§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."
§ Major ROSSThis Schedule contains some rather puzzling items. I have read the First Lord's speech with attention, but there are still one or two points on which I should like further explanation. The second part is one of the best pieces of legislation that has been introduced.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe Schedule is really a reproduction of part of the Treaty and cannot be discussed.
§ Major ROSSIt imposes restrictions upon shipbuilding and I submit that I am entitled to ask what effect it will have upon the industry.
§ Major ROSSOn a point of Order.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThere is no point of Order. The hon. and gallant Gentleman must listen to my Ruling. This cannot be discussed. I am simply following the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker.
§ Major ROSSI have carefully read Mr. Speaker's Ruling and the remarks of the First Lord, and I do not propose to go one iota beyond them. If you rule me out of order, I am helpless, but I hope you will not think that course proper. What the First Lord was speaking about yesterday was the restriction of the shipbuilding of other nations in relation to aircraft carriers.
§ Major ROSSIt is impossible for me to raise it at any other time. I am being 2555 stifled and gagged from asking what is the effect of it.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have already informed the Committee that it has definitely been ruled that this is not an occasion upon which the Treaty can be discussed.
§ Major COLFOXI wish to raise another point of Order. I want to ask you, Mr. Dunnico, what can be discussed on the Motion, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill"? I want to know what is the object of putting the Question, and what can be discussed upon the Question?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe Schedule is inserted in the Bill for the purpose of information and also for the purpose of explaining why the preceding Bill is necessary. It is merely explanatory. The Committee having passed the Clauses, it cannot now discuss the details on the Schedule which is merely explanatory of what the Committee has passed.
§ Major COLFOXWhat can we discuss?
§ Bill reported, without Amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
§ Major ROSSI should like to put a point to the First Lord of the Admiralty with respect to this Bill, which puts into force certain resolutions of the Naval Treaty and is very important from the point of view of naval shipbuilding, and in particular for those firms who are accustomed to tender for contracts with foreign Powers. The effect of the Bill is to prohibit the building of aircraft carriers not exceeding 10,000 tons which carry a gun greater than 6.1 inch. It is perfectly proper under this Bill for those firms to build aircraft carriers of larger displacement, and, therefore, one would suppose of a greater degree of danger to the countries of the world. It is only in the case of the smaller carrier that they are prohibited. I understand that 2556 the explanation which has been given is that these carriers might be cruisers in disguise. I cannot quite accept that explanation as sufficient. No aircraft carrier proper, if it comes under the description laid down recently, could be an effective cruiser. There has never been a case, with the exception of two very big American aircraft carriers, in which any gun above that calibre has been mounted, and there has never been a case up to the present where a small aircraft carrier has been built. What I would like the First Lord of the Admiralty to explain is whether it would be proper for a shipbuilding firm to build an aircraft carrier of under 10,000 tons, which carried a gun of a calibre not exceeding 6.1 inches, or whether the prohibition is against all carriers under that displacement, irrespective of the type of guns carried.
Mr. ALEXANDERI do not know whether I should be in order in replying to the hon. and gallant Member, under your previous Ruling, Mr. Speaker?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have been considering, while the hon. and gallant Member was speaking, that he was not in order.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLYou have put the Question from the Chair, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," and you have ruled—and I need scarcely say that we are bound to obey in every respect the Ruling that you have given—that nothing can be discussed upon this Treaty except the particular technical points which have hitherto occupied the course of the debate.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI have ruled that we cannot discuss the Treaty on this Bill.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is a serious danger that I am anxious to guard against by the few remarks I shall address to the House. The Bill is headed "The London Naval Treaty Bill." It is the operative legislation and the only operative legislation which is required to bring into force the immense and momentous and far reaching amendments in the Naval Treaty. It is the only opportunity we shall have of expressing an opinion upon these matters before final ratification is applied under the authority of the Crown. That being so, and as we have had no opportunity of 2557 discussing it under the Orders of the House, and as there is a grave danger of the Bill passing through without a division—I do not think we shall find it necessary to divide upon technical and mechanical details—it may suggest to foreign countries that there is no division of opinion in this House upon this Treaty.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat would be entirely out of order. We can only discuss the Bill; and all the Bill does is to carry out the obligations thrown upon the Government by the Treaty.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLYes, and in assenting to the Bill without dividing the House we are entitled to say in a single sentence that it does not commit us to the Treaty itself.