| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Soames: What happened to Rutley?
Mr. Raynsford: The name does not trip off the tongue as well without Rutley. But there we are--apparently the firm is now called Knight, Frank. If the calibre of the bids that have been received in response to the marketing exercise is inadequate--and we have every reason to suspect that it is not impressive--would it not be more sensible now to undertake a more sensitive and wide-ranging trawl of other possible uses to ensure that a truly appropriate use is guaranteed for these incomparable buildings?
Having said that, I have no wish to imply that the university of Greenwich--which is, according toThe Sunday Telegraph, the only British short-listed bidder--would not be an appropriate organisation to occupy at least a part of the site. I believe that the university has a valid claim that should be seriously considered. I also believe that the national maritime museum, which occupies an equally fine site across the road from the college, has advanced a strong case for taking over responsibility for running the painted hall and the chapel--the two elements of the complex most likely to attract the largest number of visitors, assuming the site is to be made properly available to the public.
The two options--the university of Greenwich and the national maritime museum--should certainly be the subject of serious consideration. But I find it difficult to believe that, for a complex of buildings of such importance, there are not other possibilities. We are talking about one of the country's most important heritage sites. Can one imagine any other country considering the future uses of such a magnificent group of buildings, but limiting the options simply to those who have replied to an estate agent's advertisement? It is inconceivable that any other country would act in that way, and the sooner the British Government recognise their mistake and start trying to find an appropriate way forward, the better.
The Select Committee examining the Armed Forces Bill will shortly take evidence at Greenwich about the future of the site. I have no doubt that the members of the Committee will receive a great deal of valuable evidence and advice in the course of that day on the appropriate uses for the buildings currently occupied by the Royal Naval college. There is considerable interest already in Greenwich at the prospect of the visit by the Select Committee, and many people are eager to attend--some to give evidence, others to hear the deliberations of the Committee. That is entirely appropriate and right, and I very much welcome the decision of the Committee to take evidence in Greenwich on the matter.
The discussions relate to the changes proposed in clause 26 of the Armed Forces Bill to the Greenwich Hospital Act 1869, which concerns the uses to which the site can be put. I am sure that members of the Committee will want to consider appropriate amendments to clause 26 in order to circumscribe the wide-ranging powers that the Secretary of State proposes to give himself. As it is currently drafted, clause 26 empowers the Secretary of
State to hand over these magnificent buildings on a lease of up to 150 years on whatever terms he determines to whomever he considers appropriate. These are extraordinarily wide-ranging powers for buildings of such importance.
It is not acceptable to allow the future of Greenwich to be decided on the say-so of the Secretary of State, whose zeal for privatisation, I am afraid, has become all too well known. He might allow that particular prejudice to stand in the way of the national interest in ensuring an appropriate public use for these incomparable buildings. After the depressing, but salutary, example of county hall--just five miles to the west along the River Thames--we really cannot allow the possibility of Greenwich suffering a similar fate.
I made it clear on Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill that I believe it to be incumbent on us to ensure that the legislation guarantees that only suitable and appropriate users can be considered. In this context, a continuing MOD use of the site should not be ruled out. We all know of the long and historic tradition linking Greenwich and the Royal Navy. Many people throughout Britain--not least those with naval connections--feel strongly that that link should be maintained.
Mr. John Spellar (Warley, West):
The debate started with an unrecorded aside from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on the currently topical subject of beards. I am not sure whether that was the result of follicle jealousy, but it seemed singularly inappropriate in a debate on the Royal Navy. That apart, it has been a constructive, useful and wide-ranging debate. Especially welcome was the positive announcement on procurement policy by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, to which I shall return later. It was a little spoilt by his need to use a soundbite, but I partly understand that: it provided some covering fire for a sensible shift on procurement policy and will probably keep him out of trouble with the Whips Office.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) discussed the wider strategic perspectives. We do not spend enough time examining that aspect, and perhaps we should give it broader consideration. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber raised the problem of overstretch, which we all acknowledge to be a service-wide problem--especially with the increasing commitments in Bosnia, including the need for rest and recreation. I know that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is alert to those problems.
My hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) spoke powerfully about the future of the dockyards in their areas and the strong local and community involvement in the rapidly changing circumstances there. As usual, they were effective advocates for their communities.
Several hon. Members were concerned about the order for the type 23 frigates, especially the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). The shipbuilding industry, as Ministers know, anxiously awaits the type 23 decision. That anxiety has been increased by the continuing delays in making the announcement. As the Minister knows, the decision was expected before Christmas. It is a matter of regret that the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was not able to make an announcement today. Given that this debate is a fairly movable feast, it is unfortunate that the decision was not brought forward or the debate postponed for a while until a Minister could make an announcement rather than saying that it would be made in a few weeks. We hope that that will not become a trade mark of Ministers' statements in such debates.
It is vital that an announcement should be made in the immediate future so that the yards and their suppliers and employees know what is going on. Hon. Members have referred to the dangers of protective notices and imminent redundancies as the work load starts to ease off and a gap appears in the work programme. I am sure that the Minister accepts that and I hope that we can have strong assurances of an early announcement.
Such an announcement is especially important because there is concern about how many type 23 vessels will be ordered. It is said that it will be up to three, but there is uncertainty as to whether it will be one, two or three.
Mr. Peter Griffiths
indicated assent.
Mr. Spellar:
I see that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North, who raised that in his speech, agrees. It concerns Hampshire and Glasgow Members and has considerable implications for British industry.
Concern has also been expressed at the delay in ordering the replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. I hope that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be more forthcoming in his reply. We cannot adopt a policy of wait and see.
My hon. Friends the Members for Blaenau Gwent(Mr. Smith) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) raised the question of Trident with firm personal conviction. Mention of Trident has a Pavlovian effect on Ministers and there was considerable noise in support. Their problems on defence policy make them look for fabricated differences in the Opposition. For years, it has been clear that Government supporters took far more notice of Labour party conference decisions than did the Labour leadership. Now they do not even have that crumb of comfort, they grab gleefully at any Back Bencher's expression of difference with Front-Bench policy.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in 1983 and 1987 the Labour party went into general elections with leaders pledged to nuclear disarmament?
Mr. Spellar:
That is exactly my point. Now, without even that crumb of comfort, the Government try to draw mock differences between Back-Bench and Front-Bench Labour Members. It is good knockabout stuff, but it is not a serious way to develop a national defence policy.I understand why the Minister grabs at that comfort: he is under huge attack from his Back Benches over the
On a practical matter, now that the French have ended their tests, have the Government considered two lessons? First, should they have been so tied to the position taken by the French in the first place? Secondly, as we move to a test ban, with modern super-computing providing the possibility of simulation, do we have the capacity in this country to undertake such work? If not, what provision are we making to achieve that?
I shall now turn to a most significant and welcome statement made by the Minister of State for Defence Procurement when he opened the debate. He reaffirmed the policy of the previous Minister, the right hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), who gave evidence to the joint Select Committee on Defence and Trade and Industry last May and said that
That issue is also outlined in the Labour party policy document, "Strategy for a Secure Future," which states:
Unfortunately there seems to have been a bit of a drift in Government policy. On 9 January the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said of the white vehicles contract that
On 11 January the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for Amber Valley(Mr. Oppenheim), said of the field ambulance order that
Those are important and necessary considerations, but they do not provide a total picture. As the Minister rightly stressed in his opening remarks, we must also include the maintenance of the defence industrial base and the maintenance of defence technologies, which are important both for the industrial and economic future of this country and for our ability to supply and maintain our armed forces with their equipment.
Welcome as the words are, we also need deeds. There was the recent case of the Army field ambulances. The final decision was welcome, but we must question why such a campaign was necessary to persuade the Government that they should be buying a world-class, world-beating British product.
Another case will come up shortly involving the helicopter flying school. Privatisation of the initial training for all three services in basic helicopter flying is a dogmatic exercise. It seems odd that, as we have just discussed, we can run a tri-service staff college but not a tri-service training school in basic helicopter flying.I should have thought that it would be an ideal opportunity, especially as the staff and facilities would come from different services.
The implications on the industrial side are also considerable. Indeed, they are worse. I have asked the Minister of State for Defence Procurement about the purchasing of helicopters for the operation. The spread of helicopter manufacture means that the helicopters will almost certainly come from abroad, given the bids that have come in. If it had been a Government contract, we would have been able to negotiate an offset arrangement; as the contract is private, the Ministry of Defence believes that that will not be possible, so more work will be lost to Britain.
When the Minister of State for the Armed Forces replies, he should tell bidders for the helicopter flying school that there should be some British content arising from the bids or there will not be a contract. We should start playing the game like other countries for once, and start by talking and acting tough, particularly with the Americans, who have had about$5 billion worth of orders from us in recent months. We should make it clear to them that we want to see offset or orders in return for our purchases.
With regard to Ministry of Defence properties, myhon. Friend the Member for Devonport, backed up by myhon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), made a strong case about housing--a subject on which he has campaigned effectively for a long time, as the Minister knows.
In the Army debate a couple of weeks ago, we mentioned the role of Mr. David Hart in relation to MOD properties. That seemed to make the Secretary of State extremely excitable at the time. Mr. Hart, who has been the subject of recent television programmes and press comment, appears to be the shadowy figure who weaves through many stories, to the extent that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has described him as the Rasputin of the situation.
The sale of MOD housing is an extraordinary exercise. I hope that we are now at the bottom of the housing market, but no one, unless they were under intense financial pressure from banks, would sell property at such a time. If a private company undertook such actions, it would send out warning signals that would lead to the calling of a meeting of creditors at a moment's notice. Having sold at the bottom of the market, we shall then rent the properties back at private market rents. As a result of Government policy, those rents have increased far faster than general inflation while house prices have fallen, so we are selling at the bottom to rent back, with rent reviews every five years.
I seek the Minister's response to suggestions that have been made that although the money from the sale will go directly to the Treasury, the rent will come from the defence budgets, so that in effect there will be another long-term defence cut. We are told that the rents charged to tenants will not be affected, but how long will it be before the hard-eyed men in the Treasury notice that there is a difference between the rents charged to service men and the market rent that the MOD pays to the landlord and start trying to claw back the difference?
What about people who buy properties? The discounted sales scheme for service men is being undermined. Since that scheme started, about 5,000 service men and their families have benefited. We were told by the MOD that
many of those sales are heavily oversubscribed. Nevertheless, as a result of the current exercise, the Government are considering scrapping that welcome scheme. It is yet another kick in the teeth for our troops. Interestingly enough, it flies in the face of a commitment in the Conservatives' 1992 general election manifesto--it seems that the Minister spends more time reading Labour manifestos than reading his own--to help people in the forces to save towards a home of their own. That was a fairly direct commitment, yet it is likely to be reneged on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Devonport spoke about the number of vacancies which might be available for social housing. The Minister of State for Defence Procurement leapt in with alacrity to ask whether my hon. Friend would support the sale as a move towards that. He leapt in a little too readily, which gave me a feeling that the Government are so keen to sell off property for dogmatic reasons that they have not sought short-term, sensible improvements that would have benefited the MOD and the people who needed the housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), in his opening speech for the Labour party, referred to the Government's slogan about waste into weapons. He rightly turned that around to point out that in many cases weapons have been turned into waste. That has been especially the case with Navy stores. Navy spares worth millions of pounds have been left to rust and deteriorate in the open air as the storage depot closure programme gets under way. Storage bases are being run down and the material is being transferred to the Portsmouth depot. Unfortunately, the base is unable to cope with the spate of submarine and ship spares flooding in, so the material is being diverted to Colerne, near Bath, which is being used as an overspill site. People who have been there say that there are piles of expensive, sophisticated equipment stretching for a quarter of a mile around the depot, and that they are 6 ft high in places. We understand that the storage facilities are below even minimum standards. Hangars are infested with fleas and pigeon dung. Gear worth millions has probably been damaged as a result. Surveys and inspections, including shot-blasting, will be needed to restore much of it. That is not an effective, efficient operation, but a dash towards dogma.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) mentioned the Royal Naval college in Greenwich. Both described the splendid site and I shall certainly not attempt to improve on their eloquence. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich also drew attention to many of the questions that surround the setting up of the tri-service college and its concentration on the site at Camberley, rather than on the splendid site at Greenwich. He posed some serious questions which require answers, especially from a Government who would sell off the Admiralty arch and other bits of our history.
It is right to respect, preserve and commemorate our history. On a slightly more positive note, therefore, may I suggest in passing that the Ministry of Defence starts to give preliminary consideration to how the country will commemorate the bi-centenary of the battle of Trafalgar and the death of Nelson? That could bring together the whole history of the Navy and this country as an island nation and a naval power.
"the Ministry of Defence needs to continue to give due consideration to the possible consequences of procurement decisions for the defence industrial base and I am happy to affirm this once again."
"The defence industrial base, with its state-of-the-art manufacturing processes and its development of cutting-edge technologies, is a strategic part of Britain's overall industrial capability."
"the criteria for the selection of the winning bid is based on best value for money, which includes technical and commercial competence."--[Official Report, 9 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 104.]
"contracts . . . will quite rightly be based primarily on value for money and operational considerations."--[Official Report,11 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 295.]
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |