Oral Answers to Questions

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Be careful what you wish for, sir.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

25. According to the findings of independent analysis, a hard Tory Brexit could cost Scotland 80,000 jobs over 10 years and a 5% drop in GDP. Why have the UK Government failed to produce a comprehensive impact assessment of the effect of a hard Tory Brexit on our economy? Is it the case that, for some reason, now is not the time?

[Mr Hammond]

As the article 50 notice letter set out very clearly, the Government are seeking to negotiate a deep and special partnership with the European Union, at the heart of which will be a comprehensive free trade agreement covering goods, services and networks. That will allow us to continue to work closely with the European Union after leaving the organisation.

The Government do carry out detailed analysis to inform their negotiating strategy, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not want me to reveal the outcome of that analysis, which would be of great use to our negotiating partners on the other side. That is not the way to get the best deal for Britain in these negotiations.

National Spitfire Project

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Royston Smith) on securing the debate and on his work on this matter.

As a piece of engineering excellence, the Spitfire has long been considered in a league of its own. Its speed and agility is legendary, and we just got a flavour of that from the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth). Surely there can be no better way than the proposal of the National Spitfire Project to remember that incredible piece of history, a monument on the waterfront of the city that built the Spitfire. The Spitfire project is warmly welcomed.

We have been discussing the funding of the project, and I pay tribute to those who have supported the crowd-funder effort to take it forward. At the height of the war, the public donated their pots and pans to be melted down for their Spitfire project—literally, to create and build the aircraft—and it is important that now the public find a way to put money into a national project that will properly recognise the Spitfire’s contribution.

To me the Spitfire is familiar, and it has become part of my weekly commute: I see a Spitfire, or at least a replica of one, at the entrance to Edinburgh Turnhouse airport most Mondays on my way down here. The particular model that I am so familiar with is painted in the colours of the 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron, which was said to be one of the most effective units in the battle of Britain, which we have heard so much about this afternoon.

My constituency has its own tale to tell of its history with the Spitfire and with flight more generally. Stirling was the home of the Barnwell brothers, Harold and Frank. They were aircraft pioneers who built their first glider two years after the Wright brothers’ flight. The Barnwells’ first prototype, built in 1908, failed to take off—no pun intended—but, undeterred, the brothers successfully took to the skies on 28 July 1909 in the shadow of the National Wallace monument at Causewayhead, Stirling. Reportedly “soaring” at an altitude of 4 metres and travelling the grand distance of 80 yards, that small but significant step was Scotland’s first powered flight and marked the beginning of an important relationship between Scotland and the skies.

The Barnwells’ feat has been marked with an elegant plaque in Balfron, where the brothers hailed from, and with a granite sculpture by what is now the Causewayhead roundabout, the site of their flight—I also understand that the brothers won £50 for their success in completing the first one-mile flight in Scotland. Although those memorials may not be on the scale of the one under discussion today, they are to achievements that are still worthy of recognition in the story of powered flight.

In Scotland, we feel a strong bond with the servicemen and women who have served us through the years, and I am sure that we all agree that their service must never be forgotten. That is part of the reason why I think the Spitfire project is particularly appropriate. As we have heard, we have just had the 75th anniversary of the battle of Britain—Scotland’s First Minister was down here in London alongside Prince Charles and the Defence Secretary to mark that date—and last year Stirling commemorated 100 years since the formation of the 43 (Fighter) Squadron, initially a unit of the Royal Flying Corps, in the Carse below Stirling castle.

In my research for this debate, in seeking to tie the story of the Spitfire to my own constituency, I was delighted to find an account given to the BBC’s Mhairi Campbell by Campbell Chesterton for the “WW2 People’s War” site. In 2005 he wrote:

“During WW2 while my father was in the army overseas my mother and I stayed with my uncle and aunt (her sister) Mr and Mrs Blyth on their farm, Hill of Drip three miles NW of Stirling…During the second world war the carse of Stirling was used by the RAF for low fly training as low as thirty foot was permitted, this was very exciting for a young boy, one day we saw a spitfire aircraft and the tail of another over Dunblane. We heard that one crashed in Callander, there were many accidents. A hurricane fighter landed in the next farm with its wheels up, we managed to get a seat in it before the guard arrived.”

That gives us a flavour of just how dangerous flight was in those days. It is a lot safer now. There used to be a lot of accidents and casualties even in training.

For such memories to be preserved is important, and the National Spitfire Project aims to educate the next generation, an aim that I wholeheartedly welcome. There can be no better way to tell the 100-year story of the Royal Air Force to future generations than with the backdrop of the Spitfire rising 130 feet above Southampton Water. I also echo the sentiments of Members who have made the point that we must commemorate not only the pilots but the hard work of the engineers at home who supported the RAF fighters in the battle of Britain and through the 100-year history of the Royal Air Force.

Part of the reasoning behind the memorial is to commemorate the history of the RAF, and in doing so we remember the individuals who have served in the force. It is worth pointing out that the average age of an RAF pilot in the battle of Britain was 20 years—people who were not yet old enough to vote, many of them, were old enough to lay down their lives so that we could have the democratic debates we have in this place in the manner that we do.

I also want to make special reference in my contribution to the non-British RAF personnel who have been mentioned by a couple of the speakers so far. The Ministry of Defence cites Fighter Command in the second world war as a “cosmopolitan mix” of 141 Poles, 87 Czechs, 24 Belgians and 14 free French among its servicemen and women. Each individual was prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice during the conflict to protect our freedom and way of life, and Scotland and our friends throughout the UK and beyond will never forget that.

I again thank the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen for the debate. The Spitfire project is an important one, and I wholeheartedly support it. I sincerely look forward to visiting the national project in Southampton on its completion, commemorating the iconic Spitfires.

Scottish Devolution and Article 50

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that I completely agree with. The National Farmers Union of Scotland shares many of his views. It has told me that Brexit is the biggest challenge to Scottish food producers in generations. Farmers, food processing companies and hauliers need migrant workers, access to European markets and guarantees on future financial support. Many of Scotland’s farmers depend on that financial support to remain solvent.

The NFUS is clear that the issue should be in the purview of the Scottish Government, and that the cash should follow that competency. That would be around £600 million a year, or £3.5 billion over the current seven-year cycle. More than 20,000 businesses in Scotland receive common agricultural policy payments, and more than 3,000 of those receive less than £1,000 each; that is subsistence, not luxury. We have no idea what the Government intend to happen—whether the cash will be ponied up for our farmers or what other support is in the pipeline.

We all know that the Government are sick and fed up of having to think about the fate of European citizens here and want it tied to UK citizens abroad—the very definition of bargaining chips. We know that because the Prime Minister keeps telling us. Scotland needs those citizens. Half of Scotland’s population growth in the past 15 years has come from EU citizens, who have come and made a huge contribution to the country. Four fifths of them are of working age, and four fifths of those are employed. They drive Scotland’s economy and contribute taxes, which are of course to be collected for the Scottish Government from April. Scotland cannot hang on and hope that we get something for those people. We need it now because they need it now, so that they can plan ahead rather than planning to leave.

We do not need warm words and vague hopes that a deal can be done, but straightforward action, and now. Scotland needs the UK Government to make the necessary changes now to give EU nationals continuing legal rights—of residence, movement, economic activity and study—that would need legislation to be removed, not a promise to look at it sometime in the future. That is what Scotland needs, what the Scottish economy needs, what Scotland’s public sector workforce needs and what the devolution settlement needs.

If the UK Government want to make a decent fist of Brexit, they have to start being honest. The Prime Minister has to stop telling us that she is consulting with the devolved Administrations when she clearly is not.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Does she share my concerns that, during the passage of the Scotland Act 2016, any amendment proposed by our party, the Scottish National party—which, after all, represents 56 out of 59 Scottish constituencies—was voted down by the UK Government? That does not augur well for the future when it comes to whether the UK Government are prepared to listen to the arguments coming from Scotland.

[Deidre Brock]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; what he mentioned sets a very poor precedent. When we see no action, that makes all of us doubt very much the warm words we continually hear from the Government.

We need a clear indication of what is ahead and what direction the UK Government intend to take. Further to that, we need guarantees that the Scottish people will be properly consulted and that the Scottish Parliament will be asked for its consent, just as the First Minister will ask for its consent next week when seeking a section 30 agreement. If the Prime Minister and her Government do not want to come to the negotiating table with the devolved Administration, we should be told, so that we can prepare for the coming independence referendum. It would be foolish of anyone to assume that that is an empty bluff, or that there is anything other than a hard edge to Nicola Sturgeon’s statement on Monday. The Scottish Government entered into Brexit negotiations in good faith and were met with a brick wall of intransigence. That is simply not good enough. Scotland’s interests need to be defended, and Scotland needs a future we can look to with hope.

There is time for the UK Government to salvage the situation. They can pick up the phone, speak to the Scottish Government and make a compromise deal. However, if they want to keep the UK together, they had better move soon. The Scottish Government will not hang about. Nicola Sturgeon has laid out the case clearly and eloquently: give Scotland due and proper consideration and negotiate in our best interests, or the UK will find it is leaving the EU without us.

No constitutional change is not an option for Scotland now, but we still have the choice about what kind of constitutional change we want for Scotland. The UK is leaving the EU, which at the moment would take Scotland out, but we have the option of opting out of that lemming plunge and choosing instead to be an independent European nation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am not only a quick reader, but able to read the report while also answering questions in the House.

The OBR’s report shows that, under certain circumstances, the UK public finances will come under increasing pressure over the next 50 years. As I said earlier, this creates a catalyst for a discussion, which we need to have, about how we maintain the sustainability of our crucial public services, given the pressures, including demographic pressures, that they will face. I believe that the report serves a useful purpose. Given that the point 50 years out is sufficiently far away, I hope that we will be able to have a mature, cross-party discussion about how we address these issues in the long term.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

T5. The autumn statement revealed the Brexit bombshell that growth will be a massive 2.4% lower than previously predicted. What further impact does the Chancellor expect that leaving the single market will have on GDP growth in the years to come?

[Mr Hammond]

The Office for Budget Responsibility set out its projections under different scenarios at the autumn statement. It is the OBR that makes the forecasts. It will, of course, produce a revised set of forecasts that will be published on 8 March—Budget day.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, so I will try to make a bit of progress and come back to him later if I have time.

We are reducing the number of Members of this House to save money, but at no point do we look at what is going on down the corridor. As I said earlier, the cost of the House of Lords is now a cool £100 million—that is the operating cost for a year. Members of the House of Lords get £300 just for turning up or £150 for working from home, and these are tax-free allowances. That figure of £100 million works out at about £100,000 per peer. For the same cost as these 800 part-time peers, we could have 300 democratically elected and accountable peers on an MP’s salary.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

Two of my constituents, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, sit along there in the House of Lords. Last year, Lord Forsyth cost £46,346 and Lord Robertson cost £19,708. I was on the front page of the local paper because of how much it costs for me to come down here and do my job and employ staff. I wonder when newspapers will print that kind of information about how much our Lords are costing us.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that brings me on to my next subject—value for money.

We know how hard we work in this place. We have constituents whom we have to represent and make sure that their interests are brought to this House. The Lords have none of that. Some of them barely turn up. Some of them have barely been in for a debate or made any parliamentary contributions at all. Yet we are prepared to have this huge expense to sustain that place while the number of Members of Parliament who come down here and work hard for their constituents day in, day out is being cut.

I want to say a couple of other things about the reduction in the number of Members of Parliament. The Government are in the process of taking us out of the European Union, and when the 73 Members of the European Parliament, who have significant powers, are no longer there, we will be expected to take up that work. An increased workload will fall on a smaller number of Members of Parliament when we no longer have Members of the European Parliament working for us in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Although the Government intend to reduce the number of Members of Parliament, they have absolutely no plans whatsoever to reduce the numbers in Government. Instead of attempting in any way to reduce the size of Whitehall, they have made sure that there are more Departments, more special advisers and more civil servants. If there is to be any reduction in the number of Members of this place, surely there should be a reduction in the number of people who serve in this Government.

Summer Adjournment

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), I want to raise an issue that is of extreme importance to my constituency.

Gillies hill is a beautiful area of woodland to the south of Stirling. Its spelling gives a clue as to the origin of the name—it is the gillies hill, and its historical association with the battle of Bannockburn gives it its heritage importance. It is reputed to be where the gillies—the sma’ folk who followed the Scottish army to the battle behind the enemy lines—were camped. At the turning point in the battle, that was where they rattled their pots and pans. They acted as if they were reinforcements coming down the hill, and the English army turned and broke. I will leave it for historians to argue about the truth of that, but the hill has been called Gillies hill for 700 years, and that in itself says there must be something in this tale, and it is extremely important.

Why is the hill controversial now? An application for quarrying of Gillies hill has been made. Regrettably, there was quarrying of a large chunk of this historic and spectacular area in the 1980s, and it was controversial then. I remember well, when I was growing up in the village of Cambusbarron, which is on the side of Gillies hill, that massive trucks would carry the aggregates away on a daily basis, driving up and down through the village. There were instances of bits of rock landing on people’s houses and causing damage.

The quarrying stopped in the early ’90s. We understood that permission was to finish in around 2007 or 2008—that was when the extent of the permission would be up. It was therefore really disappointing when, in January 2007, as I was out knocking on doors down in Causewayhead in my constituency, we felt the ground shake—literally—because of test blasting about five miles away for renewed quarrying. What had happened was that the local council—Stirling Council—had extended the permission to the 2040s because of a new European directive, and nobody was aware of the change. In essence, virtual permission had been granted right through, and we had the prospect of this historic, spectacular hill being destroyed, as a large chunk of it already had been.

[Bob Stewart]

Is planning with regard to this quarry the responsibility of the Westminster Parliament, or is it a Scottish national responsibility?

[Steven Paterson]

Planning legislation is now devolved to Scotland. The original quarrying planning legislation—and indeed some of the stuff that is still enforced in Scotland—is Acts of this Parliament, because it goes back a number of decades. So, yes, strictly speaking, planning is now with the Scottish Parliament, but most of the Acts of Parliament on which these things are based were formed down here.

That is not intended to be a criticism of this place. Quarrying has its place, and it is important, but this hill is the wrong place for it, and there is a massive local community campaign against it, involving hundreds of people. For example, just a few weeks ago, I joined the march of the gillies, an event in which several hundred people walk from Cambusbarron to the Bannockburn battlefield to protest against quarrying of this area.

I am sure that Members will be very interested in the Save Gillies Hill website—savegillieshill.org.uk—which gives information about why the campaign is important. It outlines the history of the hill and gives information about the flora, many of which are endangered species. Protected wildlife such as red squirrels, badgers, pine martens and peregrines also live on the hill, and it is used heavily for pleasure and recreation, including running, bikes, motorbikes and even horses. It is a fantastic resource. From the top of Gillies hill, people can look down on Stirling castle several miles to the north and over the castle to the Wallace monument. That will give anyone who knows Stirling an idea of what I am describing.

The campaign is ongoing. I want to highlight two things in the time remaining. Unfortunately, a planning application has been made for permission to begin the re-quarrying of the site, which would take a huge further chunk out of it. That will have to be dealt with in the usual way. An appeal has been made to the Scottish Government on the grounds that Stirling Council did not determine the application—which is regrettable, to put it mildly—and it has been referred for that reason. That process is ongoing.

When I was a local councillor I was very concerned about the issue, for the reasons I have given, and we investigated every avenue we could think of to find a way to stop the quarrying of this historic and significant area. We considered using the provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 to designate the area as a local nature reserve, which would prevent quarrying from taking place there. Two years ago, I tabled a council motion, which was unanimously agreed by all parties, asking the local council to come back with options and the costs involved, because a compulsory purchase order might be required for all or part of the hill in order to make it a local nature reserve and give it the protection it needs. Two years later, I am a Member of this place and not of the council, which, unfortunately, appears to have taken no action, which is a matter of extreme regret.

I have asked the council to get the information to the councillors so that the wider public can be made aware of what would be involved in granting Gillies hill the protection to which it is entitled. I hope that the council will take my remarks on board and acknowledge that it has been asked by every council member from every party, unanimously, for that information. I hope that it will be made available sooner rather than later, particularly given that the live planning application will be determined later this year. Given that the council has had two years to get the information to the councillors and, therefore, to the public, I very much hope—in fact, I demand—that it puts the information in the public domain so that we can have a proper debate in the time that we have left.

The good thing about the planning application is that designating Gillies hill as a local nature reserve would not impinge on it—it would stand separate from it—so it is something practical and tangible that we could do to offer Gillies hill protection. I hope that that happens and I am grateful to have been given the opportunity to raise this important issue for my constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Ferrier]

It does not matter what the figure is; we are going to spend up to £205 billion on a weapon of mass destruction that could kill hundreds of thousands of people worldwide—it is based in Scotland—so I am sorry, but I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman.

The UK’s nuclear weapons programme has a major knock-on effect for the rest of the defence procurement budget. Other massive projects are in the pipeline, including the Type 26 frigates, but the ring-fencing and generous contingencies for Trident are no doubt affecting that project. The workers on the Clyde appear to be paying the price for the obsession on the Government Benches with Trident and Brexit.

I cannot stress enough how much of a betrayal this represents for those shipyard workers, their families and the communities that depend on this work. They have had assurance after assurance from the UK Government, both in this place and from the Scottish Tories, but are now suffering from the continuing uncertainty over and mismanagement of the Type 26 programme. Every penny spent on Trident is a penny less for conventional defence, including the Type 26 frigates.

GMB Scotland organiser Gary Cook admitted in April that £750 million had been removed from the Type 26 programme’s budget. On several occasions during Monday’s debate, the issue of jobs was brought up—when we voice our concern about weapons of mass destruction we are told to shut up and be grateful for the jobs. Without doubt, those jobs come at the expense of other people’s livelihoods. It seems the Government care about defence jobs only when it suits their agenda.

Leaked emails have shown that delays in the delivery of the Type 26 global combat vessels will cost the taxpayer more money than proceeding with the work would. The Type 26 frigates were due to be built by BAE Systems, with work beginning in December. The Ministry of Defence then asked for savings of £500 million over five years, refusing BAE’s Systems’ offer of saving £275 million while still beginning work on time. The delays have put jobs at risk, and the suggestion in the leaked emails that those delays will end up costing the taxpayer more money in the long term has been echoed by former First Sea Lord Admiral Lord West. The delays show the Government’s ideological obsession with making cuts, no matter the cost. By going back on the original deal and rejecting BAE Systems’ offer, the Tories have confirmed that they are prepared to put jobs at risk and waste taxpayers’ money by pursuing cuts across all sectors of Government.

[Steven Paterson]

The point that shines through all this is that assurances were given to workers on the Clyde in 2014. Promises were made that have been betrayed. In a week when we have committed to a 40-year programme on Trident, it really sticks in the craw that those workers are still waiting for the promises made in 2014 to be delivered.

[Margaret Ferrier]

My hon. Friend takes the words right out of my mouth. I was just about to say that Scotland has come to expect cuts and broken promises from this Government. We remember the pledges that were made just a couple of years ago. The Tory Government told us during the independence referendum that jobs in shipbuilding would be safe if Scotland voted no. If the very clear promises made to workers on the Clyde by the UK Government before the referendum were to be broken, it would be an unforgivable betrayal of that workforce, and people in Glasgow and across Scotland would not be quick to forget.

Now that I have got that out of the way, on a lighter note, I would like to take this opportunity to wish Mr Speaker, his deputies and all Members of the House of Commons a very enjoyable, relaxing and safe summer recess. I thank all the estate staff, including those at the Table Office and the House of Commons Library, the Doorkeepers, and all the people who serve us in the Tea Room and other cafeterias, including Noeleen, who I wish all the best. A special thanks must go to the Clerks and staff who look after me and other hon. Members on the Scottish Affairs Committee—I wanted to get that on the record. I will be spending my time during the recess as we all will, back in my constituency, working hard. However, we have to have a break to recharge our batteries before returning to Parliament in September. I wish everyone a happy summer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Harriett Baldwin)]

I can announce that although the Equitable Life payment scheme is now closed to new claims, payments being made under the scheme to with-profit annuitants are not only tax free but will continue for the life of the relevant annuity.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

T8. June’s OECD economic outlook revised down its prediction for UK GDP growth. This latest fall arises in the aftermath of the International Monetary Fund’s health check of the UK economy, which concluded that GDP growth was also paltry. When will the Chancellor listen to the experts and offer much-needed investment instead of ideologically driven austerity?

[Mr Osborne]

Both the downward revisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers—from the OECD and the IMF—are specifically for this year and in both cases the organisations attribute that to the referendum on our membership of the EU and the potential exit from the EU. They say that if the country votes to remain, however, they expect activity to bounce back and they have not revised down growth for next year.

Commonwealth War Graves Commission

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) for securing this important debate. If his mission was to mark the work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and to educate, he has certainly done his job as far as I am concerned. I have learned a great deal already.

It is almost 100 years since the commission was established, as we have discussed, in 1917 as the Imperial War Graves Commission. The work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is as important now as it ever was. Preserving with such expertise and attention to detail the memory of the 1.7 million people who died during two world wars is a huge task, and we could not wish for a more effective organisation to take on the role.

The founding principles of the commission in 1917 are also as valuable today as they were then. They are fourfold:

“Each of the dead should be commemorated by name on the headstone or memorial; headstones and memorials should be permanent; headstones should be uniform; there should be no distinction made on account of military or civil rank, race or creed”.

It is a testament to the foresight of those who set up the commission in the first place, as many right hon. and hon. Members have discussed, that those principles are enduring and relevant today.

Should the remains of military personnel be found that are not from either of the two world wars, responsibility for arranging a military funeral lies with the Ministry of Defence. However, personnel remains from the first or second world war are the responsibility of the commission. Further to funeral and burial proceedings, the commission maintains graves and memorials in about 23,000 locations in 154 countries around the globe, which demonstrates the enormous scale of the work that the organisation undertakes.

In Scotland alone, the commission cares for around 1,300 individual sites, ranging from local authority-run sites to churchyards of all religious denominations and to military cemeteries owned by the commission. The commission also plays a part in formulating policy relevant to its role: for example, it was represented recently in the Scottish Government’s evidence-gathering sessions for the Burial and Cremation (Scotland) Bill. The commission offered an extremely valuable perspective, based on its experience and expertise, during the passage of the Bill.

Scotland, alongside many other nations throughout Europe and around the globe, suffered a devastating loss of life during the first and second world wars. It is worth reflecting that before the establishment of the commission, there was no organised effort to maintain the graves of war dead, at least in this country, and certainly not those of ordinary servicemen, as has been noted. The work done by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission ensures, quite rightly, that all service personnel killed in the first and second world wars are commemorated appropriately, irrespective of rank, title or social standing.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we owe the Commonwealth War Graves Commission a debt of gratitude not only for honouring the dead but for helping to maintain a poignant reminder of the appalling cost of war?

[Steven Paterson]

I agree. I am coming on to comments reflecting exactly that point, so I am grateful for that intervention.

As a permanent tribute to the fallen men and women who served their country and community and who paid the ultimate price in doing so, it is important that we maintain our war memorials and graves appropriately. The condition in which they are kept should always reflect the respect and dignity that they deserve. Just two years ago, we began commemorating the centenary of the outbreak of the first world war. The then Scottish First Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), announced Scottish Government funding for war memorial restoration across Scotland. More than £100,000 was granted to 10 separate memorials, including one in my constituency—the war memorial in the city centre—which was given £30,000 for reparation work. Prior to the allocation of those funds, the cenotaph was in need of considerable remedial work, which I am pleased to say was completed thanks to that funding.

Last year, as the newly elected Member of Parliament for Stirling, I took part in a Remembrance Day service and a wreath-laying ceremony at that same cenotaph. War memorials such as the one in my constituency, as well as individual graves, are hugely instrumental in educating future generations about the sacrifices that previous generations made to secure the freedoms that we take for granted. It is important that we commend the excellent work of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and highlight the need to ensure the appropriate upkeep of cenotaphs across the country, not to celebrate conflicts but to remember the casualties and the sacrifices made. A check of the Commonwealth War Grave Commission’s website informs me that in my constituency, there are more than 240 war graves, each commemorating an individual from the Stirling area who fell in one of the two world wars. One of the larger cemeteries in my constituency, Ballengeich, is the final resting place of 58 such individuals.

Although I have made much mention of my constituency, it is important to recognise the valuable work carried out in this area across the whole UK and globally. Six member Governments form the Commonwealth War Graves Commission: Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom. We should commend the fact that the UK has consistently committed the largest proportion of funding to allow the commission to undertake its valuable work. All other member Governments also make a financial contribution directly to the commission, and non-member Commonwealth nations often contribute to the cause by maintaining war graves in their own nations, as many Members have noted. Such international co-operation demonstrates the rightly determined support for the cause of commemorating our war dead. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

Iraq Inquiry Report

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Thursday 14th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on securing the debate, as well as those who signed the motion.

I signal my wholehearted support for the aspirations of the motion; namely that security checking of the Iraq inquiry report should be completed as soon as possible and that no later than two weeks after the report is submitted to the Government next Monday, 18 April, it should be published. We want to see that. This week, I attempted to table a question for Defence questions next Monday on the timing of the Chilcot inquiry. I was told by the Table Office that it was not appropriate—as the inquiry was independent of Government, that was not an acceptable question to ask the Government. Yet here we are debating the issue today, because of the Government’s apparent intention to delay publication of the report until 24 June, the day after the referendum.

I would respectfully submit that the Government cannot have it both ways: the publication of this report is clearly to be delayed beyond the time necessary for appropriate security checking, if it is going to be delayed, for entirely political reasons. That is wholly unacceptable, and the Government need fundamentally to rethink it, if that is their intention, for several reasons that I will cover in my contribution today.

When making a statement announcing the establishment of the Iraq inquiry on 15 June 2009, the then Prime Minister Gordon Brown said:

“The inquiry is essential because it will ensure that, by learning lessons, we strengthen the health of our democracy, our diplomacy and our military.

The inquiry will, I stress, be fully independent of Government.”—[Official Report, 15 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 23.]

If the inquiry was essential in June 2009 for those reasons, then the logical conclusion we must draw is that the as the report has still not been published, these lessons have still not been learned and our democracy, diplomacy and military are still not strengthened in the way envisaged by Gordon Brown. The inquiry is plainly not “fully independent of Government” if the timing of its release is controlled by the Government, and is intended to be used—if it is the case that that release will be delayed until after the European referendum—in such a plainly and blatantly political way.

No one has mentioned purdah today, although I know that it was mentioned in last year’s debate. The purdah period before an election might be an argument used to say that the report should not be published, but that is not an argument I would accept. Indeed, last year the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden made the point extremely well, saying:

“Purdah periods exist for a…reason: to prevent Governments from using their power to publish information that would give them electoral advantage. They are not to prevent impartial information from being put in the public domain”.—[Official Report, 29 January 2015; Vol. 591, c. 1038-1039.]

I could not have put that better myself, and I entirely agree.

That brings me to security checks. I accept that there is a need to ensure the report does not disclose information that is detrimental to our national security, and that there are other Committees of this House that can scrutinise sensitive matters and provide political oversight without national security-sensitive information being released publicly. That is the way it should be. However, as the motion quite correctly states, none other than the Prime Minister wrote to the inquiry chairman Sir John Chilcot last October about national security checking, expressing his wish to see the process completed faster than the two weeks required to complete the process for the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday. I hope that nobody intends today to suggest that all of a sudden the national security checking will require precisely nine weeks and one day to complete rather than the two weeks imagined in October.

The second Iraq war caused the deaths of at least 134,000 Iraqi civilians and claimed the lives of 179 British soldiers. More broadly, according to Casualty Monitor, there were 5,970 UK military injuries throughout the period of the war in Iraq. This is a war which destabilised Iraq, precipitated an ongoing civil war and has left a fertile breeding ground for vicious terrorist fanatics. It is a war which has shattered the credibility of western countries in the region and invites seemingly endless military interventions.

The continuing delays in publishing this report are an insult to the families of those service personnel killed in the Iraq conflict, who have been made to wait almost seven years for a report anticipated to take one year. Those responsible for leading us into that illegal war have never been held accountable, and the essential lessons have not been learned. It is high time they were learned, because this episode is indeed an “international embarrassment”. I commend the motion, and call on the Government to publish the report at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steven Paterson Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

There has been good news in Cannock and across the midlands. Employment is up by 6% in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Since entering Parliament, she has been a great champion of the businesses in her area. We are working together to give more power to people in the west midlands to take control of the decisions that affect them, and I welcome her support for that; and we are investing in major transport infrastructure and backing science in the west midlands as well. We are introducing a whole set of measures, but if my hon. Friend has specific ideas to help businesses in Cannock, my door is open.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

T5. How on earth will a £42 million cut over the next four years to the UK Trade & Investment budget enable it to become “a world class export and investment promotion agency”?

[Mr Osborne]

We set out today the strategy to give more direct help to our exporters across the United Kingdom, and Lord Maude presented to the Cabinet the proposals to do that. On getting lectures on public finances from Scottish nationalists, I have to say that we would be heading towards the break-up of our country in two months’ time if the people of Scotland had listened to the arguments of the Scottish nationalists, whose calculations were based on an oil price of $115, which at the time the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) described as “quite a conservative estimate”. The oil price is now less than $30. It would have been an absolute catastrophe for the people of Scotland if they had listened to the figures and economic advice given by the Scottish National party.