NATIONAL DEFENCES

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22807, 17 February 1936, Page 9

NATIONAL DEFENCES

DEBATE IN HOUSE OF COMMONS CRITICISM OF GOVERNMENT APPEAL FOR ACTION (British Official Wireless) (United Press Association) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) RUGBY, February 14. Considerable interest was aroused by tli£ second reading debate in the House of Commons on a private member’s Bill designed to subordinate the three fighting services to a Ministry of Defence. After the discussion, Lord Eustace Percy, for the Government, asked for suspension of judgment until the Government’s proposals were known. The Bill was, by leave, withdrawn. WAR LESSONS FORGOTTEN In moving the second reading of the Bill, Rear-admiral Murray Sueter recalled the War Cabinet; and suggested that the experiences of the co-ordinated working of the defence services learnt in the stress of the Great War had been forgotten. Ho questioned if the Committee of Imperial Defence and its subcommittees were facing the vexed problems of defence arising from modern developments. Could they not have experiments t 6 settle definitely the vulnerability of a battleship to air attack before Parliament was asked to spend £120,000,000 on a battleship programme. His Bill set up an advisory defence college, reinforced by civilian members with experience of industry, for in future wars the Navy, Army, Air Force and industry would have to he forged into a single weapon. He appealed to the Prime Minister, if he would not accept the Bill, to assure the House that the Government would create alternative machinery to make certain Britain was making the right choice of arms and strategy for the future. Members from all parties, including Major Attlee, spoke in general support of the case presented by Rear-admiral Sir Murray Sueter. REVISION OF SYSTEM Lord Eustace Percy, replying, said the Government accepted responsibility for decisions based on the co-ordinated view of defence requirements, but in his opinion single parliamentary responsibility would require executive unification of departments, which was impracticable and less suitable than the more flexible system represented by the Committee of Imperial Defence, presided over by the Prime Minister, or similar organisation. It might well be that the system needed development and strengthening. The Government was not complacent, though development had taken and was taking place to an extent not always realised. Lord Percy ended with a request to Rear-admiral Sir Murray Sueter to defer the vote upon the Bill till the Government’s proposals had been communicated to the House. A LEAD WANTED Sir Austen Chamberlain appealed to the Prime Minister, whose recent speeches had confronted members with serious problems of defence, to give a lead towards a solution and to ask Parliament for whatever powers he required. He did not favour a Ministry of Defence, but said very reluctantly that he had come to the conclusion that it was impossible in the present circumstances for the Prime Minister to be effective head of the Committee of Imperial Defence, and it was necessary to have a Minister whose main business it would be to overlook the working of the committee, and who would also be chairman of the Chiefs of Staff Committee. ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNS Rear-admiral Sir Murray Sueter declared : “If anyone says anti-aircraft guns will stop an aerial bombardment he has not the vaguest idea of what he is talking about.” The Admiralty was wise in moving the fleet from Malta in view of the range and performance of the Savoia bombers. No one was able to deny that the battle fleet was unable to stay at Malta with a hostile nation near. “What is true of Malta,” he said, “is even more true of Gibraltar, Devonport, Portsmouth, Chatham, and Sheerness.” Recalling instances of the Admiralty ignoring aerial possibilities, he said that three torpedo-dropping aircraft sent to the Dardanelles scored three hits with three shots, but the Admiralty refused development. He urged an experiment with an old battleship made unsinkable, which airmen should bomb with armourpiercing missiles of his own design, and not the bombs which the Admiralty manufactured. PRIME MINISTER REBUKED Sir Austen Chamberlain, referring to “the recent rude shocks Parliament had received,” vigorously attacked Dir Baldwin, recalling that he had said in November, 1934, that ifv Germany continued to accelerate her air programme at the then existing rate Britain’s Air Force would still have a margin of nearly 50 per cent, in Europe. The speaker then quoted Mr Baldwin’s speech of May 22, 1935, admitting that he had been completely wrong in November as he and his advisers were unaware of the speed of German production. Sir Austen Chamberlain added: I can recall in 40 years’ parliamentary experience no comparable announcements on the fundamental issue of defence. It is surprising to some of us who are not alarmists but who feel profoundly anxious.” . Sir Austen Chamberlain ' continued that Mr Baldwin on December 5, defending the Hoare-Laval proposals, referred to his lips being sealed, but when a few days later he again confessed his error he did not explain, even when his lips were unsealed, why he had previously said he could disclose things to prevent anyone voting against the Government. These events were unpleasant and not reassuring, and they could not have happened if the defence organisation had been efficient. Sir Austen Chamberlain’s outspokenness startled and excited the House. Mr Baldwin was at the Treasury bench throughout the speech, but he did not reply. CRITICISM OF POLICY SIR AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN’S WARNING LONDON, February 14. Sir Austen Chamberlain’s criticism of Mr Baldwin has caused a political sensation. According to the Mail’s political correspondent he has been selected by an influential group of back benchers to voice tlicir apprehension of the Government’s neglect of the national defences and tlie fear that it is even now not pursuing a bold policy. Sir Austen Chamberlain’s speech was not intended as a personal attack on Dir Baldwin. Nevertheless, many members of the House of Commons visualise im-

portant repercussions, which, however, are unlikely if the Government heeds the warning. It is anticipated that Cabinet in the next fortnight will give special attention to the Co-ordination Committee of Imperial Defence. The Times in a leader emphasises the general disquiet concerning the lack of co-ordination of defences revealed in the debate and adds that there is less alarm at the projected expenditure than that, the money, if misdirected, may not purchase efficiency and security.