§ 32. Mr. BROMLEYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that of the amount of Admiralty orders given to Vickers-Armstrongs little has actually been put in hand by the firm, and that unemployment figures in Barrow-in-Furness are mounting up; if he can say whether any arrangement has been made with this firm as to when the work on Admiralty orders should commence; and if he will see that this work is expedited?
Mr. ALEXANDERI am not aware that there has been any delay in proceeding with Admiralty work which is being executed at Barrow by Vickers-Armstrongs. The contracts specify definite dates for completion of the work which is subject to inspection by Admi- 1294 ralty officers to ensure that proper progress is maintained and I have no reason to believe that delivery dates will not be kept.
§ Mr. BROMLEYWould the First Lord of the Admiralty consider in future making some arrangement as to the commencing date in order to obviate any holding back and creating unemployment?
Mr. ALEXANDERI have no information that there has been any holding back. It is usual, after the acceptance of tenders, for time to elapse for the necessary technical preparations and detailed drawings and the like. I do not think it was possible that it could have been done sooner.
Earl WINTERTONin view of the very serious charge which the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Bromley) has made, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter, and give an emphatic denial to those allegations. I would like to ask the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness if he is prepared to repeat his statement outside.
§ Mr. BROMLEYOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I claim your protection from the insulting asides of the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham, who has asked me to repeat outside some imaginary allegation which I have not made. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to protect me, if you will, from this kind of insinuation, because the Noble Lord may be taken at his word some time.
Earl WINTERTONOn a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a perfectly well-known rule of this House that any hon. Member may challenge another hon. Member who makes a statement containing a most serious allegation against an outside body, in this case, an allegation that a firm or firms had attempted deliberately to cause unemployment, to make that statement outside the House?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is a very well-known rule that allegations against individuals or firms are not allowed in questions in this House and consequently should not be allowed in supplementary questions. Had I noticed that the hon. Member was making an allegation, I should have called him to order.
§ Mr. MARKHAMOn a point of Order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it has not always been the practice in this House that questions referring to Government contracts may be challenged in the manner indicated in this question?
§ Mr. SPEAKERAllegations reflecting on a firm or anybody else are not allowed in questions.
§ Mr. BROMLEYFurther to that point of Order. With all respect to you, and with great regret, seeing that you, the President of this assembly, did not know what was not there, as you have indicated, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you are prepared to ask the Noble Lord to withdraw his insinuation?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is somewhat difficult sometimes in regard to supplementary questions to catch exactly what was said. I think we had better allow this matter to drop.