§ 7. Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can explain why only one British steamer over 1,600 tons gross and five British steamers under 1,600 tons gross were officially reported in the weekly Return issued by the Press Bureau as sunk by mine or submarine during the week ending 11th November, when it was well known to underwriters and others that during five days of that week, namely, Monday, 5th November, to Saturday, 10th November, a greater number of steamers over 1,600 tons gross registered tonnage was reported sunk; and will he in future see that correct reports are given to the public, so that they may realise the vital importance of economy in food consumption?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI must at once challenge and deny the suggestion contained in this question, namely, that incorrect returns are given.
I must also express my regret that the question should be framed in such a way as to undermine public confidence by 1158 suggesting that a responsible Ministry is issuing incorrect returns. It is clear that this mischievous suggestion is made without any adequate investigation as to the true facts of the case.
The number of British merchant vessels reported in the Press as sunk by submarines and mines during the week ending three p.m., 11th November, 1917, is correct.
The weekly Returns—together with the notes attached thereto—definitely indicate the number of ships sunk during each week, and not the number of reports of sinkings received during the week. Three large ships were reported during the week ending three p.m., 11th November, as sunk by submarines and mines, but two of these were sunk during the previous week, and were included in the previous week's Return which appeared in the Press.
§ Mr. HOUSTONIgnoring the right hon. Gentleman's strictures, may I ask him whether the five steamers which were reported posted at Lloyds on the 5th and 6th November—that is, during the week ending 10th November—have already been reported, and when; if not, when they will be reported; and can he explain why of the five small steamers which were reported at Lloyds as sunk during the same week, and which were reported in the Press, only one was included in the Return?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI must repeat that the Return gives precisely the facts of the vessels reported sunk within that week. In this case two had been previously reported, and were in the Press in the previous week's Return. If there were any others, I do not know and I cannot say, but if there were they will be reported later. The whole suggestion of this question is that we took too favourable a view of the situation, and so caused people to say: "It does not matter any more; we need not be economical any longer." That is quite untrue, and we should not be fit for our office if, in these times, we took such a course. I again resent it strongly.
§ Mr. HOUSTONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that they are not reported in the Return of the 4th or in the Return of the 11th; will they be reported in the Return of the 18th?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThey will be reported with a footnote showing the week in which they were sunk— if those facts are correct. I cannot be taken to accept them now.
§ Commander BELLAIRSIs it not putting too favourable a view on the situation when ships which are stranded on shore and are badly damaged are not included?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAMy hon. Friend is putting another point altogether. We have frankly stated that this return does not include damaged ships. We never said that it did, because many of them come back again into service after being repaired. This return does not include those, and nobody ever suggested that it did. This return includes the number sunk within the week, and it is a true return.
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI do not consider that I am called upon to answer that. If anybody in any quarter of the House thinks that it ought to be answered, the answer is "No."
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs it not the case that this has often been done before?