EMERGENCY PLAN

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23517, 3 June 1938, Page 13

EMERGENCY PLAN

BRITISH GOVERNMENT NOT COMMITTED TO CONSCRIPTION COMPULSORY MILITARY SERVICE (British Official Wireless) (United Press Association) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) RUGBY, June 1. A statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Chamberlain) in the House of Commons at question time, in reply to questions prompted by an allusion by the Minister for Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip) in Monday’s debate to plans for the allocation of individual services in wartime (which was interpreted as implying conscription in the widest sense), was followed by a large number of supplementary questions.

The essence of the matter was contained in Mr Chamberlain’s opening sentence: “It is not correct that any plans prepared by the Government include conscription of manpower in war, but plans are in existence for compulsory military service in that event.

“I may say that this is no new departure,” Mr Chamberlain continued. “The outlines of a scheme in the form of a draft Bill providing for compulsory service on the outbreak of war have been in an advanced state of preparation since 1922, and have been subject to con-' sideration by successive Governments since that date. “ No such scheme has been worked out for the application of compulsion to industrial or other nonmilitary service, although from time to time consideration has been given to the question how to make the most efficient use of the nation’s man-power in war time. Assent of Parliament “ While it is not possible to foretell the full extent of the demand that may have to be made upon the personal services and material resources of individual members of the public in a major war, it is certain that any proposals of the kind would have to receive the assent of Parliament, and would be based on the recommendation of the Government of the day.” In the course of the supplementary questions attention was turned to possible interpretations of Sir Thomas Inskip’s words, and Mr Chamberlain conceded that if Sir Thomas had had longer to prepare his remarks he might have expressed himself differently and emphasised that all that the sentences cited by the Opposition were intended, to convey was that enlistment during peace time in various special services such as auxiliary fire brigades, air wardens, etc., could not be taken as giving permanent exemption from military service. As the interchange of questions and answers proceeded interest shifted to the character of the plans in existence and the implication they carried of the Government’s intentions. Draft Legislation Interrogated on the latter part of his above statement, Mr Chamberlain recalled that he had not said the Bill was but an outline. In the form of a draft the Bill had been in existence since 1922. “ I said it had been under the consideration of successive Governments,” he stated. “ I did not say what view the successive Governments had taken. lam not entitled to say that, but I do say again that it has been changed by successive Governments from time to time.”

To a later question suggesting that the Government was committed to compulsory service in war and asking about the conscription of wealth, Mr Chamberlain replied emphatically: “ It is not the case. The Government is not committed to anything in the nature of compulsory service. It would'be a question for the Government of the day, in the event of war, to decide whether it was its duty to put before Parliament proposals for compulsory service.” “ That is only in the event of war breaking out,” Mr Chamberlain concluded. “At present neither this House nor the Government is committed to compulsory military service. I cannot possibly say what action would be taken by any Government that was in office at the time war did break out.” BRITISH REARMAMENT THE GERMAN VIEW BERLIN, June 1. The Lokal Anzeiger, in regard to Sir Thomas Inskip’s statement regarding conscription, says: “ Nowhere in Europe is there so much talk of war danger as in England, where everything possible is being done to educate the public in favour of rearmament.” STRIKE AVERTED MARGIN OF ONE VOTE MANY REARMAMENT WORKERS INCLUDED LONDON, June 1. Because of dissatisfaction in regard to wages, a national strike of 350,000 engineers, thousands of whom are engaged in the rearmament programme, was averted by one vote at the annual meeting of the Amalgamated Engineering Union. The president (Mr Little) intervened in the debate three times, warning delegates against the grave step of declaring a strike, which appeared certain. The vote against a strike was 20 to 19.