§ 21. Mr. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the names of the firms holding contracts in connection with the Singapore naval base; whether the terms and conditions of such contracts contain any clause which provides that in the case of substantial sub-contracts British firms are to he given the opportunity of tendering; whether he is aware that in the case of a recent sub-contract given to an American firm British manufacturers were not given an opportunity of tendering; and if, in the case of future contracts by his department, he will take steps to protect the interests of British firms?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI would refer the hon. Member to the replies given to the hon. Members for Plaistow (Mr. W. Thorne) and Gainshorough (Captain Crookshank) on the 9th November (OFFICIAL REPORT, COI. 225) and the 12th November (OFFICIAL REPORT. Col. 505).
§ Mr. TAYLORMay I ask for a reply to the last part of the question?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI think that that matter really comes in the answer to another question a little later, but I can inform hon. Members that we are assured by the contractors that in any future contracts of this kind that 865 have to be given the Admiralty will have an opportunity of studying the matter beforehand if there is any question of the contract not going to British manufacturers.
§ Mr. TAYLORWho is responsible for this oversight? Was it not known that this machinery would be required?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThere was no oversight. If the hon. Member has studied the answers which I gave on previous occasions, he will have seen that the usual practice has been followed, and that in regard to plant it has never been the custom to lay it down that contractors are to get their plant from any particular place. The objections to such a practice must be self-evident.
§ Mr. TAYLORWas it not the duty of the Admiralty, in view of the fact that it was known that this large quantity of machinery would be required, to protect these firms in a case of this kind?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMIt has never been the practice to lay down rules with regard to plant used by contractors. It has been the practice to do so with regard to material, and the Admiralty have made arrangements in the Singapore contract that the material used should be of British origin or from British Dependencies.
§ Mr. TAYLORBecause there is not a precedent, does that make it right?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a matter of argument.
Captain CROOKSHANKDoes not my hon. and gallant Friend see that it is not so much a question of plant and material as that British firms should have the right to tender?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI have made it perfectly clear that our intention in the future, as a result of this unfortunate incident, is that we are to have the opportunity of studying, in any case in which the question arises, whether a tender made by a British firm should be accepted or not.
§ 22. Mr. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has an estimate of the loss which would fall upon public funds if the orders placed by the contractors constructing the Singapore naval base for American excavating machines 866 were cancelled; and whether his Department has made any representations to the contractors holding the Singapore naval base contract as to the desirability of giving fair treatment to British firms?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. Such an estimate would be difficult to give, as it is influenced by certain unknown factors. The contractors have undertaken to give British firms the opportunity of tendering for any further plant required.
§ Mr. TAYLORUpon what did the hon. and gallant Gentleman base his statement, in reply to a question in the House last week, that the cancellation of these contracts would involve a considerable charge on public funds?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMIt is obvious that, if the contractors have based their calculations on the use of a certain kind of plant, and they are suddenly faced with the fact that they have to get their plant from elsewhere, it is highly probable that the expense would be considerably greater.
§ Mr. TAYLORIs the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that this machinery has not to be delivered until October, 1929, and that British firms can deliver by that date?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI do not see that that affects my last answer.
§ Mr. TAYLORI must press the hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain why the Department has made no endeavours to ask the contractors to reconsider their decisive and to see what loss will fall on public funds if these orders are cancelled?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI do not follow the hon. Member's question. I have explained in previous answers that there would almost inevitably be a large increase in costs if we did as he suggests. I can see no reason for us to force the contractors to change their whole scheme of operation simply because of this unfortunate affair.
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe cannot have any more questions on this subject. We have had several already.