HC Deb 06 November 1919 vol 120 cc1682-3
80. Mr. J. DAVISON

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the approximate cost to date of His Majesty's ship "Eagle," which has been under consideration since 1913?

Mr. LONG

I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle East on Tuesday last.

81. Mr. J. DAVISON

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the stoppage of work on His Majesty's ship "Eagle" involves the loss of employment to over 1,700 men in the Tyne district; that there are already large numbers of unemployed in that district; whether the decision to stop work within five months of completion on a vessel which has already cost millions of pounds was carefully considered beforehand; and whether it is possible to take steps which would result in a more gradual reduction in the number of men employed?

Mr. LONG

I am informed that the number of men affected by the recent decision to confine the work on the "Eagle" to that necessary to make her fit for passage to a southern yard is, approximately, 1,400; and, as stated in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant. Member for Newcastle East on Tuesday last, every consideration was given to labour conditions on the Tyne before deciding to remove the vessel from Messrs. Armstrong's naval yard. In regard to the third part of the question, had the work on the vessel been continued on the Tyne, it was not anticipated that she would have been completed before June, 1920; and I would point out that the completion of the vessel has not been abandoned, but will be undertaken in one of the naval yards. I am advised that it will not be possible to take the steps alluded to in the last part of the question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

Have the Admiralty any fixed policy in regard to the construction of His Majesty's ship "Eagle" and other vessels of her class?

Mr. LONG

Certainly.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

It does not look like it.