South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands: Marine Protected Area

Debate between Robert Buckland and James Gray

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of strengthening the Marine Protected Area around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. Those are words that I have not said for a long time in Westminster Hall, so it is a pleasure to be here. I am delighted to be joined by not only the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), but other colleagues from across the House, some of whom are themselves returning to Westminster Hall after a bit of an absence in Government.

I am delighted to open this important debate on an issue that, perhaps surprisingly, is close to my heart, mainly because of the penguin—I will come back to that in a moment. First, I want to talk about great British wildlife. If we are asked to think about it, what actually comes to mind? We might think of the barn owl, the red squirrel, or—rightly, I think—the humble hedgehog, or even the newly reintroduced Eurasian beaver. But I think first of all of the Rock of Gibraltar and the Barbary macaque climbing those fabled pillars of Hercules. I think of the critically endangered mountain chicken frog on the island of Montserrat. I think of the world’s smallest flightless bird, the Inaccessible Island rail. Inaccessible Island is just off Tristan da Cunha. Most importantly, I think of the great British penguin.

Why are all these things linked? It is because of the British overseas territories. Through our overseas territories, we are responsible for not only chicken frogs and Inaccessible Island rails; we are responsible for one third of the world’s penguins. That is a staggering statistic—but it is only one statistic, because it does not stop there. Over 90% of the UK’s biodiversity is found in the British overseas territories, which also hold over 94% of the UK’s endemic species. Sometimes there is an attitude that perhaps prevails that the overseas territories are just a few rocks with no real importance to the UK and only of interest from a financial services perspective. But that is not true: it is not true from a historical perspective, it is not true from a strategic perspective, and it is certainly not true from an environmental perspective.

Spread across five of the seven seas, and with environments ranging from tropical to polar, the overseas territories are invaluable to our nature conservation and restoration work. We can be very proud that, over the past decade, the Government have taken firm action to conserve these precious ecosystems. For a start, the Darwin Plus scheme has seen over £32 million of funding go to 162 environmental projects in the OTs, including 33 projects in South Georgia alone.

I want to talk about the Government’s other vital initiative with the overseas territories: the blue belt programme. Successive Conservative Governments have grown and strengthened this network of marine protected areas, working with 10 overseas territory Governments to do so. As a result, we have now protected over 4.3 million sq km of ocean. That is 1% of the world’s ocean—an area the size of India. According to the Government, the managing, monitoring and surveyance of the blue belts has come at a cost to taxpayers of only £10 per square kilometre of ocean.

One of these 10 overseas territories is the focus of our debate today—South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, a remote archipelago in the South Atlantic ocean, perhaps made famous in the minds of many of us by the events of 1982. It is said in this context to be more biodiverse than the fabled Galápagos islands immortalised by the journeys and travels of Charles Darwin. This uninhabited overseas territory first joined the blue belt programme back in 2013, with a commitment to review the marine protected area every five years. Having last been reviewed, and subsequently strengthened, back in 2018 after valiant campaigning by the then Back-Bench MPs, the noble Lords Benyon and Goldsmith, the time has come again for the Department and the SGSSI Government to decide whether to strengthen those marine protections further. It will come as no surprise that I believe we should.

South Georgia is a spectacular island. It is the size of Cornwall, and has over a dozen peaks that rise higher than Ben Nevis. Its wildlife is as spectacular as its geography. It is home to 3 million penguins of four different species; as I previously mentioned, one third of the world’s penguins are British and nearly half of them live in South Georgia. The island is also home to most of the world’s Antarctic fur seals, half of the world’s southern elephant seals and four species of albatross, which we know from Samuel Taylor Coleridge and “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner” are the world’s largest flying birds. I resist the temptation to quote reams of that noble Romantic verse—many of us have studied English to a very high level.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I give way to my hon. Friend and neighbour.

[James Gray]

I wanted to mark in passing that, although South Georgia is indeed the home of a vast quantity of penguins, fur seals and elephant seals, they are currently being very badly affected by avian flu. Officials are extremely concerned that the numbers will be severely depleted in the months to come.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to issue an alert about the danger that those important populations face from pervasive infections such as avian flu and how quickly we can go from a situation of abundance to one of endangerment. That is why this debate is even more timely.

We must not forget the South Sandwich Islands. That chain of volcanic islands is also home to millions of penguins, including a colony of over 2 million on Zavodovski island alone—the largest penguin colony on earth. What albatross, seals and penguins share is the ocean: they are all reliant on the sea. The marine environment of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands is what gives life to them, and when the ocean suffers from the impacts of climate change and over-exploitation, so do the islands.

The threat that I will focus on is the exploitation of krill populations. Human-led demand for krill is growing significantly. The Chinese industrial fishing fleet that operates in the region needs more krill to fuel the ever-growing demand for aquaculture. However, krill is also the vital first link of the food chain on which the penguins, whales and other charismatic creatures of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands depend. As this threat increases, so too does the need to protect more of the waters from it. The UK Government and the local SGSSI Government have recognised that, and they deserve praise for the work that they have done to protect the waters. The marine protected area around the territory currently fully protects over 283,000 sq km, which is 23% of the overseas territory’s exclusive economic zone. That is well enforced, at relatively low cost, by the local Government.

But as the risk from industrial fishing in these waters grows, so does the need to act to fully protect more of the waters around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. With that in mind, this year’s review of the MPA creates an opportunity to put in place various new measures to protect ecosystems across the territory. In particular, I urge the Government to take the bold step of designating all 400,000 sq km of ocean around the South Sandwich Islands as a no-take zone. Unlike South Georgia, which has a scientific presence and is visited by tens of thousands of tourists every year on cruise ships, the South Sandwich Islands are virtually untouched by humanity. If there is any part of Britain’s global maritime estate that should be protected in this way, this is it.

I should stress that I am not calling for a full no-take zone in the waters around South Georgia. I am cognisant of the fact that fishing licences are a vital source of income for the SGSSI Government, and sustainable, limited and effectively managed fishing has a role to play in the future of South Georgia’s maritime zone. However, around the South Sandwich Islands, where only a small amount of fishing happens at present, we have to be bold.

[James Gray]

I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. and learned Friend twice, but I want to pick him up on one matter, which is his indication that the Chinese are mass fishing in those waters. They are not. He may not be aware of this, but there has been no commercial fishing of any kind in the waters around the South Sandwich Islands in the last 30 years. Two ships go there once a year; they take in 50 or 60 tonnes, and that is all. There is no fishing around the South Sandwich Islands because it is too far away, and therefore bringing in a no-catch zone of the kind that my right hon. and learned Friend describes would not achieve anything.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am afraid that that is not the information that I have received. Even if my hon. Friend is right, there is nothing to be lost from confirming the reality that he asserts that there is little or no fishing or fishing take in that area.

I was going to go on to talk about the existing large no-take zones in both the Tristan da Cunha and the Pitcairn Islands MPAs, both of which have human populations. It would therefore make complete sense to have one around the SSIs. Together with additional targeted extensions to protections around key areas in South Georgia’s waters, that would bring substantial benefits to the territory.

Scientists have been clear on the risks to the marine environment in the region, and with krill stocks being damaged by climate change, we cannot afford for them to be also threatened by any industrial fishing. With last month’s worrying news about bird flu, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, it is incumbent on us all to do everything we can to protect the avian life of the islands. That would start by protecting its food source. Thirty leading marine biologists and polar scientists have called for the Government to upgrade the MPA and I urge the Government to listen to that evidence-based argument.

Some may argue that the best way to strengthen the MPA is through the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, the multilateral body for the Antarctic region. However, the frankly meddling activities of Russia in the process make any positive action, whether environmental or otherwise, seemingly impossible, certainly for the foreseeable future. Thanks to unilateral action by our Government in 2018 at the last MPA review, a precedent has been set for the UK to act unilaterally to strengthen protections for the waters of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Given that SGSSI is our sovereign territory, we should be able to act to do what we see as best for protecting the biodiversity that it holds. We know that marine protected areas work. Scientists have recently seen some positive signs within the territory’s albatross and whale populations, which they link to the existing MPA. Ministers have a real opportunity this year to go further with those protections and give the territory’s endangered species the best chance of recovery.

Before I wrap up, and at the risk of being slightly tangential, I want to touch on one other overseas territory, which is the world’s largest marine reserve around the Chagos islands, with 640,000 sq km of protected ocean. I am not going to talk today about the strategic considerations the Government should make in their negotiations with Mauritius, but I ask that the Government allow Parliament to have proper time to discuss those matters. I want to stress the importance of the environmental considerations that the Government must bear in mind. The tropical environment of the British Indian Ocean Territory is very different from that of South Georgia but is of equal global importance. Having led for the United Kingdom in the International Court of Justice case against Mauritius, frankly, it is a mystery to me why we are negotiating with Mauritius in the first place. I view that judgment as advisory only and the sovereignty of the UK is inviolable. Whatever the outcome of the negotiations might be, we cannot let the environmental protections around the Chagos islands be compromised.

Coming back finally to South Georgia, if we were to visit Grytviken just 60 years ago, we would have stood among the carcases of whales as the bay was stained red with blood from industrial whaling. The transformation in the past few decades has been incredible. In the first half of the 20th century, 175,000 whales were killed, leading them to almost vanish from the area, but in recent years, sperm, humpback and, crucially, blue whales are returning in ever-increasing numbers to those waters. We have much, therefore, to be proud of.

It makes complete sense to me that we continue this vital work and create as safe an environment as possible for the millions of fish, birds and mammals who are dependent on the waters of this territory. It is time to show that the UK is not just a world leader but the world leader in Antarctic and sub-Antarctic conservation.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend, and next-door neighbour, the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) for calling this extremely important debate. It is a very important moment in the consideration of these matters as they are being considered by the Foreign Office and by DEFRA. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on her four magnificent years in DEFRA. It has been a superb operation. We are sorry she is no longer there, but we are glad to see how active she has been on the Back Benches in the week or so since she was—dethroned, I nearly said.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) made some extremely important points from a position of great knowledge. I will just pick him up slightly on one point: all those things he described and on which we violently agree—about the vital importance of preserving biodiversity in both South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands—are largely unconnected, with a question of a no-take zone around the South Sandwich Islands. The two things are not necessarily cause and effect,

I would like to declare an interest. I had the good fortune to visit South Georgia as a guest of the commissioner about four or five years ago, after which we had a debate in Westminster Hall on 19 December 2017. Many of these matters were discussed, and those keenly interested might like to consult Hansard. I am also taking a team from the Environmental Audit Committee to Antarctica over the Christmas recess. It is obviously being paid for, as it is Select Committee activity. I have some interest in these matters as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the polar regions.

I think we were in danger of violently agreeing. No one would disagree that biodiversity is supremely important as are these creatures—including penguins, which I have had the very good fortune to mix with four or five years ago, magnificent elephant seals and the fur seals. It is superb—a heaven on Earth. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon was virtually poetic in describing it. He is absolutely right in his description—it is the most superb and wonderful place in the world.

I therefore strongly support the notion of the establishment of marine protect areas across the whole of the Southern ocean. There are two so far that are acknowledged by CCAMLR: one on the South Orkney Islands, and the other at Ross sea. Both were established under CCAMLR some years ago. CCAMLR is currently considering two or three others—east Antarctica, the Weddell sea and the Antarctic peninsula. We would like to see MPAs established there, but as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon correctly said, political influences in CCAMLR are making that impossible. The Russians and the Chinese in particular will not allow MPAs to be established around Antarctica. We think that is a great shame, and that they should be, but they are not.

By contrast, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands have an extremely active and very well-monitored MPA, and has done for now for some 10 or so years. Fishing around the South Sandwich Islands is very carefully monitored by the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. As I mentioned to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon a moment ago, there is very little fishing. Two vessels go there for one month a year and catch between 50 and 60 tonnes of krill. I think I am right in saying that the valuable Patagonian toothfish are not caught at all, or only in very small quantities. The waters around South Georgia are carefully monitored by the Government of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. They have a very good, sustainable MPA that allows us to catch fish, thereby supporting local communities, particularly in the Falklands, and at the same time preserve these wonderful wild creatures.

I can understand why from a PR standpoint it sounds good to say, “Let’s ban all fishing! Isn’t that great? Aren’t we great? Britain is leading the world in banning all fishing.” There are two problems with that. The first is that there is no fishing there anyhow. Banning something that does not exist does not have any great moral standing. The only boats that fish in the South Sandwich Islands every year are two scientific vessels that look into the krill around there. They pick out 50 or 60 tonnes purely for scientific reasons, and that is entirely licensed by the Falkland Islands. Bringing in a no-take zone would not prevent any fishing that happens there at the moment. I do not believe there are illegal fisheries there at the moment, but if the Chinese or Russians were fishing there, they would still do so even if there were an MPA recognised by the world. Someone cannot be stopped from breaking the law simply by our changing the designation of the waters.

If we were to turn the very well-managed SGSSI MPA into a no-take zone, it would have two very significant consequences that we should be very careful about. First, we would no longer control the waters. At the moment, they are controlled by the Falkland Islands and SGSSI. Therefore, they are effectively British waters. If we were not licensing the very small number of vessels that do go there, we would no longer control those waters. They would become part of CCAMLR and would be subject to the Russians, Chinese and, in particular the Argentinians, who are members of CCAMLR. It might well be that the scientific research vessels that are allowed to go there very occasionally would suddenly become Argentinian vessels or Russian vessels or Chinese vessels. We do not know what the consequences would be, so there is quite a big geopolitical problem that would come with that.

Under CCAMLR, the South Sandwich Islands have some 15% of the allowable krill. If we were to say, “No, there must be no krill fished off the South Sandwich Islands”—none is fished, but we are none the less allowed to catch 15%—that would mean that the 85% that is around Antarctica would become 100%. In other words, we would be taking more krill from the Southern ocean by banning it from SGSSI. The consequence of our bringing in this ban would not be saving krill but catching more of it. We would be increasing the catch by 15%. To those environmentalists who are very concerned about the krill—quite right too, they should be—I would simply say that if we bring in a no-take zone around South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, we will increase the Russian and Chinese take by some 15% and will further damage the krill population.

We must be very careful about how we approach these things. Of course, we are all determined to find a way of preserving the environment and the very delicate biodiversity—the superb biodiversity—that exists down there, but the relatively easy “Let’s ban everything” line, which I am afraid my right hon. Friends have all rather easily adopted, ignores some of the very significant geopolitical difficulties that would arise from that. In particular, the long-term battle between the Falklands and the Argentine would rear its ugly head again, because Argentina would say that it has a right to fish those waters.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[James Gray]

I am so sorry, I have run out of time. We must therefore be extremely careful what we wish for. The consequences may well be worse than what is happening at the moment.

Great British Railways Headquarters: Swindon’s Bid

Debate between Robert Buckland and James Gray

Tuesday 24th May 2022 Westminster Hall

[Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Swindon’s bid to host Great British Railways’ headquarters.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark, and to see the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), in her place. I am grateful to the House for allowing me the opportunity to address it on a matter of significant importance to the town I have the honour of representing. I speak today as the Member for South Swindon. My hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) is on paternity leave—he recently had the good news of a second daughter, so he is well and truly outnumbered in his house. He strongly supports not only this debate but the bid that Swindon has made to be the headquarters of Great British Railways. I am grateful that the bid is also supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), in her constituency capacity, and by my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger)—all constituencies near to or bordering Swindon.

My hon. Friend the Minister will have spent the past several months fielding increasingly plaintive and perhaps strident requests from a large number of parliamentary colleagues and others, extolling the relative virtues of their local bids. I thought I would start not with the merits of Swindon’s bid, but with what it is that we are bidding for. For me and those who think like me, this is more than just an argument about where to cite a cadre of civil servants. It is more than deciding which building to use or what configuration things will take. It is more than something that looks little different from the existing Network Rail. In short, this is not Network Rail with a rebranding. The business model that governs railway service delivery is—I think by common consent—a flawed one.

We are at 72% of pre-covid passenger levels, but something has changed forever. Saturday is now the busiest passenger travel day, followed by Sunday and then Friday. Commuters are still travelling for business purposes, but the era of the annual season ticket is almost completely dead. Why, in the light of this newly acquired knowledge, do we persist with engineering works on weekends and holidays? That is one question that the new body will have to answer. It will also have to build on the work of the Williams-Shapps report. In my strong opinion, a complete and fair review is needed.

A system where the rest of the country, including Swindon, subsidises fares in the south-east is neither fair nor sustainable. A system where a peak-hour ticket from Swindon to London is one of the most expensive tickets in Europe is certainly not fair or sustainable. That is why we need not just a building, but a hothouse of innovation, designing the railway network of tomorrow: its installations, equipment, people, systems and structures. That is the very first of the core goals set out by the Secretary of State in the Department for Transport’s framework document: changing the culture of the railways, rather than merely replicating Network Rail. I put it firmly on the record that we in Swindon understand that better than anybody.

The second core goal is to think like customers and put them first. With thousands of rail users coming through Swindon every day, that is frankly our default position. We have no choice but to think like them and think as them. The third goal is to grow the network and get more people travelling, and the fourth goal is to make the railways easier to use, and I will go on to address those issues.

The fifth goal—an important one—is to have greater accountability, to drive down costs and to increase efficiency. No. 6 is to have a can-do, not a can’t do, culture—again, something that is in the blood of what we are about in Swindon. Then, there is harnessing the best of the private sector, and I will enlarge on that. Finally, there is the critical role to be played in the shift to net zero. In summary, it is Swindon that encapsulates all those core goals.

Let us take the private sector. For a long period now, we have enjoyed the presence of major engineering firms, such as Atkins, Amey and Hochtief, all of which are based in our town. That immediately provides the potential headquarters with excellent proximity to partnership opportunities that will not exist elsewhere.

The net zero commitment has been exemplified by the electrification project that has transformed the Great Western Railway in our region and seen Swindon play a key role not only in the construction of that new electrified railway but in training—through the training centre that we have—to ensure that electrification was a success, and it is a success, with rail journeys to London now being reduced by an average of five to 10 minutes.

As I have said, in everything we do in Swindon we are a can-do economy. We find solutions to problems, we get on with the job and we often work so hard that we do not really signal our own qualities as well as we might do. Well, today, and in this bid, there is a chance for those qualities to be recognised.

Let me turn to the six selection criteria set out by the Government. I would argue that Swindon matches up magnificently to them all. First, there is:

“Alignment to Levelling Up objectives”.

Levelling up is not about simple geography; it is not about north, south, east and west. It is about disparities of income, disparities of opportunity and disparities in the quality of life. The Government have already acknowledged, through the towns fund initiative and the future high street initiative, which is benefiting Swindon, that the regeneration of our town centre is a key national priority. Siting the new Great British Railways headquarters right in the heart of the town, next to the railway and in buildings owned by Network Rail or the local authority, would entirely align with that objective. Moreover, it would align with the skills objective that is a key part of levelling up.

Recently, the Government made Swindon an education investment area, which means that we will get extra support to address the skills gap and the need to equip our young people for the jobs of the future. We are addressing those challenges by really focusing on science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM subjects—and technical education. The £21 million Swindon Institute of Technology, based in the town, provides technical qualifications and now offers higher apprenticeships for technical and digital roles. Right next to where the new headquarters could be is a university technical college, which was set up 10 years ago to provide youngsters from 14 to 19 with STEM skills and which provides particular apprenticeships to Network Rail. That is already happening, so we have a supply line of the talented young people that GBR will need if it is to survive.

I have mentioned training. We already have the £10 million state-of-the-art Network Rail Electrification Training Centre right next to the station in Swindon. There is so much going on—so much potential—and so much more to be done.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I apologise to my right hon. and learned Friend and to the House for being a few minutes late at the beginning of the debate. I am very sorry. May I assure him that the talent that will be required for this great new headquarters could come from not only Swindon but the rest of the county of Wiltshire as well? May I also assure him that he has strong support not only from myself and the people of North Wiltshire but from our hon. Friends the Members for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger), and our right hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan)? Indeed, he has the unanimous support of all the Wiltshire MPs for his bid, and we very much hope it is successful.

[Sir Robert Buckland]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend; with his powerful words, he has exemplified the point that boundaries are not important here; it is the talent that we want to encourage. As a hub of excellence and economic activity, Swindon is so important to the regional economy and—I would say—the national economy as well.

The second criterion for a successful bid is connectivity. It must be:

“Connected and easy to get to”.

Swindon’s key position on the Great Western Railway is self-explanatory; we are an hour from London, Cardiff, Birmingham and Southampton. We have the M4 corridor, and the A34 is nearby. We have the A419 and A417 corridor —soon to be further improved by Government investment. All those make our connectivity in Swindon second to none.

The third criterion is about the opportunities for Great British Railways and how the location can enhance engagement with customers, the private sector and the wider rail industry. I have already outlined some of the outstanding engineering firms that are based in Swindon, but the proposal set out in the document that has been lodged by the bid outlines a very exciting opportunity for the new headquarters to be located in a railway works building right at the heart of the Swindon railway conservation area. This building—what we call the Workshed—is already a seedbed of innovation and new technologies. It is an incubator of new ideas.

Frankly, I cannot think of anywhere better for Great British Railways’ headquarters to be sited than in an historic environment with strong links to Brunel’s wonderful railway and with all that potential for the future. The situation in Swindon will not require complicated land acquisitions. As I have alluded to, the land is already either in the possession or ownership of Network Rail or the local authority, Swindon Borough Council, which wants to work constructively with Network Rail to provide a complete package. We already have an almost tailor-made site for the headquarters.

The fourth criterion is about railway heritage and links to the network. Where do I begin? We have the outstanding STEAM museum—the Museum of the Great Western Railway. It is a shrine to Isambard Kingdom Brunel and, most importantly, the great locomotives of the past and the history of the railways in Swindon. Some supporters, in particular the Alfred Williams Heritage Society, have described the railways as being as important to Swindon as, for example, shipbuilding was to Belfast. They were the reason the small market town of Swindon grew in the 19th century to become the major centre that it is now. Without the railways, Swindon would be a very different place. It would have a completely different quality. I believe it would have been diminished, because the railways made Swindon the powerhouse that it is today. We are all proud of that connection and continuing link.

The network does not just go from east to west. The Kemble line, dualled by this Government some 10 years ago as a result of a campaign by me, my hon. Friends the Members for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and others demonstrates the importance of north-south links as well as the links down to Chippenham and the south of the county. These links make Swindon an important and integral part of the railway network.

The fifth criterion is value for money. As I have already said, there is no need for difficult land acquisitions that cause delay to major projects. There is no need for negotiations with rapacious land agents. This is an opportunity that will provide outstanding value for money for the Government.

The final criterion is public support. The Swindon community enthusiastically backs this bid.

There has been mass activity on social media and from a wide range of major local organisations, including Wiltshire Council and Cotswold District Council, as well as major private and public sector organisations within the local area. Some 30 or 31 major local organisations—I will not list them here—have all signalled their support in writing. That support is backed up by a letter signed today by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, which will be sent immediately to the Secretary of State.

The online survey launched by Swindon Borough Council in March has received nearly 3,000 responses. Just under 95% of those respondents have shown their support for the bid, and there have been some excellent comments of support. One reads:

“My grandparents and great-grandparents worked on the railway. There is a historic passion that has been passed down through the generations”.

Another said:

“Swindon is a dynamic, forward-thinking place with a rich railway heritage”.

One respondent said:

“Swindon is the home of the Great Western Railway. It was Brunel’s choice. If it was good enough for him, it is good enough…plain and simple.”

Another respondent wrote that Swindon is:

“The Railway Town! Without the railway, there would be no Swindon.”

Finally, one person wrote:

“What better place to be situated than in the town that was once home to one of the largest railway engineering complexes in the world.”

It employs tens of thousands of people creating the completed article: locomotive, right through to carriage and beyond.

I do not stand here today in dreamy nostalgia but am hard-headed and clear-eyed about the future. Inevitably, Brunel’s name will come up many times, but as I have said, it was no accident that the greatest engineer and innovator of his age chose Swindon to be the home, heart and hub of the Great Western Railway 180 years ago. He was not wrong then and this bid is not wrong now. Swindon is the railways, past, present and future, and that future must, I strongly submit, include the headquarters of Great British Railways.

The Army and RAF Lyneham

Debate between Robert Buckland and James Gray

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am grateful, Mr Betts, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. May I join the tributes to my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray)? For many years, he has done his level best to maintain the presence of the Royal Air Force at Lyneham. Indeed, prior to the election, I had several conversations with him about his work, and I was struck in particular by the report that he and others prepared before the election. It outlined the very basis on which he secured today’s debate, and it argued that civilian use of the Lyneham airfields was not appropriate, that the clean-up costs for the area would be considerable and that logic therefore dictated that military use of some kind—that is, the Army—was appropriate. I support that wholeheartedly.

[Mr Gray]

I am sorry for interrupting my hon. Friend’s fine speech, but I want to correct him on one small point. I am absolutely committed to keeping the RAF at Lyneham and, after that, totally committed to getting the Army on to the site, but if there is to be no military use for it, I believe that we could use it for other civilian, commercial and industrial uses. I would certainly work with industry to try to make that possible and would not rule out commercial use.

[Mr Buckland]

Forgive me, but I was talking about the site’s lack of suitability for use as a civilian airport. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) also made that point. It would be incorrect to say that Lyneham has an unlimited range of options, and it is important that we reinforce that point. I support my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire, however, in saying that, if we cannot retain military use for the area, we clearly need an action plan for commercial use, so that we can generate much-needed jobs.

The communities of North Wiltshire and of Wiltshire in general have always supported the presence of the Royal Air Force in their county. Moreover, it would be wrong of me not to pay tribute to the residents of Swindon, who play such an important part not only in supporting the work of RAF Lyneham, but in playing host to many personnel—both current and former—who work at the base but who live in my constituency or that of North Swindon. Some of the former personnel serve on Swindon council and are great friends of mine. They have years of experience in the RAF and feel strongly that, if Lyneham cannot be retained for use by the Royal Air Force, it should be retained in some military capacity.

I pay tribute to the community of Wootton Bassett for playing host to the repatriation ceremonies. Anybody who has been to a ceremony will know exactly what my hon. Friend is talking about. It is a unique atmosphere in which the residents of the town, without too much fuss, take a few minutes from their busy lives to give time and space to pay homage to those returning from Afghanistan, whose families are given time to mourn their loss. Indeed, my hon. Friend and I had the pleasure and the honour of attending the Royal British Legion’s field of remembrance in November, which was hosted by His Royal Highness Prince Harry. The event took place at Lydiard park in my constituency, but it was designed to acknowledge the contribution of Wootton Bassett and of the communities of North Wiltshire and Swindon to the repatriation ceremonies. At the end of those ceremonies, many motor vehicles containing my constituents returned to Swindon having played their part in supporting the town of Wootton Bassett.

I am grateful that my hon. Friend has referred to RAF Wroughton. It was an air base in my constituency, but it is now home to a large collection of Science museum artefacts that cannot be stored in London. The fact that they are now stored in the hangars of RAF Wroughton is an innovative use of the site. My hon. Friend is right to say, however, that far too much time was lost after the closure of the base to determine what would happen. Time brings deterioration and uncertainty, and it causes many problems in relation to sites as large as Wroughton—Lyneham is, of course, a very large site indeed.

It is right to pay tribute in passing to the former Princess Alexandra hospital, which served not only the RAF, but all military personnel so well until its sad, unfortunate and, I would say, wrong closure in 1996. Perhaps those who took that decision did not foresee the huge demands now placed upon the medical service by those who return from the theatre of war who are scarred not only physically, but psychologically by their experiences. As the MP and the candidate for South Swindon, it has been wonderful over the past few years to meet so many people who have shared their experiences of the theatre of war with me. They have educated me in some of the difficult issues faced by former and current service personnel.

[Mr Gray]

My hon. Friend is speaking extremely well on the subject. He is quite right about RAF Wroughton. As someone who was a special adviser to the Conservative Government who closed RAF Wroughton, we should put our hands up and say, “That was wrong—we shouldn’t have done it.” It was a first-class place and a very useful facility, and I wish that we had it today. I fear that the decision in relation to RAF Lyneham may be rather similar and that, if we let it go and do not put the Army there, we will look back in 10 years and say, “What a damned silly decision that was.”

[Mr Buckland]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend and I share his views entirely. Some important points have been made, particularly by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), about accommodation. It would be wrong to say that RAF Lyneham, although it is in a semi-rural setting, is not near large centres of population. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms) has said, many service personnel who work in Lyneham live in Swindon, which as you will know, Mr Betts, is a large town with a large population. We have for many years happily paid host to service personnel and their families. Having met many of them over the years, I know that they are happy and content to live in a community that welcomes them and that readily acknowledges the contribution of the armed services in the local area.

I do not, therefore, think that accommodation is at all the problem. In fact, I cannot identify a problem that would be an obstacle to the Army locating to Lyneham. As many other colleagues have said, Lyneham’s proximity to the M4 and its generally central location in southern England make it an ideal location for large numbers of Army personnel. Frankly, I cannot think of a better place to relocate returning personnel from Germany. I do not think that there are any obstacles to bringing our personnel back to Lyneham.

I also point out that leisure facilities in Swindon are enjoyed by service personnel. We have all sorts of facilities—cinemas, sports venues, an ice rink, swimming pools, leisure centres—and plenty for the families of service personnel to enjoy. Indeed, the facilities are currently being enjoyed by service personnel, who, as I have said, are a very important part of our community.

I have mentioned the need for urgency and for decisions to be made quickly. My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) has said that a timely decision is needed, and I cannot put it better myself. If the Army cannot be located to Lyneham, will the Government help the local council, local businesses and the local chambers of commerce to come together to draw up an economic plan for the use of the site?

Schools have been mentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire has referred to Wootton Bassett comprehensive school. Again, plenty of primary and secondary schools in Swindon are already being used by service personnel, who I am sure would warmly welcome the children of Army personnel who relocate to Lyneham. In my view, it would be a seamless transfer if the Army came to Lyneham. It would not be the imposition of a wholly new culture on a community that was unfamiliar with it and that did not understand or appreciate the contribution of the armed services.

I urge the Minister and the Government to take up the suggestions made today and in other places to acknowledge the contribution of the local community to the life of our armed services, and to conclude that Lyneham is a no-brainer when it comes to relocating Army personnel from Germany.