Counter-ISIL Coalition Strategy

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

As I have said, about 11,000 Iraqi forces personnel have been trained in the past few months. The British Army has made a formidable contribution to that training and is now extending the training it offers to the training bases outside the Kurdish areas. We need to continue to do that. The Iraqi army has to be reconstituted. It has been weakly led and has been slowed up, particularly by improvised explosive devices in vehicles and by booby traps left behind in abandoned villages. The British Army can make a real contribution with the training we offer and the operational expertise we developed in Afghanistan, but it will be slow work.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend rightly spoke of the importance of aerial surveillance in gathering a picture of what is happening on the ground, but he will be aware of informed speculation on both sides of the Atlantic that we were to an extent blindsided by lack of HUMINT—human intelligence—on the fall of Mosul and, a year later, Ramadi. What confidence can we have that the necessary assets are in place to build up an optimal picture of 21st-century jihadism?

[Michael Fallon]

I do not think that my hon. Friend or the House would expect me to go into too much detail about how we gather intelligence in either Iraq or Syria, except to say that 30% of the intelligence-gathering effort is done by British aircraft. We need to build up a more accurate picture of ISIL’s strengths up the Tigris and west along the Euphrates before we can assist the Iraqi and Kurdish forces to retake the ground that has been lost. That advice, and train and equip, is all part of the mission to help bolster Iraqi forces.

Britain and International Security

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I welcome my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour to his place in this House. He brings a wealth of experience from the armed forces and, indeed, the Ministry of Defence to debates such as this one. His question allows me to emphasise the importance of the work of other Departments. These cannot just be military solutions.

The work of the Department for International Development is extremely important and I have always seen development and defence as two sides of the same coin. The money we can spend up-front on capacity building helps to avoid a bigger financial outlay downstream. That money and the work by DFID and the Foreign Office can help prevent crises and conflicts. By strengthening countries in Africa, we can do more to discourage people from leaving them, and because today’s aid budget is much better focused, with fewer countries receiving it, it has greater impact.

We are spending some £60 million on supporting millions of people who have been displaced by ISIL/Daesh, and we have pledged £900 million to answer the specific humanitarian crisis in Syria—the biggest ever UK response to any crisis anywhere.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

The OECD is this month considering whether to re-categorise official development assistance so that it includes elements of the military, particularly peacekeeping. Would my right hon. Friend welcome that?

[Michael Fallon]

There are a number of measurements, including the OECD one and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute one. The return that I have filed on behalf of the United Kingdom is to NATO, and it complies with NATO guidelines. The House will want to know that, on the basis of that guidance, we spent 2.2% last year and expect to spend more than 2% again this year.

As well as the 4,000 service personnel committed to the operations I have described, more than 10,000 people working in defence are stationed overseas—from Brunei to the Falklands, and from Cyprus to Kenya. They delivered courses in some 15 countries last year, and we have helped to train representatives from 90 countries in our military academies. More than 1,200 naval personnel are deployed in the middle east, helping to keep our energy supplies flowing and to counter terror.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

What a privilege it is to follow the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) and his excellent maiden speech. I congratulate him and wish him well in his future career and his service in this place. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), I do not think back much to my maiden speech—it was not a happy moment and it is something I like to forget. Making speeches is something that we do, and people tell me it gets easier—ask me in about five minutes and I will say whether it does or not.

This important debate is on a vast and complex subject, so I shall endeavour to make just a few points, mainly on NATO, foreign aid and defence spending. I agree with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) who said we must decide what sort of country we are in our attitude to defence and security—that conversation came up at a defence event last night, and there was some consensus.

Are we just another northern European power with armed forces that are broadly defensive and engage in a limited fashion in UN peacekeeping missions or—dare I say it?—on EU missions? Or are we, as I and perhaps the majority of British people think, a global force for good with the sovereign capability to defend ourselves robustly and to project power globally in the national interest, keeping our people and streets safe wherever the next threat may come from? Even if we are the former, we must accept that such things come at a financial cost. History demonstrates time and again that our wars choose us; we do not choose them.

A myth promulgated by certain sections of the liberal media is that somehow our engagements and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan were merely wars of choice. I would disagree strongly with that and say that they were undertaken with the highest, most decent and honourable motivations to protect our national security, keep our people safe, and improve world security. In my view, in order to maintain our contribution to international security, keep our people safe and maintain our place in the world, we must be prepared to invest more in our defence capability. As Denis Healey—not someone I quote often or agree with much—said in 1969:

“Once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders.”—[Official Report, 5 March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]

He was absolutely right.

The cornerstone of our defence and security policy, and our place in the world, is our membership of NATO. Let me refer to the most up-to-date figures that NATO published last week on estimated defence spending by member states in 2015. Happily, this year we will comply with our treaty obligations and spend 2.1% of GDP on defence. Astonishingly, however, the only other countries in Europe that it is estimated will spend the agreed 2% of GDP on defence to be members of NATO are Estonia, Greece and Poland.

Poland has made a big improvement on last year, stepping up to the plate having been spending only 1.8%. France spends 1.8% and Germany 1.2% of GDP, which is the same as last year. Turkey is getting close with 1.7% of GDP, but Luxembourg is expected to spend only 0.5% of GDP on defence, the lowest in NATO. The other NATO members that will spend less than 1% of GDP alongside Luxembourg are Belgium, Hungary and Spain.

We have led by example. I agree with points the Prime Minister made last September at the NATO summit in Newport when he called on NATO members that are not making their 2% of GDP contribution to spend more. The UK and the US account for almost four fifths of the total NATO defence spend. The US will pay practically 73% of NATO’s total estimated budget for 2015. The European nations cannot keep relying on the Americans to write the cheques to provide them with the personnel, kit and manpower to protect them. We are next on the list, paying 6.6%, followed by France with 4.7% and Germany with 4.2%. It is estimated that Germany is planning to spend nearly £14 billion less than us on defence. France will spend £10 billion less than us. The US is spending around £300 billion more than the UK, Germany and France put together.

The home country of the President of the European Commission, Mr Juncker, is Luxembourg. As well as spending the smallest percentage of GDP, as I have mentioned, Luxembourg provides 0.3% of the NATO budget in real terms, less than any other NATO member apart from Albania. No wonder he is constantly calling for a European army, so that other people can write the cheques and provide the manpower to protect his country.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that if countries want the cover, they have to be prepared to pay the premium, but does he agree that, rather than insist on 0.7% or 2% imposed by supranational organisations, we should instead focus on outputs? In other words, we should focus on effectiveness—be that international development or defence. In those respects, this country does pretty well.

[Jack Lopresti]

They are not mutually exclusive. We need a benchmark figure to show we are serious and that we are maintaining a commitment. That does not diminish the other things we do, looking for value for money and finding other avenues for defence and security, which I will come to. It is an important commitment for a nation state to say, “I belong to NATO. I get the benefits of the protection. I am prepared to make the right contribution.”

The relatively rich countries of Europe cannot expect the United States and the UK to continue to look at their defence needs. On kit, NATO already has an over- reliance on the US for the provision of essential capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, air-to-air refuelling, ballistic missile defence, airborne electronic warfare and carrier strike. That is completely unsustainable.

Obviously, the use of soft power, including the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development and the BBC World Service, is key to our national security, but they must be backed up by hard power. I was shocked and surprised when I looked at the Library figures for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, MOD and DFID. According to Treasury figures on expenditure for 2015-16, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spend is £1.3 billion; DFID spend is £11.2 billion; and MOD spend is £42.5 billion. It seems to me that, if we are looking at soft power, influence, defence, security and our place in the world, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is woefully underfunded. Obviously, the MOD spend needs to be increased. DFID does excellent work, but we ought to consider returning to the previous model, when a large degree of that excellent work was carried out under the FCO and MOD. That would help to focus what we are doing, save the taxpayer money, avoid potential duplication and waste, and be more concentrated. We should perhaps look at getting rid of DFID as a Department and going back to having ministerial representation in the FCO and MOD.

We are still a great nation and one of the biggest defence spenders. We are one of the largest economies in the world. Owing to our history, our contribution and our unique relationship with the United States, we are a global power. We are also a nation with moral authority, recognised around the world for our rule of law, parliamentary democracy, basic freedoms and common decency. However, to remain a global force in the world, we must accept that we cannot continue to do it on the cheap. Freedom is not free, and the Government’s refusal to commit to 2% of GDP for the duration of this Parliament is troubling to say the least. Two per cent. should be not an aspiration or the maximum but the absolute line that we will not fall behind. If we did so, it would send a terrible message to our allies and our enemies.

Finally, in the words of Donald Rumsfeld, the former US Defence Secretary: “Weakness is provocative. Time and again weakness has invited adventures which strength might well have deterred.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I am pleased to follow the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), and more particularly to follow three extraordinary maiden speeches. I congratulate their authors enormously—my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green), and the hon. Members for Dundee West (Chris Law) and for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Stuart Donaldson). I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee West in his thesis that we risk, particularly in defence and foreign policy, becoming distant and disconnected—I think those were his words—from the views of those whom we represent.

In 2003 I voted against the Iraq war, though I went on to serve in that conflict. I was conscious at the time that the Government of the day were distancing themselves, as were the official Opposition, from the views being expressed to me by my constituents. It is important, particularly in this arena, that we try to reconnect with the views of the public—the people we represent. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to underscore the dangers we face in the event that we fail to do that.

Twelve years on, we should rule nothing out in dealing with Daesh. It is indeed illogical to conduct strike missions in Iraq, yet not to contemplate doing the same in Syria against an organisation that respects no national boundaries. I suspect that we can lead public opinion on that. Where I think we may have problems is in committing boots on the ground, other than special forces. We will face grave difficulty if such strike missions succumb to mission creep. Right hon. and hon. Members will, I know, be very mindful of their duty to reflect public opinion more fully in this endeavour than perhaps we did in 2003, when this House gave the green light to an unpopular war which badly stretched the patience of the public. We must not do so again. We must reflect on the lessons of the past.

Trust and confidence were very much part of the Anderson report that we debated in this place last Thursday, and were reflected in the title of that report, “A Question of Trust”. Next Tuesday will mark the 10th anniversary of the 7/7 bombings. We can see when terrorists win, but generally not when they are foiled, yet the public do not necessarily understand—Anderson touches on this—when it is necessary to do things in their name which they do not fully understand to protect their liberty. An attack foiled is a liberty upheld.

The pre-legislative stage of the investigatory powers Bill this autumn and the passage of that Bill in advance of the axe falling on the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 in December 2016 is an opportunity to socialise, as far as prudence allows, the activity of the intelligence and security community honestly, openly and with candour. Fear of the unknown and the unseen always promotes mistrust. Reality is often rather dull, but in this context dull is good.

As defence and security face down the rather techie challenges of the future, we have to ensure that there is no 21st century equivalent of the wild west—no ungoverned space, nowhere for organised criminals and terrorists to go, no refuge for the ill-inclined state and non-state actors from where they can threaten the people whose interests we represent.

In addition to its vital inquisitorial role, I look forward to the reconstituted Intelligence and Security Committee being in the vanguard of the promotion of better public understanding of the intelligence activities carried out in their name, and reaffirming consent, reducing suspicion and improving the trust to which Anderson refers and to which the hon. Member for Dundee West alluded.

The other subject on which I think we might be at risk of parting company with the public is international development, which is a vital part of what we are debating today. Let me be clear that I, like most Members of the House, support spending substantial sums of money on international development, because it is right that we do so. I support the Government’s spending of £11.7 billion on aid.

Conflict states do not meet millennium development goals, and states cannot attain prosperity without stability. It follows that if we are serious about international development, we have to be serious about the kind of contribution that our armed forces can make to stability and up-stream conflict prevention. It is strange that we cannot count the cost of the 500 British servicemen in Kabul who are training up security forces simply because they are part of the military and the OECD does not recognise soldiers. It appears that we count finding mates for lovelorn tropical fish in Madagascar as aid, but not squaddies teaching Afghans how to prevent their country from collapsing into civil war. That is clearly wrong.

I am pleased that the OECD is this month belatedly considering its rules for official development assistance—ODA. Perhaps it is time for a parallel system: it has been called total official support for sustainable development, known as TOSSD—acronyms in this field are rarely attractive—which would encompass some element of peacekeeping and up-stream conflict prevention. I think that is well worth considering. The Prime Minister has said that he is open to spending more aid on peacekeeping and security, and he is right to do so. The vehicle is the highly successful conflict pool, which it seems would be far better aligned with TOSSD than ODA, and much easier to sell to a sceptical British public.

Military Covenant

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased to speak in this debate, and I welcome the motion before the House. I acknowledge the diligent work of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on defence matters, including his service on the Defence Committee, as chair of the first world war centenary committee in Northern Ireland, and as the local Member representing Thiepval barracks and the home of the 38 (Irish) Brigade. I recognise his unwavering commitment to our armed forces.

It does not seem too long ago that we last discussed this topic in the Chamber, but I appreciate the frustration that as yet no resolution has been found to the overall and full recognition and implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. Today more than 1,800 military personnel are stationed in Northern Ireland, along with the veterans who live there, including those at 38 (Irish) Brigade at Thiepval barracks, which is the headquarters of the Army in Northern Ireland. We owe a huge debt of gratitude to all our servicemen and servicewomen, their families and veterans who have, and continue to make, sacrifices of the highest order in defence of our freedoms and the freedoms of others around the world.

We are a couple of weeks away from our annual remembrance commemorations. The physical representation of our remembrance will soon start to appear on our lapels. I will be wearing mine following the launch of the annual Scottish poppy appeal this evening at Dover House. It is worth saying that whether people wear a poppy is entirely a matter of personal choice, but the wearing of a poppy is not a symbol of anything except remembrance. We should keep that in mind in the next few weeks.

The armed forces covenant is one of the ways we show our gratitude to our forces. It sets out the relationship between the Government, the people and the armed forces community, and the principles by which the service community should expect to be treated. It is the least the country can do to honour those who are prepared to make sacrifices every day on our behalf. I speak to many service personnel and their families, as I know does the Minister, and it is clear to me that they do not want to receive special treatment from anyone. They do not want special advantage because of their service. What they want is a level playing field, so that they do not feel they are a step behind everyone else because they may have spent the previous 10 years partially serving abroad or moving their families around from base to base. Importantly, one of the key principles of the covenant is that no member of the armed forces community should be disadvantaged as a result of their service.

I urge the Government again to get their own house in order. I say that gently, because I recognise the Government’s work on the armed forces covenant. As I understand it, there is no mechanism—I have asked this question before—in government for testing a policy against the principles of the armed forces covenant. As long as that remains the case, we will end up in the situation we had with the bedroom tax. Armed forces families were hit by the bedroom tax and it took months of our raising the matter with the Government before they finally made a statement that, from then on, service families would be exempt. The other issue that has come to light—[Interruption.] I hear the Minister saying that that is ridiculous. It is a fact. If he would like to intervene, he is very welcome to do so.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me the opportunity. I cannot think she can sustain her argument. We have a Cabinet Sub-Committee dealing with this matter at ministerial level and we have the covenant reference committee dealing with it. We are looking at it constantly, in real time, all the while. I cannot possibly see how she can say that policy ideas are not tested against their potential impact on members of the armed forces, current or past.

[Gemma Doyle]

If the Minister is telling me that there is a mechanism in place—I do not think that there is—by which policies that are developed by the Government, Ministers and officials are tested against the principles of the armed forces covenant, I would be very happy to receive the details. All the points the Minister outlined are very welcome—[Interruption.] If he stops chuntering, I will finish my point. All those things are very important in upholding the principles of the covenant, but if there had been a proper mechanism in place, we would not have had the ridiculous situation of armed forces families being hit by the bedroom tax. That is what happened, and that is why the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions eventually, after months of our asking him, had to come forward with an amended position. I therefore disagree strongly with the Minister on that.

We have also seen—I raised this with the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) on Monday—the differential in the amount of money that veterans and civilians diagnosed with mesothelioma will receive. I appreciate that she said on Monday that that is now being looked at, and I hope that we can find a resolution, but if policies are tested as they are developed, we will not have to sweep up afterwards when a policy disadvantages a member of the armed forces community.

There might be times when special consideration is appropriate for those who have served their country, and it is incumbent on the UK Government and devolved Administrations to take that into account, test their policies and make special provisions where necessary or justified. I welcome the reports published by the Scottish and Welsh Governments providing details of how the covenant is being implemented in their respective nations, but it is disappointing that as yet we do not have such a report from the Northern Ireland Executive.

We do not necessarily need uniformity across the four nations in how the covenant is implemented and reported on. Indeed, one of the benefits of devolution is that we can develop local services according to the issues in each area. However, we need to know what is going on, because if the covenant is not being upheld in some way, it is a matter of concern and we should know about it so that we can look at the reasons.

I welcome the work done in Northern Ireland on the covenant and I am grateful to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for highlighting some of that good work. In particular, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) mentioned the Royal Irish Aftercare Service. I know that the Minister has already offered to visit, but if it is welcome, I would be happy to come over and visit that service and anything else Members think would be useful. [Interruption.] We can come separately or together—whichever arrangement is best.

According to the Committee’s report, however, there remain several areas where the armed forces community in Northern Ireland does not receive the same level of benefits—I use that word in the broadest sense—in relation to health, housing and education as it does in the rest of Great Britain. I think we have heard some of those details already today.

As has also been mentioned, Northern Ireland is not a signatory to the community covenant, which is disappointing. I would be grateful to hear more from the right hon. Gentleman about why that is and how the matter could be taken forward. By comparison, 400 local authorities across the rest of the UK have signed up to that agreement.

The veterans transition review carried out by the noble Lord Ashcroft, which we have welcomed, also highlights some of the problems facing the armed forces community in Northern Ireland. It sets out how the history and political landscape have perhaps interrupted the focus on service leavers and veterans and covers the issue we have discussed of equality legislation and section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 being a potential barrier to the implementation of the principles of the armed forces covenant.

I acknowledge that those are not issues that can be easily solved, but at its heart the armed forces covenant is about people and fairness, and it is up to us and, in particular, the two Governments, to find a way through it. The Equality Commission for Northern Ireland has said that there is no conflict between section 75 and the principle of no disadvantage for armed forces personnel and families, so it is concerning to hear that some officials might be using it as an excuse not to respect fully the principles of the covenant. To be clear, section 75 should not be used as an excuse for inaction.

I would also place on the record my appreciation and support for the many service charities, including but not limited to the Royal British Legion, SSAFA and Combat Stress, working in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. Without their tireless work, our armed forces community would not be as well supported as they are now. However, as always, we should not expect the voluntary sector to step in and do the work of Government. Similarly, we cannot expect local authorities to bear the full brunt of responsibility.

It is worth looking back at the armed forces covenant report from last December—I appreciate that this year’s report is due quite soon—as it contained a quote from the families federations of the three services:

“Central Government has asked local authorities to implement many aspects of the AF Covenant with little additional resources in terms of financial support, staff or guidance.”

I have raised this point previously and I reiterate it: we must ensure that we do not end up with central Government pushing extra responsibilities on to local authorities, which might not have the resources or be equipped to deliver the commitments we make here. That might result in the service community being let down. I urge the Minister to undertake and publish an audit of what local authorities are being asked to deliver for the service community and what resources are being provided to them to do that. At the moment, I remain concerned that there is a gap, as reflected in the comment I cited from the families federations.

The armed forces community has made many sacrifices in defence of our country and continues to do so. We are grateful for its professionalism and dedication. We should recognise, too, the continued support of their families and the wider armed forces community. We know that Northern Ireland has faced particular challenges in taking the covenant forward, but I hope the Northern Ireland Executive will do all they can to ensure that veterans who have settled in Northern Ireland are supported, and that families and serving personnel there are treated in line with the principles of the covenant.

I note the Northern Ireland Committee’s particular recommendations for mental health provision and the appointment of an armed forces advocate. In line with the motion before us today, I urge the Government to ensure the full implementation of the armed forces covenant throughout the United Kingdom, including in Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. May I start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on securing it? It is particularly timely, if I may say so, just as we start to think about the season of remembrance.

I am always delighted to talk about the military covenant, because it gives me a chance to plug my book on the subject. If hon. Members would like a copy, I would be more than happy to give them one, provided that they provide me with a donation to the Royal British Legion.

As we enter the season of remembrance, our minds are firmly drawn towards the duty we owe to all of the servicemen and women who serve the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and, in the context of this debate, of course, to those many thousands of people from Northern Ireland who serve in that capacity.

I am particularly minded that we are in the centenary year of the start of the great war. This morning a number of us attended a breakfast reception on the subject and were impressed with the wide range of projects that have been put together by people from across the UK to commemorate the momentous years between 1914 and 1918. No part of the United Kingdom contributed more fully than Northern Ireland. Of course, that tradition has continued in the 100 years since. A number of right hon. and hon. Members have referred to that, and rightly so.

It is important to hammer home one point, and that is that the military covenant establishes the concept of “no disadvantage.” We could have taken the view that we should have the so-called citizen-plus model of the military covenant—that is, the system that applies in the United States, which is often held up as an exemplar for such things. Of course, however, the whole situation in the US is different from our own. The United States, for example, does not have a national health service. It is very difficult—it is invidious—to compare one system a with another.

The model we have adopted is pretty well universal in all countries with which we can reasonably be compared. It is the European model and the one applied by most of our allies. It holds that people who serve our country in uniform will not be disadvantaged by their service. They will not be advantaged. As an ex-serviceman, I agree that servicemen and ex-servicemen do not look for anything extra—they do not expect it and, frankly, they do not want it—but they do not want to find themselves at a disadvantage.

Throughout history, servicemen and women have not always been in the position in which they find themselves today. They used to be distinctly disadvantaged by comparison with the civilian population. We have moved on, and in the 15 years since the military covenant was first written down—it has probably existed in one form or another for centuries—we have made a lot of progress in thinking about what it means. I will come on to what it means in practice with specific reference to Northern Ireland because that is important.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) cited the 93% figure mentioned in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report. The report is now more than a year old, and we have come on some way since then, so 93% is probably a conservative figure, if I may put it that way, and we must now be pretty close to parity in practical terms. We will always have instances where we want improvement, and I am always happy to hear from people about such instances. I am sure that the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), is happy to hear from colleagues about instances of our falling short. We are pretty close in practice, although I understand some of the concerns expressed about the purity of the institution—the military covenant—with respect to Northern Ireland.

The aftercare service is something of a trailblazer. I referred to it in the two reports on health care in the armed forces and among veterans that I wrote for the Prime Minister. I looked at the service because it seemed to me that we could learn lessons from it to roll out more widely across the United Kingdom. It certainly is an example of best practice. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), who is no longer in her place, referred to it obliquely when she said that it is not simply the case that servicemen in Northern Ireland get a raw deal and that we should ensure—because 93% is not 100%—that we close the gap. Compared with servicemen and women elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the provision is sometimes superior and the package is sometimes better. We should celebrate that, at the same time as we focus, rightly, on areas where we can do rather better.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley rightly talked about the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report on the covenant and quoted it in connection with the shortfall, but it is important to quote from it even-handedly. He has read the report, as I have, so he will be well aware that the conclusion in paragraph 98 states that

“taken as a whole, the Armed Forces Community in Northern Ireland is not disadvantaged.”

That is fairly straightforward and unequivocal. Given that that is “taken as a whole”, we will of course be able to find instances where the armed forces community in Northern Ireland is not doing as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom, but it gives some reassurance. The report is from last summer, and much work has since been done to close the gap, which I am very pleased to see. We should therefore take some heart from that: the glass is of course half full, as well as half empty.

There has been talk about special handling for the armed forces under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Some right hon. and hon. Members discussed that during the debate, but they know full well the implicit difficulties of doing so. The deal has to do with power sharing, and the section is a cornerstone of the Belfast agreement. In practical terms, I humbly suggest that if people are trying to get improvements for the service community, trying to amend that cornerstone of the Belfast agreement might be a fairly clumsy way of achieving that. We have done so by other means, as was pointed out in the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and the work that has been done subsequently.

[Mr Donaldson]

I understand the point that the Minister is making. Nevertheless, what we are proposing seeks not to diminish section 75 in any way, but to enhance it. I simply make the point—this is not, of course, on the table from this Government—that if Governments can make special provision for terrorists who are on the run, they can make special provision outside the agreement or to enhance the agreement for our armed forces.

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I commend his rhetorical point, while stating that my concern is a practical one. I want to make things right for the men and women of our armed forces and our veterans. In defence of section 75, it ensures that there is no discrimination against members of the armed forces. I think that the Equality Commission would point that out. Having reflected on his remarks and those of his colleagues, I would much prefer to address this matter in the practical, workmanlike way that has been used for some time, which has shown a fair measure of success. However, I accept his points; they are well made and I understand precisely where he is coming from.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley made reference to the involvement of the Northern Ireland Executive on the covenant reference group. The offer has been made and the door is open on that. I thoroughly recommend that the Northern Ireland Executive take a full and active part in that group. It does work. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle), it is an important part of our efforts to ensure that, wherever possible, we deal with issues as they arise in a way that does not disadvantage the men and women of our armed forces. If the Northern Ireland Executive are not represented on the group, it is difficult to see how the Northern Irish perspective will be reflected at that stage in proceedings.

On the lack of community covenants, the community covenants scheme has been extremely successful, by popular consent. I think that most Members of the House agree on that. I am concerned that Northern Ireland is not sharing in that story. There are issues with accessing the grant funding associated with community covenants. I think that I understand some of the issues behind that. However, 38 Brigade has been designing a scheme through which that funding can be accessed. I look forward to the process being a little easier to use and to Northern Ireland being a full subscriber to that successful scheme, which is very much appreciated by the principal recipients.

The issue of armed forces champions was covered well by my hon. Friend the Minister of State. With the new super-councils, there is an opportunity for elected members and officials to take part through the reserve forces and cadets associations. In particular, there is an opportunity for councillors to be champions in their localities. I look forward to that being rolled out.

The hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire made a thoughtful speech on behalf of the Opposition, notwithstanding the pop at the spare room subsidy. She said, in terms, that she is not in favour of amending section 75. I suspect—I hope that I am not putting words in her mouth—that she would prefer to pursue that matter through the practical measures that I have outlined.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) spoke very well. I know that he is particularly concerned about mental health issues. I very much appreciated his remarks, which were, as ever, well informed and authoritative. His remarks reminded me of some figures on the prevalence of post-traumatic stress disorder that were cited by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley.

It is important to say that the vast majority of veterans are fit and well, and they leave the armed forces fit and well. We do no service to anybody if we suggest otherwise, because young men and women—and particularly their parents—who are considering whether the armed forces is a good career will be influenced by that. In truth, the vast majority of people leaving the armed forces, as we all do eventually, do so in good health mentally and physically.

Under Sir Simon Wessely, the King’s Centre for Military Health Research has produced interesting figures on the incidence of mental health problems among regulars and reservists. Those figures bear close attention and I commend them to all right hon. and hon. Members. In particular, I am interested in his longitudinal study of armed forces personnel. I do not think there will be a tidal wave of mental health problems among people who have served in the armed forces, but more people certainly appear to be coming forward. In a sense, that is to be expected, given the attention that has been paid to mental health issues in recent years, both in general and particularly in relation to service in the armed forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) articulated his strong support for the armed forces, which we all share. He rightly spoke about transition, and commended Lord Ashcroft’s report. If there are any specific points where he thinks that veterans in Northern Ireland are being disadvantaged, I would be happy to meet him to discuss them.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) spoke about the aftercare service—an issue that a number of people have mentioned today. He spoke about equality, and for practical purposes I must say that we have erased what disadvantage we can very well. There is probably more we can do, and we must be constantly on the look-out for areas in which various parts of the United Kingdom are disadvantaged in respect of the care that we give to the men and women of our armed forces. The reality of devolution in this country—perhaps increasingly so as we go further into the process across the UK—is that services will be different depending on where people are. The military covenant will seek to erase disadvantage for having served in the armed forces, and it is right to say that that covenant is not devolved. However, the provision of services that underpin the military covenant often is devolved, and we must accept that some of that will look a little messy. It will not be perfect in all respects or homogenous across the UK, but we must strive towards that given the premise that the military covenant is there to remove disadvantage wherever we can.

We have had a good debate. It has been of high quality and I would expect nothing less given the sponsor of the debate and the Members who have contributed to it. It has been authoritative, informative and passionate, and we owe a huge amount to the men and women of our armed forces. The military covenant is a fearsome contract—indeed, it is not a contract at all, because no lawyer would ever allow someone to sign such a document. The men and women of our armed forces put themselves on the line, and the deal is that when they get into trouble the state will do what it can to make things right. That does not always happen and it is not always possible, but the state must strive to do that.

Some say that the covenant should be extended more widely, and some talk about a public sector covenant, although that rather misses the point. What the men and women of our armed forces do is, and always will be, unique. There is no other group in society—although many come close in places—that do what the members of our armed forces do, potentially exposing themselves to such risks. That is why we have a military covenant. It is something that I think the British public fully understand, and a concept that should be endorsed fully across the United Kingdom. I believe that practically we have achieved such a thing throughout the United Kingdom, and I am very proud of that.

Question put and agreed to,

Resolved,

That this House notes the First Report of Session 2013-14 from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the Implementation of the Armed Forces Covenant in Northern Ireland, HC 51; further acknowledges the recommendations of Lord Ashcroft in his report on The Veterans Transition Review; and calls on the Government to ensure the full implementation of the Military Covenant throughout the UK, including in Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

4. What the Government's priorities are for the NATO summit in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Let me begin by paying tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and other shipbuilders on the Clyde for their tremendous achievement in creating HMS Queen Elizabeth.

The Government have three clear priorities for the NATO summit in Wales. First, we will mark NATO’s achievements in Afghanistan, recognise the sacrifices that it has made, and draft the next chapter in our enduring support for the Afghan people. Secondly, we will send Russia the clear message that NATO has the necessary capabilities and intent to provide for the collective security of the alliance by means including the deterrence of further Russian aggression. Thirdly, those capabilities will also contribute to addressing the numerous challenges that emanate from an unstable world in NATO’s neighbourhood and further afield. In particular, we will underscore transatlantic unity through a commitment to defence spending and practical security sector support for NATO’s partners and friends.

[John Robertson]

I thank the Minister for that extensive answer, and on behalf of the 2,000 workers in my local shipyard and other yards throughout the United Kingdom I thank him for his kind words.

I am a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and, as such, I have meetings with NATO parliamentarians from the United States and Europe. They are of the opinion that Georgia should be given a membership action plan at the Wales summit. What is the United Kingdom’s view?

[Dr Murrison]

Let us be clear: this is not an enlargement summit. However, at a recent meeting, NATO Foreign Affairs Ministers determined that Georgia should be encouraged and given every support that it needs in its aspirations. They also considered other aspirants to NATO, and similar programmes have been mapped for them.

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

Given the importance of the Russia-Crimea issue to the NATO summit, and given the importance of the UK’s showing leadership at the summit, does it not provide a unique opportunity for us to make a statutory commitment to spending no less than 2% of our GDP on defence?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is tempting me, but, in resisting his proposition, let me suggest to him ever so gently that our intent is to encourage other partner nations to step up to the plate and make their fair contribution. If we are to enjoy the insurance policy, we must pay the premium. Too many of our partners in this endeavour have yet to spend a proper proportion of their GNP on defence, and that must be our priority.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Cyber is certain to be a priority at the NATO summit, as it is a growing threat. Today there was an announcement of increased resources for ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—and cyber defence. However, the Secretary of State is seeking to sell off military spectrum capability. What work has been undertaken to establish the possible effects of that on military communications and equipment, given that it is an increasingly critical area?

[Dr Murrison]

We are, of course, keeping the spectrum that we need. I am very pleased that the hon. Lady welcomes today’s announcement, which is a result of prudent management of the defence budget early in the current Parliament. Let me also gently point out to her that this country has been independently assessed as being No. 1 in respect of preparedness for a cyber attack. Most of that is due to close co-operation between the Government and the commercial sector, which is vital in preparing this country to face down a possible cyber attack.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Article 5 of the NATO treaty currently specifies that if there is armed aggression against any member, there will be a collective military response, but of course most of the Russian activity in the eastern Ukraine has not been armed; it has been deniable, special forces and asymmetric. If there were similar Russian activities against the three Baltic states, would that constitute an Article 5 moment, and, if not, does article 5 need redefining, or perhaps even adjusting or changing, at the summit?

[Dr Murrison]

Article 5 stands. It is very clear, and any potential aggressor needs to fully understand the implications of it. My hon. Friend mentions Ukraine and, of course, we have been clear that the solution to Ukraine is primarily not military, but economic and commercial, and has to do with energy security, and that is where we are putting our efforts.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on the situation in the middle east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

11. What progress his Department has made on the next strategic defence and security review; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The Government’s priority remains the delivery of the outcomes of the 2010 SDSR which was launched in May 2010 and published in October that year. The next review will of course be after the general election, and therefore its direction will be a matter for the next Government. The MOD, alongside other Government Departments, is engaged in early preparatory work that will feed this as part of a Cabinet Office-led process.

[Bridget Phillipson]

The Minister will know that civilian contractors already play an important role in responding to the growing cyber-security threat that we face as a country. But what further consideration will he give to reviewing recruitment procedures in order to consider direct recruitment to some of those specialist roles, so that we can meet the cyber-threats of the future.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. Reserve forces were mentioned in response to an earlier question and cyber-capability is one of those niche areas in which reserves will be able to bring something to the piece. This is a difficult and complex area and as we move forward into a different defence environment, we must think carefully about the new niche capabilities that we need.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Army 2020 doubled the savings expectations from the Army following the strategic defence and security review. Reserve capability is important. What is the training strength of the Army Reserve today?

[Dr Murrison]

I am a reservist, so I should really know the number off the top of my head, but from memory it is a little shy of 20,000.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It would be churlish not to start by wishing everyone well in the forthcoming reshuffle—[Interruption.] I knew that comments would be made; I do not mind.

Given the importance of the question, I am absolutely amazed that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) is answering and not the Secretary of State. How does today’s announcement by the Prime Minister relate to decisions taken in the previous strategic defence and security review in 2010 and to preparations for next year’s review? Where has the money been taken from? The Prime Minister has cut hundreds of special forces personnel, but he now says that the special forces are being given additional capability. He said that he had saved money by scrapping Sentinel, but now says that that money might be used to keep it. Is it not the case that today’s announcement has as much to do with PR for an ailing Government as it does with an SDSR for the country’s future?

[Dr Murrison]

Today’s announcement comes from proper financial prudence and the proper management of a budget, something which the previous Labour Administration so signally failed to do. If I may say so, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserves a great deal of credit for bringing our defence budget back into balance, which is why the Prime Minister is able to announce £1.1 billion of investment. It is a pity that the Labour party does not welcome that a little more fully.

[Vernon Coaker]

It is the same old song, but this Government’s record does not stand up to scrutiny, which is what we are discussing today. Four years on from the previous SDSR, the Government have given a little with one hand, having spent four years taking far more away with the other. The Secretary of State has gone from denying there was an underspend to saying that it was earmarked for future equipment costs and to saying that it was for contingency. He now announces that it will be spent on things that were cut in the first place. Will he finally admit that he does not have a grip on where the Department is going or what it is doing about the SDSR and that he is just making it up as he goes along?

[Dr Murrison]

Oh dear, oh dear. The hon. Gentleman is inhabiting a parallel universe. The Labour party left a £34 billion black hole in 2010, and it has taken some tough decisions to bring us to where we are today. Today saw the announcement of £1.1 billion of spending and a further £160 billion over a 10-year period. Where would we have been had the Labour party still been in power four years on?

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

12. What recent representations he has received on future employment at MOD Donnington; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

17. What plans he has to encourage public debate on the defence needs of the UK in advance of the strategic defence and security review in 2015.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Public debate on defence matters and Britain’s place in the world is always welcome and the Ministry of Defence encourages this through its frequent engagement with Parliament. We also routinely engage with the service community, academics, think-tanks and other stakeholders in the course of policy formulation and I would expect this to accelerate in advance of the formal Cabinet Office-led cross-Government SDSR.

[Sir Peter Luff]

Given the importance of winning the informed consent of the British people for the payment of the insurance premium that guarantees our freedom and security, will my hon. Friend commit to following the good, if somewhat belated, example of the previous Government and publishing a Green Paper to build consensus ahead of the next SDSR?

[Dr Murrison]

The precise questions to be asked and the nature of the asking are a matter for the next Government, since this review will take place after the general election. Of course, both parties, of which one is likely to form the next Government, are represented in the Chamber today and I have no doubt that they are listening to what my hon. Friend has to say.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

What discussions has the Ministry of Defence had with North Lincolnshire council in recent weeks to ensure that the disposal of the Kirton in Lindsey base benefits the local community rather than damages it?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. As he knows—we have corresponded on the matter—discussions with the local authority are ongoing. Our intention is to ensure that the site has a use that accords with our need for disposals, but in a way that the local community will appreciate. I believe that we will end up in that position before very long.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

T9. The naming of HMS Queen Elizabeth is extremely welcome, and it will be even more so when we have some planes to fly off her decks. When the First Sea Lord says that“continuous carrier availability… means having two carriers, not one… a modest extra premium to pay for an effective, a credible, an available, insurance policy”,does the Secretary of State agree?

First World War (Commemoration)

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the programme of commemoration for the First World War.

One hundred years ago, a poor scrap of a man who was already dying of tuberculosis fired two shots into Archduke Franz Ferdinand, his wife Sophie, and their unborn child. Meanwhile back here, the following afternoon a debate on foreign affairs happened to be scheduled, although Hansard records that hon. Members were well into proceedings before anybody mentioned Sarajevo. Eventually, an obscure Liberal, Sir Joseph Walton, raised in passing reports of an assassination he had read about in the morning papers. By the time Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey got to his feet shortly before 7 o’clock, lazy summer ears appeared to be pricking at a city that then, as now, few Britons could accurately place on the map. Although next day the assassination got Asquith to the Dispatch Box, he was there to eulogise not to debate the geopolitical consequences of Gavrilo Princip’s chaotic street corner encounter with a man who, had he lived or died that day, was fated to change the course of history.

From 28 June to 4 August is 37 days. To overplay contemporary events on a similar time frame is to remind people in positions such as ours, and in significant countries such as this, of the solemn responsibility they hold. The first lesson I draw is the frightening speed with which peace, civilisation and a functioning rules-based system can descend into chaos.

I am privileged to lead our second debate on this subject. By common consent, the first debate on 7 November was of high quality, as was their lordships’ debate on this subject yesterday. From the luminaries seeking to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to further such debate today. This debate is well timed since the 100th anniversary of the Archduke’s assassination this weekend falls on Armed Forces day, when right hon. and hon. Members will celebrate the men and women of today’s armed forces. I am delighted that this year that celebration will be centred on the great and historic city of Stirling.

I underscore “celebration” to contrast with commemoration, and let it be understood that the great war is cause for the latter, and assuredly not cause for the former. The Government pegged out the centenary in 2012 when the Prime Minister announced the UK’s approach in October that year at the Imperial War museum. The guiding lights are remembrance, youth and education, with the Government creating a framework for a national conversation about the war within which people can explore its causes, conduct and consequences for themselves. Linked to that, the public will not have an official narrative foisted on them. We should not confuse the role of historians and pedagogues with that of politicians. The job of government is to spark the national conversation, not dictate its terms. Historians have a responsibility to rigorously and dispassionately examine the facts, contest the evidence, and offer interpretation. Through open challenge and debate, the credibility of that interpretation is tested, and we glimpse the truth.

I know that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who will speak for the Opposition, agrees with that because he told me last week that he was about to speak about the great war to the well-respected Labour History Group. I took the precaution of securing a copy of his speech, and I hope I will not embarrass or disadvantage him too much by saying what a very good speech it is. He is right to say that politicians probably should not do history, but I am sure he would be the first to say that we should all have an opinion on such an important matter. The Prime Minister has an opinion, I have mine—fortunately for me, it is somewhat similar to his—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will have your opinion, and each right hon. and hon. Member in this most opinionated of places will have theirs.

Perhaps I may put my cards on the table. Like most Members present, I suspect that I would have supported Herbert Asquith in the summer of 1914, but it would have been through a veil of ignorance that obscured the full horror of what was about to be unleashed, not least from Asquith himself, whose brilliant son Raymond was killed two years later on the Somme and is listed No. 7 on the Palace of Westminster’s own village war memorial at the top of Westminster Hall, between Archdale and Balfour.

In my view, Britain’s entry into the great war fulfilled the Augustinian precepts for a just war, and we should be grateful that our predecessors in uniform and on the home front ultimately triumphed against the Kaiser—a militaristic aggressor, general disturber of the peace and, in 1914, surely Europe’s public enemy No. 1. There is nothing jingoistic or triumphalist in the view that this country has a tradition of reluctant, sober and purposeful military intervention as a last resort on the part of oppressed people, particularly in continental Europe, and where the well-being and liberty of her own citizens is threatened. The men and women we will celebrate on Armed Forces day in Stirling and across the country this weekend uphold that proud tradition.

Most people’s experience of the centenary will be through broadcast and social media, and the BBC is playing a central role in that in its best Reithian tradition. I am not always the Beeb’s greatest fan, but I have been bowled over by the quality and scope of its TV and radio offerings, which constitute the biggest and most ambitious pan-BBC season ever undertaken. The corporation’s stated intention is to bring the nation together in order to create a national conversation about the great war. Well, it is hitting the spot, and has viewer figures and feedback to prove not only the success of its programming, but the sheer scale of public interest in the centenary.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Minister is making a thoughtful speech and I commend him on his work on mental health in the services, which has great relevance to this debate. Does he agree that not the least of the strengths of what the BBC has been doing is its coverage of life on the home front, and also the extraordinary outpouring of the arts, particularly music, resurrecting many of the semi-forgotten composers from the first world war?

[Dr Murrison]

I certainly agree. The BBC has a difficult balance to strike. In my view, it is doing that extremely well. I particularly commend its efforts to shine a light on some of the perhaps least well explored elements of the great war. We all know about the mud and the trenches. We know rather less about the home front. I hope that, as we proceed through the four-year centenary, we will have a more holistic view of what it meant to be alive between 1914 and 1918.

The UK’s commemoration will begin on Monday 4 August in Glasgow, where the JoyFest of the Commonwealth games will be replaced by the solemnity of Glasgow cathedral and remembrance in George square. In the evening, the evocative Commonwealth War Graves Commission site at St Symphorien near Mons has been chosen for an event based on reconciliation, which we know the public want and expect to see. German and Belgian representatives will join us, as will Heads of State and Government and the families of those interred, irrespective of nationality.

On the same day, the Step Short project in Folkestone will unveil its memorial arch over the road of remembrance, down which troops marched to embarkation. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) on bringing that important project to maturity. It is a flagship for thousands of independent projects up and down the country that have been inspired by the centenary.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words about the Step Short project. Does he agree that the debate is timely because the memorial arch is being erected today in Folkestone?

[Dr Murrison]

I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend’s news. I have been watching the project with much interest. I know that it will be an important part of our commemoration. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), it is important to commemorate all elements of the centenary. The magic of Folkestone is the ability to plot the course of that final trip for so many thousands of servicemen as they embarked for France. Many, of course, never returned but many did—the majority did. Folkestone in those years held a particular place in the hearts of the service community, either because it was the point of embarkation or because, more happily, it was the point of return.

At 11 o’clock, the hour at which Britain entered the war on 4 August, the day will be closed with a vigil centred on Westminster abbey, which will run in parallel with similar services at St Anne’s cathedral in Belfast, Llandaff cathedral in Cardiff and other churches and faith communities across the country. At the same time, public buildings, workplaces and homes will be encouraged to participate in Lights Out to refer to the observation by Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey on the eve of war that the lamps were going out across Europe and they would not be lit again in his time. As part of that, the Royal British Legion plans to sell a million candles to remember a million fallen, each one extinguished at 11 pm. Here is the clever bit. In the darkness, a single lamp will be left burning, since hope never dies, and it never did.

The centenary is a marathon, not a sprint. Following 4 August, we have the 2014 season of remembrance, Gallipoli in April next year, Jutland and the Somme in 2016 and Passchendaele in 2017. In 2018, Amiens to Armistice will mark the last 100 days of the war. Interspersed will be myriad anniversaries from Coronel to Cambrai marking the waypoints of war, each commemorated appropriately with international participants and national units and their successors.

Big anniversaries, with their attendant large-scale national events, are pegs on which to hang the clothes of the centenary. The richness will come from 1,000 projects, from the flagship rebirth of the Imperial War museum on 19 July, to the Woodland Trust centenary forests to be planted in each of the four nations, to the small local initiatives that I heard about a week ago in Norfolk, as the guest of my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson). Many of those are funded from the £56 million already allocated by the Heritage Lottery Fund. Many are part of the First World War Centenary Partnership, which now has 3,000 member organisations in 50 countries, and many already have the active involvement of constituency MPs.

The 14-18 Now cultural programme will add granularity and texture to the centenary and bring it alive. May I pick out its letter to an unknown soldier project, a literary memorial centred on the enigmatic statue of a soldier reading a letter on platform 1 at Paddington station? The statue makes us wonder what is in the soldier’s letter. Members of the public are now invited to write that letter. All sorts of celebrities have already done so, and MPs certainly should.

I recently sent a note to all right hon. and hon. Members about the centenary poppy campaign, which is a great way for MPs to get involved locally and in the process both proliferate wild flowers and raise money to help the Royal British Legion to support today’s service community. I urge colleagues to take up the Commonwealth War Graves Commission offer to visit its sites in this country. There is most likely to be at least one such site in or close to each UK constituency. There are at least two Commonwealth War Graves Commission commissioners in the House today. I know that they will underscore that point. It is a revelation to many of us how many Commonwealth War Graves Commission sites there are in this country. They are not by any manner of means all on the western front.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend is laying out the plans for this great year. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission recently took me around several of the war graves in my constituency. I have set about visiting all 55 churchyards with Commonwealth war graves in my constituency, 209 graves in total. Whether I will achieve that, we will have to see. I am taking with me children from local primary and secondary schools that are near those graves. That may be an initiative that others want to follow.

[Dr Murrison]

I commend my hon. Friend’s project. Other hon. Members will wish to emulate it. Like me, he has a large number of Commonwealth war graves in his constituency. I know that primary schools in particular in my constituency are keen to honour the fallen. Several of those schools have similar projects. The centenary will be an occasion when our minds will be focused closely on the subject. I suspect that, over the four years, interest will increase, particularly in schools. I hope that MPs will be able to take the lead in promoting that, as my hon. Friend has done in his constituency. It is important that parliamentarians apply leadership in such matters. I am confident, given the interest among colleagues, that they will do precisely that.

It is important also to ensure that our war memorials are in a fit state. A centenary is surely an opportunity to ensure that we revisit those extraordinary monuments that lie at the heart of most of our communities. I am pleased to say that over £5 million has been made available from Government to ensure that local war memorials are in good order. For details of that and the extensive work being done by Government Departments and agencies, I recommend the Government centenary webpage.

My hope is that the centenary of the first world war will provoke a wider interest in history and that it will enrich the teaching and study of the discipline more generally. It is not just about educating young people. I learnt about the wars of the 20th century from my parents and grandparents, who were contemporary witnesses. Young children these days do not have that advantage. In a curious reversal, to our surprise and delight, we have found that children participating in the £5.3 million battlefields project have been inculcating awareness of the great war among their parents, so it is bottom-up replacing top-down.

The Government intend to continue to work with the 60 or so countries worldwide who have a direct interest in the centenary. In Ireland the great war centenary falls within a decade of commemoration. It is an opportunity for reflection and conversation facilitated by the Queen’s historic visit in 2011, and it is set to mature further and strengthen one of the most important relationships for both countries.

This year a Commonwealth War Graves Commission cross of sacrifice is being erected in Dublin’s incredibly important Glasnevin cemetery, which I had the great privilege of visiting recently. Given the history, the significance of such a monument in the shadow of Daniel O’Connell’s tomb is very clear. History is often complex and nuanced, but no good is served by finessing its inconveniences.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the Commonwealth, I was privileged last night to entertain Corporal Mark Donaldson VC from Australia, and is this not an appropriate moment to remember just how much this country owes our cousins in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the troops who came from India and all over what was then the Empire and is now the Commonwealth, without whom we probably could not have seen through either of the world wars in the way that we did?

[Dr Murrison]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have been working very closely with the Governments of all the countries he has cited and more, as he would expect. The high commissioners, particularly in London, have been very keen to engage. Indeed, several of those high commissioners serve as trustees of the Imperial War museum, which is absolutely front and centre, and appropriately so, of our centenary commemoration.

This is an opportunity to bring us closer together. It is, however, important to understand that there are very often complexities in the relationship, and we need to be prepared to address them without prevarication. My hon. Friend knows that in Australia in particular the “lions led by donkeys” mythology is prevalent in some quarters, and it is important to be able to address those concerns without attempting to avoid or sidestep them, because in so doing we come to a better understanding and much closer to the truth. We will be working particularly closely with our Anzac cousins, as my hon. Friend would expect, as our history runs long and deep. This centenary is a wonderful opportunity to make sure we are not seen to be taking that relationship for granted, but that we broaden and deepen it, and I am very confident, having visited Gallipoli this year, that that is on not only our agenda, but the agendas particularly of our Australian and New Zealand friends.

I have to say that the complexities I have cited in our relationships with other countries have not all been in predictable places. In the main they really have not been with Germany, Austria and Turkey; they have been in some unhappy corners of relationships with allies. We have discussed already where some of those may lie, but we must in particular respect and acknowledge attitudes of the sort that are prevalent in South Africa to events that are deeply troubling, such as the sinking of the troopship Mendi in 1917 and the treatment of non-European participants in the war effort. All of this has to be part of our centenary commemoration, and we must do nothing to avoid it, airbrush it or finesse it.

On the very cusp of the centenary of the war to end all war, our first duty has to be remembrance, but the measure of our success will be the extent to which we lift our understanding of the conflicts, causes, conduct and consequences, and the advancement of relations with today’s close friends and partners from both sides of the great war’s great divide.

Operation Althea (Bosnia and Herzegovina)

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

The House will be aware that the UK is a long standing supporter of the EU mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), EUFOR, and its role to ensure a safe and secure environment in BiH.

I wish to inform the House of the UK’s plans to contribute additional military personnel to EUFOR Althea for a period of up to six months in the run up to the elections. This is in support of a request made by deputy supreme allied commander Europe to member states, following civil unrest in BiH in February this year. This unrest highlighted the need for additional capability in EUFOR, including situational awareness and operational planning.

The UK will be contributing two staff officers to support HQ planning activity and two reconnaissance platoons (around 90 personnel in total) for a period of six months, starting in July 2014. This will help to ensure EUFOR is fully prepared for any eventualities that occur during the election period.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the effects on the defence and security of Scotland of being part of the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Scotland is an essential part of the UK’s defence. Our integrated approach protects us all, underpins our considerable international influence and clout, and sustains defence industries which employ around 12,600 people in Scotland. Together, our defence and security effort is truly world-class. Why would anybody want to unpick it?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend will know that the Scottish Government’s White Paper proposes that Scotland’s territorial waters should be protected by two warships and no submarines, and he will also be aware that Scotland comprises about 50% of the UK’s total territorial waters, currently protected by some 17 warships and five submarines. Does he agree, therefore, that the proposals set out by the Scottish National party in the White Paper represent a significant diminution in the protection of Scotland?

[Dr Murrison]

The Scottish Government claim they will spend £2.5 billion on defence, but their Finance Minister John Swinney’s leaked memo on Scotland’s budget says at paragraph 50:

“I have made clear to the Defence Workstream that a much lower budget must be assumed.”

I very much doubt, therefore, that the Scottish navy would have even the two complex modern warships to which the Scottish Government aspire. Moreover, their White Paper makes no provision for refuelling and reprovisioning at sea. It implies that they will leave that to the Royal Navy, underlining the point that we are indeed better together.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

23. The Minister may or may not be aware that on the Glasgow coat of arms it says, “Let Glasgow flourish.” Does he agree with me that voting no in the Scottish independence referendum will mean that shipbuilding on the Clyde will flourish, and that Glasgow will be all the better for it?

[Dr Murrison]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some 12,600 jobs in Scotland are linked to the defence industry. It is impossible to imagine that the jobs to which he refers will be sustained in the event of independence, given the very small number of ships that the Scottish Government would purchase, and article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, with which I know he is familiar.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

18. Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), according to SNP plans, under independence the Scottish air force would have 12 Typhoon jets, if costed properly. Would that not be a considerable reduction in the number of jets that are currently based in Scotland, and a huge reduction in the total number of jets currently available to protect the air approaches to Scotland and, ultimately, what would be left of the UK?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Scottish Government tell us that they would have 12 Typhoons, which means four that are operational at any one time. That is no substitute for the Royal Air Force, and neither does it come close to what is provided by the allies, which the Scottish Government like to pretend they will match: Norway has 57 jets and Denmark has 30. The Scottish Government have also made no provision for air-to-air refuelling, without which the scope for covering Scotland’s extensive air space will be dramatically reduced.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The Ministry of Defence is responsible for ensuring that Scotland is a maritime nation with no maritime patrol aircraft and no ocean-going vessels. The MOD is also responsible for the closure of two out of three air bases in Scotland and the disproportionate cut to personnel and spending, while at the same time committing to Trident, which the majority of people in Scotland oppose. May I appeal to the Minister and the Secretary of State to come for more day trips to Scotland so that people can contrast the appalling reality of MOD decisions in Scotland with the ludicrous scaremongering of the UK Government?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman says that there are no ocean-going vessels, but he has forgotten the submarine service, which, for a Scottish MP, is a huge omission. He talks about maritime patrol aircraft, but he says nothing about how he would analyse the data that maritime patrol aircraft are designed to collect. He talks about two warships, yet he tells us in his White Paper that the only way he can refuel them, and thus extend their scope, is by relying on the Royal Navy.

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

As someone who was born in Glasgow and at one stage lived close to Yarrows, as it then was, my hon. Friend will understand that I have a particular interest in the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde. Were Scotland to become independent, improbable though that may be, can he conceive of any circumstances in which the Government of the rest of the United Kingdom would wish to place orders in what would then effectively be a foreign country?

[Dr Murrison]

We have not ordered warships from another country for 100 years, outside the two world wars. Article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union makes the situation clear: it would not be possible to order such vessels in the event that Scotland and the United Kingdom became foreign countries to one another.

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

There is not a single costed commitment to build or purchase any defence equipment in the SNP’s manifesto—or “White Paper”, as they like to call it—over and above existing UK Government plans. In fact, a letter from the Deputy First Minister indicates that the frigates they refer to are actually four of the 13 that we expect and hope the UK to order later this year. Are not the jobs of those working in the defence sector in Scotland, which are reliant on UK contracts, some of the most at risk if Scotland becomes independent from the rest of the UK?

[Dr Murrison]

I am not sure about the figures that the hon. Lady cites, which I think are optimistic. What I would say is that £2.5 billion is 7% of the £33 billion to £34 billion that we currently spend on defence, and Scotland represents 8.4% of the UK population. I think we can all do the figures ourselves and realise that Scotland gets a very, very large chunk of the defence cake; furthermore, it benefits from every single pound of the £34 billion that we spend on defence every year. It is inconceivable that Scotland would be better defended in the event that it became independent.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Afghanistan and its effect on participation in the Afghan presidential election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

6. What recent discussions he has had on the closure of Claro barracks in Ripon.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

A productive meeting was held on 21 February between MOD officials and representatives of North Yorkshire county council, Harrogate district council and Ripon city council to discuss Claro barracks. The MOD will remain engaged at this level.

[Julian Smith]

On Saturday, the Royal Engineers celebrated their freedom of the city of Ripon with the most incredible display of kit and personnel, and the corps band played brilliantly at the beating of the retreat. If there is any opportunity to keep the Royal Engineers in Ripon for a minute longer, for half a year longer or for decades longer, we will take it. May I urge Ministers to keep thinking of Ripon as they look at the rebasing strategy?

[Dr Murrison]

May I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Royal Engineers on their achievements overall and, in particular, on gaining the freedom of the city of Ripon? He knows, because we have discussed it, that I plan to visit Ripon shortly, and I look forward to that very much. I would like to be able to give him some comfort on his question, but the Army basing plan is a highly credible document that will right-size the Army for the future and so I want to manage his expectations.

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

7. What progress has been made on the design and development of the Type 26 global combat ship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

T4. Iran’s position as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism was highlighted once again in March when Israel intercepted the Gaza-bound Klos-C ship with a deadly cargo of advanced long-range rockets. What estimate has my hon. Friend made of Iran’s continued support for terrorism and the effect that that has on our security and strategic interests in the middle east?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Iran’s known support for militant groups across the middle east remains cause for grave concern, and it rather undermines President Rouhani’s stated desire to improve Iran’s relations with its neighbours. The UK will continue to work with allies to ensure a suitable response to Iran’s destabilising activities.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. The Ukrainian army is short of basic equipment such as secure radios, bullet-proof vests, and even sleeping bags and blankets. Has there been any consideration of how we could assist?

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Defence Munitions Beith in my constituency employs 236 people and maintains and services complex weapons systems. Has the Department been involved in any discussions about what would happen to Defence Munitions Beith in the event of a yes vote in September?

[Dr Murrison]

I pay tribute to Defence Munitions Beith, which does a hugely important job and is right at the very centre of defence in the United Kingdom. The straight answer to the hon. Lady’s question is no, because to pre-negotiate would place the Scottish and UK Governments in an invidious position. We do not intend to prioritise one part of the UK above another in advance of the referendum on 18 September.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

T9. Further to the exchange that the Minister and I had in the House on 16 December, can he confirm that he would expect that an MOD objection on the grounds of low- flying aircraft in the area of a proposed onshore wind farm, such as Bullingdon Cross in my constituency, would be taken extremely seriously by any planning authority and by the Planning Inspectorate?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter in the past. He knows that the MOD is working hard to find a solution to mitigate the effects of onshore wind turbines on the things that we do. In the meantime, it is important that the MOD does object to planning applications that may get in the way of its defence deliverables.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Further to Question 14, has the Minister had any discussions with her Commonwealth equivalents about enabling Commonwealth veterans to get to France for the D-day celebrations next month?

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Do Ministers know whether the Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq will be published by the time of the general election? If so, which one and what is causing the delay?

[Dr Murrison]

Both my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister have called for early publication of Sir John Chilcot’s report. I voted against the Iraq war, but served in Iraq in 2003 and I, too, would rather like to see this publication in my lifetime.

[Mr Speaker]

I have been saving up the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) as a favoured delicacy of the House.

Special Risk Nuclear Indemnity

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

It is normal practice when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability of £300,000 and above for which there is no specific statutory authority for the Department concerned to present to Parliament a minute giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances; and to refrain from incurring the liability until 14 parliamentary sitting days after the issue of the minute, except in cases of special urgency.

Subject to no objections being received, I intend to authorise the proposal to undertake contingent liability for nuclear indemnity, after the usual 14 parliamentary sitting days. I have today, in accordance with the usual parliamentary procedures, laid a departmental minute on the proposal.

The Treasury has approved that, where the financial impact of an event would make the contract untenable due to the nature of work being undertaken, the contractor may be relieved of their liability. Although the contractor is not working directly with nuclear, there is a low risk that their activities may cause an incident to occur. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval of the proposal will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.

Defence in Scotland after 2014

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I start by paying tribute to the men and women of the British armed forces, particularly those serving overseas, and particularly, if non-Scots will allow me on this occasion, the men and women from Scotland who serve so gallantly in our armed forces, as they have done since the Act of Union and as I firmly believe they will continue to do.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) on giving us this opportunity to debate defence in Scotland after 2014, when he and I sincerely hope it will be, as it is now, part of the United Kingdom. I also congratulate him on his timeliness in holding the debate, because, as he said, today is exactly six months from the date on which the referendum will be held—an extremely important date for all of us in the United Kingdom, whether we live in Scotland or not.

May I lay my cards on the table? Despite my Scottish antecedents, I had the disadvantage of being born English, and I represent an English constituency, but I am British first, and I believe passionately in the Union that has made this country so much greater than the sum of its parts. I cannot begin to think of a country that is split up in the way envisaged by the Scottish National party, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern that that party did not see fit to be represented this evening at all.

The issue of defence is particularly important for the people considering how to vote, because, unlike things such as free child care, it is most certainly not devolved. In other words, this issue will be determined on 18 September. It is the prime duty of the Government of any state to safeguard national security and to protect their people from threats internal and external. That is why pages 232 to 251 of the Scottish Government’s 649-page tome are so very disappointing—19 pages of disappointment.

Her Majesty’s Government believe that people in Scotland will choose to stay part of the UK. We will continue to argue the case for the close-knit family that is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. From a defence perspective, the arguments for Scotland remaining in the UK are overwhelming. The UK’s armed forces are counted among the world’s very best. Our integrated approach to defence and security provides the best possible protection for all parts of the UK, underpinning our international influence and sustaining our defence industry. I want Scotland to continue to contribute to, and benefit from, the full range of UK defence capabilities, including our extensive defence engagement, which project influence, make us a force for good, and maintain competitive advantage.

[Lindsay Roy]

May I assure the Minister that I am not scaremongering but posing a question put to me by people who work at Raytheon, a company that employs 600 people in my constituency? They are asking whether there is an issue about the confidential contracts that are engaged in between the parent company in the USA and Raytheon UK, and whether there is any risk to, or uncertainty about, their jobs in the future.

[Dr Murrison]

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

[Thomas Docherty]

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

[Dr Murrison]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his strong and robust response to the debate. During her intervention on me earlier, the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) outlined the importance of defence contracts to many businesses in Northern Ireland as well. The ripples caused by independence would affect not just Scotland, but Northern Ireland.

[Dr Murrison]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Thomas Docherty]

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

[Dr Murrison]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Murrison Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

10. What discussions he has had with his counterparts in NATO member states in preparation for the NATO summit in September 2014.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has had a range of discussions with his counterparts in recent months in relation to the NATO summit in Wales this September. Most recently he discussed the summit and its possible content with fellow Defence Ministers at the NATO defence ministerial in Brussels on 26 and 27 February. The Wales summit falls at a crucial time for partners as they contemplate a post-2014 future and the importance of the transatlantic alliance. It is also a great opportunity to showcase the best of British to our allies and partners.

[Jason McCartney]

As an active member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, may I ask what plans there are for parliamentarians from the 28 member nations—to engage with the NATO summit later this year?

[Dr Murrison]

We look forward to members of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly playing an active role, and we are exploring what that might mean. May I say how pleased I am that the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) is president of the Assembly? The Prime Minister has appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) as his parliamentary adviser on the summit. I know that my hon. Friend is working hard, and I look forward to working with him on the preparations.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has already approached me about an event that he wishes to stage, so he is going about his duties with great conscientiousness, and I hope to be able to assist him in his endeavours.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

With the threat of cyber-attack and espionage rising substantially, will the UK play an active part at the summit in pushing for NATO-wide cyber-capability?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that point. He will know that the UK’s preparations are reckoned to be far advanced, but he will also understand that cyber-defence is a sovereign capability. However, it is important that supranational institutions such as NATO ensure that their own systems are protected from cyber-attack.

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

May we have an assurance that if there is any discussion of Ukraine at the NATO summit, careful attention will be paid to the defence anxieties of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia about what appears to be the emergence of a Putin doctrine, not least because of the close proximity of Kaliningrad to all three countries?

[Dr Murrison]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise the concerns of the Baltic states, which are nervous at the moment. Of course, they are covered by article 5, so they have a particular relationship with NATO that is not enjoyed by Ukraine.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the best of British that we are hoping to show to the delegates include the best of Newport, which is a wonderful habitat for the conference? Will the conference arrangements be such that the delegates will have plenty of time to see and enjoy the robust personality of Newport and its beautiful hinterland?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman is a doughty advocate for the area that he represents, and he is absolutely right that the summit is an opportunity to show off Newport and Wales in general. It will clearly be great to showcase our military, but the summit is also a great opportunity for Wales.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

There is, rightly, broad consensus on both sides of the House that military action in Crimea is not an option, but will the Minister confirm what contribution the UK has made to NATO in response to the Ukraine crisis, and what role our forces have played in NATO training exercises in Europe? Will the matter be discussed up to and including at the autumn summit?

[Dr Murrison]

The hon. Gentleman knows of the strategic concept in relation to NATO and what it implies. He will also be aware of our contribution of the E-3D airborne warning and control system aircraft that is currently deployed to make sure that we have situation awareness in Poland and Romania. We are, of course, open to requests from NATO, in relation to what we might do on collective security, but he knows very well the implications of article 5. The importance here is to de-escalate, not escalate.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Minister for that considered reply. It is the Opposition’s view that we must be prepared to ask serious questions about the UK’s role in NATO and about the security of our allies, including those in the Baltic states and eastern Europe. Does the Minister agree that the forthcoming summit should discuss how NATO can best protect our own security, as well as that of our allies? Is it not clear that one of the most important discussions up to and at the autumn summit must be about the future long-term strategic direction for NATO following the present crisis?

[Dr Murrison]

The agenda is primarily a matter for the Secretary-General of NATO, not for the host nation, although it is probably true to say that the host nation traditionally has a role in trying to suggest and shape the agenda for summits on its soil. The hon. Gentleman might expect us to be considering what NATO means post-2014. He would probably expect the transatlantic alliance to be debated at some length, and what will happen with regard to Afghanistan and NATO’s involvement in that country. I suspect that all those things will be important and top of the agenda in Cardiff, but it is important to note that this is primarily a matter for the Secretary-General.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

11. What steps he is taking to strengthen the armed forces covenant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to support conflict prevention; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

Together with the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence is a full partner in the delivery of the July 2011 building stability overseas strategy, and uses a multi-departmental approach to prioritise UK activity in upstream conflict prevention and stabilising fragile and conflict-affected states around the world in association with partner nations.

In addition, the Ministry of Defence has developed the international defence engagement strategy jointly with the FCO. Published in February 2013, this sets out how the Ministry of Defence can contribute most effectively to the building stability overseas strategy, as well as wider overseas Government objectives.

[Martin Horwood]

I welcome the Ministry of Defence’s involvement in the strategy. Security sector reform is one of its key elements with regard to conflict prevention. How do we ensure that, by building capacity among local security forces, we do not inadvertently enable repression and repressive tactics among those organisations, and that we instead make people feel safer in those countries?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend will be aware that, when taking training to countries we partner, we put a great deal of effort into instilling what might be called the “moral component” of warfare very directly into what we teach and into what we inculcate in them. That is a very strong part of our overall offer. We can never guarantee that the people we train will not go on to do terrible things, but we can reduce the chances of that happening and make sure that the ethos we are rightly proud of in our own armed forces is exported to others.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

21. The Minister spoke about multi-departmental work, but may I press him on multilateral work? What is he doing to make sure that a priority of work with NATO and the European Union is a focus on conflict prevention?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend takes a great interest in this and will be aware of the large number of military and civilian missions that the European Union has mounted: there are 16 in all, four of which are military. My hon. Friend will be aware of the EU training mission to Mali—EUTM Mali—and EUCAP Nestor. It is very important to understand that in all of these scenarios we have to work with partners, meaning NATO first and foremost, but other partnerships where it is expedient to do so.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

15. What recent progress his Department has made on its response to the internal radiation leak aboard HMS Vanguard; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Although we welcome the events in France and, indeed, around the UK to commemorate the 70th anniversary of D-day in 1944, does the Secretary of State not agree that it would be appropriate to hold a national event in London at that great symbol of sacrifice, the Cenotaph, to provide a real focal point for remembrance here?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I share the hon. Lady’s concern that we should mark the 70th anniversary appropriately and, indeed, that we should learn the lessons of the past in this respect. I know that considerable work is under way to make sure that the 70th anniversary in France is a huge success, and that veterans and their carers who want to go are supported in returning to the beaches to commemorate this huge anniversary. On anything more than that, we will have to wait and see, but the important thing is to make sure that veterans and carers who want to go can do so in the manner they wish.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T2. An attack on one NATO country is an attack on all of them. Can we therefore thank God that Ukraine never did join NATO, because otherwise we might now be involved in a European war?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

T8. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute on St Patrick’s day to all the Irish citizens who currently serve in Her Majesty’s armed forces and the 100,000 who sacrificed their lives in the British armed forces during the first world war? Does he agree that our defence partnership with Ireland would be immensely strengthened if it considered joining NATO?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend will know that we are working closely with the Republic of Ireland to ensure that our period of shared history is commemorated appropriately. Today, we are operating with troops from the Republic of Ireland in Mali. He will know that the UK and Ireland stand shoulder to shoulder in EUTM Mali. It is a strengthening relationship and one that has great promise.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

As the Secretary of State says, procurement times are long. Joint Helicopter Command has indicated that it requires a new fleet of Apache AH-64E attack helicopters for operational use by 2020. Has that contract been signed yet?