§ 46. Mr. CRAWFURD(for Mr. FENBY) asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have decided to postpone indefinitely the construction of the two cruisers which were to have been laid down in this year's programme but which have not yet been started?
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Bridgeman)I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hare-Belisha) on the 7th of February (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 1955).
§ Mr. CRAWFURDWill the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Prime Minister that the postponement suggestion would materially help his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the difficulties that confront him?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI do not think it is my business to suggest other economies except those concerning my own Department. In regard to my own Department, there are others which I would prefer.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWith regard to these two cruisers, the laying down of which the right hon. Gentleman announced, can he tell the House whether they were ordered or decided upon for the usual date or was there retardation of the date, and, if so, how much?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANIf the hon. Member will refer to a question which was answered on the 13th December by the Parliamentary Secretary, he will see that my hon. and gallant Friend said:
The orders for the ships of the 1928 shipbuilding programme have not yet been placed. As indicated in the reply given to a question by the hon. Member for East Newcastle (Mr. Connolly) on 5th December [OFFICIAL REPORT, column 1193], the provision in the Estimates being based on the intention to order all these ships very late in the financial year, the orders are not due to be placed until February and March next and all our arrangements have been made on this basis."£[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1928; col. 2352, Vol. 223.]
§ Mr. WELLOCKIs this decision likely to be considered in case President Coolidge vetoes the Navy Bill?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANThat is a hypothetical question.