European Union Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the course of the last hour, President Mubarak has announced that he will not seek re-election as the President of Egypt—the culmination, but probably not the end, of the remarkable events of the last few days. Have you received any request from the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, or indeed from any other Foreign Office Minister, to make a statement about the consequences of that decision, which will undoubtedly have an impact on British policy towards Egypt, and almost certainly on Britain’s policy towards the middle east region?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving me notice of that point of order. I have not received notification this evening of any intention to make a statement but I know that all Members of the House, as others, have been following this very closely and I am sure that those on the Government Benches have heard his comments this evening.

Egypt

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does the Minister accept that in formulating our response to events in Egypt we are to some extent hindered by the ambiguity of previous policy towards not only Egypt but the region, which appeared to put security of energy supply—particularly oil—above issues of democracy and human rights? How will the Government set the balance?

[Alistair Burt]

Over a number of years, this country and others have engaged consistently in conversations with those in Egypt and other countries in the area about the need for political and social reform. Two weeks ago, I was at a conference in Doha with G8 countries and those representing the broader middle east and north African area. It was the seventh time that this conference had taken place and such engagements had occurred, and a recurring theme was how political and social change could happen in the region. G8 countries sent a consistent message, as the European Union has done over a period of time, and as this Government have done, and I do not think that there is an inconsistency in trying to achieve stability in such a way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

We are interested to know of the history of buildings in Ealing in this respect. I imagine the building in question saw much more amusing times when occupied by Sid James than when occupied by the North Koreans. Nevertheless, our relations with that country are important, because we have to be able to pass clearly to them the messages I have just described. Yes, of course I discuss this issue, and not only with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, but across Government through the framework of our National Security Council. The maritime presence in the area is more a concern of South Korea, Japan and the United States than of the United Kingdom, but we always keep that under review.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

In view of the fact that China shares a border with North Korea, it might reasonably be thought that the Government of the People’s Republic of China would have an interest in stability on the Korean peninsula. What efforts has the Foreign Secretary made to engage with his counterpart in the PRC Government to encourage that country to take an active role in reducing tension in the area?

[Mr Hague]

I have had many such discussions. Indeed, some of my earliest discussions on becoming Foreign Secretary some months ago were with my Chinese counterpart on the subject of Korea and encouraging stability there. It was part of the strategic dialogue I conducted with the Chinese leaders in July in Beijing. My right hon. and learned Friend is right that China has that interest in stability there, although that also means that China is often very cautious about supporting the kind of language and the kind of condemnation that we think is appropriate for North Korea’s recent actions. That makes it much more difficult to pass strong Security Council resolutions about North Korean violations of the type that we have recently seen. China interprets the need for stability quite differently from the way we interpret it, but there is a strong and continuing dialogue about it between us and China.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

Yes, it will be substantial. There has been no U-turn, only an inaccurate report about what the Government may do. The position is as I described it to the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House last week. The report will take the form of a Command Paper, and it will be detailed and authoritative. I intend it to be laid before Parliament in about March, in line with the practice of the last Government, but it will be accompanied throughout the year by up-to-date online reporting and evaluation of our human rights work and concerns. I hope that, overall, that will provide Parliament with a better service than has been provided in the past.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

While I understand the importance of the monitoring of human rights, does the Foreign Secretary accept that their promotion is just as, if not more, important? What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking with regard to the promotion of the human right of sanctity of life, particularly in connection with countries that appear to be hellbent on barbaric ways of taking people’s lives?

[Mr Hague]

We intervene against the death penalty at every opportunity, in line with long-standing practice in this country. My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the strong protests that we have made recently about, for instance, sentences of stoning in Iran, an absolutely barbaric punishment that has no place whatsoever in the modern world. The strong stand that this country has taken on those issues will continue to be maintained.

Kabul Conference

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 21st July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

The hon. Gentleman must remember that we are in Afghanistan at the invitation of the Government of Afghanistan and under a United Nations mandate. We are not seeking to conquer Afghanistan, which is clearly impossible. One has only to fly over Afghanistan and look down at the deserts and mountain ranges to know in a moment that it is not possible to conquer Afghanistan, but it should be possible to provide the necessary support for a legitimate Government of Afghanistan to conduct their own security and provide for the future of their own people.

The hon. Gentleman is right that there is great public concern. As I said in my statement, I do not want to minimise the difficulties or imply that things are easier than they are, but I believe that if those three things—the military strategy, the economic strategy and a political process—are pursued successfully together it is possible not to have a purely military success, but to succeed in our objective of an Afghanistan that can look after its own security.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does the Foreign Secretary accept that what the public will now regard as a timetable for the withdrawal of British troops will depend on better governance from the Karzai Administration, and a degree of professionalism from the Afghan police and army that we have not previously seen? What confidence can we have that those will be achieved in this instance? What is better about July 2010 than any occasion in the past when similar promises have been made and simply not honoured?

[Mr Hague]

I entirely understand my right hon. and learned Friend’s scepticism, because commitments have been made and not honoured in the past. I drew attention in my statement to the fact that not enough progress has been made in matters of governance and tackling corruption. Those are factors that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and I stressed very strongly to President Karzai and Ministers in the Afghan Government.

It is fair to say that progress is being made. For instance, we discussed on Monday in Kabul with the Minister of Mines the forthcoming contracts for the development of Afghanistan’s incredibly rich natural resources. He is publishing the 108 contracts to develop those resources and their terms. As the House has discovered, transparency is the best antidote to suspicion or wrongdoing. That is also true in Afghanistan, with wrongdoing on a spectacularly greater scale.

Those lessons are being learned. For instance, rules that are to be introduced to forbid Afghan Ministers or Members of Parliament from having relatives involved in the country’s tax system are also important steps forward. I will argue not that we have solved the problem, but that what was committed to at Kabul is important progress.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need shorter answers.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

Does the Minister accept that the moratorium is no substitute for the cessation of a policy that is unequivocally contrary to international law, and whose continuance represents an insurmountable obstacle to the achievement of peace and implies a determination to impose a solution not by agreement but by attrition?

[Alistair Burt]

Again, I would say that we must take this step by step. The current position, in which the moratorium has been observed, has been important in allowing space for the proximity talks to take place, and we hope that those talks will advance into further discussions. I repeat that we believe that the previous settlement policy was a barrier to that process, and that we want to see the current moratorium continue.

Gaza Flotilla

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hague]

I am grateful to the shadow Foreign Secretary for his broad support for what is clearly a bipartisan policy shared across the Floor of the House. His concern for the people of Gaza is felt very deeply in all parts of the House. As he reminded the House, he played an instrumental part in the negotiation of UN resolution 1860 and he has always argued, as we have argued, that ignoring Gaza will not work; this problem must be addressed. I am grateful for the implicit support that he has given to the Government’s position and for the argument that he makes that the Israeli policy towards Gaza does not loosen but tightens the grip of Hamas on the people of Gaza.

I shall now respond to the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions. He can tell that I am disappointed and very dissatisfied with the Israeli response, as it has gone on over recent hours, on consular access. The reason why I do not condemn the Israelis unequivocally is because there is a complicating factor: many people on board the ships did not have their passports or had destroyed all their papers, so it is not necessarily immediately obvious to which nationality they belong. In addition, there has been a clear lack of preparedness by Israel for handling this number of people and dealing with this number of consular inquiries. That is why, in some cases, our consular staff, who have been working extremely hard, have had to go to the prison at Beersheba to hammer on doors and ask people whether they are British. It has been chaotic, it is completely unsatisfactory and I am glad that some of the people are now able to leave the country. None the less, it is the most immediately urgent part of our work to ensure that that is put right and that all the British nationals have been identified and seen.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether I had spoken to the Turkish Foreign Minister. I did speak to him. Of course, one reason for an investigation will be to learn more about the legality of what may have happened. However, to connect this to one of the right hon. Gentleman’s other questions, the Turkish Foreign Minister particularly thanked me for the role played by our ambassador at the UN Security Council, because the presidential statement delivered to the council was, of course, made on behalf of the members of the council, including Britain, so it is very much our language as well. We certainly condemn acts that lead to the deaths of civilians—I have done that before, but if the right hon. Gentleman has not heard me do so, I do so again—so there need be no difference between us on that point.

Critically, an investigation must be prompt, independent, credible and transparent. It is my view and, from the discussions that I had last night, the view of the United States that the investigation should as a minimum have an international presence. It is possible for Israel to establish such an investigation and inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that commissions or inquiries have on occasion been established in Israel that have delivered stinging criticism of the Israeli Government and armed forces, although on other occasions such inquiries have not done so when we might have thought it was merited. However, we look to them to heed the international calls for such an inquiry and investigation, and if they simply refuse to do so—to answer his question—it would not be long before we added our voice for one conducted under international auspices.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that urgent work needs to be taken forward on providing the mechanism for access to aid into Gaza, and for trade in and out of Gaza, while giving the Israelis sufficient assurance that it will not be used for the smuggling of arms, which none of us wants taken into Gaza. We are now taking forward that urgent work with our partners in the EU and the United States, and it is something on which we will need to return to the House.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

It is easy to be condemnatory of Israel and to argue for the raising of the blockade, but we must ask ourselves whether these things, taken by themselves, will bring about the solution that we all seek. Drawing on our colonial experience and recent experience in Northern Ireland, is it not clear that sooner or later, however controversial it may be, Hamas will have to be brought into the circle of discussions?

[Mr Hague]

I always listen to my right hon. and learned Friend—I think I can now call him that, given that we are sitting on the same side of the House—with great care on these matters. He will be aware of the Quartet principles, which have been very clear for some years: Hamas must forswear violence, accept previous agreements and recognise the state of Israel. That has been the long-standing position of British Governments, the United Nations and the whole of the Quartet, including the United States, the European Union and Russia. I referred earlier to the need for Hamas to make concrete movement towards those principles in order for the rest of the international community to engage with it, and I continue to believe that that is the right position. It is a long-standing position and one that we have in common with our allies and the rest of the international community acting on the affairs of the middle east. That position must be sustained.

Foreign Affairs and Defence

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I think that we rather enjoyed the leadership speech by the former Foreign Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary has already been weighed down with congratulations, and I should certainly add to those. I share his extension of commiserations to the former Foreign Secretary on his embarking on the process of seeking to be the leader of his party. As the Foreign Secretary and I know, that can be a painful process both in the achieving and, indeed, in the serving.

The Foreign Secretary began with Afghanistan, so let me say a word or two about that. Whatever he said, rather eloquently, there is no doubt that over the weekend there was the perception of an apparent difference in emphasis between Ministers. It seems to me that that has to be eliminated, and that we must speak with one clear, unequivocal voice on Afghanistan. I, too, pay tribute to the troops, and indeed to the civilians and diplomats, who serve our interests there.

I would like to make two points that perhaps jar a little with the Foreign Secretary’s position. First, our success in relation to a political settlement rests on the shoulders of President Karzai, and until now he has not proved adequate in discharging these responsibilities. Secondly, we may talk about our strategy, but the truth is that we are subordinate in strategy to the United States, to the extent that the electoral cycle of the United States will play an important part in the way in which the United States formulates its policy. President Obama is committed to bringing American forces— some, at least—out by the middle of next year. Round about that time, he will begin the campaign for his own re-election. We should be cautious, therefore, in forming strategies that do not take account of the fact that the United States’ position might be subject to very considerable domestic pressure.

I speak from this position with some diffidence, because when I first entered the House Mr Julian Amery spoke from here, and thereafter Sir Edward Heath. Mr Amery’s views were pretty imperialist, which I imagine would have made them more acceptable to many Government Back Benchers than those of Edward Heath. However, it is worth remembering that Edward Heath’s views were formed by his own direct experience during the second world war and immediately thereafter. Often in these discussions about Europe, we forget the fact that Europe was formed out of a determination to prevent another major military conflagration across a continent which had suffered grievously as a result of two such occasions. Along with NATO, the European Union has made an enormous contribution towards keeping the peace on this continent.

In the time now available to me I shall deal with two issues; I will, perforce, do so rather more briefly than I had intended. The first is an issue from the past. It concerns the crash of a Royal Air Force Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994, when all the passengers and all the crew were killed. It was a terrible and tragic event, but with an additional dimension in that the passengers were the civilian and military heads of intelligence in Northern Ireland. The consequence of that event was to prejudice very considerably our efforts at a time in the Province before the Good Friday agreement, when things were by no means easy. The two pilots—Flight Lieutenant Cook and Flight Lieutenant Tapper—were found to have been guilty of negligence. However, it is forcefully argued by many people that the evidence available failed to meet the very high standard necessary before such a finding could be made, under the Royal Air Force’s own regulations.

It is sometimes thought that to seek to reopen this matter is to imply bad faith on the part of the senior officers of the Royal Air Force who were ultimately responsible for the board of inquiry. Let me dissociate myself from that completely and say that I believe that they all acted in good faith. Nevertheless, I believe that an error was made. There have been two external inquiries: a fatal accident inquiry in Scotland under Sheriff Sir Stephen Young—now Sheriff Principal Sir Stephen Young—and a special Select Committee of the House of Lords under the chairmanship of Lord Jauncey, a distinguished former Scottish judge. Both inquiries reached the same conclusion—that the evidence did not justify the verdict. That is why I urge the Defence Secretary to consider, by whatever means appropriate, a review of that decision. Indeed, I have already written to him in those terms, and I sent him a copy of my letter before I came into the Chamber.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my pleasure that the Prime Minister himself, before he became Prime Minister, said:

“the Conservatives believe that the matter cannot rest there. Accordingly, we have committed to undertaking a review”?

Does he agree that such a review has to be independent of the Ministry of Defence for it to carry any weight?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend. Over the years he and I, along with many others in both Houses, have sought to persuade the previous Government, and indeed the Government before that, to undertake such a review. On one occasion we met Prime Minister Blair. I very much hope that this Administration will feel compelled to deal with something that many people believe has, inadvertently, caused an injustice that should be put right. If this Chamber is anything, it is surely a place for the redress of grievance.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Liam Fox)]

For the sake of clarification, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot) is correct to say that in opposition we said there would be an independent review of the evidence, and I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence is already considering the best way to undertake that. We will certainly live up to the promise that we made in opposition.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I am grateful to the Defence Secretary for that intervention, and for his undertaking.

I also wish to deal with the issue of Trident, to which I come as someone who has always been convinced of the utility of nuclear weapons and accepted the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence. We have moved, of course, from mutually assured destruction, through flexible response, to minimum deterrence and weapons of last resort. In fact, the United Kingdom has a good history of nuclear disarmament. When I first took an interest in these matters, as long ago as 1988, we were still talking about nuclear depth charges, nuclear artillery shells and an air-to-surface missile with a nuclear warhead, and we still had free-fall bombs. All those have been dispensed with, so the UK has a solid record on these matters. However, it is illogical not to consider that Trident should be in the full-scale defence and security review. It is a strategic system being excluded from a strategic review, which does not seem to make sense.

The proposal contained in the coalition agreement is that Trident should be examined from the point of view of value for money. I do not believe that we can consider it in that way without considering whether it is required, and whether there are reasonable alternatives. The procurement cost of Trident is approximately £20 billion, and the through-life cost £100 billion, according to a recent estimate. There are those who claim that we can save £100 billion by cancelling Trident. We can, but only by the end of what would otherwise have been the period of the through-life costs. It is not an instant hit, as some have claimed.

The case for Trident’s inclusion in the review is overwhelming. How can we assess its value for money if we do not assess the possible alternatives? The questions that should be asked in that review, anchored in the notion of value for money, are whether it is possible to engage in such a way that there could be a further life extension of the existing system; whether it is possible that we can dispense with continuous at-sea deterrence, which essentially means patrols 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year; and whether it is possible that we could modify Astute submarines to carry Trident. There is already strong anecdotal evidence that work to that effect is being carried out in the Ministry of Defence.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.

Would a reasonable alternative be the Astute class submarines carrying cruise missiles with a nuclear warhead, rather than a full-blown Trident system? Is there not room for far greater collaboration between the French, the United States and ourselves, all three of whom operate a nuclear deterrent based on submarines? Surely co-ordination of patrols could have a considerable impact on the extension of life, to which I have referred, and on the whole question of continuous at-sea deterrence.

Having already described myself as someone who has always been convinced of the utility of nuclear deterrence, I ask myself whether it is necessary, for the protection of this country in 2010—or perhaps more correctly by 2025—to have a system that was conceived in the cold war and designed against what is called the Moscow criterion, which is to say a system with the ability to penetrate missile defence systems around Moscow. Is that what we need in 2010, and what we believe we will need in 2025?

I am not alone in expressing scepticism about these matters. The former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, and the Foreign Secretary’s predecessor as Shadow Foreign Secretary, Mr Michael Ancram, have expressed reservations about the need to proceed with a Trident system. One person whose name may not be well known to the House, but is certainly well known to those who follow these matters, is Sir Michael Quinlan, who was the architect of the existing Trident system and probably one of the most knowledgeable commentators in the country, and who is, sadly, no longer with us. He observed that Trident was not a good deal, regardless of cost. That is why I say respectfully that if the review is to deal with questions of value for money, it seems to me that it must inevitably deal with the other questions to which I have referred.

I have one final quotation to give:

“Only a strategic defence review will tell us whether we need to renew Trident… there are other, potentially greater, threats to the security of the nation than the distant prospect of an invasion by an unidentified superpower, or an attack by a rogue nuclear state.”

If that seems familiar to some Members, it should be. It is from an editorial in The Daily Telegraph of 30 June 2009. I could not have put it better myself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

First, I pay tribute to our armed forces, particularly those stationed in many parts of the world as they protect our country and our national interests. They are magnificent people, and it was my great honour to serve them as Secretary of State for Defence and, before that, as Minister for the Armed Forces. I want especially to pay tribute to those in Afghanistan, most particularly those who have made the ultimate sacrifice since the House last met. We must never forget them.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) on his appointment; he now has the privilege but also the duty to do all he can for the defence of our country and the well-being of our armed forces. I hope that he will be able to face the significant challenges of the period ahead. In my view, he faces three overriding tasks. To the extent that he carries those out honourably and in the national interest, he will receive our backing and support.

First, the right hon. Gentleman needs to conduct a strategic defence review, as announced in the Gracious Speech. Secondly, he must take forward and consolidate the progress achieved so far in Afghanistan. Thirdly, he must ensure that he looks after the welfare of our armed forces community. To use the shorthand that has now gone into common usage, he needs to honour the military covenant.

Is the strategic defence review under way, as we have read in the press? The Government are falling into bad habits so soon. Is there going to be an open debate on the issues during the process? Will the Government set up real mechanisms to ensure that those beyond the Government will be able to contribute? The right hon. Gentleman was complimentary about the manner in which I conducted the Green Paper process, and I hope that he will be as inclusive on the strategic defence review itself.

Despite claiming that the SDR will be security-led, the right hon. Gentleman will not be able to exclude the Treasury, as the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who chaired the Defence Committee, said. I suggest to the Secretary of State for Defence that it is in his interests and those of the nation to include others. After all, he has repeatedly told the British people that the British Government are fighting a war on a peacetime budget. He must expect to be judged on the outcome that he achieves. Having said that the Army is too small, that the number of Navy ships has been reduced to the point of putting the nation in danger, and having criticised the cutbacks at RAF Cottesmore and the gapping of the Nimrod capability, he has set himself quite a task.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

There is not only the Green Paper exercise, in which the former Secretary of State was kind enough to invite me to participate, but the example of Labour’s defence review following the 1997 election, led by George—now Lord—Robertson, and in which the public were invited to participate effectively.

[Mr Ainsworth]

I am inviting my successor to be as open and inclusive as possible and to try to capture a broad spectrum of opinion in the country as he does his business on the strategic defence review.

What on earth went on last week on the issue of Afghanistan? The Defence Secretary was briefing the press that

“We are not in Afghanistan for the sake of the education policy in a broken 13th-century country.”

That has been mentioned by many this afternoon. At the same time, the Secretary of State for International Development was making it clear that development, including education, was absolutely crucial. If the Secretaries of State travel on the same plane, they must be able to speak to one another. It is not as though either was a Liberal Democrat—where was the barrier to a conversation? Did the Foreign Secretary have to knock the Secretaries of States’ heads together?

Can the Defence Secretary confirm that, despite what he was trying to spin out in the newspapers, he has no new strategy in Afghanistan and that he is following the coalition strategy, as we were? If not, he should spell out his new strategy to the House so that he can be questioned on it. He should also let ISAF’s commander, General McChrystal, know that he has a new plan and share it with him.

Will the Secretary of State tell us—if not now, perhaps he could write—what equipment he is going to provide for our troops over and above what had already been ordered by the Labour Government? He will want to do this, having been so vociferous in telling the nation how we were betraying the troops in Afghanistan, so I invite him to do so. How many additional helicopters and protected vehicles does he plan to buy? How will he square that with his silly attempts to say that we were signing irresponsible contracts in the last months of the Government? I leave it to him to square that argument. However, if he is going to make that allegation, I invite him to say specifically which contracts we should not have signed and which contracts should not go ahead.

On the talked-about move to Kandahar, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that I was an extreme sceptic. We have learned many things in Helmand, and surely now is the time to consolidate and to finish the job. I hope that unless there are overwhelming, genuine military reasons to do otherwise, he will resist the calls to pull up stumps and move elsewhere.

I turn to the issue of forces welfare. I hope that the Secretary of State can accept that great strides were made in the past few years. I know that he felt the need, as did many of his colleagues, to claim that we had broken the military covenant. He knows, however, that I made great efforts through the service personnel Command Paper, and that the Labour Government improved the lot of our servicemen and women through the introduction of improvements to the compensation scheme and the investment that we made in service accommodation. Can he assure us that there will be no rowing back from the improvements that we introduced, and detail the improvements that he plans to make himself? I congratulate him on increasing the operational allowance, but having said all that he has, he will need to do more than that.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—genuinely, because I personally think it was the right thing to do—to think about legislating for a service charter, as we planned to do, in order to enshrine the rights of service personnel in law? When I talk to service people—I am thinking most particularly of those who have been injured in the service of our country—they are not necessarily worried about the treatment that they are getting now but about what will happen to them in 10 years’ time, when the caravan has moved on, they are getting older, and they are still living with their injuries. They want to know that the commitment that we have made in the past couple of years will endure and see them through for the rest of their lives.

I cannot cover all the many fine speeches that have been made—maiden speeches and contributions by existing Members—but I will try to mention one or two in the time available to me. I commiserate with the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who described himself as collateral damage. He demolished very well his new-found friends’ deterrent policy. Let me combine that with the comments that were made by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), who told the House that many people were deceived by the Liberal Democrats’ policy, and ask him to reflect on whether the policy really was ridiculous or whether it was deceptive.

I wish to mention, as so many others have, the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and I ask him to continue to do what he did so well and not to lose that edge over time. He can come into the House and talk to us and the nation, and get us to feel what it is like to serve, suffer and conquer fear as only someone who has had service can. He can bring something to the House in doing that, and I hope that he never loses the ability to do so.

I can see that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) is going to be a real champion of the dockyard and our defence industrial base. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) continues to be a rock and make the same speeches as he has for a generation and more. Governments come and Governments go, but the hon. Gentleman is still here, still making the same speech and still hoping that people are listening to him.

I was able to visit the constituency of my new hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) during the election campaign and see what I would describe as the amazing cathedral of engineering skill that we have at Barrow. He is concerned that if we ever lose that skill, it will be extremely difficult to replace and our ability to produce nuclear submarines will be lost, potentially for ever. I hope that we can hang on to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) expressed her concern that the consolidation of amphibious capability, which I believe is very sensible, should go ahead.

The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) was uncharacteristically partisan in some of his comments. He cannot blame the Government for operations that his own party supported just as much. If his speech was a bid for a particular job, he himself needs to invest in stealth capability.

The new Government will find that as an Opposition, we are sincere in our support for our armed forces and what they are doing on our behalf. I will throw the new Secretary of State’s past words back at him in future, as I have today, and we will hold this Tory-led Government to account. However, I give him and the House my assurance and that of my hon. Friends that we will not play politics with the dedicated work of the men and women of our armed forces. They deserve, and they will receive, the support of Members on the Labour side of the House.