Al-Sweady Inquiry Report

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures for the earlier costs. The figure of £31 million is specifically for the public inquiry. As he said, that is a huge and unacceptable amount. It comes directly from the defence budget and he is right—it could otherwise have been spent on providing more equipment for our troops and on many other things that people might have regarded as having a higher priority.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State may recall that in 2004 a number of nationalist MPs gave £14,000 of taxpayers’ money to that law firm for an earlier case. Does he think there is merit in the MOD raising this with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to ensure that nationalist MPs never again squander taxpayers’ money on those ambulance-chasers?

[Michael Fallon]

I do not recall that, but perhaps I could look into it and get back to the hon. Gentleman on that specific point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. The point that he has made is perfectly fair. I continue to make clear to the Defence Minister and Prime Minister in Baghdad that they must have the support of all interests in Iraq. I think that the recent agreement between three of the tribes in Anbar province and the Iraqi army to fight ISIL together, and the growing rapprochement—the interim agreement—between the Kurdish Regional Government and the federal Government in Baghdad, are pointers to the growing inclusiveness of the Government, which must be demonstrated in action. The reforms that are being made to the army, including the dismissal of some corps commanders and the recruitment of a genuinely inclusive national guard, are hopeful signs for the future.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

4. What recent discussions he has had with his Libyan counterpart on bilateral training programmes.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Michael Fallon)]

Given the deteriorating security situation in Libya, I have not had the chance to discuss training with my Libyan counterpart, but I continue to discuss the situation in Libya with our regional partners. General purpose force training was designed in 2013 at the request of the Libyan Government. The majority of trainees met the required standards but some did not. That was unacceptable and work is already under way on the report that the Prime Minister has commissioned.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. As he has touched on, the Government’s much-heralded UK training programme collapsed after serious allegations about the behaviour of some of the individuals, but of course that does not mean we should abandon the moderate elements in Libya. Will the Secretary of State outline the practical steps he is taking to deal with what has happened, and when can we expect to see the details of the new programme, wherever that is carried out?

[Michael Fallon]

This training programme was organised by the United Kingdom at the request of the Libyan Government and a number of locations were considered for it. The most cost-effective turned out to be here in the UK, but I think it likely that we shall learn from this and that this kind of training is probably better provided and organised in the country itself, or very close to it. That is difficult at the moment given the security situation in Libya, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to work with all parties in Libya, particularly the moderates in all three factions in Libya, to secure a political settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

We are providing up to 700 beds for the treatment of Ebola-infected patients and, critically, a specialist 12-bed facility to treat health care workers, should any unfortunately become infected. That second element is a magnet, because we must recruit more health care workers to go to Sierra Leone to help fight the disease. I am extremely proud of what our military personnel are doing, and the whole country and the House can be proud of them, too.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Last year, the cost that the RAF incurred in supporting the operation in Mali was picked up by an urgent operational requirement, yet an answer last week showed that the cost to RFA Argus had been met by the Department for International Development. Why the difference?

[Mr Francois]

DFID is leading on this operation. It has a clear lead, working with international partners. We in the MOD are supporting the DFID strategy. It is DFID’s lead, and it is paying for this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

I can tell my hon. Friend that 2nd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment is already training the Kurdish peshmerga in how safely to maintain, operate and use British-gifted heavy machine guns. We have run one course and a second course is under way. We are working on additional courses in specialist skills. We will, of course, authorise further commitments to train Iraqi or Kurdish troops, if it is consistent with the strategy to defeat ISIL on the ground and consistent with the support of our coalition allies.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I welcome Thursday’s statement from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), about the submarine dismantling project. Will the Minister confirm that as far as he is concerned we are still on course for early dismantling, and will he meet me before the end of the year to discuss further the future of Rosyth?

[Mr Dunne]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for the consultation, which will take some time. We are arranging consultation exercises in public in each location proposed on the shortlist—of which his constituency is one—and I would be happy to meet him before Christmas as part of those efforts.

Defence in Scotland after 2014

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to have secured this important debate. Today is an important landmark for all of us in the United Kingdom as we head towards the referendum—it will take place in exactly six months. In exactly six months’ time, many people here in the Chamber and elsewhere will be knocking on doors, getting out the vote for our fellow Scots as they make a huge and life-changing decision about the future of our country and our nation.

One great problem we have is that we simply do not have enough information from the nationalists about what a future Scotland would be like in respect of a range of issues, not least defence. Disappointingly, not one Scottish National party Member could be bothered to turn up this evening, despite having had notice of this debate. That might be because they are too scared to come to defend their plans or because they do not yet know what their plans would be in an independent Scotland. I wish briefly to discuss three areas: my constituency, the Rosyth dockyard and the wider west Fife defence footprint; the wider impact on the defence industry across Scotland; and how Scotland would defend itself after a yes vote on 18 September.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are very familiar with Scotland and, I am sure, with west Fife. You will know that the Rosyth dockyard is still the largest private employer in west Fife, employing about 2,800 people, the vast bulk of whom are working on the assembly of the two new aircraft carriers, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales. That has been a long-standing project, one that we are particularly proud of in west Fife; we are the home of the construction of the Royal Navy’s new flagships. I see the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) in her place and, obviously, Portsmouth will be the home of the carriers once they enter service.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. As he will be aware, I was invited to Rosyth by Babcock Marine and witnessed the impressive building of the new aircraft carrier, the Queen Elizabeth. I also saw, in the basin, the shells of seven former nuclear submarines, which still have some contamination. Apparently they are to be dismantled from 2016 onwards, but has he had any indication as to who will bear the financial responsibility for dismantling them and cleaning up the mess?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, whose own constituency has a very strong defence footprint with Raytheon, which I might mention later. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of the seven decommissioned nuclear hulks, which are lashed against the wall in the basin, as it is unclear whose responsibility they would be if Scotland were independent. My understanding is that if they are determined to be fixed now in Rosyth, they would pass as a liability to the Scottish Government. However, if we believe they are part of the overall movable pool, a fraction of the 17 decommissioned submarines we have in the UK would be the responsibility of the Scottish Government. Either way, the Scottish Government would be stuck with a clean-up to do and would not know how to go about doing it. My hon. Friend is entirely right to have raised the subject. I hope that we can get some idea from Ministers in the two Governments over the next six months about how such ambiguity might be resolved before the referendum.

On the broader point about the two carriers, it is obvious that Portsmouth will be their home and the location in which their routine maintenance will be carried out. That is the correct decision. I remember one of the earliest times that the hon. Member for Portsmouth North and I debated that maintenance with the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), in November 2010. As the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who has responsibility for defence procurement, said yesterday at Defence questions, Rosyth is clearly in prime position to provide deep maintenance. Babcock’s business plan is based on that assumption.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate, and I believe that there will be many such debates over the coming weeks and months about Scotland’s future after the referendum in September 2014. Is he as alarmed as I am by the recent press release by Babcock and the trade unions at Rosyth, which stated that without defence contracts, it would be impossible to sustain Babcock’s presence, and therefore its work force, in Rosyth?

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. He is as perceptive as ever, because I was about to come to that point. Without that deep maintenance work, the Babcock business case is destroyed. Last week, Babcock’s industrial unions warned that 800 job losses would result. I pay tribute to the full-time convener, Raymond Duguid—one of my hon. Friend’s constituents—for his work and for the productive way in which the work force at Rosyth dockyard engage with the management. They are all on the same side; they all want to serve the customer, the nation and the Royal Navy. They have a shared concern, which it is important to highlight. Again, it is disappointing that not one SNP Member could be bothered to turn up for this important debate.

The work force and management have made it clear that there will be significant job losses, which will place the long-term viability of the yard under threat. I hope that the Minister will set out the Ministry of Defence’s vision for the future of the defence industry in West Fife. In the neighbouring constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, there is a BAE Systems plant at Hillend, which makes parts for the Typhoon aircraft. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy) has Raytheon, a significant employer, in his constituency.

I commend the work of the House of Commons Defence and Scottish Affairs Committees, which have both looked at the implications of independence. Both Committees’ reports are useful, worthy and thoughtful pieces of work, and it is fair to say that they have reached similar conclusions. Many high-tech, specialised electronics companies such as BAE Systems and Raytheon would not be able to stay in Scotland unless specific guarantees were provided to the rest of the UK Government. So far, it has been clear from the SNP’s utterances that that is unlikely to happen. At a time when we are all pulling together and trying to secure, for example, new orders for the Typhoon in the middle east—we still hold out hope that we will also be successful in India and in Europe—it is slightly bizarre that the SNP is not engaging in a positive manner to help to secure those jobs in Scotland.

We cannot possibly discuss industrial strategy in Scotland without talking about the future of the Clyde. Incredibly difficult decisions had to be made, as part of the terms of business agreement, about the future of Portsmouth and the Clyde. I know how passionate people on the south coast are about the region’s, I think, 400-year history of shipbuilding, but the decision has been made to build the Royal Navy’s Type 26 frigate on the Clyde. We are seeing that arrangement developing, with the process of ensuring that Scotstoun, in particular, is ready to take on the work.

The SNP’s White Paper is a load of fiction. It says not only that an independent Scotland would buy the Type 26 but that the rest of the United Kingdom would build its Type 26s in Scotland.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. Is he aware that the commercial sector has expressed considerable interest in building ships in Portsmouth? We have proved that we can compete not only with Scotland but with Dubai and with other shipyards around the world. Our shipyard facility and a skilled work force would stand ready to pick up orders for offshore patrol vessels, Type 26s and beyond if Scotland became a foreign country, as we would clearly wish to retain our sovereign capability.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for that helpful intervention, which demonstrates something that the SNP will not acknowledge—namely, that there are and will continue to be alternatives to the Clyde. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that English MPs with shipyards in their constituencies would simply say to the Ministry of Defence, “Go on, give that multi-million pound order to another country, even though we have pressing needs in our own yards.” There is no way that English MPs would do that, be they in Plymouth, Appledore, Portsmouth or Barrow—or, indeed, on Tyneside. And how could we forget the Jarrow yard or the Birkenhead yard? There is no shortage of space for these construction contracts.

[Mr McKenzie]

Speaking as one who represents a constituency on the banks of the Clyde, I can tell my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) that there were no celebrations there when Portsmouth was losing out and the Clyde was gaining. There is a connection and a deep sympathy between all the shipbuilding industries around the country.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was not a day of celebration. There are genuine ties between the various yards. They share a common union body—the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions—and they campaign together to protect and sustain this crucial industry, which is in our national interest.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Harland and Wolff in Belfast does not have the capacity to produce ships, as it has diversified into the oilfield sector, but there is capability there. We very much want to be part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I want to place on record that we pledge our yards to be used in the service of the Royal Navy.

[Thomas Docherty]

There is obviously no shortage of firms to carry out this work. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) is in the Chamber. He was gracious enough to take me along to see a company in his constituency, Vector Aerospace. He has been a real champion of that company. It is inconceivable to me that the British Army and the Royal Air Force would continue to send Chinook parts to Perthshire for repair, if Perthshire were to be in a foreign country, when they could have the work done elsewhere in the United Kingdom. I say again that it is disappointing that not one SNP Member is here tonight. Perhaps that is because they are fearties, but they should be here to make their case, and to explain to the people of Scotland what the implications of independence are for defence and the defence industries.

I have said quite a lot about manufacturing, so I shall turn now to the so-called Scottish defence force. Over the past 12 to 18 months we have seen the SNP changing its position and rewriting documents. It went from being outside NATO and completely opposed to it, to being a full member, without even having to apply. It then changed its policy again. When the Minister for Transport and Veterans, Keith Brown, appeared before the Defence Committee last July, he admitted that an independent Scotland would have to apply for NATO membership. That was then flatly contradicted by Alex Salmond, who continues to put around the lie that somehow Scotland would automatically be a member of NATO. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell us what he thinks about those contradictory positions. SNP Ministers say one thing when they are under oath in front of a Select Committee and then say something completely different when they are safely back in Scotland and they think that no one is paying attention to them.

There are some serious concerns about the ability of Scotland to defend itself given the SNP’s plans. It was quite clear from when the Defence Committee took evidence that, in order to maintain simple air defences, Scotland would need, according to Air Marshal Iain McNicol, the equivalent of two squadrons of Typhoon aircraft. The SNP now claims that it would inherit a number of aircraft from the Royal Air Force. That is based on the argument, with which I have a huge amount of sympathy, that that is what happened in Czechoslovakia when it broke up. A proportion of aircraft went to the Czech Republic and a proportion to the Slovak Republic. Even under the most generous of assumptions—the Ministry of Defence has done the figures and they were used by the Secretary of State last year—Scotland would have only eight Typhoon aircraft. It would have to spend more than £1 billion purchasing additional Typhoons.

The same is true with regard to the Royal Navy. Again, the SNP is making contradictory statements. It claims in its party policy that it wants a squadron of submarines, yet in its White Paper, there was no mention of submarines. Perhaps like many other SNP policies, that has sunk beneath the waves.

The SNP has also claimed that it would need 15,000 regular personnel. Although the Minister and I may disagree on aspects of the strategic defence and security review, I am sure that we agree on the correct way of approaching a defence policy. One needs to set out strategic aims and threats, what posture needs to be adopted and what personnel and equipment numbers are needed to effect that posture. Then one needs to put together the money. What the SNP has done is to pick a random figure of 15,000. At no point has it provided any coherent explanation as to what it is, nor has it explained from where the troops would be recruited. Where would these air men and women, sailors and soldiers come from? The SNP claims that it is entitled to those members of the armed forces who have some sort of Scottish qualification.

[Mr McKenzie]

Is the SNP not also claiming that, in order to keep the same level of work force at Faslane, it would base the Army, the Navy and the Air Force in that area—putting all its eggs in one basket? How defensive is that?

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The SNP proposes to put its joint headquarters command for the three services at Faslane. The best and most optimistic estimate that the Defence Committee was able to make of the total headcount of the conventional Navy that the SNP would create under the joint headquarters command is that it would only, at most, provide approximately 4,500 personnel at Faslane, compared with the 8,000 who are there now. That force will get bigger over the next year as the Astute-class moves to Faslane. The SNP’s numbers just do not add up.

The other point that has not been touched on is training. If we were to assume that within the 15,000 head count, about 8,000 to 10,000 were Army, the SNP would need approximately 200 officer cadets every year to populate its officer corps.

Sandhurst takes only 120 international students a year at the moment and the SNP is silent on where its officers will be trained. Are we going to see “MacSandhurst” in the Glen? Are we going to see “MacDartmouth” or “MacCranwell”? Will the SNP come back to the Minister after independence begging for places at Sandhurst, Dartmouth and Cranwell? Those are the unanswered questions.

Finally, on the issue of cap badges, the SNP claims that it is entitled to all the Scottish regiments but has never quite explained what it means by a Scottish regiment. The 1st Foot and the Blues and Royals might disagree, but arguably the oldest regiment in the British Army is the Coldstream Guards. Coldstream is a fine Borders town only a few miles from England from which General Monck set off to restore the monarchy in 1660, hence its name being given to the guards unit formed in the new army. It would appear that the SNP would argue that it is entitled to the Coldstream Guards, except that the Coldstream Guards predate the British Army as they date from 1660. I know that I am in a room of knowledgeable historians who would all be able to tell the House that they were part of King Charles II’s English army. Even at that simple level, the SNP has no basic understanding of what a Scottish regiment is.

What happens to all those Scots who are serving in other regiments? They might not wish to come back to the Scottish defence force. What will happen to those men and women who are serving in so-called Scottish units who are not lucky enough to be from Scotland? What will happen to our fine Fijians? We have the finest Fijians in the Scottish battalions. Would they be forced to adopt the Scottish defence force?

In short and in conclusion, the SNP’s plans are incoherent, they do not add up and they are dishonest. The SNP owes it to the people of Scotland to set out the reality before 18 September so that people can make a choice. Tonight, young, brave Scotsmen and women are serving in the armed forces around the world—in Afghanistan, the Falklands or elsewhere. I hope we will always remember how proud they are to serve our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. In fact, I have been flicking through the press cuttings for today which had something to say on the matter. The Scottish edition of The Times has the headline, “Businesses get ready to leave in event of independence vote”. The Scottish edition of the Daily Mail says, “An uncertain future is our biggest worry, say business bosses”. The Herald says, “Business leaders ‘concerned about uncertainty over referendum’”. I do not think it needs me to say what that all adds up to. Taken with the remarks of business leaders from all sectors currently, and I suspect increasingly as we approach 18 September, it means that our concerns over jobs in Scotland in the event of independence are mounting almost by the day. I know that the hon. Gentleman, as the Member of Parliament for an area that depends heavily on our defence industry, will feel extremely strongly about this and will continue to make representations on it over the next six months.

[Thomas Docherty]

Further to that point and the point the Minister made about that work of fiction, the Scottish White Paper, was he as surprised as I was that the only mention of Rosyth in the whole document was as a possible future supplementary naval base? There is no mention at all about ship maintenance. Would he care to speculate on why the SNP would do that?

[Dr Murrison]

I have given up speculating about the SNP, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is somewhat odd, even in the simple 19 pages on defence in this remarkable 649-page document, that Rosyth should feature so poorly. That is truly remarkable and I think the hon. Gentleman’s constituents are entitled to draw their own conclusions from that.

I believe that Scotland should continue to benefit from every pound spent on UK defence. We of course have one of the largest budgets in the world at £33.5 billion this year. The £2.5 billion grudgingly conceded by Mr Salmond for both defence and security simply pales in comparison.

As part of the UK, Scotland will continue, as it has done for 300 years, to play an integral part in all aspects of UK defence. As UK citizens, Scots will continue to be employed in world-class armed forces, and Scotland will continue to be home to critical high-end military capabilities across the defence piece. In fact, on our current plans, the defence presence in Scotland will increase over the coming years. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has pointed out, by 2020 Scotland will be home to one of the Royal Navy’s main bases, including all of its submarines—I will come back to submarines in a moment—as well as to one of the British Army’s seven adaptable force brigades and one of three Royal Air Force fast-jet main operating bases.

At a time when the overall number of our regular armed forces personnel is necessarily decreasing, the number based in Scotland is set to increase from about 11,000 now to 12,500 by 2020, which is about 8.8% of the UK total.

UK defence generates economic benefits for communities throughout Scotland though jobs, contracts and support services. Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde is the biggest employment site in Scotland, with about 6,700 military and civilian jobs, increasing to 8,200 by 2022.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has eloquently described the importance of defence to the east coast, and every constituency in Scotland has people whose livelihoods depend on defence and that are subsequently at risk.

Scotland, as part of the UK, will continue to benefit from a strong, established global network of international relationships and alliances that would be unavailable to an independent Scotland, at best for years and possibly indefinitely.

[Dr Murrison]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who has anticipated my next point, which is that the UK has geopolitical influence that few states of a similar size can match. That influence would be put at risk in a dramatic way were this country to be split in two. Together, undoubtedly we punch well above our weight. Apart, we would certainly be diminished, with substantial geopolitical consequences that would reach far beyond these shores. It is interesting that many of our partners are watching this situation very closely indeed—even more closely, I have to say, than many of our own citizens on these islands—because they fully understand what is at stake in September.

Because we are together, the UK is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, a leading member of the European Union and a founder member of NATO. It is central to the “Five Eyes” community. The benefits for Scotland’s defence industry as part of the UK are especially important to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, as he has pointed out.

The scale of our defence spending is a key factor in sustaining those indigenous defence industries. The Ministry of Defence spent more than £20 billion with UK industry in 2011-12. Over the 10 years from 2012-13, it will spend almost £160 billion on new equipment and data systems. That spending sustains a substantial industrial footprint in Scotland, from complex warships to the latest high-tech innovations in aerospace engineering, defence electronics and electro-optical systems in companies based throughout the country, employing thousands of people in high-skill and relatively high-salary positions. Many of our prime contractors—Babcock, BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Selex ES, Thales, Raytheon and QinetiQ—have sites in Scotland. The defence sector in Scotland employs about 12,600 people, with 4,000 jobs in Scottish shipyards being directly linked to the aircraft carrier programme alone.

The SNP may be able to marshal arguments in support of independence, beyond its cynical offer of free child care, but even its ex-parliamentary candidate Colonel Stuart Crawford asked rhetorically whether the Scottish Government White Paper would provide at least some answers. In the event, we were left little the wiser from its 649 pages.

John Swinney’s secret admission that his defence budget would be less than the £2.5 billion asserted by the SNP is interesting, but let us generously assume that that is the figure. That would be for both defence and security, presumably including intelligence and cyber, but it is only about 7% of the UK’s combined budgets for defence, intelligence and cyber, and it is significantly less than Scotland’s population share—if we are counting, which we are not.

It is not clear what level of security and protection the £2.5 billion would provide, but it would for sure be less than Denmark’s or Norway’s. The SNP plans are simply unaffordable, and I can only conclude that it would end up with its starting point of 7,500 soldiers. So much for restoring all Scotland’s historic regiments. Confounding Colonel Crawford’s hopes, the White Paper seems to offer more questions than answers.

It is clear that an independent Scottish state would have to wait in line for membership of the international organisations that the Scottish Government have hitherto believed Scotland would automatically join. If it wished to be a member of NATO, all 28 member states would need to agree unanimously to its accession, which is hardly likely, given the Scottish Government’s attitude to the strategic nuclear deterrent that lies at the very heart of the alliance’s strategic concept. It seems unlikely that the “Five Eyes” community would really bang on the door of a newly independent Scotland.

Companies based in an independent Scottish state would no longer be eligible for contracts that the UK chose to place, or to compete domestically, for national security reasons under article 346. All our complex warships are designed and built within the UK for reasons of national security, so as a foreign country, Scotland would no longer be eligible. Where companies in Scotland could continue to compete, they would be bidding in a cut-throat international market dominated by major economic powers. The sustainability of the defence industry in Scotland and the thousands of jobs that depend on it would therefore be cause for considerable concern.

The Scottish Government have shown a little bit of leg in the 19 pages on defence in their 649-page doorstopper, but there is no link between their defence wish list and the budget proposed to cover it. Their £2.5 billion—remember that that is our generous assessment—would be nowhere near enough to pay for their stated requirement and, like the hon. Gentleman, who is eagle-eyed, I notice that the figure does not cover their 2012 plans for conventional submarines, which were not mentioned in the following year’s White Paper. The Scottish Government say that they would have expensive platforms, such as Type 26 frigates, Typhoon jets and maritime patrol aircraft, and presumably the wherewithal to process and act on the data that MPAs generate, and would continue to operate all current major military bases, but the sums do not add up.

That is not to suggest that an independent Scotland could not build a defence force. Of course it could. However, what the Scottish Government are saying about what that force would be like is simply not credible—it is incredible. Whatever defence force an independent Scotland could develop, it would not come close to replicating the level of defence and security that comes from being part of the UK, which defends the country not on a regional basis, but as a whole.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister is making a compelling speech. I do not know whether he has had the chance to look at the evidence of Air Vice-Marshal Nicholl to the Defence Committee. He said that if he were to start again as a young, aspiring pilot, he would not wish to join a separate Scottish air force, because he would not have the same opportunities that he had in the Royal Air Force. It was a Scot who said that. Does the Minister agree that a problem for the SNP is how it would recruit people? Why would people want to serve in the services if there were such restricted opportunities?

[Dr Murrison]

We have to imagine what Scotland’s defence force would look like with £2.5 billion or less. It would be very small indeed. It follows that the high-tech, high-end capability to which I have referred will simply not be available in Scotland. It seems inconceivable that the sort of men and women who join our armed forces would be attracted to such a proposition. I fear that the air vice-marshal is correct in his assertion. I hope that people in Scotland who are tempted by a career in the armed forces are not faced with the conundrum of whether to join a Scottish defence force or the armed forces of the United Kingdom. That would be a great pity for them and, potentially, a huge waste of talent. Traditionally, Scotland has provided some of the very best people in our armed forces. The loss to defence in this country in the event that Scotland went independent would be felt not least in the manpower and capabilities that those men and women provide.

Scotland’s defence and the UK’s best interests will be served by a strong no vote on 18 September. I suspect that the SNP knows that and would dearly like to park defence and security, so that it can focus on things like free child care, which it already has the power to grant, even if that will be pre-empted by tomorrow’s statement. I do not think that it is by chance that there are no SNP Members here tonight. They are concerned about their defence and security offer to the voters of Scotland on 18 September and would like to talk about something else. I do not intend to let the Scottish Government get away with their obfuscation and litany of half-truths on one of the major determinants of nationhood. My helpful advice to the SNP—I do try to be helpful where I can—is to admit that Scotland’s defence and its defence industry would be a casualty of independence and, in the six months remaining to it, to campaign on something else.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

As I have explained, £40 million of LIBOR funding has been set aside specifically for what we are calling the veterans accommodation fund. It will make a big difference, and is available to fund the building of purpose-built accommodation and the purchase or refurbishment of existing housing. The bid criteria have been published and the fund is open for applications now.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the economic effects on west Fife of the Queen Elizabeth class carrier programme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

The carrier programme as a whole is estimated to have sustained about 10,000 jobs across the UK, 4,000 of which are based in Scotland. Although we have made no specific assessment of the impact on the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, to the end of January the Ministry of Defence had spent about £2.3 billion on work billed to the programme by BAE Systems on the Clyde, and by Babcock at Rosyth. I was pleased to visit Rosyth last week to see the progress of the work on the Queen Elizabeth carrier, which is on track to be flooded up in July. The initial bow sections of the Prince of Wales carrier are dockside, ready for assembly to start later this year.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for that answer. Is the Minister aware that Babcock commented last week that if Scotland votes yes it would be highly unlikely that my constituency dockyard would get further orders for maintenance work from the MOD? Is that why the Scottish National party has admitted that there would be significant job losses at Rosyth in the event of independence?

[Mr Dunne]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to learn that I keep an eye on press cuttings relating to all defence procurement matters. The in-service support solution for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers is still in development and will not be decided until next year, but much support will be delivered at the base port and on deployment at sea. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman was referring to depth maintenance and refit, and the security implications of that work being undertaken in a non-sovereign dock outside the UK would need to be carefully considered. Several dry docks in the UK are physically capable of accommodating such ships outside Scotland.

Defence and Cyber-security

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but it rebounds slightly on the Defence Committee because we have been told that we are responsible for applying for such debates and, I have to confess, we have not done so in recent months, so perhaps we ought to revisit that.

The Defence Committee launched an inquiry into defence and cyber-security in January 2012, as part of a series of debates and inquiries looking into emerging threats. It was the first time the Committee had investigated cyber-security as a discrete topic, although in 2009 we had looked at Georgia and Estonia, and visited Talinn, as part of another inquiry. The UK Government had identified cyber-threats as one of four tier 1 risks to national security, and in November 2013 published a UK cyber-security strategy, updating their 2009 strategy and setting out four objectives: first, to make the UK one of the most secure places in the world to do business in cyberspace; secondly, to make the UK more resilient to cyber-attack and better able to protect our interests in cyberspace; thirdly, to help to shape an open, vibrant and stable cyberspace that supports open societies; and fourthly, to build the UK’s cyber-security knowledge, skills and capability.

The programme is to be implemented via a four-year national cyber-security programme costing £650 million, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced an extra £210 million investment after the 2013 spending review. The funding is shared between the security and intelligence agencies, the Ministry of Defence, the Home Office, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Cabinet Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but most will be spent by the security and intelligence agencies.

During our inquiry, the Committee investigated whether the high profile given to the cyber-threat in the UK was matched by a coherent plan and a chain of command in the event of a major cyber-attack on our national infrastructure or our national interests. The complexity of the threat must be matched by an agile, many-layered response; accordingly, many different agencies are involved in the cyber-security effort, ranging across cybercrime, cyber-espionage and cyber-commerce. Cyber-security is therefore to some extent everybody’s responsibility, but we must avoid its ending up being nobody’s responsibility as a consequence. Someone has to be in charge.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

It is good to see so many colleagues here to take part in the debate. If we contrast the approach taken in the United States, where there is a unified structure under CYBERCOM, with the disparate approach taken in the United Kingdom, does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that we seem to have a number of lessons still to learn?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Well, there are pluses and minuses to having a unified structure, and there are risks in having a siloed approach. I said this is the responsibility of everyone, and so it is. I shall explain how wide that responsibility extends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me before. He asks a specific question about two specific squadrons. I believe that what he asks is the case, but I will write to him to confirm it. The House knows that he is the world’s greatest living expert on this matter, and I do not want to be the man to give him a wrong steer.

The cyber reserve offers individuals the opportunity to be part of the proud history and ethos of our reserves while working in a cutting-edge, technological field. The hon. Member for Bridgend asked about the effect on reservists if they travel to other countries. I will look into the good point she raised, and will return to her on that.

Cyber crosses national boundaries, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made clearly, and so too must our view of this new domain. It is, therefore, essential that we work with our allies to ensure that we are not only able to operate with one another, but are aware of common threats. We are already working closely on cyber with our long-standing international partners, particularly through a defence cyber-contact group that includes the US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and ourselves—the traditional “Five Eyes” partners.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Francois]

I will give way briefly because I am conscious of time.

[Thomas Docherty]

Before the Minister moves away from personnel, what lessons are being learned about recruiting regulars and reservists from the IT world? He seemed to skip over that.

Armed Forces (Prevention of Discrimination) Bill

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Friday 24th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak—I hope relatively briefly—about an important issue. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, this is my second attempt to change the law on the protection our society offers to members of the armed services, including the reserves and veterans, as well as their families.

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), to her place. To begin on a consensual note, she has a very hard act to follow in her role, because her predecessor, the Minister for the Armed Forces, cares deeply about armed forces and their welfare. I think that the whole House congratulates him on his new role. I hope that the hon. Lady and I will continue the debate in the same manner that he and I finished it at approximately this time last year.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

We are all delighted to see the Minister in her place. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is slightly surprised, as I am, to see her there, because from my reading of it, the Bill appears to be more a criminal justice one than an armed forces one. What are his thoughts on which Minister should respond to this debate?

[Thomas Docherty]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is on occasion slightly closer to the Government than I am, so he is better placed to speculate about which Minister should reply. Perhaps the hon. Lady will pick up that point when she speaks.

I hope that the House will unite on the issue. I very much welcome the constructive way in which hon. Members on both sides of the House have approached the subject not just today, but during the past 18 months. Of course there are times when we have different perspectives on the future of our armed forces and on how they should best be deployed and equipped. However, I hope that the whole House will agree on one point—that we owe a special duty to the brave men and women who risk their lives defending our freedoms and our rights. I very much welcome the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), to his place, which is a welcome sign of my party’s commitment on this important issue. I think that the whole House recognises that we owe a very special debt to those who risk their lives abroad to defend our freedoms in ensuring that they receive, as they deserve, the full shield of Government protection when they return home.

I will not repeat what I said last year, but I want to talk briefly about the first two clauses. Clause 1, which would amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003—the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) has already mentioned criminal justice—simply says that an assault on a member of the armed forces or their family that is motivated by their service to our country should be treated as an aggravated offence.

The House will recall that the noble Lord Ashcroft, who I suspect is in the other place—I understand that a minor issue is being considered at that end of the Building—carried out a survey, with the support of the Ministry of Defence, of some 9,000 serving personnel across the three armed forces in 2012. Some quite astonishing and, dare I say, horrific figures came out of that survey. About 5% of members of our armed forces reported that they or their family had suffered physical or attempted physical assault during the previous five years, while 18% or 19% of them reported that they had been the victim of verbal abuse in that period. I am sure we can all think of the type of abuse that, regrettably, is hurled by a mindless minority at members of our armed forces, and I will cite one example that my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling might also refer to.

A few years ago the Royal Anglian regiment came back, I think in 2010, for its homecoming parade, and an extremist organisation called Muslims Against Crusades organised an attack on that parade, which I think crossed the line between free speech and intimidation. The survey by Lord Ashcroft also reported that almost one in five members of the armed forces have been refused service in shops, pubs and clubs for being members of the armed forces, and clause 2 of the Bill covers that issue.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman said earlier, if I heard him correctly, that he was trying to extend the law to cover somebody who was, or was presumed to be, a service person in the course of their duties—or along those lines. I wonder where the Bill refers to that, because it states simply

“the victim being, or being presumed to be, a service person,”

without any qualification. He seemed to be adding a qualification to his remarks that I cannot see in the Bill, and I wonder whether he can clarify that.

[Thomas Docherty]

I expect the hon. Gentleman was wistfully thinking about all the times he has supported his Government, and he therefore misheard what I said earlier on. This measure is not about people who are carrying out their duties, but about those who are members of the armed forces. If he will indulge me, I will explain that briefly as I do not wish to detain the House.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on promoting the Bill, and I am sure the whole House will support it. In a small number of cases a member of the armed forces might go into a shop and be refused access because they are wearing a uniform, which I think is outrageous. It is only a few years since the armed forces have started to wear a uniform again. I remember when they were encouraged not to wear their uniforms in Northern Ireland, and it is welcome for the point to be clarified. People should not verbally abuse our armed forces, or have the right to refuse them entry.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and the House will want to pay tribute to his work championing the armed forces in Scotland. He served on the Defence Committee for a number of years, and has taken a keen interest in his local barracks at Glencorse.

It might help if I give a couple of examples of what we are talking about.

[Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman has tempted me, so I will let him intervene once more.

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Gentleman was right about what he said earlier, and the qualification he referred to—which I mistook—is someone being a member of the armed forces. Nobody disagrees with any of that sentiment, but I wonder where the Bill refers specifically to the fact that the abuse is happening because someone is a member of the armed forces. I cannot see that in the Bill. I understand that that is its purpose, but I cannot see where it states that specifically.

[Thomas Docherty]

If the hon. Gentleman looks, for example, at clause 1(a), (b), (c) and indeed (d), “service person” is mentioned repeatedly. I want to make a bit of progress because otherwise there is a danger that we could be perceived as trying to slow the progress of this important Bill.

We all saw with horror the events that took place in summer last year in Woolwich, and I am sure the whole House was in a state of revulsion at what happened. That is an extreme example, but later in the summer there was a lot of media interest in the Bill, and the BBC made a series of case studies as part of a day covering the issue of discrimination against the armed forces. The number of anecdotal examples that service personnel had suffered—although not on that same extreme level—was astonishing.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

There seems to be a potential distinction between what happened in Woolwich, which was clearly an act of murder and terrorism that was prosecuted under existing legislation, and discrimination legislation. It seems slightly dangerous to muddle criminal justice legislation and discrimination legislation. Will the hon. Gentleman please clarify what the link is between Woolwich and the legislation he is proposing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

If the hon. Gentleman shows a little forbearance, he will see where I am going with the argument.

A number of examples were cited. In the interests of making progress today and not getting bogged down, I will not talk about them all, but I want to mention one specific case. A young soldier from Bolton—coincidentally, he was also called Lee—phoned in to a Radio 5 Live programme on the morning of the BBC’s day of coverage on the issue. He said that he had returned from a tour in Afghanistan for a couple of weeks of well-deserved rest and recuperation and to see his family. It was the first time in three months that he had been home from deployment. He got off the train at Bolton quite late on the Saturday evening. He was in his uniform and had his bags with him. He was set upon by four or five drunken yobs. When the police caught them, the reason they gave for the assault was that they wanted to prove “how hard they were”. Those five brave yobs had attacked one soldier going about his business, having returned from service. I hope that answers, to an extent, the question the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) asked. While we see the attack in Woolwich as the most extreme and horrific example, there are examples reported every month.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

indicated dissent.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State shakes her head. I would be grateful if, when she replies, she sets out why she so adamantly opposes providing support to members of our armed forces and protecting them from that kind of attack.

[Anna Soubry]

I was not shaking my head because of any desire not to give our armed services personnel all the support and protection they require; I was shaking my head because four or five yobs setting upon a soldier in order to prove, in the hon. Gentleman’s words, how hard they are is certainly not in the same category as the appalling murder of Drummer Rigby, or indeed in the same category as discrimination. I know that I am a lawyer, but those are different jurisprudential matters and there is a real danger, especially with this type of legislation, of confusing the issues. I will explain that later in my speech, but I wanted to set the record straight that I was not shaking my head for the reason that was alleged, but because I disagree that we can liken four yobs trying to show how hard they are and discrimination against armed forces personnel.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the Minister for that attempt to clarify her position. I hope that she will have another stab at it later on.

The key point is that such attacks are too common, and that is unacceptable to this House and to the country, as I know from the feedback I have had not only from my constituents, but from the number of people who have contacted me, particularly since the summer. Indeed, there are people in the House service who have told me only this week how delighted they are to see the Bill coming forward. It is about sending a clear signal that we stand with those who risk their lives for our country to protect our freedoms and that it is unacceptable to attack, physically or verbally, a member of the armed forces because of that service.

I do not wish to try to take the Minister’s argument apart just yet—I will hear what she has to say first—but I suspect that on this occasion the Ministry of Defence, building on her point, will say that it is very difficult to look into somebody’s mind. With the greatest respect to her, this is an amendment to an existing criminal justice Act. Actually, the hon. Member for Shipley makes a valid point about this being a criminal justice matter. If the Minister wishes to go to the Library and get out the Hansard report from 2003, she will see that the debate was had then about how in principle to go about determining the motivation. The key point is that the Bill is a simple amendment of that existing principle. The Minister—and I forgive her for being a lawyer, as I am sure the whole House does—knows that it is the job of lawyers to prosecute and make their case. It will be a matter for the Crown Prosecution Service to set out why the motivating factor was the fact that the victim was in uniform rather than a general disagreement or some other factor.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that even if questioning motivation is bad criminal justice law in the first place, there would be no harm in extending the provision to the armed forces? If the question of motivation applies in other areas, it is only reasonable to extend it to this category. The previous debate covered motivation and that is not at issue today. What is at issue is the category of people included.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he has, as ever, made my argument more successfully. The onus is now on the Ministry of Defence. I am certain that the Minister does not dispute the validity of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and I am sure that she and her Department are full supporters of the principles it contains. The only issue before us today, therefore, is whether the protection it gives to specific other groups should be extended to members of the armed forces.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It is almost a year since the Second Reading of a similar Bill in the previous Session. Does the hon. Gentleman have any specific examples of discrimination against a member of our armed forces, in his constituency or that have been brought to his attention by others, that have happened in the intervening year?

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman leads me on to the point that I was about to make. I have mentioned physical assault already, but clause 2 would extend the prohibition on discrimination to what are colloquially called “trade and sales” issues. For example, a pub, restaurant or shop cannot refuse to serve a member of the armed forces simply because they are a member of the armed forces. Again, this is not about whether it is possible for lawyers to make a case on motivation, because the clause would amend an existing Act, on which very smart lawyers have already built cases successfully. This is a debate about whether the principle should be extended.

The work by Lord Ashcroft, carried out with Ministry of Defence support, reported the problem, but I also have two specific examples that happened relatively recently. The first was in Edinburgh, so not far from my constituency. The warship HMS Edinburgh was in dock in Leith to receive the freedom of the city in a civic ceremony at the city chambers. At the end of the ceremony, a group of crew members, in their dress uniforms, visited a pub called the Ensign Ewart. I do not know whether you are familiar with that pub from your visits to Edinburgh, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I can assure the House that it is a delightful watering hole and the type of place that Madam Deputy Speaker might visit during her frequent visits to Scotland.

The group of young sailors, in their dress uniforms, visited that pub in the middle of the day having just received the freedom of the city. The irony that the pub is named after one of the heroes of the Napoleonic conflicts is not lost on me, and I am sure that the House can guess what happened next: the landlord refused to serve them because they were members of the Royal Navy. The city council and most people in Edinburgh were indignant. The Edinburgh Evening News, the local daily newspaper, ran a huge campaign saying it was absolutely ridiculous and an embarrassment to Scottish hospitality, which I know the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) enjoyed a few years ago in central Fife. That is one good example of the ridiculousness of the situation.

[Rory Stewart]

rose—

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman appears agitated. I think he is trying to get my attention. Of course, I will give way.

[Rory Stewart]

What grounds did the publican give for this act of discrimination?

[Thomas Docherty]

That is exactly the point I am coming to. The landlord said that the sailors were in uniform and therefore likely to cause trouble. I think the House will agree that that is absolutely absurd. Our young men and women serving in the Royal Navy, wearing dress uniform, in the middle of the day, when entirely sober, are not likely to cause trouble. The House will think that an absurd and ludicrous argument, and it goes to some of the prejudices regrettably still facing members of our armed forces.

On this point, the previous Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir David Richards, made some valid points a couple of years ago. He said that our country was undergoing a cultural change and that the perception of our armed forces was changing. I am sure that a few years ago there was the perception that groups of young squaddies or officers were likely to cause trouble. The service chiefs and the chain of command have worked phenomenally hard— [Laughter.] The Minister seems to be chuntering something about this being ridiculous. If she wants to explain what she thinks is ridiculous about the debate, I would be happy to give way. I think this has been a good and thoughtful debate and I regret that she is not approaching it in the manner—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Thomas Docherty]

Of course I will.

[Anna Soubry]

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the conversation between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) had nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am grateful to the Minister for being so frank, but it is not quite in order to have conversations not pertaining to the speech by the Member who has the Floor, although we understand that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is good at making the House laugh from time to time.

[Thomas Docherty]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Rory Stewart]

rose—

[Thomas Docherty]

I will give way one last time, but then I want to wrap this up, because this is an important debate and I do not want it to appear that there is filibustering by either side.

[Rory Stewart]

Given that this example from Edinburgh is clearly absolutely central to the hon. Gentleman’s argument, it would be good, in terms of the policy implications and what the House can do to support the armed forces, to try and understand what exactly is going on and to get a bit deeper into this question. On the surface, it looks a bit bizarre. Here is a publican clearly keen to make some money and who normally would take people in. What exactly is the nature of the prejudice? He said they were in uniform, but can we get a bit deeper into this? What is it that makes a publican turn down sober people in uniform in the middle of the day? Unless we understand that, it will be difficult to come up with a policy solution.

[Thomas Docherty]

I shall explain very clearly. The publican’s argument is that these personnel will cause trouble, which is an absurd argument to put forward. I am sure that the Minister and I will agree that there is no reason to expect that men and women who are proud to be wearing their uniform at a civic event will cause trouble. The Bill is narrowly drawn—I am grateful to the redoubtable Kate Emms for her assistance, as ever, in drafting it—and very clear: it would amend existing legislation. Under the Equality Act 2010, a publican can still turn down somebody if they are drunk or if they have a genuine reason to believe they are likely to cause disruption. I stress, again, that this is not a debate about whether there should be exemptions under the 2010 Act, but whether those exemptions should be extended to cover members of the armed forces.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my friend—he is my friend—for giving way. I support him totally. When soldiers, sailors or airmen go out in uniform, particularly dress uniform, they are under a remit to behave in an exemplary way. By wearing the uniform, those boys and girls go out knowing that they are representing their unit, and there is no way, normally, that they would get drunk.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman—who, of course, gave his service to the country for 30 or 40 years —has made a compelling point, on which I hope the House will reflect. As a member of the Defence Committee, he has taken a close interest in this issue, and has championed me and supported my aims. He is entirely right: as the Minister would surely agree, it is ridiculous for a publican to say, “These young men and women in dress uniform are going to cause trouble.” As I have said, the Bill amends an existing Act. Safeguards already exist to enable a shop owner, publican or restaurateur to turn down someone’s custom if there is a genuine fear of trouble. All that we seek to do is extend the umbrella of protection to members of the armed forces.

[Mr Nuttall]

When, nearly a year ago, the hon. Gentleman withdrew exactly the same Bill, he said that he looked forward to working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), the present Minister for the Armed Forces, who responded to that debate. Will he tell us what negotiations or discussions have taken place since then?

[Thomas Docherty]

I was in two minds about whether to mention this, and it is with some regret that I do so now. If I were being charitable to the Department, I would say that it had not entirely fulfilled the expectations that were raised at approximately this time last year. The hon. Gentleman was present at the time, and made a thoughtful contribution to the debate.

The Minister and his officials undertook to look into the issue, and to include their conclusions in the 2013 Armed Forces Covenant annual report. Earlier this year, during defence questions, I asked whether a Minister would meet me, but although I was given assurances, and although I chased the matter up several times, no such meeting, either with a Minister or with officials, was forthcoming. I find that very disappointing. Moreover, the 2013 report—which is, of course, available in the Vote Office—makes no mention of any study building on the work of Lord Ashcroft.

[Anna Soubry]

I should be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the matter in greater detail. However, page 54 of the report deals with precisely this issue of discrimination against members of the armed forces.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is true that there is a passing reference to Lord Ashcroft on page 54, but, with the greatest respect, it does not meet my expectation that Ministers would look into how widespread the practice was, although a clear undertaking to that effect was given last year. It merely restates the officials’ existing position. There is no examination of how often discrimination takes place, how widespread it is, or what types of discrimination are involved. Let me read the offending two sentences to the House:

“Our view is that, in the last year or so, the extent of public knowledge and sympathy for the Armed Forces has continued to grow—aided by the Community Covenant and the new Corporate Covenant. We therefore continue to believe that education, rather than legislation, is the key to eradicating the kind of behaviour that we all abhor.”

That is all motherhood and apple pie, but it does not meet the undertaking that was given last year to look at the Ashcroft report in detail and to follow it up. There is no mention of HMS Edinburgh, and no mention of any of the other instances of which we have heard from all over the country. The MOD claims that the figures cited by Lord Ashcroft—it is not for me to question the veracity of Lord Ashcroft’s figures—are not the whole picture, but no evidence is presented to show that those figures are wrong. There are no facts to back up the MOD’s assertions.

To finish on a consensual note, let me say that I do take the Minister at her word. I accept that she believes that that protection is sufficient, and I will take up her generous offer and meet her to discuss how to take this matter forward, but, 12 months on, this issue continues to be a problem. This is not a debate about how one measures the motivation. That is covered by the two Acts in 2003 and 2010. This is not about “Would the Crown Prosecution Service have an ability to demonstrate this in the courts?” That is already covered in the debates that took place a decade or so ago. This is a debate about whether we in this House believe that members of our armed forces and their families who risk their lives to protect our freedoms deserve to be given the greatest level of protection.

I commend this Bill to the House, and I look forward to it receiving a speedy passage.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on introducing a Bill that obviously reflects a deep intuition, a deep sense of respect for the military, and a deep desire to show the public admiration for the military for the service they provide and the sacrifices they make. So I begin by acknowledging that the Bill has been introduced with the best of intentions and to reflect that public respect.

I also want to say that discrimination legislation can, in the right place and at the right time, make a very useful contribution to society. It can be difficult, is often controversial, and has been a huge problem over the last 50 or 60 years, but, in the right place and at the right time, discrimination legislation can be hugely important. However, what I hope briefly to say is that unfortunately I do not believe, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s good intentions and the importance of showing respect for the military, that discrimination legislation is the correct way of addressing this problem.

There are three reasons why: the first is to do with the inherent nature of discrimination legislation; the second is to do with the other forms of policy measures we can take to support the military and veterans without having to invoke discrimination legislation; and the third is the more complex and deeper issue of the kinds of values and attitudes that would be encouraged by introducing discrimination legislation, in particular the fact that it would begin to portray soldiers and veterans in the guise of victims, which would be very dangerous for our public policy relationship with the military in general.

There are four major issues around discrimination legislation that need to be addressed, notwithstanding the fact that discrimination legislation has been useful. The first of them is the complexity of discrimination legislation. It is extremely difficult and complex to operate. We get in trouble with it all the time in the courts on any number of issues. The second is the problem of futility: the number of cases in which discrimination legislation actually turns out to be futile because it does not address the problem concerned. The third is the problem of perversity: the way in which discrimination legislation of the wrong sort can in fact have a negative impact on a whole series of elements in society. The fourth is what I call the problem of jeopardy: the way in which discrimination legislation can in fact rebound on the very group it is attempting to protect and actually increase prejudice.

This is not an argument against discrimination legislation in general. It is simply an argument that it should be done only in the most specialised and careful circumstances. Discrimination legislation in general, although controversial, has been hugely successful. Probably one of the greatest contributions our society has made—one of the things I hope we will be remembered for in the future—is the introduction of legislation protecting people on the grounds of race, gender, disability and age. We must remember that that is not a small thing. There was a time in this country when it was legal for a landlady of a bed and breakfast to put up a sign saying, “No blacks admitted”; when women in this country could be paid three-quarters of the amount that men were paid; and when so-called public bars could exclude people on the basis of their gender or race and were not open to them.

As Lord Hoffmann said in justifying discrimination legislation, the basic idea that similar cases should be treated in a similar fashion and that different cases should be treated differently is a basic axiom of rationality. It is based on two fundamental principles: the fundamental principle of equality, which is the idea that people should be treated as ends and not means to ends; and the fundamental principle of rationality, which is that only relevant characteristics should decide how somebody is treated. However, the problem is that although we have made huge progress in those areas, legislation is a last resort. It is an incredibly complex and frequently counter-productive form of law to introduce, so much so that it should be limited to cases only where there is such a deep-seated prejudice extended over so many centuries that there is no alternative measure open to us. If we were to introduce such legislation in relation to the armed forces, we would have to go through a legal nightmare over the succeeding decades in trying to work our way through such cases.

Broadly speaking, discrimination legislation—I am not a lawyer—is based on five grounds. We need to determine the ambit of the legislation; the prescribed ground of the legislation; that unequal treatment has taken place; an analogous situation; and exactly what the justification is. The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife will point out that, in relation to the armed forces, at least three of those measures are relatively straightforward, including the ambit of the definition in the case of the armed forces. In other words, is this discrimination in employment or in private life? The prescribed grounds in this case could be, although this will be more difficult to define, in relation to gender or disability, and they involve a relatively straightforward determination of what somebody’s gender is or what their ethnic background is. He could argue that it should be reasonably straightforward to determine whether or not someone is a member of the armed forces or has served in the armed forces. Unequal treatment requires the definition that this individual who comes from these particular prescribed grounds and operates in this particular ambit has been treated unlike someone else would have been treated in—and this is the fourth condition—an analogous situation and, fifthly, that that is unjustified.

We can all see again and again—we only have to open a copy of any newspaper—that hard cases and bad law have led to a situation in which discrimination legislation appears to go in the face of what has been normal practice. Hard cases will emerge again and again, and we have seen it. We can see it in things that everybody will have discussed in this House over the years. I am talking about, for example, whether or not it is possible for a Church of England school or a Jewish school to discriminate on the basis of religion; for a single-sex school to discriminate on the basis of gender; or for the police or the immigration authorities to discriminate on the basis of Roma ethnicity—that was a Supreme Court judgment. If we were to define the armed forces as one of those categories, a whole series of cases would begin to emerge in case law in which anybody who served in the armed forces or was a veteran of the armed forces would begin to be able to claim discrimination in everything from education through to employment. Importantly, it would not be possible simply to limit discrimination legislation—we would be struck down in Strasbourg—to admission to a public house.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am very clear that the legislation applies not just to public houses, but to any commercially procured service. The hon. Gentleman seems to suggest that the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Equality Act 2010 are flawed. Will he be clear that what he is referring to is not the principle of discrimination law? As I understand it, his problem is that he does not think that those laws should be extended to our armed forces. Is that his central argument?

[Rory Stewart]

My central argument is that a general protection exists for all citizens. The general principle that we do not create special categories of citizens is central to our notion of equality. We should only create special categories of citizens in the most extreme hard cases. My argument, to get to the nub of it, is that there have been over the centuries such extreme examples of sexism, chauvinism and discrimination on the basis of disability that despite the general principle of equality, and despite our general objection to special treatment, there are certain categories where that difficult decision has been correctly made, landing us in a nightmare of complexity but done for the public good. Including an individual’s occupation among the prescribed grounds for discrimination would be a very serious error and would open the floodgates to huge complexity.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman must have heard my opening remarks, in which I said that the statistics from the noble Lord Ashcroft, produced with the support of the Ministry of Defence in the largest ever study of attitudes to and within the three services, show that one in five members of the armed forces has been refused service and one in four has been the victim of physical or verbal assault. If the hon. Gentleman can point out to me another example of a type of employment where that goes on, I want to hear it. Otherwise, I fear that he is not making a coherent argument.

[Rory Stewart]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is not exactly the point I am making. I do not deny that members of the armed forces can be treated unfairly, nor do I deny that because they are going somewhere in uniform they are likely to be identified as a special category and treated unfairly as such. My argument is based not on the notion that there are no examples of unfair treatment but on the general assumption that expanding discrimination legislation is a very dangerous thing for this House to do. It is not simply that as a Conservative I feel that we already produce too much legislation and that we feel the effects of excessive legislation, but that extending discrimination legislation, in particular, should be done only in the most extreme situations.

[Rory Stewart]

A whole body of case law exists exactly to resolve such issues of discrimination of any sort that we have not to date felt a need to resolve. Discrimination can already happen in the United Kingdom against people who are not in protected categories. It is possible, for example, to take legal redress as a white male former member of the armed forces. My hon. Friend himself would be able to seek legal redress in many situations in which he felt that he had been unfairly treated. The particular question of the rights of publicans to admit or not admit people into their establishments is another area of case law.

This is a question for the Edinburgh courts; it is not for me to determine what the publican did. My sense, as regards the publican’s right to do what he did, is that in this case the publican’s argument was not the argument that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has suggested; the publican’s argument was not that he believed that the people in uniform were going to cause trouble, but that he had had a lot of experience of the other people in the pub causing trouble and attacking people in uniform when they came in. In other words, he believed that it was an exacerbating factor and he was in no way criticising the people in uniform. He was trying to protect against violence breaking out in his pub on the basis of experience of that happening in the past. Unless the hon. Gentleman has a deep understanding of exactly how much violence has happened in that pub and why the publican, who would have an interest in trying to generate income from alcohol sales, excluded those people, it would be difficult to judge in this case.

[Thomas Docherty]

I lived in Edinburgh for years, and I know this pub particularly well. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for the start of my speech because, as I said, I know this pub; it is a nice pub in a nice area. It is not a rough pub, but a normal pub. The hon. Gentleman must have missed the start of my speech because the point he is making has been covered.

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind to suggest that I missed the start of his speech; I did not. I was here for the entirety of his eloquent speech.

To be honest, I do not think we should get dragged down into discussing this particular pub; this issue is a bit of a rabbit hole, and I would like to close it down. But there still seems to be a bit of an issue. On the one hand, the hon. Gentleman is presenting the pub as a wonderful pub that has absolutely no problems at all; on the other, we have the slightly imponderable question of why the publican, who presumably wishes to generate income from his pub, did not allow these people in. It seems that there is an issue that the hon. Gentleman needs to address about the pub.

However, that is not my point. My point is a bigger one about the kinds of things for which we introduce discrimination legislation. Hard cases make bad law. It would be unfortunate if what happened in a single pub in Edinburgh, or indeed many scores of times up and down this country, were to lead to the introduction of something almost unprecedented: to add, suddenly and out of nowhere, an entirely new category based on occupation to the broad categories of inherited characteristics—gender, race, sexuality, age and disability. That could be the beginning of something that all of us in the House would regret.

Why do I feel that? It is not only because of the complexity of the legislation that would be introduced, which I have touched on, but because of three additional points: futility in legislation; jeopardy in legislation; and counter-productive legislation.

When I talk about futility in legislation, particularly in relation to discrimination, I mean whether introducing this form of discrimination legislation would address the basic problem. Criticisms have been made of all discrimination legislation during the last 40 years; it has frequently been said that the law may not be the best way to address deep-seated cultural prejudices or inherited attitudes.

I will be concrete. Addressing discrimination against the armed forces should be attempted in the first place through policy, by ensuring that the correct social attitudes are promoted in schools and through how Government and public policy makers talk about the armed forces, so that we address exactly what the prejudices are. If there is an existing prejudice that members of the armed forces have certain characteristics, it is incumbent on the many armed forces charities—wealthy and well-supported charities, which enjoy a huge groundswell of positive public opinion—and the Ministry of Defence, as well as the regimental associations, to try to establish what those prejudices are and to address them.

My second point is about jeopardy. Introducing new discrimination legislation imposes a huge element of cost. That cost was justified in relation to gender, race, disability, sexuality and age. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to consider the costs of legislation to deal with employment discrimination. He would need to reflect on the exact implications for a small or medium-sized business that employed somebody from the armed services, and for the human resources department of a company that did the same.

The hon. Gentleman will find—this is central to my argument—that in Strasbourg and at the Supreme Court the attempt to create a special category of occupation that is determined as an object of discrimination in relation to, for example, public houses and bed and breakfasts, cannot stop there. It will be extended immediately to employment law.

[Thomas Docherty]

indicated dissent.

[Rory Stewart]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene on that point, I would like to hear why he believes that such legislation would not eventually be extended to employment law, once the basic philosophical argument on discrimination had been accepted.

[Thomas Docherty]

I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will shortly rule that there is a danger that the hon. Gentleman and I are going out of order. However, I will respond specifically to his last point—we covered that issue in the Defence Reform Bill in this Session, and amendments about it were rejected. We cannot have similar amendments in the same Session. Also, the one thing does not logically follow the other in the way that he suggested.

Having said that, I know that if I continue to debate this issue, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will rule both the hon. Gentleman and me out of order very soon.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

On the contrary, both hon. Gentlemen are in order as they deal with this narrow Bill in, if I may say so, an intellectual way that the House appreciates.

[Rory Stewart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me expand on this a little for the hon. Gentleman. This is a question of proscribed grounds for discrimination, which is one of the five aspects of discrimination legislation that I set out. One needs to ask what the proscribed ground for discrimination is, and the Bill would add to gender, sexuality and disability the ground of occupation in the military. If the law accepts philosophically that there is an additional category in the proscribed grounds for discrimination, it would not be possible—no judge would consider this possible—to limit that simply to the provision of hospitality and not extend it to employment law, because the precedent of a proscribed ground of occupation would have been created.

[Thomas Docherty]

As I said, many of these arguments were covered during our consideration of the Defence Reform Bill, when I think that the Minister was a member of the Defence team. That Bill includes measures on employment discrimination, but things have not gone the other way. The Ministry of Defence is confident that the Bill’s measures on anti-reservist discrimination will not roll on in the way the hon. Gentleman describes. Additionally, the Scottish Parliament is working on measures regarding the assault of NHS employees, but it is confident that they will not fall foul of the Strasbourg Court. The hon. Gentleman’s argument does not hold up because there is precedent in the United Kingdom of cases on which the European Court has not required that a provision covers everything.

[Rory Stewart]

With respect, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We might not have time to explore this fully, but I shall try to make myself clearer.

There is a basic problem in making a new extension to discrimination legislation. All the grounds in that legislation are extremely complex. It has been difficult to operate the legislation over the past 50 years, but doing so has been absolutely necessary because of centuries of prejudice and abuse against women and racial groups. The sort of stuff that happened was so horrifying that the House felt that it had no alternative but to introduce an extremely difficult and clumsy form of law that has produced a whole series of consequences—often futile or perverse, and even counter-productive, in that prejudice increased against the group that we were attempting to protect.

[Thomas Docherty]

I promise that this will be my last intervention on the hon. Gentleman. He talks about gender, but there are still men-only golf clubs today—I know that the Minister and I are both appalled by that—despite years of anti-discrimination legislation covering one or both genders. His argument breaks down because some extensions of protection have not led to intended or unintended consequences.

[Rory Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman is producing an argument against his Bill because he seems to be saying that there are examples of legislation that was futile. Does not his example of the golf club suggest that, despite the existence of legislation, there was a minimal impact on the group to be protected?

[Thomas Docherty]

There is a danger that we will run out of time, but the Equality Act 2010 was not designed to apply to golf clubs, and there has been no successful challenge in the European Court to get it extended to golf clubs. The Scottish Parliament is working on measures to deal with assaults on emergency workers, but that will not roll on to cover trade and sales. One cannot say that these things will automatically go forward. I am sure that clever lawyers such as the Minister could find creative ways of making their case about that, but so far the courts have not extended such legislation.

[Rory Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. May I perhaps make a little progress? Some of what the hon. Gentleman wishes to achieve could be achieved without discrimination legislation. Without getting into all the arguments on the appropriate ambit of legislation, unequal treatment, analogous circumstances, justification and prescribed categories, many other things could be done to achieve the same objectives. Importantly for the House, there is a fundamental distinction between what can be addressed through discrimination law and what can be addressed through sensitivity to context and culture. Saying that we do not wish to create a special category of soldiers or veterans who are treated differently from other citizens is not the same as saying that the House cannot come up with any policies that might provide more support for soldiers and veterans, that acknowledge the obligations that we owe them and the unique service they have performed, and that find concrete ways to help them.

I shall give an example that might interest the hon. Gentleman. Without introducing discrimination legislation, it is possible—the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), the shadow justice spokesman, has proposed this—to consider ways of working with military personnel and veterans in the criminal justice system without defining a proscribed category of discrimination. It might involve, for example, ensuring that a police officer is aware that someone they have arrested has served in the armed forces, not so that the police officer could give them lax or special treatment, or because they should somehow be immune from prosecution, but because awareness of their context or background could lead to more constructive engagement between them and the police officer. The same could be true in the prison system, with military mentors working with prisoners with a military background, so that they may be able to develop a more constructive rehabilitation programme. If the probation service paired ex-military probation officers with ex-military released prisoners, that might radically reduce the chance of reoffending. For example, in Buffalo, New York, where such a system has been applied, reoffending rates among veterans and soldiers have dropped to 0%, and across the United States the rate has dropped to 20%. That is not discrimination legislation or special treatment; it is an understanding of the context.

I appear to be losing the attention of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife so I will move on to the final stage of my speech. We need to be careful about discrimination legislation for a third, more difficult reason, which is that—I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister here—we should not begin to have an unrealistic attitude to our relationship with the armed forces. We must balance carefully showing respect for people’s sacrifice and service with realism. We cannot begin to create a sentimental context in which, through special treatment, by which I mean treatment that is not justified on the basis of people’s service or sacrifice, it is not possible for us to engage realistically with the military. What do I mean by that? This is important: the danger of this discrimination legislation, apart from the problems of complexity, futility and jeopardy, and apart from the fact that we have alternative policy solutions, is that it reflects a cultural attitude that, though understandable and admirable, is sometimes in danger of portraying soldiers and veterans as victims.

In other words, there is a danger of sentimentalising soldiers and believing that they need to be treated with kid gloves. More dangerous—this is particularly relevant in relation to how we deal with policy in Afghanistan and Iraq—is the idea that we should not criticise the armed forces and that they need such special treatment as to affect the job of this House, which is often to hold soldiers and generals vigorously and aggressively to account, to disagree with the policies that they propose, and sometimes to make an even more difficult decision to withdraw soldiers from combat notwithstanding the fact that there will be a huge public outcry demanding to know whether soldiers have died in vain. Putting forward soldiers as victims and talking about their sufferings can become very dangerous for the soldiers themselves and for the public policy process.

What we need, and what I am afraid this Bill goes against, is a realistic, respectful attitude towards the armed forces—not an attitude that treats them with kid gloves or suggests that they are suffering the form of discrimination from which minority ethnic groups, disabled groups and women in this country have suffered, but one that recognises their sacrifice and recognises that it can often be difficult to be a soldier or a veteran. It is an attitude that puts in place concrete, plausible policies—for example, in the criminal justice system—to help soldiers and veterans as they reintegrate into society; shows, through the forces charities, memorial days, poppy collections, the media, documentaries and the things that are said in this House, our immense admiration for the armed forces; and continues to improve this country’s cultural attitudes towards the armed forces, which, incidentally, have never been so positive. This is not the Victorian era when soldiers were treated with contempt; instead, the armed forces, as shown in every opinion poll, now constitute one of the single most respected and admired ingredients of our society, as they should be.

Introducing this legislation is exactly the wrong thing to do. It would prove to be a nightmare for us, opening the door to the introduction of other special occupational categories and involving us in complexity, futility, perversity and jeopardy. I worry that it reflects a sentimentalising of soldiers that also uses them as a means to a political end, and that it is an attempt to portray them as victims when they are in fact autonomous, independent, confident individuals capable of holding their own with anyone else in society. If they require special treatment from this House, it is not through anti-discrimination legislation but concrete, small, focused measures that can easily be introduced by the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Justice to the benefit of the public as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Of course some members and former members of the armed services have the difficulties that he mentions, which we should reflect on and recognise in this debate. It was good to hear about the attendance of people at the Remembrance day event in Corby.

All of us agree about the high regard people have for our armed forces, both past and present. I support the Bill because legislation is needed to protect our armed forces, both past and present, in particular circumstances. The point of difference between the Minister and me is about how we do that.

May I say that it is very important to have a bipartisan approach to the Bill? I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife about that. I say gently to the Minister, and perhaps she will reflect on this with her colleagues, that she is right to say that there is a paragraph about discrimination on page 54 of the Armed Forces Covenant annual report 2013—it states that the Government have reflected on the issues, but are not sure that legislation is the right way forward, as she will have read—but from the way in which the Minister for the Armed Forces responded to a similar debate a year ago, we all expected a little more than that. I say gently to the Minister that because the issue is so important, as today’s debate has shown, she should reflect with her colleagues on whether a more detailed response is needed.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and I concur with the point he is making. Very clear indications were given to me and to hon. Members on both sides of the House that the MOD would question and look at Lord Ashcroft’s figures, and then put a “section” into the report about it. The MOD has neither put in such a section nor provided any evidence. I genuinely believe that if the MOD thinks that the figures are inaccurate, it needs to demonstrate why that is not supported by its own study.

[Vernon Coaker]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The Minister has heard his and my remarks, so will she reflect on whether in next year’s annual report, or in the interim, a more detailed assessment can be made?

There is evidence that progress has been made on the military covenant. To go back to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, I think that a cultural change is taking place. One thing that has happened is that there are more soldiers on the streets, which is good to see. I am interested in whether the hon. Member for Beckenham agrees. More soldiers as well as Air Force and Navy personnel—armed forces personnel—feel able, in many circumstances, to wear their uniforms in public. That is a positive thing of which we should all be proud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

Like the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) I both agree and disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course we should not introduce this measure just as a way of sending a signal, and we must have a reason for doing it other than symbolic purposes. In a minute, however, I will come to some of the evidence we have seen and why I think this is more than a symbolic gesture—yes, I regard this as a sign, but it is also necessary. That is where I and the hon. Member for Beckenham disagree with the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. The issue is not about the regard in which anybody holds the troops, or any such thing; it is just a disagreement about how best to take forward the issue and deal with some of the things that we know occur.

The Minister will no doubt say that the previous Government had the opportunity to introduce this Bill in 2008. They did not, but it is fair to say that we all sometimes reflect on decisions that we did or did not make. After the past two or three years, and particularly after the evidence provided by Lord Ashcroft, we must clearly reflect on whether, in the light of new evidence, we should continue to hold our current position. The 2012 report, “The Armed Forces & Society”, described worrying incidents of verbal and physical abuse, and we must therefore reflect on that and consider whether further legislation is necessary.

There exists a body of evidence, including from the book by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), “Tommy this an’ Tommy that”, and the several things that have occurred that were mentioned previously—somebody who had been at a Remembrance day service in their uniform being refused service by Harrods and allegations of banks and building societies turning down mortgage applications. Such things have taken place and, with the example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife about a pub in Edinburgh, some evidence suggests that we perhaps need to take action that backs the armed forces in legislation and makes the rhetoric in this House a reality.

I would like the House to reflect on a quote from Lord Ashcroft’s report, which I think sums up the situation and the reason for the Bill:

“Personnel often said their priority was not special recognition, but not to be disadvantaged in society because they were in the Forces.”

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is making a consensual speech. On the point about signals, the MOD has previously said that service chiefs have indicated no desire for this measure, but during my time on the Defence Committee and in my many visits to military establishments, and indeed when members of the armed forces come to this place, I am constantly being thanked by personnel who say, “You’re the MP bringing in that Bill. It’s great that someone’s doing it.” My hon. Friend is right to say that the Bill has been hugely welcomed by members of the armed forces who no longer wish to be discriminated against.

[Bob Stewart]

It is a signal.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is a signal, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Vernon Coaker]

As I have said, it is really important to say to members of our armed forces, both past and present, that we respect what they have done, are doing and will do in future, and the Bill would make the rhetoric a reality. It would enshrine it in legislation. That is a really important signal.

Clause 1 would make an assault against a member of the armed forces an aggravated crime. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on whether the Bill refers to armed forces personnel undertaking their duties, my reading of it indicates that that point is covered in clause 1(a), which refers to their

“status as a service person”.

That is where in the Bill membership of the armed forces is shown to be the important element with regard to an aggravated offence. That is the important point.

I say to the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border that of course this is a difficult area, but it is also difficult in some of the other areas in which discrimination legislation operates. Ultimately—I know that he knows this—that is why the Crown Prosecution Service makes decisions, which are sometimes very difficult, on whether prosecution is in the public interest and whether there is a reasonable prospect of a case reaching a conclusion. What we are saying is that the aggravated offence would be added to the list that already exists so that the CPS can take that into account when it makes those prosecuting decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a genuine pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who knows full well that I am a big fan of his. He made it clear today why I am such a fan, because he set out his case reasonably clearly and in a way that many of us could subscribe to. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who is a regular on a Friday. He pursues his agenda with vigour, and has done the same again today, and I do not doubt the sincerity of the case he makes. The shadow Minister made one of the most pertinent points when he said this was not about our regard for the armed forces. It goes without saying that we are all strong supporters of the armed forces, on both sides of the House; I am not aware of anybody who is not. The issue is whether the Bill is the right way to proceed.

[Thomas Docherty]

Has the hon. Gentleman ever been to Bradford West?

[Philip Davies]

Yes, I know Bradford West. It is my neighbouring constituency. I have not heard even the hon. Member for Bradford West (George Galloway) say anything against our armed forces. He might disagree with the conflicts in which they participate, but I have not heard my parliamentary neighbour say anything adverse about them—but that is for him to deal with.

In this debate, I generally come down on the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart), who I thought made an excellent speech, as he always does in this place. He made an excellent case and one to which I wholeheartedly subscribe. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who I rarely disagree with, and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife said several times that the Bill was important in order to send a signal. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border rightly picked up on that point. Yes, it is often important to send a signal about things we consider important, either individually or collectively, and that is often the purpose of our debates. What I question, and what I think my hon. Friend questions, is whether that is a sensible basis on which to pass a law. That is my issue with the Bill.

[Thomas Docherty]

It might help if I clarify this point. Sending a signal is a valuable part of the Bill, but the simple hard facts, which the MOD has not been able to dispute, is that from Lord Ashcroft’s studies and our experiences as MPs, we know that one in four members of our armed forces has reported, through the study, that they have suffered discrimination. With that level of discrimination, it is not a matter of symbolism, but a need that requires action.

[Philip Davies]

I am not sure I totally follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic. Of course we want to send our support to the armed forces; we all agree with that. For goodness’ sake, they put their lives on the line to defend our freedoms. I have no doubt either that members of the armed forces—he gave examples—have faced discrimination for being members of the armed forces. I do not quibble with that. Personally, I think that any attack on or discrimination against service personnel based simply on their being service personnel should be and would be wholeheartedly condemned by every right-thinking person not only in the House but in the country. Of course it would. I do not think anybody is disputing that for one minute.

If we follow the hon. Gentleman’s logic, however, we could name all sorts of categories of people who might say that their category has faced discrimination on many occasions, and it goes way beyond the already protected characteristics that my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border set out. I know lots of people who would say they had been discriminated against in the workplace because they were bald, fat or had ginger hair, or for all sorts of other reasons. I am sure that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife accepts that many people in those categories have said that from time to time they have faced discrimination that has been totally unfair, without merit and irrational. I am not sure whether he is suggesting that everybody who comes along and says, “We have faced discrimination at some point in the past,” should have their characteristic protected. Surely even he would not want to go that far.

[Thomas Docherty]

Let me say first that I cannot imagine why anyone would ever discriminate against people with reddish hair, Madam Deputy Speaker—except, perhaps, out of jealousy.

If the hon. Gentleman can point to a category of people in which one in four has suffered physical or verbal assault or have been turned away from trade and sales outlets, I genuinely think that that should be looked into, but I suspect that he cannot name a single such category.

[Philip Davies]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman can prove beyond any doubt that people in any category have not been discriminated against. I suspect that no research has been done to ascertain whether people with the characteristics that I have mentioned have or have not experienced discrimination. It just so happens that the characteristic identified by him has been the subject of research by Lord Ashcroft—whose excellent polling activities I am sure we all welcome—and the hon. Gentleman knows about it for that reason. There may be other discrimination issues that we do not yet know about because no such polling has been carried out.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Indeed, I think that we could go somewhat further. We have probably all come across evidence of people working in jobcentres who have faced terrible abuse because they have had to turn someone down for a benefit. As I have said, we all appreciate the work done by our armed forces, but I struggle to understand why attacking someone for being a member of the armed forces—bad though that is—should necessarily be considered any worse than attacking someone simply for being a member of staff at a jobcentre who happened to implement a policy that he or she was employed to implement. Surely those attacks are equally unacceptable and equally unjustifiable.

Similarly, we hear of accident and emergency staff being subjected to terrible attacks and abuse on a regular basis, and I consider that to be as unacceptable and unjustifiable as any attack on someone simply for being a member of the armed forces. I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to restrict himself to members of the armed forces. If he feels that a certain category of people should not be abused simply because of the role that they perform, surely he must want to extend that to those in all the other occupations I have mentioned. If he does not, I should like to know why. It seems to me that they, too, do a fantastic job in the public service, and should be recognised for that reason.

[Thomas Docherty]

I do not think that I need probe my own logic. My position is absolutely clear. I have established that there is a systemic problem: evidence provided, with the support of the Ministry of Defence, shows that one in four members of our armed forces has suffered physical or verbal assault, or other forms of discrimination. The MOD has yet to provide any evidence to refute that. As I said, it promised last year to undertake a study, but has so far failed to do so.

[Philip Davies]

We seem to be going round in circles, and I am trying to resist doing that, because I am sure we all want to hear from the Minister.

I have not yet heard anyone—including my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border—deny that people may well, on occasion, feel that they have been discriminated against or abused simply because of their membership of the armed forces. I have heard no one disagree with that premise as yet. The fact is, however—and this is what the hon. Gentleman does not seem to accept—that the same thing happens to plenty of other people simply as a consequence of their jobs. Staff in jobcentres, people who work in accident and emergency departments, and other public sector workers who do a fantastic job for the country should not suffer assaults and abuse either, and yet they do.

I do not want to start trying to decide which jobs are more important than others, because I do not think that would be particularly healthy. They are all crucial jobs. We all rely on the people who do those jobs, and, in my view, they all deserve equal protection before the law. For instance, I cannot think of anything that the hon. Gentleman has said that would not apply to police officers. They get terrible abuse simply for being police officers. I hear them being called all sorts of names that are totally unacceptable. The police do a fantastic job.

Where the law does apply specifically to the police is the special offence for an assault on a police constable in execution of his duty. I might be reasonably sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman’s case if he came along and said, “I think that what happens for the armed forces should mirror what happens for the police,” but he is not trying to bring in an equivalent measure. He is trying to bring in something completely different which has nothing to do with the execution of duties. It simply relates to the occupation of members of our armed forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border touched on the point that there is a slight irony in the Bill and I want to highlight it. Clause 2, on the prohibition of discrimination, is designed to ensure that members of the armed forces are treated equally with everybody else in the country. It is a perfectly laudable aim that people should be treated equally. It is one that I agree with. However, clause 1 tries to ensure that members of the armed forces are not treated equally compared with everybody else, but that in some respects they should be treated differently from other people in the eyes of the law. I have always thought that an essential tenet of the law is that everybody is equal in the face of it. I think that should apply to victims as well as people who commit crimes. We should not be trying to separate out different categories of people. We should look at the offence committed and prosecute people based on the seriousness of the offence, and the victim should be treated equally whoever the victim happens to be, based on what happened to them. When we start trying to pick and choose and say attacks on one category of people are more serious than those on another, we are going down a dangerous road.

There are some exceptions; my hon. Friend touched on them. I particularly feel that attacks on people who have a disability are especially abhorrent for all sorts of reasons, but the main one is that they are often vulnerable people who are in no position to defend themselves. Cruelty to children can be put in a similar category. But these are all matters of individual viewpoint and down to our own values.

Beyond that, however, it becomes very difficult to decide which person is more important and which offence is more suitable simply based on the fact of who has been attacked as opposed to the nature of the offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful for that intervention.

Let me turn to this Bill and why I would argue against it. It is not that I do not share any of the sentiment and many of the concerns that have been articulated. If I thought for one moment that there was the widespread prejudice, discrimination or so on against members of our armed forces in our society in the UK that is being suggested, I would not hesitate not only to support the Bill but to introduce and make the case myself. As yet, however, I have not heard such a clamour at my door as the Minister responsible for personnel, welfare and veterans.

[Thomas Docherty]

I agree with the Minister that this has been a good debate. On the specific point about the evidence, if the MOD sincerely does not believe that the Ashcroft study is a fair reflection of the situation, will the Minister undertake that, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State has already suggested, the MOD will do its own work to refute the Ashcroft evidence? That is the only study out there and it shows high levels of discrimination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful for that intervention. Of course, what I have just outlined did not require laws to be changed. Sentencing guidelines in England and Wales are set by the Sentencing Council, and of course the direction to the CPS comes from the office of the Attorney-General.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me: although I worked in Scotland for about three or four years and had the great pleasure of appearing in the sheriff court—I digress—I am not entirely familiar with the Scottish legal system. However, as I say, establishing the aggravating features did not require legislation, and knowing that Scottish law is—with few exceptions, I would have thought—extremely good, I would be surprised if there was not provision within existing Scottish legislation to ensure that these aggravating features are set out.

A mistake that we often make in this place is to think that if we have not passed a law, we have not sought to cure an ill that we have identified. The hon. Member for Gedling made the good point that there are occasions when this place has rushed into legislation. The legislation on dangerous dogs is a really good example—that was created under a Conservative Government, so I am not making a cheap party political point.

There is a danger of rushing into legislation. I would even go so far as to say that at times in this House we become slightly over-sentimental. The sentiment in the House is absolutely right, because we all pay tribute to everyone who serves their country as a member of the armed forces and know of the huge sacrifices that they are prepared to make, but that should not cloud our minds into seeing people in our armed forces as a special category—other than perhaps that they are even dearer to our hearts than others who serve our country, such as those in the police, and the ambulance and fire services—although we know that they regularly put their lives at risk and we have great respect for them.

The hon. Members for Corby (Andy Sawford) and for Gedling talked about current public opinion of our armed forces personnel, which I do not think will diminish. We see people turning out not just on Remembrance Sunday, but for home-coming parades. When I visited the home-coming parade at Stapleford in my constituency only last year, on a really wet, cold and miserable May day, I was staggered that one simply could not move as the streets were literally jam-packed.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife was right to raise the important point of the Ashcroft report. I am told that the report was based on a survey of about 9,000 service personnel that was conducted at the end of 2011. Those people were asked to talk about their experiences over the previous five years—since about 2006—which is important because, as we have heard, there has been significant change in the attitude of some sections of society to our armed forces.

Some 61% of personnel who responded to the survey said that they rarely or never wore their uniform in public in everyday situations in the United Kingdom. More than half all personnel, including two thirds of Army respondents, said that strangers had approached them to offer thanks or support while they were wearing their uniform in public. I suggest that that figure would now be considerably higher, given when the survey took place and the fact that it investigated the previous five years.

[Thomas Docherty]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

I will, but first I want to conclude this important part of my speech.

Some 29% of respondents said that strangers had offered to buy them drinks or similar, while a quarter, including a third of Army respondents, had received spontaneous offers of discounts in shops or other businesses. With the work of the covenant and through various schemes such as the blue light card, an astonishing number of businesses—often small, independent ones—are offering special discounts to our armed forces personnel and veterans, which demonstrates the huge shift in public attitude.

[Thomas Docherty]

rose—

[Anna Soubry]

I suspect that this is the bit that the hon. Gentleman will like. Actually, I do not mean “like”, because I know that these statistics trouble him, but they do relate to the purpose of his Bill.

More than a fifth of respondents had experienced strangers shouting abuse—that might not in itself, in any event, be a criminal offence—and 18%, including a quarter of Royal Marines, had been refused service in pubs, hotels or elsewhere. More than one in 20 had experienced violence or attempted violence while out in their uniform in the United Kingdom. Of course that is concerning, but the figure is one in 20.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister is sincere in questioning whether the data are correct, so will she give an undertaking that the MOD will carry out a survey this year so that we can have the updated figures?

[Anna Soubry]

I am absolutely not able to say that I will ask my team to conduct a survey, but I absolutely undertake, and I know that my predecessor did this, to ensure that we are alert to any increase in discrimination or prejudice towards, or assaults on, our servicemen and women. The reality is that since my predecessor gave such an undertaking, we have kept ourselves absolutely alert, as hon. Members would expect—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Gedling suggests from a sedentary position—that is not a problem; it would be wrong for me to complain about him doing that, given that I did quite a lot of it myself—that that is not reflected in the report, but we are not aware of any increase or problem. We are not receiving from our armed services the various representations—

Armed Forces Restructuring

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his suggestion. The balance between the different arms and the focus that we put on different parts of our defence infrastructure is quite properly reviewed in the strategic defence and security review process. I am glad, and I am sure he will be too, that we have now placed this on a firm quinquennial footing so that the issues can be reopened and re-examined regularly. It is quite proper to do so.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Is not the failure of the Army recruitment strategy the reason the redundancy numbers are smaller than originally envisaged?

[Mr Hammond]

We constantly look at all the levers—as the Army calls them—of manning. The levers are recruitment levels, voluntary outflow—people leaving the service before the last possible date—and redundancy, which is always the last resort. There is a constant rebalancing. We had already reduced intended recruiting numbers to minimise redundancy, but we cannot do the whole restructuring through the recruitment lever alone because in some areas we have to take personnel out of the structure in order to deliver Future Force 2020.

Points of Order

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

It is indeed appropriate, and I thank the hon. Lady for setting the record straight so quickly.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you are an avid reader of the Daily Mirror and will therefore have seen the story this morning about the rusting Russian cruise hulk that is apparently drifting towards the United Kingdom and is populated by cannibal rats. Has the Department for Transport or the Home Office said whether a Minister will be coming to the House to update us on what on earth is going on?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I will not enlighten the House about the number of times a week I read the Daily Mirror, but although I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s ingenuity in bringing this clearly important and worrying story to the attention of Members and of Ministers—[Interruption.] Order. I have at this stage had no indication that any Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns will have been heard and taken on board by those on the Government Front Bench.

Bills Presented

Consumer Rights Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Vince Cable, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Secretary Pickles and Jenny Willott, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to the rights of consumers and protection of their interests; to make provision about investigatory powers for enforcing the regulation of traders; to make provision about private actions in competition law; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 161) with explanatory notes (Bill 161-EN).

Deregulation Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Oliver Letwin, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Secretary Chris Grayling, Secretary Michael Gove, Mr Secretary Pickles, Mr Secretary Paterson, Mr Secretary Davey, Mr Secretary McLoughlin, Secretary Maria Miller, Mr Kenneth Clarke and Michael Fallon, presented a Bill to make provision for the reduction of burdens resulting from legislation for businesses or other organisations or for individuals; to make provision for the repeal of legislation which no longer has practical use; to make provision about the exercise of regulatory functions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 162) with explanatory notes (Bill 162-EN).

Dalgety Bay

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gordon Brown (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for agreeing to this debate, but I regret having to come back to the House and subject it to a fourth debate in less than three years about a single issue in one constituency—radiation contamination in the Dalgety Bay area of Fife.

It is now more than half a century since contaminated materials containing radium-226 were dumped on the Dalgety Bay foreshore by people on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. It is now just under a quarter of a century since the Ministry accepted that the contamination existed and posed a potential safety risk. It is now three years since the discovery of large amounts of contaminated particles that, as a result of coastal erosion, had risen to the surface, with some particles having a level of radiation that is judged to be a risk to health and thus completely unacceptable. It is now nearly two years since the Ministry of Defence committed itself to a plan that required the polluter to clean up the area. It is now six months since the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment and Public Health England, the relevant health body advising the Ministry, called for the clean-up to be agreed and to happen as soon as possible.

Despite more than 50 years of contamination, nearly 25 years of the Ministry of Defence knowing about the risks, two years of knowing the seriousness of the risk and the likely escalation of such risks, and two years in February since a plan was agreed with the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, there has been no clean-up, no agreement to fund a clean-up, no agreement on a plan for a clean-up, no agreement even on the options for such a plan and, as yet, no presentation of the options for a clean-up plan or the promised consultation on those options. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence has yet to agree to what it promised in February 2012 to do by May this year—publication of the options for remedial action, acceptance of responsibility by the polluter for the pollution and a plan to fund the clean-up.

It is sad to report that despite all the evidence proving the Ministry of Defence’s responsibility and all the evidence of its admission of responsibility as long ago as 1990, the Ministry is even now—months after a report this spring named it as the polluter—refusing to accept that it has responsibility in this area. That is despite the clear promise made in a letter from Mark Hill of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, dated 21 December 2012, which stated:

“In the event that MOD is found to be an Appropriate Person in accordance with the statutory regime for contaminated land”—

the MOD was of course named as the appropriate person a few months ago—

“the Department will fulfil its legal obligation to meet its portion of the liability and carry out voluntary action including remediation where appropriate.”

All this is yet to happen.

There has therefore been a failure to make progress on three important issues—publication of the options for the clean-up, agreement on the funding of the clean-up, and acceptance of responsibility as the polluter. Those issues of deep concern locally have brought me back to the House today to ask the Minister—I know that he has visited the area and, as he will reply to me for a second time in the House, he is fully aware of the issues or, at least, he should be—to use his influence to end the delays, to end the failure of the Ministry of Defence to accept responsibility and to end what I am afraid to say is a lack of consideration for the people of Dalgety Bay that is now strongly felt in the local community.

The issue of the contamination and its significance cannot be wished away. Dalgety Bay is already the first and only area of the United Kingdom where a radiation risk assessment has had to be done to measure the extent of the contamination. It is also the first and only area of the country to be the subject of what is called an appropriate person report—a report under the legislation dealing with radiation contamination—which has been produced through very detailed research by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. It has concluded that, without any doubt in the matter, the polluter of the area is indeed the Ministry of Defence.

Dalgety Bay is therefore not only the first area subject to such a risk assessment and to the naming of a polluter, but it is still at risk of being named by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency as the only radiation contaminated area in the United Kingdom, which has never happened to areas where there are nuclear weapons, nuclear power stations or nuclear waste storage. If it had to be imposed on the area, which is a scenic part of the Fife coastal walk, such a decision would blight the foreshore, harm the environment and cause difficulties for the town that would last well into the future or, at least, for as long as we can see ahead.

We therefore cannot gloss over this matter. For 13 years, starting in 1946, decommissioned military aircraft were scrapped and then incinerated. The resulting ash, which included radiated particles, was dumped in the area of Dalgety Bay.

To give an understanding of the scale of the pollution, I want to draw the House’s attention to a memo of 14 December 1990, which was sent by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of pollution to the then Minister at the Scotland Office. The official’s report stated:

“I attended a meeting with the MOD to discuss the possible origins of the contaminated material and to consider how best to proceed. MOD confirmed that some 800 aircraft were scrapped during 1946 at the nearby…HMS Merlin and that the aircraft would have contained instruments and equipment luminised with radium.

There is evidence that the debris from demolition work at the…station was used for infilling purposes between 1946 and 1959.

This information, together with the nature of the contained debris which has been found leaves little doubt as to the origins of the contaminated debris which has been found…and is likely that there is more material buried in the area inland from the beach.”

He said:

“I am glad to report that”

the MOD

“seem willing to help both with further monitoring and with any remedial action which might be necessary.”

In the last debate on this matter, the Minister told me:

“We have found no evidence to corroborate claims that 800 aircraft were destroyed in 1946 through burning, and the resultant waste material—including ash—deposited on the beach or within the headland prior to 1959.”—[Official Report, 9 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 335.]

I take that one contestation of the report to mean that everything else was correct: that the dumping did take place, that it was authorised by the Ministry of Defence, that the waste is a potential risk, and that the Ministry of Defence does and should take responsibility. It is only the precise number of aircraft that he cannot confirm, but he cannot deny the figure either.

In 1992, there was a report in which the Ministry of Defence accepted that Dalgety Bay was a polluted area. Again, after 2000, Mr Fred Dawson, the head radiation protection officer dealing with the safety officer at the MOD, advised that the Ministry of Defence would be found liable and that there was significant reputational damage involved in denying liability in this area. More recently, the community council, under the chairmanship of Colin McPhail MBE, whom I congratulate on the work he has done to expose this matter, solicited statements by former and present residents about the scale of what happened in the ’40s and ’50s. I understand that the leader of Fife council, Alex Rowley, has assembled a mass of evidence that is available to the Ministry.

It is hardly surprising that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency states:

“The total number of radioactive…particles…that have now been recovered since the beginning of our investigation in September 2011 is over 1,000. Of these sources, five had a radioactivity content of greater than”

the accepted level of radium-226. After that report, we cannot doubt that the dumping of materials was done by the Ministry, that those materials have radioactive content or that, because of coastal erosion, the particles are being brought up to the surface in greater numbers. Action must now be taken. The discovery of radiation particles on the surface is not an historical problem that is diminishing the further we move from the time of the dumping and that is likely to disappear over time; contaminated particles are being discovered all the time. That is aggravated by winter storms and rising coastal erosion. Such particles are being washed up or found on the foreshore at the rate of 100 a month.

Let us be clear what the Ministry of Defence promised us would have happened by now. In February 2012, the Ministry agreed to an “Investigation Plan”, which listed the stages of work that would be undertaken. The Ministry promised that in the second part of stage 3, which was due to happen between February and May this year, it would outline management options for the clean-up of the site:

“MOD will set out within the investigation report outline management options which may include remediation.”

That was supposed to have happened seven months ago. The report also stated:

“The options should be distinct and range from the ‘do minimum’ to the ‘maximum possible’.”

It recommended an holistic approach and said that the listing of the options was to have happened seven months ago. It then said:

“It may be appropriate to sift the outline options…to whittle the number down to a manageable size”.

That has not been done either.

It said that stages 4 and 5 were then to be progressed by the appropriate persons. Stage 4 should

“comprise the long-term management/remediation solutions”,

with consideration of

“source removal, pathway disruption and receptor protection…to reduce the level of uncertainty.”

Stage 5 should then be delivered by the appropriate person, meaning the polluter, the Ministry of Defence.

Not one of those promised actions has yet happened. Seven months on from the deadline agreed by the Ministry, there has been no option study published and no narrowing of the options. Although the Ministry has been named as the polluter, none of the options has been costed and none of the clean-up has yet been agreed. None of the work has been planned or gone out to contract, far less any clean-up done. Work that was supposed to have been completed on a timetable from February to May this year has not been done, and we are still waiting for the options paper to be published and the consultation entered into.

The community council chairman was promised in a letter from Mr David Olney of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, dated 26 March 2012:

“MOD experts are already in regular contact…in order to ensure the successful completion of the investigation by May 2013.”

That has not happened. The effect is that work that should have been commissioned in the autumn and completed by the winter has now been delayed. The likelihood is that we will face another winter of coastal erosion, with more particles being brought to the surface, and that a summer and autumn of delays will be followed by a winter of further delays, about which I want to ask for answers today.

The consultation that was promised has ground to a standstill. The last meeting of the Dalgety Bay particles advisory group was held on 22 May and the last forum meeting on 30 May. A meeting of stakeholders was promised before the end of the year, but none will take place until the beginning of next year, which means that work is unlikely to start before next summer, if then.

The Minister must also consider the fact that the delays are all the more regrettable because nearby, in Almondbank in Perth, at another ex-Ministry of Defence site where contamination was discovered, the clean-up was agreed and carried out within six weeks. It appears that that was because the remedial work was a condition of sale, with penalty clauses included. It looks like the Ministry is willing to act with speed only when there is a legal obligation to do so.

Machrihanish, where there are far lower levels of radiation, was also cleaned up without anyone having to come to Parliament to beg for it to be done. Again, that was because of a condition of sale in a commercial contract. Must we really accept that the Ministry of Defence will move only when there are commercial obligations and stall when it feels it has only a moral obligation to act? Have we to wait for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to impose statutory obligations on the Ministry of Defence, which it is entitled to do?

The delay is galling because, as I understand it, the Ministry of Defence will announce in the next few days that it will break up submarines at Rosyth, next door to Dalgety Bay. For months it has been consulting on a plan, one of the options in which is to store not only low-level but intermediate radioactive material there. In that case, it would be nuclear waste.

The Minister has accepted responsibility not only for the DIO but for Scotland as part of his work in the MOD. As any visit he makes to Scotland will prove, the Ministry cannot command any public confidence when it seeks to guarantee safe long-term storage of either low-level or intermediate radioactive nuclear waste in Rosyth if it cannot even reassure the people of the nextdoor town that it will take responsibility for the safe disposal of the long-standing radiation waste at Dalgety Bay. Would the Minister be happy to accept the storage of even more radioactive waste in his constituency if he had no assurances about the safe storage of the existing waste?

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does he agree that there is no way in which my constituents in Rosyth or his in Dalgety Bay will accept for a second that waste being stored at the site or in the wider West Fife area?

[Mr Brown]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It seems that one part of the Ministry of Defence has no clue what another part is doing. It wants to store waste at one place in that part of Fife but refuses to clean up the mess left by previous waste in another part. It is shocking that there is no co-ordination within the Ministry, and I believe that people who work on the nuclear programmes in the MOD are unhappy with the state of affairs that the Minister and his colleagues have left us with.

I come now to the delays. When replying to the previous debate, the Minister said we should take into account the views of Public Health England, which he said had not exactly given a “ringing endorsement” of the report produced that showed the risk and named the polluter. The letter sent to SEPA from Public Health England stated on 28 June:

“I am writing to provide comments on the…risk assessment …Regarding your contaminated land assessment, we agree that radium-226 contaminated objects recovered from Dalgety bay include objects that could give rise to radiation doses that exceed the relevant criteria for the Radioactive Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2007; specifically the effective dose criterion of 100 MSV.”

Whether or not that is possible, it is important that such objects are removed from the beach and disposed of appropriately.

On 10 July Public Health England wrote:

“It is clear that there is a level of radioactive contamination that requires further investigation and appropriate action.”

The response stated:

“You also asked about the extent that risk mitigation is required. It is clear that doing nothing is not an option and as noted above, it is important that agreement is reached by all of the interested parties on the best way forward.”

Public Health England then wrote formally to all parties on 21 August saying that it has

“consistently called for a management strategy to be developed and implemented at Dalgety bay.”

It concluded:

“We agree that the…criterion on effective dose could be exceeded for ingestion.”

There is no doubt about where the health authorities stand on the issue.

I understand that the MOD is worried about creating precedents, and that 15 sites with similar waste have been revealed by the MOD, including Dalgety Bay. I know that a radioactive waste inventory of 2010 suggests there are many more sites that are not under the control of the MOD but may have radioactive waste. However, I have always argued that because of coastal erosion on a site beside the sea, there is a special case for action in Dalgety Bay that the Ministry of Defence should now accept. Nothing excuses it for refusing to act on the incontrovertible evidence now available.

In the past few months, all the facts have been produced, researched, documented and published in forensic detail. We know that without doubt the MOD was responsible for dumping the waste, and that it knew for nearly 25 years without telling us that there were safety issues and risks that should have been dealt with. We also know that if it does nothing to fund the clean-up, it will have legal obligations that it will eventually have to meet. It is surely time to bring this sad saga to a conclusion in the only way possible, and I hope I will not have to ask you, Mr Speaker, for a fifth debate before the responsible course of action is pursued. That responsible course is for the MOD to own up to the damage, to pick up the bill to get rid of the waste and clean up the area, and to do so as soon as possible. The patient and long-suffering residents of Dalgety Bay deserve nothing less.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

The MOD has consistently made it clear that as the default position it will accept its legal responsibilities, but that it wants to go beyond that and make sure—without the intervention of expensive lawyers who will wrap us up for years—that we take action by negotiation with all interested parties so we can get a plan that will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents. Our position in respect of liability has not changed at all.

In its draft report, COMARE says that

“we recommend that, in conjunction with all stakeholders, an evaluation of the means of remediation should be instituted immediately considering efficacy, practicability and cost.”

I wish to conclude this evening by saying that we could not agree more. To go back to my opening remarks, I sincerely hope very much that while the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath has been assiduous in bringing this matter to the House—I commend him for that—he will not have to be here for a fifth time in another six months.

[Thomas Docherty]

Further to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and I have made to the Minister about submarines, will he take the opportunity to give real cast-iron guarantees to my constituents and those of my right hon. Friend that there will be no attempt to move on these submarines until this is all joined up going forward?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the submarine dismantling project and will be aware that there are seven hulls currently at Rosyth awaiting dismantling. Their cores have been removed; he knows that. The pressurised vessels that contain those cores remain, and because of the exposure to radiation over the years they have become intermediate level waste and need to be disposed off responsibly. The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware—because Babcock has briefed MPs and the councils—that Babcock is not interested in storing the intermediate level waste. It is difficult to see how this becomes a relevant factor in the context of Rosyth.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to come here to talk about Dalgety Bay again. I hope that I have made it clear that I take a personal interest in this; I hope the right hon. Gentleman is reassured by that. I will do my utmost to make sure that this process is moved on as swiftly as possible

Question put and agreed to.