§ 57. Mr. DICKINSONasked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the loss of life caused to the civilian population in London by the raid on Wednesday, 13th June, he will state whether the arrangements made for warning railways, factories, and other places where large numbers of workers are employed, were put into operation; and, if not, what were the reasons for this failure, and what Department of the Government is responsible?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. The system for giving warnings by day by the military authorities was in operation on 13th June, and warnings were sent in accordance therewith to the police, to fire brigades, and to explosives factories. Arrangements are under consideration to extend the system so far as circumstances permit to establishments where there is a reasonable case for warning being given; but it must be remembered that the list of individuals to receive warning cannot be indefinitely extended, as the time available for giving warnings may be short. It must also be remembered that it may be impossible to avoid issuing the warning on frequent occasions when no raid takes place. There is much difference of opinion in London boroughs and towns in the South and South-East as to the desirability of issuing public warnings. As far as the military authorities are concerned, the decision is left to the local authorities, provided that there is no military objection, and this objection has not hitherto been raised.
§ Mr. DICKINSONMay I ask whether the warning was given to the railway companies or not on that occasion?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI cannot say, but if my hon. Friend will ask me again I will answer him.
§ Mr. PRINGLEIt is on the Paper.
§ Mr. O'GRADYIs it the fact that the warnings were given to certain specified firms in London and that a great number of other firms were not warned?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONMy information is that warnings were given to as many firms as possible, particularly those mentioned in the answer—the police, the fire brigade.
Mr. J.A.BAKERWill the hon. Gentleman consider whether special arrangements can be made to give warning to the industrial dwellings, in which in some East End centres as many as 1,200 families are located on perhaps 8 or 9 acres of land? If there is a demand for such warning, will he consider it?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONYes; I will certainly have that considered.
§ 74. Mr. STANTONasked the Parliamentary representative of the Air Board, if he will at once establish regular air patrols in defence of London and other large towns; if he is aware that Paris has been free from German air raids since the French air ministry established such patrols many months ago; and will he do it now and thereby stop the possibility of further enemy raids and loss of life?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI must point out to my hon. Friend that it is most undesirable to discuss the methods of aerial defence adopted either in this country or in France, as it leads to the disclosure of valuable information to the enemy, but I can assure him that the subject is constantly engaging the attention of the highest military experts and that everything possible is being done to deal effectively with the situation.
§ Mr. ROWLANDSMay I ask whether the same course has been taken with regard to the home counties which suffered?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONYes.
§ Sir W. PEARCEAre machines of the newest and fastest type now available for the defence of London?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member should give notice.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI could not hear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said.
§ Colonel LOWTHERI asked whether the aerial defence authorities have considered special methods for dealing with the attacks on London?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONYes.
§ Mr. MACMASTERWhy is it that Paris appears to be practically immune, while London is not?
§ Mr. SPEAKERAsk the Kaiser.
§ 75. Mr. LYNCHasked the First Lord of the Admiralty who is responsible for the defences of London against aircraft; whether at any time the anti-aircraft guns have ever brought down either a Zeppelin or an aeroplane; and whether any change is contemplated in regard to the higher direction of the Department concerned?
§ Mr. MACPHERSONThe Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, Home Forces, is responsible for the defence of London against aircraft attack. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative in both cases. On 5th June two enemy aeroplanes were shot down by the anti-aircraft gun defences. With regard to the last part, no change is contemplated in regard to the higher direction of antiaircraft defence.