more … ]]> It is a privilege to take part in this debate on the Gracious Speech, and it is a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett).

In view of recent events relating to the Government side of the House, I think I should make it abundantly clear that I intend to vote for the Queen’s Speech, that I will support the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, and that I will vote against any amendment, tabled or selected. That I should feel the need to make such an assertion at the outset will underpin some of the observations I shall make.

I continue to support the restoration of economic stability. That was the raison d’être of the coalition and it remains its overarching objective. To fulfil that commitment, I, like others, have had to subordinate my views on other subjects to that objective. I felt it necessary to do so because of the economic circumstances we have inherited and because of the very obvious difficulties that exist in resolving them. Some of the decisions that have been made have been very painful—to me and to others—but I believe them to have been necessary.

We continue to make progress towards the objective. We have reduced the deficit; we have maintained low interest rates; there has been no run on the pound—and although it is a volatile measurement, it is worth observing that the stock market, often seen as a barometer of confidence, has in recent days returned to its levels of

five years ago. Between now and 2015, nothing should be allowed to distract the Government from that objective. It is impossible in the present context to ignore possible distractions.

Thankfully, the internal management of the Conservative party is nothing to do with me, but speaking as someone who was a not entirely dispassionate observer of the Major Government between 1992 and 1997, I say that there are surprising echoes of that period in the current turmoil of the Conservative party. It is worth remembering that that Government had very substantial economic achievements—to such an extent that the incoming Labour Government, with the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) as Chancellor of the Exchequer, accepted the public spending proposals of the outgoing Government.

If we undermine the authority of our Prime Minister, we will undermine the credibility of our Government. If we undermine the credibility of our Government, we will undermine the economic objectives of that Government. This is all the more the case when the coalition agreement contains a perfectly rational mechanism for a referendum if constitutional change is made. Is it rational to spend the next two years on a fractious and divisive debate over Europe when so much remains to be done? I simply cite the example of Scotland, in respect of which every decision, every policy and every political statement has for some time—and it will continue for some time—had to be seen through the prism of the referendum fixed for September next year.

If these events are a reaction to UKIP, let me offer a sporting metaphor. Teams that chase the game are rarely successful. That applied, of course, to the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath when he sought to outbid the current Chancellor on the question of inheritance tax, and as it did when he declined to call a further general election. Concessions rarely satisfy dissidents, who have the ghost of Oliver Twist among them.

Another issue—that of Syria—should not allow us to be distracted from these economic goals. I retain my previously expressed reservations about the proposals to arm the rebels. President Obama’s resistance to that is sometimes related to an inactivity—whether or not that is right is neither here nor there, but in my view his resistance is well founded. The objections are many, including the emergence of Islamist Jabhat al-Nusra as an increasingly influential part of the rebel forces, which raises the question of who would inherit any arms that we might deliver. The risk of a proxy war between the United States and Russia is another example, with each matching each other in armaments supply. Once we depart from non-lethal supplies, where would we stop?

more … ]]> I am about to finish.

Some have suggested a no-fly zone, but if we have one, we must be ready to shoot down the aircraft that intrude into it and accept the risk of the aircraft enforcing it being shot down. We must also be ready to suppress the air defences, many of which have in an entirely deliberate but cowardly way been situated among the civilian population.

I finish by noting that as Russia and the United States tentatively explore the possibility of a joint approach on Syria, this is no time to encourage the rebels to believe that they need not subscribe to any political settlement in the hope of outright victory.

more … ]]> May I begin by associating myself with the remarks of condolence in relation to the three individuals who have recently lost their lives in Afghanistan? The Royal Highland Fusiliers is a regiment to which my family has a particular attachment.

It was never the understanding that bringing an end to combat operations would consist of turning the key in the lock and putting the lights out. Obviously, we need to employ rather more sophisticated means. In that respect, what the Secretary of State has said is entitled to the endorsement of the House, since it proceeds upon the military advice and has as its primary consideration force protection at a time when our forces might be particularly vulnerable.

more … ]]> Has my right hon. Friend considered that the sleeper service might be better served if there were electrification of the east coast main line between Edinburgh and Aberdeen? Coincidentally, that passes through my constituency, and the project would provide a better service for the stations of Ladybank, Cupar and Leuchars.

more … ]]> To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether any representative of the Government has visited (a) Camp Ashraf and (b) Camp Liberty in Iraq.

more … ]]> I hope my right hon. Friend will excuse me if I return to the question of Syria and the possible supply of arms to the opposition. Does he understand that it appears to many of us that the language being used by the Government is equivocal and delphic? In these circumstances, can we have an assurance that any material change in policy will be subject to the express endorsement of the House?

more … ]]> To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many representations the UN has made to the UK on granting asylum to residents of Camp Liberty in Iraq.

more … ]]> To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) what recent estimate he has made of the cost of capital works to relocate RAF Leuchars' current parented units to RAF Lossiemouth;

(2) what recent estimate he has made of the total cost of Typhoon-related capital works at RAF Lossiemouth.

more … ]]> To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 25 March 2013, Official Report column 937W, on RAF Leuchars, if he will place in the Library (a) the sustainability appraisal for the development of the estate at RAF Lossiemouth, (b) the sustainability appraisal for the delivery of an Adaptable Force Brigade Scotland, (c) the updated sustainability appraisal for the Base Optimisation Programme in Scotland and (d) the updated sustainable development action plan for the overarching Base Optimisation Programme.

more … ]]> To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what current estimate has been made of the cost of the move of (a) personnel, (b) stores and equipment and (c) communications and information systems from RAF Leuchars to RAF Lossiemouth in relation to the transfer of the Typhoon Force.