Defence Spending

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I will let the other parties speak for themselves, but this is a long-term commitment to investment in our own security. The money we are investing in the defence nuclear enterprise is additional funding; it is not coming from any existing contingency, and I am happy to confirm that to the House.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, since the additional money is over five years, and since we are supporting Ukraine to the tune of £2 billion a year, that additional money will all be used up in the support of Ukraine, which invites and encourages me to ask two questions. First, when will the money be made available to replace the ageing armoured vehicle, the Warrior, with a new battlefield vehicle, having regard to the shambles of the Ajax programme? Secondly, when will the Royal Air Force be provided with sufficient F35s to train its pilots to fly that aircraft, never mind taking it into combat?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Lord on those two specific questions, but I should make a very important clarification of the additional funding going into our Armed Forces. Our support for Ukraine is over and above the additional investment I have mentioned, so it will not be drawn on in future years when we continue that support for as long as the conflict lasts.

Trident Alternatives Review

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

I will address that point as I move through my speech, although I am glad to have taken my hon. Friend’s intervention. All I would say is that the degree of readiness of our conventional weapons and forces is scaled to the threats of the time, and my precise proposal is that we could adopt a similar approach here.

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

In assessing the contribution of President Obama to this debate, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the United States is intending to reduce its fleet of submarines carrying Trident missiles from 18 to 12, and that the Berlin speech was the second time that President Obama has argued very strongly for multilateral nuclear disarmament?

[Danny Alexander]

I entirely agree. I applaud President Obama’s leadership of the disarmament debate. I think that the review gives the United Kingdom an opportunity to contribute further both to disarmament and to the global movement towards the de-alerting of our nuclear weapons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I am not sure where that came from, first, because the figure that the hon. Lady cites is not correct—this would not be the first time that a newspaper had failed to do its sums—and, secondly, because we agree with what the Defence Secretary says. If changes in technology make the nuclear submarines more reliable, meaning that we can go down to three, we will consider that.

Many Labour Members have waited anxiously to see the report’s conclusion but, 26 months later, the review to make the case for the alternatives, which had the full weight of the Government’s resources behind it, presents us with no conclusions, makes no recommendations and does not even support adopting any of the alternatives put forward by the Chief Secretary. Only the Liberal Democrats could envisage an alternatives review that rejects all the alternatives. It is the equivalent of starting a journey to discover the ark of the covenant only to end up where we began with the conclusion that it does not exist.

The Liberal Democrats’ 2010 manifesto said:

“At a cost of £100 billion over a lifetime”

Trident

“is unaffordable, and Britain’s security would be better served by alternatives.”

If that was the case in 2010, given that those alternatives have not been identified in the review, surely it is not too much to ask that the Deputy Prime Minister and his Liberal Democrat colleagues admit that what they claimed in 2010 was wrong. One by one, each of the alternative platforms to Trident are rejected in the review. Heavy bombers, fast jets, low-orbit vehicles, land silos and maritime surface vessels are all discredited for not offering sufficient capability while costing more.

The review even dismisses the Liberal Democrats’ most favoured option of replacing Trident with nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Page 45 of the document states that cruise missiles

“offer a much reduced level of destructive and second-strike capability and an increased level of operational complexity”.

Page 6 states:

“Maintaining the same level of assurance that the UK deterrent can overcome an adversary’s defences is…likely to be harder with a cruise missile-based system.”

Page 8 points out that the cost of developing a nuclear-armed cruise missile would more than double the cost of Trident missiles and would take some 24 years. In support of that argument, the Deputy Prime Minister told Andrew Marr in 2010 that the UK

“could use Astute class submarines and use cruise missiles.”

It is true that they are alternatives but, as the report says, they are not only very expensive, but not very good.

The review totally discredits the Liberal Democrats’ previous policy decisions. In fact, some of the more ludicrous suggestions were not considered in the report because exploring them was deemed to be a waste of civil service time and energy. Page 16 dismisses some of those more wacky ideas, such as using helicopters, unmanned air vehicles or space-based platforms. Hand-held devices on the ground were also excluded

“as they would not meet several constraints, including in particular credibility and absolute range.”

The report is therefore credible, as even the most far-fetched suggestions put forward in the outer reaches of the Liberal Democrat world have been addressed.

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

The hon. Gentleman is right that not all parties have been entirely consistent on this matter, but may I remind him that, prior to the 1992 election, the Labour party refused to commit to a fourth submarine, but suggested that one way of maintaining employment at Barrow-in-Furness would be to turn the submarine into an underwater oil carrier?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I could not have put it better myself. I will move on to discuss my hon. Friend’s constituency in a minute.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had enough time, and the time is limited.

There was another option that was deemed unworthy of examination by what is otherwise a thorough and forensic document: sending two unarmed submarines out on patrol with the intention of stepping up our posture in a time of crisis. That is the policy the Chief Secretary has just proposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

The Chief Secretary asks how much longer I have left. It is taking time to get through the nonsense he has come up with, but I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. I know that this is not very comfortable for the Chief Secretary, but he is going to have to sit there and listen.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

This is a serious subject.

[Mr Jones]

It is a serious subject. I just wish that Liberal Democrats would treat it seriously, rather than coming up with the nonsense that they keep peddling.

The alternatives review reinforces my point. On page 5, it states:

“The highest level of assurance the UK can attain with a single deterrent system is provided by SSBN submarines operating a continuous at sea deterrence posture.”

On page 10, it states:

“None of these alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances.”

I could not put it better myself. Breaking CASD would involve an unacceptable downgrading of our capabilities.

To return to the issue of cost, we have been told by the Liberal Democrats that the alternatives to Trident would be cheaper, but their review shows that to be complete nonsense. We were told by the Chief Secretary yesterday that the review was not about savings, but about the nuclear deterrent.

In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats’ review has not only unmasked their political posturing, but reinforced the case for the policy voted for by this House in 2006. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) is muttering. When he is put under detailed examination, he will have to explain the nonsense that he peddled in the run-up to the last general election, which his party’s review has completely discredited. Perhaps he has not read the report. The Liberal Democrats must want to have some credibility. I know that it is not unusual for them to look both ways and ignore the truth, but the report clearly discredits most of the things that he has said over the past few years.

The alternatives review has looked at the alternatives and come forward with the conclusion that we all thought it would reach: the minimum credible nuclear deterrent for the UK is submarine-based continuous-at-sea deterrent. [Interruption.] Well, that is what it is saying—

Finance Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman has strayed off the topic of the new clause, but on my party’s policy on VAT, obviously we are between a rock and a hard place, due to the economic state of the country. We had some very difficult choices to make, and a progressive expenditure tax is the right answer.

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

My hon. Friend points out that difficult choices had to be made; indeed, they would undoubtedly have had to be made if a Labour Government had been returned. Does he recall that it was the policy of the last Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise VAT to 19%?

[Ian Swales]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for reminding me of that fact. One of the things that have been absent from Labour Members is alternative policies to those being pursued by the Government.

The week after VAT was reduced by 2.5%, Cristiano Ronaldo, the premiership footballer, saved £4,000 on the cost of his new Ferrari. He will also have made massive savings on many of his other purchases during that period. I doubt whether any constituent of mine saved £4,000 as a result of VAT being reduced.

VAT as applied in this country is a progressive tax on spending. The more people spend, the more they pay, so the inconvenient truth is that cuts in VAT benefit people in proportion to how wealthy they are.

Scotland Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Michael Moore)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I am very grateful to Members who have taken part in all the different debates on the Bill, in particular those from the Opposition parties, members of the Scottish Affairs Committee and the many others who have examined the Bill closely during its passage through the House. Today, we have had important additional contributions by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), among others.

The Bill delivers the key coalition commitment, set out in our programme for government, to implement the proposals of what we know as the Calman commission. The commission, established in the last Scottish Parliament, had the support of a wide cross-section of society in Scotland. Its membership included representatives of the three main United Kingdom political parties, local government, experts in Scots law, business, education and the trade unions.

Under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Calman, the commission gathered evidence from a wide range of sources and engaged directly with people in Scotland through detailed consultations, public engagement events, oral evidence and survey evidence. The commission reported to both the Scottish Parliament and the previous UK Government. At the general election in 2010, all three main UK-wide parties had manifesto commitments to take forward the recommendations made by the commission. Those commitments are being delivered in the Bill.

As Members are aware, the Bill will introduce a new Scottish rate of income tax, and it will fully devolve responsibility for stamp duty land tax and landfill tax to the Scottish Parliament. It will provide for new tax-raising powers to be created at the request of the Scottish Parliament, and it will introduce a new capital borrowing power and extend the current borrowing powers of Scottish Ministers. When combined with the existing tax-raising powers of the Scottish Parliament, it will provide Scottish Ministers with a total of £12 billion- worth of financial powers. That is a hugely significant package, which represents the largest ever transfer of financial powers from Westminster to Scotland. It is a radical but responsible step.

The Bill is not about transferring power for power’s sake; it is about creating accountability. By taking on the responsibility for raising the taxes required to fund the spending decisions that they take, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers will be more accountable and better equipped to respond to Scotland’s needs within the UK.

The Bill has been the subject of detailed scrutiny on the Floor of the House and by the Scottish Affairs Committee. The debate has been animated, even lively at times, such is the strong feeling and the keen interest in it that is felt throughout the House. However, our proposals have not just been scrutinised at Westminster. After the introduction of the Bill, the Scottish Parliament established a Scotland Bill Committee to assess the measure and the supporting package set out in the Command Paper, “Strengthening Scotland’s Future”. The Scotland Bill Committee issued a detailed 240-page report on the measure. The Committee’s first and main conclusion was that the Scottish Parliament should support the Scotland Bill. In the subsequent plenary vote, the Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly in favour of a legislative consent motion, agreeing to the Bill by a margin of 121 to three, with support from the Scottish Government. I am grateful to all parties for their support.

Since then, there have been elections to the Scottish Parliament, and I congratulate the Scottish National party on its victory. A new Scotland Bill Committee—meeting for the first time today—will examine the measure in the Scottish Parliament. I welcome that further scrutiny. However, given the previous Scottish Government’s support for the Bill, I look forward to that support continuing. In fact, I expect that it will have been strengthened by the package of amendments that the Chancellor and I announced on 13 June.

The amendments were based on the valuable report of the Scottish Affairs Committee, and also on the report from the Scotland Bill Committee that the Scottish Parliament endorsed so strongly. The amendments that we tabled on Report were based on the evidence that we received from the two Committees. The amendments to the package will ensure that Scottish Ministers have greater flexibility to exercise their new powers effectively.

We continue to believe that the package set out in the Bill and the Command Paper, based on cross-party consensus, meets the objective of strengthening Scottish devolution within the United Kingdom.

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

May we take it that, as a result of the earlier proceedings, Government new clause 13 is now part of the Bill? If so, is that a confirmation of the fact that in any matter involving human rights, the Supreme Court is the final arbiter, notwithstanding some of the childish and petulant outbursts that we have heard north of the border in recent weeks?

[Michael Moore]

First, I confirm what my right hon. and learned Friend suggests. New clause 13 is now part of the Bill that will go to the House of Lords for scrutiny. Like him, I regret the tone of some of the remarks made against judges in the Supreme Court in recent weeks. I welcome the broad support for the idea that people in all parts of the United Kingdom should enjoy the same rights under the courts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann McKechin]

My right hon. Friend is right to say that this row has emerged from absolutely nowhere, and has arisen simply for the sake of political expediency.

Mr MacAskill—that well-known expert on making sound judgements—also claimed that Supreme Court judges picked up their knowledge of Scots law during visits to the Edinburgh festival, and threatened to withdraw funding. He can now add to his list of achievements that he is the first Minister in any part of the UK who has threatened to close a court by stopping its cheques. Perhaps after such a long-maintained silence over the last two years, the pressure on him was too much to bear.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

Of the two cases that have proved so controversial, the first dealt with the protection of a person once charged and taken into custody by the police. The second dealt with whether there is a continuing obligation on the prosecution to make available all evidence to the defence, including evidence that might have the effect of exculpating someone who has been accused. Are those two principles not right at the very heart of the Scottish legal system, to which the hon. Lady has just referred?

[Ann McKechin]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks with considerable expertise on legal issues. I do not want to discuss the individual cases, but he is absolutely right that they involved important points of principle that everyone who is concerned about the integrity of Scottish law should take seriously into account.

Mr Salmond has attempted to climb down from the remarks that he made in a Holyrood Magazine interview, but has refused to apologise. “Better late than never” should be the new mantra, but the First Minister does not have a reverse gear. Instead, this whole sorry incident has typified a controlling approach that his spin doctors have tried hard to hide. In his view, there is a hierarchy in our national debate between those who are deemed “good Scots” and those classified as “bad Scots”, and anyone who speaks directly against his view will always be in the latter category, even if they are one of our country’s most eminent legal minds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am almost grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he has referred to a measure I want to deal with. The measure relating to the Supreme Court that was passed today is totally unacceptable to the Scottish Government, and will be unacceptable to the Scottish Parliament as well. When the last Scottish Parliament Bill Committee considered the Government’s proposals, even that Unionist-led Committee did not see fit to pass them. I do not think that a new Scottish Parliament Bill Committee will be any better disposed towards them.

Had I been given an opportunity to debate the issue, I would have suggested a sunset clause, so that nothing could be done until the expert group in the Scottish Parliament finishes its work under Lord McCluskey. That is the time for us to discuss how to resolve what is a real issue.

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have said that I will not give way again, and I will not, even to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Others wish to speak.

There are real difficulties, but the solution offered by the Secretary of State will not be acceptable to the Scottish Parliament. The most critical aspect of the Bill, however, involves not the unpalatable measures that we have discussed today, but the measures that the Bill omits: measures for which the Scottish people voted when the Bill was last considered by the Scottish Parliament. What they want are job-creating powers and control over the Crown Estates so that we can further the renewables revolution in Scotland.

Given our mandate, the Scottish National party will revisit those issues in the future. On balance, however, we accept that the Bill contains substantial new powers, and we will not oppose its Third Reading.

I suppose that we can look at the Bill in two stages—pre and post its testing by the Scottish people. The Calman parties stood on their record and presented it as a major constitutional issue when they fought the election, while the Scottish National party stood on a programme involving the creation of new jobs and powers for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish people gave the Scottish National party an overwhelming mandate to pursue that agenda, and we will continue to present the case for real job-creating powers. We will not be satisfied until we have those powers in the Scottish Parliament.

The Bill will now go to the House of Lords before it is returned to the Scottish Parliament for a further legislative consent motion. I say to the Secretary of State and the Government—