HC Deb 10 April 1963 vol 675 cc1268-71
34. Mr. Whitlock

asked the Secretary of State for War if it is still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to regard the Royal Ordnance factories as a vital strategic reserve and as a preferred source for certain equipment.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. James Ramsden)

There is no change in our policy towards the Royal Ordnance factories.

Mr. Whitlock

While I am very glad to have the Minister's assurance, may I ask how he can reconcile that statement with the fact that in the Nottingham factory shop after shop has been closed and more than 400 men are threatened with redundancy? Cannot he make some renewed effort to ensure that these 400 skilled men are retained?

Mr. Ramsden

The hon. Gentleman knows the circumstances under which this redundancy arose. I am afraid that it arose out of an order not going to the Royal Ordnance factory which we expected would go there. Because of the disparity in costs, the preferred-source policy, as he knows, cannot apply.

Mr. Tapsell

Is my hon. Friend in a position to give a categorical assurance that it is not the intention to close the Royal Ordnance factory at Nottingham?

Mr. Ramsden

We are, as I think my hon. Friend knows, conducting a review of the capacity in the weapons and engineering group, and I am not yet ready to make a statement.

35. Mr. Whitlock

asked the Secretary of State for War if during the past year contracts have been placed with private enterprise for work which the Royal Ordnance factories are equipped to undertake and for which they have not been asked to tender.

Mr. Ramsden

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Whitlock

As the hon. Gentleman says in a recent letter that the Royal Ordnance factory at Nottingham is at a disadvantage in competing with industry because all its labour force is highly skilled, and it is not given the design and development experience, will he say what kind of jobs Nottingham is likely to get, except short-run production, which is extremely costly, and which private enterprise does not want?

Mr. Ramsden

As the hon. Gentleman knows, Nottingham is heavily engaged on a substantial programme of gun manufacture. The Question asks whether orders have gone outside the Royal Ordnance factories for which they had not had an opportunity to tender. These mostly relate to ammunition components which are in a different field from that in which the hon. Gentleman is interested.

Mr. Tapsell

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is particular concern at Nottingham Royal Ordnance factory because it feels that it is not getting a chance to do design work for which it is well-equipped; for instance, in regard to a recent mobile anti-tank gun which it is felt could have come to it but which did not?

Mr. Ramsden

I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. The question of what work goes into Royal Ordnance factories has always been subject to the design rights, as they are called, of the parent firm.

36. Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux

asked the Secretary of State for War what orders have been placed in foreign countries during the past six months for armaments which the Royal Ordnance factories in this country are also equipped to make.

Mr. Ramsden

None, Sir.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux

Would not my hon. Friend agree that if such orders have not been recently placed they are about to be for about £550,000 worth of anti-tank guns from Sweden and £10 million of orders from the U.S.A. for 175 mm. guns? If that is so, in view of those orders being placed and of the recent orders that have been placed with private firms, would he not agree that all these orders are of a type which could be carried out by the Royal Ordnance factories in this country? Whatever the reasons may be for the placing of these orders, would he not agree that, when they take place at the same time as the staff of the Royal Ordnance factory in Nottingham is being cut by 30 per cent., it must create the impression there that the factory is on the way out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—and, in spite of what he has said to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. Tapsell), cannot he say something to allay these fears?

Mr. Ramsden

I fully understand the uncertainty which the recent redundancies have created at the factory, but I cannot add to what I have said in reply to my hon. Friend about the review of what is to happen. In reply to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's supplementary question, our research and development effort cannot be deployed in a wide enough field to cover every possible Army requirement. The reason that these weapons have been ordered from abroad is that there are no British designs from which the weapons could be built, so we have to go abroad in order to get the Army the equipment which it needs.

48. Mr. Mayhew

asked the Secretary of State for War if the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich, is still a preferred source for the production of conventional weapons; and if he will set up an independent committee of inquiry into the fairness and efficiency of present methods of tendering by Royal Ordnance factories.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. John Profumo)

Yes. Sir, and the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich, receives its due share of such Royal Ordnance factory production orders as it is equipped to undertake.

I do not consider that an independent committee of inquiry into the methods of tendering by the Royal Ordnance factories is required at present. The problem that must be decided first is the scale of Royal Ordnance factory capacity that needs to be retained. I am at present examining this very important and involved question and before taking a final decision I have asked Sir Eric Mensforth, the Chairman of Firth Brown Tools Ltd.

and Westland Aircraft Ltd., to give me his views on the outcome of this examination.

Mr. Mayhew

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great concern in Woolwich about this subject? Can he say why, if the Arsenal remains a preferred source in the production of conventional weapons, the Minister constantly gives these orders to private enterprise?

Mr. Profumo

It is not true that we constantly give these orders to private enterprise. The hon. Member, with other hon. Members interested in the subject, will know that in this case we bent over backwards to try to pursue the preferred-source policy, but there was such a discrepancy in the tenders that we were unable to do so. It is for that reason that we are having an inquiry and I hope that when Sir Eric Mensforth reports to me we shall be in a clearer position.

Mr. Mayhew

The Minister will accept that he is himself responsible for the efficiency and competitiveness of Woolwich Arsenal?

Mr. Profumo

Certainly.