Oral Answers to Questions

Gemma Doyle Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

There are all manner of helplines and organisations available to any widow and widower who is in any way confused about what scheme he or she may be under. I urge the hon. Lady and other hon. Members who have constituents with such complaints to come my way, but an extensive system is available through the various charities and the armed forces to ensure that everybody is fully informed.

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

Lord Astor recently revealed that it would cost in the region of £250,000 a year to put this matter right, and that the Ministry of Defence spends about £50,000 a year enforcing the current rules. I appreciate that there are concerns about the impact on other pension schemes, but there is support and agreement across the House for special provisions to be put in place, where necessary, for the armed forces community. The Minister will appreciate the difficulties for armed forces spouses in building up their own pension pots, so may I urge her to look again at this matter?

[Anna Soubry]

I can assure the hon. Lady that this is a matter I am always considering, because I know of the representations from the Forces Pension Society and the War Widow Association of Great Britain. The difficulty is that this is not within our gift; it is a matter for the Treasury. The very important point to make is that if this is done for the armed forces, others will come forward. Presumably, that is why the previous Government did not do it. One could imagine that the widows and widowers of police officers and fire officers would make just the same sort of case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gemma Doyle Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question; he makes a good point. It is all well and good people signing up, but what matters is the delivery. There will no doubt be a chance later in questions to talk about today’s annual report on the covenant. This is about delivery, and some local authorities are clearly delivering, but there is also concern that some are not delivering in the way that we want them to deliver.

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

On the subject of delivery, the covenant report published today contains a quote from the three service families federations, which states:

“Central Government has asked local authorities to implement many aspects of the AF Covenant with little additional resources in terms of financial support, staff or guidance.”

So, to ensure that we do not end up with central Government pushing extra responsibilities on to local authorities and with the service community being let down as a result, will the Minister undertake and publish an audit of what local authorities are being asked to do for the service community and what funding is being provided for it? At the moment, there is a gap.

[Anna Soubry]

The covenant grant scheme has already provided £11 million in funding to local authorities, often working with their local barracks to ensure that they are delivering on the covenant. I have here a copy of the annual report on the covenant; it has been placed in the Library and it is also available from the Vote Office. Yes, we know that we must ensure that there is delivery, but I shall make two points. First, any audit should be done by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Secondly, this is one of those instances in which local government must deliver, and it is for local people to ensure that their local authorities are doing so—[Interruption.] I appreciate that the hon. Lady might have difficulty in understanding that, but this is not about top-down government. It is about local authorities and communities coming together to do the right thing. It is not about a big bossy Government telling them what to do.

Defence Police and Fire Pensions

Gemma Doyle Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reid]

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

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

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

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Gemma Doyle Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

I am not aware of any discussions. I do know, however, the great benefits that the community covenant has brought in and I have no doubt that Birmingham is fully signed up to it. If I need to, I am more than happy to make further inquiries and write to the hon. Lady.

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

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role and thank her for her answer to my written question about low morale in the armed forces, in which she admitted that it has doubled over the past three years from 15% to 30%. She will be aware that the quality of and access to housing, along with pay and allowances, are key factors in forces’ morale and that of their families. Will she guarantee that it will not plummet further on her watch?

[Anna Soubry]

I wish I could guarantee that it will not plummet any further, but I strongly suspect that this has been a long-standing problem. I am pleased to say that the Government take it seriously, which is why we are doing the many things that we are doing precisely to address those issues.

Nuclear Test Veterans

Gemma Doyle Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) not only on securing today’s debate, but on all the work that he has done in recent years on this important issue.

I recognise the vital job that all our armed forces do and that all our veterans have done for us and the country, including the nuclear test veterans. I recognise the unique nature of their service. I regret the worry and uncertainty that they have experienced in the years since their service. Whatever the facts, it is highly regrettable that we have ended up in the situation that we are in today. It is clear from the comments made that there is a lot of good will and a desire to see an outcome, but there is also frustration that it has not been achieved. I shall refer to that point in a few moments.

I was delighted to meet representatives from the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association earlier this year in Brighton. I am grateful to those from the group who took the time to host a reception and exhibition there. The art exhibition “Shadow of the Bomb” is extremely powerful and helps to convey the spectrum of emotion and feelings with which the test veterans and, indeed, their families live. It helped me to understand that the fear of what might happen, what might have happened and the fear of the unknown can, in a different way, have debilitating effects on some veterans, almost as great as a physical illness. That is also true for their children and grandchildren. We can all appreciate that those are horrible doubts and fears to have to carry around. We have to spend only a short time speaking to the veterans to get a sense of deep uneasiness about their experiences. One image that stuck in my mind was of those carrying out the tests being covered from head to foot in protective clothing, while the serving personnel, as the veterans were then, went about their work just in shorts.

The events took place in the 1950s, and just as they do now, service personnel signed up and did what was asked of them, without question and with 100% commitment. They did so alongside individuals carrying out their national service, who had not volunteered to be there, but they did what was asked of them with just as much commitment. Another difference between then and today is that there is far more scrutiny today of what we ask our service personnel to do and how they are treated, as shown by the recent discussions on whether human rights laws and the concept of negligence should apply to service personnel on operations and in what circumstances.

Times have changed markedly since the 1950s, when there was far less external scrutiny of the treatment of our forces and probably less awareness on the part of the serving personnel themselves about whether what they were being asked to do was unreasonable. We would now, rightly, find troubling the prospect of the deliberate testing of radiation on people who had signed up to protect and defend their country, who did not have full knowledge of the implications or the option to say no or ask questions.

As the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay outlined, the BNTVA is looking for two things: recognition of what happened and their service; and the possibility of some sort of financial settlement. I hope that the debate today goes some way towards providing the recognition sought, but I appreciate that that desire is for recognition to come from a more high-profile source.

The proposed financial settlement is in the form of a benevolent fund. Members may be aware that the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the former veterans’ Minister, authorised a financial settlement proposal. The nuclear test veterans involved in the case at the time were not made aware of the offer, and disappointingly, it appears that the lawyers acting on behalf of the veterans rejected the offer without putting it to them.

[Mr Baron]

I am pleased that the hon. Lady made that point about the lawyers. As I am sure that she is aware, she is referring to the legal proceedings outside this place, in which the BTNVA has never participated. It has been criticised for not participating by those outside. It is important to make the distinction.

[Gemma Doyle]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record. It is important that we look at the issue, rather than at particular groups representing people. I appreciate the distinction, which is why earlier in my remarks I said that the situation is regrettable because we could by now have come to some sort of settlement or agreement. I fear that lawyers have prevented that from happening. If an agreement had been reached then, an agreement about the wider issues would also have been possible. I understand that the legal route has now been exhausted and no avenues to pursue remain.

I appreciate that the reins on the public purse are tightly held at the moment, but could the Minister look at whether it is possible to allocate money from the LIBOR fund, because that money is already set aside, to kick-start a benevolent fund? There are many demands on the fund and applications to it have been made, but it would be an obvious source of money that could be released quickly and easily. Nothing will ever take away the worry and uncertainty about the impact of the tests, but if something can be done to help to draw a line and help the veterans move forward, we should certainly consider it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gemma Doyle Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

Yes, I believe I can. The service pupil premium was increased in April this year from £250 to £300. I can assure my hon. Friend that as units move under re-basing, whether from Germany or within the United Kingdom, we continue to work with the Department for Education, providing specialist information, advice and support through our own directorate for children and young people to local authorities and schools to secure maximum benefit from the service pupil premium for service children. In my hon. Friend’s particular case, we will of course ensure that we involve the military-civil integration partnership in Wiltshire, which does very good work in this area.

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

The Army Families Federation has launched an investigation into the effect of the bedroom tax on armed forces families, which I know may come as a surprise to the Minister as it took him some time to accept that armed forces families would be affected by the bedroom tax. Will he clarify whether the families of armed forces personnel who stay in single living accommodation on base in the UK are to be exempt from the bedroom tax in the same way as are the families of students living away from home? At present there are inconsistencies in the way this policy is being applied and it is undermining the armed forces covenant.

[Mr Francois]

I recently had the privilege of attending the Army Families Federation conference in Germany, where I spoke on a number of matters, and a number of questions were raised with me by service personnel. I do not remember that issue being raised with me by the Army Families Federation when I was in Germany, so it may be an issue that the federation has raised with the hon. Lady, but it certainly did not raise the matter with me when I was at its conference.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gemma Doyle Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

As in many areas, we have to work within the financial constraints presented to us, and we are currently tailoring a package of support for the reserve forces that can be accommodated within the £1.8 billion. I am quite confident that we can do so.

I would like to correct a possible misunderstanding. The top-up to rates of civilian pay has always been available in the system and our proposal is to limit that so that we make sure that we pay only people who have specialist skills what are sometimes very large amounts of money.

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

Mesothelioma is a terrible disease, as far too many of my constituents know. Will the Government take the opportunity to back amendments to the Mesothelioma Bill—or indeed table their own amendments—so that veterans who were exposed to asbestos prior to 1987 while they were employed by the Ministry of Defence, and their families, are able to get compensation?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)]

As the hon. Lady knows, issues of Crown immunity relate to the period before 1987. As she also knows, it is not this Department that leads on this particular issue. I cannot guarantee her that there will be a change in the position, but her comments are noted and I will make sure that they are passed on to those who are dealing with Bill.

Reservists

Gemma Doyle Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on securing the debate and making some important points. It is worth reflecting on how valuable it is to have so many Members in the Chamber who have served or are serving in the reserves, or who have served in the regular forces along with the reserves.

The Secretary of State for Defence has set out his ambitious plans for the future of our reserves, shifting a greater emphasis on to them by doubling their numbers to 30,000 by 2020. The reserves have played an important role in our forces. In recent times, they have served in the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. I believe that 29 reservists have lost their lives serving their country in the past 10 years, and we pay tribute to them.

When those plans were announced, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) made it clear that we support an enhanced role for our reserve forces. They make a very useful contribution, particularly in specialist roles, and we agree that they can make an even bigger contribution. However, we must get the changes right, and we have concerns about the Government’s proposals.

Any expansion of our reserve forces will succeed only if the Government work with employers. We must consider carefully the particular challenges that members of the reserve forces face in employment, and the Government are not dealing with the matter correctly. We have already heard that the recruitment target is being missed, and it seems that the MOD will have to increase recruitment by about 66% this year even to stand a chance of meeting its targets.

A recent survey from the Federation of Small Businesses set out some of the challenges. It found that six in 10 businesses would not consider granting reservists additional leave for training, so if the Minister wants the plan to become a reality, he might have to consider passing further legislation. The survey also showed that one in three businesses said that nothing would encourage them to employ a reservist, while 39% of those who had employed a reservist, or would consider having one in their company, said that the proposed reforms would have a negative impact on their businesses. A staggering 89% said that they had not heard of the MOD’s employer awareness events, so there is clearly some distance to go.

Over the past three years, the reserves have lost around 1,000 members. It would appear that bureaucratic problems mean that there is a backlog in the processing of applications, so the target is looking challenging and perhaps unattainable.

When the proposals were announced in November, the Secretary of State spoke about a kitemark to recognise employers that encourage and support their employees to participate in the reserves. In principle, that is a good idea, so we hope the Minister will be able to update us on when the scheme will be in place. We also think that it could be extended to companies that have a good record on employing military spouses and veterans, because clearly more work needs to be done in that area. Membership of the reserve forces should not be a barrier to employment, so the Government should look at our proposals for anti-discrimination legislation applying to members of the forces.

As the Government have cut numbers in the regular forces so dramatically, the system has to work. The enhanced role for reservists must be matched with improved training. We have heard a lot about an integrated concept between reserves and regulars over the past few months. That should not be limited to operations; it must also be extended to preparation. If we are asking our forces to serve together on operations, they must train together as well.

Reports have shown that reservists are much more likely than others to suffer from poor mental health, especially if they have been on active duty, and we need to look carefully at the reasons why. For example, reservists are less likely to have a military support network, they do not receive the same decompression as the regulars and there is the problem that reservists do not gain access to specialised MOD health care in civilian life. I am sure that the Government are serious about meeting their target, so they will want to take heed of the Royal British Legion and Combat Stress, which have come together to highlight the problems of mental health care among reservists. Post-deployment care needs to improve, and we have to ensure that employers have a better understanding of the issues that reservists can face when they return from serving. Access to MOD health care needs to be considered much more carefully.

We should not forget about the families of reservists, although the recent handling of the bedroom tax was an example of how not to do things. The Government finally U-turned by recognising that reservists and their families could be affected by the bedroom tax, because they are mentioned in the exemption. The Government need to think about how they implement the armed forces covenant because the necessary processes are not in place.

Hon. Members have highlighted concerns about capability by asking whether we will meet the target and therefore have the capability that we as a country want. I hope that the Minister will address the crucial question of how many reservists must be recruited if we are to have a deployable force of 30,000.

The worry is that the Government have a policy but not a proper plan to see it through, and there are some unresolved questions and problems. In the coming years, it appears that our national security will increasingly depend on reserve forces, so it is vital that the Government get this process right. We, of course, will want to support them in doing so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gemma Doyle Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

As I said, more than half the local authorities in Great Britain have signed the community covenant, and I am pleased to say that they are coming in all the time. I am really encouraged by the number of local authorities at all tiers of local government that have been signing community covenants to demonstrate their support for the armed forces community, and I am very pleased to hear that that spirit is alive and well in Gosport.

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

The Service Complaints Commissioner and the Defence Select Committee both back the creation of a services ombudsman, as do we. On 31 January, we held a Westminster Hall debate on the military justice system, and I hope the Minister will review the remarks he made in that debate. I am concerned that he may have inadvertently overstated the powers being given to the Service Complaints Commissioner. Could he confirm that it is his intention that the commissioner should have all the powers he outlined in that debate, and does he therefore agree that it is time for an ombudsman?

Scottish Referendum (Trident)

Gemma Doyle Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Weir]

I will come to that very point in a moment.

Many of those who give Trident as a reason not to vote for independence were not so long ago of the view that the UK should get rid of it. It appears that it is not a problem for the UK to get rid of the system, but it would somehow be a huge problem for an independent Scotland. Labour’s shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), only yesterday confirmed that Labour is now in favour of a like-for-like replacement for Trident, and that would cost at least £25 billion, probably much more. That is an obscene waste of money when all our services are under strain and threat due to budget cuts.

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

That is absolutely not what the shadow Secretary of State for Defence said. He reiterated that the Labour party is committed to the retention of a credible, minimum, independent deterrent. He did not say that we were committed to a like-for-like replacement.

[Mr Weir]

That is not my understanding of what was heard on the radio. The position of the Scottish National party is clear and unequivocal: when we achieve our independence, we will get rid of nuclear weapons from Scotland as quickly as we can.

In her letter, Nicola Sturgeon states clearly:

“Following a Yes vote in the referendum, it would be the responsibility of the Scottish and UK governments to continue to work together, in good faith and on the basis of mutual respect, to agree the arrangements for the safe and timely withdrawal of the Trident nuclear weapons system from an Independent Scotland.”

The Scottish Government are happy to discuss the issue, but it appears from the UK Government’s response to the report that they are not prepared to do so and would rather bury their head in the sand and pretend that withdrawal will not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

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

[Gemma Doyle]

I am disappointed the SNP defence spokesperson is not here. I think this is the second debate on Trident he has been absent from. When I challenged him on this issue, he said we could not have negotiations until after Scotland had taken its decision. What exactly is the SNP’s policy?

[Pete Wishart]

We want to do what was set out in the Edinburgh agreement, with both Governments planning for the outcome so that we achieve the best possible result for a yes or no vote. We will enter the negotiations with the best possible intent, and we will hope for the best possible outcome. All we are trying to do now is encourage the UK Government to approach the discussions on the same basis. So far, they have refused to do so.

It is nice to have the hon. Lady here, but where, for goodness’ sake, is the shadow Defence Secretary? He gave a rambling interview the other morning. When he was challenged about Labour policy on nuclear weapons, he said:

“We’re not a unilateralist party. I mean, that happened in the ’80s, that was a flirtation with surrealism. We’re not a unilateralist party and we’re not going to become a unilateralist party.”

He added:

“We’re in favour of the UK retaining a nuclear capability”.

The Labour party is totally committed to remaining a nuclear party; it will renew Trident, and it will probably replace it like for like—that is what we have with the Labour party.

I have no idea what the report is intended to achieve. The rather silly Scottish Affairs Committee set out to blow a hole in the yes campaign’s ambitions for Trident, but all it has done is to suggest how easy those ambitions are to achieve—thank you, Scottish Affairs Committee. To be clear, the Committee is one of those strange, dysfunctional Committees; it is a really bizarre concoction just now. It is composed exclusively of Unionists, and it produces reports for Unionist consumption.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

As usual, it is only from the Scottish National party that opposition to what is proposed will be heard. The hon. Gentleman suggests that I should stick to my script, although no one else who has taken part in the debate has been anywhere close to doing that, which is slightly ridiculous.

The Labour party would replace Trident, like for like.

[Gemma Doyle]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Rosindell. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash), who made an important contribution, bringing the perspective of the vital international context to our discussions. As she said, the defence and security of any nation or state is the key responsibility of a Government.

Debates on the future of the nuclear deterrent have been and will continue to be an important aspect of the referendum discussions that are already well under way throughout Scotland, and indeed the rest of the UK. The significance of the issue has been demonstrated by the decision of the Scottish Affairs Committee to focus one of its inquiries fully on the subject. Furthermore, we have Members from throughout the rest of the UK attending the debate today, which shows how important it is. The report, which I read with interest, raises a number of key points about the deterrent and points out possible outcomes and situations that might arise. The facts about the available options for the future of the deterrent, were Scotland to leave the UK, leave no one feeling particularly satisfied with any of the potential outcomes.

The UK’s nuclear deterrent has been the cornerstone of our national security for more than half a century, and although the cold war divisions have gone, they have been replaced by new threats. We support retention of the minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent. The last Parliament voted to proceed with the initial stages of renewal, and we support that decision, although I am aware that some hon. Members here today voted in a different way in Parliament.

We eagerly await the outcome of the Lib Dem alternatives review. I confirm that the comments attributed to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), the shadow Secretary of State, and to me in this debate are not the case. I stated clearly that we had not committed to like-for-like renewal of Trident, which is why we are awaiting the outcome of the alternatives review. Our position has been clear throughout. If the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) does not believe me, CND and Labour CND have tweeted that I said that here today. If he will not take my word, perhaps he will take their word. I do not often rely on them for comments.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Lady clarify Labour’s position on the nuclear deterrent? What is its trend of thinking? Will a Labour Government renew Trident or not ?

[Gemma Doyle]

I am happy to repeat that as often as the hon. Gentleman wants, but I suspect that colleagues would like me to move on. I have said again and again that we are awaiting the outcome of the alternatives review and, as I have just said, we are committed to retaining a minimum, independent, credible, alternative deterrent. Before deciding how that will be provided, we await the review, as do all other parties in Parliament, and we will then see what it says. I have told the hon. Gentleman this about four times, and I hope that he now understands the position.

I am a little concerned about progress on the review. I understand that the Royal Navy has not been asked for its opinion, and it should be. I believe that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who represents Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey and who is leading the review, does not even have a pass for the Ministry of Defence building, so I am not sure what work is ongoing, but everyone is eagerly awaiting it.

We absolutely support a policy of multilateral disarmament, and like everyone who has spoken here today, I want a world free of nuclear weapons. The last Labour Government made progress in reducing the number of warheads from 300 to 160 just before the 2010 election.

The Committee outlined a number of alternative possibilities for the deterrent’s future, and it is clear that if the people of Scotland vote to break off from the rest of the UK, a separate Scotland will have to decide, in negotiation with the UK Government, the future of the nuclear deterrent, whoever the Government of a newly separate Scotland are. I do not presume, as the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire did, that that will be an SNP Government. The nationalists have, as with all other issues, made a series of assertions without any basis, so it falls to us to consider the reality.

The Committee considered that if the Government of a newly separate Scotland decided that they no longer wanted to house the nuclear deterrent or, conversely, if the Government of the remaining UK decided they did not want to base the capability in a foreign country, one option might be for the deterrent to be decommissioned and taken out of service. However, that does not seem likely because the UK Government are committed to retaining a nuclear deterrent.

The Committee also looked at the options for the short-term relocation of Trident, and specifically how the UK’s allies might be involved in providing a temporary base. One option would be to work with the USA at its submarine base in Georgia, but, as the Committee noted, questions would probably arise about the perceived independence of the capability. For most people, independence is a key desire behind having a nuclear deterrent, and the same argument might be applied to the Committee’s consideration of stationing the deterrent in France. Although it is closer and the geography would make things easier, there might be problem with finding sufficient space to house it.

A more likely outcome is that the UK Government would seek to relocate the capability elsewhere in the UK. Hon. Members will be aware from the Committee’s report that relocation of the deterrent is not a simple process. Apart from identification of an alternative site and the issues of physical relocation, the exercise would be extremely expensive. Some sources have suggested that it could cost £20 billion to £25 billion. The previous Minister for the Armed Forces made it clear that the cost would dwarf the £3.5 billion cost of recent upgrade work at Faslane.

I have visited the naval base on the Clyde. Any other hon. Members who have done so will know that it is akin to a small town with a range of facilities and accommodation, as well as the necessary equipment and infrastructure to provide a centre for our submarines.

Estimates that the deterrent will remain in Scotland for anything up to 20 years while a new base is developed raise serious questions, which need to be addressed and which cast significant doubt on the nationalists’ view that voting for separation equals unilateral disarmament. I am far from convinced that even unilateralists would see that as a victory, and comments during the debate today back that up. I believe in multilateral disarmament, and there would not be a victory for anyone in simply moving the nuclear capability deterrent 165 miles south. Surely our interests are best served by working internationally with our allies, partners and other countries towards multilateral disarmament.

The UK is committed to retaining a deterrent, so the most likely outcome is relocation to elsewhere in the UK. That would mean removal of Faslane and with it thousands of jobs on the base and in our wider industry, the future of which is far from certain under these plans. The report states:

“Several witnesses in our inquiry commented on the vacuum of discussion on how separation would affect defence in Scotland”.

More than one major defence employer in Scotland has recently expressed similar concerns to me that there is so little detail about the nationalists’ plans for separation and defence in a separate Scotland that it is extremely difficult seriously to engage in any way with the question of what separation would mean for defence and the defence industry in Scotland. That is a fair comment.

Most sensible people would say that if the case has not been made and information is not there, the answer must be no. The nationalists are certainly failing to put any meat on the bones of their randomised top-line numbers. I can give them some numbers: 6,500 jobs at the naval base, about half and half military and civilian, and a conservative estimate of 4,500 jobs supported throughout the wider economy with £270 million pumped into the Scottish economy every year. That is what the nationalists want to scrap. The shop stewards are right to demand answers. They deserve to have the information to give to their members so that we can have a proper discussion.

The nationalists want to assure us that when they have told the Royal Navy to take all its submarines, nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered, out of Scottish waters, nothing will change at Faslane and Coulport. I have even heard a west of Scotland MSP claim that more people will be employed at Faslane after separation. I hope that they are beginning to realise how ridiculous their claims are, because they are insulting my constituents. The nationalists should make no mistake. Without the Vanguard subs, there will be no Faslane and no jobs, but a seriously wounded local economy.

When the Navy has gone, the civilian jobs will go, because they support the Navy. An employer to whom I spoke recently acknowledged that removal of Faslane would mean starting with a blank sheet of paper. It would not mean, as the SNP want to say, that jobs will be protected.

The SNP says that it would have a joint service headquarters as well as basing the Scottish navy at Faslane, but they will not give us any detail. I watched the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire nodding vigorously as Members challenged him, asking him very politely to provide information in his speech, but he gave not one jot of detail. There was nothing at all. Even the retired Lieutenant-Colonel Stuart Crawford, whom I would describe—I hope I am not misrepresenting him—as an independent military expert who is sympathetic to the idea of independence, stated that the maximum number of jobs that he could see Faslane supporting would be around 1,000 to 1,500. That is his opinion, not mine.

Other commentators have asked, as did my constituency neighbour,the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), that if the primary job of the Scottish navy was to protect the oil platforms, what sense would it make to base the naval capability on the west coast of Scotland? Do not get me wrong—I will always argue for that, no matter what situation we are in, but we have to look at the facts here. It is worth noting that the job of protecting the oil platforms is currently done by non-militarised agencies, so I am not sure how those people would feel about their jobs being shunted, so that Salmond’s navy could come in to take over.

Today is a very significant day in the referendum campaign because public scrutiny is being given to a leaked Scottish Government Cabinet document, which the Minister has referred to. It reveals the truth about the nationalists’ spending plans in a separate Scotland. It is worth looking at exactly what it says. On defence, the Scottish Finance Secretary, John Swinney, wrote:

“Historically defence spending in Scotland has been lower than Scotland’s population share of the UK defence budget.”

In saying that, he demonstrates that he, like his colleagues, does not understand that spending on overseas operations cannot be attributed to various parts of the regions and nations of the UK. He continues:

“I have made clear to the Defence Workstream that a much lower budget must be assumed.”

I hope that the bluster will now stop. There will be less money, not more, spent in a separate Scotland on defence.

I am just checking how long I have been speaking for—I could go on, but I will draw my comments to a close, so that the Minister has enough time to sum up. All I would say in conclusion is that I do not see how anybody can be particularly happy or satisfied with the outcome of the possibilities for the deterrent—[Interruption.] I have already told the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire what our position is, so he can pipe down, quite honestly. I do not see how anyone can be satisfied with the outcomes for what would happen to the deterrent in a separate Scotland. It is highly unlikely that the situation would lead to unilateral disarmament, and it is highly likely that thousands of jobs on the west coast of Scotland would be lost. That is what the nationalists are arguing for today.