NAVY ESTIMATES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVII, Issue 20517, 19 March 1930, Page 13

NAVY ESTIMATES.

BEITISH SEDUCTIONS. FIRST LORD EXPLAINS. §Jj§f EMPIRE sea routes. §?; - NEED FOR PROTECTION. jfttfek < #, AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN. sji&'j-. jjy Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright. '■ I \ (Received March 18. 7.45 p.m.) 'gritish Wireless. RUGBY, March 17. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Mr. % V. Alexander, introduced the Navy Estimates in the House of Commons today. A® amounted to £sl 759,000, as against £55,865,000 last year, a reduction of £4,126,000. The Estimates were within £190,000 of the figures submitted for 1914, which were the last pre-war Estimates. However, in order to secure a true comparison with 1914, allowance must be made for the higher costs and prices ruling to-day. Calculated on the pre-war rates the provision covered by tho present Estimates should not have cost more than - •* £31,000,000, or a reduction of 39 per cent. The provision this year, however, covered a much larger proportion of noni > effective charges than in 1914. To-day the non-effective charges amounted to -* £8,500,000, compared with £3,000,000 in 1914. V' So, if one compared the actual effective services of the Navy the present net Estimates Were £43,000,000, compared with £48,500,000 in 1914. Reducing the present Estimates to pre-war values there was )i: a reduction of 56 per cent. Reduction in Shipbuilding. Jlr. Alexander asked the House to remember that no other naval Power in * the world had voluntarily made a reduction compared with before the war. WitH.;regard to the reduction in shipbuilding he said it was with great satisfaction that the Government had found, in the general trend of the world's affairs and the general outlook for peace, its justification for proceeding still further along the road, already to some extent marked out by the last Government, of slowing down the ratis of naval construction and giving proof of its sincerity in the cause of allround reductions in armaments. The reductions the Government had made in the last' two annual programmes on the five years' programme of the late Government had been made in the same spirit as had actuated the latter in the reductions it had made in certain of its annual programmes. But they had ( been made with greater courage and a stronger determination for the end in view and had been made accordingly very much more drastic, The Government was convinced that the provision it was now making would be adequate. Its replacement programme must be related not to present strength but to future needs. What those needs would', be could not be accurately forecast until the results of the Naval Conference had Seen ascertained and duly ' collated.. 1 . ••

Pessimism About the Conference. ITib First Lord said he hoped the feelfng of pessimism about the Naval Conference so often expressed would prove to be unfounded. He deprecated any dissussion. that day of a kind which would not be of assistance in bringing tha conference to a successful issue. No provision was .made for a construction programme for 1930 and the Government was holding over any decision as to what that programme should be. Not only so, but in respect of the 1931 programme it had been thought best, in ' „view bf the proposals which the British delegation had made at the conference for the total abolition of the submarine, to • suspefld for the present the submarine part of that programme." The House need not, view with alarm the prospect of a supplementary Estimate to meet'future needs in that respect. The provision made in 1929 for nfew construction of submarines amounted to £BO,OOO and no greater figure than that would be asked in respect of 1930, unless he had to ask for provision for the three submarines provisionally included in the 1929 programme. Should that necessity unfortunately arise, and he would not delude the House , into thinking the contingency might be ' ignored, the supplementary grant might have to be increased to a more material Eize, but it would still represent a small fraction of the reduction of the Estimates as a whole. Also, it would still mean that the ultimate saving on the 1929 construction programme would be £6,500,000. Dominions and Singapore Base. Mr. /Alexander said a very considerable Slowing down of work on the Singapore naval base had been found possible without iu any way prejudicing the ultimate decision. A final decision on the future development of the base would be sought as soon as possible after the Naval Conference, but would not be taken until after with the Governments of the Dominions affected.

Mr. Winston Churchill said the Conservatives did not assent to the present proposals and the Estimates of the Government. He asked why a reduction in cruiser strength was announced before the Naval Conference had begun, instead of becoming part of the general process of disarmament. Whereas every other Power had stated its requirements at the maximum Britain began by announcing an enormous reduction in armaments. Then the conference proceeded on the basis of seeing how much'more could be counted down. There was grave danger that the conference might become a process, not of general naval disarmament, but of disarming Britam while the other Powers became actually stronger. Increases by Other Powers. Mr/ Churchill pointed out that before *he war Britain had 146,000 seamen and marines and after the war 99,000. Now she was to reduce that number to 94,000. In the same period the United States, the next strongest naval Power, had increased its personnel from 67,000 in 1914 to 114,000 in the present year. In the iface of such figures what became of the 'doctrine of parity ? Lieutenant-Commander J. M. KenLabour member for Kingston-upon-Hull, in replying to Mr. Churchill's criticism of the Government's action in reducing the naval construction proto less than would maintain the

minimum standard, which the Government itself had proclaimed, said he considered the Naval Conference was going to be a terrible failure. The forces against the Government had been too great. ,

The next few years were bound to see considerable building programmes embarked upon. If a general five years' building holiday could not be arranged Britain alone should declare a cessation. She could do so with perfect safety. The conference should then be postponed sine die and the delegates should part friends. Mr. A. W. Russell (Conservative member for Tynemouth) moved an amendment to the effect that, having regard to the dependence of the Empire upon its sea routes, the House was of the opinion that the maintenance of adequate naval forces and establishment and a steady building and replacement programme were of vital importance. The mover argued that the Government had no right to risk the defence of the trade routes of the Empire in order to make a gesture before going to the conference, the results of which it could not possibly foresee. Mr. L. Hore-Belisha, Liberal member for Devonport, Plymouth, said he regretted that the Hague spirit had not infused the Naval Conference. Mr. Snowden would then have told Franco and the other countries who were holding up the proceedings that their demands were only possible because they had refrained from repaying their loans to Britain. If Mr. Mac Donald had the courage of Mt. Snowden he would have told the statesmen of the Dominions that they and Britain were all brothers and should share common obligations. He would have asked the Dominions if they were prepared to do away with the paradoxical disparity whereby the citizens of Britain pay 25s a head for protection, whereas South Africans pay 4d to sd, and Canadians Is 6d a head. Mr. C. G. Ammon, Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, in replying to the debate argued that the decision fixing Britain's number of cruisers at 50 was reached after full investigation in order to cover the period of agreement which it was hoped would result from the conference. However, the number was subject to the 'outcome of the conference. In view of Mr. Amnion's statement Mr. Russell withdrew his amendment.'