§ Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can now report upon the work completed in connection with the construction of the airship at Cardington?
§ Sir S. HOAREWork on the R.101 at Cardington is steadily proceeding and satisfactory progress is being made. The manufacture of the gasbags, control car and instruments, power cars, passenger and crew accommodation, miscellaneous girder work and fuel system is approximately two-thirds complete. There has been some delay in obtaining deliveries of certain special materials for the hull structure, but the difficulties have now been surmounted and assembly of the transverse frames has begun.
§ Mr. WELLSasked the Secretary of State for Air when the airship built by the Airship Guarantee Company at How-den will be completed and also the airship in course of construction by the Government at Cardington?
§ Sir S. HOAREI would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave the non. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Rose) on 10th November.
§ Mr. ROSEasked the Secretary of State for Air what will be the estimated total cost of the Cardington airship when launched next autumn; and how much in excess of the original estimate the total cost will be?
1048W
§ Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Air if he can give the House an estimate of what the Cardington airship will cost in excess of the amount originally asked for in May, 1924, and granted by the House at that date?
§ Sir S. HOAREThe total sum provided in the original estimate for the construction of the R.101 may be put at approximately £300,000. The latest estimate indicates that owing to a variety of causes, including the slowing down of the programme, this sum is likely to be exceeded by about £100,000.
§ Mr. ROSEasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the cost of altering and enlarging the air-shed at Howden is included in, or in addition to, the fixed contract price of £350,000 payable to the Airship Guarantee Company, Limited?
§ Sir S. HOAREThe contract with the Airship Guarantee Company, Limited, provides for a payment of £300,000 for the airship, complete in all respects, and of £50,000 as a capital contribution towards the company's capital expenditure on shed, plant, etc., necessary for the execution of the contract. Any alterations and enlargements of the shed other than those which the above contribution would cover are matters for the company.
§ Mr. ROSEasked the Secretary of State for Air what will be the cost of the airship now under construction at Howden when launched next autumn; and how much in excess of the contract price £350,000, the total cost is estimated to be?
§ Sir S. HOAREThe contract price for the airship has not been modified and remains as originally fixed at £350,000.
§ Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Air if he can give the House an estimate of the sum in excess of the £1,200,000, which was to cover the cost of the two great airships now under construction at Howden and Cardington, respectively, which will be necessary by next autumn, when the ships are to be ready for service?
§ Sir S. HOAREThe cost of the scheme of airship development, of which the construction of the two airships formed only a part, was originally estimated at £1,350,000, less a possible repayment of £150,000. It is now estimated that, when 1049W the programme originally proposed is completed, there will be an excess in respect of the items it comprises as a whole of, approximately, £330,000. I may add that this excess is due to a variety of causes, including the spread of the work over a longer period than that originally contemplated.
§ Mr. HARDIEasked the Secretary of State for Air if any penalty clause for non-fulfilment of contract terms is included in the Ministry's agreement with the Airship Guarantee Company for the construction of the Howden airship; and, if so, is he taking steps to enforce it, in view of the fact that when the vessel is launched next autumn it will be 18 months behind the stipulated time for delivery?
§ Sir S. HOAREThe answer to the first part of the question is that the contract, being of an experimental nature, contained no specific penalty clause, but it did contain various contractual stipulations and provisions designed, under legal advice, to safeguard the interests of the Department in the event of delay in completion. As regards the second part, the company are entitled under the terms of the contract to claim an extension of time beyond the contract date for completion in respect of delay caused by strikes or lock-outs affecting the workmen of the company or its subcontractors, and the question of such an extension is now the subject of discussion with the company.