§ 1 pm
§ Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)I am grateful for the opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, just two hours or so before the House rises for a very long recess, and to raise a matter of considerable importance to my constituents and to the constituents of my hon. Friends who represent North Yorkshire seats. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) is in the Chamber to support me in this brief debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister for finding time to respond to the debate. It is a great pleasure to see him in his post and he is clearly enjoying life in the ministerial ranks.
I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that I am wearing the tie of the Armed Forces and Parliament Trust. More of those ties are being seen around the Corridors of the Palace. I was one of the first three guinea-pigs who entered the Armed Forces and Parliament Trust scheme which was introduced by the then Speaker and by Mr. Neil Thorne, who then represented Ilford, South.
I have found membership of the trust to be an extremely enjoyable and illuminating experience. One thing it has taught me is the importance of Ministry of Defence establishments in North Yorkshire, not least the importance of the Royal Air Force base at Linton-on-Ouse where I was placed for my year on the scheme.
North Yorkshire has a fine tradition of Ministry of Defence work. It is home to a number of distinguished regiments and armed forces. Apart from RAF Linton-on-Ouse, my constituency has the newly commissioned early warning station at RAF Fylingdales up on the moors. I visited the station some months ago to see the huge work load there with civilian jobs of some quality involved in the preparation of the station and now, thankfully, in its manning.
There are two Ministry of Defence establishments at Strensall—Strensall barracks and the Strensall Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers depot. I shall devote most of my remarks to that depot. As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, our right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced on Tuesday the intention to close the REME depot at Strensall. Other matters have affected North Yorkshire Ministry of Defence establishments in recent months and have given rise to some concern.
The future of the support command for the RAF establishment at Harrogate, where more than 1,000 civilians are employed, is still not settled. I must tell the Minister, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks), that many of us are still unconvinced by the Government's arguments for the removal of those jobs from North Yorkshire to Brampton and to RAF Wyton in Cambridgeshire. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will bear it in mind that we are still not convinced of the Government's case on that and that he will respond to our request for more information about the costings which do not seem to us to have been properly worked through.
There are, however, some bright spots, and it would be wrong to concentrate exclusively on the potential problems stemming from proposed closures. At Leeming and at Catterick there has been a substantial enhancement of armed forces and civilian personnel requirements—to 1266 which my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks will refer, in the hope of some reassurance from the Minister on the future of Catterick following the announcement this week of the proposed transfer of the Royal Air Force Regiment from Catterick to Suffolk.
We are also grateful that at York, at the Imphal barracks in Fulford, the former north-east district headquarters is to have an enhanced role, following "Options for Change". The new eastern district headquarters will take on an even more important role than before, which is good news for many of my constituents in greater York who work at the Imphal headquarters.
Equally, it would be churlish not to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) who, as Secretary of State, piloted through the "Options for Change" programme, listened to our entreaties and retained all the Yorkshire regiments—a much-deserved retention because of their fine traditions and recruitment records. That action did not go unnoticed.
The latest string of announcements have nevertheless created the impression that much of the Ministry of Defence activity in North Yorkshire is being shut down. People want to know whether there are to be any more announcements, any more skeletons in the cupboard, or whether we now know the full extent of the changes, which will affect people's jobs, about which they are understandably anxious.
The announcement this week that the REME depot at Strensall is to be shut down has caused considerable dismay. Two hundred and fifteen civilians work there. The consultation document, of which I have a copy, makes but fleeting and almost dismissive reference to the reasons behind the decision. It offers no properly worked out argument for the closure, referring merely to only 25 per cent. of the work load coming from York and to the fact that the volume of its dependency is not expected to increase in the future.
There follows the sweeping statement that having reviewed the position there is a decision that 41 district workshop at Strensall should close on financial, engineering and operational grounds. That is the sum total of the Government's argument.
That argument does not bear much scrutiny, because 41 Command is the only workshop facility for telecommunications test and calibration in the Ministry of Defence. The closure of the workshop would have far-reaching effects on support for the British Army and all our armed forces establishments. What is more, if the depot is closed, no facility between Leicester and Stirling will provide the support that Strensall provides. About 141 Ministry of Defence establishments depend on Strensall; all would incur higher transport costs, although we are not told how much higher or what the collection arrangements would be.
There has been a suggestion that collection sites might be established. Who would man them? I suggest that there is a real danger of only small savings accruing from the closure going ahead. I do not dismiss the need to find savings in defence expenditure, but in this case those savings could be more than outweighed by the extra costs, because of the logistical difficulties that would ensue from the closure of this fine facility and the consequent dispersal of its professional skills.
Perhaps the Minister can tell us why he and the MoD believe that we can close Strensall and transfer the work to 1267 Catterick or contract it out when no case has been made to support that. I accept that it is about 50 miles away, but the Catterick depot supports the mainline infantry. It will also have extra work when it supports the 6th Armoured Brigade when it returns from Germany in due course. The Strensall depot supports the Rapid Reaction Corps, that jewel in the crown of the "Options for Change" programme.
The Strensall depot provides vehicle and communications equipment maintenance support. The facility at Strensall also provides the Army with flexibility. That was illustrated in May when I drove along the A6 autoroute in France during the last recess. Driving in the opposite direction was a convoy of white United Nations ambulances. They made an impressive sight. Being aware of the troubles and difficulties in Yugoslavia, my wife and I were much relieved by that sight. At long last, we were doing something about the problem. Little did I know then that those ambulances and vehicles were prepared, maintained and serviced for their journey at the Strensall depot in my constituency. In fact, I live round the corner from the depot and perhaps it was rather remiss of me not to notice that all that work was going on.
The Strensall depot was able to prepare those vehicles very quickly and at short notice. That shows the value of the depot to the British Army. We do not know when we will have to call upon our armed forces to respond in times of war, a subject which we had to discuss in this place not so long ago in respect of the middle east, or for relief operations. It would be a retrograde step to shut the Strensall depot when the argument in favour of closure seems so threadbare.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to my points and perhaps say whether we can come to some better arrangements about the proposal. As I understand it, the normal consultation period with the unions for a closure announcement of this kind is about 20 working days. That is not long enough at the best of times. However, given that the House is to go into recess and many people will be on holiday, it is incumbent on the Minister to respond to the not unreasonable request that the consultation period should be extended and that no formal decision to close Strensall depot should be taken at least until after the House returns after the recess.
I should like to go a stage further than that. In any event, it would be premature to close the depot until the market-testing initiative on contractorisation, referred to in the consultation document, has been carried out. It seems crazy to say that we think that we can settle some of the current work load through contractorisation and that there will be a market-testing initiative to discover whether that is feasible, but we will close the depot before we have the results of the market test initiative. I cannot see the logic in that argument and, understandably, neither can the work force.
We all want to save expenditure and cut waste, particularly in administration. The Strensall and Catterick depots are close to each other and closely interrelated, as has always been the case with the various barracks around North Yorkshire between Catterick, Strensall and Imphal. Given that they are so closely related, why cannot one depot remain as a satellite of the other? At this juncture, I should not like to suggest which way round that should be, because I understand that they are of a similar size, but my suggestion would prevent waste administration and it might lead to the satellite depot shedding some staff, 1268 particularly if the contractorisation experiment worked. Expenditure that is likely to be incurred on various military establishments having to send their work loads all around the country, with extra transport and collection costs, would be better spent on maintaining a depot, albeit slimmed down, at one or other site. I suspect that it might be in Strensall, given that Catterick is to expand its operations under the "Options for Change" programme.
I hope that I have demonstrated to my hon. Friend the Minister that the proposal raises many questions and that we need more time to prove that Strensall depot, which has a fine history and fine traditions—I pay tribute to all the staff who have worked there—should be given an opportunity to show that it still has an important role in the support of our armed forces. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we should have more time to put our case.
§ Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks)I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for raising this subject and for allowing me a few moments to make a contribution. Like my hon. Friend, I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister is present.
I am prompted to participate in the debate by the announcement on Tuesday that the RAF Regiment is to move from Catterick, after a long association with the town, and be concentrated entirely in Suffolk. We in the Richmond and Catterick area are very sad to see the RAF Regiment go. It has had a long association with the area and it is well liked. Many generations have enjoyed working there. The regiment's relationship with, and contribution to, the local community have been extremely positive. However, we accept that the decision was taken after a long review. The decision is not a surprise. Difficult decisions must be made during the "Options for Change" process. Some battles will be won for North Yorkshire and some will be lost, but we accept that my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues have a difficult decision to make.
I was pleased to receive a letter from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces earlier this week, stating:
Everything possible would be done to avoid redundancies amongst the 75 civilian … employees at RAF Catterick. The Army is likely to have an alternative use for the base. This could provide job opportunities for the existing civilian employees, and there may also be opportunities for alternative employment in Catterick garrison.I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that high priority is given to ensuring that those 75 civilian employees will be found alternative employment. I ask him also to make a decision as soon as possible about the future of the base, even though the RAF Regiment is not to leave until the end of 1993 or early 1994. The sooner my hon. Friend decides the future of the base and whether the Army will use it, the better it will be for all concerned and the sooner the local community will know how the matter will develop. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to.find an alternative use for the base by the Army.In many ways, this matter is exceptional. Over the past few years, the extent of Ministry of Defence employment, the number of armed forces and the number of service men based in my constituency have continued to expand, particularly because of RAF Leeming being established as a major air base and the expansion of Catterick garrison. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Minister that that is 1269 extremely welcome in the area. Notwithstanding a few problems of noise compensation that we still have to sort out at RAF Leeming, the local community and the armed forces work extremely well together and have a good relationship. That demonstrates my other point.
The north is an excellent region in which to locate a larger share of the armed forces. It has lower property prices. Money has greater purchasing power because the salaries of those who work in the armed forces are lower. Many people can work close to their homes. The north is an excellent place to locate an ever-increasing proportion of our armed forces.
§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken)I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for introducing this important debate. I have been much impressed by the concern that he has rightly shown for his constituents and by his expertise on military matters, which he kindly said was due in no small measure to his experience as a guinea pig, as he put it, in the Armed Forces and Parliament Trust.
I listened to both my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) with particular sympathy. I know their constituencies reasonably well. I once aspired to represent the Thirsk and Malton constituency which, following subdivisions, both their constituencies now include. Although my period as a prospective parliamentary candidate was not the most successful episode of my career, I formed a great affection for the people of Yorkshire and a love for the countryside of Yorkshire. Therefore, I have some feeling for the places that my hon. Friends described, such as Strensall and Catterick. So I reply to the debate with some local knowledge as well as on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.
My hon. Friends were right to say that Yorkshire is a county of great military excellence and tradition. This is rather an all-Yorkshire occasion. Although the impartiality of your office precludes you from doing anything but listening to our debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that as the Member for Parliament for Pontefract and Castleford you concur with the kind tributes that were paid to the excellence of the various regiments and depots in Yorkshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope), who is present on the Front Bench in his silent capacity as a Government Whip, has also expressed great concern on behalf of his constituents who are affected by some of the decisions about Harrogate. He will also echo the good and justified tributes that were paid to the various installations and regiments in Yorkshire.
Some 17,500 Ministry of Defence personnel are based in Yorkshire. The county has the fifth highest number of MOD posts in the United Kingdom. Pro rata to population, that rises to third highest. In addition, the Ministry spends some £200 million annually on equipment in the Yorkshire and Humberside area, providing direct employment for about 4,000 more people.
Among the main defence establishments in North Yorkshire is the large garrison at Catterick. Of course, the city of York has been chosen for the headquarters of the 1270 new enlarged eastern district. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has already mentioned the various RAF bases and fine regiments, so we can safely say that Yorkshire is well represented in the order of battle of both the RAF and the Army. There are three county regiments—the Green Howards, the Prince of Wales's Own Regiment and the Duke of Wellington's Regiment—in addition to contributions from other regiments.
The problem that my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale has rightly raised of some 189 jobs at the 41 district workshop in York must be seen from the perspective from the great pride that everyone feels about the wider defence presence in Yorkshire. The Ministry faces some difficult decisions as a result of "Options For Change". I fully understand and sympathise with the shock that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ryedale and his constituents must have felt when we announced that we proposed to close 41 district workshop in the constituency. I certainly appreciate his anxiety about the effect that the closure will have on employment in the area.
I welcome the opportunity to explain why we have to make reductions in the Army's static workshop organisation and why we propose that the workshop in York should be among those to be closed.
The Army's static workshop organisation now consists of a workshop in Northern Ireland, three base workshops in England, nine district workshops in England, Scotland and Wales, a small workshop at Long Marston and one base workshop in Germany. The organisation as a whole is working at well below capacity: overheads are high and greater efficiency could be achieved.
"Options for Change" requires a significant restructuring of the Army, and although the variety and diversity of equipment—will remain largely unchanged, there will be a considerable reduction in the volume of the repair load. It has been calculated, for instance, that the base repair load—that is, the in-depth overhaul of equipment, will reduce in the post-options era to less than 60 per cent. of the former requirement. We have therefore had to conduct a review to assess the number of workshops required to support the Army in future.
The district workshops, of which York and Catterick are examples, are located in areas of Army concentration throughout the United Kingdom. They provide first and second line support for Regular Army and Territorial Army units and undertake a limited amount of base repair work. The current in-house work load is of the order of 1.4 million man hours a year. In addition, some 800,000 man hours of work are carried out under contract. It has been calculated that the redeployment of units to the United Kingdom from the British Army of the Rhine will raise the annual in-house load to some 1.5 million man hours. However, even this will leave a significant amount of spare capacity in the workshops and we reluctantly, but inevitably, came to the conclusion that some should be closed, including, I regret to say, 41 workshop in York.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale asked questions about a specific problem, to which I should like to reply, and he made certain requests. First, he asked, justifiably, whether 20 days was too short a period for meaningful consultations and whether we could do a little better than that, particularly when the House is in recess and some people are away on holiday. I can grant that request easily, because the Ministry's consultation period provides for a minimum of 20 days, which can be extended if the closure raises difficult issues, as we acknowledge it 1271 does, and if the unions or the local Member of Parliament asks for an extension. I hope that my hon. Friend feels that we have met him on that request.
My hon. Friend asked whether we could arrange for the necessary clearances for him to visit the workshop. We shall be pleased to make those arrangements for him.
I find it harder to grant my hon. Friend's second request to postpone the closure pending the outcome of the market-testing initiative. I cannot agree to that, because of the huge over-capacity in the workshop organisation, which will increase. There is simply insufficient work load to maintain the workshop organisation at its present level, and closures must be made. The market-testing initiative will be carried out only in the workshops that remain.
Next my hon. Friend asked whether the two workshops in Yorkshire could he retained, one as a satellite of the other. Again, I cannot see my way to agreeing to that. It simply would not resolve the problem of the great over-capacity that exists in the Army static workshop organisation.
My hon. Friend also asked whether we were worried that there would he no workshop capable of performing highly technical telecommunications work in the calibration field, particularly between Stirling and Leicester. I can confirm that there is no facility at Catterick. We expect to place specialised work out to local contract repair. There will he a good opportunity for many local telecommunications companies. In addition, where really specialised work is necessary, local collecting points will be provided to move the work, where necessary, to other Army workshops. We can give further details of that in the consultation period. I hope that I have dealt with the main points of my hon. Friend's plea on behalf of Strensall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks asked about the RAF Regiment and the changes affecting Catterick. I was delighted by his warm tribute to that regiment. Last Tuesday my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced changes to the future size and shape of the regiment. The reorganisation follows an exhaustive study which has been an important part of our programme to create a more efficient structure for the RAF for the future.
I assure my hon. Friend that it is the required size and shape of the RAF Regiment, which was carefully examined, which will result in the announced move from Catterick. I believe that the majority of the affected RAF staff will be relocated to other RAF Regiment duties. Unfortunately, there will be some officer redundancies, but we hope that the alternative use of RAF Catterick by the Army will provide job opportunities for the existing civilian work force. It may also create job opportunities at the Catterick garrison. I understand my hon. Friend's concern, but I think that I am right to say that, in this case, the effect on his constituents and the local economy will not be great.
Difficult decisions have had to be made. I am afraid that I cannot please all my hon. Friends in their requests. Yorkshire has 17,500 service men. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that the changes are fairly small and will not unduly affect the military situation and its installations in Yorkshire.