§ 11. Captain Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty the relative strength of the navies of the United States of America, Japan, and Great Britain, in capital ships, when the Washington Treaty is ratified, and if it is not ratified, respectively?
§ Mr. AMERYAs the full reply must be given in tabular form, I will, with my Noble and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I may, however, state at once that if the Washington Treaty be ratified, the United States of America will have 20 capital ships of fighting value, Japan 10, and Great Britain 22. If the Washington Treaty be not ratified, the United States will have 41 capital ships of fighting value, Japan 23, and Great Britain 23.
§ The reply in tabular form is as follows:
1739§ 12. Viscount CURZONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the relative strength of the navies of the United States, Japan, and the British Empire in capital ships designed to embody the lessons learnt in the battle of Jutland, if the Washington Treaty is ratified and if the Washington Treaty is not ratified?
§ Mr. AMERYIf the Washington Treaty be ratified, the United States of America will have three such capital ships completed and two building; Japan two completed, and Great Britain one, the "Hood," which, however, only partially embodies the lessons learnt in the Battle of Jutland. If the Washington Treaty be not ratified, the United States of America will have three such capital ships completed and 13 building, exclusive of two battle cruisers now being converted into aircraft carriers; Japan will have two completed, four building, and four projected; and Great Britain one completed, namely, the "Hood," to which I have already referred.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYDo the Admiralty consider that the only basis of naval strength is the capital ship, and if that is so, should they not make it clear to the House?
§ Viscount CURZONDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider, in view of his answer, that the One-Power standard, approved by this House and the country, is being satisfactorily maintained?
§ Mr. AMERYThe capital ship is not the only standard, but it is the main standard of comparison agreed upon at Washington. If the terms of the Agreement at Washington are carried out, I trust we shall, at least, maintain the One-Power standard.
§ 23. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether his attention has been drawn to the reply of the Government of the United States of America in the matter of capital ships; and whether he has any further statement to make on the subject?
§ Mr. AMERYI have seen in the Press the statements purporting to have been made by the United States State and Navy Departments on the subject of scrapping capital ships. I have nothing to add to the statement already made by the Parliamentary Secretary in reply to 1740 the Noble and Gallant Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) on 29th November.
§ 24. Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Washington Treaty restricts the building of cruisers; and, if not, will he consider the advisability of utilising the Royal dockyards for this purpose?
§ Mr. AMERYThe answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. When it is decided to build cruisers I am sure that the Board of Admiralty will give most favourable consideration to the Royal dockyards which are capable of constructing the ships proposed.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKECan the right hon. Gentleman say when the matter will be considered?