HC Deb 28 May 1908 vol 189 cc1255-7
MR. BELLAIRS (Lynn Regis)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the Return of casualties to ships ordered by this House requires the Admiralty to include all cases of collision or grounding and casualties to engines; and whether he can state why the order was not complied with in the Return issued during the Recess last autumn.

MR. MCKENNA

The Admiralty is aware that the Return required the inclusion of all cases of collision and grounding and casualties to engines, and that in fact all the information available at the Admiralty and considered to come within its scope was included therein, with the exception of an accident to the machinery of H.M.S. "Terrible," which was inadvertently omitted.

MR. BELLAIRS

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether, in order to comply with the Order of the House in reference to the Return of Casualties to Ships issued last autumn, which asks for all cases of collision or grounding and casualties to engines, he will cause to be circulated with the Votes all casualties which were omitted from the Return in question.

MR. MCKENNA

My hon. friend has already been informed in reply to another Question that there was only one case inadvertently omitted from the Return he refers to.

MR. BELLAIRS

Does the right hon. gentleman state definitely that there was no case of collision or grounding of any kind omitted from the Return except the case to which he refers?

MR. MCKENNA

No, Sir. I stated last week that no collision or grounding of a kind necessitating no repair was included.

MR. BELLAIRS

May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether a Minister is entitled to defy an order of this House directing him to include in a Return all cases of collision or grounding?

* MR. SPEAKER

I understand that, with the exception of one case inadvertently omitted, all cases that came to the notice of the Admiralty were included.

MR. BELLAIRS

gave notice that, on the Vote for the salary of the First Lord of the Admiralty, he would draw attention to omissions from the Return.

EARL WINTERTON (Sussex, Horsham)

How was it the omission occurred in the one ease?

MR. MCKENNA

It was the case of the "Terrible." The records and papers regarding that accident had been sent away from the Admiralty for the purpose of an inquiry, and it was while they were away that the Return was compiled. It was quite an inadvertent omission.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

Are we to understand that when a Return has been ordered of all casualties occurring to H.M. ships, including collisions and groundings, the Admiralty are entitled to include only those which involved repairs?

MR. McKENNA

"Groundings" and "collisions" are very vague words. Two ships may collide and nothing happen to either. In that case it is not reported to the Admiralty.

MR. BELLAIRS

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of cases where no repairs were needed. But there are some such cases in this return, including the "Terpsichore" to which no damage at all was done, although some paint was removed.

* MR. ASHLEY (Lancashire, Blackpool)

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether a Norwegian vessel was run into by a destroyer in the manœuvres of 1906 and was towed into harbour in a sinking condition; and, if so, whether he can state why the collision was omitted from the official return for 1906, ordered by the House and issued in September 1907.

MR. MCKENNA

There is no trace in Admiralty records of any collision of a destroyer with a Norwegian vessel during the manœuvres of 1906.

* MR. ASHLEY

I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether the destroyers "Cheerful" and "Garry" were in collision at the beginning of the manœuvres of 1906; and whether the "Cheerful" was able to take any further part in the manœuvres.

MR. MCKENNA

There is no trace of any official report of this collision.

* MR. ASHLEY

Had not one of these vessels to be dry docked?

MR. MCKENNA

Not in consequence of any collision.

EARL WINTERTON

May I ask whether, after this collision, these two vessels were in a state of fighting efficiency?

MR. MCKENNA

Certainly.

* MR. ASHLEY

Then why had one to be dry docked?