§ 2. Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the total value of all ships and cargoes of all descriptions sunk by enemy submarine and mine from 4th August, 1914, to the latest date on which he has particulars, and that date?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara)We are not in a position to give this information, nor is it considered in the public interest that it should be given.
§ 3. Mr. HOUSTONasked whether the Admiralty informed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller that a certain steamer torpedoed on Christmas day while crossing from a French Channel port to an English Channel port was torpedoed while under Admiralty protection or escort?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIt is regretted that the 4nformation given to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Con-troller was incorrect. The vessel in question was not being escorted at the time she was torpedoed.
§ Mr. HOUSTONWho was responsible at that date for giving to the Parliamentary 286 Secretary to the Shipping Controller this incorrect information with such disastrous results to his reputation?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe information came by telephone, and we accept the responsibility, and regret that incorrect information was given.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIs it considered wise for the Government to make a statement in the public Press regarding shipping, contrary to the statement of the owners of the ship, who are more likely to know what happens to their own ship?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI have stated that the incorrect information is information for which we were responsible.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHAs this statement contains an attack upon a Member of this House, and the statement has been found to be inaccurate, has any apology been, or will any apology be offered, to that Member?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI have already raid that for the information which was incorrectly given the responsibility is ours, and I have said that I regret that that information was given. I do not know what more I can say.
§ Mr. HOGGEWhy does the right hon. Gentleman apologise only for the inaccuracy of the statement that has been made, and make no apology to the hon. Member who was wrongly attacked?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAReally that not a question to put to me.
§ 4. Mr. HOUSTONasked whether the steamer torpedoed on Christmas Day while crossing from a French Channel port to an English Channel port, and receiving such serious damage that over six months will be occupied in repairing, has been reported or returned in the published list of vessels unsuccessfully attacked; and, if so, on what date was it so officially reported?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAVessels damaged by submarine or mined are not included in any published list unless and until they become a. total loss, when they are included in the published list of the week in which this information comes to hand, with a reference to the week in which originally attacked. I ought, perhaps, to add that we do not apprehend that this particular vessel will take six months to repair. I think it desirable to say, further, that of the total number of British vessels damaged by enemy action for the 287 ten months, January to October, 1917, inclusive, it has been found impossible to salve four only. Of the rest, the repair of more than half has been actually completed.
§ Mr. HOUSTONWhat is the use of returning in the official lists the number of vessels which are unsuccessfully attacked by enemy submarines when in a case like this, in which the ship is out of commission for more than six months, and in another case which I know, the ship is out of commission for twelve months, no notice is taken? May I correct the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the time which vessels take in repairing? Is he aware that the Director of Shipping has said that the repairs to this ship will occupy six months?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI consulted the Department this morning, and they say that it will not take six months.
§ Mr. HOUSTONWho said that?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe officer responsible. With regard to the other point, the vessels unsuccessfully attacked are not injured in any way. The vessels that have been attacked and damaged do not appear in the paper unless and until they become a total loss. Of all the vessels that have been attacked during the tea months which I have given it has been found impossible to salve four only. More than half of all the rest have been completely repair ed.
§ Mr. HOUSTONIs it not more important in the public interest to know the number of vessels damaged than the number undamaged, which is merely eye-wash? Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the temporary repairs to this steamer at Portsmouth occupied a month, and that the permanent repairs, according to the Director of Shipping, will occupy six months?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAAccording to such information as I have, the expectation is that it will not take six months to repair.
§ Mr. HOUSTONWell, we will wait and see.
§ 6. Mr. HOUSTONasked whether the refrigerated steamer torpedoed and sunk on passage from a French Channel port to a British port was, at the time she was torpedoed, escorted by a naval armed 288 vessel; and whether the captain asked for an escort or protection before leaving the French port?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The answer to the second part is that no application was made for an escort either to the French authorities on the other side of to the naval authorities on this side If my hon. Friend understands that an escort was asked for, perhaps he will give me his authority, privately. He is aware, of course, that the vessel was defensively armed.
§ 7. Mr. HOUSTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the German authorities have stated that British hospital ships carrying a Spanish officer aboard would be immune from submarine attack; whether the British hospital ship "Rewa" carried a Spanish officer while in the Mediterranean; if so, whether this Spanish officer was landed at Gibraltar or a Spanish port while the "Rewa" was on a voyage to this country with wounded; if so, can he state why this Spanish officer was landed; and whether he has reason to believe that the presence of a Spanish officer on board would have prevented the ship from being sunk in the Bristol Channel on 4th January?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThe Spanish agreement is confined to the Mediterranean, and the special guarantees given therewith refer to that sea only. The "Rewa" carried a Spanish officer while in the Mediterranean. He was disembarked at Gibraltar in acordance with the agreement. As the Bristol Channel is not covered by the Spanish agreement, the presence of the Spanish officer on board in that Channel would not have afforded any additional guarantee of the ship's safety beyond that given by The Hague Convention. It may be added that in the course of recent correspondence the German Government stated that the free navigation of hospital ships bearing the usual distinctive markings was guaranteed in the Atlantic Ocean and North Sea, with the exception of the English Channel, and that consequently such ships could move freely, provided they kept to the west of the line from Land's End to Ushant. This particular ship satisfied the proviso, as has already been stated in the Admiralty communication to the Press of the 8th January.
§ Mr. HOUSTONDoes the right hon. Gentleman or the British Government 289 attach any importance, the slightest importance, to any assurance given by Germany
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI have done my best to answer the question.
§ 8. Mr. G. LAMBERTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that a convoy of about twenty ships left Falmouth on the 26th December; that within 14 miles of that port two new ships of 11,000 tons and of 10,000 tons, respectively, were torpedoed; and that one sank within thirteen minutes and the other was left in charge of an armed trawler, disabled, within 14 miles of Falmouth from 3 p.m. on the 26th to 4 a.m. on the 27th December, a period of thirteen hours, on a moonlight night; whether he is aware that the hostile submarine, having followed and further damaged the convoy, then returned and completed the destruction of the 10,000-ton ship at 4 a.m. on the 27th December; and what action the Admiralty has taken to show their appreciation of the perspicacity of those responsible?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAIt is true that two ships were torpedoed in this particular convoy, but the circumstances are somewhat different from those stated in the question. One of these ships was sunk; the other severely damaged. A destroyer and two armed trawlers were left to guard the ship that remained afloat, and on information of the attack reaching the base, two tugs and two trawlers were immediately dispatched to the assistance of the damaged ship. Unfortunately the tugs failed to find the vessel, and the report of an inquiry held to ascertain the reason for this has not yet reached the Admiralty. The gross tonnage of the vessels sunk was actually about half that stated in the question. One vessel was new, and the other one was built in 1907. The Admiralty have no information to lead them to believe that the submarine inflicted any further damage on this convoy. The circumstances connected with this attack are receiving full consideration.
§ Mr. LAMBERTWill the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us why it was that this new ship was left for thirteen hours, 14 miles from Falmouth, on a moonlight night?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAI have said that an inquiry is being held into that, but it was not the fact that the vessel was absolutely 290 alone, because I have spoken of two trawlers remaining behind, and two tugs and two trawlers were dispatched.
§ Mr. LAMBERTWhen do you expect to receive the result of the inquiry?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThere ought to be no delay. I hope it will be received shortly, and I will let my hon. Friend know as soon. as I get it
§ Mr. HOUSTONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that many experienced British shipmasters would very much prefer to be without the protection afforded by the Admiralty?
§ Dr. MACNAMARAThat is a matter of very, very high policy.