§ 17. Sir A. SINCLAIRasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Government proposes to continue the construction of the new naval base an Singapore?
§ 27. Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLEasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what work is proceeding in connection with the Singapore base; and whether any instructions have been issued to decelerate the work pending the Five-Power Conference in January?
Mr. ALEXANDERHis Majesty's Government gave attention to this matter as soon as it came into office. In 1924 the previous Labour administration decided not to proceed with the proposed naval base at Singapore. Since that date, however, the action of the late Government had altered the situation very materially. A floating dock had been provided at heavy expense, and in September, 1928, a contract was signed for the building of a large graving dock at a cost of approximately £4,000,000. Moreover, the bulk of the expenditure up to the present time had, we found, been met by contributions from Hong Kong, the Federated Malay States, and New Zealand, their total contributions to the end of the present financial year being £2,113,000, together with the free gift of the site by the Straits Settlements. The House is aware that a Naval Conference has now been arranged, the decisions of which may affect the question of the use of this base, and in all the circumstances the Government has decided that the work already contracted for at Singapore shall be slowed down as much as possible, that all work that can be suspended shall be suspended, and that no new work shall be embarked on pending the results of the work of the Five-Power Conference.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYMay I ask whether we are to understand that in the contracts entered into by his predecessor for this construction there was no break Clause to allow for such an eventuality as has arisen or may arise?
Mr. ALEXANDERI would rather have notice of that question; but I may say that considerations of compensation might arise.
§ Sir GEORGE PENNYHave the Dominions been consulted on this action which the Government have taken?
§ Mr. GRAHAM WHITEHave any further steps been taken or contracts let involving the fortification of this site?
§ Captain EDENMay I ask what view the Dominions have expressed on this slowing down of work for which they have paid?
Mr. ALEXANDERThe notifications to the Dominions were not of recent date. They have been made on more than one occasion, and we have no reason to suppose that the nature of the answer given this afternoon is out of harmony with their immediate view, but I should like to let that wait for a little time longer before I give a definite answer.
§ Mr. THURTLEDoes not the right hon. Gentleman deprecate this constant attempt to create differences between the Dominions and ourselves?
§ Mr. ALBERYIn view of the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has just made, will not the question arise of whether the contributions received from the other parts of the British Dominions are not being spent under false pretences?
§ Commander SOUTHBYAre we to understand that the orders for slowing down construction at Singapore have been given before a reply has been received from the Dominions after notification was sent to them?
§ 20. Mr. KELLYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty from where the labour is recruited for the construction of the Singapore dock; and what, if any, agencies are engaged in recruiting such labour?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon)The labour is recruited locally, and no agencies are employed.