NAVY ESTIMATES, 1921–22. (Hansard, 25 May 1921)

§ The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Monsell)
May I make an appeal to the House? We had a very full discussion in Committee on Vote 10 only last night, and we really do want to get this through the Report stage. As the House knows, we cannot start any of the works for which we are asking under this Vote until we get the authority of the House and the Vote has passed the Report stage. There are very many vital works which we want to start badly. For that reason I ask the House to let us have the Vote, but there is another even more powerful one. We want money for the general work, as we are running very short. If the House will give us Vote 10, I will not ask for any other Vote to-night.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I beg to move, to leave out "£5,836,600," and to insert instead thereof "£5,036,600."
Cannot the Government take something on account to go on with? I am not deaf to the appeal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and we had a discussion, taken part in by about twenty people, yesterday afternoon. Here we have a Vote for a very substantial sum for bricks and mortar. I believe I could show to the House on a later occasion that much of it could be saved without any great loss to the Navy. In view of the financial state of the country, we are not entitled to vote this money for what used to be called non-effective services—stones and bricks. I would ask whether we cannot have a reduction now, on the understanding that, if the money is not sufficient, the Govern- 277 ment can come forward, as they probably will in any case later on, with a Supplementary Estimate. Otherwise the thing is simply a farce. What is the good of our having a Report stage for this Vote for the very large sum of over £5,000,000 if, as soon as the hon. and gallant Member makes a very charming appeal, we simply fall down and agree to it. I gather that the Government will not accept a reduction and so move my Amendment. It is not much on the total amount.
There are all sorts of items. Take the one on the first page—Electrification of Bermuda Dockyard, £35,000, and Machinery for Bermuda, £75,000. Bermuda would be only of one service, and that is in a war with our fellow English-speaking nation, the United States of America. We are purposely delaying the commencement of the new super-dreadnought in order, I presume, that we may fully explore the possibilities of a naval agreement with the United States. There are excellent reasons for delaying the electrification of the Bermuda dockyard, which did its work very well during the War without electrification. This could easily be postponed for two years. At Chatham we are remodelling machinery, putting in new welding plant, lifting bridges over caissons, and so on. Yet, during the War, Chatham had a great strain put upon it. A record number of ships were mobilised for the Navy, and we had over 3,000 vessels, great and small, armed and on the seas during the War. Our naval and private dockyards stood the strain, yet when the War is over, and our men are demobilised, the Government are going forward with schemes for refitting the dockyards. There is an expenditure of £8,000 on Wei-hai-wei which could not be justified on any strategic ground. Pembroke, which is being given up as a dockyard eventually, in spite of the protests of the Welsh Members, is having a considerable sum spent on it for new piers and slipways, which I cannot understand, and all over the country new establishments are being put up for storage of explosives, new barracks, new shell scraping depots—all bricks and mortar. I know a case can be made for it, but, in the terms of the Financial Secretary, are these services which, while in themselves desirable, can be dispensed with? I submit that this 278 reduction can be accepted by the Admiralty, and while I again regret that I cannot listen to the voice of the charmer in the shape of my hon. and gallant Friend, I hope he will accept the reduction.

Dr. MURRAY
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Commander BELLAIRS
I do not wish to stand in the way of the hon. and gallant Member getting this Vote. I did not take part in the discussion yesterday because I was convinced of the unreality of the whole Debate. This Vote 10 will depend ultimately upon the discussion of the question of disarmament and the Anglo-Japanese Alliance, and I hope the Admiralty will give us a promise that Votes 8 and 12 will come before the House for discussion at some future stage so that we can discuss the question of policy after the Imperial Conference has taken place.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery)
indicated assent.

§ Mr. HOGGE
This Vote is one which was only taken in Committee yesterday. What strikes a great many of us on this side is that, in view of what is happening and of the successful steps the Prime Minister is taking with regard to foreign policy, we should be encouraging this year an expenditure for the Admiralty, which in this Vote accounts for an increase of £680,000. One would have thought, in the circumstances, that the one Service in this country for which we should not have required an increase was the Navy. I could understand that for a particular purpose the Admiralty might wish certain moneys, but when one turns to the pages succeeding page 97, one finds, for example, that a number of the expenditures which we are asked—