FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1921
1921 - 0124.PDF
most logical solution of the difficulty, and will probably be the best solution when the Government is re-formed on more efficient lines by having Cabinet Ministers who are responsible for policy, and who have acting under them groups of Ministers, each Department in charge of a Minister responsible to Parliament for the administration of the service. In the meantime, he favoured the formation of a small Commission, similar to the Esher Commission of 1904, to review our military machine generally and to suggest to the Government modifications to that machinery, leading to increased efficiency, to a reduction in the number of staff officers, and to a great economy in money. Gen. Seely supported the amendment in general terms, and in the course of his speech appealed to the Prime Minister to tell the House that the experi- ment of combining the War Office and the Air Ministry had come to an end, and that the three Services, as Parliament said they should be are distinct Services with proper means of co-ordination. The In the course of his reply, the Prime. , Minister put his finger straight on to Reply the weak spot of the scheme of a Ministry of Defence—a weakness to which we ourselves drew attention some weeks ago when discussing this same subject. In principle, he agreed that a Ministry of Defence was the only really effective and direct method of dealing with the problem, but pointed out that very much would depend upon who the Minister had advising him in any particular Department. If there was a strong man in any one Department, the Minister might lean too much toward that Department. It might be to the Navy or to the Army. Unless there was a very strong Minister of Defence, there would be a real danger that a good " wangler " in any Depart- ment would manage somehow or other to get his own Department attended to at the expense of others. He went on to forecast the formation of a Committee analogous to the War Cabinet, composed of the Ministers representing their Departments and their experts, with another Minister in the Chair, to deal with the problems of co-ordination. Mr. Lloyd George emphasised that this is not merely a problem for England; it is an Imperial problem. He looked forward, he said, to the meeting of the Prime Ministers of the Empire which will take place in June as an occasion for raising the whole problem of Imperial defence. There must be co-ordination between the Services, but there must also be co-ordination between the various parts of the Empire. He made no reference to the question put by Gen. Seely as to the termination of the experi- ment of combining the War Office and the Air Ministry. On the whole, we regard the result of the debate with satisfaction. We have never been particularly enamoured of the idea of grouping the three Services under a single Minister of Defence, for the reason we have already given, and which was urged by the Prime Minister as a vital objection. By far the better solution is that of the Committee of Defence, sitting in permanent session and able to visualise warlike operations as a whole, and then, having arrived at a decision, able to enforce its requirements equally upon the three fighting Departments who would be charged with carrying out the designed task as a correlated operation. The Committee FEBRUARY 24, 19a 1 would work somewhat like this : The first of its tasks . would be concerned with armaments, and to arrive ? at a proper appreciation of what we require for purposes of defence or offence. It would have, :. with due regard to the political outlook, to take « stock of what possible conflicts we might become * involved in,. Then, in detail the question for dis- cussion would be : War breaks out between this \ country and Redland. First, what are we going to do, and then what material and personnel do we require to do it. That then becomes a matter for the experts of the three Services who agree on what the probable role of each will be in such an event and what each requires to carry it out in co-operation with the others. By that means an estimate of cost can be arrived at and Estimates prepared for submission to the House co-ordinated to the hypo- thetical task for which the country has to be ready. Without such co-ordination, each Department visual- ises war from its own separate and individual point of view and without any but the slightest relation to the role that will be assigned to the others in the event of war becoming an actuality. Obviously, the latter must lead to inefficiency and extravagance. The alternative, which we are glad to know is to be adopted, makes tor higher efficiency at a less cost to the taxpayer. • • • It is all very well to talk about co- Wanted ordinating the three Services, but what Air Policy *s required now more than anything else is a real air policy. We see the deplorable results of delay and parsimony in the shape of a rapidly waning aerial transport industry. It is true that all the records of com- mercial aviation show that traffic is increasing rapidly between this country and the Continent, but at the same time it is a shameful fact that the increase is to be credited to foreign enterprise, while British machines are disappearing from the cross- Channel services. As an earnest of this, it may be noted that during the period from the 7 th to the 13th inst. there were 13 aeroplane arrivals and departures from the London terminal aerodromes, to and from the Continent, with passengers, goods and mails. Of these machines, five were operated by the Syndicat National pour l'Etude des Transports Aeriens, five by the Messageries Aeriennes, and three by the Compagnie des Grands Express Aeriens. Not a single machine of British nationality either left or arrived at the London air-ports. The basic reason for this is that we have no aerial policy, and the Government even now seems unready to formulate one. Contrast this with what our rivals are doing to secure and maintain a lead in the air. On April 1 all the French cross-Channel air ser- vices will reduce their passenger rates to £5 for the single journey—half the present cost of travel by air between London and Paris. This " cut " has been made by direction of the French Government, and is a direct first consequence of the increased rates of subsidy offered to civil air service enterprises. It is easy to see what must inevitably happen unless something is done here to level matters up. The Cie, des Grands Express Aeriens, which is one of the three French lines operating services between the two capitals, is building giant machines—one of which is nearly ready now—capable of carrying twenty 134
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
