House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Oct 1995

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the 10 minutes are up.

7.26 pm

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes): I hope that the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech. I want to pick up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), and, in the short time available to me, to concentrate on the costs of the MOD's ban on homosexuals serving in the Army.

This is not a speech that I particularly want to make, and it is probably not a speech that many of my hon. Friends particularly want to hear, but it is a speech that I think needs to be made--if for no other reason, simply because Ministers ought to be aware of the financial costs of the current ban.

First, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), the Minister of State, for the positive and helpful way in which he has responded to representations that I have made for a number of months. I also thank him and the Ministry for agreeing to set up an internal review, in the light of the recent High Court judgment and the views of one of the judges. I hope that the review will be genuinely independent; I must say that I was a little concerned by some of the comments by one or two senior members of the armed forces that I read immediately after the announcement of it.

Column 209

If the review is to inspire any confidence in the Select Committee that eventually considers its findings in the House during this year, it will need to be seen to be genuinely independent within the MOD. I would prefer a much wider review, but I am nevertheless grateful to my hon. Friend for the action that he has taken.

I should like the ban to be rescinded. I do not think that we should wait for the High Court or the Appeal Court, for the review being set in hand by my hon. Friend, for the House to have to consider the Select Committee report or--worst of all--for the European Court. I believe that, in this day and age, the ban is morally wrong.

Nearly 300 people have been discharged from the armed services since 1990 for the crime of being gay. Almost all of them were discharged not because they committed any act of homosexuality while engaged in their duties, but simply for the crime of being gay. No one knew; they were shopped--I know all about that. They were shopped by newspapers, by jealous friends, by people outside who wanted to make trouble. Not once did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State doubt the courage of all those brave fighting men who fought in the Gulf war and in Bosnia.

The Minister of State might like to know that only a few weeks ago half a dozen airmen--four navigators and two pilots--were discharged. They had been serving this country, putting their lives on the line in Bosnia flying Tornados. We have heard repeatedly from Ministers and hon. Members in this debate about the great courage and the selfless acts of duty exhibited and performed by members of our armed forces in the defence of this country. But if some of them happen to be gay, even though they are not indulging in any gay practices--I agree that that would be unacceptable on active service--it is a different story. They are discharged simply for the crime of being gay. Three hundred of them have been discharged for that crime in the past five years.

Goodness knows how much all the investigations have cost, but I have an estimate that it takes one man investigating a regular soldier who is a suspected homosexual 34 days to complete his investigations on behalf of the special investigations branch; and the total cost of all investigations between 1990 and 1995 is estimated at £7 million.

These investigations are degrading, immoral and wholly unnecessary. While the current ban persists, a person found to be gay should at least be honourably discharged and not put through these degrading hoops.

The training costs of all these service personnel must be horrendous. I do not know what it costs to train a Tornado pilot or navigator, but it must be a great deal of money. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, formerly the Chief Secretary, can ill afford to waste money training people to replace others who are perfectly good at their jobs. No Conservative Member doubts the bravery of those who serve in the armed forces. No one doubts that the half dozen men recently discharged from the RAF fought for their country and put their lives on the line.

Next come the legal costs of the cases currently before the High Court. I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the fact that, ultimately, if this House does not resolve the issue, these cases will end up in the European Court. I

Column 210

suspect that all hon. Members know that that court will rule that this is discrimination, and we shall have to give way. I do not want the laws that we control to be made for us by the European Court, whose judgments usually involve average compensation for cases of this kind of about £50,000. The Secretary of State and the Minister of State, like the Chief Secretary, can do their own sums and realise that millions of pounds will be involved.

I tell the House: this ban will end. It may end if there is a Labour Government; but as there will not be a Labour Government it will end for other reasons. I do not want it ended under duress from the European Court. I want it ended because, as my hon. Friend said earlier, the Army is well capable of coping with change. Hundreds of homosexuals serve in today's Army; some of them are hunted down, others are not discovered. Most of them are congratulated by my hon. Friends; most have tributes paid to them by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby--but most of them are never known. If they are gay, they keep it quiet. They do nothing stupid and they serve their country with distinction. I find it perverse that someone like me can serve in Her Majesty's Government but not in Her Majesty's armed forces. That is ridiculous.

7.34 pm

Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) on the powerful, impassioned and effective arguments that he adduced in support of his proposition. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson), however, I want to confine my remarks primarily to procurement issues, not just as they affect my constituents--although they do--but more generally too.

I am concerned about how the Ministry of Defence handles major procurement policy matters. The MOD cannot continue to have it both ways. It cannot, on the one hand, say that it is its policy to retain an effective United Kingdom industrial capability and, at the same time, allow major procurement programmes to slide ever further behind schedule.

My hon. Friend the Member for Govan referred to the batch 2 Trafalgar class programme, which provides a vivid illustration of the problem. The batch 2 Trafalgar class submarine programme is nearly two and a half years behind schedule. The main reason for that delay, as the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), said in the Navy debate in February, is that the Government wanted to generate a competition for the prime contractorship of the programme, and paid GEC tens of millions of pounds to put together a rival bid for it.

I believe that the Government's policy is inconsistent and does not bear serious analysis. In addition to the industrial damage that the delay is likely to cause my constituency, and the shipbuilding industry in general, it is also legitimate to argue that there will probably be operational implications for the Royal Navy. The batch 2 Trafalgar class programme is designed to replace the aging Swiftsure class; many of those submarines are nearly 20 years old. The extra two and half years delay now built into the programme may have an effect on the Navy's ability to maintain an operational fleet of 12 strategic submarines nuclear, even though I understand that that is still Government policy. If possible, I should

Column 211

like the Minister to reassure the House today that the delay will not have such an implication for the Royal Navy.

There can be no further delay or slippage in the ordering of the batch 2 Trafalgar class submarines. As I have said, the programme is already two and a half years behind. I do not expect the Minister to say today that he is about to order the submarines, but I do want him to say that there will be no further delay and that the Government will honour the timetable that they have proclaimed--to order the submarines, at the latest, by June 1996.

While we are on the subject of the Trafalgar programme, I would also like the Minister to assure my constituents who expect to build the submarines-- I have no doubt that they will--that the Ministry will follow the practice that it has adopted for other major submarine building contracts such as Trident and release long-lead funding to allow some of the early steel work needed to construct the boats to begin at the earliest opportunity. That will not at a stroke close the gap opening up in VSEL's order book, but it will go a long way towards doing so.

In addition, therefore, to confirming the new timetable for the submarines, I want the Minister to confirm that the Government are considering issuing long-lead funding.

Secondly, we need to look seriously, in the context of major procurement contracts, at the Government's policy of maintaining competition as the principal driving force behind such contracts. It is becoming increasingly hard, especially at prime contractorship level, to secure competition for major programmes. As our industrial capability and our defence industrial base continues to shrink it will become ever harder to secure contracts exclusively through competitive tendering. In shipbuilding--my particular

concern--competition does not apply to submarine construction, because VSEL is the only shipyard in the United Kingdom licensed to construct nuclear submarines. And we know that the Government no longer want to order any diesel-electric submarines.

Frankly, nor does competition apply any more to large ship construction either because VSEL, as the Government have acknowledged--this is a commonly known fact--is the only shipyard capable of building large vessels for the Royal Navy. Instead of forcing many shipyards to go through an abortive competitive tendering process which is entirely bogus, as we know was the case in relation to the batch 2 tendering programme, the Government should be much more upfront about the NAPNOC procedure--no acceptable price, no contract. That is a way of ensuring adequate value for money for taxpayers, which is a perfectly legitimate concern of Government. On the issue of procurement generally, perhaps we could leave the final word and judgment on the Government's policy to the industry itself. On 21 March 1995, the Defence Manufacturers Association, in evidence to the Joint House of Commons Defence and Trade and Industry Select Committee, said:

"Sadly, the MoD procurement policies have, until now, done little of a positive nature to support industry's chances of retaining a competitive edge."

I hope that the Government will give that view and comment from industry proper emphasis and consideration.

Column 212

Again, my hon. Friend the Member for Govan referred to export promotion. I understand that the MOD estimates that the future UK naval shipbuilding requirement in the three remaining yards will be sufficient to support only 8,500 jobs in the UK shipbuilding industry. That is not enough to support even the existing reduced employment levels in the UK shipbuilding industry. Therefore, if we are to retain employment levels, it will be important for the British Government to get behind the UK shipbuilding industry and to support its export potential. The only way they can do that is to do what other European countries do: back effective winners. At the moment, however, it is not a policy of the British Government to back individual yards. Consequently, foreign orders are left to competition between yards. That does not happen in other European countries. The British Government need to get behind successful British yards and back winners in relation to export potential. I am glad that the Government remain committed to the landing platform dock replacement programme because it will be essential if the policy of the Secretary of State for Defence for a rapid deployment force--his new initiative announced yesterday--is to be brought into being. Amphibiosity will be central to that. In turn, the LPDs are central to ensuring that amphibiosity.

The Government must make it clear again that they want to keep to the timetable for ordering the landing platform dock replacements. As I understand it, that should mean an award of contract at the end of this year.

I want to ask the Minister some direct questions about the landing platform helicopters. I understand that HMS Ocean was quite seriously damaged when launched earlier this month at the Kvaerner yard on the Clyde. How serious was that damage? Will it delay the commissioning of HMS Ocean and its coming into operation with the Navy? In particular, what implication might any further delay have for my constituents at VSEL who, under the contract to construct HMS Ocean, expect that ship to arrive in Barrow for fitting out early in the new year? Where will the work on HMS Ocean to repair that damage be undertaken? It needs to go into dry dock. Where will it go to have that work done?

The Upholders were referred to in speeches yesterday and today. The Minister will be aware that there are four Upholder classes. The entire fleet of Upholders is in my constituency awaiting the conclusion perhaps of an export agreement with the Canadian Government or some other purchaser. I hope that the Government will confirm that such negotiations are continuing to advance and that a prospect exists of an early agreement for a purchaser of the Upholder class to be found.

7.43 pm

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Before you took the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) made a succinct and seriously responsible speech, an example commendably followed by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton). Sad to say, however, the Labour party has somewhat damaged its laboriously pursued aspiration for credibility in defence with a breathlessly long--16 lines without a full stop--and incoherent amendment urging the Opposition not to approve the defence estimates today.

The Labour party then doubly damaged aspiration for credibility with the extremely quixotic intervention of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), who

Column 213

argued that Nye Bevan and others had no fear of the Soviet threat in 1951, an attitude not shared by Clem Attlee and an interpretation of history that is in total negation of the facts. Even from the perspective of that year, one could only have remembered what happened to Finland, the loss of the Karelia province and of the northern region to the Soviets, and the rape of the Baltic states in May 1940. The Soviet occupation of the eastern part of Poland was also part of the Molotov- Ribbentrop pact.

Also before you came in, Madam Deputy Speaker, the debate was illuminated by the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, whose speeches are never knowingly understated and today was no exception. His ebullience and bravura might have obscured the real problems that the armed forces face, especially in terms of recruitment and retention, and above all of the future role of our troops in Bosnia as part of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation implementation force. Luckily, those problems are self-evident and were well discussed by my hon. Friends during the debate.

The Minister of State is very good at talking up the reality and his remarks remind me of those of the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), who spoke with such pride about the United Kingdom punching above its weight--a phrase which, in military terms, candidly terrifies me. All I will say is that, mercifully, the "Front Line First" review has not gone as badly as I had feared, that the slogan--and I loathe slogans in defence matters--of "waste into weapons" is not misplaced, and that, by virtue of the savings in support, extremely important enhancements of our weapon systems and capabilities have been made.

The procurement in air and missile systems alone--more Chinook Mark IIs, the EH101 medium support helicopters, the Longbow Apaches, the C130 Js-- will greatly enhance the mobility and flexibility of our armed forces, as will the submarine launch Tomahawk cruise missiles increase their reach and capability to strike.

I hope that there is sufficient leeway in our budgets for the vital procurement of a conventionally armed stand-off weapon for the Royal Air Force, a modern anti-armour weapon, the maritime patrol aircraft to replace the Nimrod and the Astor airborne stand-off radar system. We must therefore continue to attempt to save money and we have sectors in which important savings can be made.

It makes no sense that we should employ 11,903 German civilians to support our armed forces in Germany when bases in Britain are being closed such as Abingdon for the RAF, Chivenor, which is to reopen for the Royal Marines, Brawdy, which was closed but has been reopened for the Army, Finningley, Scampton and many others. The Royal Air Force can operate perfectly from home bases instead of from Germany and deploy rapidly to wherever it is needed.

The same argument applies to the Army. It is not even as if there are proper training grounds for our tanks in Germany. It is true that we are looking for some in Poland, but largely they have to exercise in Canada. There are 33,000 Army and RAF personnel in Germany. I understood their presence there during the cold war under the terms of the Brussels treaty, but it is now an anachronism and needs to be reviewed.

Column 214

There are major savings to be made in procurement. The National Audit Office report on the Eurofighter programme needs careful study. We must never again involve ourselves in such a bureaucratic co-operative programme with an expensive management agency superimposed, a multiplicity of production lines, and so on. I trust that we will not make the same mistake for the new generation Horizon 2000 anti- aircraft frigate.

There is also the headquarters of the Procurement Executive at Abbey Wood which costs £400 million. There is also the £52 million that has gone down the drain to pay compensation to service women who became pregnant during their time in the armed forces and the risk that we may have to pay compensation to members of the armed forces who had to leave because they were homosexual. As the Chairman of the Special Select Committee dealing with the Armed Forces Bill during a previous Parliament, I must say that I profoundly disagree with the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) as, I suspect, do the chiefs of staff.

I can look at this only from a parent's point of view. Within their ranks the armed forces have many young people at a highly sensitive age when they are likely to be influenced by their superiors and I do not think that it is in any way appropriate for homosexuality to be condoned in the armed forces.

Our party needs to look resolutely to the future to present a defence programme which meets the needs into the next century. As my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said so eloquently yesterday, much more effective use should be made of the reserves of all three services. It is disturbing that the volunteer reserve element of all three services is reducing in size. With the reserve forces legislation, there will be an opportunity to revolutionise our use of reserve forces which will be extremely cost-effective.

We must improve the training of our armed forces rather than do it damage. I bitterly deplore the decision to sell off the Royal Naval college at Greenwich. I have suggested that it should be a tri-service cadet college to provide the discipline and grounding in science and military education that the regular officers of the future will need.

We must improve the mobility and flexibility of our armed forces. The joint rapid deployment force is a step in the right direction, but, in addition to the medium support helicopters and transports that we already have, we will need a strategic transport force. For my money that should be the McDonnell Douglas C17. We need the heavy lift as part of our capability to deploy the full range of our armed forces, including armoured fighting vehicles, rapidly to wherever they may be required. If our Government do that, they will have done well for the future.

7.53 pm

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth): Since the 10-minute limit on speeches still applies, I am sure that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) will forgive me if I do not follow his speech in detail. I would have liked to have dealt in more detail with the speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) so as to endorse, not for the first time, his call for consideration

Column 215

to be given to young people. The Government have done enormous damage to young people over the past 15 years and those activities should not be allowed to continue.

I would have liked to have mentioned hardware at some length, but I shall restrict my remarks simply to asking for an update on the F3. One view needs to be put which may not have been mentioned before. If we buy the American alternative, it will be twin engined but with only one air crew. If the F3 replacement is to be used on long sorties with several air-to-air refuellings, there may be a disadvantage to moving from the pilot and navigator to simply pilot operation. That is a small point, but the Minister will be aware that for many years Finningley in south Yorkshire trained navigators and one would not wish to see them becoming redundant, along with many of the others who worked at Finningley.

My main concern is that the Government seem to be adopting a preposterous approach. We have heard about the strong defence, strong Britain. Everybody has mentioned the speech made by the Secretary of State for Defence at the Tory party conference. There was another speech in which a prospective Conservative candidate was able to boast that he employed people at 89p an hour. It is no wonder they applauded him and it is no wonder that the same people applauded what The Daily Telegraph called the "ill-judged rhetoric" of the Secretary of State.

Yesterday's speech from the Secretary of State was more muted and reasonable. It was less aggressive. Perhaps someone has had a word with him and persuaded him that the SAS are not only tough but intelligent. They may be better at French and Spanish than the Secretary of State. They are capable and intelligent people. The Secretary of State clearly has a great deal to learn and I hope that he listens to the Minister of State, who is rather more familiar with the British armed forces. Perhaps the Minister might persuade the Secretary of State to visit some operational RAF stations to have a look at the squadron programme. We have heard about the 24-month question for Army postings overseas, but the Minister is well aware that many of the air crew and essential ground staff in the Royal Air Force would greatly welcome rather less frequent postings overseas. I know that the postings are for only three or four months, but I know of people who have done six or seven tours in the past three and a half years. That may be attractive to single young men, but when service men are married with children, the burden on their wives is excessive. It may be one of the factors in a problem to which the House should attend--the morale of Her Majesty's forces.

The morale in the Royal Air Force is higher than the Government deserve, given the sacrifices that it has had to make because of overstretch. I have mentioned strong Britain, but since the Government took office we have dropped from sixth to 16th in the world prosperity league. However, our commitments remain the same and the Government still wish to stride the stage of world affairs. They still wish to occupy a place on the United Nations Security Council. They still wish to play a leading part in NATO.

The problem is that the economic capacity does not match the political appetite. At the moment, the burden of that overweening approach by Her Majesty's Government is borne by a shrinking number of service men and it is not fair. The burden on the men and women in the services and on their families is excessive. If the Secretary

Column 216

of State wishes to take a tough line, let him take it with the Treasury to ensure that we are not placing too great a burden on our service men.

The Minister recognises how serious the burdens are. It cannot go on. We must match our commitments to our capacity or the Government will stand even more guilty of adopting a preposterous position.

Mr. Soames: Not for the first time in a defence debate the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one of the most serious problems that we face in running defence operations. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that part of the Bett review which has been so maligned in the House in the past two days tried to square the circle by dealing with those matters in a formal way? I believe that Sir Michael Bett appreciated the difficulties.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister will forgive me, but I do not have time to refer to the Bett review. I want to make two more points, one of which it is extremely appropriate for me to mention.

I have been a member of the Western European Union for longer than anyone in the House and I have been heavily involved in the debates and committee work of that assembly for a long time. I recognise that it has, and must have, an important role in European defence. However, the Minister must understand that, as it stands, the Western European Union cannot fulfil the aspirations that both sides of the House have for it. It needs to be given a great deal more attention. I believe that the Council of Ministers has not yet given sufficient attention to the implications of the widening that has taken place over the past year. It is right to point out that, for all sorts of reasons, the Community is not capable of serving such a European role. Discussion must take place in a rather more mature way than has been the case in recent months. Britain cannot afford to be asked to punch more than its weight, as the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood reminded us.

The Government need to be rather more even handed. The taxpayer pays for defence. We all pay tax, regardless of the area of the country from which we come. However, the Yorkshire Post told us the other day, in a full and interesting report, about the closure of the RAF depot at Harrogate and the fact that the jobs had gone to Wyton in the Prime Minister's constituency. Also, the Army school at Harrogate is to be transferred to a southern coastal county. Many of us suspect that there is now a retreat of defence expenditure into Conservative political fastnesses-- [Hon. Members:-- "No."] Well, it certainly looks like that. Perhaps I am wrong, but the Government need to deal with the growing suspicion that defence expenditure is being concentrated in areas of Conservative political strength. The other cause for concern is the excessive eagerness of the Government to contract out. I intervened on the former Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the RAF debate on 4 May and asked whether he accepted that the RAF had to retain sufficient capacity to be an intelligent customer. He said that he entirely agreed with me. What evidence has there been since 4 May that the services--in particular the RAF, which has to maintain high technological capacity--are being given that capacity? The former Minister said that that was why the RAF was to maintain capacity at Sealand and St. Athan, but what evidence is there that the Government accept the

Column 217

point that he made in the House several months ago? Is there not a real danger that the Government's commitment to dogma and privatisation is being taken too far?

This is an important matter because air crews must fly aircraft that have been serviced. They know that those who have trained in the RAF and are dedicated to the service are men of enormous technological skill. What guarantee has the House and the service that those skills will be retained and that the customer, the service and the taxpayer will continue to get value for money?

I have little faith that after 16 years the Government have demonstrated their fitness to maintain responsibility for the defence services. We need a change of heart and a more intelligent approach. The sooner we have a general election--which will at least save me from having to listen to Conservative dogma--the better.

8.3 pm

Mrs. Jacqui Lait (Hastings and Rye): It is not often that I seek to speak in a debate on defence because I am one of those few hon. Members unlucky enough not to have a service base in my constituency--even though the towns of Hastings, Rye and Winchelsea were significant in the birth of the Royal Navy, as three of the original seven Cinque Port towns. If hon. Members want an explanation of why there were seven Cinque Port towns, I would have to explain that at some other time, as Madam Deputy Speaker would rule me out of order if I tried to do so now.

There is an active Territorial Army unit in my constituency, which has invited me to visit it soon. There is also an exceedingly large and enthusiastic group of service cadets. In this day and age, when so many people think that youth services are under threat, it is heartening to see such enthusiasm for the cadets in Hastings and Rye. Indeed, were it not for them and the TA, most of our moving Remembrance Sundays, and, this summer, VE and VJ days, would not have the significance that they have, given the emotional part that the forces play in our civic life.

One issue has recently come to my attention, although I am rather confused about it following the receipt of a letter this evening. I have just heard from some parents that the whole of the air training element of our local cadets is to be moved from RAF Manston, when it closes, to RAF Benson. Without making a plea for something to be done about the appalling condition of the roads in my constituency, I must point out that it takes at least four hours to get from Hastings to RAF Benson. Given the need for cadets to be in school, and the requirement that schools meet the high standards that we are now insisting on, it will be difficult to persuade schools to allow children to leave early so that they can get to RAF Benson and back in reasonable time. At weekends and during the school holidays, the facilities are used by organisations such as the Air Training Corps. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has told my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) that a Bulldog is to be sent to RAF Manston so that the cadets can get some flying time. That is splendid, but only until RAF Manston is closed. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement could clarify the matter

Column 218

so that I can assure the parents of the air cadets that they will have reasonable flying time. We have spent a great deal of time debating the need to ensure adequate recruitment to our forces, so we must remember that many recruits come from the cadets. If they are put off by the fact that they do not have the opportunities to go up in a plane, the RAF will suffer in the long term.

My constituency has more than those enthusiastic cadets. At the other end of the spectrum, the contribution that Hastings and Rye makes to our defence comes through exceedingly high-tech research facilities. One company, Computing Devices, was a key player in putting reconnaissance systems on the Tornados that were so successful in the Gulf war. Since then, technology has moved on at an ever-increasing pace. That company is now a world leader in digital battlefield mapping--so much so that the managing director recently led a presentation to the US Defense Secretary. We are at the forefront of technology in this highly important area of future effective reconnaissance.

One of the developments on which the company is making progress was used in the Gulf war and was effectively described by Frederick Forsyth in his novel about that war. I certainly could not better his description. Since then, there have been further developments. The key feature of the equipment is that from a very great height one can observe what is happening on a battlefield without--this might seem slightly silly--having to worry about the height of hills. However, I understand that the Army is keen to develop its own digital mapping system. I am sure that 52 per cent. of the population will say that boys will be boys and boys will have their toys. Those of us who run household budgets know that the last thing to do is to allow those toys to put our budgets under pressure. Much of this debate has been about the pressure on budgets.

I have a vision of what the Army wants to do with its own digital mapping system. I can envisage an armoured personnel carrier or something of such size trundling out on to an open area which is not under attack and somehow putting up into the air all the kit that is required for observation on top of--perhaps--a telescopic line. One of the key factors of such reconnaissance is that one needs a clear picture. If the wind blows, what happens to the quality of the picture from the top of that telescopic line? How high can the telescopic line go before it starts bending under the weight of the equipment at the top of it?

There are many questions to be asked, not all as simple and silly, but to me, the net effect could be that we are indulging in a potentially significant waste of public money. The quality of information coming from the aeroplanes involved in such surveillance is improving--I am sure--on a weekly basis and will instantaneously provide the Army with all the information that it needs without it having to develop its own form of battlefield digital mapping. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could assure me that we will not see competitive research going on in an area in which we are already well ahead of the international field, especially as we are now emphasising. There is no point in wasting scarce public resources in duplicating, and duplicating inefficiently, research that is already going on.

Column 219

I ask my hon. Friend again for reassurances that we will see progress, especially in negotiations with the Germans, to ensure that the Eurofighter goes into production and that the Germans' current demands for a higher percentage of the build to be allocated in Germany is resisted. Granting such a demand would, of course, take jobs from the UK and its defence industry when so much of the technical development and the excellence of the Eurofighter has indeed come from British companies and their brilliant research. We have talked about a strong defence and a strong Britain. One of the messages that I have taken from this debate is that many people have not yet grasped that strong defence means high-tech defence. It is not necessarily the number of pairs of feet that can march behind the beat of the drum that matters, but ensuring that the armed forces have the best and highest level of equipment that can be developed to ensure that they are more efficient and more effective than the potential enemies that they may face--which in these hazardous days could be anywhere in the world.

I am glad for the sake of the companies in my constituency that we are investing so heavily in high-quality research. Will the Minister assure me that we will continue to do so? Ensuring only that there are people to march to the beat of the drum is not the best way in which to ensure that we win a war.

8.13 pm

Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich): I hope that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) will forgive me if I do not specifically follow her remarks. I shall concentrate on two specific concerns: first, the future of defence staff training and secondly, the future of the magnificent and historic buildings in Greenwich, currently occupied by the Royal Naval college.

The two concerns are inextricably linked. Following the decision earlier this year to merge the three separate staff colleges into a single tri- service college at Camberley, we have witnessed the shocking and demeaning spectacle of a British Secretary of State for Defence hawking some of the country's finest buildings and one of its most historic sites around the world in search of a buyer. I entirely endorse the regrets expressed by the hon. Member for

Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) about the proposed sale of the Royal Naval college.

We know that the Secretary of State is an ardent privatiser, but this proposed privatisation adds an entirely new dimension to what a former Conservative Prime Minister described disparagingly as "selling off the family silver". It is difficult to imagine any other country in the world possessing a complex of buildings of such quality and historical associations being prepared to sell off its national heritage in such a way --so much for the Secretary of State's absurd pretence in Blackpool last week to be standing up for British interests. "Do not mess with Britain", he might have said, but "would you like to make me an offer for one of our finest national monuments?"

The Secretary of State's action is all the more deplorable when one realises that he has a dual responsibility, not only as Secretary of State for Defence, but as sole trustee for the Greenwich hospital estate. It is worth summarising briefly what that involves.

Column 220

Greenwich comprises a remarkable complex, including the Queen's house, the national maritime museum and the Royal Observatory, which are all managed by the national maritime museum. It includes the Dreadnought seaman's hospital and the Devonport nurses home, which are both now sadly empty--one has been empty for getting on for 10 years and is showing signs of serious neglect and decay. There are also the buildings occupied by the Royal Naval college, including the famous painted hall and chapel, the King Charles, the William and Mary and the Queen Anne's quarters, and the Pepys building and other associated buildings--one incidentally containing what I believe is the country's smallest nuclear reactor.

The very names of the buildings convey much of the history and significance of the site. The estate was originally a royal palace, in which both Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth I were born, and was subsequently converted into a hospital and refuge for elderly and disabled seafarers--a foundation which celebrated its 300th anniversary last year. More recently, over the past 130 years, it has been a centre for naval training of the highest calibre, as all hon. Members who have visited the Royal Naval college will testify. The site has been of fundamental significance to the Royal Navy for centuries. It was where Nelson's body lay in state after Trafalgar, and has also for centuries been associated with the development of navigational skills, presided over as it is by the observatory standing on the meridian line from which the whole world measures time.

The complex was built by the greatest names in British architecture: Inigo Jones, Christopher Wren, Webb, Hawksmoor and Vanbrugh, to name just five. It has been described by, among others, the Secretary of State for National Heritage, the previous Secretary of State for Health, as the British Versailles. One only has to pause to reflect on the likelihood of the French putting the palace of Versailles on the market to realise the enormity of what our Secretary of State is doing.

How did it come to this? A little over a year ago the Ministry of Defence decided to merge the three separate service colleges into a single tri- service college. There were essentially two candidates as sites to accommodate the new college: Greenwich, the home of the Royal Naval college and the Joint Service Defence college, and Camberley, the home of the Army staff college. The way in which the choice of the preferred site was made tells us--I am afraid--a great deal about how the government of this country is currently conducted.

As I highlighted in a debate on the Royal Navy on 16 February, the so- called consultation was characterised by obfuscation, secrecy, dubious and misleading figures, and tendentious interpretations, all designed to prove that Camberley was the best buy. The doubts that I expressed in the House, in correspondence with the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and, indeed, in a meeting with him at the time, were brushed aside, and the Government confirmed their preference for Camberley. Interestingly, in the light of the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) about the political geography of defence procurement, the preferred site is located in Conservative-voting Surrey, rather than in Labour-voting south-east London.

We learn, however, from yesterday's edition of The Independent that the figures on which the decision was based have had to be revised. It said in The Independent :

Column 221

"Detailed studies into the cost of refurbishing the existing Army Staff College have disclosed that `tens of millions of pounds' will be needed to carry out the work.

The cost is substantially more than predicted in initial studies, raising fears that savings might not be seen until well into the next century.

`There is a lot of teeth-sucking going on about the scale of the costs involved in the refurbishment of Camberley,' said a senior defence source.

Alternative sites to Camberley are now under consideration to see whether greater savings can be made. And there are grave doubts whether the 1997 deadline for forming the tri-service college can now be met."

In response to my earlier intervention, I was somewhat surprised to discover that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces had apparently not seen this report but that he has undertaken to look into it. I hope that he will, as a matter of urgency, and inform the House whether the claim was made in the defence estimates that substantial financial savings will be made by the concentration on one site and that the closure of the four existing colleges in 1997 can still be achieved.

I must also ask the Minister to recall that in his correspondence with me dated 10 February this year he said:

"you are right to conclude that the principal reason for the difference in cost between the Greenwich and Camberley options is the need for significantly greater capital expenditure in the early years at Greenwich."

If the report in The Independent yesterday is correct and the costs involved in establishing the tri-service college at Camberley are proving to be substantially greater than previously estimated, it must call into question the validity of the assumptions which led the Government to decide in favour of Camberley rather than Greenwich. If, as The Independent implies, alternative sites are now being considered, I trust that Greenwich is among them.

In the meantime, Greenwich has been handed by the Secretary of State to the estate agents to be disposed of. Even worse has been the revelation that the Secretary of State intends to introduce measures in the forthcoming armed forces Bill to amend the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869 which governs the use of the Greenwich site. Section 7 makes it clear that the site can be used

"for the purposes of the naval service or any department of Her Majesty's Government".

That remit would, of course, permit continuing use of the site by the Navy or the Ministry of Defence or any public service use--for example, heritage or educational activities sponsored by the relevant Government Department. It would not permit a private use of the premises and that, I fear, is the reason why the Secretary of State is seeking to change the legislation.

After the fiasco of county hall being flogged to a Japanese corporation that has left the building empty and appears incapable of using it other than as an aquarium, we have every reason to feel real anxiety about the intentions of the Secretary of State for Defence. Not surprisingly his actions have prompted a national outcry. People, not only in Greenwich but throughout Britain, have made it clear beyond doubt that they do not want our magnificent architectural and historic heritage treated in that way. What should be done?

Next Section

Home Page