§ 57. Mr. FALLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he has any information as to the sinking of the submarine A7 to give to the House; and and if it is intended to use these vessels in the future in deep waters?
59 Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSasked (1) whether the submarine A7, within a month or so before the disaster on the 16th January, sank to the bottom while exercising off Plymouth; and, if so, why, after that warning, she was ordered to exercise in deep water On the 16th January; (2) whether the "A" type of submarine belonged to the original trial class built in 1905 and was not fitted with safety appliances as effective as those carried on the more modern types; (3) whether the latest types of submarines are fitted with engines exceeding 2,000 horse-power, as against about 150 horsepower in the "A" type, with a radius of action of many thousands of miles, as against a very restricted radius; and, seeing that the "A" type was obsolete as well as dangerous, why are the "A" type still treated as efficient; and (4) whether he is aware that four of the "A" type of submarines have met with serious disasters entailing the loss of fifty lives, and that the only reported cases of foundering have both arisen in boats of the "A" type; and, if so, why A7 was employed so recently as January of this year?
§ 69. Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKEasked the date of the launching of submarine A7; was the vessel at the time of the accident in such a condition that she could be relied upon to perform any 327 manœuvre in perfect safety both as regards herself and the men and officers on board; how many submarines of the "A" class are now in being; and is it proposed to scrap the remaining vessels or to continue using them in the ordinary exercises of the Fleet?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe points raised in the several questions on this subject which appear on the Paper have been fully considered at various times by the Admiralty, and during the last two years all important questions connected with the practical use of British submarines have been referred to an Advisory Committee of submarine officers, who are constantly serving in and using these weapons. There is no reason to suppose that the "A" class submarines are not safe and efficient vessels for the purposes on which they are now employed, or that service in them within their proper radius of action is more dangerous than service in the larger and later classes of submarines which are constantly operating alone far out at sea in deep wafer against swiftly manœuvring fleets and squadrons. In addition to innumerable diving exercises, 1,350 attacks were delivered by "A" boats between January, 1912, and January, 1914, alone, and no submarine accident of any kind has occurred to an "A" boat since 1905 except the loss of A3, which was duo to a collision and not to any defect. The statement that A7 had on a previous occasion sunk to the bottom when exercising off Plymouth, and that it took an hour to get her to the surface again, is quite untrue. The vessels of the class now retained in the service are believed to be fully capable of carrying out the duties assigned to them without more risk than is inseparable from the submarine service as a whole. No vessel which is not thoroughly efficient for diving and manœuvring would be retained in commission for a day after her character and quality were exposed to doubt. Any vessel which the submarine officers considered was unsafe would be instantly condemned by the Board of Admiralty. As new vessels are completed, older vessels pass naturally and gradually into reserve But experience shows that submarines retain their military usefulness to a longer period than ordinary surface craft; the "A" boats average only about eight or nine years of age; and after a full review of the circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that there are no 328 grounds which make it necessary to withdraw the "A" class submarines from the service at the present time.
§ Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEWill the right hon. Gentleman answer that portion of No. 60 which asks whether the A7 was fitted with safety appliances as effective as those carried on the more modern types?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLOf course, as the types and boats develop the appliances improve, and vessels of the "A" class are fitted with appliances necessary for their safety.
§ Mr. GWYNNENot as safe as the most recent ones?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have already stated that the service in the "A" boats is not more dangerous than service in the later types which go out to sea with the Fleet.
§ Mr. EYRES-MONSELLAre we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman justifies the use of those boats on the report of the submarine officers, and, if that is so, is it not unfair to them, and aught not the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Admiralty take the full responsibility?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI take the fullest responsibility, but I thought it right to mention to the House that in this matter I was guided, not merely by the opinion of my naval colleagues at the Board of Admiralty, but that we had reinforced ourselves by keeping in constant touch with the men using those weapons themselves.
§ 64. Lord CHARLES BERESFORDasked how many officers and men have lost their lives in accidents to the "A" class submarines?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLDuring the ten years since 1904 the figures are 10 officers and 47 men.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDDoes that point to the fact that the "A" class are as safe as the others, seeing the enormous proportion of men who have been last in the "A" class, and will the right hon. Gentleman explain that?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is quite true that the "A" class have been very unlucky, but the principal loss has been through collisions, which do not depend on the type of boats at all but on circumstances arising on each occasion of an accidental and unforseen character, and with the 329 single exception of the present accident, the cause of which must remain a mystery unless the boat is recovered, and it does not appear that any of those have been due to defects with the construction of the boats.
§ 66. Lord C. BERESFORDasked the amounts of pensions granted to the widows and relatives of the officers and men who lost their lives in submarine A7?
§ 75. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked what pensions have been awarded to the widows of the men who lost their lives in the accident to submarine A7, and what grants have been made to their children; and is he now in a position to redeem his promise to reconsider the question of these pensions and grants?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe officers were unmarried and did not leave any dependent relatives. No pensions to officers' widows or relatives have therefore been granted. In the case of the men the following grants of weekly pensions to widows and allowances for children have been made:—In one case, a widow's pension of 9s. a week, with allowances for children of 6s. a week. In a second, a widow's pension of 9s. a week, with allowances for children of 4s. a week. In a third, a widow's pension of 5s. a week, with an allowance for a child of 1s 6d. a week. In a fourth, a widow's pension of 5s. a week, with allowances for children of 3s. a week. In the case of two of the children applications for admission to schools at the expense of Greenwich Hospital have been received and will receive sympathetic consideration. In one other case inquiries are not yet complete. The remaining men were unmarried and no applications on behalf of dependents have been received. With regard to the second part of the question asked by the hon. Member for Devonport, as I intimated in my reply to his question on the 19th March last, the scale of pensions and allowances granted in such cases has been reviewed, and in view of the far-reaching effect of any change it has not been considered possible at present to revise the scale.
§ Lord C. BERESFORDMay I ask if the pension scale suggested is not the same as the pension scale for the relatives of men who have been lost in ordinary accidents, and would it not be wise for the Admiralty to increase the pensions for the relatives of those who undertake much more extra- 330 ordinary risks both in the submarine and in the air craft, when they lose their lives in the services?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe allowances have been computed under the regulations to grant pensions to widows and orphans of men who lose their lives.
§ Lord EDMUND TALBOTUp to what age will the children's allowances be continued?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAUsually the girls' are up to sixteen, I think, and the boys' to fourteen.
§ 68. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any statement to make to the House regarding the loss of submarine A7 in Whitsand Bay with her complement; and what steps have been taken and are now being taken to raise the vessel?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have already dealt with the first part of the question. Owing to continuous bad weather, causing a heavy swell and rough sea, salvage operations have so far been impossible. No final decision has yet been taken.
§ 70 Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty (1) whether it is the custom of the Admiralty to have a salvage lighter standing by while submarines are exercising, and, if not, will he consider the advisability of making this an Admiralty regulation in future naval manœuvres; was there stationed at Devonport a salvage lighter capable of lifting any one of the submarines engaged in the naval exercises at Whitsand Bay on the date of the accident to A7; and, if not, will he see that such a vessel is always stationed at Devonport and at the other naval ports; (2) whether he still adheres to the statement. that the salvage equipment in the possession of the Admiralty for raising submarines is sufficient to meet all the requirements of the Navy; in the event of the answer being in the affirmative, will he say how it happens that submarine A7 has remained at the bottom of Whitsand Bay for nearly a month; and whether he can say, seeing that the whole salvage resources of the country are at the disposal of the Admiralty, why those resources have not been taken advantage of in respect of the raising of submarine A7; and (3) whether any attempt has been made to remove the mud which is obstructing the salvage of submarine A7, and with what result; 331 have any of the plates of submarine A7 been broken by the salvage operations of the Admiralty; and, if so, is that likely to cause the submarine to fill with mud, and so make the lifting of the vessel more difficult?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is not the custom to have a salvage lighter standing by while submarines are exercising, and it is not proposed to make this an Admiralty regulation. Lighters of a type which raised A8 were at Devonport at the time of the accident, and a specially equipped submarine salvage lighter was present before the submarine was located. Two more lighters specially designed for submarine salvage are under construction, one of which it is intended to station at Devon-port. It is not considered, however, that these or any salvage vessels in the world could have raised the vessel in time to save life when she was unable to rise by her own resources.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEWill the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why he has not engaged the services of Lighter 96?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLPerhaps the hon. Gentleman will give notice of that question.
§ 72. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he received any offer from any salvage association or company to raise Submarine A7 without any cost to the country in the event of non-success; and, if so, will he explain why advantage was not taken of the offer; has any salvage expert been consulted, outside the officers in the employ of the Admiralty, with regard to the raising of A7; is it a fact that salvage is a profession requiring many years of experience, and has the Admiralty any officer possessing that experience; if not will he take the necessary steps to attach some salvage expert to the Navy?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLSuch an offer has been received, but was not accepted.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEIn view of other answers he has given on this subject, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he does not propose in cases of this kind to employ outside services?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLWhenever it is considered that those services would be useful they will certainly be employed.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEDoes not the right hon. Gentleman consider, seeing that this submarine has been at the bottom of the sea for over a month, that the time has arrived when he should take advantage of outside services?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI think that all indications rather point to the fact that we had better leave the matter where it is.
§ 74. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether, during the last two years, any designs have been sent to the Admiralty for a buoy to be released in the event of accident to submarines, and so enable the position of a sunken submarine to be located; have any of the designs been accepted; and, if not, have the Admiralty any design of their own in view which will serve the same purpose; and was any such buoy on board Submarine A7 at the time of her accident?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe device of a detachable buoy for submarines has been frequently considered by the Admiralty, and hitherto the advice of the responsible submarine officers has always been against its adoption. I am informed that, with one doubtful exception in 1901, this is the first accident in the history of the British submarine service in which a detachable buoy might conceivably have been released, and even so it could in no circumstances have led to the saving of life. I have given directions that the question is to be again examined in consultation with the principal officers of the submarine service, who are in constant service in these vessels.