LABOUR REVOLT OVER DEFENCE NEEDS

Greymouth Evening Star, 22 March 1947, Page 5

LABOUR REVOLT OVER DEFENCE NEEDS

Objection Expected When Conscription Issue Is Debated In House LONDON, March 20. *'A revolt in the Labour Party is likely over the Government’s National Service Bill which will introduce conscription,” says the political correspondent of the Evening Standard. “More than 100 Labour members of the House of Commons and the entire Liberal Party will vote against the Bill.” Forty-five Labour members yesterday tabled an amendment against the bill and according to the Evening News Mr Attlee takes a serious view of their action. The amendment urges a cut in military commitments. A three-line whip has been sent to all Labour members to vote for the Government and even abstentions to show disapproval of the plan to keep over 1,000,000 people in the services would be taken as a rebuff to the Government. A meeting late last night of the influential Defence and Service Commission, which 37 former officer members of the House attended, unanimously resolved to inform the Parliamentary Socialist Party that unless the Government capitulated to their demands for reforms in the services before the second reading they would vote against the bill. The meeting agreed with one speaker’s contention that the Minister of Defence (Mr A. V. Alexander) was the worst possible choice for Defence Minister. The meeting decided to oppose conscription under the bill unless the Minister withdrew immediately his rejection of the committee’s demands. The chief of these are a speed-up in demobilisation, democratisation of the services, abolition of the “special entry” to the Dartmouth Royal Naval College and the provision of unrestricted opportunity of officership in the guards brigades. The political correspondent of the Evening Standard learns that Mr Alexander “irrevocably” rejected this commission’s demand that demobilisation should be speeded up. He said that the proposed 271,000 additional released persons would include so many technicians that concurrence in the commission’s proposals would almost cripple both the Army and the Navy. In spite of this categorical rejection, the commission decided to give Mr Alexander until the second reading— expected within 10 days—to change his mind. Minister’s Speech During the House of Commons debate tonight on the Government’s defence White Paper, Mr Speaker ruled out of order a Labour “rebel” amendment urging review of Britain’s military commitments. Mr Alexander then moved a resolution approving the Government’s defence White Paper. He defended the Government’s intention to spend £889,000,000 on defence and to maintain armed forces which will total 1 087,000 men and women at March 31, 1948. Replying to criticism that manpower was being wasted, Mr Alexander said the 'Government had framed the defence White Paper, be-

■ lieving that it was already clear that I in the early stages the United Nations I organisation would not enable the Great Powers to dispense with their separate armed forces. The Middle East remained a vital link in the security of the British Commonwealth, and Britain’s legitimate requirements must be safeguarded in that area. Britain was not prepared to contenmplate total withdrawal of the British forces from India in the short time before the final transfer of ■power. Mr Alexander continued that the United Nations had for some time been considering proposals by Russia and the United States for disclosure of the strength of the armed forces of the various Powers, but no agreement had yet been reached. The Government felt it would be a mistake to revert to the pre-war practice of revealing strength in the Service Estimates until a policy for free exchange of information had been universally agreed on. Importance of Research Mr Alexander, discussing the allocation of expenditure for various I purposes, said the Government attached special importance to research and intended to spend more than £60,000,000 during the coming year. Some researches were already bearing fruit, but nothing revolutionary must be expected yet. Mr Alexander emphasised the difference between the Government’s long-term policy, which depended on circumstances as yet unknown or uncertain, and its policy for 1947. He said he shared the desire of certain Government supporters that defence responsibilities should be reduced at the earliest moment possible, but ‘‘because of the great dangers which would follow the abandonment of our power in the preserving of peace and order” he could not subscribe to the critics’ views. He revealed that the Government originally proposed to spend £1,064.000,000 on defence, but had whittled the sum down to £899.000.000. The services were now being “run down.” Ffteen per cent, of the Army, 25 per cent, of the Navy, and 33 per cent, of the Royal Air Force were in training. Any precipitate reduction in the size of the forces would make them wholly inoperable. He looked forward however, to the-progressive lightening or termination of overseas commitments, making an appreciable lowering of defence figures in the future.. Dominions’ Policies It should not be assumed that the omission of any reference in the White Paper to the British Commonwealth meant that nothing was being done to develop the closest and friendliest co-operation for defence, but it must be recognised that the Commonwealth Governments were answerable to their own parliaments and co-operation would only flourish if it was remembered that the Commonwealth was a free association of independent peoples. Britain must see that the Dominions were kept fully informed so that they could decide their own defence policies.' Misuse of manpower was .clearly disturbing members on both sides' of the House, said Mr Alexander. The Government had decided to call in ! representatives of employers and emjployees to report on the use of the services’ manpower. These would ' reinforce the extensive organisation of special committees already existing in the services. • ‘ 1 The House agreed to the motion to accept the defence White Paper.-.. -