Good afternoon. The first item of business this afternoon is a debate on motion S5M-05185, in the name of Keith Brown, on defence basing reforms and their impact on Scotland.
14:30
We in Scotland have a long and proud history with the military—a history that is embedded in our communities. Our military sites have been a visible presence in those communities, which are strong recruitment grounds for the armed forces. Some sites have been garrisons for centuries, and have been home to thousands of personnel and families over the years. The Scottish Government has called the debate because it believes that the connection between the military and communities in Scotland is in danger of being drastically weakened, with huge social and economic consequences. I argue that there are also potential consequences for recruitment to the armed forces.
On 7 November 2016, the Secretary of State for Defence announced an estate optimisation strategy and proposed a wide range of military base closures across the United Kingdom. On 9 November, I updated Parliament on implications for the defence estate here in Scotland. The strategy is the latest in a series of reviews in recent years that have been aimed at reducing the defence estate, and this round is the most brutal of all. If it is implemented, it will reduce the size of the defence estate in Scotland by almost 20 per cent. The reduction represents the most far-reaching defence cuts ever made in Scotland, but decisions were made without any consultation of the Scottish Government—so much for the respect agenda that was signed up to by both Governments—and despite repeated attempts to speak to Ministry of Defence ministers.
Scotland’s historical defence footprint has been diminished through the shrinking of the military presence in many areas. That will have a detrimental impact across Scotland, and all of us in Parliament have a responsibility to the communities that we represent to make our collective voice heard on the issue.
I remind Parliament that the strategy’s intention is that the armed forces in Scotland will be concentrated at what are called regional hubs at HM Naval Base Clyde, RAF Lossiemouth and Leuchars barracks. Of course, investment in those sites is very welcome. Along with local authorities, we in the Scottish Government will work constructively with the MOD to ensure that personnel and families that move to Argyll and Bute, Moray and Fife receive a warm welcome and have a smooth transition. I have also given senior military personnel that assurance.
I am grateful to the cabinet secretary for giving way. Will he be able to explain what further assistance he can give local authorities, including Moray Council, for the transition of a large number of personnel and their families, particularly in respect of house building, school capacity and such like? That concern has been raised in Moray. I welcome the cabinet secretary’s comments, but would like a bit more information on how he will do that with the local authorities.
I will concentrate on that during my speech, although it will, unfortunately, be much more about why our ability to do that has been diminished by the lack of consultation—not just of the Government, but of local authorities. However, that was a fair question that I will seek to address.
It remains to be seen what will be proposed for Leuchars barracks. There have been suggestions that a unit might move from Leuchars to England, but there has been no confirmation that there would be any consequent uplift in numbers at Leuchars itself. However, I am cautiously optimistic that there is a positive future for Leuchars barracks locally.
It is also positive that Kinloss barracks in Moray has emerged relatively unscathed from the cuts. I understand that that was a borderline decision and that Kinloss’s disposal was reversed at the last minute. I pay tribute to the Moray economic partnership and to local elected representatives for their work in arguing the case for Kinloss.
As recently as yesterday—to come back to the point that was raised by Douglas Ross—I spoke with all the local authorities involved. Moray Council, in particular, is very concerned that the decision has left questions about Kinloss barracks’s future sustainability, and about how decisions that have been taken will impact on the local area. Those are not my words—they are the words of the leader of Moray Council. He also said that, compared with other local authority areas that are being impacted by the cuts there is not the same demand for new housing there, or the same premium on it, so the situation at Kinloss is different. The council leader’s major concern is the future viability and sustainability of the base. To come back again to Douglas Ross’s point, we have to ensure that 39 Engineer Regiment is a firm part of the community in Moray, and that we expend every effort to avoid Kinloss falling under consideration in future reviews. That goes back to the point that I made about future sustainability.
On the more negative news in the announcement, eight sites are proposed for disposal. Seven are major sites—Fort George near Ardersier, MOD Caledonia in Rosyth, Glencorse barracks in Penicuik, Meadowforth barracks in Stirling, Craigiehall camp, and Redford cavalry and infantry barracks in Edinburgh. Most sites are intended for disposal by 2022, although there are longer lead-in times for the Army to vacate Fort George and Glencorse, which is to happen by 2032. However, withdrawal may begin well in advance in order to save money on maintenance or refurbishment costs for properties that the MOD intends to vacate. To an extent, blight starts almost as soon as such announcements are made.
The MOD also proposes disposal of the Royal Marines’ Condor airfield in Arbroath. It is unclear how that will affect the base’s capability or what possibilities there are for alternative use. As with Kinloss, we must bear it in mind that the review is unlikely to be the last. The chipping away at RM Condor is a worry if it weakens viability of the site in years to come.
Overall, the impact on families is grim. The cuts will see the near total removal of the Army from large parts of Scotland, and the end of the Royal Navy’s centuries-old presence in Fife. The closures and unit moves are far removed from the stability and certainty that then defence secretary Philip Hammond promised personnel and families in the wake of the previous MOD basing review, which was not long ago.
More than half the Royal Regiment of Scotland will be on the move. Indeed, just before Christmas last year, we also learned that 1 SCOTS battalion, the Royal Scots Borderers, which is currently based in Northern Ireland, will have to move to Aldershot, which will be the battalion’s third move in a matter of years; the children of the families involved will be moving to their third education system in a matter of years.
Constant disruption makes it difficult for families to settle and put down roots. It impedes spousal employment, which members across Parliament are keen to see improving and increasing, and it causes disruption to children’s education. As we all know, school moves can have a detrimental impact on educational attainment. Of course, families have no choice in the matter. As I mentioned, in the case of 1 SCOTS, there will be children who will have to go through three different schooling systems and three different curricula. That is unfair. In my view, it speaks volumes that that was not a factor in the decision making of the MOD—it did not occur to it. From a Scottish perspective, it is bitterly disappointing that that Scotland-recruited battalion has not been returned to Scotland, which might—among other advantages—have helped families by locating them near their extended families, which could assist with childcare.
In the light of the community impact, I have established a working group with the local authorities that are most directly affected. So far, we have met twice, including the meeting yesterday that I mentioned, to assess the impact and try to agree the way forward.
I will summarise some of the data that have been shared so far on the closures. Fort George has been a garrison for almost 250 years and is home to 600 personnel from 3 SCOTS battalion, the Black Watch. The closure will devastate the local community. Highlands and Islands Enterprise estimates that more than 700 jobs could be affected directly and indirectly, and Highland Council estimates a loss of approximately £20 million from the local economy.
I understand the point that the cabinet secretary makes about the economy, but will he also take into account the retention problems that the Black Watch is having because it is based in Fort George, because soldiers do not necessarily want to be based there? That is causing particular problems for the Black Watch.
As Edward Mountain knows, there are, across the armed forces, recruitment issues for which there are a number of reasons. I am not saying that the reason that he has given in relation to the Black Watch does not apply. However, the same point was mentioned to me as recently as yesterday by somebody who is involved in these matters: I will leave it at that. I made the point that, if we are going to say—as Edward Mountain has just said—that Fort George is too far away from other defence establishments and too remote, we need to ask what that says about our United Kingdom armed forces. If parts of the UK are deemed to be too far away, too remote and too unattractive for people, that diminishes the armed forces and will in the future further exacerbate the current recruitment problems.
Highland Council estimates a loss of approximately £20 million from Fort George’s local economy, as I said, and local school provision might be affected. I should say, to be explicit, that Highland Council opposes the closure.
Glencorse in Penicuik has had a garrison for almost 150 years. The barracks are home to 500 personnel from 2 SCOTS battalion, the Royal Highland Fusiliers. Glencorse is a modern fit-for-purpose barracks that has had considerable recent investment—from memory, there was investment of around £60 million as recently as 2006. Glencorse caters very well for the army and families, and the decision calls into question the MOD’s ability to meet its commitment to increase regular personnel numbers in Scotland to 12,500. To spend £60 million on providing the proper equipment and properly furnished rooms with the mod cons that people expect—and which I think most, if not all, members want—only to discard Glencorse a few years later, cannot be a good use of public moneys.
As the cabinet secretary knows, Glencorse is in my constituency. He is quite right to say that £60 million was spent on an upgrade just over 10 years ago. Is he aware that the army hailed Glencorse as “benchmark accommodation”?
Yes—I have heard that and other remarks about the extent to which Glencorse has had the required investment, compared with some other defence establishments. Glencorse is popular accommodation. My view—it is just my view—is that the decision on Glencorse is one of the most marginal decisions in the review; I am hopeful that it can be reversed, because it just does not make sense.
Redford cavalry and infantry barracks have both been listed for early disposal by 2022. They are more than 100 years old and are well loved in the local community. The barracks are home to various reserve units: it is no simple matter for reservists, who might also have civilian jobs, to move to other sites. The sites are listed buildings, so their future use is uncertain; urgent discussion is needed with the MOD on practical options. The City of Edinburgh Council has passed a motion opposing the closures. There is also concern locally about the closures of other sites, notably MOD Caledonia—a proposal that spells a sad end to the Royal Navy’s historical presence in Fife.
All the local authorities that I have spoken to are keen for meaningful dialogue at strategic level before assessment studies are carried out. At our first meeting, we agreed unanimously to ask the MOD to engage with the working group—which seems to me to be an entirely reasonable request. With the permission and agreement of the local authorities, I wrote to the defence secretary, asking for a minister to meet us. I should say that the local authorities represent all the parties in Parliament, perhaps with the exception of the Greens, so there was a cross-party decision to seek dialogue. However, the request was declined twice.
I eventually met MOD minister Mark Lancaster a fortnight ago to discuss the matter, but the request to meet local authorities and me was again declined. The MOD has, instead, chosen to speak to one or two planning departments in local authorities at officer level; it is reluctant to engage at senior level and refuses to meet the group collectively. That piecemeal approach cuts elected representatives and some councils out of the loop and places council officers in an unenviable position. It also disrespects a very reasonable request, which was agreed unanimously by all local authorities and the Scottish Government, on how we wish to engage.
The closures will have a major impact on our communities and I have no confidence that the MOD is handling the matter with the seriousness that it deserves. I have heard from a number of sources that what has happened was at the Treasury’s behest, and that if the MOD had not taken the decisions, the Treasury would have taken the decisions for the MOD.
The Scottish Government and local authorities are prepared to be reasonable and pragmatic. I have shared our view that in different areas the impact might be felt differently. If the matter is handled properly, we might be able to secure benefits such as accommodation for veterans—I raised that with Mark Lancaster—or other affordable housing options. However, with no movement from the MOD, the Scottish Government’s position can only be to remain in opposition to the cuts in their entirety.
I call on members to unite, as a Parliament, and to send the message to the MOD that there must be meaningful dialogue with the Scottish Government, local authorities and local communities as a matter of urgency, before closures are taken forward. In some areas, we might be able to mitigate the worst effects of decisions and get a better deal for the local communities.
In saying that, I am not being wise after the event. I met Mark Lancaster before the process was initiated, and at that stage I said to him—not least in relation to Fort George, in which the Scottish Government has a direct interest—that we might get better decisions if we were able to work together. I have said before in Parliament that I am not aware—if there is concern about confidentiality—of one instance in the past 10 years when the Scottish Government has breached confidence into which it has been taken by the UK Government. We could have had the discussion at that stage.
We stand a chance of overturning bad decisions, if we fight them. We cannot turn our backs, simply accept what the MOD decides behind closed doors and let our communities down. We must press our case and make our voices heard. I call on Parliament to support the motion.
I move,
That the Parliament expresses concern about the impact on Scotland of the military base closures announced by the Ministry of Defence as part of its Estate Optimisation Strategy; supports local community opposition to closures, and calls on the UK Government to engage fully with the Scottish Government, local authorities and local communities as a matter of urgency.
14:45
I speak in support of my amendment.
The UK defence estate is where our service personnel work, live and train. It is where our armaments are stored and where much of Britain’s world-class defence research is carried out.
The British defence estate is split into three core parts: the built estate, which encompasses barracks, naval bases and airfields; the housing estate, which provides accommodation for British soldiers and their families; and the training estates, which are the facilities where our armed forces are trained and acquire the necessary skills to achieve success on the battlefield.
The better defence estate strategy, which the UK Government set out in November 2016, outlines a comprehensive and long-term plan for a more efficient built defence estate. The plan will ensure that Britain’s military infrastructure is properly equipped to meet the defence challenges of the future. Following the 2015 strategic defence and security review, the 2016 paper “A Better Defence Estate” set out the need for the UK to reduce substantially the size of the country’s built estate, with fewer and more specialised military centres.
The UK’s built defence estate will reduce by 30 per cent by the year 2040. Of the sites that are in operation today, 91 have been earmarked for closure by that date, including eight in Scotland. The number of UK defence sites in Scotland will reduce from 24 to 16.
Despite previous comments to the contrary from Scottish National Party figures—such as the present, if soon to be displaced, member of Parliament for Moray, Angus Robertson—Kinloss barracks will not be closed and is to remain open. I am sorry that Mr Brown continued to give credence to the unfounded speculation about Kinloss. I have seen no evidence to support the argument that Kinloss was close to closure and, if Mr Brown has it, I hope that he will publish it.
When I spoke about the future viability of the Kinloss base, I specifically mentioned the concerns of the local community and the council leader. It was not me who was saying those things; I passed on their remarks.
It was the cabinet secretary who said that there was a last-minute decision to save the base and that he understood that the decision was borderline. I understood that to be Mr Brown’s view, and it was certainly the view that Mr Robertson expressed.
The reprovision plan that the UK Government has set out makes it clear that none of the Army personnel at the bases that are to close will be relocated to sites that are not in Scotland, and the Secretary of State for Defence emphasised that in the House of Commons last November.
The reductions are not only necessary but unavoidable if we are to prepare an outdated defence estate for the challenges of the future and to ensure that we have the resources available to properly fund our armed forces in the years to come. It is no more supportable now than it was in 1815, after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo, to argue that our defence estate must be maintained like some heritage tour to meet the threats from history. It must reflect our needs today and respond to the threats that are present today and those that will come.
In its current form, the defence estate is too large and needs to be rationalised to an appropriate size. It covers 424,000 hectares, which is the equivalent of 1.8 per cent of the UK landmass. Although the British armed forces are now 30 per cent smaller than they were at the turn of the century, our defence estate has reduced by only 9 per cent in the same period. It is right that the defence secretary has chosen to address those obvious discrepancies and rectify them with a timescale for shrinking the British defence estate.
The estate is also financially unsustainable. Every year, £2.5 billion is required to maintain it, and that money will be better spent by focusing on a smaller, more specialised network. Additionally, significant parts of our defence structure are too old—40 per cent of the assets have been in existence for more than 50 years.
Efficiencies that will be achieved by closing the 91 Army sites will save the Government £140 million over a 10-year period, which will rise to approximately £3 billion in total by 2040, and £4 billion of additional finance has been allocated for upgrading the retained defence estate over the next decade. That funding will be used to enhance our defence infrastructure in the locations where it is required by the armed forces.
To focus on Scotland, I have already said that eight of the 91 sites that are to close are based north of the border. Although we all understand the concerns that have been raised about the impact that the closures will have on communities in Scotland, the defence secretary has committed to consulting the relevant local authorities on the changes and, where appropriate, to consulting the Scottish Government. I heard what Mr Brown said, and his words were measured. I hope that they will be heard and that the co-operation and consultation will take place. However, it does not help that the Scottish Government sets itself up front in opposition to everything that is proposed.
It is important to note that the reductions in the UK’s built defence estate in Scotland are not as large as the reductions that will take place in the UK as a whole. In terms of acreage, the defence presence will decrease by an average of 30 per cent in the UK, compared with 19 per cent in Scotland. At the macro level, the UK defence estate in Scotland is to be consolidated into three main bases of operation: the royal naval base on the Clyde, RAF Lossiemouth and Leuchars Station. HM Naval Base on the River Clyde is set to become the home of the UK’s entire submarine fleet. That key decision will result in the number of jobs on the Clyde rising to 8,200 by 2022, which will make that one of the largest employment hubs in Scotland.
Our armed service men and women at Faslane are to benefit from a £1.3 billion investment package that the Secretary of State for Defence announced at the end of February. That key investment has been allocated to allow improvements to be made to key operational functions at the Clyde, such as engineering support, accommodation and security on its waterfront. That will ensure that the naval base is ready to receive the new Dreadnought class of submarines, which are expected to arrive at the beginning of the 2030s.
Jackson Carlaw compared what has happened in Scotland with the rest of the United Kingdom. Does he accept that, since 2000, 10,170 jobs in the armed forces have been cut in Scotland, which is a reduction of 41 per cent, compared with a 28 per cent reduction across the UK? If we look at the long-term trend, Scotland is suffering a much greater reduction.
I do not accept that. The point that I make is that Scotland is an integral part of the UK defence forces, but it is imperative that we meet the requirements of the armed forces. There is no point in having some imaginary sense of what was appropriate in an entirely different era when the threat that we face today is entirely different. We must have a defence force that meets that potential threat.
The Trident nuclear deterrent, which I will touch on shortly, is also based on the Clyde. Nine maritime patrol aircraft are to be stationed at Lossiemouth in Moray. The P-8A Poseidon planes will result in more than 100 new jobs, on top of a £100 million investment to construct a support and training facility for the next aircraft to be built in Lossiemouth. Leuchars will be expanded significantly to allow it to become the Army’s main base of operations in Scotland.
Demonstrably, the UK Conservative Government is investing in Scotland’s defence to ensure that Scotland remains at the heart of Britain’s armed forces. None of that would be available, practicable, deliverable or even fantasisable in the nightmare of an independent Scotland.
I turn to the independent Trident nuclear deterrent, which has acted as Britain’s ultimate insurance policy since it replaced the Polaris missiles in the 1980s. Predictably, the SNP has attempted to use the defence estate reforms as yet another opportunity to drive a wedge between Scotland and the rest of the UK and to argue against the vital importance of Trident to our defence capability.
During the defence estate debate in the House of Commons last year, the SNP defence spokesman at Westminster described Trident as
“an obsession which is swallowing up more and more of the defence budget.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 7 November 2016; Vol 616, c 1289.]
Such comments not only create a misleading image of the proportion of Government spending that is taken up by Trident but fail to recognise the proven importance of nuclear weapons in defending our country.
The financial outlay for the cost of the successor Trident submarines amounts to only 0.2 per cent of the total annual spend by the UK Government—that represents 20p out of every £100 of Government spending. Rather than being an overbearing burden on Government finances, the amount of money that is being spent to renew Trident provides further evidence in support of the decision of the House of Commons last summer.
In an increasingly uncertain international environment, with a revanchist Russia upgrading its nuclear capacity and with North Korea conducting nuclear tests on a seemingly endless basis, staging military parades and displaying military hardware with all the finesse of a despotic comic regime drawn by Hergé, it is critical that Britain retains the Trident nuclear weapons system, which works 24 hours a day, seven days a week and 52 weeks per year to protect Scotland with an effective deterrent.
The UK defence estate strategy will concentrate UK military bases in Scotland to provide a leaner, sharper and more efficient force. It will equip our armed forces for the threats that they may face in the future and provide them with the tools to respond to such threats in the most effective manner.
The extensive defence investment in Scotland by the UK Government—such as the additional resources for HM Naval Base on the River Clyde and for RAF Lossiemouth in Moray, along with the renewal of Trident—are profound examples of the military benefits that Scotland gains from being part of a wider United Kingdom and highlight the fact that in the realm of defence we are unarguably better served by remaining British. I paraphrase the First Minister in saying that Scottish ministers debate while UK ministers deliver, and the Scottish Government whinges while the UK Government protects the nation.
I move amendment S5M-05185.3, to leave out from “expresses” to end and insert:
“understands that the Ministry of Defence’s Estate Optimisation Strategy has the sensible aims of updating the defence estate to be more capability focused and better suited to the needs of modern armed forces; believes that the UK Government should continue to engage fully with the Scottish Government, local authorities and local communities on the review; notes that the defence estate in Scotland will still remain considerable; acknowledges that the UK Government has made wider investment in defence in Scotland supporting thousands of jobs, and believes that an independent Scotland would have a very limited military, which would weaken the defence of the nation and damage its proud military traditions.”
14:55
A little more than seven years ago, I brought to the chamber a members’ business debate to discuss concerns about the possible closure of RAF Kinloss. The cross-party campaign was supported by all the party leaders at that time: Alex Salmond, Annabel Goldie, Tavish Scott and lain Gray. I argued then, and I argue today, that armed forces personnel have a social covenant with our country, at times of peace and at times of war. During times of conflict, I always remember the lines from John Maxwell Edmonds that are repeated every remembrance Sunday across Scotland and beyond:
“When you go home, tell them of us and say
For their tomorrow, we gave our today.”
The importance of the social covenant was best illustrated to me 25 years ago when the American naval base in Dunoon closed, with a loss of 1,500 American personnel. The local community rallied round and set up a dynamic economic committee that received European and Government funding support to diversify the economy and provide new jobs.
Like most members in the chamber, my interest in the debate is personal. My father did his national service with the Royal Air Force at Kinloss as a fresh-faced 18-year-old, nearly 70 years ago. During my last year of school in the Highlands, I thought seriously—as Jackson Carlaw did—about joining the RAF, but instead I chose the less hazardous conflict zones that come with a career in politics.
However, during my time in Westminster, from 1997, I relished the opportunity to serve with the RAF for two terms as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I welcome the setting-up of the Scottish scheme this week, and I hope that members on all sides of the chamber will volunteer to take part in it. During my involvement with the Westminster scheme, I had direct experience of RAF Kinloss and RAF Lossiemouth, as well as a memorable week in Basra, in Iraq, which I can speak about at some other time. I flew in a Tornado fast jet, a Nimrod maritime aircraft and a Sea King search-and-rescue helicopter. On my last day with the RAF, the Sea King that I was involved with had to attend an emergency in Glencoe. I vividly remember flying a few hundred feet above Loch Ness on the way to Glencoe and observing at first hand the bravery, expertise and professionalism of the pilots and the winch crew as they saved the life of a young Swiss mountaineer who had fallen and suffered severe facial injuries. My experience was a brief snapshot, but it gave me a tremendous admiration for the armed forces and for veterans.
Fort George army barracks, which is in my region and just minutes from my home, is scheduled—as we heard from the cabinet secretary—to be closed by the UK Government in 2032. As members may know, Fort George was designed by Major General William Skinner and opened in 1769, and it has remained a British army base ever since. As we heard from the cabinet secretary, it is home to the Black Watch, and it supports 700 jobs and contributes £16 million to the economy each year.
The original decision to close Fort George led to a storm of outrage in the local community. The high-profile campaign was spearheaded by the actor Hugh Grant, whose grandfather once served as the commanding officer there. Major General Alastair Dickinson, who is the director of army basing, conceded that there was a lot of emotion around the Black Watch leaving. In The Times, in November 2016, he said:
“The closure of a base like Fort George is incredibly sad.”
The base closure is a real blow to the defence footprint in Scotland and in the Highlands in particular. In my view, Ministry of Defence bases are excellent recruiting sergeants, and there must be a real risk that base closures will hit future recruitment. Close regional connections have always existed between Scottish sailors, soldiers and airmen and the places where they were trained and recruited. As Times journalist Magnus Linklater said:
“The fierce loyalty to their own localities was felt every bit as deeply by Scottish troops in Afghanistan and Iraq as it was at Ypres or The Somme. The loss of that close and enduring link will steadily erode the emotional attachment so important to military morale, as is bound to have an effect on recruitment.”
Will the member take an intervention?
I will just finish my point first.
Labour will support the Scottish Government’s motion at 5 o’clock. Our amendment recognises
“the crucial economic and social contribution of military bases in Scotland”
through both the direct spend by armed forces personnel and the multiplier effect on local businesses. One need look no further than Fort George and its effect on the economies of Ardersier and Inverness.
I am happy to give way to Stewart Stevenson.
Is Mr Stewart aware of the perverse effects of the Capita contract that the Tories have let for recruitment? To meet the targets in the contract, Capita has to divert people who come forward in Scotland wishing to join Scottish regiments to regiments that are based elsewhere in the UK, decisively damaging that very valuable connection between local communities and people who have historical and emotional connections to local regiments but are no longer being permitted to join them.
I endorse Mr Stevenson’s excellent point. In fact, I read about that very point in Hansard earlier today.
Our amendment
“calls on the UK Government to halt all and any base closures until it has prepared and consulted on full economic assessment and employment diversification plans.”
When we debated the issue of RAF Kinloss seven years ago, I pointed out that Highlands and Islands Enterprise had commissioned an independent economic impact analysis that showed that the two RAF bases in Moray at the time supported more than 5,500 full-time jobs—16 per cent of all full-time employment in Moray—and that the economic impact of closure would involve the loss of more than £155 million a year. The report concluded by saying:
“It is clear that the economy and population of Moray is heavily dependent on the RAF, probably more so than any other region of the UK.”
There is much that we can learn from the closure of RAF Kinloss and from the situation in the US, where the Government takes responsibility for rebuilding and rebooting local areas when defence bases close. That is a practical form of social covenant with the local community. We are calling for that kind of social covenant for Scotland. When military bases are scheduled to close, we must use all available economic levers to attract inward investment, stimulate local business initiatives and offer redundant military and civilian staff retraining and support. We would seek to draw down more European Union funding and consider relocating Scottish Government posts and agencies to affected areas.
The loss of any military base is a blow for the local area. In my region, losing Fort George after losing RAF Kinloss will be a body blow. I believe that we must honour the covenant with our armed forces, but there is also a social covenant with communities that are plunged into economic uncertainty and instability by the closure of bases that have become central to their existence. We must say no to the cavalier and unfeeling dismissal of those communities’ concerns and ensure that everything possible is done either to prevent the closures by changing the minds of Government or to commit the necessary resources to mitigate the damaging impacts of closure. To paraphrase the late Canon Kenyon Wright, what if the UK Government said “Yes, Fort George should close, and we are the Government”, but the Highlands said “No, and we are the people”?
I move amendment S5M-05185.1, to insert at end:
“; further notes the crucial economic and social contribution of military bases in Scotland, and calls on the UK Government to halt all and any base closures until it has prepared and consulted on full economic assessment and employment diversification plans.”
We now move to the open session, with speeches of around seven minutes, please. We have some time in hand, so I can allow extra time for interventions.
15:03
Since my election in 2011 as the MSP for Edinburgh Pentlands, the three Army bases in my constituency—the Dreghorn, Redford cavalry and Redford infantry barracks—have been under constant review. The Army has been part of the local community in Colinton for over 100 years, supporting local schools, businesses and the post office. Without Army families, the viability of a large range of facilities from Colinton to Oxgangs will be called into question and there is concern that the area could become like a ghost town.
Back in 2011, all three barracks were earmarked for closure, following the announcement by the then defence secretary, Liam Fox, that a superbarracks was to be built at Kirknewton airfield to house a mobile brigade. Those plans were scrapped in 2013 due to the estimated £400 million cost, public outcry and another round of Army cuts.
The regular Army basing plan, published on 5 March 2013, highlighted what was to become of the three barracks in my constituency under the Army 2020 project: Dreghorn, home to the Royal Scots Borderers since their formation in 2006, was to be retained, but the sting in the tail was that it was to be handed to 3 Rifles, a unit that recruits predominantly from Yorkshire and the north-east of England; and Redford cavalry barracks and Redford infantry barracks were to become home to the headquarters unit of the 51st Highland Brigade and HQ Scotland, including the 5th Battalion the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, which was reduced to a single public duties company following another round of defence cuts.
The Army base at Redford was already home to a range of ancillary Army units including a military intelligence unit, the 105th Regiment Royal Artillery Volunteers, the City of Edinburgh University Officers Training Corps and the Army School of Bagpipe Music and Highland Drumming.
A report in February 2016 by the defence infrastructure organisation confirmed the 2013 position, saying:
“It is expected that all buildings at Redford Barracks will be retained for military use but some areas of land may be released.”
The same report highlighted that Redford would indeed be the HQ of the 51st Highland Brigade and HQ Scotland, with the move completed by 2018.
Just nine months later, Michael Fallon announced that Redford cavalry barracks and Redford infantry barracks were to close as part of the better defence estate review. The closure list also included Craigiehall, Meadowforth barracks, Fort George and Glencorse. In his announcement in November 2016, Michael Fallon said:
“The plan will see sites and bases moved to locations that offer better opportunities for military families—increasing employment prospects for partners and spouses, helping them to settle into communities, buy their own homes and have their children benefit from more stable schooling.”
It is ironic that the reasons that were given for the base changes were the same reasons that were given to the Royal Scots Borderers when they moved into their base at Dreghorn 10 years earlier. They put down roots in the community and purchased homes, and wives and spouses started careers in the Edinburgh area, only to be told in 2014 that they were moving to the Palace barracks in Holywood, Northern Ireland. Just as they were starting to settle down in their new base in Belfast, the 2015 strategic defence and security review led to the announcement that they would move again, to Aldershot, by 2019. Two moves in five years for 1 SCOTS does not help these Army families to put down roots.
However, at least 1 SCOTS have a new home. In a letter that I received from Mark Lancaster MP in November 2016, he highlighted that
“Work to identify potential future locations for all units at Redford Cavalry Barracks and Redford Infantry Barracks continues.”
But where are they going to go? The Glencorse base is earmarked for closure despite the fact that it was totally refurbished at a cost of £60 million 10 years ago and is home to 2 SCOTS the Royal Highland Fusiliers, who are also now waiting for a new base.
Does the member agree with Jackson Carlaw’s characterisation that to defend the community against the closure of Glencorse barracks is tantamount to defending a heritage tour? Given what he said about the £60 million investment, does the member not think that that shows dripping contempt for the communities in Penicuik?
Absolutely. The barracks has been a benchmark for Army accommodation.
Craigiehall, which has been an Army base since the second world war, previously served as HQ Scotland for 2nd Division, but it was announced in early 2016 that it was to be sold, although no date was given for the sale. One reason for that might be that the Royal Logistic Corps bomb disposal unit is based there. Although it is due to move to Dreghorn barracks, that is in a built-up area, which is not conducive to the ordnance that the unit requires to store for operational reasons. Also, Dreghorn is full. Currently, it cannot accommodate all of 3 Rifles, with one company still being based at Redford barracks until future development work gets under way.
Fort George, another historic Army base, which is home to 3 SCOTS the Black Watch, will also close, leaving them looking for a new home.
What about Meadowforth barracks in Stirling? The HQ units that are based there were due to relocate to Redford but will now also become homeless. The end result could be no Army HQ in Scotland.
According to the defence estate strategy, which was published on 12 January, there are 301 bases across the UK, representing 85 per cent of resource spending. Of those, 91 are to close, with eight major bases closing in Scotland.
That is incorrect. The Army will have a base, which most probably will be at Leuchars in Scotland. [Interruption.] I beg your pardon—I was talking about the headquarters.
The documents that I have read say that the new divisional headquarters for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be based at Aldershot. I did not include that in my speech, but I am happy to show the member where that comment can be found.
The UK Government is slashing around a fifth of the defence footprint in Scotland, removing the Army from large parts of the country, including from centuries-old garrisons such as Fort George, Glencorse and Redford. Such a move calls into question the defence priorities of a UK Government that can afford to spend £205 billion on weapons of mass destruction, and is willing to sell off conventional bases around the country to help to fund them, but with little regard for the impact on the Army or local communities. It is nothing more than a cash grab. Those are not my words, but what retired senior officer Colonel Clive Fairweather said back in 2011 when the bases in my constituency first came under threat. He accused the Ministry of Defence of being interested only in
“trying to make a quick buck”,
not in providing proper Army accommodation.
The MOD has changed its mind on a number of occasions about the Edinburgh garrison’s accommodation. It is still not too late for it to revert to the regular Army basing plan that was published back in 2013 and revoked only late last year.
15:12
First, I want to recognise Scotland’s historic and on-going contribution to the defence of our nation and the upholding of freedom and democracy across the world. I pay tribute to the men and women who serve across all branches of the military and recognise the sacrifices that they make in order to keep us all safe. It is important that we, as politicians, always remember that freedom does not come free.
The forthcoming closure of a number of Scottish defence bases and the impact on the communities in which they are situated sadden me, but our military leaders have made it clear that we need to modernise and to consolidate our defence estate to make it fit for the 21st century. I know from spending time in British military camps across the UK—Barry Buddon, Cameron barracks, Warcop, Alanbrooke and Sennybridge—that bases are often underutilised and that investment in infrastructure is currently spread too thinly. That is why we need this process of modernisation and consolidation.
Let me be clear about what I would like. I want British defence infrastructure investment to continue here in Scotland; I want the tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs linked to the military in Scotland to be secured; I want to see the long-term viability of the defence estate in Scotland; and I want Scotland’s role as a central cornerstone of the British Army in the defence of our nation to be maintained.
Despite the conjecture that we have heard from the SNP, we are seeing Scotland at the fulcrum of the British Army. In February, the defence secretary confirmed £1.7 billion of additional funding for military bases in Scotland. Faslane is, after the Queen Elizabeth university hospital in Glasgow, the second biggest single-site employer in Scotland, and direct employment at the base is currently around 6,500, with thousands more dependent on the base for jobs through the supply chain. Furthermore, from 2020, all 11 Royal Navy submarines will be based on the Clyde at Faslane, which will raise the number of people who are directly employed at the base to 8,200. Those are jobs that are vital to communities and families in the region that I represent.
Does the member share my view that it is important that we also support British industry and does he, therefore, regret the decision to scrap the Nimrods, which were made in Britain, and the fact that we now buy maritime aircraft that are built in the United States of America?
We certainly need to support British industry. One of the ways in which we can do that is to encourage the defence sector in Scotland, which offers a lot of opportunities for highly paid, highly skilled jobs. If we are going to ensure that the defence sector continues to thrive, that will be key. We want more of those types of jobs to be linked to Scotland. They are good for the economy and they should be part of the UK industrial strategy.
An economic analysis of the Scottish defence sector by the Fraser of Allander institute revealed that almost 6,000 jobs and £162 million in wages are supported by BAE’s yards on the Upper Clyde; that almost 4,000 jobs and £105 million in wages are supported by the Rosyth dockyard in Fife; and that, for every job on the Clyde, 1.18 jobs are supported across the wider Scottish economy. Further, Scots serving in the British Army have made it overwhelmingly clear that they have no desire to serve in anything other than the British Army.
We have heard a lot from the SNP today about its opposition to the closures, but what is its position on the military in an independent Scotland?
Will the member take an intervention?
I have before me what the SNP has said previously on the matter, but I will happily take an intervention in order to circumvent some of that.
The member said that the SNP has said that it opposes the closures. He started off by saying that he regretted the closures. Will he make it clear whether he opposes any of the closures or supports them all?
It was the wrong point of intervention; nevertheless, I can say that I am sad to see the closures but recognise that we have to have a modern, fit-for-purpose building infrastructure to support a modern, fit-for-purpose Army. That is required, however unfortunate any given situation might be.
In its 2014 white paper on independence, the SNP said that an independent Scotland would
“inherit a share of existing UK defence assets, giving us most of the equipment we need to establish Scotland's defence forces.”
However, last month, the SNP’s defence spokesman said that an independent Scotland would start from scratch, and we now hear that the SNP is currently working on
“a comprehensive, robust, costed and stress-tested defence policy for an independent Scotland”.
If it is currently working on that, what does that mean for the defence proposals that were put forward in the white paper on independence? Can we assume that they were not comprehensive, not robust, not costed and not stress-tested?
No one in this chamber can be under any illusions about the one thing that, more than anything else, is putting defence jobs, defence investment and defence infrastructure spend in Scotland at serious risk. The one major impediment is the SNP because, like many individuals across a range of sectors and industries, all those who serve our nation, and the families that rely upon the military for their livelihood, are expendable to the SNP due to its gross obsession with independence.
Scotland can be proud of our contribution to the British Army and we want that relationship to continue. That is why I urge the chamber to support the amendment in the name of Jackson Carlaw.
15:19
I have a personal interest in this debate, as Richard Lochhead and I are the constituency members who represent Moray in this place. For Moray, defence is an important issue, both for employment and for its wider economic effect. For my own part, I have little in the way of personal connection with matters military. My great-great-grandfather was a driver in the Corps of Royal Artillery Drivers and was demobbed in 1819 because he had become deaf, and my great-great-great-grandfather left HMS Medway in August 1782, and that is about it as far as my family is concerned.
Thank goodness.
Surely not. There must be more.
That is, apart from the other six people that I am being encouraged to talk about.
Seriously, though, the proposed closure of the defence bases will have, and the previous closures of defence facilities such as the RAF presence at Kinloss have had, a huge, disruptive and negative impact on the communities and families that have been part of the bases and interacted with them. However, defence estates represent a much wider problem. In tumultuous times in the world, defence is needed and must be mobilised in the fight against today’s threats. It is no good continuing to invest in defence facilities that represent a response to the nuclear stand-off of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s. I am amazed to have heard Jackson Carlaw talking indirectly about the £205 billion for Trident as an almost nugatory amount of money, when I consider what other things might be done with such a sum.
Today, the threats that we face as a country and as the western part of the world are fewer from states and more from non-state actors such as ideologically and radically based groups that are not attached to particular countries but which want to break down our values of freedom and democracy through violence, fear and hateful rhetoric. Nuclear weapons have not deterred a single person in ISIS. They have not deterred North Korea, which Jackson Carlaw referred to. At the end of the day, we must look not only at the effect on the bases here but at the underlying military principles that are driving the proposals, as well as the dark hand of the UK Treasury.
We need effective defence—of course we do—but cutting bases simply to save money does not address the issue of defence in the modern world. We have got to make changes. Reference was made to the battle of Waterloo, in the aftermath of which the Army was cut to a third of its size in the three or four years after the battle. That was disastrous because of some of the things that happened thereafter. It certainly left the UK much less able to respond to threats that emerged in the Indies and the colonies.
That is simply not true.
I will take an intervention if Mr Carlaw wishes.
I am prepared to accept that Mr Stevenson may have been at Waterloo, but to suggest that a reduction in the armed forces after Napoleon was defeated led to some immediate crisis for Britain’s influence across the world is nonsense. It was 50 years before the threats to which Mr Stevenson is alluding emerged. Of course it was the right thing to do. Defence forces must meet the threat. Although he talks about ISIS today, he cannot know what the threats in the next 40 years are going to be.
I am glad that Mr Carlaw has read “The Art of War”, which contains the wonderful adage that no plan survives first contact with the enemy. I agree with Jackson Carlaw that we do not know what the threat might be next week, next year or in five years’ time. That is why we need flexibility and diversity in our defence provision, which is obviated by our committing huge proportions of our defence expenditure to a weapon that is incapable of being deployed—Trident.
In the modern world, the kind of threats to which we are subject require physical presence adjacent to local threats and a mobile force that can move to where international threats are.
In the north of Scotland, in the past five or six years, we have twice seen the Kuznetsov, the biggest military ship in the Russian navy, in the Moray Firth. It was moored so close off Banff that we could see people with the naked eye—I usually wear glasses, but I could see them without them—walking on the aircraft carrier deck. It took more than 24 hours for any UK military presence to arrive to see what the Kuznetsov was up to and to protect our interests.
It is that failure to respond to today’s defence challenges that underpins the failures that we see in the basing review. If money is simply spent on Trident, money is not spent on what we need. The Tories in particular constantly complain about business, education and healthcare budgets, but those budgets are dwarfed by the amount of money that they want us to spend on Trident.
Furthermore, the money that is spent on people in our Army and on bases has a wider economic benefit in a way that sending vast amounts of money to the United States for the equipment that is associated with Trident does not—and, by the way, we do not even receive the codes that enable us to independently decide to use it. That is hardly supportive of the economic interests of this country or the UK as a whole.
We in Scotland have particular maritime interests. We have substantial fishing interests out to 200 miles and we have substantial oil and gas interests. Despite having all the UK’s submarines based in Scotland, they are not suitable or useful for responding to the maritime threats to our interests. Therefore, we must look at what happens in navy bases. Even the Irish have seven vessels specially built for that purpose based around their coastline. That country is smaller than Scotland. Those vessels, in addition to its two maritime surveillance aircraft, are perfectly illustrative of what even small countries can do with more limited resources.
Let me return to what the previous speaker, Maurice Golden, said—
No—close quickly, please.
The member said that good defence is based on people. I agree. We need more personnel located in Scotland, contributing to our economy and giving stability to their families and friends.
15:27
I declare this interest possibly for the last time in the chamber: I am a councillor.
I welcome this debate, because it touches on a number of important themes. First, the relationship between Governments—the need for respect and collaborative working at local government, Scottish and UK levels to serve the national interest while respecting the needs of service personnel and the communities in which they are embedded.
Secondly, the debate is about ensuring that both the negative impacts of closures on communities are mitigated and that positive regeneration opportunities are realised as Ministry of Defence assets are released and defence staff are redeployed to other areas.
I acknowledge that the process of consultation and dialogue with the Scottish Government has been derisory. It seems as though Westminster has been playing a game of cat and mouse to prevent closure campaigns from springing up. Of course, all that that has done is undermine trust with service personnel and communities and encourage rumour.
The promise of consultation, stability and certainty that was offered in the previous basing review three years ago has not been honoured. I accept that changes and rationalisation are essential, but the Westminster Government had an opportunity to bring the Scottish ministers to the table with constructive proposals for repurposing sites. It would have been hard for the Scottish ministers to campaign against closing Fort George if they had been built into a partnership to transform the asset positively at an early stage, and there is little evidence that the Scottish Government has betrayed confidences with Westminster over defence plans in the past. Therefore, I do not understand Westminster’s logic in how it is operating in consultation with the Scottish Government.
Of course, it is not the first time that we have seen such cat and mouse games being played by Tory defence ministers. The surprise national armed forces day in Stirling in 2014 turned into a pre-referendum pantomime competing with the long-planned Bannockburn live national event less than 2 miles away. It was a farce; it was chaos.
I turn to the impact of the closures, which makes respectful partnership working so important and vital. So far in the debate, we have heard almost exclusively about the negative impact of closures, and I certainly recognise the concerns that have been raised by members and their constituents. In the case of the Royal Navy at Rosyth, I can understand why the end of a 100-year relationship with the MOD will be daunting for communities. However, we must recognise that that base is a hugely underutilised facility that has the capacity to contribute so much more to the economy of central Scotland if we broaden our horizons. The building and maintenance of commercial ferries, the development of a freight port, the reintroduction of passenger ferries and the creation of facilities for use in North Sea decommissioning all have the potential to provide livelihoods at Rosyth for generations to come.
In many cases, freeing up land and assets that have served as military garrisons will meet the very real needs of communities today. The assets could be transferred to the Scottish ministers or councils under city deals, for example. There is precedent for that in England, where five major sites have been transferred to the Homes and Communities Agency for housing, which people desperately need. My colleague Andy Wightman has raised the possibility of Redford barracks in Edinburgh being repurposed for housing. There are pressures in that constituency; families need homes.
There is another exciting opportunity at Forthside in Stirling. The MOD has been in the process of moving out of Forthside for decades. The once-vibrant ancient port connected the city to the River Forth and the trading routes of Europe, but for generations citizens were barred from entry to Forthside by the MOD, as the area fell into ruin and disrepair. The release of land and buildings there has enabled some regeneration to occur already, and the city deal for Stirling and Clackmannanshire, of which the cabinet secretary will be well aware, will bring focus to a range of exciting projects, including a dynamic hub for third sector organisations and a national centre for building conservation.
I believe that the missing piece in that regeneration is the Meadowforth barracks and the vehicle maintenance depot, which is a sprawling industrial site that is right in the heart of the city. It is a brownfield site that is in public ownership, is next to rail and bus stations and is zoned for housing in the local development plan. In recent years, the Scottish Government has been pushing councils to find extra land for housing, and that has played into the hands of developers, who land bank premium green-belt land for executive housing that communities do not want and most families cannot afford. In Meadowforth, we have a site that ticks all the boxes, meeting much of the need for high-quality, high-density mixed affordable housing, right in the heart of the city. It even has the potential to feed into local plans that are under way for a district heating network that is managed by a municipal energy company. I welcome the future for the site.
Although I hope that jobs can be retained in Scotland in some way, I will not miss the other use of the Meadowforth site as an overnight lorry park for Trident nuclear warhead convoys. A nuclear warhead convoy parked up behind a flimsy fence next to a multiplex cinema in a city centre is one of the most surreal sights in 21st century Scotland, and a disaster movie waiting to happen.
The defence basing review will cause communities pain, although there may be communities who emerge as winners, such as Leuchars. The Westminster and Scottish Governments must step up, together with councils, and realise the positive economic and social opportunities that come from turning barracks into homes and swords into ploughshares.
15:33
As we have heard, the closures announced in 2016 by the Secretary of State for Defence will reduce the defence estate in Scotland by around 20 per cent and will have a significant impact on many areas, from Fort George in Inverness to the Redford barracks in Edinburgh. Communities will feel the impact, both socially and economically.
That is true in my constituency. The Meadowforth barracks are currently occupied by the 51st Infantry brigade and headquarters of the Army in Scotland. The joint supply chain services and the important defence support group at Forthside will see 172 military and four civilian jobs relocated or reassigned by 2022. Meadowforth barracks have been listed for disposal, but as far as I am aware no clarity exists yet on where the Army personnel will go. The supply chain services and defence support group activity will be moved to Leuchars.
The jobs at Forthside are highly skilled, and the members of the workforce contribute to the health of the local economy through the salaries that they earn. The defence support group, in particular, carries out highly skilled work—I have seen it in operation at first hand. It is involved in the repair and upgrade of light and heavy armoured vehicles and wheeled vehicles, including light and heavy cargo vehicles. It also works on artillery gunnery, protect and patrol vehicles and many other types of military equipment. It carries out that work in in-barracks operations and in mobile support teams. As members can imagine, that requires a significant investment in not only the workforce, but highly technical equipment—both mechanical and electronic. We should make no mistake: the loss of the highly skilled workforce will have an impact on the Stirling area.
There are also social and historical aspects of the decisions that have been made by the UK Government. There is a huge connection in Stirling between the military and the city, and there will be a great sadness about the closures, which will bring to an end that long, historical direct connection. Such things matter. In that respect, I just have to look to my father, who was a member of the Royal Household Cavalry. He wore his brigade of guards tie every day of his life and was incredibly proud of that tradition. Referring to “heritage tours”, as Jackson Carlaw did, does no favours to the people who served in those regiments in the past or to the fantastic facilities that exist at Forthside. It does no favours to Jackson Carlaw either. I am sure that my son, who served in the Royal Air Force, would agree with my comments.
Forthside barracks have been there for a long time. Forthside was an ordinance depot in 1899 and became the depot for the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders before they vacated in 1999. As Mark Ruskell said, the Robertson Trust is carrying out some commendable work on those old barracks by transforming them into a third sector hub. The barracks will provide accommodation for charitable organisations and social enterprises, which will allow organisations to share space, learning and creativity, and to maximise financial efficiency; it will also encourage joint working and innovation.
The Meadowforth barracks are home to the 51st Infantry brigade, which is responsible for all the units of the Army reserve that are based in Scotland and is an adaptable force brigade. The brigade provides logistical and administrative support, is engaged with employers, communities and society and maintains strong links with local government, the emergency services and the community in order to provide resilience in times of need. The brigade is the largest in the United Kingdom in terms of geographical area and has a remarkable history.
The brigade began during the first world war with the formation of the 17th northern division, which spent the entire war in the hell that was the western front. During the second world war, it was deployed to France as part of the British expeditionary force. It eventually became the 51st brigade and, as the remainder of the British expeditionary force, it fought a famous lone battle when others were forced to retreat towards Dunkirk. For some time, it was asked to hold a line that was four times longer than a division would normally be expected to hold.
In 2002, the 51st took on the responsibility for the whole of Scotland, instead of just the Highlands, with its headquarters at Meadowforth barracks.
Will the member give way?
I will do that in just a second.
In 2014, the brigade HQ commanded all the troops that were deployed to provide support for the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. There was a good reason for that.
I respect the history and the tradition, but does the member recognise that constituents of his are living in expensive and cold private sector rented accommodation in the centre of Stirling? Those families need housing and places to go. Does the member want to take that housing allocation out of the local development plan? If so, where would he put the houses?
Mr Ruskell had better listen to the rest of my speech before he goes into a rant. I accept that the 51st Infantry brigade will have to move as that decision has been made. I think that Mr Ruskell does not understand what the DSG does—I will come back to that.
Over the years, the central location of Stirling’s barracks has ensured that armed forces have been able to reach other parts of Scotland quickly and effectively when needed, and that is where the MOD is making a strategic mistake with regard to locating the defence support group in particular. We could find no better location to base that activity than Stirling, which is right at the heart of Scotland. Leuchars simply cannot compete on strategic location. The central location is also important for providing support for the annual Stirling military show. Thousands of people from throughout Scotland and further afield go to the show for a great day out and to say thank you to the armed forces. With the closure of the barracks, the long-term future of such events is unknown.
I have been a member of the 51st Infantry Scottish brigade, which was previously the Highland brigade, and I know Forthside very well. Defence support group contracts are currently being introduced, and some of them are in place. One of the reasons for the move to Leuchars is that there is an airhead there. It should be remembered that the brigade is an operational brigade as well as a reserve brigade, so it needs access and 24 hours’ notice to move with its equipment. That is one of the reasons that underpinned the move to Leuchars. There was also pressure from Stirling Council for social housing, which Mr Ruskell quite rightly identified. I know about that full well. That was the proper application of the armed forces community covenant.
Mr Crawford, you can have the extra time.
I was coming specifically to the Stirling and Clackmannanshire city region deal. I accept that there is a good proposal to transform Meadowforth barracks and Forthside into a site for housing, business space and technology centres, and I am already on record as having said that I support that. However, given that the MOD’s plans for disposal will not be fully implemented until 2022, any city region deal will have to wait some time before the release from those sites of any potential economic benefit or housing site for Stirling. Given the sheer size of the site—I am sure that Maurice Corry knows about that; it is enormous—DSG activity does not take up that big a proportion of it. The footprint is more than adequate to allow the release of the benefits that are envisaged by the city region deal and still retain, in particular, the DSG and its fantastic skills. It is a mobile unit that can move to service units from wherever it is based, so it does not have to be in Leuchars to achieve that. Unlike others, I am not going to give up on trying to hold the DSG in Stirling city, because it is located in the right place and it brings amazing skills to our part of the world.
I refer to some of the language that has been used by my Tory colleagues, particularly Maurice Golden, who accused the Scottish National Party of making the armed forces “expendable”. That was quite a disgraceful thing to say. Actions often talk louder than words. I remember very clearly that, during the Iraq war, soldiers on the front line were sent P45s by the United Kingdom Government when they were fighting for their country. That is what is called “expendable”. Don’t you dare accuse us of that in the chamber.
I remind all members that they are not having conversations with each other and that they should always speak through the chair.
I apologise.
15:42
I hope that I can bring a particular perspective to the debate, as I had the great privilege of serving for 15 years in the Army before I became embroiled in Scottish politics. Indeed, after graduating from the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, my very first posting was to the Scottish infantry training depot at Glencorse barracks. I spent two years there, training our infantry soldiers before they joined our seven infantry regiments—those were the days when we had seven infantry regiments in Scotland.
I gently say to Stewart Stevenson, who is away from the chamber at the moment—I am sure that he can read the Official Report of the meeting—that there is nothing new in the idea that Scottish recruits are being sent to join English infantry regiments, and vice versa. In my time, there were many English, Welsh, Commonwealth and other recruits to the Scottish infantry at Glencorse. Therefore, that is absolutely nothing new.
I was sorry to find out that the Conservative Government seems intent on locking the doors at the refurbished Glencorse barracks some time in the next 15 years. It is not just Glencorse that is affected: many communities throughout the country are set to see their close ties to our armed forces being severed, with the subsequent loss of the economic benefits associated with having a local base nearby.
For decades, Liberal Democrat MPs and MSPs have fought to keep bases such as those at Fort George and Leuchars open, and we have succeeded.
Unfortunately, our current contingent of SNP MPs at Westminster has seemingly failed to hold much influence over the UK Government in that regard. [Interruption.] Members may groan, but that seems obvious to me. I wonder what Scotland’s 50 or so SNP MPs can actually achieve down in Westminster, because the SNP does not seem to have achieved much in the Scottish Parliament. To some extent, that is a symptom of the confrontation between the SNP Government in Scotland and the UK Government.
Will the member take an intervention?
I will in a moment. I wish that both Governments could work more closely together without—[Interruption.] There we are. Okay, let us move on from that. I was trying to say that they could perhaps work together.
Will the member perhaps take an intervention now?
Just a minute. Let us not forget that, as part of the UK, Scotland benefits from levels of security and protection that the SNP could not hope to replicate in an independent Scotland. That is a fact.
Let me be clear: I support the strengthening of the so-called regional hubs—Leuchars, Lossiemouth and HM Naval Base Clyde. They are real assets, and it makes good sense to have such a concentration on three major centres. It makes good sense in military terms; it makes good logistical sense; and it makes particularly good sense for our service families, who will face less of the continual disruption to family life that service in our armed forces entails. For example, in my own experience, in nine years of married life in the Army, my wife and I lived in eight different sets of married quarters, which was not unusual. The turbulence for personnel who serve in the Army is great. Anything that can help to stabilise family communities has to be a good thing.
I know that my colleague Willie Rennie has welcomed the prospect of 3 SCOTS the Black Watch coming home to its traditional recruiting grounds in Fife.
We need the scale of investment that is planned for those bases if we are to ensure that the defence capabilities that they provide can compete with modern developing threats. Just as the dangers that we faced in the era of the cold war have moved on, we must ensure that our capabilities move on with them. It is therefore sensible to scale back older capabilities that are not well adapted to the 21st century threats that we face. However, changes need to be made with great care and, in this instance, serious questions remain about whether the investment in those three bases necessitates the closures that are planned elsewhere in Scotland. Is it sensible to completely close defence establishments such as those at Glencorse and Fort George, to name just two? What thought has been given to using those barracks for the reserve forces? What thought has been given to other military uses that could be made of those bases?
In addition, the changes to our military estate in Scotland should be the subject of a proper impact assessment, and any community that ultimately loses out—as communities will—must see significant transitional support and investment. I hope that the UK Government and the Scottish Government can work together to achieve that.
At points, this afternoon’s debate has been in danger of becoming a debate on military strategy. The independent nuclear deterrent was raised, and we even had an intervention on the battle of Waterloo and the remnants of the Army, which was scaled down at that point. I thought that that was rather bizarre, given the subject of the debate. We also had Stewart Stevenson’s traditional—if I can put it that way—reference to his family tree, going right back to the 19th century.
Although there have been interesting diversions from the subject of the debate, I will conclude by focusing on what the debate is all about: the UK Government’s estate strategy. The strategy will not be implemented overnight; the changes at Fort George and Glencorse are scheduled to happen in 15 years’ time, which is a long time away. That is why it is essential that the next UK Government—the one that will hold office after 8 June—takes time to get the reforms right and ensures that they are driven not by short-term thinking but by how best to maintain our long-term defence capabilities throughout the UK.
We still have a little time in hand for interventions.
15:49
I start by giving a loud thank you to Mike Rumbles for his cross-party endorsement of my colleague Angus Robertson MP, the Highland MP who has managed to secure the future of the defence base in his constituency of Moray.
Will Maree Todd give way?
No, thank you.
I thank Mike Rumbles very much for that. I am sure that his support will be welcome, although unnecessary, as Mr Robertson’s seat is very secure.
The brutal cuts to the defence footprint in Scotland, including the closure of Fort George, are of particular concern to my constituents in the Highlands and Islands.
Will the member give way?
The uncertainty for folks in Moray as the threat of closure hung over Kinloss just a couple of years after promises were made to the communities was tough, but at least it will be saved.
Will the member give way?
Mr Ross, it is clear that Maree Todd is not going to give way.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
At least Kinloss will be saved for the time being. The impact on the Highlands of closing Fort George will be really tough to absorb and no one is relishing the prospect of a long slow decline. Fort George might have been built to quash rebellious Highlanders, but it is now part of the fabric of our communities in Ardersier, Nairn, Inverness and the wider Highlands. Many Highlands and Islands families, mine included, have personal connections with it and, during the great wars of last century, almost every family in the Highlands will have had a relative pass through the base en route to the wars in Europe.
For the communities affected, the announcement has been devastating. For decades, we have witnessed the decline of the military presence in the Highlands and in Scotland. Closing Fort George will mean that the military no longer has a meaningful presence in the Highland Council area, which is an area larger than Wales. It is impossible to see how the MOD can maintain a footprint across the whole of the UK by entirely removing the Army from the Highlands.
The MOD has a self-stated core responsibility to project power, strategically and defensively, and that cannot be achieved by leaving such a vast and strategically important area as the Highlands without a military presence. The Highlands have suffered centuries of depopulation, and we need people. There will be a serious social impact when the personnel move away from the base. There are 500 Black Watch troops based in Fort George and the surrounding area. It is estimated that half of the children at Raigmore primary in Inverness are from military families. Fort George is a well-established part of the community and it regularly hosts charity events and supports veterans. I am a big rugby fan, so I know that Fort George has made a huge contribution to the fortunes of the Highland rugby club.
Closing the garrison will leave a gaping hole in the community, not least by leaving 200 empty homes in a part of the country that, as I said, has suffered from depopulation. It will severely impact on families who have put down roots in the region and made lives in the local community. It is therefore no surprise that there is strong community and public support for retaining Fort George as an active military barracks.
Before the announcement was made, Drew Hendry MP, in whose constituency Fort George lies—I assure members that he is another Highland MP with a very safe seat—organised a meeting at which Margaret Davidson, the leader of Highland Council, and I met with Sir Michael Fallon at the Ministry of Defence to outline the impact that the loss of the barracks would have on the local economy. [Maree Todd has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] Drew Hendry has continued to work behind the scenes with MPs from different parties who believe that the approach is wrong headed—even Tory MPs—to call for an urgent rethink. Later this month, they hope to deliver joint petitions to the MOD, calling for an urgent reversal of the plans, although Tuesday’s announcement of an election might make a difference to that.
As I mentioned, the Highlands have a long military tradition and have made a significant contribution to Army recruitment, especially in comparison with other parts of the country. The centralisation of the armed forces is likely to cause the recruitment contribution from the Highlands to dwindle, as local communities will not identify with the army.
The closure of Fort George will deal an almighty blow to the Highland economy and ultimately will affect thousands of local people. Highland Council estimates that more than 700 job losses will result from the army vacating Fort George, with a loss of income to the local economy of approximately £20 million.
We know from the MOD’s figures that Fort George is the most cost-effective base to run. Fort George has the lowest maintenance bill of all Scotland’s main infantry bases, according to figures obtained by the Press and Journal. Therefore, there is little evidence that closing Fort George will save the MOD money.
Edward Mountain rose—
Finally—this is an important point—the cuts raise serious questions about the defence priorities of the UK Government, which can afford to renew Trident at a cost of hundreds of billions of pounds but is intent on selling off conventional bases around the country. The UK Government is attempting to save £1 billion by closing down dozens of barracks and cutting civilian jobs, to pay for a highly irresponsible and dangerous nuclear deterrent that the people of the Highlands and the rest of Scotland do not want.
That is yet another example of the Highland people’s voices being ignored by Westminster. I told Sir Michael Fallon exactly that when I met him in London. [Maree Todd has corrected this contribution. See end of report.] The wider Highlands offer a superb environment for infantry and special forces training. I warned that it would not be popular in the Highlands to remove the people while continuing to visit for training exercises and to use the bombing ranges.
That is not to mention the impact of the controversial Trident nuclear submarine’s presence in our waters. The British underwater test and evaluation centre—BUTEC—range for submarine exercises off Applecross was expanded in the last few years, with a huge impact on local fisherman. Right now, a new cable is being laid from there to the Butt of Lewis—as with the basing review, that has happened without consultation, notice or even, apparently, consideration of the impact on the fishermen who make their livings in the Minch. The fishermen do not even know whether they will be able to fish there after the cable has been laid.
I have to admit that I have been contacted by a very small number of people who say that they are glad to see the British army leave Fort George. As I said, it was built to quash Highland rebellion in the aftermath of the 1707 union between England and Scotland, which was—and I quote the BBC—
“highly unpopular with the vast majority of the population in Scotland.”
Sir Michael Fallon says that Fort George is no longer needed, because the Highlanders are no longer rebelling. Let us hope that David Stewart is nearer the truth of the situation and that the people of the Highlands stand up and say no to the decision.
15:57
I declare an interest in defence, not just because I was a soldier for 12 years but because my son is a serving soldier. My comments in this afternoon’s debate will be based on my experiences. That is how I look at the defence rebasing.
At the outset, let me say that the motion for the debate shows the Government’s true colours and its real obsession, which has nothing to do with defence. It shows the Government’s indifference to the real issue, which is what is good for our servicemen. Let me be clearer: to argue purely the economic case for UK defence policy is misplaced. The question that we should be addressing is what is good for our service personnel. What is critical is how we ensure their professionalism. That, I am afraid, will not be achieved by sending servicemen to remote barracks.
It is simply not credible to argue that the fundamental requirement for basing is to ensure equality around the UK. To do so is puerile and smacks of localism and nationalism. What really matters is that we ensure that soldiers are based close to training areas, close to the formations with which they will deploy and, if possible, close to the families from which they come.
Let me give an example of where the current situation does not work. Soldiers in Inverness need to travel to training areas in England—perhaps as far as Salisbury plain or Otterburn in Northumberland—to carry out unit-scale training or range practices.
The simple fact is that increased travel time reduces training time, and reduced training time leads to less effective service personnel. Let me ask a straightforward question of the people who want to promote historical basing: can they honestly say that they are happy to deploy into war zones service personnel who have not had sufficient training time, due to their need to base those personnel in remote locations?
Will the member take an intervention?
I will just finish my point and then I will certainly take an intervention from an ex-soldier like me.
As a parent of a soldier who deployed recently to a police station in Helmand, I am no different from any other parent of soldiers deployed on active service. That argument cannot and will not be justified; it is very wrong.
I will take Mr Brown’s intervention.
I thank Edward Mountain for taking my intervention. I clarify that I have never been a soldier. I just want to make that clear.
On his point about people being close to training facilities, Maree Todd has just explained about the training facilities in the Highlands and the Barry Buddon training area has been mentioned. What is being sought is the removal of people from those military training establishments. If the member, as appears to be the case, does not oppose any of the closures, what is the difference between English Tories who are happy to oppose the closures in England, and all the Scottish Tories who are happy to support every closure that has been proposed by the MOD in Scotland?
We are talking about the training areas around Inverness, and we should be honest that the bombing ranges at Tain are a small-scale training area that, because of the nature of the ground that it is on, does not allow the unit at Fort George to deploy in its vehicles, which is its primary asset. It only allows infantry soldiers in small groups of no more than platoon or possibly company strength to deploy, which means that they cannot undertake unit training. The only places where they can undertake full unit, regimental training are places such as Otterburn and Salisbury Plain.
I am sorry; I thought that the cabinet secretary was a soldier but he was a marine, which is subtly different. We still served under the same flag.
Let us look at some facts. When I joined the army in 1980, there were about 200,000 soldiers and now the figure is reduced to just below 82,000. The navy has also reduced in size, as has the air force. As a result, there is no doubt that the defence estate needs to change and reduction and rationalisation are right.
I am now going to use a phrase that I have heard somebody else use. We have a once-in-generation opportunity—and I mean that—to rationalise the defence estate by moving units to where they can co-locate within the formations within which they will serve. We need to do that to reduce costs and to improve the retention of soldiers.
Ms Todd would not allow me to intervene on her, but I say to her that Fort George costs £1.6 million a year in maintenance. It is one of the most expensive bases in the UK to maintain, and I would be happy to produce letters from the MOD to prove that.
It also seems sensible, where possible, to build in more appropriate locations new barracks that could be funded by selling older barracks. It is also sensible to maintain barracks that are fit for purpose today, not hundreds of years ago. Current service personnel expect more from their barrack accommodation than they did when I joined. Quite rightly, 10-person barrack rooms are no longer acceptable. A style of flats with single rooms and shared communal facilities is now the norm. It is also clear that, where such facilities are not available, retaining soldiers is difficult. We would not expect to put up with that form of accommodation, so why should we ask them to?
Simply put, more training with good facilities co-located with units that regiments will deploy with, makes sense. It will increase effectiveness, and I humbly suggest that that could save lives.
Does Mr Mountain agree that his reference to accommodation does not apply to Glencorse barracks, where there is proper domestic accommodation for families that has recently been refurbished?
I will have to take the member’s word for that as I have not been into every barracks. I have been into the barracks at Penicuik, where my son was stationed with 2 SCOTS. I defer to the member on that point.
Frankly, we should be careful about getting overemotional about buildings in the same way we do about regiments. I was delighted to learn this afternoon that Mr Crawford and I have a connection in the fact that his grandfather served—
My father.
Sorry, it was Mr Crawford’s father. I, too, served with the Household Cavalry, which is also my son’s regiment.
However, that is not what this afternoon’s debate is about—we are not talking about losing regiments. I am proud—as we all should be—that Scotland provides more than its fair share of the UK’s armed forces.
I want to talk about Fort George, which is in the region that I represent. It is a pretty impressive place to store barrels of gunpowder and protect the resupply routes in the event of a Highland rebellion—as Maree Todd said. However, it is a pretty unimpressive place for a modern soldier to be based, with poor accommodation, appalling internet, lack of large local training areas, limited public transport to Inverness, and significant separation from friends and family for the Black Watch, which is a Perthshire regiment. One can see why regiments that have been based there suffer from retention problems.
The closure of Fort George in 2032 offers some significant opportunities. The fort is currently a significant visitor attraction and we can build on that. I would campaign to keep the museum there and then look at all the other possible options. The positive fact is that we have 15 years to construct a workable plan.
With that in mind I would like to announce that in the past few months I have been working hard, liaising with Mark Lancaster—the MP who has been dealing with rebasing—on the subject of Fort George. We both agree that we need to establish a group of local politicians and businesses to work out how the fort and the service accommodation in Inverness can be best developed to serve the Highlands.
The question is whether the other Highland MSPs from other political parties are prepared to join me and my colleagues in the endeavour to do something with Fort George, rather than sitting ineffectually on the sidelines debating whether a 300-year-old fort is the right place to base soldiers in the 21st century.
16:06
For Arbroath and RM Condor there is a touch of déja vu about the discussion. No sooner have we digested the detail of a basing review and listened to a pronouncement from the UK Government on the future of the facility than fresh uncertainty emerges. It was just five months ago that the results of the latest basing review were announced and we were told that although the airfield at RM Condor was to be sold, the remainder of the facility in my constituency was safe from the axe. As I said when the cabinet secretary made his initial statement on the outcome of the review, from a commercial perspective, I wonder who might want to buy an airfield within a Royal Marines base, given the likely security restrictions.
However, let us acknowledge—taking account of the closure notices that are being served on Fort George, Glencorse, Redford barracks and others, and that Scotland is losing one fifth of its defence estate—that there was a sense of relief locally. Therefore, when shortly before the recess the Parliamentary Bureau scheduled the debate, I wondered for a moment whether others might have more that I to contribute, but then came the revelations in The Times that the MOD was facing a £10 billion shortfall and the “financially struggling” Royal Marines would be reduced in size and capability—so, off we go again. The story claimed that the most direct impact would fall on 42 Commando, which is based in Plymouth, with the unit taking on a training role, rather than acting in rotation with 40 Commando and with 45 Commando, which is based in Arbroath. However, we were also told that 200 marines would be lost to the service through failure to replace them, and when the defence secretary appeared on “The Andrew Marr Show” he failed to rule out cutting the number of marines.
Earlier this year, during a visit to Condor, Sir Michael Fallon insisted the base was safe. If one was to ask the UK Government today, I expect that it would stand by that commitment. However, it is worth considering comments that were made a few weeks ago by Sir Michael, on a visit to RMB Chivenor—home to the Commando Logistic Regiment—which, it had been announced, was set to close under the basing review. He claimed that no final decision had yet been reached, but pointed out, significantly, that the airfield there is no longer in use. He continued:
“The overall intent, and I want to be honest about that, is to move units towards Plymouth and Devonport.”
The fact that an airfield’s being dispensed with is used to justify a closure sits alongside acknowledgement that the direction of travel for the Royal Marines—as we have all known for some time—is consolidation in the south of England.
My Westminster colleague Mike Weir MP has called on the defence secretary to spell out the genuine long-term plans for Condor. I back that call, for economic and security reasons. As the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Jobs and Fair Work does, Mike Weir and I fear that there is a chipping away at the viability of the base, especially with the artillery battery already having been earmarked for removal.
Continuing the Conservatives’ constitutional obsession, Maurice Golden harked back to the last independence referendum. Sir Michael’s predecessor, Phillip Hammond, also made a flying visit to Condor, during the run-up to the 2014 referendum, to commit to the future of the base. Three years on, we in Angus are anxious to learn whether that commitment meant anything or might yet turn out to be another broken Better Together promise.
Before anyone suggests that that is scaremongering, let me point out some of the recent history pertaining to Condor. We were here before, in 2004, as the MOD reviewed Condor’s status under a rationalisation programme. Its future was looked at again in 2009, before it was concluded that, at a cost of between £60 million and £100 million, relocating 45 Commando to the south-west of England would be “inappropriate and unaffordable”. Two years later, however, as the MOD sought to address a funding shortfall via a strategic defence review, we were told that the Royal Marines would make that very move—albeit with an Army unit moving into Condor. However, when we got to 2013, it emerged that the switch had been abandoned, because moving 45 Commando south did not represent value for money and the Army did not require the Arbroath facility for a base. Now, the airfield is to go, with potential consequences, as a result. By any measure, the UK Government’s approach to Condor is haphazard and unsettling, and it is unfair on the marines and their families.
On the subject of fair treatment, let us consider another aspect of the issue: namely, the responsibility that the UK Government—indeed, any Government—has to ensure that service bases are properly maintained. Earlier this year, it was claimed that the Royal Corps of Signals’s new recruits who were trying to grapple with complex signalling equipment were so cold that training was being hindered. Chronic boiler failures at the RAF headquarters in High Wycombe had forced more than 120 personnel to live with intermittent hot water and central heating for three years, and there were problems at the Royal Artillery barracks in Woolwich. That article followed a story that revealed that crumbling boilers at the home of the Foot Guards in central London meant that soldiers were being forced to perform ceremonial duties at Buckingham palace having not showered for days. It has since emerged that guardsmen were also using both their field-issue sleeping bags and normal bedclothes in an effort to keep warm at night.
Last year, Westminster’s Public Accounts Committee described contractor CarillionAmey as
“badly letting down service families”,
and said that its performance was
“totally unacceptable”.
However, a CarillionAmey source told The Daily Telegraph that problems were being exacerbated because the MOD preferred to commission what the source described as “firefighting” repairs, rather than to pay to replace outdated equipment on any significant scale.
I highlight those essentially English issues because they have spilled over into Scotland. When personnel returned to RM Condor after Christmas, they discovered that there was no hot water or heating in some of the quarters because two boilers had conked out. Although repairs in one block had been carried out by February, the repairs in the other block were not completed until March.
I do not know about other members, but I do not think that that is an acceptable situation for our military personnel to find themselves in. Up our way, you see, we hold our service personnel in high regard. David Stewart was right to speak about the social covenant. Yes—there will be the odd flare-up in the community in social settings but, overall, the relationship between the marines and the local public is good.
Just a few weeks ago, 45 Commando used its freedom of Angus status to parade through Arbroath to commemorate its having been based there for 45 years. That honour was given to it in 2003 in recognition of its long service and the close association that the unit has enjoyed with the area. Unfortunately, the parade took place on a Parliament sitting day, so I was unable to attend. However, this debate affords me an opportunity to record my support for 45 Commando. It is part of the fabric of Arbroath and wider Angus, and many former marines and their families choose to remain in the area when their service comes to an end.
It is entirely appropriate that the current marines had the opportunity to mark their strong connection with the area by marching through the town centre. However, we in Angus expect the MOD and the UK Government—any UK Government—to have the same regard for the unit and to provide it with appropriate facilities. I acknowledge that, in the light of recent problems and Mike Weir’s intervention, the MOD has now committed to replacing some other boilers on the base. Most important is that we need a degree of certainty about the unit’s future, so I look forward to the Government responding to my MP colleague’s call.
16:14
The debate can become rather emotional because some members have experience in the armed forces and some do not. However, it is important to understand that at the heart of the debate are the needs of the soldiers, airmen and seamen who serve in our armed forces and who, in many cases, put their lives on the line, and the needs of their families, which is an aspect that is near and dear to my heart.
As a councillor in Argyll and Bute Council and the armed forces and veterans champion for the council, I know how important it was that the armed forces community covenant was implemented, which was done in June 2011 by a Conservative Government. The then Prime Minister recognised how important it was that we gave a commitment to the armed forces and their families.
During my military service, I continually experienced rebasing of units—it was a threat to which we had constantly to adapt. As has been said, the MOD estate covers 424,000 hectares, which is nearly 2 per cent of the United Kingdom’s entire land area, and costs £2.5 billion a year to maintain. In that context, it must be acknowledged that the MOD estate is now too large and unwieldy to manage and no longer matches the requirements of our world-class 21st century military force. The armed forces have been reduced in size by about 30 per cent since the start of the century, but the defence estate has reduced in size by only 9 per cent. Basically, there is too much land under the MOD’s management.
Current trends are completely unsustainable in the long term, so something must be done to fix that problem. For example, the Redford infantry and cavalry barracks are no longer large enough to accommodate larger units such as air assault battalions and brigades, and battle groups, with the phenomenal amount of equipment that such units have. However, the Secretary of State for Defence has said to me that Dreghorn barracks is a more modern barracks that has had a lot of investment recently and is available to be expanded. Reductions have to be made in the MOD estate, no matter how difficult the task might be.
It is important that we have the correct amount of estate to match the armed forces’ needs. We must create a defence estate that is more efficient and which helps our armed forces to deliver more effective military capability. That must be the sole objective when deciding where military bases should be located. As I said in an intervention earlier, it is important that regular and reserve forces have access in particular to airfields and ports so that they can move at 24 or 48 hours’ notice, as politicians require. Operational needs and requirements must therefore be taken into consideration when deciding where military bases are located.
It is important that bases are fit for our armed forces, which deserve world-class bases from which to operate. For example, I will meet the command team from Faslane tomorrow to start on plans for developing a sports hub for the military and civilian communities in Helensburgh, which will also enhance the health of our submarine force personnel.
It is not right that more than 40 per cent of the MOD’s built assets are more than 50 years old: we need to adjust that figure. Our troops should no longer be required to use barracks that are grade A listed buildings, such as Fort George, which I know well personally, and which members might know about from having read the novel “Tunes of Glory” or the stories about Private McAuslan. Fort George might be a wonderful place and have a fantastic history, but such places are very expensive to maintain, so we need to move on from using them as barracks.
I seek clarity because I am genuinely puzzled. How can it be the case that every Conservative parliamentarian here supports all the closures while many Conservative parliamentarians in England are working with other parties to oppose closures? How can all the Conservatives in Scotland be right on the issue? What is the difference between Scotland and the rest of the country in that regard?
The English situation might be slightly different. I am not entirely aware of it. However, as far as Scotland is concerned, the Scottish Parliament is addressing Scottish matters. The Conservatives have a view as a parliamentary group and our comments are based on that. That is where we are. I will not address English issues—which are exactly what Mr Brown referred to.
Maurice Corry said that access to ports and airports is crucial. Does not he recognise that Fort George has excellent access to both?
Fort George might have access to a port, but it is not big enough for requirements.
It is important that we listen to our soldiers, and I have listened to the soldiers of 3 SCOTS battalion the Black Watch, my old regiment, who want to be closer to their regimental areas of Fife, Perth and Edinburgh. We need to take cognisance of their views, as well.
Maurice Corry made a distinct statement about the port to which Fort George has access not being large enough. I have quite a lot of experience of dealing with Inverness harbour and, indeed, other harbours in the Highlands and Islands. Can the member evidence for Parliament that Inverness harbour is not large enough for MOD requirements? I have not picked up from any direction that Inverness harbour is not large enough to cope with MOD requirements.
I thank David Stewart. I hear what he says and I would like to look into the matter, but as far as I am concerned, most movements are now air portable. That is why we have the C-17 Galaxy-equivalent heavy-lift aircraft, and it is why Kinloss and particularly Lossiemouth are so important. The main movements are by air.
It is important to think of the soldiers and bring them closer to their regimental areas, as I said earlier with regard to 3 SCOTS the Black Watch. No soldier should be expected to sleep inside monuments that were built to fight the Jacobite rebellions. The strategy that the Secretary of State for Defence has announced will see that coming to an end—and not before time.
Thanks to the savings from the Ministry of Defence’s estate optimisation strategy, there will be investment of more than £4 billion across the UK, of which £1.7 billion is for bases here in Scotland, as has been said. That will provide more jobs and opportunities for people right across Scotland.
The £1.3 billion upgrades to HMNB Clyde, which is soon to be the home of the entire submarine force, will see upgrades to its waterfront, its engineering support facilities, its accommodation and its physical security—there is also the health project that I have mentioned I will be discussing tomorrow—ahead of the Dreadnought class submarines arriving in Scotland. I note that £3.6 million of the money will be used to examine the best options for developing a new submarine school at HMNB Clyde. I have, in my councillor role, been involved in securing that school’s coming to the area. It will mean that the number of military and civilian jobs at the base will rise by nearly 2,000, from the current 6,800 to about 8,200 by 2022. That is good news for my entire region of West Scotland. Thanks to that UK Government commitment, Scotland will become the home of Britain’s submarine fleet and its training centre.
As members know, a further £400 million is to be invested in RAF Lossiemouth, whose runways, taxiways and accommodation will be upgraded—all the time we are seeing accommodation being upgraded; we are thinking of our servicemen and our troops and what is going to be good for them—in anticipation of the nine Poseidon P-8 maritime patrol aircraft and the additional Typhoons that are coming. RAF Lossiemouth continues to host one of the RAF’s three main fast-jet operating bases. By 2024, at least 400 extra personnel will be based at RAF Lossiemouth as a result of the marine patrol aircraft and the additional Typhoon squadron being based there.
Leuchars station will be expanded to become a main hub. We are upgrading our railways, and it is important that we have that to ensure that we can move heavy equipment. Leuchars will be home to one of the Army’s operational engagement and resilience infantry brigades.
As I have highlighted, the consolidation of the defence estate in Scotland is allowing the United Kingdom to invest significantly in better facilities to support the men and women of our armed forces, and to address the needs of our defence forces in their roles both at home and overseas. It means that we can focus on giving our troops the equipment that they need to get the job done, and that we can effectively use the money that we save by finding the most efficient way to operate our defence estate and our bases.
The Secretary of State has received his advice from defence chiefs—the people who know what is needed operationally. The Prime Minister says constantly when she refers to defence matters that she listens to her defence chiefs, who are the experts in the field.
As is noted in the amendment that my colleague Jackson Carlaw lodged, Scotland’s industry will benefit massively from access to UK defence procurement spending, thanks to our Conservative Government. In Scotland, defence procurement spending accounts for the employment of 11,000 people.
Will you come to a close, please?
Yes. Thank you, Presiding Officer.
The reason why the work in Stirling will no longer exist—the 26 Command workshop—is that the Defence Support Group contract is bringing the jobs into the bases, close to the units. That is the modern way of doing it. The SNP would put all that in jeopardy with independence. I am talking about long-term employment for the future. For example, MacTaggart Scott employ 32 apprentices.
You must come to a close, please, Mr Corry.
That is the sort of long-term commitment that the UK Government is making to highly skilled jobs in Scotland, and it is also helping our veterans.
The MOD has signed a contract with BAE Systems, as members know, for the offshore patrol vessels—
Mr Corry, you really must come to a close.
—and there is the investment in the type 26 frigates.
It is thanks to our Conservative Government making Scotland a defence priority that Scotland will continue to lead the way in defending our country from the air, land and sea. [Interruption.]
Mr Corry!
That is why I support Jackson Carlaw’s amendment.
It would help if members occasionally drew breath to allow me to come in and ask them to close. [Laughter.]
We move to the last of the open speeches. I am sure that Christine Grahame will be very disciplined.
16:24
There is always a first time.
I am pleased to take part in this debate. It is perhaps ironic timing that a parliamentary visit programme was launched yesterday by the Presiding Officer, encouraging MSPs to visit defence bases to learn more about the issues facing service personnel and their families. The press release says:
“The aim of the programme is for MSPs to better understand the range of social and welfare issues relevant to armed forces personnel and their families, within their community.”
If only the MOD would do the same.
I will visit and learn about the issues faced by service personnel and their families in the light of the proposed closure of Glencorse barracks in my constituency—incidentally, as has been pointed out, it has been home to the Army for some 150 years, is currently home to 552 service personnel and is very much part of the Penicuik and Midlothian community. Why should it not be, after 150 years? Indeed, when the soldiers have returned from Afghanistan or whatever areas of conflict they have been in, there has always been a parade through Penicuik.
Notice of the proposed closure first came by letter to me on 7 November, the day of the announcement. The same was true for my colleague Owen Thompson MP. As a result, I find it quite strange that the Tory amendment talks about believing
“that the UK Government should continue to engage fully with the Scottish Government, local authorities and local communities on the review”.
There was no engagement, and any subsequent engagement has occurred only in response to contact from elected representatives such as me.
The impact on the local economy will be significant, but I say to Maurice Corry that what causes concern is the decanting of families from a community in which they are welcome and settled.
Returning to the Tory amendment, I note that it refers to
“the sensible aims of updating the defence estate to be more capability focused and better suited to the needs of modern armed forces”.
The same line was repeated in parliamentary undersecretary of state Mark Lancaster MP’s letter of 5 December 2016 in response to my correspondence. That letter says:
“much of the infrastructure is old, inefficient and no longer able to meet the needs of the armed forces”.
In other words—to paraphrase Jackson Carlaw—it should be on some heritage tour. However, as others have pointed out, a £60 million upgrade of Glencorse was carried out between 2003 and 2005, and it was hailed by the MOD as “bench-mark accommodation”, with associated facilities for soldiers and their families including a gym, squash courts and a sports field. A short walk from the camp there are 150 houses, including officers service family accommodation and two specifically adapted bungalows for wheelchair users.
Will the member give way?
Bear with me a minute.
There are three and four-bedroomed houses with garages and fenced gardens; the children attend Mauricewood primary school, as they have for generations; and recently wives and partners, who are quite often disengaged from things and are unable to take up employment because of the peripatetic nature of the armed forces, have become involved in a start-up programme run by Women’s Enterprise Scotland in which they can begin to develop businesses for themselves. The cabinet secretary and I have seen that programme in action—it has received funding again not just from Women’s Enterprise Scotland but from Midlothian business gateway—and it builds confidence in the women to start up businesses.
That community is such a part of and so supported by Midlothian, with accommodation that is well fit for purpose, that its being on a hit list is quite disgraceful. To say that it will not be closed until 2032 means nothing; there is no guarantee that closure is that far away, and in the meantime, what will happen to the maintenance of those facilities and the morale of the families in the barracks?
So why close the barracks? It cannot be the estate’s unfitness—I have just made that clear. Frankly, it is just to raise money from the selling off of these prime sites for housing developments. In the big defence picture of the billions being committed to Trident, the situation is quite farcical, but the fact is that the UK does not have a good track record of looking after its servicemen and women and their families during and, indeed, after conflict. It even got to the point that, in the first Iraq war, soldiers did not even have proper footwear and were being sent food parcels by their families. If we fast-forward to the second Iraq conflict, we find soldiers being sent out into minefields in vehicles with underbellies that offered no protection from improvised explosive devices. The MOD has had to be shamed into the care and support of returning service personnel. There are too many ex-service personnel living rough on our streets, sleeping on park benches or being rehoused in our prisons.
Of course, on the plus side, Scotland was promised—along with Trident renewal—the building of type 26 frigates, which would secure work on the Clyde and which we were told was under threat if we voted for independence. The number that will be built has now been cut to eight, and the work has not started. No surprises there. The report, “Restoring the Fleet: Naval Procurement and the National Shipbuilding Strategy” says:
“It is clear to us that the delays in the construction of the Type 26 have had a negative impact on the development of the workforce on the Clyde.”
The closure of Glencorse and other barracks fits into a picture of Scotland’s primary defence role as one in which it houses weapons of mass destruction well away from the south-east but just 20 miles from the biggest city in Scotland. The rest is just empty promises and expediency. In the meantime, those weapons of mass destruction are useless against the committed terrorist sitting on a bus with a lethal backpack or driving a lorry into a crowd. But never mind: we should sleep sound in our beds at night because it is only Donald Trump who has his finger on the Trident trigger. When the chips are down, let us just send our troops into those conflict zones where we politicians have failed, and perhaps—just perhaps—they might have the right boots on their feet and vehicles that are not death traps. With regard to their accommodation on their return, the MOD knows best.
As for Glencorse, with closure hanging over it, what is going to happen over those years? In the meantime, with the exception of the Tories, all the local politicians—the councillors, the MP, the MSPs and I—will stand up, along with the entire community, and speak for the military personnel when they cannot, for obvious reasons, speak up for themselves.
We move to the closing speeches. It is disappointing to note that not all who participated in the debate are back in the chamber for the start of them.
16:32
This has been an excellent debate, with thoughtful and insightful speeches from across the chamber. Of course, some members, such as Mike Rumbles, Maurice Corry, Edward Mountain and the cabinet secretary, are ex-service personnel, and I believe that their contributions mirrored the depth and the range of their significant experience in their previous occupations. However, other members without military experience also spoke with passion and commitment about the importance of the military footprint in Scotland.
The cabinet secretary kicked off the debate by talking about the 20 per cent reduction in the defence estate, the reduction in the military footprint in Scotland and the role of the regional hubs. He also expressed concern about the issue of the Condor airfield in Arbroath and the fact that, in large parts of Scotland, the Army will have no footprint at all. He usefully raised the issue of the working party, which involves local authorities. I would be interested to hear the outcome of its work.
Jackson Carlaw and I could perhaps form a club for people who, in their school days, failed to join the RAF—perhaps we should form a support group to counsel ourselves about our career choices. On a serious note, he raised important issues from the 2015 strategic defence review and talked about the 91 sites that were earmarked for closure.
Like many members, Gordon MacDonald talked with passion and commitment about base closures in his local area and spoke about the importance of keeping army barracks in his constituency.
Maurice Golden made some valid points at the start of his speech about recognising the historic reputation of the work that the men and women of our armed forces carry out now and have carried out in the past. On a general level, he talked about the importance of getting defence infrastructure right in the future, which involves a long-term plan.
Stewart Stevenson entertained us, as always, but he also made a significant contribution to the debate. He raised an issue with which I have common cause, which is the impact of the armed forces, particularly the RAF, in the Moray area. As always, he had a relative who he could bring into the debate. I think that the year he mentioned was 1890—
About a hundred years earlier.
I will go back to school and remember the dates at a better time. Stewart Stevenson made a valid point about the threats in the future of non-state actors and the worries about violence, fear and hatred and concerns about ISIS and North Korea, as well as about the importance of mobile forces. He might have slightly misquoted the reference, but he cited a point made by a famous German military strategist, that no plan ever survives the first contact with the enemy.
Mark Ruskell made some valid points about the relationship between Governments—not just national Governments, but local government, which has an important role. I note that this is probably his last meeting before he gives up being a councillor, so he will no longer have to declare that interest. He said that, when bases are going to close, irrespective of the campaigning that has been done, we must consider how we can mitigate the effects of local base closures in the long term. He also made some valid points about the other side of the equation in Stirling, which concerns the importance of affordable housing and how we can try to put the two issues together. He also referred to a game of cat and mouse being played by the UK Government, and a common theme that has arisen this afternoon is the question of where the consultation has been from the UK Government. Many members made that point.
Bruce Crawford has a lot of experience in the military and a lot of understanding of local defence issues. He talked about the 20 per cent reduction in the defence footprint, his local base and the importance of repairing and upgrading its functions, the impact on Stirling if the base closes, and the high connectivity between the armed forces and the community in Stirling over many years. Another common theme in the debate has been personal links with the military, and Bruce Crawford mentioned his father, who I think I am right in saying was in the Household Cavalry.
I did not get a chance to respond to one of the points that Mark Ruskell made, but I entirely agree with him that one of the good things that will come from the proposal is that Trident will no longer be able to use Stirling as a base when it passes through.
I shall move on swiftly.
We heard from Mike Rumbles, who also has lots of experience, having been in the Army for 15 years in his previous life. He talked about Glencorse being his first posting, and he made some valid points about the economic effects of the closure of the bases, and supported the regional hubs. I do not think that anyone is suggesting that everything that the UK Government is suggesting is negative. There are some military and strategic advantages to having the regional hubs, but I emphasise that our current and future capabilities must meet the new threats. As the facts change, so do our opinions. It is critical to stress that. Mr Rumbles also mentioned the importance of getting our estates strategy right in future.
Edward Mountain was a soldier for 12 years and has a son currently serving. His key point, which in general terms I agree with, was that it is important to consider what is good for our service personnel. He made a general point about Fort George. He and I are on opposite sides of the argument, but I concede that setting up a working party is a good idea, and I would certainly volunteer for that. He said that those who want to see Fort George stay open are effectively chirping from the sidelines—I am not sure whether I am included in that—but the last time that I looked that was called democracy and campaigning. That minor point aside, I would be happy to sign up to Mr Mountain’s working party if he could arrange it.
Graeme Dey made some excellent points about the long-term plans for Condor, as he is worried about the constant chipping away. Maurice Corry, another member with experience of Army service, spoke with authority about getting a more efficient defence estate and looking at regular and reserve forces. I promise that next Christmas I will give Mr Corry a watch, because he is not very good at keeping time.
Finally, I want to mention Christine Grahame, who talked about the armed forces scheme being set up in the Scottish Parliament. I strongly endorse that. She made excellent points about Glencorse and its facilities and about the importance of the partners who are involved in the business support group. She finished by saying that it is a disgrace that the base is closing. As always, I will give Christine Grahame the last word. I normally do not get the first word either.
16:39
Like Mark Ruskell, I declare an interest as a serving councillor—in Moray, in my case—until 4 May, when I will relinquish that position.
My home in Alves in Moray sits between two significant armed forces establishments. To the west, we have the Army barracks at Kinloss, which is home to the 39 Engineer Regiment; and, to the east, we have RAF Lossiemouth, a Typhoon main operating base, which is preparing itself for the arrival of nine new Boeing P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft.
Moray has a long and proud military history, and I will highlight the importance of that history to the area. The SNP motion would lead people to believe that the UK Government only delivers bad news for Scotland yet, day in, day out, I see significant investment in Moray and the impact that that has in the local communities.
While we are talking about bad news, some news is bad not because of what it reports but because of its dodgy origins. I am, of course, talking about the shameful actions of Moray’s SNP MP, Angus Robertson. Looking for cheap headlines and to stir up a frenzy, Mr Robertson said that an “impeccable source” had told him that Kinloss was to close. The community was understandably concerned. A task force was established, and personnel and their family were left unsure of their futures. In the end, the base did not close. Far from being an “impeccable source”, Angus Robertson has never established any basis for his claims and months of uncertainty were caused for no reason. Today, the cabinet secretary repeated those concerns when he said that it was a last-minute decision to save Kinloss. Where did he hear that?
Will the member give way?
I will give way in a minute. The cabinet secretary used much of his speech to say how little engagement there had been with the UK Government. He said that the UK Government did not engage with him or the Scottish Government, so where did he hear that there was a last-minute deal? Do we have another impeccable source?
I would rather rely on what was said in the House of Commons by Sir Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, who confirmed:
“Contrary to some speculation and unnecessary scaremongering, Kinloss will be retained.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, 7 November 2016; Vol 616, c 1287.]
That is an impeccable source.
Is it the case that, like his colleagues here, Douglas Ross, in addition to deserting the field before the battle to retain Kinloss was won by people such as Angus Robertson, refused to oppose any of the proposed closures and that, unlike his colleagues south of the border who are campaigning against closures, he will simply fall into line?
I was hoping that the cabinet secretary would stand up and ask me that question, because I can say that I fought to retain Kinloss. Maybe the mask is slipping and the cabinet secretary now accepts that there was no threat to Kinloss if he is saying that my opposition to the closure—and I stood side by side with all politicians in opposition to closure—was not needed because the SNP had made up the claims. Indeed, Mr Brown’s mask is slipping.
Will the member give way?
No. Ms Adamson has just walked into the debate, so I will not take an intervention from her.
Although I acknowledge that SNP members want only to look at the negatives in the debate, I hope that they can accept the positives. I challenge any SNP MSP to stand up and say that the decision for Boeing and the UK Government to work together and to build a new £100 million operational support and training base in Lossiemouth is a bad thing. I challenge them to stand up and suggest that the creation of more than 100 new jobs with that investment will not be good for Moray. I challenge them to stand up and suggest that the 400 additional personnel who will be based at RAF Lossiemouth by 2024 will not have a positive effect on that region. I am happy to give way to any member who wants to criticise that investment.
Has the member got his nomination papers in yet? When he stands for Westminster and does not win, will he leave this place?
Douglas Ross.
I am sorry, Presiding Officer, but I thought that you were going to say that that was an inappropriate remark from someone of Mr Crawford’s experience. We are debating the serious issue of basing reviews, and I will confine my remarks to that. If the SNP is worried about who is going to stand for the Conservatives in Moray, I will let them stew over that for a wee while longer.
We have seen significant investment in Moray by the UK Government. All that could be in jeopardy with an independent Scotland. As Jackson Carlaw’s amendment clearly states, an independent Scotland would have a “very limited” military footprint, which would weaken our defence of the nation. I do not want that for Moray, I do not want that for Scotland, and I do not want that for the United Kingdom.
It is telling that, throughout the debate, not a single SNP member mentioned defence in an independent Scotland, despite that issue being part of one of the amendments on which we will vote this afternoon. That is because the SNP’s plans are indefensible. Indeed, a number of people have confirmed that we would have a small military footprint if we had an independent Scotland. The SNP cannot answer the problems that that would bring.
I accept that, as a number of members have said, there have been difficult decisions to take during the defence review, but I also see, day in, day out, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, the impact that our armed forces have in our local communities. They do their jobs and we have to deliver for them a defence estate that is efficient, modern and capability focused.
I will quickly mention some of the remarks that have been made during the debate. Jackson Carlaw was quite right to highlight the defence footprint across the United Kingdom, which amounts to 420,000 hectares. He also said that the reduction in the defence footprint in the UK is more significant than the reduction that we have seen in Scotland.
David Stewart told us about his experience on some aircraft. He told us that he has been on a maritime aircraft—a Sea King—which gives me the opportunity to say that I became the first UK politician to fly in one of the Poseidon P-8s, which I am proud of. I appreciate the opportunity to add to the remarks made by Mr Stewart.
Maurice Golden spoke about the historic and on-going defence of the nation by the MOD.
Stewart Stevenson spoke about Moray bases, neither of which are in his Banffshire and Buchan Coast constituency. I am left to wonder whether he was asked to mention them because the Moray MSP, Richard Lochhead, has not attended today’s debate.
That is a disgrace. He is at a funeral. The member should withdraw that remark.
I will withdraw it. If Mr Lochhead is not able to be here because he is at a funeral, I apologise. It is important to get that on the record, because people in Moray would have been concerned that their Moray MSP was not here. I am grateful for the opportunity to explain to them why he was not in the chamber to speak about a hugely important issue for Moray.
Mark Ruskell gave his opinion on opposing Trident, but he did not explain why more Scots support Trident than oppose it.
Bruce Crawford mentioned a city deal and MOD rationalisation. Although I accept his concerns about the timing, it was good to hear him agree with the general principles.
Mike Rumbles spoke about his 15 years in the Army and highlighted the important issue of family life for service families and the benefits that he believes could be gained by stabilising Army life with the consolidation of three primary hubs.
Maree Todd would not take a single intervention—I tried, tried and tried, but she would not take a single one. Could that be because, in an eight-minute speech, she could not bring herself to welcome the huge investment by the UK Government in Moray, which is an area that she represents as part of the Highlands and Islands region?
Edward Mountain, with his experience in the armed forces, is now hoping to convene a task force involving local politicians and businesses. I was grateful to hear David Stewart volunteer to join that group, which I will also be happy to join. I am sure that other politicians will join forces with it, too.
Maurice Corry, in a brief contribution, mentioned his armed forces career. He has continued to be an armed forces champion as a councillor on Argyll and Bute Council. He rightly highlighted the important point that decisions are taken on the advice of defence chiefs.
I will finish by saying how proud we all are of what the military does in Scotland, in the UK and around the world to protect us. We are equally proud to call members of the military our friends and neighbours and to work with them locally. I hope that our service personnel know after today’s debate that, regardless of the political points that have been made by all parties, we are indebted to them for their service, their sacrifices and their support.
I call Keith Brown to close the debate.
16:48
I thank all those who made helpful contributions to the debate. As I said when I opened the debate, these are far-reaching defence cuts—perhaps the most far-reaching defence cuts ever made in Scotland. They will have a detrimental impact across Scotland and all of us in the chamber have a responsibility to the communities that we represent to make our collective voice heard on this issue.
I cannot think why, and I have not had an answer to this, not a single Conservative MSP—
Will the member take an intervention?
I will finish the point. I will take your intervention in a second.
Not a single Tory MSP will oppose a single closure, while your colleagues south of the border feel perfectly able to stand up for their communities alongside representatives of other parties. I will give way to Douglas Ross on that point.
Will you clarify your remarks, then? You can confirm that I opposed the closure of Kinloss. You are saying that that was a genuine closure. If that did not happen, why can you not accept that I opposed that closure and that that is an example of Conservatives working in their constituencies to oppose these closures?
I remind everyone, yet again, that there are no private conversations between people during a debate: you should always speak through the chair.
My understanding of what Douglas Ross said is that the proposed closure was never going to happen, but that he prevented it. That is just bizarre. Not only did he not prevent it but, long before the decision was taken, he deserted the field and said that it was done and safe.
No.
I am confident from my sources that that was a last-minute decision and it was overturned.
Who are the sources?
If you are not confident and you do not know your story, you should talk to your ministers in the Conservative Government.
Through the chair, cabinet secretary.
Presiding Officer, the Conservative members should talk to their own ministers and Government. They have obviously not been doing that or they would know the story.
In the case of HM Naval Base Clyde, the Scottish Government’s position on the nuclear deterrent is well known. I did not mention that at the start of my speech, because I tried initially—perhaps that was foolish—to see whether there was common ground between us.
Will the member take an intervention?
Not just now; I will try to make some progress.
That was my approach at the start, but it was immediately exploded by a dire diatribe from Jackson Carlaw, which was very poorly informed. [Interruption.] Can I make some progress, please?
For some years, he will regret his description of the bases that are to be closed as a “heritage tour”. We heard in eloquent terms from Christine Grahame about the relevance and importance of the bases to local communities, and communities across the country will now know the Conservative view. Describing the bases as a “heritage tour” drips contempt for the people who are trying to maintain the link with the armed forces in their communities.
We saw right away which way the Conservatives would go in the debate, which was straight to the constitution, as they are utterly obsessed by it. It was not mentioned in my motion, as we were trying to have a debate about a decision on closing bases, but the Conservatives went off in their usual way.
Will the member take an intervention?
No, I will not.
Why can no single Conservative MSP muster any opposition to any of the closures, whereas their colleagues south of the border seem to have a spine? Perhaps their colleagues have collective ownership of the Tory spine this week, but at least they can oppose the closures, whereas Tory MSPs cannot.
There has been no opposition from the Conservatives and that will haunt them in the next two months. During the course of the election, people will want to put questions to Conservative council and parliamentary candidates about why they have supinely allowed the closures to take place.
David Stewart made a good contribution, pointing out the fact that the issue is about communities. Edward Mountain said that it is not about buildings and I agree that it is about people—those who serve in the armed forces and the communities that work with them.
For the past seven years, I have been the Scottish Government’s veterans minister and, at each event—including the armed forces visit scheme event this week that was mentioned by David Stewart—I have been able to say that we have a consensus in this Parliament. All the parties respect and support the members of our armed services. That is perhaps the most important point of the debate.
However, we heard from Maurice Golden that all military personnel are “expendable” to people such as me and others in the SNP. I ask him to think about that and I have two things to say. First, I found that profoundly offensive and, hearing what Bruce Crawford had to say about his son and his father, I think that many other people would, too. I am not saying that my finding it offensive would worry the Tories too much.
Maurice Golden should know that veterans and those in the armed forces are very grateful for the fact that, although we have fundamental disagreements on Trident and other aspects, we at least agree on that basic point of respect and support for the armed forces. I will give him the chance now or later during my speech to intervene and clarify his remarks. I am sure that he cannot mean that the SNP thinks that every member of the armed forces is expendable. I am happy to give him an intervention if he wants to come back in and correct that. If not, it certainly changes my script with regard to what I can say to veterans, the armed forces and the outside world about the views that are held in this Parliament.
Mike Rumbles made a bizarre intervention and said that it is the SNP’s fault that the closures are taking place. I think that his logic was that SNP MPs had failed to prevent it.
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
If I can just make the point, I will let Mike Rumbles come in afterwards.
Perhaps it was Ming Campbell’s fault, as the original decision on Leuchars was his, or perhaps it is to Mike Weir’s credit that we have kept 45 Commando so far. It made no sense at all and it shows the desperate lengths to which Mike Rumbles will go to protect the Conservatives—potential coalition partners—rather than talk about the important issue, which is the closure of the bases.
I think that the minister is deliberately misunderstanding the point that I made. I would have thought that, if 50-odd MPs in the House of Commons worked together with the UK Government on such issues, they could influence events, but it is obvious that they have not done so or have not been able to do so.
That confirms to everyone how bizarre Mike Rumbles’s intervention was.
It always seems to be a Conservative Government. Graeme Dey spoke about the chopping and changing that has happened in the UK Government’s approach to military bases from 2010 until now, as did Gordon MacDonald. It goes back further than that in relation to 45 Commando, of course. I remember that, in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher wanted to abolish the entire Royal Marines corps. This has gone on for a long period of time. It seems to me that we could have had a bit of consensus with perhaps a different approach from the Conservatives in Scotland or even the same approach taken by their colleagues south of the border, who are willing to oppose what has been proposed. Unfortunately, we have not had that today.
The cabinet secretary accuses us of taking one line on the issue. Are there any bases in Scotland that he thinks are not fit for purpose and that should perhaps be considered for closure to benefit the troops who are posted there?
That is a very fair point, but I refer Edward Mountain to a point that I made in my opening speech. I said to Mark Lancaster at the very start, before any decisions were taken on closures—Fort George was the case most in point because, as Edward Mountain will know, the Scottish Government has a fundamental interest in it—that, if there were concerns about the fitness and suitability of any of the bases, we should work together and see what we could try to achieve. However, that has never been done. As Christine Grahame pointed out, the Conservative amendment talks about continuing engagement with the Scottish Government, but there has been no engagement with it.
We will have to help local authorities to pick up the educational and employment consequences. We should have tried to work together on the issue; instead, we have been totally excluded from that.
Of course not all the bases are fit for purpose. Edward Mountain asked me about that. I will ask him a question. Does he think that Glencorse barracks falls into the category of not being fit for purpose and not suitable as a Ministry of Defence facility?
I am sure that the minister listened to what I said earlier in my speech. I do not know my way around Glencorse barracks as well as Christine Grahame does, and I have to take on advisement what she said. I asked the minister a specific question and it is unfair for him to throw it back at me. I will repeat it. Is there one barracks in all the barracks that are earmarked for closure that the SNP thinks is not suitable for soldiers in the 21st century? Will the minister answer that question, please?
I have just answered the question. Surely the UK Government can make a case for needing to close any bases. It should talk to the Scottish Government about that and tell us the details so that we can respond. It has refused to do that, and that is why there cannot be the dialogue that there should be.
I would have thought that Edward Mountain would have known about the condition of Glencorse barracks, given his remarks in his speech. I remind him that £60 million was spent as recently as 2006, and it is now being shut.
It seems to me that the Tories south of the border have possession of the Tory spine this week, but if it were possible for some Tories to come on board and say that they will be part of the programme, I would predict that not all the base closures would go ahead. I will be held to that in future years. That is on the record, and I can be held to that. I think that not all those bases would then be closed. That is possible. I think that David Stewart made the point that, if we stand together and make the case, we can stop some of the closures, especially the more absurd ones.
That is all that the motion seeks to do, but it seems clear from the Conservative response that there is no chance that they want to be part of that. They want to slavishly follow the line that has been handed down to them from London, rather than stand up for local communities. I predict that they will pay a heavy price for that in the local elections and the forthcoming general election, when their candidates will be unable to say, “We’ll stand up for the local communities affected by these closures.”
I see that Maurice Golden has not sought to intervene and clarify his remarks. There were murmurs of approval from the Conservatives when he commented that the Conservative position is that the SNP and I believe that all military personnel are “expendable”. That is the view, and that explodes the consensus that we have had in the Parliament for the past seven years. I will give way to Maurice Golden if he wants to try to rectify that.
That was clearly in reference to the way in which the SNP is treating the issue. I hope that Mr Brown would recognise that. How many military personnel would there be in an independent Scotland?
People will look at that comment and realise that the position of the Conservative party is that it believes that there is no consensus in this Parliament of respect for the armed forces personnel of this country and that at least one party in this Parliament believes military personnel to be expendable. That is a despicable thing to have said. It is profoundly insulting to people across this chamber.
Maurice Golden has had his chance to rectify his comment and the Tories have had their chance to support the local communities that are trying to oppose those base closures. They refuse to do it. I hope that the motion will be agreed to and that the rest of us in the chamber will oppose the closures.