CO-ORDINATION IN DEFENCE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22807, 17 February 1936, Page 8

CO-ORDINATION IN DEFENCE

As ,was anticipated, the Bill introduced ’in the House of Commons by Rear-admiral Sir Murray Sueter, pro viding for the establishment of a British Ministry of Defence, was With drawn on the second reading. It served, however, the purpose of promoting a discussion on a highly-, important subject. The case made out by Admiral Sueter received support sufficiently wide to indicate that members of all parties, while not necessarily agreeing that a Ministry of Defence should be created, recognised the force of his representation relative to the need for a co-ordination of the defence services. Great Britain has her Ministry of War, the Admiralty, and the Ministry of Air, but no Ministry of Defence, so-called, though there functions what is known as the Committee of Imperial Defence, over which the Prime Minister presides. The proposal that the three fighting services should be brought under a single Ministerial control is objected to by the present Government on grounds similar to those which have led to its rejection by previous Administrations. It is regarded as unworkable, from a parliamentary and constitutional viewpoint. It is certainly, of course, ar variance with established tradition Lord Eustace Percy, speaking for the Government, conceded, however, that it might well be that the existing system needed developing and strengthening, and the withdrawal of the Bill may be consequent on his request that the House should not vote on the question till the Government had communicated its proposals to Parliament. It is to be noted that Sir Austen Chamberlain, while not favouring the creation of a Ministry of Defence, offered definite criticism of the existing provision, and expressed the view that the operation of the Committee of Imperial Defence should be placed on a different footing As a result of the debate the Govern ment may be expected to offer in due course a considered statement in respect of the issues that have been raised. Obviously the question of the co-ordination of the defence services is one of the first importance. Admiral Sueter spoke of the necessity of navy, army, air force, and industry being forged into a single weapon. That is the ideal, no doubt, in whatever measure it may be attainable. The Government is contemplating a heavy expenditure on defence, and it is a vital matter that this expenditure should be directed in such a way as to yield the largest possible measure of efficiency and security. Modern developments have complicated defence problems. The experts themselves do not agree respecting the relative degrees of importance that should be attached to one service or another. This conflict of opinion can only serve to emphasise the need for the establishment of the very closest possible co-operation and co-ordination in the handling of the defence problem in the national interest. Writing on the question recently in the Daily Telegraph, Major-general Temperl ey observed: —“ It is beginning to be realised that more scientific planning is required if the money voted by Parliament is to be spent to the best advantage. There is an uneasy feeling that, though the services are efficient within the financial limits that have been placed upon them, there are serious gaps in co-ordination which have been accentuated since the air has been introduced as a new element on the battlefield.” The limitations of the Committee of Imperial Defence become obvious, Major-gcnei’al Temperley suggests, when it is remembered that its members are chiefly departmental Ministers, all of whom have full-time jobs of their own. He writes of the Committee as quite inadequate for the lengthy and continuous study of large-scale questions, and, in advancing proposals for its reinforcement, says: “ What is wanted is continuity and concentration. Years of planning are required by a body composed of the best civil and military minds in the country, presided over by a Minister who can give his whole time and energy to the supreme direction and control."'’ The debate in the House of Commons, particularly perhaps by reason of Sir Austen Chamberlain’s contribution to it, has certainly brought these aspects of defence into prominence.