| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Jan 2010 : Column 87WH—continued
Just before the debate started, the hon. Gentleman handed me a copy of a pamphlet-I have not yet had an opportunity to read it-that sets out his views and the detailed research that he has undertaken on RAF Lyneham. I shall read it and instruct my officials to consider it in detail, and I give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that I shall arrange a meeting to discuss it with him in as much detail as possible. However, I do not want to mislead anyone. I do not want to raise optimism among
the people at RAF Lyneham; I genuinely believe that grounds for such optimism do not exist. I am not convinced that there is an alternative, or that we could reach one. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has put a lot of work into the pamphlet and argued his case strongly today. I shall meet him at the earliest opportunity.
The hon. Gentleman and others spoke about the A400M. Let me be clear about it; there is no immediate air-lift shortfall on operations. The capability gap resulting from the delay after 2012 will be addressed through a package of measures to enhance the availability of the existing Hercules C130J, and through the procurement that we recently announced of a seventh UK C-17.
I heard what the hon. Member for Aldershot had to say in respect of the negotiations-that we should come clean about them. With respect, the Opposition would make such an argument; but if they were in government they would not reveal their negotiating hand in public while the negotiations were ongoing. It is important to say that we remain committed to the A400M, but not at any cost. We regard contract negotiations as the best means of determining the way forward. I believe that we can achieve a positive outcome, but the discussions are critical. It has to be said that newspaper articles by commercial contractors are placed for a purpose. They are designed to influence the negotiations. It is the Government's responsibility to get on with our partners in those negotiations, and that is what is happening.
The hon. Member for North Wiltshire also spoke of the remarks made by the Chief of the Air Staff. I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman corrected what he said. The Chief of the Air Staff said that a number of military or civilian airports might be used in the event of a diversion and that the decision as to which was to be used would depend upon a range of factors, including the weather, runway capacity and the ability to handle large aircraft. The hon. Gentleman rightly corrected himself, saying that Bournemouth was only one example.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned safety. That was considered in detail by the review team. It considered the crisis operational requirements and concluded that there was no strategic reason why the aircraft could not be based at one main operating base. The degree of risk was considered acceptable, given the move towards expeditionary rather than home-base fighting. It found that historical weather data indicated a minimal risk of lengthy weather disruptions, and that both airfields and airspace capacity could cope with the aircraft numbers involved.
The hon. Gentleman asked detailed questions about the costs. As I said, I shall respond in writing. However, in broad-brush terms, the recent programme review concluded that total programme costs of £203 million had been identified against financial benefits of £437 million. The hon. Gentleman referred specifically to forecast costs. They include £10 million for an environmental clean-up. The exact costs are dependent on the conclusion of the ongoing land-quality assessment, which must take place before we can finalise the details.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked about the implications of the US pulling out of RAF Fairford. We must be clear that RAF Fairford is unlikely to be a suitable diversion airfield because its
facilities for handling large passenger aircraft are inadequate. Moreover, I do not think that it affects the overall viability of our proposition.
I listened with interest and in detail to the hon. Member for Aldershot as he responded to the case put forward by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire. He said that the argument had been extremely compelling, and that he feared that certain consequences would take place. He said that there were risks involved and that his hon. Friend had made a very strong case. What a detailed reading of Hansard will make of that response is that there was a complete absence of active verbs and commitments as to what the Conservative party would do differently from the Government in respect of RAF Lyneham, apart from delaying the decision, which would recreate uncertainty about the way forward. I have no doubt that if we were to put the matter back into a strategic defence review, the outcome would be the same decision as the one that we are pursuing at the moment.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: We have not had a strategic defence review since 1998, and there is a widespread belief that the current review was prompted by our decision to hold a review, and that it should have been undertaken a lot earlier than it has been, which would have resolved this uncertainty much earlier. It is the Government's own fault; it is pointless to blame the Opposition.
Bill Rammell: We had always planned to hold a strategic defence review; we announced it of our own volition. I listened with care to what the hon. Member for Aldershot said, and I am sure that the constituents of the hon. Member for North Wiltshire will similarly look at the detail of what he said. I had no sense that there was an active proposal by the Opposition to do differently to that which we are doing in government, apart from putting the decision into a strategic defence review, the outcome of which will be the same decision that we are pursuing.
The hon. Member for Aldershot raised an important point about the operational trial. I do not believe that he has been given the wrong information, but given that he raised it with me today I will immediately check the details and write to him in the next week to set the record straight.
As for the issue of jobs and the local economy, I am concerned about the impact on more than 3,000 people-around 2,500 service personnel and around 600 civilians, including contractors-working at and in support of the station. We have identified manpower savings of 251 RAF posts and 125 civil service posts through the amalgamation of RAF Lyneham and RAF Brize Norton. RAF personnel from the station will be posted to RAF Brize Norton and other RAF stations as operational and manpower requirements dictate. As far as possible, Ministry of Defence civilian personnel reduction will be achieved through natural wastage or by finding alternative employment for staff. We have been consulting with the trade unions throughout the review, and a formal period of consultation has now been completed.
I understand that the decision to close RAF Lyneham is disappointing news for the dedicated military and civilian personnel who work there, and who have done such excellent work to support operations over many
years. I recognise, too, the disappointment that will be felt in the local community. The impact on the local economy was not overlooked in the review; it was and is an important consideration, and we will work with all the relevant agencies to ensure that the impact of the closure is minimised.
Airspace considerations, which the hon. Member for North Wiltshire raised, formed part of the strategic review that underpinned the original decision to collocate air transport and air refuelling assets at RAF Brize Norton. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that while there are no airspace implications that would have precluded the move, we continue to assess the implications of the expansion of RAF Brize Norton to ensure that the best use is made of the available airspace.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of infrastructure capacity. Infrastructure enhancements to support the post relocation and future fleets at RAF Brize Norton are well in hand, and the necessary development will continue over the next three years. One of the key infrastructure projects is the expansion of the aircraft parking area, which will substantially increase the ability of Brize Norton to handle increased numbers of aircraft at the same time. It will enable the transfer of the C-130J capability from RAF Lyneham and will support the introduction of both the A400M and the future strategic tanker aircraft. Out of a maximum total of 70 aircraft that will be based at Brize Norton once the new fleets are introduced, a significant number will be deployed at any one time to support current or future operations, take part in routine training activity, or undergo maintenance away from the station. We assess that the expanded aircraft parking area and other improvements will be sufficient to cope with the demands of the future fleets that will be based at the station.
The Programme Future Brize aims to provide a future strategic and tactical air transport and air-to-air refuelling base and airport of embarkation that delivers excellence in rapid global mobility and offers greater capacity, flexibility and efficiency than current arrangements. A significant number of key benefits will flow from the programme, including reduced costs and manpower liability, greater airport of embarkation capacity following the development of the freight handling facility at Brize Norton, improved training through the development of a C-130J training mission rehearsal facility, which will be expanded in the future to incorporate collective training facilities for the A400M force, along with the development of other training facilities at RAF Brize Norton.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the issue of terrorist threats. Careful consideration to the potential risks involved was given when coming to the decision to base all air transport and air-to-air refuelling assets at RAF Brize Norton. It was decided that there was no strategic reason why all the aircraft could not be based at one station. It is highly unlikely that any attack could compromise the ability to operate the fleets based at Brize Norton. For example, the length of the runway at Brize Norton is such that it is unlikely that it would be damaged to such an extent that it would be impossible to use.
The issue of diversions was also raised. If RAF Brize Norton were to become unavailable for any reason, there are a number of suitable airfields to which aircraft could be diverted or from which they could operate.
The capital cost of relocating the RAF C-130 Hercules fleet from RAF Lyneham to RAF Brize Norton is currently estimated to be some £60 million. That sum should be fully offset by the savings in running costs within the first four years. As I said earlier, I will write to the hon. Gentleman with further details.
Both the hon. Gentleman and I commented earlier on Wootton Bassett and the issue of repatriation. I wish to pay tribute to the people of Wootton Bassett, whose dignified and respectful tribute to those killed in operations has so amply and poignantly demonstrated the debt that we all owe to those who lose their life in active service. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that repatriations will continue to be held at RAF Lyneham until August 2011, when, on current plans, they will transfer to RAF Brize Norton. Appropriate facilities to support bereaved families and the dignity of the repatriation ceremony are to be provided as part of the overall development of that station.
In conclusion, despite the very significant increase in the defence budget since 1997, the pressures on our finances are acute. Operations in Afghanistan are our main effort and must take priority. The package of measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before Christmas reflected that priority, including the decision to procure the additional Chinooks and the seventh C17. That makes it all the more crucial that we gain best value for defence in the way in which we use our defence estate. That means that sometimes tough choices have to be made and that will have an impact at a local level. I recognise that this is a difficult decision, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has argued his case. I genuinely do not believe that there is an alternative way forward. Nevertheless, given what he has proposed today, I will happily arrange to meet him in the next few weeks, but I do not want to mislead people; I am not convinced that there is an alternative way forward.
Maidstone East Line
11 am
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): Almost exactly four years ago, on 14 December 2005, I initiated a debate in this House on the integrated Kent rail franchise, which had just been awarded to Govia and its rail subsidiary, Southeastern. In my contribution to that debate, I referred to the substantial growth along the Maidstone East line that was taking place, not least in the mini-new town of Kings Hill in my constituency, where it was estimated that some 20,000 people would be living and working by the end of the franchise period, which was six to eight years in length. We are now more than halfway through that franchise period and in my remarks in December 2005, I said:
"That clearly necessitates significant improvement and growth in rail services. Sadly, we are starting from a base in which rail services are clearly inadequate to meet demand."-[Official Report, 14 December 2005; Vol. 440, c. 1410.]
That was four years ago and where are we now? The rail services on the Maidstone East line into the city stations in London have continued to be inadequate throughout that four-year period. In fact, what was inadequate has now become disastrous, if not catastrophic, as a result of last month's decision by the Minister who is here today to axe the services on the Maidstone East line into Cannon Street, Charing Cross and London Bridge. I wonder if the Minister really appreciates the truly devastating impact of his decision on the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals. They are facing significantly increased journey times, way in excess of the increased journey times that the Minister referred to in his letter to me on 27 November 2009, which I will come to in a moment. Those individuals are facing increased travel costs that run into hundreds of pounds a year and they are facing increased stress and hassle.
As the Minister must surely know, Victoria is the most congested rail terminus in London. It is a station where access to the underground quite regularly has to be closed because there are too many people already standing on the underground platforms. Surely it is madness to take decisions that will send hundreds, if not thousands, more people into Victoria station, which in the peak periods already cannot cope with the level of demand to use it.
Mr. Harold Sim, my constituent, wrote to me, telling me that his journey home, as he now must use Victoria station rather than Cannon Street station, can take up to an hour longer and is costing him more than £350 a year. Another constituent, Mr. Keely Oliver, wrote to me as follows, "Not only has my journey time been increased by 45mins per day/3.45hrs a week but I have to pay £600 more a year." Another constituent, Mr. Phil Brooks, tells me that because of his increased journey time his child care arrangements have been completely upset and he is now having to ask his mother and his father-in-law to pick up his children four days a week, because of the delays that he faces in returning home. My constituent, Mr. Jamie Gardiner, wrote to me, saying, "My quality of life has been reduced to the point that we are now selling our house in King's Hill". So the Minister's decision is leading directly to people being forced to sell up their homes.
That is the real impact on the constituents that I represent and also on those constituents who are represented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and
The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Hugh Robertson) and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw). As the Minister knows, all of us were signatories to our joint letter to him on 14 August last year, enclosing the submissions that we had received from the Maidstone and Malling rail users associations; the local authorities, including Kent county council, Maidstone borough council and Tonbridge & Malling borough council; the firm Liberty, which is a joint developer with the Kent County council at King's Hill, and other key parties. We concluded that letter by saying to the Minister:
"It is quite clear to us that the material in these submissions taken as a whole makes a totally conclusive case for the retention of the rail services to Cannon Street, Charing Cross and London Bridge on the Maidstone East line."
To bring home to the Minister the devastating impact of these cuts on the lives of so many people in the Malling, Maidstone and mid-Kent area, I shall tell him what the equivalent treatment would be of individuals in the town of Ipswich, which he represents here in Parliament, if he dealt with his own constituents in the same way. The action by a rail Minister that would be equivalent to what he has exposed my constituents and people in the neighbouring constituencies of my right hon. and hon. Friends to would be for that rail Minister to say, "I am not going to take a blind bit of notice of the representations that you have put to me, I am not going to take a blind bit of notice of the exhaustive demand information that has been submitted to you, including by the rail travellers associations. Notwithstanding that, I am now going to axe all the rail services into Liverpool Street station and instead you will be obliged to get out of the train in Paddington station." That would be the impact on the Minister's constituents in Ipswich that would be equivalent to what he has inflicted upon my own constituents. He will not be surprised to know that my constituents are hopping mad and, frankly, so am I. The decision to axe these crucial rail services is thoroughly bad and thoroughly irresponsible. Frankly, it also makes complete nonsense of the Government's housing and planning policies for the whole of the Maidstone, Malling and mid-Kent area.
I have sought the intervention of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and I must say that I have been surprised and amazed that he has chosen to stand aside while his own Department's housing and planning policies for our area are effectively being torn up by the Department for Transport.
The Minister has quite recently received a fresh submission from the planning director of the Tonbridge & Malling borough council, Mr. Steve Humphrey. In the letter that Mr. Humphrey sent to the Minister on 17 December 2009, he said this:
"I believe we now have a flawed and ultimately disastrous outcome that will have seriously adverse effects on the proper planning and regeneration of mid and west Kent and a backward step in terms of sustainable transport."
Coming from a very professional and, of course, politically wholly independent senior planning officer, that is indeed a very serious indictment of the Minister's decision.
That decision might have been slightly better received-it would not have been accepted, but it might have been slightly better received-if the Minister had managed
to come up with a more remotely credible and accurate justification for it than he managed to come up with in his letter to me on 27 November 2009. In that letter, he said that these cuts will only affect some 200 to 300 people in the peak periods. Frankly, that is a grotesque understatement of the real demand, which was demonstrated by the demand surveys that were carried out by the Maidstone and Malling rail travellers associations and submitted to him in August 2009. On the issue of the numbers of people using the Maidstone East line into the city, my constituent Mr. Martin Tripp, wrote to me as follows:
"On Friday 11th December, the final day of the City services, myself and a colleague caught every train to and from West Malling (barring one) to make a final count of the users and to hand out leaflets. We handed out 1,000 leaflets and counted 1,213 journeys being made on these trains (despite missing one train and having incomplete counts on three)-a rather significant increase from the 200 to 300 quoted in Chris Mole's letter."
Of course, the figure of 1,213 for a single day includes only those on the West Malling to City trains and takes no account of the hundreds more living in the area who were already railheading, or driving to other stations all over west Kent and, in some cases, south-east London, in order to get a better rail service into the City stations. That number will increase further as a result of the Minister's axing of City services on the Maidstone East line.
The Minister says that Maidstone and Malling rail commuters face a "journey time disbenefit" of 15 to 30 minutes as a result of the cuts. I do not know who in the Department for Transport thought up the phrase "journey time disbenefit", but whoever it was deserves an alpha for euphemism and a delta for accuracy. The crucial factor is not time spent station to station but time spent station to office, which is a quite different figure. It is clear from the many representations that I have received from my constituents that the Minister's decision to make the cuts is obliging people to spend up to two hours each day, and even more in one or two cases, making their journeys to and from work.
The Minister says that it would cost an additional £637,000 in annual subsidy to keep the City services going, and claims that he cannot find that sum after April 2010. I must point out that that additional subsidy arises for only one reason: the Government misjudged-that is the politest word that I can use-in deciding to allow Southeastern Trains to axe those services at a time when growth in the area was taking place at a considerable rate. As a result of that decision to allow Southeastern to axe the services in its franchise contract under the integrated Kent franchise, the Government are effectively being held to ransom by Southeastern for the £637,000. The Government claim that they cannot find the money. I will leave aside the fact that they had no difficulty finding billions to give the banks; taking into account the money and the financial relationship between the Department and Southeastern, it is clear that the Government could find the money if they wished.
Look at what is happening to the question of subsidy under the integrated Kent franchise contract. Charles Horton, the managing director of Southeastern, said to me in a letter of 23 July 2008:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |