§ 14. Mr. T. HENDERSONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the British firm of Babcock, Wilcox and Company, who are on the Admiralty list of contractors, have been found guilty of a charge of bribery and corruption by a court in Sydney, New South Wales; and whether he is prepared to remove the firm of Babcock, Wilcox and Company from the Admiralty list?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam)I have no information beyond that which has appeared in the public Press from time to time on this subject. In the absence of full details, and having regard to the fact that the firm's counsel is reported to have applied for a stay of proceedings, it would be premature for me to take any action as regards the firm's eligibility to tender for Admiralty contracts.
§ Mr. HARDIEIs there any doubt as to the money passing between the two, and will that in any way be affected by an appeal?
§ Mr. HANNONIs it not a fact that Messrs. Babcock, Wilcox and Company have made a public statement that they had no knowledge whatever of this transaction, which took place in Australia?
§ Mr. RADFORDIs it not a fact that Messrs. Babcock, Wilcox and Company's quotation was the lowest one for this particular job, and so this was really more in the nature of blackmail on the part of the officials concerned than bribery and corruption on the part of the company?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI am not in a position to reply to my hon. Friend who spoke last. In regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) said, this incident occurred 2½ years ago. My reply to the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) is that it would be obviously impossible for us to come to a decision while the matter is sub judice.
§ Mr. BUCHANANBefore the Parliamentary Secretary comes to any decision to strike this firm off, will he consider the point that, if he does so, he will not punish the firm but the workmen on the Clyde?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMEverything will be taken into consideration.