§ 27. Mr. Ammonasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will make a statement as to the result of his inquiry into the Power Boat Company's contracts?
§ The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Duff Cooper)Yes, Sir. The statement I have prepared is rather lengthy, and I will, with your permission, read it at the end of Questions.
§ Later——
Mr. CooperThe following is the result of the full and detailed inquiry, which, as promised by the Civil Lord in the Navy Estimates Debate on 17th March, has been made into the allegations made on that occasion by the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher) regarding motor torpedo boats supplied to the Admiralty by the British Power Boat Company.
It should at the outset be made clear that a considerable difference exists between the coastal motor boats used during the War and the new motor torpedo boats. The latter are designed, 1101 as the former never were, to be comparatively independent of shore bases. In other words, two of their prime necessities are good sea-keeping qualities and habitability.
It was in October, 1934, that Mr. Scott-Paine, whose record with high-speed boats was well known, approached the Admiralty with his plan for a new type of boat, namely a 60-foot boat with 500 horse power "Power-Napier" marine engines, the speed of which was given as between 30 and 35 knots. A 72-foot boat was not proposed by the British Power Boat Company nor was it ever claimed that the boats they offered to supply would be capable of a speed of 42 knots.
The Admiralty thereafter approved the purchase of two experimental boats, and the order had actually been given when the emergency connected with the Italo-Ethiopian hostilities arose, and owing to that emergency the order for two boats was increased in the autumn of 1935 to six, all of which were to be capable of higher speed.
It would not be in the public interest to state the war function assigned to such vessels, nor to give figures for speeds and their corresponding endurances under varying conditions. No such information has been given by other Naval Powers possessing boats of this nature. The figures quoted in the House were in many respects inaccurate. These boats were constructed experimentally, in accordance with the desire of the naval staff. Since the despatch of the First Flotilla to the Mediterranean, requests for an increased number of such boats have been received from stations abroad, including a request from the Commander-in-Chief, Mediterranean, containing, naturally, proposals to improve some of their present characteristics.
The reports that have been received of the behaviour of the boats of the First Flotilla, both in home waters, on the long passage which they made under their own power from Plymouth to Malta, and during service on the Meditarranean Station, speak highly for their sea-keeping qualities, which are remarkable for boats of their size. There have been no complaints as to engine-room ventilation. There has been no report of structural deficiency and there is no more tendency to "hog" in these craft than is found 1102 in other seagoing vessels, and certainly no signs of a permanent "hog" or "sag." Their structure was fully tested before acceptance; the trials including manoeuvring, rough weather and sea-keeping tests.
The allegation has been made that the Flotilla, when exercising in the Mediterranean, failed to carry out orders through running out of petrol. It is alleged that they were ordered to proceed at 30 knots to a rendezvous 200 miles distant. No such order was incorporated in the orders for the exercise. They were ordered to locate and intercept a part of the Fleet. As easily may happen in such exercises, they failed, with one exception, to make contact, and returned to port. One vessel did make contact and delivered an attack 200 miles from the point of departure. It is incorrect to say that they cannot do 200 miles at 30 knots. Their actual endurance at this speed is, in fact, considerably higher.
Criticism has been directed to the fact that the boats are armed with 18 inch torpedoes rather than with 21 inch. For use in this type of boat, torpedo supply considerations made the 18 inch weapon a necessity at the time of the first order, but it was decided then that the eventual torpedo armament should be of 21 inch diameter. Experiments are being made with Admiralty torpedo tubes and discharge gear for these larger torpedoes, and are approaching finality with what appear to be satisfactory results. The statement that the firing gear in these boats has been unsatisfactory is not in accordance with the facts.
It has been alleged that the Admiralty have given a virtual monoply to the British Power Boat Company, to the exclusion of old-established firms who might have submitted competitive tenders. For a new vessel in the experimental stage, the ordinary arrangements for contract after comparison of tenders are never appropriate. This applies not only to the British Power Boat Company's boats but to the boat which was purchased from Messrs. Vosper in October, 1937. The requirement which the British Power Boat Company's boat was the first to meet was for a boat that should be independent of daily return to a shore base, having therefore the necessary habitability and sea-keeping qualities. None of the firms of whom mention was made in the De- 1103 bate, other than the British Power Boat Company, had at the material dates a design of boat of the requisite size which offered the characteristics required by the Admiralty. Certain experimental work in that direction has since been carried out by some of them, and the Admiralty have just taken delivery of such a boat built by Messrs. Vosper, the purchase of which was referred to above. Messrs. White also have a boat of their own design with somewhat different characteristics under trial for the Admiralty.
The question was raised whether the Admiralty costings branch had investigated the price of £23,000 quoted in Navy Estimates of 1937 as paid for each of the boats of the 1936 programme. The 1937 Estimates showed a total estimated cost for six boats of the 1936 programme, but for three of these, which are being tried out for special purposes, prices have not yet been finally fixed. The other three boats will be paid for on the basis of the agreed prices of the first six boats, namely those of the 1935 programme. These prices as agreed were considered fair and reasonable by the Admiralty. In forming this opinion, the Admiralty had before them information regarding the price paid by the Air Ministry for somewhat similar hulls after competitive tender. The prices of engines for 1935 and 1936 programmes were also agreed, on the basis of what was considered by the Admiralty to be fair and reasonable. The engines for 1937 programme, which contained only slight improvements on those for boats of the two earlier programmes, were, however, the subject of technical cost investigation and the price worked out at £87 10s. per engine above the price previously paid. This supports the conclusion that the amounts paid for 1935 and 1936 engines were reasonable. Torpedo discharge gear and various extras to the contract were technically costed by the Admiralty. It may be added that the actual price for the boats, for which the estimate of £23,000 was given in Navy Estimates, 1937, was slightly lower than this figure.
It is necessary to deal with certain statements that have been made with reference to the suitability of the Napier Sea Lion Engine with which the boats are fitted. This engine is a type arrived at by the modification for marine use of 1104 the latest pattern of the Napier Lion aero-engine. The modification consists in the main of incorporating cylinders of more robust design, of redesigning crankshafts and connecting rods, as well as introducing the installation items necessary for marine use.
It is alleged that these engines have been bought for from £5 to £10, and yet Mr. Scott-Paine has been charging £3,800 for them. There is no truth whatever in the allegation.
The Admiralty are naturally concerned only with the engines put into the boats supplied to the Royal Navy and not with the condition of any engines bought by the British Power Boat Company for experimental or other purposes of their own, or with the price paid for such engines. It has, however, been ascertained from the Air Ministry on inquiry, that the British Power Boat Company did purchase from them some used Napier Lion aero engines at about the price mentioned. These engines were, of course, not among those installed in the motor torpedo boats taken over by the Navy.
All the engines supplied to the Admiralty were new ones based on the 1934 type. They were of the modified aero-engine type described above, and were built under Government inspection. The cost of these new engines has already been shown to be fair and reasonable and was much below the £3,800 alleged. Any allegation that second-hand engines or engines from unused Air Ministry stock, were put into the boats as supplied to the Navy is untrue. This false impression may possibly have arisen from the fact that, in order to expedite matters, the first boat carried out its initial trials with partially converted aero-engines, or else from the fact that some such engines were used in the workshops of the British Power Boat Company for the training of naval personnel on this type of engine.
It should be clearly understood that as soon as new engines of the completely modified type were available, the partially converted aero-engines referred to above were removed from the experimental boat and replaced by the new.
The suggestion that engines with reground cylinders were initially installed in Admiralty boats is not true. The fact is that three engines which were taken 1105 out of boats some time after acceptance were returned to Messrs. Napier for overhaul because water had got into the cylinders. It was in the course of this overhaul that regrinding was carried out.
As was to be expected with machinery of a new and experimental type, a certain number of difficulties were encountered in the early stages.
In normal circumstances, these would have been discovered by running trials over a long period in a prototype boat, and any necessary remedial measures taken. Time did not admit of this course being adopted. These boats were required at once, and there was no other suitable British-made engine available.
The main troubles experienced were those resulting from torsional oscillations at certain speeds and through failures of certain of the installation items.
With the object of reducing the effects produced by the torsional oscillations referred to, experiments have been carried out with dampers, and the results obtained so far are satisfactory.
The recurrence of the other defects is similarly being prevented by improvements in design.
With regard to the allegation that the engines were grossly over-revved and specially tuned to obtain their maximum speed, the continuous rating of the Napier Sea Lion is 1,800 revolutions per minute as for the aero engines, but engines of this kind are not expected to run continuously at the maximum power of which they are capable. The normal maximum revolutions at which these engines can run for short periods of time is 2,500, but engines were run satisfactorily at 2,600 revolutions per minute during some of the measured-mile runs.
The engines were, of course, tuned, this being the normal procedure with engines of this type when it is desired to ascertain the best performance of which they are capable.
Brief reference must be made to the statement that an alleged incident at the works of another firm was reported to the Admiralty by the police and that the person concerned was interviewed at the Admiralty. Full inquiry has been made, both in the Admiralty and from Portsmouth. There is no trace of any communication having been made to the Admiralty or to the local Naval authori- 1106 ties, either by the police or by the firm in question.
It has been asked why the latest order, placed near the end of the financial year 1937, could not have been divided amongst several firms. It is clear from what has been stated above that, apart from the desirability of having flotillas homogeneously constituted, no other boat has as yet passed out of the experimental stage. While it is only fair that the original designer of this type of boat should have received initial orders proportionate to his enterprise and to the success of the design, it can be categorically stated that it is the intention of the Admiralty to invite competitive tenders for motor torpedo boats the moment they feel they are in a position to do so. The Admiralty have followed their general practice, and have throughout maintained the position that the British Power Boat Company could not be allowed to consider themselves immune from competition. At the same time, this opportunity must be taken of stating that the Admiralty, which must be largely dependent on the initiative, resource and inventive capacity of private firms, are highly appreciative of these qualities as displayed by the British Power Boat Company; and are gratified that a new company which can supply essential Service requirements has thus been started in this country.
In conclusion, I should like to express my gratitude to the hon. and gallant Member for Nuneaton for having brought to the notice of the House rumours which were both prevalent and mischievous, and for having given me this opportunity of stating the facts.
Mr. AlexanderWe are obliged to the First Lord of the Admiralty for the statement which he has made, and particularly for the acknowledgment he makes to the public service rendered by my hon. and gallant Friend in the statements he brought to the notice of the House. But may I ask the First Lord whether, in view of the necessarily lengthy and technical nature of the statement he has made, he will recognise that the Opposition require some time to compare paragraph by paragraph with the considerable volume of information which has also been supplied to us, and that, therefore, it must not be taken to-day that we withdraw from the representations we have made for a judicial inquiry, and that it might still be 1107 necessary to press for the legal type of inquiry originally asked for by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nuneation (Lieut.-Commander Fletcher)?
§ Mr. A. BevanIn view of the fact that a judicial inquiry has not been made, does not the statement read by the First Lord merely amount to the fact that the Admiralty and Mr. Scott Paine have made an investigation into the conduct of the Admiralty and Mr. Scott Paine?
§ Mr. CooperIt is nothing of the kind. I have myself gone very closely, with my colleagues, into all the facts of the matter and have made full inqury, and I am satisfied that the statement I have made to-day is accurate in all respects. With regard to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander), I fully appreciate the position he takes up. It would not be fair to expect him to make a statement as to his future attitude at a moment's notice. I think the position he has taken up is perfectly reasonable, and the House will understand it.
§ Lieut.-Commander FletcherMay I ask whether, in compiling the statement which he has read to the House, the First Lord had any independent evidence laid before him or only evidence from Mr. Scott Paine and Admiralty officials, and Admiralty papers on which either approval has already been given or action taken? Has he had any independent evidence?
§ Mr. CooperI made every effort to find out the true facts of the matter from every source available to me.
§ Lieut.-Commander FletcherMay I press my question? Has the First Lord actually had any independent evidence laid before him in the course of compiling this statement?
§ Mr. CooperCertainly I have. I do not consider that members of the staff at the Admiralty are anything but independent. I have also consulted officers serving in the Fleet who have had firsthand experience of these boats.