§ 24. Mr. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any materials, plant, or equipment for the Singapore naval base have been ordered from, purchased in, or made in Germany; and, if so, the nature of such purchases?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe reply to the first part of the question is in the negative, and the second part, accordingly, does not arise.
§ Mr. TAYLORDoes that cover plant ordered by contractors?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMAs far as I know, yes.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSAre we to understand that the contractors themselves have not purchased any wagons in Germany?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI can only give the answer that I have given.
§ Mr. TAYLORWhy not be certain?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMIt is certain, as much as any question can be certain.
§ Mr. RENNIE SMITHIs it possible, under the terms of the 1919 Treaty, for the German Government or any German firms to make plant for use at naval bases?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI must have notice of that question.
§ 25. Mr. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty on what date the Admiralty first had knowledge that Sir John Jackson, Limited, intended to 408 place the contract for foul large mechanical excavators for use on the Singapore naval base with an American firm?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThe Admiralty were informed on the 2nd November, 1928, that the contract for this plant had been placed. The Department had no prior knowledge of the contractors' intention to purchase this plant abroad.
§ Mr. TAYLORHad not the Admiralty's representatives on the spot at Singapore discussed with representatives of British firms, long before the 2nd November, the question of this work?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMI must have notice of that question.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSIn view of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply a few moments ago, that the Government always do their best to find work for British workpeople, does he not think that the Admiralty ought to have known where the contracts ultimately went?
§ Mr. TAYLORIn view of the fact that an announcement was published in the Press on the 2nd or 3rd November, may I ask whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply is to the effect that the Admiralty had no knowledge before that date?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMThat is exactly what I said.
§ Mr. TAYLORThank you.
§ 26. Mr. TAYLORasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that certain plans or drawings for the Singapore naval base were delivered by the contractors to an American firm's sales office in London, and from there sent to the American company's works in America; and whether such action was taken with the knowledge and consent of the Admiralty?
§ Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAMNo Admiralty plans or drawings for the Singapore naval base were delivered by the contractors to an American company. The contractors delivered certain drawings of their own to the company, in order to explain the work which the plant required by the contractors would have to perform. These have been seen 409 by our responsible technical officers, and the contractors' action neither betrays public confidence nor is in any way irregular.
§ Mr. THURTLEIs the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the contractor in this case is an ex-Conservative Member for Devonport?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYBuy British goods!