SHIPPING LOSSES

Wairarapa Times-Age, 29 November 1940, Page 5

SHIPPING LOSSES

EXPRESSIONS OF CONCERN IN COMMONS STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS . CRITICISED. ELEMENT OF INCONSISTENCY PERCEIVED. (By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright) LONDON, November 27. Increasing concern over British shipping losses today found voice in the House of Commons, which, according to the "Daily Mail,” was restive after Mr Churchill had gone to Downing Street, and its concern was not lessened by Mr Greenwood’s statement that the position was much like that of April, 1917. the month in the last war in which the number of sinkings was greatest. Mr E. Shinwell (Labour), who led the attack, pointed out that the British and Allied total of losses of 2,500,000 tons did not include marine casualties and also not the Belgian and Dutch tonnage, which would bring the total beyond 3,000,000 tons. He added that the figures were worsened because the losses were severe in vessels of 5000 to 6000 tons. The rate of losses after July would make an average of 4,000,000 tons annually. He declared that the Admiralty had not reached the projected output of 1,250,000 tons of commercial shipping in the first year of the war. Mr L. Hore-Belisha (National Liberal): “This programme would only cover 15 weeks’ losses at the present rate of sinkings.” He said that Mr Bevin had painted the industrial picture in more cheerful colours than Mr Greenwod used, and he claimed that a problem which had baffled generations had now been solved—the skilled man being taken from repetitive work and put in the proper place. “The Times,” in a leading article, contrasts Mr Bevin’s optimism with Mr Greenwood’s attitude, and it suggests that the House was puzzled by the difference. It adds: “The speeches of the two Ministers hardly made an impression, for which reason the members are looking in anxiety to see a most rapid and most effective mobilisation of all the resources of manpower.” The “Daily Mail,” in a leader, contending that critics have battered the Government, recalls that Britain in April, 1917, was six weeks from starvation and declares that the shipping position was disquieting, which was reflected in the debate.

Mr Greenwood, in the statement referred to, spoke gravely of the shipping position. He compared it with April, 1917, and said that though it was worse than it should be it was not as bad as it might be in view of Germany’s use of the Channel ports and the new factor of aerial attack. Regarding rebuilding, he said that they had not built up to the programme they had laid down for themselves, but they were not far from it. An enormous difference had been made by shipping captured or transferred. But the answer to the U-boat and bombing menace lay in countermeasures on which the Admiralty and the Air Ministry were working unremittingly. They would find a means to defeat this menace. “If we do not our plight is going to become a very serious one indeed,” he said. Mr Greenwood made the point that in spite of the sinking of valuable cargo ships the loss of war material in transit to Britain was quite unsubstantial. The Minister of Labour, Mr Bevin, said that a rise in the workers’ bonus earnings proved that in spite of bombs and everything else Britain’s production was making a very great increase, and that increase was being maintained.