Defects in War Production In the two-days' debate on war
production last week a gloomy picture of shortcomings was built up as member after member exposed defects in organisation and results far short of the proper maximum To the first-hand accounts given by Lieut. Brabner and Mr. Henderson Stewart, both lately re- turned from the Middle East, concerning the disastrous shortage of necessary weapons in all the fields of recent fight- ing it could be answered that this was not a question of supply from the factories, but of the use made of supplies. None the less, it was a relevant commentary on the grave defects in actual production exposed by other members. Mr. Garro- Jones told of the holding-up of one type of tank by a con- tinuous stream of modifications which numbered more than 5,000, and of the ordering of 3o types of aircraft from America in the last two years for which the Ministry of Aircraft Pro- duction forgot to order spares. Complaints were made of the scramble for machine-tools between competing departments, of hundreds of hours a week lost in machine-shops through lack of material, of tanks taken to pieces to provide spares for other tanks, and generally of bad management and defects in the allotment of supplies. More than enough was said to suggest the urgent need for a single authority to co- ordinate the work that is being done for the different depart- ments—that is to say, for a Minister charged with all the powers exercised by the Minister of Munitions in the last War. Mr. Harold Macmillan produced some impressive figures showing increase in total production during the last two quarters, and spoke reassuringly about steps taken to bring work for the different departments into line, but neither he nor Colonel Moore-Brabazon met the main specific points which had been raised in the debate. On Tuesday the Prime Minister, aware perhaps that the Government had not given that convincing reply which would put the whole question in its true perspective, expressed his concern at the impression produced abroad by exaggerated statements, and promised a third day's debate in which he himself would make a com- prehensive statement. It is all gain that the House of Commons should have proved its capacity for telling criticism.
Previous page
