HC Deb 15 July 2003 vol 409 cc255-62

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

7.17 pm
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

Before I say anything about the potential closure of RAF Lyneham, it would be appropriate to pay tribute to the airmen and airwomen of the base, who, in their Hercules planes, have played such a central role in almost every conflict of the past 60 years and in every humanitarian effort in which we have taken part during that time. They pride themselves on being the first in and the last out in every conflict. As recently as Operation Telic in Iraq, we have seen what superb work they do. We are proud to have them in Wiltshire. We like the Hercules flying over my constituency and we shall be disappointed and extremely sad to see them go when they are moved to Brize Norton, as the Under-Secretary of State has announced they will be.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his intention to announce last Friday the closure of the base. I reconfirm that it was not me who leaked that decision to the press. It became known the following morning, although it was already common knowledge at the base. Two weeks previously, when I attended the Classics on the Wing concert at the base, the Chief of the Air Staff, among others, talked about the likelihood of closure. I did not leak the information. I go to great lengths to respect the fact that decisions should be announced in this place and I am grateful to the Minister for that advance notice.

It is rare for an event of the magnitude of the closing of a base such as RAF Lyneham to hit a single constituency. Some 700 directly employed civilians will lose their jobs. It is disappointing, incidentally, that the Minister's letter refers to only 250 job losses, then, in parenthesis, it refers to all those who are employed on contract. A total of 750 will lose their jobs, and 2,500 RAF jobs will go. Those people will not be moved to Brize Norton; there will be a 2,500 reduction in the net manpower of the RAF when Lyneham closes. Of course, a large number of support industries of every kind in the surrounding area will be affected. If all the people in those jobs are added together, plus their spouses and their families, about 10,000 people owe their livelihoods to RAF Lyneham, so the effect of the Minister's announcement should not be underestimated.

We believe that what is involved is a £75 million contribution to the local economy and, that if not handled correctly, the closure of RAF Lyneham will be absolutely catastrophic, not only for the village of Lyneham itself, but for the surrounding towns: Wootton Bassett; Caine, which is the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram); Cirencester—and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is here this evening; Chippenham, of course; and Malmesbury. People from all those surrounding towns depend to a significant extent on RAF Lyneham, so I very much welcome the opportunity provided by this Adjournment debate to begin to consider how to handle the announcement.

I should say in passing that the people of those towns took comfort from the fact that the Prime Minister visited the base some time ago and that, subsequently, in answer to an oral question that I asked him about the future of the base on 7 May, he said: I accept and understand the very important role that it has played in previous conflicts and, I have no doubt at all, will play in future conflicts, too."—[Official Report, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 688.] The people of Lyneham took great comfort from those remarks, which were made in this very Chamber. It now transpires that either the Prime Minister did not know what he was talking about, or he chose deliberately to mislead the people of Lyneham. Either way round, it is pretty poor stuff.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal)

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman wishes to rephrase that.

Mr. Gray

I will happily rephrase. The Prime Minister gave me an assurance—that is how I read what Hansard says—that Lyneham has a future in all future conflicts. If he was badly briefed and got it wrong, that is a matter for him. I have previously suggested raising in a point of order the question of whether the Prime Minister, wittingly or unwittingly, misled the House, and I suggest that he might like to come to the House to apologise personally for having done so. He has chosen not to do so, but it remains my view that while he said the base had a future, that is demonstrably not the case. I hope that you will accept, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am not accusing the Prime Minister of misleading the House; I merely suggest that he was extremely badly briefed in saying what he said. That is perhaps the most charitable interpretation that any of us can possibly put on it. The truth of the matter is that the base is to close, and the Minister has made that plain.

We have previously engaged in a long debate about the future of Lyneham. We have argued about the basing of the A400M and whether or not it is sensible to have all our military transport eggs in one basket at RAF Brize Norton. I pay tribute to Sam Wright, Len Moore, Colin Quaiffe, and Councillors Allison Bucknell, Chris Wannell and Toby Sturgis, all of whom have fought a valiant campaign to save Lyneham. I also pay tribute to the 17,000 who signed a petition to that effect.

We produced a learned dossier. I am pleased to say that it was an entirely original dossier; we thought it up entirely ourselves and spared no effort on it. We even thought that we had achieved prime ministerial support, but Treasury cuts prevail, as ever, and what will be will be. The Treasury has spoken: Lyneham must close. That is a possible catastrophe for my constituency, but the Minister has taken his decision.

I should therefore like to take this opportunity to move from discussing whether or not the base should close. That is a disaster, a catastrophe and a huge strategic mistake in respect of the future defence of the realm, but it will happen, and I should like to say a few words about what we can do to mitigate the possible disaster for my constituency and to suggest ways in which the Ministry of Defence might like to help.

First, I should like to clarify the time frame and the likely process of the closure. Will the Minister tell us in responding to the debate when the C-130Js will leave? In his letter, he says that that will happen in about seven years. Am I right in thinking that it will happen in about 2010? It would be useful if the Minister would confirm whether that is indeed the year when the C-130Js will leave Lyneham and go to Brize Norton.

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many C-130Ks will be left by then? Clearly, if only a handful were left—two or three, for example—there would be no purpose in keeping the base open after 2010. Who would want to keep a base open for two or three planes? It may even be beneficial to know what will happen when the Hercules have gone. We do not want a largely derelict base, left in the middle of my constituency for a lengthy period, with two or three planes on it. At what stage will the Minister consider the airbase to be unviable? Does that change depend on the in-service date of the A400M, which, to say the least, looks a little questionable, as it has so far not even been designed, far less started to be built? In that case, will the Minister accept that there is at least the possibility of some slippage in relation to the in-service date, and therefore in relation to the date on which Lyneham is vacated?

We need to know all that, because the one thing about which we must be absolutely clear is that we cannot allow an extensive period of wind-down dereliction. When the RAF leaves, local people want a scheme for the economic regeneration of the base to be put in place immediately. We do not want, as I have seen at a number of other military bases in and around my area, a period of dereliction, often of a number of years, before something is put in place.

Similarly, will the Minister say precisely what discussions he is having with other military users about potential use of the base? In particular, what discussions is he having with the Army? Is there a possibility that the Army may use the base? I suspect that local people would prefer further military usage in the future rather than conversion to other use, but we need to know with some degree of clarity what the likelihood is that it will be used for some other military purpose. In these days of manoeuvrability and the ready deployability of services, perhaps there is a role for Lyneham, with its runways, in a rapid reaction corps and as an Army base for deployment at short notice. Will the Minister let us know what he can about those discussions with the Army? Alternatively, are they largely paper discussions, in which case, again, it would be useful, from the point of view of local people, to be absolutely plain about whether there is some military purpose for the base?

Leaving that on one side, it is important that we lose no time in coming up with and implementing an agreed vision of what we would like to see at Lyneham after the military have left. To that end, I have established a Lyneham taskforce, which met for the first time on Friday. It consists of councillors of all three political parties, as well as officers from Wiltshire county council, North Wiltshire district council, Lyneham parish council and Wootton Bassett town council, from the Wessex association of chambers of commerce and Wootton Bassett chamber of commerce, and from the Federation of Small Businesses, the regional development agency and the Swindon and Wiltshire economic partnership. It is therefore a very useful group of people, who have already got together to start to plan what we want to see on the base after the RAF goes. I hope that the Minister will confirm tonight that he would be content to see officers or officials from the base or from defence land taking part in that taskforce, too. Will he assure us that we can have the maximum amount of co-operation from the Ministry of Defence on matters such as looking at the level of contamination on the base, the buildings that will be left after the RAF leaves, and some of the economic appraisals made during the basing study of the last 12 months, some of which might be useful from the point of view of the taskforce?

Similarly, the taskforce has already established the need to appoint a number of consultants to consider some of these aspects. Am I right in thinking that the Ministry of Defence, or perhaps—through the Minister's good offices—other Departments, might be ready to provide some support to the taskforce in carrying out some of those consultancy tasks? Will the Minister let us know what assistance and co-operation he will be ready to give to the people of the area in mitigating the worst effects of his announcement?

That taskforce is getting together immediately to consider what we want Lyneham to look like by 2013. It is already clear that we do not want it to be a dormitory new town, although some housing, especially low-cost housing for local people, is perfectly possible. We must have decent employment land. In the area, in recent months, St. Ivel at Wootton Bassett has closed, with 240 job losses, Lucent has closed, with about 500 job losses. Dyson has moved 500 of its jobs offshore to Indonesia. And Vodafone in Swindon laid off 500 people last week. The area therefore has something of an employment crisis. We need high-quality manufacturing employers to come in, and it seems to me that making use of some parts of Lyneham might have a role to play in that. I hope that other parts of the base might return to agriculture or leisure use of one sort or another. Will the Minister reconfirm, however, that he is ready to support our efforts, perhaps with other Departments, to alleviate the worst effects of his announcement?

While the Minister's announcement of a withdrawal from Lyneham is without question most unwelcome and a potential catastrophe for the local area, we should be grateful for clarification on two or three matters in particular this evening. First, what is his detailed estimate of the date by which the site will be vacant, which we need to know with some degree of clarity? Secondly, what discussions is he having with the Army or others about alternative military uses for the site, and will he sanction full co-operation by MOD officials with the Lyneham taskforce to come up with a suitable alternative vision for the base and surrounding areas?

There is no doubt about the fact that this is a sad day for Lyneham, but let us be clear about the fact that, as the local constituency MP, I am determined to drive matters forward to secure the best possible outcome for my constituents and to try to turn a potential catastrophe into an opportunity. The economic and environmental circumstances of Lyneham in 2013 must be at least as good as they are today, and I hope that they will be better. I intend to make it my business to ensure that that is the case.

7.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)

I congratulate the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on securing the debate, as it gives me the opportunity to outline the reasons why the Government have taken the decision to relocate all air transport and air refuelling assets to RAF Brize Norton and, as a result, to close RAF Lyneham by 2012.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I begin by acknowledging the valued role that RAF Lyneham has played over the years, most recently with its significant contribution to Operation Telic. I am glad of the opportunity to thank all the personnel and those who live around the station, whose support is much appreciated. I do not underestimate the part that the station has played in the past, and will indeed continue to play for some time to come.

The hon. Gentleman knows that the strategic review work that considered the future role of RAF Lyneham, RAF Brize Norton and RAF St Mawgan, has taken over a year. Phase 1 of the review was to decide the optimum basing for the A400M, which will replace the C-130K fleet currently at RAF Lyneham. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in August 2002 my right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced that RAF Brize Norton would be the home to that new fleet.

Phase 2 of the review was to consider the longer-term future for all three stations. It is a result of that work that the Government announced in a written ministerial statement on 4 July that RAF Lyneham is to close. That means that the C-130J fleet will move to RAF Brize Norton in 2009. That was the first question that the hon. Gentleman posed. Under that plan, the whole C-130K fleet will remain at RAF Lyneham until it goes out of service in 2012. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the A400M, whose in-service date is expected to be 2011.

We have consulted with the trade unions throughout the review, and a formal period of consultation is now well under way. The decision to close RAF Lyneham has not been taken lightly. The reason why the review team took as long as it did was to ensure that all issues had been fully considered. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the review was indeed comprehensive. He will recall that the review team briefed him and has taken part in meetings with local and regional authorities in order that all the issues could be identified and considered.

I also know that, in coming to this decision, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has given full and proper consideration to all the factors involved. It is never easy to close any unit, but we would be failing in our duty if we did not make the best use of taxpayers' money to meet the defence requirement. To keep a station that is not required to meet the defence need would be a waste of public money. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree.

Of course, we are all quite naturally concerned about the impact on the people working at and in support of the station. The impact on personnel and the economy was not overlooked in the review—it was an important consideration. What the hon. Gentleman seems not to understand is the fact that with the new, manpower-efficient aircraft coming into service towards the end of the decade, there would in any case have been a reduction in the number of personnel required. Of the overall post reduction of 2,140 MOD personnel, 1,560 of those would have been lost with the arrival of the new aircraft. The net job losses relating to the closure of RAF Lyneham amount to about 580, of which 180 are MOD civilian posts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should keep the older, less efficient fleets just to maintain the current job numbers. As our experience of recent operations shows, air transport and air refuelling are key enablers of the successful deployment and use of our forces. The Government have put in place a modernisation plan for the air transport and air refuelling fleets that will ensure that we have more capability at lower annual cost.

The Ministry of Defence always tries to do its best for its people, which is why we made the announcement as early as possible so that everyone had the maximum possible notice of the change. There is worry that the way in which the hon. Gentleman's press release was issued last week, and other factors, might have affected some of the staff. I understand that the result of his contact with local press was that staff might have heard of the decision through the media ahead of the formal announcement in the House. That has been the subject of correspondence between him and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, and I think that enough has been said on the issue.

Mr. Gray

The Under-Secretary has made the most bizarre remark. Incidentally, it is disappointing that the Minister of State has not come to the Chamber today to face me and talk about the issue. I made it plain a moment ago that I made no comment at all to the press until precisely 11.30 on Friday 4 July, in Lyneham village hall. I turned down visits from the "Today" programme and a variety of other people. I issued no press release of any kind whatsoever. If the Under-Secretary is suggesting that I somehow leaked the matter, he is wrong and should withdraw that suggestion.

Mr. Caplin

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 14 July and said that the hon. Gentleman believes that this information was given to the media by someone at the base. Clearly, it is impossible to establish the truth or otherwise in this.

I am able to confirm that no service personnel will be made redundant as a result of the decision. The early announcement will allow our recruitment planners to take account of the reduced manpower requirements, and personnel will be redeployed as necessary. We anticipate that some of the 280 MOD civilian staff who currently work at RAF Lyneham will be found alternative MOD employment. As the closure draws nearer, we shall reduce staff numbers through natural wastage. Of course, I cannot rule out the possibility that some civilian staff might have to be made redundant but if that is the case, they will be appropriately compensated and looked after. That measure, in addition to the fact that the area is one of relatively low unemployment, should help to mitigate the economic effect.

The hon. Gentleman's press release accused the Prime Minister of making a substantially misleading remark at Prime Minister's Question Time. That allegation was completely without foundation—he repeated the accusation in the debate. The Prime Minister said on 7 May that he had no doubt that RAF Lyneham would play a role in future conflicts. At the time, no decision had been taken—my right hon. Friend the Minister of State had not even seen the final recommendations arising from the review. Moreover, even now that the decision has been taken to close RAF Lyneham, the Prime Minister's statement remains true.

Mr. Gray

I asked the Prime Minister: Does he also agree that all future conflicts will equally depend on RAF Lyneham?"—[Official Report, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 688.] The Prime Minister replied that he had "no doubt at all" that Lyneham would play a role "in future conflicts, too." There was a clear implication that Lyneham would play a role in all future conflicts. If the Prime Minister did not know about a decision that would affect 10,000 people's livelihoods on 7 May, that says an awful lot about the relationship between the Ministry of Defence and No. 10 Downing street.

Mr. Caplin

I am afraid that intervening sometimes does not help the hon. Gentleman's case. Why he thinks that the Prime Minister should apologise for, or come to the House about, a statement that was absolutely true is beyond me. Indeed, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should apologise for stating in his press release on 4 July that the Prime Minister gave an assurance that the base would not be closed. The Prime Minister's statement to the House on 7 May clearly gave no such assurance. The hon. Gentleman has decided to interpret it that way for his own constituency benefit.

I shall explain why the decision has been made. In the Adjournment debate on the 26 February last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made the point that the review was driven not by the need to make financial cuts, but by the need to identify the best and most cost-effective basing arrangements for the new fleets. Despite that assurance, I note again that the hon. Gentleman stated in his press release that the decision was driven by financial cuts. He repeated that tonight. I stress that that is not the case. Indeed, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that in the recent spending review, the Government provided for the largest sustained increase in defence spending for 20 years. We all know that it is the Tories who plan to slash public spending by 20 per cent. if they are ever elected to government again.

It is essential that the Ministry of Defence regularly reviews what it needs to meet the defence requirement, and this review was a part of that ongoing process. The review was needed to consider how best to accommodate the new fleets. Planning for the future is what any good business would do and it is our duty to the taxpayer to ensure that we only spend what we need.

The hon. Gentleman has also questioned the amount of money spent on the infrastructure at RAF Lyneham over the years. Does he believe that we deliberately underinvested in the station to make its closure more inevitable? If he does, he is simply wrong. All strike command stations have been treated equitably for such spending. Expenditure on infrastructure is authorised according to the urgency of the work and each station is required to prioritise its spend in accordance with specified criteria, the foremost criterion being work required to meet statutory requirements. In fact, for many years, additional money has been made available to support work on the Lyneham estate. There is no question that RAF Lyneham has in any way been singled out over the years for inequitable treatment.

The hon. Gentleman asked about working with local authorities and what he described as the Lyneharn taskforce. Ministry of Defence officials would be happy to co-operate with such a taskforce. I understand that consultation is taking place with trade unions, which I think he said are involved in that taskforce, and others. All consultation and discussion will take place before closure in 2012.

I understand that the announcement of the closure of RAF Lyneham will be disappointing news for the dedicated military and civilian personnel at the base who have contributed so much to recent operations. I take nothing away from the excellent work that has been done at Lyneham over the years. I recognise, too, the disappointment that will be felt by those in the area who give the station so much valued support.

RAF Lyneham has a long and proud history. However, I am sure all concerned will understand that we must make best use of defence resources. Part of that equation is looking closely at the bases we need in the long term. Locating the RAF's air transport and air refuelling fleets at a single station will increase the efficiency of our operations and allow more efficient and modern working practices to be implemented.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eight o'clock.