Trident Renewal

Alan Reid Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

This has been a very interesting debate. I very much want to see a world free of nuclear weapons and we should put every effort into the nuclear non-proliferation treaty talks to try to achieve that. Nuclear weapons are an appalling invention but the reality is that they have been invented. If Britain were to give up our nuclear deterrent unilaterally, as the movers of the motion propose, that would not persuade one single other country to follow suit. It is not our nuclear deterrent that worries me, but that those who wish us harm might obtain a nuclear deterrent themselves.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I, like my hon. Friend, believe in multilateral disarmament. He has studied the issue carefully. Does he believe that there is any realistic alternative to Trident as the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Reid]

No, there is no realistic alternative. The Government were right to have the review, which showed clearly that Trident was the minimal-cost credible nuclear deterrent.

We have no idea what nuclear threats might emerge over the next 50 years. A nuclear deterrent is like an insurance policy; the intention is never to use it, so it may appear to some to be a waste of money. But if it succeeds in its aim of deterring possible adversaries, it has done its job and is worth the money.

The Vanguard submarines are nearing the end of their life and next year we must take a decision on whether to replace them. It was right to put off a decision for as long as we could so that we have the most up-to-date information available to us before taking that decision, but next year is definitely the final possible date for taking that decision. Barring some dramatic and unexpected breakthrough on multilateral nuclear disarmament, the right decision next year has to be to build the replacement submarines for the Vanguards.

Since the end of the cold war, Britain has contributed greatly to nuclear disarmament. We have given up our tactical maritime and airborne nuclear capabilities, as well as our nuclear-capable Lance missiles and artillery. Britain possesses the smallest nuclear capability of any of the five nuclear weapons states recognised by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and we have only one delivery platform.

It is very important to note that there are no proposals to upgrade the capability of the Trident system or to acquire additional nuclear warheads. The motion is incoherent. It talks about not replacing Trident, but Trident refers to the missiles. It is not the missiles that need replacement; it is the submarines. Next year’s decision is purely about building new submarines to replace those that will soon go out of service. The SNP in its motion wants us not to renew Trident, yet it wants to join NATO, a nuclear weapons alliance, and it wants to be protected by French and American nuclear weapons. That policy is just incoherent.

A submarine system with ballistic missiles remains the most effective and least vulnerable form of deterrent. Aircraft can be shot down. Land-based silos are vulnerable to attack. In contrast, a submarine can hide in the depths of the ocean. The submarine base at Faslane is in my constituency, and, like other speakers, I pay tribute to all those who serve in our submarines and their families. Our submariners are very committed to serving their country and are away from their families for months on end. I also pay tribute to those who work at Faslane and the armaments depot at Coulport. They carry out very highly skilled jobs with an extremely high level of professionalism.

We should be doing our utmost to work to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and I was pleased to hear the Defence Secretary say that Britain will be hosting a non-proliferation treaty conference next month, but it would be wrong for Britain, as the movers of the motion want, to give up our nuclear deterrent unilaterally. That would not remove anyone else’s and would not make the world any safer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Reid Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not like seeing patient colleagues disappointed, so let us speed on. I call Mr Alan Reid.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that negotiations with defence police and firefighters are still ongoing, but time is running out because the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 comes into effect on 1 April. Will my hon. Friend ensure that these negotiations are concluded to the satisfaction of both sides well before then?

[Anna Soubry]

Yes, we need to make good progress and we need to make it quickly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Reid Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I was aware of the role our hon. Friend’s father played in that decisive engagement, and I am sure that the whole House will join the sentiment expressed in the EDM. It is one of a number of EDMs that Government Front Benchers regularly regret being unable, by convention, to sign, but I am very happy to have this opportunity to indicate my strong support for it.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

When the Minister is taking a decision on the retirement age for defence, police and fire personnel, will she take into account the fact that the strenuous activity demanded by this job is more in line with the other uniformed services than with the majority of civil servants, and that I believe that a retirement age of 60 is appropriate?

[Anna Soubry]

Yes, indeed. Having been to see the work of the fire service myself, I am fully aware of all these arguments. As I say, I very much hope that we will be able to make a decision sooner rather than later.

Defence Police and Fire Pensions

Alan Reid Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting me tonight’s debate. I want to express my thanks to Mr Eamon Keating of the Defence Police Federation and to Dave Kirby of the defence fire and rescue section of Unite for their help in preparing for this debate.

Many of my constituents work as police officers and firefighters at the naval bases of Faslane and Coulport. They are a dedicated and skilled work force. However, they have been caught out by what I believe is an anomaly in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. The anomaly arose because defence police and fire personnel have traditionally been on civil service terms and conditions rather than on conditions comparable with the country’s other police and fire services. As they are on civil service terms and conditions, their retirement age had been 60.

The previous Government imposed a pension settlement, which meant that new recruits to the defence police and fire services have a retirement age of 65. However, efficiency savings have meant that very few recruits have joined those services since then and more than 90% of the current work force have a retirement age of 60. Those who have a retirement age of 65 tend to be younger people who have joined recently, so it is unlikely that there is anybody over 60 working at the moment.

The present Government inherited that situation. The unique circumstances of the defence police and fire personnel were then overlooked by Lord Hutton when he prepared his report on public service pensions.

Through the medium of the Public Service Pensions Act, the Government have faithfully implemented Lord Hutton’s recommendations, one of which was that those in occupations for which the normal pension age had traditionally been under 60 should have a normal retirement age of 60. That applies to the uniformed services: the armed forces and all police and fire services except those in the Ministry of Defence.

However, Lord Hutton has subsequently said that he was not aware of the unique circumstances of the defence police and fire personnel when he compiled his report. He added that had he been aware, he would have recommended that they be treated the same as the other uniformed services, with a retirement age of 60. I hope the Government will take on board Lord Hutton’s admission that he made a mistake.

The Public Service Pensions Act implements Lord Hutton’s recommendation of a retirement age equal to the state pension age for public sector workers other than the exceptions already mentioned. That means a retirement age of 65 rising over time to 68. My understanding is that the Government have already agreed that the retirement age for defence police and firefighters will not rise above 65 when the state pension age does. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that tonight.

The number of personnel involved is very small—about 3,500 in total out of a civil service work force of about 700,000. Defence police and firefighters do a vital job that involves putting themselves in dangerous situations and requires a high degree of fitness. Fighting a fire on a vessel at sea requires a person to be extremely fit and also extremely quick thinking. The same degree of fitness is required for police officers who have to wear body armour and carry a heavy weapon.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

Obviously, there are similar personnel in areas such as Telford, where there is a large MOD footprint. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we need for this group of people who do a great job for our country, often in difficult circumstances, is a pretty comprehensive review of their terms and conditions? I hope to hear the Government’s view tonight, but a future armed forces Bill might pick up on this issue and consider these workers’ terms and conditions as well as their status. I believe that they deserve a very high status indeed.

[Mr Reid]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that these workers deserve a high status. The review I shall talk about later is of pensions and the retirement age, but I certainly agree and hope that this Government or a future Government will conduct a wholesale review of those people’s terms and conditions.

Like all other uniformed services, defence firefighters and police have to be ready to go instantly from a state of rest to 100% alertness and high physical exertion. That puts a heavy strain on the body and, as someone nearing 60, I know that we all have to accept that age takes its toll on us.

What makes the uniformed services different from workers in manual jobs is the need to go instantly to a 100% level of alertness and effort. Many other manual jobs involve hard work, but it tends to be done at a steady rate over several hours, whereas the uniformed services have to go to their 100% physical and mental peak immediately.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I, too, represent MOD police in my constituency. They do a job that requires them not only to be fit and alert at times of crisis but to keep up arduous standards of fitness in preparation for any eventuality. The key issue is that it is often a false economy to keep people working beyond the peak of their physical fitness. If they have to leave work owing to ill health, that can be more expensive in the long run.

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Lady is perfectly correct. I shall talk about that aspect of the problem later. She is right that the defence police and fire personnel need a high level of fitness or they will be forced to take early retirement. That question leads me nicely on to the next part of my speech because I want to draw the House’s attention to a report produced for the Ministry of Defence by Dr P. Griffin, a consultant adviser in occupational medicine. The report makes it clear that a person’s ability to function at peak physical and mental alertness declines once they are over 60. I hope that the Government will take that report into account during their review.

Defence police and firefighters have to undertake regular fitness checks and demonstrate a high degree of fitness. I am concerned that if they have to work beyond 60, many of them will fail those tests before they reach the normal retirement age. Having a high proportion of personnel retire early on health grounds is no way to manage vital services such as policing and firefighting.

During the later stages of the Public Service Pensions Bill, I was pleased that the Government gave an undertaking to review the effects of defence police and fire fighters working until 65. That undertaking became section 36 of the Public Service Pensions Act, and I want some answers to questions I shall put to the Minister tonight.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. This is an Adjournment debate. Opposition Front-Bench Members cannot intervene from the Dispatch Box in an Adjournment debate. Interventions can be taken from Back Benchers.

[Mr Reid]

The review is to be presented to Parliament no later than 24 December, so time is short. The report will look at the impact of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 on the health and well-being of defence police and firefighters, and at the ability of those over 60 to meet the strict fitness requirements that are needed for the important and dangerous job that they do. The report will also consider the consequences of early retirement for workers who are forced to retire early on health grounds because they cannot meet the stringent fitness requirements. It will also look at the likely cost to the taxpayer.

If the retirement age is 65 and significant numbers of personnel are forced to retire early on health grounds, both the taxpayer and the worker will lose out. The worker will lose out because they will not get the full pension that they expected; the taxpayer will lose out because the amount that has been paid into the pension pot will not cover the cost of the pension if it is paid out early.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman may recall the debate on the Bill; I was party to it as well. The impression that Ministers gave then was that this category of workers was an anomaly that had not been dealt with in the legislation. There was cross-party anxiety about this issue. I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, to get the legislation through, the Government gave the impression that this group of workers would be treated fairly and consistently with others working in this field, which meant that they would not be expected to work longer because of the physical capacity problems they would experience.

[Mr Reid]

I remember the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to the debate on Lords amendments. In response to the concerns expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the Government tabled a new clause which became section 36 of the Act, which set up the review that we are now discussing. I hope and expect that that review will recommend an age of 60, for all the reasons that I have given and some that I shall go on to explain. I hope that the review will make that recommendation. If it does, I will certainly expect the Government to accept the outcome.

[John McDonnell]

Perhaps I can make the point more clearly. I think that the passage of the Bill was secured only because of those assurances. There was such strength of feeling across the House and across parties about this group of workers in particular that others would have objected to the Bill overall if the new clause had not been inserted and if assurances had not been given that this group of workers would be treated sympathetically.

[Mr Reid]

My expectation was that the review would recommend a retirement age of 60, and that the Government would accept it, and that is what I hope will happen.

I simply do not believe that it would be right for these workers to work beyond 60. The most appropriate comparison is with other firefighters and police officers. Members of all the other fire services and police services in the country are allowed to retire at 60 under the provisions of section 10 of the Public Service Pensions Act. Those staff whose pension conditions are being investigated by the review have important knowledge about their jobs, so I hope that the review team is consulting them. People who are actually doing the job can give information that no one else can so it is important that they are consulted.

I have some questions which I hope the Minister will be able to answer tonight. What consultation have the Government had with the work force representatives—the Defence Police Federation and the defence fire and rescue services section of Unite? What further consultation will be held with these representative bodies before the review report is completed? Will the Minister confirm that they will be able to see a draft before final publication and feed their views into the process?

Another important question for the Minister is whether the publication of the review will be the final word, or the basis for further consultation and negotiation. What research has been carried out to establish whether people over 60 are likely to have the fitness required to carry out the duties of defence police and firefighters without long absences from work, and what proportion would be likely to retire early on health grounds before reaching the age of 65 because they did not meet the stringent fitness requirements?

[David Wright]

I strongly support the hon. Gentleman. This is not just about fighting those fires that have an impact only on bases. He will be aware that in Telford and Wrekin a few decades ago, there was a huge fire at MOD Donnington, which affected the entire community around that base. It is in the public interest to ensure that those on MOD bases who have to fight fires are capable of doing so in the most efficient way.

[Mr Reid]

Yes, and I certainly remember the fire that the hon. Gentleman refers to; it was in all the news media. He is perfectly correct: this is a vital job. In Faslane in my constituency, there are nuclear submarines. We are talking about a very strenuous and highly skilled job and one that is very important, not just because of the assets on the base but for the general public.

Unite has supplied figures that are specific to age-banding and to ailments including those involving the heart, strokes and blood pressure, muscle and bone, and anxiety and depression. It also looked at long-term sickness over a 24-month period. It obtained those figures from medical and absence data provided by Defence Business Services, and has asked for the inclusion of those figures in the report. Will Unite’s figures be taken into account when the report is compiled? What plans do the Government have for a balanced, fair and equal retirement strategy for those individuals who may not be able to maintain the stringent fitness requirements?

The civil service pension scheme historically had a lower employee contribution than police and fire service pension schemes, so defence police and fire service workers had net pay deductions and abatements taken off their pay in an attempt to give parity with other police and fire services. However, the impact of these deductions has been that the defence firefighters’ pension is based on net pay after those deductions, rather than on their gross pay. Other police and fire service staff receive a pension based on their gross pay before employee superannuation payments are deducted. An actuary engaged by the Defence Police Federation has said that the abatement and net pay deduction system is antiquated and very unfair. There may have been a logic to the system when it was introduced 30-odd years ago, but over time it has become antiquated. I hope that that will be looked into as part of the review.

If defence police and firefighters have to work on beyond 60, they will be contributing more towards their pension and collecting it for less time than their colleagues in other police forces and fire services. I hope that the Government agree that there should be parity, in pension terms, between defence police and firefighters and those who come under the remit of other Government Departments and the devolved Administrations. In addition to investigating whether people over 60 are likely to be physically fit enough to carry out policing and firefighting duties, the review should look at levels of abatement of pay and net pay deductions. In that regard, I draw the House’s attention to what was said during the final debate on the Public Service Pensions Bill on 24 April by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, and now Financial Secretary to the Treasury:

“I agree that abatement, which the hon. Member for Nottingham East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark raised, is an important issue. It is therefore important that the MOD review considers it. It will have to consider a broad range of issues affecting the workers in question, including all pay and remuneration conditions and other potential benefits. It will have to examine the matter in its totality, and I would expect nothing else.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 912.]

I hope that the Minister can tell us tonight about that aspect of the review. Pensions calculations are notoriously complex, and I would ask that as well as a recommendation in the review on the level of employee superannuation contributions, all the calculations behind this recommendation be published for checking and comment.

Defence police and firefighters do an extremely important and strenuous job. I simply do not think it is right that they should be asked to continue doing it beyond 60. Sixty-five-year-olds should not be fighting fires or tackling terrorists. I draw the attention of the House to what was said by Phil Salt, the chief fire officer of the Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation, who is on record as fully backing a retirement age of 60. I understand that senior officers in the Ministry of Defence police share this view.

Police, fire and rescue personnel working in the Ministry of Defence should be allowed to retire at the same age as their counterparts in the country’s other police and fire services. I hope that that will be the outcome of the review and I look forward to the Minister’s answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I see no reason why not, so I am more than happy to do so. I should have explained, as I often do in these debates, that if I do not answer the various matters raised by hon. Members in the course of my speech, I will write to them.

[Mr Reid]

My hon. Friend said that there were discussions with the trade unions. For clarification, the Defence Police Federation has reminded me that it is a professional association, not a trade union. I just wanted to check whether it had been consulted along with the trade unions.

[Anna Soubry]

I am so sorry—this is entirely my fault, because I was specifically briefed on that—but I have completely forgotten the answer to that question. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for rightly raising that point about the Defence Police Federation. I know that there is an answer to his question, and it might be provided to me in the course of my speech. If it is not, I undertake to put it all in the Library. There is no difficulty at all in doing that.

I will now turn to the specific points my hon. Friend raised. I thank him for providing a copy of his speech, which is so helpful in these circumstances. I fear that I will be unable to answer all his questions, because of the short time available to us. The MOD will review the levels of abatement of pay and net pay deductions as part of the continuing and wider work into the terms and conditions of service and the future of both the MDP and the defence fire and rescue service. It is as part of that work that we are reviewing pension calculations.

We are also reviewing all pay and remuneration conditions and other potential benefits. For the purposes of that report, the Defence Secretary directed that the review should concentrate on the questions posed by the Act. As I have already stated, a separate continuing review is looking at the broader issues. The Department has engaged with the Defence Police Federation—I think that that answers my hon. Friend’s question—and the defence fire and rescue service section of Unite. Engagement with the federation has been through the quarterly police committee, the monthly Ministry of Defence police management board, and regular meetings in respect of the separate terms and conditions of service review.

Unite was briefed by relevant business units at the outset of the review. It has been engaged in agreeing the statement of requirement that, as I explained, was submitted to the Government Actuary’s Department, and it was invited to attend workshops and make separate submissions to the review as it has progressed. Unite is fully aware of the business units’ conclusions, and its concerns and points of view have been considered by the review. The reports due to be laid in the House—I will give the dates in a moment—will form part of the continuing discussions regarding future changes to the terms and conditions of both groups, including their pension age. I am reliably informed that staff representatives will have a copy of the report before it is published, and that is an eminently sensible idea.

Scottish Referendum (Trident)

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Davidson]

I must confess that NATO has not communicated with me directly on that matter. They might very well listen to me, and I have noticed a number of clicks on my phone, but it has not so far spoken in quite that way. I thank the hon. Lady for drawing my attention to that point—I must monitor my phone more closely. I am sure that NATO will be listening to this debate and, no doubt, waiting—as are the work force in Faslane and Coulport—to hear what the SNP has to say about all this. [Interruption.] There was a mumble from a sedentary position by one of the SNP Members. Would they like to clarify that? No—I thought not.

The alternative provision for Faslane and Coulport has not been made clear. In the resolution that was passed at the SNP conference recently, there was the proposal—indeed, the commitment—that the SNP in a Scottish Government would seek to have submarines. However, the SNP has also said that it would not wish to have any nuclear submarines, so the question comes up of what sort of submarines it would have. Ireland, New Zealand and Iceland all have no submarines. Denmark has just decided to decommission its submarines. The Norwegians have six diesel-electric submarines. If the Scottish navy were to have diesel-electric submarines, two main issues come up: first, where would they be built, and secondly, within what time scale?

Some of us went along to see the BAE Systems shipyard staff and management, and when we suggested to them that they could turn their hand to building submarines, they laughed, because they thought that the idea was so ludicrous. Other experts said to us that any submarines built in the Clyde yards would be the most expensive submarines in the world, ever, on the basis that they were a one-off—whether there were four or six. They said that the yards were not equipped to build submarines, and it would require starting completely from scratch. The style of building submarines is, apparently, from the inside out, and for ships, it is the from the outside in. The technologies are different. Of course, it could be done—with the appropriate amount of money and political will, Hall’s of Broxburn could build submarines—but that is not to say that it would be financially or economically viable. Anything could be done with enough will, commitment and finance.

We have to assume that the diesel-electric submarines would be bought from the main supplier, which is Germany. Therefore, we would have the Scottish navy being equipped with U-boats at a cost that is undetermined and to a timetable that is equally unclear. We have no idea when U-boats from Germany would be able to arrive in Scotland to provide jobs in maintenance at Faslane or Coulport. Of course, we would then have circumstances in which there was a huge gap between the departure of the submarines from the Royal Navy and the arrival of the submarines from Germany, unless the SNP completely abandoned its commitment to remove the submarines from the Clyde as speedily as possible. It is possible to see a compromise being reached, which would require the SNP to undertake a U-turn on its commitment to remove the submarines as quickly as possible. That is the only way in which we could see any possibility of submarine jobs being retained.

The SNP has also said that it wants to have ships at Faslane, which is not unreasonable. It is unclear as yet what ships it desires to have, how the Scottish navy would be broken up, and, at the moment, whether any Scottish naval vessels would be put anywhere other than Faslane. As those familiar with Scottish geography will be aware, Faslane is almost in ideally the wrong place for a navy that would face any threat from the north and east, because it is in the south-west. If people know Argyll, anything coming out of the Clyde would have to sail round the bottom of Argyll—for those who are technically minded, that is the south of Argyll.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I think the Mull of Kintyre is the correct technical expression.

[Mr Davidson]

That almost brings on a song, but I will resist the temptation, Mr Bone—perhaps later.

The vessels are, therefore, in entirely the wrong position, with the longest possible sailing time to get to the areas where they would be required. All the military experts to whom we have spoken indicated that it would make sense to have the vessels on the east coast—in Rosyth, or perhaps up near Aberdeen, particularly if, like the Norwegian navy, there were 70 vessels. To be fair, some of those vessels in the Norwegian navy are very small, but it would make sense to have them close to areas that have, say, the oil rigs and so on. However, that cannot be done if the main driver of a policy is the need to guarantee as many jobs as possible in Faslane. It is not militarily rational to say that the entire Scottish navy, such as it would be, would be based in Faslane. That could mean the loss of any jobs concerned with naval matters in Rosyth, which is much easier for those in Faslane to accept than those in Rosyth. The statement that we had from the SNP shop steward and councillor about being willing to accept job losses possibly refers to Rosyth—that is how it has been interpreted in Rosyth.

We also need clarity from the Scottish Government and the SNP about the extent to which headquarters staff could be accommodated sensibly at Faslane. We have had meetings with people in the military who say that it does not make sense to have all the headquarters staff based far away from the seat of Government. We assume, in a separate Scotland, that Helensburgh would not be the seat of Government. It would be Edinburgh, and in those circumstances, it would be appropriate to have a substantial number of headquarters staff situated in Edinburgh, in the same way as the Ministry of Defence is very close to the seat of power here in Westminster. That would further reduce the number of jobs that might be available.

When we get to breaking up the armed forces of the United Kingdom, my understanding is that everyone presently would be given the opportunity to serve with either the Scottish navy, the Scottish air force or the Scottish army. The Scots Guards, for example, if it is to be brought back as a Scottish regiment, might have to be based somewhere. Some of those might be able to go into Faslane, but at present we do not have those answers, and we must seek them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), on opening the debate and outlining clearly the choices that will face the Scottish people in next year’s referendum. I agree with almost everything that he said—I think, though, that Helensburgh does have a good claim to be the capital of an independent Scotland. Apart from that, I fully agree with what he said about the future of Scotland and the choice that the Scottish people face in the referendum in October 2014.

In the referendum, the people of Scotland will have two choices. One is to maintain the Union; the other is to separate from the United Kingdom and form an independent Scottish state. For one path—keeping the Union—we have a very clear idea of what will be based at Faslane and Coulport. We know that the Royal Navy will stay there. We know that all the Astute class submarines will move to Faslane, which will become the base for all Britain’s submarines. We know that the number of jobs there will increase to more than 8,000.

For the alternative path—separation—we have very little idea of what will happen. I hope that the SNP Members present, the hon. Members for Angus (Mr Weir) and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), will give a clear explanation of what would happen should the SNP win the referendum and what the Scottish armed forces would be made up of.

The debate is entitled on the Order Paper “Terminating Trident—Days or Decades?” First, I want to touch on what I think would happen to Trident should the SNP win the referendum. The Scottish Government have been adamant that they would not lease to the UK or any other Government a base for submarines that were nuclear-powered or that carried nuclear missiles. I believe them. I think that that is something in which they are sincere, and that we have to take it as a starting point that Trident would go in days rather than decades.

However, as the Chairman of the Select Committee outlined, there are great practical difficulties. What would the United Kingdom do when faced with an eviction notice from an independent Scottish Government? The Committee, in our evidence-gathering sessions, took evidence from a wide variety of experts about whether it was possible to relocate Trident and the submarines elsewhere in England or Wales, and that just does not seem to be within the realms of practical possibility. My hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), when he was the Minister for the Armed Forces, gave evidence to the Committee and described the cost as “gargantuan”. Other experts gave very large numbers. Therefore, there would be a cost problem.

The other problem would be location. Whereas it may be possible to replicate the facilities at Faslane elsewhere, replicating the facilities at Coulport elsewhere would be extremely difficult. The hill is very large. There are many such hills in Argyll, but finding such a large hill in the rest of the United Kingdom that was next to the sea and relatively close to where there was an industrial work force would be very difficult. I believe that only one place has been mentioned. The Welsh Government at one point put forward Milford Haven as an alternative, but I think that that met with objections from other people in Wales and I certainly have not heard that idea being floated recently. There would also be the problem of what to do with the petrochemical complex there.

The conclusion, I think, is clear. I simply do not believe that if the Scottish Government won the referendum and evicted the Royal Navy from Faslane, the United Kingdom Government would relocate elsewhere, because as well as the problems of location and the political problems, there would be the problem of cost. “Gargantuan” was how my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon described it, and the United Kingdom would lose 10% of its tax revenue when Scotland became a separate state.

I therefore think that the only choice open to the United Kingdom Government would be decommissioning. I think that the decommissioning would probably start fairly quickly after the referendum if the SNP won it. The timetable that the SNP has laid out is as follows: 18 months of negotiations, followed by Scotland becoming a separate state on 1 April 2016. During that time, of course, the devolved Government at Holyrood would have a mandate from the referendum to commence negotiations. I believe that they are sincere in their opposition to nuclear weapons and that there would be no point in the United Kingdom Government hanging about; I think that the decommissioning would probably start straight away. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire says that they would have no choice.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Their choice.

[Mr Reid]

I am now confused by the hon. Gentleman. Rather than chuntering away from a sedentary position, perhaps he could get up and explain just what the position of the Scottish Government would be if they won the referendum. No, he has chosen not to do so. I look forward to his speech.

The Select Committee report said that, should the SNP win the referendum, it would probably take about two years for Trident to be gone from Faslane. There would be two years’ worth of work there—probably not as much work as there is at the moment—in the decommissioning process, but what would happen next? That is a big question on which we still await details from the SNP, but let us consider what other countries that are in a similar position to that of an independent Scottish state do with their defence.

Let us take one of the countries in what used to be termed by the SNP the arc of prosperity—Ireland. The Irish navy consists of eight patrol boats. However, eight patrol boats are not going to keep anything like the current Faslane work force in a job. It is also extremely unlikely that those eight patrol boats would all be based at Faslane, because what assets would an independent Scottish navy seek to defend? The key assets would clearly be the oil rigs and fishing grounds in the North sea, but as the Chairman of the Select Committee pointed out, that is entirely the opposite side of the country to Faslane.

I can imagine an incident on an oil rig, for which a patrol boat based at Faslane would have to sail down the Clyde, round the Mull of Kintyre, up the west coast of Scotland, through the Minch, round Cape Wrath, through the Pentland firth and eventually arrive at the incident. Clearly an independent Scotland would base at least half of its patrol boats at an east coast port—Rosyth, Aberdeen or Lerwick, for example. Even if Scotland’s navy were slightly bigger than Ireland’s and we had 10 or 15 patrol boats, probably only about six of them would be based at Faslane. That would keep only a handful of people in jobs.

We often hear references to the Norwegian and Danish navies from the SNP. They are certainly bigger than the Irish navy, but I have to point out that Scandinavian taxation is a lot higher than taxation in Britain or Ireland. People in Scandinavian countries pay about 10p to 15p in the pound more in taxation than people in Britain or Ireland do. I have never heard the SNP say that we would all be paying 10p or 15p more in the pound in taxes in an independent Scotland, which we would have to do to have a navy the size of a Scandinavian navy, but even if we matched the size of the biggest of the Scandinavian navies, there would still be far fewer jobs at Faslane and Coulport than there are at the moment.

[Lindsay Roy]

Why does the hon. Gentleman think there is a vacuum in SNP defence policy after so long declaring that it wants independence?

[Mr Reid]

I can only speculate, but my speculation is that the SNP simply does not have a clue what to do. It simply knows that there would be nothing like the same number of jobs in defence in an independent Scotland. We would see mass unemployment at Faslane and Coulport, and the SNP is not willing to own up to it. It must own up to the fact that, if it wants a Scandinavian-sized navy, it has to levy Scandinavian levels of tax on Scotland. People would have to pay 10p to 15p in the pound more in tax, and the SNP is simply not willing to face up to that fact.

I represent the prosperous town of Helensburgh. Part of the reason for its prosperity is the well-paid, specialist jobs at Faslane and Coulport. The people of Scotland will have a simple choice in 2014: they can keep the Union, the Royal Navy and the thousands of jobs, and Helensburgh and the surrounding area will prosper, or they can vote for separation, and they will get a few patrol boats, a small navy and a P45. I know what choice my constituents will make.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Weir]

We have already said that our armed forces will be in the region of 15,000. That is on the record.

I have given way enough, and I would like to make some progress.

Scotland’s share of UK defence forces and our share of Trident costs could be used for the diversification of HMNB Clyde and to create jobs that met the defence, economic and public service priorities of an independent Scotland. Scotland’s population share of Trident running costs is estimated at around £163 million per year, while its population share of the Ministry of Defence’s estimated costs for the replacement of the Trident submarine fleet and infrastructure equates to around £1.25 billion to £1.7 billion. That is at least £84 million for each and every year of the 15 years it would take to construct.

A recent freedom of information request to the MOD revealed that 520 civilian jobs at Faslane and Coulport are directly dependent on Trident. That is only a small proportion of the more-than-6,500 military and civilian personnel who support operations at the bases. Channel 4’s “FactCheck” reported in 2007 that the lion’s share of Trident jobs—around 12,340—are based elsewhere in the United Kingdom, not in Scotland.

[Mr Reid]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Weir]

No, I will not.

There is no reason why the vast majority of Trident-based jobs cannot be redeployed in the redevelopment of the bases for non-nuclear defence use. In addition, the money being spent on Trident could be much better used to provide high-quality jobs in the area and beyond.

The argument put to the Select Committee by a Defence Minister, which was quoted in the report, that Scotland would somehow have to pay for a replacement base is laughable. If the remainder of the UK wants to keep those dreadful weapons, it is up to it to find a solution on where to base them, and to pay for them.

Whatever the discussions or arguments regarding the removal of Trident from Scotland after independence, no one should be in any doubt that it is our clear intention that the weapons will go as quickly as is safe.

Recently there has been much argument about the costs of Trident. It is completely unaffordable. Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute noted that about 35% of the MOD’s total core procurement budget would be going on Trident by 2021.

Such weapons are immoral. If they were ever used, they would indiscriminately destroy hundreds of thousands of lives and do untold damage to humanity and our planet, if not destroy it completely. The UK is a signatory of the non-proliferation treaty. We spend a lot of time telling others that they should not have nuclear weapons—indeed those who are developing civil nuclear programmes—for fear of what they might do with them. It is high time that we took a lead and accepted that we can no longer sustain a nuclear capability.

Bishop Desmond Tutu has put the argument much better than I could:

“We cannot intimidate others into behaving well when we ourselves are misbehaving. Yet that is precisely what nations armed with nuclear weapons hope to do by censuring North Korea for its nuclear tests and sounding alarm bells over Iran’s pursuit of enriched uranium. According to their logic, a select few nations can ensure the security of all by having the capacity to destroy all.

Until we overcome this double standard—until we accept that nuclear weapons are abhorrent and a grave danger no matter who possesses them, that threatening a city with radioactive incineration is intolerable no matter the nationality or religion of its inhabitants—we are unlikely to make meaningful progress in halting the spread of these monstrous devices, let alone banishing them from national arsenals.

Why, for instance, would a proliferating state pay heed to the exhortations of the US and Russia, which retain thousands of their nuclear warheads on high alert? How can Britain, France and China expect a hearing on non-proliferation while they squander billions modernising their nuclear forces?”

Someone once said that a unilateralist is a multilateralist who means it. I give no apology for believing that we need to get rid of nuclear weapons. Scotland, at least, wants rid of them and means it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

We have consistently told the Government—not just on Trident, but on a number of other issues—that we need to discuss round the table what will happen in the event of a yes vote for Scottish independence.

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Gentleman wants the UK Government to sit down with him, but the work force at Faslane and Coulport want the SNP to sit down with them and to tell them what jobs there will be after independence. When the debate finishes, will he sit down with representatives of the work force at Faslane and tell them the SNP’s plans for it?

[Pete Wishart]

They will be negotiating not with me but with someone further up the pay scale. Today, I have heard some of the evidence presented in the Scottish Affairs Committee, and it would be an absolute pleasure and joy to sit down with the trade union representatives for Faslane to describe and explain our ambitions for Faslane. We have clear and ambitious projects for a conventional base at Faslane. We will try to reassure the work force and to make sure they understand what we are trying to achieve, instead of being told some of the myths we have heard today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

No, I am not discussing this any further with the hon. Gentleman, if he does not mind.

The Scottish Affairs Committee is the most bitterly partisan parliamentary Committee anywhere in the UK. Outside Unionist circles, it has lost any credibility it had. I was a member of the Committee, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Mr Weir). We served under distinguished Chairs—in my case, Mohammad Sarwar. The Committee produced reasonable reports, which were accepted across the political spectrum—but no more. A Committee that cannot even bring itself to say the word that will go on the independence ballot does not deserve the time, effort or credibility it thinks it should have.

What did the report actually say? This is really good. The Committee found out how easy it would be to get rid of nuclear weapons in an independent Scotland. The Chairman even went as far as to suggest that Scotland could be disarmed in a matter of days. The missiles and submarines could be discharged in a matter of two years. That is music to the ears of all of us who have campaigned so long and so hard for our nation to be free of nuclear weapons. The Scottish Affairs Committee did a fantastic job by telling us how easy it would be, although given its partisan approach, I have no idea why it decided to do so. I do not know whether any of its members are still to speak, but if they do, they must tell us why they produced a report suggesting that it would be so easy to get rid of Trident from Scotland.

The Committee also tried to suggest what the rest of the United Kingdom might want to do, and presented a few options—perhaps even a few sensible ones. Were the UK Government grateful or happy at that? Not a bit of it. The response totally ignored all the suggestions and proposals. The Government refused to look at anything. They were not even prepared to consider the suggestions of the Scottish Affairs Committee. What a waste of time. The UK Government must get over their self-defeating, almost petulant and childish, behaviour. They should sit at the table with the Scottish Government for talks about what they would do to get rid of Trident when we vote yes in next year’s independence referendum.

We now know that only a yes vote in the referendum will get rid of Trident. The Tories, of course, are committed to Trident. They want to spend £100 billion renewing it. The Liberals—I am, as usual, not so sure about them. They are conducting some sort of review. The hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) did some fantastic work on it, and it is now in the hands of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We have no idea, as usual, what the Liberals intend to do. I think theirs is a unilateralist party.

[Mr Reid]

indicated dissent.

[Pete Wishart]

No, it is not. I think they are against nuclear weapons: it is just that they quite like Trident. That is the Liberals, anyway: we will leave that aside.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I have been speaking for 11 minutes, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) said, and want to allow others to speak.

We now know that the Labour party will continue to be committed to Trident, so the only way to get rid of nuclear weapons from Scotland, and clear us of that scourge—that immoral weapon of mass destruction—is to vote yes in the independence referendum.

[Mr Reid]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman twice already.

A yes vote would get rid of a weapon of mass destruction, and we are not allowed to keep it anyway. If we were to become a new nation after independence, as the no campaigners claim we would, we would not be able to keep nuclear weapons under the non-proliferation treaty. New nations are not allowed to host nuclear weapons, so it would be illegal under international law for us to have them. We would have to get rid of them and it would be up to the UK how to deal with that.

Scotland wants rid of nuclear weapons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Angus put it, even Scotland’s Westminster MPs want rid of Trident. Not long ago, in 2007, 33 voted against Trident and 22 voted for it. They are in good company, because the majority of people in Scotland want rid of it, as do the Churches and the trade unions. Every part of civic society supports the notion that we must get rid of that weapon of mass destruction. That is why I say that Trident will be an iconic issue in the referendum—because so many people in Scotland oppose it.

Nuclear-powered Submarines

Alan Reid Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am delighted that the unions at Rolls- Royce have welcomed the announcement. They will clearly recognise the value of supporting these high-tech jobs, which are vital to the UK skills base.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I welcome today’s announcement. The investment is necessary for the construction of the last of the Astute-class submarines, all of which will be based at Faslane. I hope the Secretary of State can assure the House that investment in Faslane, which is necessary for all the British submarines to be based there, will not be held up by the long delay before the SNP’s referendum in October 2014.

[Mr Hammond]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are pressing ahead with their plans on the confident assumption that the referendum will deliver a vote in favour of the Union.

Mull of Kintyre Review

Alan Reid Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As I said, I intend that not only a full copy of the report, with all its recommendations, but a copy of what has been said in the House today will be available to all those families, so that they can see the redress of the injustice, what we have done to investigate the issue fully and the warm and welcome words of Members on both sides of the House.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

This was a terrible tragedy that took place in my constituency, and it was made all the worse for the relatives by their long 17-year wait for the announcement that we have heard today. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on establishing the review board, and I congratulate its members and all those who have campaigned for so many years to overturn the unjust verdict. What procedures are in place so that if in future a verdict is subject to so much challenge, including by a fatal accident inquiry, it can be reviewed much more quickly?

[Dr Fox]

As I said in reply to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), we set up a mechanism that seemed to be effective, that was relatively quick and that was able to identify the weakness that previous inquiries had failed to identify. As a House, we should look to see why it was effective when others were not, and learn from that procedure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Reid Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Peter Luff]

I understand the interesting point that my right hon. Friend makes. The present intention is that current procurement arrangements should be stuck to, and I have every confidence that the defence, equipment and support organisation at Abbey Wood can do an excellent job of it this time.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

11. What plans he has for the future of RAF Machrihanish; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

The disposal of RAF Machrihanish was announced in October 2008, and it will be sold as soon as possible. We are currently committed to working with the local community body to achieve a sale under Scottish community right to buy legislation. A final decision from the Scottish Executive on whether the community can proceed is awaited.

[Mr Reid]

As the Minister will know, the main problem is the age and condition of the water supply system. I hope that the MOD will continue to work with the Scottish Government, the local council and the Machrihanish airbase community company to ensure that it will be viable for the community company to buy the base and use the facilities to regenerate the local economy. This is an ideal big society project. Will he meet me to discuss the matter further?