HC Deb 28 July 1988 vol 138 cc757-69 6.17 am
Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

I rise to speak on a matter of great concern to my constituency and to many people in the adjoining constituency of Ceredigion and Pembroke, North—the future of the two Royal Naval armaments depots at Milford Haven and Trecwn. The debate is of great importance to my constituents because the Milford depot in my constituency is one of the largest employers in the area. It is thus a matter of vital concern that the future of the depot should be resolved as quickly as possible so that we know where we are going in terms of employment in the area.

I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces, who is present at this ungodly hour of the morning and who, throughout all the discussions that I have had with the Ministry, has shown great courtesy and concern about the future of the two depots. He visited both depots about two months ago, and all the employees there are grateful for his promise to have further meetings with them now that the report has been published.

I pay tribute to the work of the two depots. Their work for national defence since 1939 has been invaluable and their work at very short notice in stocking the task force for the Falklands campaign should be on record for people in the town to note.

I also pay tribute to the staff of the Milford depot, whom I know quite well, and in particular to three gentlemen who have been leaders of the work force—Peter Sizer, chairman of the joint union action committee who took over from George Noden, the previous chairman, and the local official of the Transport and General Workers Union, Mr. Danny Fellowes. I hope that it will not be the kiss of death for Mr. Fellowes' career in the TGWU when I say that he has acted in a most responsible and intelligent way throughout all the discussions about the future of the depot. He is representing the men in an exemplary manner. He has been giving them invaluable advice on the best course of action that they should take.

The report has been awaited for a considerable time. In a letter to me on 20 July 1987, shortly after I was elected the Member for Pembroke, my hon. Friend the Minister said that he hoped that the unclassified consultative document would be issued later in the year. That statement was repeated to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Howells) in a letter of 3 September from the Ministry of Defence. Yet we had to wait until July of this year for a report which was commissioned in 1986, a report which has been eagerly awaited by the people of Milford Haven.

What do we get? We have a seven-page, double-space typescript, which could have been written during a day. I accept, of course, that the research would have taken longer than that. It has taken the gestation period of an elephant to produce a mouse. The report leaves unanswered far more questions than it attempts to answer. It is somewhat surprising that it has taken so long to produce a report that lacks so much detail. I have made numerous attempts to raise the matter by tabling questions. I have raised the matter twice in debates. The first occasion was on 28 October 1987 during the Defence Estimates debate, when I said: I appreciate that any inquiry or review into the future of those depots must start from the position of their importance to the future defence of the country. It is important that there is a role for the mine depot—ensuring that we have conventional mines for the Royal Navy for use in our waters for defensive purposes.—[Official Report, 28 October 1987; Vol. 121, c. 368.] I asked my hon Friend the Minister to take into account also the important social and economic consequences for the depot and the town of Milford Haven. The town has 30 per cent. unemployment. If the depot were to close, or to be transferred, the effect on the town would be dramatic.

I raised the matter again during the St. David's day debate on 2 March. I said then that there was considerable concern in Milford Haven about the depot, which employs nearly 300 people. I explained that there was great concern about the future of the depot and that I hoped there would be an early decision. Having seen the report, I am none the wiser about what the Ministry of Defence hopes will stem from its publication.

I return to the background in 1986, when the report was commissioned. The study for the Ministry of Defence was at that time to be conducted by a Mr. John Glover, an official of the Royal Naval Supply Transport Service, which manages the depot. The terms were as follows: (a) to review the current and future tasks, organisation and staffing of the RN Armament depots at Trecwn and Milford Haven and to determine how the depots' tasks can be achieved most economically and effectively. (b) to consider the implications of any changes that may be necessary, and to recommend how they should be achieved and over what time scale. The foreword added: The study will need to cover the possibility of concentrating tasks at Trecwn and reducing or closing facilities at Milford Haven, but other options will also be fully examined and there can be no foregone conclusions about the outcome. Ministers will of course take the eventual decision on the basis of all relevant factors. I suggest that one of the most important things that needs to be taken into account is the impact on local employment at Milford Haven. A report issued by the local authority's steering committee in November 1986 observes that the majority of employees at the Milford Haven depot live within the former jobcentre area. The benefits from employment are localised, and if the depot were to close there would be the worst possible scenario.

The local area of Milford will feel the brunt of closure. When I asked how many are employed at Milford—a figure that I thought would have been in the report, but is not—I was told that the information was not yet available and would be supplied later. I must therefore fall back on the figures given in the local authority's report, which showed that, of the then 285 people employed at the depot, 231, or 81 per cent., lived in Milford Haven itself. The implications for Milford Haven are therefore very important. The report points out that the jobs are predominantly male jobs, and will be difficult to replace. A high proportion of them are skilled and professional posts. The depot provides a higher-than-average local wage level, and work for registered handicapped people would probably be almost impossible to find elsewhere in the area.

There are implications not only for the work force but for the town. We must consider the wider effects of the amount spent by the depot and by the work force in the surrounding area. The local authority's report calculates that the average annual amount spent directly by the Ministry of Defence is £270,000, which includes £63,490 commercial expenditure and £206,000 spent on utilities. The PSA annual expenditure on Milford and Trecwn combined is estimated at £1.9 million.

The signs of the multiplier effect—the effect of a pound earned by the employees in the depot on the economy of Milford Haven—are impossible to calculate exactly, although evidence from various studies suggests that the local multiplier could be of the order of 1.15 to 1.3. That implies that another 85 jobs could be dependent on the Milford depot, and makes clear its importance to the local economy.

On 17 November last year I asked the Secretary of State for Defence: what estimates have been made by his Department of the economic impact of the location of its establishments on United Kingdom regional policy; and if he will make a statement. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), said: Whilst we aim to secure a more even spread of defence employment across the regions, decisions on all proposals affecting the future of defence establishments must be made on their own economic and operational merits."—[Official Report, 17 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 464–65.] I entirely agree with that sentiment, but I believe that, given the concentration of Government employment in the south-east and the desire of all Ministers to spread the impact of Government jobs to the rest of the country, the effects on the area of closing the depot ought to be considered in that light.

The importance of defence establishments to the county of Dyfed, in which Milford Haven is situated, is clear from the figures given in a parliamentary answer on the same day as the one to which I have just referred. At the last count, 2,209 civilian personnel and 831 service personnel were employed by the Ministry of Defence in the county of Dyfed. I hope that the Ministry will pay great attention to the importance of ensuring that, if the depot has to close in its present form, every effort is made to, consider whether some other form of defence establishment can be established on the site.

I said a few minutes ago—when I quoted from a speech that I made on 28 October last year—that I believed that the depot must justify itself on defence grounds. I see no reason to retract that statement. I have made my view clear to the work force, to my local press and during the last election. It is important to recognise that the Ministry of Defence faces a difficult decision. It is not a job-creation scheme; it is the defence of the country. Therefore, it must ensure that whatever it does is in accordance with the principles laid down by the Government for its role.

I recognise that the role of the Milford depot, as now constituted, is coming to an end, and that it would therefore be unrealistic for the work force to argue for the status quo. The work force recognises that. However, that does not mean that we should simply fold up our tents and creep away. I believe that there is plenty of opportunity for the depot to be used for other MOD purposes.

A recent article in the Western Mail announced: The Property Services Agency Wales has been asked to investigate sites which could bring the Royal Navy's Sea Systems Controllerate under one roof. That would employ 4,500 personnel.

I am not suggesting that Milford Haven is the right location for that establishment, but it does have a deep-water port facility and I can think of worse places for it to be located. If that establishment cannot come to Milford Haven, the MOD should consider carefully what other naval establishments could be suitably transferred. If there is nothing for the Royal Navy at Milford Haven, a possible site for the other armed forces could be considered.

Before the future of the depot is signed and sealed, we must consider whether the MOD's traditional use of it can continue. If that is not possible, we must consider the employment implications.

The MOD report is feeble. As I have already said, it has had the gestation period for an elephant, but a mouse has been produced. The local authorities have been able to produce an 18-page, closely argued report, with a number of appendices, within a few months. Therefore, I am amazed that, after two years, the MOD has produced a double-space typescript of only seven pages. It has failed to address the main issues that are of concern to the employees and the local people. The report contains no detail of the work force—grading structure, age and sex profile, salary structure, and length of service of individual employees. The local authorities and the unions need to have that information so that sensible decisions can be made about the depot's future.

If the depot is closed, the report states that between 40 and 50 or 80 and 90 staff could be transferred. That demonstrates that the report is vague and wishy-washy. There is no information about whether those who transfer will be given free transport, which was provided for those who were forced to move to Carmarthen when local government was reorganised in 1974. The staff are asking about such matters and they deserve answers.

Little information is given about the possible redundancy package. I put down a written question about what constitutes the normal redundancy package at. the Ministry of Defence. That question was answered today and I received some additional information, but the staff, their families, the unions and the local authorities should have had such information made available in that report.

The report gives no information about the possible future use of the site. One of the main anxieties in the town is that the site is reputed to have explosives impregnated in the ground. Before that site is used for any other purpose it must be cleaned. In a written answer, the Minister informed me: The estimated cost of (a) certifying RNAD Milford Haven free from explosives is estimated at between £500,000 and £1 million. The absence of those figures from the report is a glaring omission. The author of the report did not set out to answer the questions that the local people needed to have answered.

An apprentice training school is based just outside the main gates of the depot. We have been told that it could be unaffected by the closure of the depot. Will it be a viable training school if it is so far from any other RNAD complex? It is a long way to Trecwn when one is 17 or 18 years of age and without personal transport. Will it have a viable future as an MOD apprentice school, or should it become a general engineering school for the area? Should it continue to be run by the MOD, or would it be better run by the Training Commission and the local authorities? Those questions have not been answered by the report, or even by the questions put forward and flagged. I recognise that it is a consultative report, but for consultation to take place the report needs to convey meaningful information so that the staff and the unions can discuss what should be done next.

No information has been provided about other uses for the site, apart from use by the Ministry of Defence. How many other people have expressed an interest? What package will be made available should the site have to be closed to ensure that it is used for the benefit of employment in the Milford Haven area? That question is not answered.

I very much welcome the reply to one question that has been answered. The people who live in Ministry of Defence houses, now owned by the PSA, welcome the fact that they may now purchase those houses under the right-to-buy legislation. I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance on that point, and the ending of the uncertainty that has lasted for a considerable time.

I turn briefly to the Trecwn depot. I have concentrated most of my speech on Milford Haven because it is in my constituency. The Trecwn depot is half a mile outside my constituency, but the last count of employees in October 1986, provided by the local authority's joint committee, revealed that 46.5 per cent. were constituents of mine. Therefore, whatever happens to Trecwn is important to the people of Pembrokeshire, because it will have an impact on the local economy.

I am very disappointed that after two years the report leaves the question of Trecwn in the air. Paragraph 14 of the report states: The reduction of the mining support task will also have a substantial effect on the loading of Trecwn. This will be the subject of further study by the Ministry of Defence. These studies will include an examination whether other MOD tasks can be put to the depot. The outcome of this further work will not be known until 1989. I wonder why the MOD works at snail's pace when it comes to examining what it will do for the future of the depots. We waited two years for the report, and now we are told that we need another report, another study, on the future of Trecwn, which will take another year. I hope that it is a little more informative than the report which was published earlier this week.

Finally, what will happen to the site should it be decided that there is no future for the depot in the Ministry of Defence and it becomes available for commercial use by private enterprise or by other Departments? An urgent meeting should be held between the Ministry of Defence and the Welsh Office to ensure that that prime site of 260 acres, situated on the shores of the River Cladeau on the Haven, should be brought into use for other commercial undertakings if the Ministry of Defence does not want it. That should be done as quickly as possible. I have always made it clear that if the decision is taken to close the depot, it should not be death by 1,000 cuts over a long time. The closure of the depot should be fast, the site should be cleaned up and prepared for other uses, and there should be early advertising of the site for other enterprises.

The Welsh Office should consider whether it has any uses for the site which would create employment and whether any other Government Departments which are decentralising from London have any uses for the site. If that is not the case, we have to ensure that the site is made available for private enterprise.

Yesterday's Western Mail states that workers at the depot have asked whether the MOD would make a gift of it to the town. That is highly unlikely. I am not sure that it would be right for the local authority to take over the site. It is not terribly experienced in running commercial undertakings or sites of that size. Of course the Welsh Development Agency would be the right body to take over the site and prepare it for business occupation after the MOD has cleaned it up. I do not say that it is the Welsh Development Agency's job to pay for cleaning up the site. That is an MOD responsibility. The Pembrokeshire business initiative could, with the WDA, help to identify possible uses for the site and attract employers to it.

I finish on that positive note because I believe I should follow the example of the work force at Milford Haven, which has recognised the reality that the depot will not continue as a mine depot. It recognises that mine warfare and defence strategy have changed. The MOD must recognise that realism and reward the loyal service of the work force and the dedication of the people of Milford Haven to the depot since 1939. The MOD should ensure that, if the site is closed as an MOD depot, it will be made available for the future employment and prosperity of the people of the area.

6.41 am
Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

I had not intended to speak in this debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), who has the next debate, has not arrived yet, so perhaps we should continue this one for a while.

I listened to the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) with great interest. I thought at one point that he might have been converted to the views of the Opposition, but towards the end he covered his bets with the Conservative side. What he faces is something of great difficulty and concern for any hon. Member: the closure of a works, factory or—as in this case—depot, with the consequent unemployment. Many Opposition Members who represent industrial areas have had to face this problem often under this Government. I only wish that the hon. Member for Pembroke was as forthcoming in his support for other areas as he is for his own.

Because Opposition Members have faced this problem so often, I want to speak in support of the depot, and I hope that the Government will change their mind about it. The area faces certain difficulties with employment. It is on the periphery of the European Community—that is one strike against it. Secondly, it is surrounded by a mainly rural area, so the development of service industries there will be extremely difficult. It cannot act as a nucleus for warehousing, so it will find it difficult to attract jobs. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, the people of these communities have given a great deal of service to the country in war and peace and they deserve better than to be summarily dismissed.

The hon. Member for Pembroke talked of dispersing MOD jobs. I noted with interest that that happened this week, with the dispersal of jobs to Llangennech, near Llanelli, and the people there are grateful. However, I warn the hon. Gentleman that the MOD's history of dispersal is not good. Some years ago it undertook to disperse jobs to Glasgow. We found that jobs were leaving the south-east and going as far afield as Gloucester and a little north of London. Then those jobs shuffled up as far as Manchester, and by the time the ripples of the dispersal reached Glasgow there was little advantage to be had from the process. As a positive scheme, it was a disaster. That was recognised in a report of the Public Accounts Committee, which I think was published about two years ago. If I were the hon. Member for Pembroke, I would not rely too much on the Ministry of Defence dispersing jobs to replace those that are being lost.

The hon. Member for Pembroke tried to change horses or face all ways in relation to local authorities. It was gratifying to hear him extol the virtues of local authorities. The hon. Gentleman praised the local authority's report, and I am sure that his praise will be received by the local authority with satisfaction. His damning indictment of its ability to run a small industrial site will not be so well received. I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman said that local authorities could do anything. On numerous occasions in debates over the past couple of years and on the Widdicombe report on the organisation of local government, Conservative Members have criticised local authorities for taking initiatives.

The report that the hon. Gentleman praised could be illegal, if any political comment is made in it, under the new rules that the Government are introducing. I hope that when we debate the rules and regulations the hon. Gentleman will have the courage of his convictions and condemn the Government for trying to strangle local authorities and prevent them from carrying out their duty to protect local communities.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to prolong the debate until his hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) turns up, and that he knows little about the subject and has not seen the local authority's report. The authority has made an excellent report that is not political but neutral and unbiased and deals with the problems facing the area.

Mr. Rogers

That shows the political naivety of the hon. Gentleman. If a report that deals with an institution that provides jobs and bread to the community is not political, what is? The hon. Gentleman showed his bigotry and prejudice. He believes that all matters must be party political, and that was the view of the Government when they reorganised local government. The recommendations of the Widdicombe report were based on the sort of prejudices that the hon. Gentleman has just shown.

The local authority has done a good job, but it would be illegal under the new rules that the Government have introduced. If a local authority fights for jobs in a community, the Government say, "You cannot do that because you are criticising Government policy and it is political." Throughout the country, Labour authorities —they are the only authorities fighting for jobs in their communities, unless a Conservative Member such as the hon. Member for Pembroke is affected by a proposal—are condemned for fighting for jobs in their communities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have the courage of his convictions and will support our opposition to the Governments proposals. It is perfectly understandable —I speak from the arrogance of a large majority—that the hon. Gentleman wants to cover his back on this electoral issue. That is what it will be. The hon. Gentleman's constituents will be looking not at what he did but at what the Government did to jobs in the area when they vote in the next election.

The hon. Gentleman is not alone in his inconsistency. We have seen it time and again among Conservative Members. They talk about market forces and letting the market economy operate. However, when that affects their constituency it is a different story. In the previous Session some Conservative Members complained bitterly about the dumping of nuclear waste. However, they would vote for the Government in their nuclear energy development policy. I will tell the hon. Member for Pembroke what I told them then one cannot have it both ways. If one supports a nuclear industry, one has to be prepared to be the recipient of the waste from that industry. Significant Members of the Government fought hard against having a nuclear dumping ground in their constituencies.

The hon. Member for Pembroke asked the MOD not to fold up its tent and creep away. It will fold up its tent, and I am afraid that the local authority, in conjunction with the Welsh Development Agency, will have to fight for it. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the MOD should take the responsibility for clearing up the site. Many pits have been closed in the south Wales valleys and for a considerable number of years the sites were left derelict and were an eyesore. It is a tribute to Governments of all persuasions that they have developed, particularly over the past 15 years, extensive land clearance schemes that have restored areas to the community for housing, recreation or industrial development. I urge the Minister to pay attention to that point and follow the advice given to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke. If the MOD quits the site, it should clean it up and leave it in a decent condition so that it can be used for other purposes. I have more confidence in the local authority than the hon. Member for Pembroke. The local authority should be the agency to develop the site.

Mention was made of the apprentice training school related to the site. Naturally the hon. Member for Pembroke is worried about the future of youth training in his area. It is a serious problem because, throughout south Wales and the rest of the country, the Government have been closing down skill training centres and depriving young people of the opportunity of becoming skilled. It is a real problem and I shall give an example to the hon. Gentleman.

One county council area in south Wales was looking at where it should place the new schemes for next year. In that county there were bids for 77,000 places. The resources available will allow the county to develop only 8,000 places. That area is not far from that represented by the hon. Member for Pembroke. I have little hope that he will be able to obtain support for the development of the apprentice training school or that the Training Commission will put any substantial effort into it.

I advise the Minister that he may have closed the depot, but he has a responsibility. He cannot pack up his tent and walk away; he should invest by clearing the site and ensuring that it is handed over in a fit and proper state for use by the local community.

6.54 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Roger Freeman)

I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) on securing this debate. I know that for him, his constituents and other hon. Members, this is an important issue. He has demonstrated great persistence and great energy and courtesy in representing the interests of his constituents in this matter. I have visited the site with him and met some of his constituents. I have corresponded with him for a considerable time and we are now joined in debate. Doubtless this will not be the last time that we have the opportunity to debate this matter.

Before I reply in detail to the points that my hon. Friend has raised it might be helpful if I were to remind the House of the main facts of this issue. The House will be aware that on 25 July the Ministry of Defence published a consultative document, which recommended that the Royal Naval armaments depot at Milford Haven be closed. At this stage I should like to deal with what may be a misconception in my hon. Friend's mind about the consultative document. It is not a report. It is not a document that purports to be a comprehensive study of the problem—that is a separate document, which is classified, and which we have in the Ministry of Defence. The consultative document is a brief summary. I believe that my hon. Friend referred to it as being seven pages long. I apologise for its brevity if my hon. Friend believes that it shortchanges him and a number of his constituents on some matters. I shall attempt to answer some of his points.

It is important that we appreciate the purpose of the consultative document. The procedure is as follows. When I come to consider the closure of a particular base, garrison or depot, a report is commissioned internally in the Ministry of Defence. The issue is considered properly and thoroughly. Indeed, the criticism is often made that we take far too long to study the problem. I believe that when one is dealing with the future of loyal work people, who have spent a considerable period of time in a particular locality, it is important that the study should be comprehensive, factual, free of prejudice and emotion, and that, after consultation with other Government Departments, it should present the facts as fairly as possible.

I make no apology for the fact that sometimes those studies take what may seem an inordinately long time. That is perfectly understandable and defensible. I would much rather get all the facts right, and have all the facts, than get half a story, sometimes tinged with emotion.

Mr. Rogers

Why does the consultative document need to be classified? I can understand that there might be a section dealing with the grand strategy of the defence of this country—that might be in the first two paragraphs —and that that could be classified. However, we are talking about an industrial issue and I cannot see why the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) should not at least see the document. I do not see why the document should be classified.

Mr. Freeman

Perhaps I should explain to the hon. Gentleman that the consultative document is not classified. It is a seven-page document which was produced specifically for the trade unions. The report, which is something separate, and which runs to several hundred pages, is a classified document. It is classified for the simple reason that we are dealing with the technology of making, distributing and laying sea mines for the Royal Navy. Therefore, for obvious reasons, the document must be classified.

The consultative document is produced for consultation with the trade unions, so that they understand what recommendations and proposals have been made to me or to the relevant Minister for the future of the depot.

The consultative document is not a sales document. It does not offer alternative uses for the site. It does not spell out redundancy terms; nor does it describe the real estate. It is a brief statement, stating that the recommendation is to close the depot. It sets out the main reasons for that and explains that we should like to enter into a brief period of consultation with the trade unions, to ensure that we have the facts right, and to take into account any other factors. Only after that will a decision be taken. Once the decision is made—and it has not yet been made in this case—what my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke wants will be produced. The welter of detail about the future and welfare of the work force, and full details about the real estate involved, will be available for distribution and discussion in the Ministry of Defence, and with our allies and perhaps with other Government Departments and the private sector.

I hope that my hon. Friend will draw a distinction between the report and the consultative document.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett

I appreciate the difference between the wider 200-page report to which my hon. Friend referred, with its defence implications and classified nature, and the consultative document, but does he agree that perhaps the MOD should reconsider what it produces as a draft consultative document, bearing in mind the importance of all the closures and decisions, not just for the work force and the unions—which may be well informed—but for the local authorities that will have to consider the matter, the Member of Parliament in this case, and anyone else in the area who is concerned about the future? In the next few months we are to be asked to consult and discuss a matter about which there is very little information. The information will not be of much use to us if we get it after the decision has been taken.

Mr. Freeman

I understand the point made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). My hon. Friend has made a valid point, which I accept. When we prepare the next consultative document in the next case I shall look at the extent of the information included. If it would be more helpful to the work force and local authorities to have more information at an early stage, I shall bear that in mind.

The consultative document that we are discussing gives the work force, the trade unions and local authorities two months in which to comment in principle on the proposal. We are seeking a reaction to our decision on the future of the depot. Only when I have had a chance to consider the replies will I be able to make a final decision about the future of the depot. We are not talking about the imminent closure of the depot at Milford Haven. That may be two or three years away. We are embarking upon a consultation process—albeit a fairly brief one. The MOD is committed to ensuring that the process is frank and open. I have already told the work force that I am prepared to meet a delegation, should the workers so wish. I made that promise when I visited Milford Haven and I am happy to repeat the assurance to my hon. Friend.

The Royal Naval armaments depot at Milford Haven was built in 1939 to wartime emergency standards and covers about 260 acres. The depot's principal tasks in recent years have been the storage and maintenance of exercise mines, the updating of high explosive mines, the upkeep of what is called replenishment at sea gear, the repair and maintenance of motor transport and the training of apprentices. At present there are 285 employees.

As the result of long-term changes in mine technology and mining policy the size of the task performed at Milford Haven has been considerably reduced in recent years. If the depot were closed and the tasks transferred, capital expenditure of about £500 million would be necessary to provide new buildings elsewhere. The costs for extra staff at the new location, or locations, would amount to about £500 million per annum, or between 40 and 90 posts. My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke chastised me for not being precise about the number of new jobs that would be created elsewhere. Perhaps we are being unduly cautious, but it would be foolish to be too precise at this stage, when work still has to be undertaken.

Given that the operating costs of Milford Haven are £3.6 million per annum, the House will readily understand why, in our view, there is a persuasive argument in favour of closing the depot. It gives me no pleasure to announce the possible closure of one of our establishments, but the Ministry of Defence has an obligation to obtain the best value for money for the taxpayer within the defence budget. The task for which the depot was built has substantially declined, and there is no longer a defence requirement for it to remain open. We cannot ignore the reality of the situation, however grateful we are for the loyal service rendered by the work force in both peace and war.

The news for west Wales is not all bad. On 25 July I announced that up to 250 jobs were likely to be created as a result of the transfer to Llangennech of the forms and publications stores of the three services, which we hope will take place early in 1991. In addition, we are examining the possibility of moving some other complementary activities to Llangennech, absorbing more of the depot capacity and creating additional local employment. That is evidence of our determination to make use of our assets, if at all possible, by moving other activities and departments within the Ministry of Defence.

The consultative document is merely a short summary of the outcome of the Trecwn district study. The Trecwn district includes both the Trecwn and Milford Haven depots. The original report cannot be published, because it is classified. The consultative document is not intended to provide all the answers to the questions that the work force or their representatives may wish to raise. It is designed to form the basis for consultation. My officials will do their best to reply to the questions that arise during the consultation process.

There have been criticisms of the length of time taken to publish the consultative document. As I have said, we are dealing with a highly complex subject—the future of the United Kingdom's mining policy and the storage capacity necessary to meet it. Last year it was necessary for all the Ministry of Defence branches to give full consideration to the implications of the Trecwn district study. We consulted the Welsh Office about the future of Milford Haven, and we shall consult it, too, about the future of Trecwn. I regret the time that all that has taken, but to have proceeded more speedily would not have been in the interests of either the Ministry of Defence or the work force.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke is unhappy because the consultative document does not say what other defence uses were considered for the depot. The depot's facilities have serious shortcomings and its layout no longer meets stringent explosive safety prescriptions. Therefore, it is not an option to continue to use it efficiently as an explosives depot, and we have been unable to identify any non-explosive, Navy task that could be transferred there. The Army and Air Force departments have said that they have no need for any of the Navy's surplus storage space. If that changes, and a defence use for Milford Haven is identified, I shall inform my hon. Friend and the House as soon as possible.

The possible use of the site by other Government Departments will be fully assessed if and when I take the final decision to close the depot, and the closure process will take three years. If no further use is found for the site, our normal procedure will be to offer it for sale on the open market. In reaching a decision about disposal I shall ensure that there is full consultation with the normal authorities, the Welsh Office and its agencies. I assure my hon. Friend that any disposal procedure will be pursued with vigour and with the objective of ensuring that the site is not left idle.

My hon. Friend asked for some detailed information about the number of staff who might transfer to Trecwn and about a possible redundancy package. Yesterday I answered a parliamentary question from my hon. Friend giving him information about the Ministry of Defence's standard redundancy terms. It is impossible at this stage to be precise about how many staff could or would transfer if the depot were closed. That will emerge during the consultation process.

As for the cost of certifying the site free from explosives and removing all existing buildings, the former would cost between £0.5 million and £1 million, and if the site leaves the ownership of the Ministry of Defence, I give the assurance that that will be done. Consideration of the removal and demolition of the buildings is an integral part of the disposal process. We shall consider what needs to be done when we examine other uses.

The Ministry of Defence has no plans to close the apprentice training school. I am glad to give my hon. Friend that assurance. I shall ask my officials to consider his suggestion about widening the scope of training there. In the event of the depot being closed, sitting tenants of Ministry houses will be given an opportunity to buy them on favourable terms.

My hon. Friend's disappointment over the further study on Trecwn is understandable, but the proposal to close Milford Haven means that the residual task still performed there will have to be transferred somewhere. Trecwn is certainly the favoured option.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett

Will my hon. Friend consider providing transport for the transferred staff?

Mr. Freeman

I said earlier that between 40 and 90 new jobs would be created at one or other location to which we transferred the remaining tasks performed at Milford Haven. I visited Trecwn shortly after visiting Milford Haven, and I know that the distance between them is not inconsiderable. I shall look into the possibility of assisting with transport to carry workers who might be offered jobs and accept them at Trecwn but who live at Milford Haven. I am sure that my hon. Friend does not expect me to give any guarantees, but I shall look into the matter.

I shall ensure that the work on the future of Trecwn is undertaken as quickly as possible, but the result cannot be expected before 1989. During Operation Corporate Milford Haven was involved in assisting with the supply of replenishment at sea gear to some Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, while Trecwn provided stocks of naval ammunition to the armaments depots at the base ports. The Government are grateful for the work undertaken by the work force at both depots during the operation, which was in accordance with the high standards of the Royal Navy supply and transport service.

I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this brief debate. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend in ensuring that the site, if we close the depot, is used profitably and that the loyal, hard working and efficient work force finds alternative employment.

Forward to