BRITISH DEFENCES

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 253, 22 July 1936, Page 9

BRITISH DEFENCES

Progress of Programme Outlined MINISTER’S SPEECH Mr. Churchill on German Rearmament (Press Assn. Cable and British Official Wireless.) (Received July 21, 5.5 p.m.) Rugby, July 20. The Minister for Co-ordination of Defence, Sir Thomas Inskip, initiating the debate on the Government’s defence programme in the House of Commons to-night, gave a review of hfe department’s efforts to accelerate the programme of rearmament. Referring to the naval programme, -he said that in ship production, equipment, and personnel, the reports were satisfactory, and while maintenance and replacements had been proceeding in a normal manner, additions and expansion on a growing scale were constantly taking place. He was not aware of any anxiety in any quarter as to the naval position. Regarding the supply of munitions, when new sources which they hoped to secure among private firms were available and the Government factories were in production, seven-eighths of the total requirements in shell, fuse and cartridge cases would have been provided, A great advance had been made since he spoke eight weeks ago in the provision of necessary gauges of all types and descriptions.

Dispersing Arsenal.

Sir Thomas announced the dispersal of the Royal ordnance factory at Woolwich to various points in South Wales, Lancashire, and Scotland.

Turning to the Air Force, the Minister said it was a new and un. known factor in future war. Its development in machines and equipment during the last three or four years was simply amazing. The best illustration was that machines were under production to-day for regular use in the Air Force which five years ago would have been serious competitors for the Schneider Cup.

Coming to the question of expansion of aircraft production, he said that, comparing April, May, and June with the corresponding period last year, delivery was about three and a half times as many aeroplanes and more than twice asi many engines. Before he concluded Sir Thomas Inskip spoke of work that is being done on the problem of food supplies in wmr time, and said that they were on the point of reaching conclusions which lie hoped would ensure to the country increased output by agriculture as well as a sufficiency of supplies from abroad of all essential food and feeding stuffs for which the country was dependent on imports. Sir Thomas, referring to Mr. Lloyd George's declaration that it was easier for a strong country to gain its objects’ by peaceful diplomacy than a weak one, said that the remark referred to Germany, but it was equally true of Britain or any country. He hoped Labour members would remember that observation when they were confusing questions of defence with British foreign policy. He added that the chiefs of staff had been freshly studying control of production and merchant shipping, and concerting plans for aerial and naval co-operation, on which security depended.

Opposition Criticised.

Mr. 11. B. Lees Smith (Labour: Keighley), for the Opposition, and the Liberal leader,,Sir Archibald Sinclair, complained that -Sir Thomas Inskipe speech showed lack of co-ordination between the rearmament programme and foreign policy and between the assumed requirements of Great Britain and the collective system generally. Mr. Lees Smith complained that Sir Thomas Inskip had dealt almost exclusively with questions of. supply and did not refer to the co-ordination of the defence services, ou which he was unable to concentrate while engrossed with problems of supply. He did not possess his own staff. The result would be that millions would !>e largely wasted owing to lack of co-ordination. Mr. Winston Churchill (Con., Epping) said he thought he could assure Sir Archibald Sinclair that In any war in which Britain would ever be engaged she would be acting entirely in conformity with the spirit of the Covenant of the League of Nations. He went on to criticise the administrative system adopted by the Government for coordination of defence, describing Sir Thomas Inskip as an innocent victim of responsibility so strangely, so inharmoniously, and so perversely grouped, and endowed with powers so restricted, that no one could regard the experiment as satisfactory. He urged the separation of the function of coordinating and high strategic thought from those problems connected with material supplies.

Mr. Churchill said that it appeared that German expenditure on tlie «!»• keep of forces absorbed £300,000,000, and the Germans were spending £500,000,000 on expansion—£soo.000,000 for something very serious which might happen soon—compared with which Britain was spending £75.000.000 on expansion. He added that they should remember that those hammers of which Genera] Goering spoke were descending day and night in Germany. Mr. Churchill concluded by referring to the war-time secret session of Parliament, and suggested that one should be held now. If that were impossible Mr. Baldwin should receive a deputation of older members of the House of Commons and hear a case which could no longer be submitted publicly with safety on condition that nothing should be later disclosed which the Government had not already revealed. Figures Not Excessive. In reply to Mr. Churchill, who asked if he was aware that, expenditure by Germany on purposes directly and indirectly concerned with military preparations, including strategic roads, might have amounted to £800,900,000 during 1935, and whether this rate of expenditure seemed to be continuing, Mr. Neville Chamberlain. Chancellor of the Exchequer, said that the Government had no official figures, but from the information it had he saw no reason to think that the figure mentioned by Mr. Churchill was necessarily excessive as applied to either year, although there were elements of con " jecture. Mr. Chamberlain, referring to the Minister's work, said that what was inquired was largely common sense, determination and industry, all of which Sir Thomas Inskip possessed. Sir

Thomas had every reason to be satisfied with the progress made. He added that a secret session could not be held in peace time without arousing unauthorised rumours and speculation, stirring up the country. The Government would be prepared to receive the deputation .Mr. Churchill suggested, but members could not expect to receive information withheld from the country, Mr. A. V. Alexander (Lab., Hillsborough) declared that it was useless to suggest that the £800.000,000 Germany bad spent on building up her army, navy and air force compared with the expenditure of Britain, which had the most powerful fleet in the world, worth at least £1,200,000.000. The Government would never get Labour support except on the condition that military expenditure exactly met the requirements of collective security and British armaments were used, not as an instrument of national policy, but in support of the Covenant of the League against aggression. Sir Thomas Inskip, winding up the debate, insisted that the very heart of the responsibility connected with collective security imposed an obligation on British people to recognise that if it imperilled Britain and the Empire they must defend it. A Labour motion to reduce the supplementary vote, including Sir Thomas Inskip’s salary, was defeated by 320 votes to 155.