Scottish Referendum (Trident)

Debate between Ian Davidson and Michael Connarty

Thursday 7th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Davidson]

The key word is “realistically”. We have not had any estimates from the Scottish Government that we regard as solid; we have had to search around. On the point about the number of jobs directly involved with Trident, the UK Government have made it absolutely clear that, on the solid trade union principle of “one out, all out”, if the Trident missile-firing submarines were removed from Faslane, everything else would go—the Trafalgar submarines, the Astute submarines and the headquarters. Within the United Kingdom, the intention is not only for 50 years of secure employment, but for Faslane and Coulport to become a centre of excellence for submarines for the entire United Kingdom. The new Trafalgar boats would therefore be moved there as and when, as well as the training facilities scattered throughout a number of locations in the United Kingdom, so that everything connected with submarines would be on the west coast of Scotland. That is why the number of jobs involved would go up from 6,700 to 8,200 over a period. It is security and growth with the United Kingdom and the great unknown with separation.

To return to the question of removing the nuclear deterrent from Scotland, the statements made so far have the merit of clarity: the SNP wants to remove Trident. Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has said that he wants a written constitution that includes

“an explicit ban on nuclear weapons being based on Scottish territory”.

Interestingly, that does not include a ban on nuclear weapons visiting Scottish territory. The SNP might well intend Scotland to be similar to Norway and Denmark, which have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy and therefore allow nuclear weapons in their waters and on their soil while pretending that they are not. No doubt we will get clarification on that in due course.

The key issue for us is, what are the parameters? Our role as a Committee is to provide information and evidence to the people of Scotland to inform their decisions. If the nuclear weapons are to be removed, we wished to establish the parameters within which that could be done. At one end of the range, according to the CND, it could be done quickly; at the other end, it would require 20 to 25 years to build alternative facilities. Somewhere within there, in the event of a separation decision, will come the solution. People in Scotland, in particular those employed at Faslane and Coulport, deserve to be told now which of those alternatives is favoured by the SNP; it is then the responsibility of the UK Government to respond. The Committee does not accept that it is reasonable for the UK Government not to say anything in such circumstances, but we understand that the first step has to be taken by the SNP, the forces of darkness in the Scottish Government.

The CND, from its evidence, clearly believes that the missiles can be disabled within days. Apparently, there is a fuse thing that can be pulled out, which effectively disables the missiles and means that they will not work any more. Those to whom I cannot refer will no doubt tell me that it is much more complicated than that, but that is the gist. There seemed to be general agreement that those fuses I pulled out could be put in the boot of my car—for the interest of the population, a Vauxhall Vectra, which is not a particularly specialist vehicle—and driven down to England, therefore being removed from Scotland. In such circumstances, the missiles would not work so, within eight days, the missiles could be disarmed, defused, defanged or whatever simile is wished. It would then take eight weeks for the warheads to be removed from the submarines—basically, a big hand comes down, grabs them up and puts them down. Again, the process is a bit more complicated, but that is the gist. Believe it or not, that takes people eight weeks. It is then anticipated that the removal of the nuclear weapons from Scotland would take two years—a figure based on the existing timetable for the replacement of the missiles, because they regularly get lifted out of the submarines in Coulport, with the warheads taken off to be polished or whatever, to be recycled and come back up.

The weapons, therefore, could realistically be removed from Scotland within two years. The subsequent disarming and so on would be a longer process, but that would take place in England; that would be the remaining United Kingdom’s position. No one has come forward to say that that timetable is not viable, feasible or safe. It comes down to a question of political will. The Scottish Government could not do that on their own, however, and they would require technical assistance from the Royal Navy and the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston and elsewhere, but if there was co-operation, it could be achieved. That is one parameter: the weapons could be removed within that time scale.

The other parameter, if the United Kingdom wishes to retain a nuclear, at-sea deterrent, relates to the need to construct alternative facilities elsewhere in the United Kingdom or to base the missiles abroad in some way. Some who came to see us suggested that the missiles, warheads or boats could be based in France or the United States. The responses we have had, however, indicate that that is not as realistic as was once anticipated, so we are setting that option aside. We therefore want to focus on the other parameter, which is the replacement of Faslane.

Nuclear weapons require three functions: support facilities, docking, including loading, and maintenance. A number of alternative locations have been looked at: Devonport, Barrow, Milford Haven and a number of others. Opinion varies about the amount of work necessary for a relocation. One argument is that the facilities could be split. Faslane and Coulport are clearly separate facilities, but they are obviously proximate. The question is whether to have a 20-mile gap and so on, or more. It has been generally accepted that that could be done, but planning requirements are much more stringent now and our evidence indicated that 20 to 25 years is the most realistic estimate of how long it would take the United Kingdom to build replacement facilities, and there is an issue of whether it would want to do that. The political and economic costs of relocating Trident would be huge, and some of the arguments suggest that part of those costs would be borne by a separate Scottish Government. The cost of relocation would be imposed on the United Kingdom by a separate Scottish Government, and the United Kingdom’s view is that it would be reasonable for the Scottish Government to pay at least part, if not all, of those costs.

I expect that that view would not be shared by the Scottish Government, but it would become part of the discussion and debate, and part of the argument. My understanding is that the view on both sides is that nothing is settled until everything is settled, so other lines of the separation budget could not be agreed without this issue also being agreed. Everything would have to be settled together.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

The Select Committee took evidence on relocation, and perhaps its Chair could enlighten me on exactly where and by whom that relocation would take place. The document, “Trident: Nowhere to Go”, analysed every option and historical document going back 30 years when planning was less stringent, and concluded that there was no alternative to Faslane anywhere in English waters. It would be useful to know why the Committee thought there was a possibility of relocation in England.

[Mr Davidson]

The Committee took the view that there was a possibility of relocation elsewhere in the United Kingdom, not just in England. Locations in Wales were also mentioned. Francis Tusa, editor of Defence Analysis, was perhaps most optimistic about how to do that. He pointed out helpfully that the loading facility at Coulport, which unloads nuclear weapons and so on, is a floating dock. By definition, it floats, so it could presumably be moved, and the facility would not require complete rebuilding in the way that those of us who had not realised that a floating dock floated had assumed. The matter might not be as difficult as it appears, but we are not experts, and it might turn out that that cannot be done, in which case the parameter would change, but it is clear that if it were relocated that would take 20 to 25 years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure, Mr Bone, to speak under your chairmanship, which I have done a number of times in other venues in meetings of the all-party parliamentary group on human trafficking.

I said earlier that I have been against nuclear weapons in the UK since Polaris was brought to the Clyde. It was the great contamination of our nation—I mean the United Kingdom rather than just Scotland. I was deeply distressed by the comments of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir), who indicated that as long as the SNP could get it out of Scotland, Trident would then be someone else’s decision. I would still be campaigning against it wherever it was to be relocated, and I would argue strongly against it being relocated anywhere within the UK.

Quite simply, I support the “Terminating Trident”—or banning the bomb, as we used to call it—part of the subject matter of this debate. Most of the wonderful songs written about that came from the Labour movement, not the Scottish National party, which was a minuscule organisation in Scotland at the time, because it was focused, as always, on breaking up the United Kingdom and separating Scotland from the UK. It was never part of the movement that was clearly committed to organising against the bomb. I went on the marches and I visited the peace camps. I did not see any Scottish National party members there; I saw members of the Labour movement in Scotland arguing for a better future with no nuclear weapons anywhere in the UK.

We are debating not just what happens to those pieces of metal, and the international motions and structures we sign up to that enable us to use such weapons, whether under someone else’s banner or not, but what happens to the people. “Ban the bomb but don’t dump the people”—that was always the statement made at demonstrations outside the gates of Faslane and Coulport. It was never about getting rid of the people who were inside doing the job that the nation had asked them to do, using the skills that they had been trained in and were proud to serve their country with. Unfortunately, that is the unanswered question, which was asked by the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

If we are to have such a monumental change in the structure of the defence budget, after what would be the much greater, more cataclysmic decision to separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom—Scotland would be leaving 92% of the UK behind and becoming some wee country that would not be a significant player in the world—we must think about how we can deal with that. That is the problem for the SNP Government, who, by the way, as I keep having to repeat, were elected by 24% of the people of Scotland. The structure of the electoral system set up by those under Donald Dewar, who thought that by helping their Liberal comrades they would enable Labour to form an alliance with the Liberals in Scotland, actually advantaged the Scottish National party and gave it a majority. The Labour party, because it had done such an abysmal job in Scotland and lost the faith of the Scottish people, got about half the SNP’s percentage at the election. None the less, a party cannot have a landslide victory when only 24% of the people vote for it. It is a fix that happens because of electoral arithmetic, and it has nothing to do with popular support. If there were some sea change among the people in Scotland, we would have to consider what to do with the bomb.

The Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee said that he has been assured that the fuses could be removed from missiles within eight days. I have recently read a great deal about the nuclear weapons stores of the world, particularly in the US, and learned about the process by which chemicals in the fuse heat up and then trigger the missiles. The people in the States who researched and created those chemical fuses are now all dead. The fuses deteriorate and do not necessarily react 30 or 40 years after they were made. Believe it or not, the US has not yet found a way of synthesising the products that would allow the replacement of those fuses, so we could have a redundant nuclear network throughout the world, including in the UK, within the next decade. Therefore, defusing the missiles might not take eight days; it could be very much quicker than that.

[Mr Davidson]

Is my hon. Friend saying that the professional advice that I received that it would be safe for me to have the fuses in the back of my Vauxhall Vectra was incorrect?

[Michael Connarty]

I advise my hon. Friend not to put the chemicals that are contained in the nuclear fuses in the back of his Vectra. In fact, I would not put them in the back of anything that was not a nuclear bomb store. The fuses might not set off a nuclear weapon, but they might blow his Vectra back to the future.

Eight months for removing the warheads is correct. They are kept separate and can be detached and taken somewhere else. As for it taking up to 25 years to relocate the facilities, all the analyses now available publicly in the “Nowhere to Go” document by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament show that there is nowhere for the weapons to be relocated. There was nowhere all those years ago that was thought to be isolated and secure enough to install the nuclear weapons. Now, given the population changes in the conurbations around those areas, it is unlikely that anywhere would allow those weapons to be installed. The question of relocating them, therefore, could not be resolved unless there was some sort of dictatorship of Government on the people in the UK. Certainly, the idea of putting them in Wales or Northern Ireland would cause a massive uprising.

Should we even be thinking about moving the weapons somewhere else? It is a fantasy to think that in the event of a nuclear conflagration, Scotland would be safer having them somewhere else that was not Faslane or Coulport. Do we really think that an enemy of the UK would not want to bomb the establishments based in my constituency in Grangemouth, where the North sea oil and gas comes in, just because we put the weapons somewhere else? What are we going to do? Are we going to paint CND signs on the tops of all the buildings in Scotland? Let me own up to something. When I was leader of a council, we actually did put CND signs on our vans. Somebody pointed out that we should have put them on the roof because they could not be seen on the side of the vans, but we were young and foolish then. I have learned now that it is a nonsense to say that we are not part of the UK because we do not have the bomb any more and that if there were a conflagration we would be safe. I thought that the SNP Government and Alex Salmond, who is just about my age, had also grown up.

National Referendum on the European Union

Debate between Ian Davidson and Michael Connarty

Monday 24th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I can think of no other issue where the gap between the political elites and ordinary people in this country is so great. It is not the most important matter the House will ever discuss, but it is the one where that divergence is greatest. This divergence, and the feeling among the population of the country that their views are ignored, breeds and feeds cynicism about politics in general. The most cynical attempt to avoid that popular opinion was used in relation to the constitution that was not a constitution, because if it had been a constitution, it would have to have been put to a referendum. That was a breathtaking piece of cynicism and manipulation. No Member really believes that it was anything other than a means of overcoming the possibility of popular rejection.

It is therefore beholden on us to take seriously the fact that 100,000 voters have signed an e-petition. It was mentioned earlier that millions of Liberal Democrat voters would reject the proposal in a referendum, but I think that such a view is seriously mistaken, because there are probably no more than 100,000 people prepared to own up to being Liberal Democrat voters, so the number of people who signed the petition is greater than the number of Liberal Democrats in this country.

I think that disillusionment on this question has also been spread by the false prospectus the Conservatives gave to the country as they ran into the general election. There was a feeling in this country that a Conservative Government would stand up for Britain much more and take a more robust view on European matters, but the fact is that they have sold the jerseys. The overwhelming majority of people who voted for the Conservatives, believing that they would stand up to Europe, are now disillusioned, which is why every registration of public opinion indicates that there is a substantial drift of voters from the Conservatives to UKIP on this matter. I give the Conservatives the following advice for their own good: if they want to stop that drift to UKIP, they must stand up for what they said they would do during the general election. If they wish to say that they would like to do those things, but the Liberals are holding them back, they should come forward and say it honestly, rather than saying, “It’s actually much more difficult than we thought and we’re up to all sorts of sophisticated things that you are too thick to understand.” That is effectively what they are saying.

I am glad that this is not an in/out referendum, because I must confess that I would not have favoured either option. I am not in favour of voting in the referendum to remain in the EU, because that would be seen as a green light to ever-closer union, and I am not willing to be put in a position where the only alternative is to leave the EU, because I do not support that. I believe, as many of my colleagues on the Labour Benches once believed, that there is a third way—the way of reform. I believe that many of those who oppose the motion are doing so under the banner of reform, but are not actually all that serious about reform. They are committed to ever-closer union, but with a little tinkering.

Therefore, I support the motion because I think that the size of the vote tonight matters as a signal to the country that a substantial number of people are strongly committed to strong renegotiation when compared with those who take the view that it should be business as usual. As for those who say that the time is not yet right, I think that that is a disgraceful argument unless they tell us when the time will be right.

[Michael Connarty]

My hon. Friend was so opposed to the Lisbon treaty that I assumed that he had read it. Can he tell me where there is anything other than one clause that would allow an in/out referendum? There is nothing else in the Lisbon treaty on that?

[Mr Davidson]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me an extra minute.

I also think that those who argue that this is simply a distraction would never want to discuss it anyway. They argue that it is not the right time or that this is only a distraction, but would they have said otherwise if the motion had been brought forward two weeks ago, or at some other time? I do not think so. They are in fact more interested in being part of the cosy club. This is an important debate, but as I said before, it is not the most important debate the House will ever have, and the EU is not the most important thing we will ever discuss.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Davidson and Michael Connarty

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davidson]

None the less, my hon. Friend’s point relates to whether it is possible, without inviting thunderbolts from on high, to consider changes to the electoral system for the Scottish Parliament. It seems to me that that is desirable. We regularly examine other elements of the Scottish Parliament and aspects of devolution—I remind hon. Members that devolution is a moving feast and not static—and so we should examine the electoral system.

I do not intend to vote for new clauses 1 and 2, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire, because I am not convinced that his proposals are the correct way forward. However, there is something wrong with the existing system, and it needs to be changed.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Anyone who looks at the amendment paper will see that I am a signatory to new clauses 1 and 2. We have had the knockabout stuff about whether this Parliament has or has not the right to decide the structure of the Scottish parliamentary electoral system or indeed its membership, but people were perfectly happy for this Parliament to overturn the Scotland Act 1998 at the first time of calling, by increasing the number of Members to 129, when the Act originally said that we would drop to a reasonable number after the initial period. The argument was made that people in the Scottish Parliament thought they needed 129 Members to take up all of the one and a half days in which they actually debated in their Chamber, and to ensure that enough people turned up at 5 o’clock every Wednesday to vote to make sure they got the tick in the box.

It never made sense to me, but we allowed that change; Parliament was perfectly happy to change it. I believe that Members of all the parties with Members in Scotland were happy to go along with that process. If it was good enough then, it is certainly good enough now to consider whether the system in place for proportional representation—with its list Members—is the correct way to proceed. I am sure that some, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), would like to proceed to a totally proportional system. I believe that that has always been his bent; the single transferrable vote has always been his choice of political electoral system.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Ian Davidson and Michael Connarty

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Michael Connarty]

I know a little about that, as my son lives in Australia, which has a totally electronically registered electorate who all must register and vote. He travels a great deal all over Australia with his job and finds absolutely no difficulty in voting, because he can pop into any electoral office in any town at any time up to three weeks before a ballot and cast his vote for the area in which he lives, so it is a very sensible system. It is surprising that we have not caught up with the technology. It would certainly be a great advantage if we did, as that might engage people much more in the ballot.

The idea that we had a problem because we counted overnight is wrong. Although those of us who soldiered on might not have been quite as excited by the process as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), it was clear to us that the muddle was created by there being two ballot papers. The other question relates to the training of returning officers, because I do not think that the returning officer I watched was competent enough to deal with the ballot, and some crazy errors occurred. For example, he did not tell a candidate who had lost in a council election going on at the same time that he had lost by one vote. The candidate did not discover that until the next day and so was not allowed a recount. Whether that was the result of incompetence, or just the fact that the returning officer was so fatigued that he wanted to get home to his bed and not have another recount in that crazy system running parallel to the Scottish election is another problem.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) seemed to argue that at whichever level an election takes place—Scottish Parliament level or UK Parliament level—that level should have control over its own type of ballot. By that argument, local councils would be put in charge of their elections and allowed to decide all the things that have been argued for, including exactly who would be elected, how they would be elected and what the franchise would be. That is a nonsense. Presumably for Scottish Parliament elections it would be the First Minister who decides, certainly in the present Scottish Government, as only one person seems to make all the decisions in that Government. Those aspects must be determined by the level above that being elected. For example, the Scottish Parliament, quite correctly, controls the methodology for local elections, just as this sovereign Parliament, which set up the Scottish Parliament, should decide if it wishes to change that, possibly in negotiations. That is not saying that there is not a dialogue to be held, but the idea of putting it down does not make much sense.

Therefore, I support the amendment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling said, the important point is that when people put their ballot papers in the ballot box, they expect it to be transported securely to the place where they are to be counted. One of the reasons why that was set up for UK elections was to let people know that ballot boxes are not stored somewhere else where they might be tampered with, so there is no split between the process of voting and the process of counting. To push that back to the next day is to add to people’s cynicism about how elections are conducted and how the count comes out.

It is clear to me that the lesson we should learn from 2007 is that we should not have two counts on the same evening. Therefore, we should not have the two processes of electing representatives and choosing the method of election at the same time. That argues strongly against the Government’s proposal to have a referendum on a voting system on the same day as the Scottish elections, because that is asking people to postpone the count for the electoral amendment to the next day. It might be fine, because I think that it will be the great yawn of the century—I can just see people getting as excited as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North about exactly what little deviation in the electoral system they will be allowed in the process of choosing which system to use.

[Mr Davidson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Michael Connarty]

I have startled him into an intervention.

[Mr Davidson]

My constituency is Glasgow South West.

That was not a deviation. Was it not a major result? One of the country’s governing parties came not even second in a by-election, and not even third. If I remember correctly, it was not even fourth or fifth. [Laughter.] It is indeed laughable that it came sixth. I believe that it beat the Loonies, but only barely because there was some blurring at the edges. Is that not worth being excited about?

[Michael Connarty]

Obviously, my hon. Friend is the Member for Glasgow South West, and I do apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), who has offices across the corridor from me. I should really remember that.

A change to AV would not have helped the Liberal Democrats in that election, and any such change will probably not help them in the future, either. The point that I am trying to make is a very serious one, however. To have two different ballots, a referendum on a voting system and a vote for an elected chamber, is to mix up the purpose and focus of the electorate on that day, but that might be the reason behind it all. The possibility of not coming sixth and getting a few votes as the minor party in the coalition might be the reason for holding the two ballots on the same day, but that certainly argues for splitting the process. In the proposals before us, we say that the count for the Scottish Parliament should take place overnight, which is quite correct—and basically no one really cares what happens to the referendum.