FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1919
1919 - 1133.PDF
AUGUST 21, 1919 Aeroplanes for Indian Frontier CAPT. R. TERRELL, in the House of Commons, on August n, asked the Secretary of State for India whether the supply of aeroplanes on the North west Frontier has been adequate ; and whether there has been any adverse criticisms of the types of machines employed ? The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Major-Gen. Seely) : Owing to trans port difficulties, there has been delay in supplying the forces of India with the required number of machines of suitable types. These deficiencies will have been remedied at a very early date. Mr. Billing : Was the officer responsible for selecting these types of machine an officer experienced in aviation in India, and is the right hon. gentleman aware that machines which will fly in this country will not fly in India ? Major-Gen. Seely : The officers concerned had full knowledge of that fact. It is a fact that suitable machines could not be got to India in time owing to extraordinary difficulties of transport, but that is being remedied. Capt. Terrell : Will the right hon. gentleman answer the last part of the question, and say whether there has been any adverse criticisms on the types of machines employed ? Major-Gen. Seely : Yes, from here and from there. We did not get the right type of machine for the purpose, but that is being remedied. We could not get them there owing to the shortage of ships. The W.R.A.F. LIEUT.-COMMANDER KENWORTHY asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry what was the numerical strength of the Women's Royal Air Force, officers and other ranks, respectively, on the 1st January, 1st July, and 1st August, 1919 ; what steps are being taken to demobilise the remainder of the officers and other ranks ; and what is to be the future of this force ? Major-Gen. Seely : The numerical strength of the Women's Royal Air Force at the dates mentioned by my hon. and gallant friend was as follows :— 1st January, 1919 1st July, 1919 .. 1st August, 1919 Officers. 545 4 34 407 Other Ranks. 24,911 18,282 15,700 The force is being demobilised as quickly as circumstances will permit, with the object of reducing the numbers to about 3,200, at which figure it is intended the post-War strength of the force shall be fixed. It has already been stated to the House, in answer to a question put by, the hon. and gallant member for the Fylde Division of Lancashire on the 3rd July, that it is not intended to disband this force. Air Ministry Contracts Mr. DAWES asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry (1) whether he is aware that the Select Committee on National Expenditure have recently reported that replies given to them by Major Cockburn, Royal Air Force, in connection with certain clothing contracts, were contradictory and unsatisfactory ; what is this officer's war record ; whether he is still on the active list; and whether it is proposed to take any and, if so, what action in connection with the matter; (2) Whether he is aware that the Select Committee on National Expenditure have recently reported that they were unable to attach any credence to the statements made to them by Col. Latimer, Royal Air Force, in connection with certain clothing contracts ; what is the war record of this officer ; whether he is still on the active list ; and whether it is proposed to take any and, if so, what action in connection with the matter ; and (3) Whether he is aware that the Select Committee on National Expendi ture have recently reported that replies given to them by Col. Bersey, Royal Air Force, in connection with certain clothing contracts were very unsatis factory ; that this officer ignored the request of the Committee to come before them for further examination ; what is this officer's war record ; whether he is still on the active list; and whether it is proposed to take any, and if so, what action in connection with the matter ? Major-Gen. SEELY : The answer to the first part of the first two questions is in the affirmative, and to the first part of the third that the complaint of the Committee is that Colonel Bersey did not attend at all, and not that his replies were " very unsatisfactory." The facts asked for about the three officers mentioned are as follows :— Major Cockburn was transferred from the Army to the Royal Air Force as from April 1, 1918, and was employed at Headquarters up to October 24, 1918, first with the Directorate of Manning and then in the Directorate of A r Quartermaster Services. He was then transferred to Headquarters Midland Area, where he remained until he was demobilised on February 21, 1919. Col. Latimer was employed in an administrative position first at South Farnborough, and then at the Air Ministry, from October 12, 1916, until May 3, 1919, when he relinquished his commission. Col. Bersey joined the Service on October 29, 1917, and was employed in an administrative capacity under the Air Board and Air Ministry until September 30, 1918, when he was transferred to No. 7 Royal Air Force Recep tion Depot, where he remained until his transfer to the unemployment list on April 25, 1919. As regards the statement that Col. Bersey ignored the Committee's request for his attendance, the only information I have is that contained in the Committee's Report and a letter which appeared in the Press from Col. Bersey's solicitors, explaining his non-appearance ; but in fairness to this officer I must state that there has been nothing in his conduct, so far as the Air Ministry are aware, to show that he wishes to avoid examination, and that in point of fact he is attending in London to give evidence before the O'Sullivan Court of Inquiry. As regards any action which it may be desired to take in regard to these officers, I cannot, I am afraid, make any statement until the findings of the Court of Inquiry just referred to have been received. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for War gave an undertaking yesterday that the results of proceedings of this inquiry should be laid before the House. Mr. Briant asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if the attention of the Air Ministry was drawn to the statements of Sir John Hunter that there had been fraudulent conspiracy in connection with the carrying out of contracts ; and if no action was taken because a prosecution would reveal what appears to be inefficiency and absence of control on the part of the representatives of the Ministry on the spot ? Major-Gen. Seely : I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. member when he put a similar question to me on August 11. R.A.F. Establishment Mr. BETTERTON, on August 14, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has made any estimate of the saving which could be effected in expenditure by a revision of the Royal Air Force establishment, in view of the termination of the war ? The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Major-Gen. Seely) : This question has been under constant consideration and a provisional establishment has been drawn up which shows very substantial reductions. That establishment is now undergoing further revision with a view to reducing expenditure. The results will be embodied in the detailed Air Estimates, to the presenta tion of which, during the autumn, my hon. friend the Secretary of the Treasury referred in his answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London, on the nth inst. Mr. Grant : Has the right hon. gentleman considered the desirability of demobilising the women of his Department ? Major-Gen. Seely : Yes, sir. As I announced in my remarks the day before yesterday the women will be reduced very shortly from the large number they were to 3,000, comprising only those employed on domestic service. Commercial Aircraft Competition Lieut.-Col. MALONE asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether it was proposed to hold a competition for commercial types of aircraft ; and, if so, when particulars would be published ? Major-Gen. Seely : Yes, Sir. During the war the paramount necessity in aircraft design was military efficiency, but for the successful development of aviation the first essential is safety. The Government have accordingy decided to institute a competition with a view to obtaining a type giving greater safety. Any machine which succeeds in qualifying will represent a great advance in respect of safety and comfort over any machine at present in use. The Treasury have agreed to the competition, and I am sure that, even at this juncture, the House will not grudge the funds for the prizes. Prizes will be offered for three types of aircraft—a smaller aeroplane, a larger aeroplane, and a seaplane, respectively. In addition to the advantage to civil aviation the lessons learnt will be of the greatest value to the Royal Air Force. The precise terms of the competition will be announced in a few days. If all the competitions are won, the amount required for prizes would be about £64,000. AIR MINISTRY CONTRACTS Sir JOHN HUNTER has sent the following reply to the Press :— " The Lord Advocate, in his speech in the House of Commons, on Tuesday last, upon-the Report of the Select Committee on National Expenditure on Air Ministry affairs, thought it necessary to make a somewhat violent attack on me, which I feel cannot be allowed to pass unchallenged. " In The Times of Wednesday, August 13, he is reported as having referred to roe in the following terms :—' I had not the remotest idea that, when his own administration of the Air Force was inquired into, he was going to flourish in the faces of the Committee my refusal to prosecute those poor underlings for £286 for alleged peculation and his own somewhat violent letter of protest, as a kind of smoke screen behind which to hide further discussion of the matter.' " In any controversy with the Lord Advocate I am at a disadvantage, as I am not capable of dealing in debate with a skilled Advocate, but I am quite capable of stating actual facts fairly and truthfully, whereas the Lord Advocate has not done so. " Let me state shortly the true position which must have been known to the Lord Advocate at the time he made his speech. As Administrator of Works and Buildings at the Air Ministry I was summoned to give evidence before Sir Frederick Banbury's Committee. I obeyed the summons. During my evidence I was asked if any cases of fraud had to my knowledge arisen on' any of my contracts. I mentioned the Renfrew contract as the worst case known to me. " The Committee asked me what action I had taken in the matter, and I told them that the papers had been put before the Crown Authorities in Edinburgh with a view to criminal prosecution against certain persons. The Committee then called for the papers on this subject, and, of course, I again obeyed, and produced the letter from the Lord Advocate to the Air Ministry, and my letter to the Air Ministry commenting on the Lord Advo rate's decision " I had nothing to do with the decision of the Committee to comment upon this correspondence in their report, but when the Chairman of the Committee informed me that it might be necessary, in their opinion, to do so, I expressly stated that, in my opinion, having regard to the fact that civil proceedings were pending, it might be inadvisable to do so. I asked the Chairman for permission to communicate with the Lord Advocate, and to inform him that the correspondence had been given to the Committee, but was informed by the Chairman that he had already seen the Lord Advocate, and had informed him that the Committee had the correspondence, and that the Committee regarded the matter as very serious. " Thereafter I called twice on the Lord Advocate personally, but was not fortunate enough to find him in his office, but I informed his secretary of what had occurred before the Committee. It now appears that the Committee invited the Lord Advocate to appear before them, but he was content to write to the Chairman the letter which appears in the Committee's Report, in which he states that ' his Department's letter speaks for itself.' " It is curious that this letter which is to speak for itself, is spoken of thus by the Lord Advocate in his speech in the House of Commons :—" Possibly it may have been inevitable that my letter in particular may have raised some misconception either in the minds of the Committee or still more in the minds of those outside this House who make it their business to comment on public affairs, but a true appreciation of what took place and a true under standing of the position could only be arrived at when the true facts connected with these documents are placed before the House.' " The documents already published will give ample proof that it was not I who was asking to avoid discussion on the affairs of my Depart ment. "I cordially agree with the Lord Advocate that he received me when 1 called upon him with the utmost kindness, courtesy, and sympathy, and the same also applies to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, whom I saw on several occasions. I have always recognised that the Lord Advocate s opinion on matters of law must be final, and have never criticised that, even though I did not agree with it, but I regret that he should have diverted the attention of the House from the real point at issue by making it appear that 1 was anxious to prosecute some ' poor underlings ' charged with pecula tion of ' two paltry sums,' and to take no action against the contractor to recover the very large sums which could not be accounted for. " This suggestion was both unproved and unfair. The Lord Advocate knows that the fact that civil proceedings can be taken against the contractor to recover these sums is due entirely to my action in this matter when I first heard of the state of affairs at Renfrew, and he knew that I never intended the criminal proceedings against members of the staff to be an alternative of the civil proceedings against the contractor. " My thought was that both proceedings could be taken concurrently, Those who are described by the Lord Advocate as ' poor underlings' were is fact not ' underlings ' at all, but were the persons holding the most respon sible positions on the job, and the fact that the charge involved ' two paltry sums" is due to the request of the Crown Authorities that the evidence should be directed to proof of specific sums having been wrongfully dealt with." "35
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
