PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

435WH
Munitions Workers
26 MARCH 2013
Munitions Workers
436WH
[Matthew Hancock]
of munitions to the front. Nobody can fight or defend
themselves and their country without munitions. About
2 million people took part in the production of munitions,
and we have heard of the Aycliffe Angels and the Roses
of Swynnerton, but there are no doubt many other such
groups across the country. People were uprooted, some
lost their lives and the lives of others were irreparably
altered by injury and by their work. Their contribution
should be remembered and understood by this generation.
The Government recognise and appreciate the courage
and fortitude of all those who worked in munitions
factories in the second world war to supply our armed
forces. Photographs in our history books remind us of
the endless lines of munitions that were produced. We
have heard again of the huge impact of this work on the
social fabric, with women going to work in factories
often for the first time. That was the case in my family:
my grandmother took up work for the first time in that
period and never gave up the habit afterwards. The
same thing happened across the country, and it resulted
in a permanent change in the social fabric. Women
made a great advance in the work force; it was a
necessary advance, although work is still needed today
to complete it.
During the war, factories were the responsibility of
the Ministry of Supply, a predecessor of the Department
for Business, Innovation and Skills. That is why replying
to the debate falls to my Department. In a sense, as the
Minister for Skills, I am the Minister for Labour Supply,
to use older terminology. As the hon. Member for
Stoke-on-Trent South said, answers need to be worked
out to complicated questions about the potential formal
recognition of munitions workers. There is the question
of numbers: there could be tens of thousands of people
still living who worked in munitions factories in the
second world war. That does not include those who
worked in factories involved in closely linked activities
that were vital to the war effort, such as producing
airframes, ships and boats, vehicles—tanks have been
mentioned—and uniforms. The war effort could not
have proceeded without any of those.
As has been mentioned, the disruption to employment
in the war years, the time that has elapsed since and the
necessary secrecy of the work make it harder still to
identify all those who were involved. Manufacturing of
equipment for our armed forces was spread throughout
the UK’s extant manufacturing base, and many businesses
that would not obviously fall within the definition of
munitions factories were integral to the work. For example,
small carpentry firms and furniture workshops produced
wings for aircraft, and sewing machine manufacturers and
repair facilities made essential components for weapons.
Robert Flello: The Minister is right to say that it is
important to recognise the work of the different allied
trades, but I regard our proposal on munitions workers
as a first step. When the Bevin boys were recognised, it
was appreciated that the land-girls would need to be
too, but the issues were dealt with discretely and individually,
so there is a precedent.
Matthew Hancock: Yes, I understand that point.
Fireworks manufacturers, which were mentioned in the
debate, were also critical to munitions work, but there is
an important question about where to draw the boundary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood
(Mark Reckless) talked about close links to Woolwich
and the involvement of a range of people. The hon.
Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) talked about Les
George and Pembrey munitions factory and reminded
us not only of the dangerous work done during the war,
but of the entirely necessary work that continued after
1945 to make unused munitions safe. The hon. Member
for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) reminded us that the work
was often repetitive and, in his word, “boring”, but that
it was none the less a proud part of the history of the
town and that the work was a source of companionship.
That was not least the case in places where it had a huge
and obvious impact, such as Bridgend. The hon. Member
for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) spoke of the massive,
40,000-person Bridgend site and the debate about who
should work there—a debate that I entirely recognise in
what has been happening this very week. We can imagine
the camaraderie in the canteen, among the foremen of
Bridgend and in the enjoyment of dance halls, opera,
football and rugby, but also in the workers’ fortitude in
the face of the danger of the task. Finally, the hon.
Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) talked
about his personal experience. He provided a powerful
testament to the strength and fortitude of the women
who worked in the factories during the war, which he
related to his account of the men who work in the same
factories now.
The lack of records and the difficulties in verifying
entitlement raise practical questions about how to recognise
formally the contribution of individual civilian workers,
but I will consider the points that have been made in the
debate and speak to my hon. Friend the Minister of
State, who is formally responsible. He is to meet the
all-party group on 23 April to listen to the arguments in
person, and sends apologies for not being able to attend
the debate. He has also been invited to the event on
15 April and will attend if he can. He is looking forward
to replying to the all-party group about that shortly.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I welcome the way in which the
Minister has responded to the debate, and the fact that
he is keeping an open mind. In Bridgend there is a
memorial to the 27 people who died, which reads:
“Cofiwn yn ddiolchgar
Bawb a weithiodd yn
Ffatri Arfau Penybont
Ac yn enwedig y rhai
A laddwyd yno”,
which means:
“Remember with great gratitude
All those who worked at
The Bridgend Arsenal
And especially those
Who were killed there”.
It goes on to list all the names. We are starting to put in
place the things that will give recognition, and I welcome
the fact that the Minister’s mind is not closed to the
possibility of individual recognition for those who served,
including those who have passed away. Their families
may want them to be recognised and to have something
that is personal to them, by which they can remember.
Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman suggests
that time is pressing, especially for those who served
during the second world war. I pay tribute to the
all-party group, which was set up to explore ways to