Chatham Dockyard (36 page)

The Historic Dockyard at Chatham has sometimes a strange and eclectic mixture of display items and none more so than this selection to be found under the roofing of the No.3 covered slip.

The parliamentary answer to this question also added a further piece of detail:

The Government also accepts the report’s conclusion that the introduction of private capital into the dockyards is not a practical solution at this time.
¹

The report, described in some circles as ‘radical but realistic’, had set out a means by which Chatham and the other home yards could achieve much higher levels of efficiency through a structural reform of the existing management process. Under the recommendations being made, those responsible for the dockyards would be given greater independence to manage resources while accountable for the performance of the yard against clearly laid down objectives. Harking back to the 1890s and the ship construction race between Portsmouth and Chatham, competition was also to be developed between yards. In a later account of his time as Navy Minister, Speed offered a further explanation of what was intended:

In other words we should cut as many links as possible from the Civil Service attitude which was inappropriate for running a considerable industrial enterprise comparable in size to Vauxhall Motors or the Metal Box Company. There were many other proposals, most of which are standard practice in well-run profitable organisations but were greatly daring in a dockyard Civil Service context.
²

Among these other proposals was that of a new pay scheme which, at that time, was being negotiated with the dockyard unions. This involved productivity payments based on measurable increases in performance and would result in a clear increase in take-home pay. In return and ultimately agreed by the unions, certain outdated work practices were to be removed, paving the way for better stop/start routines and more flexibility over demarcation of trades.

An exterior view of the No.1 Smithery following its opening in 2010 as a public gallery that focuses on works of maritime art.

The optimism raised by the Dockyard Study Report was to be completely dashed one year later. Repeatedly, Conservative politicians had reaffirmed that under their watch the dockyard at Chatham would be completely safe. Many in the Medway area, prior to the closure announcement, freely stated that their vote was going to the Conservative party for this reason and no other. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of
actually closing the yard, the Conservatives on this occasion did a great disservice to the Medway Towns. It meant that large numbers of highly skilled and dedicated workers chose to enter dockyard service, believing that they had job security. In doing so, they rejected the higher pay rates to be found in the commercial sector while laying down their roots in the area. If political openness, combined with a more gradual running down of the dockyard had been allowed, the crisis that hit the Medway Towns from the summer of 1981 onwards could easily have been avoided.

One of the earliest public display exhibits within the area of the Historic Dockyard to get underway was that of ‘Wooden Walls’ which tells the story of how a seventy-four-gun warship of the eighteenth century was designed and built. It is located in a former mast house, with this part of the exhibition demonstrating how the lines of a warship were drawn onto the floor of the mould loft and from these templates were then cut.

As for the closure of Chatham, this was first disclosed in a statement given in parliament by John Nott, Secretary of State for Defence, on 25 June 1981 and resulting from a White Paper on defence entitled The Way Forward. A severe and devastating blow to the whole of the Medway area, it soon became clear that redundancies were to start almost immediately, that it also involved the additional closure of the naval barracks at HMS
Pembroke
, and that all was to be completed by March 1984.

Opposition within the Medway Towns to the closure of these two naval facilities was unanimous. A protest march was immediately organised, with 4,000 dockyard employees marching, on 3 July, from Pembroke Gate to a rally meeting on Jackson’s Field, Rochester. Many of those who lined the streets, or leaned out of office and shop windows, offered their support by willingly signing a petition that was to be handed in to No.10 Downing Street. Just over a week later, more than 1,000 dockyard workers from the area travelled to London in a fleet of coaches, joining with Portsmouth dockyard workers (a yard that was to be considerably reduced in status) at Clapham Common for a march to Westminster.

None of these efforts were to have any form of impact upon a government that was not intent upon a U-turn. In August, with a Manager of a Yard Closure Planning Department already appointed, the Chief Executive of Dockyards, Keith Thomas, made a fleeting visit to the yard, offering an explanation as to why the axe had fallen on Chatham. He began by referring to a series of financial constraints that had to be overcome by March 1984. Then, in turning specifically to Chatham, he affirmed that the dockyard had a good work record. However, the problem, as far as the Admiralty in London saw it, was that a home dockyard had to be closed for the purpose of economising and that Chatham was the only option. While the axe might have fallen on Devonport, Portsmouth or Rosyth, each of these had commitments outside of the immediate dockyard, something that was missing at Chatham. In providing further detail, Thomas referred to Portsmouth having many shore establishments and extensive berthing facilities for the fleet while both Devonport and Rosyth were operational naval bases, with the former having had considerable recent investment. Of course, what Thomas never chose to mention was that of the government’s own hidden agenda, that of allowing private industry to acquire a bigger slice of the national revenue. It was something that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was determined to drive through, irrespective of the loyalty of those that were now to suffer the consequences of this one particular political philosophy.

Keith Speed, a somewhat less doctrinaire politician than that of his leader, recognised the potential folly of too much reliance upon the private sector, especially when it came to defence matters, and fought hard to keep the yard open. Of course, this made his position untenable within the government, and he was savaged by an angry premier and quickly returned to the backbenches.

As well as a series of permanent displays, the Historic Dockyard also holds a number of event days, with this a demonstration of the work of the wartime civil defence organisations. The building in the background is the former Officers’ Offices while the railings are those that surround the former Commissioner’s House.

Giving credibility to those who opposed the closing of the dockyard at Chatham was that of the Argentine invasion of the Falklands that took place in April 1982. In assembling a large task force of naval warships for the purpose of retaking the islands, the facilities and workforce at Chatham became a crucial factor. All redundancy notices were suspended, this to allow for a maximum effort that was to be directed to supporting the task force. Apart from structural alterations on a number of ships, those employed in the yard during this period were also involved in issuing urgently required fuel and stores for a number of those vessels destined for the South Atlantic. Furthermore, once the conflict was over, those soon to be redundant workers were engaged on the repair of battle-damaged ships and the returning of other vessels to service, namely
Berwick
,
Zulu
and
Falmouth
, these to replace ships lost in the Falklands. It was now deduced by many that the government had not only made a mistake, but that it would soon recognise its error and announce that the closure notice raised on the dockyard would be rescinded. While, in the event, this did not happen, with the redundancy notices soon reinstated, a clear conundrum has never really been solved. Should a British government, at any point in the future, wish to carry out any sort of similar operation, then where is it that the ship conversions, storing, fuelling, arming and structural alterations would be undertaken?

Prior to the official closure of the dockyard and naval base on 31 March 1984, considerable attention had been given as to how the vacated land could be best used. From the outset, it became clear that a division of purpose was essential. To the south, and forming the site of the dockyard as established in the seventeenth century, there existed a magnificent collection of historic buildings that deserved preservation in their original historic setting. In total contrast to the historic enclave, was the area of the yard that had been developed during the nineteenth century. While there were several buildings certainly deemed to be of historic interest, this part of the yard was seen as much better suited to wholesale redevelopment.

‘The Chatham Maritime stone’ can be found alongside the No.2 Basin and was unveiled by Prime Minister John Major on 30 June 1995 to mark developments being made on the site.