Royal Military School of Music

HL Deb 12 February 1986 vol 471 cc262-80

8 p.m.

Earl Cathcart rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the very high cost of providing new buildings at Deal (11th Report from the Committee of Public Accounts, H.C. 107), they will now reconsider the decision to move the Royal Military School of Music from Kneller Hall to Deal.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, as far back as 1983 the Ministry of Defence decided to rationalise the system of training musicians in the three services by closing down the Royal Marine School of Music at Deal, the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller Hall, Twickenham, and the Royal Air Force School of Music at Uxbridge and to establish a central, unified, tri-service Defence School of Music; and my Question concerns whether or not this is a sensible plan.

To achieve the establishment of this new school, four factors needed to be satisfied. First, the capital costs of building and works connected with establishing this new school, and the disposal value of unwanted property connected with the scheme, must justify the decision and be within the bounds of economic policy. Secondly, the annual running costs of this new school must be less than those of running three separate service schools.

Thirdly, consideration must be given to locating the Defence School of Music in an area of high unemployment, not only to find staff for the school itself, but also to give employment needed to carry out the building and construction works which the new school would require. Fourthly, if possible, the school should be located in the Midlands, the North of England or Scotland in order to counteract the existing concentration of service units in the south.

A thorough review was taken of all available service accommodation, but it was not found possible to satisfy that last factor. The only two options worthy of consideration were found to be the Royal Marine Barracks at Deal in Kent and the Royal Marine Barracks at Eastney in Portsmouth. Deal was chosen, because it was found that Eastney Barracks had very good prospects of being well disposed to the civilian property market for development, and because unemployment in the Dover/Deal area stood at that time at 16.1 per cent. However, this unemployment factor will to some extent be overtaken, especially in the construction and building trade, because when the Minister recently announced the Channel Tunnel project he claimed that it would provide 7,000 new jobs in the Dover/Deal area.

An initial estimate of the cost of the building and works needed to be carried out at Deal produced a figure of £5.8 million, but a more detailed study later showed that to provide all the facilities which such a school of music would require would cost £10.6 million—an increase of nearly £5 million over the original estimate which the Committee of Public Accounts have described as an under-estimate of the full training facilities which such a college would require.

Deal has an old Victorian barracks with large barrack rooms. The barracks has no concert hall and no outdoor bandstand, which is essential for the training of musicians. It has an inadequate number of individual music practice rooms, all of which must be soundproofed. At page 3, paragraph 13, of the Committee of Public Accounts report, it states: …the financial advantages of establishing a DSM"— that is a Defence School of Music— were now considerably less than originally expected although a modest saving was still indicated. The Ministry of Defence have said that they are now looking at ways of bringing the capital estimate of £10.6 million back down to their original estimate of £5.8 million. I must ask my noble friend the Minister when he replies to give us some idea of what type of facilities he proposes to reduce in order to achieve this very dramatic cut, and what effect this is likely to have on the standard of music in the services.

A further financial factor is the disposal value of Kneller Hall. It was originally built as a country house for Sir Godfrey Kneller at the end of the 17th century, but it has been the subject of very considerable rebuilding since. However, in spite of that, it is still a Grade 2 listed building. It is difficult to see any alternative use for it by the Ministry of Defence, nor is it likely that there will be very many uses for it on the civilian property market.

In July 1985, the Minister of Defence had to confess to the Committee of Public Accounts that the ministry had over-estimated the disposal value of Kneller Hall by £2.3 million, and this is shown in the note at the bottom of the final page of the report. Presumably, at the time, this higher estimate which was then given influenced the decision on the capital cost and the final bill for the move from Kneller Hall to Deal. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether a new disposal value for Kneller Hall has now been arrived at. and whether it is likely to affect the decision?

A further estimate has been made that if the school of music remains at Kneller Hall, £2 million worth of repairs would need to be done. Part of this sum is accounted for by the need to maintain the Grade 2 listed building in proper repair and, in particular, by repairs needed to be done to the roof with a high scaffolding factor, and therefore high cost. But, of course, if this work is not done it will downgrade the disposal value still further.

Another big item, is the replacement of a large concert hall. About 15 years ago, the roof of the large single storey concert hall at Kneller Hall collapsed and, as happened at Jericho, the walls fell out—presumably, the result of some student musician achieving a particularly high note. The building was a total wreck and, naturally, the commandant of the day put in for a replacement concert hall. But now, with the reduction of army bands, this large concert hall is not needed and Kneller Hall already has two smaller concert halls each capable of accommodating a band of up to 60 musicians.

So far, I think I have shown that none of the four factors that I originally listed has been sufficiently satisfied to justify the total upheaval of all three service schools of music. Indeed, at page 18 of the report the Ministry of Defence wrote in a letter: …this has meant that we have had to revise our investment appraisal. As you will see, this shows that over ten years there is now virtually no difference between establishing a Defence School of Music at Deal and continuing with the present system and that over fifteen years the present system in very marginally cheaper.

But there are reasons other than financial for not disturbing the present satisfactory system. The musical needs of the three services vary very widely. This point cannot be over-emphasised. Under existing arrangements, the RAF Music Centre at Uxbridge, although the smallest of the three service schools of music, must be the most cost-effective. They train 30 musicians each year for the two RAF bands, one in Germany and one—the Central Band—in this country. They are administered and partly trained by the RAF Central Band with whom they are co-located. Thus they have the advantage of being trained within an RAF environment from the very start. Being near to the centre of London, they also have ample call on the many highly qualified civilian musical instructors for instruction on individual instruments. I can see very little advantage in disrupting this arrangement.

I believe that the Canadian armed forces decided some years ago to rationalise their service music and to establish a unified tri-service school of music. However, the experiment proved unsatisfactory and they have since then derationalised and returned to normal.

The Royal Military School of Music has been at Kneller Hall since it was formed 130 years ago. The excellent standards which it achieves are held in high regard not only throughout the British Army but throughout the world, where its name and reputation are well known. For a young musician to have been trained at Kneller Hall gives him an accolade which is highly regarded throughout the musical world. The school, with an establishment of 150 students, trains musicians and bandmasters for 69 bands in the Regular Army and also caters for 23 Territorial Army hands.

Because promotion prospects are limited if a musician remains throughout his career in one band, unlike soldiers in the rest of the army, musicians, having undergone advanced training or perhaps a bandmaster's course at Kneller Hall, will transfer to the band of another regiment on gaining promotion and musical experience. I spoke recently to two very senior directors of music. One had been rebadged four times during his career and the other seven times. Consequently, although a musician will give loyalty to the badge of the band in which he is serving at any given moment, he looks upon Kneller Hall as his army roots and he will probably return to it several times during the course of his career.

A most important course of instruction at Kneller Hall is the training of bandmasters for the 69 army bands. Apart from being musically proficient and confident not only to conduct their band but to act as a non-commissioned officer or warrant officer, potential bandmasters have to learn how to manage and administer their bands. I believe this factor applies rather less to the other two services since in the case of the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force all musicians of all ranks serve continually in their own band and within their own service, and promotion comes therefore more naturally within that arrangement than is the case with service with 69 separate army bands. The high reputation of Kneller Hall also attracts many overseas students from the Commonwealth and from the Middle East who pay a fee for the privilege of being trained there.

Part of Kneller Hall's very great reputation derives from its ability to call on many highly qualified civilian music teachers from the music colleges and orchestras in the London area. Unlike other instruction, lessons in individual musical instruments are given by one instructor to one student at a time in a soundproof room. Kneller Hall is allowed to arrange 315 hours of such individual instruction each week by these civilian instructors, who have to be musicians well thought of in their profession and active in music. Being near the centre of London, Kneller Hall has a wide range of highly qualified teachers in all the instruments required, and all of them within easy reach of Twickenham.

The Royal Marine School of Music at Deal turns out 50 trained student musicians each year for the seven bands of the Royal Marines. It has a call on a number of civilian instructors, many of them, I believe, retired Royal Marine musicians who live at nearby Deal. When the new Defence School of Music is established at Deal, when it will have to train musicians for 80 bands, I wonder whether the Deal area will be able to find civilian instructors locally in numbers sufficient to teach all the instruments required. Conversely, does my noble friend the Minister really think that the highly qualified professors and musicians in the London colleges of music and orchestras, all active in their profession, are going to travel for perhaps two hours down to Deal and two hours back to give two or perhaps even three hours of instruction?

Finally, one must consider the very high regard in which the Royal Military School of Music is held by all those people who live near Kneller Hall and Twickenham. This fact has been so well and so frequently emphasised by Mr. Toby Jessel, the Member of Parliament for Twickenham, who knows full well the high regard in which Kneller Hall is held by his constituents. Nearly 19,000 local people have signed a petition confirming what a high regard they have for the school and asking that it should remain. Mr. Toby Jessel himself has done so very much to put that case across to the Ministry of Defence, and even on one occasion in an interview with the Prime Minister.

Every summer in the grounds of Kneller Hall the school arranges 12 outdoor concerts at each of which several thousand people attend. The 150 students under instruction there form three separate bands during their course, and it is an essential part of their training to gain confidence at playing in public, and perhaps even conducting or giving a solo in public, that they should have the opportunity to play to audiences. To achieve this these bands give concerts on many public occasions in schools, hospitals, old people's homes, at local civic occasions and at many other events. It is small wonder that the local population do not want to lose them. Luckily, the Twickenham, Richmond and Hounslow area is a very big catchment area and is heavily populated, with 3 million people living within 10 miles of Kneller Hall; so the three bands have no difficulty in getting many engagements and thus gaining invaluable confidence and experience. Would the much greater needs of the Defence School of Music be as well satisfied in the Deal area?

For these reasons, but mostly because of the very slight financial advantages which might—and I must repeat "might"—accrue, I ask the Minister to reconsider the decision to move the Royal Military School of Music from Kneller Hall to Deal.

8.16 p.m.

Lord Mulley

My Lords, I am sure the House is indebted to the noble Earl for raising this matter tonight, and I know, too, that it will be greatly appreciated by all members of all three services. On the face of it, it would seem a fairly unimportant and trivial issue but I think it raises two rather important questions of principle. First, to what extent is it desirable to have, in the parlance of the services, purple establishments covering all three services; and secondly, the very severe strictures about the handling and the estimating and the costs involved made by the Public Accounts Committee in its report dated 20th January last.

The noble Earl, who went into the case with great persuasiveness and detail thereby obviating the need for the rest of us to take up the very powerful reasons why Kneller Hall should stay as it is, referred to the experience of Canada. From my own contacts with Canadian Ministers and senior officers I know that they greatly regretted that they had gone into what I regarded as an excessive amount of centralisation, to the extent, as noble Lords will know, that when you meet a Canadian officer in uniform you cannot tell to which of the three services he belongs. The fact that they have gone back on the question of central training establishments for their musicians speaks very eloquently because there are many other features of over-centralisation and over-rationalisation that I am sure they should also like to get rid of.

When I went first into the Ministry of Defence in 1964 as deputy to the then Secretary of State I was particularly charged with trying to bring about the rationalisation, where it was appropriate, of the three services, the Act having been passed only a few months before. The three services had just come together rather reluctantly, kicking and screaming as it were, and there were hardly any tri-service arrangements of any kind at all. It seemed to me that the proper approach was to apply the tri-service principle only where it made both military and economic sense. I stress "both military and economic sense", and in the field about which we are now talking the question of tradition is of very great importance indeed.

We are almost unique in our particular army structure—the regimental system—and I believe that it is one of the elements, if not the major element, that make the British Army, and certainly the British infantry, the best infantry in the world. It is capable of undertaking such diverse jobs as, for example, Northern Ireland. Incidentally, the Royal Marines are very good soldiers. I often had to upbraid the navy for treating them as badly as they do when it comes to money. However, again for reasons of tradition, the last thing that the Marines would want would be to come under the army Vote rather than stay as they are under the navy part of the MoD Vote.

The point I want to make is that the tri-service element and the idea of centralisation should only be carried forward when it makes both military and economic sense. As to the proposal to have a Defence School of Music or, to carry it to its extremes, a Ministry of Defence purple band instead of a regimental, Royal Air Force or Royal Marine Band, then so far as I am aware, none of them want to enter into such an arrangement. Certainly the Royal Air Force do not want to do so, and I am sure that the Marines want to stay at Deal. The noble Earl has made a very persuasive case for the army remaining at Kneller Hall.

The second point of principle involved concerns how carefully defence accounting and estimating is done. In a sense the Committee of Public Accounts said that it thought it would be an extremely good idea if Ministers in the Ministry of Defence became acquainted with the costs of the proposals they were considering. I have never seen a report from the Committee of Public Accounts quite so critical as this one is of the negligent way it appears that the matter was considered.

I am bound to say that that is quite contrary to my own experience. In my day, in 1964, Mr. Healey and I introduced long-term costings and all that went with them. I can vouch for my time there that we were very concerned in all the proposals that we had about the costs involved. In my experience, too, the civil servants concerned, as well as the military officers serving in the department, were most careful in all accountancy matters.

I find it all the most surprising—and I am sorry to say this as the person concerned is no longer in office—that this should have happened under the former Secretary of State, the right honourable Michael Heseltine. He went to very great pains because he had a passionate concern, as he put it, to cut costs in defence. I do not know how he could do that without paying rather more regard to matters than it appears from the report was paid in this particular case and possibly in other cases. Indeed, Mr. Heseltine went so far as to say that all defence procurement contracts would be put out to international tender. In fact, one of his savings was to buy a Brazilian aircraft for the Royal Air Force. I am glad to say—

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, it comes from Northern Ireland.

Lord Mulley

Does the Minister wish to intervene?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, and I am grateful to him for giving way. The aircraft concerned are of course coming from Northern Ireland and not Brazil.

Lord Mulley

My Lords, the aircraft are to be manufactured by Shorts but unless I am mistaken, they are of entirely Brazilian design. In fact, I would have thought that in the arguments that there have been about helicopters—and into which I shall not go at the moment—one could equally say that Westland would not become involved in any American helicopter production. I gather that such is not Mr. Heseltine's current view. Indeed, I rather welcomed his belated recognition of the need for British defence industries and for a European defence capability, although how he could square that view with the idea of international competition I find difficult to understand.

I feel quite sure that any tender for any helicopter that went for international contract would always be won by Sikorsky because that company would have its R & D paid for by the United States Defense Department, in the same way that the Brazilian aircraft, albeit that it is being manufactured under licence in Northern Ireland, had its R & D paid for by Brazilians and others before they put their costs in the tender that secured for them the contract against other contenders. At any rate, I hope very much that that doctrine of international tendering is now dead and buried.

Certainly I send the new Secretary of State all good wishes for what I know is a great and difficult responsibility. He has a very good background as an infantry soldier which I am sure will stand him in good stead. This is the first official opportunity I have had of saying to the noble Lord the Minister how delighted I was to learn of his promotion; and we welcome his participation in this debate. If the Minister cannot tonight say, as I hope he will, that the decision will be reconsidered on the lines proposed by the noble Earl, then I hope he will at least say that in addition to considering the views of the Public Accounts Committee, which specifically asked—very extraordinarily—that its views should be taken into account in any decision about the Defence School of Music, he can at least assure the House that its views, and particularly the views of the noble Earl, will also be given consideration.

8.27 p.m.

The Earl of Cork and Orrery

My Lords, many years ago when I was a military person I needed, for some reason that escapes me now, a tent peg. We were in camp at the time and so I went to the quartermaster and asked him for one. "What size?" he asked me. I replied that I did not really know: "Just tent peg size, I suppose". Military technology was a good deal less advanced then than it is now. The quartermaster called out at once to a storeman, "Give Captain Boyle, pins, wood, small, one". Without any hesitation at all, the storeman handed me—a tent peg. I thought of that perhaps not very exciting experience when first I met the words that form the substance of this Question—"Defence School of Music".

In case the link is not immediately clear, perhaps I should explain. I want a tent peg—and as it turns out, a small tent peg. I go to the source of supply and ask for one. I could have asked of course for, "pegs, tent, one", but not being a quartermaster I do not naturally think like that. However, the well-programmed and smoothly-operating computer that is a quartermaster instantly interprets my request in terms that he understands, and he produces the answer. "A small wood pin"? No, no. "A wood pin, small"? No, not at all. Not even "A pin, wood, small". That would be too simple. It has to be "pins, wood, small" in the plural, with the word "one" added just in time to prevent an unwanted shower of the things coming down.

The result to my mind, or to any mind not programmed to understand this kind of jargon, is totally, absolutely and altogether impenetrably without meaning of any kind. In my submission, so is the term "Defence School of Music". Ponder it carefully and see if your Lordships can discover any meaning in it. Break it up. Think what a defence school might be and, having decided, add the words "of music". What do you get? Nothing. Perhaps a quartermaster could help. How would he transcribe it, do you think? As "Schools, music, defence, one"? That is clearly rubbish.

Some of the more critical among your Lordships may wonder why I am insisting like this on something which is so trivial. The reason is that it is not trivial. We may not know what the "Defence School of Music" means, but we do know what it represents. It represents an amalgamation of the three Royal Schools of Music which my noble friend enumerated in his speech. By what right does the Secretary of State, in announcing this proposal in the document The Central Organisation of Defence cancel the Royal status of these honourable schools? Did he do it on purpose; and, if so, on what authority? Or did he, as I suspect, do it without thinking at all?

Did anyone think? Has anyone thought yet? Am I the first person to notice that apparently the Royal School of Music at Kneller Hall has had its royal status abolished at the stroke of a bureaucratic pen? No doubt the matter can be put right. But what would we have then? The Royal Defence School of Music? The Defence School of Royal Music? The Royal Musical Defence School? The Royal School of Musical Defence? The School of Royal Musical Defence? I can easily suggest better titles than these and I would do so if I thought that there was a real danger of this irresponsible project coming to fruition. I do not think it will because I think that the Committee of Public Accounts has seen to it. All the same I am worried, as I always am when I see bureaucrats laying down the law about subjects which they do not understand. This can be dangerous.

When the quartermaster talks about "pins, wood, small" he knows what it means. He is talking simply and logically on a subject and in a language which he understands perfectly. But when bureaucrats talk about combining the three music schools of the armed services as though their functions and usefulness were to be measured solely in terms of cost-effectiveness, in my submission they should be regarded with suspicion. I suspect that there were serving officers in the Ministry of Defence who put this point of view, but apparently to no avail.

If it were just a question of saving money, I suppose you could have travelling bands which would play a tune now for the squadron, now for the battalion or the ship. I suppose the massed bands of the Guards Division could take part in the Queen's Birthday Parade at Horse Guards with silent instruments, bewitching the crowds with counter-marching and spin-wheeling while their music thundered out from loudspeakers inside the drums. One could have that; but it would be silly.

Why would it be silly? It would be silly because the music of service bands, though new tunes may come to join the old, is an ancient, honourable and living thing. Music is an ingredient in the lifeblood of the loyal, the enduring and the brave; and it is different between one service and another.

To pretend that Kneller Hall, with its tradition, and its intimate and detailed knowledge and understanding of the army and its needs, can be uprooted and married to the Royal Marines at Deal, with their corresponding but different characteristics as represented in that great school, simply as an exercise in accounting, is to betray either a contempt for the true nature and significance of what is being done or a lack of understanding of it; and I believe that those two characteristics are not to be found within my noble friend the Minister.

Exactly the same arguments apply to the Royal Air Force School of Music at Uxbridge. On the Order Paper in another place there is an Early Day Motion in the name of someone who has already been mentioned—the honourable Member for Twickenham, the indefatigable Mr. Toby Jessel. The Motion is to the effect: That this House pays tribute to … the high standards of excellence of the bands of the Army trained at Kneller Hall, Twickenham, the Royal Marine Station at Deal, and the Royal Air Force trained at Uxbridge, all of which add splendour to royal and state occasions, promote recruiting and morale, lift the spirits of the nation". I hope that when the Minister comes to reply to this Question he will be able to say that there is no further intention of interfering but that things shall remain as they are.

8.36 p.m.

Lord Westbury

My Lords, I wish I could be as humorous as my noble friend Lord Cork has been, but I cannot so your Lordships will have to listen almost to what has been said by my noble friend Lord Cathcart, which needs repeating anyway.

Tradition and esprit de corps are words which seem to be out of date and revived only in times of crisis. Amalgamation and economy are the hallmarks of the attitude of Her Majesty's Government toward the armed forces in peacetime, but at times such as the Falklands war the old high standards of loyalty and efficiency are immediately demanded.

Having visited Kneller Hall last Thursday on a fact-finding mission, I was immensely impressed with all that I saw. The system obviously works extremely well at minimum cost to Her Majesty's Government and though there have been heavy cuts in personnel a very high standard has been maintained. After an extensive tour I began to realise why everything worked so well. I should have thought that from their years of experience, there was no way of making the Royal Military School of Music more efficient either in relation to the musicians that it produces or the money that is spent on it. A move to Deal seems to me to be beyond all sane comprehension.

The Royal Military School of Music will be amalgamated with a different arm of the service which has equally high but different standards and utterly different requirements. The cost will be appalling. The estimate for the move is roughly £10 million if it were to happen immediately, but think of the cost in the early or mid-1990s with inflation as it is at present. I reckon that it would cost double that sum.

Apart from the cost, points against the move include the fact that the Royal Military School of Music has been at Kneller Hall for 129 years. It has its own chapel, museum and mess. It is very much home for all army musicians, not only those from Great Britain and the Commonwealth but from many other parts of the world, who have been trained there. It has wonderful professional, civilian instructors who live locally and who dedicate their lives to teaching music. They are paid only for the actual time they are teaching. In no way do they receive a travel allowance. Therefore to teach for a period of one hour at Deal would mean either a full day out or moving their home to Deal, which would be a great expense to them and which I feel they would not do. If this happened it would be a terrible loss to the Royal Military School of Music.

The other point which I thought was of great importance concerns the system whereby young musicians are brought on. They live the life of a sergeant in the atmosphere of a sergeants' mess and are allocated duties which give them confidence and generally allow their characters to form and blossom, so that by the end of a three-year course they are capable of taking their place as bandmasters with any regiment or corps. This system would not be possible if the Royal Military School of Music were moved to Deal. I gather also that the Ministry of Defence could not sell Kneller Hall and the surrounding land at a commercial value owing to planning permission not being available.

It is a fact that the British Army has the best bands in the world. Surely it is preferable that the Royal Military School of Music should remain at Kneller Hall rather than amalgamate with the Royal Marines School of Music, which runs very well on its own completely different lines. I ask Her Majesty's Government to reconsider their decision as so many more facts have come to light since the original report came out. I believe that it would be madness to go ahead with the project. No unit can work properly with a sword of Damocles hanging over its head. Some decision ought soon to be made. The conclusions expressed in the House of Commons eleventh report from the Committee of Public Accounts headed Proposed Defence School of Music sum up the whole affair very well. The Committee is obviously against the abandonment of Kneller Hall by the Royal Military School of Music.

8.40 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, I feel like inviting the Minister to make a statement which I am sure might put most of us out of our misery. I am sure that this is within his gift, not only having listened to the speeches but also having read the report. I wish to begin by expressing what has already been said about our indebtedness to the noble Earl of seizing this opportunity, just as his honourable friend and indeed my friend from earler days, Mr. Toby Jessel did in another place. Both have shown themselves assidouus in making sure that if the wrong decision is made this will not be due to any failure by Members in both Houses to lay before the Minister and his advisers what are the facts. The noble Earl spent his time factually, fairly and, I believe, powerfully in setting out the case. He did not weary the House with a long history of exchanges, questions and arguments. We are indebted to him. I want to underline also our indebtedness and that of the constituents of Mr. Toby Jessel at Twickenham for the tireless efforts that he has made.

I should perhaps declare an interest. The only establishment that I have visited is that at Deal. I did so as a Royal Marine in December 1943. At that time, the establishment was used for a non-commissioned officers' training course. I am proud to say that I left with two stripes, which I subsequently lost about six months later for an event with which I would not care to bore the House. I recollect vaguely the buildings described by the noble Earl. I am not therefore qualified to speak, as the previous speaker was, about Kneller Hall. I have never visited Kneller Hall. I come to the affair with the normal prejudice of an Opposition spokesman looking at what the Government have done. I am bound to say, however, that if one rested on the evidence of an impartial adjudicator—that is, the Public Accounts Committee—I fail to see how the Minister and his advisers can neglect this opportunity to reflect upon the matter. That is all that we are asking them to do although we certainly want them to reverse their decision.

We are in the presence of two very old and familiar friends—rationalisation and privatisation. Perhaps, in this case, there is the added one of economy. That is the raison d'être of the whole matter. What we have here, as my noble friend Lord Mulley has stated fairly, is an example of the cost-cutting zeal and efficiency drive of the former Secretary of State. We acknowledge that as the basis. What we have at the end of the exercise is the report and the evidence proving that, however it started, this is not the solution.

I have been intrigued by the moderate language used by Members in describing the condemnation of those who have advised the Minister and the Minister's responsibility for decisions portrayed in this report. It is, I believe, a record of unmitigated incompetence, nothing more or less. This is apparent on page after page. I intend to draw the attention of the House to one or two examples. We are talking in terms of the decision, subject to consultation, to take the school to Deal. Paragraph 7 states: Deal was omitted because there were likely to be insufficient married quarters in the area". At one time, Deal was not on the cards. But the very next paragraph states: Later, Deal was included as a possible location following representations by the MP for Dover, Mr. Peter Rees". I know Mr. Peter Rees. I would call him a parliamentary friend too. Like Mr. Jessel and other Members who serve in another place, he was wearing his constituency hat. He was rightly seized of the possibility that whatever the other considerations—some of them should have been his because he was a Treasury Minister—he was concerned with this matter from the point of view of doing the best for his constituents, as all of us would expect. He was doing that very well.

We want to be clear, however, about what the report says. The report does not, in fact, say where the school should go. It questions whether there should be a school of this kind at all. It is not merely saying that there are options. It is really saying, "Forget all about it". I should like to quote from the report some intriguing exchanges. In the committee on 4th December, Sir Clive Whitmore was engaged in conversation with Mr. Shersby, a member of the Committee. Mr. Shersby said in paragraph 531: Would you agree with the words used by Mr. Hamilton in his adjournment debate on 29 March 1985 when he said that the main purpose was to cut out waste and get value for money? Sir Clive Whitmore: The main purpose of the original proposal to create a Defence School of Music? Mr. Shersby: Yes. Sir Clive Whitmore: That was indeed the original purpose. It remains our intention to achieve it". I am sure that the Minister intends to be as helpful as possible. He has to contrast that with Appendix 2 which is the letter from the Ministry of Defence dated 19th December. Paragraph 3 begins: I am afraid that it reveals that an error was made when we did the investment appraisal which was summarised in Table 3. … In preparing the note which Mr. Latham asked for we of course checked what we proposed to say with the Property Services Agency, who are our advisers on the disposal value of the Department's properties, and this led to the discovery that when they gave us this summer a revised estimate for the disposal value of Kneller Hall, they mistakenly told us that the new figure excluded married quarters. They have now told us that the valuation included married quarters". This reveals, in my view, a shocking state of affairs in respect either of arithmetical accuracy or an ability to misunderstand or confuse; or perhaps to have conversations on the telephone, the two parties coming away with different ideas of what telephone conversation took place. Against the background of what Sir Clive Whitmore said was the original purpose of the exercise, the letter from the Ministry of Defence says: this shows that over ten years there is now virtually no difference between establishing a Defence School of Music at Deal and continuing with the present system and that over fifteen years the present system is very marginally cheaper". The same source now says—I am bound to say that I suspect the accuracy of the source now or in the future, a matter to which we shall come in a moment—that the purpose for which we originally began this exercise is now aborted because we have done, or re-done, our sums and we find that we cannot have savings. I wish also to draw the Minister's attention to part of a letter from the Secretary of State for Defence to Mr. Toby Jessel. This letter states in pargraph (b) on page 17: the running costs of a single Defence School of Music are estimated to be of the order of £1 million per annum less than the combined running costs of the present three schools". Therefore, within the same building, within a comparatively short space of time, in spite of the hope that we can save money we come up with the figures to indicate that we cannot save money. But before that we have the letter to Mr. Jessel. I make no stronger query than asking the Minister to explain statements of that kind which are confusing.

I ask the Minister how one reduces £10.6 million to £5.8 million? We do not want any massaging of the figures. We do not want figures plucked out of the air. I ask the Minister this question: if it is possible to reduce £10.6 million to £5.8 million, as the noble Earl said earlier, what will be cut out? If one can literally cut out half the cost, what is the value of the product at the end of the day? We know that we look for savings, for trimmings, and other matters.

I have to say that the raison d'être ought to be to retain the morale, the esprit de corps, the national pride that exists whenever one hears the name of Kneller Hall, and recognises that someone is a Kneller Hall trained musician. There are the questions of convenience, and disparity of need between the services. I cannot believe that, given this opportunity, we shall not receive some satisfactory news from the Minister.

I should also like the Minister to deal with what the committee says in paragraph 25. I want to know when the decision was taken with regard to Deal. The paragraph says: We were told that no irrevocable decision would be made until we had made this Report. We were therefore surprised to see the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement on 14th January"— that is only last month— that 'there is no change in our fundamental decision to go on a tri-service basis to Deal' How does one reconcile the statement that no irrevocable decision would be made with a confirmation of a decision made as recently as last month?

I made some inquiries in preparation for the debate. I went to the Institute of Professional Civil Servants to get some background on employment. I can appreciate that we are talking about either money or style and pride. But what about employment? Some of the figures have already been given and therefore I shall not repeat them. But in the documentation I received there is what I would call powerful evidence to make the Minister and his colleagues rethink. These are the views of eminent musicians. Robert Farnon says: I shall promptly write to Mr. Heseltine expressing strong objections to the scheme and will remind him of the fact that musicians and devotees throughout the Commonwealth, Europe and America regard Kneller Hall as a unique home of military music". That is Kneller Hall per se, not the quality of training but the place itself.

Then we have the opinion of Sir Harry Secombe, whose views are entitled to be listened to with great respect. He says: I have done all I can to let the powers that be know how I react to the idea that the School should just vanish. All I can do now is hope that the messages I have sent and the petition I have signed have some effect". Colonel Beat, Director of Music at Kneller Hall, says: We all train our musicians for different purposes, and for different lengths of time. I see no advantages in bringing us together and I am still hoping that it is not going to happen". We then have, to me, a surprise ally, in the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who is assiduous in defence matters. I am certain that it is in that capacity that his views were canvassed. He says: I agree with Colonel Beat that the closure of the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller Hall will be a pointless move and I would be deeply sorry to see such a world famous insititution disappear. You may rely on me to do all I can to oppose the present plans". I simply want to say to the Minister that the DSM is unpopular. It is not financially advantageous. There is nothing to suggest that this change can do anything but harm to the training of musicians. The Government must pay attention to the views of the committee and have the grace to accept that a mistake has been made. We do not want any accountancy tricks, no subterfuge. We have a legitimate second chance—a new Secretary of State, a new report, and a new opportunity to reflect and to reverse policy. I hope that we shall hear tonight that that is exactly what we are going to get.

8.55 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Cathcart for giving us the opportunity this evening to discuss the Government's decision, announced in July 1984, to establish a Defence School of Music at Deal. This is, I think, the first time that this subject has been raised in your Lordships' House and I should like therefore to set out briefly the background to that decision.

The services, justifiably, have an international reputation for the quality and musical skill of their bands and bandsmen, and I am happy to be able to pay my own tribute to all the bands of the Royal Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force for the excellence of their music. Their musical skills are learnt at the Royal Marines School of Music at Deal, the Royal Military School of Music at Kneller Hall and the Royal Air Force School of Music at Uxbridge. I know that the other services will not object if I say that Kneller Hall has a particularly honoured place in the history of service music and generations of pupil bandsmen and student bandmasters for army bands have been trained there since 1857.

As part of the efforts being made to reduce expenditure on support activities in order to concentrate resources on our front line capabilities, the Government decided in 1981 that reductions had to be made in the number of service bands. Royal Marine bands are being reduced from 10 to seven and army bands from 78 to 69. There has been no change in the number of RAF bands, which stand at six. At the same time, the numbers of personnel in the remaining bands have also been reduced. This decision had inevitable consequences for the three musical training establishments.

We therefore examined the scope for achieving economies in the services' musical training organisation. It soon became clear that the accommodation and musical training facilities at Deal and Kneller Hall would be substantially under-utilised. Clearly, we could not allow this situation to continue without seeking a more cost-effective way of training service musicians, and we therefore examined the possibility of combining all three establishments into one Defence School of Music.

In 1982, we appointed an independent consultant to assess musician training for the services and the facilities required. He recommended that a Defence School of Music should be established. A number of possible locations were subsequently considered, including Deal, Kneller Hall, Eastney near Portsmouth, Woolwich and at a later stage Redford Infantry Barracks in Edinburgh. Woolwich was quickly ruled out because it would not be available in time and there would be difficulty in adapting the site for use for this purpose. Kneller Hall was found to be unsuitable because it is too small. As I saw for myself when I visited the Hall last week, it is a listed building, difficult to modify, and the site would require an extensive new build and major refurbishment to provide the musical and barrack accommodation that would be necessary for a Defence School of Music. Even if planning permission were granted, which we were advised was unlikely, the result would be to occupy about 80 per cent. of the site with buildings, thereby removing the sports facilities. In addition, there is a shortage of married quarters in the area. In the end, therefore, the choice was narrowed down to Deal, Eastney and Redford Infantry Barracks, Edinburgh.

In July 1984, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence announced that he had decided to locate the Defence School of Music at Deal. In reaching this decision, he took into account not only cost comparisons, which at that time pointed in favour of Eastney, but also wider issues, including for example, the levels of unemployment in the three areas and potential redundancies, both of which were more serious at Deal.

Following this decision, we set work in hand to plan the establishment of a Defence School of Music at Deal. In consultation with the principal directors of music of the three services, we carried out further, more detailed assessments of the training requirement and of the instructional staff and facilities that would be needed. This further work recommended that all army bandsmen should adopt the present Royal Marine system of training musicians on more than one instrument, which would lead to an increase in the number of music professors and instructors required. They also proposed some additional training facilities, such as extra practice rooms and teaching rooms, a larger rehearsal studio and a new concert hall, bandstand and drillshed. These measures resulted in an increase in the estimated capital cost from £5.8 million to £10.6 million and meant that running costs would be slightly higher than under the present system.

These proposals were looked at very carefully during the course of last year. In November I decided that, despite the attraction of standardising the musical training of all three services on the model used by the Royal Marines, which involves instruction on more than one instrument, the extra costs that would be incurred in enhancing training in this way for the very much greater numbers of musicians at the Defence School of Music would be very difficult to justify. We have consistently stated that the standards of musical training now achieved at the three existing schools of music would be maintained under the new arrangements, and I wish to repeat that assurance to your Lordships this evening. But it is quite another matter to suggest that the standard of musical training for all service musicians should be considerably increased in this way, at substantial extra cost. Musical training for the Royal Marines is geared to providing an orchestral capability for the Royal Yacht "Britannia" and other ships, where musical flexibility in the smaller number of bandsmen carried is an essential requirement. Such a limitation is not present for either the army or the RAF bands. I therefore directed that the Defence School of Music should be set up on the basis of existing standards of training without adding to the numbers of those trained on a second instrument.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, would the Minister care to say whether any account was taken of the dual role of Royal Marine trained bandsmen? For instance, in the recent Falklands war they provided a valuable service of first aid and ambulance facilities, etc. Surely that is a factor that needs to be taken into account when looking at the cost of Deal?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, it has always been the case that service bandsmen in whatever services have other roles, and that was to continue.

As I was saying, I therefore directed that the Defence School of Music should be set up on the basis of existing standards of training without adding to the numbers of those trained on a second instrument. I further asked that the requirement for accommodation and musical training facilities, including teaching and practice rooms, should also be closely re-examined with a view to bringing the capital costs as near as possible to the original figure. This reappraisal of costs has not yet been completed but I shall return to this in a moment.

Last week, as your Lordships have observed, the Public Accounts Committee reported on our decision to establish a Defence School of Music at Deal. We are studying the committee's conclusions and recommendations very carefully and will reply formally in due course in a Treasury Minute. Although I would not wish to pre-empt our formal response, we do take the committee's observations very seriously and we have therefore decided to widen the reappraisal of the costs of establishing a Defence School of Music at Deal, which I had already set in hand, into a full and thorough review of all the options for training service musicians in the future. This review will look once again at the costs of siting the school at Deal. Eastney and Redford Barracks, Edinburgh, and will include a thorough assessment of the costs of retaining the existing three separate schools of music. We shall invite outside consultants to assist us in this review, which is likely to take some months.

A major factor in the costings, and one which remains an area of uncertainty, is the disposal value to be placed on sites that would be surplus if a Defence School of Music were to be set up. We shall give careful consideration to the PAC's comments on this point. When all the revised cost information is available to us, we will carry out a comprehensive investment appraisal before coming to a final decision whether or not to proceed with a Defence School of Music, and if so where. In reaching that decision, we will, of course, wish to satisfy ourselves that we have taken full account of the committee's criticisms and of the many other representations we have received, including those of your Lordships this evening.

My Lords, it is already clear that the original date of 1988 for establishing a Defence School of Music can no longer be met, and I can tell your Lordships, therefore, that there is now no prospect of Kneller Hall or the RAF School of Music at Uxbridge being closed then. I should, however, emphasise that this does not mean that they will not close at a later date should the further examination now in train point clearly to savings that would accrue through establishment of a Defence School of Music at Deal or elsewhere.

Perhaps I may briefly touch on one or two points that have been raised this evening. My noble friend Lord Cathcart referred to the difficulty, as he saw it, in recruiting Professors of Music for a Defence School. The Royal Marines School of Music at Deal has experienced no difficulty in attracting music teachers. I am confident that the standing of the Defence School of Music would be such that suitable academic and instrument Professors of Music would continue to wish to work there. Indeed, many professors currently in post at Kneller Hall have registered their interest in being considered for employment at a Defence School of Music.

The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, spoke from his position of experience about the work with which he was involved in the 1960s on the rationalisation of service training. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no question of establishing a purple band service. Throughout our studies we have been concerned to ensure that the unique traditions and ceremonies of each of the services is preserved. I am satisfied that the creation of a Defence School of Music would not affect the standards of service music.

Lord Mulley

My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? He kindly said that the reappraisal is taking place over all aspects of costs, and independent people are being consulted. I would hope that as well as a purely costing exercise some evidence will be taken about the military impact of a Defence School of Music, because I cannot share his view that it will not have some impact on the regimental and other traditions which are so important to our services.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that all relevant views, including those to which he has referred, will be taken into account.

May I also in passing apologise to my noble friend Lord Westbury for disappearing briefly during the course of his speech? Happily, he said at the outset that he would make the same speech as my noble friend Lord Cathcart so I dare say I had heard it before anyway.

In conclusion, I should say that the Government remain determined to secure whatever savings we can from cutting out unnecessary duplication in the support for the front line. This involves many forms of cost savings which together make up the Ministry's efficiency programme. A central feature of this programme is a drive to get a higher proportion of servicemen into the front line. The joint aims of our programme of overhauling the support and training activities of the three services are to strengthen the front line and achieve for the taxpayer better value for money.

Rationalisation measures achieved in the last year or two include the centralisation of the policy aspects of the Defence Medical Services, and the formation of a single Quality Assurance Directorate. In the training field, we have set up a Defence School of Languages at Beaconsfield; we have co-located Service cookery training at Aldershot and we are now studying the possibility of establishing a single Defence School of Catering. Your Lordships will be interested to hear that I have also approved the rationalisation of all service dog training at RAF Newton, and a number of other training rationalisation studies are in hand.

I mention these to demonstrate that the proposal to establish a Defence School of Music must be seen in the context of the department's overall drive for greater efficiency and economy. However popular Kneller Hall may be, and I recognise that it is seen as a local amenity much valued for its summer concerts, the primary purpose of the establishment must be the musical training of Army bandsmen. If, as a result of the reduction in the number of Service bands and bandsmen, that training could be carried out more cost effectively and without any loss of standards in a single Defence School of Music elsewhere, then the Government have a duty to pursue this objective. But, as I have said, we shall give most serious consideration to the Public Accounts Committee's observations and recommendations and we shall only press on with the establishment of a Defence School of Music in the light of this latest thorough review if we are satisfied that this will achieve worthwhile and demonstrable economies without reducing the standards of musical training now achieved.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, may I press the Minister for information on the statistics that were provided by his own statisticians which were at such variance? I refer to the errors that were contained on the final page of the report which were admitted and the allegation in the letter to Mr. Toby Jessel that there would be savings of £1 million. Does the Minister tell us that the internal review will be undertaken by the same set of people? In that case, I should have little confidence in the outcome of such a review.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I made it clear that although I had every confidence in the officials who have done this work in the past, we shall be taking the advice of outside consultants, which I hope will set the noble Lord's mind at rest.