HC Deb 28 November 1934 vol 295 cc827-8
9 and 10. Sir JONAH WALKER-SMITH

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1), what circumstances were taken into consideration by the Admiralty in requiring Messrs. Vickers to build the cruiser for which their tender has recently been accepted at Walker-on-Tyne in lieu of at Barrow-in-Furness, as the contractors intended and desired;

(2) whether the number of skilled shipyard workers unemployed, not only at present but prospectively, was taken into consideration by the Admiralty in imposing upon Messrs. Vickers the condition that one-third only of the cruiser for which their tender has been accepted shall be built at Barrow-in-Furness in lieu of the whole, as the contractors desired; and whether he has considered the representations from the Barrow Corporation or from Messrs. Vickers, to the effect that the conditions imposed will disorganise the Barrow programme of building and will create a serious condition of unemployment in Barrow by June or July of next year?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell)

The decision that the hull of the M. Class Cruiser of the 1934 programme should be built at Walker-on-Tyne was reached after the fullest consideration of all the relevant factors, including the unemployment position in the different shipbuilding districts. As the hon. Member is aware, the machinery for the vessel will be constructed at Barrow. It is true that Messrs. Vickers-Armstrongs originally proposed to build the hull as well as the machinery at Barrow, but they acquiesced in the Admiralty's suggestion that the hull should be built on the Tyne. I have received representations on the subject from the Corporation of Barrow, but I am unable to depart from the decision reached.

Sir J. WALKER-SMITH

Will this decision be submitted to the Corporation of Barrow, in order that they may consider their reply in the light of the very serious labour position which they expect to arise?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL

I have nothing to add to my answer.

Mr. MARTIN

Can we take it that the Admiralty have now at last abandoned their position of saying that they must at any cost accept the lowest tender, without considering the unemployment conditions in the area?

Sir B. EYRES MONSELL

No, certainly not. The lowest tender must be the first consideration. I have always said that within narrow limits we can consider the question of unemployment.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN

Is not the lowest tender very often a case of the cheapest not being the best?