§ 20. Colonel WOODCOCKasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any precautions are taken to warn mercantile vessels crossing the manœuvering area when submarines are being exercised in order to prevent accidents and collisions; and if he can state what were the precautions being taken off Start Point when the submarine Ml collided with a Swedish steamer?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANWhen submarines are exercising, precautions are taken in accordance with a Notice to Mariners, No. 676, of 1924, which states that British vessels fly a square red flag to denote that submarines, which may be submerged, are in the vicinity. It is within the knowledge of the Admiralty that this red flag was being exhibited by the surface vessels taking part in the exercise in question.
§ Colonel DAYThe first report said the submarine was seen to dive. How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the other report of a collision?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANIt does not arise out of this, but I do not see that they are irreconcilable in any way.
§ 23. Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that Mrs. Morgan, wife of chief petty officer Morgan, who presumably perished in the Submarine M1, on going to draw her allotment at the Post Office, found that it had been reduced from £4 3s. to £2 7s. within a day or so after the announcement of the loss of this submarine; and whether he will give instructions that this practice of stopping allotments so promptly after a presumed death should cease?
Mr. DAVIDSONAs the reply is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
§ The reply is as follows:
§ The reduction in payment referred to by the hon. Member was in respect of the allotment of wages made by the late petty officer to his wife. The rate of that allotment was 67s. a week and, under Regulations framed in connection with the State grant of marriage allowance, this sum was reduced on the Thursday following the presumed death of the petty officer to the minimum rate of allotment (in this case 21s. a week), which renders such a rating eligible for an award of marriage allowance. There was no interruption in the payment of marriage allowance of 26s. a week, which is a State grant additional to the allotment. It may be explained that the continuance in these circumstances of the minimum allotment with full marriage allowance, without the usual corresponding charges against pay in respect of the former, is in effect a provisional award of pension for the widow and children. I regret that I cannot see my way to suggest any alteration of these arrangements, which are common to the three Services. In the present case, the reduction did not take effect until the 19th November, a week after the loss of the vessel.
§ 24. Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the antiquity of the British diving apparatus; whether he will explain why the Admiralty in their search for the submarine Ml have had to rely on a German apparatus; and whether he will explain what are the advantages of the latter as compared with the former?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANThe diving apparatus in use in the Royal Navy is of the most up-to-date type, but the depth at which it can be successfully used is only 35 fathoms, and its operation is difficult below 25 fathoms. As the place where the search for the Ml is being made exceeds 35 fathoms, it was decided to try the new German design, which claims to be capable of operation at great depth.
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAIs the Admiralty taking steps to provide similar apparatus?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANThis is, of course, an experiment that is being tried now. We shall be guided by the result. I think it is the first experiment at any great depth that has been made.
§ 25. Mr. HORE-BELISHAasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the Admiralty first heard from the Swedish authorities that the "Vidar" had been the possible cause of the loss of the M1, and when the Admiralty came to the conclusion that the "Vidar" was the cause of the loss; whether the Admiralty had previously suspected that collision with a merchant vessel might have been the explanation of the loss; whether they had received any reports as to the merchant vessels that were in the vicinity of the disaster at the time of its occurrence; and whether the presence of the "Vidar" was reported?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANA telegram conveying information that the "Vidar" had noticed what was thought to be an underwater explosion whilst off the Start Point about 7.45 a.m., 12th November, was received on Tuesday afternoon, 17th November, from the Swedish naval authorities, Stockholm, whereupon a request was made that, on arrival at Stockholm, the "Vidar" might be dry-docked and examined. The examination, which was made by divers— it not being practicable to put the ship into dry dock—took place on Friday, 20th November, and the result received by telegram at the Admiralty the following forenoon. The Admiralty statement was issued the same afternoon (Saturday). Collision as a cause of the disaster had always been considered possible—if not probable—by the Admiralty. Reports were received from naval vessels in the vicinity concerning two Japanese steamers, which were investigated with negative results. On further investigation, after "Vidar's" report, the conclusion was arrived at that one of the steamers reported as a Japanese was in reality the "Vidar."