HC Deb 14 June 1995 vol 261 cc536-7W
Mr. Stern

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his plans for the restructuring of the Naval Support Command and the location of its headquarters. [29264]

Mr. Soames

To enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of our support for the fleet, we are proposing to restructure the Naval Support Command with effect from 1 October 1995. The current responsibilities for the upkeep of ships and their systems would be brought together under one director general, DG Ships, when the two separate posts of Director General Fleet Support (Ships) and (Equipment and Systems) would lapse. Secondly, all NSC naval base and logistic support matters would progressively become the responsibility of a single director general, Director General Naval Bases and Supply (DGNBS); the post of Director General Supplies and Transport (Naval) would lapse. No major changes are planned to the other elements of the Naval Support Command Headquarters.

I am pleased to be able to announce proposals for the location of the NSC headquarters. The NSC HQ, apart from DG Ships, but including DGNBS, is planned to concentrate progressively at the Ensleigh site in Bath. The new DG Ships organisation would be collocated with the Procurement Executive at Abbey Wood over the next few years, with the aim of transferring some 1,700 posts to Abbey Wood by the end of 1998, and a total of 2,100 by the end of 2000. At Abbey Wood, space in the buildings already being constructed would be used, augmented by the construction of an additional office building.

These proposals provide the NSC HQ, apart from DG Ships, with suitable accommodation at Ensleigh, Bath; enable DG Ships to be collocated in modern, flexible office accommodation, alongside the PE with significant and important business benefits to both organisations; make effective use of available space at Abbey Wood; minimize the requirements for up-front capital investment; and enable the NSC to vacate a range of sites.

As a result of these proposals, significant numbers of MOD staff would remain in Bath; in addition to the 1,200 NSC staff planned for Ensleigh, there are about 1,000 other MOD staff based in Bath who are not affected by this proposal or the PE's move to Abbey Wood.

I fully appreciate the impact that the closure of Defence sites can have on the local community, and we would investigate any possible alternative MOD use for Foxhill, and other MOD sites being given up. If none is found, we would work closely with the local authorities concerned and the regional government offices to establish how the sites could best be redeveloped, within the guidelines under which MOD is required to dispose of surplus property, taking account of local social, economic and employment considerations.

These proposals would remove the uncertainty for NSC staff who are expecting to collocate in the Bath/Bristol area and who are currently situated at Eaglescliffe, Portsmouth, Gosport, Weymouth, Portland and London and on several sites in the Bath area. I am nevertheless aware that their implementation would cause disruption for many staff. The moves would, however, take place over a period of some years. We would of course make every effort to minimise disruption by careful planning and by giving as much notice and advance information to staff as possible.

These proposals are subject to detailed consultation in the usual way. A consultation document is being issued today.

Forward to