Afghanistan

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. The plan for post-2014 has to include a credible way of protecting UK civilians involved in reconstruction and development, and a solution for those who have served the British forces and who might be at risk as a result.

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

I hope that the Secretary of State will find time in the near future to read the Defence Committee’s report, “Operations in Afghanistan”. Will he say more about what assessment the Government have made of the role of women in the future of Afghanistan?

[Mr Hammond]

The Select Committee’s report is in my box and I was hoping to have read it before today, but alas! I will certainly put it high on my reading list. It is clear that a sustainable future for Afghanistan has to include all parts of the population. We have to build on the enormous gains that have been made, particularly in the education of girls. That is already beginning to flow through into changing the nature of Afghan society. We must build on those gains, and we are clear that they are part of the sustainable future that we crave.

Defence Responsibilities

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I know exactly what my right hon. Friend is referring to, but I want to get back to the point that where there are serious allegations we do have to treat them seriously. I go back to the point I made earlier, which was that my contacts with Mr Werritty were neither for his financial gain in any of the issues I have mentioned, nor for my financial gain. However, I do think that in terms of making sure that there is total transparency, we have to make every effort not only to behave properly, but to be seen to behave properly.

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

On the issue of the meeting with the President of Sri Lanka, can the Secretary of State give assurances to the House that the President of Sri Lanka was clear as to Mr Werritty’s status in that meeting?

[Dr Fox]

Yes, the meeting in London, as the hon. Gentleman will remember, was not an official visit to this country by the President. I was very keen to talk to him about some of the projects that I had been running in opposition but was not going to be able to run in government. That meeting included the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister, a long-standing friend of mine, and the governor of the bank of Colombo, who is also a long-standing acquaintance. I simply wanted to try to make it clear that much as I would not be able, as the Secretary of State and a member of the Government, to continue with what I had done in opposition, there were those who were willing to continue to do that in politics and business. I hope that they will be successful.

Baha Mousa Inquiry

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

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

It is fair to say that the whole House commends the Secretary of State and his ministerial team for their continued vigilance on this issue, but will he assure us that all the individuals who are either found to be guilty or refuse to co-operate will be stripped of their Army pensions?

[Dr Fox]

As I have said, we are looking at what evidence is emerging from the report. I have asked the Chief of the General Staff to look at it and, through the chain of command, to take the appropriate measures. Of course, anything that is done will have to be done within the law of the land.

Defence Transformation

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

That money is earmarked for the reserves, but it is also earmarked for our deployable force. I have said that if we are unable to get the increase in deployability through the reserves alone with the money that I have put in place, there may be a mechanism for an adjustment between the two. We will certainly try to achieve the ratio and the time scale that I have set out today.

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

I clearly welcome the news that HMS Caledonia will host elements of the Army. I hope the Secretary of State will confirm that a ministerial meeting is possible to discuss the details. Will he confirm which Department will be responsible for funding the transition of those communities from RAF to Army?

[Dr Fox]

I confirm that we intend to utilise HMS Caledonia as a unit for the MRB. We aim for the moving in to start in 2015-16. Of course, this will be a cross-departmental subject when it comes to looking at the wider costs.

Mull of Kintyre Review

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I hope that we have shown by our very approach to this subject that we are willing to do so. I was not willing to accept an assurance that everything had been checked and everything was fine, which was why we set up this inquiry in the first place. Too many experienced people in the House had spoken to me as we all discussed the matter and said that they felt intuitively unhappy and worried that an injustice had happened. It says a lot for Members of Parliament that when they intuitively felt that uncomfortable, we did not simply accept what had gone before but sought to take an independent and rigorous view of how it should be addressed.

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

Does the Secretary of State propose to review not just the methodology of transportation but the purpose of moving such a large number of personnel?

[Dr Fox]

It is of course perfectly reasonable to have large collections of those with the appropriate expertise when necessary, but it is also incumbent upon those who organise such events to ask whether they really need to have so many personnel with that level of knowledge in one place, especially with modern electronic communication capabilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Not only can I give the assurance that we have sufficient British pilots and sufficient British assets in Libya, but I can tell the House that as we go ahead with the greater devolution of powers to the single service chiefs it will be up to them to determine, and make it clear to me, that they have proper training mechanisms in place to ensure that that position remains.

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

T8. Given the widespread opposition in west Fife to becoming a nuclear submarine graveyard, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Ministry of Defence will be using the same principles for identifying the long-term waste store as are used by the civil industry? Will he specifically confirm that the store has regulatory support, makes financial sense and has community buy-in?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

The hon. Gentleman will understand that two sites have been identified as potential candidates for submarine dismantling—Devonport royal dockyard and Rosyth royal dockyard. I can give him the assurance he seeks: we will be following a similar approach to that of the civil nuclear sector and we will take account of a wide range of factors. I do not have time to enumerate those in this answer, but I would be happy to talk to him in detail later, if that would be of help to him. I can particularly reassure him on the subject of consultation, because we recognise the keen local interest in this subject and are keen to ensure that local people have the opportunity to express their views. We will work with all the local authorities and the devolved Administration in Scotland before and during public consultation.

Armed Forces Bill

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

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

[The Temporary Chair (Dr William McCrea)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 16—UK Defence Base Closure and Realignment Commission

‘(1) An independent UK Defence Base Closure and Realignment Commission shall be established.

(2) The Commission shall be comprised of 12 members reflecting the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

(3) The Select Committee on Defence of the House of Commons shall, within a fortnight of the conclusion of a Strategic Defence and Security Review, propose the membership of the Commission, giving due weight to—

(a) the nations and regions of the United Kingdom;

(b) military and strategic expertise; and

(c) experience in assessment of economic impacts.

(4) The proposed membership shall be subject to approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

(5) The Commission shall convene following the conclusion of a Strategic Defence and Security Review to consider a draft force structure plan submitted by the Secretary of State for Defence, and shall arrange for its reports to be laid before Parliament within six months of the conclusion of such a Review.

(6) The Commission will make recommendations for base closures and realignments following consideration of the force structure plan, the economic effects of a closure or realignment of a military installation and the strategic military presence across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom.

(7) The Secretary of State shall lay a draft Order in Council to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission which shall be brought into effect only if approved by resolution of both Houses.

(8) The Secretary of State shall not give effect to the draft structure plan referred to in subsection (5) until parliamentary proceedings under subsection (7) are concluded.’.

Amendment 1, title, line 2, after ‘Police’, insert

‘to provide for parliamentary control of proposals to close or realign bases for the armed forces.’.

[Thomas Docherty]

New clause 1 stands in my name and those of several colleagues. It is a pleasure, once again, Dr McCrea, to serve under your chairmanship. I very much enjoyed serving on the Finance Bill under your leadership, and I hope that you will keep me in order as we go through this evening’s proceedings.

New clause 1 should be relatively non-contentious. We have seen, in the last strategic defence and security review, an unprecedented attack on our defence of the realm capabilities: we have seen, as the Secretary of State himself admits, a Treasury and financially driven round of armed forces restructuring; we are seeing the British Army reduced significantly; we have already seen the closure of RAF Kinloss, as well as the loss of our Nimrod capability, which, as the First Sea Lord admitted to the Defence Committee, has placed our maritime surveillance capabilities at a severe disadvantage; and we are also bringing home the British Army from the Rhine.

Each Government, over the past 40 or 50 years, have reconfigured our armed forces structure to best suit the challenges as they have seen them, but never before have we seen one so radical and based not on the nation’s defence needs, but on the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s needs. For that reason, there is great concern in communities up and down the country that decisions are being made not by the Ministry of Defence, but by the Treasury, and that therefore those decisions are not being made because they are the correct defence decisions but because they are the most expedient or financially convenient for the Treasury and in order to save money.

I have great respect for the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) and his ministerial colleagues, and I know that they are fighting valiantly to persuade the Chancellor that he is plain wrong, but we cannot assume—because we have not seen any letters yet from the Secretary of State to his counterparts—that he will be successful in persuading the Treasury to provide additional money. If the MOD team are unsuccessful, next month there will be some extremely bad news for a number of communities throughout the United Kingdom.

[Bob Russell]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain what a Labour Government would be doing differently, because I have heard nothing from Opposition Front Benchers to indicate that they would be doing anything different.

[Thomas Docherty]

I will happily answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. In fact, I would point him towards his colleague, the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who has articulated exactly what is wrong with the defence review. What would normally happen is what happened in the defence review that Lord Robertson of Port Ellen carried out in 1998. The correct order of events is to begin by determining our foreign policy objectives and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, what the strategic defence risks facing our nation are. He and I would probably agree on the likely scenarios—one would undoubtedly involve Tehran; another would be terrorism. From those two decisions, we would determine the defence posture that we needed to adopt. Having determined that defence posture, we would configure our armed forces to deliver it. Finally, we would sit down and have a relatively civilised conversation with the Treasury about how best that could be funded. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman’s Government have done the absolute reverse. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said to the Defence Secretary, “This is your pot of money. Now you need to make your armed forces fit it.”

Our Front Bench team has made it absolutely clear that we would freeze this defence review and have another, fresh defence review based on the criteria and priorities that I have set out. We have made it clear that we would not close RAF Lossiemouth, RAF Leuchars or RAF Marham. We would also approach bringing home the troops from Germany in the following way. First, moving 18,000 soldiers and their dependants back to the United Kingdom would have to be in the best interests of the Army. Secondly, we would make the needs of their families the top priority. The hon. Gentleman has a long record of standing up for constituents at his local Army base, and he will know that we face housing challenges. When we debated the issue previously—in December, I think—he and I were at one in recognising that the previous Government did a lot of work to improve the housing of the families of those in our armed forces, but there is still a lot more to be done.

Notwithstanding the redundancies that will take place, one of the greatest challenges in bringing back that part of the Army that is based in Germany will be in rehousing probably half the current number and their families at bases around the United Kingdom. I tabled a number of parliamentary questions earlier this year to ask the Government what discussions they had had with the Scottish Government and the Department for Education about how we would educate the 7,000 children who are currently being educated in Germany. It will probably shock the Committee to discover that the Government have had no conversations at all with either the Scottish Government or the Department for Education about how to move 7,000 children back from Germany into schools in this country.

I do not know whether the Under-Secretary—[Interruption.] I know that he is paying close attention to this discussion, but will he update the Committee on what discussions he has had with the Scottish Government or the Department for Education in recent weeks. I suspect that the answer will be: “Not much more than we’d had several weeks ago.” Therefore, to answer the question that the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) asked—some time ago now—before we made any decisions, not only would we conduct a thorough, rational defence review, but we would ensure that the infrastructure was in place to house those armed forces personnel and their families.

As we have debated the issue over the past eight months, it has become increasingly clear that the ongoing briefing, leaks and speculation coming out of parts of both the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury have been causing a great deal of distress in various parts of the country. I know that the Minister would dissociate himself from any such leaks or briefings against the Army or the Air Force, or about the thinking, but we have left those communities in a state of uncertainty and limbo for too long.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem is not just the distress caused to the service and non-service communities in places such as Moray, Fife, Norfolk and elsewhere? Scores of businesses are going to the wall because of the delay in the review process. It is absolutely right to highlight the distress caused for service families—“Will I remain in service?”, “Will I remain here?”, “What will I do with my house?”, “What will I do about the education of my children?”—but there is also an existential question for the many people in those areas whose businesses are going to the wall totally unnecessarily.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. One thing that the Government have not yet fully grasped is that a lot of those service personnel will have been at their bases for significant periods, particularly those at Royal Air Force bases. Indeed, one of the differences between the Army and the Air Force is that those in the Royal Air Force tend to spend the vast majority of their careers based in one location. I was recently told the story of some aircraft mechanics who had been at the same base for going on for two decades. People make family connections. Their husbands or wives move with them permanently to the bases at which they are stationed, and they then seek local employment and raise their families in the area. There will also be local businesses that depend on work from those RAF bases, as the hon. Gentleman said. They now face a period of great uncertainty.

I say very gently to the Minister that we have seen the date gradually slipping back. Indeed, it is probably fair to say that our understanding now is that we will not get a decision until the very day that the House rises. I would not for a moment seek to besmirch the Ministry of Defence’s thinking, but some uncharitable people outside the Chamber might suggest that the Government were hoping to sneak out the announcement on the last day when no one was looking, although I am sure that Mr Speaker would ensure that the Secretary of State at least came to the Chamber.

[Mr Robathan]

Were any Minister to try to slip something out on the last day, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be here to ensure that they did not get away with it.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the Minister for that, and I am happy to confirm that I will not be going anywhere on the last day for that reason. However, I am sure that if the Secretary of State waited until the last moment and if it then slipped his mind to request an oral statement, Mr Speaker would ensure, for the probity of the House, that he found a suitable opportunity—

[Mr Robathan]

indicated dissent.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister shakes his head. I understand that there might be some vacancies coming up at the Department of Health shortly. I think that he might be up for promotion, so I could not possibly comment on whether he would be on the Front Bench next to the Secretary of State for Health—although the Defence Secretary is a GP, of course, and would be eminently suitable as a Health Secretary, if such a vacancy were to come up. However, having to wait until 19 July—the last day before the recess—is frankly not a comfortable position to be in.

I understand why the Ministry of Defence did not wish to make an announcement during the period of purdah for the Scottish elections. When the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife had a debate in the House on RAF Leuchars in January, the Minister of State made it clear that he did not wish to do anything that might upset the election results—I should point out to him that putting that decision off did not do the Lib Dems much good in North East Fife. However, we are now well past the Scottish elections. There is no particular reason why the Government could not come to the House now and announce the decisions that we know they have made.

The purpose of my new clause is to ensure parliamentary oversight of the decisions made by the Ministry of Defence. As I said earlier, we are talking about a unique set of closures. We have probably not seen anything like it since the days when Denis Healey was a Minister for the armed forces and we reconfigured and abandoned our positions east of Aden. Now, however, the decisions are being driven entirely by the Treasury.

The purpose of new clause 1, which thankfully I will not read into the record, is not to affect the way in which the Ministry of Defence gathers information. It does not seek to make the process more transparent or, as the Minister said earlier, to tie the hands of the Government so that they cannot carry out these processes. The new clause proposes that, once the Ministry of Defence has determined which bases it wants to close or realign—for example, by switching their use from the Royal Air Force to the Army, or, as we read in Scotland on Sunday at the weekend, by switching the Condor base in Arbroath from the Royal Marines to the Army—the decisions would be subject to two conditions. First, the Secretary of State would be required to lay a report before the House setting out not only his rationale for making the decisions but the weighting he has given.

Those colleagues who have attended the Adjournment debates on these matters here and in Westminster Hall will have noticed that there has been inconsistency between the views expressed by the various Ministers in the Ministry of Defence about what weighting is being given to each of the criteria: the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and the other Under-Secretary of State—he is the Minister for aviation, as far as I can tell—seem to have different views. One Minister will tell us that the finances are paramount; another will say that defence needs come first; yet another will tell us that the RAF’s needs are the most important, while another says that the Army’s needs are the priority. Then we get back to the arguments about the socio-economic arguments and the wider impacts of the decisions that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has mentioned. Those are all valid arguments, and the Ministry is right to consider the socio-economic factors, the financial costs to the Treasury and how best a base can be recycled for use by another service. However, that all needs to be done in a transparent and coherent manner.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case. He referred earlier to the unique context in which he is proposing his new clause. Does he not regret the fact that a Bill such as this was never introduced under the Labour Government? We have suffered base closures in Northern Ireland that had a serious impact on the local communities, yet none of these considerations was discussed at the time, despite the best efforts of some of us to point out the consequences. I know that the hon. Gentleman cannot go back in time, but will he acknowledge that that is the case?

[Thomas Docherty]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I know that he takes a keen interest in the armed forces. He is right to say that the previous Government did not get everything right, but I am not sure whether a Bill was ever introduced to put this process on to a statutory footing. I think that the idea is relatively new. I first came across it when, as part of the British-American Parliamentary Group, I visited the Pentagon last September. The process was explained to the delegation at that time; I think that it has been in place there for about 18 years. It is possible, therefore, that previous Governments were not fully au fait with how the system has worked in America, and that could be why we have not had this debate before. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the closures that took place in Northern Ireland were, thankfully, driven by the peace process and by the leadership of the then Prime Minister and members of parties that are present today. That is obviously different from the situation today, in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is calling the shots—please pardon the pun—on the Ministry of Defence.

Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would compile a report setting out what weight he was giving to each of the criteria, which might be quite mixed. Having had a chance to review the report, a future Defence Select Committee might wish to invite the Secretary of State to appear before it and to scrutinise it, although I cannot bind any such Committee to do so. The report would then be subject to a straight-up-and-down vote in the House. There would not be an option to cherry-pick individual bases; it would be a straight-up-and-down report, as they have in the United States. If the House really felt that the Government had got it wrong, it would send the matter back and ask the Government to reconsider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I have listened closely to his arguments, and I found them tremendously persuasive. When discussing his new clause and mine, the question we must ask is whether the way in which the Ministry of Defence deals with base closures or realignments is adequate. Is the way in which the criteria are established widely understood? Is there transparency and consistency in the process?

It is well known to the Minister that I represent the most defence-dependent constituency in Scotland. We have already heard about the sad and, I believe, avoidable closure of RAF Kinloss. The present basing review is also considering the potential to make this a unique double base closure involving RAF Lossiemouth as well. I therefore have a close understanding of the way in which the Ministry of Defence deals with base closures and realignments. I hope that, having listened to me and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, the Minister will at least concede that there are areas in which improvements could be made.

The Secretary of State has been gracious with his time, and he has met me on three occasions to discuss the impact of base closure considerations in order that I might share those matters with the community that I represent. The insight from those meetings was quite constructive, because what he said to me then was not what he has said in the Chamber thus far. On the day of the announcement of the strategic defence and security review, he told me that he understood that Moray was a very defence-dependent constituency, and that any delay would cause distress to the service and non-service personnel and have an impact on the local economy. He was confident that the basing review affecting RAF Lossiemouth would be concluded by December—December 2010.

Shortly thereafter, the Secretary of State had another meeting with me at which he said that the considerations in the basing review had changed. He said that it was no longer just a consideration about where Tornado aircraft should be based—and hence a straight choice between RAF Lossiemouth and RAF Marham—as the Ministry of Defence was looking at issues such as the repatriation of UK forces from Germany, so it made sense for the Department to roll into one all the issues around basing. He was confident at that time that a recommendation would be made by the Department by February and that the decision would be taken within weeks thereafter. That meant spring 2011. Then, at our third meeting, I was told that the announcement on RAF Lossiemouth and all other bases would not take place on the second date that had been promised, but would take place some time before the summer recess.

I have to tell the Minister that I represent people who are making decisions about their mortgages, their rent and their children’s education, and businesses that are finding it difficult enough in these times of economic austerity to get a loan from the bank and are holding it together from one month to the next. Thus, having been told authoritatively, as I was by the Secretary of State, that an announcement would be made within weeks—that is, before Christmas—it is not good enough to then be told that, unfortunately, because the criteria for the basing decisions were being changed it would not happen until the spring after the recommendation at the end of February and on and on, only to be told at the end that we shall have to wait until just before the summer recess. That is no way to run a basing review.

When we talk about a covenant, it should not be a covenant only with our service personnel; surely it should also be a covenant with the communities that have associations, long and deep, with the armed forces, whether they be based in Fife, Moray, Norfolk or anywhere else. The Ministry of Defence owes it to our defence communities to treat them better than they have been treated throughout this basing review.

My experience led me to try to understand what represents best practice—what I encountered is certainly not best practice—in the United Kingdom. I visited the United States, which has two approaches that I believe it is important for Members who care about defence matters to understand. Frankly, I believe them to be the gold standard.

First, the process through which decisions on base realignment and closure are considered in the United States is totally transparent. The criteria need to be explained by the Department of Defence in the US—and the procedure is not ad hoc. First of all, the DOD needs to come forward with an explanation of how it plans to base its service personnel. These matters have since time immemorial—whether it be in the United States or in the United Kingdom—always been the subject of discussion and questions arise such as whether there has been political intervention. Are decisions made more on the basis of geography, which might have more to do with the advantage of political parties, than on military or strategic considerations?

The US took a decision more than 20 years ago that it needed to deal with base realignments and closure in a totally different way. It still protected the important role of the Department of Defence in making suggestions about what it believed needed to happen, about which bases should remain open and which should be changed through use realignment. What I have sought to crystallise in my new clause is the fact that a commission was created and its members were people with real military experience. Nominations were made from both sides of the aisle to ensure that it was a non-partisan process.

The commission’s criteria include ensuring that the impact of the decisions brings about a defence footprint across the United States—not just in one or other part of it—and looking closely at the recommendations of the DOD. The commission then makes a recommendation that goes to the Hill for approval on a “yea or nay, take it or leave it” basis. This ensures that party political considerations are taken out of the equation. It ensures that the recommendations coming forth from the commission make sense across the US. All the legislators I spoke to from both sides of US politics said that this process was a Godsend, which had made a profound difference to how these matters were dealt with in the US. I believe that that is worthy of consideration.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife made the point that it is important to have parliamentary oversight; I totally agree. The way in which our review has been conducted over recent months has, frankly, been lamentable. For one thing, those of us who are reasonably close to understanding how the processes have worked are aware that the criteria have changed and that political decisions have been made about how many bases should be in different parts of the UK, with people then being asked to get a fit around which bases they should be. That is no way to run an orderly base realignment after the strategic defence and security review has been concluded.

I agree that there should be parliamentary oversight; this should not be conducted only by the Ministry of Defence. I have no reason to believe that the information provided to Ministers to help them make their decision is not well thought through: I am sure it is, but it has taken such a long time. The issue is not just about parliamentary approval, however, as there needs to be a degree of independent insight, which is why I believe we should have a commission nominated by the Defence Select Committee.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman says that the information might have been well thought out within the Ministry of Defence, but is it not the case that what we have seen is a rushed and ill-thought-out defence review that was thrown together on the back of a fag packet at the very last minute? That applies to the decision to take the Ark Royal out of service and the decision on the aircraft carriers. Is not the Ministry of Defence now having to play catch-up after the ill-conceived decisions made last October?

[Angus Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman makes valid criticisms of the SDSR, but I am talking specifically about the process in which issues of base realignment and closure are addressed. There was some debate across the Chamber about the criticisms of the SDSR, but I think that might have detracted from both the hon. Gentleman’s proposals and mine. Frankly, our proposals should win favour from the Government Front-Bench team. Why? Because this is the gold standard. This is the best way in which the very difficult process of base realignment and closure has been dealt with, very effectively, by another nation.

I have not yet decided whether to press the new clause to the vote. My proposals might be new to the Government Front-Bench team, so I will be looking for assurances that the Government acknowledge that the process of base realignment and closure should be subject to improvement. If the Government propose ways of ensuring that there will be no delays, that there will be transparency, and that the criteria used in the current round of base realignments and closures will be changed, I may be persuaded not to press the new clause to a vote. However, I believe that communities—in Moray, in Fife, in Norfolk or anywhere else—that have suffered as a result of delays deserve something better. If at least one good thing comes out of this botched process, namely an acknowledgement from the Government that they could and should improve it, I will not proceed with my new clause, in the hope that the Government will return at some stage with better-thought-through approach for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

I have huge sympathy for those who have been put in a position of uncertainty and, perhaps, adversely affected by the closure of bases. The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has stood up for his constituents a great deal, and he has made the point that it is his job to make. I take that entirely on board. I am afraid I cannot say that we will change everything, but I will deal with his points later. First, however, I will deal with what was said by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty)—and let me say for the avoidance of doubt that I do know who he is.

New clause 1 is very unwelcome at a time when we are trying to streamline the way in which the Government conduct operations. It would require the prior approval of both Houses of Parliament to any alteration in the function of, and any closure of, any of our bases anywhere in the world. As well as bases in the United Kingdom, it would affect bases in Germany, Cyprus, the Falkland Islands and Afghanistan. That would hamstring our operations. It would involve our revealing publicly our plans and, no doubt, a great deal of highly sensitive information so that the Houses could debate it.

Even assuming that the real intention of the new clauses and amendment relate only to bases in the United Kingdom, as I am sure is the case, I believe that the proposed action would be inappropriate. In practice, Parliament would be notified of any major base closures or realignments. The Department already undertakes a significant amount of consultation on stake sales with local authorities, interest groups, trade unions and local Members of Parliament. Notwithstanding the widespread view that we do not listen, I have undertaken consultation with local Members of Parliament about certain cases, not necessarily involving big bases but involving MOD sites. I have taken a couple of issues very much to heart, and am looking into them in detail. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not just a case of window-dressing.

Base closures and changes are already subject to a number of legislative requirements through, for example, planning consents and the need for sustainability assessments. Parliament already has ample opportunity to make its views about proposed major changes known to the Government, and Parliament and indeed the nation will no doubt hold the Government to account for the decisions that they make. We believe, however, that it must be right for the Government to make those decisions. Requiring advance approval would constitute an abandonment of the Government’s responsibility, and would make vital strategic decision-making impossible.

[Thomas Docherty]

I asked earlier what discussions the MOD had been having with stakeholders such as the Scottish Government and the Department for Education about school provision, which was clearly a huge problem. Are those discussions still taking place?

[Mr Robathan]

The Minister for the Armed Forces has been dealing with specific bases. I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the information for which he has asked, but I should be happy for him to meet me or, perhaps more appropriately, my hon. Friend to discuss the issue. I shall mention that to my hon. Friend, although he will spot it in Hansard in any event. Amendment 1, of course, is linked to new clause 1.

I did not know that the hon. Member for Moray had engaged in a discussion that seems to have continued for longer than he may have wished, but I think it important for us to get this right. Contrary to what people think, we care what happens not just to our service personnel but to the people who work in and around service bases, because it affects their lives. I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has taken a close interest in the review of defence basing and estates requirements over the last year, not only to represent his constituency interests but because RAF Lossiemouth has featured heavily in speculation. Given that the hon. Gentleman is his party’s defence spokesman, of course he is interested in what is happening in Scotland.

One of the problems with this new clause is to do with the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in the United States. The hon. Gentleman may have offered that before as a model that we should follow, but we take the view that the Defence Secretary must act in the best interests of defence—that is what he is appointed to do—and where defence assets and personnel are based must depend on strategic considerations for the security and defence of the United Kingdom and value for money for the taxpayer.

I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for the process used in the United States, but in our parliamentary system the Secretary of State for Defence is accountable to Parliament in a way that does not apply in the United States. Members of Parliament can, and do, make representations directly to Ministers, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that those representations are heard. This is not pure window dressing, so I hope he, too, will not press his amendment to a Division.

[Thomas Docherty]

I will be brief, as an important set of new clauses are to be discussed next and I know colleagues wish to have a full debate on them.

I have been heartened by some of the Minister’s remarks. I did not agree with all he has said, but he nevertheless offered an eloquent defence of his position. I was particularly heartened by his offering me a meeting with his ministerial colleague, the Minister for the Armed Forces, and I will be delighted to accept that offer. In turn, I am sure he will be delighted to know that the Defence Committee has decided to undertake a review of the basing decisions in the autumn. I suspect he and his colleagues will therefore eagerly anticipate appearing before the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who chairs the Select Committee, along with his Select Committee colleagues, including myself.

Based on the assurances I have received and the good debate we have had this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 7

Voluntary discharge of under-18s

‘(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 (c. 52) is amended as follows.

(2) In section 329 (Terms and conditions of enlistment and service), after subsection (3) there is inserted—

“(3A) The regulations shall make provision that any person under the age of 18 shall be entitled to end their service with a regular force by giving not less than 14 days’ notice in writing to their commanding officer, and shall ensure that any person enlisting under the age of 18 is informed of this right when they enlist.”’.—(Dr Huppert.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

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

[Dr Huppert]

It is a great pleasure to move this amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who is present. It would allow under-18s to leave the armed forces as of right, if they so wished. There have already been some discussions on this with the Minister, so I shall not detain the Committee for too long. It is an important issue, however, and a number of groups have worked hard, along with my hon. Friend, myself and others, to press for this change. I wish to note in particular the efforts of the Quakers in Britain, especially Michael Bartlet, who has spearheaded much of the awareness-raising that has led to our reaching this point.

The proposal to allow under-18s to leave as of right has also been supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I should declare that I was a member of it at the time, which may or may not be coincidental. It gave a clear recommendation that—astonishingly—fits extremely well with the amendment I am now proposing:

“We recommend that a right to discharge for under-18s be established, and that all those recruited under the age of 18 be told of this right.”

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Gentleman has referred several times to under-18s having a right to leave. I had the privilege of serving on the Armed Forces Bill Select Committee and we took some evidence on this matter, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman would accept that they do currently have a right to leave, but that the length of notice is different from that which he proposes.

[Dr Huppert]

They do not have the right to leave before they turn 18. After the first six months, a 17-year-old, or a 16-year-old even, does not have the right to leave. In the case of the Army, they are there for, I believe, six years after they pass that first six months. In practice, that is not necessarily enforced, but that is not the same as their having a right.

[Thomas Docherty]

I have heard the argument about five or six years before. When personnel turn 18, they have an absolute right to choose to leave at that point. I accept that, perhaps, that is not as well publicised as it might be, but this talk of their being in for five or six years is not entirely accurate.

[Dr Huppert]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, but I think he would agree that somebody who joins on their 16th or 17th birthday currently has no right to leave, although in practice they might be allowed to, which is a slightly different issue.

Why is this an issue for under-18s? We have a whole lot of rules for under-18s: we do not allow them to vote—although many of us think that we should because they are adult enough to do that—we do not allow them to have credit cards or to enter into other legal decisions because they are not treated as adults who are able to commit themselves for such a long time; and they cannot bind themselves to a credit agreement to pay a certain sum of money the next month, except in very exceptional circumstances. They can, however, commit themselves to an extended period in the armed forces.

It is quite clear that in many cases they are allowed to leave, even though they do not have that right. It is hard to be sure, however, whether that covers every case of somebody under 18 who wishes to leave. We would not know if they were too scared to ask their commanding officer or if some other social pressures made it hard. We know that there are cases of bullying in the armed forces and although I am sure we all abhor the fact that that goes on, there are a number of such cases and it is hard to know what would happen then.

The situation is unclear, so we proposed an amendment to make it absolutely clear what was and was not allowed. I am grateful to the Minister for responding to the report produced by the Select Committee on the Bill after the amendment was tabled and after a number of discussions, parliamentary questions and so on. He has made a welcome announcement, stating that

“for those under the age of 18, the ability to be discharged will in future be a right up to the age of 18, subject to an appropriate period of consideration or cooling off.”—[Official Report, 19 May 2011; Vol. 528, c. 26WS.]

I want to place on record my thanks to the Minister for taking that step, which is very welcome to a number of the people involved. I have a few specific questions, however, and I hope that he will be able to clarify the situation for me.

First, what is this period of consideration or cooling off and roughly how long would it last? My amendment allowed 14 days’ notice; I suspect he has a different figure in mind and it would be helpful to know what it is. The second part of the JCHR’s report and of the amendment state that any person enlisting under the age of 18 should be informed of their right and I hope the Minister would agree that it would ideal for them to be told that they have it, even though he would hope that many of them would not avail themselves of it. Finally, will he update the Committee on the process as it stands? Has he given instructions that the rule should apply as of now and will people be told that there is this right? He talks about requiring secondary legislation to make such a provision, which I look forward to seeing, but when will such an instrument be laid before the House?

Libya

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive remarks. It is inherently true that the use of attack helicopters in contested territory is dangerous, but we are deploying all our assets through NATO and if we were to decide to use attack helicopters it would be through NATO co-ordinated efforts, so the assets of other partner countries would be available to us to help defend them. We have experience of using Apache helicopters in contested territory and we have successful ways of minimising the threat to them, but it is an inherently dangerous business—there is no way of getting around that.

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

Will the Minister update the House on how many countries have now sent military advisers to Libya to help the rebels? Can he confirm who is responsible for co-ordinating their work?

[Nick Harvey]

We have sent some of our own advisers and they are working with the French. We co-ordinate that between us and they are the pre-eminent military advisers. There are some from other countries in that region but they are undertaking specific tasks in co-ordination with the British and French forces, so the predominant effort is Anglo-French and we are co-ordinating it between us.

Nuclear Deterrent

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I do not think that having a nuclear deterrent does anything to diminish the status of the United Kingdom, but our ability to influence world events is a combination of a range of things including military power, economic power and diplomatic power, all of which we exercise in the furtherance of our national interests.

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

The Secretary of State has demonstrated that he is a principled and honourable man. Does he therefore understand the concern on both sides of the House, and indeed in the country, that given the decision not to have carrier capability for more than a decade, as the First Sea Lord confirmed last week to the Select Committee on Defence, we could, for financial reasons, have no continuous deterrent at sea because the decision will be postponed for so long that it becomes financially unviable?

[Dr Fox]

I am not entirely sure that I grasped the essence of the hon. Gentleman’s question. We will have continuous at-sea deterrence because this programme will seamlessly move into the replacement programme in 2028. The whole point is that we have continuous at-sea deterrence to give us a credible deterrent for the country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thomas Docherty Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

It is interesting to compare the coverage that the operations led by the United Kingdom, including the command and control organisation in Malta, gets in the United Kingdom with the coverage that we get in other countries in Europe and beyond, where there cannot be high enough praise for our armed forces and for the organisation put forward by the United Kingdom. Perhaps this is a time to praise our people rather than to condemn them.

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

18. What assessment he has made of the likely date for HMS Illustrious to return to service; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

HMS Illustrious is scheduled to return to operational service, to assume her new landing platform helicopter role, in spring 2012. I should add that she has had 180 days’ notice to move, and that that period can be reduced, should the need arise. She will be supplementing the capability provided by HMS Ocean.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am sure the House will agree that the fact that HMS Illustrious is coming back into service ahead of schedule is a testament to the professionalism of the work force and the management, led by Mike Pettigrew. Will the Minister find the time to come to the dockyard to see HMS Illustrious before she sets sail, so that he can see yet again why the best place for the refit and refurbishment of the Queen Elizabeth class carriers is Scotland, rather than France?

[Peter Luff]

Although it is far too early to decide where that work will be conducted, I would be delighted to try to accommodate such a visit in my diary, if that proves possible. The hon. Gentleman’s constituents have certainly done a first-rate job.