BAKERThis firm is paid a percentage of one and a half on the work done to cover out of pocket expenses on staff and establishment charges and receives no further payment in respect of certain work in the north and south of England estimated to cost about £425,000. For other works, estimated to cost about £2,420,000, a commission of 5 per cent. is payable, making a sum of £121,000, of which about £50,000 has been paid.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEAre we to understand that in respect to Grantham, Purfleet, and Ormskirk, Lancashire, where the firm of Sir John Jackson, Limited, has been largely engaged in work for the War Office, all that work has been done without profit?
§ Mr. HOUSTONIs it a fact that the work entrusted to this firm on Salisbury Plain was so unsatisfactory as to cause grave discontent among the Canadian troops and was the cause of much sickness?
Mr. BAKERI do not think that can be attributed to the contractor, who had to contend with very great difficulties.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIs it not a fact that in connection with a recent dispute about work at Salisbury Plain, Sir John Jackson, Limited, were able to save the country something like £5,000 a day, and did not themselves receive what they might have received, namely, probably £250 a day?
§ Mr. KINGIs the hon. Gentleman aware that this firm has done a large amount of work for the Austrian Government, and will the War Office take that fact into consideration?
§ 82. Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Under-Secretary of State for War when the War Office will be able to supply the promised badges to men working on War Office contracts; whether badges are being offered for sale to firms carrying out contracts which are imitations of the Admiralty badge, but the name H. B. Sale, Ltd., B'ham, appears in place of the crown; and what action he proposes to take?
Mr. BAKERThe arrangements for the issue of War Office badges to men of recruiting age working in armament firms are complete, and the badges will be issued as soon as the necessary information has been received from the firms. No objection is made to the use of private badges, provided that the device does not include any part of the Royal Insignia or the words "On His Majesty's Service."
§ Mr. ROWLANDSWas it not promised on the 22nd of last month that these badges would be issued as soon as possible; what is the meaning of "as soon as possible"; and will the War Office take into consideration the advisability of suppressing unofficial badges in connection with the special constables?
Mr. BAKERI do not think there is any objection to unofficial badges, provided they are not capable of being mistaken.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSIs it not a fact that an unofficial badge, not bearing the crown, may be worn by persons who wish to shirk being recruited, and puts a difficulty in the way of those trying to recruit?