Previous SectionIndexHome Page

20 Oct 2004 : Column 263WH—continued

 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 264WH
 

Military Records Office

10.56 am

Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge) (Con): I am very grateful to have the opportunity to raise a matter of concern to a great many of my constituents.

The Ministry of Defence records office is based in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) who is, in many respects, my hon. Friend. I hope, with your permission, Mr. O'Brien, and that of the Minister, he will be able to take part in the debate. The matter affects our constituents who have raised their concerns about what is going on in the records office. It was sold off to a private company, TNT, which is closing the site in Hayes and transferring all the files to another site in the midlands.

I shall not dwell on the rights and wrongs of privatisation; suffice it to say that saying either that all privatisation is wrong, or that all privatisation is right, is not the way forward. However, in certain areas, privatisation must be done with great care. That is not my point. The records office holds the personal and personnel files of every British sailor, soldier, airman and woman, some of which go back to the first world war, although some were lost in a bombing in 1940. It is not just a highly important historical archive; it is intensely personal for many families.

I have not visited the site myself, although my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington has done so. I have relied on evidence that has been brought to me, and what appears to be going on is nothing short of a national scandal. Hon. Members know from experience, especially in our constituency surgeries, that we sometimes have to take what is said with equanimity, if not a pinch of salt. However, although the people concerned might be said to have an axe to grind because they will eventually lose their jobs, I worked for some years in the private sector and dealt with many members of the public and staff, and I feel that I can detect when people's worries are genuine. That is why I wanted to raise the matter today. It needs to be brought into the open. I am sure that the Minister will try to answer my questions and if he, like me, is not entirely convinced that all is well, I hope that the matter will be looked into as a matter of urgency.

My constituents have come to me in almost the same distress as many people would experience in relation to personal family documents. They have a sense of ownership of the records that comes from working there for many years. It is rather like the sad state of affairs when someone dies and someone else comes in and years of a life are almost thrown away. I get the impression that that is how many of those people feel. One person who wrote to me said:

TNT, the company that took over, apparently stated at the beginning of its tenure that there was no problem with handling the archives—it was no different to handling tins of baked beans. I have spent a good part of my life in the retail sector, and I know that each item of goods has to be handled differently. I do not believe that handling valuable archives should be treated in the same way as a commodity such as baked beans.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 265WH
 

It seems to me that the company has no experience of archiving or dealing with archives. It has more than 200 agency workers on the site. I have real concerns about the security clearance of some of those workers, and want to be assured that that issue is being handled properly. Some of the material held at the site is of a highly confidential nature and would be covered, if not by the Official Secrets Acts, certainly by the data protection legislation. I understand that the security clearance needed for that type of work would take a considerable amount of time to arrange—one has only to think of the detail required when our staff in the House apply for passes. I would also be interested to know what the charges for such security clearance would be. I get the distinct impression that, at best, some of those measures are not being fully implemented, and I have serious concerns about that.

I have heard that the behaviour of some of the agency staff leaves a lot to be desired. I have heard of towel holders being ripped off the wall in the gents' toilets, of the bin being used as a toilet, and of a roll of paper towels being put in a microwave, which was then switched on and left. Food and drink have been consumed near the files. There have been reports of people fighting, and even playing football within the archive. I know that such things would not have occurred with the quality of staff provided by the MOD.

It has also been reported that two cords on the fire doors have been cut—the doors that would be shut in case of fire. As one can imagine, a fire in an archive is probably the worst disaster that can happen. It is also reported that files are being packed into boxes with the bottoms falling out, and that files are being torn. The reviewers have complained that the files are torn when they receive them. Aircraft board of inquiry files have been separated from the main file, and there will be no chance of marrying them up to the main file once they have been relocated to people who have no experience in that area. In one instance of which I was told, a file relating to the Queen Mother was left lying on a shelf, because an agency worker did not know what to do with it. An ex-MOD worker had to search for hours to find that file, but was told by TNT that they had searched for too long and were being too conscientious.

Many files are kept in caged areas for obvious reasons, and many are for UK eyes only—I believe that that is the designation—but it seems to be quite acceptable for any agency staff to go into those caged areas to pack files for relocation as long as they are accompanied by a member of the TNT staff, who could not possibly keep an eye on the number of people in that area at a given time. Agency staff have been seen reading the files on several occasions.

If only a small number of those reports are true—and I believe that the issue involves more than that—the most distressing aspect is what is happening to individuals servicemen's documents: things are being separated in the move, and things that should be in files are disappearing. With the number of files that we are talking about, the chances of them being put back together in the appropriate files is remote.

As I said, agency staff have been seen reading personnel files. The vast majority of files relate to ordinary men and women of all ranks and they will be
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 266WH
 
important to their families. However, among those files, are the files of people who became national figures. No doubt, some of their personal details would have financial value, and I am concerned that such files could fall into the wrong hands. There are obvious security questions about people who served in certain parts of the world.

Some of the records have to be transferred by someone personally, with a secret file. They have to go by aeroplane; someone told me that they were put on a 1 pm plane at Heathrow and were expected to be back by about 6 pm. The Ministry of Defence ruling would be that a file of such importance should be picked up by a branch that should have all the necessary paperwork from its office and a secure, locked case in which to carry the file. However, it seems that some of the rules are not being adhered to.

A problem for people who try to trace relatives' files is the increasing number of "no traces"—the self-evident expression meaning that the file cannot be found—that come up. That phenomenon may be extending to the Army Medals Office in Droitwich: there is some evidence that it also increasingly has "no traces" coming back. There is only a certain amount of time that can be allocated to tracing a file before a charge is introduced. The Minister will know much more about that this than I do, but the medals office is being relocated. I worry that once such work is in private hands and charging comes in, there will not be any incentive to get the work done quickly, and that some of the savings that the MOD has introduced to try to cut down expenditure might be wasted if it ends up having to pay a lot more to trace records.

I understand that there is a points system for breaches under the privatisation contract ruling so that the contractor could lose the contract if it loses enough points. Will the Minister tell us about that and whether all the breaches have been investigated?

We will soon be wearing our poppies for Remembrance day. At this moment, in various parts of the world, our servicemen and women are putting their lives on the line for this country. It is for them and in memory of those who served before—not only those who gave their lives, but those who carried on into civilian life with distinction—that we must show respect for this valuable and irreplaceable historic archive. I hope that now that this issue has been highlighted, the Minister will instigate an immediate independent investigation into what is really going on in the MOD records office.

11.10 am

John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab): I return the compliment to my hon. Friend the. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) by paying tribute to him for securing this debate, and for the support that he has given the staff at the Bourne avenue site, and my constituents.

This is not just a constituency matter, but one of national importance. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister will understand its significance when I say that the records for the Bloody Sunday inquiry were secured at this site. The staff worked intensely hard to ensure that the inquiry received all the information that it required. It is significant not only as a historical archive, but for its relevance to today and today's service people.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 267WH
 

I have been dealing with the issue since 2002, when privatisation was first mooted. The issues that we raised in the community and with Ministers concerned security of service, the records themselves, the staff and the future of the site. The tragedy is that I do not think that privatisation would have gone ahead today. Under the new Treasury rules, it would have been below the new £20 million figure for which we would involve ourselves in such privatisations.

We were given assurances at the time of the privatisation proposal. The first was that the service would be maintained at a high quality. Secondly, we were assured that the records would be secure and, thirdly, that the staff would be cared for. We would, as employers, have a duty of care to ensure that they were redeployed and that they had a future that they could depend on.

Today, we have brought forward what can be described as anecdotal evidence of, at times, chaos on the Bourne avenue site—lost records, badly handled files, damaged files, failures of delivery of service and a failure to supervise staff that is putting the site at risk. There is a real risk to the long-term future of this valuable historical archive.

I have tabled parliamentary questions before asking about the number of complaints that have been received. Early this year, we were told that there had been 46 mostly minor complaints. My most recent question received the answer this week that there had been a number of complaints, but that they were only verbal and none had yet been put in writing. The staff should be listened to, because complaints are coming from within the site as well as from other departments.

We need to consider what procedures we need to allow people to come forward straightforwardly and with some protection to establish what is actually happening on the site and what breakdowns in service delivery are happening. I suggest that the Minister considers whether we can establish a whistleblowing procedure on the site and in those departments that are receiving the services of the Bourne avenue site, so that we can have a proper consultation about the reality of service delivery.

Staff working on the site have extreme concerns about the security of the documents. That is permeating into other departments. I tabled parliamentary questions about the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge: that of security clearance for staff. We are told that roughly 180 staff have received security clearance, while another 80 to 100 have received basic clearance. Basic clearance, from my understanding of previous parliamentary questions, involves references being taken up with past employers and perhaps a criminal records check at best. The rules whereby those staff that are security cleared have to supervise basically cleared staff are not being adhered to. Basically cleared staff—they are largely agency staff—are not adequately supervised. In our view, that is putting the security of the site and of the records at risk.

On the site, we have a dedicated loyal staff who have served this country and the Government well. Some of them are with us today, as are their union representatives. They are professional staff, and they have been an excellent example of commitment and service. The promised redeployment to other MOD sites
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 268WH
 
has not occurred. Redeployment to TNT facilities means that the jobs that they have been offered are not of a like kind, so many of them will now lose their employment.

I ask the Minister to meet me, my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and the trade union representatives to discuss the matter. I also call for an independent investigation, and to allow whistleblowing exercises to take place on the site and within departments so that we can get to the truth of the matter and resolve the threat to that historic archive. Again, I remind the Minister of the significance of that archive to the future of our servicemen.

11.15 am

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing this debate, which is on an important topic, and I recognise the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). Both have monitored the situation closely. I fully recognise their reasons and the interests of their constituents.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has been dealing with the issue, asks me to apologise for his unavoidable absence. I shall deal with the matter on his behalf.

Like the hon. Member for Uxbridge, I have not visited the facility. However, I am told that it is worth a visit so that one can see the extent of the problems that it faces—not because of the staff issue but because of the inadequate nature of the infrastructure. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has visited the site, but I recommend that he does so. If he undertakes such a visit, some of the other issues that have been mentioned may be raised then.

I emphasise the Government's commitment to modernising and improving public services. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and my Friend would not disagree with that prerequisite. My Department, like others, seeks to deliver quality services efficiently and effectively. The records services provided at Hayes for a number of Government departments and agencies, and managed by the MOD, is no exception.

In 1997, a study recommended that alternative ways of providing that service should be explored. Again, I would expect the hon. Member for Uxbridge to recognise that one should always look for better ways of doing things. Significant investment would be required to provide a modern and effective archive service, and public and private sector solutions were both fully explored. That resulted in discussions with three consortiums, two of which submitted bids. Although the bids were similar, the TNT and ProLogis bid offered a better quality records service and a lower risk property solution.

The overall objective was to provide the required flexibility and give value for money for the customer departments. The contract therefore provided for the contractor to bear a significant risk, as well as to construct, commission and operate a new facility, to maintain and operate the Hayes archive for an interim period, and then to dispose of the Hayes site for redevelopment.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 269WH
 

The service elements of the contract cover the depositing and storage of records, their retrieval and dispatch, and, when instructed by the department concerned, the destruction of records. A significant enhancement of the previous service is the requirement to produce an electronic index of the file holdings. Given his commercial background, I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge recognises the importance of such an approach.

The changes will enable the contractor to track and trace requests for files; it also supports departments when discharging their responsibilities under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, which, as hon. Members will recall, comes fully into force on 1 January next year.

The final negotiations were concluded in September 2003, and the Ministry of Defence awarded the contract to TNT (UK) Ltd., with ProLogis Ltd., on 18 September 2003. The contract provides for TNT (UK) Ltd to take over functions previously carried out by civil service staff at the archive.

I shall touch briefly on how we handled staff matters. The staff were given the option, under a preference exercise, either to transfer to the contractor under arrangements under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, or to remain within Government employment.

When the contract was awarded, a three-month trade union consultation was conducted between TNT and the Public and Commercial Services Union, following a code of practice agreed between the Ministry of Defence, the trade unions and industry. The process was successfully concluded by vesting day, 18 December 2003, when the contract commenced. Forty-seven staff transferred to the new company, and after the award of the contract TNT launched the construction of a new archive building in Swadlincote, south Derbyshire. The facility is far more modern and advanced in design, has better fire protection—the hon. Member for Uxbridge raised that point—is more energy efficient, and is generally far more suitable for its purpose, than the buildings at Hayes

The new building at Swadlincote meets all the requirements of the Cabinet Office manual of protective security, which is not true of the Hayes building. The facility was completed ahead of schedule, on 29 April 2004, with final completion and handover, subject to the usual rectification of minor defects, on 6 October 2004. The facility has a storage capability of 1 million archive boxes, with space for expansion if necessary.

When TNT took over operation of the Hayes site on 18 December 2003, it immediately began the indexing phase of the contract, to create a complete catalogue of the archive holdings. The concept—I hope that the hon. Member for Uxbridge will agree with the approach—is to capture essential information about each of the approximately 12 million items stored at the Hayes site to create an accurate and comprehensive database of the records held. The intention is to enable rapid and accurate location of files for immediate dispatch to the customer when required.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned one of the big issues that required the accurate recall of, and access to, important files
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 270WH
 
going back many years—the case he mentioned was a major inquiry, but it seems to me that the same should apply to an individual record. My hon. Friend, who has followed the Saville inquiry, will know how some information kept turning up. That was not because of inadequacies on the part of the staff, but because of a less than adequate filing system. That is why we had to try for a fundamental change in practice.

The contract with TNT applies fully the Government's strict and robust security standards, extending to the physical environment, delivery services, IT systems and personnel. The hon. Member for Uxbridge raised a concern about the security vetting of the agency staff at the facility.

John McDonnell : Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram : I will give way if I have time towards the end; I should rather cover all the points that have been raised, if possible. There may be time for interventions.

As to security clearance, TNT personnel, all agency staff and permanent staff employed by TNT at Hayes and Swadlincote are subject to security checks and clearances in accordance with Government policy. Those security clearances are granted on the basis of the same criteria and standards that apply to civil servants employed on similar work.

The Defence Vetting Agency has made significant improvements over the past few years, and the clearances are being processed smoothly, but not, as has been suggested, on a preferential basis. Although the matter was not raised in the debate, I am aware of comments about the private company being given preference over civil servants who wanted clearance, but that was not the case. All staff are vetted to basic or security level.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge raised the matter of people going into secure areas. I hear what he says, but I am advised that TNT allows only appropriate staff to see UK-eyes-only files. He also raised the issue of the reading of files. It seems to me that, as an indexing process is being undertaken, it may be necessary to open a file to identify what is in it, and, we hope, establish a correlation between the index name and the file content. It would not surprise me that files had been read. However, I should hardly think that all the millions of files involved would have been read.

Mr. Randall : It is important to distinguish between looking at something and reading it.

Mr. Ingram : I am not going to get into a long debate on this, but I return to the Saville inquiry. People would have to read the contents of a document in detail to see whether it was relevant to that inquiry. It is not simply a question of looking at the heading. Sometimes the content beneath it might also give a trace elsewhere. The process is not as simple as the hon. Gentleman suggests. I ask him to reflect on that. If something is for indexing, it is better to give the best index. If it is for retrieval and examination, it should be done authoritatively and, I hope, exhaustively, depending on the nature of the inquiry.

All the Government records stored at the Hayes site have been retained either to meet a continuing business need or to discharge the obligations of departments
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 271WH
 
under the Public Records Acts to preserve important documents. TNT is fully aware of the requirement properly to handle and protect all the Ministry of Defence material and other material now in its charge. To provide additional assurance that the contractual requirements are being met, the MOD has set up a contract management team to work alongside TNT to assist in the transition of activity to TNT and from Hayes to Swadlincote and to undertake audits and reviews. That might go some way towards addressing the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington. If he is demanding more, the matter might be worthy of examination by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, but that is the sort of audit and review mechanism that we have put in place.

The team remains based mainly at Hayes, but it has begun a relocation that will make it more convenient to oversee activity at Swadlincote.

Let me deal with TNT's performance in running the archive. The contract includes a comprehensive performance measurement specification, which specifies two time targets for each category of records retrieval. Most retrievals must meet the earlier target, and almost all the remainder must meet the longer one. The required level of achievement against the more challenging time target increases as the months elapse after vesting day, which reflects the expectation that TNT's performance should improve.

I am advised that TNT has to date consistently fulfilled those targets for records retrieval. It is, however, keen to exceed those requirements—again, because we all recognise the importance of these records—and it has been working with the contract management team to investigate areas where performance could be improved.

Unfortunately, teething problems are likely to arise in a contract of this size and complexity. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge will know from his commercial
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 272WH
 
background, not everything goes swimmingly when one is moving from one large operation to another and transferring several lines on to a new computerised system, as in this case.

The contract management team is working with TNT to address these issues, which I am confident will be resolved because, again, we all recognise the important of these records. I agree that it would be worth comparing TNT's performance with the achievement before the contract was let. That would be a good thing to do, but it is simply not possible. The in-house team was not managed in the same, outcome-focused way, and it did not keep comparable performance statistics, so we had no baseline against which to assess it. That does not mean that we will not have new baselines for the new contract company.

Let me pay tribute to the dedication of the civil servants who operated the archive for many years in less than ideal conditions. That is why I suggest that a visit to the site might open eyes. In the past nine months, TNT has indexed more than 6 million records and has started to create the database to which I referred.

Before I make other points, I assure hon. Members that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will read what has been said in this debate. I shall speak to him, but the reform will be a matter for him. He views the process with the greatest seriousness, and we must ensure that what we are putting in place is as good as, or perhaps even better than, what went before.

John McDonnell : May I emphasise the importance of meeting members of staff to discuss this critical matter, as the contract management system is obviously not working, and we need to investigate this matter in detail and independently?

Mr. Ingram : I am taking note of the concerns—

Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 271WH
 

 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 273WH
 


Next Section IndexHome Page