FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1917
1917 - 1260.PDF
NOVEMBER 29, 1917. Major Baird : The hon. member who proposed, and the hon. and gallantgentleman who seconded this amendment, are undoubtedly as well qualified as anybody in this House possibly can be to speak to the amendment. Theanxiety which they feel is, perhaps, natural in view of the knowledge—particu- larly of my hon. friend behind me—of the present position in regard to anti-aircraft. I will not say the present position, perhaps, but the development of anti-aircraft. But there are two things to which I think attention should bedrawn. The hon. and gallant gentleman opposite said he wanted the Govern- ment to say what they required to do and to do it. The Government in thiscase is undoubtedly the War Council. Sir I. Philipps : The War Cabinet. Major Baird : I beg pardon—the War Cabinet. We are all apt to think interms of matters prior to the war, when a Minister or a Secretary of State, or the First Lord of the Admiralty were members of the Cabinet, and, therefore,judges in their own case. Under the present system if any question arises of difference of opinion between the two Departments, that difference has to besubmitted to the War Cabinet, and their judgment is supreme. 1 think that is much the better way to deal with so complex a matter as the question of anti-aircraft. In the first place, may I draw the attention of the House to this : The anti-aircraft gunners are not at present members of the Flying Corps of eitherbranch. They are essentially gunners. Flying is no part oi their busmess. The man who is going to deal with hostile aeroplanes in this way will have con-siderable advantage if he has some knowledge of aeroplanes, their speed, and so on. But the hard and fast rule that has been drawn in the past between theRoyal Flying Corps and the Royal Naval Air Service and the anti-aircraft gunnery branch both of the Navy and of the Army does, I think, require modifi-cation. That modification, hon. members will agree, must be the result of experience in war. Developments are going on constantly at home and on thefront in connection with anti-aircraft guns. It is on that experience that we must base the system to be applied to the defence of the country by anti-aircraft. It is quite certain, and everybody, I think, must admit it, that anti- aircraft gunnery and defence by aeroplanes must go together ; but it does notfollow that wherever you have anti-aircraft men you must also have an aero- plane station. I do not think it is necessary that isolated detachments of anti-aircraft gunners should be under the control of the body which controls the aeroplanes. Nobody would contend that the men on board His Majesty'sships who man the anti-aircraft guns should be under the Air Council. The difficulty is to avoid drawing hard and fast rules. I do not think my hon. andgallant friend opposite quite appreciates the powers which the Bill does confer. So far as Clause (3) is concerned, it is quite clear that the Admiralty and theArmy Council may designate units of the naval or military forces for defence against aircraft, and they may be transferred or attached to the air forces.Sir I. Philipps : That is material ? Major Baird : No, that is as regards the men. But Clause (8), sub-section (4)states:— " (4) His Majesty may by Order in Council transfer from the Admiralty orfrom the Army Council or the Secretary of State for the War Department to the Air Council or the President of the Air Council such property, right and liabili-ties of the Admiralty or Army Council, or Secretary of State as may be agreed between the Air Council and the Admiralty or the Army Council as the casemay be." Property undoubtedly must include the guns, so that I think that is water-tight. My hon. friends are not satisfied, I gather, that the Air Council has adequate powers to take over what they think they ought to have.Mr. Harcourt: Yes, what " they " think. Major Baird : I do not think the words proposed—my hon. friend has saidthat he is not wedded to these words—can be inserted in the Bill. The difficulty of taking over after consideration—and we do not propose to take anything overwithout consideration—any portion of the Navy or Army which underlies the whole principle of this Bill makes it necessary in the event of any disagreementas to whether any particular force should be taken over or not should be left to b>. settled by the War Cabinet. I hope my hon. friend will be satisfied withmy assurance that we are determined only to take over those sections of the Anti-Aircraft force which we think ought to be controlled in conjunction withthe Air Forces of the Crown. But we do not wish to saddle ourselves with the control of a large number of anti-aircraft gun people who certainly belong to theArtillery. I am afraid I must ask the House to leave it to the Air Council when they have been able to go into this matter to decide who shall be takenover. I would like the House to leave the Bill as it stands with the assurance that it is our intention to ask for such control of the Anti-Aircraft Forces ofthe Crown as may appear to the Air Council to be desirable. They would take over such portions as they deem necessary, by attachment or transfer,whether they belong now to the Royal Artillery or whether they are«naval gunners. Mr. Harcourt: May I interrupt for one moment. Is the hon. and gallantgentleman aware there are a certain number of ratings who are actually in the R.N.A.S. and employed on anti-aircraft guns ? t t Major Baird : I think my hon. friend refers to some men who joined veryearly in the war and are now employed on these guns. There will be no more difficulty in taking them over with the consent of the Admiralty than therewill be in our taking over anybody else, but the fact that there are a small number of men so engaged, in anti-aircraft gunnery shows the difficulty oflaying down here a hard-and-fast rule as to who shall or who shall not be taken over. I hope the House will realise the danger of even discussing details andwill be content with the indication I have given of the intentions of the Govern- ment and of the Air Council to take such measures as may be considered neces-sary with the approval of the War Cabinet which will decide any disagreement that may arise between the Air Council and the Army Council and the Boardof Admiralty. The House will realise how difficult it is for us to discuss this question satisfactorily, but I hope I have made it clear that we do not wantto be tied down to take over or to refuse to take over any particular unit; we want these matters to be left open to be decided by the experience and know-ledge of the officers themselves. I trust, therefore, that the amendment will not be pressed. Mr. Billing : This House has a perfect right to know whether there is goingto be any unification or not of the air defences of this country, and that is prac- tically all that this amendment aims at. We have a right to know whetherthere is going to be one man responsible for defending this country, or whether there are going to be in charge all sorts of representatives of the respectiveServices, each working on his own and without co-ordination with the others, some giving orders to send up aeroplanes, other giving orders to fire the guns,and others still giving orders to lower the lights in certain districts. I am going to ask the hon. and gallant gentleman before we pass from this amend-ment to state clearly these points : Is there going to be one man, with a seat on the War Council, appointed to the supreme command of England ; is he tohave the control of all the aeroplanes, and of the aerodromes used for the purpose ? Is he to have control of all the lighting arrangements throughoutEngland: is his word to be law if he wishes the whole of a large munition area to be shut down at any given time, or has he to write to the Ministry of Muni-tions when he wants it shut down in the middle of the night and await an answer ? On top of that, is this man to have a seat on the Air Council, andis he to be in supreme control of all the ammunition which he wants and of all the anti-aircraft guns and gunners that he wants to make an effective defenceof this country ? Take it in France. What about the kite-balloons ? Are they to be in the Air Service ? The Air Service have them. I believe they areent. What about the anti-aircraft guns that serve with the Jdte-balloons to protect them ? Are they going over to the Air Service or are they going to beleft to the Army ? There is another point. Who is going to supply anti-air- craft guns, and who is going to conduct experiments in anti-aircraft shells,because that is a thing that is constantly developing ? A man comes with a new invention. He has a fine anti-aircraft shell which may ignite a Zeppelin .To whom is he to take his invention ? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made the dramatic announcement that the -Air Service was going to take over everything, lock, stock and barrel, en masse, but now we get qualifications from his assistant. Major Baird : Will the hon. gentleman allow me to stop him at once mis-representing what my right hon. friend said ? What he said was perfectly clear, namely, that the whole of the two Air Services of the country were goingto be absorbed into the new Air Service. No one knows better than the hon. gentleman that anti-aircraft gunnery does not either belong to the R.F.C. orto the R.N.A.S., except a small part. There is no modification whatever that has fallen from me or from anybody else on this bench of any statement madeby my right hon. friend. None whatever. Commander Bellairs : It seems to me the only way to obtain simplicityand avoid friction is for the new Air Ministry to avoid taking over any anti- aircraft guns whatever. For one argument that can be adduced in favour ofthose guns being taken over by the Air Ministry, ten arguments can be adduced , in favour of their remaining in charge of the Army and the Navy. Mr. T. Davies : It appears to me that this amendment is a very useful one,and I should have imagined that anyone acting on behalf of the Air Board would agree to have it inserted. It is most important that the new AirCouncil, if they considered it necessary, ought to take over any of these men , and also have command of the anti-aircraft guns. Mr. Lynch : I regard this matter as so vital that if this very point is carriedI should vote against the Third Reading, not because I do not desire an Act which will defeat the Germans, but because I regard this matter as the mostessential point of the defence and of the attack to-day against the Central Powers. For years I have been trying to force upon the attention of thisHouse the necessity for a Bill of a much wider scope than this and greater power, and after many months of consideration we have this lame measurewhich may satisfy a Parliamentary situation, but it will be totally inadequate for the main object of the Bill—that is, to defeat the Germans in the air.Amendment negatived. Mr. Billing : I beg to move to leave out sub-section (2).I think it would have been much better if the whole clause had been left out. If this sub-section is carried it will be a most unfortunate thing, for the simplereason that since the friction first started between these two forces at the beginning of the war both of them have been endeavouring to expand, and soestablish an overlapping that when it came to amalgamation the R.F.C. would be large enough to absorb the R.N.A.S., while on the other hand the latterservice have all been working to be in a position to absorb the R.F.C. Mr. Lynch : I formally second the amendment. Major Baird : If this sub-section were left out very great injustice would bedone. If the hon. member studies the provisions of what will be known as the Air Force Act, which provides for the discipline of the force, he will see thatSection 48 provides that an officer cannot serve on a general court-martial unless he has held a commission for three years, or on a district court-martialunless he has held a commission for two years. Under the hon. member's proposal an officer might have had ten years' service before being transferredand yet could not serve on a court-martial, and it might not be possible to hold a court-martial. Mr. Billing : That is onjy a formality. It could be adjusted.Major Baird : I do not know whether you can cal a court-martial a triviall matter ?Mr. Billing : The question of seniority is a trifling matter. Major Baird : You have to safeguard the rights of men who are tried bycourt-martial. One qualification of an officer to sit on the court-martial is that he has done a certain amount of service. If you exclude this sub-section youmay not be able to get officers who have that amount of service. This sub- section enables a man to be tried by a properly constituted court. Therefore,if the hon. member's amendment is carried, a great deal of injustice will be done, and the effect of eliminating the sub-section would not in any way havethe effect he anticipates. Amendment negatived. Clause 6.—(Air Force Reserve and Auxiliary Force.)Mr. Billing : I beg to move, in sub-section (1), after the word " of " [" officers and men of any unit "], to insert the words " the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserveor of." Why should any differentiation be made between a Territorial Officer beforethe war and a Royal Naval Volunteer officer before the war ? This Bill pro- poses to graciously recognise the services of men who enlisted prior to the warand who were trained prior to the %var for the defence of this country. It pro- poses to give them certain advantages if they transfer to the Air Service. Icontend that that should apply equally to Naval Volunteers as to Volunteers in the Army. Mr. Harcourt: I beg to second the amendment.Major Baird : We are quite innocent in regard to the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. I endeavoured to make that clear to the hon. member (Mr. Billing)in the Commitee stage. I pointed out to him then, and I repeat it now, that this clause refers to a unit of the Territorial Force. There is no unit of the RoyalNaval Volunteers serving in the. Air Service. Mr. Billing : There may be many individuals serving.Major Baird: The hon. member seeks to move an amendment to include a unit, and then he wants to shift it on to individual members. Individualmembers are included under Clause 3, which says, " any officer, warrant officer, petty officer, non-commissioned officer, or man of any of His Majesty's Navalor Military forces may." That completely covers the ground of individuals, without any question. May I appeal to the hon. member, who asserted at thestart, when the Bill was introduced, that he desired to see it on the Statute Book, imperfect though he considered it. If there is one way more than anotherto secure that a Bill shall not get on to the Statute Book it is to make a long speech on a point which has been completely disposed of in Committee stage andto bring it up again on Report stage. Mr. Billing: Will the hon. and gallant gentleman point out what is therelevance between Clause 6 and Clause 3 ? Clause 6 refers, so far as I can read it, purely and simply to the Auxiliary Air Force, and as such it gives certainprivileges to Territorial officers. If he will point out why I am so stupid in the matter, it will equally apply to the Under-Secretary for War, who is going tohelp me out in the House of Lords with it. Major Baird : It is perfectly clear. In time of war there is no question of areserve or an auxiliary force. In time of peace there will be. There is at present in Hampshire a unit of the Territorial Force which is now a part of the forces inthe sense of being a reserve. Officers and men of the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve are engaged in the war. Mr. Billing : Not at all. The Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve were engagedlong before this war was thought of. Major Baird : But their period of service now is for the war. If they transferit is certain it is for the war. If they transfer to the Air Force anyone who thinks we do not want to have them must be very slightly acquainted with the 'situation. Of course we want these men. Mr. Billing: Why do you not say so ? • -V '••'•'_ - ' ' 1260
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
