DEFENCE PLAN DEBATED

Southland Times, Issue 23128, 19 February 1937, Page 5

DEFENCE PLAN DEBATED

EMPIRE'S NEED OF STRENGTH PROPOSAL BEFORE HOUSE OF COMMONS (British Official Wireless) RUGBY, February 17. A debate to last two days on the rearmament proposals of the British Government was begun in the House of Commons today by the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Neville Chamberlain). Mr Chamberlain referred to his announcement made a few days ago of the intention of the Government to raise, by loan or by Budget surpluses, some £400,000,000 during the next five years, for the purpose of expenditure on the defence programme. Mr Chamberlain outlined the reasons which had prompted the Government to embark on its new rearmament proposal, saying that in spite of a feeling of disgust at the extent of. the world’s rearmament, Great Britain could only set its teeth and go ahead with essential measures of defence. The strength of Britain was a bulwark for peace in the world today, and the rearmament programme. was, essential for the country’s strength and safety. Continuing, Mr Chamberlain said that the Leader of the Opposition (Major C. R. Attlee) had described the proposal as unprecedented in times of peace. The real justification of the proposal lay in the unprecedented conditions at the present time. Mr Chamberlain then referred to the vast increase in the cost of armaments. Since the close of the Great War every country had been making every effort to increase its own striking power by the invention and development of new weapons, new means of transport, and new equipment. Every new means of offence called for some corresponding development in defence and he hardly knew which was the more expensive of the two. but Britain, with its vast responsibilities and its multitudinous vulnerable points, could not neglect equipment either for defence or offence. It must equip itself at home and along all its lines of communication with the newest methods for repelling attack and it must provide itself with forces capable of being despatched wherever they were wanted. The White Paper showed where and how the cost of the defence programme would be incurred and details of the cost were to be found in the estimates for the three services. If circumstances changed so as to permit a reduction of the programme the Government would be thankful enough to reduce it, but just as conditions had changed to the disadvantage of Britain since the inception of rear,lament so they might again, and it might be found that £1,500,000,000 was insufficient. From Loans Or Taxes? Defending the loan proposal, Mr Chamberlain pointed out on the assumptions of the White Paper that £32,000,000 extra annually would have to come out of revenue even if the loan powers were fully used, but if the loan proposal were abandoned £112,000,000 extra would have to be found each year out of taxes. In his opinion such an additional tax burden would cripple resources and throw back the whole course of recovery already so marked. The amount of borrowing proposed, he claimed, was not excessive in view of the fact that the taxpayer would still be bearing three-quarters of the total expenditure on defence. Reviewing the details of the financial resolution before the House of Commons, Mr Chamberlain said that the Treasury was authorized to raise money in any manner suited to their requirements at the particular time and which seemed most economical. He emphasized that the three per cent, which would be charged to defence votes and the provisions for repayment within 30 years out of the defence votes were book-keeping transactions which had no necessary relation to the terms or conditions on which the Treasury would borrow. .This, Mr Chamberlain declared vigorously, amid Ministerial cheers, was a measure for the preservation of peace. Everybody knew the British Empire stood for peace. It would never use its forces for aggressive purposes. It would always exert its influence to preserve peace not only for itself, but for all others as well. The Government knew from its own experience that British influence waxed and waned with British strength. The strength of Britain was rapidly gaining from day to day and from week to week was in.itself a steadying factor in international affairs and was the greatest bulwark for peace in the world today. Convinced as the Government was that the great programme was essential for the safety of Britain and a major factor in the safety of other nations it was impossible for it to shrink from meeting it. “Feeling Of Disgust” j “No one, least of all a Chancellor of the Exchequer, could see the growing accumulation of burdens which armaments imposed without a feeling of disgust and shame that civilization was preferring to break its own back instead of trying to settle its differences by give and take and turning its energies to pursuits which might bring

prosperity and contentment to it, but for the time being at least they could only set their teeth and go forward with essential measures of peace. Political appeasement and disarmament were not obtainable by any one Power alone but wherever and whenever the British could find others who shared their views they would rejoice in their company to seek a more fruitful, saner and worthier solution. Opposition From Labour

Mr F. W. Pethick-Lawrence (Labour) criticized the White Paper and Mr Chamberlain’s statement on the ground that they revealed neither any considered connection between the Government’s defence programme and its international policy, particularly in relation to the theory of collective security, nor any sign of real coordination of defence or of any firm conception of essential strategic consideration, such as would ensure efficiency in planning the defence of the country. The Labour Party would oppose the resolution, because it proposed, instead of placing the burden on the broadest backs by appropriation, to impose, by the inflationary influence of further Government borrowing, a disguised tax on prices which would fall on those least able to bear it

For the Liberals Sir Archibald Sinclair declared that while scrutinizing the estimates carefully members of his party would vote for whatever armaments vzere necessary for the defence of the country and for peace. The rearming of certain Powers in Europe—though he thought the moral responsibility for it might well be found by history to belong to the post-war policy of the victors in the Great War—left no alternative but to raise British defences to the necessary level. He, too, criticized the loan proposals as economically unwise in the present phase of business recovery and expressed doubts as to the effectiveness of the measures being taken to prevent profiteering.