| Parliamentary and Other Activity |
 |
| 36 Engineer Regiment (Maidstone) |
|
| Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to have this Adjournment debate tonight and I also wish to record my gratitude to the usual channels on the Government side who ensured that I knew that I had to be here somewhat earlier than I might have predicted. |
|
| I am raising this matter tonight because it is an extremely grave one for the 36 Engineer Regiment and for the town that I represent. It is an irony that 19 years ago I had to fight exactly the same battle when it was proposed to move the regiment from Invicta barracks in Maidstone to, at that time, Thorney Island. It was a bleak prospect and the town and regiment rebelled. I am pleased to say that we secured a reversal of the policy. |
|
| It would seem that yet again we are threatened with the removal of the 36 Engineers from Maidstone. I am sure that the Minister will accept that it is very important that morale is kept as high as possible in an Army that is stretched as badly as it is at the moment. Part of the maintenance of good morale is ensuring that families are happy, especially when the forces have to serve overseas for any length of time. |
|
| The 36 Engineers is a sapper regiment, so almost by definition it spends a large amount of time abroad and has one of the highest rates of separation from spouses and families in the entire Army. It is thus essential for recruitment and retention that the soldiers can go away feeling that their wives and families are happily integrated in the local community. In turn, the wives have considerable influence over whether their husbands decide to stay in the Army. It follows that if there is general unhappiness with the serving conditions, the soldiers will not give a particularly happy account to potential recruits. |
|
| In Maidstone, the 36 Engineer Regiment is based near the centre of a large town, which offers not only good shops but extremely good schools, including the envied grammar schools, and many opportunities for wives to work. The Gaffney report described the regiment's relationship with the town as "ideal" for a major unit. It is. Super-barracks are no substitute. They would need to be built and maintained, and would be costly. The regiment currently enjoys the freedom of the town, and the citizens of Maidstone and the surrounding areas regard the Army with immense gratitude following its intervention, first, after the 1987 wind storm when we had to clear roads urgently and, secondly, during the floods which, the Minister may recall, devastated parts of my constituency a few years ago. |
|
| The Minister appears remarkably unmoved by all that, however. I shall quote from a recent letter from the Secretary of State for Defence. He said: |
|
| "I should tell you that the Army is committed to consolidating its estate into fewer and larger sites. As a result, a singleton site such as Invicta Park Barracks will be kept under review for possible disposal in the longer term. I should stress that no specific time lines have been established for this process but the points you make regarding the presence of 36 Engineer Regiment in the area will be taken into account." |
|
| We should look at the context for that proposal to dispose of sites. On 21 July 2004, the then Secretary of State for Defence announced to Parliament what he described as a "radical change" in the future force structure. Since 1997, the trained establishment has actually declined by about 6 per cent. at a time when the reserve has fallen by nearly 68,000, including a fall of 20,000 in the Territorials. |
|
| The cuts make no sense at all, given what we require our armed services to do. We should have taken notice of the recent situation when we wanted both to deploy troops in Iraq and to keep them on standby during a firemen's strike. From talking to members of the 36 Engineer Regiment, I know that that placed considerable strain not only on their resources but on the ingenuity necessary to manage both operations. |
|
| The cuts should be reversed. We should be making sure that we have a properly manned force rather than a reduced one that is operating with a reduced reserve. In the last 12 months, the outflow from the Army has exceeded the inflow by about 3,500, which led my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to tell the Prime Minister that as our forces were so overstretched it was hardly the time to cut four battalions from the Army. |
|
| Since the last time we went round this course, that proud regiment has fought in both Gulf wars and has been involved in every other conflict. The Secretary of State for Defence has said that there is no specific time scale, but I think that he means by 2012, which is the time to which the Army is operating in considering the creation of super-barracks and the disposal of sites. Of course, 2012 is a mere six years away. The loss of the regiment would be a severe loss to Maidstone. Although I appreciate that this is not the Minister's direct worry and that it is more properly the concern of the Deputy Prime Minister, it would a very great worry to Maidstone if that site were replaced by development. |
|
| Our infrastructure is already extremely pressured. We do not have enough water. We do not have sufficient roads. Our schools and certainly our health services are stretched and, of course, we have to face up to the huge extra developments being foisted on us by the Deputy Prime Minister. If we were also confronted by a major site, such as Invicta barracks, being covered by housing development, it would be a great deal more than Maidstone could stand. |
|
| Quite apart from those worries, we want to keep the regiment in Maidstone, as we wanted to do in the late 1980s, when we faced the same threat of removal but for different reasons. We want to keep it because we are proud of it. We are particularly proud of the Gurkhas. We want to keep it, because it makes a major economic contribution to Maidstone and because we believe that we, in turn, provide the Army with a very good background against which troops can go abroad satisfied that their families are fully integrated into the local community. Our schools would be regretful if those children were suddenly to disappear to super-barracks somewhere else. |
|
| The creation of vast Army sites is not a substitute for a major unit in close association with the town in which it is stationed. I ask the Minister to think again. It would be very optimistic of me to think that he would give me every reassurance that I have sought tonight, because that is rather unlikely, but I hope nevertheless that he will, at the very minimum, agree to visit the 36 barracks at Invicta and talk to the officers and men and, of course, the Gurkhas who are involved there. I hope that he will also consent to hold conversations with Maidstone borough council about the impact on the town if that Army site is disposed of and the force sent elsewhere. |
|
| The 36 Engineers have been associated with Maidstone for more than 60 years—a long association that has been fruitful both for the regiment and, indeed, for the town. I therefore very much hope that some singleton sites will not be disposed of—a few must survive—and I should be grateful to the Government if Invicta barracks were among the few that survive. |
|
| The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I congratulate the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) on securing this debate and providing me with the opportunity to speak on the issue. I did not know that in the past an attempt was made to close the barracks. I was not advised of that, but it is now received wisdom. |
|
| We are now attending to the reorganisation and better definition of our armed forces because previous Administrations did not seize the reality. They did not face up to the harsh choices that had to be made in restructuring the Army overall. I do not necessarily comment on Invicta barracks in saying that, because I do not know the details of what happened at that time, but we are addressing the problems of that legacy. That is not driven by cuts or financial imperatives, but because the Army and the chiefs of staff have determined that there is a better way to organise the armed forces. That is what we laid down both in the future infantry structure and the future Army structure generally. |
|
| I pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for the interest and support that she has shown for 36 Engineer Regiment at Invicta Park barracks and, more generally, the Gurkhas, which she mentioned— |
|
| It being Seven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put. |
|
| Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Tony Cunningham.] |
|
| Mr. Ingram: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I take it that my words will still be on the record. |
|
| I was congratulating the right hon. Lady on her deep interest. When I asked those who were briefing me how closely engaged she was, I was told that she is a very good friend of the regiment. We value such close engagement of Members of Parliament and their local Ministry of Defence interests, whether they are military or civilian, or, indeed, both. I also know that she has the best interests of the regiment, the Gurkhas and her constituents at heart. |
|
| As the right hon. Lady knows, the Royal Engineers has a considerable and noble history. Its construction activities are as relevant today as they have ever been. Recent events have seen Royal Engineers soldiers providing disaster relief and humanitarian assistance to the earthquake victims in Pakistan. A small team of sappers has been involved in bringing fresh water to the villages of Kpalusogu and Koshibu in northern Ghana. I recently visited Ghana to open the second phase of an internationally supported peacekeeping training centre and was briefed on the work done by Royal Engineers personnel in Ghana and the contribution they were making. They were performing a non-military role in one sense, but clearly building on the defence diplomacy that is essential to keep our partners and allies supportive of us. |
|
| Such innovation has continued through to the present day, and 36 Engineer Regiment, in particular, should be proud of its contribution. Today, soldiers from 36 Engineer Regiment serve all over the world in Iraq, Afghanistan, Belize, Norway, Gibraltar, Kenya, Brunei, the Balkans, Nepal, Cyprus and Canada, as well as Northern Ireland. I am really grateful for the part that 36 Engineer Regiment played at the beginning of current operations in Iraq and subsequently in two further squadron deployments. The entire regiment was deployed for the initial conflict phase of operations. I pay tribute to the men and women of 36 Engineer Regiment, who truly show what it means to be part of the best trained and most professional Army in the world. |
|
| The regiment has developed a significant attachment to its current home, Invicta Park. Its links with Invicta Park stretch back to 1949, when it was stationed there for two years. It moved away for eight years—first to Ripon and then to Osnabruck—only to return in 1959, since when Invicta Park has remained its home. I recognise the importance of the historical connection and the links that have been developed with the local community. I also recognise the need for our soldiers—those brave men and women—to have decent homes. It should be noted that over the past five years we have spent around £2 million on maintenance, upkeep and improvements to Invicta Park. |
|
| Contrary to the somewhat unhelpful speculation in the local media, there are no plans to close the Invicta Park site. The right hon. Lady correctly referred to the letter that she received from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that observed that the Army is examining the possibilities for consolidating its estate into fewer and larger sites in line with the Defence Estates strategy of developing and rationalising the MOD's estate holdings. The logic of doing that must be sound. The armed forces must examine their real estate and its quality all the time. It must examine the prospect of building new facilities—super-garrisons, if that is how they are to be described—for our personnel. If that means that we must examine the existing estate and determine what can be realised by way of assets, it is a sound approach. It is nothing new. It has been the consistent approach of previous Governments. We are, admittedly, taking another big step forward. |
|
| Again, the logic of looking at disparate barrack sites is sound. An estate that is spread out costs a lot of money to maintain. The purpose is to get money to the front line. The armed forces benefit greatly from close community links. We very much value looking after personnel in the ways that we do in the areas that we are in, but it is an imperative of the Ministry of Defence to rationalise and get the best use of the taxpayer's pound, and to ensure that it is invested in equipment and support for the front line. Those are difficult equations to balance, because there are many aspects to consider. |
|
| I do not want to make a party political point, but a decision was made in the 1990s not to invest in real estate. There is now a massive catch-up, the scale of which is truly phenomenal. We are already committing about £1 billion over the foreseeable number of years to complete that catch-up, although a lot of the estate has not been maintained, no new build has taken place and large parts of it were sold off. The assets realised from the sums that were received when the right hon. Lady was a member of the Government did not all come back to defence. We are operating on the basis that all the rationalisation and efficiency measures will be retained for the defence purposes that I mentioned. A qualitative change has taken place. |
|
| The point of building new super-garrisons is to give greater continuity to people overall and to provide them with better accommodation, probably on new sites, although sometimes existing sites will be developed. They will allow people to integrate properly with the civil community. |
|
| The right hon. Lady mentioned how our armed forces are stretched and the pressure that they, and in particular the Royal Engineers, are under. I recognise that. It is one reason why we have defined the new way forward in terms of the future Army structure. As a result of rebalancing, 2,400 posts have been reallocated to what would be defined as the key enablers. Engineers fall into that category. We understand that we have put a huge strain on those key enablers, and the Royal Engineers have been part of that. We are therefore reinvesting 2,400 posts. |
|
| The right hon. Lady also mentioned in passing the important role of the TA. I do not want to get into the detail of that, because I am due to announce shortly our approach to TA rebalancing. However, the Royal Engineers will benefit from that as well. |
|
| We cannot achieve everything overnight. It takes time. We have to let things grow. However, we are on the case. |
|
| We have not established firm timelines for the work on which we have embarked. There is no particular focus on Invicta Park. It is not as though a work stream is saying, "Let's look particularly at a range of barracks, of which Invicta Park will be one." Nothing is in the machine at this stage and nothing is immediately coming over the horizon. That is why I say that the speculation about the threat to Invicta Park is a bit premature. I do not deny the right hon. Lady her entitlement to raise the subject and to take the arguments forward. I would do the same in her position. However, Invicta Park is in the same position as other barracks of equivalent size on the Army estate and no plans to relocate 36 Engineer Regiment are on the stocks. I cannot be more precise because of some of the arguments put about the way in which we are assessing the situation and investing in the future as those plans develop and evolve. |
|
| Miss Widdecombe: I sense that the Minister is on his last couple of pages, so may I ask whether he would agree to visit the barracks and talk to the men? |
|
| Mr. Ingram: I make a lot of visits— |
|
| Miss Widdecombe: One more. |
|
| Mr. Ingram: Yes. I am more than happy, time permitting, to do so. I benefit a lot from such visits, and I hope that those whom I visit benefit too. It allows them to tell me what they think and to put their views. On such a visit I would be able to say to them what I have sought to set out today. No doubt the report of these proceedings will be disseminated. I just hope that the arguments that I am advancing get a fair shake in the local press. |
|
| There are no plans for closure. We have invested over recent years and we are looking at ways in which we can invest to meet our commitments under the Gurkha married accompanied service rules. The Government have taken a major step forward and we are having to address some very important issues about the Gurkhas who are based at Invicta Park. I have set out to make it clear that there are no plans that put Invicta Park under immediate threat, and there are no timelines. At one point, there was a timeline of 2012, but that no longer applies, and for a very good reason: funding. It takes a lot to invest in infrastructure, and when we are doing so we are not investing in equipment and personnel. We must balance the priorities across the various resources. |
|
| I am happy to visit, but I cannot say that I will do so immediately. The right hon. Lady will be notified if I visit. I hope that I will not be met by a demonstration at the gates. I know that she would not operate in that way. I genuinely like to engage with our people and to hear what they have to say, because it allows me an opportunity to put across our point of view. |
|
| I hope that has helped the right hon. Lady's understanding of where we are coming from and of the overstretch issue, which she mentioned. I recognise that there are pinch-point problems, and we are addressing them. She has just to wait a bit longer for clarity on TA rebalancing. Investment is going on and will go on for the Gurkhas once we can find the resource allocation to enable it. We will continue to maintain Invicta Park for as long as the 36 Royal Engineers are there. We are proud of the regiment and of what it does. I know that the right hon. Lady is a great advocate for all that it does. |
|
