§ 13. Mr. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any British firms were supplied by the contractors for the Singapore Naval Base contract with any plans or drawings in order to explain the work which the plant required by the contractors would have to perofrm?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe contractors for the base furnished full particulars to two British firms but neither of them asked for plans or drawings, as 2098 one sent a representative to the site, where he was given full facilities for investigation, and the other had been furnished with the necessary particulars by another of the competing contractors for whom they were preparing schemes.
§ Mr. TAYLORWere the plans supplied to the American firm which the hon. and gallant Member has said were seen by responsible advisers before they were sent to America?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMSeen by whom?
§ Mr. TAYLORBy your responsible advisers.
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMSo far as I know, yes.
§ Mr. TAYLORThen may I ask how the hon. and gallant Member squares that with the statement that the Admiralty knew nothing about these excavating contracts before the 2nd November?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI am not quite certain that I understood the hon. Member's question correctly. In my previous answer, I explained the facts of the case—that the American firm had been supplied with the drawings, and that we were convinced that the drawings were of the right kind to send to America; we are satisfied that this was the case. Whether we saw them before they were actually sent to America I am not sure. I said just now that I was under the impression that we had seen them. I am not quite certain—I want to be frank with the House—but what I do know is that the drawings have been seen by our officials at the Admiralty and that they are satisfied that they are perfectly in order.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSWere the two English firms named who were able to see the contracts and so forth really English firms, or merely companies registered in England and, in fact, American companies?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThey were English companies.
§ 14. Mr. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the four large mechanical excavators recently ordered from an American firm for use on the 2099 Singapore naval base are standard models built as standard stock by the American firm concerned?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe answer is in the affirmative.
§ Mr. TAYLORMay I ask what justification the hon. and gallant Member had for previous answers in which he stated that cancellation of this contract would involve a very heavy loss to public funds? If these machines are standard stock in America, does it not follow—
§ Mr. SPEAKERAll this does not arise out of the answer.
§ Mr. TAYLORWith great respect, I put down questions on this subject previously, and the hon. and gallant Member gave certain answers, and now I am asking, in view of the affirmative reply he has given to this question, whether he can tell us on what he based his previous replies?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMOn the information supplied to us and which we took to be perfectly sound information.
§ Mr. TAYLORI beg to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will call attention to this matter on the Adjournment.
§ m. Mr. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state what information is available to Members of the House in relation to the terms and conditions of contracts entered into by his Department; and what is the established practice in this matter?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe established practice is not to publish specifications of this class of contract and that contract prices are confidential and are not disclosed. If any hon. Member asks for any particular information about the terms or conditions of a contract I endeavour to supply it, in so far as the public interest permits.
§ Mr. TAYLORIs the hon. and gallant Member referring to the particulars of contracts so far as they relate to excavating machines?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMIf the hon. Member will put down a definite question I will consider whether we can give an answer, and, if the hon. Member will 2100 come to see me about any particular matter, I will also be very glad to help him.
§ Sir B. FALLEIs it not the fact that the United States, in view of the fact that they built the Panama Canal, lead the world in the matter of excavation?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe have only reached Question 15 on the paper, and there must be a limit to the number of supplementary questions put by hon. Members.
§ 17. Sir HARRY BRITTAINasked the First Lord of the Admiralty why it is proposed to modify the original plans for the naval base at Singapore?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe only modifications are those announced by my right hon. Friend the First Lord in introducing the Navy Estimates on the 14th of March, 1927, which were made with a desire to reduce the expenditure, and to provide only the minimum essential requirements of the present situation.
20. Mr. BENNasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what total sum has been spent upon the works at Singapore, and precisely from what sources and by what Governments has it been defrayed?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe total expenditure on the naval works at Singapore up to the end of November amounts to £615,000. The whole of this is covered by the contributions received to date from:
which have been appropriated towards the cost both of these works and of the floating dock now stationed at the base.
£ Hong Kong … 250,000 Federated Malay States … 864,000 New Zealand … 180,000
Mr. BENNSo that the Government are committing us to this great plan without coming to the House of Commons to get the necessary financial assistance?