HC Deb 08 November 1928 vol 222 cc225-6W
Sir F. NELSON

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any stipulations have been made by the Government to the end that contractors engaged in the construction of the Singapore base shall buy British stores, materials, and machinery?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

As my right hon. Friend the First Lord stated in reply to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on 1st August last (OFFICIAL REPORT, Column 2153) provision has been made in the contract for all the materials for the Singapore Naval Base to be either from the United Kingdom or from sources within the British Empire, but no restrictions are imposed on contractors as to the source of supply of their plant. It has never been the practice to interfere with a contractor's discretion as to the sort of material and plant he uses as his instruments in carrying out the work. Such interference would prejudice the Government in dealing with any dispute or claim that might arise in the execution of the work.

Mr. W. THORNE

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether tenders have been invited in regard to the excavating work for the Singapore naval base; if so, the name of the firm which has received the contract; and whether it is a British firm?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

The contract for the construction of the Naval Base at Singapore includes all excavating work. The name of the firm which has received the contract is Messrs. Sir John Jackson, Ltd., and it is a British firm.

Captain CROOKSHANK

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that an order for excavating machinery worth£70,000, required for the construction of the Singapore docks, has been given by the Government contractor to an American firm without any opportunity to tender being given to the British manufacturers; whether the contractor is within the terms of his contract with the Admiralty in placing this order abroad; and, if so, whether he can take any steps to reconsider the conditions of the original contract?

Lieut. - Colonel HEADLAM

The reply to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. Any steps to alter the contract would incur a heavy charge on public funds and would be undesirable for the reason given in reply to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir F. Nelson).