§ 29. Mr. MORGAN JONESasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Sir Charles Craven informed the Electric Boat Company of America, on 6th January, 1933, that the Admiralty had promised Vickers, Limited, an order for His Majesty's ship "Clyde" (a repeat of the "Thames"), but that the contract was not to be given officially until after the letter had been received in America, and that he asked the American company not to let the information get into the hands of the American navy department; and whether he intends taking action under the Official Secrets Act in respect of this action by a British firm?
The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Sir Bolton Eyres Monsell)Messrs. Vickers-Armstrongs informed the Electric Boat Company of the contract which they had received for His Majesty's ship "Clyde," because the Electric Boat Company, as the owners of certain patents, are their licensors for the construction of submarines. I have no evidence that Messrs. Vickers-Armstrongs stated, as suggested, that the contract was not to be given officially until after their letter had been received in America. In view, however, of His Majesty's Government's desire to secure international agreement for the abolition or limitation of submarines, the contract contained a proviso giving the Admiralty an option of 812 cancelling the order at any time before the 31st March, 1933, and what Messrs. Vickers did was to ask their licensors in view of this proviso to prevent the contract from becoming public until it was certain that the vessel would be constructed.
The letter was apparently written 11 months after the programme of new construction for 1933, which included the "Clyde," had been announced and after the contract had actually been placed. In these circumstances I cannot imagine how the letter involved any breach of the Official Secrets Act, or why any question of action under that Act should arise.
§ Mr. JONESMay I ask whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has examined the terms of this particular letter, and whether he has submitted it to the Law Officers of the Crown with a view to ascertaining their legal opinion on the matter?
Sir B. EYRES MONSELLNo, Sir. I am quite capable of interpreting the terms of the letter, as long as I have seen it.
§ 30. Mr. A. BEVANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that under an agreement between Vickers, Limited, and the Electric Boat Company, payments were made by Vickers for any type of submarine boat built by that firm for the account of the British Government, and that the average profit to the Electric Boat Company has been £28,467 per boat; had these arrangements the approval of the Admiralty; what is the total paid by Vickers to the Electric Boat Company since the agreement was made; and what were the full terms of the agreement?
Sir B. EYRES MONSELLThe Electric Boat Company are the owners of certain patents used in the construction of submarines, and Messrs. Vickers Armstrongs, when they build a submarine for the Admiralty, or for anyone else, have undertaken under a commercial agreement to make a payment to the company as their licensors. The statement made at the United States Senate Inquiry that 813 the company has received on an average £28,467 per boat must, I think be quite erroneous. I understand that the total sum received by the company was reported at the same inquiry to be £444,000. Whether this figure is accurate I cannot say, but, if it is, seeing that the total number of submarines built by Messrs. Vickers Armstrongs is 167, it would appear that the average amount received per boat over the whole period has not been more than about £2,650. The agreement between the two concerns is an ordinary agreement between licensees and licensors. The Admiralty are not parties to it, it does not require their approval, and its exact present terms are not known to them.