HC Deb 14 November 1951 vol 493 cc980-3

At the end of Questions:.

Mr. J. P. L. Thomas

As most hon. Members will know, the wreck of H.M. Submarine "Affray" was located by Asdic equipment on 14th June, after a search lasting two months. She was lying in 288 feet of water and was identified by means of underwater television. This equipment was used also to help in directing the divers during their painstaking examination of her hull.

Since the last statement in this House on 1st August, the diving vessel "Reclaim" has worked on all possible occasions and has made every effort to obtain further evidence about the cause of the disaster. I am sorry to have to tell the House that all her work of the last three months has been in vain, and that one of my first duties on taking office was to agree that there was no reasonable hope of obtaining any further light on the problem through this means.

The continued use of H.M.S. "Reclaim" on these special duties for so long has already interfered to a serious extent with the training of deep sea divers. While there was still a chance that useful evidence would be forthcoming, this was accepted. Weather conditions in any case would have made further operations impossible in the winter.

I have studied very carefully the Final Report of the Board of Inquiry and the results of tests that have now been made on the snort mast of "Affray" and those of two other "A" Class Submarines.

I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence to enable me to say with certainty why "Affray" was lost. Many theories have been put forward, among them the possibility that her snort mast snapped while she was snorting and that she filled rapidly through failure to close the valves provided against such an emergency. This would have resulted in her sinking stern first, but there is evidence that "Affray's" stern was undamaged. It is possible that a major battery explosion started a shock wave in her hull, and that this ruptured the pressure trunking, which lies amidships under the casing but external to the hull. Damage of this type could have resulted in the submarine sinking on an even keel. Such an explosion could have started a crack in the snort which might then have snapped off as she grounded.

Whatever the cause of the disaster. it is clear from the survey of her hull that no attempt at escape was made and that the end came swiftly.

The House was informed on 1st August that the metallurgical condition of some parts of "Affray's" snort, and those of two of her sister ships was below standard and that some of the welding was not good. Tests just completed on these three snorts indicate that they are well capable of standing up to all stresses other than those associated with an explosive shock. A modified form of snort has successfully passed its tests and is being fitted to "A" Class Submarines.

I should like to say here that the adoption of an automatic valve has been considered on several occasions. Automatic arrangements for meeting a possible emergency which might never occur are apt to induce a false sense of security, and it has generally been preferred to rely on a correct drill to meet such situations. We are, nevertheless, considering the technical means of providing a thoroughly reliable automatic device.

The question of salvage has been considered. This would be a very difficult task—perhaps the most difficult ever undertaken. "Affray" lies not only at a great depth but in a very exposed position where weather would be the greatest enemy of the operation. The tides are strong and useful work could only be done in good weather at very limited periods of slack water. There is in these conditions an ever present risk to men's lives. The material cost is difficult to estimate but it would be inordinately high since seven or more vessels would be needed.

The operation would be limited to the five fine weather months of 1952, and it might well extend into the summer of 1953, if not found to be totally impracticable earlier.

The vessels needed for the operation all have their allotted tasks. Their work is of importance and it has already suffered on account of the operations on "Affray."

I have considered these matters carefully, and I have decided that, with the high risk of total failure, there is no justification for this substantial diversion of our resources. There will therefore be no further operations in connection with "Affray."

Mr. Callaghan

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will accept our assurance that, on the whole, we agree with the conclusions to which he has come? It is, perhaps, not satisfactory that we should not know how the "Affray" was lost, but the important question is that other submarines have been tested and have now been found to be properly seaworthy under normal conditions. May I ask him if he will consider very carefully the suggestion made in Question No. 13 for an automatic valve at the bottom of the snort tube, and will he not rule that out, despite what he says in his answer?

Mr. Thomas

I am glad to have the support of the hon. Gentleman, who was Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty such a short time ago. It is, of course, a very disappointing result, but I think the decision to which we have come is inevitable. In regard to his second question on the automatic valve, I can assure him that we are pushing ahead with consideration of that point.

Mr. Shinwell

While every hon. Member must deplore the dreadful disaster, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can recall that Questions were asked from this side of the House when the late Government were in office which rather suggested that we were not doing enough, and made serious allegations against the Government? I merely want to clear up this point. In the interests of truth, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his statement today, however much we have to admit failure, does not completely vindicate the late Government in respect of their doing everything possible to salvage this vessel?

Mr. Thomas

I am quite unaware of and cannot remember any criticism from that side of the House suggesting that the Board of Admiralty and its representatives in this House at that particular time were not doing everything in their power to try to find the cause of this terrible disaster. I have seen all the papers since I went to the Admiralty myself, and I can only repeat what I have just said.

Mr. Callaghan

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall the present Prime Minister asking if a great expenditure of effort would not be worth while to salvage this submarine, and that at that time I took a rather contrary view? May I ask him, therefore, whether his statement has the full support of the Prime Minister in the abandonment of salvage now?

Mr. Thomas

I think the question asked by the present Prime Minister at that time was a perfectly normal one. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have considered the very great importance of trying to salvage this submarine, if possible, in order to find out the cause of the disaster, but at the end of this diving period, we consider that it is impossible to salvage the ship, an opinion which will be supported by the Prime Minister.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport

May I ask my right hon. Friend if it will be possible for him to cause a full explanation of the reasons why the attempts to raise this submarine have been given up to be sent to the parents of those who lost their lives in it, many of whom, I know, were anxious to see that the bodies should be recovered?

Mr. Thomas

I will consider that suggestion, but I can also assure my hon. Friend that there has been a difference of opinion expressed by the relatives of those who lost their lives, and that the great majority of the opinions expressed were in favour of leaving H.M.S. "Affray" to rest where she is.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

We cannot debate this matter. There is no Question before the House.