HC Deb 23 February 1976 vol 906 cc151-62

9.55 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport)

I am glad to have the opportunity to bring up the subject of the dispersal of Ministry of Defence personnel to South Wales. I have something of a rather murky story to relate this evening. It concerns the announcement on 3rd February by the Minister of State for Defence. I do not blame him, because I consider that his superiors have manipulated things and have chosen the St. Mellons site at Cardiff and allocated 5,000 jobs to it.

It is difficult to get civil servants out of London. There are many perfectly understandable reasons for that. However, they agreed to come to the Tredegar Park site at Newport. I refer to a large and influential staff body of the Civil Service Whitley Council, representing over 260,000 staff. This body is wholly opposed to the allocation of and dispersal to St. Mellons. Tredegar Park at Newport has been rejected for no justifiable reason. After that episode, as the staff called it, they quite rightly asked "What price consultation?"

I turn to examine the St. Mellons and Tredegar Park sites. What the staff say about them is revealing. They say that Tredegar Park has always been popular with them. They wrote to the Minister of State on 1st October, after having visited this site on 18th September last year, and pointed out that that was the first occasion on which they had been afforded facilities to visit the site at Newport, as they put it "albeit reluctantly", to meet the Newport and Gwent authorities. That statement by the staff side is questionable and raises suspicions. The staff went on to say that they were surprised to find that the information that was supplied to them by the Welsh Office and the Property Services Agency was: not as comprehensive as it should have been. This raises questions about partiality and judgment in the decisions made.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

Mr. Hughes

They went on to say about the Tredegar Park site that sufficient land was available there. They are quite clear about this, having taken legal opinion. Secondly, they said that its environmental setting was far better than that of any other site. I know from local connections that it was the home of the lord of the manor, Lord Tredegar, and that it is a beautiful site, as good as any in Wales.

Thirdly, they say that the site is two miles from Newport town centre, adjoining the motorway network, with connections to London, the South-East and the Midlands. From the town centre, no fewer than 23 trains a day run to Paddington. When the new high-speed trains are introduced shortly, the journey will take only 95 minutes. They feel that that advantage should be taken into account.

They point out also that Newport Borough Council has offered to make housing available and that it will shortly invite tenders for the first stage of development of 1,000 houses, with schools and shops. They were impressed with the design and standard of houses on the site and in Newport generally.

Finally, on a comparison with other sites, they were impressed by the landscaping, the trees, hedges and gardens, at Tredegar Park, and said: It would be nonsense for the Department to turn its back on these facilities. The staff representatives also bore in mind the fact that Cardiff had promised to plant trees, hedges and gardens and even to put a lake on the St. Mellons site. But the staff asked about the cost and finally said that they measured fact against intent. Tredegar Park was the overwhelming choice of this powerful staff organisation representing 260,000 civil servants in this country and abroad.

Let us examine the St. Mellons site. The staff side made a few general points of criticism. It gave the site a low rating in terms of ease of travel to work. I see my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force in his place on the Front Bench. He has been involved in this matter in a somewhat devious way. He will agree with me that St. Mellons is a difficult area in travel terms.

Furthermore, the staff say that there are no facilities for lunch-time shopping, and this particularly hits the married female staff members who find it necessary to shop during the lunch hours. The staff are not satisfied with the road plan for the site or with its links to the M4 motorway network. These are a few general criticisms.

I turn now to the main claims by the staff side. It points out that according to the Property Services Agency con- siderable sums will need to be spent on piling and making the site dry. The area has a long-standing drainage problem. This has nothing to do with the cost of the project. We know from an article in the South Wales Echo on 5th February that there has been a considerable row in the Cardiff District Council about this topic. It was pointed out that £2½ million would have to be spent on acquiring land for development. This money must be paid by Cardiff ratepayers and they will be resentful when they come to pay their bills.

The staff side of the Whitley Council said that it was not at all impressed with Cardiff's housing or with its design and landscaping. What is more, it said that Cardiff had not been prepared to consult the staff about the St. Mellons site. It pointed to the fact that there is a height restriction on buildings at St. Mellons, a restriction that does not apply in Tredegar Park. In other words, there would have to be on the site a proliferation of low-rise buildings. The staff side emphasises that it is not attracted in any way to such a concept and regards this issue as crucial.

The staff side also expresses anxiety about the proximity of the St. Mellons site to a sewage farm which obviously would need to be enlarged if there were a large housing development in the area. That is not a very attractive proposition for civil servants sent from London.

The staff side also makes the point that there are plans at St. Mellons to provide 4,000 houses adjacent to the Ministry of Defence site, and it stresses that there is a danger of the site becoming a Ministry of Defence ghetto.

The staff who are to go to St. Mellons say that the more they hear about it, the more they are opposed to it. What an indictment this is of Cardiff! Is there no pride left in that city? If people were to direct half that criticism to Newport, I should tell them where to go. The staff's information is from the Whiteheads Consultancy, engaged by the Civil Service Department, and also from what the staff organisations and their representatives have seen for themselves.

I now turn to the sordid attempts—and many of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench bear a responsibility—to stifle Newport's claims for that project. First, there is the choice of site. Information has been supplied to me by the chief executive of the Newport Borough Council.

The original information given to the county planning officer was that 21.25 acres of land were required. At the beginning of October 1975, the chief executive of Newport was informed by Mr. Alexander of the Property Services Agency that the requirement was now 31 acres. On 6th October, a letter was sent to Mr. Alexander offering 31 acres. On 13th October, the demand was increased to 35 acres and on 20th October a letter was sent to Mr. Alexander accepting that figure. On 8th January 1976, when the Lord Privy Seal inspected the site, Mr. Alexander indicated that the requirement was now 40 acres and on 19th January, the director of technical services in Newport, offered the Property Services Agency 40 acres. The agency then mentioned that 45 acres was a possibility. That is the sort of "fiddle" which has been going on through different Departments. I do not blame Mr. Alexander of the Property Services Agency, but it is scandalous that a civil servant should be used in this way to satisfy the aspirations of his superiors.

The second red herring drawn across the trail concerns a letter from the Minister of State and dated 11th February this year. In it he said: at a late stage Ministers were made aware of the fact that the land earmarked for our use at Tredegar Park had originally been acquired by compulsory purchase for housing purposes and that the change of use from housing to office development would involve a public announcement with the possibility of a public enquiry which could delay our programme by as much as 15 months. It was recognised that there is no statutory obligation on a local authority to offer land back to its original owner in these circumstances but the possibility that representations to this effect might be made was another factor Ministers were obliged to take into account. Two points arise from that. The Minister said that he did not know until a late stage about the compulsory purchase order. Mr. Long, the chief executive of Newport, with 40 years in local government, said that he was amazed by that. Over a year ago the Government were notified by a joint submission from the county council and the borough. Mr. Gordon Probert, the planning officer of the Gwent council, notified Mr. Ripley of the Ministry of Defence, and Mr. Bevan, of the Welsh Office, of these facts early in 1975. The Whiteheads Consultancy was also notified in January last year.

Mr. Alexander wrote to the chief executive of Newport on 22nd October last year saying how relieved he was that the land was included in the recently-confirmed compulsory purchase order. There does not seem to be much doubt about that evidence.

The second point concerns the change from housing to the establishment for the Ministry of Defence. Again, it was agreed that that could be the subject of planning consultation under the Department of the Environment Circular 80/71, but the district council and the county council agreed that there should be no difficulty or delay about that. In any case, much of the old thinking on the subject is made out of date by the Community Land Act. The previous owner could object only on planning grounds, that is, on the ground that the site was not suitable for the development. Such an objection, apparently, would have no substance in relation to that project.

Mr. Long also says that planning consultation would be equally necessary in respect of the St. Mellons site. He adds that he is not a little suspicious about the whole business, and he points to the Cardiff situation. In 1971 the Welsh Office confirmed the Pentwyn housing development. Two years later it gave permission for a large part of the area to be used for industrial development. It seems that prejudice is again being shown in favour of Cardiff.

I wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales on 11th October saying that on this and other matters the Welsh Office was highly prejudiced in favour of Cardiff. He replied on 3rd November that there was no question of that. But the Welsh Office has failed to understand the problems of Newport—the fact that the town is sandwiched between the capital city and the new town of Cwmbran and that it is encircled by a development area. It has a huge redevelopment problem. There have been two major factory closures there.

Certain pressures are being put on the Welsh Office at top level. We saw it over the whole issue of the mini-mill. We have seen it over development area status. Perhaps the same pressures were exerted over the Common Market and are now being exerted over the Ministry of Defence dispersal.

I had a distinguished predecessor in Sir Frank Soskice—Attorney-General, Home Secretary and Lord Privy Seal. He was a most diligent and conscientious constituency Member, but no one could ever accuse him of currying favour for Newport. Likewise, in Gwent at present we have my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He has had to suffer the humiliation and the brickbats because of the reduction in steel-making in Ebbw Vale.

I cannot understand why all this pressure is being imposed on behalf of Cardiff and why it is not resisted. The staff say that in view of the Minister's announcement the whole issue of dispersal is in the melting pot. There is no justifiable reason, they say, for turning down Tredegar Park. In the language of the people that is understood by those whom I represent, this is nothing less than a big "fiddle". The sooner it is recognised and we get back to straight dealing in our affairs, the sooner shall we succeed in combating the present cynicism about politicians and politics generally.

10.21 p.m.

The Minister of State for Defence (Mr. William Rodgers)

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Hughes) has properly raised a matter relevant to his own constituency. But I am grateful to him in so far as this enables me to put on record a number of points concerning Ministry of Defence dispersal as a whole and to answer questions about our decisions in relation to South Wales.

I know my hon. Friend will understand that, as he has taken 25 minutes to make his case and has left me with 10 minutes, my reply may not be as adequate as otherwise it would have been.

In the course of his statement in the House on 30th July 1974 on Government plans for the dispersal of Civil Service jobs from London, the Lord President announced that the Ministry of Defence would make much the largest contribution. The precise numbers, he said, might be affected by the result of the defence review and must, therefore, be regarded as estimates for the time being. However, the approximate number of posts to be dispersed was to be 11,000, of which 5,000 would go to Cardiff and 6,000 to Glasgow. I must draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that Cardiff was specifically named in the statement of 30th July 1974, although in practice the net was to be cast wider.

A preliminary report had already been prepared some three months earlier in which alternative sites in the Cardiff area, including St. Mellons, had been explored. Later in 1974 our interest in St. Mellons was confirmed. However, the wish of local authorities outside Cardiff to be considered soon became clear and in December Gwent County Council, acting for Newport Borough Council, introduced Tredegar Park for the first time.

There is no need for me to give details, even were there time, of the studies and discussions that occupied the first half of 1975. They involved the consultants appointed to investigate possible sites, the Welsh Office, the Property Services Agency and ourselves. By July, however, it was apparent that the effective choice lay between St. Mellons and Tredegar Park. On management grounds, the Procurement Executive—the part of the Ministry of Defence most affected by the projected moved—preferred St. Mellons, which was also the choice of the Welsh Office. As for the Property Services Agency, it believed that St. Mellons offered the best prospect of providing an attractive working environment in the long term.

On that basis Ministers might have been justified in making an immediate decision in favour of St. Mellons. There was a strong case for doing so in order that dispersal should not be further delayed. The intention was that Ministry of Defence dispersal to South Wales should be in the period 1980–82. It would be difficult enough to keep to this timetable and impossible if the choice of sites was not resolved soon. I can tell my hon. Friend that Ministry of Defence Ministers were under severe pressure from their colleagues to get a move on. If we had said "snap" to St. Mellons last July, we would have been popular with our right hon. Friends. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend said, we would have been unpopular with the Staff Side of the Ministry of Defence, and this gave us pause.

As my hon. Friend is aware, dispersal as a whole is not welcomed by civil servants. They see disruption, inconvenience and loss of efficiency. They do not want to transfer their careers to far-away places. It is easy to understand this feeling, particularly given the prospect, which will soon become an uncomfortable reality, of substantial cuts in overall Civil Service numbers. As for the Ministry of Defence, reductions in the early 1970s coupled with the results of the defence review were already causing anxiety by last summer.

Despite this painful reality, dispersal was accepted by the Staff Side as a firm decision of the Government. Its quarrel was about dispersal to Scotland—it more readily acquiesced in the South Wales decision—and its interest, very properly, was in the choice of sites. And when the time came it opted firmly for Tredegar Park, substantially for the reasons given by my hon. Friend.

There was thus a conflict of view—management preferred St. Mellons and the Staff Side preferred Tredegar Park. It was principally my task within the Ministry of Defence to discover whether this conflict could be resolved, prior to a collective Government decision. I discussed in detail with the Staff Side the basis for its choice.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force, who is here tonight, visited the sites quite openly—I stress that point in view of what my hon. Friend has just said—and investigated them fully. I invited representatives of South Glamorgan County Council and Cardiff City Council to see me because it appeared that they might have been clumsy in presenting their case. The Staff Side visited Cardiff and Newport again at my request in order to reconsider its preference. I wrote to the Staff Side rebutting some of its arguments. In other words, I hoped to persuade it to change its mind and to endorse St. Mellons. My hon. Friend may regret this attempt on my part, but my task was to seek to find an agreed solution. It is natural that, initially, I should seek to bring the Staff Side over to management's point of view.

However, it follows that when the Staff Side remained adamant in preferring Tredegar Park I was obliged to consider whether management's preference for St. Mellons need be maintained. It had in fact become plain that the margin of advantage between the two sites was narrow.

I have given this full account of last year's discussions, which were very time-absorbing, in order to explain frankly and openly the process of consultation and the ebb and flow of argument. The choice of St. Mellons or Tredegar Park was put to the Staff Side in good faith. Equally, the Ministry of Defence came round to accepting Tredegar Park, despite its continuing management preference for St. Mellons, out of a genuine wish to meet the Staff Side preference, given that the penalty in other respects was not too high.

I very much regret, however, that at this late stage a new and unforeseen factor arose that was to prove decisive. My hon. Friend did not mention this in his speech, but Ministers learnt that because the Tredegar Park site had been originally acquired under a compulsory purchase order for housing purposes—I stress for housing purposes—the proposed change of use from housing to office development would involve a public announcement with the possibility of a public inquiry, which could delay the programme by as much as 15 months. By contrast, the whole of the proposed St. Mellons site was free from any compulsory purchase order restraint. It was privately owned and the owners were willing to sell. This clearly redressed the balance once again, this time more firmly towards St. Mellons than ever before.

I think that the decision then became inevitable. To put it at its least, a new and awkward element of uncertainty about Tredegar Park had been introduced. The prospect was of a substantial delay in dispersal to South Wales, which would have been received very unfavourably and which could have affected the timetable for Ministry of Defence dispersal as a whole. I put it to my hon. Friend that it is in the interest of all the people of South Wales, including his constituents, that these new office jobs are now made available just as soon as possible. I would also put it to my hon. Friend that as the St. Mellons site is only four or five miles west of Tredegar Park, many of his own constituents will still be able to work there if they choose.

In the end, the prospect of delay in resolving the difficulties would have ruled out Tredegar Park. I hope that all those concerned will now accept the decision and work together to ensure that Ministry of Defence dispersal to South Wales is a success.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.