First World War Commemoration

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered commemoration of the First World War.

It is a great privilege to lead this Government debate during our season of remembrance. I would like to start by paying tribute to Warrant Officer Ian Fisher of 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment. His passing brings the events we are debating a little closer, and tragically so. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family, friends and colleagues of a truly remarkable man.

I am pleased that so many colleagues are here in the Chamber today. It shows the extent of the interest in this subject and I hope means that Members will be taking this issue to their constituencies in the years ahead and showing the leadership for which they are renowned and encouraging their communities to get involved in this commemoration. I wish to bring to the attention of right hon. and hon. Members the “Fields of Battle” exhibition, which Mr Speaker was gracious enough to allow to be displayed in Westminster Hall and the opening ceremony of which many colleagues attended on Tuesday. It is an example of how Members can take the great war centenary to their constituencies and expose this at street level to as wide an audience as possible. I commend it to the House.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Is there not also an opportunity for hon. Members to highlight the opportunities, apparent when we go to our remembrance services and are before these memorials that provide a living link with those who lost their lives in our name, to support the War Memorials Trust and the “then and now” funding that aims to re-establish the link between community groups and their memorials and to teach people about the lives lost in our communities? That is important and will ensure that we can register memorials of all shapes and sizes donated by past generations. We need to continue that link in times to come.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend raises a good point and I shall underscore the importance of focusing on the personal and parochial in this commemoration, as that is the link that people have with that period. Using war memorials as the starting point is something I would encourage. I commend all those involved in that endeavour.

I would like to set out the Government’s thinking on the four-year centenary of the first world war and give a flavour of the philosophy underpinning its approach. The great war may be the keystone of our times but our understanding of it is not very good. Polling data suggests that the public know that there was a war in 1914 and have a pretty good idea of who was on what side. They know about mud, trenches and iconic things such as the Christmas truce. Thereafter, it starts to get a bit hazy. Improvement of our grasp of the causes, conduct and consequences of the first world war must be at the heart of the centenary that is about to break upon us.

As the Prime Minister said a year ago when he announced the Government’s framework for the centenary,

“Our first duty is to remember.”

But the question is, what exactly should we be remembering? The remembrance that the Prime Minister was talking about involves so much more than simply bringing to mind experiences that few of us have had or people we have never met. Remembrance is not synonymous with recollection. This Sunday is Remembrance Sunday, not recollection Sunday. It is an opportunity to acknowledge the fallen, while consciously reflecting on the nature of war and resolving to avoid it. That is what we mean by remembrance. We also give thanks that, peace restored, the great majority who served in the first world war did actually return to raise their families—our families—although, let us not forget, that all too many returned with enduring mental or physical infirmity that changed the course of their lives and that of their families to an extent that will never be quantified. That resonates with contemporary conflict, provoking I hope generosity in the 2013 poppy appeal.

The waypoints of the war sear our national consciousness; the Somme, Jutland, Gallipoli, Passchendaele, Loos and Amiens, the last so crucial as the game changer in the course of the war. We must remember that this war was also fought on the home front in the factory and the munitions depot, and by women whose lives would never be the same in a society transformed. We must commemorate this centenary because with the passing in 2009 of Harry Patch, Bill Stone and Henry Allingham, our last tangible links with the first world war are retreating into the shadows.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he share my view that we should commemorate not just British soldiers but soldiers from the Commonwealth countries, particularly soldiers such as Khudadad Khan, the first Indian to be awarded the Victoria Cross, who survived the war?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I will develop in my contribution; suffice to say I agree with him wholeheartedly.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)]

The one thing I regret is that I did not ask my grandfather more about the first world war and now, of course, it is far too late. In 1921, we gave a posthumous VC to the unknown soldier in the United States. As we now commemorate 100 years since the beginning of the first world war, is it not appropriate to at least consider awarding a VC to the unknown soldier who lies in Westminster Abbey, as suggested by a constituent, Tony Ormiston, who is an expert on the VC?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the suggestion. Over the four-year period, there will be plenty of opportunities to mark appropriately those who fell during the great war and those who served and sacrificed. On Monday there will be a delivery of sacred soil from Flanders fields to a memorial garden at the Guards chapel not far from here; a very fitting tribute and one that will bring this country and Belgium—two key players—very much closer together. I hope people will take note of all this, and the whole point is for them to reflect and better understand what happened 100 years ago.

There are those who are asking what the point of it all is, but if we do not do this we risk disconnection from the defining event of our time. There is an opportunity perhaps to balance the “Oh! What a Lovely War”/“Blackadder” take on history that, sadly, has been in the ascendant for the past 50 years. In its place, we will have a richer, deeper and more reflective legacy. But we should acknowledge that some will interpret the centenary in different ways, holding and contributing their own views. Some within that patchwork may discomfort some of us. We may individually or corporately disagree with them but find expression they must. The role of Government in the centenary is to lead, encourage and help make it all happen, while avoiding the temptation to prescribe. It is emphatically not the place of Government in our 21st century liberal democracy to be handing down approved versions of history.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Will the Minister acknowledge that many soldiers from the Irish Republic, as it now is, served during the first world war? The Republic of Ireland is no longer a member of the Commonwealth, of course, but it is important that their sacrifice is part of all this. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that there are seemingly positive discussions with the Government of the Irish Republic to ensure that, in relation to those who won the VC, the paving stones will be laid in counties in the Irish republic? Certainly that good work needs to continue and we welcome it very much.

[Dr Murrison]

I am absolutely delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point. As he would expect, we have spent a great deal of time in debate with Dublin on this matter. As I have been going through this work, it has been something of a revelation to me as I have understood fully the great work that Her Majesty the Queen did when she visited Dublin. Ever since then there has been a huge appetite in both countries to improve the relationship between the two countries, which has been extraordinarily uplifting. Of course the Republic of Ireland is engaged in its decade of commemoration, within which falls the centenary of the great war. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have had extraordinarily positive feedback from Dublin regarding their engagement with this period of shared history and I look forward, as part of the legacy of the centenary, to moving the relationship a little further forward, with all the sensitivities that it of course contains. However, I see this very much as an opportunity and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Many of the Irish nationalist Members of this House fought in the war, which they never thought they would be doing, on behalf of the united Great Britain and Ireland, including, most famously perhaps, Willie Redmond. He has a shield in the House, but one Irish nationalist MP who died in active service who does not have a shield is Captain Esmonde. Will the Minister make sure that he gets one?

[Dr Murrison]

I suspect that that is a matter for Mr Speaker rather than for me, but I suspect that Mr Speaker will have noted the contribution of the hon. Gentleman. I know that the House itself is working hard to determine what it will do to mark the centenary of the great war and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to reinforce his point with the appropriate authority.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government will not dictate how we should commemorate the tragedy of the first world war. I hope that, in the promotion of serious discussion on the subject, he will recall the soldiers who died in all theatres of conflict, be they German, Russian, French or British. I also hope that he will recall the significant degree of opposition to the war on both sides, in Germany and in Britain. That, too, is part of our shared history and should be commemorated and discussed.

[Dr Murrison]

It is rare for me to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I agree with him on that point. I note that the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has been at the centre of all this through providing a great deal of the underpinning finance, has recognised that and been making grants accordingly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman approves of that.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I concur with the sentiments expressed about the Irish Government. Is the Minister aware that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is working closely with the Irish Government to erect headstones in the Republic and that it has been involved in the re-siting of the wall of remembrance at Glasnevin cemetery?

[Dr Murrison]

Yes, I have been to Glasnevin recently. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point, because it is a special place in the history of the Republic of Ireland. None of us should underestimate the enormity of the totemic things that are happening around this in Dublin right now. I see that as part of the improvement in relationships that is happening independently of the centenary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as a Commonwealth war graves commissioner, will see these events as part of that process.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In the context of the Irish dimension, may I point out that the Royal Irish Rifles also fought at the Somme, with massive losses? The Minister might be interested to know that the first Victoria Cross in the first world war was awarded to someone by the name of Dease, who was at Stonyhurst—the same school that I had the honour of attending—and that its first recipient in the second world war was also from Stonyhurst. Also, in relation to the second world war, I should like to pay tribute to Doug Lakey, who is in the Gallery this afternoon. He was awarded the military medal and he was with my father on the day he was killed in July 1944.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that I did know that, not least because the great-nephew of Lieutenant Dease is a constituent of mine, and he has lost no opportunity to impress upon me the importance of his great uncle. My hon. Friend will also be delighted to hear that on 4 August, the first day of the commemoration, there will be an event at St Symphorien, where Lieutenant Dease is interred. His part in the conflict will certainly be commemorated appropriately, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has brought him to the attention of the House.

I would like to tell the House what the Government are planning to do over the next four and a half years. First and foremost, and most obviously, there will be national events to capture the moment and set the tone. They will have an identifiably Commonwealth look and feel, reflecting the historical reality. We have been working with our international partners and with the devolved Administrations to that end. A centrepiece of the commemorations will be the reopening of the Imperial War museum in London next year, following the £35 million refurbishment of its first world war galleries. There will be an enduring educational legacy, funded by £5.3 million from the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government, to enable a programme based on, but not confined to, visits to the battlefields.

The Heritage Lottery Fund will provide at least £15 million, including a £6 million community project fund, to enable young people working in their communities to conserve, explore and share local heritage from the first world war, epitomised by yellowing photos of young men posing stiffly in uniform, possibly for the first and last time. Much of the public interest in the period is personal and parochial, and this will provide a non-threatening entry point to the wider story. There will also be at least £10 million in the programme of cultural events taking place as part of the centenary commemorations over the four-year period.

Work with organisations and across government will continue to generate initiatives that will find and engage people under the umbrella of the centenary partnership. I shall name-check just a few. They include: the centenary poppy partnership between the Royal British Legion and B&Q; the commemoration of great war Victoria Cross recipients at their place of birth; football matches to mark the Christmas truce; mass participation in volunteering in the Remember 100 project; street naming for the centenary to inculcate memory in the heart of our towns and cities; a British adaptation of the excellent Europeana digital archiving initiative, capturing previous memories and artefacts that would otherwise turn to dust; and the National Apprenticeship Service centenary challenge. All this has the common theme of bringing history to life for everyone in all communities, even those that might feel, right now, that this has nothing to do with them.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I am sorry that we do not have more time to debate this important subject this afternoon. Does the Minister recognise the important role that hotels played in the first world war? Many were converted into hospitals, including the Mont Dore hotel, which is now the town hall in Bournemouth. The great estates were also used in that way, including Highclere, which is now better known as Downton Abbey. It will be taking part in the commemorations next year when it will be converted into a first world war hospital for one week, thanks to the work of Lady Carnarvon.

[Dr Murrison]

The project that my hon. Friend describes is exactly the sort of thing that will engage people locally. We have to understand that different people will approach the events in different ways. Our overarching aim is to improve understanding of the causes, conduct and consequences of the war, but we really need to do that in ways that people will find approachable and non-threatening. The initiative that he has described will be interesting and inspiring for many, and I certainly look forward to visiting it.

I am afraid that some of our more shouty newspapers are salivating at the prospect of the Government attempting a grotesque impersonation of Basil Fawlty, in which we do not mention the war for fear of upsetting Germany. Disappointingly for those newspapers, the history is untweaked by the Government and will remain so. We are indebted to Sunder Katwala of British Future for commissioning YouGov to inform us of public attitudes to the centenary. The survey found that 77% of the public see it as an opportunity for reconciliation with former enemies. We know from comments made by Harry Patch—the “last Tommy”—in the final years of his life that he would agree with that wholeheartedly. The history stands, but the Government will of course seek reconciliation not only with the former central powers but with partners in Europe and the former empire, wherever we share a complex and nuanced history.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

In the context of Germany, will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the large number of German prisoners of war who died as a result of their wounds while imprisoned in England? Many of them were re-buried in Staffordshire in the 1960s, but there are currently no headstones to commemorate them. Will he look into whether that could be corrected?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Perhaps that is something that we could usefully raise with the German Government, with whom we are of course in contact on these matters, as he would expect. There are Germans interred in the churchyard of Sutton Veny in my constituency, and their resting places are instantly recognisable by the nature of their markers. That is a positive suggestion, and I think that matter could reasonably be addressed with Germany.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Murrison]

I am going to make some progress, because I am conscious that a lot of right hon. and hon. Members would like to take part in the debate.

It is worth pointing out that the centenary courts controversy. None of us should be under any illusion about that. Indeed, we should welcome it. Opinion is already stretched between those who hold that the war was a futile wasteful tragedy and those who believe it was entirely necessary, notwithstanding the cost, and even that victory was as important in 1918 as it was in 1945. I believe that most of our countrymen going to war in 1914 did so with a firm sense of “doing the right thing”. Anyone familiar with the doctrines of St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine would have said—and I agree—that our countrymen were marching or sailing to a just war. I know my own grandfather felt that way.

Even as Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey was observing lamps going out across Europe that would not be re-lit in his time, the bulk of Britain’s political class, under a Liberal Prime Minister, were confident that resisting a militaristic aggressor in the way proposed satisfied the moral preconditions laid out for a just war. I doubt whether those who stood here in 1914 deserve their reputation as the willing consigners of other men’s sons to hideous death. People should read Hansard for 3 August 1914 and touch those politicians’ agony; they should compare the quality of that pre-conflict debate to ours on Syria in August this year; and they should count off the shields around this Chamber and the names of Members of this House and their sons inscribed in Westminster Hall.

Few of our predecessors in the long expectant summer of 1914 foresaw the consequences or the terrible cost, but finally, after military victory, came political failure—a lesson for all of us who have the privilege and responsibility of sitting here.

I am grateful to the many Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to our preparations and continue to do so. I hope we have set a framework for a fitting centenary—commemoratively, educationally and culturally—that will, with the most profound respect, mark the seminal moment in our modern history for the benefit of all parts of the community, and particularly for the custodians of the legacy: our young people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

4. What his plans are for the future use of RNAS Yeovilton and RNAS Merryfield; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend has asked about Yeovilton, where a number of our constituents work and where I have served. I am also pleased to assure him of our intention that Yeovilton will remain a royal naval air station with, additionally, 1 Regiment Army Air Corps based there as a lodger unit. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence is investing heavily in Yeovilton in order for it to be the main operating base for all Wildcat helicopters flown by the Royal Navy and the Army. Merryfield, as my hon. Friend will know, is a satellite airfield of Yeovilton and will continue to be used for training.

[Mr Heath]

I am most grateful; the deployment of the Army Air Corps at Yeovilton is very good news for both Yeovilton and the surrounding area, even if we will have to get used to different coloured uniforms around the place. Given that the AAC uses Salisbury plain predominantly for training purposes, will the role of Merryfield be changed in future and will the Minister let me know if that is to be the case?

[Dr Murrison]

The answer to the last question is yes, of course I will let my hon. Friend know, but Merryfield will continue as a satellite to Yeovilton. He is right to say that the colour, as it were, of many of those working in Yeovilton will change—it will become more khaki—and that means Salisbury plain training areas will be used rather more. I reassure my hon. Friend that that probably means that his constituents are unlikely to be disturbed by too much low flying, which I know is a concern from time to time to a number of us who have military aviation operating in our areas.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the future Royal Air Force requirement for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance systems; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

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

11. With reference to the Army basing review, what recent discussions he has had on the closure of Claro barracks in Ripon; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. He will be acutely aware of the close links between Ripon and the Army, particularly the Royal Engineers. A meeting was held on 4 October 2013 with officials from Harrogate borough council and Ripon city council to discuss the implications of the Army basing plan and the relocation of 21 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers. The Department will continue to maintain contact with stakeholders as plans mature. I understand that the next meeting will have taken place by the end of November.

[Julian Smith]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Ripon is coming to terms with the loss of the base, but we are still waiting for the Ministry of Defence’s decision on whether it ultimately wants to get out of Deverell barracks or Claro barracks. May I urge him to push forward that decision now, so that plans can be made for the future and Ripon is best placed to deal with a difficult time?

[Dr Murrison]

I fully understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. The announcement that has been made relates to the removal from Ripon of 21 Engineer Regiment, Royal Engineers, as we consolidate around Catterick. The separate but adjacent site, Deverell barracks, and the associated training area have not been subject to that announcement. A decision on them will be made separately, but I understand that the two sites are very much linked.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

12. What account his Department takes of the social and economic effects of its procurement decisions in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T8. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with European Ministers on preparations for the European Council on defence?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Discussions have been extensive, as my hon. Friend would expect. The December Council summit is very important and I am pleased to say that we have been leading like-minded partner nations in the debate to set the agenda, which will be very much about capability and complementarity with NATO. It will most certainly not be about laying down more concrete, which is a prerogative of sovereign states, or, indeed, instituting more command wiring diagrams, which has absolutely nothing to do with our collective security and defence, and everything to do with the misguided political nostrum of ever-closer union.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Seven Territorial Army centres in the north are set to close by 2016. How on earth will that assist the Government in recruiting up to 30,000 reservists before 2018?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

What is the MOD doing to improve its communication with local communities when bases, such as the one in Kirton in Lindsey, are being transferred out of MOD ownership?

[Dr Murrison]

We engage with all stakeholders. It is vital, as we restructure, that we take local authorities with us. Our record across the country has been very positive in that respect.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

I agreed with much of the Minister’s reply about the European Defence Council meeting in December. However, when do the Government expect to announce the review of Britain’s membership of the European Defence Agency? Given that we have rightly criticised other European nations for a lack of defence effort, would it not be perverse to turn our back on one of the few practical ways of doing something about it?

[Dr Murrison]

The European Defence Agency has its merits. We have been perfectly up front about that. However, it also has its problems. This country has been helpful in guiding the EDA as it evolves and we are keeping the matter under review. Our experience is that that approach has been effective in procuring the change that is needed in the way the EDA operates and in the efficiency with which it operates. We will continue in that light.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

The Minister’s earlier response to me was shockingly complacent and refused, notably, to deal with new contracts and the failure to roll out direct payments, as the Government said they would. Will he respond to my constituents who run small and medium-sized enterprises that supply the MOD? They said:

“The MOD remains as inefficient as ever…Their commercial support is lacking and things take for ever to finalise…The MOD is in a mess in some areas we deal with.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the recent dispute between Spain and Gibraltar, would it be appropriate to threaten the withdrawal of the British ambassador to Spain before somebody is injured?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but that is, of course, a matter for the Foreign Secretary. As the Minister for the Armed Forces has already said, we utterly condemn the action taken by the Guardia Civil, which was distinctly unhelpful. Not only is it an invasion of sovereign territory, but it is also dangerous. The Guardia Civil cannot continue operating like that and expect that nobody will get hurt.

BORONA Programme

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

As part of the defence transformation announcement on 18 July 2011, the Secretary of State for Defence confirmed that two signal regiments would relocate from Germany to Beacon barracks in Stafford in 2015. Following that announcement the Minister for the Armed Forces gave approval for the recommencement of a procurement competition for the capital works requirements supporting these moves.

Today I am announcing that the procurement competition has concluded, that all the bids have been evaluated and scrutinised, and that the MOD has decided to award a contract for the redevelopment of Beacon barracks, Stafford to Lend Lease Construction (EMEA) Ltd. The redevelopment will enable the two signal regiments, 16 Signal Regiment currently based in Elmpt and 1 Armoured Division Signal Regiment¹ based in Herford, to relocate to the UK in the summer of 2015. During the redevelopment the site will continue to be home to 22 Signal Regiment and the Tactical Supply Wing (RAF) and we will maintain all essential services, undertake all necessary works services and work with the local authorities in Stafford to prepare for the arrival of personnel, families and equipment in 2015.

The programme team will continue to consult interested parties including the trade unions and, in Germany, we will continue to engage with the relevant authorities and employee representatives at national, regional and local levels.

The move of the two signal regiments is the final phase of our pre-SDSR (strategic defence and security review) basing programme, which set out to close Rhine Garrison and Münster station in Germany. We are on course to close Münster station by the end of 2013 and the moves to Stafford will enable the full closure of Rhine Garrison by March 2016. The remaining unit moves out of Germany will be implemented as part of the Army basing plan, which was announced by the Secretary of State on 5 March this year.

¹Armoured Division Signal Regiment will be re-titled to 1 Signal Regiment in 2015 as part of Army 2020 restructuring.

Defence

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Nicholas Soames]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reserve force facilities there are for each service in West Sussex; how many reservists attend each such base regularly; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 13 September 2013, Vol. 567, c. 888-9W.]

Letter of correction from Andrew Murrison:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) on 13 September 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Dr Murrison]

[holding answer 10 September 2013]: Detailed in the following table are the names of each reserve force base in West Sussex, the total number of reservists recorded against this group of bases and the number which attend regularly. Regular attendance figures have been determined by the number of reserve personnel who were eligible to receive their bounty within the 12 months previous to 1 July 2013.

[Dr Murrison]

[holding answer 10 September 2013]: Detailed in the following table are the names of each reserve force base in West Sussex, the total number of reservists recorded against this group of bases and the number which attend regularly. Regular attendance figures have been determined by the number of reserve personnel who were eligible to receive their bounty within the 12 months previous to 1 July 2013.

Serco

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Sheerman]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department currently spends on contracts with Serco; and how much was spent in each year since 2008.

[Official Report, 4 July 2013, Vol. 565, c. 781-82W.]

Letter of correction from Dr Andrew Murrison:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) on 4 July 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Dr Murrison]

Expenditure on Ministry of Defence (MOD) contracts with Serco is shown in the following table:

[Dr Murrison]

Expenditure on Ministry of Defence (MOD) contracts with Serco is shown in the following table:

Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

It is a great pleasure, Mr Walker, to serve under your serene and enlightened chairmanship. As I am in the mood, let me express some further sentiments—they are heartfelt—about the contribution to the scheme made by Sir Neil Thorne. Twenty-five years ago, we lived in a very different sort of world. We still had in this place a large number of Members who had served in the second world war or had pretty contemporary experience of national service. Sir Neil rightly identified that that would not be the case forever, and that is where we are today.

Sir Neil designed a scheme, 25 years ago, that would ensure that Members of the House and others understood a little bit about service in the armed forces and how defence works. That is important because, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) said, although we get involved with a whole raft of things here, the most important thing that we do in Parliament—as it has always been—is connected with the armed forces. That is absolutely central to what Parliament is all about, and it is just as well that we have among us some understanding of defence and of how those who populate defence conduct their business. That is what the armed forces parliamentary scheme has been all about.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) first on securing the debate; secondly, on his hard work up to this point in securing the scheme’s future; and, thirdly and most importantly, on his election as chairman of the armed forces parliamentary trust. I fear that he is something of a rarity in Parliament today in having a really detailed understanding of the armed forces, and I can think of no better person to take the scheme forward to its next stage.

The scheme has interfaced with well in excess of 200 parliamentarians during the past 25 years—people who are then much better placed to contribute meaningfully to debate in this place. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) made an interesting point about trust and openness. I repeat that the world was different 25 years ago. Today we are much more open and transparent in how we approach issues, and if there was any difficulty at all 25 years ago in exposing parliamentarians to what sailors, soldiers and airmen got up to, that is far less the case today. One of the hidden benefits of the scheme is that it allows that level of transparency, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the number of instances of abuse of trust on the scheme has been very small over time.

Following the extraordinary vignettes that we have heard, which were terribly colourful, I fear that my contribution to this debate will be rather more prosaic. Nevertheless, it is important to put on the record how we have come to this point. Having accepted the excellence of the scheme—I reiterate that it is excellent—we must understand that we are in a different place today from 25 years ago. Public expectations of bodies that interface with parliamentarians are different from what they were in the 1980s. It is interesting—is it not?—that we should be discussing lobbying and transparency in this fortnight. It is appropriate that we should be making real inroads into the next stages of this scheme during this short return to Parliament in September, because it is lobbying and transparency that would worry people—if not the public, then certainly the press—in relation to the scheme.

I am mindful of the involvement of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in attempting to review the position of all-party groups, and of the recommendations that he has made. Although the scheme is not an all-party group, it is nevertheless an organisation that involves parliamentarians and commercial sponsors. Potentially, therefore, if the Ministry of Defence and Parliament had not taken the gardening action that I think has been appropriate, the scheme might have been open to criticism, however ill-founded. All of us who have lived through the past five years or so in this place know full well that if we do not take timely action, events will overtake us. What we have done has been absolutely necessary.

There are a number of people in Westminster Hall today who have been intimately involved with, or at least had cognisance of, what has been going on in respect of the scheme since November 2010. That was when the previous Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and the previous Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), together with Mr Speaker, decided that the scheme needed to be moved on to the point that we have been discussing today. Without detaining the gathering here today unduly, perhaps I can say that it has been a long, complex and protracted experience, with a surprising level of complexity involved. As convenor of the process during the past 12 months or so, I am deeply grateful to all those who have been involved in it and contributed to it. It has involved some people of great seniority who are well respected in this place and beyond, all of whom have brought their collective wisdom to the piece and contributed to what we have today.

I think that it is true to say that there is one thing worse than being asked questions as a Defence Minister, and that is being asked questions that are ill-informed. Having taken part in defence debates since 2001, both in opposition and in government, I am always aware of the massive contribution made by the armed forces parliamentary scheme in ensuring that the debates we have in this place are properly informed. Those who have taken part in the scheme carry a deep and intrinsic sense that they know what they are talking about. This morning, a number of hon. Members have talked about the ethos of the scheme and about what really matters to them, which is trying to get under the skin of those who populate defence in order to try to understand what makes them tick.

Although I have never been a member of the scheme, from my personal observation of it I know that it really cuts both ways. First, it is extremely useful for the men and women who serve in our armed forces to know that Members of Parliament are not a race apart and do not—at least in the main—have horns growing from their head. When one gets past the inevitable question or joke about one’s expenses, including quips such as, “You’ll be filling out your expenses form, won’t you?”—isn’t that amusing?—one finds that the degree of empathy that Members of Parliament have with the men and women of the armed forces with whom they are billeted is of a high order.

I think that all of us have spoken to constituents and others who have experienced parliamentarians on the scheme and who have by and large come away from the experience impressed with the interaction. That is reassuring. I am talking about extraordinary valuable citizens in the armed forces—they are citizens like no others. We owe it to them to assure them that parliamentarians who have a huge influence on their lives and careers have their interests at heart, and certainly understand what makes them tick.

I am sure that the scheme will be hugely popular. I am given a lot of assurance in making that assertion by the fact that 35 parliamentarians have enlisted for what we might call the interim scheme, which is currently operational. It is in no way a substitute for the previous scheme or indeed the scheme that will succeed it, but at least it allows Members of Parliament to have some sort of continuity of interaction with the armed forces. I am delighted that in this interregnum we have been able to facilitate a programme of visits to military establishments, so that we can continue that programme now that the trust—under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire—is able to take up the reins.

In closing, I reiterate my thanks to Sir Neil Thorne, who has done the House, and our discourse and our debate within it, a huge service over a protracted period of time. I have no doubt that the scheme—now under its new guise as a charity, which had to be established to give the public the assurances that they rightly expect of organisations of this sort—will be a massive success under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire. We can look forward to the next 25 years with a great deal of confidence as the scheme, which is now a trust, goes from strength to strength.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I thank all colleagues for the excellence of their speeches and the brevity of their interventions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

4. What assessment he has made of the contribution made by armed forces based in Scotland to the collective defence of the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Defence of the UK is planned, organised and resourced to meet the needs of the UK as a whole. Units based in Scotland are an integral part of the UK armed forces and, as such, make a vital contribution to national defence. Scotland, as part of the UK, plays a key role in all aspects of its defence, and benefits from the full range of UK defence capabilities and activities. It is perfectly clear that we are better together in defence, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the vast majority of those in this House will agree.

[Mr Bain]

Support for Scottish separation has fallen this morning to just 29%. Does the Minister agree that one reason for that is the lack of credibility of the nationalists on defence? Has he received any communication from the Scottish Government on how they propose to fund a standing army of 15,000 troops with a defence budget one tenth the size of this Government’s?

[Dr Murrison]

The data that the hon. Gentleman has reported to the House come as no surprise to me. The straight answer to his question is no; we hear all sorts of rumours, but we await a White Paper from the Scottish Government—apparently, it will arrive at the end of this year—laying out more precisely than we have had thus far what they plan to do for national security and defence. It sounds, however, from the data that he has brought to the House that that will be highly hypothetical.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

5. What progress he has made in drawing down the number of UK troops in Afghanistan to around 5,200 by the end of 2013.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

13. What smart defence or pooling and sharing initiatives the UK has joined; and what estimate he has made of savings to the public purse arising from such schemes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I am delighted to be able to say that the ultimate answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is 42, as the UK currently participates in 40 NATO smart defence initiatives and two of the European Defence Agency’s pooling and sharing projects. I am happy to write to him with a list, if he would like it. Capability development is a long-term process. Many of these projects are still in their infancy and as such we are unable to quantify meaningfully direct savings to the UK, but savings there certainly will be. There are clear benefits for the UK in seeking collaborative opportunities and encouraging other partners to do the same, particularly working in small groups where it is expedient to do so. UK-Dutch amphibiosity, 40 years old this year, is a very good example.

[Hugh Bayley]

Indeed, I would like the Minister to write to me. I support what the Government are doing to try to buy at lower cost collaboratively with allies, but the Government’s defence expenditure, according to public expenditure statistical analyses last year, was in real terms £4.9 billion less than when Labour was in power in our last year of office. What proportion of that £4.9 billion has been saved through smart defence?

[Dr Murrison]

I have to refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier remarks. These projects have been going since 2011—they are in their infancy—so it would be remarkable if demonstrable savings were to be volunteered at this point, but we are confident that there will be savings, which is in large part why we are doing this, and they will be forthcoming as we go further with pooling, sharing and smart defence.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend update the House on what progress is being made on initiatives to deepen co-operation with other northern European countries?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He will be aware of the Northern Group. Within both NATO and the European Union it is important to identify groups of like-minded countries, such as the Northern Group, with which we can work particularly well. It seems to me to be expedient to work with the grain of such countries in order to lever in effect. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary will discuss that shortly in Vilnius.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

On defence sharing, the UK provides military training to senior military officers from countries around the world. The MOD has confirmed to me in parliamentary answers that over recent years that has regularly included senior army officers from the Assad regime. Does the Minister regret that?

[Dr Murrison]

I cannot really comment because I just do not know. I would be very surprised if that was the case, but we can certainly look into it. The hon. Gentleman is right that we provide training and exposure to a wide range of countries, looking all the while at the probity and integrity of their regimes. Clearly nothing is perfect in this world, but we put huge effort into ensuring that those who benefit from our training courses go back to their countries and use the information they have gained to good purpose and in a way that we in this House find acceptable.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Does the Minister believe that the principles of smart defence are best served through multilateral organisations, such as the European Defence Agency or NATO, or on a bilateral basis, such as the Lancaster house agreement? He said that he will write to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley). Will he share that information with the entire House by placing details in the Library?

[Dr Murrison]

Absolutely. I am more than happy to write about the 42 programmes and place a copy in the Library. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s binary proposition: namely, that we should choose to operate either on a bilateral or multilateral basis or through supranational organisations. I believe that both have their part to play. Working with the grain of other countries, in the way I have described, seems to me to offer great opportunities for levering in effect. I have cited UK-Dutch amphibiosity, which we should all be celebrating in this 40th anniversary year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T5. Given that for four centuries, Scotland and the Scottish people have played such a glorious part in the defence of our United Kingdom, and that from the battles of Malplaquet and Blenheim to the sands of north Africa and the mud of Flanders we have shed blood together, would it not be a good idea if Armed Forces day 2014 was held in Scotland?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, Armed Forces day was held in Scotland in 2011. He will remember that it was held in Edinburgh. I am delighted to tell him that on 28 June 2014, Armed Forces day will be held in the great city of Stirling. I spoke to the Provost, Councillor Mike Robbins, about that and he was absolutely delighted. The Ministry of Defence and the city of Stirling will work together to ensure that it is a first-rate event.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

What is the strategy in Syria? Listening to the speeches in last Thursday’s debate, it became very clear that no one had spoken to the new leadership in Iran or to the new leadership in China about their position on the Security Council. What is the strategy or are the Government just giving up on defence and foreign affairs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

T8. Parliament as a whole owes a huge debt of gratitude over 25 years to the armed forces parliamentary scheme and its founder, Sir Neil Thorne. Under your instructions, Mr Speaker, and those of the Lord Speaker and the Secretary of State, the scheme will be relaunched next Tuesday at 5 o’clock in Room 14 under new management, and I am glad that Sir Neil Thorne has agreed to become life president of the new scheme. Will the Minister recommit the assets and determination of the Ministry of Defence to the scheme, and ensure it takes forward this brilliant opportunity of educating parliamentarians about the ways of the armed forces?

[Dr Murrison]

Absolutely, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on becoming chairman of the trustees. I know he has put a lot of effort into that, and it will be a great success. I add my tribute to Sir Neil Thorne, who has done a wonderful job over more than a quarter of a century in bringing together this wonderful scheme which so many right hon. and hon. Members have participated in and benefited from. The Ministry of Defence values that highly and will, of course, commit resources to ensuring it is a success. I am sure the House will agree it is important that the scheme should evolve, and right hon. and hon. Members will want the sort of transparency and governance arrangements that have now been brought in. I am clear that under the guidance of my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour, the scheme will go from strength to strength.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Beyond the dialogue that has taken place with the United States Government on how to respond to the chemical weapons attack in Damascus on 21 August, will the Secretary of State confirm that work will continue on how to respond were Syria’s chemical weapons to fall into the hands of al-Qaeda affiliates or Hezbollah?

Business Services Association

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Alison Seabeck]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions (a) he, (b) Ministers and (c) officials in his Department have met representatives of the Business Services Association.

[Official Report, 18 July 2013, Vol. 566, c. 952W.]

Letter of correction from Andrew Murrison:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) on 18 July 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Dr Murrison]

We have no records of any meetings between the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), or Ministers and representatives of the Business Services Association.

We are not aware of any officials meeting with representatives of the Business Services Association but a definitive answer could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

The correct answer should have been:

[Dr Murrison]

The following table lists the meetings the Business Services Association (staff or members or both) has held with MOD Ministers and officials this year:

Dalgety Bay (Radiation)

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I start by warmly congratulating the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing this debate. It is an important subject and he has expressed his views passionately, as I would expect. He has been, if I may say so, an assiduous Member of Parliament in his attention to this matter, securing Adjournment debates in November 2011 and in March this year. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary tells me that the right hon. Gentleman has also had a long conversation with him, when he covered much of the ground that he covered this evening and which I hope to cover in the time available to me tonight.

I well understand the right hon. Gentleman’s passion for this subject given his long association with the area and the local community he represents, and if he is agreeable to the notion, I look forward to visiting Dalgety Bay before too long. We have a duty to those we represent to present a balanced view that neither sensationalises nor causes unnecessary anxiety, and I know the right hon. Gentleman will want to do just that. Contrary to the impression he gave, however, the Ministry of Defence has never sought to abdicate its legal responsibilities, much less “pass the buck”. In fact, we have acknowledged that in all likelihood our historical activities introduced radium into what was Royal Naval Air Station Donibristle and HMS Merlin. Moreover, we have demonstrated a serious commitment to supporting the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and expended £825,000 to date undertaking a site investigation, as well as a monitoring and recovery programme along the foreshore. The right hon. Gentleman will recall the work we have undertaken in a number of gardens belonging to his constituents where radium was discovered, at a cost of some £500,000.

On recent statements in the press concerning a memo allegedly from the MOD, the document we are aware of, dated December 1990, is from Her Majesty’s industrial pollution inspectorate to the Scottish Office—I think that is what the right hon. Gentleman referred to in his remarks. We have found no evidence to corroborate claims that 800 aircraft were destroyed in 1946 through burning, and the resultant waste material—including ash—deposited on the beach or within the headland prior to 1959. Interestingly, the memo mentions the disposal by burial of waste arising from the scrapping of aircraft at a location inland from the beach, which we understand may be a former quarry. The memo also appears to acknowledge the MOD’s willingness to assist the regulator, then Her Majesty’s industrial pollution inspectorate—a situation not dissimilar to today when the MOD is assisting SEPA with its statutory inspection of the beach and adjacent shoreline.

The question is whether there is significant risk of significant harm, and the extent to which the activities of those who controlled the land after the MOD impacted on the current situation. The right hon. Gentleman cannot dismiss the latter point because that is the statutory test.

[Mr Gordon Brown]

Has the Minister read the risk assessment and the appropriate persons report? If he has, will he acknowledge that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency has established beyond any reasonable doubt that none of the people whom the Ministry of Defence thought may have been responsible for adding to pollution in the area is deemed responsible? If the statutory agency responsible for reporting on these matters is not believed by the Ministry of Defence, what are we to believe?

[Dr Murrison]

It is not a question of not believing statutory agencies, but I must report to the right hon. Gentleman that SEPA has been less than helpful in this matter. That is why there is a need for a further meeting, which my officials have scheduled, at which I hope such issues will be fully worked through. I am sure he would agree that in matters such as this where there is controversy over the evidence, and particularly the risk assessment that is central to this—

[Mr Brown]

rose—

[Dr Murrison]

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will get back to him when I can. It is essential in controversial matters such as this that we are absolutely clear about the science, and particularly the risk assessment. That lies at the heart of our difficulty with some of the work that SEPA has done. At the end of this month, however, officials will meet SEPA and—particularly in the light of evidence to which the right hon. Gentleman alluded that may be forthcoming in the next few days—I hope we will be able to plot a way forward.

[Mr Brown]

Will the Minister publish the advice that was given to the Ministry of Defence before it talked to Her Majesty’s inspectorate of pollution? Will he tell us, as a freedom of information issue—I have asked for this information to be provided—what Ministry of Defence officials said to those people who were in touch with the inspectorate when it prepared the report in 1990? As far as the advice on the risk assessment is concerned, the Ministry of Defence’s objections essentially come down to one major point: it suggests that it does not believe that these sources have been found at the level of radiation required. Yet the people who have actually been doing the excavation are contractors employed by the Ministry of Defence.

[Dr Murrison]

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has submitted a freedom of information request, and of course we will, as far as we can, respond to it. I must say that we have already looked for some of the documents cited by SEPA but cannot find them. Naturally, we will comply with whatever he requests, and if we have the information, will certainly provide it to him.

I believe that considerations of the sort I have outlined in relation to risk and who is responsible for management of the land are germane to this discussion. Indeed, they are key to understanding whether designation is required and how the material has come to be within the foreshore. Ultimately, the presence of radium at Dalgety Bay must be viewed and addressed in the light of the statutory regime for contaminated land, rather than correspondence from the 1990s.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not agree with the former head of radiation protection at the MOD, Fred Dawson, who has warned that

“denial of liability could result in a long, drawn-out, expensive process at the end of which the MOD will be found liable and suffer significant reputational damage”?

[Dr Murrison]

Well, the aim of the Ministry of Defence is to do the right thing. We are bound by statute, but I hope that it will not come to statute because, as I have explained, our intention is to comply with statutory authorities voluntarily, but we need to explore the methodology that has gone into their assessment and take into account the views of Public Health England, which, despite its name, is of course the adviser to the Scottish Government on radiation matters—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath says from a sedentary position that it has given its view, but I think that he has given a partial account of it. If I can make some progress, perhaps I will be able to give a fuller account of what Public Health England has actually said.

My technical and legal experts have reviewed the two most recent reports by SEPA and identified issues relating to the adequacy and validity of both the risk assessments and the appropriate person report. Those concerns relate to the interpretation and use of fundamental scientific and legal principles. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had sight of the independent review by the Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, formally part of the Health Protection Agency, but I must say that it hardly gives a ringing endorsement of SEPA’s approach and shows that many of our concerns are well founded. Those concerns lie at the heart of what this is all about and what I think he is trying to characterise as our unwillingness to make progress on the matter, which I think is unfair. I hope that he will understand that, when faced with professional opinion—

[Mr Brown]

rose—

[Dr Murrison]

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will continue, because I think that I have been reasonably generous in giving way. I have four minutes left and it is important to put forward the Government’s side on the matter.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that when we are faced with evidence that is not entirely congruous in some important respects, it is essential that we take stock. A robust, evidence-based risk assessment is required that accords with accepted best practice and is scientifically rigorous. Without it, we simply cannot understand the level of risk posed to health and ensure that suitable and sufficient measures are in place to protect the public.

To that end, we have previously emphasised to SEPA the importance of a credible risk assessment and raised serious concerns with it about its approach, concerns that have been reinforced by the findings of the recent review undertaken by the Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, which concluded that the likelihood of a member of the public inadvertently ingesting an object contaminated with radium that could cause them significant harm is less than one in 10 million. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that radium is predominantly an alpha emitter, so ingestion is the key route by which harm can occur, notwithstanding the fact that radium and its decay products emit both beta and gamma radiation. SEPA confirmed at the last Dalgety Bay forum in May that the management measures currently in place remain sufficient to manage the risk to the public such that the risk remains very low, and arguably these measures exclude any area at Dalgety Bay from designation.

The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in his first Adjournment debate he openly acknowledged that up until October 2011, when two high-activity items were discovered, there had been no evidence to suggest that there was a potential threat of any significance to public health or, for that matter, the presence of extensive contamination. As early as 1998, the annual risk of contracting a fatal cancer through inadvertent inhalation or ingestion was found to be less than one in 1 million: in his words, a “negligible risk”. He also went on to draw comparison between—

[Mr Brown]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Murrison]

No, I will not. I do not have time; I am very sorry.

The right hon. Gentleman also went on to draw comparison between Aberdeen and Dalgety Bay based on a 1995 study that found that the highest ambient external radiation dose rate found at Dalgety Bay was two thirds of that found naturally in the granite in Aberdeen.

The scoping risk assessment undertaken by the Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards in 2012, which took account of the two high-activity objects found in late 2011 and the subsequent find in April 2012, together with the current management measures, concluded that the risk of attributable cancer was actually less than one in 100 million. In addition, the most recent cancer study published by the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment in December 2012, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, found no evidence of the occurrence of cancers in the local population that could be attributed to the presence of radium-226.

[Mr Brown]

rose—

[Dr Murrison]

I have one minute left and I will not give way.

I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman, who was of course in high office for 13 years and did nothing on this subject, that he needs to be very careful indeed about raising fears in his local population. He knows full well that Government will comply with statute but, more than that, will do anything they can voluntarily to protect public health, but it has to be on the grounds of science and a proper risk assessment. To that end, my officials will be meeting SEPA later this month to discuss the methodological problems with the science and come to some sort of way ahead. I personally look forward to visiting Dalgety Bay in the very near future, and I look forward to further discussions with the right hon. Gentleman on this subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

We are assured that there will be no decline in the US commitment to NATO and its members. The collective benefits of NATO membership, however, come with a collective responsibility to share the burden of the alliance’s roles and missions and to pull their weight. We are discussing how all allies can contribute more to our collective security, including through the NATO defence planning process, as discussed most recently at the NATO defence ministerial meeting early this month.

[Mr Buckland]

What specific assessment has my hon. Friend made of the willingness of European NATO partner nations to step up to the plate when it comes to security in Europe, the middle east and north Africa and to take into account the Pacific pivot?

[Dr Murrison]

First, it is important to say that the Government welcome the rebalancing of US forces towards the Asia-Pacific region, which is very much in line with our assessment and renewed engagement in the area. It is hoped that partner nations will make similar determinations, noting of course the US’s continuing strong engagement in Europe and the MENA—middle east and north Africa—region, with UK encouragement, and approaching collective security and defence with renewed vigour against a very unfavourable economic backdrop.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

What assessment has been made of the capacity of the Government-owned contractor-operated organisation to facilitate joint trilateral and bilateral procurement with NATO allies?

[Dr Murrison]

It should be no different from the current situation, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will support any measure we can take to improve defence deliverables and salvage the current position from the mess we inherited.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that America’s understandable decision to shift its focus towards the Pacific puts all the more responsibility on countries such as Britain, which after all are much closer to the potential threats than America is, to keep up our armed forces despite the economic situation?

[Dr Murrison]

Clearly we cannot ignore the economic situation, because it poses a clear and present danger to this country and others. I think that it means that we will have to renew our efforts with our friends and allies to ensure that they, too, spend significant sums of money on defence, but I should emphasise that the US is quite clear about its continuing commitment to Europe and the MENA region, and I think we should take some comfort from that.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

NATO’s defence capability includes the protection of the nuclear umbrella. Does the Minister find it incongruous in respect of NATO membership to have, on the one hand, a policy of unilateral disarmament and, on the other, to seek the protection of that nuclear umbrella? That is the policy of the SNP.

[Dr Murrison]

It is always nice to find common ground with the hon. Gentleman and the Labour party. On this subject, we are in violent agreement.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

3. When he next plans to visit the National Memorial Arboretum and Armed Forces Memorial.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

May I start by thanking the Royal British Legion for its custodianship of the National Memorial Arboretum and the trustees of the Armed Forces Memorial for its upkeep? As my hon. Friend will recall—we were there together—I visited the arboretum and laid a wreath at the Armed Forces Memorial on 11 November last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence also visited in November last year and my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will attend the annual ceremony to unveil the new names on the memorial next month.

[Michael Fabricant]

The National Memorial Arboretum, which is in my constituency, receives more than 300,000 visitors a year and is a real testament to those who died before the second world war and, with the Armed Forces Memorial, those who have perished since that war. What plans does the Minister have for the commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the first world war? Will anything be done at the National Memorial Arboretum then?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend takes a close interest in the National Memorial Arboretum and the Armed Forces Memorial, so he knows well that they were established primarily to commemorate the fallen from 1 January 1948. He will also know that I am the Prime Minister’s special representative for the centenary commemoration of the great war. In that capacity, I am well aware of a number of projects that will involve the National Memorial Arboretum. As my hon. Friend takes such a close interest in both the arboretum and the memorial, I am sure that he will be intimately involved with them.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have not yet had the pleasure of visiting the National Memorial Arboretum, although I hope to in the near future.

[Stephen Doughty]

I will.

I will be attending the memorials for Armed Forces day on 22 June in Penarth in my constituency. What assessment has the Minister made of the scale and support of memorials on Armed Forces day this year? I assume and hope that they are growing.

[Dr Murrison]

Memorials are certainly a focus for our remembrance and always central to any commemoration of the fallen. I look forward to Armed Forces day this year. I am sure that, as ever, it will be a great success.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

On Armed Forces day at the National Memorial Arboretum and around the country, I hope that hon. Members will join me in remembering Lance Corporal James Ashworth, who was recently posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross for his conspicuous bravery in Afghanistan; he is only its 14th recipient since the second world war. The commitment of our troops in the field in Afghanistan lends itself to a proper recognition at the National Memorial Arboretum.

[Dr Murrison]

I add my tribute to that of the hon. Gentleman. It is our intention to remove the memorial currently in Camp Bastion to Staffordshire when that is appropriate. Preparatory work for that will begin later this year.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of progress in development of the B-variant of the joint strike fighter aircraft; and how many countries have expressed an interest in its procurement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The European Defence Agency has achieved some initial success in delivering improvements to the capabilities of European nations, but we believe that it could do a great deal better. That is why the Ministry of Defence concluded earlier this year that although we should maintain our subscription to the agency, our continuing membership is to be reviewed again in late 2013 in the light of progress made during the year.

[Damian Collins]

Does my hon. Friend agree that continued UK membership must be based on detailed cost-benefit analysis of both UK defence needs and those of our European NATO allies?

[Dr Murrison]

The EDA spends €30.5 million a year, which is a great deal of money in the current circumstances. I think the House will agree that it would be perverse if we were forced to make cutbacks in defence at home while voting through increases at a European level. I am therefore pleased to say that in November last year I again vetoed the increase in the EDA budget. The UK was the only country to exercise its vote in that way. For as long as the EDA fails to cut the mustard, we will continue to do just that.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

14. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer about his planned spending review.