Oral Answers to Questions
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Cartlidge
It is always a pleasure to meet my hon. Friend. He has been an absolute champion on the Ukraine issue, and I would be delighted to meet him to see what more we can do.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Dr Murrison
I am disturbed to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has not received his medal, because they have been minted and distributed. If he would like to write to me with the details, I will chase it up.
Continuous At-Sea Deterrent
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am delighted to follow two such supportive speeches on the nuclear deterrent and the work of those who have crewed it for the past 50 years. It is amazing to think of the combination of high training and long periods of low activity that such personnel have to undergo. They truly are the silent guardians of the country and we are hugely in their debt.
What is more, most Members of this House recognise that fact. It is worth putting on the record that in recent years the House has had two key votes on the question of the renewal of the nuclear deterrent submarine fleet, the first under the Labour Government of Tony Blair on 14 March 2007. The House voted by 409 to 161—a massive majority of 248—to proceed with the initial gate of the replacement or successor submarine fleet. The second was under the Conservative Government of the current Prime Minister on 18 July 2016, when the House voted by a colossal majority of 355—namely, 472 votes to 117—to proceed to the main stages of development and production of the submarines.
The only issue to which I took a little exception in the contribution of the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), was in one turn of phrase, when she said how appalling it would be if the deterrence weapons were used. I remind her gently that the nuclear deterrent is in use every day of every week all around the year, because the purpose of the nuclear deterrent is to ensure that nuclear war does not break out because no one is in a position to attack us with impunity.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
In the right hon. Gentleman’s description of the deterrent, will he explain why none of the missiles is actually targeted at any targets?
Dr Lewis
It is for the simple reason that, in the unlikely event of anyone being mad enough to attack us—because we have the ability to retaliate—it would be simple to target missiles to retaliate against them, and that could easily result in the obliteration of any country unwise enough to launch a nuclear attack against a nuclear power such as ourselves.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
When I rose to make my maiden speech on 1 July 2015, I touched on the Trident programme, because it is close to my heart. In fact, it is very close to my constituency. At the time, I mentioned that Trident seemed to be a bit of an abstract concept. People know it is out there, but they do not know what it is, how much it costs, how much it cannot be used and what it is actually doing as a deterrent.
If people stand on the shore of my constituency, they will often see Vanguard class submarines moving silently through the deep waters. They catch the sunlight, which shimmers along their long, sleek, black bodies as they cut through the surface of the water. Their colour may suggest giant eels, but they lack the elegance. They are, however, engineering marvels. It takes some doing to fire a missile from beneath the water’s surface, project it through the water until it breaks free, and manage two controlled explosions that project the missile to a pre-defined target where ballistic missiles carrying nuclear warheads are released and either explode on impact or are exploded automatically at the required height to cause maximum death and destruction. Mankind has never lacked ingenuity when it comes to inventing ways of killing each other. I cannot help but wonder what else we could have achieved with all that time, effort, ingenuity and money.
The issue we have is that successive Governments of the United Kingdom have supported and expanded the nuclear weapons programme at eye-watering cost. Why? When I sit in the House of Commons, I talk to many Members who support Trident. I can tell them that these weapons can kill tens of millions of people. But they know that. I can tell them that the watershed will be poisoned, crops will fail and many more will die in the most degrading ways from famine, pestilence and plague. But they know that. I can share stories of survivors, such as Setsuko Thurlow, who told me of people falling to the ground, bellies extended and bursting as they hit the ground, of people trying to carry their own eyes that had fallen out of their heads, and of people with their flesh falling off their bones as they died in agony.
I can also tell Members that WMD have not stopped wars across the globe from Vietnam to Afghanistan. But they know that. I can tell them that WMD are no protection from terrorism. But they know that. I can tell them that the £205 billion could be spent on health, education, housing, transport or even financing our conventional armed forces. But they know that, too.
The majority of supporters of WMD are just like me with one vital difference. They believe that WMD are a deterrent. They believe their existence has kept us safe. As those weapons have existed during a period in which we have avoided wars on the scale of the first and second world wars, I can see where they are coming from. If people believe that keeping their guard up is keeping them safe, then lowering their guard is a frightening thing to do. In this case, they are so frightened that they are prepared to carry out the greatest atrocity humankind has ever perpetrated, and have it done in their name. Well, not in my name. Not all countries believe that nuclear warfare is required. Maybe as many as nine countries feel the need to have nuclear weapons, out of 200.
Dr Julian Lewis
I make one point for the hon. Gentleman’s consideration—one could say exactly the same thing about poison gas, which was used in the first world war and not in the second. It was not used in the second because of fear of overwhelming retaliation. The British warned that we had those stocks and that we would retaliate not only on our own behalf but on behalf of our allies such as Russia. The question is, which keeps the peace?
Ronnie Cowan
We could say that about almost any weapon that we have managed to invent. The threat escalates because such weapons exist. We sit in this Chamber to debate all sorts of subjects, which we sometimes try to do in a fairly amicable manner. If that escalated and went beyond debate, it could turn to violence—but it does not, because we respect each other, we back off and we discuss it. We say to kids in the streets, “Don’t carry knives. If you are carrying one and I’m carrying one, someone will get stabbed.” We talk to those kids, saying, “Don’t carry those weapons,” yet here in this place our attitude towards ending war is to escalate the weapons that people can carry.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
My hon. Friend makes a point about weapons being available. Does he agree with the statement of the United Nations Canberra Commission:
“So long as any state has nuclear weapons, others will want them. So long as any such weapons remain, it defies credibility that they will not one day be used, by accident, miscalculation or design...It is sheer luck that the world has escaped such catastrophe until now”?
Ronnie Cowan
I absolutely endorse that statement. I find it ironic that we are debating this as we head out of the most effective peacekeeping organisation in Europe, the European Union. When we sit down with representatives of foreign countries on a day-to-day basis to discuss all things political, that breeds understanding and co-operation. It generates trade and mutually beneficial outcomes. We can travel and experience life through others’ eyes. We can experience their culture and values. We gain better understanding of them and of ourselves. That is a deterrent; that leads to peace.
Threats just lead to the escalation of threats. That is why some feel the need to replace and upgrade our WMD systems, but all that does is to put us into an upward spiral of mistrust and an ever increasing cost to maintain and develop our deterrent. We have 20 submarines that require decommissioning at an estimated cost of £7.5 billion. Since the end of the cold war, the ballistic missiles that would carry the nuclear payload have not been targeted at any specified location, which raises the question of the legality of the commanding officer giving the go to launch the missile when he does not know the target, and so does not know if it is legal—yet we ask him to do that.
We must ask serious questions of the existing system and its proposed replacement. The advent of underwater drone technologies and cyber-capabilities could render submarine-based nuclear systems obsolete. Can we guarantee that those weapons could not be turned on us by advanced cyber-attacks?
It cannot be denied that manufacturers of submarines, missiles and ancillary components of the Trident programme have created and supported many jobs over the years and that people employed in the sector have a right to express concerns about their employment futures. However, those people should not be held to ransom or financially blackmailed. It is not beyond the wit of man to utilise some of the existing skillsets and to retrain others for a conventional navy, one that is fit for purpose to defend a unique coastline and the waters of the United Kingdom—currently, we do not have one.
That is what we shall do in an independent Scotland: remove the Trident programme and replace it with a military base at Faslane and Coulport, one that fits the needs of a small independent nation situated in northern Europe in the 21st century and employs the same workforce. We would actively work towards creating a more stable planet, where peace, love and understanding are valued more than weapons of mass destruction.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Ellwood
My hon. Friend touches on such an important issue. If we are to retain people in the armed forces, we need to provide the necessary support on mental health issues. The Prime Minister herself has said that she wants to see parity between mental and physical health, which is exactly what the 2017 mental health strategy seeks to secure.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Gavin Williamson
We have long-established rules on military assistance to civilian authorities, and local authorities, police authorities and all Government Departments understand that. We always respond in any way we can to support and help.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Of course, this is not just about the armed forces; we have to recognise that all the emergency services were there very quickly. We need to ensure that they have all the training that they need. I will speak to colleagues in other Departments to ensure that that is happening.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mark Lancaster)
The Army is working closely with Capita to deliver improvements to recruitment. While there are positive indicators that measures are having an impact, I continue to monitor the Recruiting Partnering Project very closely and hold regular discussions with my officials regarding the contract.
Ronnie Cowan
Subject to a legal challenge, Capita was awarded the MOD fire and rescue contract despite an MOD financial assessment that gave the company the highest category of distress and vulnerability. With shoddy finances and an abysmal record of delivery, does the Minister agree with the MOD fire and rescue staff from my constituency that private corporations should have no place in managing MOD services?
Mark Lancaster
No, I do not think I do actually. Successive Governments have involved the private sector and I am sure that that is set to continue. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is a challenge to that particular contract at the moment, but I remain convinced that the use of the private sector in delivering the Defence Fire Risk Management Organisation is probably the right thing to do.
Defence Industry and Shipbuilding
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(6 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The 1980s will be ancient history for many Members, but the destruction of Clyde shipbuilding during that period remains a living, breathing part of political debate in the west of Scotland. I know that many Conservative Members will roll their eyes and think, “Oh, here we go: Thatcher and shipbuilding again.” I remind them that in October 1984, the male unemployment rate in the Greenock central area was 35%. The economic shock of Thatcher’s abandonment of shipbuilding left a deep wound that we are still trying to heal.
Since 1981, Inverclyde’s rate of depopulation was proportionately higher than that of any other local authority area in the United Kingdom, and it is projected to decline for at least two more decades. That is the UK Government’s shipbuilding legacy in Inverclyde. That is why decisions made in allocating shipbuilding contracts are so important—they can make or break communities.
The Defence Secretary needed only to visit Inverclyde to see the terrible cost of removing Government support for vital manufacturing industries, including defence shipbuilding. Many of my constituents are still angry about what happened. There is still an historical obligation to the area, which the UK Government have not fulfilled. In 1976, the UK built 134 vessels. By 2011, just four were produced by our shipyards. How different that figure might have been had the UK Government guided the industry towards a more sustainable future.
Thankfully, with the assistance of the Scottish Government, one shipbuilding yard remains in Inverclyde: Ferguson Marine. Earlier this year, Ferguson Marine bid as part of a consortium for work relating to the Type 31e frigates. Last week it successfully led a European consortium in a bid for EU funding to produce the world’s first hydrogen-powered ferry. It is not a company that is afraid to move with the times. The tendering process for the fleet solid support ships is another opportunity for Ferguson Marine to show that Clyde shipbuilding is the best in the world.
We know that the MOD goes some way towards agreeing with that assessment, as its recently published report stated that Scotland was renowned for building “the world’s finest warships.” Yet despite that, the UK Government refuse to give those same shipyards a vote of confidence by making the FSS tendering process UK-only. Building in the UK benefits the UK more than building abroad. Building ships in the UK means that the taxpayers’ money of all the hard-working men and women of the United Kingdom is reinvested in protecting their jobs. And guess what? They then pay tax to the UK Government and spend their money in their local economy. The knock-on effect is that the prosperity of the entire area improves. Beyond that, shipbuilding companies with a longer order list can invest in the long-term future of their yards, and that was exactly what they did not do in the 1970s and 1980s.
It is the UK Government’s duty to invest in the UK shipbuilding industry and give it the confidence to take on apprentices and to invest in training its workforce. If we build these ships in another country, the employees’ tax is lost to us, as is the spend in the local economy and the opportunity for investment in the yards. UK yards can barely survive and are living from hand to mouth. They certainly cannot prosper, and ultimately they will fail. We must learn from the lessons of the 1970s and 1980s. The UK Government must not turn their back on the shipbuilding industry again, as they did in the ’70s to the coalminers and the steelworkers.
In 2012, the UK Government issued the contract for the MARS tankers to a South Korean company, Daewoo. UK taxpayers were subsidising Korean shipyards. Why risk making that mistake again? I have heard it argued that if we allow countries across the globe to bid for UK work, UK shipbuilders will be able to bid for work across the globe. Well, not if they don’t exist they won’t, not if their workforce don’t possess the necessary skillsets they won’t, and not unless we have first nurtured a strong, vibrant shipbuilding sector in the UK they won’t.
The UK Government are desperately trying to find an excuse to justify the fleet solid support ships contract not involving a UK-only tendering process. It is almost as if they are trying to convince the country that they can do trade deals abroad, particularly with countries outside the EU27. Surely a UK Government who genuinely cared about domestic shipbuilding would be trying to find an excuse to give UK yards the best possible chance of success, not laying obstacles in their way and threatening a successful outcome. The excuse we have heard regurgitated over and over is that the FSS should not be seen as warships and that the tendering process should therefore be opened up to international competition. This is despite the fact that these vessels will be armed and that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary provides operational support for counter-terrorism and counter-piracy operations.
Other European states have procured internally for similar auxiliary vessels. In some instances, they did not open up their tendering process to the international market. The proposed FSS builds do not need to be put out to tender under EU rules or any other rules, yet the UK Government shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing they can do. Shipyard workers in my constituency have a right to feel angry and to be frustrated by the UK Government’s complacent attitude. I urge the Minister to think again and to give as much support as possible to shipyards such as Ferguson Marine in my constituency. They are ready, willing and able. Their workforce will pay their tax and spend money in the community, and their senior management team will be able to invest for the long term in the future of shipbuilding on the lower Clyde. This and only this will guarantee a growing and stable workforce for generations to come.
Armed Forces Recruitment: Under-18s
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(7 years, 9 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)
Order. Please resume your seat. I advised the hon. Gentleman’s colleague that if he wanted to split the remaining minutes he could; clearly he had a different view. There are now 10 seconds remaining.
Ronnie Cowan
Let us be clear: the SNP supports 16 and 17-year-olds getting a vote and my view is quite simple. Sixteen and 17-year-olds—
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be here to discuss this important topic under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I must thank the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) for bringing the matter to the House. We have a great deal in common in many of our positions—and that is largely so in the present case, although perhaps not entirely.
I was struck by the focus on the duty of care that came through in all the speeches today. I think that all hon. Members, whether they spoke or not, will have reflected on that particularly. We might want also to reflect on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Steven Paterson) about how serious the decision to join the armed forces is for anyone. I agree with the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd about the need for transparency, facts and education, which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan) also touched on.
It is important that we should fully consider how countries around the world recruit, in considering that issue. Of course there are different approaches and age thresholds. Some countries conscript and some do not. I am glad that we do not. From my alphabetical list I think that the situation is somewhat more complex than we have heard; that is just from looking at Australia, Austria, Canada, Croatia and Cyprus at the beginning of the list. However, it is a mistake to focus too narrowly on that. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling, at 16 people can vote, in Scotland; they can marry and pay tax, and make their own choices.
Kirsten Oswald
I am going to run through this, if I may.
It is particularly important for those under the age of 18 who choose to pursue a military career that we understand the impact on them. We have heard about the impact on young people from challenging backgrounds; that is important, and in considering it we should examine the entirety of those backgrounds. Young people should have the opportunity to choose as widely as possible as they move forward in their lives. For some people, joining the armed forces may be a positive choice. However, of course it is not the same as other jobs. It is therefore vital that full information is provided, that full discussions are had and that those are open, honest and transparent. For instance, it is vital that every opportunity is given for a recruit to change their mind and leave the forces. I know there have been many positive changes in recent years to allow people to leave more easily, particularly at that young age, which is hugely important. I would like to hear more from the Minister on that.
I would also like to hear from the Minister on what new measures he would propose to achieve greater post-service employment for young early-service leavers. The figures are not positive there, as I am sure he knows. I would also like to hear more from him on training, transferable skills and qualifications, because a recruit in the armed forces under 18 is essentially training, and it is important that we see that from that perspective.
As well as developing those skills, it is important to be clear on what under-18s must not be doing. They must not be deployed, and it is our position that there must not be any flexibility or room for manoeuvre on that. There cannot be any of the margin of error issues of the past; that would be quite unacceptable.
May we focus on welfare, which is the key issue I have heard today? That must be a key focus, because physical and mental health and pastoral care-wise that could not be more important. I would be interested to hear more from the Minister on the review that my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd referred to. What are its parameters, what is its aim and when will it report? In the interests of transparency and aspiring to make the best progress for young recruits, full detail on that would be welcome.
We support the continued ability for 16 and 17-year-olds to make this choice if that is an informed, positive and open choice. However, it must be based on transparency. There must be a culture of improvement, training and aspiration and an openness to ongoing discussion about how we do the best we can for all our young people.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)
My immediate priorities remain success in our operations against Daesh, and implementing our strategic defence and security review commitments. On Friday week, I will join the Prime Minister for the NATO summit in Warsaw, where we will review progress since the Wales summit, agree further reassurance to our eastern allies, and take further steps to demonstrate the alliance’s strength and unity.
Ronnie Cowan
Given the unfortunate success of the Brexit campaign and the subsequent downward spiral of the value of the pound, which now sits at a 31-year low, will the Minister tell me the additional cost of the Trident renewal programme on top of the current estimate of £205 billion?
Michael Fallon
In the strategic defence and security review, we published our most up-to-date assessment of the cost of the Trident replacement programme at £31 billion, plus a contingency of a further £10 billion.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(8 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
With both the existing Trident programme and the potential Successor programme in mind, will the Minister tell me what measures his Department is taking to identify unexploded ordnance in the River Clyde?
Mr Dunne
The Department places the safety of our nuclear fleet at the highest possible level. There are continuous attempts to ensure that any potential threats to our submarines are monitored. If the hon. Gentleman has something specific he would like to draw to our attention he should do so, and I am happy to meet him to discuss it.
Trident
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Trident is a term often used to describe the UK’s entire nuclear weapons system, including Vanguard class submarines, Trident missiles and nuclear warheads. Each Trident D5 missile can hold up to 12 nuclear warheads, and each warhead has eight times more capacity to kill and destroy than the bomb that exploded over Hiroshima. Each submarine has 16 missile tubes, which means that it is technically capable of carrying 192 warheads. If deployed as per Hiroshima, 192 warheads, times eight, equates to killing 61 million people. With four submarines, that number grows to 250 million deaths. It would, of course, be far worse than that: a nuclear strike would lead to water supplies and arable land being polluted. Livestock would die; crops would fail. For those not initially killed by our nuclear weapons, starvation would follow. By arming themselves with Trident, the UK Government are saying that they are prepared to inflict that fate on millions of innocent civilians if that were deemed necessary.
Nobody can win a nuclear war. An exchange of nuclear weapons would lead to a level of devastation that neither side, or indeed the planet, could ever recover from. I acknowledge that we have imposed limits on the use of those weapons, but that will come as little comfort to the dead and the dying. The plan is to use a maximum of 40 warheads. Obviously, while sitting in the cloistered atmosphere of Westminster and playing war games, somebody decided that 39 warheads were not enough, and 41—well, that would be plain barbaric.
The only rational thought that could justify the renewal of Trident would be a genuine belief that its existence in some way, shape or form contributed to a more peaceful world. Since world war two, the nuclear deterrent has not stopped wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Falkland Islands—I could list 20 or 30 more countries. It has not deterred terrorist attacks in London, Tunisia, Mali, Paris or New York. If nuclear weapons have proved to be completely inadequate in preventing those wars and atrocities, what are its successes? What threat does Trident address, and who does it deter?
Dr Julian Lewis
The hon. Gentleman’s argument is like saying that just because the antidote to one deadly disease is ineffective against other deadly diseases, we should not have the antidote.
Ronnie Cowan
If we had used our time, effort, money and ingenuity to fight deadly diseases instead of creating weapons of mass destruction, the world would be a better place today. We should be looking for humanitarian solutions, not for death.
Former Defence Secretary Des Browne, and Ian Kearns, the former adviser to Parliament on national security, stated:
“It has become clearer, for example, that a set of long-term threats has emerged, to which deterrence, nuclear or otherwise, is not applicable”.
Former Conservative Defence Secretary Michael Portillo said:
“Our independent nuclear deterrent is not independent and doesn’t constitute a deterrent against anybody that we regard as an enemy. It is a waste of money and it is a diversion of funds”.
I agree with the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) when he said:
“The successor Trident programme is going to consume more than double the proportion of the defence budget of its predecessor…The price required, both from the UK taxpayer and our conventional forces, is now too high to be rational or sensible.”
I am not naive, and I know there are dangers in the world, but the sort of threats that we need to address will not be placated by Trident. The UK Government have identified terrorism, cybercrime, pandemics, natural disasters, foreign instability and foreign conflicts as our primary risks over the next five years. Trident will not solve any of those issues. In the meantime, Scotland’s coast continues to be poorly guarded, and our maritime reconnaissance is poor.
I am aware that the UK Government have finally committed to new maritime patrol vehicles, but the gap in our capability will remain, at least until 2020. Westminster’s irrational commitment to Trident has come at the expense of defence jobs in Scotland. Between 2000 and 2010, cuts to military personnel in Scotland were measured at 27.9%, compared with 11.6% across the UK as a whole. The decline continued between July 2014 and July 2015, as personnel numbers in Scotland dropped by a further 9.5%. At a lifetime cost of £167 billion, it is clear that Trident makes no economic sense. It solves none of our pressing foreign policy priorities, and it is draining resources from our conventional forces. Trident is not the solution; it is very much part of the problem.
Several hon. Members rose—