HC Deb 03 May 1967 vol 746 cc494-507

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Mayhew (Woolwich, East)

I wish to ask for an explanation from the Minister of Defence for Administration of the decision of his Secretary of State to site the proposed new Royal Defence College at Shriven-ham and not at Greenwich. This is an extraordinary story and I hope that we shall have from the Minister, for the first time, a full and frank explanation of the Secretary of State's decision.

Let me make clear that I, I think like most people, regard the proposal to establish the Royal Defence College as an excellent one. This was put forward by an independent committee of inquiry into the Service colleges set up by the Secretary of State and including two very distinguished members, Professor Michael Howard and Mr. Cyril English. The idea strikes me as excellent. It is that officer cadets of the three Services should begin with a short period at Dartmouth, Sandhurst and Cranwell and follow with a period of service with the Fleet, with their units, or in flying training. Then all of them should go to this proposed new tri-Services Royal Defence College for a one-year course of academic and technical studies in the application of scientific weapons, systems, in international affairs and the history of war, and in foreign languages.

The Committee made an exhaustive and thorough study of what site there should be for this Royal Defence College and came down plainly on the side of the Royal Naval College at Greenwich and against the site being at Shrivenham. This was argued at length in paragraphs 95 to 98 of the Committee's Report. The Committee's recommendation was supported by the Minister's Service advisers, including the chiefs of staff, and, up to the last moment, it seemed to all concerned that this recommendation of the Committee, like the others, would be accepted.

I want to ask three questions of my hon. Friend. Why was this recommendation turned down by the Secretary of State? Why does the Secretary of State now refuse on security grounds to give his reasons? Why does he refuse to publish the Report of his independent Committee?

I start with six reasons for preferring Greenwich as a site to Shrivenham. First on the question of costs. As the Committee pointed out, the capital cost of going to Shrivenham would be at least £1 million greater than if the site of the Royal Naval College were used. At Shrivenham we would have to build the whole thing from the start, including married quarters and administrative buildings. We have been assured by the Government spokesman in the Lords that the new buildings will be worthy of their task. It seems that £1 million is an underestimate. I understand that no estimate has been made of the current costs, but I think the difference would be wholly marginal.

The second reason is that of timing. If Greenwich were chosen the Royal Defence College could begin in 1969 and be in full operation by 1972. If it is at Shrivenham everything would have to be built anew and the Committee estimated that the Royal Defence College would come into operation at least two years later. The third reason is that of accessibility. As the Committee points out, the closeness to London of the Royal Naval College site would make it extremely attractive to staff and outside lecturers. It would also enable the College to get domestic and industrial staff which is extremely doubtful as a possibility in Shrivenham.

The fourth reason is the excellent opportunities for expansion and development at Greenwich. It was originally hinted that this was a reason against Greenwich, but I think the Government have dropped that idea now. Possibly they raised the objection before contacting Greenwich Borough Council and before seeing the letter which the borough council wrote to the Secretary of State dealing with this point. That letter said: Plans are in the course of preparation for the complete redevelopment of the Greenwich Town Centre in the vicinity of the former civic buildings at Royal Hill and in close proximity to the present Naval College. Now that there are good prospects of an early decision being given on the line of the proposed by-pass road, which would carry through traffic away from the Naval College and the existing shopping centre, this opens up exciting possibilities for the redevelopment of a Services Precinct as part of the local development plan for this particular part of the borough. The letter went on to say: it is felt that there remain immense possibilities for the further and more intensive development and use of the former Royal Military Academy, the Royal Herbert Hospital and other adjacent areas of military land where, if it be considered desirable, opportunities exist to establish both the new Royal Defence College and the proposed Royal Defence Academy in close proximity. On the subject of expansion objected to on the Greenwich site by the Government, I quote the Minister. Three years ago he wrote a memorandum for the Select Committee on Expenditure and he suggested that the university could expand to absorb a student population of about 1,000 (500 residential) within three years in the existing buildings and eventually to 5,000 with the erection of additional buildings on Crown and other land within two miles of the College. Of course he was right. We are dealing with only 700, so the possibility of expansion on this site on the Minister's own account is very good indeed.

The fifth reason for choosing Greenwich is the links with the borough. There is a magnificent tradition in Woolwich and Greenwich of partnership and friendship between civilians and Servicemen. This has been expressed in the relations between the borough and the Royal Naval College with the old Woolwich Arsenal and the old Royal Military Academy, which of course was once the Sandhurst, and with the Royal Artillery Barracks and a number of other Service institutions in the borough.

Only in May of last year in a most picturesque ceremony in the presence of Prince Philip the freedom of the borough was conferred on the Royal Naval College at Greenwich. As a small curtain-raiser, rather earlier I as President of the College had the honour of entertaining the mayor and council and many distinguished local residents in the Painted Hall of the Royal Naval College. It seems extraordinary that the Minister of Defence, who spends great sums of money on public relations, should brush aside these well-established links between the Services and civilians in my area. To break this link so abruptly by this decision without informing, let alone consulting, Greenwich Borough Council, was an act of serious discourtesy.

The sixth reason I put forward is the Services' link with the magnificent buildings of the Royal Naval College, a link which dates back to 1694 when the buildings were converted to use as a naval hospital. Sentiment and tradition can hold back the Armed Services from necessary reforms, but they can also foster the loyalty, discipline and courage without which those Services are useless. I sometimes wish that there was more understanding in the Government of how Servicemen think and feel. I should like to see warning notices in red letters on every computer in the Ministry of Defence saying, "Computers cannot create courage."

Why do the Government reject this? I ask the Minister to be frank with the House. Is it that the Government want everything at Shrivenham? Have they a conception of moving, say, the Royal Naval Engineering College, Manadon, to Shrivenham and of centralising everything there? I cannot believe this, first because the Government are spending hundreds of thousands of £'s on building up Manadon at present. They are to spend £300,000 on moving the nuclear department from Greenwich to Manadon. I cannot believe that the Government's long-term plan involves moving Manadon or building up a single centralised university. However, if this is the Government's plan, let them say so. If they have made up their minds, this might be a factor, but I do not believe that"they have. This is a vague and very improbable dream many years or decades ahead.

What is the reason? The latest official statement on the subject was given in another place a few days ago. It was to the effect that the Government refuse to give their reasons on security grounds. I will quote what the Government's spokesman, Lord Winterbottom, said: I think that with his experience he must realise that all the reasons for the decisions of a Department such as the Ministry of Defence cannot be made public. It is true that my noble friends want to give the House as much information as they can. They want to give more of the facts; but all of the facts—no. I say with regret that I cannot confirm precisely what led up to the Government's decision on the location of the combined Colleges or what Professor Howard and Mr. English actually said.".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 27th April, 1967; Vol. 282, c. 679–89.] This is indeed very strange. What deadly secrets are these which the Government must hide from the House, from former Navy Ministers like Lord Jellicoe and myself, and from their own advisers, because at least one or two of the Government's highest advisers have no idea what the secret reasons are which the Government refer to.

We wait with great curiosity and interest to hear what the Minister of Defence will tell us. I must tell him frankly that I do not believe that there are any secrets. I have read from beginning to end the Report which my hon. Friend refuses to publish. From its first page to the last page there is nothing whatever secret in it. There is no reason whatever why it should not be published.

On the contrary, it should be published, because there are a number of people in education and educational administration who need to know and who need to read it. What are these secrets? I do not believe that they exist. I think that this talk of secrecy is a piece of mystification to cover up a first-class bureaucratic blunder. The choice of Greenwich as a site is supported on both sides of the House, by the Government's own independent Committee, and by the Government's own advisers.

To sum up, the Secretary of State's decision involves the flagrant waste of £1 million of public money, a two-year delay in starting the Royal Defence College, inferior buildings on an inferior site, discourtesy to the local borough, and an arrogant disregard of Service psychology.

12.43 p.m.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins (Merton and Morden)

I intervene briefly to make it clear to the Minister of Defence that we on these benches are just as worried as the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) about the Government's decision on Greenwich. I wish to make it clear that this is not a personal feeling of the hon. Gentleman's, but that he has considerable support, particularly on these benches. The hon. Gentleman argued a powerful case for the retention of Greenwich. I shall not attempt to add to it.

I must tell the Minister of Defence that we are far from satisfied with the explanations which he has so far given for this decision, which, for all the reasons which were advanced by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East, seem to us to be quite extraordinary. All the information that we have and can lay our hands on appears to indicate that the proper decision, and the only realistic one, would be to retain Greenwich as the site of the new Defence College. Yet for some reason of which the House has so far not been given any indication the Government have come to the opposite conclusion.

We are waiting with great interest to hear what the Minister of Defence tells us today in justification of his decision, because from what we have heard so far we believe that the Minister can only be condemned for coming to a decision which is against all the evidence and against all reason. We therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to reassure us that there are some reasons for this decision which the House can accept, because the House cannot accept the reasons which the hon. Gentleman has advanced so far.

12.45 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds)

A Minister is usually criticised from behind the Treasury Bench and from the other side of the House for acting differently in government from what he advocated when in opposition. However, neither my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew) nor the hon. Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Humphrey Atkins, tried to do that today. The position I have adopted in debates we have held on Greenwich over the last few years is well known.

However, I must point out to my hon. Friend that during the period when he was Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy he agreed to the Naval Staff College moving out of Greenwich and going to Minley Manor near Hartley Wintney. My hon. Friend also agreed to a review of the position of the Naval War College at Greenwich to see what its future should be, or whether it should have any future at all. He agreed to these two things. This was a decision to remove one-third of the students from Greenwich to another establishment altogether. He also agreed to an inquiry which he knew full well could lead to the closing down of facilities for another one-quarter of the students at Greenwich.

It is a little unusual that my hon. Friend, having to an extent written off the Royal Naval College at Greenwich, without, to the best of my knowledge, any consultation with the London Borough of Greenwich, and without having informed the London Borough of Greenwich, should then attack my right hon. Friend and me for a decision which I see as logically following on from the decisions which my hon. Friend took when he was in a position to take decisions of that nature as Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy.

Mr. Mayhew

Nothing that I said and nothing in my present attitude suggests that there should be no changes at Greenwich. I am not challenging the Government's view about the future of the naval element in the Royal Naval College. My case is quite different and I have explained it. This is the ideal site for the future Royal Defence College. I am not taking a single Service view. Nor am I standing for the status quo.

Mr. Reynolds

My hon. Friend raised six points to show that Greenwich is the ideal site for the Royal Defence College. I will go through these six points and deal with each of them. My hon. Friend argued, before coming on to the six points, that the Howard-English Report, paragraphs 95–98—my hon. Friend said that he had read the entire Report—came down in favour of Greenwich. My hon. Friend did not refer to that part of paragraph 95, which he tells us that he has in fact read, which pointed out that there were two alternatives—Greenwich and Shrivenham. My hon. Friend did not refer to a passage a little later in the Report, which he says that he has read in full, which makes it clear that Professor Howard and Mr. English think that Shrivenham, if one is going to go in for the long-term objective of centralisation of technical and other officer training, is the site which has the facilities for expansion to that end.

I want to put that matter straight. The Report recommended that the Royal Defence College should go to Greenwich, but it admitted that there was an argument in favour of Greenwich and that there was an argument in favour of Shrivenham.

My right hon. Friend and myself, on looking at the matter, eventually came to the conclusion, after considering all the arguments, that from a long term point of view, to leave other possible future options open to us, it was advisable to go to Shrivenham rather than to commit ourselves to the confines of the present Royal Naval Academy at Greenwich.

My hon. Friend made a great deal of play on the question of cost. I admit straight away, and I have already admitted in the House, that it is more expensive initially to develop facilities at Shrivenham for the Royal Defence College than to convert facilities at Greenwich for the Royal Defence College. That is in terms of capital expenditure to get the necessary teaching, living and other accommodation there.

On the other hand, looking at the actual running costs, the additional capital expenditure which will be necessary at Shrivenham can be amortised over a period of ten years, because our costs of operating at Shrivenham will be lower than the costs of operating at Greenwich. This is fairly obvious, because there would be two establishments together there, with a sharing of overheads, and a reduction in the number of staff required, as well as its being rather cheaper to do something of this sort outside London than in the London area.

The extra capital cost can be amortised over about 10 years, so the fact that extra capital cost will be required at Shrivenham is not something which weighs heavily against the decision to have this facility there rather than at Greenwich. In general commercial or industrial life, if one could completely amortise capital expenditure over 10 years, this would not be a factor likely to be regarded unfavourably by someone wishing to carry out capital works which had the advantage of leaving other options open for the future if it should at some later stage be decided to take them up.

On the question of timing, my hon. Friend maintained that there would be two years' additional delay as a result of going to Shrivenham instead of moving into the facilities existing at Greenwich. I do not accept that this is likely. The Royal Naval Staff College is not scheduled to move to Minley Manor until 1970–71—some time in that period—and one would find it very difficult to make a start on the Royal Defence College at Greenwich until the Royal Naval Staff College had gone. Moreover, my hon. Friend will know that, as these things go, there will probably have to be a gap between the two moves in order that work of one kind and another can be done. We believe that we can start the Defence College at Shrivenham by 1970. I do not accept that it would be possible to start it at Greenwich in 1968, which is virtually what my hon. Friend is arguing—

Mr. Mayhew

1969.

Mr. Reynolds

1969—that at once brings us down to only one year as the difference between the two sites. I am sure that we would not gain that difference. It has already been announced that we hope to start in 1970 at Shrivenham and have the College fully functioning by 1972. I believe, therefore, that, on the question of timing, our decision is correct. This is not a project which one can suddenly start. One has to start from the Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell end, when people will be going to the Royal Defence College a little later on in their Service careers after, as my hon. Friend said, in most cases—certainly in the Army and the Navy—a period of regimental service and shortened courses compared with those at present given at Sandhurst and Dartmouth.

Next, the question of accessibility at Shrivenham as compared with Greenwich. The Howard-English Report, which my hon. Friend says he has read, pointed out that Shrivenham was very accessible to certain useful towns from the point of view of provision of university-type education. Shrivenham is no great distance from Oxford or Bath, where one can have contacts with one ancient university and one rather newer one. I hope that, by the time we move down there, or a very short time afterwards, there will be a motorway, the M4, running from West London to within about four miles, geographically, of the concentration at Shrivenham.

My hon. Friend referred to the employment of domestic staff. I inquired specifically about this when I was at Shrivenham recently, and, to the best of my knowledge, there is no suggestion of difficulty in obtaining domestic or other staff at Shrivenham. Indeed, I think that it may well be easier than at. Greenwich at present. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there will be no particular problem in getting domestic staff at Shrivenham to carry out the work which we shall want done there.

Another argument which is sometimes raised—I do not think that my hon. Friend mentioned it—is founded on the difficulty of getting lecturers, particularly special lecturers, to travel to a place like Shrivenham as compared with travelling to Greenwich. Here again, special lecturers work at Shrivenham now, and I have not received any complaints from the staff there about difficulty in getting them at present. Admittedly, it is rather further away than Greenwich, but I do not think that the difficulties of getting lecturers will be multiplied in any sort of ratio related to the distance between Greenwich and the centre of London as compared with Shrivenham in Wiltshire. It is not a difficulty which Shrivenham faces at present, and I see no reason why it should be a difficulty when the Royal Defence College is there.

My hon. Friend has said that there are facilities for expansion at Greenwich, and he referred to a letter which the clerk of the London Borough of Greenwich sent to my right hon. Friend, pointing out that there are certain areas on which expansion could take place in close proximity to the present college. They are, of course, in close proximity to the college, anything up to two miles away, as I think the letter itself says. At Shrivenham, on the other hand, it is not a question of close proximity. The facilities for expansion are on the site. There is no question of having to travel any distance. However, I make no great point of that. The point I make strongly in this connection—it was made in a letter from my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend on 5th April—is that, although no one denies that there is room at Greenwich for the Royal Defence College at present, or room could easily be made available—this is obvious—by going to Shrivenham we shall put ourselves on a site which, if at some future stage it is decided to concentrate all the technical training of officers and education at university or similar level on one site, the opportunity will be there to do so, whereas at Greenwich it could not conveniently be done for the way in which a Service university would have to be run.

My hon. Friend quoted the memorandum which I submitted to the Estimates Committee, but I was there talking about a civil university. My hon. Friend will realise that such a university is run very differently from a Service educational establishment which has to provide married quarters for senior officers and many other facilities of that kind. We believe quite firmly that, if we decided to have the Royal Defence College at Greenwich, although there would obviously be room for it with its 700 students, we should not be in a position which would enable us, if it should at some time in the future be so decided—and this is one of the concepts which Howard-English looked towards—to concentrate there the facilities at present available at Manadon, Shrivenham, and Cranwell; but we should be able to do it at Shrivenham. Only by deciding to put the college at Shrivenham do we leave the options open for the future so that if, by rundown of the Forces or changes in the system, it was decided to concentrate all the facilities in one place, we could do it at Shrivenham. At Greenwich, it could not be done.

My hon. Friend referred to the links with the borough of Greenwich and the value of those links both to the College and the borough itself. I know, as he said, that the new borough recently gave its Freedom to the College. I am sure that the Navy, the Admiral-President and everyone at the College values the links with the borough, as does the Ministry of Defence. However, my hon. Friend is going a bit too far, and the borough itself expects a little too much, in thinking that we must consult the local authority on such a matter as the establishment and siting of the Royal Defence College.

Obviously, the borough has an interest in the use to which Greenwich is put. As has been announced in the House by my right hon. Friend, I am at present considering the future use of the actual physical facilities at Greenwich. We shall bear in mind the interests of the borough in the review which is going on, in considering what the future use of those facilities should be. But I cannot accept, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will not, on reflection, accept, that it is incumbent upon us to consult the local authority about the use of these buildings however strong the links may be, apart from questions of planning and matters of that kind. I hope to be able in the not far distant future to be able to give some information about our views on the future use of the buildings at Greenwich.

As his last point, my hon. Friend referred to the traditions of Greenwich, which, he said, ought not to be destroyed or upset. These traditions are valuable— I fully accept that—and in many respects are necessary in the Armed Forces. I have this point well in mind in relation to Greenwich and the question of the use of the physical facilities and buildings there. I think that the attachment of the Royal Navy to Greenwich is more to Greenwich as a place with a long and historic naval tradition rather than to the College that is actually housed in the buildings standing on that beautiful site at the side of the river. I feel that it is not so much the college but Greenwich itself which has the traditional naval background, a place to which many Navy personnel look as one of the Navy's homes, perhaps, along with Portsmouth and other naval dockyards.

As I say, I shall be looking into the use of the physical facilities at Greenwich which are in the possession of the Ministry of Public Building and Works and the Ministry of Defence. I do not think that it necessarily follows, if we are able to do anything in this connection, that it will have to be solely a naval presence at Greenwich, although I am sure that the Navy would wish to see the White Ensign flying above that piece of land by the River Thames for many years. I can make no promise in this respect at the moment. We are looking at the question, and I assure my hon. Friend that we shall have this tradition well in mind in reviewing the use to which the facilities at Greenwich should be put.

To sum up, we looked at all aspects of this question and we came to the conclusion, having considered the two sites mentioned by Howard-English, that, in order to leave the option open for the possible future concentration of technical and academic training at degree level for officers, we should site the college at Shrivenham rather than at Greenwich. There is the other advantage that we shall be doing what one might call the academic and technical work on one campus in one university. I am absolutely convinced that we are right in this decision, although I realise that a large number of hon. Members have strong feelings on the matter. In all the circumstances, Shrivenham, with its many advantages, and its substantial facilities and potential for expansion, offers the right solution for the siting of the Royal Defence College. On the other matter, I am at present looking into the question of the future of the buildings at Greenwich and will let the House know my conclusions as soon as possible.

The debate having been concluded, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER suspended the sitting till half-past Two o'clock pursuant to Order.

Sitting resumed at 2.30 p.m.