§ Mr. MACQUISTENasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry whether, at the outbreak of war, the Admiralty purchased a flying boat of new and successful design by Mr. Norman Thompson, built by Messrs. White and Thompson (subsequently renamed the Norman Thompson Flight Company in 1915), a pioneer firm established in 1909; whether this design, developed in structural details and ultimately known as Type N.T. 2 B., was ordered in repetition from other firms as well as the Norman Thompson Flight Company, and in April, 1918, was officially adopted by the Air Ministry as their standard naval instruction machine; whether, in 1915, the Admiralty placed an order with the Norman Thompson Flight Company for ten flying boats of such size that the firm were compelled to lay out considerable money in additional buildings to their existing works; whether, for twelve months after these extensions were completed in May, 1916, the Government were aware that the firm were only able to work at about one-third full output owing to constant changes in design ordered by the Admiralty and shortage of orders, and whether in the autumn of 1916 the Admiralty refused to allow the War Office to place orders with the firm; whether, in June, 1917, the Air Board required the firm to again increase their works for the production of one of their designs of flying boats (Type N.T. 4 A.), and subsequently agreed to advance 610W £20.000 for new 'buildings; whether, after placing considerable orders in the autumn of 1917 for N.T. 4 A. flying boats, the Air Board cancelled those orders in January, 1918, and gave no new orders until May, 1918. after the appointment of a receiver for the debenture holders; whether an urgent letter from Mr. Norman Thompson, dated 20th July, 1918, addressed to the Air Minister, asking him to redress the situation created by the above actions of the Admiralty, War Office, and Air Ministry, though formally acknowledged, has never been answered; and whether the Aircraft Finance Department of the Ministry of Munitions in October, 1918, refused the recommendation of the Lubbock Committee of the Treasury to pay off the debentures issued to Messrs. Cox and Company as security for advances and re-vest the control of the company in the directors?
§ Mr. PRATTThe answer to the third part of the question is that boats of the type referred to were used, not exclusively, but in conjunction with other types for seaplane instruction. I am making inquiries in regard to the letter mentioned in the penultimate portion of the hon. Member's question, and will communicate with him. Of the remaining parts of the question, the first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth would appear to be for the Admiralty; the seventh, eighth, and tenth for the Ministry of Munitions.