Basing Review
The next item of business is a statement by Keith Brown on the basing review. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
14:40
In the House of Commons yesterday, the Secretary of State for Defence, Philip Hammond, made a statement on the basing of military forces, including in Scotland. The implications of that statement are serious and are of direct relevance to the current responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament. The military’s presence in our nation has highly significant social and economic impacts.
That statement was, as the Deputy First Minister said yesterday, a betrayal of Scotland and her communities. I will set out why that is the case and what the Scottish Government intends to do to continue to hold the UK Government to account for its decisions.
The Scottish Government fully recognises and values the vital part that the armed forces and those who serve in them play in the life of our nation. That contribution cannot be sustained in isolation—it must be supported by wider society. The Scottish Government’s successful approach to ensuring that that happens was set out in the paper, “Our Commitments: Scottish Government Support for the Armed Forces Community in Scotland”, which I launched at Edinburgh castle last September.
Yesterday’s announcement came a long time—more than 18 months—after the then Secretary of State for Defence, Liam Fox, made his initial announcement about military basing. The Scottish Government had worked hard to support the UK Government in the process that led up to that announcement. That included forging a cross-party consensus and submissions from all the main parties in the Scottish Parliament.
When it came, Liam Fox’s announcement included some severe disappointments, including—importantly—that Royal Air Force operations would cease at Leuchars. Given that it came on top of the previous announcement that the RAF would be leaving Kinloss, it was a particularly heavy blow. At a stroke, the number of air bases in Scotland was cut from three to one.
That disappointment was somewhat mitigated by Liam Fox’s commitment that, as part of the rebasing of Army personnel from Germany, up to 7,000 additional troops would be coming here to Scotland. That commitment was made in the full knowledge that the United Kingdom’s regular Army would be reduced to 82,000 by 2020. Suggestions otherwise are a reinvention of history. Philip Hammond’s betrayal of that promise is a disgrace.
Following Liam Fox’s announcement, we committed to working positively with the Ministry of Defence, local authorities and other partners to make the changes work as best they could for service personnel, their families and communities around Scotland. Officials from the Scottish Government have engaged fully with the MOD and its Defence Infrastructure Organisation at every available opportunity.
At ministerial level, since July 2011 various ministers—including the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and me—have underscored that commitment by raising issues connected with the basing review, both in writing and through meetings, a total of 18 times with UK ministers. We have also been supportive of the local communities involved by meeting those affected in the aftermath of the announcement and, through officials, keeping closely in touch with local authorities.
The time that it has taken to work through that process has led to a great deal of uncertainty and anxiety in the communities that are affected around Scotland, but now, at last, the announcement has come. Again, it is deeply disappointing, given the work that we have put in to trying to make the process work for Scotland.
In place of the commitment that Army numbers would rise significantly as troops were rebased from Germany—Liam Fox talked of a figure of up to 7,000—we now have a commitment that the total number of armed forces personnel will rise by only around 600 from the baseline at July 2011. That suggests that numbers—if the time commitments are delivered—will be just over 12,500 by 2020.
That ignores the fact that Scotland has already seen disproportionate cuts in our defence footprint, which has shrunk by more than a third since 2000. By comparison, across the UK as a whole, it has reduced by about a fifth. The increase that Philip Hammond announced yesterday will serve to reverse only a small part of the reduction in the military footprint that we have seen in Scotland under successive UK Governments.
Liam Fox’s announcement included the news that Scotland would become home to one of five multirole brigades, but Philip Hammond has downgraded the military commitment to Scotland. Now Scotland will be home not to one of five multirole brigades but to one of seven army hubs. We need clarity from him and from the MOD on what the roles and functions will be of the elements that will be located here.
Philip Hammond also made no mention of his predecessor’s commitment to exploring the possibility of an additional training estate in Scotland, a proposal that we actively worked to support and which he has ditched.
I have mentioned the overall military footprint and the impact of the announcement nationally in Scotland. However, where these changes will really impact is at the local level. Although I welcome the UK Government’s complete about-turn on the basing of the Royal Marines at RM Condor in Arbroath, around much of the country there is little else to be genuinely pleased about.
Although it has finally been confirmed that Army units will be based at Leuchars to replace the RAF, the numbers, though not yet confirmed, will not reach the 1,300 that Liam Fox promised. Moreover, Liam Fox talked about an Army headquarters at Leuchars, but that was absent from Philip Hammond’s statement and questions remain about what, if anything, that will amount to. There will also be disappointment in Fife at the confirmation that no Army units will be based at the current Royal Navy facility at Caledonia in Rosyth.
As for Edinburgh, we have confirmation that Dreghorn will remain but Craigiehall and at least part of Redford barracks will close; we also know that the Kirknewton site on the outskirts of Edinburgh will not be developed. The MOD must work immediately and closely with us and the City of Edinburgh Council to ensure that the situation is handled properly, including setting out again the numbers associated with the units that it has said will be based in the different locations.
Similar questions arise in other areas. Clarity is needed on the partial disposal of the Army site at Forthside in Stirling with the relocation of the headquarters of 51st brigade. We have also been led to believe that there will be a further small increase in the numbers at Kinloss—although it will still not bring the Army presence there, welcome though that is, to anywhere near the previous levels of RAF personnel.
I have already set out some of the unanswered questions that remain around this announcement. That so many remain is partly because of the remarkable—indeed, someone described it today as “bizarre”—fact that UK ministers have made no contact with the Scottish ministers in connection with the announcement, even though an MOD minister, Mark Francois, found time yesterday to stroll on Edinburgh castle esplanade while briefing the media.
We also understand that, although local authorities have received some written communication, it does not set out the numbers associated with the Army units that have been allocated to different locations. That is a shocking omission at this stage. We also have no detail on timing and numbers in relation to changes for the other services beyond the Army. That detail is required not just by us but by local authorities, and the situation is quite frankly unacceptable.
Of course, it does not need to be this way. I believe that this Parliament is more than capable of taking decisions about defence in the best interests of our people and our communities. Given the many years of draconian cuts to Scotland’s defence footprint by both Labour and Tory Governments, how can anyone disagree with that simple, democratic proposition?
Scotland already contributes a great deal to defence spending and, like other nations of similar size, could afford conventional forces of its own. The Scottish National Party has made it clear that, with independence, Scottish defence forces would have 15,000 regular personnel and be supported by a £2.5 billion defence and security budget. Such a defence settlement is designed to meet Scotland’s needs and priorities.
By way of comparison, I note that, in 2010, Finland spent £2.3 billion on defence and Denmark £2.8 billion. No one would seriously suggest for a minute that those countries do not take their defence seriously. In stark contrast to the UK’s approach, we would not spend money on Trident—those weapons of mass destruction on our shores, which cost Scotland £163 million each and every year.
In conclusion, we will continue to support local authorities, communities and other partners, and I am writing to them to offer our on-going support. Indeed, I have just spoken to senior Army personnel to convince them that we will continue to provide that support in future. However, the UK Government must now confirm the numbers associated with each of the units that it has said will be located in different parts of the country.
Alongside that, we have since September been pressing the UK Government for baseline information to enable us and local partners to understand the economic impact of the changes. We will continue to demand the immediate release of that information to allow us to work with local authorities, communities and other partners on an impact study that will help us to plan fully for, as well as to mitigate, the economic consequences of these UK Government decisions.
Once again, Scotland has been let down by a UK Government and its ill thought through and poorly handled decisions. At least some members will remember debates when it was a Labour UK Government whose proposals—at that time on regimental amalgamation—were doing damage to Scotland’s military heritage. Labour Governments, as well as the current Westminster Government, have presided over a long-term decline in Scotland’s military footprint.
Democracy is about having the ability to choose. I believe that the people of Scotland will choose to reverse that decline and vote yes in next year’s referendum.
I point out that time is very tight.
I thank the minister for the advance notice of his statement.
We have seen a disappointing reduction in the number of armed forces personnel who are coming to Scotland compared with the number promised, and the Scottish Government is asking for clarity. What clarity can the Scottish Government give on the future of the armed forces in an independent Scotland and the civilian jobs that are associated with them? Figures today show that, as part of the UK, overall spending per head in Scotland is £1,197 higher than in the rest of the UK.
In John Swinney’s leaked Scottish Government document on the future finances of an independent Scotland—
Can we keep to the issues in the statement that we have just heard being read out? I do not want to hear about the leaked document.
The statement says—and I quote:
“I have made clear to the Defence Workstream that a much lower budget must be assumed”.
Despite the public rhetoric, can the minister give a categorical assurance that the budget for a Scottish defence force will not be subjected to the savage cuts that John Swinney has suggested in the leaked document? Why is the SNP saying one thing in public and another in private? [Interruption.]
Order.
Does the Scottish Government expect special forces personnel to automatically transfer to Scottish armed forces? Some have expressed reservations about the deployment, specialist training and promotion opportunities that will be available to them. If there is no significant transfer of special forces personnel to a Scottish defence force, how long does the minister expect that it would take to recruit and train a special forces unit, and how long would key assets, such as North Sea oil rigs, be left vulnerable as a result?
For clarity, my statement was about the UK Government’s statement. I tried to deal with some of the complications and implications of that. [Interruption.]
Order. We will not have shouting across the chamber, please.
Mark Griffin’s first point was about clarity. Things are starting to become quite clear. He asked questions to try to provide a human shield for the Conservative cuts that are taking place, as Jim Murphy did on the radio on this morning. As I said, things are becoming clear. The Labour Party will commit billions of pounds towards nuclear weapons rather than towards the equipment and troop numbers that our defence forces need. That is providing clarity.
The member may not remember this, but in the 1980s Paul Weller said that it is the kidney machines that pay for rockets and guns. In 2013, Labour’s and the Tories’ bedroom tax will pay for nuclear bombs. That is the clarity that we are now seeing from the Labour Party. [Interruption.]
Order.
As I said in my statement, we are committed to providing £2.5 billion-worth of expenditure towards Scottish defence forces. That amount is commensurate with amounts in other countries of our size. What is the Labour Party’s commitment? Will it continue with the Conservative cuts or reverse any of them?
I thank the minister for the advance sight of his statement. I also take the opportunity to welcome the significant increase in the number of troops who will be stationed north of the border that was announced yesterday. [Interruption.]
Order.
Having a well-equipped, highly trained and motivated army presence makes Scotland a safer place. The minister cannot bemoan the number of troops who are coming to Scotland when the effect of a vote for separation in 2014 would be the British Army withdrawing altogether.
Of course, Angus Robertson tells us that Scotland’s share of defence spending would be kept in defence. That is diametrically opposed to the views of Annabelle Ewing, for example, and others on the SNP back benches who have already committed it to welfare or any one of a dozen other fleeting priorities. The truth is that the Government does not understand defence.
Can we get a question, Mr Johnstone?
Why on earth does this anti-combat Government want more troops but does not want them ever to be deployed anywhere? [Interruption.]
Order.
Above all, will the minister commit to setting out clearly in detail the facts and costs associated with his Government’s defence policy?
Before you start, minister, I remind all members that this is a serious subject. Many of our constituents are involved in this or harmed by it, so I ask members to calm down. Let us deal with the serious issues at hand.
On Alex Johnstone’s final point, I have already set out the level of finance that the SNP would contribute towards defence, which is commensurate with that of other countries of our size. I have therefore answered that point.
Alex Johnstone started off by saying that he welcomed the UK Government’s announcement. It would be interesting to listen to what squaddies are saying in barrack rooms around the country about yesterday’s announcement, as they get shuffled around Scotland from barracks to barracks.
It is not just us who criticise the announcement. Newspapers that are not noted for their support for this Government almost universally talk about a betrayal of troops in Scotland. One particular leader is headed “Armed Farces”, which might give members a clue as to what that newspaper thinks about the announcement. It goes on to state about Philip Hammond’s announcement:
“an extra few hundred who will play musical chairs around our barracks ... It’s hard to escape the conclusion he was simply plucking numbers out of the air to stave off the flak.”
It ends by saying:
“But a lie is a lie is a lie and there is no defence.”
That is what other people think about the Conservative Party’s statement yesterday, so there is obviously not the same welcome for it elsewhere that Alex Johnstone would like me to have for it. I do not welcome it, because it is a betrayal of many promises that were made by his own former defence minister, Liam Fox.
What we have to do now is to see how we can mitigate the impact of what has been announced on various communities across the country. The SNP Government will do that.
It is disappointing that the UK Government has failed to provide the Scottish Government or, indeed, Fife Council with details of the numbers of troops coming to Leuchars. However, it seems likely that the number of personnel at Leuchars will be about 450 fewer than promised by Liam Fox in July 2011 and approximately 350 fewer than the Royal Air Force numbers at that time. That will have an economic and social impact in my constituency, and my constituents are disappointed. Does the minister agree that, rather than that being a union dividend for Leuchars, it is more of a union IOU?
Rod Campbell is right to point out that the reaction to the announcement that is of most importance is that from those in our local communities who are affected by it.
Nobody in Leuchars is going to be duped by what has been announced by the UK Government. I visited RAF Leuchars recently to find out about some of the issues that its personnel face and some of the transitional issues that they will face in moving from an RAF base to a largely army base. There is a lot that the Scottish Government can do to try to help that process take place, but there is no question but that there is a feeling of betrayal.
I have been involved in these things for many years now, with accusations from parties on both sides of this chamber, indistinguishable as they are, that Scotland under the SNP would have a reduced number of air bases. The number of air bases has now been reduced from three to one in the space of a year, and we have a challenge to mitigate the impact of that.
I am sure that we can work with the community in Rod Campbell’s constituency to ensure that we mitigate the impact as best we can. However, it would have been much better had the UK Government decision not been made.
SNP proposals seem to focus on leaving us with one of the smallest defence budgets in Europe, at £2.5 billion, which is even smaller than Denmark’s and proportionately less than is currently spent across the UK. Does the minister seriously suggest that filling all an independent Scotland’s defence capability gaps can be furnished on the cheap? Or does he intend introducing conscription to Scotland, just as his examples of Finland and Denmark already have?
I am sure that the public will note that in the question just asked there was not one word of condemnation of the Conservative-Liberal Government’s announcement.
Far from getting it on the cheap, I think that Scotland is currently being taken very cheaply by the UK Government. We commit around £3.3 billion just now to the UK’s defence expenditure and we get in return about £2.5 billion. What could we do with that extra £800 million a year, which amounts to around £7 billion over the past 10 years? What could we do with that to mitigate things such as the bedroom tax or to improve our forces’ equipment?
Alex Johnstone said earlier that the SNP does not want to commit troops to combat. We do not want to commit troops to illegal wars like Iraq, as Graeme Pearson’s party did; we want to have a Scottish defence force that is properly funded and equipped.
Does the minister agree that the closure of military bases in Scotland such as Craigiehall, in my constituency, will have a devastating effect on the economy of local communities and shows that the biggest danger to the defence of Scotland is Westminster politicians who choose to lavish billions on new nuclear weapons while disproportionately cutting defence personnel in Scotland?
That is a good point. A number of military sources—think tanks and so on—say that it is unsustainable for the UK to have the number of troops that it currently has, as well as the 1 per cent increase in the equipment budget to which the Government was committed and nuclear weapons. That is just not sustainable. There is fantasy in defence policy in the UK today.
In relation to Colin Keir’s area, it is bizarre that the Royal Scots are to be moved to Belfast. As it says in today’s Evening News:
“Part of the strength and uniqueness of these proud and famous fighting Scots regiments came from their link with the local community.”
The Royal Scots is the oldest regiment in the British Army and its traditional geographical recruiting base is Edinburgh and the Lothians.
Such is the nature of the thinking behind the announcement, if there is thinking. I am sure that we could organise things far better to maintain the link between our communities and our armed forces, which is vital in a modern democracy.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement. He said that he is more than capable of making decisions on defence for Scotland, but he omitted to make substantial reference to the Royal Navy and its new submarines on the Clyde. The new HMS Ambush officially joined the fleet on Monday. Does the minister or does he not welcome the decision to base all the UK’s conventionally-armed submarines on the Clyde?
It is true that I did not mention that, because it was not mentioned in the statement by the UK Government to which I was responding in my statement. If we are talking about the Royal Navy, it is worth noting that there are no combat-ready units of the Royal Navy in Scotland and that two carriers are going to be constructed with no provision for aeroplanes to go on them.
There is something seriously wrong at the heart of UK defence policy. I do believe that we could cope much better with such questions in Scotland, democratically.
Six members have requested to speak. I would like to get through them, so I ask for brief questions and answers.
One of the very few positive aspects of yesterday’s announcement was that 45 Commando Royal Marines will stay at RM Condor for the foreseeable future, which is welcome news for the marines who have put down roots in the area, not to mention the local economy.
My constituency is also home to Barry Buddon. Does the minister agree that, given the training facility’s close proximity to Condor and Leuchars, it is logical and appropriate that full use be made of it?
Yes, indeed. Much more could be made of Barry Buddon. Barry Buddon relies very much on the local marines and others undertaking training in relation to live firing and certain vehicles.
It is a matter of some satisfaction that the previous proposal, which was to take the sole remaining units of Royal Marines out of Scotland, has been reversed in another about-turn. That is emblematic of the decision that has been made. There has been discussion about the UK Government making a right turn; it strikes me that this was not a right turn but an about-turn—and one that was so badly executed that had Philip Hammond done it on a parade ground he would have been marched off and given extra duties.
I thank the minister for his statement. We should not forget that yesterday was a sad and disappointing day, which will not be forgiven lightly, as Jim Murphy said.
In his statement, the minister moved on quickly to describe the benefits of independence. There was a wee debate about different budgets. Will he say what the start-up costs would be for the Scottish armed forces? How much does a single jet fighter cost, or a single conventional submarine? We need to worry about not just the budgets but the start-up costs. Has the Scottish Government done any work on that?
It might be that Duncan McNeil has been reading and believing too closely the document that Jim Wallace recently produced, which suggested that we would start with nothing on independence.
That is not the case. We have a share in the UK forces, to which we have contributed over many years. Before Duncan McNeil writes that off, it is worth bearing in mind that Scotland has traditionally contributed between 10 and 14 per cent of the personnel of the UK armed forces, which is a substantial contribution. We are not starting from year zero; we start with a huge amount of experience and our share of the resources of the UK military defence establishment.
What we can do is improve on that. Currently we are paying a surcharge. We pay around £700 million a year more than we get back. We could do far more if we were independent.
It is interesting—and quite remarkable—that not one Labour member has criticised yesterday’s Conservative announcement. [Interruption.]
Order.
Let me bore down into some criticism of the position. The 51st brigade at Forthside in Stirling will move to Edinburgh. The important site at Forthside, which is shared by the defence support group in the Stirling area and which employs many people, is being disposed of. Is the minister concerned that that is the first step towards potentially removing the DSG from the Stirling area? Is he concerned about the potential loss of many jobs and the impact that that will have on the local economy?
I share those and a number of other concerns that arise from the fact that there is so little detail on what has been proposed. It should have been the case that yesterday’s announcement was also accompanied by an announcement on reserved forces across Scotland so that we could have some idea about what impact there would be in relation to them, too. I do not understand why that did not happen.
Bruce Crawford is absolutely right—there are uncertainties because we do not have the detail. We were not approached and we did not receive any correspondence from the UK Government or the responsible minister before the announcement was made. Instead, it flew in a senior member of the military today to provide some background. That, of course, is a case of Government sending in the military to do things that it finds uncomfortable. That is the wrong way to go about it, and that is why there is uncertainty in Bruce Crawford’s area, as there will be in many other parts of Scotland.
I begin by correcting Bruce Crawford. Duncan McNeil said that Jim Murphy regrets the UK Government’s statement and the Labour Party does, too.
The minister said that an independent Scotland would end up seeing none of the next generation of Royal Navy frigates being built in this country, which would inevitably have a huge impact on current and future jobs. [Interruption.]
Order.
How many naval bases is the Scottish Government planning to maintain in the event of a yes vote for an independent Scotland within a £2.5 billion budget that would cover not only defence but security?
Dr Simpson’s question is based on the fallacy that Scotland will have no need for vessels, whether for its navy, coastguard or other coastal services.
Of course it is the case that we will have to procure vessels—we understand that point perfectly well—but it is also the case that what is available to the UK Government is partly Scotland’s. We have a share in that; that is necessarily the case. That means that we must have a discussion with the UK Government.
The discussion that we will have once Scotland is independent will be a far more rational, considered and measured that what we have seen in relation to yesterday’s announcement. As I have mentioned, carriers are being built with no provision for aircraft and billions are being spent on airplanes that are dismantled before they are completed. I am pretty sure that Scotland could do better than that.
Is the minister aware of the bitterness that burns bright in Moray at the closure of RAF Kinloss? The minister has indicated that there will be a small increase in personnel numbers at Kinloss. In theory, that is welcome. However, is he aware that that takes no account of the P45s that are being dished out by the UK Administration with gay abandon and which will negate the effect of that increase? The bitterness remains.
That is the background against which the decision was taken and the statement made by the UK Government. We have seen a vast number of redundancies. We are told by the MOD that there will be 5,000 more redundancies across the UK—1,000 may perhaps come from Scotland. Of course, P45s are being delivered to troops on the front line in Afghanistan. Who would have thought that a Conservative Government would have reduced itself to that?
It is absolutely the case that Scotland will lose out badly, not least because, as Stewart Stevenson has mentioned, the cuts take money out of local communities. If you reduce a base that was supposed to have 1,500 personnel to 900, you are removing a huge chunk of finance from that local community. As I said at the start of my statement, the decision will have an impact on Scotland socially and economically.
Philip Hammond’s announcement yesterday on moving troops to Leuchars was warmly welcomed by Fife Council and Fife Chamber of Commerce. Why are we hearing negative carping tones from the Scottish Government today when local representatives are so positive? [Interruption.]
Order.
Perhaps Murdo Fraser has seen the comments of the community councils of Garbridge and nearby, which have been very concerned by the UK Government’s statement. Perhaps, like me, he has talked to the families and people in the communities. They do not welcome the statement—they think that it is a major change to Leuchars, a diminution compared with what there was before and a change from an RAF base that has served the UK very well over many years and settled effectively in Scotland.
There is no broad welcome. Are all the newspapers wrong? Are all the personnel that we have talked to wrong? People realise that the UK Government’s decision is a complete betrayal of what was first announced by Liam Fox. Murdo Fraser’s attempt to hide that does him no credit at all.
The biggest challenge faced by my constituents and thousands of defence workers in Glasgow is the future of the Clyde yards, 90 per cent of whose work comes from the MOD. Will the minister explain what information the UK Government has provided to the Scottish Government about the likelihood of the MOD placing contracts for defence ships with what would become, in an independent Scotland, foreign yards on the Clyde? Is it the same information that trade unions have, which is that the likelihood of the rest of the UK placing such orders is basically nil?
There is very little information. The member may be aware—indeed, he may support the idea—that the UK Government does not engage with the Scottish Government on those issues and it does not provide the information that he is talking about.
Interestingly, the process that was followed—in which the UK Government did not allow its ministers even to speak to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or local authorities, which means that we do not have that kind of information—is the same process that was followed for the west coast main line. There has been no contact whatsoever. The news came like a bolt out of the blue, and there is no way that we can respond to it as quickly as we would like to—nor can we do all the things that we would like to do to mitigate the effects.
A statement was made, as we just heard, that the MOD would buy no vessels that were built in foreign yards. That is simply not true, and the member should check his facts before asking a question like that.