PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

431WH
Munitions Workers
26 MARCH 2013
Munitions Workers
432WH
[Mr Russell Brown]
down to London to be with two ladies from my constituency
who took part in that parade, Margaret Proudlock and
Margaret Shields. They will be for ever grateful to the
all-party group for achieving that initial recognition.
However, as hon. Members, including the Minister,
have heard we want that little bit extra—something a
little bit special—for individuals to be recognised.
The site that I worked at was the Royal Ordnance
factory, Powfoot, which was managed by Nobel Explosives,
a subsidiary of ICI. I remember distinctly being told
about the site on my first day, “There’s 365 acres here,
boy. One for every day of the year.” That was founded
in 1940. Also in my constituency was a site at Edingham
in Dalbeattie, built in 1939. There was a further subsidiary
site of Nobel’s in Dumfries itself, at Drungans. In checking
one or two things, I came across the following in Hansard
from 25 February 1946:
“Mr. McKie asked the President of the Board of Trade whether
he will make a statement regarding future plans for the munitions
factory at Drungans, Dumfries.”
At that time, the President of the Board of Trade was
Sir Stafford Cripps, who replied:
“This factory has just been declared surplus to Government
requirements. It is, in its present form, suitable only to a limited
extent for peace-time production, but the Board of Trade will
endeavour to make arrangements for it to be used to the best
possible advantage.”—[Official Report, 25 February 1946; Vol. 419,
c. 548.]
That factory continued to operate from that date into
the late 1980s, when it closed. The Powfoot site, which I
worked at, ceased production in November 1992, after
the privatisation of Royal Ordnance factories.
I want to add a little support to what has been said
this morning. The Imperial War museum has been
helpful to us. I am confident that we will get something
at the National Memorial Arboretum and that there
will be an effort to raise the £100,000 that we want. I
also thank Scott Dodsworth of BAE Systems for all the
work that he has done.
One challenge that became apparent when I first
raised this issue was that we have no records of these
individuals. In my home town of Annan, a lady at the
Historic Resources Centre, Renée Anderson, has a card
index system of some 2,600 members of staff who were
employed. It is fascinating. I do not know how old this
lady thinks I am, but she produced a significant number
of photographs, some of which were black and white
and from way back and asked if I recognised any of the
people. Of course, I did not, but I am sure that people in
the community will come forward to try to identify
them. Renée wants to put on a display about what that
site did.
As we have heard this morning, these places were
secret. I met a chap a good number of years ago who
used to fly for the RAF. He said, “We were always told
to keep away from this area, because we had no idea
what was there. We were told, ‘Do not fly within this
specific zone.’” People were moving around that site
something that could, with the slightest spark, have
decimated the area. To give an example, I am sure that
colleagues will remember incidents in recent years, in
Peru and Holland, where fireworks have gone off in an
enclosed area and totally destroyed it, and have taken
the paintwork off vehicles in the vicinity. That is the
ferocity with which this material—small arms propellant—
burns. It is ferocious and, when it goes, people stand no
chance at all. That is the sort of environment that
women worked in during the war.
My latter days at the Powfoot site were spent as a
production supervisor. People in a work force do complain
and my answer to complaints from some of the guys
that that was dirty, heavy work, was, “This was women’s
work during the war”—not demeaning anyone, but just
showing the fortitude of those women in ensuring that
our guys on the front line were properly armed.
I hope that the Minister will speak to his colleagues.
It is little to ask that these women get individual recognition.
I know that the records are not as we would like to
be able to identify each and every one of them, but the
information channelled to my office and in the Historic
Resources Centre in my home town is a good starting
point. I am sure that other colleagues will work tirelessly
to ensure that we get official recognition for these
people who made the difference to our troops on the
front line, especially during the second world war.
10.35 am
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab): It is a pleasure to
serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. This is
not the first time, but it is exciting none the less.
This has been an excellent debate. I congratulate my
hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South
(Robert Flello) on his excellent speech and on the work
he is doing to promote this issue. He started by reflecting
that the debate was recognising some of the forgotten
heroes. In as much as they have been forgotten by
history, the work that the all-party group is doing and
the speeches by hon. Members today are ensuring that
they are forgotten no longer. We need to recognise the
contribution they made. My hon. Friend reflected on
the huge personal risks and sacrifices made by munitions
workers, known as “canaries” because of the effects of
their work with chemicals. I endorse the work of the
all-party group. The Opposition should look to work
with the Government and the all-party group on some
of the more difficult issues to do with individual recognition.
The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark
Reckless) broadened the description of people who also
served. When discussing this issue, we need to reflect on
the many people who contributed in different ways to
the war effort. Steps forward have been taken in recent
years to recognise various groups, and the hon. Gentleman
gave us a glimpse of other groups that we might choose
to bring under this umbrella in the future. Perhaps
inadvertently, he posed a challenge to my hon. Friend,
as the description could continue to grow. At what
point do we narrow it down? If we are asking for
individual recognition, recognising that collective recognition
that is long overdue—although there are real signs that
it will be given—what work can the all-party group,
with Government and the Opposition, do to try to
narrow the description so that we can find out how
many people are we talking about, how are we going to
find them, who will do the work to see who will receive
the recognition, and how we ensure that there is public
confidence that a self-certification model will not demean
the achievement in receiving it? Questions arise from
the hon. Gentleman’s contribution.