---

RAF Stafford

: I am not sure that I agree with that analysis, but I shall write to my hon. Friend on the matter. We are always wary of the analyses, and we always ensure that they are properly scrutinised using a range of methods. That is why some of the things that we do change direction. As we do the site analysis, we discover infrastructure issues. For example, the water and sewerage might be very old. Any old site will have old infrastructure, and as we explore it we discover other elements. If the information is not accurate, it must be revisited and examined and hopefully the correct decision will be taken. The second stream of work that has an impact on employment at the site is the future of the defence supply chain initiative. It was launched in 2002 with the aim of improving the management of the defence supply chain. In July of last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced to the House the selection of an in-house option known as ““Do Different,”” on the basis that it would provide the best balance between improved logistic support to operations and better value for money for taxpayers. Under the FDSCI three defence storage and distribution centres are due to close by 2009. The first of those will be at Stafford in 2007. An important aspect is that we are talking about an in-house preferred bid against private-sector competitors. We have been criticised in the past—wholly wrongly, as far as I am concerned—for believing that private is good and public bad. The present case is a good example of where the reverse is clearly the case. The closures to which I refer are in no way a reflection of the invaluable contribution that employees at the DSDCs have made—some over decades of employment at the MOD, as my hon. Friend said. Given the consequences for staff, the decision under the FDSCI was difficult. However, our experience on operations has shown that it is imperative for us to improve support to the front line. That is not a criticism of the work done at the sites, as my hon. Friend pointed out in reference to the National Audit Office report, but we must improve the means by which we deliver, right through from the factory at the beginning of the supply chain to the front line. Such a change will produce a modern and effective defence supply chain, focused on meeting the demands of today's armed forces. Our calculation suggests that full implementation of the change will make savings of more than £50 million a year by 2010, and of more than £400 million over the next 10 years. Those are very sizeable savings. The new supply chain organisation will require some 2,000 fewer posts. Of those reductions, almost all will be civilian jobs and approximately 530 will be at the Stafford DSDC. Natural wastage will account for some of the total reduction and there may be opportunities for some staff to transfer elsewhere within the MOD, but we expect about 280 redundancies. The future of engineering services, which employs slightly more than 230 civilian personnel and 33 servicemen, falls outwith the scope of the FDSCI and is the subject of a separate study. We are committed to providing appropriate support to the staff at RAF Stafford and elsewhere who are affected by these decisions, and we have engaged fully with the trade unions. Arrangements for MOD welfare and outplacement services will be extended to provide staff, their spouses and dependants at all affected sites with access to professional advice and assistance where possible. The service is designed to help with financial advice, preparation for employment in the private sector, and relocation. I have taken note of my hon. Friend's points about pensions and possible training in advance of some of the dates in question. Again, I will write to him on that point. If we can help, we will do so, but clearly we are sometimes inhibited by existing regulations. There may be some opportunity for staff working at Stafford to transfer to Donnington, or to other Government Departments, and so a staff preference exercise will be undertaken. As my hon. Friend knows, my officials are already working closely with Jobcentre Plus to manage the draw-down of numbers and, where possible, to identify alternative employment opportunities for staff affected. I commend my hon. Friend's positive engagement with Stafford borough council in establishing the taskforce that aims to secure the Stafford site as a long-term future source of local employment. I emphasise, however, that there are no plans to dispose of the Stafford estate. Defence Estates remains engaged with the taskforce and continues to explore possible alternative uses for the site. I know that the process seems long and drawn-out, but if we have valuable estate, we would be wrong to dispose of such assets until we know precisely what the future requirements of the site will be. Although it looks as if a planning blight is being put on the site, we are trying to do what is right for defence. The total number of staff who will remain on the Stafford site post-2007, not including those at the RAF museum facility or contractors, will be approximately 210 service personnel and two civil servants, all of whom are part of the tactical supply wing. Those figures do not, of course, take into account any number associated with future basing options that are the subject of ongoing studies, such as that considering the future of engineering services—