Reserves (Call-out Order)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

With the expiry of the call-out order made on 29 June 2012, a new order has been made under section 56(l)(a) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to continue to be called out into permanent service as part of the United Kingdom’s contribution to the United Nations Forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP). Some 133 reservists are currently called out in support of UNFICYP. All are serving in Cyprus.

The new order is effective until 28 June 2014.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

1. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in and around the Falkland Islands.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The Ministry of Defence undertakes regular assessments of potential military threats to the Falkland Islands to ensure that we retain an appropriate level of defensive capability to address any such threats. There is no current evidence of the intent, or indeed capability, to launch a credible military threat to the south Atlantic. However, we remain vigilant and committed to the protection of the Falkland islanders.

[Neil Carmichael]

What discussions has the Minister had with our allies regarding security and safety in the region, particularly for the Falklands, but also across the Southern ocean?

[Mr Robathan]

Personally, I have had no such discussions with our allies in Latin America, but we are very engaged with the region—rather more so than other recent Governments. Indeed, in the past six months ministerial colleagues have made nine visits to Latin America, and there have been a similar number of inward visits from the region, and of course we continue to encourage them to support us. I was particularly pleased that Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, last week singled out the Falkland Islands. [Interruption.] He is from north America—well spotted.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

What assurances can the Minister give the House that the Falkland Islands will remain as well defended after the comprehensive spending review, following the comments of generals and others in the military over the weekend about the potential pressures on the defence budget in future?

[Mr Robathan]

I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the islands will remain well defended. I spent four months of my life in the Falklands Islands back in 1989 and know the strategic situation there. I know that the British Government, like previous Governments, are determined that the Falkland Islands will remain British for as long as the Falkland islanders wish them to be so.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

As we discovered in 1982, the defence of the Falklands ultimately depends on the skill and resources of our armed forces. When the head of the Army warns that further cuts would run the risk of “damaging the professional competence” of our armed forces, surely it is time for us all to sit up and take notice.

[Mr Robathan]

I think that my hon. Friend will know that we are in a very difficult financial situation, which was left to us by the previous Government. I do not think that any Defence Minister came into government wishing to see a reduction in our armed forces.

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

2. What assessment he has made of the effect on NATO’s defence capabilities of the US strategic realignment towards Asia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

5. What compensation is given to employers to reflect the additional cost incurred by them through the call-up of a reservist.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Reservists’ employers are key partners in mobilisation and the Ministry of Defence recognises that they may incur additional costs when their reservist employee is mobilised. The reservist and their employer have the legal right to apply for financial assistance.

Under the terms of the Reserve Forces (Call-out and Recall) (Financial Assistance) Regulations 2005, an employer can claim the amount by which the replacement costs incurred exceed the relevant earnings of the reservist, subject to a cap of £110 per day. In addition, employers may claim for certain non-recurring costs that they incur in replacing the reservist, including agency fees and advertising costs. An employer may also claim the cost of retraining the reservist following their return to work.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful for that encouraging response. Does my right hon. Friend agree that service in the Territorial Army gives men and women alike invaluable life skills, and does he share my belief that, given youth unemployment levels, there are real opportunities to help young people get into the TA through events such as my recent jobs fair in Gloucester? Will he say a little more about the promotion of such opportunities in the TA?

[Mr Robathan]

I absolutely agree that service in either the regular armed forces or, indeed, the reserve forces offers a great deal of training in life skills, basic values and behaviour, and that that is of value to employers. I would encourage anybody to join the Territorial Army or the reserve forces, and I think that those who join and experience the reserve forces often find that they are much more suited to joining the world of civilian work than they might have been beforehand.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

There is solid support across the House for the TA and the reserve forces. I know that the Government are undertaking a review and looking at their recruitment targets. However, there is uncertainty about the future of key regiments. When will the Minister make an announcement, and will he ensure that we protect the Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman tempts me to reveal what has yet to be decided through the White Paper on reserves, which we confidently expect to be published before the summer recess. By that, I mean this summer recess, not next year.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

The Government have promised to make up the difference between civilian and reservist rates of pay. What estimate has been made of the cost to the Government of that policy?

[Mr Robathan]

Already, reservists are paid the same or very much the same as regular service personnel. We are looking at all aspects of this subject. Again, I am afraid that my hon. Friend must wait for the White Paper on reserves. I am relatively confident that enough people will come forward to join the reserves and that we can look forward to having a vibrant reserve Army.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

Tomorrow, the Government will announce the next round of Army redundancies, which will be painful for everyone who is affected. To fill that gap, it is crucial that the reservists plan is a success. There may well be a problem of reservists losing out in job interviews, as some employers worry about a prospective employee being away for prolonged periods. Does the Minister accept that it is crucial to consult on new rights at work to protect our reservists, who do much to protect our country?

[Mr Robathan]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, about which we are very well apprised. When the White Paper comes out, he will find much that satisfies him. He will know that the Secretary of State has said that we are considering financial incentivisation for employers, and for small employers in particular, who suffer disproportionately. If one person out of a work force in single figures leaves, it has much more impact than one person deploying out of a thousand people from a large employer.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with representatives of former Gurkhas; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

8. What plans he has for his Department’s facilities in Lincolnshire and the east midlands.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I believe I can be the first to congratulate my hon. Friend on his well-deserved knighthood.

As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out in his army basing plan announcement on 5 March, Cottesmore and North Luffenham will be the focus of one of the seven areas in the UK around which the Army will become increasingly consolidated. The major site for development in the east midlands is Kendrew barracks at Cottesmore, which will be expanded to accommodate an additional unit. North Luffenham will see some minor development and a logistics unit will move into Grantham. The written ministerial statement on 25 March confirmed the vacation of RAF Kirton in Lindsey and the disposal of the former airfield and technical facilities at the site.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It was an honour to sit behind the veterans of the Dambusters raid at its 70th anniversary at RAF Scampton in my constituency. Beside the courage of those men, hon. Members’ efforts in the House look very puny indeed. In the light of the glorious history of RAF Scampton, will the Minister reassure me that the base continues to have a bright operational future?

[Mr Robathan]

I am glad to say that I can reassure my hon. Friend. Both the Red Arrows, the RAF aerobatic team, and the air surveillance control system will be retained at the station until at least the end of the decade, although I cannot vouch for whatever happens afterwards, because I will probably have left this place. [Interruption.] It wasn’t that—I was just thinking that, by that time, I will be getting on a bit.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to engage with those affected by the closure of Claro barracks, Ripon.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Following the Army basing plan announcement of the 5 March 2013, which confirmed the closure of Claro barracks, Ripon, a meeting was held on 28 March with my hon. Friend and officials from North Yorkshire county council, Harrogate district council and Ripon city council. A further meeting was held on 7 May, at which the Department undertook to maintain contact with local authorities and agencies to keep our key stakeholders informed of developments as closure plans proceed.

[Julian Smith]

I thank the Minister and civil servants for the sensitive way in which they are dealing with this serious issue in my constituency, but may I urge him to come to a quick decision on whether the Claro or the Deverell site will ultimately close?

[Mr Robathan]

My hon. Friend and I met and discussed that last month. As he knows, I am keen to see the site for myself. We have a use for a training camp in that area, and wish to retain the training area adjacent to both barracks. From what I understand, the Claro site is a better, more modern site, and the Deverell site might be more suitable for redevelopment. However, we will work through that with my hon. Friend and the local authority.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

As a fellow north Yorkshire MP, I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) with regard to Ripon, but will the Minister shed light on the future of the RAF Church Fenton site, which is to close by the end of this year? Are there plans to sell the site off or to use it for other military purposes? If so, what is the likely time scale?

[Mr Robathan]

I am slightly uncertain of the exact details on Church Fenton. If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend with the detail, but I understand that we intend to dispose of the site when it is entirely vacated.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

12. What reports he has received on future developments in the capability of the Typhoon aircraft.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

T5. The Army’s Nanyuki base in Kenya is greatly appreciated by the armed forces because of the wide range of training that it offers. What plans has my right hon. Friend for further investment there?

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

We greatly value the training facilities in Kenya, and are determined to maintain them. We continue to have good relations with the Kenyan Government. I think that the country benefits from our presence, and we certainly benefit from the training. I cannot tell my hon. Friend exactly what plans we have for further investment, but I will let him know by letter.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

May I return to the subject of protective clothing for our armed forces personnel? The Minister may recall that I wrote to him recently asking him to look sympathetically at Remploy in my constituency, which has successfully manufactured such clothing for many years. Why have we offered the contract to a firm in north Africa, thus pushing the Dundee factory nearer to closure? Is it right to save money at the cost of British jobs?

William McGreanery

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has called this debate to raise issues with my Department’s response to the HET on the tragic death of William McGreanery.

As the hon. Gentleman has just stated, the HET was set up as an independent team within the Police Service of Northern Ireland to help bring closure to all families who lost relations and friends during the troubles and to bring some measure of resolution to the past. My Department strongly supports the work of the HET and fully co-operates with its requests for information and liaison with witnesses. When HET reports have been made available to us, following permission from the family of the deceased, we have found them to be as detailed and comprehensive accounts as are now possible considering the passage of time.

I will not go over all the ground that the hon. Gentleman has just covered, but it is important to remember the facts, which are that Mr McGreanery died on 15 September 1971, 41 and a half years ago. The HET report states that there had been a number of shootings in Londonderry in the days and nights leading up to Mr McGreanery’s death. Barricades had been erected, nail bombs and petrol bombs had been thrown, and rioting had broken out.

During the afternoon before Mr McGreanery’s death, as the hon. Gentleman rightly stated, Sergeant Carroll was shot and killed in Londonderry by a terrorist sniper. He was actually shot and killed in Eastway gardens, just by the Bligh’s lane observation post, which he had just left. There is no doubt about that.

The HET report goes on to say that, some eight hours later, at midnight on 14/15 September, Mr McGreanery and others were walking around Londonderry and approached the same Army observation post. The group moved forward and a single shot was fired by a soldier. Mr McGreanery was wounded and later died in hospital. I do not think the facts are in contention.

The soldier who opened fire said that he thought Mr McGreanery was aiming a rifle at the observation post, and he made a split-second decision to open fire. I think we can all now accept that that was an error. That is what the HET report states, and I understand that the young soldier involved—he was young at the time—has stated that he thinks it was an error, too. He regrets the shooting, given what he has now discovered.

The pathologist who carried out the post-mortem said that Mr McGreanery’s wounds had been caused by the bullet passing through his raised forearm, through his chest and exiting his back:

“the forearm must have been flexed at the elbow and held up in front of the chest”.

No one knows why his arm was in that position. The HET does not believe he was pointing a rifle at the time. Forensic swabs show that he had not fired a weapon, and I think we accept that he did not have a weapon.

The local RUC commander at the time believed, as the hon. Gentleman said, that the soldier had acted unlawfully. A file was sent to the chief Crown prosecutor recommending that the soldier be tried for murder. That was passed to the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, but he took a different view, believing that the soldier was acting in the course of his duty and that it was difficult to see how the element of malice, “express or implied,” necessary to constitute murder could be inferred from his actions. He thought that the soldier could have been negligent but that consideration would have to be given to whether the negligence was “reckless” and amounted to manslaughter. In the event, no action was taken against the soldier.

When the MOD received a request from the family of Mr McGreanery for an apology for his death, my Department asked for a copy of the HET report into his death so that the request could be properly considered. That is relevant to what the hon. Gentleman said. It is up to the family to give us the report; we do not get to see it. Similarly, when the Chief of the General Staff wrote to the family, that was private correspondence as far as we were concerned. It is up to the family to reveal it. However, I will come to that later.

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is only right, if we are asked to apologise for the actions that led to somebody’s death, that we should be able to see the results. We do not see them until we get the HET report. When we received the report, we read it carefully and came to the conclusion that, in such circumstances, an apology was appropriate, because it was clear that the soldier involved was mistaken when he thought that Mr McGreanery posed such a serious threat that it was necessary to open fire. That is absolutely accepted.

Having carefully considered the circumstances of the death, the Chief of the General Staff—he is the head of the Army, which is not a lowly rank, as the hon. Gentleman implied—wrote to the family with an apology on 14 July 2011. In those cases in which the Ministry of Defence has apologised for a death—there have been five, not including apologies made by the Prime Minister in person for the Bloody Sunday killings—the practice has been either for the Chief of the General Staff or a Minister to write, and the apology is given by either, on behalf of the Government as a whole.

I understand that Mr McGreanery’s family has accepted the apology but wanted one on behalf of the Government, recorded in parliamentary records. On behalf of the Government, I am happy to repeat that apology. As for the request that it be made publicly, as I have explained, it is normally left to the family to decide whether they wish to publicise it. Some will wish to do so, but some will not. As a result of these proceedings, the apology given to Mr McGreanery’s family is now on the parliamentary record. As we know that that is the family’s wish, I am happy that it should be so.

I am also aware of press reports—the hon. Gentleman referred to them—about recently released historical documents that have been interpreted as suggesting that at the time of Mr McGreanery’s death, there was a deliberate policy of not prosecuting soldiers for deaths that occurred while they were on duty, and that there was some cosy relationship with the Attorney-General at the time to facilitate that. It is not and never was up to the MOD to decide whether soldiers should face criminal charges as a result of opening fire in the course of their duties.

It is, however, important that those contemplating such decisions are provided with information relevant to the incident under consideration. The fact that the Attorney-General of the day was prepared to consider representations from the Army about murder cases is surely entirely reasonable. I am not a lawyer, I am glad to say, but it seems entirely sensible that he would want to see as much information as he could to enable him to consider properly the public interest surrounding those cases, just as we have the well-established Shawcross exercise, in which ministerial views are sought on the public interest before a decision is made on prosecution in appropriate cases.

Although I know that the hon. Gentleman feels that this was some sort of cosy stitch-up—I think I have got that right—it is different from some agreement or policy that the military had a veto on prosecutions of soldiers, which would have been illegal and for which there is no evidence.

[Mark Durkan]

I did not use those particular words, although I can see why they would spring to the Minister’s mind and the minds of many people. He referred to the Shawcross exercise, in which Ministers speak to the Attorney-General. This was an officer of the MOD. The minute of the meeting is supplemented by a diary entry, which goes into more detail about the exchange between the Attorney-General and the MOD representative and appears to establish a working presumption at the time that any killing by a soldier acting in the course of duty would not result in a murder charge. That happened in the crucial weeks before Bloody Sunday.

[Mr Robathan]

I am not in a position either to negate or agree with the hon. Gentleman. If I may say so, there is a difference between those who act in good faith in the course of duty and those who might have acted in bad faith. I think that we can agree about that. The question is malice. As far as I am aware, there is certainly no policy that nobody should be prosecuted. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I spent many years in the Army, and I know of many cases in which people were prosecuted, including cases in Northern Ireland in which people who had behaved maliciously were rightly prosecuted for murder. I agree with that, and I think that the MOD of the time would have agreed with it as well.

Some may believe that we should hold a fresh investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr McGreanery’s death. Whether that happens is a matter for the Police Service of Northern Ireland, which would need to consider whether there was any new evidence in the case. If that were to happen, my Department would co-operate with such investigations. Just as importantly, we would stand by our obligation to support fully the soldier who, in this case, found himself having to account for actions that took place in the course of his duties some 40 years ago.

[Mark Durkan]

To take the Minister back to the point about how such cases are handled in future—there will be more—he referred to the fact that the Historical Enquiries Team does not share the reports with the MOD; it is up to the family to do so. If the family share a report and receive an apology, and if they ask for that apology to be in the parliamentary record, will the MOD make it future policy to do so by way of a written ministerial statement?

[Mr Robathan]

I do not say that there will necessarily be a written ministerial statement. If the family wishes it to be published, we will happily facilitate that, as it is the right thing to do.

This was a tragedy. It was highly regrettable. Even 41 and a half years later, I can see that. A young soldier —I suspect very frightened—behaved in error, but we do not think with malice, and it was certainly not thought so at the time. It was highly regrettable, and I repeat the apology on behalf of the Government.

Reservists

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Dr McCrea, I fear that we are very constrained by our time, but I also congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing this debate. I think that we first met when we served in “Military Operations 2” in the Ministry of Defence in 1984, when his hair was less grey.

I know that this debate is very important to many Members of the House, and that it is especially important to members of our reserve and armed forces. I am grateful for all the contributions that have been made. I will address some of the questions that have been put later, if I have the time; otherwise, I will be very happy to answer hon. Members’ questions by letter.

Our reasons for changing the structure of the Army, which include a much greater reliance on a fully integrated reserve, are well known. They are both an imaginative and pragmatic response to the dire financial situation that this Government faced on entering office in 2010, as well as a determination to do the right thing by establishing a credible, relevant and useable Army Reserve fit for the demands of the 21st century while maintaining a larger proportion of regular forces than our closest allies. I can assure you, Dr McCrea, that none of us came into government to reduce the size of the armed forces, including the Regular Army. However, to quote the last Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), “There is no money”.

The principle of greater integration of the reserve was established in the report by the independent commission to review the UK’s reserve forces, which was led by the vice-chief of the defence staff. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) also took part in that process, and we are grateful to him for that. We are committed to expanding the volunteer Army Reserve to a trained strength of 30,000, and to integrating those reserves fully into the structure of the Army as a whole. As has been mentioned already by hon. Members, that requires a change in the attitude of society and of the Army towards the reserves.

Achieving that has already involved hard choices on the Regular Army side, to make sure that the Army plays its part in ensuring that the MOD continues to live within its means, while maintaining an Army that is capable of operating across the full spectrum of operational capability and one that also offers fulfilment and challenge for its reserve members.

Many hon. Members have spoken with passion and some experience about a lot of issues, including whether we can get this Army reserve of 30,000 at the pace that we require. To be clear, a target of a trained reserve of 30,000 is well within historic norms. In 1997, the Territorial Army was over 50,000 strong; it was reduced to around 40,000 by 2000; by 2009, it was down to just 26,000; and we now reckon that we have about 19,000 trained reserves. That shows that the current initiative to increase its trained strength from the current level of around 19,000 to 30,000 is perfectly achievable. Indeed, to look at it in parochial terms, this increase would require rather fewer than 20 individuals per parliamentary constituency to join up and to train in the Territorial Army.

By the way, we should not overlook the contribution that the reservists have already made to operations. In the last 10 years, almost 30,000 members of the TA have been deployed in operations overseas. Of those, some 3,500 members were compulsorily mobilised to take part in Telic 1 in Iraq, and during operations in the past 10 years more than 70 members of the TA have received operational honours, while 21 have sadly been killed on operations either in Afghanistan or Iraq.

The Government are investing heavily in future reserves and taking other actions to create the conditions required to achieve our target of an integrated Army. Extra financial investment is indeed worth £1.8 billion over 10 years, as has been mentioned, of which the Army Reserve will get the largest part. Other investment includes, for instance, overseas reserve training exercises at company level, which are very much welcomed. It also includes more equipment arriving to provide more modern support for the reserves, including modern vehicles, the latest weapons, and phones and radios, which is exactly what reservists want.

[Ian Austin]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

I am sorry, but I do not have time to give way.

We have planned that, over time, reservists will have access to exactly the same equipment for training that is currently used by regulars. There will be opportunities for deployment, as we have mentioned already, but there will also be opportunities for shorter periods of deployed service commitment for those in some specialist roles, and reserves will also routinely fill roles that historically were the preserve of the regulars.

Officers and soldiers will also have command appointments, which have not always been available, and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has been bending my ear about that for many, many years—since way before 2010. We need the Government and society to get behind this process. The skills and experience gained by reservists will be of considerable value to civilian employers, as has been mentioned, making the proposition all the more attractive.

We need to get behind the new reserves. NEAB, which is the National Employer Advisory Board, and SaBRE, which is Support for Britain’s Reservists and Employers, although I do not know where the “a” in SaBRE came from, are working on these issues, and we need to continue that work. Soon we will publish the White Paper that will set out a number of measures to encourage that process, and the collaboration with employers is absolutely vital. I take the point that it is not an easy answer, but we are determined to get this process right.

Of course, collaboration needs to be tailored to fit different types and sizes of employers. I was in Keighley last week, visiting Snugpak, which had a SaBRE commendation signed by the Secretary of State for Defence. Snugpak is a medium-sized enterprise rather than a small one, which incidentally produces some very decent kit if anyone wants insulation for their camping trips. While I was there, I spoke to a reservist who was indeed supported by his employer. However, we need to take this process further.

Although it is still in its early stages, we are confident that we can get a more streamlined recruiting process, in conjunction with Capita. I know that Capita has been slightly criticised in one or two scurrilous magazines such as Private Eye, but we believe that we are getting there and Capita should deliver an acceleration in enlistments during the next few years. If my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham, who was somewhat sceptical about that, wishes to review the recruiting process, we would be very happy to facilitate that. Key changes that we are introducing include: a national recruiting centre administering all applications to a common process; a more imaginative approach to marketing; and a fully resourced assessment process for the reserves.

[Mr Baron]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Robathan]

I am sorry but I really do not have time to give way.

We remain confident that our proposition, in addition to being the right thing to do, will deliver value to the taxpayer. The independent commissioner for reserves concluded that reserves are significantly cheaper to maintain than regulars, and that they are no more expensive than regulars even when we take into account the costs on operations. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who just tried to intervene, I will say that part-timers are inevitably cheaper than full-timers.

As I have said, we need a change in the mindset regarding reserves, and a change in the attitude towards them. I absolutely believe that this policy is the right thing to do. It is not that we are keen to reduce the regular Army, but it is ridiculous to have a trained reserve of 19,000 for a country of our size; that is a ridiculously small number. We can do better than that—using reserves has huge social benefits—and we shall do better than that. Rather than admire the problems that we faced on inheriting an overblown defence budget in 2010, this Government have taken the necessary decisions to deliver a credible future Army which is fit for the challenges of the 21st century.

Just before I sit down, may I also say that my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and I served in another English regiment, and not just in the Fusiliers? On St George’s day, we used to have a service, quite a good lunch as I recall and then the rest of the day off.

[Dr William McCrea (in the Chair)]

Order. I thank hon. Members for their contributions in what has been a very valuable debate, and I also thank you for the manner in which you have treated each other.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

11. What recent discussions he has had with representatives of the renewables industry regarding onshore wind turbine planning applications; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Perhaps it is a matter of keeping the best for last, or there is nothing in my portfolio, or it may be an attempt to keep me away from the Dispatch Box—the House will decide.

Regarding the question, Ministry of Defence officials and my colleague the Minister with responsibility for defence personnel, welfare and veterans met the chief executive of RenewableUK in November to discuss matters relating to both offshore and onshore wind turbine applications. MOD officials also attend the aviation management board made up of key wind energy stakeholders, chaired by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. My Department routinely engages with developers and consenting authorities in its consideration of onshore wind turbine planning applications.

[Dr Whitehead]

I am sure the Minister is aware that despite the installation over the past few years of a number of radar systems that can distinguish between turbines and planes, the number of MOD objections to turbine applications doubled between the first part of 2012 and the last part of 2012 as a percentage of applications. Can the Minister assure me that his Department continues to honour the memorandum of understanding between the wind energy industry and the MOD in 2008?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman and I share a deep commitment to renewable energy, including wind energy onshore, going back to the days of the parliamentary renewable and sustainable energy group, when I was the vice-chairman and he was the chairman. There are two reasons, as I understand it, for the increase in the number of objections. The first is that there has been a plethora of applications for wind turbines onshore, and many of those are pretty close to airfields and other radar installations. The second is that, because of the plethora of applications, we are no longer able to provide the pre-application advice as we did before—there are so many of them.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

RAF Staxton Wold in my constituency is within an 8-mile radius of a raft of onshore planning applications. Surely the MOD must have a view as to possible interference with and collision between radar and these obstructions.

[Mr Robathan]

I am not aware of the individual circumstances surrounding those applications. However, I do not think we are particularly concerned about collision with turbines—I hope I am not being unduly optimistic about that. Each application is judged on its merits, and the MOD will object only if it believes that a wind turbine will interfere with the radar or flying activities.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of China’s planned expansion of its aircraft carrier capacity.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

China’s aircraft carrier capability remains at an early stage of development and the building of new indigenous vessels will take it some time. The Government closely watch developments in the Asia-Pacific region as they may affect our interests and our allies.

[Neil Carmichael]

What discussions has the Minister had with our allies in that region and elsewhere about the possible implications for the stability of the Asia-Pacific region?

[Mr Robathan]

We have regular discussions with allies across the region, including major talks such as AUKMIN, where the Foreign and Defence Secretaries visited their counterparts in Australia in January and where a variety of strategic issues were discussed. I went to New Zealand and Tonga at the end of last year to promote defence co-operation. I passed on my thanks for their troop contributions to Afghanistan and presented some medals to the Tongans who defend Camp Bastion.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I agree with the Defence Committee that it is for the people of Afghanistan, not people abroad, to determine their future. We certainly intend to continue to support the Afghan people. We intend to support the Afghan national army officer academy post-2014 and in other ways. I also understand that the Government will be supporting Afghanistan through the Department for International Development.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

T3. Given that the security situation in Syria is deteriorating by the day and that there is growing concern about the possible use of chemical weapons, will the Minister update the House on what discussions he has had with EU partners and NATO allies about the risk of escalation of the conflict—in particular, the risks of arming the opposition groups in Syria?

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Williams (Brecon and Radnorshire) (LD)]

T8. In drawing up plans for the return of military equipment from Afghanistan, what account has the Ministry of Defence taken of the equipment that the Afghan army will need to carry out its challenging duties in the future?

[Mr Robathan]

We have yet to decide on any gifting to the Afghan army, but obviously the Afghan army is our ally. We are proceeding on withdrawing equipment from Afghanistan as we withdraw numbers of personnel from the country, but we have yet to decide on anything about gifting.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Next year HMS Illustrious will be taken out of service. The Minister will know just how fond memories are of the work that was done at Rosyth dockyard. Will he meet me to discuss how we can best commemorate her withdrawal?

Defence Estate Rationalisation

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The strategic defence and security review (SDSR), announced in October 2010, marked the start of the process of transforming defence and identified the need for rationalisation of the defence estate. This included the sale of surplus land and buildings and the delivery of associated running cost reductions. The Army basing plan announcement by the Secretary of State on 5 March 2013, enabling the return from Germany and implementation of Army 2020, indicated that there would be a further announcement concerning other changes elsewhere in the Ministry of Defence (MOD) estate across the UK.

Today I am providing an update to the House on the results of work to implement the SDSR’s commitments on rationalisation and on unit relocations on the wider defence estate. Service and civilian personnel at the affected locations will be briefed; we will also engage with the trade unions where appropriate. This work will now be taken forward into detailed planning.

Lightning II Aircraft Basing at RAF Marham

Our first two Lightning II aircraft (joint strike fighter) are currently participating in the US test programme and will remain in the US. We expect to receive front-line aircraft from 2015 onwards with an initial operating capability from land in 2018, followed by first of class flights from HMS Queen Elizabeth later that year.

I can now inform the House of the outcome of the further basing review recently undertaken in respect of the Lightning II aircraft.

Following the SDSR, a number of changes have occurred on the defence estate that justified a further review of the basing options for Lightning II. This review has concluded that RAF Marham is the most appropriate station for the main operating base. Given that RAF Lossiemouth will now host three squadrons of Typhoon and given the altered draw-down profile and out of service date for Tornado (in line with the SDSR decision to concentrate our fast jet fleet on Typhoon and Lightning II ), RAF Marham will have sufficient capacity for the basing of Lightning II, which will be operated jointly by the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Further work will now be carried out to determine the precise investment requirements as the base transitions to support Lightning II.

Draw down at RAF Leuchars

No. 1 (Fighter) Squadron and No 6 Squadron currently based at RAF Leuchars which provide the Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) (Interceptor) North role will relocate to RAF Lossiemouth beginning summer 2014, with Typhoon flying operations ceasing at RAF Leuchars during autumn 2014, following a progressive transfer of the base from the RAF to the Army. The relocation of the Typhoons from RAF Leuchars will affect 347 service personnel who will transfer from RAF Leuchars to RAF Lossiemouth, it will also affect 148 civilian staff.

No. 6 RAF Force Protection (FP) Wing Headquarters and No 58 Squadron RAF Regiment, both based at RAF Leuchars, will be disestablished, with the personnel in No. 6 RAF FP Wing Headquarters and No 58 Squadron RAF Regiment being reassigned during spring 2014. The future of the squadron number plate is yet to be determined. This will affect 183 military posts. Those personnel will be reassigned to other RAF force protection tasks across the UK.

Relocation of flying units resulting in the closure of the airfield at RAF Wyton

Due to the significant running costs associated with maintenance of an operational airfield at RAF Wyton, it has been decided to relocate the flying units based there. No. 57(R) Squadron, who undertake elementary flying training (EFT), will relocate from RAF Wyton to RAF Cranwell by the summer of 2013. The relocation of Cambridge and London University Air Squadrons (UAS) and No. 5 Air Experience Flight (AEF) to RAF Wittering is planned by mid-2014, once preparatory work has been completed. We are working closely with the Homes and Communities Agency on the possibility of them acquiring part of the Wyton airfield since it has potential for new housing growth as identified in Huntingdon district council’s emerging local plan.

The opportunity has been taken to rationalise other light aircraft flying tasks in the region to achieve greater coherency and more efficient use of manpower and assets, delivering better value for money for the taxpayer. This will result in East Midlands Universities Air Squadron and No. 115(R) Squadron relocating from RAF Cranwell to RAF Wittering.

There are 18 service personnel who will be redeployed as a result of this change and two MOD civilians will be affected.

The closure of RAF Church Fenton

Reductions in the flying training pipeline, directed by the SDSR, mean that RAF Church Fenton is no longer required to host training operations and will close by the end of 2013. The units based at Church Fenton, including the Yorkshire University Air Squadron (incorporating No. 9 Air Experience Flight), will relocate; work is ongoing to determine the optimum location for the University Air Squadron.

There are five service personnel who will be redeployed as a result of this change and three MOD civilians will be affected.

Relocation of Military Scottish Air Traffic Control from Prestwick

The Military Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre (ScATCC(Mil)) currently operates from the NATS Air Traffic Control Centre at Prestwick in Ayrshire. ScATCC(Mil) controls military and some civilian air traffic within its area of responsibility, which roughly extends north from Newcastle. Technological advances mean that the system can be rationalised and it will be possible to cover the military control task for the entire country from the London Air Traffic Control Centre (LATCC(Mil)) at Swanwick. There will be no detrimental impact on air traffic control.

The phased relocation of the RAF presence from Prestwick will be completed by the end of 2013, and will be managed in consultation with NATS En-route Ltd, who will provide the necessary technical and equipment changes under the Future Military Area Radar Services contract. Around 30 service personnel will be redeployed as a result of this change, which will also impact up to six civilian personnel.

Disposal of the former airfield and technical site at Kirton in Lindsey

Following the vacation of RAF Kirton in Lindsey by No. 1 Air Control Centre (1ACC), the site has been used to house personnel employed at RAF Scampton. While this use will continue, alternative defence uses have not been identified for the former airfield and technical facilities, so a decision has now been taken to dispose of these parts of the site.

Rationalisation of Shornchffe Garrison

There is an enduring requirement for facilities at Shorncliffe Garrison. However much of the infrastructure is old, in poor condition and expensive to heat, light and maintain. MOD is therefore commencing redevelopment and rationalisation of the garrison to deliver a long-term, sustainable estate.

Shepway district council’s local development framework core strategy has identified Shorncliffe Garrison for a development of up to 1,200 homes to help regenerate the western end of Folkestone; the site will also contribute to the Government’s Plan for Growth housing strategy. Surplus land will be released in phases over the next decade.

Rationalisation of the Defence presence at MOD St Athan

In announcing the outcome of the Army basing review on 5 March 2013, the Secretary of State confirmed that 14 Signal Regiment would relocate to St Athan. This is likely to result in consolidation of the defence presence on the site into a military enclave centred on Churchill Lines (St Athan West Camp).

Discussions have been ongoing with the Welsh Government, which leases large areas of the St Athan site, to establish how defence plans can also complement economic development by enabling its aim to develop an aerospace business park within the St Athan enterprise zone. MOD has no current requirement beyond 2017 for the St Athan “Superhangar”, which will progressively be made available for commercial occupation. The intent remains to relocate No. 4 School of Technical Training from East Camp at St. Athan to Lyneham, Wiltshire in the medium term as part of the defence technical training change programme.

We also intend to move personnel of the RAF’s No. 71 Investigation and Repair Squadron from St Athan to collocate with other components of No. 42 (Expeditionary Support) Wing at RAF Wittering. The relocation of the squadron will affect 47 service personnel who will transfer to RAF Wittering. It will also affect 27 civilian staff.

The Future of MOD Ashchurch

The MOD Ashchurch site is currently the central MOD hub for vehicle operations. However, the Ashchurch depot facilities are coming to the end of their lifespan and parts of the site are no longer used. The facilities would need extensive renewal to continue effective operation, while the vehicle numbers that the site supports are reducing as a result of the SDSR. The MOD is reviewing a number of vehicle basing options and has identified opportunities for greater efficiency from relocating facilities, rather than investing in the infrastructure at the site. Consequently, MOD will be withdrawing from the site entirely unless retention of a small number of specific buildings proves better value for money.

This site has the potential capacity for up to 2,100 new homes. A public consultation has been conducted so that wider views and opinions can be taken into account in any future development.

Rationalisation of the MOD Bicester site

On 3 October 2011, the MOD made an application to Cherwell district council for outline planning permission to allow the release of the Graven Hill site at Bicester to accommodate a mixed use development, including 1,900 dwellings, and with the potential to deliver over 2,000 jobs and a new MOD logistics facility on part of the site.

Chemical Weapons Convention

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The UK’s chemical protection programme is designed to protect against the use of chemical weapons. The programme is permitted by the chemical weapons convention, with which the United Kingdom is fully compliant. Under the terms of the convention, we are required to provide information annually to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). In accordance with the Government’s commitment to openness, I am placing in the House of Commons Library a copy of the summary that has been provided to the organisation outlining the UK’s chemical protection programme in 2012.

Reserves Call-Out Order

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

A new call-out order has been made under section 56(l)(a) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 to enable reservists to be called out into service as part of the UK’s contribution to operations in support of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 2085, the EU training mission and specific French requests for support in Mali.

We anticipate the call-out of a small number of reservists with very specialised skills. At the moment this will affect three reservists being mobilised to deploy to Mali and three reservists being mobilised for service within the United Kingdom. The mobilisation will allow them to have the protection provided by the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

The call-out order is effective until 10 March 2014.

Scottish Referendum (Trident)

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Weir]

I have just said that, in my opinion, the UK should get rid of Trident. However, once we have our independence and the missiles are removed from Scotland, if the UK wants to retain them, that is a matter for the remainder of the UK. Scotland will not have them. We will have nothing to do with them.

Interestingly, as the report suggests, there seem to be alternatives. Francis Tusa of Defence Analysis has been quoted as saying that the problems have been exaggerated. It appears that the UK Government do not want to site the missiles on the south coast of England for fear that the missiles would be too near centres of population, but it does not seem to worry them that Faslane is close to the main centres of the population of Scotland.

It seems curious that there is objection to the use of Kings Bay in Georgia, because it might give the impression that Trident is not a totally independent system. I think most people think that already. Given that the report says that a stockpile of weapons is stored there and that the UK already contributes £12 million per annum towards the site, it seems that there is already considerable involvement there. Francis Tusa also makes the point that previously there were shared storage facilities with the Americans at Iserlohn in Germany, but such considerations are for the remaining parts of the UK, not the Scottish Government, who wish to see the missiles removed from Scotland.

Much of the debate has been about the impact on jobs if the Trident system left Faslane, but nowhere in the report is there a mention of the jobs implication; the report is about what the UK might do with Trident when Scotland is independent and ensures that we do not have weapons of mass destruction on our soil. However, the Scottish National party understands the concerns of those who work at the base.

Scottish Ministers have made it clear that they are fully committed to the future of Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde in an independent Scotland, operating as a conventional naval base without nuclear weapons. We are the only party in Scotland to have made that commitment.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I have in my hand what I think was intended to be a secret submission from Mr John Swinney, the Finance Minister of Scotland. It is about the SNP’s commitment, should separatism work. He said:

“I have made clear to the Defence Workstream”—

they are the people studying this—

“that a much lower budget must be assumed.”

How is he going to afford to keep open the naval base if he is going to have a much lower budget?

[Mr Weir]

I find that incredible, from the Minister who is presiding over the slashing of the UK defence budget. He has just, under the basing review, betrayed the previous promises made to Scotland.

We have said that the defence budget of an independent Scotland will be £2.5 billion. We have made that commitment; that is what we will do. That is an appropriate defence budget for a country the size of Scotland and for the facilities that we will need in an independent Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Nick Harvey]

I was making the point before the Division that Faslane is ideally suited to its purpose. Back in the 1950s, alternative sites were investigated, including Falmouth, which has one of the largest harbours in the world, and Milford Haven, but we cannot turn back the clock and consider how Falmouth and Milford Haven were 50 years ago. The fact is that a great deal of development has happened in both since, and some of it is completely incompatible with a nuclear facility.

If another site were chosen, the cost would not be simply the massive cost of making a nuclear installation. My colleague the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) also gave evidence to the Committee, pointing out that making a site meet the standards for nuclear safety and hardening it in defence terms would multiply costs far above the requirements of normal construction. On top of all that would be compensation, restoration and all sorts of other attendant costs from nearby facilities and developments.

That was what led me to tell the Committee that the costs would be gargantuan. I think that they are basically unquantifiable—in all honesty, I have no idea what they would be—but if we are going to spend about £25 billion on the capital costs of renewing Trident, I would not be in the least surprised to see the same sum spent all over again if anybody were seriously to undertake the fraught project of relocation to another site. In a practical sense, it is all quite unnecessary, and it would take an enormous length of time. I do not see anything incredible about the estimates of 20 years.

If it does come about, and if the United Kingdom elects a Government in 2015 who wish to go ahead with the nuclear deterrent for a further generation, it would be one of the biggest items—if not the single biggest—on the table in the negotiation that would have to take place between London and Edinburgh in the aftermath of a referendum vote for independence. The Scottish Government would likely take the view, “This will all have to be paid for by the United Kingdom Government.” I would not expect them to write cheques for it. However, if the residual UK Government found themselves facing a massive bill of many billions of pounds for relocating the nuclear deterrent, they would have that many billions fewer in their back pocket for discussing the rest of the things on the table.

That brings us to the critical point that we have not heard from the proposers of Scottish independence what the defence policy of an independent Scotland would be. The United Kingdom, even denuded of 8.5% of its population and taxpayers, would continue to have global interests, which its armed forces are there to defend. It would continue to have a broad spectrum of capability with which to defend those interests, and it would continue to have the critical mass necessary to sustain a variety of equipment fleets, but the defence force of an independent Scotland would have neither those global interests nor that global reach.

Most critically, Scotland would not have the sheer mass with which it could possibly hope to sustain fleets of warships or fighter jets. We have heard that Faslane would continue to host submarines. What on earth would an independent Scottish force want with submarines? The purpose of submarines is to protect the nuclear deterrent, the aircraft carriers and warships. If Scotland is not going to have any of those things, why the dickens would it need any submarines at all?

The truth of the matter is that an independent Scotland would need defence forces. It would be about homeland security. If Scotland was forward-leaning in its global interests, it would perhaps be willing, like the Republic of Ireland, to volunteer troops to international peacekeeping operations. However, that is very different from taking the existing United Kingdom armed forces and slicing 8.5% from them.

[Mr Robathan]

Does my hon. Friend therefore agree with John Swinney’s assumption in this not very secret document that the defence budget of an independent Scotland would have to be a great deal reduced in proportion to what it is now as a percentage of the UK defence budget?

[Sir Nick Harvey]

I am certain that the defence budget would be much smaller, given the other aspirations articulated for an independent Scotland, but I am absolutely clear that a force proportionate to the size of the population and the economy would not have fast jets; what on earth would it do with them? That will leave questions in a lot of mouths. It would not have warships. It would not have submarines. It would need offshore patrol vessels, some sort of aerial offshore patrol and helicopters, but it would not need the spectrum of things that the United Kingdom armed forces have. It would be a different beast altogether.

The fact of the matter is that Faslane, in its entirety, taking the nuclear deterrent, the non-nuclear submarines and the entire supply and support chain, is Scotland’s largest single employment site. As far as I can see, there would be virtually nothing there if we took the site away from Faslane. There would be a small requirement for a navy, but that would be a strange place to put it, as we heard earlier. The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) would therefore be looking at ruination. Work such as that on the future of Barrow and elsewhere would need to be done.

No one should be in any doubt that this issue is a massive part of the independence debate. The consequences for Scotland need to be assessed and analysed carefully, and the headache presented to a UK Government who wished to continue the nuclear deterrent would be immense. Finally, we should not assume that Scottish independence is to be equated with the SNP ruling for ever in Edinburgh. It might well be that an election would return a Scottish Government of a completely different political hue, and some of the issues would then start looking very different.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

It is a joy to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, especially since we had such happy days together in the Whips Office in opposition.

We have had a good debate. I find myself in an unusual situation. Normally, I face serried ranks of Labour MPs who throw metaphorical bricks at me. Often, I have serried ranks behind me throwing similar metaphorical bricks, but today, we have been remarkably consensual, pace the two hon. Gentlemen from the SNP. I have found it an interesting, if rather one-sided, debate.

I will make my personal views known. I am an Englishman. My father was born in Wales, and therefore, I have Welsh ancestry. I am a Conservative MP, self-evidently, and some commentators, from time to time, suggest that the Conservatives should wish to see Scotland leave the United Kingdom, because that would be to the Conservatives’ benefit electorally. May I say that I and the Government disagree entirely with that? I think that all the peoples—including the Scots—in the United Kingdom would be very much poorer to see the end of the United Kingdom. I, and the Government, would very much regret a victory for the siren voices of small-minded separatism in the referendum next year.

The first duty of Government is defence of the realm, to ensure the security of the nation, its people and its interests. The Government are unwaveringly committed to that duty. Consequently, like all post-war Governments—Labour, Conservative and now the coalition—we regard a nuclear deterrent as an essential contribution to our security. The strategic defence and security review of 2010 makes it clear that the nuclear deterrent provides the ultimate guarantee of our national security against the most extreme risks from nuclear-armed adversaries.

The recent test by North Korea of a nuclear device, in defiance of the international community and the good examples that many in the international community show, as well as the continuing uncertainties over Iran’s nuclear programme, underline the fact that we continue to live in a dangerous world, in which we have little ability to predict what threats we may face in future. As long as the threat of nuclear proliferation continues, the Government simply will not gamble with the security of future generations of British people.

This Government, in line with our predecessors, are firmly committed to multilateral disarmament. Personally, I wish to see total nuclear disarmament, but it has to be multilateral, not unilateral. When I was in the Army—as I was for many years—I considered the prospect of a nuclear conflict so horrific that it would have meant that there was no point in fighting on any more.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister says that he is interested in multilateral disarmament, but why are the UK Government perhaps the only Government in the world who are investing in unilateral nuclear rearmament, with Trident renewal?

[Mr Robathan]

The hon. Gentleman, if I might say so, reveals a certain ignorance, as the point is that weaponry has to be kept up to date. It is rather like saying, “Could we not use a one-rupee jezail when fighting in Afghanistan?” I am afraid that those were the days of Kipling, and while the Afghans may have been very accurate, we prefer to use modern weaponry.

The UK has an excellent record in fulfilling its disarmament obligations—as the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) said, in relation to the previous Government—under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, as demonstrated by the latest round of stockpile reductions that we announced in the strategic defence and security review. We probably have the smallest nuclear force of the recognised nuclear weapon states and, uniquely, the UK relies on a single platform, a single weapon system and single warhead design for the delivery of its nuclear deterrent.

However, we continue to work to create a safer and more stable world in which the UK and others can relinquish their nuclear weapons, but we are not there yet. Therefore, nuclear arsenals remain, as does the danger of further proliferation, especially in regions of instability and tension, so we believe that a nuclear deterrent is likely to remain an important element of our national security. Given the uncertainties of the international environment, it would be folly to pursue a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. As President Obama said in Prague in 2009, the threat of nuclear war has gone down, but the threat of nuclear attack has gone up.

The UK’s nuclear weapon capability is designed to deter and thereby prevent blackmail and acts of aggression against our vital interests that cannot be countered by other means. It also supports collective security, through NATO, for the Euro-Atlantic area. The UK Government have thus committed to maintain the strategic nuclear deterrent and to continue with the programme to renew it as debated and approved by a significant majority in Parliament in March 2007.

The Government’s policy is that the Vanguard class submarines will be replaced at the end of their lives, in the late 2020s and early 2030s, by a successor submarine, again carrying the Trident missile, subject to main gate investment approval due in 2016. The Government are committed to continuous at-sea deterrence. In times of tensions or crisis, such a posture neither escalates nor de-escalates matters and maximises political freedom of manoeuvre. A submarine-launched ballistic missile system offers invulnerability, range and endurance. All promote the credibility of that deterrent and provide the ultimate safeguard for our national security. I pay tribute to the crews of our submarines and their families, and all the men and women, both military and civilian—including at Faslane—engaged in Operation Relentless, our country’s most enduring current operation, which has been in place for nearly 45 years. I thank them—Scots, English, Irish and Welsh—for their unwavering dedication.

The UK Government’s position on the referendum on Scottish separation is clear: Scotland benefits from being part of the UK and the UK benefits from having Scotland within it. Scotland has played an indispensable role in the development and history of the multi-nation UK. As a result, the UK has developed and flourished, and its constitution, laws and institutions underpin one of the most successful partnerships of nations in history.

If the result of the referendum on Scottish separation were to lead to the current situation being challenged, other options would have to be considered. It would be an enormous challenge to reproduce the facilities that we have at Faslane elsewhere, as we have heard, and any alternative solution would come at huge cost. It is impossible to estimate how much that would be, as it would depend on many factors, including time scales and the precise scope of the facilities that might be required, but it would cost billions of pounds and take many years.

Let me now make this point about Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde. The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) represents—[Interruption]. A constituency not far away; the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) does indeed represent Clyde itself, and Helensburgh, where I went last year. Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde underwent a significant investment programme to prepare it for the introduction of the Vanguard-class submarines and the Trident missile system. That programme cost in the region of £3.5 billion at today’s prices, and that built on decades of investment in the base infrastructure and associated housing.

In April 1963, the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, Ian Orr-Ewing, whom I remember and who died only about 15 years ago, informed the House that the operating base for the planned fleet of Resolution-class Polaris ballistic missile submarines needed to be near deep water, to offer easy navigational access and to be a short distance by sea from the associated armament depot. He informed the House that it had been decided that Faslane was the area that was operationally most suitable for the basing of the submarine fleet. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) pointed out that it is a perfect site. In this varied United Kingdom, we do not have a better site.

That decision was reviewed in the early 1980s, alongside the decision to introduce the Vanguard-class submarines. It was concluded that the Clyde continued to offer the best location. Nothing has happened since to alter that conclusion. Indeed, the Clyde has been chosen as the submarine centre of specialisation, and all our submarines will be based there by the end of this decade, which brings the additional benefits to the region that have been mentioned.

We have mentioned employment at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde, but I now return to that, because it is the largest employment site in Scotland. The base is a major source of employment for highly skilled workers and a significant contributor to the local economy. The rise in the number of jobs during the next decade accompanies the move to base all royal naval submarines on the Clyde to achieve economies of scale and the greater effectiveness of collocation. That symbiosis of a submarine centre of specialisation and associated contractor and base support is a matter of pride, I would have thought, for the UK, for Faslane and for Scotland.

As the collocation benefits would be required in any alternative location, there would be no question but that the entirety of the submarine enterprise on the Clyde would be relocated if the nuclear deterrent force had to move. It is for those who demand the withdrawal of the Vanguard-class submarines from Faslane to explain how the quality and quantity of employment in the region would be matched if the enterprise had to be relocated.

As the UK Government have no plans to disarm unilaterally, there would inevitably be significant time and cost implications if an independent Scottish Government demanded the withdrawal of the UK deterrent. For reasons that I have already described, the UK Government will not pre-negotiate the departure of Scotland from the UK. Therefore, scenarios mentioned in the Scottish Affairs Committee report under which the UK may negotiate a basing agreement for the deterrent with an independent Scottish Government will not be discussed before to the outcome of the referendum and, God willing, will never need to be discussed.

As was said by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), who has just left the Chamber, NATO is a nuclear alliance, and it will remain a nuclear alliance while nuclear weapons remain in existence. NATO’s “Strategic Concept” of 2010 and the “Deterrence and Defence Posture Review” adopted at the NATO summit in Chicago only in May last year make that unambiguously clear. Those documents also make this clear:

“The supreme guarantee of the security of the Allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the Alliance, particularly those of the United States; the independent strategic nuclear forces of the United Kingdom and France, which have a deterrent role of their own, contribute to the overall deterrence and security of the Allies.”

The contribution made by the UK’s nuclear forces is much valued by our NATO allies, and membership of NATO comes with responsibilities. One cannot join NATO and pretend that it is not a nuclear alliance, for it is, and one cannot join NATO and reject the concept of nuclear burden sharing within the alliance.

It is clear to me that a separate Scotland would face difficult choices about its defence arrangements. That would include decisions on the role of its armed forces, what threats it intended to counter and what foreign policy it intended to support—quite a bit of work required there, then—its international relationships, including membership of NATO; the resources allocated to defence, which we have just heard about from Mr Swinney; and the future of the defence industry in Scotland.

It is indeed the case that people in Scotland need to know how the Scottish Government propose to provide for the protection and security of Scotland if it separates, God forbid, from the UK. It is the UK Government’s view that whatever choice is made, a separate Scotland would lose significant benefits in this area that are currently delivered by Scotland being part of the United Kingdom. One of those benefits is the security provided by the armed forces of the United Kingdom, including the strategic nuclear deterrent.

Our nuclear deterrent has contributed to both our security and that of our NATO allies since the 1950s, and the continuous at-sea deterrence posture has been the central feature of our deterrence since the late 1960s. As the Trident system has been our sole nuclear weapons system since 1998, our nuclear deterrence posture is now based exclusively on CASD. Although I personally am committed and we as a Government are committed to multilateral disarmament, the circumstances that would justify the relinquishing of our submarine-based deterrent do not prevail and are unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future. For that reason, I reiterate that we have no plans to move the deterrent from Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde, which has a bright future not only as the base for all our submarines, but as the UK’s submarine centre of specialisation.

Dalgety Bay Radiation

Lord Robathan Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing a debate on Dalgety Bay once again. We last discussed the subject in November 2011, and I visited the bay on 31 January last year. I walked on the beach and met local residents in the sailing club and heard about its problems. I also met Professor Curran, the chief executive of the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. I understand furthermore that the right hon. Gentleman had a meeting with the Secretary of State for an hour and more on this particular matter, so I do not think it is fair to say, as he suggests it is, that my Department has ignored the issues at Dalgety Bay, as we have not. Neither, for that matter, have we ignored the concerns of the local community and nor has the Ministry of Defence abdicated its responsibilities or sought to delay a decision on who is the polluter. I welcome the opportunity to explain how the MOD has actively been supporting SEPA over the last year or so.

The Department has actively supported SEPA in fulfilling its statutory duty to inspect the area of concern. I am afraid that this is more than can be said of other parties who have had an interest in either the former Royal Naval Air Station Donibristle or indeed in the foreshore. That includes the developers mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, who have some responsibilities in this regard. Similarly, we have not acted inconsistently in our approach to sites that we formerly owned across Scotland.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Almondbank, which is a going concern. It is still operating, and we have a commercial contract which states that we will hand it over after clearing up contamination. That is rather different from the situation in Dalgety Bay.

[Mr Gordon Brown]

Is the Minister saying that the only reason he is taking no action on Dalgety Bay is that he has no such commercial contract in that instance?

[Mr Robathan]

I will explain why we dispute much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said in a moment, but there is one thing that I particularly dispute. I know that when he was Prime Minister, and indeed when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was very profligate with public money. He was very willing to spend it, and then to leave us in the appalling financial condition in which we now find ourselves. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that we take a rather more parsimonious and sensible view than I think he did when it comes to the spending of our constituents’ money.

[Thomas Docherty]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the issue of aircraft carriers. Does the Minister regret blowing £100 million on two U-turns?

[Mr Robathan]

I think that you would rule me out of order if I pursued that point, Mr. Speaker, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it was not the actions of a Conservative Government that led to the rather ridiculous contracts for the aircraft carriers, which we have been trying very hard to tie down in many ways.

SEPA is the lead regulator in Scotland in relation to all matters pertaining to radioactively contaminated land. Notwithstanding that, my Department has undertaken voluntarily to assist SEPA and to deliver the necessary site investigation. That is in addition to the monthly beach monitoring, and it demonstrates how seriously we are taking the matter.

It is worth repeating that, in the opinion of the Health Protection Agency, the risk to beach users remains very low. The agency is on record as stating that the risk of contracting a fatal cancer is less that 1 in 100 million, which is significantly lower than the level that the Health and Safety Executive considers to be the upper limit for an acceptable level of annual risk for members of the public. Recent investigations of the incidences of cancers in the Dalgety Bay area appear to support the HPA’s assessment. I note the recommendation of the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment—which was mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman—that remediation should proceed, but this is a matter for SEPA, and it needs to be reviewed in the context of the risk posed.

[Lindsay Roy]

Is the Minister saying that this is some kind of modern hysteria, and that there is no real issue on the Dalgety Bay foreshore?

[Mr Robathan]

I am saying that the risk to health is extremely low. That is not my judgment, because I am not a scientist; it is the judgment of the Health Protection Agency and others.

As part of the monthly monitoring, contractors working for my Department have recovered and removed radioactive items from the foreshore, thereby ensuring that any potential risk is as low as reasonably practicable. We adopted that precautionary approach because it was consistent with the advice given by the Health Protection Agency, and provided a suitable safeguard while SEPA undertook its inspection. However, there appears to be a concerted effort in the media to circumvent SEPA’s statutory inspection by raising anxieties unnecessarily and calling for remediation. The press reporting of the recent investigations of cancers in the area appears to be a particularly egregious example. When I visited the area, the sailing club informed me that it seemed likely that it would have to cancel a regatta owing to heightened concern arising from media reports that did not reflect the low level of risk, and that people were unlikely to visit because they had read those reports.

The proper course of action is to allow SEPA to complete its work and form an opinion on whether any of the land meets the statutory definition of radioactively contaminated land, on what needs to be done, and on who is responsible.

We should bear it in mind that the royal naval air station at Donibristle was closed in 1959, 54 years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman and I were in short trousers and some Members of Parliament had not even been born. The publicly available records show an organised and systematic rundown of the various site activities, with a focus on the salvage and sale of assets. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the statutory regime requires that, if land is deemed to be radioactively contaminated, it is necessary to consider all the actions of later parties which may have contributed to or caused contamination. The subsequent redevelopment for housing as part of the Dalgety Bay new town, together with the construction of what is now the boat park and sailing club, would have involved significant demolition, site clearance, infilling and land reconfiguration. This is supported by contemporary photographs and plans. Indeed, a refuse tip appears at what is now the headland in the 1964 Ordnance Survey plan, which was approximately five years after the developer took over the land. It is the areas of the headland and boat park where radium has been identified, and that could go some way to explaining either the current or historical occurrence of such material on the beach.

The presence of demolition material, including bricks, roofing material and other debris, is consistent with the demolition and site clearance that preceded the redevelopment of the Donibristle site. There is no documentary evidence that the MOD attempted to clear the land through demolition.

My officials have previously raised concerns as to whether “designation” of the land is appropriate. While I fully recognise that the very mention of radioactivity gives cause for concern among some of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituents, the current view held by the Health Protection Agency remains, as I have already stated on at least two occasions, that the risk is very low.

Nevertheless, given that items, often referred to as “particles”, with a relatively high level of radioactivity were found beneath the beach in October and November 2011, the HPA felt there was a need for a detailed risk assessment. The comprehensive investigation undertaken by my Department, the results of which are to be released very soon, will enable SEPA to undertake a full and conclusive assessment.

[Mr Brown]

Will, therefore, the investigation report, which is the basis on which SEPA will be able to make the decisions, be before the Dalgety Bay Forum when it meets next Monday? Otherwise, we will face considerable delays before this report can be examined. Will the Minister also accept that, despite all the information he is trying to give us, SEPA has already said its investigation has not indicated any other persons who may have introduced radium to the location?

[Mr Robathan]

First, there has indeed been a delay. One of the problems was with accessing some of the land, which delayed things. I understand that SEPA has yet to publish the analytical data, which delayed our factual report, but we are meeting with SEPA on 14 March, which will be next—

[Mr Speaker]

Thursday.

[Mr Robathan]

Yes, Thursday. Thank you, Mr Speaker. At that meeting we will hand over the factual report and discuss the way forward. I will not say that will take place on Monday, but it will take place next Thursday. [Interruption.] Indeed, it would be possible to move the meeting of the Dalgety Bay Forum.

So my officials have already agreed to meet SEPA on 14 March to ensure the prompt transfer of the factual findings. It will then be for SEPA to make its determination as to whether or not any land at Dalgety Bay meets the requirements for designation as radioactive contaminated land, based on all the scientific and technical evidence.

My officials have raised a number of concerns with SEPA in connection with its approach, in order to provide clarity on the MOD’s position and avoid any future misunderstanding. These included, for example, the lack of consideration of activities other than those of the MOD that could have caused, or knowingly permitted, the contamination to be present within the foreshore. SEPA confirmed that it was now carrying out an investigation to identify all the potential appropriate persons, should any land at Dalgety Bay be designated as radioactive contaminated land.

In conclusion, I am as keen as the right hon. Gentleman for the issue of contamination at Dalgety Bay to be resolved to the satisfaction of all concerned, and I do understand the concerns of his constituents—who would not be concerned? However, the risk remains very low.

The right hon. Gentleman contends that the MOD has a responsibility for remediation, but this is not his determination to make. I should point out that, perhaps, for some 13 years it could have been his determination to make, but he did not choose so to do. It is for the professionals at SEPA to establish the need for remediation and who is liable for the cost, based on a proper scientific and technical assessment. However, we have assisted, and will continue to assist SEPA in every way possible.

In closing, may I say how pleased I am to see the right hon. Gentleman in the House?

Question put and agreed to.