Veterans’ Pensions

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the petition relating to veterans’ pensions.

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Davies, and to have secured this debate on an issue that affects many of my constituents and, indeed, constituents in every part of the UK.

I asked for the debate as a result of a petition that was signed by more than 300,000 people. Organised by the Equality for Veterans Association, the petition recognised the commitment and service given to the UK by our armed forces and said that all those who had served should be recognised by the Government, but it drew attention to those who left the armed forces with less than 22 years’ service before April 1975, who currently receive no pension at all from the military. The petition called on the Government to address that injustice.

Today, I am asking the Government to bring forward proposals to recognise the important contribution made by service personnel in the position that I have described. I have been involved with this issue for a number of years as chair of the all-party group on armed forces veterans’ pensions. The injustice continues to affect hundreds of thousands of former service personnel in this country. Through the equality for veterans campaign, I have met many of those veterans, and they say to me that this is not about money, at this stage in their life, but about recognition of the service that they gave. They are asking for action to put right an injustice that took place many years ago but still has an impact now.

The veterans are disadvantaged by legislative changes brought about by the Social Security Acts of 1973 and 1975. Those Acts of Parliament created preserved pension rights for those who served for less than the full pensionable period of service of 22 years. That allowed people in that position to transfer their years of service into other pension schemes, or rewarded them with pro rata pensions on reaching the age of 60. Those legislative changes came into effect on 5 April 1975. Service personnel who left after that date received the full benefit of the new pension legislation. However, those who left before that date received nothing, unless they had completed the 22 years.

The veterans and I believe, and I think that most politicians accept, that retrospective changes to pension legislation are unlikely at this stage. It is also most unlikely that any retrospective change contemplated would be made in a timely manner, given that most of the veterans affected are now in their 70s or 80s and time is running out for them. As time goes on, the problem goes away, as those affected will no longer be around.

At the moment, however, about 250,000 veterans are affected. Those veterans have a number of grievances concerning the way they were excluded from the benefits of the 1973 and 1975 legislation. Despite campaigns over many years and overwhelming public support, Government have ignored them. Many of the 250,000 veterans who are affected by the legislative change and still receive no pension survive on only their state pension and pension credit if they claim it. Despite a huge amount of warm words and successive Governments and politicians of all political persuasions continuing to praise the commitment of our veterans, including with the introduction of the armed forces covenant, the case of the pre-1975 men and women and the way they have been treated has never been satisfactorily addressed.

The veterans have the following grievances. First, pre-1975 military service personnel were forbidden from enrolling in or contributing in any way to a pension scheme from a conventional pension provider. The Ministry of Defence deemed that service personnel were, by nature of their service, entitled to a military pension only if they completed 22 years of service—that was conditional on rank—and it did not allow individuals to make personal pension arrangements. Obviously, that restriction unfairly impeded those individuals minded to do so from having the opportunity to make personal choices regarding financial provision in later life.

Secondly, the 1973 Act mandated employers, including the Ministry of Defence, to inform employees about forthcoming changes to the legislation that would affect their pension rights, and that took effect on 5 September 1973. However, the questions of how and when the preserved pensions should be introduced for the armed forces remained unsettled until July 1974, when the date of 1 April 1975 was set for their introduction. Despite that, the changes to the armed forces pension scheme 1975 to accommodate preserved pensions were not formally agreed until January 1975. In March 1975, the MOD produced a leaflet that explained the main features of preserved pensions and gave notice that they would apply to those who served on or after 6 April 1975. Therefore, notwithstanding that the MOD had, from September 1973, to begin informing service personnel of the impact of the new legislation, it waited until one month before the implementation date before taking steps to do so. I know from my involvement with the equality for veterans campaign that many of those actively engaged on this issue are people who retired around that time. Perhaps if they had continued in the armed services for only a few more months, they would have received a pension, but because they were unaware of the changes, they did not consider that and they left the service, thereby getting no pension of any sort.

I am told that the leaflet was not widely circulated, nor were personnel properly informed of the changes. That is attested to by hundreds of veterans, many of whom are actively involved in the equality for veterans campaign and who state that they were not informed of the changes. They say that they might well have taken different decisions if they had been aware that there was due to be a change in their pension entitlement, and many who left shortly before the change say that they feel they have been treated very unfairly by the Ministry of Defence, which knew that there were due to be changes. Despite the fact that the goalposts were about to change, the information was not passed on and military personnel were not informed that if they stayed a little longer, they would receive a pension on retirement. I have attended a number of the equality for veterans meetings as chair of the all-party group, and a number of individuals who fall into that bracket have explained their circumstances.

I will, however, use the example of a constituent. He is a very good comrade, a very good friend of mine, an active trade unionist and someone with whom I have been involved in many campaigns. Through chairing the all-party group, I found out that he is affected, as are quite a number of other constituents. Jimmy Miller was called up to the Army in 1958 and signed on as a regular soldier. He spent six years in the Army until 1964. From 1964, he was on reserve for a number of years, but he then re-enlisted and served in the Army again from 1969 to 1974. He served in Cyprus and Aden and did four tours of duty in Northern Ireland. He advises me, as have many others affected by the change, that at no stage was there any discussion with them about pension entitlement, although they were aware that if they served the full 22 years, they would receive a pension. Jimmy Miller purchased his release and came out of the Army in November 1974. He found out in 1975 that if he had stayed longer, he would have been entitled to a pension. He says that had he known that he would have received a pension if he had stayed in longer, he probably would have done so. Indeed, he believes that most people, given the same choice, would also have decided to wait longer to get a pension. His situation is similar to others that veterans have described to me.

I am told that the Ministry of Defence discussed pension changes from 1970 onwards, but armed service personnel from that time say that the MOD withheld from them information about forthcoming pension changes. Meanwhile, not only did thousands leave the armed forces between 1970 and 1975, but they were actively encouraged to do so, because the Government were implementing a policy of radically reducing the number of armed forces personnel. Had service personnel known about the changes, many of them, such as my constituent Jimmy Miller, may have chosen to remain in the services until after April 1975 by retraining to meet skills shortages that were caused by the restructuring. Had they done so, they would have received the benefits of the legislative changes.

At the request of the all-party group, EFVA has canvassed veterans to establish the likely reaction to a one-off, ex gratia payment. There have been a number of discussions in this place about the veterans who are affected, and much of the discussion has been about the cost of providing them with retrospective pensions. However, of the random sample of 100 veterans chosen by EFVA from among its membership, 94 said that they would accept a one-off payment. The average length of service for that group was something in the region of 10.27 years. Successive Governments have argued that to address the injustice would cost a massive amount of money. As time goes on, however, fewer and fewer veterans are affected, and the cost goes down.

Approximately 250,000 veterans remain in that situation, and they say repeatedly that they are concerned not simply about the money, but about ensuring that an injustice is recognised and righted. The time has come for Government to come forward with proposals to address the matter, which is so important to those individuals. Many of those affected will be in receipt of benefits, so any payments would probably not make them better off. Such payments would be taken into account in the benefits system and might result in the loss of some of those benefits, such as pensions credit.

I call on the Minister to look at the matter afresh, and to bring forward proposals in recognition of the important contribution that the veterans affected have made and the genuine feeling of injustice among those who have given valuable service. I ask that she seriously consider recognising the contribution that they have made to this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Anna Soubry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Davies. I thank you for the way in which you have chaired this extremely short but nevertheless important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on securing this debate and on raising this important matter. It is only right and fair that I, too, begin by honouring the great debt that we all owe to all those who have served and, indeed, their families.

Through the covenant, the Government have set up a way of recognising the unique service made by all those who served in the past and those who continue to serve. Many of them would have been unable to serve without the support of their families, which we also recognise. In short, all those who serve are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice of laying down their life on behalf of their country. It is right and fair that we have the covenant because it recognises the particular contribution, service and sacrifice made by all those who serve.

It is timely that I remind everyone of what the covenant actually confers in law. The covenant states that there should be “no disadvantage” for anyone who has served or is serving, which extends to their families—their fathers and mothers, their sons and daughters—by virtue of their service. The second part of the covenant states that, in certain circumstances, most notably for those who have been bereaved or who have been particularly seriously injured—there is the caveat that clinical need must always take precedence—the covenant may confer an advantage because of the sacrifice that that individual or his or her family have made and suffered accordingly.

As the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) agrees, it is important to recognise the principle of non-retrospection. In short, departing from that principle would break the long-standing and essential principle of public service pensions policy, and it would lead to widespread, long-term and unmanageable consequences for both this Government and future Governments. As he said, retrospection would cause not only legal difficulties but enormous financial difficulties. The principle of non-retrospection means that no retrospective improvement can be made to pension benefits for those who are no longer active members of a pension scheme. That principle has been upheld by successive Governments, and I am confident he is saying that, should there be a Labour Government or a Labour-led Government after 7 May, the principle would remain intact and there would be no retrospection. For this particular group of people who have served, the principle has been repeatedly tested and supported by court decisions at all levels. It is a principle that we must defend, for three good, solid reasons.

First, breaking the principle would open the floodgates for a raft of unaffordable claims from across the public sector. As we know, before the Social Security Act 1973, there was no entitlement to a preserved pension for any public servant; members of the armed forces were treated exactly the same as anyone else in the public sector. If someone had not served the necessary length of time and reached the right age, whatever their job was and whether they were in the armed forces or not, they were not entitled to a pension. Thus, any change for the armed forces would be used as a precedent for other groups to benefit. Despite the great service of all those who have served and despite their willingness to lay down their lives for their country, the cry would go up, “If we do it for them, why not for everybody else?”

An interesting comment was made—I think Members on both sides of this House would agree—that it is astonishing to look back at how workers were treated. My own mother worked as a radiotherapist, although not in the armed forces. She worked in the NHS, and for part of her working life she was paid less than a man doing exactly the same job. At the time, eyebrows were not even raised. Now, of course, we find it astonishing that someone should receive less money for doing the same work, for no other reason than that they are a woman. Likewise, when we look back at the pension policies of the past, we all raise our eyebrows in shock that members of the armed forces had to serve 16 years as an officer or 22 years as a non-commissioned member before they could receive a pension. It was the same in other public sector jobs; people had to work long stretches before they got a penny piece.

[Katy Clark]

Does the Minister not accept that the position of the armed services is unique, and that their relationship with the state is unique? Does she not therefore think that if an injustice has been recognised, her Government should be doing what they can to recognise the contribution of the armed services in the way that I described when I presented the petition?

[Anna Soubry]

The difficulty is that although the hon. Lady takes the view that there has been an injustice, I do not think her party takes that view. I think that we all take the view that an unfortunate set of circumstances prevailed right across the public sector. In considering the “no disadvantage” principle in the covenant, we would have to consider whether that particular group of people have suffered a disadvantage by virtue of their service. I am afraid that the answer comes back that they have not suffered any disadvantage by virtue of their service relative to any other members of the public sector, because effectively the same set of rules worked across the sector. Of course, should her own party come into Government, it will not go behind the principle of no retrospection—it has not done so in the past—so it is not proposing anything special in the way of legislation for the armed forces over and above any other part of the public sector. It is important that that point is made clear.

I will come to the money, but although no cost estimate has been made, given the number of former public sector employees who would be affected—if it were done for one group, it would have to be done for all—it would run to tens of billions of pounds. It would cost an astonishing amount of money. Even if an objective argument could be made to limit provision to the armed forces, and I am not convinced that it could be, it would still cost defence several billion pounds, which we know we simply do not have. The second reason why we cannot do it is that breaking the principle would prevent future Governments from making any further meaningful improvements to existing pensions, because the prospect of extending those benefits to former as well as current employees would simply be untenable.

Thirdly and perhaps more prosaically, it is a question of practicality. On top of prohibitively large costs, breaking the principle would entail a raft of potentially insuperable practical, administrative and legal problems. For example, it would require creating precise service and pay records and calculating pension awards for people who served up to 50 years ago, or for their surviving dependants. Furthermore, creating a modernised but retrospective entitlement now would in all likelihood involve revisiting the pensions already awarded to those who met the criteria for getting a pension at the time.

Having spoken of the practical imperatives at play, I now turn to our moral and legal obligations under the covenant—

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark]

The Minister says that she has addressed the practical issues, but she has presented responses to a range of scenarios that I did not put to her. I asked her to come forward with proposals for recognising this group, yet she seems to have failed to do so. Surely that is the practical proposal that she should be making. It is not as though the Government have not been asked previously. They have been asked in writing on many occasions.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention, but I have not finished my speech. I am explaining why. She may take the view that it need not be done retrospectively; she may and does take the view—I think that it is the view of the Opposition—that there should be some special arrangement involving application to the LIBOR fund. I will come to that, but there are others who do not share her view, and who do not take the view that an individual should have to go cap in hand to a Government fund. Some argue that it should be done retrospectively, so it is only right and fair, given the terms of the debate, that I respond to their arguments as well as to the arguments quite properly advanced by the hon. Lady, as I shall do in due course.

I have dealt with the covenant and what it does. The two key principles are no disadvantage and, in some instances, an advantage. This is why I do not believe the covenant applies to that group of our former servicemen and women. Before the Social Security Act 1973, there was no entitlement to a preserved pension for any public servant. Officers in the armed forces who had not served for 16 years from the age of 21, and soldiers who had not served for 22 years from the age of 18, were not entitled to a pension.

As I said, it sounds astonishing, but those were the rules then. They are stringent terms compared with today’s status quo, but although it sounds perverse, they compared favourably with other public sector schemes at that time; they were not that onerous. A civil servant, for instance, had to serve for at least 10 years and be over 50 to be eligible for a pension. Furthermore, members of the armed forces had access to other benefits. Although it did not constitute a pension, officers leaving after nine years and other ranks leaving after 12 years qualified for a gratuity to ease their transition from service to civilian life. Additionally, veterans who suffered illness or injury as a result of their service were entitled to what was called a war pension, although I am not sure that “pension” was ever the right word. It matters not—the point is that they were rightly and properly entitled to a sum of money that they received for life, no matter how long they had served.

One common misunderstanding is that the veterans we are discussing today somehow paid for their pensions but never received them. That is not right. Armed forces pensions are non-contributory. That was true of the armed forces pension scheme 75 and remains so for our new scheme, which will be introduced later this year. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body takes the pension provision into account as one of a range of factors when considering broad pay comparability for the armed forces, but armed forces pay is not abated as a direct consequence.

Taking into account all of the above, I think that it is clear that in terms of preserved pensions, members of the armed forces who left before 1975 were not disadvantaged compared with other groups of the time. So there is no case to answer under the terms of the armed forces covenant.

That said, the hon. Lady can rest assured that where we find clear disadvantage, we act. Of course, a recent high-profile example of that was the issue of pensions for life for surviving spouses and civil partners of personnel—a subject that she, like Members from all parties, has shown considerable interest in and campaigned on for many years. In that case, given the unique nature of service life, the widow or widower would have been prevented from earning an occupational pension of their own, which would have put them at a distinct disadvantage when compared with the rest of society. It has to be said that we are talking primarily about women, especially with regard to that generation. Service life meant that they married not only the man, but whichever part of the armed forces he served in, and often followed them around the world. They went from place to place. It was just often the way that they did not have a job of their own, and therefore were not able to build up their own pension pot or contribute to any pension scheme. We rightly identified that as a clear distinction that put them at a clear disadvantage, compared with others.

Consequently, from 1 April this year, all war pension scheme and AFPS75 widows and widowers will be able to retain their partner’s pension for life, and rightly so. That is one of the great achievements of this Government.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I hope that he will forgive me; I had not realised that he had served in the RAF, and under a scheme that means he receives no pension because of the rule that pertained at that time.

My officials will provide me with any details during this debate, but it is my understanding that no costings have been made for the proposed change. However, I said earlier that we believe that it would require an astonishing amount of money; some say that up to billions of pounds would have to be found if we were to set up any new scheme. [Interruption.] I am right that there is no firm figure, but it is thought that it would cost billions of pounds if we were to make good on this—if I can use that expression—in the way that my hon. Friend, and indeed the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, have suggested.

Let us now look at the idea that is being advanced of using LIBOR funding, so that people can apply directly. A lot of money has been recovered by way of LIBOR fines. We have been able to allocate £10 million each year, in perpetuity, to fund military charities and to continue the work to advance the armed forces covenant, but I stress that it is only £10 million each year, which, frankly, would be a drop in the ocean compared with the sums we have talked about today. I am also slightly confused as to whether or not the idea is that individuals would be able to apply to some fund that would be funded from the LIBOR funds, on an individual basis. I would be grateful for any assistance on that.

[Katy Clark]

I did not advance that argument; my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who is our Front-Bench spokesperson, did. What I asked the Minister to do is come forward with proposals for how she would provide some kind of recognition of this group. I am still waiting to hear any proposals from her. All she says is that there is no serious work being done, and that there are no serious costings; nevertheless, she says it would cost a huge amount of money, and she advances the case that there would be all sorts of repercussions for other groups. I ask her to focus on the group that I have talked about, which is a unique group.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It always helps when one has some advance notice of exactly what will be put forward; that would have been helpful. I am more than happy to write to her if somebody can come up with suggestions, but I have to say that she is really whistling in the wind on this one. That is because any group of people who have served and who then find themselves in dire straits are always a concern to any Minister in the Ministry of Defence. However, the idea that we can suddenly rustle up some scheme that would enable people to apply on some ad hoc basis, and can find some magic pot of money, is very difficult. No doubt that is why her party, in its 13 years in power, did not do something similar to what she is proposing, because the argument was just as strong then; it is difficult to see how such a scheme could exist.

We have outstanding military charities that are always there to help and support those in particular need. There is the work of the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, and a whole raft of military charities, especially as that work relates to those who served some time ago, to help them as they move into the autumn and winter of their life, if I can put it that way. We should not underestimate the work those charities do, much of which is long-standing.

Also, we should not underestimate the resources that we have made available through LIBOR funding to help a number of those charities, including the Royal Hospital Chelsea. That is an outstanding example of the assistance and support provided to those who have served, often many years ago, and who are coming towards the end of their life. Such charities do great work and I am very proud of the fact that we have managed to make so much funding available. By way of example, veterans’ accommodation received somewhere in the region of £40 million last year. There were a series of projects to improve such accommodation. In some instances, there was brand new accommodation; in other instances, charities—such as the one just outside Brighton for servicemen and women who have lost their sight or had it damaged—were helped to improve the accommodation that they provide.

Again, a large amount of money has been provided, but it delivered huge benefit for all those who have served in the past, from the older veterans right through to those who have served in more recent times. I would say—with some passion, if I may—that this coalition Government should be extremely proud; I say that as I see that the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) has appeared in Westminster Hall. This coalition Government have really made a significant improvement to the welfare of all those who have served, and their families, because of the way that the Chancellor has taken the LIBOR funding and put it to great use.

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; we are far from being in a perfect world, and there is a great deal more that can be done.

Let us turn our attention to mental health. We know that the rates of incidence of poor mental health among veterans are no greater than for the rest of society. Equally, however, we know that for each individual who has served, suffering in any way from mental health issues is an absolute tragedy, for them and their families. Too many slip through the net.

[Katy Clark]

On a point of order, Mr Davies. This debate is on veterans’ pensions, but the Minister does not seem willing to address the issues that have been put forward. Could you make a ruling?

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

As far as I am concerned, the Minister is within the scope of the debate. I confess that I have given her a bit of latitude to talk about accommodation and things like that, but given that we have had plenty of time on our hands I did not think that was too much. As far as I am concerned, the Minister’s comments have addressed the subject of the debate. Whether they have been to the taste of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran is a different issue altogether. If the Minister goes out of order, the hon. Lady can be assured that I will bring her back to order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark]

This has been an important debate for those affected. A quarter of a million people are still affected in that category. Many of them will be disappointed with the lack of response from the Government today, despite the fact that the issue has been taken up by politicians of all political parties over many years. Correspondence with the Department has been wide-ranging; parliamentary questions have been tabled; there have been meetings with Ministers; and there have been previous debates on the matter. The Government still seem not to have done any detailed work or made any proposals about veterans who are affected having some kind of recognition. That is unfortunate, but I am grateful that we have had the opportunity at least to get an update from the Government on their thinking.

Question put and agreed to.

Trident Renewal

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson]

Occasionally I hear from Members who have a constituency interest, and I understand that they want to stand up for firms in their constituency. What I would say to them—I represent a constituency with a very significant defence footprint—is that there are alternatives to spending £100 billion on Trident, and it cannot be beyond the wit or imagination of the Government to look at alternatives for those people with amazing engineering and design skills. They do not need to produce nuclear weapons to have successful careers or, indeed, for their companies to be successful.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his choice of Opposition day motion. He will be aware that the west of Scotland is very dependent on defence jobs. Does he agree that both the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government should be investing heavily in defence diversification, because that is essential if we are going to put our communities in a position where they are not reliant on one particular weapons system?

[Angus Robertson]

Indeed. The hon. Lady makes a very strong point, and I am pleased that there are Members in other parties who are clearly supporting the direction of the motion before us. Of course, it is not beyond the wit of Government or companies in the defence sector to concentrate their efforts on the conventional areas of defence rather than on nuclear submarines which have to be one of the most expensive ways of creating and maintaining jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

It is a huge pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and to join him in paying tribute to Mike Marqusee—I knew him, too—who was involved in many campaigns, including many anti-war ones.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to put on record my opposition to Trident and to Trident renewal. I believe that continuing the Trident programme would be wrong politically, economically and militarily. At the beginning of the debate, there was a good deal of discussion about the costs of Trident, which have been disputed. What we know, however, is that if we look at the history of nuclear weapons systems, the costs have escalated and the eventual costs have on every occasion been hugely greater than was originally indicated by the Governments in power.

Some £100 billion, or something of that nature, is an absolutely obscene amount to spend in a country where the gap between rich and poor is getting greater, where far too many of our constituents are relying on food banks and where the political debate is dominated by discussion of what cuts should take place. It is interesting to note that some of the strongest advocates of Trident renewal are also the most robust advocates of cuts in other areas of public expenditure, such as public services and welfare. I do not believe that a decision to proceed with Trident, and the Trident renewal at maingate in 2016, will be acceptable to any of our constituents in any part of the country.

Too much of the debate has been dominated by the politics of the 1980s, and Labour Members believe that the politics of those years still dominate much of the thinking on this issue. The hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) made the same point in one of today’s most interesting speeches. I think that, over the decades, the arguments of those who believe that the retention of a nuclear capability is not a sensible use of Britain’s resources have become stronger and stronger. Nuclear weapons are no defence against the challenges that we face from terrorism; indeed, the more nuclear installations we have, the more vulnerable we become. We need to devote all our energies to nuclear disarmament throughout the world, and to the prevention of nuclear proliferation.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, all the arguments advanced by those who believe that it is essential for Britain to have nuclear weapons are equally valid in respect of every country in the world. We need to act politically in order to put nuclear disarmament at the top of the agenda. We need to turn up at discussions, as the British Government often do not. Deciding not to proceed with Trident, and to use the money in other ways, would be a hugely important step symbolically, and would have a huge impact throughout the world.

Given that a decision will be made in 2016, we need to engage in a full and open debate about whether Britain actually needs nuclear weapons. Certainly they are hugely unpopular in the part of the world that I represent, where we see the weapons and the submarines. Only last Thursday, a nuclear convoy travelled through the roads of many parts of Scotland. It is clear that what the main political parties are saying is increasingly out of step with public opinion. We should be concentrating on redeveloping our economy by investing in defence diversification and in growth and jobs, rather than spending money on nuclear weapons systems, which are an incredibly ineffective and inefficient method of job creation.

I hope that Members in all parts of the House will make it clear this evening that we must have a proper debate, and that we must make a decision that will be in the interests of the people of this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

The entire nation should have enormous admiration and respect for the contributions made by our RAF crewmen during the second world war. Such matters are part of Sir John Holmes’s continuing military medals review, which is independent of the Ministry of Defence. He is aware that those who flew on bombing missions with other elements of the RAF outside Bomber Command have made a case for further recognition, and he is considering that as part of his review. I am told that he will report back shortly.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Defence Munitions Beith in my constituency employs 236 people and maintains and services complex weapons systems. Has the Department been involved in any discussions about what would happen to Defence Munitions Beith in the event of a yes vote in September?

[Dr Murrison]

I pay tribute to Defence Munitions Beith, which does a hugely important job and is right at the very centre of defence in the United Kingdom. The straight answer to the hon. Lady’s question is no, because to pre-negotiate would place the Scottish and UK Governments in an invidious position. We do not intend to prioritise one part of the UK above another in advance of the referendum on 18 September.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend takes a great interest in this and will be aware of the large number of military and civilian missions that the European Union has mounted: there are 16 in all, four of which are military. My hon. Friend will be aware of the EU training mission to Mali—EUTM Mali—and EUCAP Nestor. It is very important to understand that in all of these scenarios we have to work with partners, meaning NATO first and foremost, but other partnerships where it is expedient to do so.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

15. What recent progress his Department has made on its response to the internal radiation leak aboard HMS Vanguard; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Let me make it clear to the hon. Lady that there has been no issue with the reactor on HMS Vanguard or, indeed, any of our submarines. I announced to the House on 6 March that there had been a small fuel element breach in the naval test reactor at Dounreay, but that did not lead to a leak of radiation from the reactor circuit.

[Katy Clark]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. What assessment has he made of whether the reactors on all Vanguard and Astute-class submarines will last the full lifetime of the submarines?

[Mr Hammond]

As I explained to the House when I made my statement, the purpose of the naval test reactor at Dounreay is to run the reactor hard and flat out, as it were, ahead of the operational reactors on the submarines, to see what happens as they approach the end of their planned life. The reactors on board our submarines have nothing like the percentage fuel burn that the reactor at Dounreay has now experienced, so we are looking at something that has developed at a much further advanced stage of the life of the reactor. We have, however, taken the decision, on a precautionary basis, to refuel HMS Vanguard during her planned deep-maintenance period. Once the reactor at Dounreay is decommissioned, it will be examined in detail and we will then have much greater evidence of what has caused the issue and be able to make sensible decisions about the future.

Aircraft Carriers and UK Shipbuilding

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

No decision has yet been made about the location of the base port for the vessels I have announced today. Just to be clear, what this announcement will do is effectively suspend the TOBA for the duration of the period when the OPVs are being built and then see its final demise upon the placing of the order for Type 26 global combat ships. I hope we have seen the very last TOBA payment being made to the industry by the MOD.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Politics is about choices, of course. What impact has the funding of the Trident replacement had on the decisions that have led to the announcements of job losses today?

[Mr Hammond]

None. The Trident programme is a capital programme. The constraining factor in terms of the Royal Navy is far more around operating costs and crewing than the capital costs of platforms. We have to make sure we have a Navy that is sustainable and that we can afford to operate and crew in an increasingly tight market for engineering skills, where we often have to pay premium rates to get people with the appropriate skills. There is no point in building platforms we cannot afford to put to sea.

Better Defence Acquisition

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am sorry to say that where there is a single supplier or a national security reason for our having to procure in the UK, we cannot magic up a competitive marketplace. What we can do in such circumstances is control the pricing of those contracts. At the moment, under the current regime, profit is clearly controlled but costs are not, and there is no incentive for contractors to control and manage their costs. What we are proposing is a regime where, as now, profit is controlled but where there are clear financial incentives for contractors to control their costs and get them down. By working in this way—by aligning the interests of defence with those of the contractors—we will drive out cost and increase the amount of deliverable military capability to our armed forces.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

What implications will this announcement have on complex weapons systems and in particular on establishments such as Defence Munitions Beith in my own constituency, which houses and services such weapons systems?

[Mr Hammond]

In terms of our procurement of weapons systems and of contractor support for weapons systems, the DE&S will work as the agent of the Secretary of State. I am not sure that I can put my finger on the precise function of the establishment mentioned by the hon. Lady, but we have a separate programme to outsource some of the defence logistics and commodity procurement activities, which I mentioned earlier. None of theses plans will be changed by whether DE&S is run in future as a GoCo or as a fully public sector DE&S+ model.

Scottish Referendum (Trident)

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Davidson]

My understanding is that the SNP has existed for some 80 years. It seems somewhat incredible that it has not thought through its plans for how separation would affect the armed forces in Scotland as a whole and Faslane and Coulport in particular, although it is fair to point out that one of the shop stewards at Coulport, in an e-mail exchange with the convenor of shop stewards at Rosyth, said of closure:

“I’d sacrifice for the better of the country.”

That was from an SNP councillor who is also a shop steward at Coulport, Mr Christopher McEleny. In his view, the sacrifice of those jobs would be worth it in the interests of Scotland. To be fair, he said that he did not think it would actually happen, although whether he meant Coulport jobs or Rosyth jobs is not entirely clear, but he was prepared to sacrifice a lot of other people’s jobs in the interests of separation.

The report is worth summarising quickly before I move on to other comments. It is our view, from the evidence that we heard, that nuclear weapons in Scotland could be disarmed within days and removed within months. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I am glad to hear Scottish Nationalist Members cheering that. If they accept that analysis, it means that there will not be any dispute about the fundamentals; it will then be a question of political will.

We as a Committee have accepted the analysis of the Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament that, with the co-operation of the Royal Navy and the UK Government, the process of disarming within days and removal within months could be both speedy and safe. Of course there would be consequences. We understand that it is likely to mean the unilateral nuclear disarmament of the United Kingdom, which I notice SNP Members have also cheered, because the construction of facilities elsewhere would take up to 25 years or so.

An insistence upon the speediest possible removal of nuclear weapons from a separate Scotland would obviously have consequences for other negotiations taking place at about the time of separation. Trident is the elephant in the room. It is likely to be the single most expensive item under discussion, and would spill over into all the rest of the dialogue, debate and discussion. The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), a former Defence Minister, whose presence in the Chamber today we welcome, gave us clear and explicit evidence of that. The conclusion of our summary, therefore, was that we wanted the UK Government and the Scottish Government to come clean with people in Scotland as quickly as possible about the consequences of separation and the removal of Trident. The onus now lies on the SNP and the Scottish Government to tell us the timetable that they intend to apply.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his contribution so far. As he is aware, Trident is one of the systems based at Faslane. There are different views, which the Committee has no doubt heard, of how many jobs are directly reliant on Trident, but we also have seven Astute class submarines, eight Sandown class minehunters and the administrative headquarters at Faslane. Has he had any indication from the Scottish Government which parts they would wish realistically to retain?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davidson]

The Committee took the view that there was a possibility of relocation elsewhere in the United Kingdom, not just in England. Locations in Wales were also mentioned. Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, was perhaps most optimistic about how to do that. He pointed out helpfully that the loading facility at Coulport, which unloads nuclear weapons and so on, is a floating dock. By definition, it floats, so it could presumably be moved, and the facility would not require complete rebuilding in the way that those of us who had not realised that a floating dock floated had assumed. The matter might not be as difficult as it appears, but we are not experts, and it might turn out that that cannot be done, in which case the parameter would change, but it is clear that if it were relocated that would take 20 to 25 years.

[Katy Clark]

I am incredibly interested in what my hon. Friend is saying. My understanding is that one difficulty is storage, because at the moment a hill or a mountain is used. One proposal seems to be to rebuild such a mountain elsewhere in England or Wales. Did the Committee receive evidence on that ?

[Mr Davidson]

We visited the storage facility, which is indeed built into the side of a hill, but, with respect, it is not the only hill in the United Kingdom. There are hills and mountains in quite a lot of locations in the United Kingdom. The search for hills is not the main constraint, and several locations were identified.

The matter can be split into different parts. One is the submarines, and we believe that their maintenance could probably be done in places such as Devonport, where there are enough bays and so on. The warhead element is slightly more complex and there are two issues. One is loading and a floating dock; the other is storage. There is storage at Coulport, but I understand—we were not told much—that weapons are not held there for an enormously long time. They are polished and whatever at Aldermaston, then moved to the hill, which is rather Hobbit-like, and then loaded on to submarines. They are not kept there for an enormously long time. It would be possible to store them at Aldermaston or elsewhere, although the journey would be longer and less convenient in many ways and perhaps less safe, but that would be for the Ministry of Defence and the UK Government to determine.

Our view was that that could be done. It would take a long time and it would be expensive. Professor Walker of St Andrews university helpfully said, “Don’t ask me to put a figure on it. I have no idea at all, but certainly it would be billions of pounds.” Francis Tusa thought it would be much less and said, “I have seen reports that it would cost £50 million. No, it wouldn’t. It would cost much less.” The then Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North Devon, pointed out that a recent upgrade of the facilities at Faslane had cost £3.5 billion. That was just for an upgrade, so presumably the cost of replacing it would be much higher. We then come back to the extent to which that would form a major part of the dialogue between the Scottish and UK Governments after a separation decision.

I have touched on France and the United States. The other alternative we looked at was maintaining a United Kingdom base in a separate Scotland, similar to the Holy Loch base that the United States had, and the United Kingdom’s sovereign territory in Cyprus. That would have to be negotiated in the spirit of the Edinburgh agreement, which would require best endeavours on both sides.

The matter is not as straightforward as it seems because obviously not just the base would have to be secure. Access and so on would have to be secure, and a substantial amount of water would have to be UK sovereign territory, at least during the period when submarines were leaving. There could be an interesting situation if the Scottish Government instructed Strathclyde police to beat back protestors from outside a UK-owned and maintained Faslane base. The situation could be quite complicated, and not one that the Scottish Government would want.

If a Scottish Government wanted to join NATO, they would have to be part of a nuclear alliance. The compromises that that might involve have not been fully explored. The United Kingdom and Scottish Governments must be much clearer about such matters, particularly the relationship with NATO. The Scottish Government have indicated that they are enthusiastic about the concept of joint air bases with the RAF and the Scottish air force sharing facilities. The Ministry of Defence and others have said that there is an issue of control, and if the UK Government wanted to bomb somewhere that the Scottish Government did not want them to bomb, would they have a sovereign right to do so, or would the Scottish Government be able to block the runway?

Joint and shared bases are complicated, and even more so if there were any suggestion that that would be applied to a nuclear base. We took the view that that was a dead end, and that a shared base on Scottish territory or a UK sovereign base on Scottish territory were not runners. We will wait to hear from the Ministry of Defence and the Government in due course, when the Scottish National party has made its proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark]

Although many people in Scotland would be pleased if Trident went, they would not be pleased at the removal of the other naval jobs at Faslane. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

[Mr Weir]

I will come on to jobs in a moment if the hon. Lady will hold her horses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Bone. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I will try to be brief, because I appreciate that a considerable number of Members wish to speak.

I speak as someone who is opposed to nuclear weapons in any part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, along with the majority of Scottish MPs, I voted against the replacement of Trident when we had the opportunity to vote on that in the last Parliament. I speak from that perspective, but I find it astonishing that the Scottish National party takes the view that if Scotland vote for independence next year, what would be left of the British Government, and presumably the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) if he were still Prime Minister—having gone down in history as the Prime Minister who lost Scotland—would bend over backwards to facilitate a new Scotland in every area of policy, whether on the economy, our currency, Europe or Trident, which we are debating today.

We have heard powerful contributions about the cost of relocating Trident within the United Kingdom. The Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), articulately outlined the huge cost that would be involved. It is absolutely clear that there would be no easy solution if that were the outcome. Some people believe that we would need storage relatively adjacent to the submarine base—for safety reasons, apart from anything else—and the reality is that there are very few, if any, locations in England or Wales that would be suitable. The Government of the rest of the UK would have a huge financial headache if they wished to continue to be a country in possession of nuclear weapons. It is unlikely that a Government in that position would be co-operative.

The evidence received by the Select Committee from the Ministry of Defence clearly shows that, should Scotland decide that it no longer wants Trident to be based there, it would not be willing to continue with any other facilities currently based there. That is an indication of the likely response that a newly independent Scotland would get in many areas of policy, not only in defence.

[David Mowat]

That is a good point. One issue that would be negotiated in the 18-month period is whether the new Scottish Government would use the pound and whether the Bank of England would be the lender of last resort to them. Does the hon. Lady think that that discussion or negotiation might be more difficult if the Scottish Government had just kicked out Trident?

[Katy Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I will not stray too far down that avenue. I suspect that that would move us away from the subject of today’s debate, about which you might have something to say, Mr Bone. However, he makes the powerful point that the Scottish Government must be aware that if they succeed in persuading the Scottish people to vote for independence next year, there will be implications in a range of areas.

[Sandra Osborne]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if there were unresolved bitterness about Trident between a newly separate Scotland and the rest of the UK, that would affect all the negotiations and influence our international partners—for example, in relation to any application to join the EU?

[Katy Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Scottish National party often forgets that not only will England, Wales and Northern Ireland have views on this issue, but many other European countries will be interested in the internal implications for themselves. For example, Spain may not want to create the precedent of allowing one part of a current member country of the European Union an easy process for continuing to be a member of the EU, given that it has to deal with situations such as the one in Catalonia.

The general point is that we cannot presume that negotiations would be easy on all matters if Scotland voted for independence. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), who spoke on behalf of the Scottish National party, therefore needs to think about his comment that it would be laughable for an independent Scotland to have to take at least a share of the cost of relocating Trident. Whatever the Scottish National party’s views about what is a reasonable negotiating position, it should be aware that it might have to negotiate with people with very different views.

That is one reason why there has been a great deal of speculation in Scotland about whether the Scottish National party would honour its position of not having nuclear weapons in Scotland if we became independent. I very much hope that it would: we should not have nuclear weapons in any part of the United Kingdom. I would therefore be sympathetic to much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the implication for jobs, if we were talking only about Trident. Of course, a whole range of work has been done on which people employed at Faslane and Coulport are related strictly to Trident and its replacement, and which are related to other military activities that currently take place in Scotland but may not continue to do so.

As I said in my intervention on the Chair of the Select Committee, there is now an incoming fleet of seven Astute class submarines, eight Sandown class minehunters and the administrative headquarters of the Royal Navy in Scotland, northern England and Northern Ireland. As the Chair said, further work will come to that area as a result of our union with the other constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Angus said that the defence budget for an independent Scotland would be about £2.5 billion. It would be interesting to hear at some point—perhaps from his colleague, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), or from the Scottish Government—exactly what that would look like and mean, particularly for the areas affected should Scotland decide to become independent and to withdraw Trident, given what the Ministry of Defence has said about the implications of that on other parts of military policy.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is an important debate for Scotland, because the reality is that the Scottish National party’s policy on Trident has been successful for it over many years. In Scotland, there is a very different tradition on such issues than there is in other parts of the United Kingdom. In opinion polls, the replacement of Trident has consistently been unpopular. Indeed, over many decades, many people in Scotland have opposed nuclear weapons. Whether we go back to the 1950s and 1960s, with the demonstrations against Polaris, or the 1980s, with those against both Cruise and of course Trident, which was brought in afterwards, the anti-nuclear movement has been very strong in Scotland.

For the purposes of this debate, whether people are for or against nuclear weapons should not be a reason for taking one side or the other on independence. If Scotland decide to become independent, we would still be grappling with the same issues and having to deal with other parts of this country. I therefore say to the Scottish National party that as much honesty and information as possible in this debate would be in everybody’s interest and ensure that the people of Scotland can make an educated choice when the time comes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

I am very happy to answer that question, because I have just given the example of the work that has been done on Barrow. People who are looking at the future of the UK without nuclear weapons are looking at what it takes. It is not a matter of location; it is a matter of industrial, manufacturing and education policy. Whether or not we had stopped making gas lanterns in Faslane and we were going to make some new things for the nation, we would have to plan and train, put people in the skill set, and give them the infrastructure. Whether something is made redundant by technology or by the movement of history, such as the movement of agricultural workers to the conurbations, it is a cycle. A nation must plan ahead for the people and for its needs in the future.

That is what is missing. A very legitimate question was asked by the Scottish Affairs Committee, “What do you do in this situation?” The Committee is asking the SNP Government to answer that question, and it is getting nothing; it is getting silence. I do not think that this argument about Trident adds to the arguments for independence, but it would be nice to think that the Government of Scotland at this moment were planning to do something and would put forward a plan that the people could look at, but they are not doing that. Instead, they are saying, “Jump off the cliff. It’s all right, you’ll find the water’s warm when you land.”

[Katy Clark]

My hon. Friend has already made reference to his time as a leader of a Scottish local authority. Of course, at that time he was exceptionally well known for his radical credentials. And at that time, the Labour party’s position was that we wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons in this country, and a huge amount of work was done by Labour and the trade unions on defence diversification. Is he aware whether the Scottish Government have devoted any office or time to defence diversification, and does he think that that is exactly the kind of information that should be coming to the fore at this time?

[Andrew Rosindell (in the Chair)]

Before the hon. Gentleman replies to that question, I remind him that there are others who want to get into this debate and he has already been speaking for 18 minutes. Thank you.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is precisely our intention. At the Chicago NATO summit in May we expect to put together a package of ongoing financial support to the Afghan national security forces to allow them to take control of their own security in Afghanistan and maintain it as properly governed space.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Sixty-nine years ago tomorrow, HMS Dasher sank off the coast of North Ayrshire and 379 crewmen lost their lives. The survivors and families have been asking for access to the Ministry of Defence files to find out what happened. Will the Minister meet me, any of the seven living survivors who wish to come, and the families to discuss the matter?

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, I would be happy to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is an avid reader of Hansard. If he goes back to about 1994, he will see that I raised this matter then in the House of Commons—I have been here too long. He is right that there is a disproportionate number of senior officers. They are excellent people, but we are looking to reduce that disproportionate number so that there are fewer senior officers in relation to bayonets on the ground.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has for the future of Defence Munitions Beith; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

There are no current plans to change the status of Defence Munitions Beith. The weapons end-to-end initiative is working on the best through-life support solution for the MOD and industry, taking into account the strategic requirement, value for money and the linkage with associated industries. This is a wide and complex piece of work. There is a need to maintain Beith at least until the Spearfish torpedo has been converted to a single-fuel system, when the need for specialist facilities may lapse. The conversion programme is expected to be completed around 2018.

[Katy Clark]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he willing to meet me and trade union representatives of the work force at DM Beith to discuss what future contracts might be available to the depot?

[Peter Luff]

I am delighted to repeat the invitation that I made in a letter early last year, to which the hon. Lady has not so far replied, and to extend it once again on the Floor of the House. Of course I should be delighted to meet her to have the precise discussion that she seeks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

I hear from the Opposition Front Bench that the figure is 3.8%, and one might expect more than that. We do work with Veterans Aid in London, among others, to ensure that the maximum support available is given to ex-service personnel who, unfortunately, find themselves homeless.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware of the campaign by the Royal British Legion Scotland to get a Ministry of Defence hospital unit based in Scotland? I understand that the tendering process for that is due to commence in 2013. Will the Minister look into the issue and try to get a better geographical spread for such units?

[Dr Fox]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and it is something that we will look at. As I said at the conclusion of the basing review, it is essential to remember that Her Majesty’s forces are for the whole Union, not for any one part of the Union. Having them more evenly spread is part of what the United Kingdom is all about.