§ 46. Commander SOUTHBYasked the Prime Minister whether the 91,000 ton cruiser tonnage limit was fixed before the 24 Naval Conference met in London; and, if so, by whom was it fixed and where?
§ The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald)At the time of the preliminary negotiations, which took place in August and September last, with the United States of America, the question of cruiser replacement was considered by the Admiralty, and a figure of 91,000 tons was put forward for the new tonnage to be completed by the end of 1936. This figure was employed in the ensuing conversations which had for their object the removal of the earlier difficulties in regard to cruiser limitation. I have frequently explained that these preliminary conversations were for the purpose only of clearing the ground, prior to the London Naval Conference. The conclusion of a fixed agreement, independently of other interested Powers, was then neither attempted nor desired. The figure of 91,000 tons were finally fixed during the Conference itself, when, after negotiation with the United States of America and Japan, it was found that it met our replacement requirements within the terms of the Treaty.
§ Commander SOUTHBYIs the House to understand that this figure was decided upon in the preliminary negotiations with the United States without it having been discussed with the Japanese Government?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt was not decided upon in the preliminary negotiations at all. It was used as a figure for the purpose of considering upon what basis we might come to a Treaty when the London Naval Conference met.
§ Commander SOUTHBYIs the House to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is not in agreement with the very definite statement of the Lord President of the Council on the subject?
§ 47. Commander SOUTHBYasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to review the whole Empire naval building programme during the forthcoming Imperial Conference, including the question of revision of the tonnage limitations as laid down in the London Naval Treaty?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe forthcoming Imperial Conference may well afford a convenient opportunity for a discussion of naval building programmes in 25 the light of the London Naval Treaty, but it is not possible to specify any particular aspects of the Treaty which it may be thought desirable to consider in the course of any such discussion.
§ Commander SOUTHBYWill the right hon. Gentleman consider putting down on the agenda of the forthcoming Conference the definite question of discussing the Treaty limitations of tonnage when the Treaty lapses in 1935?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThat is a point that can be raised by any Dominion that is interested in the subject. We have already had full negotiations and communications with them on the subject of the Treaty after the Conference itself.
§ Commander SOUTHBYWill the right hon. Gentleman take steps to initiate discussion on the subject—not leave it to the Dominions, but himself bring it forward from the English point of view?
§ Mr. MACQUISTENShould not we have had the Imperial Conference first and the Naval Treaty second?
§ 49. Captain CROOKSHANKasked the Prime Minister on what grounds the Government declined to receive a representative nominated by New Zealand at the recent Naval Conference; and whether there have been any other occasions, and, if so, what, when the Government in London has adopted a similar attitude with regard to nominated representatives of any Dominion Government?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe hon. and gallant Member would appear to be under a misapprehension. There never was, nor could there have been, any question of the Government here declining to receive a representative who had been nominated by New Zealand to the London Naval Conference. The last part of the question does not arise.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKDoes the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that Lord Jellicoe's statement in another place was quite incorrect?
§ The PRIME MINISTERNo, I do not.
§ Captain CROOKSHANKWhat does the right hon. Gentleman mean?
Earl WINTERTONDoes the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement that has been made that representations were 26 made by the Secretary of State for the Dominions to Lord Jellicoe on the subject?
§ 50. Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Prime Minister the scope of any legislation that will be necessary in consequence of the terms of the Naval Treaty; and if, and when, it is the intention of the Government to introduce such legislation?
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe London Naval Treaty of 1930, like the Treaty of Washington of 1922, prescribes certain restrictions as to the character of certain vessels of war which may be constructed within the jurisdiction of the High Contracting Parties. In order to be made effective, these restrictions require statutory authority, such as was given in 1922 by the Treaties of Washington Act. It will take the form of an amendment of the Treaties of Washington Act, and it is proposed also to take this opportunity to repeal Section 4 of that Act in which power was given to implement provisions of the Washington (Root) Treaty which never came into force and which in the light of the proceedings at the London Naval Conference may now be regarded as superseded altogether. That is with reference to submarines. The provisions to be repealed involved in particular jurisdiction over persons violating the Treaty in question. In the absence of ratification by all the High Contracting Parties such jurisdiction could not, of course, be exercised by our courts in conformity with international law, and it is desirable, to avoid all possibility of disputes arising at a subsequent date, to repeal the statutory provision for such jurisdiction. I cannot at present state precisely the date for the introduction of this legislation, but as I announced recently it is hoped to pass the Bill through all its stages before the end of the Session.
§ Rear-Admiral BEAMISHIs it necessary to ratify the Treaty before legislation is introduced, or vice versa?
§ The PRIME MINISTERIt has been the custom that legislation of this kind should be passed before ratification, but I do not say it is anything more than a custom.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYWill there be a new Clause to take the 27 place of the former Root Convention, including the new rules of submarine warfare?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am afraid I cannot answer that question at the present moment, but there will be a provision in the Treaty annulling the legislation following the Washington Treaty which provided for observing the then Root Clause.
§ Commander SOUTHBYWould the right hon. Gentleman consider deferring the legislation until after the meeting of the Imperial Conference?
§ The PRIME MINISTERI do not think that is necessary. The Governments of the Dominions have agreed to the provisions of the Treaty.
§ 53. Mr. MARJORIBANKSasked the Prime Minister whether any of the Dominions asked for separate representation and advice at the London Naval Conference; and, if so, what answer was given?
§ The PRIME MINISTERAll the Dominions were invited to be separately represented at the London Naval Conference and were informed that it was contemplated that the technical experts should be present at the Conference to assist the delegates in an advisory capacity. A similar communication as to technical experts was made to the foreign Governments. All the Dominions were represented by separate delegates and the delegates were accompanied by such expert advisers as the respective Governments thought desirable.
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKSDid not New Zealand ask Lord Jellicoe to represent them at the Conference?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat was put as a supplementary to a previous question.
Earl WINTERTONWas the right of the Dominions to choose their representatives free and unhampered so far as His Majesty's Government was concerned?
§ The PRIME MINISTERRepresentations regarding the Conference and the relations of the expert advisers to full delegates were made in common to the Dominions and to foreign Governments, and the concurrence was general.
§ Mr. MARJORIBANKSOn a point of Order. If my memory serves me aright, the question I asked was not put as a supplementary. The question I asked was whether the statement of Lord Jellicoe in another place was correct. I now ask whether New Zealand asked for the representation of Lord Jellicoe?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think that question has already been asked.