PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
423WH<br />
Munitions Workers<br />
26 MARCH 2013<br />
Munitions Workers<br />
424WH<br />
[Mark Reckless]<br />
their contribution to the winning of the second world<br />
war, it would clearly be a good thing, if it were possible,<br />
for them to get the recognition that the hon. Member<br />
for Stoke-on-Trent South seeks. Although the Minister<br />
here is not the Minister we would expect to respond to<br />
such a debate, I welcome him in terms of his ability to<br />
push discussions within Government, and to put the<br />
issue on the agenda and have it looked at with a fresh<br />
pair of eyes.<br />
Regarding medals for groups that perhaps have not<br />
received rightful recognition, two things in particular<br />
have struck me. The response a few weeks back to the<br />
announcement of a medal for those involved in the Arctic<br />
convoys was important, and I have just had a constituency<br />
case involving a gentleman in Cliffe Woods village who<br />
served at Suez but did not get the medal of recognition<br />
he should have received. When my office pressed the<br />
issue, it appeared that there had been some confusion<br />
and his service had fallen through the cracks, so to<br />
speak, within the Ministry of Defence. We were able to<br />
provide the firm evidence that he had served in Suez,<br />
and the medal was then awarded. To the gentleman, the<br />
recognition was a source of great pride. That was one of<br />
the most rewarding pieces of constituency casework<br />
with which I have been involved.<br />
I represent Rochester and Strood, and the Medway<br />
towns more broadly, and I am not sure whether constituents<br />
of mine would fall under the definition put forward by<br />
the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South. He mentioned<br />
Faversham, however, and of course at Woolwich there<br />
was the large Royal Ordnance munitions manufacturing<br />
base, and from Rochester or Strood—Chatham station<br />
is also in my constituency—Faversham and Woolwich<br />
are both within half an hour’s travel. I have no doubt<br />
that significant numbers of constituents in my area<br />
served in munitions manufacture, and a number of<br />
them are perhaps still alive and resident there. The hon.<br />
Gentleman kindly said that there were problems with<br />
the definition. Understandably, he and his group have<br />
settled on a clear definition and I wish them well in<br />
seeking recognition for the people who fall within it, but<br />
I hope he does not mind my saying that there are other<br />
groups of people—he himself drew attention to the<br />
people who worked on airframes.<br />
My constituency had Short Brothers, based on the<br />
Esplanade in Rochester. That is now all modern housing,<br />
with great river views, but there is great pride in the area’s<br />
industrial heritage of Short Brothers and the flying boats<br />
developed and manufactured at that site. The hon.<br />
Gentleman drew attention to the movement of factories<br />
during the war, and the vulnerability of Rochester to<br />
German bombing may have led to Short Brothers’<br />
greater focus on its manufacturing in Northern Ireland.<br />
However, I believe that the skills base developed by<br />
those who worked on airframes in Rochester deserves<br />
recognition. Similarly, the royal dockyard in Chatham<br />
had many thousands of military workers, to whom we<br />
owe a great deal for both the first and second world<br />
wars, and indeed for many other wars going back<br />
several centuries.<br />
To conclude, I associate myself and my constituents<br />
with the hon. Gentleman’s call that, just as those who<br />
worked and particularly served in military campaigns<br />
have been recognised with different medals and clasps,<br />
people who worked and contributed in such roles are<br />
also deserving of recognition. If, even at this late stage,<br />
the Government gave them the measure of recognition<br />
sought by the hon. Gentleman, I would very much<br />
welcome it.<br />
10.1 am<br />
Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): I speak as a member of<br />
the all-party group on recognition of munitions workers,<br />
which aims to obtain recognition for the many thousands<br />
of such workers, mostly women, who did dirty, smelly<br />
and dangerous work in munitions factories. I endorse<br />
all the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member<br />
for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), who described<br />
the bravery of the women and men of the munitions<br />
factories.<br />
I am grateful to my constituent Mr Les George, who<br />
has undertaken research into the local Royal Ordnance<br />
Factory at Pembrey in my constituency. He became<br />
interested because his mother had been a munitions<br />
worker there and narrowly escaped from explosions, the<br />
memories of which remained with her for her life. Our<br />
parliamentary group has looked at some form of medal<br />
or veterans badge for munitions workers, like those for<br />
the Bevin boys or land-girls. In April, we will launch<br />
our fundraising campaign in <strong>Parliament</strong> for a permanent<br />
memorial to munitions workers in the National Memorial<br />
Arboretum in Staffordshire. Mr George has prepared<br />
information for display on the former site of ROF<br />
Pembrey, and we hope that the county council will<br />
support recognition of the role of local people in the<br />
munitions factory.<br />
The research has not been easy because of the secretive<br />
nature of such factories. Pembrey has a long history of<br />
manufacturing explosives: a powder works was established<br />
on the Pembrey Burrows as far back as the 1800s, and<br />
was known as the New Explosive Company of Stowmarket.<br />
Detonators, fuses and other explosives were produced<br />
on the site, which covered an area of some 150 acres,<br />
stretching along the Pembrey coastline. The factory<br />
employed almost 80 people, including young boys and<br />
girls. As the work was highly dangerous, employees<br />
were paid by piece work that enabled them to earn<br />
between 2 shillings and sixpence and 3 shillings a day.<br />
At the time, that was comparatively good pay, so there<br />
was a local shortage of people wanting to be domestic<br />
servants.<br />
The industry was not without its dangers. A minor<br />
explosion occurred at the Pembrey Burrows site on<br />
11 November 1882, but fortunately no one was injured.<br />
It prompted Sir John Jenkins, my predecessor as MP for<br />
the area, to ask a parliamentary question on Thursday<br />
16 November, because the sheds apparently held well<br />
over the legal limit of 150 tons of material authorised<br />
under the terms and conditions of the company’s explosives<br />
licence. He asked the Secretary of State:<br />
“If he is aware of the fact that about 300 tons of dynamite is<br />
stored in one room at Bury Port…within a comparatively short<br />
distance of the shipping…and of large works where hundreds of<br />
workmen are employed…?”—[Official Report, 16 November 1882;<br />
Vol. 274, c. 1533-1534.]<br />
Sadly, the following day there was a large explosion,<br />
causing the tragic loss of life of seven young workers—three<br />
males and four females, ranging in age from just 13 to<br />
24. The noise of the explosion was so great that it was<br />
heard as far away as Pembrokeshire.