§ 1. Rear-Admiral BEAMISHasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Naval Armaments Treaty, 1930, has yet been ratified by the Irish Free State; whether lie has any information as to the cause of the delay in ratification; and whether the treaty is now in force?
§ The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson)The instrument of ratification of the London Naval Treaty in respect of the Irish Free State was deposited in London on the 31st of December, and, in accordance with the provisions of Article 24 (2), the Treaty has now come into force in respect of the United States of America, the members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, and Japan. As regards the second part of the question, Mr. McGilligan, the Minister of External Affairs of the Irish Free State, explained recently in the Free State Dail that difficulties had arisen from the dates of session of the Free State Parliament and the allocation of Parliamentary time.
§ 3. Commander SOUTHBYasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States and Japanese Governments have been officially informed of the conversations carried on by Mr. Craigle, of the Foreign Office, at Geneva, Rome, and Paris; and, if not, will he state the reasons?
§ Mr. HENDERSONThe United States and Japanese Governments have not been informed officially of these conversations, which were entirely of an informal nature, but they have been kept fully aware of them unofficially.
§ Commander SOUTHBYWill the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind what was said by Members of his party when my right hon. Friend endeavoured to obtain some measure of agreement with the French regarding disarmament?
§ 13. Captain EDENasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any information as to the naval programmes of France and Italy for the present year; whether these are in excess of those for the past year and, if so, by how much; and whether any joint representation on the matter is contemplated by the signatories of the London Treaty?
§ The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander)The information asked for in the first part of the question is shown in tables of figures which I will, with the hon. and gallant Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The reply to the second part of the question is in the negative.
§ Rear-Admiral BEAMISHWould the right hon. Gentleman convey to the Foreign Secretary the desirability and the necessity for all the signatories making a joint appeal in this matter?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThe Foreign Secretary is already busily engaged in trying to get a maximum amount of agreement on disarmament, and in this I am sure that all sections of the House will support him.
§ Captain EDENIs there any increase?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERI would rather the hon. and gallant Gentleman examined the details of the figures. If he has a further question, perhaps he will put it, down.
§ Following are the figures:
| The French and Italian programmes for the years 1929–30 and 1930–31 are as follow:— | ||||
| — | FRANCE. | ITALY. | ||
| 1929–30. | 1930–31. | 1929–30. | 1930–31. | |
| Cruisers, 10,000 tons | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Cruisers, 5,000 tons | — | — | 2 | 2 |
| Flotilla Leaders | 6 | 6 | — | — |
| Destroyers | — | — | 4 | 4 |
| Submarines | 11 | 11 | 7 | 22 |
| Minelayer | — | 1 | — | — |
| Despatch Vessels | 2 | 2 | — | — |
| Minesweeper (net layer) | — | 1 | — | — |
§ 14. Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the greatest possible margin of variation whi6h might, within the ambit of the definition of standard displacement contained in the Washington Treaty, Chapter II, Part IV, arise from non-agreement of the signatories as to weight of crew, provisions, ammunition, and warlike equipment to be carried by a warship in the standard condition of 10,000 tons?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThe total weight of full equipment of the items enumerated in the question amounts to about 8 to 10 per cent. of the standard displacement. In practice the maximum variation due to non-agreement of the signatory nations as to the weights of these items included in the standard displacement must therefore be very considerably less than this figure.
§ 15. Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that the product of the three dimensions of each of the 10,000-ton treaty cruisers built or building for the Italian Navy is considerably larger than that of any similar ship in other navies; whether the Board is satisfied that there is no case for inquiry among the cosignatories of the Washington Treaty into standard tonnage measurements: and, if not, whether he will submit to the American Government, as the initiators of the Washington Treaty, that the matter of standard tonnage should be further investigated?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThe reply to the first part of the question is in the nega- 1786 tine, and to the second part in the affirmative. The third part accordingly does not arise. I may add that the Board of Admiralty regard the present definition of standard tonnage as being as definite as is practicable and have no anxiety as to any misuse being made by any naval power of the small margin of variation that may very easily exist.
§ 18. Commander BELLAIRSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the other signatories to the London Naval Treaty have yet communicated to this country the standard displacement of their warships existing at the date of the treaty coming into force both in their then condition and in the condition resulting from reconstruction?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERImmediately prior to the London Naval Conference the other signatory Powers to the London Naval Treaty communicated to this country the standard displacements of their warships built, building and authorised, including the new standard displacements of the vessels which had been modernised.
21. Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what will be the respective numbers of vessels of the battleship, light cruiser, destroyer, and submarine classes in commission in the navies of Great Britain, France, Italy, Japan, and the United States of America, respectively, at the end of 1932, which have been constructed since 1924
§ Mr. ALEXANDERWith the hon. and gallant Member's permission I will circulate the reply, which is in tabular form, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Sir F. HALLIs it a fact that while Great Britain is reducing her Navy, France and Italy have been increasing theirs, and will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is right or wrong?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThat does not strictly arise out of the question, but when the hon. and gallant Gentleman is
| As far as can be estimated at present the following vessels completed since the beginning of the calendar year 1924 will be in existence at the end of the calendar year 1932: | ||||||
| — | British Commonwealth of Nations. | U.S.A. | Japan. | France. (c) | Italy. | |
| Battleships | … | 2 | — | — | — | — |
| Cruisers | … | 19 (a) | 14 | 16 | 10 | 15 (d) |
| Leaders and Destroyers | … | 32 (b) | — | 44 | 45 | 46 (d) |
| Submarines | … | 28 | 17 | 38 | 69 | 56 (d) |
| (a) Includes two cruisers of the Royal Australian Navy. | ||||||
| (b) Includes two destroyers of the Royal Canadian Navy. | ||||||
| (c) All vessels of programmes prior to 1930 programme included, 1930 programme excluded. | ||||||
| (d) 3 Cruisers, 4 Destroyers and 22 Submarines of the 1930 programme are included, but may possibly not be completed by the date in question. |
§ 25. Major ROSSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty how soon the Annual Return of British and foreign Fleets will be issued?
§ The CIVIL LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. George Hall)The return will be issued early in March.
§ Major ROSSIs the hon. Gentleman aware that it was already issued at this time last year, and does he realise how eagerly it is awaited by Members who take an interest in naval defence like the hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Noel Baker) and myself?
§ Mr. HALLLast year it was issued in January, so that the return could be ready for the London Conference, but this year we are reverting to the normal procedure.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMSWill the return show the recent increases in the Italian and French Navies?
§ 27. Major ROSSasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the total tonnage of warships at present under construction by the British Empire, France, and Italy, respectively?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThe total tonnage of vessels under construction by members of the British Commonwealth of Nations
§ asking a question like the one on the Paper, about the number of vessels built in a special year, he must have regard to the previous number of those vessels.
§ Following is the reply:
§ is 46,145, comprising 43,489 tons for the United Kingdom and 2,656 tons for Canada. The corresponding figure for France is approximately 100,684 tons. This excludes about 35,318 tons of vessels of the 1930 programme, believed not to have yet been ordered. The corresponding figures for Italy are 100,777 and 32,550 tons, respectively.
§ Major ROSSIn view of those countries laying down more than double our tonnage, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that we are losing ground relatively in European waters as regards naval strength?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman must really take into account wider figures than those that can be given in reply to his question; he must take into account the number of ships in each category under age at a given date, and it is not really a fair comparison to take only the figures that I have given.
§ Major ROSSIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that I will take into consideration any figures which he can give me, but that he cannot give me such figures?
Sir F. HALLIs it not a fact that France and Italy, instead of reducing 1789 their armaments, are increasing their programmes, while we are reducing; is that so or not?
§ Mr. ALEXANDERWe have never sought to hide the facts, and we have indicated that we are doing our best to get France and Italy to adhere to the principles of limitation. If we are unable to do that, we shall have to reconsider the position.