BRITAIN’S AIR DEFENCES

Grey River Argus, 27 May 1938, Page 9

BRITAIN’S AIR DEFENCES

COMMONS DEBATE Demand for Inquiry PREMIER’S REPLY, [British Official Wireless? RUGBY, May 25. The postponed debate in the House of Commons on the Labour motion demanding a searching inquiry into air defences, was opened by Dr. Hugh Dalton, who was followed immediately by the Prime Minister. In proposing the Labour motion. Dr. Dalton claimed that recent political changes at the Air Ministry amounted to an admission by the Prime Minister that all is not well there, and accordingly justified the demand for an inquiry, which, in these circumstances, he averred, would strengthen the hands of the new Secretary for Air. Dr. Dalton criticised the rate of production of aeroplanes, and compared it with the country’s capacity. There was disequilibrium in production between engines and air frames and the “shadow” scheme had not yet produced results. Dr. Dalton also generally supported the proposals for a Ministry of Supply. The state of the ground defences, particularly the delays in the production of 3.7-inch guns, and the organisation of the balloon barrage scheme, were also points in Dr. Dalton’s case.

Mr. Chamberlain, in reply, said the Government must regard the demand for an inquiry as showing want of confidence, and therefore must treat the motion as one of censure. Mr. Chamberlain said: “I am not here to deny that there have been delays and disappointments and checks in the programme, which has been altered from time to time, and expanded according to what we considered to be the needs of the moment. On the other hand, I have no Hesitation in saying that in the Air Force, as it stands, the country has a defence of which any country may he proud and that, if it were put Io the test to-morrow, with whatever deficiencies there may be. it would prove to be one of the most formidable fight ing machines in the world.” The Government was rejecting the demand for an inquiry, chiefly because it would not help the purpose which all parties were united in wishing to see achieved, namely, the securing, as speedily as possible, of an Air Force complete and efficient in all respects. On the contrary, an enquiry would introduce ' confusion and delay.

Referring to the new Secretary foi Air, Mr. Chamberlain said he thought that the reputation which Sir C. Kingsley Wood had gained in the various offices he had already held, would he some guarantee to the House that his methods would bn thorough, and that he would spare no pains to carry out the duties expected of him. Mr. Chamberlain stoutly defended Lord Swinton, in appreciation dt whose services he spoke at length.

Mr. Chamberlain mentioned thre u developments of recent years, wh'cfi had necessitated substantial altera tions in design, and their cumulative effect on speed and manoeuvre, even in strategy—the all-metal monoplane, engines of super-efficiency, and the variable-pitch air-screw. He went on to refer to the compar; son Dr. Dalton had drawn between the present-day rate of production and that in the Great’ War, which were as different as chalk from cheese. The first squadron nf Bulldogs. formed in 1919, had a top speed of 120 miles per hour. The first squadron of Gauntlets, formed in 1925, had a top speed of 230 miles per hour, but now they had passed the 300 miles per hour mark, and the Spitfires were the fastest tighter service squadrons anywhere in the world. Speaking of bombers, he said that he could not disclose the range or the bomb loads of the latest types, but those in the service were the fastest bombers in the world, and the new types, which were now on order, showed such a marked advance that it was unlikely their performance would be surpassed by the bombers of any other country. Mr. Chamberlain contended that there was no part of Britain’s defence which had made a deeper impression on foreign visitors than the “shadow” factories, and, answering the advocates of mass production, he mentioned that while in the ordinary motor-car engine there were 1700 parts, in the modern bomber there were 11,000 parts to the engine alone, and upwards of 70,000 for the rest of the ’plane.

Turning to the Ministry of Supply, he commented on the number of rival proposals before the public, but declared that all of them suffered from the disadvantage that they would dislocate the present machinery, which was working well. He added: "My own view is that, although in actual war a Ministry of Supply would be essential—and indeed we have all the plans ready for such a Ministry to be put into operation in such circumstances —I do not believe that a Ministry of Supply in peace-time is going to be as effective as the Ministry of Munitions was in the Great War, unless you give it the same powers as the Ministry of Munitions had. I doubt whether you would be justified in asking for such powers in peace-time. By setting up a Ministry of Supply, you would sdd nothing to the efficiency of the system. For the reasons I have given, the Government is not prepared to set up a Ministry of Supply, any more than it is prepared to grant an inquiry. No one must imagine from that we are not straining every nerve to complete our programmes at the earliest moment.”

Dealing with the question of air parity, Mr. Chamberlain reiterated his previously expressed view, that the first-line strength was only one of the factors to be taken into account. Mr. Chamberlain said that he very

much deprecated taking a single country always for comparison, in judging air power. He thought such assessments should be made in a way

which implied no challenge to any other country. Sir A. Sinclair (Liberal) spoke both in favour of a Ministry of Supply, and of an inquiry. Mr. Winston Churchill admitted that the appointment of a new Air Minister altered the situation, and questioned the continued usefulness of an inquiry, but said that he would.

have preferred the establishment of a Ministry of Supply, and he refused to be satisfied with the Prime Minister’s encomium on the existing machinery, which, he declared, was cumbersome and complex. • The censure motion was defeated by 329 votes to 144. "The following parliamentary committee has been appointed to examine the problem of the transference of persons from areas which might be exposed to continuous air attack, and to recommend plans for the purpose: Sir John Anderson (chairman), Colonel G. F. Doland (Conservative), Dr. L. Haden Guest (Labour), and Sir Percy Harris (Liberal). Sir John Anderson was created a baronet in 1920 in recognition of his services during the Great War, when he organised many important works for the Government.

WOMEN FOR AIR INDUSTRY!

UNIONS ASKED TO AGREE.

(Received May 26, 8.45 p.m.)

LONDON, May 26.

The engineering trade employers yesterday had a conference with the unions, and discussed plans for speeding up the Government’s rearmament programme.

It was suggested that women labour might be introduced into certain sections of the arms industry. Mr Little, President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, immediately said that the other Union representatives had declared that they could not commit themselves until their executives had considered this proposal.

CRITICISMS TO BE EXAMINED.

(Received Mav 26, 7.40 p.m.) LONDON, May 26:

Speaking on the House of Commons air debate. Sir Kingsley Wood, Secretary for Air promised to examine all of the criticism of the air defence system. He said that Dominion orders for aircraft had been given the highest practical preference.