§ 26. Mr. LYNCHasked whether the anti-aircraft guns of London can record a single hit to justify their existence; and whether radical changes will be made in the system of the guns themselves and in the higher command responsible for their service?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The anti-aircraft defences of the United Kingdom are constantly being improved, but it is not in the public interest to state the manner in which this is being done. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.
§ Mr. LYNCHThe question was not about anti-aircraft guns in the United Kingdom, but about the anti-aircraft guns of London, and whether they have a single hit to their credit.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member has had an answer to that.
§ General Sir IVOR PHILIPPSIs it not a fact that there is no sign from the ground that the anti-aircraft batteries are hitting the planes, and that very often a plane will be very heavily hit and not brought down, therefore is it fair to judge the action of the anti-aircraft batteries by the results that the public see from the ground?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONNot at all.
§ Mr. PEMBERTON BILLINGIf the aircraft is not brought down, how is it possible to prove that a hit was registered? Is it not a fact that the hit registered was not on an enemy machine, but on one of our own?
§ Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCKGo up and see for yourself.