Scottish Affairs Committee - Minutes of EvidenceHC 140-II

Back to Report

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Scottish Affairs Committee

on Tuesday 12 November 2013

Members present:

Mr Ian Davidson (Chair)

Graeme Morrice

Simon Reevell

Mr Alan Reid

Lindsay Roy

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Rt Hon Alistair Carmichael MP, Secretary of State for Scotland, Dr Andrew Murrison MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Security Strategy, Ministry of Defence, and Margaret Porteous, Deputy Director (Policy) in the Scotland Office, gave evidence.

Q3795 Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. As you know, we have been conducting a series of hearings into various aspects of the vote on separation that is due next year. In particular, we have been looking at the various documents that HMG has produced in relation to aspects of separation and today we want to look at the report on defence.

Before we do so, could I abuse my position as the Chair and say as the local Member covering the Govan shipyards how much I welcome the announcement by the Government that they would wish, if all goes well, to place the orders for the Type 26 on Clydeside. I would particularly welcome the new order that was placed for the OPVs in order to provide a carry-over.

One of the things that I, again, particularly want to welcome-and in a sense I am surprised that this has not received more attention in Scotland-is the fact that the company, with the Government, have agreed to move blocks of the aircraft carrier from Portsmouth, even at a time when they are facing some job loss, to the Clyde in order to keep the Clyde fully functioning as a shipyard. That is particularly recognised and welcomed by my constituents and others. We will come on to that in the questions.

We are running a little late. I understand, Dr Murrison, that you did want to make an opening statement but you are happy to waive that. Perhaps you could let us have it for the record and we will put it into the documents. Mr Carmichael, I understand that you have a brief statement that you want to make.

Mr Carmichael: There is nothing that would be in the statement that will not be covered elsewhere in the evidence. Given the pressures of time, we would be as well to carry on.

Q3796 Chair: I would start off by seeking clarification from Dr Murrison on a shipbuilding question. Do the UK Government have proposals for a shipbuilding capital programme after the completion of the Type 26?

Dr Murrison: Clearly, we are going to have to consider a succession of platforms well into the future. That is the nature of defence; nothing, I’m afraid, stays the same. Of course the Queen Elizabeth class is going to be with us for many decades to come and, ultimately, that capability is going to have to be replaced. Defence is changing very rapidly. If we are talking in the context of decades, it is very difficult to predict what defence will actually mean that far out. One thing is for sure. We will need to address any contingent defence issues that may arise. That is going to require continued investment in high-tech, complex equipment to sustain our armed forces. I am afraid I am unable to add more than that since I do not have a crystal ball.

Q3797 Chair: Is it reasonable for me to take that answer as meaning yes, that the Royal Navy might possibly have a need to build ships after you have completed the Type 26?

Dr Murrison: This country has been building warships for centuries. I see nothing from where we are at the moment to stop that continuum. We will clearly have to continue building platforms of one sort or another depending upon the threat assessment that we make. It is worth while stating that the Type 26 is a work in progress and it is going to sustain our frigate needs for many years into the future.

Mr Carmichael: Perhaps I could take a slightly different tack to your question. You and I were both at the meeting with BAE Systems’ senior management last Thursday. No doubt you would have been as pleased as I was that they were able to say that the announcement last week gives them a work stream that takes them through to 2034. That is a substantial period of time for a shipyard to have encompassed, and to be able to offer that sort of stability to your constituents and others employed in these shipyards is no mean consideration and it is something on which we should put some quite positive emphasis.

Chair: That is very fair. I also recognise that the convenors of the work force also indicated that they had had 14 good years with the union building ships for the Royal Navy with the carriers, and before that the Type 45. We are now thinking ahead and wondering what comes after the Type 26.

Q3798 Simon Reevell: In the event of a yes vote in the Scottish referendum, where will the Royal Navy build its warships?

Dr Murrison: That is a hypothetical because, of course, we are not planning for a yes vote next year.

Q3799 Simon Reevell: So 12 months or so from the possibility of a yes vote, for a country that has been building warships for hundreds and hundreds of years, as you have just told us, no one has given any thought to where they might be built if the vote goes one of the only two ways that it can go.

Dr Murrison: The Government’s position is that we are not planning for a yes vote; that is the position.

Q3800 Simon Reevell: You are obviously quite determined then, if you have not given any thought to warship building, and you are definitely not planning at all.

Dr Murrison: From a defence perspective, the argument in favour of the Union is just overwhelming. If anybody was concerned about defence and security, they would not go anywhere close to independence for Scotland, since both for Scotland and for the residual UK it would have the most profound consequences.

Q3801 Simon Reevell: What if you were English and you were wondering, in the event of a yes vote, where your warships would be built? What would be the answer to that?

Dr Murrison: Well, I am English and I am deeply concerned by any suggestion that we might have a yes vote next year. I think it would be massively damaging for my security as an English Member of Parliament representing an English constituency.

Q3802 Simon Reevell: Is that because there is not anywhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland to build warships?

Dr Murrison: No; it is because Scotland makes a very important contribution to collective defence. It always has done and I hope very much that it will continue to do so.

Q3803 Simon Reevell: If the plans as announced go through, in the event of a yes vote, would there be anywhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland to build warships?

Dr Murrison: We do build complex platforms in what would be the residual UK at the moment.

Q3804 Simon Reevell: I was not asking about at the moment but if the plans as announced went through.

Dr Murrison: It is important to note that warships are not built by the Government but by industry.

Q3805 Simon Reevell: But they are built for the Government though, aren’t they? From the Royal Navy perspective, if there is a yes vote, is there somewhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland that would have the capacity to build warships?

Dr Murrison: The important thing is that article 346, which at the moment allows us to insist that complex platforms are built in the UK, would no longer apply in the same way in relation to contracts placed in Scotland.

Q3806 Simon Reevell: We will come on to article 346. I imagine that you know the answer to this. If you do not wish to answer the question, do say so. Is there anywhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland that would have the capacity to build the warships that we are talking about?

Dr Murrison: It depends what sort of warship you want to build.

Q3807 Simon Reevell: What sort of warships would be able to be built?

Dr Murrison: The straight answer to your question is that of course we could build complex platforms in the residual UK.

Q3808 Simon Reevell: Where would that happen?

Dr Murrison: Portsmouth is certainly possible.

Q3809 Simon Reevell: Wouldn’t that mean reversing the policy that has just been announced?

Dr Murrison: I suspect you would have to invest significantly in complex platform building in Portsmouth.

Q3810 Simon Reevell: To answer my question directly, going back to it, the question was, if the announcement that we have just had was carried through, in the event of a yes vote would there be anywhere in residual UK-in other words, would there be anywhere in England, Wales or Northern Ireland-where warship could be built?

Dr Murrison: They could be built, yes, of course.

Q3811 Simon Reevell: Where would it be?

Dr Murrison: I am certainly not going to make any suggestions, but Portsmouth has been used a lot.

Q3812 Simon Reevell: Is it a secret place?

Dr Murrison: No; of course it is not secret. Warship building is currently under way in Portsmouth. You could suppose that, in the event of a yes vote next year, the residual UK might wish to continue building warships in Portsmouth.

Q3813 Simon Reevell: So the way to continue building warships for the Royal Navy within England, Wales or Northern Ireland would be to reverse the announcement and to recommence building in Portsmouth.

Dr Murrison: No; there is no intention of reversing any announcement.

Q3814 Simon Reevell: I am not suggesting there is.

Dr Murrison: The UK Government is planning for the continuation of the United Kingdom, and the Clyde is the right place to build complex platforms of this sort.

Mr Carmichael: As long as it is part of the United Kingdom.

Q3815 Simon Reevell: Without reversing what has been announced and reopening the facility at Portsmouth, is there anywhere else in England, Wales or Northern Ireland where we could build warships?

Dr Murrison: The facility in Portsmouth has not been closed, has it?

Q3816 Simon Reevell: We have been talking as if it had. Put Portsmouth to one side. Is there anywhere else in England, Wales or Northern Ireland except for Portsmouth?

Dr Murrison: It depends very much upon what you want to construct. At the moment we are building complex platforms in Portsmouth.

Q3817 Simon Reevell: You understand what we mean by a warship, don’t you? Perhaps you don’t. If I say "a warship", do you understand what I mean by that?

Dr Murrison: I have served on quite a few warships in my time.

Simon Reevell: Excellent.

Dr Murrison: If you are talking about a Type 26-a complex platform of that sort-or a Queen Elizabeth class warship, as you know, they are being built in a number of locations in modular form and assembled in Scotland. That is how the Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier arrives, for example.

Q3818 Simon Reevell: Let us take the Type 26. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, except Portsmouth, is there anywhere else we could build a Type 26 at the moment?

Dr Murrison: You could probably build it at Barrow, I suspect. There is shipbuilding at Barrow, for example. It is not configured for that at the moment and you would have to invest fairly heavily in any alternative site in order to build platforms of this sort. We have invested very heavily on the Clyde, obviously. British Aerospace and others have put a great deal of money into investing in complex platform construction in Scotland. You cannot simply decide you are going to build a warship, for example, in the port of London and crack on the next day. You would have to invest heavily in that.

Q3819 Simon Reevell: That was what I suspected to be the position. At the moment we have the facility in Portsmouth. The suggestion is that that facility will no longer be available. If, in the event of a yes vote, the Royal Navy wished to build warships in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, it would necessitate a reversal of that announcement in order to build in Portsmouth.

Dr Murrison: It is important to note, of course, that these facilities are not owned by the Government.1 They are operated and run by industry. We do not do state industry in the way that your question implies.

Q3820 Simon Reevell: So you would be happy to place an order for a warship with a company and let them just build it wherever they want to.

Dr Murrison: No; that is not what I said, but it is for industry to own, operate and equip facilities according to the contract that is placed.

Q3821 Simon Reevell: Is there no discussion at all between Government and industry about where a warship might be built if the order is placed, or is the order just placed and then it is up to the company?

Dr Murrison: The important thing as far as we are concerned is that we retain a sovereign capability-in other words, the ability to build complex platforms in the UK. That will not change in the event that there is a yes vote next year.

Q3822 Simon Reevell: We have come full circle. If there is a yes vote, where will that sovereign capability be?

Dr Murrison: Ah, well, it will be in the residual UK.

Q3823 Simon Reevell: Yes, I guessed that bit, but just being a bit more specific-

Dr Murrison: We are not planning for independence, so I cannot really answer your question.

Q3824 Simon Reevell: How do you know you will have the capacity if you do not know where it will be?

Dr Murrison: Because we currently build complex platforms in what will be the residual UK.

Q3825 Simon Reevell: We are talking about Portsmouth then, aren’t we?

Dr Murrison: That is where we are building complex platforms at the moment.

Q3826 Simon Reevell: It would just take a lot less time-that’s all-if the answer is Portsmouth, the answer is Portsmouth.

Dr Murrison: That is where we are building complex platforms at the moment. In the event that there was independence, it is possible that industry might decide that they would be capable of building complex platforms or parts of those complex platforms elsewhere in the residual UK.

Q3827 Simon Reevell: But if you are confident of retaining a sovereign capability, either your confidence is based entirely on optimism, or you have calculated how to do it and hence you are optimistic about the prospect. If you have calculated how you are going to retain sovereign capability, as opposed to just simply deciding that you will, you must have an idea about the location and the nature of that capability. If you do not want to share that with us that is fine, but it would be easier just to tell us that.

Dr Murrison: With respect, your question is somewhat simplistic in that complex warships are the product of construction on a number of sites. That is the reality of it. Nothing exemplifies that better than the Queen Elizabeth class, which is being manufactured in a number of sites and assembled in Scotland. I would anticipate that some future hypothetical class of warship might be constructed in a similar sort of fashion. The important thing to note is that we have capability, or would have that capability, in the residual UK and that in the event of a yes vote next year article 346 enables us to continue to build complex platforms in what would then be the residual UK.

Mr Carmichael: Perhaps I can assist the Committee here. I fear we are taking something that is essentially quite simple and making it unnecessarily complex. Last week the Secretary of State for Defence made it quite clear that the United Kingdom will build its warships within the boundaries of the United Kingdom. We have done that with a few exceptions since the beginning of the 20th century, and that will remain the case. Those who wish Scotland to remove herself from the United Kingdom have suggested that in fact there would be no option but to continue building warships on the Clyde. In fact, what Dr Murrison has explained today is that there would remain capacity elsewhere within the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that really is as much as Government planning ought to look at, at this stage.

Q3828 Simon Reevell: Can I just disagree with you slightly? I understand that it is being said by some people that the only capacity is on the Clyde and, therefore, whatever the British Government might say, the ships would have to be built on the Clyde, come what may. You are saying that that is not right and that we would retain a sovereign capability within the residual UK.

You could strengthen that argument by explaining clearly where that capability would be, because, otherwise, people might say, "They are telling us there is a sovereign capability being retained, but they are very hazy about where it is going to be." I am just giving you the opportunity to deal with the people who say that it has to be on the Clyde because there is no alternative by saying, "That is not right. We are committed to this policy and we could do it at location x."

Mr Carmichael: With respect, we are in danger of coming round in full circle here. Dr Murrison has given one very clear option, which is Portsmouth. There are others within the rest of the United Kingdom, including Barrow, for example, where work could be carried out. Given that at the moment the Clyde remains within the United Kingdom, while it does remain within the United Kingdom, that is the obvious place to build the warships.

Q3829 Chair: Let me clarify two things. We do not want to force the Minister to take too many evasive manoeuvres. We recognise that you do not want to outline everything that the Government might want to do in the event of separation, but we need to have some clarity. In particular, first, is it going to remain the UK Government’s view that they want to retain sovereign capability for building complex warships in the event of a decision for separation?

Dr Murrison: The straight answer to that, of course, is yes. There is no evasion at all. I think the Secretary of State has made that very clear.

Q3830 Chair: Just because he says it does not necessarily mean to say that people hear it or believe it. We wanted to make sure on the record in this Committee, before we write our report, what the position was as you understood it. It has been said in the Scottish Parliament-and I quote directly-"The reality that nobody can get away from- which I think we should use as a big advantage for the Clyde, not as something to argue about-is that the Clyde is now not only the best place to build the frigates, but is the only place to build them." In your view, is that correct?

Dr Murrison: It is certainly the best place to build them, given that we confidently expect the United Kingdom to remain. The Clyde has been building warships, as you know far better than me, for ever in the context of this debate and they are extraordinarily fine vessels. That is where our capability lies. However, the original point remains and that is-

Q3831 Chair: Sorry, "the best place"-I understand that, and I appreciate the compliments, as I am sure the work force do. However, we recognise a smokescreen when we see one. It was also said that it was the only place to build them. Is that correct?

Dr Murrison: That is something that was said in the Scottish Parliament.

Chair: Yes.

Dr Murrison: I would question that assertion because we are building warships in Portsmouth, and Portsmouth has been mentioned.

Q3832 Chair: Is it true to say that the statement made in the Scottish Parliament about the Clyde being the only place to build them is incorrect?

Dr Murrison: No; it is not the only place you could build complex warships of this sort-of course not.

Q3833 Chair: That is what we wanted to clarify. It would be much easier if you had just said that at the beginning. Let me clarify another point. Can you tell us your understanding of what article 346 means?

Dr Murrison: Article 346 allows us to derogate from European Union law for national security reasons. It means that, if we consider it to be necessary, we can place contracts where we want to place contracts without going out to tender. In other words, it avoids the need to put bids out to competitive tender across Europe.

Q3834 Simon Reevell: Let me ask you about that in terms of the process. Do you seek an exemption in relation to the specific subject of the tender and then simply find someone to manufacture for you? In other words, do you begin by seeking the derogation and then you place the order so that you are completely free to place the order with whomsoever you choose? Is it simply something that applies within the context of the EU, or is it something that, once it bites because of the EU rules, applies to a tendering process that can extend beyond the EU?

Dr Murrison: You first have to work out what you want to achieve-in other words, the platform that you want. That is a process that will be carried out within the UK Ministry of Defence. It is a Government function. Having done that, you need to try to work out whether this is something that is necessary in terms of maintaining our sovereign capability-in other words, our ability to continue to manufacture platforms of one sort or another.

If it is felt that for UK defence we need to maintain that sovereign capability, then we will insist on article 346. The ability to build warships organically will certainly satisfy that requirement, which is why we feel it is not contentious. It is necessary to maintain a drum beat of manufacture, hence the recent statement about OPVs and the moving of blocks from Portsmouth. It is part of that need to ensure that we are able to continue with those skills and that capability somewhere within the United Kingdom.

Q3835 Simon Reevell: Let’s pick a neutral example. Let’s imagine that there is in the port of London the ability to build a warship. Does it give you the ability to build within sovereign borders or an ability to simply choose who builds for you regardless of where they are located?

Dr Murrison: The derogation is in order to ensure that you are ultimately able to continue defending the UK. It would mean that you would have to make a case that is sustainable in law that the contract you placed could avoid normal competition law because it was necessary to maintain that capability in the UK.

Q3836 Simon Reevell: If we had some dockyards in the port of London that were the only dockyards to build warships, we could seek to keep them going by using the process you have described to place the order within those dockyards.

Dr Murrison: If that is keeping the capability within the UK, the answer would be yes.

Q3837 Simon Reevell: If there was a particular shipyard in Belgium that we happened to like, could we use the powers to keep that foreign shipyard going? You can perhaps see where this question is leading.

Dr Murrison: I can see where the question is going. I think the answer is technically yes if it was in our national interest to do so.

Q3838 Simon Reevell: Presumably, with the shipyard in Belgium, we would have to be able to justify the difference between that and the shipyard in Spain, Portugal or anywhere else.

Dr Murrison: Yes, because the derogation is on the basis of maintaining our defence and security.

Q3839 Simon Reevell: If there were a number of yards that were capable of building the sort of warship that the UK Government wanted, would they be able to use article 346 to favour one above the other if they were all non-UK yards?

Dr Murrison: Yes; I know where your question is going. The straight answer is probably yes, but you would need to make the case based upon UK sovereign needs.

Q3840 Simon Reevell: Let us use the example then of shipyards on the Clyde. On what basis would the residual UK be able to sustain what would by then be a foreign shipyard using article 346, bearing in mind EU competition rules? I can hear the German shipyard that could build the same ship saying, "Hang on, why are the English, Welsh and Northern Irish allowed to place their orders in Scotland, which is now a separate country?"

Dr Murrison: You would have to make a case that the residual UK’s defence is best secured by placing that contract in that particular yard.

Q3841 Simon Reevell: If the yards on the Clyde were in Scotland post-yes vote as a foreign country, is there any reason why Royal Navy warships would be better made on the Clyde than in any other foreign yard?

Dr Murrison: I suppose you could make a case around transferable skills. You could possibly make a case around a notion that SMEs and other consequential businesses in the supply chain might be within Great Britain, for example. It is all very hypothetical.

Q3842 Simon Reevell: Presumably, if the German yard said, "We’ll buy x% of the ships’ contents from companies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland," there would be no-What I am trying to understand is why a Scottish company would think it would be better placed purely because Scotland had previously been in the UK. I cannot see why that would be, but you may tell me that there is a reason.

Dr Murrison: I have explained article 346 so far as I understand it, but, as Philip Hammond made clear, in the event that there was a yes vote, it is likely that we would want to maintain sovereign capability within the borders of the residual United Kingdom.

Q3843 Chair: I understand that, but to some extent that is a different issue. The issue has been raised about whether or not article 346 would preclude my constituents and others in Scotland receiving the orders from the Royal Navy. It appears quite clear from what you are saying that article 346 would not. It could allow the UK Government to determine that they want, for any reason they wish to put forward, to give this order to the Clyde. The question of whether or not it would wish to do so and the impact upon sovereignty capability is a different issue. The question of article 346 cannot be used, unless I am mistaken, to argue that the order could not go to the Clyde.

Dr Murrison: No. If we thought it was in our national interest to do so in terms of defence and security, then, hypothetically, that would be my understanding too.

Q3844 Chair: In relation to article 346 and defence generally, if you give an order to a company-whether it is BAE or anybody else-do you then lose all rights to say to the company, "We want you to build it within our country or wherever you like"? It is how this meshes with the question of sovereign capability.

Dr Murrison: No; you could write it into the contract that you wanted the work to be done in a particular area for the reasons we have been discussing, namely, the need to maintain sovereign capability within your borders.

Q3845 Chair: It has also often been argued that, if an order was given to Thales or BAE Systems, as soon as you place the order the UK Government would then lose any power over where that order goes. Unless I am mistaken, you are saying that that is not the case and it would be up to the UK Government if they wished to specify where that order was implemented.

Dr Murrison: Yes; that is correct, subject to contract law.

Q3846 Chair: Sorry-"subject to contract law." Not being a lawyer, I am not quite sure what that means.

Dr Murrison: "Contract" is very straightforward. It depends upon the nature of the contract that you sign with the participating parties.

Q3847 Chair: But if you put it into the contract then it applies.

Dr Murrison: Yes; correct.

Q3848 Chair: I just want to be absolutely clear. We have clarified article 346, but am I right in saying that there is no way that any company, given a defence order by the MOD, can then switch it around the world unless either (a) it has the MOD’s permission to do so given as part of the contract, or (b)-in fact there is not a (b), is there? It can only switch it around if it has the MOD’s permission to do so or it is not in the contract?

Dr Murrison: Yes, of course. The answer is yes.

Q3849 Chair: I want to clarify another point on this. How does EU legislation on article 346 and procurement legislation apply in the case of joint procurement projects, say, like Typhoon, where different bits are done in different countries? How does that work and how is that applicable potentially to a separate Scotland?

Dr Murrison: Again, you would have to make a case for sovereign capability being enhanced or protected by the contract arrangements that you have established.

Q3850 Chair: What does that mean?

Dr Murrison: It is exactly as I have explained it to you, Chair. You would have to make a determination on where your sovereign capabilities need to be maintained and contract for that accordingly. Article 346 means that you do not simply have to throw it out to general tender. The Typhoon contract, of course, is a good case in point. There is a need to make sure that the systems we are talking about are capable of being produced here.

Q3851 Chair: This comes back to the question of sovereign capability. The agreement for any collaborative venture would depend upon the UK’s willingness to accept that some sovereign capabilities were going to be held by other countries, some held by you and that there would be a melding together of what we believe was necessary to bring the project together. There would be some things that were essential, say, for Typhoon that we were prepared to see built abroad, but others which we were not.

Dr Murrison: Yes; that would be a reasonable synopsis.

Q3852 Chair: That is presumably on the basis that everybody brings something to the party and, therefore, they have to be able to contribute something that is unique.

Dr Murrison: Yes, but, as far as article 346 is concerned, the whole point is that it is entirely based upon maintaining the level of sovereign capability that you feel is important for defence and security.

Q3853 Chair: But we have just heard in relation to article 346 and the Clyde shipyards that there is no reason why, with article 346, you cannot award them the order. Presumably, exactly the same would apply to Typhoon.

Dr Murrison: Yes.

Q3854 Lindsay Roy: The most complex warships that are being built and assembled at the moment are the carriers. Has any decision been made on where the QE aircraft carriers will be maintained and repaired?

Dr Murrison: No. That is subject to work that is ongoing. You will appreciate, given the timelines, that we are talking about work well into the future. No decisions have been made on that. Indeed, the case is currently being worked up.

Q3855 Lindsay Roy: Is there anywhere other than Rosyth at present that they could be maintained and repaired?

Dr Murrison: Generally speaking, warships are maintained in base ports. For the most part, wherever a ship is in terms of its base port is where routine maintenance and repairs will be carried out.

Q3856 Lindsay Roy: But is there anywhere else it could be carried out?

Dr Murrison: We have just been discussing the range of shipyards that exist within the United Kingdom. It is simply not the case that you can tie a warship up alongside and carry on with its maintenance immediately. You usually have to reconfigure to a certain extent. We have a number of shipyards in the UK, as you well know, that are capable of doing this sort of work.

Q3857 Lindsay Roy: Whereabouts?

Dr Murrison: Where the warships are currently being manufactured, for example.

Q3858 Lindsay Roy: That is not the evidence that we have had in the past. The evidence in the past has been that Rosyth is uniquely placed because of its deep-water berth to do that work.

Dr Murrison: Okay. With the Queen Elizabeth class as opposed to the Type 26?

Lindsay Roy: Yes.

Dr Murrison: Different warships can be maintained in different places.

Q3859 Chair: My understanding was that some routine repairs and maintenance would be undertaken at Portsmouth once the Queen Elizabeth class had berthed there, but for big refits and so on it would have to go to Rosyth. Am I correct in thinking that that is the Government position?

Dr Murrison: I think that is the general sense. That is usually what you would do with a warship throughout its life. In this case a warship is going to last for 50 years, so routine stuff is very much at base port, as I have said; fundamental refit work and major work, possibly not.

Q3860 Chair: On previous occasions we discussed whether or not the UK Government would want to retain sovereign capability to do the refits of the carriers in the event of separation, which at the moment are scheduled to take place on a regular basis in Rosyth. Where Rosyth would be in a foreign country, obviously that would raise difficulties. Can you clarify for us where the Ministry’s thinking is on that now?

Dr Murrison: It is embryonic, I have to say. We are talking about years into the future. These ships have not yet been accepted by the Royal Navy and we are some way off that. The work to try and conceptualise what the through-life maintenance means is being undertaken at the moment. I am afraid I cannot give you any level of granularity.

Q3861 Simon Reevell: Could you help in terms of the date by which Portsmouth would have lost its capacity to build warships following the announcement that we heard last week?

Dr Murrison: I really can’t. British Aerospace Systems own and operate the facility. It is really for them to make that determination, but it is not going to be immediate; that’s for sure.

Q3862 Simon Reevell: If you are sure it is not immediate, what do you mean by "immediate" in terms of time scale?

Dr Murrison: Because of the work that is currently under way.

Q3863 Simon Reevell: But what does "immediate" mean? I know that you do not mean tomorrow afternoon.

Dr Murrison: I don’t mean that. I probably do not mean next year either, but beyond that I am afraid I am unable to answer the question.

Q3864 Simon Reevell: In terms of a capacity to build warships it is not beyond the end of 2014.

Dr Murrison: I think that would be reasonable, although, of course, Portsmouth does not just disappear. Its berths remain in place. I suspect its infrastructure will remain in place too. It would be perfectly possible hypothetically to re-grow Portsmouth, as of course has happened in relation to the Queen Elizabeth class.

Q3865 Simon Reevell: Presumably, if a shipyard is going to lose its capacity to build warships, if that is going to change, it is easier to reverse the policy sooner rather than later.

Dr Murrison: I am not a shipbuilder but I would say that that certainly makes sense.

Q3866 Chair: Again, in the interests of absolute clarity, do I take it that Portsmouth will not be razed to the ground, its berths filled in and a wasteland created by 19 September of next year?

Dr Murrison: I think I know where your question is going, Chair.

Chair: I am glad to hear that.

Dr Murrison: I should just reiterate the point that the Government are not planning for a yes vote next year. What British Aerospace do with their real estate is really a matter for British Aerospace.

Q3867 Chair: I see. Can I clarify whether or not you have had any conversations with British Aerospace about the desirability of not razing Portsmouth to the ground, filling in the berths and creating a wasteland before 19 September 2014?

Dr Murrison: I have not had any such conversations and I am not aware of any such conversations.

Q3868 Chair: It was not you personally; it was "yous" collectively, in a sense.

Dr Murrison: It also follows, from the assertion I made very strongly in my opening response that the Government are not planning for independence for Scotland, that we would be most unlikely to have any such conversations.

Q3869 Simon Reevell: If the owners of that yard decided to chop down the cranes and fill in the berths with cement, would you expect them to raise that with your Department before they began that work?

Dr Murrison: They might do.

Q3870 Simon Reevell: I know they might do. Purely by definition, they might do, but would you expect them to have discussions with your Department?

Dr Murrison: All I can say is that they might do that. I am not aware of any discussions of that nature having been had. It would not surprise me in the slightest bit if they contacted the Ministry of Defence and said, "Hey look, this is what we are going to do. Can you respond?" Indeed, it would probably be in their interests to do so. I have no expectation of them. I have no demands upon them to do such a thing2.

Q3871 Simon Reevell: It would be inconceivable, would it not, for you to find out on the radio or through the newspapers that BAE had pulled down the cranes and filled in the berths, or that you got a phone call from Mr BAE saying, "Hey, you will never guess what we did last week," and that is the first you heard of it? This is inconceivable.

Mr Carmichael: It is apparent that there is a very close, strong and profitable working relationship between BAE Systems and the Ministry of Defence. While in this life everything is possible, you have touched there on a hypothesis that takes you into the realms of virtual impossibility.

Q3872 Chair: That is helpful to clarify the situation. It supports our view that the yard in Portsmouth will still be in working order by 19 or, indeed, even 20 September next year in terms of reversals of decision.

I mentioned earlier on how welcome it was that blocks of the carrier were being transferred from Portsmouth to Scotland, particularly given that Portsmouth is due to have redundancies. Can you clarify for us the reasons behind that and the involvement of the Ministry?

Dr Murrison: As you know, Chair, we consider it important to maintain a capability in the UK around the delivery of complex platforms. The deal that has been struck is entirely in accordance with that. The assembly and construction of the blocks and the construction of the OPVs is all geared to maintaining the capability and the way that we think best fits our defence needs as the UK. I think it has proved positive in our confidence in the outcome of next year’s referendum and, indeed, underscores the point that the Government are not planning for a yes vote next September.

Q3873 Chair: I just want to be absolutely clear that the transfer of work from Portsmouth to Glasgow-which, as I said before, has not received much attention in the Scottish press or media, and I can imagine, as the Secretary of State can, what the reaction would have been had the decision been the other way-is taking place in order to keep a core work force working, employed in Govan, and to preserve skills, in order that the Type 26 order can, if granted, swing straight into operation without an enormous re-recruitment exercise.

Dr Murrison: In order to maintain the capability, yes.

Q3874 Graeme Morrice: I want to pick up on the central point, to which Dr Murrison has made reference on numerous occasions, about the Ministry of Defence clearly not planning on Scotland voting for independence. Obviously the SNP Scottish Government is. What approaches have there been to the Ministry of Defence by the Scottish Government to discuss some of these issues? Presumably, if we were in a position of an independent Scotland, then the SNP Scottish Government would like to see some kind of naval shipbuilding capacity retained at the Clyde. It is obviously down to the residual part of the UK, in effect, to call the shots on that. You have previously been very clear, as has the Secretary of State, about that. Have you been approached by the Scottish Government about this issue?

Dr Murrison: About maintaining a capability on the Clyde?

Graeme Morrice: Post-independence.

Dr Murrison: No. I have read what the Scottish Government are saying about this matter and I think they make certain assumptions. Much of it is entirely hypothetical, both in terms of what happens in this country and also, I have to say, in relation to supranational institutions. I have had no direct correspondence with the Scottish Government on maintaining a capability on the Clyde in the event that Scotland decided to become independent.

Q3875 Graeme Morrice: To be clear, you have not had a letter in the post from Edinburgh asking for a meeting, a conversation or a discussion on this issue. They have not approached you to seek any kind of discourse on this matter.

Dr Murrison: All I can say is that I have not seen any such letter.

Q3876 Chair: Is this something that you would see? We do not want to find out later on that it is lying somewhere else in the Ministry of Defence. Would this come to you?

Dr Murrison: Yes; I think I would see it.

Q3877 Chair: I want to clarify whether or not the Secretary of State would expect to see anything like that and if he had seen anything.

Mr Carmichael: I would expect a letter of that sort to be brought to my attention in the normal course of things. I have certainly seen no such letter.

Q3878 Chair: I want to come back to the question of the OPVs. My understanding is that the OPVs will not have steel cut on them until the end of 2014. The OPVs will not be worked on and help people keep employment until after the date of the referendum. Can you clarify if that is true?

Dr Murrison: Yes, it is true, but I have to say it has nothing to do with the date of the referendum apropos my earlier remarks.

Q3879 Chair: Lots of these things, like the question of the design maturity, happen to be beyond the date of the referendum, and there are cynics, I have to tell you, who believe that that is more than coincidence.

Dr Murrison: How can you possibly have a tighter time frame than that? We have just recently made this announcement. It takes a while to do an investment appraisal, as you well understand, and to place a contract before you even consider cutting steel. The time frame is pretty tight. Nobody can possibly argue that we are in some way playing politics with this.

Q3880 Chair: No, no, indeed, but other people are and it is worth noticing that the OPVs will not have steel cut on them until the end of 2014. Is it the Department’s view that the transfer of work from Portsmouth and the OPVs will be sufficient to keep the yards employed until the Type 26 starts and there is not likely to be any further gap?

Dr Murrison: Yes. It will do a good job in terms of maintaining continuity and capability on the Clyde. You have to understand that the Type 26s are a way off, and trying to balance these sorts of programmes is extremely difficult. It will mean that we can maintain critical skills and capability in Scotland, for sure.

Q3881 Chair: As you can appreciate, we have spent quite a lot of time on this because this is obviously a current issue of considerable importance. We will now switch to broader topics. We want to ask you about how important you believed it was to understand the foreign policy of a separate Scotland before trying to understand their defence policies.

Mr Carmichael: You cannot divorce one from the other, can you? In order to establish a defence policy, you first have to know what your foreign policy is going to be because that is the context in which it is placed. Indeed, that is why in this House the two Departments have always very much sat in that relationship with each other.

Q3882 Chair: Do you see any reason why a separate Scotland would not have the same friends and possible enemies or threats as the UK at the moment?

Mr Carmichael: You really are into the realms of supposition and hypothesis. Once an independent Scotland has her own foreign policy, then it is of course up to her to make the decisions about those countries with whom she chooses to build alliances and the terms on which alliances wish to be built. You would expect-indeed you would hope-that there would be a community of interest with the rest of the United Kingdom, but in time it is quite possible to see that that would diverge.

Q3883 Chair: Is there any particular threat assessment that you can make from your position that would identify Scotland’s position as being, in the short or even medium term, any different from that of the UK?

Mr Carmichael: No.

Q3884 Graeme Morrice: I want to cover the issue of NATO. Our understanding is that, if Scotland did become a separate country, then it would not automatically remain a member of NATO, but the residual part of the UK would. If Scotland did not remain a member of NATO, then it would have to apply for membership. Could you confirm if that is indeed the case?

Dr Murrison: Yes; that is our understanding. We have facilitated the Scottish Government negotiation or discussions with NATO. Negotiations would probably be premature. Our understanding is that NATO membership will continue to accrue to the residual UK and that Scotland would then have to reapply if it wanted to.

Q3885 Graeme Morrice: You will be aware that the Scottish National Party recently changed its policy position on that question. Having opposed NATO membership or an independent Scotland being a member of NATO for many decades, it said that an independent Scotland under the SNP would apply for membership. On the other hand, we are aware that the SNP is opposed to nuclear weapons, Trident and so on. How does that circle get squared with the SNP supporting a non-nuclear weapons position but now wanting to join what is in effect a nuclear weapons alliance?

Dr Murrison: If you are going to join NATO, you have to sign up to what is called its strategic concept, which includes nuclear weapons. It is difficult to see how an independent Scotland would be able to easily join NATO if it did not agree with the concepts and the doctrine that NATO abides by. It would then have to join on a conditional basis, wouldn’t it?

Q3886 Graeme Morrice: I understand that there are several members of NATO that do not host nuclear weapons and, indeed, may have clear non-nuclear weapons policies. How would Scotland be different in that case in relation to applying for membership of NATO?

Dr Murrison: You have to sign up to the strategic concept when you join NATO. That includes the acceptance of nuclear weapons. My understanding of the Scottish Government’s position is that it is implacably opposed to nuclear weapons-to the point that it has said that it would want to eject the facilities on the Clyde at Faslane and Coulport. It is quite difficult to see how that could easily be compatible with what I think it is assumed would be automatic and speedy membership of NATO.

Q3887 Graeme Morrice: What kind of factors would other NATO members take into account when deciding if Scotland could join NATO?

Dr Murrison: First, it is likely-of course it is a matter for NATO, so I am hypothesising really-that NATO would say, "There is a waiting list and your application is going to have to be considered with others." I simply do not know, as we do not know what attitude the European Union will take in a similar way, how other nation states will behave. The matter would need to be determined by unanimity.

Q3888 Graeme Morrice: You say that currently there is a waiting list to join NATO with other countries. Can you indicate which those countries are?

Dr Murrison: Georgia is quite keen on joining NATO, for example. It is seen as a fairly exclusive club, obviously, because of article 5. It does offer a considerable amount of protection and the ability to operate in a full and comprehensive capacity with other NATO members.

Q3889 Graeme Morrice: Do you think it would be in the interests of the residual part of the UK for an independent Scotland to be in NATO, if indeed that was the case?

Dr Murrison: I am a great enthusiast for NATO. I think it has kept us safe all these years and is an organisation that is very much a cornerstone of our collective defence and security. I would be very sorry if a hypothetically independent Scotland was not part of NATO’s capability. That would be a loss to us all, I believe, as, indeed, it would be a loss to the defence and security of the United Kingdom.

Q3890 Graeme Morrice: You touched on NATO’s article 5. You will be aware that SNP defence policy suggests that, if Scotland was unable to join NATO on its terms, it would be a member of Partnership for Peace, and this would fulfil many of its defence requirements. What does being a member of Partnership for Peace mean for the protection provided under NATO article 5?

Dr Murrison: Partnership for Peace is a sort of intermediate step in which one can participate in exercises, for example, but it does not give the cover that article 5 gives. In other words, you are not a full member of the club, and in the event of a threat you could not rely upon other partner nations necessarily coming to your assistance.

Q3891 Graeme Morrice: The paper says that Scotland would be heavily reliant "for its defence and security on the goodwill of its allies and partners" and that "an independent Scottish state would have less rather than more choice in the conduct of its affairs." Obviously, the SNP suggests that a separate Scotland would have more freedom to determine its own priorities. Again, how do you square that circle?

Dr Murrison: We await the SNP’s White Paper at the end of this month with a great deal of interest, which I hope is going to give some clarity to its capability that it anticipates and, importantly, how much money it is going to find to sustain that capability. Frankly, without knowing that, it is very difficult to say. I just do not know. We might have a greater level of clarity towards the end of this month.

Graeme Morrice: We all await that White Paper with bated breath.

Q3892 Chair: Let me come back on a couple of points there. You indicated that it was your view that the UK would remain the residual state and Scotland would then be a separate state applying. Do you have legal advice to that effect?

Dr Murrison: Yes; that is our legal advice.

Q3893 Chair: Who, in addition to Georgia, is on the waiting list? How long is it expected that a state such as Georgia would take to get in, if indeed they do?

Dr Murrison: Off the top of my head, I cannot give you a list of aspirant nations and all those who are partners for peace. Georgia is certainly pushing very hard for membership.

Q3894 Chair: What we are looking for is some sort of time scale as to how this might be.

Dr Murrison: I cannot possibly give you that. Georgia has been lobbying for full membership of NATO for some considerable time, but it is reasonable to point out, of course, that each application is judged on its own merits. There may be particular circumstances preventing a country from joining NATO due to its geo-political situation, for example, its capability or its willingness to take part. It is all of those things. You could perhaps make your own assumptions about where Scotland may fall in that list.

Q3895 Chair: The only difficulty I can see about a separate Scotland fitting in with NATO is on the question of nuclear weapons. You have already touched on the question of removal. To have no nuclear weapons on Scottish territory, air or sea, does take things quite a bit further. It takes things further, as I understand it, than does any other non-nuclear NATO state. If an independent Scotland said that they were not willing to have nuclear weapons on their territory in any shape or form, would that be seen as a barrier to NATO membership?

Dr Murrison: That is something you might want to put to the Secretary-General of NATO rather than to me. I am obviously not the arbiter of that.

Chair: But you are here, to be fair.

Dr Murrison: Yes, but I am not the right person to fire the question at, with respect. I simply do not know. What I can tell you is that members are expected to endorse the strategic concept that I referred to, which does contain as a fairly large part of it our nuclear deterrent. It would be interesting at the very least if Scotland tried to join NATO and said, "But we want to impose these particular caveats."

Q3896 Chair: It could be fudged by a "Don’t ask, don’t tell" policy. American nuclear armed ships could sail into Scottish waters or planes could fly above Scottish soil as long as they simply did not tell. Would that be seen to be an acceptable fudge? It is dishonest of the SNP to do that, but in terms of NATO’s position do you think that would be considered acceptable?

Dr Murrison: Again, I think you would have to put that to NATO. It sounds rather bizarre.

Chair: Indeed, but much does.

Q3897 Simon Reevell: From a strategic point of view, why would Scotland outside the UK have to develop its own arrangements rather than just enter into shared defence arrangements with what would then be residual United Kingdom?

Mr Carmichael: What is the point of being an independent nation then? This is a suggestion that you walk away from the United Kingdom, and then you come back and renegotiate what you have just walked away from.

Q3898 Simon Reevell: That is certainly one argument. In terms of actual policy, equipment and hardware, are there any reasons why that could not happen? I take your point that it would be rather strange to strive for something and then, when you’ve got it, try to hand some of it back. In terms of the arrangements themselves, is there any reason from a UK perspective why a foreign country could not seek to make arrangements with residual United Kingdom for its defence needs?

Mr Carmichael: It is almost a matter of contract. Yes, in strict theory, sovereign nations can enter into agreements-and do so all the time-but for this sort of thing show me where that happens anywhere else in the world. From the point of view of Scotland and the decision that Scotland has to take next year, if that is going to be the constant refrain-and it is an emerging pattern throughout the independence debate-you have to wonder just what sort of independence is going to be on offer.

Q3899 Simon Reevell: Presumably, it would not just be a question of defence issues. That arrangement would impose restrictions on foreign policy, because an independent Scotland could not have foreign policy objectives that were at odds with its agreements with residual UK for defence.

Mr Carmichael: I do not think there was any dispute when I said earlier that a defence policy has to sit inside the context of a foreign policy. If you are to buy in to somebody else’s defence’s policy, then inevitably you buy in at the same time to the foreign policy.

Q3900 Simon Reevell: Of course, you are also on the coat tails of your defence provider’s foreign policy, because you may face the situation where you do not like their foreign policy but you want the defence arrangements that you have with them and you have to deal with that issue.

Mr Carmichael: When I am speaking to my children, I see it as wanting to have your cake and eat it. It is something you do not often get in life.

Q3901 Chair: It does not stop you having the policy of wanting to have your cake and eat it. That has always been my policy.

Mr Carmichael: Chair, the lesson of your own party and mine in Government is that you should not really proceed with policy that you are not going to get.

Q3902 Mr Reid: Your report describes the UK’s role and relationship with Norway, Denmark and the Arctic Council around security in the High North. Critics have pointed out that there is no naval surface vessel based in Scotland. What is your response to the criticism that under the present circumstances the UK is not devoting resources to the security of the North?

Dr Murrison: We defend the UK. We do not defend parts of the UK in isolation. You will be aware of the huge naval and military presence in Scotland. It will be our submarine base, period, within a very short space of time, for example. We have a large part of our front-line Air Force based in Scotland. We have a substantial part of the British Army based there. I do not think there can be any question that Scotland does not have, if you want to put it in these terms-which I certainly do not-its fair share of defence assets. It always has provided a large part of our armed forces and has been home to a large part of those armed forces. It would be perverse to suggest that, simply because we do not have a destroyer or a frigate base-ported in Scotland, in some way we are neglecting the High North. That would be an extraordinary thing to suggest.

Q3903 Mr Reid: What kind of contribution would Scotland have to make to replicate the commitment to the Arctic Council that the UK has already committed?

Dr Murrison: We have observer status with the Arctic Council. I imagine that an independent Scotland would apply for similar status. It does not fall within the Arctic Circle, but clearly the United Kingdom has considerable interests in the North and the High North, which are evolving all the while. I simply do not know what an independent Scotland’s attitude towards the Arctic Council would be, but who knows.

Q3904 Mr Reid: If an incident arose in the North, what sort of assets could the United Kingdom devote quickly to it, as its armed forces are presently configured?

Dr Murrison: Clearly it depends on the nature of the incident. What sort of incident had you in mind?

Q3905 Mr Reid: Say a Russian ship entering territorial waters.

Dr Murrison: We obviously have a range of maritime and air assets that could be used to address such a hypothetical threat. I do not know that, simply because we do not have a destroyer or a frigate based all the time in a Scottish naval port, it would in any way degrade our ability to respond. There is a great deal more to the Royal Navy than frigates and destroyers.

Q3906 Mr Reid: Would an independent Scottish armed forces have difficulty in responding to such an incident?

Dr Murrison: We do not know because we do not know what an independent Scottish defence force would look like. It comes back to the point made earlier about watching and waiting for the Scottish Government’s iteration of its defence and security plans at the end of this month. What is clearly not sustainable is simply salami-slicing bits of the UK armed forces and announcing that that is now the Scottish Navy, Army and Air Force. That is a risible suggestion. That is simply not possible. We wait with great interest to hear what the Scottish Government intend to do to face down any conceivable threat that they may foresee in the future. I simply do not know the answer because the Scottish Government have yet to say what they perceive as the credible threats to them and how they are going to face those down. One thing I can say to you quite clearly and categorically is that it simply will not work by chopping off bits of the UK armed forces and saying, "There you are-job done; that’s the Scottish defence force."

Q3907 Lindsay Roy: I want to turn to air defence. The RAF has squadrons of Typhoon jets for a variety of purposes, including domestic, defence and deployment overseas. I understand that plans are in place for three squadrons of Typhoons to be placed in Lossiemouth. When is that likely to take place?

Dr Murrison: It is happening over the course of this coming year. Lossiemouth will be a main operating base for the Typhoon aircraft.

Q3908 Lindsay Roy: When?

Dr Murrison: Over 2014.

Q3909 Lindsay Roy: How much of the upgrade has been carried out so far to cater for the Typhoons? I understand it is several million pounds.

Dr Murrison: The whole project is £85 million. I cannot give you a precise figure for how much has been physically spent as of now.

Q3910 Lindsay Roy: But significant progress has been made.

Dr Murrison: Yes.

Q3911 Lindsay Roy: Have you any evidence that a separate Scotland would have a purpose for such a sophisticated aircraft?

Dr Murrison: Again, we look forward to the Scottish National Party’s White Paper on this subject in a few days’ time. It is expensive to run these platforms, both warships and aircraft. It is difficult to see how they are going to be able to sustain such a thing on a budget of between £2 billion and £2.5 billion a year, which is our best guess as to what a Scottish Government would want to spend on defence and-let us emphasise-security.

Q3912 Lindsay Roy: In the event of independence, do you see the rest of the UK trying to negotiate access to Lossiemouth for the Typhoons?

Dr Murrison: We are not planning for a separate Scotland.

Lindsay Roy: I understand that.

Dr Murrison: So, whilst I would hope that a hypothetical independent Scotland and residual UK would work closely together where it is in our interests, I am really unable to conjecture as to what that might look like in practice.

Q3913 Lindsay Roy: I understand it is around £70,000 an hour to operate a Typhoon. There is a Quick Reaction Alert force at Leuchars. Do you have any idea how much that costs? If not, can you get that information to us?

Dr Murrison: Do you mean the difference between the cost of operating from Leuchars and Lossiemouth?

Lindsay Roy: No; I am talking about the Quick Reaction Alert force as it applies at the present time. It is 24-hour cover.

Dr Murrison: I am not quite sure I fully understand the question. Do you mean the cost of maintaining a Typhoon out of Lossiemouth and Leuchars?

Lindsay Roy: This is purely the Quick Reaction Alert force.

Q3914 Chair: It is not a comparative cost. We have had various stipulations or indications from the SNP about what they intend to have. We just want to have some sort of feel for what the cost of having a wing of fast fighters might be.

Dr Murrison: But you would then have to say how many aircraft you intended to have, for example. You could not simply have one or two.

Q3915 Simon Reevell: What we are trying to do is look at what is at Leuchars at the moment, look at what is planned for Lossiemouth, and then we can work out whether it would be possible for an independent Scotland to afford what is currently at Leuchars, what is going to be at Lossiemouth, neither or both.

Dr Murrison: I think I can probably give you a straight answer to that. It would be incredibly difficult to see how such a capability could be maintained on a budget of, optimistically, £2.5 billion.

Q3916 Simon Reevell: Leuchars as is or Lossiemouth as will be.

Dr Murrison: Both of those things.

Q3917 Simon Reevell: Either.

Dr Murrison: Yes. You could not operate the number of Typhoon aircraft.

Q3918 Lindsay Roy: How many Typhoons would you need for a realistic fleet?

Dr Murrison: I cannot give you a realistic figure for that, but you would need several, given the downtime you would expect for these aircraft during their life and the need to have two operating at any one time.

Chair: I fear you have failed to understand Scottish Government economics, where oil money can be spent twice and some laid aside for an oil fund. That is why we particularly want to have some of the figures in order that we can seek clarification ourselves.

Q3919 Lindsay Roy: Can you tell us how the Typhoons are refuelled when they are on a mission?

Dr Murrison: There are a variety of ways of doing that-for example, air-to-air refuelling. What lies behind your question-

Q3920 Lindsay Roy: Where are the tankers based?

Dr Murrison: Typhoons are going to be based at Lossiemouth or at RAF Marham.

Q3921 Lindsay Roy: Where are the refuelling tankers based? Are there any in Scotland?

Dr Murrison: They could be. They are not based in Scotland but they certainly could be.

Q3922 Chair: Am I right in thinking that the tankers that refuel the fast jets over the North sea are actually based in Brize Norton and have to fly up from Brize Norton to Scotland to undertake any refuelling?

Dr Murrison: Okay.

Q3923 Chair: Therefore, if you are going to have an effective fighter jet force, you would have to add in refuelling facilities that are presently not in Scotland. They would either have to be replicated or some sort of arrangement would have to be reached with Brize Norton to provide those facilities.

Dr Murrison: Yes.

Q3924 Chair: Could you give a rough cost for that, if not at the moment, then in writing at a later stage?

Dr Murrison: Certainly. I think you make a good point concerning the need to think about infrastructure rather than simply jets in the air. Clearly, if you are going to operate organically a Quick Reaction force-in other words, a force that is not going to be reliant upon another country, be it the residual UK or somebody else-then you are going to have to provide things like air-to-air refuelling and the ground infrastructure that goes with putting that sort of thing in the air. It is very complicated. When we get the figures at the end of this month, I very much hope they include an allowance for all of that. It is simply not right to say, "Look, it costs x to put two aircraft in the air," because that would be a woeful underestimate of the true cost of such a capability.

Q3925 Chair: It would be helpful if you could arrange for the Department to drop us a note giving us an indication of the other things like the air refuelling that ought to be taken into account, which we as non-experts will probably have overlooked. Every time we meet people from the services to discuss this, we are constantly amazed at how many other things have to be added in.

Dr Murrison: The issue of the Scottish Infantry regiments is a good case in point.

Chair: We are just coming to that.

Dr Murrison: Good; I am very pleased.

Q3926 Lindsay Roy: The Scottish Government indicate that they have a strategy to procure maritime patrol aircraft. What kind of planes would fit that domestic role?

Dr Murrison: I am very glad you have raised maritime patrol aircraft. We often hear that they are almost an article of faith with the Scottish Government. You will know that we have gapped this, although we will have to await the 2015 SDSR to determine whether that will continue to be the case.

The question I would put to the Scottish Government is, if you are going to re-grow this capability-and clearly there are cost implications with that-what on earth are you going to do with the arisings from it? It is one thing putting this aircraft in the air. Its purpose obviously is to gather intelligence and tell you whether you are facing some sort of threat. You have to have the wherewithal to deal with that threat. That pretty well means complex and expensive platforms. You have to have the capability of dealing with the intelligence that you gather. It is not clear to me that an independent Scotland would have capability in either of those two things. I would have to ask, although this is an article of faith, what on earth is the point of having such an aircraft if you cannot do anything with what that aircraft gives you-in other words, capability?

Q3927 Lindsay Roy: So there needs to be a co-ordinated infrastructure.

Dr Murrison: Yes. There is simply no point in having this unless you are going to do something with what the aircraft is able to deliver to you-in other words, the intelligence and capability of dealing with any threat that the aircraft may reveal.

Q3928 Lindsay Roy: Have we any indication as to how the SNP plan to pursue that?

Dr Murrison: Once again, we will have to await this document at the end of the month.

Q3929 Lindsay Roy: Would you expect that information to be in there?

Dr Murrison: I would certainly expect that information, unless it is purely a totemic thing; in other words, it is there in order to try to convince people making their decision in September that defence and security is safe in the SNP’s hands.

Q3930 Lindsay Roy: So we should beware of assertion.

Dr Murrison: You need to be prepared to ask very piercing questions on what function the Scottish National Party sees for maritime patrol aircraft.

Q3931 Chair: I want to turn to the Scottish regiments. We have had quite a lot of evidence in the past about the extent to which it is going to be necessary to have quite considerable tail to the regiments. Are there observations that you would want to make on that?

Dr Murrison: Yes. We are all guilty of supposing that the Army is simply a collection of infantry battalions. Those of us with any sort of insight into how defence is structured in the UK and in all major advanced militaries know full well that there is a huge tail that goes to support that front-line capability. What the Scottish Government have done in its naivety is to suppose that all that is necessary is to take those regiments they identify as Scottish-infantry regiments, by and large-and ignore the extraordinary logistics chain that goes to support that. For example, there is the Royal Logistics Corps, the Technical Corps of one sort or another and the Royal Engineers-all of that-which comprise the bulk of the numerical strength of the British Army.

It seems to me that the figures that the Scottish Government have produced up to this point for how much money they are willing to spend on defence completely ignores that. Until they factor that in properly, I do not think they can be taken credibly on this issue.

Q3932 Chair: We await with interest the full explanation of what they propose. I want now to ask about comparable countries. Your paper discusses the defence forces of several European countries with a similar population to Scotland. What lessons do you think we can learn from those examples? I can see that Norway spends much more and Ireland spends much less than the SNP proposed figures. What is there that you think we particularly ought to draw from that and look for in the Scottish Government’s document?

Dr Murrison: The first thing I am going to be looking for is what capabilities a Scottish Government believe they are going to need to face down the defence and security threats they believe there will be to Scotland and also do all the other things that they say they want to do by way of engagement with supranational organisations, peacekeeping and all the rest of it, and also observe the commitments they have already given to maintaining certain capabilities and taking charge of units within the British Armed Forces that they have identified as being Scottish.

In terms of their posture within the menu of comparable nation states, it is invidious to draw too many parallels, to be honest. The Republic of Ireland has a military that is small in scale. It does engage in peacekeeping operations. It is engaged with us in European Union training missions, but it is very small. It is modest in scope.

Norway has a high-end armed forces. It is obviously a lot smaller than the UK’s, but it does, for example, operate fast jets and we co-operate very closely with them. Within that mix, the Scottish Government are going to have to decide what their vision is for defence and security in an independent Scotland and, crucially, how they are going to pay for it.

Q3933 Chair: On 26 November do you think it is reasonable for us to get a complete blueprint of what the Scottish defence forces are going to look like and what they are going to cost? Surely, would it not be much more reasonable for them to say, "You will just have to wait and see until after we have negotiated everything else with our NATO allies and the EU, and it will all become clearer five or six years down the road"?

Dr Murrison: No, I do not, and I think that is a rhetorical question. The Scottish Government have already said that they want to be a member of NATO and CSDP, and do peacekeeping with the United Nations. They have satisfied those pre-conditions already. I do not think it is reasonable for the Scottish National Party to go before the people of Scotland in less than a year’s time and say, in this crucial area of defence and security, "You will have to wait and see."

It touches upon the point that was made by the Secretary of State. If you are not being clear with the Scottish people about this incredibly important element of independence-this is independence and not some sort of halfway house, whatever the SNP might pretend-independence does mean independence, and they need to be clear and honest with the Scottish people that that is what they have in mind. Independence means sovereign control of your armed forces. You need to be clear with the Scottish people what the threats are and what you are doing in order to prepare a response to those threats. That means being very specific about what your armed forces are going to look like and their capability, and how you are going to pay for it.

Q3934 Simon Reevell: I want to read you a quotation from the Scottish Government. It contains some figures. When I have read the quotation, I am going to ask you if you recognise the figures at all. You may do or you may not. The quotation is this: "An independent Scottish Government led by the SNP will commit to an annual defence and security budget of £2.5 billion, an annual increase of more than £500 million on recent UK levels of defence spending in Scotland but nearly £1 billion less than Scottish taxpayers currently contribute to UK defence spending." Do those figures mean anything to you at all?

Dr Murrison: No, they do not-not in the context of providing the level of capability that the people of Scotland enjoy as integral parts of the United Kingdom. The Scottish Government could not possibly aspire to that level of cover. Furthermore, in terms of dealing with supranational organisations of the sort that the Scottish Government have been talking about, it would make an independent Scotland a far less attractive proposition and front-line partner.

The Scottish Government have been talking about submarines, complex warships, fast jets and-into the bargain-the Scottish regiments, ignoring of course the logistics tail that we have been discussing. It is impossible to have all of that with a budget of £2.5 billion.

Q3935 Simon Reevell: They seem to be suggesting that they can quantify UK levels of defence spending in Scotland at £2 billion and they can identify that Scottish taxpayers have contributed £3.5 billion to the defence budget. Are those figures that you recognise or believe can be quantified in that way?

Dr Murrison: No. That is trying to use facts to support a particular political narrative. Scotland has an integral role in the defence of this country and obviously benefits from defence and security of the UK armed forces. You cannot chop bits up in the way that that suggests.

Q3936 Lindsay Roy: Into the bargain, in the £2.5 billion, we are told that resources for intelligence and cyber-security will be involved. Is it normal practice to put that in a defence budget?

Dr Murrison: Not really, no, it isn’t. Of course, security has been used in a fairly loose way by the Scottish Government without perhaps thinking entirely what security means. Security involves a great deal of Home Office responsible work, for example. To deal with cyber security straight off, the UK is going to spend something in the region of £850 million over the next five years in addressing this emerging threat. We have been assessed as being No. 1 in preparedness bar none in terms of cyber security. We have been commended by the HCDC fairly recently-a committee, I have to say, that is not always particularly favourably inclined to make positive comments-as being extremely good in the Government/industry relationship that is so crucial to addressing cyber threat. We are in a very good place in terms of cyber.

I have not heard the Scottish Government talking very much about cyber. Again, at the end of this month I expect them to set out in fairly detailed terms how they are going to replicate the kind of cover that people living in Scotland currently enjoy and will enjoy from cyber threats.

Q3937 Lindsay Roy: How much of that cyber-security is under the MOD umbrella at the moment in terms of budget and how much is under the Home Office?

Dr Murrison: I cannot give you a breakdown. I could probably try to find some figures.

Q3938 Lindsay Roy: Do you have a rough idea?

Dr Murrison: I really can’t. It is mainly a Home Office and Foreign Office lead.

Q3939 Lindsay Roy: That would put further pressure on-

Dr Murrison: It is obviously important to say that GCHQ, which is a Foreign Office responsibility, currently provides cover for the whole of the UK without distinction. It is difficult to see how that is going to be replicated in the event that Scotland left the United Kingdom.

Q3940 Lindsay Roy: So, in essence, that would put further pressure on the £2.5 billion budget.

Dr Murrison: Yes. We have raised this in the past. The £2.5 billion that we have heard bandied about includes defence and security. We understand that cyber-security is included within that figure.

Q3941 Lindsay Roy: In your view, the totality is unrealistic within the £2.5 billion budget.

Dr Murrison: Yes, absolutely; I agree with that.

Q3942 Chair: I want to follow that up by asking whether or not you are aware of any negotiations or discussions that have taken place that would allow a separate Scotland access to the Five Eyes network of information produced by the UK, the US, Canada and so on.

Dr Murrison: The Five Eyes community, of which the UK is an integral part, is a membership organisation based upon taking stuff out and putting things in. You cannot be a member if you are simply taking. It touches upon the point that has already been made in the question previously put. If you are not prepared to spend a lot of money, as we do, on intelligence work, then you are not likely to be welcomed by that particular organisation.

Q3943 Chair: Is there any reason why they should not decide to give Scotland a free ride in these circumstances if Scotland was seen to be a part of NATO, if it maybe reversed or fudged its policy on nuclear weapons, and was seen to be an ally? Surely, it would be in everybody’s interests for Scotland to have more rather than less information in these circumstances.

Dr Murrison: As I say, it is an organisation that is based upon the sharing of information gathered expensively. I think it is unlikely that that tight-knit community would be prepared to take on a country that is simply there in order to acquire information and not contribute to it. That would break up the fundamental ethos of the Five Eyes community. It is a matter for the Five Eyes community, not specifically the United Kingdom.

Q3944 Chair: Are you aware of any approach having been made by the Scottish Government to either the UK Government or any other Government that is part of the Five Eyes network to have access to that sort of information?

Dr Murrison: I am not aware of any such approach.

Q3945 Chair: Again, you would expect to be, would you?

Dr Murrison: Yes, I would.

Q3946 Mr Reid: The Defence paper does not provide much information about the division of assets should there be a yes vote in the referendum. Dr Murrison, you earlier pointed out, quite rightly, that division of assets would not simply be salami-slicing, and 40% of a Vanguard submarine would be of no use to anybody. What principles would the UK Government adopt when they came to dividing up assets?

Dr Murrison: It is important to record that a yes vote next year would be the start of the process and not the end of one. Hypothetically, we would then enter a period of protracted negotiation, which I think would be extremely complicated and might take longer than many of us might anticipate, at which these issues would be decided. You are right to say that you cannot simply divide complex platforms into bits and award them to various parts of the United Kingdom. That would be ridiculous. I have to say that the same is also true of units of the British Army.

Q3947 Mr Reid: Would you accept that Scottish taxpayers have contributed to the building up of the UK defence assets over the years and, therefore, Scotland would be entitled to a proportionate share of these assets?

Dr Murrison: Yes; I think that concept probably is generally accepted.

Q3948 Mr Reid: The Scottish Government have made it clear, for example, that they do not want anything to do with nuclear submarines-either the Hunter Killers or the Vanguard submarines. In that case, would they then be entitled to a higher share of smaller assets by not taking a share of the larger assets?

Dr Murrison: The difficulty is that you would then have to re-provision this particular capability elsewhere. The removal of it from the Clyde is going to be murderously expensive. That would have to be a factor in the negotiations.

Q3949 Mr Reid: Are you suggesting that the cost of moving the nuclear deterrent to somewhere else would be allocated against Scotland?

Dr Murrison: Yes; that is exactly what I am suggesting.

Q3950 Mr Reid: The paper goes on in great detail about the integrated nature of UK defence and security. If we are envisaging a situation where Scotland was a separate country, do you think it would be in the UK’s interests to co-operate with an independent Scottish Government in defending these islands as a whole?

Dr Murrison: We co-operate with a large number of countries-of course we do-and will seek alliances wherever it is expedient to do so and in the interests of our citizens. If I can repeat what I have already said, in my opinion, it would be a huge step backwards for both Scotland and the residual United Kingdom in terms of our defence and security capabilities were Scotland to leave the UK. What happened thereafter would be a matter for the negotiations that I have already touched upon.

Q3951 Mr Reid: The paper said that during the transition period Scotland would be dependent upon "the goodwill and protection of others" and that a separate Scottish state would "need to take this into account in defining its defence policy and strategy." What things would you look for in the Scottish Government’s Independence White Paper to reassure you and to help foster goodwill within residual UK?

Dr Murrison: We need to reiterate that independence is independence. I do not think it is honest to try to fudge that in any way at all. There is no comfort blanket that can be assumed in all of this; it is just misleading. We simply do not know and it is the subject of negotiation. You have mentioned what would happen in terms of the dynamic between an independent Scotland and a residual UK. We have talked already about NATO and, very briefly, the European Union and peacekeeping at a UN level. All of these things are conjectural. Those who are making their decision in September cannot rely on any particular outcome because we simply do not know.

In terms of the residual UK and its attitude, I think it will be driven, hypothetically, by one of pragmatism and an acceptance that, whatever happens, we share the same space and the threats that we have to face into the future will in many respects be identical. You can, therefore, perhaps imagine what future Governments in these islands might do in order to safeguard themselves against those threats, but it is purely conjectural. I would re-emphasise the point that I have made on a number of occasions this afternoon, and that is that our collective defence would undoubtedly be degraded by a yes vote next September.

Q3952 Chair: In relation to these negotiations, which are likely to be quite complex, can I clarify whether you believe that all the division of assets and so on can be achieved within 15 months, and in particular for Independence Day, which has been scheduled by the Scottish Government as being April Fool’s Day 2016?

Dr Murrison: It would certainly be a challenge. The complexity of this should not be underestimated at all. However, it depends very much upon the attitude taken by the Scottish Government in the event of such a series of negotiations being necessary.

Q3953 Chair: From your experience, is one side in a negotiation that sets a particular deadline for resolution in a stronger or weaker position than a side that has no such deadline?

Dr Murrison: An agreement has to be agreed by both parties. It is possibly making certain assumptions about the attitude that might be taken by the other party to these negotiations. In the event that the Scottish people voice an intention to leave the United Kingdom, we would have to observe and honour that-of course we would-and we would, therefore, have to proceed with these negotiations, which would not simply be matters to do with defence but I imagine would be across a whole range of issues, with the goodwill that would satisfy both of us.

Q3954 Chair: I want to come back to the question of valuing assets. Bases, and in particular Faslane and Coulport, would presumably be valued at replacement cost. Even if the Scottish Government did not want to keep it, the UK Government would presumably say, "But you have inherited it because it is physically on your territory and the value of that is the sunk cost or the replacement cost rather than, say, a nil cost."

Dr Murrison: Yes; that would be the basis upon which I think we would proceed.

Q3955 Chair: I want to turn to the question of recruitment and careers. We are coming to the end now. I am conscious that you have been here for a while and that we want to draw matters to a close. This affects the question of servicemen and women and their ability to move between one and the other. I am right, am I, in thinking that it would be the intention of HMG to allow individuals to make a free choice as to which country’s service to be in? There would be no barrier to any Scots in the Royal Marines, the Army, the RAF or the Royal Navy, who wished then to leave and join the Scottish forces. Similarly, there would be no move taken to throw anybody who wanted to remain in the British forces out in order to serve in a Scottish armed forces.

Dr Murrison: Yes; that is broadly correct.

Q3956 Chair: In terms of indications about what people might want to do, have you had any indication from service personnel about whether or not they are likely to stay en masse, leave en masse, or have they not decided?

Dr Murrison: We have not conducted any survey canvassing to determine what people’s views are in this matter. Anecdotally, the strong sense I get is that Scots who are members of the UK armed forces are overwhelmingly keen to remain within the United Kingdom. There are a number of reasons for that. I suppose some of them are to do with the ethos of the armed forces and some are far more practical considerations about their careers and futures.

Q3957 Chair: The final point I want to raise relates to voter registration of service personnel. We have had a paper from you, which is very helpful. As you are probably aware, we want to make sure that every person in the services, their eligible children and, indeed, their spouses have the opportunity to decide, if eligible, whether or not they want to vote in the referendum. We are aiming for a 100% level of people being given the choice. That is not to say that we expect them all to vote in the referendum or register to vote in the referendum, but we do very much want to make sure that 100% of those who might be entitled to vote in the referendum are given the opportunity to make a conscious choice as to whether or not to do so. Can you give us an indication of how far that target is being achieved?

Dr Murrison: The figure at the moment is 69% of people registered to vote, which is an improvement on last year. It is not much but an improvement nevertheless. That is the figure we have, but that is based upon the Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey, which people do not have to fill out if they do not want to. I suspect that is probably a conservative estimate.

Q3958 Chair: But 69% of those registered to vote does not necessarily cover the point I am making. There will be those who can have two registrations. They can have a registration where they are in England if they are in an English base at the moment, but if they chose to change their status they could register in Scotland to vote in the referendum.

Dr Murrison: If they are eligible to be-

Chair: That is right.

Dr Murrison: Just because you are Scottish, or identify yourself as Scottish, does not mean to say you get a vote in this, as you will be very aware.

Q3959 Chair: No, that is correct. We can go into the rules and they are quite complex. But there will be a variety of people who can be registered to vote somewhere else, somewhere other than Scotland but, if they either changed their category or made the effort, would be eligible to vote in the Scottish referendum. We want to make sure that everybody is aware of the opportunity that is available to them and has the ability to make that choice should they desire to do so. That would be a different figure from the 69% figure, as I think you understand. It will require, presumably, going back to some people who are in Scottish regiments and who have just come from Scotland, and who have been recently been registered at a base in England but who could change their category back. We want to clarify what steps the MOD is taking to make sure that they have a full opportunity to vote in the referendum.

Dr Murrison: As you know, the franchise is a matter for the Scottish Government and the rules are set up by them, including, of course, the current measure before the Scottish Parliament in relation to 16 and 17-year-olds. That will capture a small but significant number of people. Every year, through unit registration officers, we do a campaign to ensure that servicemen and women, and their spouses, are aware of their voting options. That is obviously going to continue. Our emphasis is on people having a proxy vote, which we think offers them the best opportunity of being able to cast a ballot in any election, including this one.

Q3960 Chair: You say you make them aware of their voting options. In the past it has tended to be that you either vote or don’t vote. Here, where you are registered and in which category you are registered can determine whether or not you are able to vote in the Scottish referendum. I am seeking clarity from you on whether or not those in the MOD and in the units who are working on this are fully aware of that and are making everyone in the services, and their respective spouses, aware of that particular issue. I am getting the distinct impression that this is news to you. As you will understand, that causes me a bit of alarm. Simply having people registered to vote is not sufficient for the purposes we have identified.

Dr Murrison: The important thing that the MOD does is to ensure, so far as we possibly can, that people are registered to vote. That is what we do and we try to get people to have proxies wherever they can. I do take your point. I think I understand your point in that, if you think people might be eligible to vote in two places, you are suggesting to the MOD that we should persuade people to register in one place rather than the other.

Q3961 Chair: No; I am certainly not suggesting that we should seek to persuade them of anything. I am saying that, if they are eligible to vote in the Scottish referendum by doing it in one particular way, or they are eligible to vote somewhere else by doing it in a different way, they should be made aware that they have that choice and then be assisted to make that choice. If people decide that they do not wish to vote in the Scottish referendum, that is entirely a decision for them. What I want to avoid is having a position after the referendum where people in the armed forces say, "We were not told that we would have had the opportunity to vote and we should have had it properly explained to us."

Since this is, unless I am mistaken, news to you, I am particularly concerned as I had been under the impression that the MOD was aware of this corporately. I would suggest that the Secretary of State, whose office is certainly aware of this, deal with you on this and that we have a report from you early in the beginning of the new year about how matters are progressing. We do not necessarily need it in person, but we should have something in front of us showing how this is being pursued and how effective it is.

Mr Carmichael: I would be more than happy to give that undertaking to the Committee.

Lindsay Roy: Chair, I have raised this question with the Deputy Prime Minister just recently.

Mr Carmichael: I will take it to him as well.

Q3962 Chair: When we come to the end of our sessions we always ask our guests whether or not there are any answers they had prepared to questions that we have not asked or if there are any points they feel we have overlooked. Margaret Porteous has not put a foot wrong throughout this entire session. I do not know whether or not she came prepared with 97 different answers, but I suspect it would probably be better if she gave us those in writing. Is there anything that the two Ministers want to raise that you feel we have overlooked?

Mr Carmichael: It is not germane to the report, but it is worth the Committee reflecting that, right now, the United Kingdom’s armed forces personnel are making a very significant contribution to the humanitarian relief effort following on from the hitting of typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. That is a significant role which is played by the United Kingdom, and Scottish armed forces personnel will be part of that. It is one of the much overlooked aspects of the United Kingdom and the role that is given to Scottish armed forces personnel as part of that to take part, not just in conflict but in a whole range of different activities which build for the United Kingdom a very positive profile in different parts of the world. It is part of the contribution that we make by being part of this larger unit.

Q3963 Lindsay Roy: We did that recently in Syria.

Mr Carmichael: Indeed.

Dr Murrison: No, I do not have much to add. All I would say is that defence and security is not something to be trifled with. In terms of debates around independence, you have to decide what more is independence going to bring. Things like defence and security are an absolutely crucial part of that. Although we all understand that defence and security on a day-to-day basis do not tend to influence the thinking of our voters, our constituents, unless of course their jobs depend upon it, nevertheless it is a crucial part of this debate that will be running until September. In my view, the Scottish National Party are going to struggle big time to convince the people of Scotland that their security and defence is going to be enhanced by an independent Scotland. This is a major part of the argument for those of us who believe passionately in the Union and we should be pushing as much as we possibly can into the consciousness of people who will be making this crucial decision in September.

Chair: Thank you for the indication that the orders might be placed on the Clyde, for the OPV work and the work that has been transferred on the carriers. Even though there are some redundancies taking place, those were always anticipated.