Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich

– in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 21 December 1964.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Fred Mulley Mr Fred Mulley , Sheffield Park 12:00, 21 December 1964

With permission Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the Royal Ordnance Factory, Woolwich.

During the last seven years, nine Royal Ordnance factories, apart from Woolwich, have been closed in order to bring capacity into line with the reduction in requirements for munitions. There is still, however, a substantial surplus of engineering and gun making capacity in the two Royal Ordnance factories equipped to do this sort of work, namely, Woolwich and Nottingham.

To keep both these factories running economically we should need to attract suitable new work to the value of about £7 million a year for some years ahead. While it is the Government's aim to attract work into the R.O.F.s, consistent with their primary purpose of producing munitions for the Armed Forces, I cannot foresee that an additional steady load of this magnitude of work suitable for these factories is likely to be forthcoming.

It is clear, therefore, that our capacity for this kind of work must be reduced. Nottingham is the more modern of the two factories and, for that reason, more economical to run. Moreover, its capacity is more in line with foreseeable requirements. I am, therefore, forced to the conclusion that it is right to retain R.O.F. Nottingham and that the decision to close R.O.F. Woolwich cannot be reversed. The saving from this concentration of capacity is estimated at upwards of £1 million per annum.

During the course of the investigation, it has been represented that the R.O.F.s have, in the past, not been fairly treated in the allocation to them of work for which they arè equipped to produce. Although I am satisfied that no change in policy could bring additional work to the factories on a scale which would justify retention of both Nottingham and Woolwich, it is important that the excellent facilities and skilled labour available in the R.O.F.s generally should be used to the maximum advantage.

I am, therefore, putting in hand a departmental investigation into the way in which work is allocated to the factories. An investigation will also be made into the possibility of attracting contracts from sources outside the defence field. This investigation will be undertaken by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army, who will consult with representatives of trade unions and employers as well as with other Government Departments.

I should explain that this announcement is being made now, at this very unseasonable moment, in response to the need to remove uncertainty about the future of R.O.F., Woolwich. The trade union representatives asked especially that this uncertainty should be removed as soon as possible, and, though the confirmation of the decision to close Woolwich will be a disappointment to them, in the wider field of R.O.F. activity as a whole it will have the advantage of dispelling certain anxieties.

I should add that this decision will not result in immediate discharges. The pattern is simply that the process of rundown, halted during the examination of the problem, will be resumed. The necessity to discharge will depend upon a number of factors difficult to forecast, but is unlikely to arise before the end of the winter.

Photo of Mr Philip Goodhart Mr Philip Goodhart , Beckenham

Although no one can welcome the decision to close Woolwich Arsenal, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his statement is a complete vindication of the action taken by his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Ramsden), which was very strongly attacked at the time by hon. Members opposite?

Can the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about the new investigation which is to be undertaken into the possibility of contracts from outside the defence field? Has there yet been any positive result or positive reply following the letters sent out many months ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate to other Government Departments, asking whether they had work to be undertaken by these factories?

Photo of Mr Fred Mulley Mr Fred Mulley , Sheffield Park

I should make quite clear that I am not confirming the previous decision. I am merely saying that, at this moment of time, it is impossible to reverse it, which is quite different. I must add that, had steps which we now intend to take, as indicated at the end of my statement, been taken some years ago, the position might well have been different today. The fact is that, in existing circumstances, I do not see how it would be possible to reverse the decision and keep Woolwich going.

There has been very little response from other Government Departments to the letters sent out by my predecessor, and this is why I am not content to leave the matter to correspondence but am asking my hon. Friend to mount a full-scale investigation to see what additional sources of work for the R.O.F.s can be found both inside and outside the Government.

Photo of Mr William Hamling Mr William Hamling , Woolwich West

I thank my right hon. Friend for the promptness of his statement, but I have to tell him that it will cause grave disappointment in Woolwich. Is he aware that the men who work in the Arsenal have for several years been convinced that work has been deliberately diverted from R.O.F.s to private enterprise and that there is evidence that contracts going to private enterprise have, in the event, resulted in work being brought back to R.O.F., Woolwich, to be made right?

Is he aware, also, that there is tremendous skill and efficient machinery in the R.O.F., Woolwich, which could be diverted to other Government work? Will my right hon. Friend consult other Ministers about the disposal of the plant so that its use might be considered in that direction, and on the question of preparing a co-ordinated plan for the whole of the area of the factory, bringing into consultation the Borough of Woolwich, which, so far, seems to have been neglected?

Photo of Mr Fred Mulley Mr Fred Mulley , Sheffield Park

It is no part of my job to consult the Borough of Woolwich on whether or not there is enough work to keep the R.O.F. going. Certainly, there have been consultations, and there will be, on the use of the site after the R.O.F. has been closed.

I accept from my hon. Friend that this decision will be a source of great disappointment to those who work in Woolwich. The R.O.F., Woolwich, has deservedly a very high reputation and a great tradition in doing work for the Army over many years. However, while it may be that steps could have been taken in the past to get more work to the R.O.F.s, I do not see how, in present circumstances, we can find the additional load of work which would justify our keeping R.O.F., Woolwich, going.

On the other point which my hon. Friend made about the co-ordination of work in the R.O.F.s, the object of the investigation to be conducted by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is precisely to try to obtain both within the Defence Department and outside a sufficient load of work to keep the remaining Royal Ordnance factories as fully occupied as possible.

Photo of Mr Jeremy Thorpe Mr Jeremy Thorpe , North Devon

Can the right hon. Gentleman say when, as near as it is possible to forecast, the departmental investigation will be completed? I take it that the Government will be responsible for retraining and redundancy schemes for the men who are not continued in employment. Have they thought these proposals out, and, if so, what have they in mind?

Photo of Mr Fred Mulley Mr Fred Mulley , Sheffield Park

I should not like to give a date for the conclusion of the investigation, which has not yet started. I thought it only right to inform the House of it before beginning this investigation over a wider field. We have so far confined it to a study of the future of R.O.F., Woolwich.

I shall have to write to the hon. Gentleman if he wants precise details of redundancy and retraining. We shall, of course, follow through the retraining and redundancy arrangements already agreed between the Department and the trade unions, according to the normal practice in Government Departments in this kind of contingency. But if the hon. Gentleman wants more details, perhaps he will be good enough to let me know the precise nature of his inquiry.

Photo of Mr Edward Heath Mr Edward Heath , Bexley

Is the right hon. Gentleman being quite frank with the House in saying that this policy cannot be reversed? He said in his statement that the process of rundown has been halted, but, a little earlier, he said that he could see no change in policy which could bring additional work to the factories on a scale which would justify the retention of both Nottingham and Woolwich.

Is it not plain, therefore, that this is a clear decision of the Government—which I agree is right—that the Royal Ordnance factory at Woolwich should be closed? The right hon. Gentleman has shown no justification for saying that the policy could not be reversed if the Government wished to do so. In fact, it is a decision by the present Government to close Woolwich Arsenal. If, as he rightly says, it will cause disappointment among many in my constituency and others around it, is not this largely due to the fact that Labour candidates, at the time of the election, said that a Labour Government would keep the Arsenal going?

Finally, will it not be a great asset to this part of London that so much land will now be available for housing?

Photo of Mr Fred Mulley Mr Fred Mulley , Sheffield Park

I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should be so indignant. I made quite clear that took full responsibility now for the decision not to reverse the previous Government's decision to close Woolwich. That is what the re-examination was about. Had work been available, it would have been quite possible, believe, to have got men back and to have put the place back into full production. I am not resting only on the argument that the factory has run down too far. The fact is that many people have left. We are now at a point a year later than when the question was raised by the previous Government. This makes it even more difficult to take a positive decision.

The important fact, not only as regards Woolwich but over the whole range of the R.O.F.s, is that the volume of work coming to them during the past few years has been diminishing. Though orders were placed which we were obliged contractually to carry out, there is no doubt that insufficient work would be forthcoming which we could place with the R.O.F.s in the next year or two.

Several Hon. Members:

rose——