Scottish-recruited Units

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Nick Harvey)]

I completely understand the concern and interest that have led the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to seek this debate, and I commend him for doing so. Necessarily, the answers that I am able to give to some of his questions will be only tentative because decisions in respect of the future structure of the Army have not yet been taken. Let me set out the national security context in which those decisions will be taken.

All Members present will agree that it is the first duty of any Government to ensure the security of the country, and that requires decisions to be based on a realistic assessment of a number of factors in the short and long term. We live in an increasingly uncertain world with complex and unpredictable threats, so our armed forces, must of necessity, be flexible and adaptable into the future. We must also accept that the decisions about defence that have been made since the general election must start from the position of clearing up the economic legacy that we inherited. That is a strategic imperative, because it is the only way we will be able to afford to project power of any sort, to protect our national security and to ensure that our troops have the equipment they need. The strategic defence and security review addressed the balance between our national policy ambition, available resources and real-world commitments. It did so by making reference to the national security strategy, which set out the principal risks to our security, and to the national security tasks, which we need to fulfil.

Implementing the SDSR was always going to be an ongoing process and not a single event. We are now working through the programme to ensure that it is fit to support the capabilities required by Future Force 2020. We are going through a process of rapid change, but we have identified clearly to the public—throughout the UK, including in Scotland—our strategic aiming-point and what we believe our future force requirement will be in 2020.

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate. Regarding the decisions to which he has just referred, the Minister will understand the great anxiety felt in Fife, around the Leuchars and Caledonia bases, about whether the British Army will be arriving and the Royal Air Force will be leaving. Although I appreciate that he is keen to get that decision correct, will he give serious consideration to updating the communities concerned on when the decision about the Army and the Air Force at the Leuchars and Caledonia bases will be taken?

[Nick Harvey]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Of course, there was a statement to the House last July, but some of the announcements made that day have been, in a sense, superseded by the current review of Army structures. To the extent that I am able to communicate with the communities that were named in last year’s statement and that are therefore working on that basis, I will give them an update as soon as I can, when the Army restructuring work nears a conclusion.

As I say, we are working towards Future Force 2020 as our defined end-point. That process includes the statement from last July and the more recent statements made by the current Defence Secretary. Specifically, we are planning to make a progressive adjustment during the remainder of this decade to the balance between regulars and reserves in the Army. By 2020, we envisage a total Army force of about 120,000 troops, made up of 82,000 regulars and 30,000 trained reservists, with a margin for 8,000 reservists in training. As we withdraw from combat operations in Afghanistan, that shift offers a major opportunity to reconfigure the Army in a way that will maximise adaptability and flexibility for the future. The Army has been undertaking a major study—Army 2020—to determine how we will achieve these changes, and we will announce to the House the outcome of that study as soon as decisions have been taken.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire rightly paid a warm and full tribute to the achievements and historic heritage of the famous Scottish regiments. I am sure that many hon. Members in Westminster Hall today who represent areas with a serious military footprint know only too well the pride that local populations take in such glorious histories. I add my own tributes to the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, the Scots Guards, the Royal Regiment of Scotland in its current configuration, and indeed to the Highland Gunners and the Lowland Gunners, and to their personnel who have deployed on operations in recent years. We all owe a great deal to the members of our armed forces; we owe a great deal to those who hail from Scotland, just as we do to those who hail from England, Wales, Northern Ireland and, indeed, from across the Commonwealth. I pay tribute to their courage, commitment and professionalism.

Defence Budget and Transformation

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

Yes, I can reassure my hon. Friend of that. There is a perception that UORs have effectively delivered equipment far more quickly, and often far closer to the original estimated budget, than conventional procurement. We have got to see what we can learn from those processes that will translate across into the main procurement programme.

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

The Defence Secretary has today made exactly the same claims about having balanced the books as his predecessor did some 12 months ago, yet 12 months ago the ministerial team refused to give the Defence Committee a single strand of evidence. Will the Government give that evidence this time?

[Mr Hammond]

First, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) said that he had broadly balanced the defence budget and he was correct. What we have done over the past few months is go that last mile, to be able to say that it is fully balanced over the PR12 period. As for information, I have made it clear that once the National Audit Office has completed its review, we will publish its report and a summary-level equipment plan, with the same level of detail in it as has routinely been published about the defence budget. That may not be the level of detail that the hon. Gentleman would like, but it just is not possible, for security reasons and for commercial reasons, to publish a 10-year programme in minute detail without making the situation that the MOD faces impossible.

Carrier Strike Capability

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The STOVL configuration of the carrier in the carrier-enabled power projection model means that the carrier will embark both fast jets and helicopters—Chinook, Lynx and Merlin. It will also be able to embark Marines. It is a very large ship, as we have mentioned this morning. It will have the capability to carry troops and embark helicopters and fast jets in a way that will facilitate amphibious warfare.

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

Even a first-week midshipman could tell the Prime Minister that adopting two 180° U-turns takes us back to where we started two years ago. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that the Government will continue to stand beside the use of Rosyth dockyard for the long-term maintenance of the carriers when they enter service? Will he tell the House what we will achieve, except squandering he knows not how many millions of pounds, by flogging our Harrier fleet for spare parts for a peppercorn, scrapping a generation of fast-jet Harrier pilots, and leaving the nation with—

[Mr Speaker]

We have got the gist. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

Afghanistan (Troop Levels)

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The announcement that I have made is not in any way provisional on that report. The United States will recall its surge troops during the course of this year, bringing its force level in Afghanistan back down to 68,000. The discussion that General Allen referred to is about the trajectory of US force levels beyond that figure. We have no definitive read-out of that discussion yet, and we have as yet made no definitive plan for our own draw-down beyond the end of 2012.

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

Understandably, much of the focus has been on the role of the British Army, but may I press the Secretary of State to say a little about what role, if any, the Royal Air Force may provide post-2014 either in direct combat operations or in combat-enabling operations?

[Mr Hammond]

I should first say that members of all the armed forces will be involved in the Afghan national officer training academy, so there will definitely be a tri-service presence in Afghanistan after 2014 in that capacity. Beyond that, we have made no decisions about the nature or scale of any continuing support that we may provide. As I said earlier, the conversation about that will begin in Chicago, but I do not expect it to be concluded quickly.

Armed Forces Covenant

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Robathan]

I am sorry, but I will not give way.

Disadvantage can take many forms but let us not forget that members of the armed forces are also members of the community they serve, and it is only right that they should play their part in the very necessary changes we have had to make to reduce the deficit. Armed forces pay is frozen, as is that of all public sector workers, with the exception of those earning £21,000 or less, to whom we have given £250 in each of the two years of the pay freeze. I am glad to say that pay has also increased incrementally each year for those who are not at the top of their pay scale, and so serving personnel are getting increases, but not an overall increase in the pay scale. That protection was introduced for the armed forces to ensure they were not disadvantaged by their lack of contractual entitlement. This is in accordance with the principles of the armed forces covenant and has meant that most service personnel will have received an increase to their pay during the pay freeze period. I am sure that all hon. Members wish that the same was true of us, too.

I have said to the House before that I did not enter Parliament to make members of the armed forces redundant, especially when we are asking them to do so much in Afghanistan, as we are now. However, we inherited a massive black hole in the Department’s budget, as has now been accepted by the Labour party. That was unsustainable, and something needed to be done and quickly. The strategic defence and security review of October 2010—the first in 13 years—set the requirement for the future. It included removing out-of-date capabilities and it made room to ensure that we can afford those capabilities needed for the future. The second and final tranche of redundancies for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force will conclude in June. The Army will conduct a further tranche and detailed planning is being undertaken. Believe me, this is a painful process that none of us enjoys. As was clearly stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) when he was Defence Secretary, no one currently serving in Afghanistan or on notice to deploy will be made redundant unless they have asked, and are subsequently selected, to be included in the list.

The Government published, in December 2011, the interim report on the armed forces covenant, to which the hon. Lady referred, and I urge the whole House to read it. It was an interim report because the covenant had been in existence for only a few months, and therefore we could not have a whole year’s report. “Transition” is covered in chapter 10, as is “Housing after Service”. The Minister for Housing and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), has recently consulted local authorities on how former service personnel are managed on the local authority housing list. He will announce the findings of that consultation in due course.

On 21 March, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced three new measures to help service personnel. On housing, an extra £100 million has been made available to improve service accommodation. In addition, a much-welcomed doubling in the funding available for families’ welfare while their loved one is away will allow units to fund activities beyond those already announced. It underlines our commitment to those who serve with such selfless devotion to duty, safe in the knowledge that we are looking after their families while they are away.

Hostage Rescue Operation (Nigeria)

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I do not think that the course of events would have been changed in any way. In fairness, if the boot was on the other foot, UK Ministers would undoubtedly feel the need to know what was going on with an operation that would impact on the life of a UK citizen. I do not think that the Italians’ concern is in any way unreasonable, I just think they need to understand—I believe that they do, now—that, as regards the pace at which the operation developed, they were informed as expeditiously as possible. As I have said many times already this afternoon, the lines of communication between the intelligence agencies were pretty much continuously open.

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

The House will recall the tragic cases of Kenneth Bigley and Margaret Hassan, who were killed by their captors in Iraq some years ago, as well as the steps taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) to ensure that the families received adequate ongoing support. May I press the Secretary of State to say what ongoing support will be given to the family of Mr McManus?

[Mr Hammond]

The Foreign Office has a well-established way of dealing with those issues after such an event. I know that Foreign Office officials have been in continuous contact with the family and will continue to provide support to them.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My right hon. Friend is, as always, helpful. I hope that he will now address the issue on which there is some dispute of fact—whether those in the military on whom compulsory redundancy is imposed are allowed to offer themselves for retraining; we have heard variously both that they are and that they are not. That is an important issue.

I now turn to the strategic defence and security review—although I do not want to take too much longer because a large number of people would like to speak. One of the main aims of the Defence Committee is to see how the next strategic defence and security review, in whatever year it will be—2014, 2015, 2016; we do not yet know—can be better than the last one. Our criticisms of the last one included the fact that it was rushed to fit in with the comprehensive spending review, and was therefore undertaken without sufficient consultation with academia, industry, Parliament or the country. I heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say that taking longer over decisions does not necessarily make them better, and that is true, but having proper full discussion in the country before such decisions are made would make them more informed.

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

Does the Chairman of the Defence Committee agree that there was insufficient consultation with our closest allies about the implications of the SDSR?

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Yes, I do. Embarrassingly, I was fully consulted by the French Government on the introduction of their “livre blanc”, and I felt honoured, but I have no impression that the chairmen of the Assemblée Nationale or Senate committees were similarly involved in the discussion of our strategic defence and security review. That is one example of how, although Anglo-French co-operation is very good, it could still work a bit better.

There was no sense in the strategic defence and security review of a discussion of what sort of country we wanted to be, and the threats that we were facing, followed by a decision about how we were going to face those threats. Instead, there was a feeling of, “This is what we can afford, so these are the threats against which we will defend ourselves,” whatever those threats turn out to be.

For example, we now have six Type 45 destroyers. Why is six the right number? The original number was going to be 12, then it was cut to eight and then to six. When I was a Defence Minister we used to say that the right number of major ships was about 50. Why is it that now about 19 can defend our interests around the globe? However powerful a Type 45 destroyer is, it can only be in one place at any given time. There is also a concern about a loss of contingent capability. We always get wrong our predictions about the wars that the country will face, so we must be able to address unpredictable concerns that may arise.

However, there are many things to praise in the SDSR. The cyber-strategy, very welcomingly, refocuses the Ministry of Defence, other parts of the Government and industry on future issues. It is partly to welcome that that the Defence Committee is doing a series of inquiries into the cyber-threats that we face.

Lord Levene’s determined look at reforming the Ministry of Defence is radical. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and other right hon. and hon. Members, feel that in some respects his work may be too radical or going in the wrong direction, but the Defence Committee will look at that issue, too. Bernard Gray’s focus on changing defence procurement already looks extremely promising; the Defence Committee has always been extremely impressed when he has appeared in front of us.

I shall end as I began. In the interests of mending fences, I wish to repeat, with praise, what the Secretary of State said to the Committee in December:

“If there is one clear lesson, it is that we have to move away from managing this business for cash to managing it for value, and that is the transition process that we are now into.”

As I said at the time, if my right hon. Friend can achieve that, he will turn out to have been a great Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Murphy]

I know I am testing your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, but out of good manners I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Thomas Docherty]

My right hon. Friend is being most generous, as are you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is he aware of the sheer anger felt in Fife that after more than a year of SNP Ministers saying that they would save RAF Leuchars, they have betrayed the people of Fife with a cynical policy U-turn?

[Mr Murphy]

My hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on RAF Leuchars, as has the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife. It is remarkable that SNP Members have toured that part of Scotland promising to keep open three bases, but now describe the Government’s policy as a blueprint for the defence of an independent Scotland.

The SNP has been around since 1934 and has been in power in the Scottish Government for five years, but SNP Ministers have not even done the most remedial of thinking. Scotland currently sits at the heart of one of the most successful union of nations anywhere on earth. The UK has a seat at the United Nations Security Council, an invaluable transatlantic bond and a vital role in the EU, NATO and the Commonwealth. A collection of people from four different countries serving in Her Majesty’s armed forces have achieved great things together in the past and will, I am certain, do so in the future as well. The SNP wishes to turn the defence debate into a referendum about the location of Trident, as if moving it a few miles across the border would make Scotland inherently safer. SNP Members may be hiding today, but they cannot hide from the truth that their policies are incoherent and will take Scotland out of the RAF, the Royal Navy and the British Army, as well as having an irreversible impact on shipbuilding on the Clyde and Rosyth. Amid all the argument about the single question to be asked in the referendum, the debate must be about all of the answers that the SNP refuses to provide.

Where the Government are doing the right thing in the national interest, whether it is Afghanistan, Libya or defence reform, we will continue enthusiastically to support them. Therefore, today, I enthusiastically thank the Chair of the Select Committee and all its members for their forensic work in scrutinising the previous and the current Governments on their work on defence, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for enabling today’s debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am not quite sure how to follow that quotation, so I shall confine myself to saying how moving those remarks those were.

I have to confess that I had not intended to speak today, but Members will understand why, in the circumstances, I thought I should stress the importance that my party continues to attach to retaining and renewing the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent.

I say at the outset that the nuclear deterrent should primarily and ultimately be a matter of national and global security, not of employment. If we could genuinely be confident that the UK unilaterally disarming would make the world safer for future generations of UK citizens, and would make the almost unimaginable horror and destruction of nuclear war less likely, that should of course come ahead even of the thousands of jobs that renewing the deterrent would support in my constituency and the many thousands more that it would support across the country in the supply chain. However, my simple point is that unilaterally disarming would do no such thing.

If we were to take the view that deciding now not to renew would make the UK safer, we would have to be able to make decisions about the world as we thought it would look in 30 or 40 years’ time. We would also have to believe that the unilateral gesture would pave the way for a change in behaviour by other regimes. On the latter point, disarming would show a fundamental misunderstanding of the motivation of other regimes and groups that seek, or may in the future seek, nuclear capability. They do that to increase their capacity for aggression, not primarily because they fear the UK’s independent deterrent. On the former point, the pace of change has been so great in the past decade that we simply cannot possibly say with confidence that a deterrent will not be needed decades hence.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is demonstrating that he is probably the most knowledgeable Member on the issue of the deterrent. [Interruption.] I can see that the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) will get me afterwards.

Has my hon. Friend made any assessment of the Liberal Democrats’ current review of the deterrent and what the pitfalls might be?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is an absolute pleasure to take part in the debate, and I commend our Select Committee Chairman, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), for his work on securing it. It is also an absolute pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray). I found myself agreeing with pretty much everything that he said, although I would suggest that many people did see the second world war coming. That was his only example that perhaps fell down slightly.

What I find amazing about the Defence Committee’s work is not only the bipartisanship under which it operates under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire but the breadth of knowledge of its members. We have seen that illustrated again today in the contributions from the right hon. Gentleman, from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and from others. We produced a report following our forensic investigation into the strategic defence and security review, and our conclusions were clear and damning. We concluded that the SDSR was a Treasury-driven budget settlement that would have dreadful consequences for the defence of the realm; it would be dreadful for the morale of service personnel, and for UK manufacturing.

The decision on carrier strike capability was rushed and bizarre. On the question of the air frame, it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to consider whether the F35-B was the correct choice in the context of Future Force 2020. After all, the United States had placed the B variant on probation, and there were technical concerns about the lift. My understanding is that, at that time, only the United Kingdom and the United States had signed up to take an order. It is also valid to argue that we should consider the question of interoperability with our allies, as well as the value for money of the air frame to be chosen. Those are all reasonable elements that a sensible Government should examine.

Unfortunately, the Government did not bother to take the time to understand the consequences of the decision to switch variants. For example, the F-35C cannot land on the French carrier, thus defeating the argument of interoperability, particularly given the Anglo-French alliance. The cost of the F-35—B and C—is still not known, and that is a concern shared by the Defence Committee and our counterparts in the United States Congress, the Pentagon, the Canadians, the Australians and every other country that is purchasing either the F-35B or C.

Lastly, many of us do not have confidence that, most crucially, the F-35C will be able to land on the Queen Elizabeth class carrier. It would be a good idea if it were able to come down safely to our own carrier, although perhaps I am a bit of a traditionalist.

[Mrs Moon]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Admiral Sir Trevor Soar, Commander-in-Chief, Fleet, said in a speech to industrialists in the US that, due to the US defence cuts, the chance of us being able to buy the joint strike fighter are reducing, as it will not be delivered on time? As alternatives, we will have to look at the F-18 from the Americans and the Rafale from the French.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is right. The Times paints a disturbing picture today. We on the Defence Committee and the wider defence community have for some time had serious concerns about the capability of Lockheed Martin to fulfil the aspirations set out. When the Minister appeared before the Defence Committee, it was disturbing that he adopted a relatively blasé approach to the problem, in direct contradiction to the postures of Secretary Gates, who has already been name-checked, and Secretary Panetta, who have been turning the screws on Lockheed Martin. As the decision has been rushed, we might have to go back and reverse it, and go to the F-35B, which would be not only embarrassing but a vast waste of money. We have only two other options: as my hon. Friend says, the F-18 Super Hornet, a proven air frame, of which the Australians have just ordered additional quantities, and for which Secretary Panetta has announced an additional order, or the French variant, which, to be fair, would at least solve the Charles de Gaulle issue.

On the carriers themselves, it is no secret that I have absolute scorn for the decision that was taken to take the Invincible class out of service. In fact, despite the claim of a minority on the Government Benches that the Libyan operation justifies the decision, the reverse is true, as it demonstrates absolutely the need for carrier capability throughout the decade.

[Mr Gerald Howarth]

indicated dissent.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps it would help him if I were to quote the commander of the Italian navy, Rear Admiral Treu, who said:

“Libya is really showing that these aircraft”

the Harrier—

“and their carrier are needed. They are five minutes from the operational zone, which reduces fuel consumption and wear and tear. With less reliance on in-flight refuelling, it is easier to do dynamic tasking and shift operation, and they cost less to operate than Tornados and Eurofighters”.

I have the greatest respect for the Minister and I know he cares passionately about the future of aviation. He has been a strong voice in the Government—dare I say, one of the few strong voices for the defence industry in the Government—but what does he know that our First Sea Lord, our commanders in the field and our allies do not?

[Mr Gerald Howarth]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind tribute, although I am not sure whether it will be career enhancing. Nevertheless I will take it in the spirit in which it was given. Of course carriers would have been advantageous, but they were not necessary in the circumstances of Libya. The Government are going ahead with the Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales carriers precisely because we understand the need for carrier strike. We had endless debates about that in the SDSR and we came to that conclusion, which is the right one in my view. In Libya, however, we did not need carriers; HMS Ocean did a great job for the Army Air Corps Apaches.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am most grateful to the Minister. He is obviously very clever, because he has led me straight on to my next point, which is about the replacement for the Invincible class, the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier. He perhaps forgot to mention that, even some time after 2020, when we eventually get a functioning aircraft carrier, it will only be part-time. We will only be able to operate it for perhaps 150 days of the year, so we must be really hopeful that those who seek to attack us only do it on the five or six months a year when we are able to respond. It reminds me of Asterix the Gaul and the scene where he comes to Britain and the British have gone home at 5 o’clock to have their tea. That is pretty much the kind of part-time Navy that we will have if the Minister gets his way.

[Mr Ellwood]

I was hoping to resist the temptation to intervene, but I want to back up my hon. Friend the Minister and put in perspective the hon. Gentleman’s argument. He is trying to get into the tactics of how a battle is operated. What does he want to fly off these aircraft carriers? I am afraid his Government got rid of the Sea Harriers, so he would not be able to use the Storm Shadow, the Brimstone or any of the guns, because the Harriers did not exist—[Interruption.]

[Thomas Docherty]

I am going to continue with my speech, because it is my time that I am sacrificing. The hon. Gentleman tries to make it a false choice, as he always does, but he was at the heart of the decision making. Let us not forget that he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Secretary of State. It was his bright idea, I suspect, to get rid of the carrier, because the other Ministers are all far too clever to do that.

The choice between Typhoon, Tornado and Harrier is a false one. I have never accepted and the Defence Committee has never accepted the false choice made by the current Government, following the Treasury-driven cuts. We will see price gouging and there will be a significant rise in the cost of the Queen Elizabeth class carrier, not because of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance—I have some fantastic workers in my constituency, whom the Ministers and others have been to see, and they are delivering in Plymouth, in the north-east, on the Clyde and over at Birkenhead—but because of the rushed decision. We will have to buy cats and traps off-the-shelf from the Americans at a price-gouged cost of up to £2 billion because due diligence was not done on whether it would work. The prices are going up because of the short-term decisions. We have no idea how we will refuel the aircraft because of the decision to switch from the short take off, vertical landing—or STOVL—variant to carriers and that will also involve significant costs.

In the last minute of my time, I want briefly to talk about Scotland. The Scottish National party is not here today because its Members have gone into hiding. The SNP defence policy unravelled last week within hours of its being unveiled. Sheer anger was felt by communities around Scotland at the betrayal by that party, which, after years of claiming that Scotland did not receive what it called its fair share of spending, has admitted that it would spend even less on defence. After campaigning, as the SNP claimed, to save RAF Leuchars, it has announced that it would close RAF Leuchars and RAF Kinloss. In a separate Scotland, there would be no Rosyth dockyard and no Clyde shipbuilding. Companies would be pulling out of Scotland. There are also serious concerns for the rest of the United Kingdom. How would we deliver the deterrent? How would we secure the high north? How would the military be put together?

I hope that one of the Committees of the House will find an opportunity in the months ahead to scrutinise those very important issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman will also remember that Bernard Gray was a special adviser to his party. In that context it is quite important to note that the report was produced by a supporter not of the Conservative party but of his party.

The gap between the programme and the budget in May 2010 was a truly grotesque £38 billion. Also grotesque is the disarray over how to deal with the crisis among those who masterminded it. We heard examples of that today from the shadow Defence Secretary. He says he supports only £5 billion of Government cuts, but the shadow Chancellor says that the Labour party would keep all the remedial spending reductions that the Government are making. The figure of £5 billion is interesting because the shadow Defence Secretary also said today that it would be invidious in advance of a general election to try to work out what the requirement would be in personnel and equipment. It is therefore difficult to work out how he came up with the £5 billion figure, even assuming it is correct. The isolation of the Opposition is increasingly apparent as even the United States reins in its defence spending to deal not with an incoherent defence budget but with a crippling federal budget deficit.

[Thomas Docherty]

I think I am right in saying that the US is still increasing its defence spending, not cutting it. Is that correct?

[Dr Murrison]

No, I do not think it is correct. America has made it clear that over the spending period it will have to reduce its defence spending.

[Thomas Docherty]

Slowly.

[Dr Murrison]

Well, the rate will decline—of course it will.

We gained some insight into how the disconnect between programmes and the ability to pay for them arose last summer when Lord Levene delivered his verdict on the MOD. His revelations dovetailed disquietingly well with Gray’s. He found a “bloated top-level defence board” supervising a

“department with overly bureaucratic management structures, dominated by committees leading to indecisiveness and a lack of responsibility.”

Last year, the armed forces covenant was written into law for the first time, as the Prime Minister said it would be. The covenant is not just about the compact between troops and the public. It also concerns the deal between troops and the high command. Those in charge betray the covenant if they allow the kind of shoddy, top-level management evidenced by both Gray and Levene. However, we still have nearly 500 one-star officers and above—a whole battalion of senior officers on packages well in excess of £100,000. Defence Medical Services is a good case in point. To oversee the care of a patient population less than half the size of Wiltshire we require one three-star, five two-star and 15 one-star officers who serve not as doctors, dentists or nurses but as administrators. Our top medic in Afghanistan is not among them—he is just a colonel. I commend the Government for the remedial measures announced before Christmas to reduce the number of starred appointments, both uniformed and civilian.

More generally, I note that although there here have been and will continue to be compulsory redundancies, the package is so reasonable that there has been disappointment among many of those not selected, as there was during previous rounds. From experience, I bear testament to that.

It is of course reasonable to flex personnel from one trade to another—a contention, I think, of paragraphs 67 to 70 of this week’s Defence Committee report—but the majority of pinch-point trades are so specific by rank or extent of retraining necessary that it would actually be quite difficult to do so. Flexible though our young people are, we simply cannot ask an infantryman to become an Intelligence Corps linguist, a pharmacist at the rank of captain or a Cat. A nuclear watchkeeper.

In our collective defence, NATO remains paramount. However, I share widespread concern that we are moving towards a two-tier alliance, with some players benefiting from the cover but not paying the premium. At next week’s meeting of Defence Ministers in Brussels, will the Defence Secretary continue to press our allies to meet their proper financial responsibilities? Present at the meeting will be those who press for an increasing EU defence identity as part of the security and defence policy. Naturally, that has nothing to do with defence, which only the UK and France come close to funding properly.

The latest turn of the screw comes from a European Parliament resolution of 19 February 2009, which proposes something called synchronised armed forces Europe. SAFE is a beguiling but deeply ironic acronym. Under SAFE, alarmingly, British servicemen would owe allegiance to the supranational European Union. One of its cheerleaders, the German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, told the Munich security conference in February 2010:

“The long-term goal is the establishment of a European army under full parliamentary control.”

Of course, that has nothing to do with improving our collective security; instead, it draws from a hubristic, maladroit pan-European political project that has brought us to the brink of economic catastrophe. The immediate concern about SAFE is that it would quite deliberately remove the capability of the two European nation states still able to act independently to project force worldwide on their own, or with partners of their choosing, in pursuit of the national interest.

Dalgety Bay (Radiation)

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Brown]

That was in 2010. I shall come to that.

I have had to call this debate because, despite a succession of approaches to the Ministry of Defence—letters, phone calls, a chance conversation with the Secretary of State for Defence, whom I acquainted with the issue—the Ministry of Defence has yet to instruct the necessary actions and agree that a plan for remedial work is prepared, funded and implemented.

Since 1983 I have been the Member of Parliament representing the community of Dalgety Bay. It is near where I grew up and went to school, and near where I live and where my children go to school, so I have been aware for many years of the history of the site and of the past dumping of materials there by the Ministry of Defence. Those came from Donibristle airfield, which was created in 1917, was opened, closed and then opened again, and when reopened became, like the nearby Royal Navy base, vital to the second world war effort. Even as late as 1959, when it was announced that it would be closed down as an aircraft repair yard, it employed 1,400 industrial and non-industrial staff.

In that time, disused aircraft, including aircraft dials, materials used for painting dials and other instruments, were broken up and dumped at Dalgety Bay. On that land houses were built and the sailing club was established. Since 1990 materials with some radioactivity have been detected at Dalgety Bay. In June that year, after environmental monitoring by Babcock, the owners of Rosyth dockyard, elevated radiation levels including the presence of radium 226, were found. At that time particles were removed. As was reported later, they were removed “as far as possible”, but since 1990 and at regular intervals, I and the local community council, headed by Colin McPhail, have pressed for regular monitoring of any potential threat to the safety of local residents and to reassure locals that we have consistently asked for surveys to be done, tests to be carried out and investigations to be made.

Until 17 October this year, no investigation that I have seen has yielded evidence of substantial pollution or danger. In fact, at the request of local people, the National Radiological Protection Board—now the Health Protection Agency—carried out surveys during May and June 1991, as it monitored the beach, and then in 1992, 1993 and 1994. It reported that it found only low-level contaminated material buried below a layer of soil.

That was followed in 1995 by a detailed risk assessment, commissioned from a multidisciplinary research team at the university of Aberdeen. Its purpose was to assess the implications of radiation contamination, to consider the level of risk to the public and to review the options for reducing the contamination, if that were necessary. The study found that the variations in the ambient radiation dose rate values were within normal levels and calculated that the highest ambient dose rate found at Dalgety Bay was only two thirds of that found naturally in the granite in Aberdeen.

When the inquiry team published their survey in 1998, they reported that radium contamination was present not as a layer in the sediment, but randomly distributed as particles. However, they found that the number of radiation particles found in the area surveyed was very small and, thus, the risk of coming into contact with such a particle was “very low”. They found that the risk of inhalation was also low and reported that skin contact with a particle for an extended period could produce a very small burn similar in nature and severity to a fire-ash burn, but concluded that the maximum fatal risk per year from inhaling or swallowing a radioactive particle to any user of the area surveyed was negligible; it was calculated as clearly

“less than one in a million”.

However, we rightly agreed that we would continue monitoring, and in 2006 SEPA compiled a report that concluded that further work needed to be done. It also highlighted the possibility of coastal erosion that might bring particles nearer to the surface, but said:

“The most probable effect of an encounter which lasts for a number of minutes is a skin burn. The chances of ingestion…is highly unlikely, around one in half a million per year”.

The common view locally was that during the break-up of some aircraft some of the redundant luminescent materials had been burnt, and it was likely that the resultant ash and clinker produced from burning were either buried or spread on the ground surface. It was reported:

“It is therefore possible that the action of burning of luminised dials can produce a diverse range of chemical forms”.

Since then, at our request and at the request of others, six monitoring surveys and three intrusive investigations were carried out by Entec over the course of 12 months, and they have found that the radioactive materials probably derived from a bed of ash material. But, as was reported,

“recontamination of the beach continued, indicating that either the ash horizon was not the only potential host material, or that”—

other—

“sources continued to be present…and continued to re-contaminate the beach.”

Of the 128 particles, 48 were recovered from investigations of the ash bed, 28 from clearance surveys of the beach and coastal path, and 51 from regular visits to monitor the area. These surveys made it clear that

“the data do not indicate a reducing rate of hazard recurrence…at the site.”

I should add that, also after our request, work was also commissioned over these years by the health board, whose study of data from 1975 to 2002 did not reveal any correlation between the location of the radioactive materials and the incidence of cancer. So until a few weeks ago none of these surveys revealed any substantial risk or out-of-the-ordinary levels of radiation. Many of them were carried out at the expense of the MOD, because it rightly recognised that this monitoring was its responsibility. But in mid-October, work done by SEPA dramatically revealed particles at a level of radiation 10 times that of any previous discovery and led to the decision by SEPA, after repeated contact with the MOD, that it had to take action in the weekend of 17 to 19 November to remove potentially dangerous items. This was work that, as the correspondence makes clear to me, the MOD was willing to instruct. However, unfortunately, it would not guarantee that it would immediately remove any items discovered or submit them for full investigation.

So on Saturday 19 November, without the help of the MOD, SEPA took action and removed what it reported to be

“a second potentially high activity source”.

It was

“five times greater activity than anything previously recovered”.

SEPA also reported that a

“second source was also recovered”

and that

“a third source was found at the surface”

and that required urgent action.

So the real issue here is that there needs to be agreement on a plan for remedial action, given what we know now about the radioactive materials on the site. In October, SEPA wrote to the defence industrial office asking for assistance in monitoring and for a plan of action to repair the site. On 10 November—I quote from its letter—the MOD said, astonishingly, that

“any suggestions that the Ministry should provide a plan of action is immature at this stage”.

On 24 November, SEPA again wrote to the MOD asking for a commitment to undertake appropriate remediation and

“the delivery of a plan”

with

“sufficient resources and funds to enable work to be undertaken”.

However, at the most recent meeting with the Dalgety Bay officials, the MOD was

“unable to commit to undertaking any remediation following site investigation”.

That has caused SEPA to say that unless there is a plan—not just agreed in principle but produced by the MOD—it will, in March next year, designate the site as contaminated and name the MOD as the responsible party

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

My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated not only on securing this debate but on the dogged way that he has pursued this issue over a number of years. He will know that the beach is incredibly popular with his constituents and with mine. Does he agree that it is absolutely vital that the Ministry of Defence deals with this quickly so that our constituents can continue to enjoy this beauty spot?

[Mr Brown]

Yes.

We now have clear evidence that there is a radioactivity level higher than anything that has been seen before. We have a desire—indeed, a demand—locally for remedial action. The community council chairman, Colin McPhail, has said very eloquently that fears in the area need to be allayed. We have correspondence, which I have seen, between the two Government agencies, but it has failed to resolve the issues despite the urgency of the need for action. It is therefore necessary that I bring this matter to the House so that we can secure agreement on preparing and financing a remediation plan for the site.

Over the years, the MOD has funded work, including the removal of radioactive contamination from homes in the area, but the result of its work on those homes has never been disclosed. It has funded the permanent erection of signs to provide warning information to the public, but those signs now require updating. In 2009, the MOD undertook an investigation of the slipway area which recovered 100 sources of radium. The MOD analysed whether the inter-tidal area was itself the source of the contamination, but found that not to be the case. The MOD has agreed to fund three annual surveys and removal programmes at Dalgety Bay. However, SEPA believes that it has detected caches of contamination that MOD contractors may have missed. Through the re-monitoring that SEPA has done, significantly more sources of radioactivity have been found, and while the MOD contractor removed 33 sources, SEPA has removed 442 separate particles. Together with this large number of sources, the SEPA investigation has recovered four high-activity sources from the inter-tidal area of Dalgety Bay, and those are, at the highest levels, 76 times greater than anything previously reported. In the light of recent findings, SEPA now considers that any survey and removal at Dalgety Bay that was previously agreed is not enough. It believes that joint work is now required with the Health Protection Agency and that an urgent plan is required to repair the site.

The community that lives in Dalgety Bay and in the vicinity of Rosyth dockyard is a loyal and patriotic community whose patience and good will has been sorely tested. At one time, Rosyth dockyard and naval base employed 15,000 people and was the base for thousands of servicemen and women. Churchill rightly described Rosyth as the greatest defended war harbour in the world. Today, it is home to 1,500 workers who are building the new aircraft carriers, but the naval base that has been so important to the local economy has gone. The current proposal for Rosyth is that nuclear decommissioning work be done on nuclear submarines that are currently stored there. Ironically, at the very moment when the MOD is trying to persuade local people that their fears about any radiation from that nuclear source should be non-existent, it seems to be utterly slow to act on the removal of the other source of radioactivity, which is its responsibility. This is no way to treat loyal supporters of our armed forces and people who, having refitted the Polaris submarines at Rosyth, have lived with nuclear dangers for years.

It seems very strange that this country has been home to nuclear-powered and nuclear weapons submarines, nuclear power stations and experimental nuclear work at Dounreay, and yet we face the prospect, because of the inactivity of the MOD, that a small piece of land occupied mainly by a sailing club will carry the title of the only officially registered area of radiation contaminated land in the United Kingdom.

The damage to the area, the loss to the community, the disruption to local people, the reduction in property values, the loss of a public space where children can play and young people can sail are totally avoidable. That can be avoided by decisions of the MOD that should be announced today. I ask in this debate for a recognition of the Ministry’s responsibility to agree to develop and to fund a remedial action plan to clear up the Dalgety Bay site. The community council, among others, is right to demand nothing less, and, on behalf of the community I make their demands directly to the Minister this evening. I expect not only a full and comprehensive response but a decision to be announced this evening that the action that is necessary to draw up a remedial plan to clear the site at Dalgety Bay will be instructed by the Ministry of Defence immediately.

BAE Systems

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I speak in this debate both as a member of the Defence Committee and as a constituency Member who has an interest in the future of BAE Systems. There is a plant in Hillend in south Fife that employs more than 200 BAE workers and makes radar components for the Typhoon aircraft.

This has been a remarkably consensual debate. I have a positive view of BAE Systems; it does a tremendous amount of good work in my constituency. Last week I visited the Abbeyview day centre; for its 25th anniversary, BAE gave it a grant of about £1,800 to allow it to continue to provide support to our older citizens, many of whom are pensioners who previously worked at BAE.

The hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton) talked about buying off the shelf. I believe BAE, along with many other defence industry companies, produces some first-rate exports. The Typhoon aircraft proved itself superbly during Operation Ellamy in the skies above Libya, and we look forward to the arrival of the F-35 Lightning II. It is worth noting that the Lightning I, which was made by one of the predecessors of BAE Systems, BAC, was the finest jet aircraft of its generation and a testament to what British aeronautical engineering can achieve.

The Defence Committee did, however, have some concerns about the ongoing cost issues in respect of the F35. Those concerns are shared by our colleagues in the Senate Armed Services Committee. We have communicated those concerns to the Minister, and I have discussed them with him on several occasions. I know that he is committed to ensuring that BAE Systems and other companies do not allow costs to ramp up beyond control. The Defence Committee welcomes the Minister’s response to our last report. He announced that some of the Ministry of Defence’s best minds are currently working on the F-35 procurement programme.

It is disappointing that not a single Scottish National party Member has taken part in this debate. One might speculate that that is because they are part-timers, or because the SNP would, in its separate Scotland, destroy the defence industry in Scotland. Members on both sides of the House have talked about the value of jobs, and it is worth remembering that there are more than 4,000 BAE Systems employees on the Clyde working on shipbuilding. I have a number of BAE Systems staff working at Rosyth on the aircraft carrier Alliance, alongside their Babcock colleagues. They are engaged in ship assembly and refitting work. Those jobs would be lost in a separate Scotland. The SNP has offered no alternative to that.

Nor has the SNP explained what the future of the RAF or a Scottish air force would be. It has given no idea of the type or size of the Scottish air force. One can only assume it will not be buying any F-35s. It has said nothing about how many Typhoon aircraft it would purchase. We can only assume from that lack of information that it does not see a future for BAE Systems in Scotland, and that it would not offer any defence work to companies such as Babcock and BAE.

The fact that this has been a consensual debate is to be welcomed. In that spirit, I hope the Minister will promise to work with the trade unions in making the case for the defence industry in the UK. It is important that we continue to have exports around the world and that the Ministry of Defence sees part of its role as maintaining the business model for companies such as BAE Systems and Babcock. The MOD should be proactively going out and selling the virtues of the Typhoon and the F-35 Lightning II. I hope that the Minister will undertake to do that in the months ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

The Secretary of State will know that Rosyth in my constituency does the refitting for the current carriers and that it is expected to do the refitting for future carriers that may be used in Libya-style operations. Will he confirm that, if there was a separate Scotland, the Ministry of Defence would have to look again at the long-term refitting options for our aircraft carriers?

[Mr Hammond]

I was not quite sure where that was going. The hon. Gentleman is of course right: it is unlikely Her Majesty’s forces would wish to use facilities in a fully independent Scotland in the way they would wish to use them within a United Kingdom.