MR. HENDERSON' S STATEMENT.
HC Deb 04 March 1931 vol 249 cc366-71 366

    § 2. Sir K. WOOD

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement as to the results of his visit and that of the First Lord of the Admiralty to Paris and Rome?

    § 4. Mr. HANNON

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a full statement to the House relating to the Naval Treaty discussions which have recently taken place at Paris and Rome?

    § 5. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any statement on the recent negotiations with the French and Italian Governments arising out of the Naval Treaty of London of last year?

    § 6. Captain EDEN

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the agreement recently concluded between France and Italy involves any modification of the terms of the London Treaty in so far as they affect this country; and, if so, in what respect?

367

    § 8. Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make any statement with regard to the naval negotiations at Rome?

    § 10. Mr. FREEMAN

    asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make on the recent naval agreement between France, Italy and His Majesty's Government?

    Mr. A. HENDERSON

    I will, if I may, make a single answer to these questions in regard to the naval negotiations in which the First Lord and I have recently been engaged.

    I am happy to be able to inform the House that, subject to the concurrence of the other signatories to the London Naval Treaty, a solution has now been found for the problems left outstanding by the London Naval Conference. I am unable at this moment to give the House any details in regard to this Agreement, because we are at present in consultation with the other signatories of the London Naval Treaty, including His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, and it would clearly be discourteous for any information to be made public until those Governments have had ample time to consider the terms of the settlement. I hope; however, that my right hon. Friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, will be in a position to give the House further details in the course of the Debate on the Navy Estimates next week.

    Having been informed of the position reached in the conversations which have been proceeding for some time between the French, Italian and United Kingdom experts, and in view of the possibility of further increases in naval armaments if an agreement could not have been reached at an early date, the Prime Minister, the First Lord of the Admiralty and I were convinced that that success could not be achieved by any method other than by getting into personal contact with the leading Ministers concerned in both countries, and the First Lord and myself, accompanied by Mr. Craigie, Mr. Selby and Commander Bittleston, accordingly left London, at short notice, on the 23rd of February. We met with the most friendly reception both in Paris and Rome, and it was only the keen desire for agreement which was 368 manifest in both capitals that enabled us to overcome the serious difficulties which had for so long prevented any agreement on these problems.

    The outstanding feature of the negotiations, whatever may be the limitation imposed on the construction of new warships, is the political achievement. The contemplated Agreement prevents a renewal of competition in naval armaments. Moreover, a breakdown in the negotiations would have vitiated the atmosphere in which the World Disarmament Conference would meet next, year. I hope now that we may all meet at Geneva with better prospects of an ultimate success all along the line. At all events, I feel confident that the proposed Agreement will do much to increase the feelings of friendship and cooperation, not only between the countries immediately concerned, but between all th signatories of the London Naval Treaty.

    § Sir K. WOOD

    Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the text of the proposed Agreement will be available to Members of the House?

    Mr. HENDERSON

    That to some extent will depend upon the replies, when we receive them, from the United States and Japanese Governments. We shall lose no time in making the terms fully known.

    § Mr. HANNON

    Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, during the process of these negotiations, nothing has been done by His Majesty's Ministers to prejudice the efficiency of the British Fleet in the future in regard to the British Empire?

    § Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY

    Arising out of my right hon. Friend's answer to Question No. 5, and while thanking him for his very full answer, may I ask him whether, when he says that the First Lord will make this statement, we are to understand—I do not want him to go into details—that this is a purely Naval Agreement?

    Mr. HENDERSON

    It is an Agreement on all-fours with the work attempted, and partly successful, at the London Naval Conference.

    § Mr. HANNON

    Will the right hon. Gentleman answer my question?

369

    § Captain EDEN

    Are we to understand that we are to have a White Paper available before the discussion takes place in this House, and will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of my question on the Paper now?

    Mr. HENDERSON

    The issuing of a White Paper is a matter that requires very careful consideration, especially having regard to the position of the other countries involved.

    § 15. Commander SOUTHBY

    asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the fact that under the Naval Treaty of London there is no limit to the tonnage or gun power of flotilla leaders in the French and Italian navies, he will take advantage of the present conversations being carried on by His Majesty's Government with the French and Italian Governments to obtain their agreement to suitable limits being imposed upon the size and armament of this type of vessel?

    § The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. A. V. Alexander)

    No, Sir. This would not accord with the system of naval limitation adopted in the Draft Disarmament Convention recently drawn up at Geneva.

    16. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTH

    asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what new naval construction has been authorised in the United States of America and what is the amount of expenditure in sterling actually approved for new construction?

    § Mr. ALEXANDER

    For the financial year 1931–1932 $38,500,000 has been voted for commencing or carrying or new construction previously authorised, as follows:

        7 10,000 ton 8-inch cruisers.
        1 aircraft carrier.
        3 submarines.
        10 destroyers.
        1 leader.

    Unexpended balances due to delay in proceeding with work in 1930–31 will bring the amount available for expenditure on new construction in 1931–32 to about $63,000,000. In addition, Congress has authorised the modernisation of the battleships "Mississippi," "Idaho" and "New Mexico," at a cost of $30,000,000, and will probable vote $10,000,000 to carry on this work.

    370 No money is included herein for any new construction contained in the 1931⤔1932 Naval Construction Bill for—

        1 aircraft carrier.
        1 6-inch cruiser.
        1 flying deck 6-inch cruiser.
        4 submarine,

    involving a total expenditure of about $83,000,000, as this Bill has not yet been authorised by Congress.

    § Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

    Is my right hon. Friend in a position to say how much the authorisation has cut down the original estimates?

    § Mr. ALEXANDER

    It is too early for me to be able to say that with authority. The system is rather different from ours; it wants a little study.

    § Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the American system is far better from the point of view of economy?

    § Mr. ALEXANDER

    No, Sir.

    § 17. Commander SOUTHBY

    asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of his recent visits to Paris and to Rome, he can now make a statement regarding the proposed naval programmes of France and Italy, respectively?

    § Mr. ALEXANDER

    I have nothing to add at present to the statement that has been made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

    § Commander SOUTHBY

    Will further details be available before the introduction of the Navy Estimates?

    § Mr. ALEXANDER

    I cannot add to what the Foreign Secretary has said.

    § 18. Commander SOUTHBY

    asked the First Lord of the Admiralty which vessels of the French and Italian naval building programmes for 1930 have actually been ordered; and how far work upon these vessels has proceeded?

    § Mr. ALEXANDER

    Although the Admiralty have no official information, it is believed that orders have been placed for all the vessels of the French and Italian naval building programmes for 1930, which were postponed for reasons connected with the negotiations following the London Naval Conference. I cannot say how far work has proceeded on the vessels.

371

    § 20. Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

    asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any postponement or cancellation of warship construction for the Royal Navy is to be accomplished during this calendar year as the result of the recent conversations in Rome and Paris and the forthcoming World Disarmament Conference?

    § Mr. ALEXANDER

    My hon. and gallant Friend appears to be under a misapprehension. The recent conversations in Paris and Rome were for the purpose of assisting France and Italy to settle their differences on the naval question; our present modest replacement programme was based upon the hope that some agreement between those countries would eventuate. With regard to the second part of the question, our present replacement programmes, which are within the limits of the London Naval Treaty, will in no way prejudice or restrict the cause of disarmament at the forthcoming World Conference.

    § Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that our official organ, the "Daily Herald," said that he would save £10,000,000 by these conversations?

    § 23. Sir CHARLES CAYZER

    asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now tabulate a statement showing what the precise naval strength in all categories of war vessels under 20 years of age, of the five signatory Powers of the London Naval Treaty, will be in 1936, as modified by the agreement just concluded with the French and Italian Governments?

    § Mr. ALEXANDER

    As the figures asked for will depend entirely upon the building programmes of the five Powers concerned during the next three programme years, the answer is in the negative.

Back to NAVAL ARMAMENTS.
Forward to PERU.

Noticed a typo? | Report other issues | © UK Parliament

Обсуждаемое соглашение 1931 года должно было ограничить водоизмещение Дюнкерка 23 333 тонн. Но по факту 10 июля 1931 года было санкционировано строительство корабля в 26 500 тонн. Т.е. французы его нарушили уже 10 июля 1931. А по итальянцам вообще нет упоминания что его придерживались. Т.е. по крайней мере по линкорам это соглашение не действовало. Хоть и стало одной из причин почему Дюнкерк не был 35000 тонником.

Пинак намекает что сорвались французы в 1935 на Ришелье. Ну так в отношении соглашения 1931 они как раз получается "сорвались" уже в 1931. И сами французы считали Ришелье ответом на Литторио, считая что с Шарнхорстами справятся Дюнкерки. И соглашение 1931 года действовало только на два первых корабля. А дальше в соответствии с Лондонским соглашением вступало в силу разрешение закладывать корабли в 35 000тонн после 31 декабря 1936. Так что французы заложив Ришелье планировавшегося договора 1931 года не нарушили. Ну а с Лондонским - да, забили...

Про Англию в 1935 я ничего не говорил.

По Лондонскому договору до 31 декабря 1936 года французы и итальянцы могли заложить только линкоры суммарным водоизмещением 70 000 тонн. Поэтому заложив в рамках этого договора Дюнкерк и Страсбург французысвою квоту исчерпали и заложить Ришелье по договору могли только после 31 декабря 1936. При этом итальянцы вполне официально со всеми И нарушили они его уже только после англо-германского пакта...

На принципиальный вопрос я уже озвучивал ответ. Вместо Дюнкерка и Страсбурга французы бы имели боеготовые "Ришелье" и "Жан Бар" к 1939 году. С практически теми же ТТХ. Это бы мало что поменяло в судьбе Франции и раскладах в военно-морской гонке. Но в Мерс-эль-Кебире все бы могло быть несколько по другому. Но это уже совсем альтернатива...