§ 23. Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what has led up to the decision of the Government to cancel the building of four cruisers, four destroyers, three submarines, and other smaller craft, which were included in the programmes of 1928–29 and 1929–30?
§ 34. Sir CHARLES CAYZERasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can make any statement as to the reasons which have caused His Majesty's Government to drop four destroyers and three submarines from the 192930 naval construction programme, having regard to the present weakness of the Navy in these categories compared with the other naval Powers?
Mr. ALEXANDERThe decisions referred to have been come to in pursuance of the declared naval policy of the Government, a full statement of which was made by the Prime Minister on the 24th July last. His statement made it clear that as progress was made with that policy, reductions of the present new construction programme, by way either of suspension or cancellation, were probable. After the fullest and most thorough examination by the Government of our naval needs, and also the consideration of the economic use of public money, the Government consider that the revised provision now made is adequate.
§ Rear-Admiral BEAMISHMay I ask whether any corresponding reductions have been made in the fleets of other nations, and whether any guarantee has been received which justifies His Majesty's Government in making such reductions?
Mr. ALEXANDERI think that supplementary question anticipates another question which is on the Order Paper?
§ Sir G. CAYZERIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ruthless cutting down of such vessels as torpedo-destroyers before any agreement has been come to at the Conference as to the position of submarines, can only be viewed throughout the country with feelings of very great anxiety?
Mr. ALEXANDERI have already said that the naval position has been fully reviewed and the Government have come to their decision; and the Government are quite confident that their policy in this matter has the support of the majority of the people of the country.
Captain HALLDoes the right hon. Gentleman realise that these reductions and cancellations are going to make an enormous difference to the Royal yards, and will he expedite the alternative work which the Government have promised?
Mr. ALEXANDERPerhaps my hon. Friend will await the answer to a question further down on the Paper as to the allocation of work.
§ Rear-Admiral BEAMISHOn a point of Order. I could not catch what the right hon. Gentleman said in reply to my supplementary question. May I know what he said?
Mr. ALEXANDERWhat. I meant to convey to the hon. and gallant Member was that his supplementary question was already, in terms, on the Order Paper in a question addressed to the Prime Minister.
§ 33. Colonel GRETTONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the decision was taken to make large reductions in the shipbuilding programme of 1928–29 and 1929–30 as authorised by Parliament and why no statement was made in this House of the changes decided to be made?
Mr. ALEXANDERI would refer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Prime Minister's statement made in this House on the 24th July (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 1301–8), and to my replies to the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Hore-Belisha) on the 29th January (OFFICIAL REPORT, columns 975–6 and columns 1019–20). These cover all the decisions taken on the 1928 and 1929 Programmes, and the decisions have in each case been announced to the House as soon as taken.
§ Colonel GRETTONDoes the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is a statement made to this House when it is only a written answer to a question on another matter?
Mr. ALEXANDERI do not follow the last suggestion that the question was on another matter. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will look up the records of the OFFICIAL REPORT for last Wednesday, he will see that a specific question was put down by the hon. Member for Devonport. (Mr. Hore-Belisha) for a written answer, and it happened that on that day, although we had not been previously informed of the question, that confirmation of the recommendation in the matter was made by the Government, and out of ordinary courtesy to the hon. Member whose question was on the Paper, and because of our duty to complete the announcement of the decision taken, the answer was made in a constitutional way.
§ Colonel GRETTONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the method he has adopted of announcing a most important and drastic decision on the part of the Government has caused the greatest dissatisfaction both inside and outside this House and will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that in future, when he has an important announcement of this kind to make, he will make it across the Floor of the House, and not in answer to a question on another subject?
Mr. ALEXANDERObviously, I cannot be responsible for every Member of the House putting down a question, either starred or unstarred, but, whatever course an hon. Member takes, surely I am entitled to answer him as early as possible?