HC Deb 02 December 1998 vol 321 cc855-64 1.27 pm
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley)

I would sooner not have had to have this debate, but unfortunately the strategic defence review meant that a debate on the Territorial Army centre at Chorley was necessary.

The centre was established in 1895 and is occupied by the headquarters of 101 Battalion, the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. More important, if anything is more important, there are also the cadets, about whom I feel strongly. Both have a strong case to remain. On 17 November, my right hon. Friend George Robertson announced that the battalion headquarters would move to north Wales. Study of the map showed that it would move to Queensferry.

I was disappointed because that decision was unnecessary, unjustified and certainly not thought out. Two reviews in the past few months had said that Chorley TA centre should remain. It was in the right position and was the ideal location for 101 Battalion REME's HQ. What has changed? I can think of nothing. The M6 is still in the same place and the HQ is in the good repair that it always has been. All the people are still there. Suddenly, at the last minute, things changed.

Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate)

I can help the hon. Gentleman, who almost certainly is not aware of the evidence taken by the Defence Committee this morning from Colonel Mike Taylor, chairman of the north-west Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association. He told us that he and his colleagues did not understand the decision on Chorley, except as a deliberate political move to shift a perfectly fine TA centre from Chorley across a boundary into Wales for the sake of the footprint.

Mr. Hoyle

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that welcome information, of which I was unaware. It certainly concurs with my thinking on the matter and answers some of my questions. I am sure that the Minister will want to deal with that information in his reply. I could not work out the reasons for the decision; the evidence given today has revealed that it was reached for political ones. I am very worried about that, and hope that a correct decision will be made.

Everyone in Chorley was shocked by the decision to transfer the TA centre, which supports our community at sporting, charitable and ceremonial events. Those at the centre have always been there, on hand as a part of Chorley—that role represents an important aspect of the centre, and it is why I have asked for the debate.

The centre is such a key player in the local community that it gives every young person the opportunity to participate in disciplines and events out of school and to plan for the future. The cadet centre attracts young people and provides them with a golden opportunity. If we take away that opportunity, there may not be another one. I hope that the Minister will deal with our concerns. Regardless of how we study the Ministry's plan, it will result in the closure of the centre. Not only will the battalion headquarters go, but a fundamental part of society in Chorley—the cadet force—will go.

Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble)

Is my hon. Friend aware that I held a public consultation on the defence review in my constituency, at the Royal British Legion Lostock hall, which was attended by many TA and cadet group representatives? A common theme was the concern that, after any changes in the TA configuration, the position of cadet forces should be maintained. There was, and is, very real concern in Lancashire that changes to the TA could cause serious damage to the area's cadet forces. I seek reassurance from my hon. Friend the Minister—as does, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)—that cadet forces, and certainly those in Chorley, will be maintained.

Mr. Hoyle

I know that my hon. Friend had a most successful meeting which was attended by many people. Although people were happy to attend a meeting to have a public discussion, they discovered that Chorley's cadet force, which they thought was safe, and its headquarters, which they believed would not be moved, would unfortunately not be the subject of good news from George Robertson

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin)

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that was the second occasion on which he referred to the right hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Robertson) by his surname. He should refer to him by his constituency.

Mr. Hoyle

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Our concern is so great that 50 hon. Members from the north-west have sent a letter to the Minister—which he should have received, as it was put on the Letter Board last night—to support the retention of Chorley's centre. We have the backing of parish councils. Last night, Chorley borough council discussed the issue and Lancashire county council, which is concerned about the issue, will also debate it soon. There is a wave of support across the north-west for maintaining the TA centre. We should not lose what we have or play around with it simply to appease north Wales. I am worried about that danger.

It is difficult to justify the Ministry's decision. I have tried to imagine every possible reason for it but have been unable to find one. The decision was not taken for financial or logistical reasons. It does not add up, so what is the reason for it?

The new south Lancashire catchment area, which covers three constituencies, is home to much engineering and 300,000 people. We will not, however, have one TA centre or cadet centre. That news is unacceptable and is not good. The north-west is an important area and the region's population is bigger than that of north Wales, which already has five TA centres. Why on earth are we making the change? It does not make sense.

When I was mayor, I went along to the 101 Battalion REME headquarters, with which I have always had good links, where I was told that the TA has always had problems in recruiting officers for its establishments in north Wales. Now, we are told that the battalion headquarters will be moved to north Wales—but from where will the people come to man it? What will be the cost? It does not add up.

The Chorley centre has eight full-time civil servants. They will not be transferred to Queensferry because it is simply not possible to do so—they will go on to the unemployment register. Eight people's jobs will be thrown away at a whim, but it will cost us—not only in redundancy money but in recruitment in north Wales. The decision does not add up.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud)

Although I do not want to comment specifically on Chorley, there is a wider point to consider—whether the defence review took into consideration an area's recruitment potential. Such considerations certainly seem to have been ignored in my constituency, which is the best recruiting area in Gloucestershire. Would my hon. Friend care to comment on that?

Mr. Hoyle

I do not think that the matter has been considered. I can honestly say that the decision on Chorley was taken so late that nothing could have been properly considered. I am not as familiar with the situation in Stroud, but I presume that the same questions may be asked about the decisions that affect it. I hope that the Minister will also consider the circumstances there. Why change a fine recruitment area, staffed by local people, unless there are genuine reasons for doing so?

The decision on Chorley's centre was not taken because we do not need that centre—it would be different if that were the reason for that decision. Someone has, however, decided to move it to north Wales. Let us not lose sight of that fact. The civil servants at our centre are not the same as the people who go out on the TA weekends, or the Regulars who might expect to be moved. They are people with real jobs and livelihoods who will suddenly lose them.

What will happen when the centre is moved to Queensferry? Last weekend, I decided to take a little trip to north Wales, and just happened to go past the TA centre. Has someone examined and measured the facilities at Chorley and at Queensferry to see what will fit? Nothing will fit at Queensferry as well as it has done at Chorley. North Wales will also be home to two other units and an Army cadet force detachment, all of which will have to be based in one building which was built to house one infantry company. It does not seem possible to make that work.

Unless the building in north Wales is the Tardis—it did not seem to be when I saw it—or we spend money to extend it, where will the headquarters go once we discover that the building is too small to house it? It could go back to Chorley. That would make sense, although it would have been more sensible for it simply to remain there. We could consider Wrexham, but the argument for moving to Queensferry has therefore been weakened.

I should think that by now we have enough evidence to say that the move should not be made, and that the decision should be reviewed by Land Command, which made it. I have been assured that the decision was made by Land Command and not by the Minister, and that it was not reached in the final throes of the review. I am worried, however, that that was when the decision was made; that the centre will not fit in north Wales and that it will cost a great deal to relocate it again.

We must consider also other factors. The Chorley centre houses the computer bank, wiring and transport facilities, all of which will have to be moved. Why are we making the move? There will be no gain in it; it will only cost more money. I thought that the idea of the strategic defence review was to make savings and increase efficiency. We cannot become more efficient in north Wales.

The problem with the 101 Battalion REME is that it covers the area between Coventry and Scotland. We should realise that there is no better place for its centre than in the centre of the country. The midpoint between Coventry and Scotland is Chorley, just up the M6.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

The hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case. However, the facts that he describes have been a feature of the cuts and reorganisation in the TA. Last night, the Defence Committee visited 10 Para, which is now to be combined with 4 Para. That will create a unit which will stretch from Scotland to London. How can it possibly be managed as a single unit?

Mr. Hoyle

I do not know whether it is manageable, but if that is the stretch of the Paras, surely they should consider Chorley. We have a spare barracks and headquarters for them. I can think of no more compelling case that I have heard today. It would make sense to look for a central location that was good for logistics. In all fairness to north Wales, that is not the case in Queensferry.

The barracks at Chorley has been well maintained. It is a good facility that we should not lose. It was a gift from the people of Chorley by public subscription. What right have the Government to sell it? People are careful about what they buy. It is a listed building, so it does not lend itself to many other uses anyway. The land is also tied up with Chorley borough council. There is a lease on it, which muddies the waters even further.

The facility has been valued at just over £200,000. We have to find accommodation for a cadet force, because the Minister has said that they will not travel more than five miles from where they are. That means that we have to buy a brown-field site and put a building on it. After moving everything in and ensuring that it is up and running, the cost will be near to £100,000. If the existing building is sold, we shall not get much more than £200,000. It would make more sense to leave the cadet force in the TA centre, but the centre is too big, so we need something else there as well.

What is the cost of moving the 101 Battalion REME to Queensferry? Nobody has given me the figures. What will the redundancy costs be? It all stacks up to suggest that the move is not sensible. There is not a single genuine reason for it.

I have studied the map. If the battalion ends up in north Wales, and given that it will not fit at Queensferry, the only place that it can go is Wrexham. That is a bit further away and off the main routes. That would be a mistake. I do not know how my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) would feel about that. He hopes that Wrexham might end up with a Welsh battalion or one coming back from Germany full time. If Wrexham is used—that is the only logical conclusion that I can come up with—101 Battalion REME will be thrown out again and will be looking for a new home. That is not acceptable.

Why are we moving the battalion? The issues have not been thought through. There is a danger that it is nothing more than a political decision. I do not want to think that politics have overtaken common sense on this. I like to think that Land Command had to come up with a quick fix without thinking it through, costing it or realising what it was doing. I hope that we have enough evidence for the issue to be send back to Land Command for a rethink.

If we have to appease north Wales, there are alternatives. It could be represented by moving a battalion headquarters from south Wales, where there are four or five. Would it not make more sense to transfer a battalion whose history is already in Wales? Some regiments in south Wales have 50 per cent. of their sub-units in the midlands—two thirds in one case. The 157 Transport Regiment has one detachment at Stoke-on-Trent, which is closer to Queensferry than to Cardiff, where the headquarters is currently located. I am sure that that would make more sense to the people of Wales. Common sense is what we are here for.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will not just give the usual sympathy. We have had a good, open discussion. I hope that the issue will be taken on board and given more serious consideration than has been the case so far. The decision was made at the last minute. The two earlier reviews conducted three months ago pointed to Chorley. Chorley is in the right place. Everything cannot be changed in the last throes of the review. All the reasons why Chorley was right did not disappear overnight. There have to be other reasons behind the decision.

I sympathise with Wales. I do not want to say "Wales should not have this and should not have the other." However, what we do should make sense. Overall, Parliament supported the strategic defence review. The armed forces backed it because a lot of it made sense, although there were parts with which some of us disagreed. The decline came when the strategic defence review reached the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association. That is when everybody became emotional. My hon. Friend the Minister has said that we must take a realistic view, based on common sense. I accept that what is left must have a use.

If the Chorley centre was to close because there was no need for it, because it was outdated or because it was not relevant, I would not be standing here today. However, that is not the issue. The battalion headquarters is to be moved from Chorley to north Wales purely for appeasement. That is not how we should do business. That is not the way forward.

I hope that the Minister will take on board what I have said and look at the genuine problems that have been created. He should think about those who will lose their jobs. It is not long since we suffered under a defence review by losing jobs at Royal Ordnance. There was a genuine reason for that, but in this case there is no need for redundancies. The jobs can remain at Chorley. It would even save money. I ask the Minister to send the issue back to Land Command to be reconsidered. The cadet force must remain in the Chorley centre. I hope that the 101 Battalion REME will also remain in its rightful home at Chorley, which is in the centre of its operating area, not out on a limb. It should not have to report to south Wales from north Wales. It should continue to report from Chorley to Preston. I implore my hon. Friend to take on board what I have said.

1.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on securing this debate on the future location, of the headquarters of 101 Battalion of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. We have had interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and from the hon. Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). My hon. Friend the Member for Chorley clearly feels strongly on the issue, as his remarks today and after the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 17 November show.

I fully understand my hon. Friend's concern that his constituency has lost the opportunity that the presence of the headquarters of 101 Battalion REME affords to those who want to volunteer their services to the Territorial Army. However, the issue must be viewed against the wider background of the restructuring of the Territorial Army and the Government's aims in their review.

It may be helpful if I briefly remind hon. Members of the background to the review and the extensive consultation exercise that was conducted before my right hon. Friend announced the results on 17 November.

Mr. Brazier

If that was the case, why, as late as 26 September, did almost all the senior serving officers in the Territorial Army meet and pass a message up the chain of command that they felt that they still had not been consulted?

Mr. Spellar

The hon. Gentleman does himself and the Territorial Army no good by fighting old battles. He no longer represents the view of the Territorial Army. Since the announcement of 17 November, I have had several discussions with those involved: some are pleased and some are disappointed. The outcome has been described as better than they had feared and worse than they had hoped for. There is a feeling that the TA must get on and implement the decisions that have been made and look to the future to create a more operationally valid and useable force. The hon. Gentleman is fighting an old battle in which he is not carrying the majority of the TA or its senior members.

Mr. Brazier

rose—

Mr. Spellar

I am mindful of the fact that I do not have much time to cover all the issues and that it is unusual to accept interventions during a half-hour Adjournment debate, so I want to press on.

It has been our intention to give effect not only to a reduction in the TA but to a substantial restructuring to reflect the changes that have taken place in the international environment. We have achieved that on the basis of a thorough analysis of the operational requirement for each arm and service as part of a modern, deployable Army, taking into account the scale of a likely deployment and the readiness of forces that would be required for it.

Those calculations led us to believe in the summer that a TA of about 40,000 was required. The House will know that, in our subsequent work and consultation, we refined that figure to 41,200. As part of that work, we defined the organisation of the arms and services that can best deliver the results that we want and need.

In the case of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, the decision was to retain four of the five battalions. Those judgments have been essentially military. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley knows, the bulk of the work to devise the new structure within the parameters set out in the strategic defence review has been undertaken by the Commander-in-Chief Land Command and his planning staff.

The method that they have chosen to adopt for the review—it has the whole-hearted approval of Ministers—has been to consult widely on an initial set of proposals which was issued for that purpose in July, shortly after the announcement of the outcome of the strategic defence review. The purpose of the consultation was to bring together the professional judgment of three sets of people with differing responsibilities for the Territorial Army.

The first set was the directors of arms and services. All arms and services have such directors, and the fact that they have serving members of the TA on their staff has enabled them to give advice on the best organisation and structure for the reformed TA in their particular arm.

The second set of people who were consulted were the divisional and brigade commanders who command both the Territorials and Regulars in their respective areas. In the case of 101 Battalion REME, divisional command is provided by headquarters, 5th Division, in Shrewsbury. Two brigade headquarters are involved: 160 Brigade based in Brecon in Wales and 42 Brigade in Preston. I re-emphasise the fact that both headquarters have TA staff and so can make both chain-of-command and local decisions about the arrangements that will best suit the Army's purposes.

The third set of people whom the Commander-in-Chief Land Command consulted was the Territorial Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association, whose role in these matters is, I think, well understood by hon. Members.

I outline the consultative arrangements in some detail to illustrate the fact that, even within the military staffing process, the consultation exercise has sought to bring together a number of different aspects: the interests of the individual arm or service; the interests of the chain of command, which brings together a range of different arms; and important local or regional factors. We have put even greater stress on regional factors than would have been expected to emerge from the military staffing process to emphasise the fact that the TA has a wider role as part of the Army's public face in the community.

I was slightly surprised by the intervention of the hon. Member for Reigate, who dismissed the argument in favour of maintaining a footprint. We emphasised many times—indeed, it was said by hon. Members from both sides of the House and from all parts of the country—that it was important to maintain the footprint. I find it strange that that should now be used as a criticism of the process. The footprint was not only an inherent part of the process but widely demanded.

Mr. Blunt

My point—it was made to the Defence Committee this morning and I was passing on the information to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)—was that the headquarters was being moved 25 miles for the sole purpose of crossing a border. I am not sure that that has an enormous amount to do with a national footprint.

Mr. Spellar

I noted down at the time that the hon. Gentleman used the term footprint; he said that the move was being made to maintain a footprint and that the decision was political. I believe that it is important to maintain the footprint. If that has been deemed to be one of the considerations, we will acknowledge it.

It was no surprise that my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley observed that he had believed that his constituency was not among those affected in the initial proposals. We stressed to the large numbers of those who made representations about the effects of TA restructuring in their areas that the consultation was genuine; its purpose was to ensure that a proper balance could be reflected in the proposals that were finally put to Ministers.

Of course I am personally sorry that my hon. Friend and his constituency should have had, as he sees it, the rough end of the deal, but I hope that he will accept that the objectives of the exercise have required us to have regard not only to the particular circumstances of the headquarters but to the region as a whole.

Lancashire has not done badly in the restructuring exercise. It currently contains six Territorial Army centres; there are centres in Blackpool, Lancaster, Preston and Chorley, with two centres in Blackburn. After the reform, there will be five TA centres in Lancashire. The TA centre in my hon. Friend's constituency will be the only one to close.

The remaining centres will be base to the best part of three infantry companies and an infantry battalion headquarters, a signal squadron, three Army medical service squadrons and the Lancaster University officer training corps. That is not much less than there is now—Lancashire has lost an infantry company, an engineer troop, and the 22-man headquarters of 101 Battalion REME. The county remains well represented by the TA. Moreover, it could be argued that the review has been kinder to Lancashire than to some other counties.

The intention is that the headquarters of 101 Battalion REME will move to Queensferry in north Wales. As we expect the company of infantry that is currently based in the TA centre in Queensferry to be reduced to a detachment, it makes sense to use the available space to accommodate other units. In addition to the infantry detachment, there will be a surgical squadron and 101 Battalion REME headquarters. There is ample space for those units.

The changes will give north Wales a share in the expansion of the TA element of the Army medical service from which Lancashire has benefited. They will place the REME battalion headquarters closer to the REME unit at Prestatyn, which is some 15 miles away on the A548.

Mr. Hoyle

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spellar

Yes, but I remind my hon. Friend of the time.

Mr. Hoyle

Chorley is right next door to Clifton, where most of the Army presence is; if the REME battalion moves, it will be even further away.

Mr. Spellar

The battalion will move closer to one centre and further from another—that is always the difficulty in making those judgments. I am describing the process by which we tried to ensure a balance across the country. Furthermore, there is no question that we will not be able to recruit the 22 individual volunteers that we need for the headquarters.

North Wales has not done badly in the review, but it has not done as well as Lancashire. Like Lancashire, north Wales contains six TA centres, but two of them are to close. Like Lancashire, north Wales contains four infantry companies; after the reforms, there will be the best part of three. Wales currently has only one battalion headquarters whereas Lancashire has three. If the REME battalion headquarters was not moving, Wales would have none after the changes.

The judgment has been that it makes sense to move the headquarters of 101 Battalion REME to Wales. That makes operational sense because of the presence of the REME unit in Prestatyn. It makes practical sense because of the need to make best use of the facilities in Queensferry after the reduction of the infantry presence there. It makes regional sense because it accords with our attempts to ensure reasonable equity in the distribution of the future TA.

There will be opportunities for those in Chorley to continue to serve in the TA if they want, although I accept that, for some, it will not be as convenient as it is now. The centre at Kimberley barracks, Preston, however, is not more than seven or eight miles from Chorley and there are other centres in Lancashire and Greater Manchester. Arrangements will be made where possible to enable those who want to transfer to do so.

I understand the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley. It is hard that Chorley should be almost alone in being able to supply what was needed to ensure fair play regionally. The decision involved a matter of judgment; we had to take into account the wider interests of the TA in the region as a whole—

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

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.