CLAUSE 1.—(Restriction on building, etc., vessels of war.) (Hansard, 10 July 1922)

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy)—at the end of Sub-section (1, a) to insert (b) manufacture any equipment suitable only for use in a vessel of war"— is without the scope of the Bill, as it seeks to include a Provision not embraced within the Treaty.

§ Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY
I do not want to argue your ruling, but I would like to point out that in Clause (1, a) reference is made to equipping any ship. I suggest that the word "equip" will cover equipment, and that we shall be in order, without in any way emasculating the Bill, to increase the control over equipment. It is no use our controlling the manufacture and building of ships of war if we allow the unrestricted manufacture of shells, torpedoes, submarine mines or any other equipment.

§ The CHAIRMAN
That might be an argument as to the adequacy or inadequacy of the Treaty. It might be used in Debate on Second Reading, but as an Amendment it seems to me to be clearly beyond the scope of the Bill, as seeking to include something which is not contained in the Treaty.

§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY
Then are all the Amendments out of order? Can we not amend any part of the Bill or the Schedules? Can we only-pass or reject the Bill?

§ The CHAIRMAN
It would be in order to diminish the effect of the Treaty, although, of course, it would be open to the objection, on merits, that thereby the whole Treaty might perish. Certainly it would not be in order to add to the Treaty.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I do not know whether I shall be in order in protesting against the Bill being taken at this hour. It is doing scant justice to the importance of the Bill, and the great success of the Conference which produced it. The Second Reading was taken last Friday, and we are taking the Committee stage as the Second Order after a long and rather dreary Debate on a very dreary Bill—a little, unimportant, twopenny-halfpenny Bill which, if it saves any money, will save one-thousandth part of what this Bill will save; and yet we are asked to take this most important Bill at after half-past Eleven. I do not think it fair to the House. Much more important is that it is not treating properly the great policies embodied in this Bill. However, the Government are determined to steam-roll all the Measures, big and little, through the House. I do not propose under the guise of discussing Section (1) to transgress your ruling, but I regret very much that we have not taken opportunity in this Bill to control the whole manufacture of weapons of war. This Section gives the Admiralty power to control the building of warships, but there is no control over great armament firms which manufacture artillery and poison gas, and we are simply limiting control to the building of war vessels under by incomplete supervision. We leave out of control the manufacture of weapons to be used for armies and the Air Service. I believe that the entire traffic in and manufacture of armaments, in industry, should be prohibited. I believe that one of the great causes contributing to all wars in recent years has been that the great financiers with large holdings in armament firms have exercised tremendous influence on policy in all countries. This Clause gives us 1004 power to control the makers of ship armour, of warships, of marine engines, but does not give us control of the manufacture of the weapons that are used for the sister Services.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The Bill is dependent on two Treaties which are set forth in the First and Second Schedules The first is naval armaments, and the second is to protect neutrals and non-combatants at sea in war. It is impossible to found on these Treaties any arguments as to land armaments.

§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
I am very sorry, but I am afraid that that is the case.