Future Reserves 2020

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before the Secretary of State answers, may I just say to the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) that she was 23 minutes late for the statement and therefore really has absolutely no business seeking to catch my eye? I am sure she momentarily forgot when she arrived, but she has now been reminded.

[Mr Hammond]

I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) that legislation is already in place to protect the employment position of reservists who are mobilised. He will also see when he reads the Green Paper that we are proposing legislation to extend the circumstances under which we are able to mobilise reservists, so that they can be mobilised not only for operational service overseas, but for homeland resilience and routine operations, such as the crucial defence of the Falkland Islands. He will also see that the Green Paper contains a section setting out some examples of practice in important allied nations. I am sure he already knows this, but what others will learn from that section is that at present we have a disproportionately low percentage of reserves in our total force mix compared with most of our comparable allies. What we are doing will move us back a bit further towards the average force mix of our normal allies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate all colleagues who wish to ask a question about this statement, in which there is clearly heavy interest, but it would be helpful if colleagues could be economical with their questions and answers, as we have two debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee to follow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend asks an extremely good question, and I shall go away and look into that matter. I have not heard of such an initiative. I suspect it may require legislation, but if there is a pool of talented ex-regular skill that we can tap into, we should certainly look to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson) agreeing that his question was, indeed, a very good one, and it will warrant a reply, but perhaps, like a good wine, it will need to mature.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

The consultation is being made available online. Indeed, it is being published in electronic form only, apart from the requirement of the House to deliver hard copies here. If it were not for that, this would be an all-electronic consultation. It will be given publicity through the chain of command. Furthermore, the responses that we receive will be processed by an independent contractor and anonymised before we get them, so reservists may feel confident that they can respond anonymously with their views.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State and to colleagues.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I understand that my hon. Friend’s Question was further down the Order Paper, but has been grouped with another Question. However, using the principles of military flexibility, I will attempt to be fleet of foot.

I am familiar with the issue that my hon. Friend raises. The Ministry of Defence has made considerable investments at Headley Court to provide a world-class service for those with prosthetics. I was present when His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales opened the new £17 million Jubilee rehabilitation wing, which was paid for by the Ministry of Defence. The Secretary of State has recently announced a further £5 million of investment. I am familiar with the case of my hon. Friend’s constituent and will agree to meet him. However, I must enter the caveat that I am not qualified as a doctor and that I will have to take clinical advice on what decision it would be best to take following the meeting.

[Mr Speaker]

I have known the right hon. Gentleman for 27 years and he is often right, but on this occasion he is half right. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) does have a Question lower down the Order Paper. That played a part in my choosing to call him now. It is Question 11, as the right hon. Gentleman will correctly discern, but it has not been grouped with any other Question.

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

I welcome the Minister to his post. Having travelled with him and his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), all the way to Stanley last year, I can say that an 18-hour journey is useful in fostering cross-party co-operation.

I welcome the Minister’s comments today because, despite the Prime Minister’s assurances on the personal independence payment, in a letter to me dated 30 September the then Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who had responsibility for disabled people, wrote:

“we are working with the MOD to establish if it would be possible to avoid severely injured veterans undergoing multiple reassessments”.

At that stage, the Prime Minister’s message clearly had not filtered through to Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Minister clarify how far back the policy that he has announced today will apply?

Afghanistan (NATO Strategy)

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is notable interest in this urgent question, but I remind the House that there is a motion on a ten-minute rule Bill to follow, and after that there is the pre-recess Adjournment debate, which is to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee; I can assure the House that that debate is heavily subscribed, which means that there is a premium on brevity.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The reason why, in opposition, the shadow Defence ministerial team opposed naming an advance date for withdrawal was the fear that the Taliban would redouble their efforts in the run-up to that date. Given that we are where we are with such a date, is it not obvious that a move towards a strategy of maintaining one or more long-term strategic bases in Afghanistan would show the Taliban the need to negotiate a solution and a settlement? Without that, it will not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I do not think that I have ever seen a Defence Secretary so humiliated. Twice he has had to be dragged to the House, instead of having decided to make a statement—first to talk about the original problem, and now to discuss the change of policy. Either his officials are informed but do not tell him things, or he is not in charge of his officials. It is time for this Government to get a grip, and to start telling the generals what to do, instead of re-reading generals’ press releases at the Dispatch Box. The fundamental problem remains the same: I do not believe that our country is willing to accept any more blood sacrifices, now that the strategy of fighting, training and patrolling with the Afghans has been blown away by Washington and the generals in the field. The Prime Minister announced today that the Cabinet will re-examine the policy. I say: the quicker the better.

[Mr Speaker]

We have got the gist. We will try to detect a question in there somewhere.

[Mr Hammond]

On the humiliation of Defence Ministers, the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) might want to have a look at the experience of many of his right hon. Friends under the previous Prime Minister who routinely humiliated his Defence Ministers by ignoring them and passing over them. It is very clear to me that politicians and the military have a role. I do not seek to involve myself in the tactical decisions that military commanders make; it is wrong for us to do so. There has been no strategic change whatever. This is a tactical decision for a short period of time; it will be reviewed and reversed, as General Allen made clear, as soon as the situation has stabilised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The role of our brave soldiers at the moment is to act as human shields for Ministers’ reputations. The danger to our soldiers has been prolonged by those on the Front Bench who have the power to stop it. Other countries have removed their soldiers from this dangerous area, and they are not doing what we are doing, which is arming and training our future enemy. Is this not similar to the end of the first world war, when it was said that politicians lied and soldiers died, and the reality was, as it is now, that our brave soldier lions were being led by ministerial donkeys?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I noted what the hon. Gentleman said, but may I ask him to make it clear that he is not suggesting that any Minister is lying to the House of Commons? It would be helpful if he made that clear.

[Paul Flynn]

That is precisely what I am saying. I believe that we have had lies from the Minister, and I believe that our soldiers have been let down, and they—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry. I asked the question because I wanted clarification, but I am afraid that it is not acceptable for any hon. or right hon. Member to accuse another Member of lying to the House. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that allegation.

[Paul Flynn]

I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, but I insist on retaining my accusation of lying. That is far more important than allowing a group of people to send our soldiers to die in vain in a war from which we should withdraw and from which the country wants us to withdraw. I accept the consequences of what I am saying.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman is ignoring the ruling of the Chair, and in so doing he is behaving, whatever his motives, in a grossly disorderly manner. In those circumstances, I am obliged to name Mr Paul Flynn, the hon. Member for Newport West. Under the power given to me, I name him, and I ask that the appropriate course is now taken by the Deputy Leader of the House.

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), was named by the Speaker for grossly disorderly conduct (Standing Order No. 43).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44), That Paul Flynn be suspended from the service of the House.—(Tom Brake.)

Question agreed to.

The Speaker directed Paul Flynn to withdraw from the House, and the Member withdrew accordingly.

[Mr Speaker]

We now move on. I think that the Secretary of State had, if memory serves, responded, but if not, he will now do so.

[Mr Hammond]

My response was simply going to be to note that the hon. Gentleman’s accusation was scandalous.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I would point out that his response is to the House, which is why it is perfectly proper for him to respond.

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has made it commendably clear that it is in our vital national interest to stick to the strategy that has been set in Afghanistan. When it comes to the security of British troops, does he take comfort from the words of Brigadier Bob Bruce, who will be leading the 4th Mechanised Brigade in its forthcoming tour of Afghanistan, who has said that we are sending to Afghanistan

“the best prepared and the best equipped…Task Force”

the United Kingdom has ever put into the field?

Afghanistan (Force Protection)

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 17th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Since the House last met, two men from the Yorkshire Regiment—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but at this stage all he has to do—we look forward to hearing his mellifluous tones erelong—is request a statement on this important matter. We will not have to wait long to hear his views.

[Mr MacShane]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the security of UK soldiers in Afghanistan.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is understandably much interest in this urgent question, but the House will be conscious also that there is a statement by the Secretary of State for Education to follow, and I have to take account of the likely level of interest in that and in the subsequent business. I intend to run the urgent question for approximately half an hour from now, but there will be a premium on brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike.

[Mr MacShane]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, which has allowed the Secretary of State to make a full statement. Since last the House met, as the Secretary of State has recorded—I exchanged some words with him about my question before asking it—two men from the Yorkshire Regiment and one from the Grenadier Guards have died.

My question is simple: why, why, why are we still allowing our soldiers to be sacrificed to no evident purpose? Just after the Prime Minister entered No. 10, he went to Afghanistan and reported to the House. I urged him then, and I think he agreed, that elected Ministers had to take back command and control from the unelected military-Ministry of Defence nexus that had dictated policy. Since then, 146 British soldiers have died, more than one for every week for which he has been in office. They have died in an unwinnable conflict for an unattainable end, to no strategic benefit for our country. It does no honour at all to those who have sacrificed their lives to heap more bodies on the funeral pyre. Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori—or pro Britannia mori—is, again, the old, old lie.

I am not urging scuttle. I am urging a drawback to a position in which our men will no longer be killed before they can come home. We have done all the good that we can do. It is time to say, “It’s over.” Frankly, if any more of our brave young boys of barely 20 die, their mothers, fathers and families will ask, “Why, why, why?” The Secretary of State is an honourable man, as are my Front-Bench colleagues. None of us wants to be where we are, but it is over, and we will have no answer if any more of our people are sacrificed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. To accommodate the maximum number of colleagues, I appeal to hon. Members to put single, short supplementary questions, preferably without preamble.

[Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD)]

I shall try to meet your stricture, Mr Speaker.

My right hon. Friend has painted a sombre picture. Vigilance will obviously be extremely important in endeavouring to prevent such issues from arising again. Will he give the House an assurance that, if extra resources are necessary, those, too, will be provided?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

There are lots of reasons we should not and could not bring our brave soldiers home by Christmas. We have a legacy in Afghanistan, and it has been won at a great cost. Four hundred and thirty British service personnel have given their lives, and we intend to protect that legacy—[Interruption.] We intend to protect that legacy by ensuring that the UK’s national security interests are protected in future by training and mentoring the Afghan national security forces to take over the role we are currently playing—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Hon. Members should not shout, but I look to a very senior figure on the Treasury Bench not to get over-excited. I knew the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) when he was a very calm and rational 23-year-old. Now he is 48 he should be even more calm and rational. That is what we want to see.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Can we not just be calm and rational, and concentrate on our national interest, which is our own defence? Given that the old Liberal Imperialist dream of making Afghanistan safe for democracy is dead and that, after 2014, the Taliban will be in control of large areas of the country, why do we not concentrate on our national security, on the use of special forces and drone attacks to keep the heads of the Taliban down, and not pretend that we are in there to fulfil our national destiny of promoting democracy in Afghanistan? It will not happen.

Defence Equipment and Support

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call Alison Seabeck to ask the urgent question, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make it clear from the outset that I intend to conclude supplementary questioning no later than half an hour after the start of the UQ. Brevity by all concerned should enable all those who wish to contribute to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The shadow Minister spoke of the budgetary challenges facing all Governments, but was quick to gloss over her legacy—the budget was taken away from the MOD by Labour and given to the Treasury. Does the Minister share my surprise at Labour Members questioning the new avenues of efficiency when, if they looked at the National Audit Office major projects report 2010, they would see that the majority of major projects overran, including the A400M, the Astute and the Typhoon?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The question was simply far too long. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is smirking about it—

[Mr Ellwood]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. He has abused his privilege and ought to learn from it.

[Nick Harvey]

There have undoubtedly been serious problems with the procurement side of the defence business for a very long time. The deficit in defence from two years ago was in very substantial part caused by the overheating of the procurement budget, but we have taken dramatic steps in the past couple of years to get the defence budget back into balance. The Treasury can see the progress we have made, but the steps we are proposing today will not be taken unless it is satisfied by the work on value for money that is currently taking place.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Howarth]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please will the Minister answer that question with reference purely, and very narrowly and briefly, to the Farnborough air show?

[Mr Howarth]

First, let me say that the Typhoon air display was given by a Scot—Scott Loughran. He gave an absolutely stunning display of the Typhoon. The UKTI Defence and Security Organisation represents the whole United Kingdom, and it does a great job for Scotland. If we were to bust up the UK, that would be bad news for Scotland, bad news for the UK and bad news for all businesses in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Luff]

My hon. Friend might apply for an Adjournment debate on that topic, because it would test your patience, Mr Speaker, if I were to list all the things we are doing to help SMEs, which include producing simplified standard contracts, making SMEs aware of tendering opportunities, and ensuring they are paid quickly. However, I attach the greatest importance to the establishment of the suppliers’ forum for SMEs, which I chair, and which enables us to pursue in detail both the concerns of SMEs and the issues we have in dealing with them. That is a very fruitful discussion, which is leading to a radical simplification of the way in which we do business with SMEs, and in due course it will create many more opportunities for them.

[Mr Speaker]

I always have patience for orderly answers, but not for speeches masquerading as answers. I know the Minister will readily accept that point.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On defence contracts, will the MOD’s current plans inevitably result in more contracts for companies such as G4S?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

He is. Not all people who return from Afghanistan have mental health after-effects, but it is obviously a concern that some people do. Within units in particular, there are various options, including the programme I have mentioned, TRiM, and a programme called the Big White Wall. It is an online programme and people can put their feelings anonymously on a big white wall. There is a huge amount of support, but it is not always easy to access. We want to make it easier for families and others to access that mental health provision—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are extremely grateful to the Minister, but I think that the Minister and the hon. Lady should have a cup of tea together and discuss the matter further.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to maintain skills levels in the defence manufacturing industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I do not think that there was a previous unclear answer. We have made a decision to revert to the STOVL––short take-off and vertical landing—solution. We are highly confident of the delivery of the F-35B STOVL variant, which the US Marine Corps depends on. We have had the highest level discussions with the US Administration, who strongly support the programme. I am looking forward to seeing US Marine Corps aircraft flying at Pax River on Wednesday.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the shadow Home Secretary to ask the urgent question that I have allowed, I must tell the House that I intend to bring proceedings on it to an end after half an hour. In view of the proceedings on Thursday, I ask Members not merely to repeat questions already posed and answered then, but to explore new territory that has since arisen.

Army 2020

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I remind the House that, in accordance with convention, Members who arrived in the Chamber after the Secretary of State had begun his statement, of whom there was a significant number on both sides of the House, should not expect to be called.

[Mr Hammond]

We have been treated to a lecture on the strategic context by a member of a Government who did not conduct a strategic defence review in 12 years. We have been told about reductions in the Army by a shadow spokesman who wrote to his party’s leader saying that they would have to examine the structure of the Army and that he recognised the need for manpower reductions. The Labour leader wrote back to him saying that

“we can expect to have to make further savings after the next election”.

What we have not heard from the right hon. Gentleman today is any kind of plan for how he would manage the £38 billion deficit in the Ministry of Defence’s budget that we inherited from him—no plan, no clue.

Let me address some of the specific points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. He referred to Germany and France. Germany spends 1.2% of its GDP on defence, while this country spends 2.1% of its GDP on defence. He talked about France. France is only at the beginning of a fiscal review that will lead to the production of a new livre blanc in the spring for the French armed forces. If he knows that there will not be cuts in the French armed forces, he is better informed than I and better informed than most of the French politicians and staff officers to whom I talk.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about sustainability. One of the achievements of the work that has been carried out over the past few months—it has been a huge piece of work—is the maintenance of capability through an intelligent approach to the challenge of doing more with less. We are using the reserves more intelligently, using our contractors more effectively and reshaping the Army—this process is about the shape of the Army in the future—to improve the tooth-to-tail ratio. We are ensuring that the manpower cuts are made in the areas that will have the least impact on the Army’s fighting capability. I assure him that the Army will be able to deliver the SDSR outputs required of it.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the strength of individual units. He referred to a leaked letter from the colonel of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. The Army has looked at the recruiting ability of regiments and battalions not at a spot-point in time, but over a period of 10 years. It has looked at the demographic projections in the areas where the regiments and battalions recruit and drawn the appropriate conclusions.

The right hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand how a public duties incremental company works. The 100 or so men who make up the PDIC in Scotland will be drawn in rotation from the other battalions in the Royal Regiment of Scotland, so no one will serve a career in the Army being, as he disparagingly put it, photographed by tourists.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the arrangement of affairs within the regiments where battalions are being lost. He asked specifically about the Green Howards and the Duke of Wellington’s. When battalions are withdrawn, it is for the regiments to decide how the antecedents and the thread behind those battalions are merged into the other battalions.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the reserves. We are talking about an Army reserve of 30,000 trained strength, not 15,000 as he mentioned. Reserves will be deployed on operations. That is what will give the Army its sustainability in the future. On an enduring operation, we would expect the first six-month tours to comprise less than 10% reserves, with the reaction forces making up the bulk of the land forces.

Defence Reform

John Bercow Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I wish to start by talking about the young men and women who serve in our front-line services. I pay tribute to all members of the armed services, be they in the back room or on the front line, but special consideration has to be given to those on the front line, such as those in Afghanistan and Iraq. I went to Afghanistan in 2007 and met some of the young men who were fighting for us. They were 18, 19, 20, and they were being faced by and had to see all sorts of cruelties. They had to face so much hurt and they had to see so many injuries among their comrades. When they come back, we need to look after their physical and psychological needs. That means that if they have been injured in combat, all the best treatment should be made available to them. Even if they have not suffered any physical harm, they must be treated in respect of their emotional and psychological needs as well. They must be supported appropriately when they leave the Army and come into civilian life. That means that if they want to go to university, they should be given free tuition. Although we rightly always pay respect to our fallen heroes, we forget that what people are exposed to in war and in battles is an experience that nobody else is ever going to see and hear. So we should spend a lot more money on looking after our armed personnel who have served on the front line when they come back.

It is also important to equip these people properly when they are on the front line. They should be properly trained, and the armour, the helicopters and everything else that is required for them to do their job properly should be in place. That also means that the right amount of personnel should be there; 100 people should not be sent to do a job that requires 300 soldiers to do it. That means that the Government should reconsider the abandoning of certain regiments. The fighting force, the infantry and the regiments that go out to fight should not be reduced. One of my constituents who served in the Yorkshire Regiment, which was founded by the Duke of Wellington, says that it is one of the best regiments and has received many Victoria Crosses for the services it has rendered to the country, so I ask Ministers to reconsider reducing the number of soldiers on the front line.

We are told that some of these re-evaluations of our defence expenditure are to do with the money. I want the Minister, and indeed Labour Members, to consider whether we really need Trident. I know that people think that this is a debate of the left, but everyone knows that four years ago a number of generals and senior people in the Army and the Air Force said that Trident is actually irrelevant and is no longer required, as a result of the end of the cold war. They have also said that it is not ready to deal with the current levels of international terrorism. The generals set that out in a letter to The Times in January 2009. I have copies of the documents where they have asked that more money be spent on conventional forces, which we require to deal with the imminent threats we face. As I said, those people are not pacifists and they are not people who do not know what they are talking about; they are—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution. I call Oliver Colvile.

Nuclear-powered Submarines

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman resorts, not for the first time, to hyperbole. He talks about weapons of mass destruction, but the announcement has nothing to do with weapons; it is about reactor power plants for powering submarines, both the strategic successor submarine and the Astute class attack submarine, which will form the core of the Navy’s attack submarine force in future. He talks about the position of the Scottish National party and the Scottish TUC. Perhaps he has taken the trouble to consult the 6,000 people whose jobs depend on Her Majesty’s naval base Clyde and Coulport.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the review in 2016. We decided to proceed with long-lead items to enable the currently planned programme for the replacement of the Vanguard class submarine to proceed. A decision will be taken in 2016. It will take into account the review of alternatives to the successor, which is currently under way and being chaired by the Minister for the Armed Forces. We understand from speculation in the media that the SNP is about to reverse its policy on membership of NATO, which is a nuclear alliance, so perhaps he could enlighten us on whether his party will endorse the nuclear NATO alliance, because he did not tell the House in his earlier comments.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that the Secretary of State was making a kind of rhetorical point, but I should say for the benefit of the House that there will be no further dollop of the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), at any rate in respect of this matter, this afternoon. We await further particulars at a later stage.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Given that as long ago as 9 February 2011 the Prime Minister told this House:

“The replacement of Trident is going ahead… I am in favour of a full replacement for Trident, a continuous at-sea deterrent… it will remain Conservative policy as long as I am the leader of this party”—[Official Report, 9 February 2011; Vol. 523, c. 296.],

is there any reason for surprise that this step should have been taken, and is there any reason for the undue delay in the study of alternatives, which can only come to the conclusion that replacing Trident is the only sensible option?

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

May I offer the condolences of the Opposition to the families and friends of the two brave servicemen who lost their lives last week? For the record, the shadow Secretary of State is out of the country on official defence-related business.

In a security landscape of few guarantees, our independent nuclear deterrent provides us with the ultimate insurance policy, strengthens our national security and increases our ability to achieve long-term global security aims. As the Secretary of State made clear, the initial gate decision announced in May last year set in train £3 billion of expenditure on the design, development, assessment and ordering of long-lead items to make the 2016 main gate decision feasible.

If the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) had re-read the May statement, he would have known that half the money is for renewing the infrastructure of the Rolls-Royce facility in Derby, which is essential for the next generation of nuclear submarines. That is not new but necessary investment.

This is a vital programme that a separate Scotland would not be able to afford or benefit from—[Hon. Members: “We don’t want it!”]—in terms of security or jobs if it did not go ahead. Indeed, the development of the new reactor needs to go ahead whether or not there is a final decision on Trident, because it relates to the UK’s defence capability and to our submarine programme —with huge implications for places such as Barrow, a point completely missed by the hon. Member for Moray.

It is very easy to become blinkered by the concerns held in some quarters about the successor programme and to lose sight of the wider need for the research and development and investment required to keep our nation safe. If the Lib-Dem alternative review, which is ongoing, is to be evidence-based, it must stand up to scrutiny when published, and the Opposition will certainly look at any new evidence brought forward.

Some issues rise above party politics, and the nation’s security is one of them. The country would therefore be deeply disappointed if defence of the Government ever took precedence over defence of the national interest. The previous Government were strong advocates of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and although multilateral disarmament is not the only route to achieving a world free of nuclear weapons, it is one that we must accelerate if we are to achieve that collective goal.

Will the Secretary of State say how the Government are strengthening each of the three pillars of the NPT? What dialogue is he having with some of the key Governments about their position in that regard?

When the Government do the right thing on defence, we will support them. We look forward to the evidence that they will provide and to a clear commitment to multilateral disarmament.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I very gently say to the Secretary of State that any remarks about the non-proliferation treaty should be pretty brief? I know that he will want other colleagues to be accommodated.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is absolutely right. We have long shared a consensus that the crucial strategic defence of the United Kingdom is a matter that should be above party politics, and in an increasingly uncertain world it looks increasingly certain to me that maintaining our nuclear deterrent is the right posture for ensuring the future security of this country and of our allies. She is absolutely right also to point out that a significant part of this investment is about maintaining a UK sovereign capability, not just through the strategic submarine deterrent but through our attack submarines and future generations of them. That is a skill set, which, if we lose it, we will never, ever be able to regain.

As for the non-proliferation treaty, the Government of course remain committed to non-proliferation and have already taken steps in relation to our strategic submarine programme to reduce the missile and weapons payload to the minimum required for strategic deterrence, hoping to set an example to others.

I just wonder, Mr Speaker, whether I could air this thought. While the hon. Lady was speaking, nationalist Members were saying, “We don’t want it!” May we have an assurance that, if they do not want it, they will not reverse their policy on NATO and seek to shelter under NATO’s nuclear umbrella while refusing to share the burden?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I think I just need to explain to the hon. Lady that the decision in 2016 will be about the replacement of the Vanguard class submarines to carry strategic nuclear missiles. We have a second class of submarines, the Astute class of nuclear powered attack submarines. The Royal Navy will always need nuclear powered attack submarines whatever we do with the successor to the Vanguard class. So this sovereign capability is required if the Royal Navy wishes to remain in the business of having nuclear powered submarines, and we certainly do. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is signalling, from a sedentary position, his interest in participating. He is holding out his hands to imply the wings of an aeroplane. He may have flown here, but I am afraid that he did not fly here quickly enough. It is always a delight to hear the product of the hon. Gentleman’s lucubrations, but I am afraid that that will have to wait for another day, as he was not here at the start. We will hear the hon. Gentleman another time. We will save him up. It will be worth hearing, I feel sure.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

As a Member of Parliament lucky enough to have HMS Inskip on the edge of my constituency, may I welcome today’s announcement? As someone who went to school on Clydeside, just a few miles down the road from Faslane, may I ask the Secretary of State, when he looks at job numbers, to look also at the wider supply chain and the taxi firms and hotels that would benefit from this decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

It is always fascinating to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman, but his point of order will have to wait. We are in the middle of a statement, which is more important than his point of order—[Interruption.] —difficult though it may be to persuade him of that important fact.

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that this is great news for British defence generally?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are pressing ahead with their plans on the confident assumption that the referendum will deliver a vote in favour of the Union.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Rob Wilson.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

I am still smiling, Mr Speaker. Is the Secretary of State’s understanding, based on the SNP’s opposition to this investment, that an independent Scotland would leave its citizens fairly defenceless against nuclear attack, or would it rely on another nation to protect it?

[Mr Hammond]

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), let me say that my hon. Friend takes me back to a point that I have made before. The SNP needs to be clear whether it will seek to reverse its policy on NATO membership, and thus to shelter under the nuclear umbrella provided by others while shirking any responsibility for delivering that strategic security.

[Mr Speaker]

I was advised that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) came into the Chamber at three minutes past 4, which is very late—

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman should not be nodding his head in that fashion: he is not helping his own cause. I am going to work on the charitable assumption that my informant was misinformed, because the hon. Gentleman was busily offering me protestations of innocence only a few moments ago. I think that the mantras of MacNeil had better be heard, for what it is worth.

[Mr MacNeil]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. According to Professor Steven Pinker, since 1945 it has been the major nuclear powers that have been involved in conflicts, yet the non-nuclear neutral states have not. Why is their deterrent so much better?

[Mr Hammond]

It really was not worth it, Mr Speaker. You might think that during such a long, delayed flight, the hon. Gentleman would have been able to come up with a rather more interesting question. He missed the initial answer to the question. This announcement is about the production of cores for submarine nuclear reactors for both strategic missile submarines and conventional attack submarines. It is about maintaining a vital, sovereign UK capability. He will have to draw his own conclusions about the politics of nuclear deterrence.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State and colleagues. Before we proceed to the main business, I feel sure that the House will want to hear the point of order of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), of which he was very seized fewer than five minutes ago.

Point of Order

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Now I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. Of course this is about a propulsion system, and the reactors are independent of what type of missiles the submarine might carry.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the House is greatly enlightened by that clarification. I would simply say to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) that if his essential complaint—that the answer did not relate to his question—were to form the basis for subsequent points of order, our proceedings would become very heavily extended indeed. We will leave it there for now.