Ministry of Defence

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Jamie Stone]

That point is extremely well made. I might say, for the amusement of the House, that when I was a lowly private in the 2nd Battalion the 51st Highland Volunteers I used to find that one of the best ways to get home after a long camp far away in a remote part of the highlands was to wear my uniform and hitchhike—invariably, one got a lift pretty fast.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Do you still use it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

It depends whether the hon. Gentleman is talking about absolute figures or percentages of GDP spent on defence. In 2016, the Defence Committee produced a unanimous report called “Shifting the Goalposts? Defence expenditure and the 2% pledge”. We had the Committee staff use all available sourcing to draw up a definitive table of what had been spent on defence by Britain as a proportion of GDP over the past 50 years. The figures for the period we are talking about are: 1990-91, 3.8%; 1991-92, 3.8%; 1992-1993, 3.7%; 1993-94, 3.5%; 1994-95, 3.3%; and 1995-96, 3%. It then dips below 3% in 1996-97 to 2.7%, and thereafter it is down and down, with little blips here and there, until it is hovering around 2.5% because the cost of operations were included.

The point about all this is that we should not be arguing about who did the most damage. We should be agreeing about what we need in the future. If we are hearing a chorus of voices from the Labour Benches—it is music to my ears—saying that we have not been spending enough on defence and we need to be spending more, that is what we should be saying loud and clear to those people who seem to be perfectly content to spend the existing inadequate sums.

I do not wish to prolong my contribution, but I do wish to speak briefly about the equipment plan that was alluded to in some detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough. The equipment plan of 2016 is for £178 billion over 10 years. That includes a small number—nine, which some would say was too small a number—of new P-8A maritime patrol aircraft, replacing a capability that was quite wrongly dispensed with after 2010. We are also supposed to be replacing 13 Type 23 frigates and supplying mechanised infantry vehicles out of this budget, and we are of course engaged in resurrecting carrier strike capability—another capacity that was temporarily lost after 2010.

The first report of the Defence Committee in the new Parliament was entitled, “Gambling on ‘Efficiency’: Defence Acquisition and Procurement”. The word “efficiency” was in inverted commas because we believe that the affordability of the scheme is predicated on an estimate of £7.3 billion of theoretical efficiency savings that are to be made in addition to some £7.1 billion that was previously announced. As we have heard, the National Audit Office thinks that the equipment programme is at greater risk than at any time since reporting was introduced in 2012. The truth of the matter is that we encounter black holes everywhere we look in defence. This brings me to my concluding point.

[Gavin Robinson]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for the points he is making. We can starkly illustrate this issue. Training operations that had been committed for next year have been delayed, and we now hear that there are more. We also heard, very openly and honestly, at the Defence Committee last week not only that we going to have to cut mobile phone contracts and car hire contracts, but that—thinking about next year’s budget—£300 million has already been flexed in this year’s budget for a black hole in the Dreadnought class.

[Dr Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is a stalwart of the Committee. I hope that he will develop that important point if he catches your eye presently, Mr Deputy Speaker. Obviously there has to be flexibility and a means of making adjustments when adjustments have to be made to very large sums during the course of an annual budget cycle. But we are talking about an overall shortfall that is so great that we are not going to get anywhere unless we recognise reality and accept that defence should not be so far down the national scale of priorities that it has far left behind those areas of high Government expenditure with which it used to bear straight comparison.

I mentioned previously the National Security Adviser and his security and capability review. The House will know something of the difficulties that the Defence Committee has had in getting the National Security Adviser to appear before it on the grounds—he says—that defence was only one out of 12 strands in that review. The new Secretary of State for Defence has now had some success in regaining control of that one strand for the MOD. Nevertheless, there is something to be said for a very in-depth interrogation of the people who are currently charged with the overall design of our defence and security policy.

At the present time, there is a degree of complacency by people who work in these Ministries. Then, as if by magic, the scales drop from their eyes the moment that they leave. Dare I say this in relation to our most recent former Secretary of State for Defence? Throughout his tenure he played a very straight bat, constantly talking up how much more money was being spent on defence. But within a very short time of leaving his position he made an excellent speech—I believe it was on 22 January this year—in which he said not only that he feels that we need to spend more on defence, but that we ought to be spending 2.5% of GDP on defence by the end of this Parliament.

In the further contributions to this debate, I look to some magic formula that will take hold of our Defence Ministers, civil servants, National Security Adviser and all the rest who seem to think that all is well with the world when, confronted with threats such as we face today, we are spending a fraction of what we used to spend in percentage terms of GDP, and who are saying, “Everything is fine and we are on course.” We are not on course. We need to change course, and the direction in which we have to go is towards a significant uplift to 3% of GDP to be spent on the defence of the United Kingdom.

Fatalities in Northern Ireland and British Military Personnel

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I follow three Members whose contributions were different in many respects. They are all engaged in this issue and have considered it thoughtfully throughout the Select Committee inquiries. It is a privilege for me serve on the Defence Committee and to be a part of the inquiry.

While I was listening to our esteemed Chair, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis)—I mean that respectfully—I was thinking of Otto von Bismarck’s quote about legislation being a bit like sausages: no one needs to see how they are made. The right hon. Gentleman and I have had many private conversations about this report. He knows very clearly that my party colleagues and I are not supportive of an amnesty and that many victims in Northern Ireland—whether they are victims of republicanism, nationalism, Unionists, loyalist paramilitaries or of state forces—collectively do not believe in an amnesty, nor are they interested in having the hope or the pursuit of justice snuffed out. That is the environment in which it is important to consider this report.

This morning I was listening to BBC Radio Ulster, which had a contribution from Northern Ireland victims about Holocaust Memorial Day. One victim, Alan McBride, lost his wife on the Shankill Road when she went to her local fish and chip shop to get an evening meal and was blown up by the IRA. He spoke about a day of reflection in Northern Ireland, which is 21 June. I did not know this, but he shared the reason that 21 June was selected: victims across the Province had sought to find one single day in the calendar on which there has not been a troubles-related death, but they could not. They could not find a single day when someone had not died as a consequence of the troubles. They focused on 21 June because of the solstice representing a change in culture and weather, and the hope and aspiration of warmth and sunshine.

Our history is harrowing. Anyone who has been personally or directly affected by it is left with the scars and the emotion of the troubles of Northern Ireland. The report is about who “guards the guardians”, to use the phrase from a previous Defence Committee report. It is about how we look after those who protected society in Northern Ireland, not those who persecuted and were prosecuted for the most heinous crimes in Northern Ireland.

A total of 300,000 service personnel served in Northern Ireland—there were 27,000 of them at the height of the troubles—and 1,441 human beings who we, as a nation, asked to serve and protect our interests, perished. They died. Three hundred individuals died as a direct consequence of engagement with security forces, but that does not mean 300 murders. It is important to make that point. It does not mean that 300 people were murdered at the hands of the state: 300 people died engaging against the state. They were legitimate deaths—deaths that arose out of conflict and out of those individuals who we asked to defend us standing on the frontline and defending us as best they could.

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

I thank my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Select Committee for the huge amount of work they have put into the report and its conclusions. Does he agree that there is a stark difference between someone who went out with murder on their mind to hurt and to kill in the pursuit of terrorism, and the brave men and women of our security forces and armed forces? They went out night after night and day after day to serve and to protect, and some were involved in difficult operational decisions with very tragic outcomes. We should be protecting them, as opposed to a terrorist on the loyalist side, a terrorist on the republican side, or somebody in the armed forces who went out with the intention to murder. That is not what this is about. It is about protecting those who are honourable and who went out to serve and protect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

I agree most fundamentally with my hon. Friend. She has been engaged for almost a decade in the policy matters and implications of legacy issues in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to her for the work that she has done. These are not easy issues at all.

I am not saying that those 300 deaths were murders or unlawful, but that should not mean that they are immune from investigation. I say that most clearly: they should not be immune from investigation. I will quote from the “Who guards the guardians?” report led by the hon. and gallant Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) on the inquiry into the Iraq Historic Allegations Team:

“With the prospect of investigations into British deployments in Afghanistan and Northern Ireland, the Government must prove both in private, but especially in public that in adhering to the pursuit of justice and the rule of law, it does not lose sight of its moral responsibility and its commitment to the Armed Forces Covenant with those who have served.”

I was disappointed that the Government dismissed those lines.

Given what we have attempted to do in Northern Ireland thus far in dealing with the legacy, this report barely surmises that the overall process of investigations into fatalities in Northern Ireland has been deeply unsatisfactory. The instability of investigatory bodies, the limited resources and manpower provided to them and the continuing question marks over their independence have delivered a vicious cycle of investigation and reinvestigation that fails service personnel, their families and the families of those who died.

I respectfully suggest to the Minister—the Chair of the Select Committee should know my views on this as well—that dealing with this issue through the prism of Northern Ireland does not work. As parliamentarians who stand up in this national Parliament and ask individuals to put their lives on the line for our protection and our security, we should not look at this issue through the prism of Northern Ireland alone. A consultation is fine, and I have nothing against people submitting their views, but the principles with which we are engaged go far beyond the Northern Ireland context. I am not asking for anything that would be injurious to investigation or to upholding the rule of law.

When I say that, I am acutely aware that there are relatives of victims of the Ballymurphy massacre sitting in the Public Gallery—relatives who have sought for years to achieve truth and justice for their loved ones for that incident, which took place over a number of days in August 1971. I say very gently—this applies to their case and to many others in Northern Ireland—that the pursuit of truth and the pursuit of justice are two noble pursuits, but one does not always lead to the other. Someone can have truth but not get the justice they seek; someone can have justice but not get the truth they think they know. That is the mix that we deal with in Northern Ireland, but a statute of limitations would not, in our view, change the ability to get an investigation or to get closure, or remove the state’s responsibility or what it has to do to be article 2 compliant.

I disagree with the Chair of the Select Committee about this. The year 1973 was a watershed. That was when the investigatory process in Northern Ireland was fundamentally changed because the impartiality or the suitability of investigations had been questioned. The state can have confidence that where there was an investigation post-1973, that process was robust and article 2 compliant. I acknowledge that the Ballymurphy massacre predates that, and I do not stand in the way of any victim who seeks to pursue justice for their loved ones.

It is wrong to say that a statute of limitations would have to be extended to both state and non-state actors. We propose a statute of limitations on the basis that the state has discharged its duty. This is not immunity. This is not state immunity. This is not protection for a class of people. This is the state saying, “Where there has been an investigation and nothing came of it, we will move on after a defined period of time.” That is why looking through the prism of Northern Ireland is wrong in this context. This will apply in four years’ time to Afghanistan, and in five or six years’ time to Iraq. A 20-year statute of limitations could apply to armed conflicts throughout the world, provided we do not deviate from international standards. I do not accept that this has to be all-encompassing.

I draw a distinction: the Government in London created conditions that were preferential for the perpetrators but seemingly did nothing for the protectors. If we are looking for equivalence in the system, we need to look further than the two-year early-release scheme, although that is a key part. There is a distinction. Two serving members of the security forces were in prison at the time of the Good Friday agreement and did not benefit from the two-year release scheme. The perpetrators of heinous paramilitary acts in Northern Ireland kept no records, have no files and provide no honesty or truth in a process that could lead to justice for the loved ones of their victims, be they members of the security forces or not. That is another clear disparity.

If you had asked the Northern Ireland parties to agree to an on-the-runs scheme, they would have asked you to run on, but the Labour Government did produce an on-the-runs scheme. They went out of their way to give comfort to those who had committed heinous paramilitary acts that they would not be pursued for prosecution. Our state—this country and its Government—has given no protection to the people it asked to engage on our behalf. It has given no protection to security forces personnel who served in Northern Ireland or in other conflicts, but it was prepared to give odious on-the-run letters to paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.

John Downey is a famous example. He killed 11 members of our security forces in Hyde Park and seven horses associated with their work. When he was brought to the Old Bailey, he produced an on-the-runs letter and said, “I have an assurance from this state that I will not be prosecuted for my actions.” John Downey walked. There is no parallel between the way our state protects the people we ask to protect us and its casual, laissez-faire protection of paramilitaries.

The legal evidence that the Committee received was interesting and compelling, but most importantly—albeit there are different views, ambitions and perspectives on the Northern Ireland issue—our expert witnesses agreed that it is entirely in the UK Parliament’s power to enact a statute of limitations. We call on the Government to do so as a matter of urgency in the next Parliament. That is the nature of our report. That is what we ask for from our Government. Although there will always be different ambitions, different tactics and different approaches in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland is but one part of this process. The Government must decide whether they are prepared to redress their approach to legacy issues and to our service personnel and start protecting those who protected us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis]

It only remains for me to express my gratitude to everyone who has taken part in the debate. I hope that any onlookers will realise and accept that we are dealing with the most difficult of issues, and are trying to do everything that decent people with good intentions can do to arrive at a fair conclusion.

I am grateful to those who have spoken today. I am grateful to colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who have been highly active in this field in the past but could not be here today, for writing in support. I am grateful to the Minister, not least for making crystal clear that the sentencing Act does indeed apply equally to the military and to terrorists going on trial.

That said, it remains absolutely unacceptable that service personnel will have to go through the sort of ordeal that Dennis Hutchings is going through. It seems to me that there are only two ways to prevent that: getting rid of the international law that requires such matters to be investigated in the way that it does, and having a statute of limitations. The international law, namely the Human Rights Act, says that if we have a statute of limitations, it must apply to everyone. I see my good friend the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) dissenting from that proposition, but that is the testimony that we were given by legal experts. If there is a way in which we can do what the report does—that is, support a statute of limitations for service personnel and analogous organisations, such as the police and the security agencies—without incurring a breach of international law, I would like to know what it is, because the evidence that we were given was that we could not.

[Gavin Robinson]

I realise that it is probably improper for me to start a new debate during a concluding speech, but it depends on whether there has been an article 2-compliant investigation or not. If there has not been, the right hon. Gentleman is right; but where there has been, the option of a statute of limitations is open.

[Dr Lewis]

As I say, we sought advice, and the advice we got was that a statute of limitations can be brought in, but there has to be—or have been, as the hon. Gentleman says—an investigation. There has not always been such an investigation, so unless or until we can bring in such a statute, or can get out of the provisions of the Human Rights Act—no one seems to want to do that—we face the prospect of people like Dennis Hutchings being forced to go through a process, at a late stage in their life, that most fair-minded people would regard as unacceptable and that is unlikely to lead to a conviction.

I did not expect for one moment that we would solve this problem today, but I hope that we have clarified the issues, and have focused the Government’s attention on what needs to be done, so that we do not end up with our soldiers having to worry about not only warfare but lawfare.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Seventh Report of the Defence Committee, Investigations into fatalities in Northern Ireland involving British military personnel, Session 2016-17, HC 1064, and the Government response, HC 549.

Modernising Defence Programme

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I do not want to prejudge the programme just yet, but we need to give people the real confidence and belief that the armed forces are treasured and valued by everyone in this country. We need people to realise that if they join the Army, the Navy or the Air Force, they will have not just a great career but the best possible career that anyone could ever have. I hope that the programme will give them the confidence that a career in our armed forces is the best career that they can pursue.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is great to see you back in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I believe that the Secretary of State is seized of the danger of continually augmenting our threat assessments and losing capacity, only to find that old threats are renewed. As he looks to modernise this country’s defence capability, may I urge him to look closely at Northern Ireland? Not only does my constituency have the UK’s largest dry dock, which is suitable for Queen Elizabeth class carriers, but the city is home to the latest ECIT and CSIT cyber-security centres. Northern Ireland has never been found wanting when it comes to personnel or procurement opportunities, and I urge him to look to us.

Shipbuilding Strategy

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to speak in debates, Ms McDonagh.

May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) on setting the scene so well, and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Defence Committee, on his special contribution? I am very pleased to make a contribution, and in debates such as this I always refer to the fact that as an ex-serviceperson—on the land, of course—I have an interest in the support of service personnel and wish to see that we do our best, whether it be for the RAF, the Royal Navy or the Army. This debate gives us a chance to focus on the Royal Navy. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) is doing the armed forces parliamentary scheme with the Royal Navy and is also on the Defence Committee. We are very privileged to have his contribution in that Committee, and hopefully in this debate as well.

I am proud to be from a party—the Democratic Unionist party—that pushed the last Government hard into increasing the spend on defence by 1%. As we try to do, we used our influence in a very constructive fashion to make sure that defence issues are the top priority for Government. We have also got some feedback on that, as my hon. Friend will know. We have some commitment to defence spend in Northern Ireland in relation to reserves—this debate is not about that, of course—and capital spend. Those are some of the good things that we are doing positively in relation to Northern Ireland with the Ministry of Defence.

The reason for that defence spend is clear. While it is great to have money spent locally, the fact is that no matter where in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland someone lives, they will benefit from armed forces that are well trained, well fed and well equipped. That is the reason we are here. The summary in the national shipbuilding strategy, which I am not going to read because I am sure that Members have it in front of them, is clear that the Royal Navy needs to have the eight Type 26 frigates and the strategy for the Type 31e frigates as well. Again, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport referred to that.

I believe that we benefit by having been able to send aid over after the recent Hurricane Irma and during the crisis period. Our Royal Navy was already there and able to respond. We benefit by being able to meet our responsibilities throughout the world with a fleet that is capable, and we further know that we can defend these islands and our British colonies when needed. Better than our knowing that we can do that, the rest of the world also knows—it is important that it does—that we can and will do so if and when the need arises.

I will tell this story, not flippantly but to have an illustration on the record. I once had a teacher who advocated picking out a pupil at the start of the year to be introduced to Cain and Abel. The premise was that he had a cane and was able to use it. He then demonstrated that to the class at the first opportunity—I was a recipient of it on many occasions in the ’60s—and we knew from then on that we did not want ever to meet Cain and Abel again. That is perhaps rather simplistic, but it illustrates why it is important that the Royal Navy has the ability to be our Cain and Abel wherever it may be in the world. I am not advocating the use of blunt force to make a statement; I am saying that we have proven in the past that our abilities are numerous, and that we have the premier armed forces in the world. We also need to underline the fact that that is not simply a historical fact; it is a present-day reality. For that, we need facilities that are capable and that make the grade. Every one of us in this debate, whatever angle we come from, will want to impress that on the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in his place; I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister in his. Hopefully, we will all make constructive contributions to this debate, so that we can move forward in a positive way.

I read an interesting article on the topic on the website Save the Royal Navy that gave a concise view of where we are and where we are headed in terms of our shipbuilding strategy and defence capability:

“When the Tide class oil tankers were ordered in 2012 (a remnant of the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) project), no British company had bid for the construction work. There were two main reasons: most UK yards were occupied working on the QEC aircraft carriers blocks, but they also knew they would not be able to compete on price with foreign state-subsidised shipyards. The controversial decision to look abroad made sense at the time, the MoD got four ships at a bargain £452 million and no British shipbuilder could claim they would go under without the work. (£150 million was spent in the UK with BMT who designed the ships together with A&P Falmouth, who are fitting them with additional military equipment). Five years later, the landscape has changed significantly”,

which is why this debate is important.

“The QEC construction project is in its final phase, but one of its very positive legacies has been to help stimulate a modest revival in commercial shipbuilding, and there are now yards hungry for further naval work.”

In a past life as a member of the Ulster Defence Regiment back in the ’70s, I guarded the Samson and Goliath cranes in the old Harland and Wolff shipyard, which made a significant contribution to shipbuilding in Northern Ireland. On the border of my constituency, within that of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East, the shipbuilding giant was at one stage the biggest employer of men in both our constituencies, with some 35,000 workers at its peak in the 1920s.

Harland and Wolff has not produced a ship in about 14 years, although it continuously built and provided ships over a period of time. The last to leave Queen’s Island was the £40 million Anvil Point, at the start of 2003. The 22,000-tonne ferry was the second of two vessels built for the Ministry of Defence. Harland and Wolff is teaming up with other companies such as Thales, also in my hon. Friend’s constituency, to bid for a £1.25 billion contract. I believe that they have not only the ability but the drive and desire to deliver the best that can be given. They are invested in securing every bolt and screw, not simply for the sake of their reputations but for the sake of their own children and grandchildren, who may well serve their country on the ship.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I am grateful for the lettered references to me in glowing terms. Harland and Wolff in my constituency is one of many shipbuilders seized with the aspiration associated with the national shipbuilding strategy. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful for the Minister to clarify the distinction between UK content and UK benefit? What is intended, and what surety can UK shipbuilders take from that distinction?

[Jim Shannon]

Everything that I said about my hon. Friend was absolutely true, so he can take my comments as such, but his intervention was specific to the Minister, to whom we look for a helpful response. My hon. Friend outlined some of the issues in the briefing document that we had beforehand about building only in the UK and skills. We need skills not only in the Royal Navy but in the shipbuilding programme. Costs can never be ignored; it comes down to how we do it best. I understand that we are considering exports for the ships and frigates that we are building, but it seems that that may not have been realised yet. Quantity or quality is a difficult debate. What is best? We certainly want quality, but perhaps we need quantity to go along with that.

To return to the Royal Navy’s ability to fulfil all its missions, let us consider some of the things that we are aware that the Royal Navy does today. Fisheries protection will become more apparent when we leave the European Union on 31 March 2019. All our seas will be back in our control, and when they are, we will need to police them to ensure that other countries do not take advantage of places where they once fished, but where they will only be able to fish if they have an agreement with us. We must put that on record. The Navy has a role in the Falkland Islands and in anti-piracy in eastern Africa, as well as in dealing with refugees in the Mediterranean. The demands on the Royal Navy are immense; we should keep that in mind.

I am suddenly conscious of time, so I will finish with this. It is vital for the local economy that shipbuilding is done in-house and not outsourced, and the collaboration of local and UK mainland companies seeks to do that. I believe that that trumps the freedom of trade thought process, with which I agree to an extent, although I do not believe that it precludes the fact that charity begins at home. It is not charity, of course; it is having business, workers, jobs and contracts at home. If we have the capability to produce, which we clearly do, then that work can and must be carried out right here at home.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

Again, a very important question. On the support we are giving to Typhoon exports around the world, I was delighted that recently my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was able to sign a statement of intent with Qatar. We will continue with that effort, as well as considering our options on a replacement.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State was most welcome to my constituency four weeks ago, albeit to name a ship that was built in Glasgow. When does he intend to visit Glasgow to announce naval shipbuilding in Belfast?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I hope the hon. Gentleman shared my pride in restoring again the name of HMS Belfast to a warship of the line. I will certainly bear his suggestion in mind next time I am in Glasgow.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Michael Fallon]

Absolutely. As I have said, the Clyde already has 20 years’ worth of guaranteed work on the eight heavier anti-submarine frigates. When I was on the Clyde in July to cut steel on the first, HMS Glasgow, there was a unanimous welcome from the workforce for the commitment that the Government are following through in awarding that contract. Today, however, we are doing more than that, in both frigate factories. [Interruption.] Govan and Scotstoun will produce eight frigates over the next 20 years. But there is even better news for Scotland today: those yards—and, indeed, Babcock at Rosyth—will be able to bid for the lighter frigate as well. Scotland’s cup runneth over.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

In thanking the right hon. Gentleman for the honourable mention of Harland and Wolff in Belfast, retaining, as it does, the UK’s largest and second largest dry dock, I do not wish to draw him on pole positions, but in welcoming today’s advancement and the greater focus on regionalisation and competitiveness, may I ask whether the Secretary of State envisages a single tendering process to be met by joint venture, or will individual components be separately tendered for, and then collated together for the Type 31?

[Sir Michael Fallon]

I certainly hope that Harland and Wolff will participate in this competition and rise to the challenge. We retain an open mind as to what the final winning solution is likely to be. We have learned a lot from the block build construction of the aircraft carriers, but equally it might well be the case that one particular yard comes up with the best proposal, or that that comes from a consortium of one or two yards, working with international yards as well on some elements of the ships. So we have a completely open mind as to how this is going to be done. This is a challenge for all the shipyards in Britain and Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Lancaster]

Since its peak, the use of e-blueys has reduced by some 98%, meaning that an e-bluey can sometimes cost £17. The service will cease from 1 April, but all the money saved will be reinvested, and there is now nowhere overseas that does not have access to the internet. However, we are looking carefully at this to ensure that nobody will be disadvantaged when the new service is introduced.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

During a recent sitting of the Defence Committee, I shared with the Minister correspondence from the then Health Minister for Northern Ireland, now the leader of Sinn Féin, who pointedly said:

“the Armed Forces Covenant is not in place here”.

What advice and guidance can the Minister give in the face of such intransigence?

[Mark Lancaster]

We all understand that the armed forces covenant applies throughout the United Kingdom. I appreciate that there are specific challenges in Northern Ireland, and I have already said that I intend to make that a priority for this year. To that end, I shall be visiting Northern Ireland shortly.

National Shipbuilding Strategy

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

rose—

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriett Baldwin]

I will be talking a little more about that in my speech.

[Gavin Robinson]

In previous engagements at the Defence Select Committee, the Minister has indicated her willingness to travel throughout the United Kingdom to see the other opportunities that are available. Given that the largest dry dock and the second largest dry dock in the United Kingdom are in my constituency at Harland and Wolff, I look forward not only to the Minister visiting, but to formulating plans that can feed in to her final report and considerations.

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for an obviously irresistible invitation. I hope I will be able to take him up on it in the not-so-distant future. For the record, I say to the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) that I am in Newcastle tomorrow. I look forward to meeting a range of manufacturers. I will not specifically be meeting A&P Tyne on this occasion, but I met A&P in Falmouth only last week.

In the SDSR we announced our plans for a naval programme of investment. We are investing in two new aircraft carriers, which are currently being completed at Rosyth. We are investing in new submarines to be based in Scotland at Faslane. We have announced our plans for frigates. We are building five new offshore patrol vessels on the Clyde at the moment. We have ordered new aircraft, including the maritime patrol aircraft, the P-8, which will be based at Lossiemouth. Scotland is clearly doing well out of defence, and the UK is doing well in defence with Scotland, and 2017 is the start of a new era of maritime power, projecting the UK’s influence globally and delivering security at home. I do not have time in this debate to list all the different ships we have deployed across the world’s oceans.

I know the appetite of Members for publications. They will have all read the 2016 equipment plan, which we published last month. It laid out the plans in more detail and announced that the total amount that will be spent on the procurement and support of surface ships and submarines over the next decade amounts to some £63 billion. It is all part of the continued modernisation of the Royal Navy in the coming years, which will be underpinned by our national shipbuilding strategy. It is very much our intention that the strategy will be a radical, fundamental reappraisal of shipbuilding in the UK, with the aim of placing UK naval shipbuilding on a sustainable long-term footing. It will set the foundations for a modern, efficient and competitive sector, capable of meeting the country’s future defence and security needs.

Armed Forces Covenant Annual Report

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I thank the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) for doing all the work to put this together. I am pleased to have this debate, but I am even more pleased to know that there is now an all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant that can sit down, listen to all the variations and learn from and help each other. Obviously I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say. It is lovely to have the APPG in place, as it is something that we all need.

As everyone knows, I long to see the United Kingdom be treated together as one: the Union. Members will hear me bash on about that throughout my time here. I thank all of those who have been involved with setting up the covenant, with the reports and with all the work, benefits and flexibilities in the covenant to help everyone. I also thank the armed forces, and I always will. We saw all those members of the armed forces who had to work all the way through Christmas to help people with the flooding.

As a Northern Irish MP, I will be highlighting some of the difficulties and problems we have in Northern Ireland, especially the difficulty our Executive have had, due to the way they are set up, in not being able to choose to be represented on the covenant reference group. From that, the Executive are therefore finding it impossible to spend the £10 million that is available. We need a better system—I will get into that in more detail.

In the report, and in listening to the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, it is fascinating to hear about all the good things that are in place and about how we can help each other. Reading the report, I thought that the Welsh seem to be leading in many areas, with many great ideas, although that is probably a little unfair on the English and the Scottish. There are so many good ideas, and we should embrace them all and make them work. I particularly like the fact that Wales has champions for veterans and armed forces personnel on every health board and every NHS trust, and that the Welsh Government are fully involved with the strategic development of the veterans’ hearing fund— I cannot speak, let alone hear.

We have the legacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland, as everyone knows, and with that comes many difficulties and problems, particularly with health. There are also legal problems, including on hearing. Veterans often suffer from having to come to this side of the water to deal with their cases, which they are not being allowed to deal with in Northern Ireland. In a few cases, veterans have found that because they served somewhere else in addition to Northern Ireland—even if they did just two or three months—their cases are being rejected because Northern Ireland has been treated differently. We need to find a way of accepting all armed forces veterans from the past, from the troubles all the way through, and treating everybody the same.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

I have a constituent in Northern Ireland who is a former lance corporal in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers—I hope the Minister can hear this story—who served in Iraq and Kosovo. He has been to Hollybush and is 40% disabled today. He was advised to apply for retrospective medical discharge two years ago and has yet to hear a response. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the covenant operated fully in Northern Ireland, that outcome might be slightly different?

[Danny Kinahan]

I agree entirely. That is just one example, and I and many others have plenty more examples of where the system does not work especially well. We need a slicker, faster system that works. I will go into that a little later.

Returning to the good things that Wales is doing, particularly on mental health, veterans there can access Veterans NHS Wales services and can refer themselves, if they think they have post-traumatic stress disorder, via the Royal British Legion, SSAFA or the Veterans Welfare Service. It is really hard in Northern Ireland for people with PTSD to be taken seriously and treated. They have to go across the water. It is paid for so they can get that help, but at the moment there is no easy way of referring people. Looking back at our system and our troubles, it is not just about Afghanistan or Iraq; it goes right back to the late 1960s and early 1970s. We have many people with mental difficulties to help. In those days, PTSD was hidden away. We need to ensure that Northern Ireland has a much better system that focuses less on coming here.

I went to a very good briefing four years ago with a brigadier who showed us a great, slick organisation for dealing with everyone—ex-Ulster Defence Regiment and ex-police—and helping them, but what was happening in my office showed that they were not able to get there. The right people were there, and there were lots of people doing great work, but people were being let down. I will give one example.

I was called by a family who said that their dad was suffering from ill health. He was in a psychiatric hospital and was threatening to commit suicide, but the hospital kept saying that he was fine and sending him home. Home could not cope, so he went back into hospital and was there for two or three weeks. I went to see him once. When we got to telling war stories and chatting, he lightened up; it was fun. His wife said to me that that was the first time in four or five years that she had seen him relax.

I went away and carried on with the other work that we were doing, and he went back to normal. The long and short of it was that he kept being sent home, despite my efforts to get the hospital to keep him there and look after him. One day he put on his waders, walked into the local reservoir and killed himself. We had all the signals, but we would not recognise them, and we let that family down. That is just one example.

I note all the great things that Scotland is doing. Focusing on education, Scotland has systems in place—I mention this for good reason—to ensure that local authorities know when a child is from a service family. In Northern Ireland, that would be very difficult. There is still a security situation. It is not in newspapers here all the time, but for us, things haven’t gone away, you know—if I may use that awful phrase. There are still troubles and security issues. Military hospitals in Great Britain, for example, will not send information across to Northern Ireland. I will give two examples of the consequences.

A military spouse had been receiving long-term treatment for Crohn’s disease in Northallerton in North Yorkshire. She was registered as a military wife. When her husband was discharged they moved back to Northern Ireland, but because the military wing of the Northallerton hospital would not forward her records, the treatment was not continued, resulting in long-term damage and, finally, major surgery. Also, some drugs that she was given in Great Britain were not funded in Northern Ireland.

In another example, someone registered for a course at Ulster University and was dismayed when he had to submit a credit note with all his military details to the university finance department, which then lost it. It was eventually found, but of course he had lost confidence, as so many other people have. We need to find a new system. People in Northern Ireland will not use the armed forces loyalty card, because it shows that they are in the armed forces. I could give more examples of the security reasons why people do not feel able to use it. We need to find a better way.

The Irish, as hon. Members will know, like fighting. We have a particularly long history and record in the Army. I always smile when I think of learning in Roman history during my schooldays that Agricola, having just taken England, looked to Ireland but was advised, “They like fighting among themselves too much,” so the Romans never came to Ireland. Maybe things would have changed if they had, but hon. Members will all know that we have a long record of being part of the services. Between 2008 and 2011, more than 20% of those deployed on the ground were from Northern Ireland, which has 3% of the UK population. Just under 7% of reservists are from Northern Ireland. More importantly, we have the best recruiting in the whole United Kingdom. We are honoured to be part of the forces, but on the other side of things, some 65,000 Northern Irish served during the troubles. We experience it on a different scale, and it goes back a long way.

I am not sure how much we are meant to declare as an interest in this debate, but I will have a military pension, albeit a small one, so I had better declare that. I was a Household Cavalry officer, and I served in the Black Watch in 1983 in west Belfast, where my family had had a business for 100 years. Two or three years later, I was squadron leader of the North Irish Horse. My reason for saying so is that I am now an honorary colonel, so I am still involved. I thought that I had better declare my interests; I am still very much and very proudly involved with the North Irish Horse, and I am part of the Scottish and Northern Irish Yeomanry, which has a terrific history. I look forward to seeing it thrive, as we are recruiting well. Hon. Members will know that the reserves are the backbone of the armed forces, especially at the moment.

I referred in my maiden speech to the Union Brigade at Waterloo. It would have been good to see the Irish, the Scottish and the English all charging together as part of that brigade. Today, 100 years after the Somme, we should remember that not just the Northern Irish but every part of the United Kingdom gave lives there. Next year we will commemorate the battle of Messines, in which the Irish and the Ulster divisions fought together. We have a long history.

To return to the difficulties in Northern Ireland, as I said, the Executive have chosen not to be part of the covenant reference group, which makes it difficult to spend the £10 million fund. We still have a security situation, as I mentioned, in which one side of our politics, the nationalist side, will not recognise our armed services, and many will still not wear the poppy. I long for things to move on and for people to remember, but some still see us as imperialist and cannot get beyond that, despite my efforts to point out the great work done in Sierra Leone, and by the Navy with refugees in the Mediterranean and against pirates off the coast of Africa. I am very proud of our armed services. We must ensure that the covenant works for everyone well into the future.

This is an example of how we have not moved on in some respects: I was shocked to find, after the debate in which I proudly voted for action in Syria, a tweet from one of the Sinn Féin Members of Parliament saying, “There we go; typical British Army, carrying on murdering civilians,” or words to that effect. That was from someone that I had personally helped while in the Assembly. I am proud to say that I would still help them, but we in Northern Ireland need to find a way to move on. I call on the nationalists and those of similar thinking to move into the democratic world and accept everything that has gone on. Let us make things work. That is what will move us on. The covenant working in Northern Ireland will allow us all to deal with matters.

[Danny Kinahan]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those comments. We must all keep working together to make things happen. My main point is that I want the same treatment for all the armed services and veterans. It is difficult that in Northern Ireland we have had to spend our lives ensuring that our veterans are at no disadvantage. I want to celebrate them, not just consider how we can ensure no disadvantage. Yes, I realise that politics is involved, but these are people who have fought and heroes who have worked hard and given their blood while their families have had rotten times at home. Let us all work together to support everyone. I really want to see Westminster helping us to put things in place if we do not move on, otherwise we are stuck.

Members here may not know that our councils in Northern Ireland do not have the power or responsibilities in education, health and housing that exist up at Stormont, where of course we have this enforced, and at times dysfunctional, coalition. That is why it does not work—because we need both sides going there—which is why I want to see Westminster not just sitting back, but making it work. We need the Ministry of Defence and certain elements of the armed services on this side not to fall foul of Northern Ireland politics, but to make things happen. We need them to stop pussyfooting around and saying, “We can’t do that, because Sinn Fein are likely to say no,” or, “You can’t do that, because they may say no.” We need to look here at all the things that the covenant is trying to do, put legislation in place and make it happen.

I praise the reserve forces in Northern Ireland for what they are trying to do, because they have the long-term influence in Northern Ireland—by talking to the companies and to the people on the ground for the reserves. They are often used as the ones who understand the politics a little bit more—and, of course, they fall foul of it at times; nevertheless, they work phenomenally hard trying to make it work.

I also praise one or two Unionist colleagues. If a Unionist Minister has a portfolio, they can at least do some things that are not the decisions of the Executive. For example, our Health Minister in the past, Michael McGimpsey, was able to put in a health protocol to be followed. However, if we cannot get hold of that ministry, we may never be able to change things, and that is why we need help from this place.

I certainly want to praise one of our Members of the Assembly—Andy Allen, who is a new Assemblyman for us there. He lost both legs below the knee in Afghanistan and he has lost 80% of his eyesight, but he is there in the Assembly, doing his best. He found it phenomenally difficult when he came back to get things working, so he set up his own investment charity, with others, to provide support for veterans and their families in Northern Ireland. He should not have had to do that, but he had to; he had to pull it all together.

I also want to praise Doug Beattie, our councillor, who has a Military Cross, for his work in getting covenant champions in each of the councils. The councils may not have the responsibility, but Doug and others saw that if there was a champion in each council area, they could at least feed through relevant matters to the powers that be. So far, we have five councils out of 11 that have put forward a champion. There is a long way to go and there will be some there that will probably never do it, unless we move on.

I also want to praise the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who came over before the last election and met with the Democratic Unionists, with ourselves, to discuss these matters. We went through them, and she at the time said, “Look, come direct to me if there are difficulties.” Then elections have happened and we have had a change, but I would like to see the same thing happening. If it is not working in Northern Ireland, can we please come through to a central point here to make things work?

[Gavin Robinson]

I was waiting to see if the hon. Gentleman was going to praise any Democratic Unionists in his list; I am sure he was getting there.

[Danny Kinahan]

No. [Laughter.]

[Gavin Robinson]

I am also sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Brenda Hale, the widow of Captain Mark Hale, should be praised.

[Danny Kinahan]

Absolutely.

[Gavin Robinson]

However, one of the biggest precluding factors is section 75 in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which arose from the Belfast agreement and which does not allow us to discriminate positively or negatively, including positively for servicemen. Government assistance in removing that legislative impediment to operating the covenant would be most useful.

[Danny Kinahan]

We are aware of the DUP wish to go down the section 75 route. We are not sure we agree with that system. We are not keen to have the armed forces seen as a minority or dealt with in that way. There is much more that we need to work our way through, although I certainly praise Brenda Hale. She has been magnificent in coming into the Assembly, having lost her husband, and working through on armed forces issues. She has been extremely good.

Trident

Gavin Robinson Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Steven Paterson]

I would make two points in response. First, I do not accept the deterrence argument; that is why I am making the argument that I am making. Secondly, I ask Members who are looking at this matter with an open mind: is this system necessary at any price, when we are taking resources away from conventional weapons? That is a genuine question that has to be answered if we are to renew this system.

In the time that I have left, I want to quote—

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steven Paterson]

Yes, I will.

[Gavin Robinson]

I was conscious that you were looking for additional time. Can I get this right? You welcome yesterday’s commitments to additional investment in national security by this country, which the SNP wants to leave. You will take the investment, the security and the support, but you want to leave this country and—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must remember that he is speaking through the Chair. I have no interest in this debate. He was speaking to the hon. Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson), not the Chair.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have heard that rebuke on numerous occasions and I am happy to follow all the other Members who have had to apologise to the Chair.

The hon. Gentleman knows the point that I am making. You want national security and investment from this national Parliament, but you want an à la carte—[Interruption.] Sorry, the hon. Gentleman wants an à la carte approach. I am not prepared to play fast and loose with our national security, and neither should he be.

[Steven Paterson]

I think that I am grateful for that contribution. It will surprise no one in this room that, as an SNP Member, I stand for independence. I believe that that is the best future for Scotland. However, I will play a constructive part in the security arrangements of the UK for as long as Scotland remains a part of it. That is a reasonable thing to do.

I was about to quote Major General Patrick Cordingley, who stated in The Guardian on 28 September that the funding for the Trident nuclear weapon system should not be ring-fenced, and that the costs should be weighed up against those for new planes, tanks and infantry. That is the argument that I would make, alongside my moral objections. We need to look at our conventional forces to see what more we can do to combat the threats that we face.