Navy Costs Cut

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 924, 18 March 1930, Page 9

Navy Costs Cut

LABOUR’S NEW PROGRAMME Criticism in Commons DANGERS OF FLEET SACRIFICE THE year s estimates for the British. Navy, presented in the House of Commons, indicate the tendency of the Labour Government to effeet a heavy cut in Navy expenses, and to take a further step along the road toward naval disarmament. The Conservative side of the House is criticising the reduced estimates as falling below the security minimum.

British Official Wireless Reed 11.17 a.m. RUGBY, Monday. Introducing the Navy Estimates in the House of Commons, Mr. A. V. Alexander, First Lord of the Admiralty, said they amounted to £51,739,000, against £55,865,000 last year, showing 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,

but in order to get a true comparison with 1914, allowance must be made for the higher costs and prices today, calculated ou pre-war rates. Provisions covered by the present estimates should not have cost more

than £31,000,000 or a reduction of 39 | per cent. Provision this year, however, covered a much larger proportion of non-effective charges than in 1914. Today the non-effective charges amounted to £8,500,000, compared with £3,000,000 in 1914. 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 a reduction of no less than 56 per cent. “I beg the House to remember,” said Mr. Alexander, “that no other naval Power in the world has voluntarily made a reduction compared with pre-war figures, with regard to a reduction in shipbuilding. THE ROAD TO PEACE

“It is with great satisfaction that the Government has found in the general trend of world affairs and the general outlook for peace justification for proceeding still further along the road, already to some extent marked out by the last Government, of slowing down the rates of our naval construction and giving proof of our sincerity in the cause of all-round reductions in armaments. “The reductions we have made in the last two annual programmes have been made in the same spirit as actuated the late Government in reductions they themselves made in certain of their annual programmes; hut I would say they have been made with greater courage and stronger determination for end in view, and have been made accordingly very much more drastic. “We are convinced the provision we are now making is adequate. Our replacement programme must be related, not to present strength, but to future needs. What those needs will be cannot be accurately forecast until the results of the London Naval Conference have been ascertained, and duly collated.” FUTURE NEEDS UNCERTAIN He hoped the feeling of pessimism regarding the conference so often expressed would prove -to be unfounded, and he deprecated any discussion today of a kind which would not be of assistance in bringing -the 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 this should be. The House need not view with alarm the prospect of supplementary estimates to meet future needs. Provision made in 1929 for new construction of submarines amounted to £BO,OOO, and no. greater figure than that would be asked in respect of the 1930 programme, unless he had to ask

for provision for three submarines provisionally included in the 1929 programme. MORE MONEY NEEDED Should this necessity unfortunately arise, and he would not. delude the House into thinking the contingency might be ignored, a supplementary grant might have to be increased to a more material size, but It would still represent a small fraction of the reduction of estimates as a whole, and it would still mean that the ultimate saving on the 1929 construction programme would be no less than £6,500,000. Mr. Alexander added that a very considerable slowing down of the work on Singapore Base had been found possible without in any way prejudicing the ultimate decision, the final decision on the future development of the base would be sought as soon as’possible after the Naval Conference, but this would not be taken

until after consultation witli the overseas Governments affected. Mr. Winston Churchill said the Conservatives did not assent to the present proposals and the estimates ol' the Government. He asked why a re-

duction in cruiser strength was announced before the conference began, instead of becoming part of the general process of disarmament. Whereas every other Power stated its requirements at a maximum, we began by announcing an enormous reduction of armaments, and then the conference proceeded on the basis of seeing how much more could be counted down. CHURCHILL’S WARNING

“There is grave danger,” said Mr. Churchill, “that the conference may become a process, not of general naval disarmament, but of disarming Great Britain, while other Powers become actually stronger.” Mr. Churchill pointed out that before the war we had 146,000 seamen and marines, and after the war 99.000, and we were now to reduce the number to 94,000.

During 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 face of such figures, what became of the doctrine of parity? Replying to Mr. Churchill's criticism of the Government’s action in reducing the naval construction programma to less than would maintain the minimum standard the Government itself had proclaimed, Commander the Hon. J. M. Ken worthy (Labour) said he considered the Naval Conference was going to be a terrible failure.

The forces against the Government had been too great, and the next few years were bound to see considerable building programmes embarked upon. CONSERVATIVE AMENDMENT

If unable to arrange a general five years’ building holiday, Britain alone should declare a cessation. She could do this in perfect safety. She should then postpone the conference sine die, and part friends.

Major A. West-Russell (Conservative), moved an amendment that the House having regard to the dependence of the Empire upon sea routes, is of the opinion that maintenance of adequate naval forces and a steady building replacement programme are of vital importance. “We argue that the Government has no right to risk the defence of trade routes of the Empire in order to make a gesture before going to the conference, the results of which she could not possibly foresee,” he said.