Oral Answers to Questions — Royal Navy. – in the House of Commons am ar 14 Mehefin 1939.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that there are no means of fixing ropes or hawsers on to a submarine; and whether he will consider the advisability of fixing shackle plates on to these ships similar to those to which the check chains are attached when a big ship is launched upon the Clyde?
Devices for fixing ropes or hawsers to a submarine do exist, but they are not sufficiently strong to enable a sunken submarine to be lifted. This and similar questions affecting the salvage of submarines are, however, being reviewed.
Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that these shackle plates can be made of flush pattern and so placed on the hull of the ship as to enable you to thread a hawser through several of them and therefore not leave it to one or two, but the entire length of the vessel?
I am not a technician. I understand there are no mechanical or constructional difficulties, but the question involves a larger question of policy that I would be pleased to discuss with the hon. Gentleman.
What is the purpose of the present equipment? Is it to enable submarines to be raised by a hawser?
In view of the importance of the question, and that it is not a matter for private discussion between the Minister and the hon. Member, will he kindly tell the House what the real reason was for not carrying out the hon. Member's suggestion?
I gave it in my answer that these matters are now under review, and I think a more appropriate occasion will occur when they have been reviewed.
Does it need the loss of a hundred lives to inspire Admiralty action?
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty has ever tried to raise a submarine except when an accident has occurred; and whether he will now arrange for a submarine that is in commission to be sunk and experimented upon until a way has been found to raise it, so that men who take the risks of the submarine service may have the knowledge that a disaster similar to that of the "Thetis" can never happen again?
In 1931 a submarine (L. 4) was sunk in "A" lock, Portsmouth, and raised in order to test certain apparatus and fittings proposed for salving submarines. This apparatus was used in the attempt to raise the submarine "M. 2." In 1936 the submarine "L. 19" was intentionally sunk during certain trials and salved after six weeks' work. But the operation was artificial, as the vessel was prepared for salvage before the trials in a manner which would not be practicable under ordinary service conditions. I am doubtful whether the hon. Member's suggestion would provide data that is not already available from past experience; it will, however, be borne in mind.
Will the hon. Gentleman put before the Admiralty the advisability of not only the Navy men but the civilians who are employed on these submarines being trained? Is ho aware that my own union has lost six members who were civilians working there, who had had no previous experience of how to get out of the escape chamber, and will the Admiralty see to it that all individuals who are employed on board a submarine are taught in the same way as the Navy men how to escape out of the escape chamber?
That question raises rather a different issue from that in the question on the Paper, but if the hon. Member or anyone else, be he naval or civilian, has any suggestions which he thinks will contribute to a solution of this problem, we shall be only too delighted to have them examined in the Admiralty.
Has it been suggested, with regard to the angle at which the "Thetis" went down, that experiments should take place to see what could be done with a ship down at the same depth and at the same angle?
I think these are rather matters that are more appropriate for the public inquiry.
Have electro-magnetic methods been tried in connection with the raising of this submarine?
There is a very considerable body of experience in salving submarines now available, but there is no ideal solution.
Will the hon. Gentleman not direct the Admiralty to find some means to make submarines impossible, so that we shall not need to have such means of defence and no enemy will have them either?
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether pending the report of the public inquiry into the loss of His Majesty's Submarine "Thetis" steps will be taken for a naval vessel capable of communicating with a submarine under water to accompany all submarines built for the Navy on their builder's trials, as is done for naval trials, and for the submarine to indicate her position, either by towing a buoy or by showing her periscopes from time to time, in order not to be out of touch for such periods as three hours?
Arrangements are being made for a naval vessel to accompany a submarine when carrying out builder's diving trials and to ensure communication at reasonable intervals.
Is it not the case that all submarines during peace time are fitted with means for telephonic communication with the surface and that they had it before the War?
Yes, Sir. That is a question which, with many others, is now under review.
Has it not been in the mind of the Admiralty to carry out their own suggestion of allowing oil to escape from submarines when they are undergoing trials so that accompanying vessels will always be able to track them?
There are a good many suggestions of that nature, and all of them are under consideration now.
Can the hon. Gentleman state why the contact between the submarine and the buoy which, as an emergency measure, is always floated, was discontinued, and has been discontinued since 1918?
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that Press representatives were forbidden to take the names of those who attended the memorial service on the "Thetis," which was held at St. Martins-in-the Fields, on Wednesday last; whether this was done on the instructions of the Admiralty, and what was the reason for such instructions being given?
On the occasion of the memorial service to which the hon. Member refers the Admiralty requested the Press not to take the names of those attending the service. This was done in order that delay in entering the church should not thereby be caused and because the Admiralty were anxious not to cause additional distress to mourners on such an occasion. The Admiralty itself had a list of those attending both in an official capacity and because they were relatives of the deceased men and the Admiralty representative who sat with the Press during the service showed this list to each of them at the time and it was subsequently available at the Admiralty for any Press representative who desired to see it.