HC Deb 09 March 1964 vol 691 cc107-19

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding £2,400,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1965.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I am glad of another opportunity of raising questions about Royal Ordnance factories. I had an opportunity in an Adjournment debate of raising the question of Pembrey, and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) has mentioned the R.O.F. in his constituency. Woolwich has many historical associations and Pembrey has wonderful associations in its record of service.

The question I raise may not be replied to by the Parliamentary Secretary this evening, but I should like him to look at it. Under this Vote we provide for wages, salaries, pensions and gratuities for those employed in Royal Ordnance factories. I want the hon. Gentleman to look carefully, and I hope sympathetically, at the problem of men who become unemployed through the closing of these establishments. Pembrey will close down at the end of the year and 400 persons now employed will be out of work. I have given the figures to the Parliamentary Secretary, and I think he accepts them. A large proportion will be of men 50 years of age, and a number of them will be over 60. I understand that some of them will get gratuities, but I am not sure what the scale of gratuities will be. I believe that is by arrangement between the War Department, formerly Ministry of Supply, and the appropriate trade unions. That is for the unestablished workers, and I suppose there is a general rule for the established workers.

When men become unemployed at 60 years of age, they find it very difficult to get other work. Under our National Insurance schemes persons are not entitled to a pension until they reach the age of 65. There will be a period when some of these men who will lose their jobs at the end of this year will be looking for a job before they become entitled to pension. Of course, they will get credits, but five years is a long period. I wonder if the War Office has taken into account the fact that these men of 60 will be in great difficultly in finding employment. If the War Office and the Ministry of Labour can find jobs for them, that will get over the difficulty. They are competent and skilled men, but it is not at all easy, indeed it is very difficult for those over 60 to get work with a new employer in a new establishment. In a sense it gets more difficult now than it did in the days when I was in industry.

With mechanisation, automation and the speed that that involves, employers are often reluctant to employ older men to work with machines. There are difficulties in learning new skills, keeping up the pace and guarding against dangers when working with machinery. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will look at this problem, for these men have rendered good service in peace and in war. Many of them have given 15, 20 or even 25 years' service. Now the factores are to be closed and their services dispensed with. Some who are established will be offered employment elsewhere, but what is good of offering alternative employment to a man of 55 or 60? He is in the declining years of his life and will find it very difficult. The State and this House owe a duty to see that these men are adequately provided for I am anxious that when these men's representatives raise this matter with the War Office the War Office will look at it sympathetically as the Committee would want it to do, because it will be dealing with men who have given great service to the country.

I understand that in the last two or three years the War Office has been reviewing the work of all the Royal Ordnance factories and making decisions on what it is expected will be required of them in future, whether there is inadequate or surplus capacity. I think the War Office has come to the conclusion that it has surplus capacity and therefore some R.O.F.s will be closed. Pembrey is one, Woolwich is another and there may be others.

7.0 p.m.

When the decision is made as to which Royal Ordnance factory shall be closed, which are the criteria upon which the Department arrives at the decision? If I mention other Royal Ordnance factories it is simply to bring out the point. For example, is there consultation between the War Office and the Board of Trade? The Board of Trade is responsible under the Local Employment Act for looking after certain areas which they think are areas of high and persistent unemployment and to schedule them as areas which become eligible for the help provided under the Act. These are areas in which the Government provide assistance to enable industrialists to settle there. Is this taken into account?

For example, why close Pembrey in an area scheduled by the Board of Trade and keep open Bridgwater in an area not scheduled by the Board of Trade? I make no complaint about Bridgwater. I am raising an important principle. Surely the Government as a whole consider the matter when these proposals are made to close down a factory, with the consequent unemploy- ment. This is reported, surely, to the Ministry of Labour before the decision is made so that the employment exchanges involved may know about it. Surely the Board of Trade is notified, being concerned with the distribution of industry.

When the decision was made to close Pembrey, did the Board of Trade agree to closing the factory and putting 400 to 500 men out of work in an area which the Board of Trade have scheduled under the Local Employment Act? I should be very surprised indeed if they did. For example, I shall be surprised if the Board of Trade said, "Close Pembrey and keep Bridgwater open", in view of the fact that they have scheduled Pembrey and have not scheduled Bridgwater.

When the factories are closed, what will happen to them? This is the property of the State, and millions of £s have been spent in building and equipping these Royal Ordnance factories. I hope that my right hon. Friends will shortly form the Government, and I hope that they will take a leaf out of the book of the 1945 Labour Government in contrast with what the Government did in 1919 and 1921. Pembrey is an example, but there are others, such as Bridgend. These are valuable properties and they can be used for civilian purposes.

It is sometimes said—I do not know whether this is true, and I put it to the Under-Secretary of State—that by convention and tradition the production in certain fields by the Royal Ordnance factories is conditioned by arrangements made between the War Office and private industry? Is this true? Is it true, for example, in the production of some kinds of explosive? This is believed by some people who work in those factories, who think that the Government are not playing fair by the nation and who think that the Government ought to give orders for their own work to their own factories in preference to private industry.

During discussions on other Votes, the Under-Secretary has admitted to a shortage of all kinds of equipment. I listened to him with great interest. Here are factories with services of all kinds—communications, roads, electricity, gas, all the services which are required for modern industry. I hope that we shall use them.

At the end of the year Pembrey will be closed and offered for sale. I do not know whether it will be sold, but if it is sold, then I hope that it will be to a firm which will undertake to use the whole of these valuable premises and all their services, and in that way provide employment which is still badly needed in the area.

In considering whether more work is needed not only in my area but throughout Wales, it is not fair simply to go on the percentage of unemployment. That is also true of Scotland. It is necessary to add a figure for depopulation to arrive at the right unemployment figure in an area such as mine, in other areas of Wales, in Scotland and in parts of England. I hope that if these factories, in particular Pembrey, cannot be sold, then they will be used.

I do not know the cost of building Pembrey, but it must have been substantial. Millions of £s were spent in building the Royal Ordnance factory during the First World War, but when the war was over it was sold for scrap and the contractors extracted all that was valuable. They left behind ugly debris hanging all over the place. When we were again in peril in the late 1930s and had to prepare for what became the Second World War, the War Office or the Ministry of Supply came back to Pembrey and cleaned up the mess. That must have cost tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of £s. They then built the new factory, which has been kept going until now, when it is to be closed.

It is a splendid factory, with splendid buildings, on a splendid site. It has a fine team of men. I plead again with the Under-Secretary that the Board of Trade and the War Office should reconsider the matter. If the Government's policy is to sell to private enterprise—very well; but suppose private enterprise does not want to buy it? What then? I think that the Government themselves ought to run it, for producing the many things which we shall need. That is why I took this second opportunity of saying a few words about this very valuable national property.

It is our business to look after national property. Our predecessors in 1919 and 1920 did not do so but allowed Pembrey and other factories to be sold for scrap. I hope that we shall not do that again but will ensure that national property is used for national purposes, not only to provide employment for people in the locality and communities which depend upon it but to provide the wealth of the nation.

Mr. Mayhew

I have had opportunities already in the House to raise with the Minister the proposed closure of the R.O.F., Woolwich, and I do not propose to repeat the grounds on which the great majority of Woolwich people are wholly unconvinced by the reasons given by the Minister for the proposed closure. Last week I had a chance to put some Questions to the Under-Secretary of State on this and other War Office matters of great importance to my constituency. To a good proportion of those Questions I received an informative and helpful reply, but on the major Question I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State to give me a reply which he did not give me on Thursday.

What rôle is the War Office playing in the planning of the future development of the whole arsenal site, comprising about 1,500 acres? On paper the War Office is not the body responsible for planning this enormous area of Woolwich, but in practice, because it happens to own 600 acres which are central to this huge area, the War Office, as chairman of the working party which is deciding on who will get what bits of this land, is responsible, not only for what will happen to the smaller area but to the whole 1,500 acres, all of which is in the London postal district. The decisions which the War Office will take may affect the whole of my constituency, as well as West Woolwich, the hon. Member for which is not in his place, and thus that part of Woolwich is not represented here tonight.

Does the Under-Secretary realise that to get the roads system in this area properly planned there must be comprehensive development and that, if that development is to be put on a proper basis, housing, industry and traffic conditions in the area must also be planned comprehensively? 'Why is it, therefore, that the War Office is chairman of the key committee on which the planning authority itself, the L.C.C., is not even a member? Is this not an extraordinary thing?

On 191h March the Government's plan for South-East England is to be published. I will study it carefully to see what rôle has been cast for this vast area of Woolwich. I suspect, on the current performance of the Government, that there will be no reference to this matter, although it is of vital interest to my constituency. As I say, we need a comprehensive plan and, to get it, we require the establishment of a working party on which the L.C.C., Woolwich Borough Council, the Board of Trade, British Railways and, admittedly, the War Office and a number of other interested bodies are represented.

This must be a large-based working party which will create the master plan for this area covering about 1,500 acres. I urge the Under-Secretary not to prejudice this extremely necessary development by using merely his small working party which, though small, has power over this land, of which, because of freak circumstances, the War Office happens to be in charge.

Mr. Manuel

I wholeheartedly support the remarks of my hon. Friends about the problems of Royal Ordnance factories. However, I wish to deal with a more limited question remembering that it has always been recognised that when the Estimates are being discussed an hon. Member is able to raise a matter concerning not only a section of his constituency but even a constituent.

I have always contacted the War Office whenever raising a matter concerning a R.O.F., and I admit that I have always found that Department and those responsible for its administration extremely helpful. I am not concerned tonight with the closure of R.O.F.s but with the superannuation regulations covering payments and gratuities made to those who work in them. Although these payments have formed part of a high tradition with which we have regarded employment in these factories, I have recently been brought face to face with a case affecting a constituent of mine where, it appears, this high standard and tradition has been broken.

7.15 p.m.

Under which part of our legislation is an individual who has served in a R.O.F. for a great number of years denied the payment of a gratuity? Having full knowledge of the individual involved, the case, his loyal service and other implications, I say frankly that a harsh decision has been made affecting my constituent, whom I will not name, because of a slight misdemeanour. Being aware of all the facts involved, I have no hesitation in using the word "slight" in this context.

The Department can confirm that this man has put in 23 years of loyal service. One would find it difficult to find a more loyal worker. Because of a slight misdemeancur—being found with two sodden cigarettes about 12 yards from the canteen in his lunch break—he was dismissed. Despite his 23 years' service he has not received his gratuity. I am not claiming that any individual should not be severely dealt with if found carrying contraband in an enclosed area, but the circumstances in this case were by no means so outstanding, for the man was not carrying any matches or anything which might have imperilled the area. As I have said, the incident occurred during his meal hour. In this case there were extenuating circumstances, and had I been the trade union organiser acting on his behalf I would have taken the matter to the highest possible level to ensure fair treatment.

The Under-Secretary is aware of the case and we have been in correspondence about it. I appreciate the fact, in his letter to me, that he had to refuse payment because of the way in which the superannuation regulations are drawn. I claim that those regulations compare unfavourably with similar types of schemes run by the best employers in this country. There are several large employers in my constituency and, on making inquiries, I have found that treatment as harsh as that meted out to my constituent is not the practice. Why should this man be subject to this harsh treatment under regulations which were made probably many years ago?

I appeal to the Under-Secretary, whatever the circumstances of severance payments, gratuities or terminal payments, to do something in this case, despite his refusal to grant payment of this gratuity. I plead with him to hold out a hope that this case will be looked into again and that his Department will consider what happens in similar large industries and in similar cases so that this man does not receive such harsh treatment after giving 23 years' loyal service in a R.O.F.

Mr. J. Morris

I want to add my voice to the voices of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) in expressing the concern felt over the closing of Royal Ordnance factories. My right hon. Friend has put up a tremendous battle for Pembrey, and we in South Wales have looked to him for leadership. I know that I looked to him for leadership very much at the beginning of the year, when we had industrial troubles in South Wales.

Pembrey must be very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his efforts, and he has today put his finger very realistically on the real problem of what is to happen to men of 58 and 60 for whom there is no longer employment at the Royal Ordnance factory. These men have rendered great service to the State and, in return, the State should give them adequate consideration. I hope that my right hon. Friend's remarks will be heard in the appropriate quarter, and that the War Office will give the matter sympathetic consideration when the usual negotiations take place.

My right hon. Friend asked whether the Board of Trade had been consulted before this factory was closed down. The impression in South Wales is that while the Board of Trade at one moment is trying to attract industry to these areas, at the next moment other industries are closing down. It seems that the left hand of the Government frequently does not know what the right hand is doing. There may be arguments for the closing of this factory, but we in South Wales are very concerned about what use is to be made of this place, and what are the future employment prospects in the area.

When we leave the particular for the general aspect, we find that the same problem is faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East. There is a general suspicion that work is not going to Royal Ordnance factories but to private industry. On this issue, the War Office should be like Caesar's wife—above suspicion; but the Government have not established that. I am deeply suspicious, and it will take all the persuasive charm of the Under-Secretary of State to convince me that what we suspect is not actually happening. We want to know how far Royal Ordnance factories and other factories are affected by the short-fall in weapons shown in the Supplementary Estimate.

It is the Government's philosophy not to allow publicly-owned factories to have the full chance to produce, but to give every incentive to private industry. We see that in the running down of railway workshops. The Government's philosophy applies to every part of industry, and I hope that the Under-Secretary can assure us that these Royal Ordnance factories are not being closed down merely in fulfilment of the Government's philosophy, but on grounds of the Army's need.

Mr. Kirk

As I have said before, this very difficult question of the closing of Royal Ordnance factories is one that my right hon. Friend and I dislike probably more than any other. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) for the restrained way in which they have spoken about these difficult problems today. The general points in both the cases they raised have been covered in Adjournment debates, and we also dealt with matters relating to the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich, on Thursday last.

The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the gap faced by those retiring at 60 until they receive their retirement pension at 65, but that state of things will apply only to non-established people. I repeat that established persons retiring at 60 are entitled to their pension, and that those retiring at over 50 years of age and before 60 years of age can have their pension frozen, and then pick it up at 60. I certainly undertake that the case of the others will be looked at very sympathetically. As the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members know, I am chairman of the War Department Industrial Council on which all trade unions are represented, and I undertake personally to see that this point is looked at.

With regard to surplus capacity and the reason for closing Pembrey, as I explained in the Adjournment debate, the reason was simply that Pembrey's main purpose was to provide T.N.T., and we have too much T.N.T. at the moment. We tried to keep the factory going with ammunition breakdown work, but that has run out. There is no question, as the right hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest, of choosing between Pembrey and Bridgwater. Pembrey has a totally different capacity. Bridgwater's job is to make high-explosives and plastic propellants, which cannot be adapted to the type of work done at Pembrey. The work to be transferred from Pembrey to Bridgwater and Bishopton will be a very small part of the work at those Royal Ordnance factories, but there was no alternative to closing Pembrey.

I was asked whether the Board of Trade was consulted before the decision was made. The Board of Trade was consulted, but the decision was ours, and we are not trying to put it on to any other Department. As for the future, I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman had to say. I think that the only justification for putting the Royal Ordnance factory on civil work would be if we could see some prospect of its again being used as an Ordnance factory. We cannot see that prospect at Pembrey, and we feel that it is much better——

Mr. J. Griffiths

I warn the hon. Gentleman that that was what they said in 1921, but they had to come back.

Mr. Kirk

But warfare has changed a little. With the development of nuclear weapons, the amount of T.N.T. needed in future must be much less than it was in the past.

Mr. Mayhew

Why is it so important? When the product of a private firm becomes outdated it can go into another branch of work. Vickers no doubt made round-shot at one time, but transformed itself for other work, and Ordnance factories could do the same, instead of their being constantly throttled in this way

Mr. Kirk

I do not think that that is fair. The Royal Ordnance factories are there to supply the Armed Forces with weapons, and cannot go over to private industry in that way. It might be argued that the case was different when we had the Labour Government, on the grounds that one could not see when we might want a factory again, but, with the development of nuclear weapons, it is quite certain that we shall not again need that enormous quantity of T. N. T. and Pembrey, in its present form, is not much use for the production of anything else. It has to be decontaminated and, when it has been decontaminated, we shall put it up for sale as a whole.

The hon. Member for Woolwich, East asked me to answer a question to which I did not reply in Thursday's debate. I apologise for that, though I am sure that he will remember that, as it was, I had to move along at tremendous speed in order to try to cover all the points raised in that debate. Even so, I must confess that I may have misled the Committee over the Chieftain tank. It is true that this tank will come into service next year, but I also said that most of B A.O.R. would be equipped with it next year. That statement was wrong; I should have said 1967–68. Nevertheless, some of the B.A.O.R. will be equipped with this tank next year.

I did not have time on Thursday to mention the review. The Inter-Departmental Committee under the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for War has on it representatives of the planning Departments; the Ministry of Housing and Local Government is represented, as is the Board of Trade, and so are the other Service Departments. But this is an inter-Departmental body, not a body for Liaison between Government and local authorities. At the same time, we have said over and over again that the normal planning procedures will be gone through; that is to say, the local authorities, both the L.C.C. and the municipal borough councils, will be consulted. We have no desire to do anything that might upset any of them, but we think it best, first of all, to see what is the Government's need for the site. Once that is clear, we can go ahead and see what the need for other people is. We are the landlords. We have to dispose of it in the way which is most suitable to all the interests concerned.

7.30 p.m.

I well remember the case to which the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) referred. I would not have said that this was a slight misdemeanour. The carrying of tobacco or cigarettes inside an explosives factory is very dangerous and has always been regarded as one of the most serious offences that an employee of a Royal Ordnance factory can commit. I would not, therefore, feel inclined to urge the manager of that factory to reverse his decision to dismiss the man in question, but I agree, to this limited extent, that the regulation which provides that any man dismissed for misconduct loses his superannuation seems very harsh. I cannot comment usefully on that today because it applies to the whole of Government service and not just to the War Office. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the matter further his remedy might lie in other directions.

I would repeat to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. J. Morris) what I have said on innumerable occasions—that the Royal Ordnance factories receive from this Government 80 per cent. of the work which they are equipped to do. This has been the position in the past and, with the exception of the Sankey order for the A.P.C., it will be the position in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding £2,400,000 be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the expense of operating the Royal Ordnance Factories, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1965.