Royal Ordnance Factories.

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons on 5th August 1942.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Cyril Lloyd Mr Cyril Lloyd , Dudley

I do not want to pursue that point. My point is this—it is not strictly against the Committee itself. I am simply trying to suggest that a simpler and quicker method might be found of investigating and ameliorating the many complaints and difficulties which are constantly coming forward, not only in public but to every Member of this House. It must be remembered that the Ministry are operating industry on a quite unprecedented scale. No one who has been responsible for the operation of even the smallest industry can fail to know that in any operation a certain number of misfortunes occur. There must always be certain losses on development and certain delays in securing efficiency. If the ordinary experience of that kind is multiplied in proportion to the scale on which the Ministry are operating, I do not think it will be found that the inefficiency is out of scale. I feel that the Report itself justifies the point I have been trying to make, because the summary of recommendations comes down, from the production engineer's point of view, almost to a series of copybook maxims. I will not trouble the House with them all: let me take one or two. It is said that: Stocks of material and components should be accumulated in order to secure a proper flow of supplies. Surely that is not a thing which it wants a heavy Parliamentary Committee to suggest to industry. Let me take the next: Designing staffs should pay more attention to ease and economy in producing the completed product, and no design should be accepted which has not been fully tested from the production point of view. That is one of the most foolish recommendations which has ever come to my notice. Production means production in quantity.