Defence Procurement

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 4:25 pm on 2 February 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Bob Russell Bob Russell Opposition Whip (Commons), Shadow Minister (Defence) 4:25, 2 February 2006

First, I express my appreciation for the troops from the Colchester garrison who are in Iraq and for those who will shortly go to Afghanistan.

I shall follow Mr. Hoyle by talking about clothing and textiles. We might be debating what will happen in the future, but we need to learn the lessons of the past.

I want to concentrate on the four opening aspects of the smart acquisition life-cycle suggested by the National Audit Office: concept, project initiation, assessment and project approval. In 1997, the Government inherited the relocation of the defence and clothing research establishment from Colchester to Caversfield. At the time, there were 147 staff in Colchester and the number was likely to increase to 156, but the number to be transferred to Caversfield was reduced to 84. The relocation was announced on 1 April 1999—an appropriate date, one might think—although it was more than two years before it happened. There was a year's delay while a private finance initiative was considered and a further year for a value for money investigation by McKinsey.

Last month, I was advised in written answers that 24 members of staff from Colchester were made redundant at the time of the transfer to Caversfield and only 46 were transferred, so there was a huge reduction. Of those who transferred from Colchester in March 2001 only six remain from what was arguably the world's best clothing and textile research work force.

I asked the Secretary of State for Defence for an independent review of the operation of the research and development facility following its transfer from Colchester to Caversfield. The Minister of State answered:

"The future of the Clothing Research and Development facility has been under constant review . . . Independent advisors have already been involved in the review process."

I then asked about the future of the Caversfield facility and the Minister replied:

"The current proposal, subject to Trades Union consultation, is to close the Clothing Research and Development facility."

He said that in future the work

"would be competed for by industry and academia."—[Hansard, 19 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1531W.]

That bears out the point made by the hon. Member for Chorley: we have lost the capacity in the UK to develop and research vital equipment for our armed forces in the field.

When the transfer to Caversfield was proposed, I accompanied a delegation from the Colchester work force to meet the Minister to suggest a staff buy-out, but the Government rejected it.

The Government also refused the concept of privatisation, because they said that the best way forward was to collocate everything at Caversfield. What is necessary is for the Public Accounts Committee, the Select Committee on Defence or, indeed, the NAO to look back on the proposals and compare them with the reality of events as they have unfolded.

In 1967—some decades ahead of today's concept of tri-service proposals—the three services combined to form a purpose-built clothing and textile research establishment at Colchester. It was the most modern and best-equipped textile laboratory in Europe. The Hohenstein—I hope that I pronounced that correctly—skin model, which used to measure the passage of heat and moisture through all textiles, was the only one of its kind in the United Kingdom. That has been destroyed now. The flammability manikin used in simulations of burning clothing was one of only two in the country. That has been destroyed.

The development of smart weapons used for camouflage, concealment and deception demands continuous effort to ensure that our service equipment remains fully capable when deployed against increasingly sophisticated technology. A fully equipped laboratory was available for that purpose. The camouflage of tanks, trucks and thermal imaging were majors areas of work—all destroyed. To develop footwear and handwear, there were environmental chambers equipped with heated hand and heated foot devices to enable the accurate measurement of the thermal efficiency of glove and boot designs. Respiratory protection equipment was available to test the quality and fit of respirators. All that has been destroyed.

The design and development of body armour and helmet and visor materials was undertaken to protect personnel from ballistic and non-ballistic impacts. High-speed photography was used to study bullets hitting body armour. Impact testing was carried out on military helmets. All that has been destroyed.

We know that lives were saved in Northern Ireland by the research work that was undertaken, because the flak jackets smothered the bullets. Vital research into garment design and clothing and textile development was undertaken. There was a fully equipped garment production workshop, capable of making a wide range of clothing items, with body measurement scanning booths and modern computer pattern grading equipment, but it has all been destroyed. Heavy textiles were designed for use in modern rucksacks, shelters and sleeping systems. Again, all that research has been destroyed.

Dedicated, loyal staff, who had given years of service, were uprooted, made redundant and their jobs were lost. At least an assurance was given that the work would continue at Caversfield, but the written answers that I received last month show that it will all go. The Government had arguably the world's best textile and clothing research laboratories, but all that has gone—it is all lost—and that is a tragedy. As the hon. Member for Chorley said, it is not right to get cheap replacements from China.

This is just a flavour of what our armed services have lost. The world's leading research facilities, originally based in Colchester, have now gone. There is no other organisation with the skilled staff available to carry out that vital and often life-saving work. I therefore hope that the PAC, the Defence Committee and the NAO will look back at what was said would happen and consider the reality of what has happened.