§ I would now touch upon the question of design of ships, and the suggestion which has been made, and which I think I shall show is erroneously made, that the Department of the Controller is not strongly staffed on the shipbuilding side, and that amateurs are interfering with design The Controller and the Deputy-Controller responsible for merchant shipbuilding have been accused of having imposed an amateurish standard ship upon shipbuilders. This is an entirely erroneous statement. Several types of standard ships were decided upon and adopted by the Advisory Committee of Shipbuilders and by the Council of Ship-owners, both of which were appointed and advised by Sir Joseph Maclay before the Admiralty had anything to do with it. It is, indeed, ironical that Colonel Lithgow, the official now charged with merchant shipbuilding, is the senior partner in the firm which has most vehemently and 1029 almost abusively resisted Sir Joseph Maclay's standard ships, and he is now classed as the amateur who imposed this design on experts.
§ It has been said that irritating changes in design have been made in the standard ship. One can quite understand that changes of design are irritating, but I will give you some instances in a moment to show that they are undertaken for valid reasons of war. Whether they were made by the Advisory Committee to the Shipping Controller, or since the Admiralty assumed responsibility, the technical decisions have in all cases been taken by experienced shipbuilders. The names of those in the Department of the Controller who advise him on the Shipbuilding Council have been published in the Tress. The firms who are represented in the Department of the Controller by one of their principals, or one of their experienced staff, produced, in the year 1917, 334,000 tons of merchant ships. The firms represented on the Shipbuilding Council—but not in the Department of the Controller-were responsible in 1917 for 70,000 tons of merchant shipping. A Government Department aided by the services of experienced directors and staff from firms annually turning out 400,000 tons of merchant shipping, or roughly 40 per cent. of the total output, can hardly be described as a Department staffed with amateurs.
§ A good deal of criticism has been levelled against changes of design, as if they were in themselves a proof of incompetence and maladministration. Of course, they are both very undesirable and very irritating, and are prejudicial to output; but shipbuilders, like many others who have come more closely in touch with the minor disadvantages of warlike operations and the difficulties they cause, must learn that the enemy, and warfare generally, does not work exactly to programme. If I may be forgiven a reminiscence, I would remind the House that I would be one of the last to forget the dislocation of programmes, after the experience I had of the dislocation caused to the output of ammunition from the filling factories, both before and during the Somme offensive, when our programmes and designs were upset almost daily, either to meet the fluctuating conditions of warfare or the special needs of the artillerists concerned. It was only 1030 with the greatest possible difficulty that we kept output up at all. In many ways the same things apply to shipbuilding.
§ It will, perhaps, interest the House if I give a few typical and, I am told, principal reasons for changes in design of ships: Increased speed, to evade submarine attack on certain routes; hinged masts or abolition of a mast, to prevent enemy submarines from ascertaining the course of a ship; alteration in the position of the mast and funnel, for the same reason; alteration in the shape of the bridge, eliminating straight lines and angles, for the same reason; alteration to provide for additional gun mountings and for heavy gun mountings, and accommodation for guns' crews, owing to increase of submarine warfare; conversion to oilers, owing to disproportionate loss of tank tonnage. That is a very general cause of change. There is no doubt that for a long time the enemy set himself to sink our tankers, and met with considerable success. Apart from these and similar reasons, I am told there are two other principal reasons of alteration: firstly, to provide additional space for the crews and better conditions for them—and I am sure no one would grudge those men adequate and as comfortable accommodation as is possible in the circumstances; and last, but by no means least, simplification of designs, to meet views put forward by the builders themselves.
§ I do not contend that there may not be isolated cases where designs have been changed at a time or in a way which might have been better chosen but, on the whole, I am confident that if the general complaints which are made were brought as specific complaints to the Controller, ample and reasonable justification would be found in the vast majority of cases. As regards new designs developed since those adopted by Sir Joseph Maclay and his two Advisory Committees of Builders and Owners, I could, I feel sure, satisfy hon. Members and the House on that point, did time permit; but I think that in the interests of brevity I must refrain from doing so.