§ 41. Sir WILLIAM DAVISONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been called to the fact that the flotilla destroyers of the Blue Fleet, in the recent naval manoeuvres, were ordered to proceed to Lagos for shelter owing to heavy weather, and took no part in the manoeuvres; that the greater part of these destroyers are over-age and long over-due for replacement; and whether steps are now being taken to substitute new and seaworthy craft which will be capable of defending the shores of the United Kingdom in heavy weather?
Lord STANLEYIt is correct that most of the destroyers of the Blue Fleet returned to Lagos on 12th March, but it is not justifiable to suggest that these vessels are unseaworthy on that account. While every endeavour is made to render Fleet exercises as realistic as possible, my hon. Friend will appreciate that risks which would be taken in war are not always justified on manoeuvres. With regard to the last part of the question, one of these flotillas will be replaced in the Home Fleet by new construction vessels in the autumn of 1934 and another flotilla early in 1935, by which time only four of the destroyers concerned will still be serving.
§ Sir W. DAVISONDoes not that statement show, as indicated in the question, that these vessels had to be sent into Lagos because they were overdue for replacement? I understand that none of the destroyers in the other fleet had to put into port at all, but were kept at sea in spite of the heavy weather.
Lord STANLEYI do not think that assumption is justified. It happened that these vessels had to go in the teeth of a very heavy gale. The hon. Gentleman 860 will have seen from the papers the effect it had on liners of far greater tonnage. That, I think, answers his point.