War Production Under Fire

Manawatu Times, Volume 66, Issue 163, 11 July 1941, Page 5

War Production Under Fire

Chaos in Industry Alleged

severe criticism in commons United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. Received Thursday, 7.36 p.m. LONDON, July 9. Speaking in the liouse of Commons on the war production debate, Mr. A. llopkinson (Independent) said it was generally believed that among the failures of all other Ministries, the Ministry of Aircraft Production stood out like a star, but this Ministry had been nothing but a cheap stunt for the last year or so. The goods were not delivered and are not yet being delivered. We were told that in the Battle of Britain we arranged to send up so many Spitfires to overwhelm the enemy us the result of the efforts of a former Minister of Aircraft Production, but not a single aeroplane participating in the Battle of Britain had anything to do with the Minister of Aircraft Production. The whole thing was chaos from top to bottom.

Mr. E. L. Granville: What is your authority for saying this?

Mr. Hopkinson: I am the authority. I have been engaged in the industry all along.

Mr. Garro-Jones declared that tank: wero still held up by countless modifl

cations. He instanced that 5000 modifications from the War Office since September, 1939, had prevented one type of tank going into steady production until last month.

Mr. Harold Macmillan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply) said there was no disorder in the production of munitions or competition between different Department*. Henceforth the special bias in favour of the Ministry of Aircraft Production is unlikely to develop. “Perhaps we | have moved slowly but we are building on more secure foundations than Hitler,” he concluded.

4 ‘There has been an almost chronic lack of the most important war materials in Greece, Crete, Libya and •Syria,” said Lieutenant Brabner, of the Fleet Air Arm to-day, in his maiden speech in the House of Commons debate on war production. lie said that he escaped from Crete in an extremely battered plane before the German parachutists landed. “It is perhaps incredible,” he said,

“but I assure the House that we at Malemi were rarely able to put more than two planes in the air for continuous patrol in daylight. There wbro no heavy anti-aircraft guns at Malemi.

“The British tanks did marvellously against the Italians, but not so well against the Germans, because they were too slow and there were not enough of them. Between 70 and 80 per cent, of our tanks broke down in Greece before ever they saw the enemy. “The German troops in Greece dispersed atf the sight of our troops, but got out of range because we had nothing to hit them with.” Replying to a debate in the House of Commons to-day on the question of supply, Mr. Harold Macmillan, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply, said that the first quarter of 1941 showed an increase in the production of both guns and tanks of more than 50 per cent, and tho second quarter of 1941 an increase of more than 100 per cent, compared with the last quarter of 1940. The present output of the machinetool industry was six times the normal peacetime level, lie added. The capacity of the firms specialising in the production of machine-tool equipment had been enormously increased, as had the capacity of engineering firms to make their own equipment. “In this,” said Mr. Macmillan,

“they have received most understanding assistance from the American authorities, and we are now in a position to reciprocate what lias been done for us. In future we should make smaller demands upon American production in this field.”

Turning to the side of labour, Mr. Macmillan said that between January and June the labour force employed in ordnance factories had more than doubled. With regard to the manufacture of specific weapons, Mr. Macmillan said that the manufacture of anti-air-craft guns was determined by the estimate of the Defence Committee of Cabinet last August. Actually, the output was well up. This estimate covered deliveries up to November, and he believed they could substantially improve on it.

With regard to anti-tank weapons, he believed that the Army was satisfied with the types and performances of those being produced. He believed that they would be still more satisfied with weapons on the point of production.