Cruisers
13.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the names of the cruisers now in reserve commission?
The following cruisers are now in reserve:
Capetown. | Dartmouth. |
Cambrian. | Calliope. |
Constance. | Carysfort. |
Cleopatra. | Caradoc. |
Birmingham. | Brisbane. |
Lowestoft. | Adelaide. |
Shipbuilding Plant (Maintenance)
15.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any arrangements have been made for the maintenance of the special plant required in Government and private yards for naval construction?
Necessity has not arisen for any special arrangements to be made by the Admiralty for the maintenance of shipbuilding plant either in Government or private yards.
Am I to understand from that reply that the Government contemplate a shipbuilding programme at an early date?
I can add nothing to the answer which I have given on the specific programme. We have maintained in the dockyards a stable position of labour, and we have announced in the Estimates now before the House our general position with regard to construction.
Does that apply to Woolwich Dockyard as well?
There is no dockyard at Woolwich.
Has the right hon. Gentleman taken any steps to ensure the maintenance of plant in private dockyards?
There have never been any special steps taken to maintain plant in private shipyards. There have been steps taken to maintain plant for Armaments and the like, but that does not apply to private yards.
Building Programmes (Reduction)
16.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what is the total tonnage of warship construction which has been cancelled since 1st January, 1928, by each of the five Powers engaged in the Naval Conference?
The figure for the British Empire is approximately 66,000 tons, cancelled by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. No tonnage has been cancelled by the other Powers.
Does it not show the utter futility of making gestures to other Powers who take not the slightest notice?
Set them a good example.
21.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what the reductions in the 1928–29 and the 1929–30 naval shipbuilding programmes mean in terms of reductions in naval personnel?
These reductions will have no effect on Vote A of 1930, and it is not possible to forecast accurately what the effect will be on the Vote in subsequent years.
China Station
19.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what naval strength is at present maintained in Chinese waters; and how this compares with a year ago?
As the answer is in tabular form, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me in a sentence whether there has been much, if any, reduction?
There has been no reduction of a permanent character. There may be a smaller number of certain auxiliary ships at the moment simply because they are passing through a process of change.
Following is the statement:
The following is a comparison of the naval units on the China station on 1st February, 1929, and 1st; February, 1930:
1st February, 1929. | 1st February, 1930. | |
Cruisers | 6 | 5 |
Aircraft carriers | 1 | 1 |
Flotilla leaders | 1 | 1 |
Destroyers | 8 | 8 |
Submarine depot ships | 1 | — |
Submarines | 6 | — |
Sloops | 4 | 4 |
Despatch vessels | 1 | 1 |
Submarine tenders | 1 | 1 |
Gunboats | 18 | 18 |
Vessels commissioned for special service | 3 | — |
50 | 39 |
There has been no change in policy during the period, and the differences in numbers on the two dates mentioned are due to administrative reasons. The submarine depot ship and submarines are being replaced.
Royal Dockyards (New Work)
20.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will give the particulars of the work which has not previously been assigned to the Royal dockyards, but which is now being done by them?
In addition to the work mentioned in my reply of the 13th November, 1929 (OFFICIAL REPORT, cols. 2015–18) to the hon. Member, the construction of the hulls of two destroyers has been allocated to His Majesty's dockyard, Portsmouth. This class of work has hitherto been assigned to contractors. In addition, the fishery survey vessel about to be ordered at Chatham is also new work.
Dockyards (Alternative Work)
22.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the idea of obtaining alternative work, outside what has hitherto been the scope, has now been abandoned in respect of His Majesty's dockyards?
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on the 4th November last (OFFICIAL REPORT, column 619).
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me whether this idea has been abandoned, and if it is contemplated giving any work in connection with shipbuilding and ship repairing to the dockyards?
It has certainly not been abandoned. It is a matter which is always under discussion by representatives of labour and the Admiralty, and I have frequently pointed out that there has been no need at present, in order to maintain the stable condition of the dockyards, to undertake much work of that kind, and, as has been seen this afternoon, there is anxiety with regard to other dockyards.
His Majesty's Ship "Conquest"
23.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the date upon which His Majesty's Ship "Conquest" was placed upon the disposal list, and the date upon which the decision was taken to so dispose of her?
His Majesty's Ship "Conquest" was removed from the effective list early in 1929. The decision to place her on the disposal list was made in 1928.
Piracy, Chinese Waters (Guards)
25.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, with regard to the proposal no longer to supply anti-piracy guards for service in British merchant ships in Chinese waters open to piratical attack, he will state the reason for this proposal?
After long and careful consideration of all the relevant factors the late Government in March, 1929, decided to withdraw as from the 1st April, 1930, the guards provided by His Majesty's Forces as there were other more appropriate measures open to the shipping companies for exercising effective control over the passengers by whom the piracies are committed. The date for giving effect to this decision is at present being further considered in the light of proposals which have been made by the shipping companies concerned.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the China Coast Association of British Officers have protested against the withdrawal of these guards, and will he reconsider this matter?
I have already indicated that that point is under consideration, but I would add that the notice which was given by the late Government as far back as March, 1929, did give a pretty adequate opportunity for these companies to make other arrangements.
Does not the retention of a number of cruisers help to stop the piracy in these waters and therefore makes it all the more advisable that there should be these guards?
I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better make himself more acquainted with the conditions.
What are the adequate measures that the right hon. Gentleman thinks are considered possible for the merchant shipping companies to take?
It is impossible to go into details like that this afternoon. They have been discussed at great length by the shipping companies, who are fully in touch with the Government on the matter.
Drafting Regulations
26.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he is aware that three Portsmouth chief writers, fifth, twelth, and sixteenth, respectively, in order on the roster for sea service, have been drafted to His Majesty's ships "Dauntless," "Effingham," and "Resource" for foreign service; that this variation of the drafting regulations virtually creates foreign and home sea-service; and if it is intended to apply this principle to all ratings and to amend the drafting regulations accordingly?
The statement in the first part of the question is approximately correct. There has been no variation of the drafting regulations, whereby all ratings receive their fair share of each description of service and from which chief writers are not exempt.
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me where the statement is incorrect?
The only way in which there is a slight inaccuracy is that the hon. Member gives the positions as "fifth, twelfth, and sixteenth," and my information is that they are the "tenth, twelfth and sixteenth."
Chatham Dockyard
29.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if any and what arrangements have been made to stabilise employment at Chatham Dockyard at its present strength for the next 12 months; and whether any further discharges of workmen are contemplated in the near future?
So far as can be foreseen at the present time, the arrangements already made and likely to be made for work at Chatham Dockyard will have the effect of stabilising employment within narrow limits during 1930. In regard to the latter part of the question, no immediate discharges are contemplated at Chatham, apart from casuals and any adjustments that may be necessary to meet special conditions.
30.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of placing the order for the construction of the contemplated new hospital ship with the Royal Naval Dockyard at Chatham?
No new hospital ship for the Navy is included in the present programme of new construction; but the existing hospital ship "Maine" is now undergoing large repair at Chatham Dockyard.
31.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will consider the desirability of placing with the Royal Naval Dockyard at Chatham the order for the manufacturing of the machinery required for the proposed survey ship for the Board of Fisheries; and whether, in the event of the plant at Chatham Dockyard not being suitable for the purpose, he will consider the desirability of laying down suitable plant?
This matter has been given full consideration and it has been decided to obtain the machinery of this vessel by contract; the boilers will be constructed in the dockyard.
Portsmouth Dockyard (Employés)
32.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty the number of men employed in His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth, under all votes, in January, 1930?
The average number borne was 13,499.