SEA ROUTES DEFENCE

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 78, 14 March 1934, Page 11

SEA ROUTES DEFENCE

Discussion on Naval Votes HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright LONDON, March 12. That Britain was as dependent as ever on foodstuffs and raw material carried over 80,000 miles of sea routes, of which only 10,000 could be directly attacked or defended by aircraft, waa stressed by Mr. L. M. Amery in the course of the discussion in the House of commons on the naval votes. It was no consolation, he said, to preserve London from bombs if our arteries were severed. No scheme of defence was worth considering if it did not provide power to reinforce different parts of the Empire if attacked. For ten years we had failed to live up to our naval responsibility. The time had come to stop gambling with our security. Sir Eyres Monsell, First Lord of the Admiralty, said that the London Treaty permitted us to lay down 86,350 tons of cruisers in 1934-35-36. It was proposed this year to lay down 32,000 tons—one 5200 tonner and three 9000 tenners. When the treaty expired at the end of 1936 we should have the full tonnage permitted under the treaty in every category. He regret ted mischievous controversy regarding the merits of the Navy and Air Force for the protection of the Empire. Both were vitally necessary. Mr G. Lambert said that the focus of all trade routes was the English Channel. France since the armistice had built 80 submarines which could gravely menace trade in the channel. It should be asked what this enormous force was required for. Lord Stanley, replying, said that hints were frequently given on the subject of France's heavy submarine programme. Unfortunately, France was not a party to the London Treaty.

The motion to go into committee was carried by 254 votes to 35 and the various votes were approved.