May I first congratulate Robert Key on securing this debate? I know him to be a passionate supporter and defender of the Health Protection Agency's facility at Porton Down, its staff and the excellent work that it does, and I look forward to meeting him tomorrow to discuss this important matter in greater detail.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, for almost a century some of our greatest minds worked at Porton Down to protect Britain and her allies during the first world war, the second world war and the cold war. In the age of global terrorism, the work carried out there remains as important today as it ever was. All along, men and women at Porton Down have worked tirelessly in the national interest, and I share his admiration for their work and add my thanks to his. However, the facility itself is in urgent need of major attention. As we have heard, the majority of the buildings date from the 1950s and have been repaired and refurbished over the years to the point where refurbishment is no longer an option. Replacement is the way forward.

I hope that it will help if I give some background to where I feel we have come to. The first thing to say is that Health Protection Agency staff deserve buildings and equipment befitting their status as scientific world leaders. In August 2008, the Department of Health approved the strategic case for Project Chrysalis, authorising the HPA to spend up to £5 million. The agency contributed a further £5 million to this from its central Government grant. Its objective was to create the best possible environment for the work of Porton Down to continue. Although that work focused on the refurbishment of the Porton Down site, the HPA was not restricted from looking at other options. Last summer, as part of the agency's value for money and due diligence work, an alternative site was found for consideration in Harlow, Essex.

On 12 October, at an all-staff briefing, Mr. Miles Carroll, the HPA's site director at Porton Down, explained the need to explore every option in order to get the best possible value for money, which included the possible option of moving to another site. He informed the staff that a medical research facility at Terlings Park in Harlow had become available, and that this was being looked at as one of several options. That briefing was followed on the same day by an all-staff online discussion. Between October and December 2009, staff were kept informed by a series of newsletters, bulletins, intranet updates, drop-in sessions and all-staff briefings. The HPA's chief executive, Mr. Justin McCracken, also briefed the national joint staff committee about the Terlings Park option at a meeting on 3 December. This was not publicly announced as no decisions had been made, but at every stage the HPA has sought to be as open and transparent with its employees as possible.

I understand that the outline business case, containing a number of possible options, was presented to the HPA board on 27 January for its decision. The board will formally inform the Department of Health of its decision and recommendations in due course. Ministers will then decide whether to approve the recommended option and pass it to the Treasury Ministers for final approval. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, until the Department receives the outline business case, I am unable to comment on the HPA's detailed proposals, as they have not yet been formed in order to come to my attention. I shall, however, endeavour to address a number of the hon. Gentleman's concerns for the safety and security of the nation and for the best interests of his constituents, for whom he rightly speaks up.

I shall first address the HPA's emergency response capability. The agency combines public health, scientific knowledge, research and emergency planning expertise within a single organisation. There is no reason to predict that its ability to carry out an effective emergency response will suffer while the project is being taken forward. On the contrary, one of the objectives of Project Chrysalis is significantly to enhance that capability and capacity. Of course, should a move take place, it will be important to maintain that ability during any transition. Emergency response work at Porton Down would stop only after any replacement facility was up and running and had been properly validated.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned that moving the HPA's facility from Porton Down-if that were to happen-would undermine our science base, on which so many jobs rely, now and in the future. To safeguard this, if the facility were to move, any potential negative effect on the Porton Down area would need to be more than balanced out by the positive impact of any change. That is one of several crucial factors that the HPA board and Ministers will consider when reaching a final decision. It will also be important that any potential move does not undermine the HPA's close working relationships with the defence interests on site and with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. These are vital issues that the HPA will fully consider as part of the outline business case.

The hon. Gentleman rightly raised the matter of the United States federal Government. He expressed his concern that any move could in some way damage or impact on our relations with the United States. The services that the HPA provides to the US Government, including the development of animal models for several diseases, will not be adversely affected, whatever the final decision. Project Chrysalis is designed to improve the UK's long-term security, and in doing so will reinforce our relationship with the United States. If we continue to have the best facilities and to employ the best people, I have every reason to believe that our relations will remain excellent.

The hon. Gentleman has raised concerns about the security of the laboratories and their staff. I can assure him and the House that their safety will always be our No. 1 priority. The Porton Down site is clearly very secure, and if it were to be relocated, the new facilities would need to be brought up to at least as high a standard.

I know that there is also concern about the potential loss of revenue to the HPA and the Centre for Emergency Preparedness and Response, particularly if there were to be any move from Porton Down. Handling the most dangerous pathogens is highly specialised work, and the income generated by the CEPR is an integral part of HPA's finances. Any move to upgrade the CEPR's capabilities, however, is likely to improve this income because of the improvement in facilities.

Naturally and quite understandably, the hon. Gentleman is most concerned about the future prospects of his constituents. I reiterate that the outline business case has not been submitted for approval and that no final decisions have been taken on its recommendations. The HPA employs almost 600 highly valued full and part-time staff at Porton Down. In the event of a move to a new facility, the HPA would do everything in its power, as should any responsible public sector employer, to support its staff either by helping them and their families to move to the area of the new site or to help them to find suitable alternative employment.

The hon. Gentleman understandably mentioned Sir Michael Lyons's review, which looked at relocating a substantial number of public sector activities from London and the south-east to other parts of the UK. The principle of that review would, of course, be an important part of the decision-making process, along with the quality of any alternative facility and value for money for the taxpayer.

I hope that this initial response has been of some assistance to the hon. Gentleman in clarifying the situation and setting out the background. I am pleased to say again, as I said at the outset, that I am meeting him tomorrow in order to discuss all these matters-and, I am sure, others-in far greater detail. I am glad to do that, not least because I understand the reasons for, and the depth of, his concerns, which have been clearly and correctly put before the House this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

House adjourned.