AERIAL DEFENCE OF BRITAIN

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19860, 25 July 1934, Page 9

AERIAL DEFENCE OF BRITAIN

LABOUR’S OPPOSITION VOICED

CONCLUSIVE REPLY BY AIR MINISTER

United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, July 23. In the House of Lords, Lord Ponsonby moved a censure motion on behalf of the Labour Party, condemning the increase in armaments before the termination of the Disarmament Conference, on the ground that it would not give the country security, and was bound to lead to armament competition and endanger world peace. He cited Mr Stanley Baldwin's recent admission, but no power on earth could prevent Britain from being bombed, as a bomber would always get through. The announcement of the sensational increase in the Air Force, which in no-wise would give security, was a “wanton mutilation of the League’s authority at a critical moment,” as the announcement immediately followed M. Barthou's visit. It made one wonder if a hidden obligation was undertaken, of which the country was ignorant. Lord Londonderry explained that Air) said that the Government had by no means abandoned hope of ultimately reaching a disarmament convention, but, having regard to its present weakness in the air and the widespread concern it aroused, the Government concluded that in the light of developments abroad, it could delay no longer. In the matter of defence services generally, and the Royal Air Force in particular, the Government had preached and practised a degree of restraint which placed Britain today in what amounted to a position of unilateral disarmament. At the end of the late war the strongest air Power was Britain, which had now ranked fifth for some years. In terms of first line strength no responsible Government could allow the Air Force to remain in a position of such inferiority.

Lord Londonderry explianed that 23 of the 41 squadrons would be allocated to the Home defence, the balance to go overseas. The aggregate cost of the proposals up to 1938 would be £20,000,000. The instalment In no single year would exceed 2d or Id in the £ in income tax, which was not a disproportionate insurance premium. Lord Ponsonby’s motion was defeated by 54 votes to 9.