Skip to main content

War

Volume 104: debated on Wednesday 10 April 1918

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Steamship "Abydos" (Floating Workshop)

1.

asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that the Peninsular and Oriental steamship "Abydos" was in 1916 converted into a floating workshop and sent to Basra, against expert advice, and on arrival there was found to be useless for its destined purpose; what was the total cost of taking out the fittings of a passenger vessel and installing workshop fittings; how much was paid to the owners of the "Abydos" for its services; what Department or person in the Government of India was responsible for the selection and fitting up of the "Abydos"; and for what uses is this steamship now available?

The Secretary of State has obtained the following information from India about the "Abydos": In August, 1916, the War Office asked the Government of India if any vessel was available in India for a floating workshop at Basra The Quartermaster-General in India consulted the Indian Engineering Association, a body representative of the engineering profession in India, who reported that the "Abydos" was suitable. She was fitted out at a cost of about £45,700 and sent to Basra. No expert advice was given against the impressment of the vessel for the purpose. On her arrival at Basra a committee assembled by the Director, Inland Water Transport, decided that the machinery could be more usefully employed on shore. It was accordingly removed with the concurrence of the War Office, and the vessel was returned to her owners. No structural alteration had been made which unfitted the vessel for her ordinary purposes. The £45,700 includes the cost of the machinery and work shops which were utilised on shore. The owners were presumably paid at Blue Book rates for the hire of the vessel. A detailed report is being sent from India by mail. Perhaps the hon. Member will postpone the questions on the subject which he has put down for next Wednesday until this has arrived.

Will the right hon. Gentleman also inquire if it is not the case that this criticism proceeds from the complaint of a shipping expert and is probably founded on information offered by that gentleman?

Ocean-Going Tonnage

2.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the amount of ocean-going tonnage owned respectively on 1st July, 1914, and 1st January, 1918, by France, Italy, the United States, Japan, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway?

Specific information as to ocean-going tonnage at 1st July, 1914, is not available for each of the countries mentioned. It is impossible to state the position at January, 1918.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the White Paper recently published states that the net increase is 1,000,000 tons?

My hon. Friend overstates the net gain. The summary on page 3 of the White Paper on Merchant Tonnage and the Submarine shows the position at the end of 1917 for foreign merchant ships as follows: Losses, 4,748,080 tons; gains, new construction, 3,574,720; enemy tonnage captured, 1,809,000; total gains, 5,383,720 tons. That is a net gain of 635,640 tons and not 1,000,000.

Shipping Losses

3.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the British mercantile tonnage lost through marine risk and enemy action for the months of January, February, and March, 1918, and the tonnage of British mercantile ships completed during the same period, together with the total net loss or gain?

The tonnage of British merchant ships completed during the first three months of 1918 was as follows:

January58,568 gross tons
February100,038 gross tons
March161,674 gross tons

As regards losses, the whole question of publication has been the subject of careful discussion with us, and proposals are now before the War Cabinet upon the matter.

Will it give information to the enemy to publish losses by submarine, lumping them together, for the first three months of the year?

That is the whole question which is being discussed by the War Cabinet. I have no doubt, if they find it necessary, it will be done.

I have already said we have given it consideration, and have made certain proposals.

Roumania

4.

asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether Roumania is now an Allied or a neutral State; and whether Roumanian nationals in this country enjoy the status and privileges of citizens of a neutral Power?

According to the information in my possession, Roumania is still an Allied State, and Roumanian nationals in this country enjoy the status and privileges of citizens of an Allied Power.

5.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any information concerning the King of Roumania and the present seat of the Roumanian Government and court; whether the British Minister, recently at Jassy, remains in Roumania; and whether he has telegraphic and other means of communicating with the Foreign Office?

As far as is known, the King of Roumania and his court are still at Jassy, which is also at present the seat of his Government. His Majesty's Minister is also there, and in almost daily communication with me by telegraph.

Colonial Troops (Venereal Disease)

6.

asked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Army Council have decided to adopt for the British Army all measures employed by the Dominions medical service to prevent the spread of venereal disease among the Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand troops; and whether the Dominion practice has been much more effective than that hitherto adopted in the British Army?

I have made inquiries as to the measures adopted by the Dominions military authorities, but I am not yet in a position to give my hon. Friend the information for which he asks.