---

Defence Policy

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has popped into our debate, which has been very important indeed. [Laughter.] Seriously, I am delighted that he is here. But it is not a question of how our service personnel vote, but of how they get on to the register. The voting that is recommended is by proxy. The Electoral Commission, the Ministry of Defence and my constituents in the armed services say that that is the best way. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Another matter on which I want, unashamedly, to press Ministers concerns the future of land forces headquarters. When it was mooted some years ago now that the Army should move its land headquarters from Erskine barracks in Wilton, which also happens to be in my constituency, to redundant buildings in Andover, there was much sucking of teeth, as the Minister would imagine. It was made plain from the start that the British Army land headquarters should be somewhere special, somewhere superb, somewhere that could be an expression of all that is best about the military tradition. Therefore, given that the headquarters land was in premises that had been taken over from the old southern command formed in the second world war and in buildings that were incrementally added to and are now pretty tatty, it was considered appropriate to move into new buildings—not over-the-top buildings; nothing approaching the grandeur and luxury of the Ministry of Defence main building; nothing like that for the people who do the fighting for our country, oh no. But there was at least the assurance that the new premises would be purpose built and appropriate. Not a bit of it. In a parliamentary answer last week, it was finally decided that the headquarters should be in the old buildings in Andover. They would be tarted up a bit with the odd lick of paint and bit of new carpeting here and there, no doubt, and that is fine, but it is a great disappointment. I share the Army's disappointment at the way in which this aspiration for something visionary for the future of the headquarters is now no more. I should also like to draw the attention of the House to the problems that arise when military establishments are disposed of. That issue interfaces with domestic policy just as importantly as it does with defence policy. In the case of Erskine barracks, it means moving out 1,200 jobs and the military eventually vacating a large site, which will be sold. There is a disjunction between the Ministry of Defence and the civilian authorities. Only yesterday I spoke to officers in my planning authority who are working happily, closely and harmoniously with Ministry of Defence officials in what is called the Wilton taskforce, which is led by the Defence Estates. The problem is a lack of certainty and a fuzziness about the whole thing. Above all, Defence Estates has no consistent point of contact with the planning authority at a time when the planning authority is changing from a district council and county council to one unitary authority; I would have thought it in the interests of the Ministry of Defence that there should be continuity. At Defence Estates there is no consistent person with whom the planning officers can talk, at a time when they have to reinvent the existing local plan, which will expire, and when a process is in train for setting up a new plan. Such issues do not sound like grand national defence policy but they are important to the morale of the people from all three services in Afghanistan, Iraq and all around the rest of the world. They need to know that we are at least looking after their domestic and administrative interests and ensuring that they can be proud of the offices in which they work and the services that we provide. In that way, they can be part of a democratic process that maintains their freedom and our freedom.