§ 30. Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has now considered the proposals made by the trades unions with regard to the provision of alternative work in the dockyards; if he will state the nature of these proposals; and what action he proposes to take?
§ 38. Sir K. WOODasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has now given consideration to the proposals from the trade unions concerned with regard to the provision of alternative work in the dockyards; and what reply he has made to such proposals?
§ Mr. G. HALLThe matter is still under consideration.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAAre we to understand that there has been a change in the policy of providing alternative work, and that it is not now the policy of the Admiralty to provide alternative work?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAI am asking whether it is so.
§ 39. Sir ROBERT GOWERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what work has been given to the Royal Naval Dockyard at Chatham in substitution for the proposed submarine depot ship which was cancelled; and how many additional men, if any, would have been provided with work there had the construction of such submarine depot ship been proceeded with?
§ Mr. HALLThe principal items of work which have been given to Chatham in substitution for the proposed submarine depot ship are as follow:
In addition the building of a second sloop is to be undertaken shortly at that yard.
- (1) The construction of a sloop.
- (2) The construction of a caisson.
- (3) Additional naval repair work.
- (4) The refits of certain oil carrying vessels.
It was not the intention to enter additional men to progress the construction of the submarine depot ship.
§ Sir R. GOWERWill the hon. Gentleman say what is the difference between the cost of the work which he has just specified and the cost which would have been involved had the construction of the proposed submarine depot ship been proceeded with, particularly so far as labour is concerned.