HC Deb 30 May 1951 vol 488 cc218-20

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

77. Surgeon Lieut.-Commander BENNETT

—To ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what further information he has about the progress of the search for H.M. Submarine "Affray"; and whether any other submarine hulls have been identified during this search.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer Question No. 77.

The Asdic search of the area of 1,000 square miles to which my hon. Friend referred in his statement of 9th May is now complete. Of a large number of contacts obtained, seven were sufficiently promising to be investigated by diving. Five of them have been so investigated, and diving on the other two will take place as soon as conditions permit. No submarine wrecks have been positively identified so far.

The divers are working at a depth of 200 feet, which is the limit of the normal diving suit. Even under the best conditions at slack water divers cannot be down on the contact for much more than a quarter of an hour because of the strength of the tide in this part of the Channel. Conditions are made even more difficult after heavy weather by mud and sand being disturbed. This reduces visibility to nothing and divers have to rely on touch to identify the wreck.

A further area five miles wide and covering the whole length of the southern limit of the original area is now being searched. When this is complete, it is intended to carry out a search to the north of the main area.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett

I am sure that the whole House and the country will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that statement. May I ask him if, in order to still a certain number of conjectures and doubts, he will make it clear, as I think it has not yet been made clear, whether the submarine on its passage down Channel was ordered to proceed at periscope depth or at a deeper depth, or whether she was ordered to carry out dummy attacks on merchant ships?

Mr. Edwards

She was certainly not ordered to proceed at periscope depth, but she was actually undergoing war-time exercises, which meant, more or less, that she had to carry out functions such as would be the case in the event of war.

Mr. Bellenger

Is it the intention of the Admiralty at some appropriate moment to have an inquiry into this mysterious accident, and, if so, may it not be possible at some future date to give the House some information, even though the submarine is not found, as to the events preceding and leading up to the time when she disappeared from human contact?

Mr. Edwards

I think it would be far better if we were to wait until such time as it may be possible to find the vessel itself.

Sir H. Williams

I understood from what the hon. Gentleman said that the divers are not assisted by any means of artificial illumination. Do they have to proceed entirely by touch at some depths? Are they not provided with electric lamps?

Mr. Edwards

I am afraid that is a little bit technical, but I think I can assure the hon. Gentleman that every possible device which divers can use is being used at the present time.

Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett

Has the possibility of a collision been so fully investigated as to include this possibility, that, in view of the possibility of her having made warlike manoeuvres in the vicinity of shipping, the submarine's upper works—periscope, standards, and so on—may have carried away—an event which may possibly not have been noticed at the time by the ship concerned? Have the Admiralty done anything about attempting to tally all the shipping that passed through that area at the time, and to ask that those ships should be examined for evidence of such a possibility when they dry dock on the next occasion?

Mr. Edwards

I think it can be said that the view of the Admiralty is that there was no question of a collision taking place at all. We have had no evidence to that effect, and therefore the inquiries referred to have not arisen.