Browse content similar to 18/07/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Line | From | To | |
---|---|---|---|
issues around this. It is a case I've just started looking at. He | :00:00. | :00:00. | |
will understand if I say I can't say too much on it publicly at this | :00:00. | :00:00. | |
point but it is being taken very seriously. | :00:07. | :00:10. | |
Speak seek we must move on. Statement the Home Secretarx. | :00:11. | :00:19. | |
Secretary Amber Rudd. Thank you Mr Speaker. With | :00:20. | :00:22. | |
permission I would like to lake a statement about the terrorist attack | :00:23. | :00:25. | |
in Nice and the threat that we face from terrorism in the UK. The full | :00:26. | :00:33. | |
horror of last Thursday night's attack in Nice, defies all | :00:34. | :00:37. | |
comprehension. At least 84 people were killed, when a heavy goods | :00:38. | :00:44. | |
lorry was driven deliberately into crowds enjoying Bastille Dax | :00:45. | :00:47. | |
celebrations. Ten of the de`d are believed to be children and | :00:48. | :00:50. | |
teenagers. More than 200 people have been injured and a number are in | :00:51. | :00:55. | |
critical condition. Consular staff on the ground are in touch with | :00:56. | :00:59. | |
local authorities and assisting British nationals caught up in the | :01:00. | :01:03. | |
attack. The Foreign and Comlonwealth Office are providing support to | :01:04. | :01:06. | |
anyone concerned about friends or loved ones. Over the weekend, the | :01:07. | :01:11. | |
French police made a number of arrests and in the coming wdeks we, | :01:12. | :01:15. | |
will learn more about the circumstances behind the attack Mr | :01:16. | :01:22. | |
Speaker, these were innocent people enjoying national celebrations. They | :01:23. | :01:27. | |
were families, mothers, fathers brothers, sisters, daughters, sons, | :01:28. | :01:31. | |
friends, many of them were children. They were attacked in the most | :01:32. | :01:36. | |
brutal and cowardly way possible as they simply went about their lives. | :01:37. | :01:40. | |
Our thoughts and prayers must be with the families who have lost | :01:41. | :01:45. | |
loved ones, the survivors, fighting for their lives, victims, f`cing | :01:46. | :01:49. | |
appalling injuries and all those who have been mentally scarred by the | :01:50. | :01:53. | |
events of the night. I've spoke ton my counterpart to | :01:54. | :01:57. | |
offer him the sympathy of the British people and to make clear | :01:58. | :02:00. | |
that we stand ready to help in any way that we can. We have offered | :02:01. | :02:06. | |
investigative assistance to the French authorities and security | :02:07. | :02:10. | |
support to the French diplolatic and wider community in London. This is | :02:11. | :02:16. | |
the third terrorist attack hn the last 18 months with a high number of | :02:17. | :02:23. | |
deaths in France and we cannot underestimate its destating impact. | :02:24. | :02:27. | |
Swre seen attacks in many other countries and those killed `nd | :02:28. | :02:30. | |
maimed by these murderers, hnclude people of many nationalities and | :02:31. | :02:35. | |
faiths. Recently we've seen attacks in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, | :02:36. | :02:40. | |
Turkey and America, as well as the ongoing conflict in Syria. Last | :02:41. | :02:45. | |
month, we marked a year since 3 people, 30 of them British, were | :02:46. | :02:49. | |
murdered at a beach resort hn Tunisia. In the UK, the thrdat from | :02:50. | :02:56. | |
international terrorism, whhch is determined by the independent joint | :02:57. | :03:02. | |
terrorism analysis centre, remained at severe, meaning that an `ttack is | :03:03. | :03:07. | |
highly likely. The public should be vigilant but not alarmed. On Friday, | :03:08. | :03:11. | |
following the attack in Nicd, the police and the security and | :03:12. | :03:21. | |
intelligence agencies ensurdd we have robust procedures in place I | :03:22. | :03:25. | |
am receiving regular updates. All tlees forces have reviewed tpcoming | :03:26. | :03:28. | |
events taking place in their regions tone sure that security measures are | :03:29. | :03:34. | |
appropriate and proportionate. I can also tell the House that thd UK has | :03:35. | :03:40. | |
considerable experience in lanaging and policing major events. Dxtra | :03:41. | :03:44. | |
security measures are used `t particularly high profile events, | :03:45. | :03:47. | |
including where the police `ssess there to be a risk of vehicle | :03:48. | :03:52. | |
attacks, the deployment of leasures known as the national barridr asset. | :03:53. | :03:57. | |
This is made up of a range of temporary equipment, includhng | :03:58. | :04:00. | |
security fences and gates that enable the physical protecthon of | :04:01. | :04:05. | |
sites. Since the terrorist `ttacks in Mumbai in 2008, we have `lso | :04:06. | :04:10. | |
taken steps time prove the response of police firearms teams and other | :04:11. | :04:14. | |
emergency services to a moo raweding gun attack. We have protectdd and | :04:15. | :04:20. | |
increased in real terms counter-terrorism police funding for | :04:21. | :04:23. | |
2016/17 and over the next fhve years, we are providing ?143 million | :04:24. | :04:29. | |
for the police to further boost their firearms capability. We | :04:30. | :04:34. | |
continue to test our response to terrorist attacks, including | :04:35. | :04:37. | |
learning the lessons from attacks like those we have seen in France, | :04:38. | :04:42. | |
through national skier sizes, which involve the Government, milhtary, | :04:43. | :04:46. | |
police, ambulance, and other agencies. But the threat from | :04:47. | :04:55. | |
terrorism is serious and growing. Our security and Intel jelings | :04:56. | :04:58. | |
services are first rate and they work tirelessly around-the-clock to | :04:59. | :05:00. | |
keep the people of this country safe. Over the next five ye`rs, we | :05:01. | :05:07. | |
are making an extra 2. ?2.5 billion available to those agencies. This | :05:08. | :05:14. | |
will include funding for an addition 1,900 staff at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ as | :05:15. | :05:20. | |
well as strengthening our ndtwork of counter-terrorism experts in the | :05:21. | :05:24. | |
Middle East, north Africa, south Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. We have | :05:25. | :05:28. | |
taken steps to deal with foreign fighters and to prevent ral | :05:29. | :05:33. | |
cliezation by providing new powers through the counter-terrorism and | :05:34. | :05:39. | |
security act. We continue to take forward to investigatory powers bill | :05:40. | :05:42. | |
to ensure that the police, security and intelligence agencies h`ve the | :05:43. | :05:45. | |
powers that they need to kedp people safe in the digital age. | :05:46. | :05:51. | |
Mr Speaker, the UK has in place strong measures to respond to | :05:52. | :05:56. | |
terrorist attacks. Since coling to office in 2010, the Governmdnt has | :05:57. | :06:00. | |
taken significant steps to bolster that response. But Daesh and other | :06:01. | :06:06. | |
terrorist organisations seek to poison people's minds and they | :06:07. | :06:11. | |
peddle sickening hate and lhes to encourage people to plot acts of | :06:12. | :06:14. | |
terrorism or leave their falilies to join them. This is not just in | :06:15. | :06:19. | |
France or this country, but in countries all around the world. We | :06:20. | :06:24. | |
must confront this hateful propaganda and expose it for what it | :06:25. | :06:28. | |
is. In this country, that mdans working to expose the emptiness of | :06:29. | :06:34. | |
extremism and safeguard vulnerable people from becoming radicalised. | :06:35. | :06:39. | |
Our Prevent programme works with families, communities and shx | :06:40. | :06:43. | |
society groups to challenge the poisonous ideology that supports | :06:44. | :06:47. | |
terrorism. This includes supporting civil society groups to build their | :06:48. | :06:53. | |
own capacity and since Janu`ry 014, their counternarrative prodtct have | :06:54. | :06:57. | |
had widespread engagement whth communities. In addition, over a | :06:58. | :07:01. | |
thousand people have receivdd support through channel since 2 12, | :07:02. | :07:05. | |
the voluntary and confidenthal support programme for those at risk | :07:06. | :07:10. | |
of radicalisation. This is `n international problem that requires | :07:11. | :07:14. | |
an international solution. We're working closely with Europe`n | :07:15. | :07:17. | |
partners, allies in the counter-Daesh coalition and those | :07:18. | :07:20. | |
most affected by the threat that Daesh poses to share inform`tion, | :07:21. | :07:25. | |
build counter-terrorism cap`bility and exchange best practice. As the | :07:26. | :07:29. | |
Prime Minister has said, we must work with France and our partners | :07:30. | :07:34. | |
around the world to stand up for our values and for our freedom. Nice was | :07:35. | :07:42. | |
attacked on Bastille Day, itself a French symbol of liberation and | :07:43. | :07:45. | |
national unity. Those who attack seek to divide us and spread hatred, | :07:46. | :07:50. | |
so our resounding response lust be one of ever greater unity bdtween | :07:51. | :07:55. | |
different nations, but also between ourselves. This weekend, we saw | :07:56. | :08:01. | |
unity and action as people came together to support each other. | :08:02. | :08:05. | |
People sent messages of condolence and Muslims in this country and | :08:06. | :08:08. | |
around the world have said that those who carry out such attacks do | :08:09. | :08:13. | |
not represent the true Islal. But I want to end by sending a message to | :08:14. | :08:18. | |
our French friends and neighbours, what happened in Nice last Thursday | :08:19. | :08:24. | |
was cruel and incomprehensible. The horror and devastation is something | :08:25. | :08:27. | |
many people will live with for the rest of their lives. We know you are | :08:28. | :08:32. | |
hurting. We know this will cause lasting pain. Let me be quite clear | :08:33. | :08:38. | |
- we will stand with you. Wd will support you in this fight and | :08:39. | :08:41. | |
together, with our partners around the world, we will defeat those who | :08:42. | :08:50. | |
seek to attack our way of lhfe. Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I start by | :08:51. | :08:55. | |
welcoming the Home Secretarx to her new position and her well jtdge and | :08:56. | :09:00. | |
heart felt words to the House today. She spoke for us all in condemning | :09:01. | :09:05. | |
this naseating attack and in sending our sympathy and solidarity to the | :09:06. | :09:09. | |
families affected and to thd French people. At the very outset of her | :09:10. | :09:16. | |
tenure, let me assure her of my ongoing support in presenting a | :09:17. | :09:21. | |
united front from this Housd to those who plan and perpetrate these | :09:22. | :09:25. | |
brutal acts. It is a sad reflection of the dark times in which we live | :09:26. | :09:29. | |
that this is the third time in nine months that this House has gathered | :09:30. | :09:33. | |
to discuss a major terrorist incident in mainland Europe. Each | :09:34. | :09:38. | |
new incident brings new factors and changes perceptions on the nature of | :09:39. | :09:42. | |
the threat posed by modern terrorism and this was no different. This was | :09:43. | :09:51. | |
an act of discriminate and sickening brutality, made more abhorrdnt by | :09:52. | :09:53. | |
the targeting of families and children. Ten children and babies | :09:54. | :09:57. | |
were killed. 50 more are behng treated. Many more are orph`ned and | :09:58. | :10:02. | |
left with lasting psychologhcal scars. Unlike other attacks, this | :10:03. | :10:06. | |
wasn't planned by a cell with sophisticated tactics and wdapons. A | :10:07. | :10:10. | |
similar attack could be launched anywhere at any time and th`t is | :10:11. | :10:13. | |
what makes it so frightening and so difficult to prevent and prdvent. -- | :10:14. | :10:18. | |
predict and prevent. Let me start on whether there are immediate | :10:19. | :10:22. | |
implications for the UK. On Friday a spokesman for the Prime Minhster | :10:23. | :10:24. | |
said UK police were reviewing security plans for large, ptblic | :10:25. | :10:28. | |
events this week. Can she tdll the House what conclusions were reached | :10:29. | :10:31. | |
as part this afternoon revidw and whether any changes were made in the | :10:32. | :10:38. | |
light TV? Will she also be hssuing updated advice to the organhsers of | :10:39. | :10:43. | |
numerous large public galleries and vest Vales taking place throughout | :10:44. | :10:48. | |
the country. We welcome the Mayor of London's confirmation that the Met | :10:49. | :10:51. | |
were reviewing safety measures in the capital. Are similar reviews | :10:52. | :10:54. | |
taking place in large cities all over the UK? After the attacks in | :10:55. | :10:59. | |
Paris, her predecessor commhtted to an urgent review of our response to | :11:00. | :11:02. | |
firearms attacks. It has bedn suggested in the French medha that | :11:03. | :11:05. | |
if armed officer had been more quickly on the scene in Nicd, they | :11:06. | :11:09. | |
could have prevented the lorry travelling as far as it did. Can she | :11:10. | :11:13. | |
confirm whether the review commissioned has been compldted And | :11:14. | :11:17. | |
if so, what changes to fire`rms capability are proposed as ` result? | :11:18. | :11:22. | |
Her predecessor promised to protect police budgets in the wake of Paris, | :11:23. | :11:25. | |
that has not been honoured. There are real terms cuts to the police | :11:26. | :11:28. | |
this year. Will the new Homd Secretary pledge today to protect | :11:29. | :11:32. | |
police budgets in real terms going forward? She mentions the Prevent | :11:33. | :11:37. | |
programme. I have to say I do not share her complacent view of what it | :11:38. | :11:42. | |
is achieving. In fact, some would say it is counterproductive, | :11:43. | :11:47. | |
creating a climate of suspicion and mistrust, far from tackling | :11:48. | :11:49. | |
extremism creating the very conditions for it to flourish. | :11:50. | :11:53. | |
Indeed the Government's inddpendent reviewer of terrorism legislation | :11:54. | :11:56. | |
has said the same and said the whole programme in his words could benefit | :11:57. | :12:01. | |
from independent review. So will the Home Secretary today accept Labour's | :12:02. | :12:06. | |
call for a cross-party revidw on how the Prevent duty is working? After | :12:07. | :12:10. | |
this attack it was described in the media as an act of Islamic terrorism | :12:11. | :12:13. | |
and yet it is clear that thd lifestyle of the individual had | :12:14. | :12:18. | |
absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic faith and the French | :12:19. | :12:22. | |
authorities have cast doubt on whether there was any link between | :12:23. | :12:25. | |
this individual and Daesh. Does the Home Secretary agree with md that to | :12:26. | :12:31. | |
quickly label this Islamic terrorism hands a propaganda coup to the | :12:32. | :12:35. | |
terrorists, whose whole purpose is to deepen the rift between the | :12:36. | :12:37. | |
Muslim community and the rest of the society? Does she further agrow that | :12:38. | :12:42. | |
more care needs to be taken on how these atrocities are labelldd in | :12:43. | :12:47. | |
future? Finally, this is of course, the first attack in Europe since the | :12:48. | :12:51. | |
European referendum. Can thd Home Secretary assure the House that she | :12:52. | :12:56. | |
and the wider Government ard making every effort in these times to | :12:57. | :13:00. | |
maintain strong collaboration with the French and the European | :13:01. | :13:03. | |
authorities and to send to them a very clear message that whatever our | :13:04. | :13:08. | |
differences, Britain will always be by their side and ready to help | :13:09. | :13:15. | |
Well, I thank the right honourable gentleman for his statement and for | :13:16. | :13:19. | |
his comments and for his confirmation early on that we work | :13:20. | :13:23. | |
across the House to address and fight this dangerous terrorhsm and | :13:24. | :13:27. | |
we'll be able to continue to do so. He asks particularly about the | :13:28. | :13:31. | |
reviewing the public events. I'd like to reassure him and thd whole | :13:32. | :13:34. | |
House that we are constantlx ensuring that we make avail`ble | :13:35. | :13:38. | |
expert advice to the people who are running these events. We have 1 0 | :13:39. | :13:42. | |
counter-terrorism security `dvisors. They are in touch with people | :13:43. | :13:47. | |
running these events, including where necessary, large citids, so | :13:48. | :13:50. | |
that they can get the right advice and that advice is being taken up so | :13:51. | :13:55. | |
that we can ensure they are as safe as possible. He asked and m`de | :13:56. | :13:59. | |
comments about Prevent. Let me correct him on one thing. There is | :14:00. | :14:03. | |
nothing complacent on this side of the House about what we do to | :14:04. | :14:09. | |
address terrorism and dangerous ideology. I accept that there is | :14:10. | :14:13. | |
always more to do, but he should not underestimate what has been achieved | :14:14. | :14:18. | |
so far by the Prevent stratdgy. There are many people who h`ve been | :14:19. | :14:22. | |
deterred from going to Syri`. There are many children who have been | :14:23. | :14:25. | |
introduced to the strategy `t schools and other people in public | :14:26. | :14:32. | |
sector business, sorry publhc sector arrangements where they havd had | :14:33. | :14:35. | |
some benefit from the Prevent strategy and been stopped from going | :14:36. | :14:39. | |
to Syria. As I say, there is always more to do. But a lot is behng | :14:40. | :14:42. | |
accomplished by this strategy. Finally, he made some comments about | :14:43. | :14:48. | |
the reporting in the press `bout the role and word of Islam. I would | :14:49. | :14:52. | |
simply say to him, that it hs for all faiths and all people to unite | :14:53. | :14:57. | |
against the barbarity of thhs attack. That is the clear mdssage | :14:58. | :15:00. | |
that this House should convdy. As chairman of our group between the | :15:01. | :15:11. | |
two parliaments, may I encotrage my good friend the Secretary of State | :15:12. | :15:15. | |
state, we served on the Council of Europe on various issues,... French | :15:16. | :15:26. | |
SPEAKS FRENCH. My honourabld friend is entirely white. Now we whll | :15:27. | :15:39. | |
return to English. I was able to speak to Bernard Cazeneuve, my | :15:40. | :15:42. | |
French counterpart, this morning. In part response to the Right | :15:43. | :15:46. | |
Honourable gentleman, we will continue our very strong frhendship | :15:47. | :15:50. | |
and mutual support for the French whatever the outcome. Can I | :15:51. | :15:57. | |
congratulate the Home Secretary on her new role and welcome her to her | :15:58. | :16:01. | |
place. I trust she will bring to her role the rigour and wit she | :16:02. | :16:05. | |
displayed on behalf of the lain campaign during the referendum. I | :16:06. | :16:10. | |
also hope the fact we are both graduate of Edinburgh University | :16:11. | :16:15. | |
will enable us to work together in the same constructive fashion that I | :16:16. | :16:19. | |
did with her predecessor. Mr Speaker, there are no words to | :16:20. | :16:22. | |
describe adequately the unspeakable horror, merciless cruelty and | :16:23. | :16:26. | |
senselessness of the attack perpetrated this last week. 1's | :16:27. | :16:30. | |
heart goes out to the victils, breed and injured, especially children. I | :16:31. | :16:33. | |
wish to add condolences of lyself and my colleagues on these benches | :16:34. | :16:37. | |
to the people of France. I'd like to welcome the Home Secretary's | :16:38. | :16:44. | |
statement. I'd like to associate myself and the Scottish Nathonal | :16:45. | :16:47. | |
party with her comments abott the gratitude we feel to those who | :16:48. | :16:51. | |
strive to keep us safe, whether it be the police or intelligence | :16:52. | :16:55. | |
services. Scotland, like thd rest of the UK, stand in sadness and | :16:56. | :16:58. | |
solidarity with France. A country that has already had to bear away | :16:59. | :17:01. | |
more than any country should be expected to. We stand ready to offer | :17:02. | :17:07. | |
whatever assistance we can. While there are no doubt challengds we | :17:08. | :17:11. | |
face from this increasingly savage criminality and terrorism, the | :17:12. | :17:14. | |
Scottish Government is commhtted to working with the United Kingdom | :17:15. | :17:20. | |
government to defeat these threats against the freedom we valud so | :17:21. | :17:23. | |
dearly. I'm pleased by the reassurance is the Home Secretary | :17:24. | :17:26. | |
has already given but I havd three questions for her. First, c`n I ask | :17:27. | :17:31. | |
her to make a commitment th`t her response to terrorist attacks will | :17:32. | :17:34. | |
never beat knee jerk but always proportionate and targeted `s well | :17:35. | :17:39. | |
as effective? Secondly, will she makes assurances to made by her | :17:40. | :17:42. | |
predecessor, to affirm the accordance of having a unitdd | :17:43. | :17:48. | |
community across the UK at the core of our efforts fighting terrorism, | :17:49. | :17:52. | |
in particular will she acknowledged the importance of avoiding | :17:53. | :17:55. | |
alienating our Muslim community who are a highly valued and intdgral | :17:56. | :17:59. | |
part of the Scottish and Unhted Kingdom society? Thirdly and | :18:00. | :18:03. | |
finally, there are camps in northern France filled with refugees who have | :18:04. | :18:08. | |
experienced similar violencd to that perpetrated in Nice. Last wdek the | :18:09. | :18:12. | |
camp at Calais where people had had to make their homes was thrdatened | :18:13. | :18:16. | |
with bulldozing and demolithon. Will the Home Secretary work with the | :18:17. | :18:20. | |
French government to enter the understandable anger of the French | :18:21. | :18:24. | |
populace is not misdirected towards these innocents who are also fleeing | :18:25. | :18:27. | |
from violence in their own countries? I Yiadom Hear, hdar! I | :18:28. | :18:32. | |
thank the honourable and Leonard lady for her comments. And for | :18:33. | :18:38. | |
repeating the same message we receive from the opposition, that we | :18:39. | :18:40. | |
will work together addressing this dangerous issue. She's asked a | :18:41. | :18:45. | |
number of key questions. I would reassure her I hope there whll never | :18:46. | :18:49. | |
be anything knee jerk in our response to these events. I hope | :18:50. | :18:52. | |
we'll be able to build on the experiences we have in order to get | :18:53. | :18:58. | |
a more secure future. She's asked us to work across communities, I | :18:59. | :19:01. | |
imagine she meant default as well as all faith communities, and of course | :19:02. | :19:07. | |
we will do that. I'm reminddd Mr Speaker, because we've had puestions | :19:08. | :19:12. | |
already about large events, it was a good example of us working with | :19:13. | :19:16. | |
devolved administrations, when we worked together on the Glasgow, | :19:17. | :19:20. | |
games in 2014. Jointly. To combat any terrorism there. Finallx, an | :19:21. | :19:26. | |
Calais, she's absolutely right, we need to work closely with French | :19:27. | :19:30. | |
counterparts. I did discuss that this morning with Bernard C`zeneuve | :19:31. | :19:33. | |
and I will be taking it forward with him to make sure we get the best | :19:34. | :19:40. | |
outcome. SPEAKER: sur Michadl Gove. Can I welcome my right honotrable | :19:41. | :19:43. | |
friend to her new position `nd thank her for her measured, assurdd and | :19:44. | :19:48. | |
authoritative statement. Wotld she agree with me that both the last by | :19:49. | :19:51. | |
Minister and the new Prime Linister have always made clear that there is | :19:52. | :19:58. | |
a distinction between the ideology of Islamist extremism that `nimates | :19:59. | :20:02. | |
organisations like Daesh and is driven by prejudice and hatd, and | :20:03. | :20:06. | |
the great religion of Islam, which is a religion of peace which brings | :20:07. | :20:10. | |
spiritual nourishment to millions. Is it not vital in the days ahead | :20:11. | :20:15. | |
that while we focus on countering extremism we also underlined the | :20:16. | :20:19. | |
benefits that the faith of Hslam has brought to so many. Hear, hdar! I | :20:20. | :20:26. | |
thank the right honourable gentleman for making that important point as | :20:27. | :20:30. | |
is so often the case. So eloquently. He's right. We need to make that | :20:31. | :20:35. | |
distinction. I would say once more it is for all faiths and all people | :20:36. | :20:40. | |
to unite together and make sure we condemn this dreadful terrorism | :20:41. | :20:47. | |
SPEAKER: Keith Vaz. Can I w`rmly welcome the Home Secretary to her | :20:48. | :20:52. | |
new position and remind her that her predecessor had a career enhancing | :20:53. | :20:57. | |
20 appearances before the sdlect committee during her time in office. | :20:58. | :21:02. | |
I hope she will continue with that engagement in her new officd. | :21:03. | :21:05. | |
LAUGHTER Reports have emerged from France, | :21:06. | :21:12. | |
Bernard Cazeneuve, and many more correction and Manuel Valls, that | :21:13. | :21:18. | |
the perpetrator of this atrocity had been radicalised quickly by the | :21:19. | :21:21. | |
Internet. Does she agree with me whatever the truth of it as it | :21:22. | :21:25. | |
emerges, the Internet remains a key battle ground in our fight `gainst | :21:26. | :21:30. | |
terrorism, and will she do `ll she can to work with Europol and | :21:31. | :21:33. | |
Interpol to make the Interndt companies do more to take down these | :21:34. | :21:41. | |
subversive videos? I think the right honourable gentleman for his | :21:42. | :21:44. | |
question and look forward to every one of my appearances beford his | :21:45. | :21:49. | |
select committee. He raises a very important point about how pdople are | :21:50. | :21:54. | |
radicalised. I think I must first of all suggest a moment of caution | :21:55. | :21:58. | |
because we do not know the `nswer to that yet. We do know some of the | :21:59. | :22:02. | |
examples of where he wasn't radicalised but we don't know | :22:03. | :22:06. | |
exactly how he was and that investigation is going on. H do | :22:07. | :22:10. | |
agree with him that making sure the Internet is not used as a d`ngerous | :22:11. | :22:14. | |
tool for radicalising peopld is incredibly important. We do have a | :22:15. | :22:18. | |
strategic Communications unht based in the Foreign Office which takes | :22:19. | :22:21. | |
down websites. We always make sure we can do as much as possible to | :22:22. | :22:26. | |
address that particular source. SPEAKER: Keith Simpson. Can I | :22:27. | :22:30. | |
congratulate my right honourable friend on her elevation to the Home | :22:31. | :22:35. | |
Office. Can I ask her whethdr any lessons have been learned from this | :22:36. | :22:40. | |
latest terrorist attack, given she emphasised the global threat of | :22:41. | :22:47. | |
terrorism, as to the security Lane Giants correction occur sectrity | :22:48. | :22:49. | |
arrangements for the Olympic Games. And whether she is satisfied the | :22:50. | :22:56. | |
effort our security services are putting in will mean our | :22:57. | :23:01. | |
participants will be safe. H think my honourable friend for th`t | :23:02. | :23:05. | |
question and can reassure hhm we are already engaged with the Olxmpics in | :23:06. | :23:10. | |
Brazil are the people running it, to make sure we make it as safd as | :23:11. | :23:14. | |
possible. Our London Olympics team went over to ensure that was the | :23:15. | :23:21. | |
case. We think we have some fairly substantial expertise here `nd we're | :23:22. | :23:25. | |
happy to share it, particul`rly when there are large events like the | :23:26. | :23:30. | |
Olympics. SPEAKER: Pat McFadden Can I welcome the Home Secretarx to her | :23:31. | :23:36. | |
new post. Terrorism is aptlx named, as it thinks up new and mord awful | :23:37. | :23:40. | |
ways of committing mass murder. Can I ask what discussions she has had | :23:41. | :23:44. | |
with the intelligence and sdcurity services about this unconventional | :23:45. | :23:52. | |
weapons being used in terrorism And given that Nice is a provincial city | :23:53. | :23:58. | |
in France, can she tell me honestly that my constituents in | :23:59. | :24:01. | |
Wolverhampton enjoy the samd level of protection against terrorism as | :24:02. | :24:08. | |
people living in London. He`r, hear! I'm here to reassure the honourable | :24:09. | :24:12. | |
gentleman and his constituents we are doing everything we can to | :24:13. | :24:17. | |
nature his constituents, all our constituents, are kept safe. We will | :24:18. | :24:20. | |
always keep particular incident under review to make sure wd can | :24:21. | :24:24. | |
give them as much certainty as possible. One of the things we are | :24:25. | :24:28. | |
particularly focused on is large crowds, big events, and the security | :24:29. | :24:33. | |
service and the police will be monitoring and reviewing particular | :24:34. | :24:38. | |
events, places of large gatherings, to ensure we do keep it safd. | :24:39. | :24:45. | |
SPEAKER: Bob Stewart. Thank you Mr Speaker. Our security forces face | :24:46. | :24:52. | |
huge inhibitions to overcomd before making a decision to open fhre | :24:53. | :24:57. | |
against someone who poses a lethal threat to innocent people. Can the | :24:58. | :25:04. | |
Home Secretary confirm that if such a decision is made, the intdntion | :25:05. | :25:12. | |
must be to stop that threat in its tracks, which invariably me`ns | :25:13. | :25:21. | |
shooting to kill, not wound? My honourable friend puts it vdry well, | :25:22. | :25:25. | |
there is clearly... The priority must be here to save innocent lives. | :25:26. | :25:32. | |
We must always ensure our sdcurity forces at police firearm officers, | :25:33. | :25:37. | |
have the right tools, not jtst the tools in terms of the agreelent but | :25:38. | :25:40. | |
also the right permissions to be able to do that to keep us `ll safe. | :25:41. | :25:48. | |
Can I welcome the Home Secrdtary to her new place, albeit in tr`gic | :25:49. | :25:52. | |
circumstances. Media reports state today unlike previous terrorist | :25:53. | :25:56. | |
attacks in France, there was no clear link established betwden the | :25:57. | :26:01. | |
person who committed this tdrrible offence and recognised terrorist | :26:02. | :26:04. | |
groups. With the Home Secretary agree that is the case and hf so | :26:05. | :26:08. | |
what is that the UK have and are taking to address this worrxing | :26:09. | :26:13. | |
development. I think the honourable lady for her question. I must just | :26:14. | :26:19. | |
point out there is a French citizen in Nice, we are awaiting further | :26:20. | :26:24. | |
information. She's drawing `ttention to the potential radicalisation from | :26:25. | :26:27. | |
the Internet, which is what some people are suggesting maybe because. | :26:28. | :26:31. | |
We will of course keep it under review and see what other action | :26:32. | :26:36. | |
began take. We must wait a little to see what the conclusions ard. | :26:37. | :26:40. | |
SPEAKER: Nigel Evans. Hundrdds of thousands of reddish familids will | :26:41. | :26:43. | |
already have booked holidays this summer, many going to the French | :26:44. | :26:47. | |
Riviera, Paris, some of the other wonderful cities around France. | :26:48. | :26:50. | |
Could she work with the Fordign Secretary to ensure common-sense | :26:51. | :26:54. | |
guidance can be given to Brhtish families in order for them to be | :26:55. | :26:57. | |
safe during their holidays `nd hopefully none of them will change | :26:58. | :27:01. | |
their plans and part of us standing side-by-side with them will be that | :27:02. | :27:04. | |
many British families will dnjoy holidays in France this year. My | :27:05. | :27:09. | |
honourable friend raises an important point committees put his | :27:10. | :27:11. | |
finger on exactly what a lot of people will be thinking at the | :27:12. | :27:16. | |
moment. What I would say is I would advise him, his constituents, | :27:17. | :27:18. | |
friends who are concerned about this, quite frankly, check the | :27:19. | :27:24. | |
Foreign Office website, we will ensure there is always as mtch | :27:25. | :27:28. | |
helpful and current information on there. SPEAKER: David Hanson. Could | :27:29. | :27:33. | |
the Home Secretary give an indication of what progress is being | :27:34. | :27:37. | |
made on making sure the investigatory Powers Bill rdaches | :27:38. | :27:41. | |
the statute book? Because she will know that the powers in that bill | :27:42. | :27:45. | |
are essential to help support the security services in dealing with | :27:46. | :27:49. | |
potential loan attackers profiling those attackers and ensuring we use | :27:50. | :27:55. | |
the Internet to protect our safety as well as the right to indhvidual | :27:56. | :27:58. | |
liberties. The honourable gdntleman raises such an important pohnt, he | :27:59. | :28:03. | |
is right, the investigatory Powers Bill will give us additional help in | :28:04. | :28:07. | |
order to intercept the sort of potential terrorism created from | :28:08. | :28:12. | |
this sort of event of last weekend. I would hope we'll be able to get it | :28:13. | :28:16. | |
on the statute book by the dnd of the year, but this is entirdly the | :28:17. | :28:20. | |
sort of event that makes it even more pressing to ensure we do. The | :28:21. | :28:28. | |
Secretary of State might be aware of the home affairs select comlittee | :28:29. | :28:31. | |
inquiry into radicalisation and home-grown terrorism. We took | :28:32. | :28:35. | |
evidence on the alarming trdnd of online radicalisation, especially | :28:36. | :28:38. | |
loners, and low-level criminals You've already mentioned thd | :28:39. | :28:41. | |
Internet. Social media sites were not seen as robust enough in | :28:42. | :28:46. | |
removing or blocking content posted by Daesh and affiliate 's, which is | :28:47. | :28:52. | |
only ever uploaded to terrorise a group of would-be terrorists. Would | :28:53. | :29:02. | |
you undertake a review of social sites? It is critical we address the | :29:03. | :29:07. | |
radicalisation that can takd part through social media, through | :29:08. | :29:10. | |
Internet sites, that is why we have a strategic communication unit based | :29:11. | :29:14. | |
on the Foreign Office, which is particularly focused on takhng down | :29:15. | :29:17. | |
those sorts of websites. We'll continue to keep that under review | :29:18. | :29:22. | |
to make sure we do as as possible. On behalf of the Liberal Delocrats | :29:23. | :29:26. | |
I'd like to welcome her to her new position and echo her condolences to | :29:27. | :29:31. | |
the families and friends of those so senselessly murdered. The m`ssacre | :29:32. | :29:35. | |
of the innocent in Nice will strengthen the resolve of all those | :29:36. | :29:39. | |
who believe in democracy and freedom to confront terrorists wherdver they | :29:40. | :29:42. | |
strike in the world. Does the Home Secretary agree when our closest | :29:43. | :29:47. | |
ally is under attack the UK must use all organisations and measures at | :29:48. | :29:50. | |
our disposal to help the ally, including Interpol, Europe `nd the | :29:51. | :29:54. | |
European arrest warrant, and the closest co-operation possible is our | :29:55. | :30:00. | |
best defence against the murderers activities of terrorist or lone | :30:01. | :30:06. | |
wolves. I thank the honourable gentleman for his comment and the | :30:07. | :30:10. | |
support of the Liberal Democrats for this consensus, to stand with our | :30:11. | :30:13. | |
allies in France. He is right we need to have a very close | :30:14. | :30:18. | |
relationship with our allies. European and outside Europe. In | :30:19. | :30:21. | |
order to make sure we deepen the knowledge and are able to share the | :30:22. | :30:24. | |
information we have two combat terrorism. I will make sure that we | :30:25. | :30:26. | |
continue to do that. Thank you Mr Speaker. We've seen | :30:27. | :30:39. | |
tragically that tourist destinations are the target of evil terrorist | :30:40. | :30:42. | |
acts. Can I have affirm asstrance from the Home Secretary that Gatwick | :30:43. | :30:46. | |
Airport will receive the security resources that it needs to dnsure | :30:47. | :30:50. | |
that those travelling through will be safe this summer and beyond? Yes, | :30:51. | :30:56. | |
I'm pleased that my honourable friend has raised that, bec`use I'm | :30:57. | :31:00. | |
keen to re-assure everybody that is exactly what will happen. Wd will | :31:01. | :31:04. | |
continue to keep our airports under constant review. We must do that. | :31:05. | :31:08. | |
But we will do that making sure that we make everybody who works there, | :31:09. | :31:11. | |
who lives around there and who travels through there as safe as | :31:12. | :31:18. | |
possible. Snvm Can I also thank the Secretary of State for her statement | :31:19. | :31:21. | |
and wish her well in her new role. Our hearts ache for those who have | :31:22. | :31:27. | |
lost loved once. It seems that security levels just after the euros | :31:28. | :31:30. | |
in Nice and across France, there's been a high level of rediness in the | :31:31. | :31:35. | |
United Kingdom for some years and in Northern Ireland since 2010. Does | :31:36. | :31:38. | |
the Secretary of State accept we are at a severe level of threat for the | :31:39. | :31:42. | |
foreseeable future and that we all need to be vigilant, careful and | :31:43. | :31:47. | |
responsive and that more th`n ever, the public, security Fire Sdrvices | :31:48. | :31:52. | |
and exchange of intelligencd from countries must continue? I thank the | :31:53. | :31:57. | |
honourable gentleman for his comments. We are already at the | :31:58. | :32:02. | |
severe level. He is right wd must all be vigilant. We will continue to | :32:03. | :32:06. | |
take that approach until we have information to the contrary. Our | :32:07. | :32:10. | |
current status, given there are so many people who want to do ts harm, | :32:11. | :32:14. | |
that we must be vigilant and the terror level is at severe. | :32:15. | :32:19. | |
Mr Speaker, once upon a timd it was useful to talk about lone wolves, | :32:20. | :32:24. | |
individuals who would attack without any institutional support. Would my | :32:25. | :32:28. | |
right honourable friend agrde with me those people don't exist today | :32:29. | :32:33. | |
because of the internet, because of online radicalisation, behind every | :32:34. | :32:38. | |
lone wolf is a pack of wolvds to support them online? Will mx right | :32:39. | :32:44. | |
honourable friend make it a priority to tack thl online radicalisation so | :32:45. | :32:48. | |
we can be better protected hn the foo youure -- future. My honourable | :32:49. | :32:52. | |
friend is right. It is a thdme coming up here from so many asking | :32:53. | :32:57. | |
questions about the radicalhsation of people through the internet. I | :32:58. | :33:01. | |
will make sure that we put dxtra effort and keep it under review and | :33:02. | :33:05. | |
make sure we take down the relevant websites as often as possible. May I | :33:06. | :33:09. | |
welcome the Home Secretary to her new post. My right honourable friend | :33:10. | :33:15. | |
the Shadow Home Secretary s`id a similar attack to this terrhble | :33:16. | :33:17. | |
attack could happen anywherd any time in. Salford our policing | :33:18. | :33:21. | |
resources are stretched handling high levels of crime, involving | :33:22. | :33:25. | |
stabbing and shootings, as well as these new threats. Can the Home | :33:26. | :33:29. | |
Secretary assure me she will protect Greater Manchester Police btdgets so | :33:30. | :33:31. | |
the police can protect my constituents? Well, I mean the | :33:32. | :33:37. | |
police play the critical role in ensuring that we are all kept safe, | :33:38. | :33:41. | |
which is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister protected | :33:42. | :33:46. | |
the police budget in the review of last year. But I will certahnly take | :33:47. | :33:50. | |
a careful look at all the spending within the police budget to ensure | :33:51. | :33:54. | |
that the maximum amount is `vailable to ensure that we get clear, visible | :33:55. | :33:58. | |
policing on our streets that plays such an important part in ddterring | :33:59. | :34:05. | |
criminal activity. In light of the budget annotncement | :34:06. | :34:09. | |
which the Home Secretary just referred to, could she confhrm that | :34:10. | :34:13. | |
the Metropolitan Police did indeed increase its armed response vehicle | :34:14. | :34:17. | |
capacity and that our armed officers in this country have the capacity to | :34:18. | :34:22. | |
neutralise a threat like th`t in Nice and indeed, that we have the | :34:23. | :34:26. | |
most professional armed offhcers in the world? My honourable frhend is | :34:27. | :34:30. | |
absolutely right. We are very proud of the high standards by our | :34:31. | :34:33. | |
professional armed officers and we announced in April that the number | :34:34. | :34:36. | |
of armed police will increase by more than a thousand over the next | :34:37. | :34:40. | |
two years. Additional round the clock specialist team is behng set | :34:41. | :34:44. | |
up outside London and 40 additional police armed response vehicles are | :34:45. | :34:48. | |
on our streets. I happen to be on the promenade on | :34:49. | :34:55. | |
Thursday evening, watching the fireworks with the crowd and was | :34:56. | :34:58. | |
very lucky to have left just a few minutes before the attack. Hf I may, | :34:59. | :35:04. | |
Mr Speaker, the haunting sight for me, having been so fortunatd not to | :35:05. | :35:08. | |
have seen the carnage itself, was to drive to the airport through what is | :35:09. | :35:18. | |
actually the busy thorough fare and see the stretch of the flowdrs laid | :35:19. | :35:23. | |
for each victim. It went on and on and on. It was truly somethhng which | :35:24. | :35:30. | |
will haunt me for a long tile. Given that, could I ask the Home Secretary | :35:31. | :35:37. | |
if she is as troubled as I `m by the tension that we have between our | :35:38. | :35:43. | |
natural, human desire to focus in on the horror of things like this, | :35:44. | :35:50. | |
which happen, the world's mddia focussing on one point, to have | :35:51. | :35:53. | |
Parliamentary statements like this and the inevitable extra publicity | :35:54. | :35:56. | |
that gives to the terrorists who want to show that they can create a | :35:57. | :36:02. | |
level of carnage and disruption far beyond their actual militarx | :36:03. | :36:07. | |
capability would otherwise `llow? Well, I thank the honourabld | :36:08. | :36:11. | |
gentleman for sharing that with us. It's those certainly stories that | :36:12. | :36:17. | |
make the real tragedy come to life for us. He raises an import`nt | :36:18. | :36:21. | |
point. We want people to be aware, but we don't want to give the | :36:22. | :36:24. | |
terrorists the sort of publhcity they want. But our intelligdnce is | :36:25. | :36:29. | |
that because we are making progress against them, we are making progress | :36:30. | :36:33. | |
against them, against Daesh in general, they are trying to find | :36:34. | :36:36. | |
ways to lash out and being dangerous in this way. I have to say, it is | :36:37. | :36:41. | |
right that we know that this is taking place and that everybody can | :36:42. | :36:47. | |
be vigilant against it. Can I welcome my right honotrable | :36:48. | :36:52. | |
friend to her new position. As it is some time since the initial | :36:53. | :36:56. | |
announcement was made of thd recruitment of 1900 more security | :36:57. | :37:00. | |
staff, can the Home Secretary tell the House how many have so far | :37:01. | :37:06. | |
actually been recruited? I thank my honourable friend for that puestion. | :37:07. | :37:09. | |
I cannot, at the moment, give him the exact number. But I can tell him | :37:10. | :37:13. | |
that we have made good progress I will write to him further whth that | :37:14. | :37:18. | |
number. Could I wish the right honotrable | :37:19. | :37:23. | |
lady well in her appointment. With many British citizens due to take | :37:24. | :37:29. | |
part in battle of the Somme events this year, will she do all she can | :37:30. | :37:33. | |
to ensure these visits go ahead and all that she can in terms of | :37:34. | :37:38. | |
cooperation with our French allies to ensure the safety and security of | :37:39. | :37:44. | |
British people taking part? Well, I thank the honourable gentlelan for | :37:45. | :37:47. | |
that points. He is absolutely right. It is essential that these dvents go | :37:48. | :37:51. | |
on, particularly to remember something like the Battle of the | :37:52. | :37:56. | |
Somme, which puts some of the difficulties we have here in | :37:57. | :37:59. | |
perspective, the scale of the massacre there. I will indedd engage | :38:00. | :38:03. | |
with my French counterpart to ensure we do all we can to give thdm the | :38:04. | :38:08. | |
support they need to keep everybody safe. Can I congratulate thd Home | :38:09. | :38:13. | |
Secretary on her statement `nd welcome her and her team to their | :38:14. | :38:16. | |
places. Does she agrow whether we are in or out of Europe, we must | :38:17. | :38:20. | |
stand with Britain, Britain and France must stand together to tackle | :38:21. | :38:23. | |
terrorism, to tackle human trafficking, to keep our borders | :38:24. | :38:28. | |
safe and secure, upholding our treaties, that way our two nations | :38:29. | :38:32. | |
are safer, stronger and mord secure? I thank my honourable friend. He's | :38:33. | :38:37. | |
absolutely right. National security remains the sole responsibility of | :38:38. | :38:42. | |
member states. We will conthnue to work bilaterally with Francd, | :38:43. | :38:44. | |
sharing information and deepening that relationship so we can make | :38:45. | :38:47. | |
sure we keep both our countries safe. | :38:48. | :38:52. | |
The Home Secretary, and I wdlcome her to her post, is right to condemn | :38:53. | :38:59. | |
these vicious atrocities in Nice. After the Paris attacks in November, | :39:00. | :39:06. | |
her predecessor, the new Prhme Minister, committed to a review on | :39:07. | :39:11. | |
firearms responses in the United Kingdom. Can she update the House on | :39:12. | :39:16. | |
how that review has gone and whether any changes have been instigated as | :39:17. | :39:21. | |
a result of it? I thank the honourable gentleman. That review is | :39:22. | :39:26. | |
ongoing. It is not finished yet I will make sure that I get hhm an | :39:27. | :39:30. | |
update of where we are, so H can make sure he's fully informdd. Can I | :39:31. | :39:35. | |
welcome my right honourable friend to her place and condemn thhs | :39:36. | :39:40. | |
barbarous attack. I welcome the extra money that she talks `bout. | :39:41. | :39:44. | |
Can I ask her, is she happy that the training facilities that thd armed | :39:45. | :39:49. | |
police are now going to havd are sufficient to meet the extrdme level | :39:50. | :39:53. | |
they may be put to, ie, storming buildings and so forth, to rescue | :39:54. | :39:57. | |
those taken hostage? This rdquires a huge level of skill, I suspdct, | :39:58. | :40:02. | |
investment and training? Le w, I can tell my honourable friend -, well, I | :40:03. | :40:05. | |
can tell my honourable friend that we have some of the best in the | :40:06. | :40:09. | |
world who are our armed offhcers who can do that response. We ard no | :40:10. | :40:13. | |
doubt that we will take all action we need to keep our people safe If | :40:14. | :40:18. | |
that requires additional tr`ining or additional expertise, we will take | :40:19. | :40:21. | |
it seriously. We will keep ht constantly under review to dnsure we | :40:22. | :40:25. | |
can deliver that. THE SPEAKER: Very unseemly. Thank | :40:26. | :40:31. | |
you very much indeed Mr Spe`ker I welcome the Home Secretary to her | :40:32. | :40:35. | |
post. This horrific attack was carried out using no specialised | :40:36. | :40:38. | |
equipment, but it's not enotgh for husband to play catch up and be | :40:39. | :40:42. | |
thinking how to protect people from a lorry attack, but to be ilagining | :40:43. | :40:48. | |
the unthinkable, pre-emting and taking precautions against dvery | :40:49. | :40:51. | |
other method of attack, without going into detail, can she give | :40:52. | :40:54. | |
assurances that the Securitx Services are doing this? I thank the | :40:55. | :41:00. | |
honourable lady and she makds an important point about the txpe of | :41:01. | :41:05. | |
weapon used in this case. I would repeat, though, there is an ongoing | :41:06. | :41:09. | |
investigation in France, so we no further investigation about the | :41:10. | :41:13. | |
access or the details of it. But I would say, that we are keephng under | :41:14. | :41:17. | |
particular review large events so we can make sure that the people who | :41:18. | :41:20. | |
are promoting these events or hosting them always have thd | :41:21. | :41:24. | |
important information they need to keep the attendees safe. | :41:25. | :41:30. | |
The murderous rampage of thhs evil terrorist was eventually halted by | :41:31. | :41:35. | |
armed police in Nice. Can the Home Secretary just reiterate how | :41:36. | :41:39. | |
satisfied she is with the availability of rapid armed response | :41:40. | :41:41. | |
units in our regional towns and cities? I thank the honourable | :41:42. | :41:47. | |
gentleman and -- my honourable friend. We will continue to keep | :41:48. | :41:51. | |
this under review to ensure that we always keep people safe. Ovdr the | :41:52. | :41:55. | |
next five years, we are, for example, providing ?143 million for | :41:56. | :41:58. | |
the police to further boost their firearms capability. There will be | :41:59. | :42:05. | |
no risk taken with the security As well as deploying its Securhty | :42:06. | :42:10. | |
Services and its police force, France has also deployed ovdr 1 ,000 | :42:11. | :42:15. | |
of its army and also has talked about calling up 55,000 resdrvists. | :42:16. | :42:20. | |
Dewing the Olympics, the Brhtish military played an important part in | :42:21. | :42:24. | |
our security. Can I assume that the Home Secretary is talking to the | :42:25. | :42:27. | |
Secretary of State of defence about the lessons the British milhtary can | :42:28. | :42:32. | |
also teach in terms of ensuring security of large events? I thank | :42:33. | :42:38. | |
the honourable lady. She rahses an important point about the v`lue of | :42:39. | :42:44. | |
collaboration between defence and home to ensure we get the bdst | :42:45. | :42:47. | |
outcome. We have done that previously and I look forward to | :42:48. | :42:49. | |
continuing that with my right honourable friend. I wonder if I can | :42:50. | :42:53. | |
ask the Home Secretary to s`y a little more about the defence | :42:54. | :42:56. | |
measures we might have here in the UK against such an attack t`king | :42:57. | :43:01. | |
place in the UK and particularly, the ability of potential totrists - | :43:02. | :43:08. | |
terrorists to get hold of something such as a commercial vehicld. I | :43:09. | :43:12. | |
thank my honourable friend. We do have particular assets which we use | :43:13. | :43:15. | |
in order to combat that sort of attack. We have, for instance, a | :43:16. | :43:19. | |
national barrier asset, where the police assess there to be a risk for | :43:20. | :43:22. | |
vehicle attacks, my honourable friend may have seen them. They are | :43:23. | :43:27. | |
these big, almost plastic items set out outside areas of risk, hn order | :43:28. | :43:32. | |
to combat exactly that sort of attack. We will make those `vailable | :43:33. | :43:36. | |
to areas having big gatherings, which is exactly the sort of area | :43:37. | :43:41. | |
which could be most valuabld. Can I welcome the Home Secretary to her | :43:42. | :43:44. | |
new role. Last year, the Opposition joined with the Government to | :43:45. | :43:49. | |
support measures to be introduced for returning jihadists to restrict | :43:50. | :43:52. | |
their movements when they rdturn to the UK. Can the Home Secret`ry say | :43:53. | :43:55. | |
how often those powers have been used? Well, I'm certainly aware that | :43:56. | :44:00. | |
we have those powers and we are using them. Of course, the best | :44:01. | :44:04. | |
thing is to try and discour`ge people in the first place from | :44:05. | :44:08. | |
going. We are aware, we are also making sure that we use those powers | :44:09. | :44:12. | |
to stop people when they cole back and potentially to arrest them. I'm | :44:13. | :44:15. | |
happy to right to the honourable lady to give more information about | :44:16. | :44:20. | |
the actual numbers. I was privileged in being able to | :44:21. | :44:26. | |
attend an inter-faith Eid celebration dinner last night, | :44:27. | :44:29. | |
hosted by a group that your new Prime Minister is aware of. A fine | :44:30. | :44:34. | |
example of a group teaching love, not hatred, and committed to helping | :44:35. | :44:37. | |
their local communities in raising hundreds of thousands of potnds for | :44:38. | :44:42. | |
UK charities. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that we need | :44:43. | :44:46. | |
to work with our Muslim comlunities to ensure that they're not targeted | :44:47. | :44:50. | |
with hate crimes in the UK `nd not linked to these appalling attacks, | :44:51. | :44:52. | |
which they condemn? THE SPEAKER: People ought to show | :44:53. | :44:59. | |
some sensitivity to the House. Forgive me, but that question was | :45:00. | :45:02. | |
far too long. I thank the honourable lady. She makes such an important | :45:03. | :45:06. | |
point about the role of comlunities and other faith groups to m`ke sure | :45:07. | :45:09. | |
that the sort of terrorism we've seen and the sort of hate that can | :45:10. | :45:14. | |
grow up so, apparently so e`sily sometimes, is combatted early on. I | :45:15. | :45:20. | |
join her in congratulated the group. THE SPEAKER: Order. To move motion | :45:21. | :45:28. | |
number one on the UK's nucldar deterrent, I call the Prime | :45:29. | :45:29. | |
Minister. Mr Speaker, I beg to move in motion | :45:30. | :45:43. | |
on the order paper in the n`me of my name and my right honourabld | :45:44. | :45:46. | |
friends. The Home Secretary has just made a statement about the `ttack in | :45:47. | :45:49. | |
Nice and I'm sure the whole house will join me in sending our deepest | :45:50. | :45:52. | |
condolences to the families and friends of all those killed and | :45:53. | :45:54. | |
injured in last Thursday's ttterly horrifying attack in knees. Innocent | :45:55. | :46:01. | |
victims brutally murdered bx terrorists who resent the freedoms | :46:02. | :46:04. | |
we treasure and want nothing more than to destroy our way of life | :46:05. | :46:09. | |
This latest attack in Francd, pounding the tragedies of the Paris | :46:10. | :46:14. | |
attacks in January and Novelber last year is another grave reminder of | :46:15. | :46:18. | |
the growing threat that Britain and all our allies face from terrorism. | :46:19. | :46:22. | |
On Friday I spoke with presdnt land and assured him we will stand | :46:23. | :46:27. | |
shoulder to shoulder with the French people as we have done so often the | :46:28. | :46:32. | |
past. -- I spoke with President Hollande. We will never be cowed by | :46:33. | :46:37. | |
terror. Though the battle whth terrorism may be long, thesd | :46:38. | :46:41. | |
terrorists will be defeated and the values will prevail. Mr Spe`ker I | :46:42. | :46:47. | |
should note the serious events over the weekend in Turkey. We h`ve | :46:48. | :46:51. | |
firmly condemned the attempted coup by certain members of the Ttrkish | :46:52. | :46:56. | |
military which began on Friday evening. Britain stands firlly in | :46:57. | :47:00. | |
support of Turkey's democratically elected government and insthtutions, | :47:01. | :47:05. | |
we call for the full observ`nce of Turkey's constitutional orddr, and | :47:06. | :47:07. | |
stressed the importance of the rule of law prevailing in the wake of | :47:08. | :47:10. | |
this failed coup. Everything must be done to avoid further violence, to | :47:11. | :47:16. | |
protect lives and restore c`lm. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has | :47:17. | :47:19. | |
worked around the clock to provide help and advice to the many | :47:20. | :47:22. | |
thousands of reddish tackles on holiday or working in Turkex at this | :47:23. | :47:25. | |
time and my right honourabld friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to | :47:26. | :47:30. | |
the Turkish Foreign Minister and I expect to speak to President Erdogan | :47:31. | :47:34. | |
shortly. Before I turn to otr nuclear deterrent, I'm sure the | :47:35. | :47:38. | |
house will welcome the news that Japan's Softbank group intends to | :47:39. | :47:44. | |
acquire UK tech firm arm Holdings. I've spoken to Softbank dirdctly and | :47:45. | :47:47. | |
they have confirmed their commitment to keep the company in Cambridge and | :47:48. | :47:51. | |
invest further to double thd number of UK jobs over five years. This ?24 | :47:52. | :47:56. | |
billion investment would be the largest ever Asian investment in the | :47:57. | :48:02. | |
UK. It's a clear demonstrathon that Britain is open for business, as | :48:03. | :48:08. | |
attractive to international investment as ever. Hear, hdar! Mr | :48:09. | :48:12. | |
Speaker there is no greater responsible Diaz by Minister than in | :48:13. | :48:15. | |
chewing the safety and security of our people, that is why I'vd made my | :48:16. | :48:20. | |
first duty in this house to move today's motion so we can get on with | :48:21. | :48:23. | |
the job of renewing an essential part of our national security for | :48:24. | :48:29. | |
generations to come. For allost half a century every hour of every day | :48:30. | :48:34. | |
our Royal Navy nuclear subm`rines have been patrolling Boeoti`ns. | :48:35. | :48:41. | |
Unseen and undetected. -- p`trolling the oceans. Our ultimate insurance | :48:42. | :48:46. | |
against nuclear attack. Our sub mariners endure months away from | :48:47. | :48:50. | |
their families, often withott any contact with their loved onds, | :48:51. | :48:53. | |
training relentlessly fought the duty they hope never to carry out. I | :48:54. | :48:58. | |
hope Mr Speaker that whatevdr our views on the deterrent, we can today | :48:59. | :49:04. | |
agree on one thing, that our country owes an enormous debt of gr`titude | :49:05. | :49:08. | |
to all our sub mariners and their families for the sacrifices they | :49:09. | :49:13. | |
make in keeping us safe. He`r, hear! As former Home Secretary, I'm | :49:14. | :49:17. | |
familiar with the threats f`cing our country, in my last post I was | :49:18. | :49:20. | |
responsible for counterterrorism for over six years, I received daily | :49:21. | :49:25. | |
intelligence briefings about threats to national security, I chahred a | :49:26. | :49:28. | |
weekly security meeting with representatives of all the countries | :49:29. | :49:32. | |
security and intelligence agencies, military and police, and receive | :49:33. | :49:37. | |
personal briefings from the director-general of MI5. Ovdr six | :49:38. | :49:40. | |
years as Home Secretary I w`s focused on the decisions nedded to | :49:41. | :49:44. | |
keep our people safe and it remains my first priority as Prime Linister. | :49:45. | :49:49. | |
The threats we face are serhous It is vital for our national interest | :49:50. | :49:53. | |
that we have the full spectrum of our defences at. To meet thdm. - at | :49:54. | :50:01. | |
full strength to meet them. Under my leadership is government will meet | :50:02. | :50:05. | |
our Nato obligation to spend 2% of our GDP on defence, we will maintain | :50:06. | :50:09. | |
the most significant security and military capability in Europe and | :50:10. | :50:13. | |
continue to invest in all the capabilities set out in the | :50:14. | :50:16. | |
strategic defence and Securhty review last year. We will mdet the | :50:17. | :50:21. | |
growing terrorist threat coling from Daesh in Syria and Iraq, Boko Haram | :50:22. | :50:26. | |
in Nigeria, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Karsh about in E`st | :50:27. | :50:30. | |
Africa, and other terrorist groups planning attacks in Pakistan and | :50:31. | :50:36. | |
Afghanistan. -- Walsh about in East Africa. | :50:37. | :50:46. | |
Would my right honourable friend agree that Ukraine would have been | :50:47. | :50:52. | |
less likely to have lost a sizeable portion of its territory to Russia I | :50:53. | :50:58. | |
did continue to keep its nuclear weapons, and there are lessons in | :50:59. | :51:03. | |
that for us. My honourable friend is absolutely right that there are | :51:04. | :51:07. | |
lessons some people suggest to us that we should be removing our | :51:08. | :51:11. | |
nuclear deterrent. This has been a vital part of our national security | :51:12. | :51:14. | |
and defence were nearly half a century now and it would be quite | :51:15. | :51:17. | |
the wrong... I will give wax to the honourable gentleman in a mhnute... | :51:18. | :51:21. | |
It would be quite wrong to go down that particular pass. I think the | :51:22. | :51:27. | |
premise to four giving way. Correction I thank the Primd | :51:28. | :51:32. | |
Minister for giving way. Will she be reassured it remains steadf`stly | :51:33. | :51:35. | |
Labour Party policy to renew the deterrent while other countries have | :51:36. | :51:42. | |
the capacity to threaten thd United Kingdom and many of my colldagues | :51:43. | :51:44. | |
will do the right thing for the long-term security of our n`tion and | :51:45. | :51:49. | |
a vote to complete the programme we ourselves started in governlent | :51:50. | :51:56. | |
Hear, hear! Can I commend the honourable gentleman for thd words | :51:57. | :52:00. | |
he has just said, he's absolutely right, the national interest is | :52:01. | :52:05. | |
clear. The manifesto on which Labour members of Parliament stood for the | :52:06. | :52:08. | |
general election last year said the following... Britain must rdmain | :52:09. | :52:15. | |
committed to a minimum credhble independent nuclear capabilhty | :52:16. | :52:17. | |
delivered through a continuous at the deterrent. I welcome thd | :52:18. | :52:21. | |
commitment the honourable gdntleman and many of his colleagues will be | :52:22. | :52:27. | |
giving tonight to that nucldar deterrent by joining the government | :52:28. | :52:29. | |
and members of Parliament in voting for this motion. I add my | :52:30. | :52:36. | |
congratulations to her in hdr new role. If keeping an renewing our | :52:37. | :52:40. | |
nuclear weapons is so vital to our national security and safetx, does | :52:41. | :52:43. | |
she accept the logic of that position must be every other single | :52:44. | :52:47. | |
country must seek to acquird nuclear weapons and the she really think the | :52:48. | :52:52. | |
world would be a safer placd if it did? Our nuclear weapons ard driving | :52:53. | :52:59. | |
a reparation, not the opposhte. -- driving proliferation. I don't | :53:00. | :53:02. | |
accept that at all. I have to say to the honourable lady that sadly she | :53:03. | :53:05. | |
and some other members of the Labour Party seem to be the first to defend | :53:06. | :53:09. | |
the country's enemies and the last to accept the capabilities... | :53:10. | :53:17. | |
INAUDIBLE Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, nond of this | :53:18. | :53:22. | |
means there will be no thre`t from nuclear state in coming dec`des As | :53:23. | :53:26. | |
I will set out for the housd today, the threats from countries like | :53:27. | :53:28. | |
Russia and North Korea remahn very real. As our strategic defence and | :53:29. | :53:34. | |
Security review made clear, there is a continuing risk of further | :53:35. | :53:40. | |
proliferation of weapons. Wd must continually convince any potential | :53:41. | :53:43. | |
aggressors the benefits of `n attack on Britain are far outweighdd by | :53:44. | :53:47. | |
their consequences and we c`nnot afford to relax our guard or rule | :53:48. | :53:51. | |
out further shifts which put our country in great danger. We need to | :53:52. | :53:55. | |
be prepared to deter threats to our lives and livelihoods and those of | :53:56. | :54:01. | |
generations yet to be born. I will give way. Very grateful to the Prime | :54:02. | :54:07. | |
Minister giving way. We on these benches go through the lobbx | :54:08. | :54:11. | |
tonight, 58 of Scotland's 58 MPs will be voting against this. What | :54:12. | :54:15. | |
message is the Prime Ministdr sending to the people of Scotland, | :54:16. | :54:20. | |
who are demonstrating through their elected representatives we don't | :54:21. | :54:21. | |
want Trident on our soil. I have decided the honourable | :54:22. | :54:30. | |
gentleman it means 58 of thd 59 Scottish members of Parliamdnt will | :54:31. | :54:33. | |
be voting against jobs in Scotland. CHEERING | :54:34. | :54:37. | |
Supported by the nuclear deterrent. I give way to the honourabld... I | :54:38. | :54:46. | |
thank the Prime Minister for giving way and congratulate her on her | :54:47. | :54:49. | |
appointment. She mentioned the security threat the country faces | :54:50. | :54:55. | |
from terrorism. What does she say to those whose eight is a choice | :54:56. | :55:00. | |
between renewing the Trident programme or confronting thd | :55:01. | :55:04. | |
terrorist threat. -- who sax it is a choice. I say it is not advhce, but | :55:05. | :55:08. | |
the country needs to do is recognise it faces a variety of threats and to | :55:09. | :55:13. | |
ensure we have the capabilities necessary and appropriate to deal | :55:14. | :55:15. | |
with each of those threats. As the Home Secretary has just madd clear | :55:16. | :55:21. | |
in response to questions in her statement, the government is | :55:22. | :55:23. | |
committed to extra funding, extra moves to let macro resources -- | :55:24. | :55:29. | |
extra resources going to agdncies as they face terrorist threat. This | :55:30. | :55:34. | |
that we are talking about today is the necessity for us having a | :55:35. | :55:38. | |
nuclear deterrent which has been an insurer 's policy for this country | :55:39. | :55:41. | |
for nearly 50 years and I bdlieve should remain so. -- insurance | :55:42. | :55:46. | |
policy. I'd like to make a little progress before I take more | :55:47. | :55:51. | |
interventions. Mr Speaker, H know there are serious and important | :55:52. | :55:53. | |
questions at the heart of this debate and I want to address them | :55:54. | :55:56. | |
all this afternoon. First, hn light of the evolving nature of the threat | :55:57. | :56:03. | |
we face, is a nuclear deterrent still necessary and essenti`l? Is | :56:04. | :56:08. | |
the cost of the deterrent to great? That, is building four subm`rines | :56:09. | :56:11. | |
the right way of maintaining the deterrent. Could we not relx on our | :56:12. | :56:15. | |
nuclear armed allies like Alerica and France to provide the ddterrent? | :56:16. | :56:20. | |
Do we not have a moral duty to lead the world in nuclear disarm`ment | :56:21. | :56:23. | |
rather than maintaining our own deterrent? I will take each of these | :56:24. | :56:32. | |
questions in turn. Could I congratulate the Prime Minister on | :56:33. | :56:35. | |
her sure-footedness today in bringing this motion before the | :56:36. | :56:38. | |
house, and at last allowing Parliament in this session to make a | :56:39. | :56:41. | |
decision. We will proudly stand behind the government on thhs issue | :56:42. | :56:49. | |
to act. Could I encourage hdr to encourage the Scottish Nationalists | :56:50. | :56:51. | |
if they don't want those jobs in Scotland, they will happily be taken | :56:52. | :56:57. | |
in Northern Ireland. I'm gr`teful to the honourable gentleman for his | :56:58. | :57:00. | |
intervention and the support he and colleagues will be showing tonight. | :57:01. | :57:06. | |
Mr Speaker, I will take one more intervention... I'm grateful and | :57:07. | :57:10. | |
would like to congratulate her on becoming Prime Minister. Can she | :57:11. | :57:14. | |
confirm that when the Labour government of Clement Attled took | :57:15. | :57:18. | |
the decision to have nuclear weapons, it had to do so in a very | :57:19. | :57:24. | |
dangerous world. And that stccessive Labour governments kept those | :57:25. | :57:28. | |
nuclear weapons are cars thdre was a dangerous world. Isn't it, now, as | :57:29. | :57:35. | |
you said, a dangerous time? -- kept weapons because. The last L`bour | :57:36. | :57:39. | |
government held votes on thd retention of the nuclear deterrent. | :57:40. | :57:43. | |
I think it's a great pity there are members of the Labour Party's front | :57:44. | :57:47. | |
bench today who failed to sde the necessity of this nuclear ddterrent, | :57:48. | :57:51. | |
given the Labour Party in the past has put the British national | :57:52. | :57:54. | |
interest first in looking at this issue. Mr Speaker, I want to set out | :57:55. | :58:01. | |
for the house why our nucle`r deterrent remains as necess`ry and | :58:02. | :58:03. | |
essential today as it was when we first established it. The ntclear | :58:04. | :58:07. | |
threat has not gone away, if anything, it has increased. First | :58:08. | :58:12. | |
there is the threat from exhsting nuclear states like Russia. We know | :58:13. | :58:16. | |
President Putin is upgrading his nuclear forces. In the last two | :58:17. | :58:20. | |
years there has been a disttrbing increase in Russian rhetoric about | :58:21. | :58:23. | |
the use of nuclear weapons `nd the free -- snap nuclear exercises. | :58:24. | :58:33. | |
There is no question about his willingness to undermine thd rule | :58:34. | :58:36. | |
-based international system to advance his own interests. He has | :58:37. | :58:39. | |
already threatened to base nuclear forces in the Crimea and Kalann | :58:40. | :58:43. | |
inbred, the Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea that neighbours Poland | :58:44. | :58:48. | |
and Lithuania. There are cotntries that wish to acquire nuclear | :58:49. | :58:53. | |
capabilities illegally. North Korea has stated clearly tend to develop | :58:54. | :58:57. | |
and employ a nuclear weapons and continues to work towards that goal. | :58:58. | :59:03. | |
In flagrant violation... I'l going to make some progress... Of UN | :59:04. | :59:08. | |
Security Council resolutions. It is the only country in the world to | :59:09. | :59:12. | |
have tested nuclear weapons this century, carrying out its fourth | :59:13. | :59:15. | |
test of this year, as well `s a space launch that used the list of | :59:16. | :59:20. | |
missile technology. It also claims to be attempted to develop ` | :59:21. | :59:24. | |
submarine launch capability and to have withdrawn from the nuclear | :59:25. | :59:27. | |
Non-Proliferation Treaty. B`sed on the route tick advice received, | :59:28. | :59:32. | |
North Korea could have enough fissile material to produce more | :59:33. | :59:37. | |
than a dozen nuclear weapons. - based on evidence received. There is | :59:38. | :59:44. | |
of course the danger North Korea might share its technology or | :59:45. | :59:48. | |
weapons with other countries or organisations who wish to do us | :59:49. | :59:53. | |
harm. Third, there is the qtestion of future nuclear threat, that we | :59:54. | :59:58. | |
cannot even anticipate todax. Let me be clear why this matters. Once | :59:59. | :00:02. | |
nuclear weapons have been ghven up, it's almost impossible to gdt them | :00:03. | :00:07. | |
back. The process of creating a new deterrent takes many decades, you | :00:08. | :00:11. | |
could not redevelop a deterrent fast enough to respond to a new `nd | :00:12. | :00:15. | |
unforeseen nuclear threat. The decision on whether to renew our | :00:16. | :00:19. | |
nuclear deterrent in just not just on the threats we face todax but | :00:20. | :00:22. | |
also on an assessment of wh`t the world will be like over the coming | :00:23. | :00:26. | |
decades. It is impossible to say for certain that no such extremd threats | :00:27. | :00:31. | |
in the next 30-40 years to threaten our security and way of lifd. It | :00:32. | :00:35. | |
would be an act of gross irresponsibility to lose thd ability | :00:36. | :00:40. | |
to meet such threats by discarding the ultimate insurance against those | :00:41. | :00:46. | |
risk in future. With the exhsting fleet of Vanguard submarines | :00:47. | :00:49. | |
beginning to leave service by the early 2030s and the time it takes to | :00:50. | :00:54. | |
build and test new submarinds, we need to take the decision to replace | :00:55. | :00:58. | |
them now. Maintaining our ntclear deterrent is not just essential for | :00:59. | :01:03. | |
our own national security, ht is also vital for the future sdcurity | :01:04. | :01:08. | |
of our Nato allies. The Prile Minister. Last year the Minhster for | :01:09. | :01:15. | |
defence procurement said thd cost of the replacement programme w`s, and I | :01:16. | :01:19. | |
quote, being withheld, as it relates to the formulation of government | :01:20. | :01:25. | |
policy and would prejudice commercial interests. Given the | :01:26. | :01:28. | |
scale of the decision we ard being asked today, but the Prime Linister | :01:29. | :01:32. | |
tell us the cost of that, the life cost. | :01:33. | :01:35. | |
I'm coming onto the cost in a minute. Britain is going to leave | :01:36. | :01:41. | |
the European Union, but we `re not leaving Europe. We will not leave | :01:42. | :01:46. | |
our European and Nato allies behind. Being recognised as one of the five | :01:47. | :01:55. | |
nuclear weapons states under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty | :01:56. | :01:57. | |
confers unique responsibilities They did so on the understanding | :01:58. | :02:04. | |
that they were protected by Nato's nuclear umbrella, abandoning our | :02:05. | :02:08. | |
deterrent would undermine otr future security and that of our allies too. | :02:09. | :02:11. | |
That is not something that H am prepared to do. | :02:12. | :02:15. | |
I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. I wonder if the Prime | :02:16. | :02:19. | |
Minister in her busy schedule this morning caught the interview on | :02:20. | :02:26. | |
radio five, where it was st`ted that he was a member of CND but then he | :02:27. | :02:32. | |
grew up. Isn't it the maturd view, the adult view in a world where we | :02:33. | :02:36. | |
have a nuclear north crow y`, an expansionist Russia, we must keep | :02:37. | :02:43. | |
our independent nuclear detdrrent? Well I absolutely agree with my | :02:44. | :02:46. | |
honourable friend. I think he's right to point out there ard members | :02:47. | :02:49. | |
on the benches opposite who do support that view. Sadly, not many | :02:50. | :02:53. | |
of them seem to be on the frontbench of the party opposite. But we may | :02:54. | :03:01. | |
see, maybe my speech will change the views of some of the frontbdnches. I | :03:02. | :03:04. | |
said to the right honourabld gentleman I would come onto the | :03:05. | :03:07. | |
question of cost. I want to do that now. Of course, no credible | :03:08. | :03:11. | |
deterrent is cheap. It's estimated that the four new submarines will | :03:12. | :03:17. | |
cost ?31 billion to build whth a contingency of ?10 billion. With the | :03:18. | :03:21. | |
acquisition costs spread ovdr 3 years, this is effectively `n | :03:22. | :03:27. | |
insurance premium of 0. 2% of total annual Government spending, 20 pence | :03:28. | :03:31. | |
in every ?100 for a capabilhty to protect our people through to the | :03:32. | :03:35. | |
2060s and beyond. I'm very clear our national security is worth dvery | :03:36. | :03:40. | |
penny. There's a significant economic benefit to the rendwal of | :03:41. | :03:46. | |
our nuclear deterrent - I'm very grateful for the Prime Minister | :03:47. | :03:48. | |
taking a second intervention on It I asked a simple question the first | :03:49. | :03:53. | |
time round. I think the Prile Minister has concluded of what the | :03:54. | :03:57. | |
cost is for Trident replacelent But she didn't say what that nulber was. | :03:58. | :04:02. | |
Would she be so kind to say what the total number is for Trident | :04:03. | :04:08. | |
replacement? I've given the figures for the cost of bidding the | :04:09. | :04:12. | |
submarines. I've cleared th`t the in-service cost is about 6% of the | :04:13. | :04:18. | |
defence Budget or about 13 p in every ?100 of Government spdnding. | :04:19. | :04:23. | |
There is also a significant economic benefit to the renewal of otr | :04:24. | :04:29. | |
nuclear deterrent. Our nucldar which might be of interest to | :04:30. | :04:32. | |
members of the Scottish Nathonal Party. I give way. Would shd pay | :04:33. | :04:39. | |
tribute, quite rightly to otr submariners, but should she pay | :04:40. | :04:42. | |
tribute to the men and women who work in our defence industrhes who | :04:43. | :04:46. | |
are going to be working on the successor. They're highly skilled | :04:47. | :04:50. | |
individuals, well paid, but also these skills cannot be just turned | :04:51. | :04:54. | |
on and off like a tap when xou need them. Does she agree it's in the | :04:55. | :05:00. | |
national interest to keep these people employed? I think he makes an | :05:01. | :05:04. | |
incredibly important point. Our nuclear defence industry makes a | :05:05. | :05:08. | |
major contribution to our ddfence industrial base, supporting more | :05:09. | :05:12. | |
than 30,000 jobs across the UK. It benefits hundreds of supplidrs | :05:13. | :05:17. | |
across 350 constituencies. H just finish this point, while thd skills | :05:18. | :05:20. | |
required in this industry whll keep our nation at the cutting edge for | :05:21. | :05:24. | |
years to come, and I also along with the honourable gentleman pax tribute | :05:25. | :05:30. | |
to all those who are working in this industry and by their contrhbution | :05:31. | :05:36. | |
helping to keep us safe I'd like to welcome her to the place as Prime | :05:37. | :05:39. | |
Minister. Would she not agrde with me that like the honourable member | :05:40. | :05:44. | |
for barrow, Morecambe has a lot of people in the defence industry and | :05:45. | :05:48. | |
the thuck leer power industry and science sector there. Would this not | :05:49. | :05:52. | |
be a kick in the teach to mx -- teeth to my constituents if we | :05:53. | :05:55. | |
didn't have this deterrent dnacted today? My honourable friend make a | :05:56. | :06:02. | |
very important point. There are some constituencies particularly affected | :06:03. | :06:05. | |
in relation to this. As I'vd just said, there are jobs across | :06:06. | :06:08. | |
something like 350 constitudncies in this country that are relatdd to | :06:09. | :06:12. | |
this industry. Of course, if we weren't going to renew our nuclear | :06:13. | :06:17. | |
deterrent those people would risk losing their jobs as a result. I | :06:18. | :06:22. | |
will give way then I will m`ke some progress. I thank the Prime Minister | :06:23. | :06:26. | |
for giving way. I hope she's going to come on to an explanation as to | :06:27. | :06:32. | |
how like-for-like replacement of Trident complies with article six of | :06:33. | :06:35. | |
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? I'm going to come onto the | :06:36. | :06:40. | |
whole question of nuclear proliferation a little later in my | :06:41. | :06:43. | |
speech, if the right honour`ble gentleman will just hold fire. Thank | :06:44. | :06:54. | |
you Mr Speaker, will the Prhme Minister confirm for me and to the | :06:55. | :06:58. | |
House that the cost that is involved in this, the vast, vast majority of | :06:59. | :07:03. | |
that will be invested in jobs, skills, businesses in this country | :07:04. | :07:06. | |
over many decades. This is `n investment in our own securhty. This | :07:07. | :07:10. | |
is not outsourcing. This is keeping things safe at home. My honourable | :07:11. | :07:15. | |
friend is absolutely right. This is about jobs here in the Unitdd | :07:16. | :07:18. | |
Kingdom. It is also about the development of skills here hn the | :07:19. | :07:22. | |
United Kingdom. Skills which will be of benefit to our engineering and | :07:23. | :07:26. | |
design base for years to cole. But the decision will also spechfically | :07:27. | :07:30. | |
increase the number of jobs in Scotland. HMS Naval Base Clxde is | :07:31. | :07:35. | |
one of the largest employment sites in Scotland, sustaining arotnd ,800 | :07:36. | :07:39. | |
military and civilian jobs `s well as having a wider impact on the | :07:40. | :07:43. | |
local economy. As the base becomes home to all Royal Naval sublarines, | :07:44. | :07:48. | |
the number of people employdd there is set to increase to 8 testimony | :07:49. | :07:55. | |
200 by -- 8,200 by 2022. If honourable members vote agahnst | :07:56. | :08:00. | |
today's motion, they will bd voting against those jobs. I say to | :08:01. | :08:06. | |
honourable members, and that is why the Unite union said that ddfending | :08:07. | :08:11. | |
and securing the jobs of tens of thousands of defence workers | :08:12. | :08:14. | |
involved in the successor stbmarine programme is its priority. H thank | :08:15. | :08:21. | |
the Prime Minister for giving way. On the issue of jobs there's a lot | :08:22. | :08:26. | |
of steel in successor submoo reebz. -- submarines. Can she commht to | :08:27. | :08:31. | |
using UK steel? The honourable gentleman might have noticed that | :08:32. | :08:40. | |
the Government has been looking at Government procurement related to | :08:41. | :08:46. | |
steel. For the honourable gentleman's confirmation, I have | :08:47. | :08:49. | |
been in Wales this morning `nd one of the issues that I discussed with | :08:50. | :08:53. | |
the First Minister in Wales was the future of Tata and the work that the | :08:54. | :08:56. | |
Government has been doing whth the Welsh Government in relation to | :08:57. | :09:02. | |
that. Mr Speaker, I will now turn to the specific question of whdther | :09:03. | :09:07. | |
building four submarines is the right approach, whether there could | :09:08. | :09:10. | |
be cheaper and more effective ways of providing a similar effect to the | :09:11. | :09:13. | |
Trident system. The facts hdre are very clear. A review of altdrnatives | :09:14. | :09:18. | |
to Trident, undertaken in 2013, found that no alternative sxstem is | :09:19. | :09:23. | |
as capable, resilient or cost effective as a Trident-based | :09:24. | :09:26. | |
deterrent. Submarines are ldss vulnerable to attack than ahrcraft, | :09:27. | :09:31. | |
ships or silos. They can mahntain a continuous, round the clock cover in | :09:32. | :09:36. | |
a way that aircraft cannot. Alternative delivery systems, such | :09:37. | :09:40. | |
as crumbs do not have the -, cruise missiles do not have the sale reach. | :09:41. | :09:50. | |
We do not believe that they will be rendered obsolete by unmanndd cyber | :09:51. | :09:54. | |
vehicles, as has been suggested The former First Sea Lord has s`id we | :09:55. | :09:58. | |
are more likely to put a man on Mars in six months than make the seas | :09:59. | :10:02. | |
transparent within 30 years. With submarines operating in isolation | :10:03. | :10:05. | |
when deployed, it is hard to think of a system less susceptibld to | :10:06. | :10:08. | |
cyber attack. Other nations think the same. That's why the Amdricans, | :10:09. | :10:12. | |
Russia, China and France all continue to spend tens of bhllions | :10:13. | :10:16. | |
on their own submarine based weapons. Delivering Britain's | :10:17. | :10:19. | |
continuous at-sea deterrents also means we need all four subm`rines to | :10:20. | :10:24. | |
ensure that one is always on patrol, taking account of the cycle | :10:25. | :10:28. | |
deployment, training and rottine and unplanned maintenance. Thred | :10:29. | :10:35. | |
submarines cannot provide rdsilience against breaks in service. Nor can | :10:36. | :10:40. | |
they deliver a cost savings, as suggested since large costs for | :10:41. | :10:44. | |
infrastructure and training are not reduced by any attempt to ctt to | :10:45. | :10:49. | |
three. It is right to replace our four vanguard submarines with four | :10:50. | :10:55. | |
successors. I will not seek false economies with the future of the | :10:56. | :10:59. | |
nation and I will not be prdpared to settle with something that does not | :11:00. | :11:04. | |
do the job. I was listening very carefully to the questions from the | :11:05. | :11:07. | |
leader of the SNP group abott the cost. Isn't it clear that whatever | :11:08. | :11:13. | |
the cost, he and his group `re against our nuclear deterrent? | :11:14. | :11:18. | |
Scottish public opinion is clear that people in Scotland want the | :11:19. | :11:23. | |
nuclear deterrent. When my right honourable friend, the Scottish | :11:24. | :11:27. | |
Secretary, votes to retain the nuclear deterrent tonight, he is | :11:28. | :11:30. | |
speaking for the people of Scotland, not the party op similarity -- | :11:31. | :11:37. | |
opposite. I couldn't agree with my right honourable friend mord. He has | :11:38. | :11:41. | |
put it very well indeed. Mr Speaker, let me turn to the issue of whether | :11:42. | :11:46. | |
we could simply rely on othdr nuclear armed allies, like @merica | :11:47. | :11:49. | |
and France, to provide our deterrent. The first question is how | :11:50. | :11:53. | |
would America and France re`ct if we suddenly announced we were | :11:54. | :11:56. | |
abandoning our nuclear capabilities but expecting them to put their | :11:57. | :12:00. | |
cities at risk to protect us in a nuclear crisis. That's hardly | :12:01. | :12:04. | |
standing shoulder to shoulddr with our allies. At Nato summit last | :12:05. | :12:10. | |
month, our allies made clear by maintaining our independent nuclear | :12:11. | :12:13. | |
deterrent alongside America and France, we provide Nato with three | :12:14. | :12:21. | |
separate centres of decision making. This prevents adversaries | :12:22. | :12:23. | |
threatening the UK or our allies with impunity. With drawing from | :12:24. | :12:30. | |
this arrangement would weakdn us now and in the future, undermind Nato | :12:31. | :12:34. | |
and embolden our adversaries. It might allow them to gamble that one | :12:35. | :12:39. | |
day the US or France might not put itself at risk in order to deter an | :12:40. | :12:41. | |
attack on the UK I'm most grateful to the Prime | :12:42. | :12:48. | |
Minister giving way. Is it the point Prime Minister that it's all very | :12:49. | :12:52. | |
well looking at the cost of what it takes to build the submarinds and | :12:53. | :12:55. | |
run them, but the cost of instability in the world, where you | :12:56. | :12:58. | |
haven't got a counterbalancd, reduces the ability to tradd and | :12:59. | :13:02. | |
reduces GDP. This isn't just a measure what have it costs, it's | :13:03. | :13:06. | |
what would happen if we didn't have this system and more instabhlity was | :13:07. | :13:10. | |
in the world. Well, my honotrable friend made a very valid and | :13:11. | :13:13. | |
important point, this is solething that has to be looked at in the | :13:14. | :13:17. | |
round, not just in the one set of figures. I will give way. C`n I | :13:18. | :13:23. | |
congratulate the Prime Minister on her appointment and tell her that I | :13:24. | :13:26. | |
shall be voting for the mothon this evening, because I believe the | :13:27. | :13:29. | |
historic role of the Labour Party and Labour governments has been on | :13:30. | :13:33. | |
the right side on this. Can I just say, I love the fact that she's | :13:34. | :13:37. | |
shown this strong support of Nato, but there is a niggle - havd we the | :13:38. | :13:42. | |
capacity and the resources to maintain conventional forces to the | :13:43. | :13:45. | |
level that will match the other forces that we have? I say to the | :13:46. | :13:50. | |
honourable gentleman the answer to that is yes. We're very cle`r that | :13:51. | :13:54. | |
there are different threats that we face. We need different cap`bilities | :13:55. | :13:58. | |
to face those threats. We h`ve now committed to that 2% of GDP being | :13:59. | :14:04. | |
spent on defence spending. Hndeed, have been increasing the defence | :14:05. | :14:07. | |
budget and the money we're `ble to spend on the more conventional | :14:08. | :14:14. | |
forces. Mr Speaker, I give way. Let me congratulate the Prime Mhnister | :14:15. | :14:20. | |
on her new role. Can we cut to the chase - is she personally prepared | :14:21. | :14:26. | |
to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men | :14:27. | :14:33. | |
women and children? Yes. And I have to say to the honourable gentleman, | :14:34. | :14:36. | |
the whole point of a deterrdnt is that our enemies need to know that | :14:37. | :14:39. | |
we would be prepared to use. It -- use it. Unlike some stggestion | :14:40. | :14:46. | |
that's we could have the deterrent but not actually be willing to use | :14:47. | :14:49. | |
it, which came from the Labour Party frontbench. I will give way. Thank | :14:50. | :14:56. | |
you, Prime Minister, for giving way. I'm sure the Prime Minister is aware | :14:57. | :15:01. | |
that Russia has ten times the amount of tactical nuclear weapons than the | :15:02. | :15:06. | |
whole of the rest of Nato. @t a recent Defence Select Committee to | :15:07. | :15:09. | |
Russia, we were told by senhor military leaders that they reserve | :15:10. | :15:14. | |
the right to use nuclear we`pons as first strike. Is that not something | :15:15. | :15:19. | |
that should make us very afraid if we ever thought of giving up our | :15:20. | :15:24. | |
nuclear weapons? The honour`ble lady is absolutely right. Russia is also | :15:25. | :15:29. | |
modernising its nuclear cap`bility and it would be, I think, it would | :15:30. | :15:34. | |
be a dereliction of our dutx in terms of our responsibility for the | :15:35. | :15:36. | |
safety and security of the British people if we were to give up our | :15:37. | :15:41. | |
nuclear deterrent. Mr Speakdr, we must send an unequivocal message to | :15:42. | :15:45. | |
any adversary that the cost of an attack on our United Kingdol or our | :15:46. | :15:48. | |
allies will always be far greater than anything it might hope to gain | :15:49. | :15:53. | |
through such an attack, onlx the retention of our own independent | :15:54. | :15:56. | |
deterrent can do this. This Government will never endanger the | :15:57. | :15:59. | |
security of our people and we will never hide behind the protection | :16:00. | :16:03. | |
provided by others, while claiming the mistaken virtue of unil`teral | :16:04. | :16:07. | |
disarmament. Let me turn to the question of our moral duty to lead | :16:08. | :16:12. | |
nuclear disarmament. Stopping nuclear weapons being used globally | :16:13. | :16:16. | |
is not achieved by giving them up unilaterally. It's about working | :16:17. | :16:21. | |
towards a multilateral procdss. That process is important and Brhtain | :16:22. | :16:23. | |
could not do more to support this varietial work. Britain is committed | :16:24. | :16:27. | |
to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in | :16:28. | :16:31. | |
line with our obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. | :16:32. | :16:34. | |
I'm just going to make some more progress. We play a leading role on | :16:35. | :16:39. | |
disarmament verification, together with Norway and America, we continue | :16:40. | :16:45. | |
to press for key steps towards multilateral disarmament, including | :16:46. | :16:49. | |
the test ban treaty and for successful negotiations on ` cut-off | :16:50. | :16:52. | |
treaty. Further more, we ard committed to retaining the linimum | :16:53. | :16:56. | |
amount of destructive power needed to deter any aggressor. We've cut | :16:57. | :17:01. | |
our stock piles by over half since the Cold War peak. Last year, we | :17:02. | :17:03. | |
delivered on our commitment to reduce the number of deploydd | :17:04. | :17:07. | |
warheads on each submarine from 48 to #406789 | :17:08. | :17:11. | |
We will retain no more than 120 operational warheads and further | :17:12. | :17:17. | |
reduce our stockpile of nuclear weapons to more than 180 warheads by | :17:18. | :17:22. | |
the middle of the next decade. Britain has approximately 1$ of the | :17:23. | :17:27. | |
17,000 nuclear weapons in the world, for us to disarm unilaterally would | :17:28. | :17:31. | |
not significantly change thd calculations of other nucle`r | :17:32. | :17:34. | |
states, nor those seeking to acquire such weapons. To disarm unilaterally | :17:35. | :17:40. | |
would not make us safer, nor would make the use of nuclear weapons less | :17:41. | :17:44. | |
likely, in fact it would have the opposite effect because it would | :17:45. | :17:47. | |
remove the deterrent that for 6 years has helped to stop others | :17:48. | :17:51. | |
using nuclear weapons against us. Mr Speaker, our national interdst is | :17:52. | :17:56. | |
clear, Britain's nuclear decision is an insurance policy we simply cannot | :17:57. | :17:59. | |
do without, we cannot come from eyes on our national security, wd cannot | :18:00. | :18:04. | |
outsource the grave responshbility we shoulder for keeping our people | :18:05. | :18:08. | |
safe and cannot abandon our ultimate safeguard out of misplaced hdealism, | :18:09. | :18:11. | |
it would be a reckless gamble, that would end feeble our allies and | :18:12. | :18:16. | |
embolden our enemies, a gamble with the safety and security of families | :18:17. | :18:19. | |
in Britain we must never be prepared to take. Mr Speaker, we havd waited | :18:20. | :18:23. | |
long enough, it's time to gdt on with building the next generation of | :18:24. | :18:28. | |
our nuclear deterrent. It is time to take this essential decision to | :18:29. | :18:31. | |
deter the most extreme thre`ts to our society and preserve our way of | :18:32. | :18:36. | |
life for generations to comd. I commend this motion to the house. | :18:37. | :18:44. | |
SPEAKER: order! The question is motion number one as on the order | :18:45. | :18:48. | |
paper, I call the Leader of the Opposition Mr Jeremy Corbyn. Thank | :18:49. | :18:52. | |
you, Mr Speaker, can I start by welcoming and congratulations the | :18:53. | :18:59. | |
member for Maidenhead on her appointment as Prime Ministdr. I'm | :19:00. | :19:01. | |
glad her election was quick and short. LAUGHTER | :19:02. | :19:09. | |
Can I also commend her... It's all right, I'm looking at you. Can I | :19:10. | :19:15. | |
also amend the remarks she lade about the horrific events in Nice, | :19:16. | :19:20. | |
absolutely horrific what happened in those innocent people that lost | :19:21. | :19:23. | |
their lives. And one hopes this is not going to be repeated elsewhere. | :19:24. | :19:29. | |
I was pleased that she menthoned the situation in Turkey. And I support | :19:30. | :19:33. | |
her call for calm and restr`int on all sides in Turkey. After the | :19:34. | :19:37. | |
attempted coup I called a ntmber of friends in Istanbul and Ank`ra and | :19:38. | :19:40. | |
ask them what was going on. The older ones there felt it was like a | :19:41. | :19:47. | |
repeat of the 1980 coup and were horrified that bombs were f`lling | :19:48. | :19:52. | |
near the Turkish parliament. Can we please not return to a Europe of | :19:53. | :19:55. | |
military coups and dictatorships, which is what was still pertaining | :19:56. | :20:01. | |
at that time? I endorsed thd Prime Minister's comment in that respect | :20:02. | :20:04. | |
and I'd like to pay tribute to the Foreign Office staff who helped | :20:05. | :20:08. | |
British citizens in France `nd in Turkey caught in recent events. The | :20:09. | :20:13. | |
motion today, Mr Speaker, is one of enormous importance to this country, | :20:14. | :20:19. | |
and, indeed, to the wider world There is nothing particularly new in | :20:20. | :20:23. | |
this motion, the principal on nuclear weapons was debated in 007, | :20:24. | :20:27. | |
but I think this is an opportunity to scrutinise what the government is | :20:28. | :20:32. | |
doing. The funds involved in Trident renewal are massive, we must, I | :20:33. | :20:37. | |
think, also consider the colplex, both moral and strategic, issues of | :20:38. | :20:44. | |
our country possessing weapons of mass destruction. Their restlts of | :20:45. | :20:48. | |
the question of its utility. Do these weapons of mass destrtction, | :20:49. | :20:53. | |
for those are what they are, act as a deterrent to the threat wd face, | :20:54. | :20:59. | |
and is that deterrent credible? The motion, Mr Speaker, says nothing of | :21:00. | :21:02. | |
the cost involved, ballooning ever upwards. In 2006 the Ministry of | :21:03. | :21:08. | |
Defence estimated constructhon costs would be 20 billion. By last year | :21:09. | :21:13. | |
that had become 50% higher `t 3 billion, with another 10 billion | :21:14. | :21:21. | |
added as a contingency fund. The very respected member for Rdigate | :21:22. | :21:26. | |
has estimated the cost at 167 billion, so it is understood delays | :21:27. | :21:29. | |
may have added to those credible figures since that estimate was | :21:30. | :21:33. | |
made. I've seen some estimates as high as 200 billion for the | :21:34. | :21:40. | |
replacement... I'm coming to you... And the running costs. Of course. On | :21:41. | :21:46. | |
the subject of cost isn't it true the key cost here is the ond we | :21:47. | :21:50. | |
remember every Remembrance Sunday, the millions of lives we lost in two | :21:51. | :21:54. | |
world wars, and would he care to estimate the millions of lives that | :21:55. | :21:58. | |
would have been lost in a third conventional war, which was avoided | :21:59. | :22:01. | |
before 1989 because of the nuclear deterrent. We all remember those who | :22:02. | :22:07. | |
lost their lives on Remembr`nce Sunday and all the other tiles, that | :22:08. | :22:12. | |
is the price of war. My question is does our possession of nucldar | :22:13. | :22:15. | |
weapons make us more secure or. . And make the world more sectre, yes | :22:16. | :22:20. | |
or no? Of course there is a debate about that, that is what a | :22:21. | :22:24. | |
Democratic parliament does. It has a debate about these issues. H'm | :22:25. | :22:28. | |
putting forward a point of view that the honourable member may not agree | :22:29. | :22:30. | |
with but I'm sure he's going to listen to it with great respect as | :22:31. | :22:40. | |
he always does. Yes? Ian Pahsley. The Labour leader has shown to us in | :22:41. | :22:43. | |
the past is domestic solution to domestic security threat has been | :22:44. | :22:52. | |
with the provisional IRA. What is his tactic now in how he will deal | :22:53. | :22:56. | |
with a real threat to all of the people of this nation? The Prime | :22:57. | :23:02. | |
Minister towards the end of her speech got to the point of the | :23:03. | :23:07. | |
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and multilateral disarmament, I was | :23:08. | :23:10. | |
interested in that. Surely we should start from that basis that we want | :23:11. | :23:15. | |
and are determined to bring about a nuclear free world. There are six | :23:16. | :23:18. | |
party talks going on with North Korea, China is a major economic | :23:19. | :23:24. | |
provider for North Korea, I would have thought the relationshhp with | :23:25. | :23:28. | |
China and North Korea is perhaps the key to a way forward in that | :23:29. | :23:30. | |
respect. I'll give wait one more time over there. How would the Right | :23:31. | :23:35. | |
honourable gentleman has wehghed my thousands of Korean constittents | :23:36. | :23:40. | |
that it is a good idea to dhsarm unilaterally while their falilies | :23:41. | :23:45. | |
and friends living in our ally, South Korea, face a constant nuclear | :23:46. | :23:49. | |
deterrent from a belligerent regime over their northern border. I, too, | :23:50. | :23:57. | |
have Korean constituents, as do many of us, and we welcome their work and | :23:58. | :24:00. | |
participation in our societx. The point I was making is that the six | :24:01. | :24:05. | |
party talks are a very important way forward of bringing about a peace | :24:06. | :24:11. | |
treaty on the Korean peninstla. That, surely, is in the intdrest of | :24:12. | :24:16. | |
everybody to achieve. Not e`sy, I fully understand, but nevertheless | :24:17. | :24:19. | |
something we should be trying to do. I'd be grateful if the Primd | :24:20. | :24:24. | |
Minister or Secretary of St`te for Defence, when he replies, whll let | :24:25. | :24:28. | |
us know the government estilate of the total lifetime cost of what | :24:29. | :24:33. | |
we're being asked to endorsd today. It's hardly surprising that in May | :24:34. | :24:39. | |
2009 there was, Mr Speaker, a very intense debate going on in the then | :24:40. | :24:45. | |
Shadow Cabinet about going for a less expensive upgrade by converting | :24:46. | :24:50. | |
to air launched missiles. The right Honourable member for Mid Stssex | :24:51. | :24:54. | |
said at the time, the argumdnts have not yet been had in public hn nearly | :24:55. | :24:58. | |
an adequate enough way to w`rrant the spending of this nation's | :24:59. | :25:03. | |
treasure on the scale that will be required. Seven years later perhaps | :25:04. | :25:09. | |
we're in the same situation. This motion proposes an open-enddd | :25:10. | :25:14. | |
commitment to maintain Brit`in's's current nuclear capability for as | :25:15. | :25:20. | |
long as the global security situation demands. We on thdse | :25:21. | :25:23. | |
benches, despite our differdnces on some issues, have always argued for | :25:24. | :25:28. | |
the aim of a nuclear free world We might differ on how it's gohng to be | :25:29. | :25:32. | |
achieved, but we are united in our commitment to that end. In 2007 my | :25:33. | :25:37. | |
right honourable friend the member for Derby South embarked on a | :25:38. | :25:41. | |
meaningful attempt to build consensus for the multilateral | :25:42. | :25:46. | |
disarmament. Will the government address where these submarines are | :25:47. | :25:52. | |
going to be based? The people of Scotland have rejected Triddnt being | :25:53. | :25:58. | |
located in Faslane on the Clyde the SNP government is opposed to it as | :25:59. | :26:03. | |
is Scottish Labour. We're not debating a nuclear deterrent, but | :26:04. | :26:05. | |
our continued possession of weapons of mass destruction. We are | :26:06. | :26:11. | |
discussing eight missiles, 41, with each warhead believed to be eight | :26:12. | :26:16. | |
times as powerful as the atomic bomb which killed 140,000 people in | :26:17. | :26:25. | |
Hiroshima in 1945. We are t`lking about, Mr Speaker, 40 warhe`ds, each | :26:26. | :26:30. | |
one with the capacity to kill more than 1 million people. What is the | :26:31. | :26:36. | |
threat we are facing that over million people's deaths detdrs? It | :26:37. | :26:44. | |
is not from the so-called Islamic State, their poisonous death cult | :26:45. | :26:49. | |
glory is in killing as many people as possible, as we seen in Syria, | :26:50. | :26:53. | |
East Africa, France, Turkey. It hasn't deterred our ally, S`udi | :26:54. | :26:57. | |
Arabia, from committing dre`dful acts in Yemen. It didn't stop Saddam | :26:58. | :27:04. | |
Hussein's atrocities in the 198 s, or the invasion of Kuwait in 19 0. | :27:05. | :27:10. | |
It didn't deter the war criles in the Balkans in the 1990s, nor the | :27:11. | :27:18. | |
genocide in Rwanda. Mr Speaker, I make it clear today... Coming to | :27:19. | :27:22. | |
you... I make it clear todax I would not take a decision that kills | :27:23. | :27:25. | |
millions of innocent people, I do not believe the threat of m`ss | :27:26. | :27:30. | |
murder is a legitimate way to go about dealing with internathonal | :27:31. | :27:34. | |
relations. I'm grateful to ly right honourable friend for giving way. | :27:35. | :27:40. | |
Can you explain to the housd when the last time you sought and | :27:41. | :27:43. | |
received such a briefing is, and what is his assessment of the new | :27:44. | :27:47. | |
Russian military nuclear protocols which permit first strike using | :27:48. | :27:51. | |
nuclear weapons, and that they can be used to de-escalates conventional | :27:52. | :27:56. | |
military conflicts, what is his assessment of that? Britain also at | :27:57. | :28:01. | |
the current time retains thd right to first strike as well, I would | :28:02. | :28:07. | |
have thought the best way forward is to develop the nuclear | :28:08. | :28:10. | |
Non-Proliferation Treaty into a no first strike situation as a good way | :28:11. | :28:14. | |
forward. I respect my honourable friend's wished to live in ` nuclear | :28:15. | :28:18. | |
free world, I know he believes that very strongly. I think, Mr Speaker, | :28:19. | :28:25. | |
we should take our commitments under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty | :28:26. | :28:30. | |
very seriously. It was in 1868. . It was in 1968, Mr Speaker, whdn the | :28:31. | :28:37. | |
then Labour government led by Harold Wilson inaugurated and, indded, | :28:38. | :28:40. | |
signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 2007, our then Foreign Sdcretary, | :28:41. | :28:46. | |
my friend the member for Derby South, rightly said, we must | :28:47. | :28:51. | |
strengthen the NPT in all aspects, the judgment we made 40 years ago, | :28:52. | :28:54. | |
that the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons was in all of our | :28:55. | :28:59. | |
interests. The then Labour government committed to redtce our | :29:00. | :29:04. | |
stocks of operationally avahlable warheads by a further 20%. H would | :29:05. | :29:08. | |
congratulate our government on doing that. I attended NPT review combines | :29:09. | :29:15. | |
when that was spoken. Can the government say what the Labour | :29:16. | :29:20. | |
Foreign Secretary said in 2007, my commitment to the vision of a world | :29:21. | :29:25. | |
free of nuclear weapons is `n didn't. Is this government's vision | :29:26. | :29:30. | |
of a nuclear free world undhmmed? She spoke of the international | :29:31. | :29:34. | |
community's clear commitment to a Middle East nuclear weapons free | :29:35. | :29:40. | |
zone. Instead, Mr Speaker, despite unanimous support... No, I won't | :29:41. | :29:48. | |
give way... At the last two nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty five-year | :29:49. | :29:52. | |
review conferences calling for a weapons of mass destruction free | :29:53. | :29:55. | |
zone across the Middle East... That surely is something we can `ll sign | :29:56. | :30:01. | |
up to and all support. And H look forward to the Defence Secrdtary's | :30:02. | :30:03. | |
support for that position when he replies to the debate this dvening. | :30:04. | :30:10. | |
He's speaking about previous party policy. At the Shadow Cabindt last | :30:11. | :30:17. | |
Tuesday, there was an agreelent that the party policy will be conveyed by | :30:18. | :30:21. | |
the frontbench. When will wd hear? I thank my friend for his view, as he | :30:22. | :30:29. | |
well knows, the party deciddd that it wanted to support the retention | :30:30. | :30:34. | |
of nuclear weapons. We also decided that we would have a policy review, | :30:35. | :30:38. | |
which is being undertaken bx my friend the member for Norwich south | :30:39. | :30:42. | |
at the present time. He's as well aware as I am of what the existing | :30:43. | :30:46. | |
policy is. He is also aware of the views that I put forward in the | :30:47. | :30:50. | |
leadership election last ye`r, quite clearly, on my views on nuclear | :30:51. | :30:54. | |
weapons, hence the fact that we re having a free vote so far as Labour | :30:55. | :30:57. | |
members of Parliament are concerned, here this evening. Mr Speakdr, other | :30:58. | :31:06. | |
countries have made serious efforts to... I'll come to you in a moment. | :31:07. | :31:16. | |
Has made serious efforts... To bring about nuclear disarmament whthin the | :31:17. | :31:19. | |
terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. South | :31:20. | :31:24. | |
Africa abandoned all of its nuclear programmes after the end of | :31:25. | :31:29. | |
apartheid and thus brought `bout a nuclear weapons free zone across the | :31:30. | :31:33. | |
continent. After negotiation, Libya ended all research into nuclear | :31:34. | :31:38. | |
weapons. The Ukraine at the end of the Cold War gave up its nuclear | :31:39. | :31:43. | |
weapons, albeit those weapons were under the control of the former | :31:44. | :31:49. | |
Soviet Union and raterly of Russia. Likewise, Kazakhstan did thd same | :31:50. | :31:54. | |
which helped to bring about a central Asia nuclear weapons-free | :31:55. | :32:00. | |
zone and in Latin America, @rgentina and Brazil both gave up thehr | :32:01. | :32:05. | |
nuclear programmes. I do colmend the Government and other governlents | :32:06. | :32:09. | |
around the world that negothated seriously with great patience and at | :32:10. | :32:15. | |
great length with Iran, which helped to encourage Iran to give up its | :32:16. | :32:21. | |
programme. We should pay trhbute to President Obama for doing that. The | :32:22. | :32:31. | |
former Conservative Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo said, | :32:32. | :32:34. | |
"To say we need nuclear weapons in this situation, would imply that | :32:35. | :32:38. | |
Germany and Italy are trembling in their boots because they don't have | :32:39. | :32:41. | |
a nuclear deterrent. Which H think is clearly not the case." Is it not | :32:42. | :32:47. | |
time, Mr Speaker, for us to step up to the plate and promote rapidly | :32:48. | :32:54. | |
nuclear disarmament. He likd me stood in May 2015 on a partx policy | :32:55. | :33:02. | |
agreed at the conference for the renewal of continuous at-se` | :33:03. | :33:07. | |
deterrent. He has a Shadow frontbench and Shadow Cabindt in his | :33:08. | :33:11. | |
own image, which agreed last week, I understand, to put that polhcy from | :33:12. | :33:16. | |
the frontbench. Is he going to do it or is it going to be during the | :33:17. | :33:20. | |
winding up? I thank my friend for the intervention. He is well aware | :33:21. | :33:24. | |
of what the policy was. He's well aware there's a policy revidw being | :33:25. | :33:28. | |
undertaken. He's also very well aware of the case that I'm laking | :33:29. | :33:39. | |
for nuclear disarmament. I'l grateful for his giving way. He will | :33:40. | :33:44. | |
be aware that there is a currently a multilateral process going on at the | :33:45. | :33:47. | |
UN, where over 130 countries are negotiating in good faith for a | :33:48. | :33:50. | |
treaty to ban nuclear weapons. Does he agree with me that this | :33:51. | :33:55. | |
Government's refusal to even attend let alone take part in that | :33:56. | :33:58. | |
seriously raises questions `bout their commitment to a world without | :33:59. | :34:01. | |
nuclear weapons? I think it is a great shame that the Governlent | :34:02. | :34:05. | |
doesn't attend those negoti`tions and I wish they would, becatse I do | :34:06. | :34:10. | |
thank the Government for attending the humanitarian effects of war | :34:11. | :34:14. | |
conference in 2014. I do th`nk them for their participation in the | :34:15. | :34:17. | |
Non-Proliferation Treaty, btt I think they should go and support the | :34:18. | :34:22. | |
idea of a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons. Nobody in this House | :34:23. | :34:29. | |
actually wants nuclear weapons. The debate is about how one gets rid of | :34:30. | :34:33. | |
them and the way one does it. There are questions too, Mr Speakdr, about | :34:34. | :34:40. | |
the operational utility of nuclear-armed submarines. I would | :34:41. | :34:44. | |
ask the minister again, perhaps the Secretary of State can answdr in his | :34:45. | :34:47. | |
reply, what assessment the Government has made of the hmpact of | :34:48. | :34:53. | |
underwater drones, surveill`nce of wave patterns and advanced detection | :34:54. | :34:56. | |
techniques which could make the submarine technology... | :34:57. | :35:01. | |
THE SPEAKER: Order. Order, Lr Shellbrook, I want you to aspire to | :35:02. | :35:11. | |
the apogy of statesmanship. Shrieking from your position, | :35:12. | :35:14. | |
despite your magnificent suht, is not the way to achieve it. Calm | :35:15. | :35:18. | |
yourself, man. I am trying to help you, even if you don't know it. Mr | :35:19. | :35:24. | |
Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker, account Prime Minister | :35:25. | :35:30. | |
confirm whether the UK will back proposed nuclear weapons ban treaty, | :35:31. | :35:33. | |
which I understand will be put before the UN general Assembly in | :35:34. | :35:38. | |
September, probably before we return to the House, after the sumler | :35:39. | :35:41. | |
recess. I think that's an ilportant point. Yes, OK. I thank the right | :35:42. | :35:49. | |
honourable member for giving way. We can agree that nuclear weapons are | :35:50. | :35:53. | |
truly the most repugnant representens that have ever been | :35:54. | :35:56. | |
invented by man. The key is invented. We cannot disinvent them. | :35:57. | :36:01. | |
We can control them and this is what this is all about, controllhng | :36:02. | :36:06. | |
nuclear weapons. If this is all about controlling them, then, | :36:07. | :36:10. | |
perhaps we should think for a moment of the obligations we have signed up | :36:11. | :36:16. | |
to as a nation by signing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, | :36:17. | :36:21. | |
article six of which says ddclared nuclear weapons states, of which we | :36:22. | :36:27. | |
are one, must take steps towards disarmament and others must not | :36:28. | :36:31. | |
acquire nuclear weapons. It hasn't been an easy passage. The NPT has | :36:32. | :36:36. | |
helped to reduce the level of nuclear weapons around the world. | :36:37. | :36:39. | |
Yes, I'll give way. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way. | :36:40. | :36:42. | |
I'm stunned to hear the argtment made from the opposite side on the | :36:43. | :36:46. | |
Tory benches that you cannot disinvent. You could employ that you | :36:47. | :36:52. | |
could use for chemical and biological weapons. | :36:53. | :36:56. | |
The member is absolutely right because we have achieved thd | :36:57. | :37:01. | |
chemical weapons convention. We have achieved a ban on cluster wdapons. | :37:02. | :37:06. | |
We have achieved other things around the world by serious, long-term | :37:07. | :37:14. | |
negotiation. There is obviotsly the question - yes, of course. Ly | :37:15. | :37:22. | |
honourable friend is very fond of telling us all that party conference | :37:23. | :37:29. | |
is sovereign. Last year we voted overwhelmingly in favour of | :37:30. | :37:33. | |
maintenance of the nuclear deterrent. Why aren't we he`ring a | :37:34. | :37:37. | |
defence of the Government's position from the dispatch box now? Party | :37:38. | :37:40. | |
policy is also to review our policies, that is why we have | :37:41. | :37:47. | |
reviews. What I would also say is that we have to look at the issues | :37:48. | :37:54. | |
of employment, the issues of investment and the necessitx, I | :37:55. | :37:59. | |
think, of having Government intervention through a defence | :38:00. | :38:02. | |
diversification agency, as we had under the previous Labour | :38:03. | :38:06. | |
Government, to support industries that become overreliant on defence | :38:07. | :38:11. | |
contracts and therefore wish to move into other contracts and other work | :38:12. | :38:16. | |
as well. The Prime Minister mentioned the unite policy | :38:17. | :38:20. | |
conference last week, which I also attended that conference. Unite the | :38:21. | :38:26. | |
union, as do other unions, have members working in all sectors of | :38:27. | :38:30. | |
hi-tech manufacturing, which of course includes the defence sector, | :38:31. | :38:33. | |
which of course includes thd development of those submarhnes and | :38:34. | :38:36. | |
warheads and the nuclear re`ctors that go into the submarines. Their | :38:37. | :38:42. | |
policy conference, Unite's, endorsed its previous position, which is | :38:43. | :38:46. | |
opposed to Trident, but wants a Government in place with a proper | :38:47. | :38:51. | |
diversionification agency. The union has been thinking these things | :38:52. | :38:54. | |
through. And thinking these things through on a way of maintaining jobs | :38:55. | :38:59. | |
within that sector, the verx high skills that jobs that are there Our | :39:00. | :39:03. | |
defence review is being unddrtaken by my friend the member for Norwich | :39:04. | :39:07. | |
south. I pay tribute to the excellent work done by my friend the | :39:08. | :39:13. | |
member for Islington south `nd Finsbury in undertaking that review. | :39:14. | :39:19. | |
Mr Speaker, whatever people's views - | :39:20. | :39:21. | |
THE SPEAKER: Order. Order. H think the right honourable gentlelan has | :39:22. | :39:25. | |
signalled an intention to t`ke an intervention. I just make the point | :39:26. | :39:30. | |
that there's a lot of noise, but at the last reckoning - order. Order. | :39:31. | :39:35. | |
Order! Order! . Order. I'll tell the honourable gentleman what the | :39:36. | :39:38. | |
position is and he'll take ht whether he likes it or not. 53 | :39:39. | :39:42. | |
members wish to speak in thhs debate and I want to accommodate mdmbers. I | :39:43. | :39:45. | |
ask members to take account of that to help each other, that's `ll. | :39:46. | :39:51. | |
Caroline Flint. Could I ask my right honourable friend, in the l`st | :39:52. | :39:54. | |
Labour Government, because of our stand on supporting | :39:55. | :39:57. | |
nonproliferation, as a nucldar deterrent country we were able to | :39:58. | :40:02. | |
influence the reduction of lany many nuclear warheads around the | :40:03. | :40:05. | |
world. Does he really think abandoning our position as one of | :40:06. | :40:08. | |
those countries that hold ntclear weapons we would have had as much | :40:09. | :40:13. | |
influence without them as whth? We did indeed help to reduce the number | :40:14. | :40:17. | |
of nuclear warheads. Indeed I attended a number of conferdnces | :40:18. | :40:19. | |
where British Government representatives were there that made | :40:20. | :40:23. | |
the point the number of UK warheads had reduce and they encouraged | :40:24. | :40:27. | |
others to do the same. I talked about the nuclear weapons free zones | :40:28. | :40:29. | |
around the world. That's a good thing. However, we're into ` step | :40:30. | :40:34. | |
change where we're saying wd're prepared to spend a very, vdry large | :40:35. | :40:39. | |
sum of money on the developlent of a new generation of nuclear wdapons. I | :40:40. | :40:42. | |
draw her attention, I'm surd she's aware of it, to article six of the | :40:43. | :40:49. | |
NPT which requires us to take steps towards disarmament. That's what it | :40:50. | :40:52. | |
actually says. So Mr Speaker, in case it's not obvious to thd House, | :40:53. | :40:55. | |
at the moment, I'm not going to give way any more, I'm running up against | :40:56. | :41:00. | |
the clock. I will actually be.. I will actually be voting agahnst this | :41:01. | :41:03. | |
motion tonight, Mr Speaker, which I'm sure will be of enormous | :41:04. | :41:09. | |
surprise to the whole House (! I do it because of my own views. I do | :41:10. | :41:14. | |
it because - THE SPEAKER: Order. Order, H | :41:15. | :41:18. | |
apologise having to interrupt. Point of order Mr Jamie Reid. Seeking your | :41:19. | :41:24. | |
guidance on the accuracy of the language used by the leader of the | :41:25. | :41:29. | |
Opposition, we not voting tonight on new nuclear warheads, simplx the | :41:30. | :41:33. | |
submarines used with which to deploy those missiles. This is somdthing | :41:34. | :41:36. | |
fundamentally different to new missiles. | :41:37. | :41:40. | |
THE SPEAKER: The answer to the honourable gentleman is that it is | :41:41. | :41:44. | |
up to each honourable and rhght honourable member to read the | :41:45. | :41:48. | |
motion, to interpret it as he or she thinks fit and to make a judgment | :41:49. | :41:51. | |
accordingly. Not a matter for the chair. Mr Jeremy Corbyn. | :41:52. | :41:55. | |
The issue of course, is the submarines, but also, the ndw | :41:56. | :41:58. | |
weapons that will have to go into those submarines, as and whdn | :41:59. | :42:01. | |
they've been built, if they're built. I just think we should pause | :42:02. | :42:07. | |
for a moment, Mr Speaker, and think of the indiscriminate naturd of what | :42:08. | :42:11. | |
nuclear weapons do and the catastrophic effects of thehr use | :42:12. | :42:19. | |
anywhere. As I said, I've attended NPT conferences and preparer to | :42:20. | :42:24. | |
conferences over -- preparatory conferences over many years. I was | :42:25. | :42:28. | |
very pleased when the last Government, the coalition | :42:29. | :42:31. | |
Government, finally, if slightly reluctantly, accepted the invitation | :42:32. | :42:34. | |
to take part in the humanit`rian effects of war conference in Vienna | :42:35. | :42:42. | |
in 2014. Anyone who attended that, who heard from British nucldar test | :42:43. | :42:47. | |
veterans, Pacific islanders or civilians in Russia or the Tnited | :42:48. | :42:52. | |
States who've suffered the dffects of nuclear explosions cannot be | :42:53. | :42:57. | |
totally fashionate about thd effects -- dispassionate about the dffects | :42:58. | :43:01. | |
of nuclear weapons. It is a weapons of mass destruction. Many colleagues | :43:02. | :43:05. | |
across the House will vote for weapons tonight, because thdy | :43:06. | :43:09. | |
believe they do serve a useful military purpose. But for those who | :43:10. | :43:16. | |
believe in multilateral zpalentment, I -- disarmament, I ask is this not | :43:17. | :43:21. | |
an unwise motion by the Govdrnment with no answers on costs or | :43:22. | :43:26. | |
disarmament. For those of us who believe in aiming for a nuclear free | :43:27. | :43:30. | |
world, for those deeply concerned about the spiralling costs, this | :43:31. | :43:35. | |
motion has huge questions to answer, which I believe has failed to | :43:36. | :43:40. | |
address in this debate. If we want a nuclear weapons free world this is | :43:41. | :43:44. | |
an opportunity when we can start down that road and try and bring | :43:45. | :43:48. | |
others with us as has been `chieved to some extent, over the past few | :43:49. | :43:53. | |
decades. Surely, Mr Speaker, it s an effort we should try and make, | :43:54. | :43:57. | |
rather than go down the road the Government is suggesting for us this | :43:58. | :44:00. | |
evening. THE SPEAKER: Order. In aaccordance | :44:01. | :44:07. | |
with usual practice, no timd limit on backbench speeches will `pply, | :44:08. | :44:14. | |
until after the frontbench opening speeches have been made. Th`t said, | :44:15. | :44:21. | |
sensitivity to the very large demand is of the essence and extrele | :44:22. | :44:26. | |
self-discipline is required. Dr Julian Lewis. | :44:27. | :44:31. | |
Thank you Mr Speaker. I must say I've often had the pleasure of | :44:32. | :44:36. | |
debating this topic with thd right honourable gentleman for Islington | :44:37. | :44:40. | |
North both in and outside the House and never in either of our wildest | :44:41. | :44:44. | |
dreams or nightmares did we imagine that one day he would end up as | :44:45. | :44:49. | |
leader of the Labour Party. It only goes to show the unpredictability of | :44:50. | :44:55. | |
political developments. Aftdr the Falklands War, opponents of our | :44:56. | :45:00. | |
strategic deterrent often pointed out that our polaris submarhnes did | :45:01. | :45:04. | |
nothing to deter Argentina for invading the islands. Indeed there | :45:05. | :45:09. | |
never was and never will be any prospect of democratic Brit`in | :45:10. | :45:12. | |
threatening to launch our ntclear missiles except in response to the | :45:13. | :45:16. | |
use of mass destruction weapons against us. But just becausd we | :45:17. | :45:22. | |
would balk at threatening to launch nuclear missiles, except whdn our | :45:23. | :45:26. | |
very existence is at stake, it doesn't mean that dictators share | :45:27. | :45:31. | |
our scruples or our values or our sense of self-restraint. An example | :45:32. | :45:37. | |
from history will do. Following the horror of poison gas attacks in the | :45:38. | :45:42. | |
First World War, it was widdly expected that any future major | :45:43. | :45:47. | |
conflict would see large-sc`le aerial bombardment drenching cities | :45:48. | :45:51. | |
and peoples with lethal gasds. Why did Hitler not do this? Bec`use | :45:52. | :45:56. | |
Churchill had warned him, in advance, that British stocks of | :45:57. | :46:00. | |
chemical weapons greatly exceeded his own and that our retali`tion | :46:01. | :46:04. | |
would dwarf anything Nazi Gdrmany could inflict. | :46:05. | :46:10. | |
Poisoned gases are not mass destruction weapons, but nerve gases | :46:11. | :46:16. | |
are. Hitler seriously considered using them against the Allids in | :46:17. | :46:20. | |
1943 but he didn't do so because his principal scientist advised him that | :46:21. | :46:27. | |
the Allies had almost certahnly invented them, too. As we h`d done | :46:28. | :46:31. | |
no such thing and were horrhfied to discover the Nazi stocks of nerve | :46:32. | :46:37. | |
gas at the end of the war, this is a classic example of a dictator being | :46:38. | :46:41. | |
deterred from using a mass destruction weapons by the listaken | :46:42. | :46:47. | |
belief that we could retali`te in kind when, actually, we could not do | :46:48. | :46:53. | |
so. Such examples show in concrete terms why the concept of deterrence | :46:54. | :46:57. | |
is so important in constraining the military options available to | :46:58. | :47:02. | |
dictators and aggressors. In the time remaining I will briefly list | :47:03. | :47:05. | |
the five main military argulents in favour of continuing the spdcific | :47:06. | :47:11. | |
British policy pursued, as we've heard, by successive Labour and | :47:12. | :47:15. | |
Conservative governments, of maintaining at all times a British | :47:16. | :47:21. | |
minimum strategic nuclear retaliatory capacity. The fhrst | :47:22. | :47:24. | |
military argument is that ftture military threats and conflicts will | :47:25. | :47:28. | |
be no more predictable than those which involve dust throughott the | :47:29. | :47:34. | |
20th-century. This is the overriding justification for preserving Armed | :47:35. | :47:39. | |
Forces in peace time as a n`tural insurance Wallasey. -- National | :47:40. | :47:42. | |
insurance. No one knows what enemies might confront us between the years | :47:43. | :47:48. | |
2030 and 2060. The anticipated life span of the Trident successor | :47:49. | :47:52. | |
system. It's highly probabld at least some of those enemies will be | :47:53. | :47:58. | |
armed with mass destruction weapons. The second argument... I won't be | :47:59. | :48:03. | |
because of the time pressurd, normally I like to take | :48:04. | :48:06. | |
interventions. Secondly, it is not the weapons themselves we nded to | :48:07. | :48:10. | |
fear, but the nature of the regimes which possess them. Whereas | :48:11. | :48:15. | |
democracies are generally rdluctant to use nuclear weapons against | :48:16. | :48:17. | |
non-nuclear dictatorships, though they did against Japan in 1845, the | :48:18. | :48:23. | |
reverse is not true as alre`dy mentioned, think of eight | :48:24. | :48:28. | |
non-nuclear Britain in 1982 facing and Argentina, for example, in | :48:29. | :48:32. | |
possession of a few tactical nuclear bombs and the means of delivering | :48:33. | :48:36. | |
them. Conventional retaking of the islands would have been out of the | :48:37. | :48:43. | |
question. The United Kingdol has traditionally played a more | :48:44. | :48:47. | |
important and decisive role in preserving freedom than othdr | :48:48. | :48:49. | |
medium-sized states have bedn able or willing to do. Democratic | :48:50. | :48:53. | |
countries without nuclear wdapons have little choice but to ddclare | :48:54. | :48:59. | |
themselves neutral and hope for the best or rely upon the nucle`r | :49:00. | :49:03. | |
umbrella of powerful allies. The United Kingdom is eight nuclear | :49:04. | :49:09. | |
power already and much harddr to defeat by conventional means because | :49:10. | :49:15. | |
of our physical separation from the continent. Our prominent as | :49:16. | :49:20. | |
principal ally of the United States, strategic geographical position and | :49:21. | :49:24. | |
the fact we obviously the jtnior partner, might tempt an aggressor to | :49:25. | :49:30. | |
risk attacking us separatelx, given the difficulty of overrunning the | :49:31. | :49:32. | |
United Kingdom with conventhonal forces in contrast to more | :49:33. | :49:37. | |
vulnerable allies, an aggressor could be tempted to use one or more | :49:38. | :49:42. | |
mass destruction weapons ag`inst us on the assumption that the Tnited | :49:43. | :49:46. | |
States would not reply on otr behalf. Even if that assumption were | :49:47. | :49:51. | |
false, the attacker would fhnd out his terrible mistake when, only | :49:52. | :49:54. | |
when, it was too late for all concerned. And independentlx | :49:55. | :50:00. | |
controlled British nuclear deterrent massively reduces the prospdct of | :50:01. | :50:04. | |
such a fatal miscalculation. The fifth and final military argument is | :50:05. | :50:10. | |
that no quantity of conventhonal forces can compensate for the | :50:11. | :50:15. | |
military disadvantage which faces eight non-nuclear country in a war | :50:16. | :50:20. | |
against a nuclear warned endmy. The Emperor of Japan was not only | :50:21. | :50:29. | |
forced to surrender, but also in terms of the reverse scenarho, if | :50:30. | :50:33. | |
Japan had developed atomic bombs and the Allies had not, an invasion of | :50:34. | :50:38. | |
Japan to end the war would have been out of the question. The re`son | :50:39. | :50:45. | |
nuclear weapons deter more reliably than conventional ones desphte the | :50:46. | :50:48. | |
huge destructiveness of conventional warfare, is nuclear destruction is | :50:49. | :50:55. | |
not only unbearable, it is `lso unavoidable once the missilds have | :50:56. | :50:59. | |
been launched. The certaintx, as well as the scale of potenthal | :51:00. | :51:04. | |
retaliation, means no nucle`r aggressor can gamble on success and | :51:05. | :51:09. | |
an escaping an acceptable punishment. Mr Speaker, opponents of | :51:10. | :51:14. | |
our Trident deterrent say it is a weapon which can never be used. Two | :51:15. | :51:18. | |
thirds of the British peopld, who have endorsed and continue to end | :51:19. | :51:24. | |
doors in poll after poll, as well as in two general elections in the | :51:25. | :51:28. | |
1980s, keeping nuclear weapons as long as other countries havd them, | :51:29. | :51:33. | |
are better informed. They understand Trident is in use every day of the | :51:34. | :51:38. | |
week, its use lies in its ability to deter other states from credibly | :51:39. | :51:44. | |
threatening us with weapons of mass destruction. Of course beat British | :51:45. | :51:49. | |
nuclear deterrent is not a panacea, it is not designed to forestall | :51:50. | :51:51. | |
every kind of threat, such `s those from stateless terrorist groups Yet | :51:52. | :51:58. | |
the threat it is designed to counter is so overwhelming that no other | :51:59. | :52:02. | |
form of military capability could manage to avert it. If the | :52:03. | :52:08. | |
consequences of possessing ` lethal weapon is that nobody launches it, | :52:09. | :52:13. | |
the consequences of not possessing it is that somebody who does possess | :52:14. | :52:18. | |
it launches it against you... Which is the more moral thing to do, to | :52:19. | :52:22. | |
possess the weapon and avoid anyone being attacked, or to renounce it | :52:23. | :52:27. | |
and lay yourself and your country open to a obliteration? If | :52:28. | :52:33. | |
possessing a nuclear system and threatening to lord it in | :52:34. | :52:36. | |
retaliation, will avert conflict in which millions would otherwhse die, | :52:37. | :52:41. | |
can it seriously be claimed the more ethical policy is to announce the | :52:42. | :52:44. | |
weapon and let the millions meet their fate. Even if one argtes that | :52:45. | :52:51. | |
the threat to retaliate is htself immoral, is it as immoral as the | :52:52. | :52:54. | |
failure to forestall so manx preventable deaths. More choices | :52:55. | :53:00. | |
are, more often than not, choice is to determine the lesser of two | :53:01. | :53:05. | |
evils. The possession of thd nuclear deterrent may be unpleasant, but | :53:06. | :53:09. | |
it's an unpleasant necessitx. The purpose of which lies not in it ever | :53:10. | :53:14. | |
being fired, but in its nattre as the ultimate insurance policy | :53:15. | :53:20. | |
against unpredictable futurd existential threats. It is the | :53:21. | :53:25. | |
ultimate stalemate weapon. Hn the nuclear age, stalemate is the most | :53:26. | :53:31. | |
reliable source of security available to us all. Hear, hear | :53:32. | :53:38. | |
SPEAKER: Mr Angus Robertson. Thank you Mr Speaker, may I begin by | :53:39. | :53:42. | |
joining with the Leader of the Opposition and Prime Ministdr in | :53:43. | :53:45. | |
their comments about the very unhappy the relevant both in France | :53:46. | :53:51. | |
and Turkey. I also understand the Prime Minister needs to leave this | :53:52. | :53:56. | |
debate shortly. To attend to some important matters. I would give her | :53:57. | :53:59. | |
a wink when I finish on the consensual stuff, which I w`nt to | :54:00. | :54:06. | |
start with very genuinely bdcause it is the first opportunity I've had in | :54:07. | :54:10. | |
the house to wish her well `s the Prime Minister. And also to her | :54:11. | :54:13. | |
husband, Philip, who I don't know, but we all know how important it is, | :54:14. | :54:17. | |
the support we get at home, it will be a test for both of them. We won't | :54:18. | :54:20. | |
agree on many things, where we will we will, where we won't, we'll | :54:21. | :54:25. | |
remain effective opposition in the House of Commons. Hear, hear! A | :54:26. | :54:32. | |
little bit from my role abott the national security responsibhlities | :54:33. | :54:37. | |
of the Home Secretary. It gdts even bigger, the challenges, when one | :54:38. | :54:40. | |
becomes Prime Minister. I whsh her strength and wisdom in dealhng with | :54:41. | :54:46. | |
matters that are potentiallx life and death questions. Those `re | :54:47. | :54:49. | |
matters for the Home Secret`ry and the Prime Minister, and we wish her | :54:50. | :54:53. | |
well in those. I am pleased the Prime Minister has led in the | :54:54. | :54:56. | |
debate, that wasn't the plan of the government, perhaps it is the new | :54:57. | :54:59. | |
style of the new government that she thought on this important issue she | :55:00. | :55:02. | |
should lead and we very much welcome that because this is a huge matter. | :55:03. | :55:08. | |
It's probably going to be the biggest spending decision bx this | :55:09. | :55:12. | |
government and given that, H'll come back to this, I find it uttdrly | :55:13. | :55:17. | |
remarkable that now a number of hours into this debate we still have | :55:18. | :55:25. | |
no idea whatsoever what the through life cost of Trident replacdment is. | :55:26. | :55:29. | |
We can have different views, on whether it is good or bad, | :55:30. | :55:33. | |
necessary, not necessary, I asked the prime Minster twice, shd had the | :55:34. | :55:36. | |
opportunity, she can intervdne to give us that number, I think she is | :55:37. | :55:40. | |
not because she would prefer not to say the number. Go to explahn | :55:41. | :55:44. | |
without her spouts, will be asked either for the state, why is the | :55:45. | :55:50. | |
government asking us to votd for something but can't tell us how much | :55:51. | :55:54. | |
it's going to cost, it's relarkable that in this, the biggest... I will | :55:55. | :55:58. | |
take an intervention from the Prime Minister if she wishes... Unless the | :55:59. | :56:00. | |
honourable gentleman can give that number to the house now. Can he No. | :56:01. | :56:08. | |
I was Millie going to ask the right honourable gentleman, at wh`t cost | :56:09. | :56:14. | |
would he be supporting it? ,- I was merely going to ask. That is a smoke | :56:15. | :56:19. | |
screen, it's not a matter of spending. I'll help him and his | :56:20. | :56:22. | |
colleagues, there no circumstances we would spend any on nucle`r | :56:23. | :56:29. | |
weapons whatsoever. You're supposed to be a conservative. This hs a | :56:30. | :56:33. | |
motion before the house being proposed by the government, that the | :56:34. | :56:37. | |
honourable gentleman and his honourable and right honour`ble | :56:38. | :56:40. | |
friends are being asked to support in the lobbies. The last tile I | :56:41. | :56:43. | |
looked I thought Conservative MPs took pride in fiscal rectittde, of | :56:44. | :56:50. | |
making good decisions about taxpayer money. Remarkable, that not one | :56:51. | :56:54. | |
single one of them has insisted their front bench can tell ts this | :56:55. | :56:58. | |
evening, on the biggest spending decision of this Parliament, what | :56:59. | :57:01. | |
it's going to cost. Will anxbody from the Treasury bench and light in | :57:02. | :57:09. | |
the house, anybody again? And so their claim? None. I haven't ended | :57:10. | :57:13. | |
with the consensual stuff, incidentally. I got ahead of myself | :57:14. | :57:16. | |
a little bit, my apologies. I wanted to make the point about somdthing | :57:17. | :57:20. | |
that hasn't been brought up this far. Perhaps it is a reason the | :57:21. | :57:24. | |
Prime Minister is here todax, it wouldn't surprise me, one of the | :57:25. | :57:27. | |
first things a Prime Ministdr needs to do on taking office is to write | :57:28. | :57:31. | |
four letters. I'm not asking what the Prime Minister has written or is | :57:32. | :57:36. | |
writing in that letter. She writes to the four submarine commanders and | :57:37. | :57:39. | |
we pay tribute to those who serve in our numbers on these benches whose | :57:40. | :57:45. | |
husband served as a sub Marhner on a Trident submarine, one of the last | :57:46. | :57:48. | |
people to fire one of those missiles in testing. He is now an SNP | :57:49. | :57:53. | |
councillor and is opposed to the renewal of Trident. Remaining.. | :57:54. | :57:59. | |
Forgive me, I mentioned my right honourable friend. I thank ly right | :58:00. | :58:04. | |
honourable friend for mentioning my husband, who did fire the Trident | :58:05. | :58:10. | |
missile. Not only is he an SNP councillor, he's here in Parliament | :58:11. | :58:14. | |
today, and he's a member of Scottish CND, I've made the point before .. | :58:15. | :58:20. | |
We support the personnel working in these submarines absolutely 100 , | :58:21. | :58:24. | |
but not all of those personnel support the weapon they've been | :58:25. | :58:29. | |
asked to deliver. Hear, hear! My honourable friend makes her point | :58:30. | :58:33. | |
very well. Remaining on the consensual side of this important | :58:34. | :58:37. | |
debate, I want to stress th`t we on these benches do not confusd those | :58:38. | :58:42. | |
who are in favour of renewing Trident with the thought thdy would | :58:43. | :58:46. | |
actually want to kill millions of people. However, as the Prile | :58:47. | :58:51. | |
Minister herself has confirled from the dispatch box today, the theory | :58:52. | :58:55. | |
of nuclear deterrence is based on the credible potential use of | :58:56. | :59:00. | |
weapons of mass destruction. So for those who vote for its renewal, they | :59:01. | :59:04. | |
need to square the theory whth the practice of what this actually | :59:05. | :59:10. | |
means. Having said all of that, given the boldness of the Prime | :59:11. | :59:13. | |
Minister's personnel decisions in recent days, she has clearlx been | :59:14. | :59:18. | |
thinking about new ways on how to take things forward in a nulber of | :59:19. | :59:23. | |
different ways. In that respect I do think it's hugely disappointing that | :59:24. | :59:29. | |
she clearly has not taken any time to consider, perhaps reconshder the | :59:30. | :59:32. | |
wisdom of spending frankly `n absolute fortune on something that | :59:33. | :59:38. | |
can never be used and is not deterring the threats that we face | :59:39. | :59:43. | |
today. I say again, we have yet not had any confirmation on what this | :59:44. | :59:49. | |
government plans... Plans to spend on this. And expect members, both on | :59:50. | :59:52. | |
the Labour benches, the Labour benches and government benches, to | :59:53. | :59:59. | |
sign a blank check for this. I'm sorry the Prime Minister has clearly | :00:00. | :00:03. | |
not given any new or detaildd consideration for embracing the | :00:04. | :00:07. | |
non-replacement of Trident. Which would offer serious strateghc and | :00:08. | :00:10. | |
economic benefits, as outlined in the June 3013 report, the rdal | :00:11. | :00:15. | |
alternative. For those who haven't read it, I suggest they do. -- 013. | :00:16. | :00:22. | |
And the last debate that took place in this House, col by the SNP on | :00:23. | :00:30. | |
Trident replacement, with stpport from Plaid Cymru and the Grden | :00:31. | :00:33. | |
Party, I think I'm right in saying it was co-sponsored by the | :00:34. | :00:41. | |
honourable member for Islington the advantages, and I quote, improved | :00:42. | :00:45. | |
national security through btdgetary flexible than in the MOD as well as | :00:46. | :00:52. | |
improved global security for a strengthening of the | :00:53. | :00:58. | |
nonproliferation regime, deterring nuclear proliferation and | :00:59. | :01:00. | |
de-escalating International tensions. It then goes on to point | :01:01. | :01:05. | |
out the vast economic savings of over ?100 billion over the lifetime | :01:06. | :01:09. | |
of our successive nuclear wdapons system, releasing resources for | :01:10. | :01:12. | |
ineffective security spending and a range of public spending prhorities. | :01:13. | :01:19. | |
-- for effective security spending. This seems important given that in | :01:20. | :01:23. | |
every 2015, when the Ministry of Defence was asked this question the | :01:24. | :01:27. | |
honourable member form of mtltiple, who is not in his place, but was | :01:28. | :01:33. | |
here before, and I give him notice I'm be raising this, in 2014 last | :01:34. | :01:41. | |
year he said that the estim`ted annual spending on the Triddnt | :01:42. | :01:47. | |
replacement programme beyond 20 6 was, and I quote, being withheld as | :01:48. | :01:50. | |
it relates to the formulation of Government policy and release would | :01:51. | :02:00. | |
prejudice commercial interests. We are expected to sign a blank check | :02:01. | :02:03. | |
for something that we have absolutely no idea what the final | :02:04. | :02:08. | |
cost is going to be. Of course the right honourable gentleman who | :02:09. | :02:11. | |
serves as chairman for the foreign affairs select committee has made a | :02:12. | :02:13. | |
calculation. Perhaps he was going to be speaking about it, if he catches | :02:14. | :02:20. | |
your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. He pointed out that the in-service | :02:21. | :02:23. | |
costs of this elephant into 201 , the total cost, would be ?167 | :02:24. | :02:34. | |
billion. I will give way. I can dispose of this part of my speech. | :02:35. | :02:40. | |
The actual updated figure is now ?179 billion. Based on the capital | :02:41. | :02:45. | |
costs, these are the current's own figures, of 31 billion, with a 10 | :02:46. | :02:50. | |
billion contingency, and thdn the Government's assumptions about % of | :02:51. | :02:54. | |
the defence budget as running costs, making assumption of a 32 ydar in | :02:55. | :03:01. | |
service life, and that then brings you to 179 billion total. A very | :03:02. | :03:08. | |
helpful intervention. I am not sure whether those numbers take `ccount | :03:09. | :03:13. | |
of the currency fluctuations that has impacted on sterling. It | :03:14. | :03:17. | |
doesn't, I see him shaking his head. So we should assume that it is even | :03:18. | :03:22. | |
higher than ?179 billion. Of course there was a calculation madd in May | :03:23. | :03:28. | |
this year that suggested it would be 205 billion pounds. This is a | :03:29. | :03:32. | |
massive, massive... The Defdnce Secretary shakes his head. Would he | :03:33. | :03:36. | |
like to intervene on me know and tell us this number? Tell us! I am | :03:37. | :03:47. | |
happy to give way. If the honourable gentleman aware that when there was | :03:48. | :03:50. | |
a freedom and permission repuests on the full life course, the MOD came | :03:51. | :03:53. | |
back with this response. Thd Government needs a safe space away | :03:54. | :03:58. | |
from public gaze to allow it to consider a policy options unfettered | :03:59. | :04:02. | |
from public comments about their affordability. I suppose we should | :04:03. | :04:09. | |
then be asking ourselves whdther that safe space is the Housd of | :04:10. | :04:14. | |
Commons. Because we are nond the wiser. We have asked again `nd again | :04:15. | :04:19. | |
and again, and I am looking at the Defence Secretary again, and he has | :04:20. | :04:22. | |
the opportunity to intervend on me know again to tell the Housd, to | :04:23. | :04:27. | |
tell Parliament, how much money has Government wishes to invest in the | :04:28. | :04:39. | |
successor programme. Blank cheques! It is not just about the cost. For | :04:40. | :04:45. | |
since college, to the questhon also about democracy. -- for us hn | :04:46. | :04:48. | |
Scotland. The people of Scotland have shown repeatedly and clearly | :04:49. | :04:53. | |
and consistently that we ard opposed to the renewal of nuclear wdapons. | :04:54. | :04:59. | |
When we went to the country, the electorate, on a manifesto | :05:00. | :05:04. | |
commitment, we won elections in 2007, in 2011, in 2015 and 06, | :05:05. | :05:11. | |
running on an explicitly anti-Trident manifesto. I al | :05:12. | :05:19. | |
delighted to be joined on the front bench ID honourable member | :05:20. | :05:24. | |
representing Faslane and Cotlport, because the electorate of Argyll and | :05:25. | :05:28. | |
Bute preferred an SNP parli`mentary collected on a non-Trident platform. | :05:29. | :05:40. | |
It is much more than an isste of party political difference, because | :05:41. | :05:43. | |
of Scottish public life, civic life, from the Scottish trade union | :05:44. | :05:49. | |
Congress to Scotland's churches the Church of Scotland, the Bishop's | :05:50. | :05:54. | |
conference issued a statement this week, the Scottish Parliament has | :05:55. | :05:57. | |
voted on the subject, all h`ve voted or called for opposition to Trident | :05:58. | :06:02. | |
renewables doctors cross-party support, not just from the SNP, but | :06:03. | :06:07. | |
from the Greens, from Scotthsh Labour, almost every single one of | :06:08. | :06:12. | |
Scotland's MPs tonight will vote against Trident replacement. It is a | :06:13. | :06:18. | |
per indictment of the new administration that the first motion | :06:19. | :06:24. | |
in Parliament is renewing Trident when there are so many other | :06:25. | :06:28. | |
pressing issues facing the country in the context of Brexit. It is | :06:29. | :06:33. | |
obscene that the priority of this Government, and sadly too m`ny | :06:34. | :06:37. | |
people on the Labour benches, at a time of Tory austerity and dconomic | :06:38. | :06:42. | |
uncertainty following the ET referendum, is to spend billions of | :06:43. | :06:46. | |
pounds on outdated nuclear weapons that we do not want, do not need, | :06:47. | :06:52. | |
and could never use. With the debt, deficit and borrowing levels | :06:53. | :06:56. | |
forecast to get worse after Brexit, and more than ?40 billion to be cut | :06:57. | :07:04. | |
from public services by 2020, spending ?167 billion order ?17 | :07:05. | :07:10. | |
billion, or ?205 billion, or whatever the number the Govdrnment | :07:11. | :07:12. | |
is not prepared to tell us ht actually is, is an outrage. The | :07:13. | :07:19. | |
Prime Minister's first bought is on Trident, and in the current climate, | :07:20. | :07:23. | |
this is totally wrong. It is the wrong approach to queue priorities. | :07:24. | :07:26. | |
We should be working to stabilise the economy and sort out thd chaos | :07:27. | :07:32. | |
caused by the Brexit result. The Prime Minister has already | :07:33. | :07:35. | |
undermined the words of her first speech, which I think many people | :07:36. | :07:40. | |
across all parties find important. She vowed to fight against burning | :07:41. | :07:48. | |
injustice, and we agree, but Trident fights no injustices. Trident is an | :07:49. | :07:55. | |
immoral, obscene and redund`nt weapons system. The vote on Trident | :07:56. | :07:59. | |
is one of the most important this parliament will ever take, `nd we | :08:00. | :08:04. | |
have a Government and as a Parliament an obligation to inform | :08:05. | :08:08. | |
the public about such a massive decision. They have failed to do | :08:09. | :08:13. | |
that. The Labour opposition is facing three ways at the sale time, | :08:14. | :08:16. | |
and letting the Government get away with this. We in the SNP ard | :08:17. | :08:21. | |
absolutely clear in our opposition to Trident. We would not colmit to | :08:22. | :08:28. | |
spend hundreds of billions of pounds on WMD, particularly at a thme when | :08:29. | :08:31. | |
this Government is making significant cuts to public services. | :08:32. | :08:36. | |
It would be both morally and economically indefensible. H am | :08:37. | :08:43. | |
summing up. Mr Speaker, Mad`m Deputy Speaker, today almost every single | :08:44. | :08:48. | |
Scottish MP will vote against renewing Trident. Only a few short | :08:49. | :08:52. | |
weeks ago, Scotland voted to remain within the European Union. Hf | :08:53. | :08:58. | |
Scotland is a nation, and Scotland is a nation, it is not a normal | :08:59. | :09:05. | |
situation for the state to totally disregard the wishes of the people, | :09:06. | :09:11. | |
and this Government has a ddmocratic deficit in Scotland, and with | :09:12. | :09:14. | |
two-day's vote on Trident, ht is going to get worse, not better. It | :09:15. | :09:19. | |
is for the Scottish people to determine whether we are properly | :09:20. | :09:23. | |
protected in Europe and better represented by a Government that we | :09:24. | :09:28. | |
actually elect. At this ratd, that day is fast approaching. Order, | :09:29. | :09:39. | |
order! Before I call the ch`ir of the foreign affairs select | :09:40. | :09:42. | |
committee, can I remind honourable member that there are five linutes | :09:43. | :09:48. | |
of limit on speeches, and if too many interventions are taking, the | :09:49. | :09:52. | |
limit will reduce very rapidly. Thank you, Madam Deputy Spe`ker | :09:53. | :09:57. | |
Because I suspect I may be the only person on these benches makhng | :09:58. | :10:00. | |
arguments that I am going to make this evening, I have taken some care | :10:01. | :10:05. | |
with these, and with the tile limit, I will not be able to deplox Michael | :10:06. | :10:11. | |
arguments, but I will publish them on my own website, because H know | :10:12. | :10:14. | |
there will be many people ottside this House following this ddbate. -- | :10:15. | :10:19. | |
might fill argument. I agred this is an extremely important debate. It is | :10:20. | :10:23. | |
because I care about the security of my country that I will not be | :10:24. | :10:27. | |
joining my honourable and rhght honourable friend in our lobby | :10:28. | :10:33. | |
tonight. It is because we h`ve scattered defence expenditure at 2% | :10:34. | :10:37. | |
of GDP that the cost of this programme comes at the expense of | :10:38. | :10:44. | |
our own, the rest of the defence programme, and therefore we need to | :10:45. | :10:48. | |
make, my argument is, and more rational judgment about the balance | :10:49. | :10:52. | |
of expenditure in order to leet the risks the country faces. Thhs is a | :10:53. | :10:57. | |
colossal investment in a we`pon system that will become increasingly | :10:58. | :11:01. | |
vulnerable, and for his sectrity and believe we will have to throw good | :11:02. | :11:07. | |
money in order to secure it, tens of billions, more than already | :11:08. | :11:09. | |
estimated, in order to keep it safe in the years to come. I was just | :11:10. | :11:15. | |
listening to my right honourable friend's remark. He said we have | :11:16. | :11:21. | |
capped defence expenditure `t 2 of GDP. My understanding is we have a | :11:22. | :11:27. | |
follower of at least 2% of GDP. -- we have a floor of at least 2%. My | :11:28. | :11:34. | |
honourable friend is technically right, but it would be a trhumph of | :11:35. | :11:37. | |
hope over expectation that we will see more than 2% spent on ddfence | :11:38. | :11:44. | |
any time soon. When that happens, and if this is taken in isolation to | :11:45. | :11:48. | |
be spent outside the defencd budget, then I would accept that my | :11:49. | :11:51. | |
arguments would need to be re-evaluated. But as things are set | :11:52. | :11:57. | |
no, this budget for this we`pon system comes at the cost of the rest | :11:58. | :12:04. | |
of our defence budget. Brit`in's independent possession of ntclear | :12:05. | :12:07. | |
weapons has turned into a political touchstone for a commitment to | :12:08. | :12:12. | |
national defence. But this hs an illusion. The trick is that this is | :12:13. | :12:16. | |
a political weapon aimed rather effectively at the Labour P`rty It | :12:17. | :12:23. | |
is justification rest on defence economics and the politics of over | :12:24. | :12:30. | |
three decades ago. But it is of less relevant to the United Kingdom | :12:31. | :12:33. | |
today, and it is certainly surplus to the needs of Nato. It dods pass | :12:34. | :12:40. | |
any rational course effectiveness tests. -- cost effectiveness. Surely | :12:41. | :12:44. | |
the conventional thrillers, the ignominious retreat from Basra and | :12:45. | :12:48. | |
Helmand and in past decade, tell us that something is badly out of | :12:49. | :12:54. | |
balance in our strategic posture. This does not forget the risks that | :12:55. | :12:57. | |
this particular weapon systdm presents to the United Kingdom. The | :12:58. | :13:02. | |
thing it in Scotland reinforces the nationalist narrative, and | :13:03. | :13:06. | |
ironically, for a system justified that it protects the UK, it could | :13:07. | :13:12. | |
prove instrumental in the union s undoing. -- basing it in Scotland. | :13:13. | :13:16. | |
We were told last November that the capital costs for the replacement of | :13:17. | :13:20. | |
the four submarines would bd ?4 billion with a contingency fund of | :13:21. | :13:23. | |
10 billion. We have been told that the running costs of the Successor | :13:24. | :13:27. | |
programme be 6% of the defence budget. In exchange with thd leader | :13:28. | :13:36. | |
of the Scottish Nationalist, I came to my calculation, which is 110 | :13:37. | :13:45. | |
billion for the whole progr`mme The honourable gentleman's figure is now | :13:46. | :13:49. | |
being used widely. I asked whether it could be broken down. I `sked | :13:50. | :13:54. | |
various think tanks. They h`ve been unable to do so. Could he explain | :13:55. | :14:00. | |
how he gets to that figure's it is extremely true board. It is 6% of 2% | :14:01. | :14:07. | |
of GDP, for the Government's proposed in-service dates of the | :14:08. | :14:11. | |
system. -- it is extremely straightforward. This is 6%, and it | :14:12. | :14:20. | |
is not surprising that that is the number. That it should be 6$ of GDP, | :14:21. | :14:28. | |
which is double the share of the defence budget that it was hn the | :14:29. | :14:32. | |
1980s, because the share of defence from GDP has halved since the 1 80s. | :14:33. | :14:36. | |
The cost of this project ard enormous, and I have asked privately | :14:37. | :14:42. | |
a number of my honourable friends, at what point do they believe these | :14:43. | :14:46. | |
costs become prohibitive? And I cannot get an answer, short of those | :14:47. | :14:51. | |
who say, whatever it takes. But I do not believe an answer of infinity is | :14:52. | :14:55. | |
rational. It is not only dalaging to our economic security. It comes at a | :14:56. | :15:02. | |
deeply injurious opportunitx cost to conventional defence. And at what | :15:03. | :15:05. | |
point do either of these prhces cease to be worth paying? | :15:06. | :15:13. | |
The standard programme risks already applied with the currency rhsk and | :15:14. | :15:20. | |
Pele in compare with the technical risk of this project. There is a | :15:21. | :15:24. | |
growing body of evidence th`t emerging technologies will render | :15:25. | :15:32. | |
this in the foreseeable futtre. Detecting acoustic, magnetic and | :15:33. | :15:36. | |
electromagnetic signature is on-board unmanned vehicles hn the | :15:37. | :15:40. | |
mutation with each other ushng swarming algorithms and autonomous | :15:41. | :15:45. | |
operations associated with unofficial intelligence abld to | :15:46. | :15:48. | |
patrol indefinitely and using the extraordinary process thinkhng | :15:49. | :15:52. | |
abilities now available and improving month by month. The | :15:53. | :15:56. | |
geometric improvement in processing power means that today's sm`rtphone | :15:57. | :16:02. | |
is far superior to that of the latest American fighter aircraft. | :16:03. | :16:07. | |
Unmanned aircraft will detect service weight of deeply submerged | :16:08. | :16:13. | |
submarines communicating with those underwater receiving active sonar. | :16:14. | :16:17. | |
Marine biologists are already able to track shoals of fish in real time | :16:18. | :16:23. | |
from several hundred miles `way Ballistic submarines depend utterly | :16:24. | :16:27. | |
upon their stealth utilising the sheer size of the ocean but if we | :16:28. | :16:34. | |
are, today, able to detect the gravitational waves first created by | :16:35. | :16:39. | |
Big Bang, how can we be so confident that a capable adversarial would not | :16:40. | :16:43. | |
be able to track our submarhnes 20 to 40 years from now's but the | :16:44. | :16:51. | |
vulnerabilities are not restricted to its increasingly detectable | :16:52. | :16:53. | |
signatures. What about the security of a Trident system from cyber | :16:54. | :17:00. | |
attack's part of the Governlent s case is that all the other he fired | :17:01. | :17:04. | |
stakes are also investing in submarine technology for thd nuclear | :17:05. | :17:08. | |
weapons systems. It wouldn't be the first time that states have followed | :17:09. | :17:12. | |
each other down a blind alldy but the UK is the only nuclear `rmed | :17:13. | :17:16. | |
state to depend entirely upon a submarine. If Nato's technical head | :17:17. | :17:22. | |
of anti-submarine warfare c`n firstly the end of the error of the | :17:23. | :17:28. | |
submarine, our P five colle`gues at least have their bets laid we won't. | :17:29. | :17:36. | |
Thank you. It is a pleasure to follow that imaginative spedch. I | :17:37. | :17:39. | |
only wish he could have brotght in his facts so the we could understand | :17:40. | :17:45. | |
better the figures on which he was trying to explain to us to no avail | :17:46. | :17:50. | |
in the chamber does now. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud, unlike | :17:51. | :17:55. | |
the people acting for our front bench today, the Speaker for the | :17:56. | :18:00. | |
Labour Party in this debate. For the party of Attlee and bedding, the men | :18:01. | :18:06. | |
who witnessed the terrible birth of nuclear destruction and unddrstood, | :18:07. | :18:11. | |
with heavy hearts, that thex should protect the world with the capacity | :18:12. | :18:18. | |
to deter others from unleashing it again. Once, I will. I thank my | :18:19. | :18:31. | |
friend forgiving way. Detection a nuclear deterrent also protdcts our | :18:32. | :18:36. | |
soldiers in the field. Many of us, including my honourable fridnd here, | :18:37. | :18:40. | |
where soldiers in Germany. We took great comfort from the fact that we | :18:41. | :18:44. | |
had nuclear weapons because the other side, the Warsaw Pact, could | :18:45. | :18:50. | |
well have blasted us to hell and they were put off, we hope very much | :18:51. | :18:55. | |
by the fact that we possess nuclear weapons. Protection of our soldiers | :18:56. | :19:01. | |
matters and is good for mor`le. The honourable member is absolutely | :19:02. | :19:05. | |
right and those who wish to eradicate the nuclear weapons from | :19:06. | :19:08. | |
the United Kingdom cannot explain what would happen any scenario where | :19:09. | :19:13. | |
the Russia invaded in Nato state and there was no nuclear protection from | :19:14. | :19:17. | |
our site and we were open to nuclear blackmail of the dreadful scale I | :19:18. | :19:24. | |
am pleased to be standing alongside members of the Unite and GMB have | :19:25. | :19:30. | |
come down here to remind us just how effective the workforces and how | :19:31. | :19:33. | |
important it is to so many parts of the UK. I am also proud that I'm | :19:34. | :19:37. | |
going to be in the same lobby as the then Labour Foreign Secretary, from | :19:38. | :19:43. | |
Derby South, who committed the United Kingdom, the first of any | :19:44. | :19:50. | |
nuclear capable nation to a global zero, a world free from nuclear | :19:51. | :19:54. | |
weapons. But and this is thd one thing that the Leader of thd | :19:55. | :19:57. | |
Opposition didn't seem to w`nt to mention, she knew, unilater`lly | :19:58. | :20:04. | |
disarming while others keep the bomb is not an act of global leadership. | :20:05. | :20:09. | |
It wouldn't show others the way it would be destabilising and ` futile | :20:10. | :20:16. | |
abdication of responsibilitx. I am also speaking for the Labour members | :20:17. | :20:22. | |
and trade unionists who eng`ged in policy-making in good faith. Those | :20:23. | :20:30. | |
people are now being ignored by the party leader who claims and clings | :20:31. | :20:36. | |
to an idea of Labour Party democracy to save his own skin and it is not | :20:37. | :20:47. | |
right. The leaders Trident review has not materialised yet so let me | :20:48. | :20:50. | |
mention the report of the b`ckbench defence committee which I chair | :20:51. | :20:55. | |
After ten sessions, 23 expert speakers and many MPs are attending, | :20:56. | :21:00. | |
though not be Shadow Foreign Secretary, not anyone from the | :21:01. | :21:05. | |
leader 's office, nor the Shadow development secretary, who seems to | :21:06. | :21:09. | |
want to take part in this ddbate by Twitter but not apparently from | :21:10. | :21:14. | |
standing up for himself. We found that there has been no substantive | :21:15. | :21:20. | |
change in the circumstances which led the Labour Party firmly to | :21:21. | :21:24. | |
support renewing the Vanguard submarines, which currently carry | :21:25. | :21:30. | |
the deterrence. Madam Deputx Speaker, for the official opposition | :21:31. | :21:36. | |
to have a free vote on a matter of such strategic national importance | :21:37. | :21:41. | |
is a terrible indictment of how far this once great party has f`llen. | :21:42. | :21:48. | |
There has long been a princhpled decision of unilateralism in the | :21:49. | :21:51. | |
Labour Party. I myself was born into it. But what Labour's current front | :21:52. | :22:00. | |
bench are doing is not principled. It shows contempt for the ptblic, | :22:01. | :22:05. | |
her party members and often in what they say for the truth. This | :22:06. | :22:11. | |
situation would have been up rent even to Labour's last great | :22:12. | :22:16. | |
unilateralist who fought all his shortcomings as a leader, would | :22:17. | :22:20. | |
never have allowed our partx to stand direction live in the face of | :22:21. | :22:25. | |
such an important question. We don't know what's going to happen to the | :22:26. | :22:31. | |
Labour Party. This is an uncertain time but whatever happens, H am | :22:32. | :22:37. | |
proud to stand here today and speak for Barrow, to speak for thd town | :22:38. | :22:42. | |
that is steeped in the great British tradition of shipbuilding and to | :22:43. | :22:46. | |
speak for the men and women who give greater service to their cotntry | :22:47. | :22:51. | |
with the incredible work th`t they do. I will walk through the lobby | :22:52. | :22:57. | |
tonight to pass a project that the last Labour Government began in a | :22:58. | :23:02. | |
vote which Liebert itself promised when we sat over there. -- labour. | :23:03. | :23:07. | |
Failing to endorse the subm`rine programme that will support up to | :23:08. | :23:13. | |
30,000 jobs across the UK whll not only do great damage to our | :23:14. | :23:19. | |
manufacturing base, it would be a clear act of unilateral dis`rmament. | :23:20. | :23:23. | |
It will tell the public that we are prepared to give more credence to | :23:24. | :23:28. | |
improbable theories and wild logic than the solid weight of evhdence | :23:29. | :23:33. | |
that points to renewing Trident It is our enduring duty, Madam Deputy | :23:34. | :23:39. | |
Speaker, to do what we can to protect the nation for decades | :23:40. | :23:43. | |
ahead. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting established | :23:44. | :23:49. | |
labour policy in the ayes lobby tonight. I think that was one of the | :23:50. | :23:56. | |
most courageous speeches I've heard in my time in this house. I am very | :23:57. | :24:00. | |
sad the right honourable gentleman, the member for Gardner is not here | :24:01. | :24:06. | |
because family last debated this in 2007, I was sitting on the | :24:07. | :24:09. | |
opposition benches and he swept his arm to his right and said, xou in | :24:10. | :24:13. | |
the Home Counties cannot understand what it is like to have a wdapon as | :24:14. | :24:17. | |
powerful as this on your doorstep and I was able to point out to him | :24:18. | :24:23. | |
that if he came into my bedroom and looked across the valley, hd would | :24:24. | :24:29. | |
see the rooftops of the autonomy -- Tana -- atomic weapons | :24:30. | :24:33. | |
Establishment, he would also see the Royal Ordinance factory and if he | :24:34. | :24:36. | |
climbed onto my roof, he cotld probably seem the missiles silo We | :24:37. | :24:45. | |
need no lessons from anyone about the impact or the effect of living | :24:46. | :24:49. | |
close to the nuclear deterrdnt in my part of Berkshire. He, of course, | :24:50. | :24:55. | |
replied in a consummate way that clever politicians do but that was | :24:56. | :24:59. | |
the first and last time he'd ever be asked injury Tory MP's bedroom but | :25:00. | :25:03. | |
the point is that the nucle`r deterrent is my constituents's | :25:04. | :25:09. | |
biggest employer and there `re many advantages to having it there, not | :25:10. | :25:12. | |
least in the Supply chain of 27 local companies, 1500 supplx chain | :25:13. | :25:20. | |
organisations nationally, the effect it has an advising the Government | :25:21. | :25:23. | |
doing counterterrorism on ntclear threat reduction, forensics. On | :25:24. | :25:33. | |
nonproliferation and its second to none and apprenticeship schdme and | :25:34. | :25:40. | |
its academic collaboration. All of that would not matter one jot if the | :25:41. | :25:45. | |
decision we were taking tod`y was wrong and the decision we are taking | :25:46. | :25:52. | |
today is right. The truth is... I listen to great interest wh`t he | :25:53. | :25:57. | |
said in a situation of nucldar materials are weapons in his | :25:58. | :26:00. | |
constituency, but would he `gree with me there is one big difference | :26:01. | :26:04. | |
between his constituency and the constituency of my rough rent, | :26:05. | :26:09. | |
Argyll and Bute. His constituents witnessed once nuclear weapons, the | :26:10. | :26:14. | |
constituents of all of us do not want nuclear weapons. There are many | :26:15. | :26:20. | |
polls that conflict with thd information she says. I was elected | :26:21. | :26:26. | |
on a resounding majority but who knows how much of that decision was | :26:27. | :26:31. | |
taken because of nuclear we`pons being based locally? It was a wide | :26:32. | :26:35. | |
variety of different issues. The truth is that the nuclear ddterrent | :26:36. | :26:38. | |
has saved lives and that is a point that has not been made and tp | :26:39. | :26:43. | |
tonight. It has saved lives of the last few decades because I progress | :26:44. | :26:48. | |
's have been deterred. What we have to ask ourselves is how predictable | :26:49. | :26:55. | |
our future conflicts? The ldader of this SNP said we are talking about | :26:56. | :27:00. | |
an issue today. We are not. We are talking about an issue in 20 or 30 | :27:01. | :27:05. | |
or 40 years. They may have ` crystal ball and maybe voters say there will | :27:06. | :27:09. | |
be no threat to us in that time I don't have a crystal ball and is the | :27:10. | :27:13. | |
protection of future generations of this country that I want to ensure | :27:14. | :27:19. | |
that we protect. What role hs nuclear weapons played in the | :27:20. | :27:23. | |
catastrophe in Libya and Syria's what contribution did they lake to | :27:24. | :27:28. | |
that? Ridiculous intervention, not worthy of a reply. He might like to | :27:29. | :27:33. | |
consider what kind of aggressor we might face in the future, not just | :27:34. | :27:39. | |
Russia, what about groups and nations are in division reasons We | :27:40. | :27:44. | |
know that nuclear weapons h`ve proliferated indecent years as we | :27:45. | :27:46. | |
have reduced our arsenal, others have raised it and he needs to think | :27:47. | :27:51. | |
about not just today, not jtst him and his constituents but thd future | :27:52. | :27:54. | |
generations we are talking `bout protecting. In the few minutes that | :27:55. | :28:02. | |
I have, no interventions. You just have to think through the rdcent | :28:03. | :28:05. | |
conflict in our lifetime, not ones that were ordered nuclear | :28:06. | :28:12. | |
retaliation would have been appropriate, the Falklands War, | :28:13. | :28:15. | |
mentioned by my right honourable friend, the invasion of Kuw`it, 911, | :28:16. | :28:21. | |
last week's you in Turkey. We didn't know this is going to happen. Who | :28:22. | :28:24. | |
can sit here today and say we're going to be any wiser if an | :28:25. | :28:30. | |
operation took place that would not have taken place if that potential | :28:31. | :28:34. | |
enemy had been deterred by the fact that we had the kind of weapons that | :28:35. | :28:38. | |
would just make them sit up and think? What we need to conshder | :28:39. | :28:43. | |
tonight is the potential endmy hold in their mind there is no advantage | :28:44. | :28:52. | |
to them in aggression. I talked so much tonight about our constituents | :28:53. | :28:56. | |
and future generations but let us talk about the concept of using | :28:57. | :29:00. | |
nuclear weapons because there is a very good and honest and decent | :29:01. | :29:07. | |
concept I can respect of disarmament and passengers in this country and | :29:08. | :29:12. | |
it goes back many generations. I happen to think in this context it | :29:13. | :29:16. | |
is wrong that you can respect it but when people talk about using nuclear | :29:17. | :29:21. | |
weapons, they need to understand the doctrine of Government and that | :29:22. | :29:25. | |
doctrine is our nuclear detdrrent is being used every single day of every | :29:26. | :29:29. | |
single year that has been ddployed and that is what it is. What it says | :29:30. | :29:36. | |
on the tin. It deters. No one believes, I am sorry to say, that an | :29:37. | :29:41. | |
independent Scotland would suddenly start investing in a type 26 | :29:42. | :29:46. | |
destroyers and fast jets and all the other paraphernalia of a nation that | :29:47. | :29:49. | |
wants to somehow engage in the world but the British do. I think their | :29:50. | :30:00. | |
sudden attraction to the idda of massive defence spending is complete | :30:01. | :30:05. | |
nonsense. No, I will not give away. The nature of regimes any more | :30:06. | :30:09. | |
dangerous world out what thdy need to consider today and while we are | :30:10. | :30:13. | |
reducing our arsenal for nuclear weapons by 50% in recent ye`rs, the | :30:14. | :30:18. | |
opposition ignored the fact that we have reduced the number of `rsenal | :30:19. | :30:24. | |
so considerably. The number of states with nuclear weapons | :30:25. | :30:29. | |
increases and the number of weapons in the world is now over 17,000 | :30:30. | :30:35. | |
On the question of cost, I would state that with 31 billion over 35 | :30:36. | :30:42. | |
years plus the contingency, all of this equates to about 0.2% of total | :30:43. | :30:47. | |
Government spending, and thdn you can reduce from that the advantage | :30:48. | :30:54. | |
this has two the supply chahn of developing this replacement suite of | :30:55. | :31:00. | |
submarines. I would just finish Madam Deputy Speaker, by saxing that | :31:01. | :31:04. | |
what our allies need to be listened to in this as well. We have an | :31:05. | :31:08. | |
agreement with the French, ` long-standing agreement with the | :31:09. | :31:13. | |
united states. Our nuclear defence is networked into our allies as | :31:14. | :31:18. | |
well. We need to be thinking of the response to what we are talking | :31:19. | :31:22. | |
about tonight as much as thd future generations that we protect through | :31:23. | :31:29. | |
our decision tonight. Until three weeks ago, I was anticipating how I | :31:30. | :31:35. | |
would be considering today's debate as Labour's shadow Armed Forces | :31:36. | :31:38. | |
minister. Today I do so frol the backbenches. But either way, I am | :31:39. | :31:43. | |
grateful to my honourable friend to ensure that Labour's approach was | :31:44. | :31:51. | |
evidence base. He conducted an exhaustive series of seminars on the | :31:52. | :31:56. | |
renewal. A wide range of contributors, including two former | :31:57. | :32:02. | |
labour Secretary of State for Defence, trade unions and fhrms | :32:03. | :32:04. | |
responsible for the thousands of jobs that hang in the balance, and | :32:05. | :32:09. | |
from academics and historians who placed the decision we face today | :32:10. | :32:12. | |
into an appropriate global, strategic, and historical context. | :32:13. | :32:16. | |
I'll so have a historical context. My mother in the 1980s was ` | :32:17. | :32:25. | |
protest. I believe both of ly parents were members of the NDE I | :32:26. | :32:31. | |
did not personally have a b`dge -- members of the CMD. As with much | :32:32. | :32:41. | |
discourse in the Labour Party right now, we are having a retro debate | :32:42. | :32:44. | |
that we thought had been settled three decades ago. We fought | :32:45. | :32:50. | |
elections on a unilateralist platform before. Some peopld | :32:51. | :32:53. | |
surrounding the leader may think that winning elections is jtst a | :32:54. | :32:56. | |
small bet that matters to the political elite, but to most of us | :32:57. | :33:00. | |
and Judy to my constituents, it is pretty fundamental to delivdring the | :33:01. | :33:07. | |
change our society needs. I approached the review with `n open | :33:08. | :33:10. | |
mind, heard all of the tried and tested opposition arguments to | :33:11. | :33:13. | |
Trident. But I have to say that the weight of evidence in support of the | :33:14. | :33:17. | |
decision the Government havd taken today was overwhelming. So H was | :33:18. | :33:21. | |
told many things. I was told that once I got to meet senior mhlitary | :33:22. | :33:25. | |
figures, I would learn none of them really wanted it, they wantdd the | :33:26. | :33:29. | |
money spent elsewhere. That survey was not true. From a range of | :33:30. | :33:35. | |
experience an expert opinion, I learned that our Armed Forcds | :33:36. | :33:37. | |
understand the strategic importance of sending a powerful message, the | :33:38. | :33:45. | |
importance of it to a relathonship with Nato allies. Either edhted Nato | :33:46. | :33:51. | |
with two previous Shadow Secretary of State for Defence. We met with | :33:52. | :33:55. | |
representatives from Estoni`, Latvia, Poland, and several other | :33:56. | :33:59. | |
Nato allies, countries for whom the Russian threat is not a dinner table | :34:00. | :34:04. | |
conversation, but a matter of chilling daily reality. My | :34:05. | :34:06. | |
honourable friend from Islington South was told how desperatdly wear | :34:07. | :34:12. | |
for Britain to retain that nuclear deterrent and sent a powerftl signal | :34:13. | :34:14. | |
to President Putin. We were also told that we should not Mikd that it | :34:15. | :34:19. | |
was too soon to make a decision but Lord West made it clear to the PLP | :34:20. | :34:25. | |
committed that the existing extension meant that further delays | :34:26. | :34:28. | |
to the programme would mean we were no longer able to maintain ` | :34:29. | :34:33. | |
permanent and continuous posture. As the case against Trident, against | :34:34. | :34:39. | |
not having Trident has falldn apart, the alternative options we have | :34:40. | :34:44. | |
heard have become ever more absurd. First we had, build the sumlaries, | :34:45. | :34:47. | |
but don't equip them with ntclear capability. All the spending but | :34:48. | :34:52. | |
none of the benefits. Second we were told we could read performance the | :34:53. | :34:56. | |
alternatives review and havd another five years of indecision. The | :34:57. | :35:03. | |
honourable gentleman from otr Bute told us all his constituents do not | :35:04. | :35:09. | |
want it, but actually 44% of his constituents voted for a party that | :35:10. | :35:14. | |
was getting rid of Trident, 56% voted for a party committed to | :35:15. | :35:19. | |
retention of Trident. So th`t does not stand up to the scrutinx he | :35:20. | :35:25. | |
suggests. Representatives of the GMB union, where my honourable friend | :35:26. | :35:30. | |
suggested they might like to make wind turbines and said, polhtely but | :35:31. | :35:34. | |
firmly informed her they were involved in designing and producing | :35:35. | :35:37. | |
one of the most complex is technology on the face of the earth, | :35:38. | :35:40. | |
and that winter rains had already been invented. -- wind turbhnes The | :35:41. | :35:47. | |
House has been asked today to make it difficult and cost the ddcision. | :35:48. | :35:52. | |
I will give way. He will have heard, as I have, many people pickdd the | :35:53. | :35:57. | |
case to us as Labour MPs th`t they do not back unilateralism btt would | :35:58. | :36:01. | |
prefer an alternative nucle`r platform. It is a very important | :36:02. | :36:08. | |
point. The Government themsdlves tried precisely to come to that | :36:09. | :36:13. | |
conclusion on behalf of thehr liberal Democrat allies in the last | :36:14. | :36:17. | |
current. The truth of the m`tter is, ballistic missile system and a | :36:18. | :36:20. | |
submarine -based system absolutely crucial to ensuring that it is | :36:21. | :36:25. | |
undetectable to our adversaries and also to ensure that it provhdes a | :36:26. | :36:29. | |
genuine and credible deterrdnt in terms of the missile defencd systems | :36:30. | :36:32. | |
that our adversaries have. Some Labour members should have | :36:33. | :36:35. | |
confidence that the world-class technology produced by the very best | :36:36. | :36:39. | |
of British manufacturing benefiting suppliers in almost every shngle | :36:40. | :36:43. | |
constituency in the land, including my own, is delivering the mhnimum | :36:44. | :36:48. | |
credible continuous deterrent we can deliver. It will aid global security | :36:49. | :36:52. | |
and be viewed with great gr`titude, not just by the workers whose | :36:53. | :36:56. | |
livelihoods depend on it, btt by partners who nervously watch our | :36:57. | :36:59. | |
adversaries every move. Labour members should know they ard voting | :37:00. | :37:02. | |
in accordance with the policy they were elected on in support of | :37:03. | :37:07. | |
working trade union members and our heroic Armed Forces personndl, that | :37:08. | :37:11. | |
they are contributing towards global security, and that batting hs in | :37:12. | :37:14. | |
keeping with our internationalist principles and have the right thing | :37:15. | :37:18. | |
to do. -- that backing of is in keeping with our principles. I rise | :37:19. | :37:25. | |
to support the motion, and this would tirelessly and with a heavy | :37:26. | :37:29. | |
heart. Nobody can stand in the missile compartment of a sulmary | :37:30. | :37:37. | |
without a sense of terrible. I have the capacity to destroy 40 lillion | :37:38. | :37:43. | |
people, and I know all here holds that responsibility and feel that | :37:44. | :37:46. | |
responsibility extremely acttely, and that certainly goes for my | :37:47. | :37:49. | |
honourable and Right Honour`ble friends on this front bench and its | :37:50. | :37:53. | |
predecessors. I spent much of my 20 year naval career at the tahl end of | :37:54. | :37:58. | |
the Cold War. But the Cold War is over, and one can see the Cold War | :37:59. | :38:08. | |
was one. The Cold War did not become a real war in part because of the | :38:09. | :38:12. | |
possession of the terrible weapons we are discussing this afternoon. We | :38:13. | :38:19. | |
must not be preparing to fight the last war, and honourable and right | :38:20. | :38:22. | |
Honourable members across the House to say that tomorrow's wars are | :38:23. | :38:30. | |
likely to be asymmetric, hybrid wars involving terrorism, involving | :38:31. | :38:34. | |
climate change, conflicts involving climate change. What I cannot fully | :38:35. | :38:42. | |
understand as we sit here today -- war we cannot fully underst`nd. But | :38:43. | :38:46. | |
simply because those threats exist does not mean that nuclear blackmail | :38:47. | :38:50. | |
does not and will not. I fully accept that there are shades of grey | :38:51. | :38:53. | |
in this argument, and I absolutely reject the absolute and poshtions | :38:54. | :38:59. | |
taken by some commentators hn this matter. -- the absolutist positions. | :39:00. | :39:03. | |
I fully understand the respdct arguments in relation to opportunity | :39:04. | :39:08. | |
costs. But we have to make ` decision no, and we have bedn here | :39:09. | :39:14. | |
before, several times. In 2006, under the party opposite, wd | :39:15. | :39:17. | |
conducted what was called a deep dive, appropriately enough, on this | :39:18. | :39:25. | |
matter. In 2013, thanks largely to the Liberal Democrats, it p`ins me | :39:26. | :39:29. | |
to say so, but nevertheless, we undertook an alternatives rdview and | :39:30. | :39:33. | |
dealt with many of the issuds that I have no doubt we'll be disctssing | :39:34. | :39:37. | |
this afternoon in relation to what alternatives there may be at that | :39:38. | :39:41. | |
time. In the time available to me, I would like to talk very bridfly | :39:42. | :39:46. | |
about two propositions. Those of redundancy and those of repttation. | :39:47. | :39:49. | |
They are respectable arguments and deserve to be dealt with properly. | :39:50. | :39:54. | |
The redundancy proposition... I will give way. Before you start on those | :39:55. | :39:59. | |
two crucial points, would hd agree with me that the speech we just | :40:00. | :40:02. | |
heard from the Honourable mdmber for Chesterfield was one of the most | :40:03. | :40:06. | |
powerful arguments made on core beliefs that he has clearly thought | :40:07. | :40:10. | |
about very deeply for a long period of time, and should be very | :40:11. | :40:12. | |
compelling for those of our constituents why not quite clear | :40:13. | :40:17. | |
what the party lines on this article is yes, my honourable friend is | :40:18. | :40:22. | |
absolutely right, and the mdmber for Barrow-in-Furness also made a very | :40:23. | :40:26. | |
powerful speech. The redund`ncy proposition holds that advancing | :40:27. | :40:32. | |
technology will make the nuclear deterrent redundant. It is ` boys we | :40:33. | :40:34. | |
will have an unmanned underwater vessel that will appear, render our | :40:35. | :40:40. | |
oceans are transparent, this despite all evidence to the contrarx and the | :40:41. | :40:44. | |
fact it is pure supposition. We cannot approach our future defence | :40:45. | :40:50. | |
on supposition about what mhght happen in the future. History is | :40:51. | :40:55. | |
usually a gate in these matters and I know that this year we mark the | :40:56. | :41:00. | |
centenary of the introduction of tanks into the battle space. -- | :41:01. | :41:04. | |
history is usually a gate. We could have said then, we must not develop | :41:05. | :41:09. | |
this technology because of the possibility of sticky bombs and tank | :41:10. | :41:15. | |
traps, but we did not. I give way. One of the lessons from history has | :41:16. | :41:20. | |
to be nigh Bevan, who as Foreign Secretary said, don't send le naked | :41:21. | :41:25. | |
into the conference chamber. What sort of Emperor in new clothing | :41:26. | :41:29. | |
would someone be you who went into a conference chamber with President | :41:30. | :41:33. | |
Putin, for example, and said, I do not have any nuclear weapons, or I | :41:34. | :41:36. | |
have some nuclear powered stbs but no weapons on them? The honourable | :41:37. | :41:41. | |
lady is quite right, and I have to say I am enjoying the consensual | :41:42. | :41:45. | |
nature of this debate today. It is the House of Commons at its very | :41:46. | :41:49. | |
best. Jesse Fuller in 1929 said that tanks would be made redundant.. | :41:50. | :41:55. | |
Would make in 20 redundant. Actually any sense he was right, but the time | :41:56. | :42:01. | |
frame was completely wrong, and what happened was the infantry actually | :42:02. | :42:04. | |
adapted rather than abolishdd. The imminent end of man's fightdrs was | :42:05. | :42:09. | |
confidently predicted in a Government White Paper in 1857. The | :42:10. | :42:16. | |
fact of the matter is, we c`nnot base our defence on what we imagine | :42:17. | :42:23. | |
might happen, and that is, H think, the important point. I think the | :42:24. | :42:25. | |
point the honourable lady w`s trying to make. The threat of cyber and | :42:26. | :42:33. | |
unmanned underwater vessels should rather invigorate our own | :42:34. | :42:36. | |
countermeasures and attempts to detect and potentially disrtpt | :42:37. | :42:41. | |
aggressors. Never the less, just as lightning to GSF may only h`ve half | :42:42. | :42:48. | |
of a life before it is renddred obsolescent, we have to be open to | :42:49. | :42:53. | |
the possibility that the successor submarine may itself, or Brhsbane | :42:54. | :42:56. | |
area long life, at some point be made obsolete. I do not think that | :42:57. | :43:01. | |
is a sufficient argument to deploy against the decision I think we will | :43:02. | :43:07. | |
be making today. My second proposition is that of reputation | :43:08. | :43:10. | |
theory. The argue it unilatdralism will in some way raise our standing | :43:11. | :43:17. | |
internationally. I have to say, that is hopelessly naive. Try saxing that | :43:18. | :43:27. | |
two people in Ukraine. Try waving the Budapest mammal at them. Many of | :43:28. | :43:33. | |
them will say that had we not given up our share of the USSR's nuclear | :43:34. | :43:41. | |
armament to, about one third of it, when we became independent, our | :43:42. | :43:44. | |
territory now would be assured. We would not have been invaded. It is | :43:45. | :43:50. | |
not an argument I necessarily want to take too far, because others will | :43:51. | :43:53. | |
make can drag about the wisdom of Ukraine having to clear up weapons, | :43:54. | :43:58. | |
personally I am very pleased that they do not. But never the less | :43:59. | :44:02. | |
from the perspective of a state that is trying to face down an aggressor, | :44:03. | :44:07. | |
it is a powerful argument for it to make. There are those who s`y that | :44:08. | :44:13. | |
if we cut our nuclear arsen`l, others will follow. There is no | :44:14. | :44:16. | |
evidence to suggest that is the case at all. We have cut our personal | :44:17. | :44:20. | |
dramatically in recent years, and yet you have seen other states | :44:21. | :44:27. | |
increase mirrors. And finally, if I may say, in this atmosphere of | :44:28. | :44:31. | |
Brexit, where we are right for urging our links with other | :44:32. | :44:36. | |
international organisations and operating in an outward fachng way I | :44:37. | :44:41. | |
find repression, we have to think about our membership of the UN | :44:42. | :44:47. | |
permanent Security Council. That membership is contingent. It is | :44:48. | :44:53. | |
contingent on this country offering something. It made pain somd | :44:54. | :44:56. | |
honourable and right Honour`ble members to ponder on it, but in | :44:57. | :45:01. | |
large part, I membership of that body is down to our continudd | :45:02. | :45:03. | |
possession of this terrible weapon. I rise to support the motion for us | :45:04. | :45:15. | |
today. I know that there ard those including those in my home party who | :45:16. | :45:19. | |
do not agree with my position but I don't disagree the right to hold | :45:20. | :45:26. | |
their position. I respect their position, I don't question their | :45:27. | :45:31. | |
motives and I also think th`t an alternative position to mind is one | :45:32. | :45:36. | |
that people can argue for it. Unfortunately at the moment in our | :45:37. | :45:40. | |
political landscape is something of a rarity, that includes people | :45:41. | :45:48. | |
within my own party. Our independent nuclear deterrent has its origins in | :45:49. | :45:54. | |
the great radical Labour Party of 1945. Political giant of my party | :45:55. | :45:59. | |
took the decision that the TK should develop its own nuclear weapons The | :46:00. | :46:03. | |
site as being vital for our nation's Security against the rising threat | :46:04. | :46:08. | |
from the Soviet bloc and thd uncertain world which they faced. | :46:09. | :46:13. | |
That commitment to our national security while pursuing outward | :46:14. | :46:17. | |
looking international engagdment has been the cornerstone of the Labour | :46:18. | :46:21. | |
Party position and I think ht is one that is universally shared by our | :46:22. | :46:27. | |
supporters. Today, we face `n uncertain world where there are some | :46:28. | :46:32. | |
threat but still faces which our forbearance based in 1945, state on | :46:33. | :46:37. | |
state conflict, a resurgent Russia not now wedded to Communist doctrine | :46:38. | :46:44. | |
but the crude nationalism which has no respect of international | :46:45. | :46:47. | |
boundaries are a path which is clear to increase its nuclear arsdnal and | :46:48. | :46:55. | |
retreat doctrine as fears of influence which are reminiscent of | :46:56. | :47:00. | |
the 1940s. Yes, it is true that we face other threats such as Hslamic | :47:01. | :47:06. | |
terrorism and the uncertainty of global warming and economic | :47:07. | :47:11. | |
uncertainty. Is there one shlver bullet to face of these thrdats No, | :47:12. | :47:16. | |
there isn't. I am quite cle`r the retention of our nuclear deterrent | :47:17. | :47:21. | |
is vital to resist the resurgent Russia which is developing hts | :47:22. | :47:26. | |
nuclear weapons. There is uncertainty -- protrude on our front | :47:27. | :47:30. | |
bench today by the Leader of the Opposition about what the L`bour | :47:31. | :47:34. | |
Party position is. In opposhtion, I was asked by the Lib Dem Le`der of | :47:35. | :47:39. | |
the Opposition to conduct a review into our deterrent. It is mdt with | :47:40. | :47:44. | |
28 state holders from all shdes of the argument including the | :47:45. | :47:46. | |
honourable member for Islington North who was then the chair of | :47:47. | :47:52. | |
Labour CND, it resulted in ` report which was a 45,000 words long. It | :47:53. | :47:57. | |
built on the word of the Defence Select Committee, the labour White | :47:58. | :48:03. | |
Paper in 2006 and the Trident review. Every single piece of that | :48:04. | :48:08. | |
evidence was taken and came to the conclusion that replacing otr | :48:09. | :48:13. | |
current Vanguard Class subm`rines was the only alternative. That then | :48:14. | :48:18. | |
fed into our policy review `nd was adopted at our 2014 conference. That | :48:19. | :48:25. | |
is the policy which I stood on and every other Labour candidatd, | :48:26. | :48:29. | |
including the member for Islington North, stood up as well. Th`nk you. | :48:30. | :48:36. | |
I am grateful to my honourable friend. 1.I hope we get to hn his | :48:37. | :48:40. | |
speech if time permits is the issue that affects a lot of my | :48:41. | :48:45. | |
constituents and constituents in the north Staffordshire which is a lot | :48:46. | :48:48. | |
of our young people join thd military, to get involved and put | :48:49. | :48:52. | |
their lives on the line for this country. How can we stand hdre in | :48:53. | :48:55. | |
this chamber and knowing we are putting their lives online `nd we | :48:56. | :48:58. | |
are not giving them the back-up that the nuclear deterrent gives them? | :48:59. | :49:04. | |
What he is saying is that Eric Labour addition wants to support our | :49:05. | :49:08. | |
Armed Forces. The manifesto which I stood on an user of the opposition | :49:09. | :49:13. | |
student was also voted on and supported by 9.3 million of our | :49:14. | :49:19. | |
electricity. The argument is being put forward there in the motion | :49:20. | :49:24. | |
tonight is identical to what was put forward in that manifesto. Ht is | :49:25. | :49:28. | |
ironic that we now have a free vote on this. This was put forward by my | :49:29. | :49:33. | |
honourable friend, the membdr for Hillwood, to the lure of thd | :49:34. | :49:37. | |
opposition in 2015. It resulted in a removal from the front bench and I | :49:38. | :49:42. | |
had no option but to resign from the front bench. We have now had the | :49:43. | :49:46. | |
alternative reviewed by the honourable member for Islington | :49:47. | :49:50. | |
south, that's been going on for the last seven months. Much airtime has | :49:51. | :49:54. | |
been given to him but not a single word has yet been published. People | :49:55. | :50:00. | |
believe it exists but it's never actually been cited. The important | :50:01. | :50:06. | |
point on our deterrent is about security. We cannot forget `bout the | :50:07. | :50:10. | |
jobs which are on the line `nd I am proud to support both Unite and GMB | :50:11. | :50:18. | |
members who work in that industry. They are a professional, skhlled and | :50:19. | :50:22. | |
dedicated to the work they do. I would challenge those that `re | :50:23. | :50:25. | |
wooden against this motion tonight to look those workers directly in | :50:26. | :50:29. | |
the aye and actually say to them, what is the alternatives to their | :50:30. | :50:33. | |
communities? No jobs tomorrow I think the future but actually what | :50:34. | :50:38. | |
is going to happen now. My party also has a proud track record in | :50:39. | :50:43. | |
Government on disarmament. Ht is one a committed to and I am glad this | :50:44. | :50:49. | |
motion tonight has commitment to multi-lateral disarmament. Ht is an | :50:50. | :50:53. | |
important time for our nation. Walking away from our commitments to | :50:54. | :50:57. | |
our Nato partners would be ` fundamental mistake, it would give | :50:58. | :51:00. | |
the indication that somehow we are withdrawing from the world. We | :51:01. | :51:04. | |
cannot afford to do this. Would include this motion tonight is in a | :51:05. | :51:09. | |
long tradition of my party which believes in the security of our | :51:10. | :51:13. | |
nation, committed to a peacdful outward looking wild and ensuring | :51:14. | :51:19. | |
that what would appeared to do it this house makes a difference and | :51:20. | :51:21. | |
that is about improving people's lives which cannot be done tnless we | :51:22. | :51:29. | |
have the security behind. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and I `m | :51:30. | :51:33. | |
grateful to you for allowing me to contribute to the's debate. I | :51:34. | :51:38. | |
represent Plymouth and we h`ve a long and proud naval historx and the | :51:39. | :51:42. | |
Vanguard Class submarines are prepared and refitted there. I am | :51:43. | :51:45. | |
not seeking to make a lengthy contribution today but I wotld like | :51:46. | :51:50. | |
to add my experience of the representation of my constituency | :51:51. | :51:52. | |
with the Trident programme plays a significant role in our loc`l | :51:53. | :51:57. | |
economy. As representatives of Plymouth centre to represent our | :51:58. | :52:01. | |
city, we are taken every sponsor of these very seriously both to the | :52:02. | :52:05. | |
nation security and to the employment prospects of those who | :52:06. | :52:08. | |
have loyally maintained and continue to maintain the submarines that | :52:09. | :52:14. | |
carry the Trident mistrial. Submarines are repaired and | :52:15. | :52:16. | |
refitted, similar to my colleagues also representing areas of Plymouth | :52:17. | :52:20. | |
as well as other members who have naval constituencies. A source of | :52:21. | :52:26. | |
employment for thousands and not as easily replaced as some might think. | :52:27. | :52:30. | |
Their view as mine is simplx a gamble to fire. We live in ` | :52:31. | :52:35. | |
desperately unstable world. This weekend just past has been the most | :52:36. | :52:39. | |
and stable for years and thhs weekend should not be an argument | :52:40. | :52:42. | |
for why we should maintain @rab Trident programme but how wd simply | :52:43. | :52:45. | |
cannot predict events in thd future let alone beyond next week `nd | :52:46. | :52:51. | |
fundamental to delivering all we get into politics, fairer society, | :52:52. | :52:54. | |
social justice and opportunhties for all this is national security. | :52:55. | :52:59. | |
Without that, none of these causes which I share with others are | :53:00. | :53:03. | |
achievable. The Government has a responsibility to put the sdcurity | :53:04. | :53:06. | |
of the nation and its peopld first and foremost and that is whx we need | :53:07. | :53:09. | |
to maintain our ultimate deterrent because we do not know what the | :53:10. | :53:14. | |
future holds. I am not deaf to those who are concerned about the cost, | :53:15. | :53:20. | |
about the risk in maintaining the work in Plymouth where therd is an | :53:21. | :53:23. | |
active community that writes to me very often on these issues. On any | :53:24. | :53:27. | |
other contentious issue I h`ve sought to understand the argument | :53:28. | :53:32. | |
and speak to those who disagree with me. On this issue, I am | :53:33. | :53:36. | |
single-mindedly sure we must maintain our commitment to this | :53:37. | :53:39. | |
programme and replace the V`nguard Class submarines with the ndw | :53:40. | :53:43. | |
Successor submarines. Stratdgically, we cannot and we should not wait the | :53:44. | :53:47. | |
risk that comes with abandoning our policy of continuous deterrdnce and | :53:48. | :53:54. | |
the message we would centre our Nato allies. Thank you. I would like to | :53:55. | :54:03. | |
ask them member who represent Plymouth, what about relocating | :54:04. | :54:08. | |
climate to -- what they be locating Trident to plummet? I would support | :54:09. | :54:14. | |
that move. We would be more than happy to have it and build `n aye | :54:15. | :54:22. | |
naval heritage in that regard. Can I assure him that all of them who | :54:23. | :54:25. | |
represent constituents and the south-westward be more than | :54:26. | :54:29. | |
delighted that work would bd transferred from Scotland to the | :54:30. | :54:33. | |
south-west in the event that are deterrent was to move. I th`nk you. | :54:34. | :54:40. | |
We are very proud of our naval heritage in the south-west, very | :54:41. | :54:44. | |
proud of the people we support, of our service men and women and we'd | :54:45. | :54:47. | |
be delighted to make their lives easier by providing the fachlities | :54:48. | :54:52. | |
that the south-west affords. Locally, it also means thousands of | :54:53. | :54:55. | |
jobs in Plymouth and the continuance of our naval tradition I have talked | :54:56. | :54:59. | |
about in Plymouth that makes so many of us so proud. It is part of the | :55:00. | :55:03. | |
fabric of our city and to lose that would be disastrous for the commute | :55:04. | :55:06. | |
is that I am here to represdnt. Let us not abstain tonight, let's stand | :55:07. | :55:12. | |
up for Britain's place in the world and renew our nuclear deterrent and | :55:13. | :55:16. | |
the members on the opposite benches, not to the SNP and I must s`y "aye" | :55:17. | :55:20. | |
have been struck by the rather childlike interventions arotnd Libya | :55:21. | :55:24. | |
and Iraq and nuclear weapons which are two totally separate issues but | :55:25. | :55:28. | |
to my friends on the benches opposite, I know that many of you | :55:29. | :55:31. | |
will be of a similar mind to me on this but to those who are not, I | :55:32. | :55:35. | |
don't believe you love this country less are in any way less th`n those | :55:36. | :55:38. | |
who are supporting this, but I would say all those things that you come | :55:39. | :55:42. | |
into politics for nothing whthout national security and that come | :55:43. | :55:46. | |
first. In order to deliver those causes that I know I is so dear to | :55:47. | :55:50. | |
you and me, we must renew otr nuclear deterrent. All steps must be | :55:51. | :55:57. | |
taken to ensure the safety of this country's people. Engineering jobs, | :55:58. | :56:02. | |
they can be risked and now with everything that's going on, we see | :56:03. | :56:06. | |
across last year and this wdekend, now is not the time to lower our | :56:07. | :56:11. | |
guard. The PM in her speech this afternoon, she talked about North | :56:12. | :56:15. | |
Korea. Can we really lose ott nuclear weapons at this timd? In an | :56:16. | :56:19. | |
ideal world, it would be grdat not to have nuclear weapons but how do | :56:20. | :56:23. | |
you diss invent something that has been invented? The Government must | :56:24. | :56:25. | |
use to base decisions on thd reality with which they are faced, others | :56:26. | :56:30. | |
have the luxury to do otherwise Those who would harm this country | :56:31. | :56:33. | |
and our people, Trident rem`ins the ultimate deterrent against `n attack | :56:34. | :56:37. | |
and has been for 60 years and I reiterate the point was madd earlier | :56:38. | :56:40. | |
that this system is never used. It is used, it is used every shngle day | :56:41. | :56:44. | |
and it does what it says is an equally deterrent. No, I will not | :56:45. | :56:50. | |
give way. The Government's property is to insure the safety and security | :56:51. | :56:53. | |
of its nation and that is why tonight I will be supporting the | :56:54. | :56:57. | |
Government's mission and LB pride to wok through that lovely. Th`nk you. | :56:58. | :57:08. | |
As my right honourable friend said earlier, there exists in Scotland a | :57:09. | :57:13. | |
broad consensus against Trident and tonight I expect to see 58 of | :57:14. | :57:19. | |
Scotland's 59 members of Parliament voting against this notion. That is | :57:20. | :57:26. | |
98% of Scottish MPs. In doing so, we will be reflecting a consensus | :57:27. | :57:31. | |
opinion that exists in Scotland the Scottish Government, the Scottish | :57:32. | :57:34. | |
parliament, the SNP, the Labour Party in Scotland, the Scottish | :57:35. | :57:39. | |
Green party, the Scottish TTC, great swathes of Scottish civil society | :57:40. | :57:44. | |
and Scotland's faith communhties who are opposed to having these nuclear | :57:45. | :57:49. | |
weapons forged upon us. Just last week, the Church of Scotland and the | :57:50. | :57:53. | |
Roman Catholic Bishop of Scotland publicly reaffirmed their opposition | :57:54. | :57:57. | |
to the UK possessing these weapons. I give way. Can you just cl`rify, | :57:58. | :58:05. | |
Beasley the SNP policy is for Scotland to be independent. That | :58:06. | :58:09. | |
being so and no longer having a nuclear deterrent, what would be the | :58:10. | :58:13. | |
strategy to defend Scotland in the event of an exiting to thre`ten | :58:14. | :58:18. | |
United Kingdom as a whole? @s an independent nation, we will back as | :58:19. | :58:23. | |
every other independent sovdreign nation in this world act and somehow | :58:24. | :58:28. | |
the idea that Scotland is incapable of defending itself as part of the | :58:29. | :58:33. | |
Nato alliance, I find it but will bring and quite unbelievablx | :58:34. | :58:38. | |
patronising. Despite what the Tory benches like to think, Scotland has | :58:39. | :58:43. | |
spoken and Scotland does not want these weapons of mass destrtction. I | :58:44. | :58:50. | |
will give way one last time. Thank you. We have heard enough a lot this | :58:51. | :58:54. | |
afternoon in this debate about John -- job losses. Is this something | :58:55. | :59:01. | |
that concerns may honourabld friend? I thank my friends of the | :59:02. | :59:07. | |
interventions. Job losses are a concern, wherever they are `nd | :59:08. | :59:11. | |
whoever the members but what I can say about Faz Lane is that the SNP | :59:12. | :59:16. | |
has never and will never abdicate the closure of Faz Lane. Faz Lane, | :59:17. | :59:23. | |
as a conventional naval basd, has a bright, non-nuclear future `s part | :59:24. | :59:26. | |
of an independent Scotland `nd I look forward to representing it as | :59:27. | :59:32. | |
such. In the decade since the Government ever gave over thme to | :59:33. | :59:36. | |
debate Trident, the world h`s changed almost beyond recognition | :59:37. | :59:41. | |
and emerging from what is the rapidly changing world could force | :59:42. | :59:45. | |
us to re-examine everything we once took for granted. We have hdard | :59:46. | :59:49. | |
often this afternoon that the world is a far more dangerous place than | :59:50. | :59:54. | |
it ever has been before and just as the threats that we currently face | :59:55. | :59:58. | |
our former complex and formdr nuanced, so therefore it should our | :59:59. | :00:02. | |
response reflect that and s`dly I am sorry to say, the Governlent have | :00:03. | :00:09. | |
failed to address that todax. As rushing to arm ourselves with even | :00:10. | :00:14. | |
bigger submarines, carrying even more devastating nuclear we`pons is | :00:15. | :00:18. | |
certainly does not reflect reality. Indeed, the reality that was spelt | :00:19. | :00:22. | |
out in last year's STS are. Just nine months DS DSR spoke about what | :00:23. | :00:28. | |
the Government said was the one threats these in the countrx. The | :00:29. | :00:33. | |
one threat defined by the Government were international terrorisl, cyber | :00:34. | :00:36. | |
attacks, hybrid warfare and natural disaster. Nuclear attack by a | :00:37. | :00:42. | |
foreign power was not regarded as the cure one threat. We are told we | :00:43. | :00:48. | |
cannot sleep safely in our beds unless the green light is ghven to | :00:49. | :00:53. | |
spend, as my right honourable friend the member for Reigate points out, | :00:54. | :00:58. | |
almost 200,000 million pounds on a renewal programme. | :00:59. | :01:06. | |
The world is changing, the threats are changing, and the UK will be | :01:07. | :01:11. | |
faced with how to deal with this new world, and the choices now will | :01:12. | :01:15. | |
determine what we can do with the future. To be absolutely cldar, as | :01:16. | :01:20. | |
much as we would like to, wd cannot do everything, and this is `bout | :01:21. | :01:26. | |
stark choices. Those choices, I believe, get an awful lot h`rder for | :01:27. | :01:30. | |
the proponents of Trident S`int Brexit. Now we are facing coming out | :01:31. | :01:36. | |
of the European Union, and recent analysis by the edited of fhscal | :01:37. | :01:40. | |
studies said the UK's GDP whll reduce by up to 2.5%, resulting in | :01:41. | :01:46. | |
the infamous black hole to public finances of up to ?40 billion by | :01:47. | :01:49. | |
2020. Surely in those circulstances, this House has to know what that | :01:50. | :01:55. | |
means for defence procurement before we sign a blank check for Trident? | :01:56. | :02:00. | |
Surely we are entitled to ask before the sanctioning of somewherd in the | :02:01. | :02:08. | |
region of 200 million pounds, what will the effect beyond convdntional | :02:09. | :02:15. | |
military forces? Can he tell us where the axe will fall in order to | :02:16. | :02:25. | |
secure Trident? Is a patchy helicopter programme at risk? Will | :02:26. | :02:29. | |
be a 35 programme be skilled back, or will the axe once again fall on | :02:30. | :02:34. | |
our already hard-pressed service personnel? I do not think it is no | :02:35. | :02:39. | |
Regis asked by this House, who has been asked to write a blank cheque, | :02:40. | :02:45. | |
for us to be given a full analysis of the cost of Brexit and the effect | :02:46. | :02:51. | |
of the contraction of the UK economy will have on defence procurdment. -- | :02:52. | :02:55. | |
I do not think it is an outrageous ask. We have been asked to buy for | :02:56. | :03:01. | |
submarines. Their unique capability, we are told, is they cannot be | :03:02. | :03:05. | |
detected by hostile forces `nd therefore can move freely and | :03:06. | :03:08. | |
undisturbed, and today, that may well be the case. But can wd in all | :03:09. | :03:14. | |
honesty, having spent around 20 ,000 million pounds say in 16 ye`rs' | :03:15. | :03:17. | |
time, that that unique capability will still exist? Because wd are | :03:18. | :03:24. | |
well aware that every day, highly paid and highly intelligent people | :03:25. | :03:29. | |
across laboratories in Russha, China, the USA, go to work dvery day | :03:30. | :03:37. | |
with the express intention of making the summary is detectable and | :03:38. | :03:40. | |
therefore useless. In probldmatic, by the time these new books coming | :03:41. | :03:47. | |
to service, they will be obsolete. -- in all probability. By the time | :03:48. | :03:54. | |
these new boats come into sdrvice. There is no economic or milhtary | :03:55. | :03:57. | |
case being made for the possession of these weapons, and I will join | :03:58. | :04:01. | |
with my 58 colleagues from Scotland in voting against this motion. But | :04:02. | :04:05. | |
despite the overwhelming rejection of Trident by Scotland, sadly I | :04:06. | :04:10. | |
expect this motion to carry, and Scotland will find itself in the | :04:11. | :04:13. | |
intolerable position of havhng weapons of mass destruction that we | :04:14. | :04:18. | |
do not want foisted upon us by a Government that we did not dlect. | :04:19. | :04:23. | |
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is an intolerable situation, and H | :04:24. | :04:25. | |
question how much longer it can continue. It is a privilege to speak | :04:26. | :04:33. | |
in this debate. It is one of the most essential issues that we will | :04:34. | :04:36. | |
discuss in this House, becatse this issue is not about the vari`tion in | :04:37. | :04:40. | |
tax policy that can be reversed It is not about a change in social | :04:41. | :04:45. | |
norms that will evolve with time. It is about the ultimate securhty of | :04:46. | :04:49. | |
our nation over the coming century. This is not a debate for gales, or | :04:50. | :04:54. | |
are minor interventions on puestions that have no relevance. It hs a | :04:55. | :05:00. | |
debate for the security of our very state. This, indeed, is the debate | :05:01. | :05:04. | |
based on the strategy of thd United Kingdom and her place in thd world. | :05:05. | :05:09. | |
That is why a very proud to stand here on the Conservative benches and | :05:10. | :05:13. | |
a look across at the Labour benches and know that many people who value | :05:14. | :05:19. | |
the United Kingdom, who valte our freedom, sovereignty, liberty, our | :05:20. | :05:23. | |
right to self termination, understand that they requird an | :05:24. | :05:29. | |
ultimate guarantee. -- our right to self-determination. The truly | :05:30. | :05:32. | |
horrific nature of these we`pons is something we all., indeed, hs in | :05:33. | :05:36. | |
their horror and there are very threat that the work. If thdy were | :05:37. | :05:41. | |
not so horrific, if they were not so terrible, the deterrent would not be | :05:42. | :05:48. | |
so complete. We have seen thme and again that the fullness of weaponry | :05:49. | :05:56. | |
demands a graduated responsd. - the awfulness of weaponry. When we see | :05:57. | :06:01. | |
the initial use of force, wd see the ornaments of the infantrymen, we see | :06:02. | :06:05. | |
the remains of small aircraft, and we have seen this time and `gain in | :06:06. | :06:09. | |
Europe even in the last century Even in the years since the Second | :06:10. | :06:13. | |
World War. We have seen Kosovo, Ukraine, and indeed threats to our | :06:14. | :06:22. | |
very close allies in Estoni`. But we see this because, of course, the | :06:23. | :06:27. | |
weapons that are used are controllable, measurable, they are, | :06:28. | :06:32. | |
that full phrase, small arms. The capability and the purpose of the | :06:33. | :06:36. | |
nuclear deterrent is that it is not measurable. It is not controllable | :06:37. | :06:41. | |
to that degree. It is truly horrific. And in that, it works It | :06:42. | :06:47. | |
works not because of the first strike capability. Any fool can have | :06:48. | :06:52. | |
a first-rate capability. It works in the second strike. It works only... | :06:53. | :06:58. | |
I will not take an intervention right now. It works only whdn it is | :06:59. | :07:03. | |
not a weapon of aggression, but a postmortem weapon, a weapon that | :07:04. | :07:08. | |
assures your enemy that no latter what you have done to them, or | :07:09. | :07:13. | |
rather, no matter what they have done to you, you can still respond. | :07:14. | :07:19. | |
That is the ultimate guarantee of sovereignty, and the ultimate | :07:20. | :07:23. | |
guarantee of security. It strikes me as astonishing that having just had | :07:24. | :07:27. | |
a referendum in which we discussed the sovereignty and control of our | :07:28. | :07:32. | |
nation, we are looking to h`nd it over. We are looking to hand it over | :07:33. | :07:35. | |
and diminish that capabilitx, even though we know what counts. That is | :07:36. | :07:42. | |
why I welcome so much of thd words of our Prime Minister today. When | :07:43. | :07:46. | |
asked whether or not she wotld consider using the weapon, she said | :07:47. | :07:50. | |
yes. She gave the clarity that deterrence requires. She showed the | :07:51. | :07:59. | |
strength that will make our -- will make her a fine Prime Minister. It | :08:00. | :08:04. | |
is that clarity with the most horrific weapon systems that keeps | :08:05. | :08:08. | |
our sovereignty and our freddom So I hear today voices talking about | :08:09. | :08:13. | |
what is the place of the Unhted Kingdom? And I will tell yot what I | :08:14. | :08:18. | |
see it as. Very clearly, our place is at the top table, guaranteeing | :08:19. | :08:22. | |
the international order, guaranteeing the freedom and the | :08:23. | :08:25. | |
routines of our friends, and so when I hear talk of unilateral | :08:26. | :08:30. | |
determinant, when I Jurat of appeasement, I hear talk not of | :08:31. | :08:35. | |
honour and morals, but I he`r talk of dishonour and immorality. Because | :08:36. | :08:41. | |
it is to abandon our position, it is to abandon our friends, to say that | :08:42. | :08:48. | |
dictators should keep weapons of destruction is, dictators and | :08:49. | :08:51. | |
despots should have nuclear power, but Democrats should abandon the | :08:52. | :08:56. | |
ability to defend themselves and their friends. I see that as | :08:57. | :09:01. | |
unacceptable. It is quite clear to me that the spectrum of defdnce all | :09:02. | :09:05. | |
the way from the infantrymen to the nuclear missile, are intertwined. | :09:06. | :09:11. | |
They are one. They are blended. And to try to pick, to try to dhvide is | :09:12. | :09:18. | |
to disarm using the infantrxmen at the front. Therefore it is not only | :09:19. | :09:23. | |
wrong to talk about spending being reduced on nuclear weapons. It is a | :09:24. | :09:27. | |
lie, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see that the money is better spdnt on | :09:28. | :09:35. | |
conventional weapons. -- to say that the money is better spent. Ht is a | :09:36. | :09:41. | |
privilege to follow the honourable member for Tonbridge in the remarks | :09:42. | :09:47. | |
he made. I want to stand here as somebody who is proud to st`nd here | :09:48. | :09:50. | |
and the tradition that the Labour Party has always stood for, proud to | :09:51. | :09:55. | |
recognise the international responsibilities that we have and | :09:56. | :09:58. | |
proud to recognise that strong defence is essential to our country. | :09:59. | :10:04. | |
There is not anybody in this chamber who doesn't wish to rid the world of | :10:05. | :10:08. | |
nuclear weapons. There isn't anybody in the chamber who believe they have | :10:09. | :10:14. | |
a superior morality to anyone else. People disagree on the way hn which | :10:15. | :10:21. | |
it to pursue the goal that we all have, reducing the number of nuclear | :10:22. | :10:25. | |
weapons we have and ultimatdly, if at all possible, having a world | :10:26. | :10:27. | |
complete with tree of nucle`r weapons. -- completely free of | :10:28. | :10:34. | |
nuclear weapons. But you can make a choice to unilaterally disarm normal | :10:35. | :10:42. | |
to literally disarm, and a few years ago, who would have predictdd the | :10:43. | :10:45. | |
rise of Daesh? Who would have predicted what the Russians have | :10:46. | :10:49. | |
done in the eastern Ukraine or indeed have done in the Crilea? The | :10:50. | :10:55. | |
answer to that as far as I can see in reading back then, is th`t nobody | :10:56. | :11:01. | |
foresaw those events. Given that we are trying to predict what will | :11:02. | :11:07. | |
happen over the next 40 or 40 years, why is it that in those | :11:08. | :11:10. | |
circumstances, a Government would say, we will give up what wd regard | :11:11. | :11:16. | |
as the ultimate insurance policy and security for our nation in those | :11:17. | :11:21. | |
circumstances? I do not think.. I will give way in a moment. H do not | :11:22. | :11:26. | |
think that is something that the Government should do, and edit the | :11:27. | :11:29. | |
Prime Minister was right to argue, as she did, I think the mothon | :11:30. | :11:34. | |
before the House today is rdasonable and responsible. I will givd way. -- | :11:35. | :11:40. | |
I think the premise was right. We'll be honourable gentleman not accept | :11:41. | :11:44. | |
that the examples he chooses, the rise of Daesh, shows the shder | :11:45. | :11:48. | |
absurdity of spending money on this? We are investing in cavalry after | :11:49. | :11:56. | |
the onset of the machine gun. I am pleased the honourable membdr has | :11:57. | :12:00. | |
asked that, it is having set out the reasons for the uncertainty of the | :12:01. | :12:04. | |
future we face, one of the things I wanted a spell in the coupld of | :12:05. | :12:07. | |
minutes I have got is to talk about some of the myths that are | :12:08. | :12:12. | |
perpetrated when the debate happens around nuclear weapons. There is | :12:13. | :12:19. | |
nobody in this House who under any circumstances believes that nuclear | :12:20. | :12:22. | |
weapons are going to deter the source of attacks, the awful attacks | :12:23. | :12:29. | |
that we have seen on the London underground or any of those things. | :12:30. | :12:33. | |
Of course not. Of course not, it is not meant to deal with that. You | :12:34. | :12:39. | |
have conventional weapons, counterterrorism specialists, all | :12:40. | :12:40. | |
those things to deal with those particular things. It is not for | :12:41. | :12:46. | |
nuclear weapons to deal with those particular terrorist outragds. It is | :12:47. | :12:50. | |
not the to deal with that. Ht is they are to deal with the start of | :12:51. | :12:53. | |
interstate actors we may sed from Russia or Korea or other rogue | :12:54. | :12:58. | |
states who we cannot predict at the present time. It is not for the sort | :12:59. | :13:04. | |
of situation the honourable member has articulated. With the honourable | :13:05. | :13:10. | |
gentleman agree with me that there is not a bottomless pit of loney, | :13:11. | :13:16. | |
and there is not that inexh`ustible supply, and therefore choicds have | :13:17. | :13:20. | |
to be made? We have been at a blank check this evening for Triddnt. -- | :13:21. | :13:25. | |
we have asked to write a bl`nk cheque. At what point does Trident | :13:26. | :13:30. | |
become too much? That is a legitimate point to us, and a | :13:31. | :13:34. | |
legitimate choice to make. H say that I support the Government was my | :13:35. | :13:37. | |
choice that in an uncertain world as we live, this is a price worth | :13:38. | :13:41. | |
paying for the defence and security of our nation. The honourable | :13:42. | :13:47. | |
gentleman and I know which other, so I know that he reads this stuff I | :13:48. | :13:52. | |
was surprised. It says here that if you make an assumption about 6% of | :13:53. | :14:00. | |
the defence budget tween 2031 and 2060, you get to 71.4 billion. If | :14:01. | :14:05. | |
you make the assumption as the honourable member for by Gatt made, | :14:06. | :14:11. | |
you get a 170 main billion. If you make other soldiers, you can get to | :14:12. | :14:16. | |
another figure. But the figtres are all in there. And what I am saying | :14:17. | :14:21. | |
is, yes, it is a cost word paying, because it provides a great team for | :14:22. | :14:29. | |
our nation. -- it is a cost worth paying. I was reading the SLP's | :14:30. | :14:38. | |
debate from 2012. MSP 's resigned because of the ludicrous situation | :14:39. | :14:43. | |
that the SNP have got themsdlves into. The Defence Secretary should | :14:44. | :14:47. | |
make more of this. The ludicrous situation but they are not prepared | :14:48. | :14:52. | |
to accept British nuclear wdapons, but they will accept the Amdrican | :14:53. | :14:56. | |
nuclear umbrella in Nato. That is the sort of thing they need to | :14:57. | :15:00. | |
answer. It is no wonder somd of their MS please resign, bec`use they | :15:01. | :15:05. | |
saw that that policy was totally and utterly ridiculous. Let thel explain | :15:06. | :15:10. | |
that to the Scottish people. They will withdraw Trident, but want to | :15:11. | :15:13. | |
remain a part of Nato. You dxplain that to them. Can I take ond more? | :15:14. | :15:21. | |
I am very grateful for giving me the opportunity to explain the SNP | :15:22. | :15:29. | |
policy. Is the honourable gdntleman are aware that the majority of | :15:30. | :15:34. | |
members of Nato do not have an independent nuclear deterrent? Is he | :15:35. | :15:38. | |
aware of that? Of course I'l aware that. Is the honourable ladx aware | :15:39. | :15:43. | |
of the fact that the Nato h`s been nuclear planning group and dvery | :15:44. | :15:47. | |
single person in Nato has to be a member of the nuclear plannhng group | :15:48. | :15:52. | |
and they have two agree to certain things which include the usd of | :15:53. | :15:55. | |
nuclear weapons in certain circumstances by the Americ`ns. Is | :15:56. | :16:00. | |
the honourable lady aware that? I can get away because I have given me | :16:01. | :16:06. | |
three times. Let me see this as well. The other aspect of it of | :16:07. | :16:12. | |
course is the aspect of jobs, the whole aspect of jobs. We have tens | :16:13. | :16:16. | |
of thousands of jobs across this country which are dependent upon the | :16:17. | :16:22. | |
nuclear deterrent, dependent upon the continuation of this programme | :16:23. | :16:25. | |
and whilst the continuation of the programme cannot just be based on | :16:26. | :16:29. | |
jobs, it is an important consideration whether those jobs in | :16:30. | :16:34. | |
Scotland, Plymouth or elsewhere Let me conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, I | :16:35. | :16:42. | |
support very much the mission that is before us today. It is consistent | :16:43. | :16:46. | |
with the traditions of the Labour Party, we've always been proud to | :16:47. | :16:51. | |
defend our country, always proud to recognise the international | :16:52. | :16:54. | |
obligations that we have, to stand up against those who would hmpose | :16:55. | :16:59. | |
tyranny on the rest of us, to recognise the responsibilitx we have | :17:00. | :17:04. | |
is a senior member of Nato, of the Security Council of the United | :17:05. | :17:09. | |
Nations, that brings obligations and responsibilities and this L`bour | :17:10. | :17:12. | |
Party or part of it except those responsibilities and will vote for | :17:13. | :17:24. | |
it. If I may say, it's an honour to follow the honourable member very | :17:25. | :17:28. | |
deadly who has not only madd a very passionate speech but an extremely | :17:29. | :17:34. | |
well informed and able speech that puts the case for maintaining our | :17:35. | :17:37. | |
independent nuclear deterrent very well. It is striking that mx right | :17:38. | :17:43. | |
honourable friend, the Primd Minister, should choose this as the | :17:44. | :17:46. | |
first occasion on which to `ppear at the dispatch box as Prime Mhnister, | :17:47. | :17:53. | |
to reinforce her personal wdll and determination to stand up this | :17:54. | :17:58. | |
country, the stand up global peace and security and to demonstrate how | :17:59. | :18:02. | |
personal resolve to project the values that our country represent | :18:03. | :18:09. | |
around the world. It is also striking that her very first act as | :18:10. | :18:16. | |
Prime Minister was to pay rdspect to Scotland and the Scottish executive | :18:17. | :18:19. | |
by paying a visit to the First Minister in Scotland at the end of | :18:20. | :18:23. | |
last week and if I may, I jtst wish to address the Scottish dimdnsion to | :18:24. | :18:29. | |
this debate. The SNP is cle`rly represented in this house bx many | :18:30. | :18:37. | |
sincere unilateralists. No one need doubt there is uncertainty but | :18:38. | :18:40. | |
whether it's actually as representative of Scottish opinion | :18:41. | :18:46. | |
as they claim, I very much doubt. Because a recent poll showed the | :18:47. | :18:50. | |
majority in Scotland are in favour of maintaining the nuclear | :18:51. | :18:53. | |
deterrent, they shake their heads, they are entitled to do so, I would | :18:54. | :18:57. | |
expect them to do so. I put it to them that there are many re`sons why | :18:58. | :19:02. | |
the SNP is ascendant in Scottish politics. I don't think thehr | :19:03. | :19:06. | |
defence policy at one of those reasons. The SNP will be dohng very | :19:07. | :19:12. | |
well in Scotland if they were in favour of maintaining the Trident | :19:13. | :19:18. | |
nuclear deterrent. I don't think the case of Trident renewal was | :19:19. | :19:23. | |
uppermost in the voters mind in Scotland at the time of the last | :19:24. | :19:27. | |
general election. I appreci`te they had it in their manifesto btt the | :19:28. | :19:35. | |
one bit of hypocrisy highlighted by the Honourable gentleman done so | :19:36. | :19:42. | |
ably was that the on the ond hand reject a whole notion of nuclear | :19:43. | :19:47. | |
defence and yet they want an independent Scotland to join Nato | :19:48. | :19:51. | |
without a nuclear alliance `nd benefit from the shelter th`t other | :19:52. | :19:54. | |
countries are prepared to provide them with their nuclear umbrella. I | :19:55. | :20:02. | |
give way. Perhaps with his hn-depth knowledge of Scottish polithcs, he | :20:03. | :20:04. | |
could explain that my appearance in this chamber today as the mdmber for | :20:05. | :20:09. | |
Argyll and Bute which includes both Faz Lane and Coulport. Perh`ps you | :20:10. | :20:13. | |
want to explain why the people of Faz Lane and the rest of Argyll and | :20:14. | :20:18. | |
Bute chose me when I stood explicitly on an anti-Trident | :20:19. | :20:22. | |
ticket? If it is such a terrible and divisive vote. Can I just rdmind | :20:23. | :20:31. | |
people, there is a lot of SNP voices to hear later. Long intervention | :20:32. | :20:35. | |
stop people getting in. I whll move on to the next point which hs that | :20:36. | :20:41. | |
my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary is fond of | :20:42. | :20:47. | |
describing this as an insur`nce policy. I think I would counsel him | :20:48. | :20:53. | |
to use this phrase sparinglx because the maintenance of our nucldar | :20:54. | :20:56. | |
deterrent is so much more than just an insurance policy. It is not a | :20:57. | :21:05. | |
premium. It DS I is as how the deterrent is continuously used, | :21:06. | :21:09. | |
shaping our global security environment, expressing the | :21:10. | :21:12. | |
character of our country and national well and resolve. Ht | :21:13. | :21:18. | |
doesn't emphasise enough its deterrent quality, which is not to | :21:19. | :21:25. | |
deter terrorism are in much lower form of combat but it is certainly | :21:26. | :21:33. | |
ended that the intervention of nuclear weapons large state and | :21:34. | :21:37. | |
state water for and it would be so bold as to suggest that if we were | :21:38. | :21:42. | |
the days events nuclear weapons we would be inviting large state on | :21:43. | :21:49. | |
state warfare. I'm not sure that human nature miraculously changed | :21:50. | :21:54. | |
after 1945 but something in the global strategic environment | :21:55. | :21:57. | |
certainly did and now that we no longer see large scale staydd on | :21:58. | :22:02. | |
state warfare. I may just end and the question of the cost. The SNP | :22:03. | :22:06. | |
has made much of the cost of Trident today. I might just ask thel the | :22:07. | :22:14. | |
question, how cheap wouldn't need to be before the regarded it as good | :22:15. | :22:18. | |
value for money? That is not an argument they are prepared to in | :22:19. | :22:22. | |
gauge with. The RA against nuclear weapons whatever the cost. Ht's | :22:23. | :22:28. | |
perfectly sincere as a would I invite them to stop bellyaching | :22:29. | :22:32. | |
about the cost because it's an irrelevant part of their argument. | :22:33. | :22:38. | |
With the honourable gentlem`n agree with me that huge figures and | :22:39. | :22:43. | |
isolation is at best and helpful and at worst misleading because these | :22:44. | :22:46. | |
figures were applied over a 35 year time horizons. They would bd dwarfed | :22:47. | :22:52. | |
by the international aid budget It is not helpful to look at these | :22:53. | :22:58. | |
figures and isolation. Becatse of maintaining a quid talent on a | :22:59. | :23:01. | |
year-on-year basis is much less than aid budget and is the equiv`lent of | :23:02. | :23:06. | |
the week's cost for the Nathonal Health Service. It is a quarter of | :23:07. | :23:16. | |
net contributing to the European Union and I look forward saving that | :23:17. | :23:23. | |
but this weapon system at about 6% of the overall defence budgdt and 2% | :23:24. | :23:28. | |
of GDP is an extraordinarilx good value expenditure given that it | :23:29. | :23:32. | |
deters large scale stayed on state warfare enters a matter of great | :23:33. | :23:36. | |
pride that our country has hnherited this role and it is our dutx, | :23:37. | :23:44. | |
precisely because we don't warrant a Rudy took untrue to have nuclear | :23:45. | :23:50. | |
weapons. It is our duty as global citizens to carry on with this | :23:51. | :23:54. | |
weapon system contributing `s we do to the global security and safety of | :23:55. | :24:01. | |
the world. I will give way. Would you like to reconsider before you | :24:02. | :24:04. | |
sit down, your comment about us being hypocrites for not wanting an | :24:05. | :24:09. | |
independent nuclear time wanting to be in Nato. He is calling the | :24:10. | :24:14. | |
majority of the UK's allies Nato hypocrites. As was explained so ably | :24:15. | :24:23. | |
before, if you are a member of Nato, you are a member of the Nato nuclear | :24:24. | :24:28. | |
group and involved in the planning of deployment of nuclear we`pons | :24:29. | :24:31. | |
whether they are your own or not your own. Why would Scotland under | :24:32. | :24:37. | |
the SNP be so reluctant to play such a vital role in the global security | :24:38. | :24:43. | |
of the country? I respect the have personal scruples about nuclear | :24:44. | :24:46. | |
weapons and the are entitled to them. I just argue that worry the | :24:47. | :24:50. | |
Scottish people truly to put on that issue and that issue alone, they | :24:51. | :24:54. | |
would find their view was not representative of the aspir`tion of | :24:55. | :25:00. | |
the true majority of Scotland. Thank you. Listening to contributhons from | :25:01. | :25:07. | |
some this afternoon, it is felt at times like we're in the Cold War and | :25:08. | :25:11. | |
come on Eileen should be nulber one and then the other extent, we are | :25:12. | :25:15. | |
wasting their 4-2 attack. It does seem slightly bizarre. This is a | :25:16. | :25:22. | |
hugely serious issue. We he`rd a lot about the cost and finance. Let s | :25:23. | :25:27. | |
take a step back from that, let s consider the worst-case scenario, | :25:28. | :25:32. | |
nuclear weapons being fired in this country, there's been an attack and | :25:33. | :25:36. | |
it's gone off. Are we reallx saying that the guys first action we would | :25:37. | :25:41. | |
take in that scenario would be to carry out the ultimate act of | :25:42. | :25:45. | |
vengeance and fire in nucle`r weapons at those who had attacked | :25:46. | :25:49. | |
as? No. LAUGHTER | :25:50. | :25:55. | |
It is beyond belief that at a time of national tragedy, the first thing | :25:56. | :26:02. | |
we would look to do would bd to strike out. We have heard enough | :26:03. | :26:08. | |
from the honourable member. We need to be looking at how we acttally | :26:09. | :26:12. | |
present ourselves in the cotntry. We cannot simply be sitting here saying | :26:13. | :26:16. | |
vengeance as the answer to `ll the problems we face. Some call it the | :26:17. | :26:24. | |
towns, to me it is vengeancd and a revenge attack will be lookhng at. | :26:25. | :26:29. | |
The honourable member from the Midlothian and sewed the Prhme | :26:30. | :26:33. | |
Minister, would you kill hundreds and thousands of innocent mdn, women | :26:34. | :26:38. | |
and children? Let's consider that. That is the point we need to be | :26:39. | :26:42. | |
looking at here. That is wh`t these weapons do. I am not taking | :26:43. | :26:46. | |
interventions, and getting through as fast as I can. That's thd | :26:47. | :26:52. | |
position we find ourselves hn. We are asking ourselves here, `nd we | :26:53. | :26:56. | |
genuinely looking to renew this weapon of vengeance? That is what | :26:57. | :27:02. | |
this boils down to. Rogue states, situations we cannot possibly begin | :27:03. | :27:07. | |
to comprehend. When we look at the threat this country faces at the | :27:08. | :27:11. | |
current time, it is not states with nuclear weapons, it is terrorist | :27:12. | :27:16. | |
attacks, cyber attacks, nuclear weapons are not the answer to these | :27:17. | :27:22. | |
situations. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the | :27:23. | :27:26. | |
men who have lobbied us in Parliament from CND, CND Scotland | :27:27. | :27:31. | |
and across the country thosd who came to parliament last week to CS, | :27:32. | :27:37. | |
at events across the countrx and those who are today. Members will | :27:38. | :27:41. | |
know that I launched a ten linute rule Bill last year on the nuclear | :27:42. | :27:45. | |
convoys that regularly come through my constituency and I have to say | :27:46. | :27:49. | |
that sadly we ran out of Parliamentary time for that to have | :27:50. | :27:53. | |
a second reading. To me, thd answer to do with that situation is simple. | :27:54. | :27:58. | |
If we don't have nuclear we`pons, we don't need in a clear convoxs and we | :27:59. | :28:01. | |
actually reduce the risk to those and we actually reduce the risk to | :28:02. | :28:04. | |
those in committees. Mr Deptty Speaker, I would perhaps le`ve a | :28:05. | :28:10. | |
thought for members to ponddr. If Renta spoke to me at the wedkend and | :28:11. | :28:15. | |
made the comment that at 15 nuclear warheads were to be set of, that's | :28:16. | :28:21. | |
not impossible. We've got that capability. What you would be | :28:22. | :28:25. | |
looking at is the situation of worldwide famine. That is the | :28:26. | :28:29. | |
reality of the type of weapons we are dealing with here. Therd can be | :28:30. | :28:33. | |
no place for the wet weapons in the world we live in today. It hs time | :28:34. | :28:37. | |
for this country the elite `nd make a stand and say we are taking the | :28:38. | :28:41. | |
first step year and by doing that then you can genuinely make other | :28:42. | :28:45. | |
countries follow your step `nd we can actually get rid of nuclear | :28:46. | :28:53. | |
weapons across the world. Wd've been debating this issue on whether we | :28:54. | :28:57. | |
should have an independent nuclear deterrent for 70 years now. We've | :28:58. | :29:07. | |
already had the quote about walking naked in the conference chalber but | :29:08. | :29:10. | |
he also said we got to have this thing. Only he could speak like | :29:11. | :29:14. | |
this. We've got to have this thing over here whatever it costs and | :29:15. | :29:17. | |
we've got to have it with the union Jack on it. I've thought about this | :29:18. | :29:25. | |
sly columnist for many years. Like most people, I've come to the | :29:26. | :29:31. | |
reluctant conclusion we havd to have an independent nuclear deterrent. | :29:32. | :29:35. | |
This debate actually isn't just about whether and not we have an | :29:36. | :29:40. | |
independent nuclear deterrent, I was campaigning with my right honourable | :29:41. | :29:43. | |
friend for new Forest eased 30 years ago in the coalition for pe`ce and | :29:44. | :29:47. | |
security. That was an argumdnt about the existence of independent weekly | :29:48. | :29:52. | |
deterrent against unilateralists. We were supporting Michael Hesdltine | :29:53. | :29:56. | |
against unilateralists parthcularly in the Labour Party. This is a | :29:57. | :30:01. | |
serious debate in which we have to ask what sort of independent nuclear | :30:02. | :30:06. | |
deterrent do we want's again, I think it is a general concltsion | :30:07. | :30:11. | |
that an independent nuclear deterrent based on submarinds is the | :30:12. | :30:15. | |
only viable form of a deterrent because it is the most undetectable | :30:16. | :30:17. | |
given modern technology. So I have got no ideological qualms | :30:18. | :30:27. | |
either with an independent nuclear deterrent or one based on | :30:28. | :30:31. | |
submarines. But those who argue in favour of Trident have to kdep | :30:32. | :30:35. | |
making the case, because during the Cold War, the threat was cldar, it | :30:36. | :30:43. | |
was known. An independent ntclear deterrent based on ballistic missile | :30:44. | :30:49. | |
designed to penetrate Moscow defences made a great deal of sense. | :30:50. | :30:55. | |
We knew who would be striking us, we knew who to strike back, and this | :30:56. | :30:59. | |
mutuality of awareness was what kept the Cold War called. Those who argue | :31:00. | :31:09. | |
against a nuclear deterrent have to argue against this fact of history. | :31:10. | :31:13. | |
The existence of nuclear we`pons kept the Cold War cold. But | :31:14. | :31:21. | |
insisting the... Of course. In support of what he has just said, if | :31:22. | :31:25. | |
there had not been many conflicts going on in other parts of the world | :31:26. | :31:31. | |
where the nuclear balance of terror did not apply in the Cold W`r, it | :31:32. | :31:36. | |
would not be possible to argue that nuclear deterrence had playdd no | :31:37. | :31:40. | |
part. But the fact was, Comlunist regimes, proxy clients for the | :31:41. | :31:43. | |
superpowers, were fighting dach other all over the globe. The one | :31:44. | :31:48. | |
area where communism and capitalism did not fight each other was in | :31:49. | :31:52. | |
Europe, because that is where the balance of power and the balance of | :31:53. | :31:57. | |
terror was doing its work. H agree with that. I think that is ` fact of | :31:58. | :32:00. | |
history which is generally recognised. We have had so lany | :32:01. | :32:05. | |
parables speeches, I have to say, particularly the speech frol the | :32:06. | :32:09. | |
right honourable member for Gedling and my friend from Tonbridgd. | :32:10. | :32:13. | |
Incredibly powerful speeches making the case for the independent nuclear | :32:14. | :32:17. | |
deterrent. But I will say to my colleagues who have made thdse | :32:18. | :32:21. | |
powerful speeches that, there enough, we are going to havd an | :32:22. | :32:25. | |
independent nuclear deterrent. But it is not good enough just to say | :32:26. | :32:31. | |
that the cost is not an isste. I look at this purely from a | :32:32. | :32:39. | |
long-standing member of the Public Accounts Committee. I say to my | :32:40. | :32:42. | |
frame from Harwich and North Essex, ?31 billion a year, but the | :32:43. | :32:52. | |
contingency of 10.6 billion, plus an ongoing cost of 6% of the ddfence | :32:53. | :32:56. | |
budget is a lot of money, and we have to constantly probe thd | :32:57. | :33:01. | |
Government, question them, `nd ask whether we are getting good value | :33:02. | :33:05. | |
for money. I accept the argtments, I have read the reports, I know that | :33:06. | :33:09. | |
all the alternatives have problems with them. But we simply cannot give | :33:10. | :33:13. | |
a blank cheque to the milit`ry industrial complex. We cannot give | :33:14. | :33:19. | |
as good parliamentarians concerned with good value for money, we cannot | :33:20. | :33:24. | |
stop questioning British aerospace and other providers all over the | :33:25. | :33:30. | |
country on whether they are providing good value for money. The | :33:31. | :33:34. | |
cross-party Trident commisshon talked about three possible threats, | :33:35. | :33:46. | |
the re-emergence of a Cold War style scenario, a rogue state or terrorist | :33:47. | :33:50. | |
group engaging in an asymmetric attack attack against the UK. They | :33:51. | :33:54. | |
actually found that their work questions about whether this | :33:55. | :33:57. | |
particular system, and I am not talking about arguments in favour of | :33:58. | :34:04. | |
an independent nuclear deterrent but about this particular systel, they | :34:05. | :34:08. | |
quite rightly were questionhng whether this particular system would | :34:09. | :34:10. | |
actually be viable against these threats. We must require thd | :34:11. | :34:14. | |
Secretary of State, the Minhstry of Defence, to go on answering these | :34:15. | :34:18. | |
questions. Again, I'm probably not making myself popular with people | :34:19. | :34:22. | |
from either side of the House, who have very strong views. But when I | :34:23. | :34:27. | |
came to this place, one of the first way is a TD a sitting Prime | :34:28. | :34:33. | |
Minister, Mrs Thatcher, was to question whether we need a ballistic | :34:34. | :34:37. | |
system and whether cruise mhssiles would not be a viable alternative. | :34:38. | :34:43. | |
-- one of the first way is ` rotated a sitting Prime Minister. In recent | :34:44. | :34:49. | |
years, the American Governmdnt has converted for Roberts ballistic | :34:50. | :34:52. | |
missile carrying submarines entered submarines carrying cruise lissiles. | :34:53. | :34:56. | |
-- has converted four of its ballistic missile carrying | :34:57. | :34:59. | |
submarines into cruise misshle submarines. He is absolutelx right | :35:00. | :35:05. | |
that we must keep costs unddr review and ensure they are kept on budget. | :35:06. | :35:08. | |
But is there not a danger that where you to our nuclear cruise mhssiles, | :35:09. | :35:14. | |
any cruise attack would havd to be seen as a nuclear attack and | :35:15. | :35:17. | |
therefore to be responded to in kind, and therefore is not ` danger | :35:18. | :35:21. | |
that cruise missiles would tp the auntie rather than lowering it? I | :35:22. | :35:27. | |
think that is a very powerftl point. I am not taking an absolutist | :35:28. | :35:33. | |
position as so many members do. I am not suggesting today that cruise | :35:34. | :35:37. | |
missiles are the answer. I thought my honourable friend in his earlier | :35:38. | :35:40. | |
speech given a very powerful point that the whole point of our | :35:41. | :35:44. | |
independent nuclear deterrent is that it is not a system of first | :35:45. | :35:48. | |
resort. That is what he was arguing, and he has made this point `gain in | :35:49. | :35:52. | |
this intervention. But what I am trying to argue for is that when our | :35:53. | :36:00. | |
defence power spending is so tightly constrained, whatever the arguments, | :36:01. | :36:03. | |
and they are very powerful arguments, in favour of an | :36:04. | :36:07. | |
independent nuclear deterrent, we have to keep questioning thd | :36:08. | :36:11. | |
Government on what was the source argument for having a ballistic | :36:12. | :36:18. | |
system of massive power deshgned to penetrate hugely powerful ddfences | :36:19. | :36:24. | |
around Moscow? This is actu`lly not the threat that we face tod`y. | :36:25. | :36:29. | |
Neither from low-grade rogud states or from terrorist movements. So I | :36:30. | :36:35. | |
will be voting with the Govdrnment tonight. I will not be handhng them | :36:36. | :36:39. | |
a blank cheque. I will be continuing to ask for a value for monex, and I | :36:40. | :36:43. | |
believe that every member of the House will do the same. Mad`m Deputy | :36:44. | :36:54. | |
Speaker, can I say at the ottset, I was a multilateralist during the | :36:55. | :36:56. | |
time of the Cold War. I supported the balance of terror in Europe I | :36:57. | :37:02. | |
have never been a member of the CND, and indeed, once it was likd, you | :37:03. | :37:11. | |
could not make it. But the world has changed, and that is why I haven't | :37:12. | :37:16. | |
changed my view. Can I'll sort acknowledged the genuine and | :37:17. | :37:18. | |
understandable concerns of ly honourable friends who reprdsent | :37:19. | :37:23. | |
constituencies which are intimately involved in the renewal of the | :37:24. | :37:30. | |
Trident project have? I would feel exactly the same way if I w`s | :37:31. | :37:34. | |
representing their constitudnts with 30,000 jobs at risk. I | :37:35. | :37:39. | |
understand that. But I say this The cost of this programme is admitted | :37:40. | :37:48. | |
as being between 31 billion and who knows what, because the Secretary of | :37:49. | :37:51. | |
State and the Prime Minister have not answered the question that was | :37:52. | :37:56. | |
picked by the leader of the SNP about what the final cost of the | :37:57. | :38:00. | |
programme is going to be. I do not believe that this can be justified | :38:01. | :38:05. | |
as value for money when I think a number of the arguments are flawed. | :38:06. | :38:14. | |
What are those arguments? The first is that the system is indepdndent. | :38:15. | :38:18. | |
Well, it is not. The UK has for nuclear submarines, each of which | :38:19. | :38:25. | |
carry eight missiles. The UK does not own those missiles. It leases | :38:26. | :38:33. | |
them from America. Can the honourable member please explain to | :38:34. | :38:37. | |
the House what precise technical expertise he has to suggest that | :38:38. | :38:41. | |
these are not genuinely inddpendent missile systems? Italy sees them | :38:42. | :38:57. | |
from America, where they ard made, maintained and tested. -- it leases | :38:58. | :39:06. | |
them. That is fact. It is, of course, said by those who stpport | :39:07. | :39:14. | |
renewal that we have operathonal independence. But I say this. | :39:15. | :39:19. | |
Bearing in mind that we do not own the missiles but lease them, I just | :39:20. | :39:24. | |
do not believe there is any scenario where a British Prime Minister would | :39:25. | :39:29. | |
authorise a submarine commander to use the nuclear weapons anywhere in | :39:30. | :39:33. | |
the world without first nothfying the Americans. The second | :39:34. | :39:42. | |
argument... I will give way. I appreciate what the honourable | :39:43. | :39:46. | |
member is saying. He is being very reasonable in his approach. The | :39:47. | :39:49. | |
point about the second centre of decision-making, which is something | :39:50. | :39:53. | |
which both Republican and Ddmocrat American governments have stpported | :39:54. | :40:00. | |
ever since 1958, is the danger that another country might think it could | :40:01. | :40:05. | |
pick off the UK without the Americans responding on our behalf. | :40:06. | :40:09. | |
They probably would respond, but they would be too late by the time | :40:10. | :40:14. | |
the aggressor found that out, and that is why, knowing that the UK can | :40:15. | :40:19. | |
defend itself is something that is welcomed by the Americans so that no | :40:20. | :40:23. | |
fatal miscalculation can be made of that sort. I have debated on a | :40:24. | :40:31. | |
number of occasions these issues with my right honourable frhends, | :40:32. | :40:35. | |
and I respect him in what hd says, but I do not agree with him. The | :40:36. | :40:40. | |
second argument that has put forward is that if the UK did not h`ve | :40:41. | :40:45. | |
nuclear weapons, it would somehow loses place on the UN Securhty | :40:46. | :40:51. | |
Council. This is absolute nonsense. When the security council w`s | :40:52. | :40:54. | |
formed, only one of the fivd permanent members had nucle`r | :40:55. | :41:00. | |
weapons. And that was America. And if it is now argued that to be a | :41:01. | :41:05. | |
member of the UN security council one has to have nuclear weapons | :41:06. | :41:10. | |
then those countries like J`pan Germany and Brazil who have got | :41:11. | :41:17. | |
legitimate claims to become part of a large security Council wotld not | :41:18. | :41:22. | |
be allowed to join, but there would be three countries that could join | :41:23. | :41:27. | |
the security council. North Korea, Israel, and Pakistan. Because they | :41:28. | :41:31. | |
have all got nuclear weapons. The third argument is that nucldar | :41:32. | :41:38. | |
weapons give us protection hn an ever-changing world. This country, | :41:39. | :41:42. | |
like all developed countries, faces threats to its security frol rogue | :41:43. | :41:46. | |
states, international terrorist groups, and indeed, groups within | :41:47. | :41:52. | |
our own society who want to destroy it. In my opinion, and I have said | :41:53. | :41:56. | |
this many times before, these threats are best met by our | :41:57. | :42:00. | |
membership of Nato, the mord successful mutual defence p`ct in | :42:01. | :42:07. | |
history. Nato never attacked anybody between the time it was set up in | :42:08. | :42:14. | |
1948 and the end of the Cold War. The tragedy of Nato has been that | :42:15. | :42:19. | |
after the Cold War, after the Berlin Wall came down, it changed from | :42:20. | :42:25. | |
being a mutual defence pact and became the worldpoliceman. This | :42:26. | :42:29. | |
caused enormous problems in its member countries. I believe our | :42:30. | :42:37. | |
security is best guaranteed by Nato, but I'll is a believe that `ll the | :42:38. | :42:44. | |
countries of Nato, all the countries should contribute towards the cost | :42:45. | :42:49. | |
of the nuclear umbrella. -- I also believe. They should not get a free | :42:50. | :42:53. | |
ride from America. They shotld contribute toward the cost. The way | :42:54. | :43:00. | |
to deal with threats from tdrrorism, domestic or international, hs by | :43:01. | :43:04. | |
having a fully staffed and fully financed security service, by | :43:05. | :43:07. | |
ensuring the police have thd money to do the job they need to do, and | :43:08. | :43:12. | |
by ensuring that our own conventional forces are givdn the | :43:13. | :43:16. | |
tools for the job when they are sent into military complex on our behalf. | :43:17. | :43:23. | |
The Chilcot report, which c`me out a week or so ago, identified | :43:24. | :43:30. | |
graphically the deficiencies in materials and protections that our | :43:31. | :43:33. | |
troops in Iraq were faced whth. I do not believe British soldiers should | :43:34. | :43:37. | |
go in on our behalf into anx conflict situation without the best | :43:38. | :43:43. | |
equipment and the best protdction we can give them. Let me make this | :43:44. | :43:48. | |
final point. We witnessed tdrrible terrorist atrocities over the last | :43:49. | :43:57. | |
year or so. The London bombhngs but did ownership of nuclear we`pons | :43:58. | :44:01. | |
prevent that? We saw what h`ppened in Paris and at the weekend in Nice, | :44:02. | :44:05. | |
but France is a nuclear powdr. Deborah nuclear weapons prevent that | :44:06. | :44:11. | |
from happening? -- did the nuclear weapons? I am not convinced that | :44:12. | :44:18. | |
spending such a huge sum of money on renewing our nuclear deterrdnt, | :44:19. | :44:20. | |
which I do not believe is independent, is justified. We should | :44:21. | :44:26. | |
support Nato, we should act Nato, we should contribute to Nato, but I am | :44:27. | :44:32. | |
not convinced that this is value for money, and that is a reason why I | :44:33. | :44:36. | |
will be voting against the lotion this evening. Thank you, Madam | :44:37. | :44:46. | |
Deputy Speaker. Margaret Th`tcher, and I think Tony Benn, used to say | :44:47. | :44:50. | |
that there are a zero final victories in spite of all these | :44:51. | :44:57. | |
storms past controversies, `nd the hard work that is the game to win | :44:58. | :45:00. | |
important arguments, some arguments have to be one again and ag`in by | :45:01. | :45:06. | |
each generation in turn. So we are here again today. With some | :45:07. | :45:10. | |
politicians talking as if a world without nuclear weapons was a | :45:11. | :45:16. | |
possibility that could be rdalised, or at least seriously advanced BIOS | :45:17. | :45:25. | |
giving up our own unilaterally. -- by us giving up our own. Thd threat | :45:26. | :45:32. | |
is not real, is not growing, and is still unanswered. That Brit`in | :45:33. | :45:37. | |
should, in these times of all times, these post-Brexit times when we need | :45:38. | :45:42. | |
our friends and allies more than ever, that Britain should step back | :45:43. | :45:47. | |
from our defence and that of our allies, and essentially, whdther | :45:48. | :45:50. | |
opponents say it or not, piggyback on those of our already strdtched | :45:51. | :45:52. | |
friends. I will give way. A defender of the idea of a nuclear | :45:53. | :46:08. | |
deterrent. Does he agree with biological and chemical detdrrent in | :46:09. | :46:11. | |
the same way as he believes in nuclear deterrence? Today, we are | :46:12. | :46:23. | |
discussing the nuclear deterrent. Let me see, Madam Deputy Spdaker, we | :46:24. | :46:27. | |
have heard some curious argtments tonight. We've heard an argtment | :46:28. | :46:33. | |
that it's all about cost. When actually, security is not about | :46:34. | :46:41. | |
cost. Security is the found`tion of everything that we hold dear. | :46:42. | :46:46. | |
Without security, there is nothing, without security, the costs are | :46:47. | :46:52. | |
incalculable. Nuclear deterrence has perverted the stability of this | :46:53. | :46:58. | |
country for half a century. Our national response when I was a | :46:59. | :47:02. | |
teenager to what appeared to have been the end of the Soviet lenace in | :47:03. | :47:07. | |
the 1990s was to plan for a reduction in the size of her nuclear | :47:08. | :47:13. | |
arsenal without abandoning our commitment to an independent | :47:14. | :47:17. | |
deterrent capability. That was then a sensible way to hedge agahnst | :47:18. | :47:23. | |
unpredictable future threats to this country's vital interests, ht was | :47:24. | :47:26. | |
the right approach now ended the right approached again todax. Thank | :47:27. | :47:34. | |
you. He liked me would have been browsing through the business pages | :47:35. | :47:40. | |
of the Sunday Telegraph yesterday. He will have noticed that there is | :47:41. | :47:44. | |
some concern as to whether systems can deliver the Successor programme | :47:45. | :47:50. | |
on time and on budget. Does he think it would be wise for the Secretary | :47:51. | :47:54. | |
of State to make contingencx plans for a possible failure in this | :47:55. | :47:59. | |
direction? He makes a perfectly sensible point. The Secretary of | :48:00. | :48:06. | |
State is committed to annually commenting on the progress of the | :48:07. | :48:11. | |
programme. He wants to see this programme proceed successfully. In | :48:12. | :48:14. | |
the time I have available, let me summarise the arguments are very | :48:15. | :48:22. | |
suitable. Deterrence is not for the Cold War history books as is that | :48:23. | :48:26. | |
this evening. It remains essential to prevent major wars occurring | :48:27. | :48:31. | |
between nation states, to prevent us from being all coerced and | :48:32. | :48:35. | |
blackmailed by threats from those who do possess nuclear weapons and | :48:36. | :48:43. | |
it deterrence also extends hnto war itself. Insuring or attempthng to | :48:44. | :48:48. | |
ensure that ever -- any war, large or small, has the character of being | :48:49. | :48:55. | |
a limited war. Secondly, we still live in a uniquely dangerous world | :48:56. | :48:59. | |
at risk of terrorist attack and as we heard from the PM earlier, but | :49:00. | :49:06. | |
also at risk of uncertain in terms of our nation states and other major | :49:07. | :49:11. | |
powers around the world. As others have already summarised in the | :49:12. | :49:17. | |
debate this evening, in recdnt days on televisions I have seen the | :49:18. | :49:22. | |
dignified face of Marina let in your ankles stood on College Gredn | :49:23. | :49:25. | |
outside this building a couple of days ago, a living testament to the | :49:26. | :49:30. | |
danger and unpredictability of the regime in Russia. We have sden a | :49:31. | :49:35. | |
further evidence of the growing long-term instability in Asha with | :49:36. | :49:39. | |
the escalation of the south China Sea dispute. Surely one of the | :49:40. | :49:42. | |
disputes that will mark out our generation and beyond. Let le finish | :49:43. | :49:48. | |
this point if the honourabld lady doesn't mind. And, which in turn, | :49:49. | :49:52. | |
incurred as the US to pivot further towards the Pacific and in terms of | :49:53. | :50:00. | |
its attention and resources from Europe's security. In late June | :50:01. | :50:03. | |
North Korea succeeded in latnching its home-grown ballistic missile | :50:04. | :50:09. | |
which flew a distance of 250 miles to the Sea of Japan after fhve | :50:10. | :50:19. | |
previous Villiers. Of coursd, we are a little over a year at the signing | :50:20. | :50:24. | |
of Iran's deal would only ddlays the prospect of this country pursuit of | :50:25. | :50:30. | |
nuclear weapons. Iran, honotrable member is me not be aware, the | :50:31. | :50:34. | |
celebrated the one-year annhversary of the signing of that deal by | :50:35. | :50:39. | |
firing a long-range ballisthc missile using North Korean | :50:40. | :50:49. | |
technology. I will give way. Ladies before Jansen! I thank the | :50:50. | :50:54. | |
honourable gentleman before giving way but surely the poisoning of | :50:55. | :51:00. | |
Marina and the annexation of Premier has happened in despite of ts having | :51:01. | :51:03. | |
nuclear weapons. What was at the prevented? We cannot predict the | :51:04. | :51:13. | |
future and we only have to look around us to see the incredhble | :51:14. | :51:18. | |
unpredictability. Most membdrs in this house, myself included, could | :51:19. | :51:22. | |
not have predicted the events of the last three weeks let alone `s the | :51:23. | :51:29. | |
next three or four Mac decades. Doesn't the point about Russia's | :51:30. | :51:34. | |
actions is that the annexathon of territory on our continent hs | :51:35. | :51:37. | |
something that would have bden unimaginable two years ago `nd it | :51:38. | :51:40. | |
just goes to show we need to be prepared for things that ard | :51:41. | :51:44. | |
completely beyond our expectations? He makes an important point. The | :51:45. | :51:49. | |
past is the predictor of thd future but we can see looking back in our | :51:50. | :51:53. | |
history is that we are not good at predicting the future. Thirdly, as | :51:54. | :51:59. | |
the PM has said, you cannot outsource our security rathdr you | :52:00. | :52:03. | |
can, but you take a great rhsk if you do so. In the early post-war | :52:04. | :52:09. | |
Cold War period, the United States's willingness to stand with its | :52:10. | :52:21. | |
allies... Is he aware of thd boot as Iranian leadership described as | :52:22. | :52:30. | |
being her arm? Order. It is obvious to the house there are a grdat many | :52:31. | :52:34. | |
people who still wish to spdak and that there is not very much time | :52:35. | :52:39. | |
left. I have to reduce the time and it... Order! I have to reduce the | :52:40. | :52:48. | |
time limit to four minutes. Thank you. I talked to many members that | :52:49. | :52:56. | |
support Trident and I can tdll these weapons can kill 100 million people. | :52:57. | :53:03. | |
Many will die from famine. They know that. I can tell them WMD h`ve not | :53:04. | :53:08. | |
stopped wars against the globe and they have not stopped that. I can | :53:09. | :53:16. | |
tell them ?179 billion can be spent on health, education, housing, | :53:17. | :53:19. | |
transport and social welfard but they know that. The belief that WMD | :53:20. | :53:24. | |
RA deterrent. Their existence is kept as safe. The Henry Jackson | :53:25. | :53:31. | |
Society was kind enough to send me a report of the nuclear debatd. With | :53:32. | :53:38. | |
the title, be afraid, be very afraid. North Korea, Russia, China | :53:39. | :53:57. | |
and Iran... No! It is of cotrse a flawed theory. I give the Hdnry | :53:58. | :54:05. | |
Jackson cited credit of thehr bravery. Bold theories of the | :54:06. | :54:10. | |
imminent nuclear threat. Just a week after the size was considerdd to | :54:11. | :54:14. | |
look at the Chilcott report. Chilcott reminds us we should be | :54:15. | :54:18. | |
conscious of the second-guessing the military intentions of other | :54:19. | :54:22. | |
countries and putting on thd renewal of Trident nuclear weapons, who are | :54:23. | :54:27. | |
these weapons deterrent? Candles in favour of Trident genuinely very | :54:28. | :54:31. | |
serious situation in which Russia and China would commit such an act | :54:32. | :54:33. | |
of Trident genuinely firstlx a situation in which Russia and China | :54:34. | :54:36. | |
would commit such an active economic suicide as a nuclear strike against | :54:37. | :54:43. | |
the Western Power? The economic .. Not the imminent threat of nuclear | :54:44. | :54:48. | |
attack. To see the world is safer because of nuclear attacks hs to see | :54:49. | :54:52. | |
the rugby less grim crime in the united states that there were more | :54:53. | :54:58. | |
firearms. General George Led Butler a former commander and chief of the | :54:59. | :55:02. | |
US strategic command once in charge of all the US strategic nuclear | :55:03. | :55:09. | |
weapons has said nuclear deterrence was and remains a slippery | :55:10. | :55:12. | |
intellectual construct. That translates very purely into the real | :55:13. | :55:32. | |
world,. What deters nuclear weapons, no fear of death. What deters | :55:33. | :55:35. | |
nuclear weapons today the addition on the brink of collapse, there is | :55:36. | :55:41. | |
nothing left to lose. A guarantee that those governments will always | :55:42. | :55:49. | |
act rationally. Nuclear revdnge that is what we see, it is not a | :55:50. | :56:02. | |
deterrent. Keep going! Instdad we are kept in this Cold War mdntality | :56:03. | :56:07. | |
to keep weapons to counter threat those that don't actually exist | :56:08. | :56:14. | |
Spending billions on Trident is a ransom to pass the years whdn we | :56:15. | :56:18. | |
should be investing in a hopeful future. Generations to come shall | :56:19. | :56:23. | |
reap what we sow. If we continue down this road, we may never be able | :56:24. | :56:26. | |
to find our way back to a s`fe haven. Madam Deputy Speaker, it s | :56:27. | :56:36. | |
always a pleasure to follow the honourable member for it... Even | :56:37. | :56:41. | |
though I do disagree with the points he has made. For me, this ddbate is | :56:42. | :56:46. | |
an interesting one because H grew up with my father working on Ddvonport | :56:47. | :56:49. | |
dockyard and at the time working on some of the reset in the Vanguard | :56:50. | :56:55. | |
Class submarines. A member of the campaign back in the early 80s, to | :56:56. | :57:00. | |
get the reset work to come to Devonport and Plymouth rathdr than | :57:01. | :57:04. | |
ending up in Rosyth. Alb easily give way. It was too dangerous to put the | :57:05. | :57:13. | |
mix in Devonport. We have the nuclear weapons based in Devonport? | :57:14. | :57:21. | |
Are thank you for that. Thex rejected a plan for independence any | :57:22. | :57:25. | |
referendum, there was a deb`te we would have them in the south-west | :57:26. | :57:28. | |
and most people would say yds, of course it would. We would cdrtainly | :57:29. | :57:34. | |
work on the jobs and investlent Let's be clear what toys thdre is | :57:35. | :57:37. | |
the day before the House and the choice is whether we have a | :57:38. | :57:45. | |
deterrent or not. I've listdned to some of the alternatives and I think | :57:46. | :57:48. | |
the honourable member for H`ll Green will find it useful to visit | :57:49. | :57:53. | |
Devonport to help his knowlddge In terms of looking at the | :57:54. | :57:57. | |
alternatives, the idea that we put something on an astute class | :57:58. | :58:01. | |
submarine, it is safe to sax "no" nation will see and cruise lissile | :58:02. | :58:06. | |
coming towards it and wait tntil the thing debtors needs to find out | :58:07. | :58:09. | |
whether it's the convention`l or nuclear missile. It would mdan more | :58:10. | :58:13. | |
risk to the sub Mariner 's concern as they would have to get mtch | :58:14. | :58:16. | |
closer to any potential contributor deterrent. They would also become | :58:17. | :58:21. | |
quite sneaky operations. People might think the idea is that the | :58:22. | :58:26. | |
submarine is looking to head in an act sneakily, we don't. The idea of | :58:27. | :58:32. | |
a ballistic missile can ability is that we can provide a credible | :58:33. | :58:35. | |
deterrent and a credible response to a nuclear attack. But that other | :58:36. | :58:40. | |
nations have the assurance that we are not planning a sneaky fhrst | :58:41. | :58:44. | |
strike. If we don't have th`t technology available, it wotld just | :58:45. | :58:48. | |
undermine and make others worry and fear. It is worthwhile lookhng at | :58:49. | :58:52. | |
what we have done in terms of production of our own nucle`r | :58:53. | :58:57. | |
weapons anyway. The RAF and a longer have strategic bombers with them. | :58:58. | :59:00. | |
They have been removed from the Royal Navy shipping and we the only | :59:01. | :59:03. | |
one of the declared nuclear powers that has them on one platform only, | :59:04. | :59:11. | |
that is the real way to redtcing the nuclear threat, not some gesture of | :59:12. | :59:16. | |
disarmament. Therefore, is the nuclear deterrent still needed? That | :59:17. | :59:19. | |
means then looking at what the alternatives? One of the action | :59:20. | :59:26. | |
alternatives that input for it is that we rely on Article fivd of the | :59:27. | :59:29. | |
North Atlantic Treaty Organhsation which is what the SNP is proposing | :59:30. | :59:34. | |
because it is not just a conventional ayes Nato, it hs a | :59:35. | :59:39. | |
nuclear alliance in Nato and one that the SNP wish to join. Ht was | :59:40. | :59:46. | |
interesting in that I thought they wanted in nuclear weapons free | :59:47. | :59:51. | |
Scotland yet when I enjoyed reading 670 pages of Scotland's futtre, | :59:52. | :59:55. | |
their White Paper independence, it contained a classic comment that | :59:56. | :59:57. | |
they would still allow Nato vessels to visit but without confirling or | :59:58. | :00:04. | |
denying whether they carry nuclear weapons. In effect, their own | :00:05. | :00:11. | |
version of don't ask, don't tell. Of course, I'll take interventhon. | :00:12. | :00:16. | |
Can I say to him that what we in the SMB want is to be members of Nato | :00:17. | :00:24. | |
but for Nato to be a nuclear free. -- we in the SMB. Let me at this. It | :00:25. | :00:31. | |
is a choice between having this investment in Trident or extra | :00:32. | :00:35. | |
investment in conventional `rms because the reality is therd are no | :00:36. | :00:39. | |
conventional service warships aced in Scotland. We heard about the | :00:40. | :00:43. | |
Falklands earlier on. There is no warship in the Balkans. We `re not | :00:44. | :00:46. | |
kicking responsibilities we should be. Should we not be doing that | :00:47. | :00:52. | |
instead of spending money on weapons of mass this rotting? This gives me | :00:53. | :00:58. | |
the opportunity to explore some of the walls in his military knowledge. | :00:59. | :01:04. | |
There is a patrol vessel in the full guns as well. In terms of this | :01:05. | :01:08. | |
debate we have had this aftdrnoon, the idea that nuclear weapons would | :01:09. | :01:14. | |
not deal with Daesh, in the same way a battle tank will not deal with | :01:15. | :01:17. | |
cyber threat, an emperor to man is not good to shoot down a jet craft | :01:18. | :01:20. | |
at high altitude. -- and infantry man. It is about looking at the | :01:21. | :01:26. | |
threats we could face in future and what we could put to them. Can we | :01:27. | :01:31. | |
realistically face a situathon of nuclear blackmail as Nato mdmbers? | :01:32. | :01:37. | |
Yes, we could. Vladimir Puthn is not revamping his nuclear capabhlity | :01:38. | :01:40. | |
because he wants to have it at an airshow. I do apologise, but I will | :01:41. | :01:51. | |
press on given the time. In terms of looking at the price, wheels are to | :01:52. | :01:57. | |
be conscious that while Nato is dependent on mutual defence, how | :01:58. | :02:03. | |
confident are we that futurd US governments will continue to | :02:04. | :02:09. | |
undertake 70% of the bill for Nato? How many people are confident that | :02:10. | :02:13. | |
Donald Trump, even though hd once was ambassador for business in | :02:14. | :02:17. | |
Scotland, how confident are we that Donald Trump will pit Europd's | :02:18. | :02:23. | |
defence at the top of the lhst? If not, that means the deterrent | :02:24. | :02:27. | |
against aggression in the e`st and the Easter and allies is ultimately | :02:28. | :02:31. | |
deterred by Britain and France being in possession of an effective | :02:32. | :02:37. | |
nuclear deterrent. I hear the arguments around international law | :02:38. | :02:40. | |
and the siting of biological and chemical weapons. The reality is, if | :02:41. | :02:45. | |
a biological or chemical attack was launched in this country by an | :02:46. | :02:49. | |
aggressor state, one of the things in our potential response would be | :02:50. | :02:52. | |
the consideration of the nuclear sponsor, so that in its own right | :02:53. | :02:57. | |
does not defeat it. Finally, the argument that international law | :02:58. | :02:59. | |
could get rid of them all, sadly I think some of the people likely to | :03:00. | :03:04. | |
be a threat in terms of rogte states would file that alongside the other | :03:05. | :03:07. | |
bits of international law that they are breaking. For me, this hs about | :03:08. | :03:11. | |
the UK's ultimate insurance policy, making sure that we can meet the | :03:12. | :03:16. | |
threats of the future, and therefore members should vote iMac. -, should | :03:17. | :03:25. | |
vote yes. One of the great traditions of this House is that in | :03:26. | :03:29. | |
matters of conscience such `s this, members drawn wide range of | :03:30. | :03:34. | |
experiences and viewpoints hn coming to conclusions. The argument has | :03:35. | :03:38. | |
been made that not replacing our nuclear weapons would diminhsh our | :03:39. | :03:41. | |
international standing and diminish our role as a permanent member of | :03:42. | :03:46. | |
the UN Security Council. We have heard that Trident is the ultimate | :03:47. | :03:50. | |
insurance policy for our nation People have been writing to me about | :03:51. | :03:53. | |
the jobs they are reliant on in relation to Trident. The honourable | :03:54. | :03:59. | |
gentleman and I both come from a tradition which believes in beating | :04:00. | :04:04. | |
swords into ploughshares and spears into pruning hooks. Would hd not | :04:05. | :04:10. | |
agree that programmes like the transition of skilled technhcians | :04:11. | :04:13. | |
into peaceful programmes is a far better recipe for peace in the world | :04:14. | :04:20. | |
than an never-ending arms r`ce? I commend that Swedish progralme, and | :04:21. | :04:24. | |
unlike my honourable friend, I stand here first and foremost as ` | :04:25. | :04:28. | |
Christian -- like my honour`ble friend. It is from that perspective | :04:29. | :04:32. | |
that I speak. I stand united with Pope Benedict the six when he said, | :04:33. | :04:38. | |
in a nuclear war, there would be no victors, only victims. I st`nd here | :04:39. | :04:44. | |
alongside all the world's f`iths. In the worlds of the UK multi-faith | :04:45. | :04:49. | |
statement on nuclear weapons, any use of nuclear weapons would have | :04:50. | :04:53. | |
devastating humanitarian consequences and violated the | :04:54. | :04:54. | |
principle of dignity that every human being that is common to each | :04:55. | :05:03. | |
of our faith traditions. Thd idea of a loving thy neighbour and | :05:04. | :05:07. | |
protecting our world for future generations simply cannot hold if we | :05:08. | :05:12. | |
have stockpiles of weapons that will destroy our neighbours and destroy | :05:13. | :05:15. | |
our world for future generations. Not only do nuclear weapons | :05:16. | :05:20. | |
contradict British principlds, any form of international relathons | :05:21. | :05:24. | |
based on the threat of mutu`l destruction is totally contradictory | :05:25. | :05:28. | |
to preamble of the article one of the UN nations charter, which talks | :05:29. | :05:32. | |
of a system of peaceful resolution of disputes. It is against that | :05:33. | :05:38. | |
backdrop that I recall in this debate that I joined the Calpaign | :05:39. | :05:43. | |
for Nuclear Disarmament and the anti-apartheid movement before I | :05:44. | :05:48. | |
became a member of the Labotr Party. I remember growing up in thd 19 0s | :05:49. | :05:54. | |
hugely disturbed by the ide` of nuclear annihilation, which was | :05:55. | :06:00. | |
played out in films like Threads all the time growing up in the 0980s. I | :06:01. | :06:05. | |
know that the Cold War has dissipated somewhat, of course, but | :06:06. | :06:09. | |
each of the 40 Ward has carried by Trident submarines is expondntially | :06:10. | :06:15. | |
more powerful than the atomhc bombs dropped on Japan in 1945, khlling | :06:16. | :06:19. | |
and maiming hundreds of thotsands of people and casting a long and dark | :06:20. | :06:24. | |
shadow over our history. -- each of the 40 warheads. It is also right | :06:25. | :06:30. | |
that I recall my constituents, a constituency that has seen two riots | :06:31. | :06:35. | |
in a generation, and also rdmind the House of the huge cost of this | :06:36. | :06:39. | |
programme. Reminding the Hotse that in my constituency, residential care | :06:40. | :06:44. | |
homes close, drop-in centres closed, youth centres close, unemployment | :06:45. | :06:50. | |
doubled the national averagd, life expectancy five years less than the | :06:51. | :06:53. | |
national average, Haringey onto five of the most deprived wards hn the | :06:54. | :07:01. | |
country, and 47% of children living in poverty. Against that backdrop, I | :07:02. | :07:06. | |
cannot with all conscience vote for something that is effectively a | :07:07. | :07:13. | |
blank cheque for nuclear we`pons. I am not actually currently in the | :07:14. | :07:18. | |
place that I was as an 18, 09 or 20-year-old. I do think you can come | :07:19. | :07:22. | |
to a multilateral view and still have concerns about the scale and | :07:23. | :07:30. | |
the cost, and am looking at our neighbours in Nato, not ask some | :07:31. | :07:34. | |
pretty hard questions as to why we do not share a nuclear capacity not | :07:35. | :07:39. | |
indeed need to have one inddpendent of our own at this huge cost. I | :07:40. | :07:46. | |
might see also, why it is that given our commitment, we hear so little | :07:47. | :07:55. | |
about it, even compared to the 1980s, when Thatcher and Re`gan used | :07:56. | :07:58. | |
to talk about it regularly, and why it is the case that we vote against | :07:59. | :08:04. | |
others on the issue of nucldar proliferation on the UN sectrity | :08:05. | :08:10. | |
Council. So when people likd Field Marshal Lord Bramwell and others say | :08:11. | :08:17. | |
that nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless | :08:18. | :08:20. | |
as a deterrent to the threats and the scale of the violence that we | :08:21. | :08:25. | |
currently face or are likelx to face, particularly internathonal | :08:26. | :08:30. | |
terrorism, these men are no pacifist or unilateralist. They are simply | :08:31. | :08:33. | |
responding to a changing international context, and ht is | :08:34. | :08:38. | |
with that in mind that I will be voting against the Government | :08:39. | :08:46. | |
tonight. On a number of occ`sions, I have ended up following on from the | :08:47. | :08:50. | |
honourable member for one, they will not break the mould by agreding with | :08:51. | :08:54. | |
him tonight. In fact, I will be voting with the Government by | :08:55. | :08:57. | |
listening to some of the most powerful speeches I have he`rd in | :08:58. | :09:01. | |
this place for a long period of time, particularly the honotrable | :09:02. | :09:04. | |
member for a Gedling and Barrow in Chesterfield, who made an | :09:05. | :09:11. | |
impassioned case. Two-day's debate is one of the biggest tests for | :09:12. | :09:15. | |
Britain and her place in thd world given the last few weeks' events. If | :09:16. | :09:19. | |
we get this wrong, Britain's place at the heart of an internathonalist | :09:20. | :09:23. | |
world could be put at risk. No one can predict the future of | :09:24. | :09:26. | |
international relations over the next coming decades, and wh`t | :09:27. | :09:32. | |
challenges we face as a nathon are tremendous. We face exciting but | :09:33. | :09:36. | |
uncertain times ahead as we carve out Britain's new position hn the | :09:37. | :09:41. | |
world. For me, in the interdst of national security, to maint`in | :09:42. | :09:44. | |
Britain's feed at the top t`ble and for the defence of the Unitdd | :09:45. | :09:49. | |
Kingdom, it is crucial our strong Armed Forces is accompanied by a | :09:50. | :09:52. | |
strong nuclear deterrent, and are therefore wholeheartedly back the | :09:53. | :09:55. | |
renewal of Trident. I wanted to take a moment to thank all our sdrvice | :09:56. | :09:58. | |
men and women who devoted their lives to the security of our nation. | :09:59. | :10:02. | |
We need to do all we can to make sure their lives are not put in | :10:03. | :10:05. | |
danger. A strong nuclear deterrent works to promote peace, cooperation | :10:06. | :10:11. | |
and discourse in uncertain world. I want to take a moment of th`t back | :10:12. | :10:15. | |
at the Cold War and the effdct the presence of nuclear deterrence had | :10:16. | :10:18. | |
on its progress. During the period, there were many small, deadly | :10:19. | :10:22. | |
complex where there were no nuclear weapons present, yet the big | :10:23. | :10:26. | |
superpowers were encouraged to avoid a hot war at all costs for fear of | :10:27. | :10:31. | |
those weapons being activatdd. I am not saying the presence of nuclear | :10:32. | :10:33. | |
weapons will ensure our safdty on its own, but even if they c`n have a | :10:34. | :10:38. | |
small deterrent effect on h`ving the Leigh saving the life of troops it | :10:39. | :10:45. | |
is to have. It is important in debate fight this that we rdmain | :10:46. | :10:49. | |
realistic about future developments on the international stage. If you | :10:50. | :10:54. | |
look at the aggressors such as North Korea, they are working tow`rds the | :10:55. | :10:58. | |
creation of a nuclear warhe`d. If we were to have no nuclear arsdnal we | :10:59. | :11:03. | |
may not face any problems in the here and now, but a few dec`des on, | :11:04. | :11:07. | |
we may be in a situation whdre more states are inclined to tag knowing | :11:08. | :11:10. | |
that we cannot answer in thd same way. -- to attack the UK. Does he | :11:11. | :11:18. | |
have any concern for Scotland and how many nuclear warheads m`y be | :11:19. | :11:22. | |
pointed as coal and by the very fact of having it based there? -, may be | :11:23. | :11:30. | |
pointed at Scotland? I am concerned about Britain's position across the | :11:31. | :11:37. | |
world in campaigning for less nuclear weapons, which should not be | :11:38. | :11:41. | |
a distraction for what we are debating here today. I belidve that | :11:42. | :11:47. | |
we must be pursuing an international approach. I understand that the | :11:48. | :11:50. | |
members in this House, as wdll as people across the country who | :11:51. | :11:54. | |
advocate for a very different position, advocate for the renewal | :11:55. | :12:00. | |
of Trident. But many specialist in this area have made it clearer that | :12:01. | :12:05. | |
the removal of Trident does not mean removing -- the renewal of Trident | :12:06. | :12:15. | |
does not mean removing the `pproach to the nuclear nonproliferation The | :12:16. | :12:22. | |
UK has set an example of how to lament a minimal strategic deterrent | :12:23. | :12:29. | |
by reducing our warheads total in recent years. We should not deviate | :12:30. | :12:33. | |
from this approach as Britahn looks to reassert its soft power | :12:34. | :12:36. | |
internationally. While the strongest arguments for the renewal of Trident | :12:37. | :12:40. | |
have to be the defence of n`tion and our people, there are other | :12:41. | :12:43. | |
arguments which strengthened the case for renewal, and I would like | :12:44. | :12:47. | |
to finish by touching on economic argument as others have tonhght On | :12:48. | :12:51. | |
the micro level, Trident will have a positive impact on the Brithsh | :12:52. | :12:56. | |
economy, maintaining and sustaining this defence gullibility supports | :12:57. | :12:59. | |
around 2200 people already working on the Successor programme. The | :13:00. | :13:06. | |
renewal will create very many more specialists and nonspecialist jobs. | :13:07. | :13:09. | |
It is that the lady that ovdr 8 0 British companies will contribute to | :13:10. | :13:12. | |
the programme and fulfil thd positive effect at her job `nd | :13:13. | :13:17. | |
growth. -- it is estimated that over 800 British companies. We mtst be | :13:18. | :13:21. | |
focusing our attention on that economic argument. Let us bd clear, | :13:22. | :13:25. | |
if we fail to renew Trident, we will be doing more harm than good. If we | :13:26. | :13:29. | |
leave the door open for nuclear blackmail, it would increasd the | :13:30. | :13:33. | |
possibility of unnecessary conventional warfare and decrease | :13:34. | :13:36. | |
our standing in the world. H therefore urge the House for the | :13:37. | :13:39. | |
benefit of national securitx, long-term peace, and confiddnce in | :13:40. | :13:42. | |
the British economy to support the renewal of Trident. It is a sad | :13:43. | :13:52. | |
irony indeed that a week after the long-awaited Chilcot report | :13:53. | :13:55. | |
highlighted the worrying extent of groupthink in Whitehall and | :13:56. | :13:58. | |
Westminster, a large number of MPs tonight will be traipsing through | :13:59. | :14:02. | |
the lobbies in support of the principle of renewing the ddterrent | :14:03. | :14:07. | |
that will represent a 20th century solution to a 21st-century defence | :14:08. | :14:11. | |
and security problems that we all experience today. This could include | :14:12. | :14:17. | |
those MPs who believe the UK's Government's claptrap on Ir`q. | :14:18. | :14:21. | |
Perhaps nothing has been le`rned from Chilcot and these MPs will be | :14:22. | :14:25. | |
doing exactly the same on Trident. The Defence Select Committed has | :14:26. | :14:29. | |
recently to visit an enquirx into the implications of increasdd | :14:30. | :14:33. | |
Russian assertiveness into TK security, and in evidence sdt in | :14:34. | :14:36. | |
after evidence session, I struggled to find any real evidence that would | :14:37. | :14:41. | |
support the renewal of Triddnt and Sergey had cost. In fact, as witness | :14:42. | :14:46. | |
after witness listed the re`l 21st-century threats faced by the UK | :14:47. | :14:53. | |
and our EU allies, most if not all could be filed under the he`ding of | :14:54. | :14:58. | |
hybrid warfare or terrorism. Also do home as well, we see an increase in | :14:59. | :15:03. | |
Russian naval and air activhty in our own territory, and the battering | :15:04. | :15:07. | |
is similar to that experienced in the Ukraine. There is no outright | :15:08. | :15:11. | |
aggression, but a determination to poke and prod and test reaction | :15:12. | :15:16. | |
times, which from the UK perspective has often been laughably sm`ll. For | :15:17. | :15:21. | |
example, the last time he Rtssian and roll took shelter in Scottish | :15:22. | :15:29. | |
waters, aged 24 hours for a frigate to arrive from Portsmouth to escort | :15:30. | :15:31. | |
it. -- it took 24 hours. Had the SNP won the independence | :15:32. | :15:43. | |
argument, what I may Navy whth the SNP have today to protect Scottish | :15:44. | :15:50. | |
waters? As an independent n`tion, we could provide the same support the | :15:51. | :15:55. | |
Nato as every other single small European country like Denmark and | :15:56. | :16:01. | |
Sweden. That is a shameful neglect of security around Scotland that we | :16:02. | :16:06. | |
are not one single to protect our sure line. It simply points out the | :16:07. | :16:11. | |
age of the towns can be viewed and so many different ways. Thank you. | :16:12. | :16:19. | |
Was it not the case that in that last entry into our water is the | :16:20. | :16:25. | |
Ministry of Defence only he`rd about it through Twitter? That cotld | :16:26. | :16:28. | |
certainly be the case and I'm assuming the honourable member is | :16:29. | :16:32. | |
better informed than some mdmbers of the MoD at one point. What we did do | :16:33. | :16:37. | |
recently was to visit Nato `nd discuss the needs of Scotland and | :16:38. | :16:40. | |
the UK and what we did hear a lot from Nato was how we improvdd | :16:41. | :16:46. | |
conventional forces, partictlarly those that need to respond to hybrid | :16:47. | :16:54. | |
threats. Most prominent thing was from a multinational brigadd to be | :16:55. | :16:57. | |
placed in the United States and Poland. Something we supported | :16:58. | :17:01. | |
wholeheartedly and many refdrred to as a modern deterrent and something | :17:02. | :17:06. | |
which Trident resolutely is not The UK focus should be on what we can | :17:07. | :17:11. | |
deliver for our Nato allies instead of clutching desperately to this | :17:12. | :17:14. | |
vestige of a long gone superpower status. Please wake up and smell the | :17:15. | :17:20. | |
polonium! This is something need to do very quickly. I Nato allhes would | :17:21. | :17:24. | |
rather be focused on them most big about tasks, protecting our UK | :17:25. | :17:27. | |
territory and that other neighbourhood. The Russian carrier | :17:28. | :17:31. | |
group that I spoke before when it was doing its activities in the | :17:32. | :17:35. | |
Moray Firth, there was no m`jor ships based in Scotland and none | :17:36. | :17:39. | |
north of the channel and Trhdent endangers us by filling us hnto | :17:40. | :17:42. | |
thinking that nuclear deterrence is the only sort of deterrent that we | :17:43. | :17:48. | |
need. The Royal Navy is now reduced to only 17 usable frigates `nd | :17:49. | :17:52. | |
destroyers and debate that hnto context, the force that we took the | :17:53. | :17:57. | |
Falklands War with in 1972 had more than 40 ships. The Falklands is | :17:58. | :18:00. | |
seldom is currently without a major war protections of that conflict. | :18:01. | :18:08. | |
People smuggling operations African li undertaken by vessels th`t are | :18:09. | :18:13. | |
simply not fit for task. Silply Trident is eating into our | :18:14. | :18:17. | |
conventional budget and that leads me to the very point of the | :18:18. | :18:22. | |
argument. Every penny spent on this means a penny less spent on | :18:23. | :18:26. | |
conventional defence. Hardlx any surprise that the Admiral Lord west | :18:27. | :18:31. | |
recently said the Navy had effectively run out of monex in | :18:32. | :18:37. | |
support of the new 26 progr`mme While an entire Successor programme | :18:38. | :18:40. | |
has fenced with added Jenners continued to cease, ... These | :18:41. | :18:50. | |
programmes these delay after delay, affecting jobs and skills and the | :18:51. | :18:53. | |
workforce and I capability to defend ourselves. Finally, this vote put | :18:54. | :18:59. | |
hundreds of years of this ship building on the Clyde at risk | :19:00. | :19:04. | |
because the MoD has skewed dvery budget and military budget that has | :19:05. | :19:06. | |
to spend and bending that an Trident. More Republican we`pons of | :19:07. | :19:13. | |
systems of Master suction c`n no longer be tolerated. We must look | :19:14. | :19:18. | |
other met methods of modern deterrent that can be used. It is a | :19:19. | :19:27. | |
reckless gamble that our cotntry can ill afford. Thank you. An honour to | :19:28. | :19:33. | |
be called by you in this debate of such national importance. For me, | :19:34. | :19:40. | |
there is one compelling image that encapsulates for me the reasons why | :19:41. | :19:48. | |
algae voting with the Government. It is those unforgettable harrowing | :19:49. | :19:53. | |
glass cabinets that are on display in the Auschwitz museum. Thd piles | :19:54. | :19:57. | |
of human here, the mountains of shoes from the victims of the Nazis | :19:58. | :20:02. | |
which I ate permanent reminder to all of us as to what happens when | :20:03. | :20:09. | |
people and nations are tyrannised and brutalised in Exeter and shall | :20:10. | :20:15. | |
war, for me, regardless of other arguments, this singularly hs the | :20:16. | :20:19. | |
key argument. I never ever want to see my country again in the position | :20:20. | :20:23. | |
it was then in the 1940s whdn we were faced with the next essential | :20:24. | :20:27. | |
threat. We were on the vergd of being invaded and had been | :20:28. | :20:31. | |
successful, we too would have had concentration camps in this country | :20:32. | :20:34. | |
and all the brutality that will have follows from that. There max be | :20:35. | :20:41. | |
those who say that you wore such as this or that is incredibly tnlikely, | :20:42. | :20:45. | |
I say to them, there is one guarantee against it and th`t is the | :20:46. | :20:49. | |
nuclear deterrent however unpalatable that may be bec`use in | :20:50. | :20:54. | |
1918, people would have thotght that there will never be another | :20:55. | :20:59. | |
world war. In 1918, I don't think people would have believed there | :21:00. | :21:03. | |
would be another world war `nd surely not that another world war | :21:04. | :21:07. | |
would be even more brutal than the one that they had just experienced. | :21:08. | :21:11. | |
But none of us can predict the future. I have to give way. I thank | :21:12. | :21:20. | |
the honourable gentleman. I just want to clarify, is the honourable | :21:21. | :21:23. | |
gentleman is suggesting that we would have nuked Germany? If we had | :21:24. | :21:31. | |
the ability. The nuclear we`pons is therefore one single me which is to | :21:32. | :21:36. | |
defend this country in existential invasions, nothing to do with | :21:37. | :21:39. | |
terrorist threat in wars th`t we had in Iran, is the one overridhng thing | :21:40. | :21:42. | |
and is a guarantee of absoltte freedom and existence. People talk | :21:43. | :21:50. | |
about cost because, of course, we have limitless costs, we must have | :21:51. | :21:54. | |
discipline. Let's talk about some figures that we know definitively. | :21:55. | :22:01. | |
The First World War, 10 million lives lost, the Second World War, 83 | :22:02. | :22:08. | |
sorry 73 million lives lost, many civilians. How many since then? Not | :22:09. | :22:13. | |
a single one any world war `nd that is not a coincidence. Nucle`r | :22:14. | :22:18. | |
weapons are horrific but have kept the peace. It is the fact that both | :22:19. | :22:27. | |
Germany and the allies were reasoning to invent the atolic bomb. | :22:28. | :22:32. | |
If the Germans had got the `tomic bomb first, they would have used it | :22:33. | :22:36. | |
against us and if we had got the atomic bomb, we would have tsed it | :22:37. | :22:39. | |
against them are just as thd allies did against Japan to bring the water | :22:40. | :22:45. | |
and end. Quite right. I don't want to go back in historic debate but I | :22:46. | :22:51. | |
those who say that if the Alericans hadn't use those bonds, the death | :22:52. | :22:54. | |
count our US troops having to invade Japanese mainland would havd been | :22:55. | :22:59. | |
astronomical. No one ever w`nts to have to use that weapon. It is an | :23:00. | :23:09. | |
horrific thing. I conclude, nuclear weapons are the single most horrible | :23:10. | :23:14. | |
thing ever invented by man but they have given as the most beautiful | :23:15. | :23:19. | |
thing and we should never together granted a day have given pe`ce in | :23:20. | :23:23. | |
our time to every generation represented in this hack's. Instead | :23:24. | :23:28. | |
of voting for complacency and relying on others to defend us, we | :23:29. | :23:34. | |
must vote to stand firm, we must book to deliver and guarantde that | :23:35. | :23:37. | |
piece for many more generathons to come. Thank you. My honourable | :23:38. | :23:47. | |
friend 's from Chesterfield made reference to their mothers who were | :23:48. | :23:55. | |
at Greenham Common. Was I. H didn't meet their mothers, or as f`r as I'm | :23:56. | :23:58. | |
aware. LAUGHTER | :23:59. | :24:01. | |
There were tens of thousands of those who protested against nuclear | :24:02. | :24:05. | |
weapons and the decision of the cruise missiles and the SS 20s at | :24:06. | :24:14. | |
that time. CND had hundreds of thousands on demonstrations and at | :24:15. | :24:22. | |
that time, many people belidved we were in the possible advent of a | :24:23. | :24:27. | |
nuclear war. There was real fear in society. The leader of the Labour | :24:28. | :24:32. | |
Party, Michael fit, has been compared in some debate with our | :24:33. | :24:37. | |
current leader. I have to s`y "aye" worked for and with Michael fit he | :24:38. | :24:43. | |
was a great patriotic, antifascist. He stood up to the generals, those | :24:44. | :24:49. | |
that took over the Falkland Islands and he spoke as how is any Saturday | :24:50. | :24:55. | |
morning and made the case why we had to liberate the Falklands from | :24:56. | :25:00. | |
fascism. I believe that Michael had tried his very best to unitd the | :25:01. | :25:02. | |
Labour Party. Even though hd had divisions. He would not takd the | :25:03. | :25:19. | |
position has been taken by the person per is in the north. Michael | :25:20. | :25:23. | |
fit strove to get international agreement and he worked for | :25:24. | :25:30. | |
disarmament. But myself and many others who were Parliamentary | :25:31. | :25:34. | |
candidates in 1983 know that we went into that election with what became | :25:35. | :25:41. | |
known as the longest suicidd note in history in Ilford knife where I was | :25:42. | :25:46. | |
the candidate, the Labour vote almost halved and I only just capped | :25:47. | :25:51. | |
second place from a new STB. The Conservatives were rampant. | :25:52. | :25:58. | |
Afterwards, I was working in the party's headquarters on the defence | :25:59. | :26:04. | |
policy. We tried to square the circle by producing a policx | :26:05. | :26:07. | |
document which was called ddfence and security for Britain, it had a | :26:08. | :26:13. | |
union Jack on the cover and we emphasised strong conventional | :26:14. | :26:18. | |
defence, we called for defence diversification agency and we | :26:19. | :26:23. | |
thought that would be sufficient under Neil Kinnock, our leader to do | :26:24. | :26:28. | |
much better in 1987. We did do better but defence policy w`s still | :26:29. | :26:36. | |
a factor in us losing in 1987. We had a policy review, includhng | :26:37. | :26:39. | |
visiting Moscow, which we dhd in 1989. Gorbachev was talking about a | :26:40. | :26:51. | |
nuclear free world by the ydar 000. The Labour Party shifted its policy | :26:52. | :26:57. | |
towards a policy of independent steps but as a context of a global | :26:58. | :27:03. | |
multilateral framework. That policy was denounced by the historhan EP | :27:04. | :27:10. | |
Thompson and I don't have thme today but I will write about this. In | :27:11. | :27:16. | |
1989, the denounced Labour Party for going back on his unilateralist | :27:17. | :27:21. | |
position. I wrote in the CND magazine, what is is this | :27:22. | :27:26. | |
unilateralism? Is it a tacthc to get something better or is it a quasi-or | :27:27. | :27:31. | |
religious totem for left-wing atheists? I stand by that | :27:32. | :27:38. | |
description of some of the view is that we have today. It has become a | :27:39. | :27:44. | |
quasi-religious totem rather than a practical means to take measures | :27:45. | :27:49. | |
that bring about real and profound international change and th`t's why | :27:50. | :27:51. | |
I will be voting with the Government's motion this evdning. | :27:52. | :28:00. | |
Thank you. I am a proud member of both the GMB and Unite tradd unions | :28:01. | :28:04. | |
and I stand here today to m`ke the case for our national securhty both | :28:05. | :28:09. | |
in terms of the role of the deterrent in an increasinglx | :28:10. | :28:13. | |
turbulent world but also for our domestic defence manufacturhng | :28:14. | :28:15. | |
capability. Our country is `t a crossroads. We voted to leave the EU | :28:16. | :28:23. | |
and to forge our own destinx. We must do this as part of the family | :28:24. | :28:29. | |
of nations, of the global community, embracing our responsibilithes as a | :28:30. | :28:33. | |
permanent member of the US security council and as a founder melber of | :28:34. | :28:36. | |
the Nato alliance. Not runnhng away from them. I review this... I, like | :28:37. | :28:46. | |
all others in the chamber, would like to see a nuclear free world but | :28:47. | :28:50. | |
this can only be achieved bx international cooperation and only | :28:51. | :28:54. | |
negotiated to words from a position of strength. To decide oursdlves | :28:55. | :29:00. | |
unilaterally would not disptte or abandon our responsibilities to | :29:01. | :29:10. | |
international allies, it wotld send us naked into the conferencd | :29:11. | :29:15. | |
chamber. At the time of unprecedented global turmoil, it | :29:16. | :29:20. | |
would be recklessness to ab`ndon a fundamental element about n`tional | :29:21. | :29:23. | |
security in the name of somd abstract ideological idea however | :29:24. | :29:32. | |
well-meaning. Thank you. Should we get this into some sort of | :29:33. | :29:38. | |
perspective. By 2020, at thd UK s stockpile of nuclear weapons will be | :29:39. | :29:44. | |
no more than 180 with only 020 operational and available ntclear | :29:45. | :29:47. | |
weapons whereas Russia, China and North Korea currently have between | :29:48. | :29:57. | |
them over six thousand 508,400? She outlines the threat we really face. | :29:58. | :30:02. | |
The horrific attacks in Neath last week were the latest reminddr of the | :30:03. | :30:08. | |
risks that we face. We are living through a period of extraordinary | :30:09. | :30:13. | |
global turmoil. The threats come not just from international terrorist | :30:14. | :30:15. | |
networks but from resurgent intentions between... Not ldast from | :30:16. | :30:21. | |
Russia as the Defence Select Committee outlined earlier this | :30:22. | :30:26. | |
month. Russian actions in the Crimea and the Arctic give us pausd for | :30:27. | :30:29. | |
thought at the Russian nucldar doctrine has also changed r`dically | :30:30. | :30:33. | |
and for the worst since the end of the Cold War. | :30:34. | :30:40. | |
Russia, with the use of hostile rhetoric, it is lowering thdir | :30:41. | :30:49. | |
nuclear threshold. This is no time for Britain to abandon eithdr our | :30:50. | :30:53. | |
own nuclear capabilities or our commitment to friends and allies. | :30:54. | :30:58. | |
Our military is rightly widdly admired as the best in the world and | :30:59. | :31:03. | |
we in this place over it to them to ensure they are provided with the | :31:04. | :31:07. | |
resources and support that they need to ensure our country is prdpared | :31:08. | :31:12. | |
for any scenario. But we must also look closer to home, to the security | :31:13. | :31:18. | |
of our own communities and dconomy, and on this basis, the argulent that | :31:19. | :31:22. | |
our deterrent is unquestion`ble There are tens of thousands of jobs | :31:23. | :31:26. | |
which depend upon our commitment to the success of the programmd. While | :31:27. | :31:32. | |
communities live their lives in the Shadow of the shipyards and the | :31:33. | :31:40. | |
darker Shadow doubles alongside it. These are skilled men and women | :31:41. | :31:44. | |
working the jobs to support their families, including in my own city | :31:45. | :31:49. | |
of Stoke-on-Trent, where ond of my local companies contributed to the | :31:50. | :31:53. | |
supply chain. These communities need our support and our commitmdnt to | :31:54. | :31:58. | |
their industry and today we have the opportunity to offer than the | :31:59. | :32:03. | |
reassurance they need. As a country, we need to protect our manufacturing | :32:04. | :32:07. | |
capability and ensure a long-term investment in our national hndustry. | :32:08. | :32:10. | |
As has been repeatedly statdd in this debate, most powerfullx by the | :32:11. | :32:17. | |
honourable member, renewal of our deterrent is both my party's policy | :32:18. | :32:24. | |
and my union's. This should come as no surprise. | :32:25. | :32:35. | |
Our party has always and will always stand up first and foremost for the | :32:36. | :32:42. | |
security of our nation. We do now and we always will. As the general | :32:43. | :32:49. | |
secretary of my union has s`id, we have had enough of politici`ns on | :32:50. | :32:53. | |
all sides playing politics with tens of thousands of highly skilled jobs | :32:54. | :32:57. | |
and the communities they support. But the sake of those communities, | :32:58. | :33:01. | |
for the sake of our economy and the long-term security of our country, I | :33:02. | :33:06. | |
will vote in favour of repl`cing the current Vanguard submarines with the | :33:07. | :33:09. | |
new class and I urge others to do the same. Today's vote and our | :33:10. | :33:18. | |
decision about Trident is at the heart of what kind of futurd we want | :33:19. | :33:22. | |
for ourselves and our children. It is also about the hard eviddnce and | :33:23. | :33:26. | |
what we mean by safety in an uncertain and changing world. The | :33:27. | :33:30. | |
theory that having nuclear weapons makes a safer is an entirelx | :33:31. | :33:34. | |
unproven one and nor can it be proven. In logic, one cannot prove a | :33:35. | :33:41. | |
negative. That is the doing something causes something does not | :33:42. | :33:45. | |
happen. A nuclear attack has not happened, maybe as a result of a | :33:46. | :33:49. | |
number of factors, or simplx of exceptional good fortune. Dhd many | :33:50. | :33:54. | |
military experts argue that UK weapons make us less safe? Primarily | :33:55. | :33:59. | |
because of their existence contributes to the amount of nuclear | :34:00. | :34:02. | |
material circulating around the world. In 2014, senior military | :34:03. | :34:10. | |
political and diplomatic figures, the former Defence Secretarx and | :34:11. | :34:15. | |
Foreign Secretary, came togdther with the explicit aim of shhning the | :34:16. | :34:19. | |
light posed by the risk of nuclear weapons. They said, we belidve the | :34:20. | :34:26. | |
risks posed by nuclear weapons are under estimated or insuffichently | :34:27. | :34:30. | |
understood by world leaders. The government's Maynard and thd | :34:31. | :34:34. | |
replacing Trident appears to be that it is the ultimate insurancd in an | :34:35. | :34:40. | |
uncertain world. Our possession of nuclear weapons in contravention of | :34:41. | :34:44. | |
the NPT is exacerbating that uncertainty. It is leading to the | :34:45. | :34:49. | |
very scenario that it is designed to avoid. Nor the advocates for nuclear | :34:50. | :34:52. | |
weapons have explained why hf Trident is a vital to protecting us, | :34:53. | :34:56. | |
why is that not the case of every other country in the world? How can | :34:57. | :35:00. | |
we deny other countries the right to seek to acquire them if we `re | :35:01. | :35:05. | |
upgrading our own nuclear wdapons? Do proponents of Trident renewal | :35:06. | :35:09. | |
genuinely believe a world where all countries have nuclear weapons will | :35:10. | :35:16. | |
be safer? Such immunity to reason means there is a blanket approach to | :35:17. | :35:19. | |
the heightened risk of accidents and threats. Whether that is in Scotland | :35:20. | :35:28. | |
or Cornwall all England, or whether indeed it is in the nuclear warhead | :35:29. | :35:33. | |
convoys taken are on our public roads, and some were seen on the M | :35:34. | :35:38. | |
74 in a few weeks ago going through small villages up to a dozen times a | :35:39. | :35:43. | |
year, there is little recognition that nuclear weapons are thdmselves | :35:44. | :35:47. | |
fallible. According to a shocking report by Chatham House, thdre were | :35:48. | :35:54. | |
nearly 13 incidents since 1862 when nuclear weapons were newly launched. | :35:55. | :35:59. | |
One of the most dramatic in 198 when the duty officer of a Soviet | :36:00. | :36:05. | |
centre found five US missilds launched. After a few moments of | :36:06. | :36:10. | |
agonising, he judged it to be a false alarm, but reaching a | :36:11. | :36:16. | |
different conclusion could have triggered the firing of nuclear | :36:17. | :36:20. | |
weapons by Russia. I want to talk about people saying you cannot | :36:21. | :36:23. | |
invent things are being invdnted. Biological weapons were banned in | :36:24. | :36:31. | |
1972, landmines and 97, clustered musicians in 2008. If the political | :36:32. | :36:36. | |
will is there, it can be done. Countries have called for a treaty | :36:37. | :36:43. | |
on nuclear weapons. Negotiations may begin next year yet this government | :36:44. | :36:47. | |
is holding out and refusing to engage with multilateral UN | :36:48. | :36:50. | |
processes to secure a nucle`r free world. I think that there is no | :36:51. | :36:55. | |
credibility with this government says it is working for a nuclear | :36:56. | :37:00. | |
free world. Our security is deeply linked to the security of those | :37:01. | :37:05. | |
around us and we need to do the slower hard work of disarming their | :37:06. | :37:11. | |
response which is the wrong one By voting to renew Trident, we are | :37:12. | :37:16. | |
sending a signal that power by any means is necessary. | :37:17. | :37:33. | |
The document attempted to offer a response to those perceived threats. | :37:34. | :37:42. | |
However, it is the case and the government disregarding the | :37:43. | :37:48. | |
findings. They posited the dntire defensive structure on the TK on the | :37:49. | :37:52. | |
continued deterrent. Afford`bility of the programme is a major issue | :37:53. | :37:55. | |
because the cost of bean tapa Trident programme must be more than | :37:56. | :38:09. | |
a finite military budget. Ultimately, we, as the government | :38:10. | :38:18. | |
should prioritise spending to counteract terrorism, rather than | :38:19. | :38:20. | |
nuclear weapons which can ndver be used. It's fair to say that the | :38:21. | :38:23. | |
government makes significant moves forward. But it is also trud that | :38:24. | :38:30. | |
investigative nuclear weapons instead of conventional ones, all | :38:31. | :38:35. | |
these other responses, choice between one or the other. The | :38:36. | :38:40. | |
government has identified the ? 1 billion for the construction of | :38:41. | :38:49. | |
submarines. However, the trte cost of this programme in its entirety, | :38:50. | :38:52. | |
including maintenance, nucldar warheads, will be higher. It could | :38:53. | :39:06. | |
be ?179 billion. For exampld, in 2010, because the replacing the | :39:07. | :39:09. | |
submarines came in at ?20 bhllion. There are now 31 billion potnds on | :39:10. | :39:17. | |
overrun is about as likely, what has been happened. For those saxing that | :39:18. | :39:25. | |
they are capable military force I would remind them of the 2000 SST | :39:26. | :39:34. | |
are where 30,000 personnel were lost. Last week, this has ddbated | :39:35. | :39:44. | |
some of their own failures. Chilcot identified a refusal. I askdd | :39:45. | :39:51. | |
colleagues to consider this before putting the night because this is a | :39:52. | :39:56. | |
vast and recurring spent ovdr a number decades. The Defence | :39:57. | :40:02. | |
Secretary has said the estilated cost, 60% of the defence budget the | :40:03. | :40:08. | |
?2.3 billion a year. However, there has been a fall in the valud of | :40:09. | :40:12. | |
sterling and that could havd a severe impact. We would imagine | :40:13. | :40:16. | |
these costs will go up and now expensive with other progralmes is | :40:17. | :40:21. | |
that that is what happens. H want to turn to one of the central | :40:22. | :40:31. | |
assumptions of the argument. That is around the suitability of them to | :40:32. | :40:35. | |
detect a single submarine on patrol at any given time. It is ovdr 4 | :40:36. | :40:44. | |
years. The technological facets of the last 40 years, in 40 ye`rs | :40:45. | :40:54. | |
hence, we can predict accur`tely where technology will have taken us. | :40:55. | :41:00. | |
This decision is to commit ` junk antics of money to the conthnuation | :41:01. | :41:04. | |
of the Trident programme. Wd must assume if we will advance that there | :41:05. | :41:08. | |
is no technological advance that will allow the detection of these | :41:09. | :41:11. | |
vessels below the surface and I do not think that is tenable. Dven the | :41:12. | :41:19. | |
most ardent advocate would have to concede that this would mean the | :41:20. | :41:22. | |
loss to the system's most ilportant advantage. It would be renddred | :41:23. | :41:28. | |
vulnerable if not altogether obsolete. Technology is being | :41:29. | :41:37. | |
considered and it may be thd potential to propagate the coming | :41:38. | :41:46. | |
decades. Such a development route at least required considerable | :41:47. | :41:48. | |
investment and that is putthng more defence and pressure on futtre | :41:49. | :41:54. | |
defence budgets. Finally, I want to mention the elephant in the room. | :41:55. | :42:00. | |
That is Scottish independence. I have no intention of getting into | :42:01. | :42:03. | |
why this would be a good idda for Scotland. But whether or not | :42:04. | :42:09. | |
honourable colleagues agree or not the Scottish independence is | :42:10. | :42:14. | |
preferable, it is at least ` possibility, and I am not stre many | :42:15. | :42:18. | |
honourable members would be prepared to bet on that eventuality of a 40 | :42:19. | :42:24. | |
years. These weapons of mass destruction will not be toldrated in | :42:25. | :42:32. | |
an independent Scotland. ?179 billion being allocated is better's | :42:33. | :42:39. | |
Billy. So it is that I find myself as a democratic socialist stpporting | :42:40. | :42:46. | |
every motion today because the truth is that the preservation of our | :42:47. | :42:49. | |
national security does not wear the colours of any political party. I | :42:50. | :42:52. | |
want to begin post or by re`ching out to those who do not support the | :42:53. | :42:57. | |
retention and renewal of thd UK s nuclear deterrent. This is ` | :42:58. | :43:00. | |
polarised debate. I want to say to those that oppose renewal btt I | :43:01. | :43:04. | |
understand how and why you feel the way you do, how and by your | :43:05. | :43:09. | |
opposition to nuclear weapons has motivated you to act in certain | :43:10. | :43:15. | |
ways. Like those people, and every trade union representative of the | :43:16. | :43:18. | |
people who live in these colmunities where jobs are so valued, I hope it | :43:19. | :43:28. | |
were free of weapons. The world is an increasingly difficult and | :43:29. | :43:30. | |
challenging place, the complexities we face are increasing not receding, | :43:31. | :43:37. | |
and even if there was a mood swing in our country which sold | :43:38. | :43:40. | |
disarmament is desirable, I would argue against such a move. | :43:41. | :43:43. | |
Multilateralism is the only way forward for our country. Those who | :43:44. | :43:51. | |
seek to do some divest themselves of their nuclear arsenals as wdll. The | :43:52. | :43:58. | |
arguments for a multination`l approach, our obligations and | :43:59. | :44:00. | |
responsibility towards our `llies, global security and more colpelling. | :44:01. | :44:05. | |
An American diplomat told md recently that there was an dmerging | :44:06. | :44:09. | |
view on the left of American politics that the US is tirdd of | :44:10. | :44:13. | |
fighting and paying for your's safety. There is an emerging view | :44:14. | :44:18. | |
amongst other American politicians that European partners are not | :44:19. | :44:22. | |
pulling their weight. There is a pivot taking place regarding US | :44:23. | :44:26. | |
foreign policy. Other alliances are being sought an established. We risk | :44:27. | :44:31. | |
the strategic relationship we have enjoyed with them if we | :44:32. | :44:33. | |
conspicuously failed to makd necessary steps to maintain our own | :44:34. | :44:39. | |
nuclear deterrent. We have Rush on the borders of the European Union, a | :44:40. | :44:44. | |
Russia that is only now replacing its nuclear fleet. More concerning | :44:45. | :44:52. | |
is the fact that Russian military has changed its engagement protocols | :44:53. | :44:56. | |
and these permit the use of nuclear weapons in order to achieve | :44:57. | :45:04. | |
de-escalation. Is this the time with a weak European Union and | :45:05. | :45:09. | |
exasperated United States that the United Kingdom should abandon its | :45:10. | :45:11. | |
nuclear deterrent? No, it is not. Obviously the noble member supports | :45:12. | :45:22. | |
renewing Trident. Have you `ny idea why your colleagues in the Scottish | :45:23. | :45:29. | |
Parliament do not? That is ` matter for my friends in the Scotthsh | :45:30. | :45:33. | |
parliament. It is the policx of the party to retain the nuclear | :45:34. | :45:37. | |
deterrent. As a member of P`rliament steeped in my party traditions, | :45:38. | :45:40. | |
proud of the achievements and excited by the possibilities, I will | :45:41. | :45:44. | |
support the policies of my party tonight. For the first time ever I | :45:45. | :45:49. | |
have witnessed the leader of the Labour Party arguing against the | :45:50. | :45:52. | |
policy of the party that he leads. This is unprecedented. This | :45:53. | :45:59. | |
reckless, juvenile irresponsibility makes me fear for the futurd of the | :46:00. | :46:03. | |
party that I love. The sheer stupidity of this approach should be | :46:04. | :46:06. | |
dragged out into the light `nd seen for what it is. Not only is renewal | :46:07. | :46:12. | |
Labour Party policy, it is the settled will of the country and | :46:13. | :46:15. | |
every parliamentary decision related to it will be taken by 2020. | :46:16. | :46:20. | |
Furthermore, as Lord Kinnock has warned and it looks like he will | :46:21. | :46:23. | |
have to say to the party for the second time in my lifetime, the | :46:24. | :46:27. | |
British people will not votd for unilateral disarmament and that has | :46:28. | :46:30. | |
to be dealt with. The policx of unilateral disarmament is a bar to | :46:31. | :46:34. | |
becoming elected. A democratic socialist party with this policy can | :46:35. | :46:38. | |
campaign to rid the country of poverty, restore the NHS, btild up | :46:39. | :46:43. | |
the economy and make sure every man, woman and child in every colmunity | :46:44. | :46:47. | |
in the country enjoys equalhty of opportunity, but campaigning is all | :46:48. | :46:52. | |
it will ever do. Because a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmamdnt will | :46:53. | :46:55. | |
make sure we never govern. This logic is inescapable. The ldader of | :46:56. | :47:03. | |
the Labour Party knows it. There is a little folly in your argulent If | :47:04. | :47:11. | |
you look at the SNP, 56 out of 9 seats are in the Scottish | :47:12. | :47:14. | |
government, we all hold the position of unilateral disarmament, so to | :47:15. | :47:18. | |
give you some hope, we are doing what you are hoping your party can | :47:19. | :47:26. | |
do in future. I commend him for that audacious and fundamental | :47:27. | :47:29. | |
intervention. I applaud his audacity but the logic is inescapabld. We are | :47:30. | :47:35. | |
forced to accept that the rdfusal to support the established polhcy of | :47:36. | :47:39. | |
the Labour Party and acknowledge the achievements of the greatest Labour | :47:40. | :47:42. | |
government is not only a knowing embrace of defeat but a verx real, a | :47:43. | :47:47. | |
very studied and a very detdrmined desire to split this Labour Party. | :47:48. | :47:52. | |
The manifesto I stood on at the last election pledged to renew otr | :47:53. | :47:56. | |
nuclear deterrent. The manifesto that I will stand under on the next | :47:57. | :48:01. | |
election will pledge to rendw our nuclear deterrent, whether or not | :48:02. | :48:06. | |
this leader likes that or not. And that will be true, Mr deputx | :48:07. | :48:12. | |
speaker, of hundreds of colleagues on these benches. I urge all | :48:13. | :48:18. | |
colleagues on the Labour front bench tonight to respect the democratic | :48:19. | :48:20. | |
rosettes of the Labour Partx, respect the conference decision of | :48:21. | :48:27. | |
the Labour Party, to vote whth the established policy of the L`bour | :48:28. | :48:30. | |
Party and if you cannot do that return to the backbenches. | :48:31. | :48:36. | |
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am against Trident renewal for all of | :48:37. | :48:43. | |
the reasons which have been ably laid out by my honourable colleagues | :48:44. | :48:48. | |
here today. But I am mainly against the renewal of Trident becatse | :48:49. | :48:51. | |
morally, I think it is a corrupt concept. It is a weapon deshgned to | :48:52. | :48:56. | |
kill people indiscriminatelx. And I would say to the Prime Minister who | :48:57. | :49:01. | |
said earlier today that she was willing to take the decision to kill | :49:02. | :49:04. | |
hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children, shd should | :49:05. | :49:09. | |
maybe take advice from the International Court of Justhce, says | :49:10. | :49:14. | |
states must never make a civilian is the object of attack and must | :49:15. | :49:18. | |
consequently never use weapons in capable of distinguishing bdtween | :49:19. | :49:26. | |
civilian and military targets. Mr Deputy Speaker, in my time `s an MP | :49:27. | :49:30. | |
I have held many surgeries `round my constituency. People come to me with | :49:31. | :49:34. | |
their problems and I try and help as best I can. I get people coling to | :49:35. | :49:39. | |
my surgery sometimes in tears because their disability benefits | :49:40. | :49:43. | |
have been cut. Because the TK government does not have thd money | :49:44. | :49:47. | |
to give them a decent life. I get people coming to me saying that they | :49:48. | :49:51. | |
have been unfairly sanctiondd. Because the welfare budget has the | :49:52. | :49:56. | |
big trend because there is no money. I get women born in the 1950s coming | :49:57. | :50:00. | |
to my surgery telling me thdy have to miss out on their pension because | :50:01. | :50:06. | |
there is no money. When members opposite and on these benchds tell | :50:07. | :50:09. | |
us that it doesn't matter how much Trident replacement costs, come to | :50:10. | :50:14. | |
my surgeries and speak to those people and look them in the face and | :50:15. | :50:18. | |
tell them bad. If you are going to spend, sorry, if the honour`ble | :50:19. | :50:26. | |
members are going to spend tp to 205 alien pounds replacing Triddnt they | :50:27. | :50:30. | |
should think about the consdquences the people. -- billion pounds. They | :50:31. | :50:36. | |
stretch right into my consthtuency. To the Army base which has been | :50:37. | :50:41. | |
their 250 years, Fort Georgd, on the MOD list, considered for closure, | :50:42. | :50:47. | |
because there is no money. There is the benefit of the MOD spend full | :50:48. | :50:53. | |
stop it will be taken away from conventional hard-working pdrsonnel | :50:54. | :50:58. | |
to pay for what useless weapons I will carry on, useless weapons of | :50:59. | :51:03. | |
mass destruction. The threat we face in the future is going to bd the | :51:04. | :51:09. | |
threats my honourable friend from Stirling mentioned earlier, things | :51:10. | :51:12. | |
like cyber attacks. There is hardly any talk of the investment we need | :51:13. | :51:19. | |
in the future to make sure that we make vulnerable systems in | :51:20. | :51:25. | |
vulnerable. If I may quote the signs and board final report, I know the | :51:26. | :51:28. | |
member opposite likes to intervene but the rarely says anything of | :51:29. | :51:36. | |
value. The final report of Brazilian military systems... We can only have | :51:37. | :51:43. | |
one member on his feet at one time and he is not willing to give way | :51:44. | :51:46. | |
because he would like to get other colleagues in. Come on. I whll try | :51:47. | :51:53. | |
and be as quick as I can. I will give way, thank you. It is dven more | :51:54. | :52:02. | |
difficult to calculate becatse of the massive fluctuation in the | :52:03. | :52:05. | |
currency market because of the Brexit vote. I can only agrde with | :52:06. | :52:11. | |
my honourable friend. I was about to make the point about the band | :52:12. | :52:17. | |
ability of the military systems The important quote is that the United | :52:18. | :52:23. | |
States cannot be confident. There are critical systems which could be | :52:24. | :52:26. | |
under attack from sophistic`ted and well resourced opponents uthlising | :52:27. | :52:34. | |
cyber capabilities and eight, nation of military intelligence | :52:35. | :52:40. | |
capabilities. -- and a serids of military intelligence capabhlities. | :52:41. | :52:46. | |
This is even worse because ht can be hacked and used against us `nd you | :52:47. | :52:49. | |
are planning, I am sorry, they are planning to spend up to ?204 billion | :52:50. | :52:56. | |
to do so. I will not be vothng for Trident renewal tonight. For all the | :52:57. | :53:00. | |
good reasons which have been laid out in this chamber. One by one The | :53:01. | :53:07. | |
main reason I will not be voting for Trident renewal is because ht is an | :53:08. | :53:09. | |
obscenity. Mr Deputy Speaker, this deb`te is to | :53:10. | :53:21. | |
be welcome. I think many melbers will realise that it is not entirely | :53:22. | :53:25. | |
necessary. The government h`ve initiated a debate, the main purpose | :53:26. | :53:31. | |
of which is to create, or hhghlight discord in another party, the Labour | :53:32. | :53:36. | |
Party. Frankly they do not need any encouragement from the Government. | :53:37. | :53:39. | |
They are doing a good job of this themselves. More seriously, the main | :53:40. | :53:50. | |
threats to the UK identified in the strategic defence and securhty were | :53:51. | :53:54. | |
terrorism, research and state -based threats, the impact of technology | :53:55. | :53:58. | |
and the erosion of rules based on international order. Trident will | :53:59. | :54:04. | |
use a 6% of the defence budget and partially addresses one of them the | :54:05. | :54:10. | |
state -based threat from Russia It is a fact that as we have hdard this | :54:11. | :54:14. | |
evening that if we go ahead and build four submarines they will cost | :54:15. | :54:20. | |
more than ?31 billion. That was five years ago 21 billion. I unddrstand | :54:21. | :54:26. | |
given that the SNP do not w`nt this system that's the cost irrelevant. | :54:27. | :54:33. | |
But for those of us on that side, from the Liberal Democrats, that | :54:34. | :54:37. | |
would like some system, we `re entitled to hear what the actual | :54:38. | :54:41. | |
cost is going to be. We havd heard ranges from 179 billion up to 2 0 | :54:42. | :54:48. | |
billion and more. We also entitled to have some clarity about the | :54:49. | :54:54. | |
uncertainty of who will man`ge this system and whether that is something | :54:55. | :54:58. | |
the Government has finally tied down. Our position is we thhnk we | :54:59. | :55:03. | |
should retain a nuclear cap`bility. We believe the threat is such the UK | :55:04. | :55:08. | |
needs a nuclear deterrent btt we do not believe in a like-for-lhke | :55:09. | :55:12. | |
replacement. That is why we are voting against the Government today. | :55:13. | :55:16. | |
The party's position has bedn debated at great length and agreed | :55:17. | :55:21. | |
in 2013, but it is still behng debated and debated again at this | :55:22. | :55:26. | |
moment. We seek to take a step down the nuclear ladder but we bdlieve | :55:27. | :55:31. | |
giving up nuclear weapons in a unilateralist way says we no longer | :55:32. | :55:36. | |
wish to retain them and will not give us any leveraged in | :55:37. | :55:38. | |
nonproliferation discussions. Keeping a seat at the negothating | :55:39. | :55:44. | |
table would be important in having a smaller nuclear capability `nd | :55:45. | :55:47. | |
making sure we are retaining the skills which have we have hdard is | :55:48. | :55:50. | |
important for the nuclear c`pability of the country. While moving away | :55:51. | :55:54. | |
from continuous at sea deterrent will strike some as thing as more | :55:55. | :55:59. | |
vulnerable it would still mdan we had such a capability and wd kept | :56:00. | :56:05. | |
many options open in a way that unilateralism would not. And indeed | :56:06. | :56:09. | |
make a contribution to the nonproliferation commitments. I | :56:10. | :56:14. | |
refer to article six and I `sk the Prime Minister whether she can | :56:15. | :56:18. | |
explain how the like-for-like replacement would comply with | :56:19. | :56:21. | |
article six. I am afraid thdre was no answer. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is | :56:22. | :56:29. | |
not 1980. While we do face threats, they are not the existential threats | :56:30. | :56:33. | |
we faced them. It is a diffdrent world. It is a way to begin to climb | :56:34. | :56:39. | |
down the nuclear ladder, another rung of the ladder and provhde | :56:40. | :56:43. | |
others with that incentive to do so as well. We have the opporttnity to | :56:44. | :56:49. | |
do that. I hope we will takd that opportunity now. | :56:50. | :56:54. | |
There seems to be this idea from the opposing benches that we in the SNP | :56:55. | :57:02. | |
are against nuclear weapons for some kind of romanticised reason. The | :57:03. | :57:06. | |
reality is we are against rdnewing Trident for very logical re`sons. We | :57:07. | :57:11. | |
have to remember that fact that fundamentally it is a weapon. We | :57:12. | :57:14. | |
have already established thd fact that we would not fire this weapon | :57:15. | :57:19. | |
first. We would not launch this weapon. The only time we ard saying | :57:20. | :57:25. | |
we will ever use it is somebody if has a nuclear strike against us | :57:26. | :57:29. | |
Frankly, that means we are `ll dead anyway. If I am dying I do not care | :57:30. | :57:35. | |
if we are sending one back, or not. I am more worried about the one | :57:36. | :57:41. | |
coming towards me. We are kdeping this phrase again and again that we | :57:42. | :57:45. | |
cannot predict the future. Hf we are going to make defence policx we have | :57:46. | :57:50. | |
to think wisely about is we are deterring against. What are the | :57:51. | :57:54. | |
threats that we face? The N`tional Security strategy set out the level | :57:55. | :57:59. | |
one threats faced by the UK. International terrorism, clhmate | :58:00. | :58:04. | |
change, cyber crime. What tdrrorist attack have nuclear weapons | :58:05. | :58:08. | |
protected us from and Francd from? Zero. Never mind climate ch`nge and | :58:09. | :58:16. | |
cyber crime. This comes back to it being a deterrent. But only nine | :58:17. | :58:19. | |
countries in the world have these weapons. How come the other 180 | :58:20. | :58:25. | |
countries do not feel the nded to have this deterrent? What is the | :58:26. | :58:31. | |
argument for keeping it? We keep hearing we need to keep it for jobs. | :58:32. | :58:36. | |
Yes, we have skilled enginedrs, scientists and workers workhng very | :58:37. | :58:40. | |
hard and are very talented. But why not use the billions of pounds we | :58:41. | :58:44. | |
are proposing to spend on this to invest in the energy sector is and | :58:45. | :58:48. | |
engineering sectors? Why do we not use them in renewable energx | :58:49. | :58:54. | |
sectors? Climate change is hn fact a level one thread. Why not spend that | :58:55. | :59:00. | |
money trying to tackle that? -- level one threat. It begs the | :59:01. | :59:06. | |
question what are they for? The fact of the matter is that all this is | :59:07. | :59:13. | |
really about is about the UK keeping a permanent place on the UN Security | :59:14. | :59:16. | |
Council and as the member for Tunbridge, unfortunately not in his | :59:17. | :59:21. | |
seat, made very clear, the fact is that these weapons serve no other | :59:22. | :59:27. | |
purpose than to satisfy the ego of the British establishment. This is | :59:28. | :59:32. | |
about as putting a stamp on a world that we are isolating ourselves from | :59:33. | :59:36. | |
more and more. I have sat in this chamber as my honourable frhend put | :59:37. | :59:40. | |
very eloquently, I have sat in this chamber too many times and heard | :59:41. | :59:44. | |
that we cannot afford to look after the disabled, to look out for the | :59:45. | :59:49. | |
unemployed, we cannot afford to pay pensions on time, but weirdly the | :59:50. | :59:53. | |
garment is making the difficult choices and all the people have been | :59:54. | :59:57. | |
making the argument for austerity and the very same people ard telling | :59:58. | :00:01. | |
us we can afford to write a blank cheque for these useless we`pons. It | :00:02. | :00:08. | |
is to preserve Westminster's self indulgent image of importance. This | :00:09. | :00:14. | |
is all part of a long-term dconomic government sham. That is wh`t this | :00:15. | :00:18. | |
is. I would like to get somd context to the reality of what it mdans In | :00:19. | :00:23. | |
my constituency we have the busiest railway in Scotland after Glasgow | :00:24. | :00:27. | |
and Edinburgh. It is one of the main routes were nuclear waste is | :00:28. | :00:32. | |
transported. Use nuclear rods come into my constituency. Not in the | :00:33. | :00:35. | |
dead of night, but by day. When people are standing on a pl`tform | :00:36. | :00:40. | |
waiting to go to work, Greenock or wherever else. If the resumd a state | :00:41. | :00:44. | |
with one of these, if we have an accident, it is like a dirtx bomb. I | :00:45. | :00:49. | |
put it to the Government th`t they and their obsession with nuclear | :00:50. | :00:52. | |
weapons is in fact one of the greatest threats against my | :00:53. | :00:53. | |
constituency. I rise to support the motion. | :00:54. | :01:06. | |
Earlier, the Prime Minister said the first duty of government was protect | :01:07. | :01:10. | |
its citizens. I would add to that that the first duty of an | :01:11. | :01:16. | |
opposition, if it hopes to become a government, is to convince the | :01:17. | :01:19. | |
electorate in public at large that it will do the same and, above all, | :01:20. | :01:27. | |
has the ability to do so. The opposition cannot be ambiguous on | :01:28. | :01:33. | |
this commitment. I fully understand those in our party whose ethical | :01:34. | :01:37. | |
values and feel the values of the Labour Party are incompatible with | :01:38. | :01:47. | |
that stance, but what I would say is that the public, the electorate do | :01:48. | :01:52. | |
not feel that our values and ethics are an adequate defence in the face | :01:53. | :01:59. | |
of some of the military aggression of countries that might thrdaten us. | :02:00. | :02:04. | |
I am old enough to remember campaigning in the days when | :02:05. | :02:09. | |
Labour's policy was unilateralism. I can remember the cruel caricature of | :02:10. | :02:18. | |
Labour's defence policy. Thdy labelled Labour's defence policy. | :02:19. | :02:25. | |
And regrettably, it resonatdd with many of Labour's traditional voters. | :02:26. | :02:33. | |
A desire to feel that, abovd all, people are entitled to security | :02:34. | :02:38. | |
transcends voting behaviour, social class, incomes and so on. It goes | :02:39. | :02:43. | |
right across the piece. And Labour paid a very high price for failing | :02:44. | :02:49. | |
to recognise that in the 1980s. My honourable friend talked about how | :02:50. | :02:55. | |
he succeeded in changing th`t policy. And since then, what other | :02:56. | :03:04. | |
disagreements with Labour, ht has not been about defence. And indeed, | :03:05. | :03:10. | |
we have had three general elections with a defence policy that was | :03:11. | :03:19. | |
multilateral. In fact, multhlateral defence and independent nuclear | :03:20. | :03:23. | |
deterrent has been our policy for the last six general elections. It | :03:24. | :03:27. | |
was a manifesto commitment hn the last one, it is backed by trade | :03:28. | :03:36. | |
unions to recognise that anx removable of Trident impacts hugely | :03:37. | :03:40. | |
on the levels of employment and skills which are absolutely | :03:41. | :03:44. | |
essential to the welfare... I am sorry, I am not giving way xet. And | :03:45. | :03:52. | |
above all, it is backed by the public. For that policy to be | :03:53. | :03:58. | |
overturned, I would say there needs to be three thresholds which has the | :03:59. | :04:06. | |
meat. The first is that there must be a huge improvement in | :04:07. | :04:10. | |
international relations. Th`t quite clearly has not happened. Things | :04:11. | :04:15. | |
have deteriorated. The lowering of the threshold of the use of nuclear | :04:16. | :04:20. | |
Rothmans by Russia, its acthvities in Ukraine, North Korea, thd ability | :04:21. | :04:24. | |
of terrorists to take over countries and acquire nuclear technology, make | :04:25. | :04:34. | |
it a more dangerous world. H would also say a compelling changd of | :04:35. | :04:37. | |
technology which would renddr the nuclear submarine irrelevant. That | :04:38. | :04:44. | |
has not happened. A financi`l capacity that would render ts unable | :04:45. | :04:48. | |
to build them. That was not happened. And lastly, and | :04:49. | :04:54. | |
overwhelming evidence of public support shifting against it. That | :04:55. | :05:03. | |
has not happened. As we know, it was the famous post-war Labour | :05:04. | :05:07. | |
government the first acquirdd Britain's nuclear deterrent. Clement | :05:08. | :05:11. | |
Attlee had just been elected Prime Minister when America droppdd an | :05:12. | :05:15. | |
atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Hd realised in an incident that fire | :05:16. | :05:26. | |
engines were now useless in this destructive power. The only way was | :05:27. | :05:31. | |
to have the ability to fight back and therefore deter the initial | :05:32. | :05:36. | |
threat. Since then, Labour has the large part of adopted a stance on | :05:37. | :05:42. | |
disarmament, believing that while other countries possess nuclear | :05:43. | :05:46. | |
weapons, then Britain should not disarm unilaterally. Our 2005 | :05:47. | :05:52. | |
manifesto maintain our commhtment to a minimum credible independdnt | :05:53. | :05:55. | |
nuclear could ability. And the looking further reductions hn global | :05:56. | :06:02. | |
stockpiles. By 2025, the UK will have achieved 65% reduction in the | :06:03. | :06:07. | |
size of its nuclear stockpile. This Parliament has always taken our | :06:08. | :06:10. | |
disarmament goals seriously but the world is too unstable and too | :06:11. | :06:14. | |
predictable right now to contemplate getting rid of our main defdnce | :06:15. | :06:20. | |
strategies. Part of the abolitionist argument relies on the belidf that | :06:21. | :06:23. | |
nuclear weapons would not work as the crest of the modern world from | :06:24. | :06:29. | |
terrorist organisations. But just because they would not be used to | :06:30. | :06:33. | |
combat the nature of these threats does not negate their use as a | :06:34. | :06:36. | |
deterrent for other or future unknown threats. Those whom we don't | :06:37. | :06:42. | |
agree with understands the relevance of nuclear weapons and have sought | :06:43. | :06:47. | |
to in increase their capabilities. Russia, Iran, China and North Korea, | :06:48. | :06:53. | |
for example. I am proud of the superb engineering skills that are | :06:54. | :06:56. | |
nurtured in this highly skilled industry. The MoD has stated that | :06:57. | :07:02. | |
maintaining and sustaining the UK's nuclear deterrence supports over | :07:03. | :07:07. | |
30,000 UK jobs and makes a significant contribution to our UK | :07:08. | :07:13. | |
economy. This is why both unite and GMB support the renewal of our | :07:14. | :07:19. | |
submarines. Scrapping Trident would place manufacturing jobs in my | :07:20. | :07:23. | |
region in jeopardy. There are 2 businesses across the North East | :07:24. | :07:27. | |
involved in the supply chain Britain's may be different | :07:28. | :07:30. | |
submarines. Our region is already at risk of losing millions of pounds | :07:31. | :07:35. | |
worth of funding after Brexht. I know from personal bitter | :07:36. | :07:39. | |
experience, from the demise of shipbuilding, that job lossds on | :07:40. | :07:43. | |
this scale will lead to comlunities being wiped out. The fact is, if a | :07:44. | :07:49. | |
decision is taking not to rdplace Trident, these jobs will disappear | :07:50. | :07:54. | |
and we will never see them `gain. I acknowledge there remains an absence | :07:55. | :07:58. | |
of true definitive cost the renewal but one thing we can all agree on is | :07:59. | :08:02. | |
that it will be expensive and that this does need to be monitored. But | :08:03. | :08:09. | |
the reality is that we have got the paper Trident. If nuclear mhssiles | :08:10. | :08:13. | |
were cheap or easy to come by, the world would be in serious trouble. | :08:14. | :08:18. | |
The deterrent represents a security guarantee for the UK that I believe | :08:19. | :08:22. | |
right now a potential cost of retaining it is worth more than the | :08:23. | :08:31. | |
risk of disarmament. I belidve we should oppose the maintenance of a | :08:32. | :08:36. | |
deterrent today. The arguments are moral and practical. Person`lly the | :08:37. | :08:39. | |
moral argument. It's import`nt we all take full consideration of the | :08:40. | :08:43. | |
scale of destruction that modern nuclear weapons can deliver and I | :08:44. | :08:48. | |
would like to read out a message from the mayor of Hiroshima. On the | :08:49. | :08:55. | |
6th of August, 1945, a single atomic bomb rented Hiroshima scorched plane | :08:56. | :08:58. | |
and tens of thousands were burned flames. By the year's end, 040, 00 | :08:59. | :09:13. | |
lives were taken. Nuclear wdapons are an absolute evil and ultimate | :09:14. | :09:22. | |
inhumanity. In the same statement, he called all muscle to this shared | :09:23. | :09:27. | |
the sincere message that no one should suffer as we should have | :09:28. | :09:31. | |
Does my own boyfriend not share my concern that this would be difficult | :09:32. | :09:36. | |
to ignore the fact that we would move into a near permanent `rmament? | :09:37. | :09:42. | |
I do indeed agree with her. If we look at contemporary nuclear | :09:43. | :09:46. | |
weapons, they have the capability of delivering greater levels of | :09:47. | :09:53. | |
devastation. One modern missile of 12 warheads could wipe out ` city of | :09:54. | :09:58. | |
10 million people will eithdr uninhabitable. As the International | :09:59. | :10:01. | |
Court of Justice put in 1996, the destructive power of nuclear weapons | :10:02. | :10:05. | |
cannot be contained in spacd and time. They have the potenti`l to | :10:06. | :10:09. | |
destroy all civilisation and the entire ecosystem of the planet. It | :10:10. | :10:13. | |
is a chilling vision and is important we keep hold of this | :10:14. | :10:19. | |
vision. I recently visited Whitchurch high school in mx | :10:20. | :10:22. | |
constituency, where I met whth a call council. I asked them who felt | :10:23. | :10:31. | |
we should renew Trident. Thdre was a sense of agitation in the room and I | :10:32. | :10:34. | |
wondered if they were shy on the topic. I asked if there was anyone | :10:35. | :10:38. | |
opposed to the renewal. Every single and shot up in the air without | :10:39. | :10:42. | |
hesitation. I would say the decisions we make about nuclear | :10:43. | :10:46. | |
deterrence today will impact on our children for decades and it's | :10:47. | :10:49. | |
important we remember we ard making a decision for the next gendration. | :10:50. | :10:53. | |
Then there is the business of practicalities. The challenges to | :10:54. | :10:59. | |
our defence we face are different to those in the post-1945 era. Military | :11:00. | :11:10. | |
attack was thought of in terms of conventional military attack. There | :11:11. | :11:14. | |
are concerns of the intentions of President Putin's Russia. The | :11:15. | :11:18. | |
annexation of Crimea and thd civil War had a destabilising effdct on | :11:19. | :11:22. | |
security in Central and Eastern Europe but we also need to counter | :11:23. | :11:27. | |
the threat from non-state actors. Nuclear weapons will not en`ble us | :11:28. | :11:31. | |
to meet that threat and mondy allocated to Trident could lean the | :11:32. | :11:35. | |
defence budget is not focusdd on the challenges we faced. Is it really | :11:36. | :11:43. | |
possible to be sure that it will be an effective defence in 2060? I | :11:44. | :11:49. | |
recently attended a meeting addressed by Lord Browne, the former | :11:50. | :11:54. | |
Labour defence minister. He made a compelling argument against the | :11:55. | :11:57. | |
renewal of Trident. He focused on two practical issues in particular, | :11:58. | :12:01. | |
that of cyber security and that of the detection of submarines by enemy | :12:02. | :12:09. | |
forces. He said that Nato countries cannot be confident that thdir | :12:10. | :12:11. | |
nuclear defence systems would survive an attack from an opponent. | :12:12. | :12:21. | |
And then there is the issue of detection. The Prime Ministdr spoke | :12:22. | :12:26. | |
of nuclear submarines patrolling our Seas and and undetected but this is | :12:27. | :12:30. | |
not a given for the future. There is a threat that with the incrdase in | :12:31. | :12:35. | |
undersea detection technology, the location of submarines is more | :12:36. | :12:40. | |
likely to be compromise. It relies on submarines remaining unddtected. | :12:41. | :12:48. | |
There is a risk as well but the advancement in detection technology | :12:49. | :12:52. | |
will outpace any advancement in counter measures. A credibld | :12:53. | :12:59. | |
industrial strategy and cogdnt plan needs to be signed. Jobs, skills and | :13:00. | :13:04. | |
income should be protected. I believe there is a real risk these | :13:05. | :13:08. | |
expensive weapons may becomd obsolete over the period of their | :13:09. | :13:12. | |
lives and that we would be better off in investing in structures that | :13:13. | :13:22. | |
are real strategic threats. The issue is one that has been framed as | :13:23. | :13:26. | |
an issue which is contentiots, controversial and sensitive. Most | :13:27. | :13:39. | |
important of all is an issud where too many concerns about polhtical | :13:40. | :13:49. | |
dogma had been masked by iddalism. I fully support Trident renew`l and | :13:50. | :13:56. | |
the Northern Ireland Assembly has errors space defence Security has | :13:57. | :14:01. | |
identified it as a priority. Therefore, if there are jobs coming | :14:02. | :14:05. | |
off the back of Trident, we in Northern Ireland would make them. If | :14:06. | :14:09. | |
they are available, send thdm our way. Our national security hs no | :14:10. | :14:12. | |
game. You would be hard pushed to find someone that would not agree | :14:13. | :14:17. | |
with the fact the world is over onto. But we have not yet rdalised | :14:18. | :14:24. | |
that ideal world just yet. To ignore the fact with our country in danger, | :14:25. | :14:29. | |
our country would be less protected than yesterday and we would be more | :14:30. | :14:34. | |
under threat from enemies. We need to be prepared that the real world | :14:35. | :14:38. | |
we live in with its inherent dangers. I will continue to implore | :14:39. | :14:42. | |
those who are opposed to a deterrent that when you take all things into | :14:43. | :14:46. | |
consideration and rational `bout the the arguments stack up on the | :14:47. | :14:54. | |
renewal site. Our deterrent is a deterrent, not an aggressor. It is | :14:55. | :14:58. | |
fit for purpose but will not be used for its purpose. Not only does | :14:59. | :15:02. | |
Trident act as a deterrent or has the potential to be effective, but | :15:03. | :15:08. | |
it is testimony to the strength of defence. Trident forms an integral | :15:09. | :15:13. | |
part of our strong and proud country. Over 30 countries have | :15:14. | :15:17. | |
weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, biological. But not all of | :15:18. | :15:26. | |
these countries. And were wd to remove our deterrent, we wotld be | :15:27. | :15:31. | |
stepping of the world stage, making our country are less signifhcant | :15:32. | :15:34. | |
player around the unless significant partner. We need the United Kingdom | :15:35. | :15:38. | |
to remain strong and at the top table. | :15:39. | :15:44. | |
Getting back our capabilitids at a time when the world is more arms | :15:45. | :15:49. | |
than ever and is very volathle is not the way to go. We need to press | :15:50. | :15:58. | |
ahead. The ideal world does not yet exist and the context is not yet set | :15:59. | :16:03. | |
for that for the United Kingdom Trident make sure the United Kingdom | :16:04. | :16:07. | |
would be able to look after itself even in the worst scenario | :16:08. | :16:10. | |
imaginable. It sends out a strong message that no matter how lany | :16:11. | :16:15. | |
people talk down us as a nation we remain one of the most broadly | :16:16. | :16:19. | |
defended nations on earth rdady for whatever the enemies might throw at | :16:20. | :16:23. | |
us. What is contentious abott defending your country and the | :16:24. | :16:27. | |
pairing for the worst and what is sensitive about making sure your | :16:28. | :16:31. | |
country can react appropriately to the unthinkable? When cool heads | :16:32. | :16:34. | |
come together and rational linds make the right decision on this | :16:35. | :16:39. | |
issue, it should cause no controversy at all. Renewing the | :16:40. | :16:44. | |
deterrent is the right thing to do and it is the only thing we can do. | :16:45. | :16:47. | |
We tonight will support the Government and joined them hn the | :16:48. | :16:51. | |
lobbies to retain Trident and the Trident renewal. I was elected by | :16:52. | :17:00. | |
15,000 voters with a 7000 m`jority on a label -- Labour manifesto of | :17:01. | :17:11. | |
multinational in favour of Trident. I was a member of the CND and | :17:12. | :17:18. | |
related to Henry Richard and I will go through the arguments behng | :17:19. | :17:21. | |
deployed. The first thing is nuclear arms are appalling weapons. Well, we | :17:22. | :17:27. | |
know that. That is why they are such an awful deterrent. They ard a | :17:28. | :17:30. | |
deterrent because they are terrible weapons. The second is thesd arms | :17:31. | :17:36. | |
are obsolete, redundant bec`use of various technological advances. In | :17:37. | :17:42. | |
that case, why are Russia, China, France and the US investing in them? | :17:43. | :17:47. | |
The technology says it is not redundant. It is said they cannot | :17:48. | :17:51. | |
fight cyber crime and terrorism They are not designed to do so. They | :17:52. | :17:55. | |
say it costs a lot of money. Well, it does. 30 billion plus 10 billion | :17:56. | :18:01. | |
contingency. Something like 1.2 billion per year just for the | :18:02. | :18:06. | |
capital costs, about 6% of the defence spend. It is a lot of money | :18:07. | :18:11. | |
but it would not transform the NHS and in fact conventional arlaments. | :18:12. | :18:17. | |
It supports about 32,000 jobs. The key issue is do they deter? I have | :18:18. | :18:22. | |
to say as a member of the Council of Europe, when I talked to Ukraine MPs | :18:23. | :18:26. | |
they said if we had a deterrent of the Russians would not have invaded | :18:27. | :18:34. | |
Crimea and eastern Ukraine. Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, they sax that we | :18:35. | :18:38. | |
have got Russian Menorah CC like the Ukraine and they will invadd us and | :18:39. | :18:43. | |
if you do not have a deterrdnt what would you do? Conventional `rms Say | :18:44. | :18:47. | |
we will use tactical weapons and blow up Coventry question m`rk what | :18:48. | :18:55. | |
will we do? Let them blow up it up? It is not difficult to think of | :18:56. | :19:00. | |
scenarios where nuclear blackmail is effective whether it is Russia or | :19:01. | :19:07. | |
North Korea. That is all sufficient reason to support a minimum nuclear | :19:08. | :19:11. | |
deterrent. We could withdraw. We could be part of a nuclear @lliance | :19:12. | :19:16. | |
and let France and America protect us. But why should France | :19:17. | :19:21. | |
unilaterally disarm? What if Donald Trump comes along? Will he support | :19:22. | :19:30. | |
us? I think not. My position, like my honourable friend who didd the | :19:31. | :19:33. | |
same year that I was born, ht was not my fault, by the way. Hd was | :19:34. | :19:40. | |
basically a multilateralist like me and understood that the purpose of | :19:41. | :19:44. | |
these awful weapons is to ststain peace and prevent war. The purpose | :19:45. | :19:48. | |
of this deterrent is to savd lives and not take them. And to ddter | :19:49. | :19:55. | |
aggression and not attack pdople. We all wish these weapons did not exist | :19:56. | :19:59. | |
at all. But the question is, and it is difficult and I respect that do | :20:00. | :20:03. | |
we want to take responsibilhty for the deaths of people if we do not | :20:04. | :20:08. | |
have the deterrent and it provokes aggression which would otherwise not | :20:09. | :20:13. | |
happen? The nuclear capabilhty has halved since the Cold War. We only | :20:14. | :20:18. | |
have 1% of the current stock I'll add 17,000 weapons and the plan is | :20:19. | :20:21. | |
to reduce them further. -- stockpile. This is the bettdr of two | :20:22. | :20:28. | |
evils that we need a minimul capability. I wish we did not, but | :20:29. | :20:32. | |
we do. The acid test is with the nuclear weapons, will more less | :20:33. | :20:37. | |
people died? In my judgment, less people will die and therefore we | :20:38. | :20:45. | |
need to support this notion. I speak in favour of the motion. And for the | :20:46. | :20:51. | |
following reasons, first, it is the policy upon which I was elected My | :20:52. | :20:54. | |
Labour colleagues and I werd elected on the basis of a manifesto | :20:55. | :20:59. | |
commitment to support an independent nuclear deterrent and that hs what | :21:00. | :21:03. | |
we must do tonight. As a colmitted democrat I intend to fulfil the | :21:04. | :21:08. | |
mandate given to me by 15,000 people in Aberavon who elected me. My | :21:09. | :21:12. | |
colleagues should do the sale and fulfil the mandate they had from the | :21:13. | :21:15. | |
9.3 million people who voted Labour last year. Reckon, jobs. As a member | :21:16. | :21:22. | |
of Parliament who is proud to rep resents the steel-making he`rtland, | :21:23. | :21:28. | |
I am very aware of the industrial invocations that voting agahnst this | :21:29. | :21:32. | |
motion would have. Trident will support almost 26,000 jobs, | :21:33. | :21:36. | |
including 13,000 in advance manufacturing. It will affect more | :21:37. | :21:40. | |
than 1000 businesses in almost 50 towns across the country. Scrapping | :21:41. | :21:45. | |
Trident would further skew the economy with defence being one of | :21:46. | :21:48. | |
the few sectors reliably crdating sustainable and highly skilled and | :21:49. | :21:54. | |
well paid jobs outside London. As the union stated Sundays ago, there | :21:55. | :22:00. | |
can be no moral case for a trade union accepting the obliter`tion of | :22:01. | :22:05. | |
thousands of jobs or for thd communities in which they lhve being | :22:06. | :22:10. | |
turned into ghost towns. Sole years before I entered this place I worked | :22:11. | :22:14. | |
for the British Council as director of the Saint Petersburg offhce. I | :22:15. | :22:20. | |
have seen first-hand the nature of the Vladimir Putin regime. H was | :22:21. | :22:23. | |
withdrawn from Russia because of concern about my security after the | :22:24. | :22:29. | |
Kremlin campaign for intimidation in the wake of the poisoning of | :22:30. | :22:38. | |
Alexander Litvinenko. This regime responds to being caught red-handed, | :22:39. | :22:40. | |
murdering a British citizen on richest soil using nuclear laterial | :22:41. | :22:46. | |
with denial, aggression and intimidation. -- British sohl. I was | :22:47. | :22:53. | |
convinced of a needs to ret`in a nuclear deterrent. Because we must | :22:54. | :22:59. | |
be able to stand up to bullhes. Mr Deputy Speaker, we live in `n | :23:00. | :23:03. | |
unstable and unpredictable world. We know the expansionist belligerent | :23:04. | :23:08. | |
regime such as the one currdntly governing Russia thrives in such | :23:09. | :23:13. | |
conditions. We know the Russian garment has pressed forward with the | :23:14. | :23:18. | |
development of the ballistic missile submarine and the next generation of | :23:19. | :23:24. | |
cruise missiles. -- governmdnt. We cannot hope for James Bond to sneak | :23:25. | :23:28. | |
in and disarm the missile. The threat presented can only bd stopped | :23:29. | :23:35. | |
through deterrent. Nuclear weapons existing Zach Lee so that wd will | :23:36. | :23:41. | |
never have to use them. -- dxist exactly. I would like to live | :23:42. | :23:44. | |
without the nuclear weapons but we must engage with the world `s it is | :23:45. | :23:48. | |
and not how we would like it to be. We must be realistic and not | :23:49. | :23:53. | |
fantasies. Deterrence has kdpt the peace for more than 70 years. Giving | :23:54. | :23:58. | |
up the capacity for independent action will not only expose us to | :23:59. | :24:01. | |
blackmail but severely weakdn our standing in the world. I wotld ask | :24:02. | :24:08. | |
all honourable members to stand up for Britain as they enter the lobby | :24:09. | :24:11. | |
this evening and join me in supporting this motion. In November | :24:12. | :24:19. | |
the UK government published the latest strategic defence spdnding | :24:20. | :24:24. | |
review. At that time is assdssment was made of the security | :24:25. | :24:29. | |
implications of Brexit. This can now be interpreted as naive and | :24:30. | :24:33. | |
irresponsible. Eight months later we are being asked to forge a head with | :24:34. | :24:36. | |
defence spending policies b`sed on the assumption nothing has changed. | :24:37. | :24:40. | |
But everything has changed. The relationship with Europe. The Briton | :24:41. | :24:47. | |
-- the UK's role in the world, even the Prime Minister and much of the | :24:48. | :24:55. | |
Cabinet. With this such a shift in circumstances, surely the thme has | :24:56. | :24:58. | |
come to at least revisit thd principle of the spending rdview. | :24:59. | :25:02. | |
This commitment, based on l`st November's costing, would the up one | :25:03. | :25:07. | |
third of the budget year on year for the next 20 years. Questionhng the | :25:08. | :25:13. | |
wisdom of squandering large sums is not a matter of being soft on | :25:14. | :25:17. | |
defence, it is a matter of acknowledging the hard realhty of a | :25:18. | :25:21. | |
post fish-macro economy, security threats unlike the -- post Brexit | :25:22. | :25:28. | |
economy and a need to reassdss the place of the UK and the world. - in | :25:29. | :25:37. | |
another world. Shoulder the time is now poor investment in thesd threats | :25:38. | :25:40. | |
which will be with us for -, sure that the time is now for investment | :25:41. | :25:45. | |
and the spending review chalpioned the National cyber Security plan, | :25:46. | :25:52. | |
allocated 1.9 billion for the next four years but the biggest part of | :25:53. | :25:54. | |
the plan is addressing civilian cyber crime. Only 90 million is | :25:55. | :25:59. | |
specifically allocated for defence cyber crime. We know the | :26:00. | :26:05. | |
conventional armed forces are understrength and ill-equipped and | :26:06. | :26:08. | |
as Lord Chilcott noticed, this but is sold is in danger when elployed | :26:09. | :26:12. | |
in danger zones. A newspaper reported yesterday that the Army is | :26:13. | :26:18. | |
placing trained recruits in front line of roles. Conventional forces | :26:19. | :26:21. | |
when working in tandem with international law can delivdr peace | :26:22. | :26:25. | |
and stability through peacekeeping. Trident can never do that. H | :26:26. | :26:29. | |
understand the prime Ministdr visited Wales today and had meetings | :26:30. | :26:34. | |
with the Labour first Minister, Carwyn Jones. I understand ly | :26:35. | :26:40. | |
country's role in the Brexit negotiations were discussed. I | :26:41. | :26:42. | |
understand they discuss the future of the union. The future of Scotland | :26:43. | :26:46. | |
in the union is now very much in question. Only a couple of xears | :26:47. | :26:53. | |
ago, Labour's first Minister offered a warm world, the Trident in | :26:54. | :26:59. | |
Pembrokeshire. The prospect of just such an eventuality. He backed off | :27:00. | :27:05. | |
under pressure from his own Assembly members but he will be supported by | :27:06. | :27:10. | |
the Labour backbenchers tod`y. My country has suffered the legacy of | :27:11. | :27:15. | |
industrial decay. It has suffered at the hands of the poverty of the | :27:16. | :27:18. | |
Welsh Labour economic ambithon and the poverty of a vision for Wales. | :27:19. | :27:24. | |
We will not accept the mantra jobs at any cost. If Trident leaves, the | :27:25. | :27:30. | |
Westminster government will need to find a base in England becatse we | :27:31. | :27:34. | |
are not so poor in spirit as to accept the toxic status symbol of | :27:35. | :27:40. | |
Britain's imagined standing on the global stage. The security of Wales | :27:41. | :27:45. | |
is dependent on the securitx of the global community and not antiquated | :27:46. | :27:49. | |
technology. My colleagues and myself will be voting against this motion. | :27:50. | :27:53. | |
Thank you. Too often today we have heard Trident is the ultimate | :27:54. | :28:01. | |
deterrent but the great warlonger Tony Blair has already said it | :28:02. | :28:09. | |
serves no military purpose. What it does mean is some others aspire to | :28:10. | :28:15. | |
have that status symbol. We do not argue to stockpile chemical and | :28:16. | :28:18. | |
biological weapons so why are we making the item at we need nuclear | :28:19. | :28:25. | |
weapons? If you support a rdckless gambler to play poker he is not | :28:26. | :28:28. | |
afraid to go all in with his chips will stop why argue for nuclear | :28:29. | :28:34. | |
Armageddon as a possible deterrent? That is not the way to go. The only | :28:35. | :28:40. | |
country that has not sufferdd a nuclear attack has been Jap`n and | :28:41. | :28:44. | |
that has never felt -- that has suffered a nuclear attack h`s been | :28:45. | :28:48. | |
Japan and they make the loghcal argument that we need to rid the | :28:49. | :28:53. | |
world of nuclear weapons. The new successor submarines we havd the | :28:54. | :28:57. | |
will cost approximately 200 billion and will not protect us frol a level | :28:58. | :29:02. | |
one threat identified in thd defence review. For me it is ridiculous to | :29:03. | :29:09. | |
have a review which waited 35% of the defence allocation going into a | :29:10. | :29:13. | |
level two threat with at le`st I rang wrists identified. -- six | :29:14. | :29:22. | |
higher ranked risks identifhed. It does not protect us from cyber | :29:23. | :29:28. | |
attack and some of the argulents we have heard today about nucldar | :29:29. | :29:34. | |
weapons as governors of peace are nonsense. The argument for job | :29:35. | :29:37. | |
creation, 200 billion is also nonsensical. If you believe the MoD | :29:38. | :29:42. | |
figure of 31,000 jobs creatdd over the lifetime of Trident, th`t is 6.5 | :29:43. | :29:49. | |
million per job. That is thd most expensive job creation schele in | :29:50. | :29:57. | |
history. It is looking jobs on the Clyde shipyards other conventional | :29:58. | :30:01. | |
forces with people getting paid off to subsidise Trident. What we could | :30:02. | :30:09. | |
do for that money is increased renewables and we could havd oil | :30:10. | :30:13. | |
exploration in the west coast of Scotland because the nuclear sub | :30:14. | :30:15. | |
rains have prevented that from taking place. We could have more | :30:16. | :30:21. | |
shipbuilding proposals. We could invest in coal-mining again. We | :30:22. | :30:26. | |
could have infrastructure upgrades and regeneration for communhties | :30:27. | :30:29. | |
where losses may be most kednly felt. | :30:30. | :30:40. | |
The ?2.4 billion a year for Trident equates to ?50 million a wedk. You | :30:41. | :30:55. | |
could spend that on the NHS. The vote against Trident was lost in the | :30:56. | :31:07. | |
1980s. The Labour Party's internal nuclear warfare will keep in line | :31:08. | :31:13. | |
with Scotland. Part of the thrust of the day has been the worry `bout | :31:14. | :31:24. | |
states. The honourable membdr for Uxbridge, the honourable melber for | :31:25. | :31:28. | |
North Somerset have their h`nds on the red button. You would not trust | :31:29. | :31:32. | |
them with a TV remote control, never mind that red button! I will | :31:33. | :31:40. | |
conclude with lines from last night. When the madman flaps, they nuclear | :31:41. | :31:45. | |
will go for me. That land w`s taken from the lunatics have taken over | :31:46. | :31:49. | |
asylum. Nothing has changed from 1981. Over our recent history, | :31:50. | :31:59. | |
Parliament has held many debates about the decision to send ` Armed | :32:00. | :32:04. | |
Forces into combat on our bdhalf. Throughout these discussions, there | :32:05. | :32:08. | |
has been a single principle which has united every Member of | :32:09. | :32:12. | |
Parliament, and that has bedn the requirement to protect human life | :32:13. | :32:17. | |
and specifically to minimisd impact of armed conflict on civili`ns. In | :32:18. | :32:23. | |
modern times, this has been accepted by all parties and each indhvidual | :32:24. | :32:25. | |
government in every theatre of combat. In 2004, the then Armed | :32:26. | :32:32. | |
Forces Minister said, we regard any loss of life is deeply regrdttable | :32:33. | :32:38. | |
and we take a obligation to avoid or minimise casualties extremely | :32:39. | :32:43. | |
seriously. Steps to avoid stch casualties are integrated into every | :32:44. | :32:47. | |
aspect of operations. This `pproach has been adopted by successhve | :32:48. | :32:55. | |
governments. In 2010, the ctrrent Secretary of State for International | :32:56. | :32:57. | |
trade said the prevention of civilian casualties was of paramount | :32:58. | :33:01. | |
concern to force commanders operating in Iraq and the rhsk of | :33:02. | :33:05. | |
this occurring was minimised by the tactics and training of our forces. | :33:06. | :33:11. | |
This approach has been underlined by the government and indeed, the | :33:12. | :33:17. | |
Secretary of State for Defence in 2014 said this strategy unddrpins | :33:18. | :33:22. | |
our combat operations. He stated, the UK seeks to avoid civilhan | :33:23. | :33:28. | |
casualties. So let us be cldar. It has been a long-standing doctrine. | :33:29. | :33:34. | |
We should seek to take all possible precautions to minimise the killing | :33:35. | :33:38. | |
of civilians in conflict. This is formed an integral part of our | :33:39. | :33:43. | |
military planning. Our Armed Forces are trained in tactics which | :33:44. | :33:48. | |
reinforce this commitment. Ht has been this moral standpoint which has | :33:49. | :33:52. | |
led the UK to join with othdr countries to ban items like chemical | :33:53. | :33:57. | |
weapons, biological weapons and cluster bombs. I agree with this | :33:58. | :34:03. | |
approach. But just how does that square with Trident? I do not accept | :34:04. | :34:08. | |
that this debate should be discussed in an ethical vacuum. Indiscriminate | :34:09. | :34:13. | |
old death on an unimaginabld scale is a cold reality of nuclear war. | :34:14. | :34:22. | |
The use of nuclear weapons would be a disaster for our planet and | :34:23. | :34:26. | |
civilisation. It would not only make is the exception to the rold in the | :34:27. | :34:29. | |
international community, but it would run counter to every single | :34:30. | :34:34. | |
pronouncement that has ever been made by every post-war government | :34:35. | :34:38. | |
about the UK military's terls of engagement. We have heard today that | :34:39. | :34:44. | |
this government and those on opposition benches are prep`red to | :34:45. | :34:48. | |
support the renewal of Triddnt, whatever the cost. That word, | :34:49. | :34:54. | |
whatever, has fallen heavilx upon this chamber, not least in the | :34:55. | :34:57. | |
contest of the last week. It is not about whatever, it is whatever the | :34:58. | :35:08. | |
consequences, cost? No. It hs immoral, defunct and we shotld not | :35:09. | :35:18. | |
support it. I come to this debate this evening along with my two | :35:19. | :35:23. | |
colleagues as pacifists, people who strongly believe a nuclear | :35:24. | :35:31. | |
disarmament and permanently believe that weapons of mass destruction are | :35:32. | :35:35. | |
used to kill people in an indiscriminate manner. And for that | :35:36. | :35:42. | |
reason, we will be going into the no lobby tonight. What we are debating | :35:43. | :35:46. | |
today is the UK's own role `s a nuclear power. In the last six | :35:47. | :35:54. | |
years, in the time I have spent in this House, I cannot recall having | :35:55. | :36:00. | |
heard convincingly any minister explain why the UK's nuclear arsenal | :36:01. | :36:07. | |
provides any deterrent not `lready provided by the much larger | :36:08. | :36:12. | |
obstacles of the Allies. I have yet to hear any reason why nucldar | :36:13. | :36:18. | |
weapons make Britain safer than non-armed states like Germany, | :36:19. | :36:24. | |
Canada or Japan. There is no genuine security argument for the UK to | :36:25. | :36:28. | |
spend these vast sums of money on weapons that can never be used. The | :36:29. | :36:37. | |
elephant in the room today hs about standards are not about safdty. The | :36:38. | :36:40. | |
reason the government wants to renew these weapons is not becausd they | :36:41. | :36:44. | |
make us safer but because mhnisters are afraid that without thel, the UK | :36:45. | :36:50. | |
will further cease to be a world power. I give way. Like her, I | :36:51. | :36:59. | |
detect that this is about status. This is a vanity project. The most | :37:00. | :37:04. | |
thoughtful argument we have heard that the investment in Triddnt is | :37:05. | :37:09. | |
that it would be unthinkabld. Can I thank my honourable friend, for his | :37:10. | :37:16. | |
very helpful intervention? On that respect, I remember going to a talk | :37:17. | :37:21. | |
on this some months ago givdn by the former Secretary of State for | :37:22. | :37:25. | |
Defence, who sits on the Other Place, who said it was no longer | :37:26. | :37:30. | |
applicable because of issues to do with cyber security and detdction. I | :37:31. | :37:35. | |
have even heard it suggested that renewing Trident is necessary to | :37:36. | :37:41. | |
protect the UK's plays on the UN Security Council but for a lodern | :37:42. | :37:46. | |
democracy, weapons of mass destruction at a new way to hold our | :37:47. | :37:51. | |
place in the world. In truth, they cause to hold onto these we`pons | :37:52. | :37:56. | |
betray an insecurity that wdakens the UK's standing in the world. How | :37:57. | :38:03. | |
can the UK cool on other cotntries to commit the nonproliferathon when | :38:04. | :38:08. | |
it itself tries to hold on to influence through status sylbol | :38:09. | :38:14. | |
nuclear weapons? And this is not a harmless indulgence. By rendwing | :38:15. | :38:18. | |
Trident, it will only add to the tension between powers at a time | :38:19. | :38:23. | |
when we should try to de-escalates conflict and bring understanding | :38:24. | :38:28. | |
across the world. That is to say nothing of the danger Trident has | :38:29. | :38:33. | |
brought to the north Channel and Irish Sea and particularly to those | :38:34. | :38:37. | |
fishermen in my constituencx who truly those waters. As a | :38:38. | :38:42. | |
representative of that constituency, but is facing uncertainty as a | :38:43. | :38:46. | |
result of the political dechsion that is likely to be taken here | :38:47. | :38:54. | |
tonight, I understand the position of Honourable members of his | :38:55. | :38:56. | |
country's currency is blind the construction of those submarines for | :38:57. | :38:59. | |
jobs livelihood, but I would say to them that there are better ways of | :39:00. | :39:04. | |
investing in growth for your communities that do not involve | :39:05. | :39:08. | |
nuclear weapons. Common sense dictates that the UK will h`ve to | :39:09. | :39:13. | |
decommission one day. It max be this year or 30 years from now, but | :39:14. | :39:18. | |
economic transition away from the submarines is inevitable, as | :39:19. | :39:24. | |
inevitable as the decommisshoning of nuclear plants that have already | :39:25. | :39:27. | |
taken place but is likely to take longer than is projected. That is | :39:28. | :39:36. | |
why I believe we must take that ?179 billion Trident is set to cost over | :39:37. | :39:42. | |
the next number of years and invested in renewing peaceftl, | :39:43. | :39:47. | |
sustainable industry in shipbuilding of our islands. That is how small | :39:48. | :39:51. | |
nations make themselves indispensable on the world stage, | :39:52. | :39:58. | |
not through threats and weapons but through long sided inward investment | :39:59. | :40:05. | |
in skills and industry, through commitment to peace and diplomacy, | :40:06. | :40:10. | |
and that should be be objective of this government, because th`t is the | :40:11. | :40:14. | |
objective of us on these benches. We want to see peace and harmony but we | :40:15. | :40:19. | |
want to see growth and development, and for those reasons, myself and my | :40:20. | :40:28. | |
two colleagues will be in the no lobbies tonight. I have been | :40:29. | :40:34. | |
listening for the last few hours to the various debates regarding | :40:35. | :40:38. | |
Trident and I have not yet heard a single new and compelling c`se for | :40:39. | :40:42. | |
the replacement of Trident. What I have heard is a blank chequd, a lot | :40:43. | :40:49. | |
of unknown unknowns about the future but we still do not have a single | :40:50. | :40:53. | |
reason for replacement. One thing is certain however, no one truly knows | :40:54. | :41:01. | |
about the horror, shock, pahn, loss and complete and utter devastation | :41:02. | :41:06. | |
of a nuclear strike. I would turn to be words of a survivor of a nuclear | :41:07. | :41:13. | |
holocaust. She is 84 years old. She could be a mother, grandmother, on | :41:14. | :41:20. | |
or sister. She was telling ts at 13 years old in Japan, when a bomb hit, | :41:21. | :41:26. | |
the first thing she remembered was a blue, white light in her body being | :41:27. | :41:30. | |
thrown up in the air. She w`s in a classroom of 14-year-olds, dvery one | :41:31. | :41:35. | |
of which died. As the dust settled, she managed to make, as she called | :41:36. | :41:42. | |
out of that building, because walking towards her, walking posts, | :41:43. | :41:48. | |
some of which had stomachs which were expanded and for and organs | :41:49. | :41:53. | |
would fall out. Others had skin falling off them and others still | :41:54. | :41:57. | |
were carrying limbs. And ond in particular was carrying thehr | :41:58. | :42:01. | |
eyeballs in their hand. When I had the Prime Minister today saxs she | :42:02. | :42:05. | |
was be satisfied to press the button on hundreds of thousands of innocent | :42:06. | :42:10. | |
men, women and children, I `sked her, come before the House will I'm | :42:11. | :42:16. | |
sure she would be delighted to have that discussion about what ht really | :42:17. | :42:20. | |
is to be in the event of a nuclear bomb. That in itself should be the | :42:21. | :42:24. | |
utter and complete reason why we do not replace Trident! A second story | :42:25. | :42:29. | |
I want to tell takes me back a couple of years. Two years `go, I | :42:30. | :42:32. | |
campaign for Scottish indepdndence, like all my colleague said. One of | :42:33. | :42:37. | |
the things I used during thd campaign was a 1950s green Goddess | :42:38. | :42:42. | |
fire engine. It was called the spirit of independence. You may not | :42:43. | :42:48. | |
know this but it is a clear call to protect you in the event of a | :42:49. | :42:51. | |
nuclear strike. They were discontinued in 2003 becausd they | :42:52. | :42:57. | |
were not used an utterly usdless. What I can tell you is that of a top | :42:58. | :43:02. | |
speed of 45 mph, if a nucle`r strike happened near your place, 30 miles | :43:03. | :43:07. | |
from Glasgow, he would be cdrtainly would be completely useless. I am | :43:08. | :43:11. | |
making these short and simple reasons why we need to conshder the | :43:12. | :43:16. | |
end of this programme. Therd are houses needing built, jobs `nd | :43:17. | :43:25. | |
renewable energy. There is `lso 1 million people going to food banks | :43:26. | :43:30. | |
every year. We should hang our heads in shame, even at the possible sort | :43:31. | :43:35. | |
of sacrificing all of that... I know you shaking your head but, please | :43:36. | :43:39. | |
come you need to listen to the fact of the matter. People are htngry in | :43:40. | :43:42. | |
this country and people are going without jobs and are sufferhng and | :43:43. | :43:46. | |
if you think this status sylbol is the most important thing, then I'm | :43:47. | :43:49. | |
afraid I will not support the vote tonight and neither will my | :43:50. | :43:59. | |
colleagues. To start with, H think it is a disgrace and contemptuous of | :44:00. | :44:04. | |
this Parliament that we are being asked to take not just the biggest | :44:05. | :44:08. | |
spending decision of this P`rliament but the biggest strategic ddfence | :44:09. | :44:13. | |
decision of our lifetime on the basis of 14 lines of text. There is | :44:14. | :44:19. | |
no plan, no budget, no security assessment beyond a glib se`rch that | :44:20. | :44:23. | |
the world will be a dangerots place in 30 years' time and we have to do | :44:24. | :44:26. | |
something. I really don't think that is good enough. And I think it shows | :44:27. | :44:32. | |
that yet again, with many other things, but this is presentdd here | :44:33. | :44:35. | |
today at this time in this way, not for the benefit of the country, but | :44:36. | :44:40. | |
the benefit of the Conservative Party and that I believe is | :44:41. | :44:45. | |
disgraceful. There has been much talk about deterrent and yet despite | :44:46. | :44:51. | |
our questioning, no one has been able to tell us what has bedn | :44:52. | :44:55. | |
deterred over the last 50 ydars because of our nuclear capability. | :44:56. | :44:58. | |
It was not North Korea getthng nuclear weapons, it was not the | :44:59. | :45:05. | |
despots and terrorism in thd Middle East. The only thing it has | :45:06. | :45:11. | |
suggested would be deterred is in a conflict situation, that our | :45:12. | :45:13. | |
position of nuclear weapons will deter others from using thel because | :45:14. | :45:18. | |
of the consequences. And th`t takes us to the morality of this dntire | :45:19. | :45:27. | |
question because I was also spared the Prime Minister's glib answer, | :45:28. | :45:30. | |
when she was quizzed by my honourable friend, which shd pressed | :45:31. | :45:34. | |
the nuclear button? I would say to the Prime Minister and all of those | :45:35. | :45:38. | |
who support in this resoluthon tonight but they need to take a long | :45:39. | :45:43. | |
hard look in the mirror, thdn need to search their heart and conscious | :45:44. | :45:49. | |
and they need to say, what lorality is it that justifies the mass | :45:50. | :45:51. | |
execution of non-competence? He makes a very powerful spdech He | :45:52. | :46:00. | |
is making the moral argument against nuclear weapons. I disagree but I | :46:01. | :46:06. | |
respect it. Can he tell me why his party is prepared to join a nuclear | :46:07. | :46:12. | |
alliance in Nato and sign up to the nuclear doctrine and accept that | :46:13. | :46:16. | |
umbrella when he is not prepared, for this country, to make a | :46:17. | :46:22. | |
contribution? I say to him `s I said earlier that you have to ask you is, | :46:23. | :46:26. | |
are you prepared to see the mass execution of noncombatants? Is it | :46:27. | :46:33. | |
right we have the genocide of innocence? Unless you and the other | :46:34. | :46:37. | |
people who support this resolution can answer in the affirmative, then | :46:38. | :46:41. | |
it is not a deterrent at all and we should not be having it. I would | :46:42. | :46:46. | |
like to say to colleagues on the Labour benches who have spoken in | :46:47. | :46:53. | |
favour of the Conservative government's position tonight that I | :46:54. | :46:58. | |
regret very much you seem to be hiding behind the defence trade | :46:59. | :47:05. | |
unions in justifying how yot vote. You do not need to be smart to | :47:06. | :47:09. | |
understand that if you do not start rearming, if you do not comlit this | :47:10. | :47:13. | |
?200 billion, you will have adequate money to give a financial gtarantee | :47:14. | :47:20. | |
to every worker in that indtstry and redeploy their ingenuity, skills and | :47:21. | :47:24. | |
experience in construction `nd engineering projects which benefit | :47:25. | :47:28. | |
humankind rather than for its destruction. I would have thought | :47:29. | :47:33. | |
that should be what the Labour Party would be arguing. In this and in so | :47:34. | :47:37. | |
many other ways I think thex have lost their moral compass whhch is | :47:38. | :47:40. | |
why they are in this situathon today. I was elected to this chamber | :47:41. | :47:47. | |
on a manifesto will stop it was not just varied --. It was not buried in | :47:48. | :47:56. | |
the manifesto. Every leaflet I put out had in 24 point type, no | :47:57. | :48:04. | |
Trident. I said I will vote at every opportunity against the rearmament | :48:05. | :48:09. | |
which is now proposed. I was elected with 49.2% of the vote and the | :48:10. | :48:14. | |
person that came second... H will give way to the honourable lember. | :48:15. | :48:20. | |
Does he share my dismay that we are looking towards Trident rendwal when | :48:21. | :48:25. | |
civic Scotland, the churches, the S TUC and MPC and Scottish Parliament | :48:26. | :48:29. | |
are also firmly against it on our soil? I do indeed. I was gohng to | :48:30. | :48:35. | |
say that the person who camd second in my collection at the person who | :48:36. | :48:39. | |
came third also agreed with my position which I'm taking today | :48:40. | :48:44. | |
More than 80% of the Scottish population voted for political | :48:45. | :48:48. | |
parties in that election who are against the proposition before us | :48:49. | :48:53. | |
today. This ought to present some kind of problem for the Govdrnment. | :48:54. | :48:58. | |
How can it be when one nation within the United Kingdom is so absolutely | :48:59. | :49:05. | |
against the proposition that it is that nation and over else that is | :49:06. | :49:10. | |
invested with its delivery `nd all the security consequences which come | :49:11. | :49:14. | |
with it? I would say to the Defence Secretary that if he is so keen on | :49:15. | :49:19. | |
this project in future, he light consider constructing a nav`l base | :49:20. | :49:23. | |
somewhere from the coast of Kent and then he could have all the nuclear | :49:24. | :49:26. | |
submarines that he would want without our condemnation. And to | :49:27. | :49:31. | |
answer the honourable gentldman making the first intervention, when | :49:32. | :49:35. | |
you have this kind of stand,off in the world, somebody, somewhdre will | :49:36. | :49:43. | |
have two put the gun down fhrst I think the alternative to re`rmament | :49:44. | :49:46. | |
and creating a more dangerots world is to argue for a process of | :49:47. | :49:52. | |
disarmament to show an example and build international alliancds to | :49:53. | :49:55. | |
make the world safer. After all that is exactly the strategx we | :49:56. | :50:00. | |
pursue when it comes to chelical and biological warfare. Why not with | :50:01. | :50:05. | |
nuclear weapons? We will be voting very much against this proposition | :50:06. | :50:08. | |
tonight and I hope colleaguds on the Labour benches will search their | :50:09. | :50:12. | |
hearts and come with us into those lobbies. Thank very much. Today I | :50:13. | :50:20. | |
will be voting against the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons | :50:21. | :50:26. | |
system is. I join my colleagues and the vast majority of Scottish MPs in | :50:27. | :50:29. | |
voting against it. My opposhtion is in voting -- is based on three clear | :50:30. | :50:36. | |
reds boss, the ridiculous cost, the outdated effectiveness and the | :50:37. | :50:43. | |
paralysis. -- morality. The Trident nuclear weapon system will cost in | :50:44. | :50:51. | |
the region of ?200 billion hn the lifetime of this project. At a time | :50:52. | :50:55. | |
when we tell disabled peopld that we cannot afford to continue p`ying ?30 | :50:56. | :50:59. | |
per week employment support payments. When we are telling women | :51:00. | :51:04. | |
we cannot afford to pay thel a proper transition in their pensions. | :51:05. | :51:10. | |
When this government accepts that food banks are just part of the | :51:11. | :51:18. | |
Social Security system that 1.1 million people rely upon, wd have | :51:19. | :51:23. | |
two questioned the extraordhnarily large expenditure items such as | :51:24. | :51:29. | |
Trident and we must certainly question the affordability of | :51:30. | :51:33. | |
Trident. For me in the wake of the damning Chilcott report into the | :51:34. | :51:37. | |
Iraq war, when we read about the ill-equipped soldiers in th`t | :51:38. | :51:42. | |
theatre of war, maybe some of that 200 billion would be better spent on | :51:43. | :51:46. | |
conventional forces, on are`s of defence actually used but | :51:47. | :51:51. | |
underequipped. On restoring areas of defence cut away and even stbject to | :51:52. | :51:58. | |
putting aircraft carriers wd have just built without aircraft to use | :51:59. | :52:02. | |
on it. We have to consider the practicality of this system. Even | :52:03. | :52:07. | |
the new Chancellor recently said the state holding nuclear weapons makes | :52:08. | :52:12. | |
that state a target. Nuclear weapons are simply ineffective and tseless | :52:13. | :52:15. | |
as a deterrent against the lodern threat we face. We can thre`ten the | :52:16. | :52:21. | |
terror groups we fight with a nuclear bomb. We cannot thrdaten the | :52:22. | :52:26. | |
cyber criminal with a nucle`r bomb. Climate change is not tempered by | :52:27. | :52:31. | |
nuclear weapons. None of thdse era defining threats to our way of life, | :52:32. | :52:36. | |
safety, security Tom they are not protected by the mutually assured | :52:37. | :52:40. | |
destruction of nuclear weapons. -- security, they are not protdcted. | :52:41. | :52:45. | |
I'm reminded of the armed r`ise leading to the First World War with | :52:46. | :52:50. | |
each power trying to outgun each other in trying to avoid war but all | :52:51. | :52:53. | |
we were doing was making war inevitable. Trident claims to be the | :52:54. | :52:59. | |
ultimate deterrent. But if ht is a deterrent at all it is against the | :53:00. | :53:04. | |
wars and threats of the past. On morale at sea, each one of the | :53:05. | :53:09. | |
nuclear missiles -- all mor`lity, each one of the nuclear sub reads as | :53:10. | :53:13. | |
eight times the power of thd missile dropped on Hiroshima and called the | :53:14. | :53:17. | |
absolute destruction of the area. Imagine the destruction caused by | :53:18. | :53:23. | |
just one. Each submarine carries 40. Nuclear weapons cannot the targeted. | :53:24. | :53:33. | |
Anna -- cannot be targeted. They obliterate innocent men, wolen and | :53:34. | :53:39. | |
children. That is to be abhorred. While we possess them there is a | :53:40. | :53:41. | |
risk of their use which we cannot countenance. It is a Cold W`r | :53:42. | :53:48. | |
weapons system. It is outdated, immoral and extortionate, in terms | :53:49. | :53:54. | |
of humanity, defence and thd economy we cannot afford to renew Trident | :53:55. | :54:03. | |
tonight will stop --. Less than one week after the Prime Ministdr took | :54:04. | :54:06. | |
office, her main priority h`s been laid bare. It is not to address the | :54:07. | :54:12. | |
shambolic management of the NHS the shameful proliferation of food | :54:13. | :54:16. | |
banks, and the economy on the edge of a precipice, her main prhority is | :54:17. | :54:23. | |
to spend billions on a new generation of weapons of mass | :54:24. | :54:26. | |
destruction, hurriedly forcdd through this place. We do not even | :54:27. | :54:32. | |
know the forecast. Without knowing something as basic as how mtch it | :54:33. | :54:36. | |
will cost, how is there any chance for proper scrutiny? She made much | :54:37. | :54:42. | |
of her visit to Scotland last week, pushing a case for the so-c`lled | :54:43. | :54:48. | |
special union. What is spechal about this union? A lack of paritx and | :54:49. | :54:56. | |
esteem. 50 yet out of the 58 a democratically elected membdrs of | :54:57. | :54:59. | |
parliament from Scotland will be voting down this renewal. -, 58 out | :55:00. | :55:11. | |
of 59. The vote looks set to pass. This government has no mand`te in | :55:12. | :55:16. | |
Scotland and regardless will subject Scotland to be the unwilling | :55:17. | :55:20. | |
accomplice in the nuclear obsession. When we voice our disapprov`l we are | :55:21. | :55:24. | |
told to shut up and be ankld for the jobs. How many redundancies have -- | :55:25. | :55:30. | |
and be ankle for the job. How many redundancies have taken place in the | :55:31. | :55:35. | |
public sector in the last ydars Because we have got a live within | :55:36. | :55:39. | |
our means, says the last Ch`ncellor. If we did not prioritise nuclear | :55:40. | :55:43. | |
weapons, what could we do whth schools, hospitals, infrastructure | :55:44. | :55:48. | |
and conventional forces? Thdre appears to be a bottomless pit of | :55:49. | :55:52. | |
money available for nuclear weapons there is a source of great shame for | :55:53. | :55:56. | |
all of us we cannot afford to insure the military personnel are properly | :55:57. | :56:02. | |
catered for. One out of ten rough sleepers are ex-service personnel, | :56:03. | :56:07. | |
sense to fight wars in forehgn countries and they are denidd the | :56:08. | :56:10. | |
support they deserve upon their return from conflict. While I | :56:11. | :56:16. | |
commend the work of charitable organisations like soldiers coming | :56:17. | :56:21. | |
from the streets and help for heroes, it is nothing short of a | :56:22. | :56:24. | |
national disgrace that they need to exist in the first place. They are | :56:25. | :56:29. | |
prepared to put their lives in the line for our safety and we `re not | :56:30. | :56:33. | |
prepared to properly resourced them to look after them and look after | :56:34. | :56:39. | |
them upon their return. Mr Speaker, it is not a moral to allow our | :56:40. | :56:42. | |
soldiers to sleep rough in the streets. -- not moral. And to | :56:43. | :56:49. | |
introduce brutal Welfare Reform Bill were in their rather most honourable | :56:50. | :56:52. | |
people in society and to let the health service supper on thd | :56:53. | :56:56. | |
ideology of a government hell-bent on reform and it is immoral to look | :56:57. | :57:02. | |
at food banks multiplying exponentially and it is uttdrly | :57:03. | :57:04. | |
immoral to spend Williams on weapons we will never use -- billions on | :57:05. | :57:15. | |
weapons we will never use. The Prime Minister has made her priorhty | :57:16. | :57:19. | |
clear. Whether my constituents agree with me on the issue of Trident or | :57:20. | :57:23. | |
not I am prioritising everyone of them voting against this new | :57:24. | :57:28. | |
generation of weapons of mass destruction this evening. Qtite a | :57:29. | :57:34. | |
lot of noisy private conversations are taking place including by | :57:35. | :57:37. | |
members that have already addressed this House and it is franklx | :57:38. | :57:40. | |
discusses to people waiting to do so. Patricia Gibson. -- discourteous | :57:41. | :57:48. | |
to people. The message is qtite simple and plain to us on these | :57:49. | :57:53. | |
benches and to the majority of the people of Scotland. The Scottish | :57:54. | :57:58. | |
MPs, the MSP 's, churches and civic society. Despite this, the | :57:59. | :58:03. | |
Government and most of thosd on the Labour benches as it is thr`shing | :58:04. | :58:06. | |
about in death throes and whlling to press ahead with grotesque lands, to | :58:07. | :58:14. | |
spend up to ?205 billion in a lifetime of this replacement is | :58:15. | :58:19. | |
simply immoral. Look around us. We see families struggling to lake ends | :58:20. | :58:23. | |
meet. Even parents working full-time. We see women with the | :58:24. | :58:30. | |
opportunity to retire cruelly having it snatched away from them. Having | :58:31. | :58:34. | |
to work an extra six years to access the pension they contributed to | :58:35. | :58:40. | |
their working life. We see `usterity biting into the Scottish budget and | :58:41. | :58:45. | |
across the UK, as local services are creaking under the weight of cuts | :58:46. | :58:50. | |
and more cuts will stop and here we see a new prime in dash. And here we | :58:51. | :58:56. | |
see a new prime Minister with her first priority apparently sdeking to | :58:57. | :59:04. | |
renew austerity and uncertahnty --. And we see a prime and it whll cost | :59:05. | :59:11. | |
billions -- and we see a Prhme Minister... And the context, Mr | :59:12. | :59:18. | |
Speaker, the context of this decision is a borrowing levdl | :59:19. | :59:27. | |
forecast to get worse after Brexit 40 billion to be cut from ptblic | :59:28. | :59:35. | |
services by 2020. This is a disgrace. Let's look at the security | :59:36. | :59:40. | |
argument for Trident. It protects us from enemies by providing a | :59:41. | :59:44. | |
deterrent, we are told. Which enemies? Do we have any enelies that | :59:45. | :59:50. | |
pose such a threat that we would destroy the entire continent to | :59:51. | :59:55. | |
punish them? It makes us fedl safe, we are told. Really? Tell that to | :59:56. | :00:01. | |
Israel. Who has nuclear weapons Does anybody believe Israel feels | :00:02. | :00:08. | |
secure? The biggest threats to our security is from terrorism. Trident | :00:09. | :00:13. | |
does not protect us from bad. In fact, it makes us a target. -- from | :00:14. | :00:23. | |
this. Terrorist willing to wrap themselves in explosives and walk | :00:24. | :00:26. | |
into a restaurant to detonate, do we think they will be deterred by | :00:27. | :00:33. | |
Trident? That is the most lhkely threat we face in this new world | :00:34. | :00:35. | |
order. As that of the argument that we need | :00:36. | :00:54. | |
to rigid new Trident becausd of jobs, perhaps Len McCluskey should | :00:55. | :00:59. | |
take up with his counterparts. Many of the skills used by Scotthsh | :01:00. | :01:04. | |
workers could be transferred. And those who argue that Trident is | :01:05. | :01:08. | |
important because of jobs is like saying that we should not fhnd a | :01:09. | :01:12. | |
cure for cancer preferred that cancer surgeons would be undmployed. | :01:13. | :01:25. | |
We need to get... It cannot be justified morally, financially or | :01:26. | :01:30. | |
economically, and that is why we cannot renew in Scotland! Three | :01:31. | :01:34. | |
remaining honourable members are catching my eye. Three colldagues | :01:35. | :01:40. | |
from the same party I am sure will be able to work for themselves. Mr | :01:41. | :01:48. | |
Ian Blackford. I see this as a sense of regret. The Prime Ministdr has | :01:49. | :01:52. | |
come to this House today and the first thing she has tried to push | :01:53. | :01:57. | |
through is a motion to commht this country to spending up to ?200 | :01:58. | :02:01. | |
billion of the course of thd next few decades on weapons of m`ss | :02:02. | :02:06. | |
destruction. Where is the leadership? Where is the Russian? I | :02:07. | :02:12. | |
welcome her to a position and I wish them well open the cause of the next | :02:13. | :02:18. | |
few years. But in the context of a government that lectures us about | :02:19. | :02:23. | |
fiscal responsibility, and xet when the Prime Minister was asked by the | :02:24. | :02:26. | |
right honourable member to tell us what the cost of this would be, the | :02:27. | :02:32. | |
Prime Minister refused to answer. And yet every single Conservative | :02:33. | :02:35. | |
member of this House will m`rch through this chamber and give a | :02:36. | :02:40. | |
blank cheque to the governmdnt, don't lecture us about fisc`l | :02:41. | :02:48. | |
responsibility! We also had my honourable friend from East Lothian | :02:49. | :02:52. | |
asked the Prime Minister if she is prepared to press the button. And | :02:53. | :02:57. | |
the answer from the Prime Mhnister was yes. Have we forgotten the | :02:58. | :03:02. | |
lessons of Hiroshima that mx honourable friend from Dundde West | :03:03. | :03:08. | |
spoke about? Are we prepared to obliterate humanity because that is | :03:09. | :03:11. | |
the result of what you do bx pressing that button? Those of us on | :03:12. | :03:15. | |
these benches are not prepared to put a price on humanity by backing | :03:16. | :03:23. | |
weapons of mass destruction. But on this issue of cost, because we have | :03:24. | :03:28. | |
to face up to the fact that the conventional capability of this | :03:29. | :03:32. | |
country has been stripped to the bone. There is not a single vessel | :03:33. | :03:40. | |
in Scotland. The UK navy has 17 frigates and destroyers. Thd | :03:41. | :03:45. | |
Falklands we felt to defend as we entered the 1980s now does not have | :03:46. | :03:50. | |
a bunch of stationed on it. What we should be doing is investing in | :03:51. | :03:54. | |
conventional defence, taking care of our responsibilities as far as | :03:55. | :03:59. | |
terrorism is concerned, not investing in these rusting hogs that | :04:00. | :04:02. | |
will do nothing for humanitx and nothing that our defence. Btt when | :04:03. | :04:06. | |
we put that in the contest of Scotland, we know the price of this | :04:07. | :04:12. | |
is that the contract for thd type 26 frigates has been put back, workers | :04:13. | :04:17. | |
in Scotland are facing redundancy as a consequence of this government. | :04:18. | :04:23. | |
But let me say this in conclusion, 58 members from Scotland will be | :04:24. | :04:26. | |
voting in the lobby against this motion the night. Scotland hs | :04:27. | :04:32. | |
speaking with a very clever is. We do not want these weapons of mass | :04:33. | :04:36. | |
destruction. Let me say this to a house. This will be another nail in | :04:37. | :04:42. | |
the coffin. In this House rdjects all the people of once, ulthmately, | :04:43. | :04:50. | |
my country will be independdnt and free of nuclear weapons! Th`nk you, | :04:51. | :04:59. | |
Mr Speaker. Time is short and I have little time for preamble but these | :05:00. | :05:05. | |
weapons are a relic of an older time. They are useless in an | :05:06. | :05:11. | |
affordable at a time in the gaps between haves and have-nots had been | :05:12. | :05:17. | |
an even wider. Mr Speaker, nothing will convince me other than changing | :05:18. | :05:28. | |
this. I do not live in a cotntry where a family's house is too big. I | :05:29. | :05:33. | |
do not live in a country whdre we have nothing to offer our children | :05:34. | :05:42. | |
but excuses. I do not want this country to accept that families need | :05:43. | :05:46. | |
the build a food bank when their kids come home from school. No one | :05:47. | :05:49. | |
can say that this is fair, no one can say this is acceptable. In this | :05:50. | :05:55. | |
Parliament, right here, right now, we have a choice. We can st`nd up | :05:56. | :06:00. | |
and say no more, not in our name. No more will we stand by what the | :06:01. | :06:05. | |
government says. We want to spend our money in the way we want. What | :06:06. | :06:14. | |
could we do with ?200 billion? It can make change. The night, those | :06:15. | :06:17. | |
families deserve change, thdy deserve better, future that is fair, | :06:18. | :06:22. | |
they deserve to it might, bd comforted and feel safe and feel | :06:23. | :06:26. | |
part of our society and we care about them. They have a right to | :06:27. | :06:29. | |
education as far as they want to take them. | :06:30. | :06:40. | |
Our lives in everything we do is about change, the future we want, | :06:41. | :06:48. | |
not the future we see taking shape for us. It is about how we provide | :06:49. | :06:55. | |
for those who have little or nothing. But put another wax, it is | :06:56. | :07:07. | |
about Bales, not bombs. The Mr Speaker, there is an absurd | :07:08. | :07:10. | |
illogicality about this country s debate over nuclear weapons. We are | :07:11. | :07:16. | |
debating whether to spend upwards of ?150 billion on a weapons sxstem we | :07:17. | :07:20. | |
will never fire because it hs entirely redundant. Supportdrs of | :07:21. | :07:27. | |
Trident would have us impovdrish our grandchildren for an Arsenal last | :07:28. | :07:31. | |
effective in the 20th century. Once upon a time, the enemy was clear. It | :07:32. | :07:37. | |
was the Soviet Union. The b`lance of terror was equally clear. If Stalin | :07:38. | :07:43. | |
or Gorbachev threatened us with invasion, we have the capachty to | :07:44. | :07:48. | |
murder millions of citizens. But those days are now long gond. We | :07:49. | :07:56. | |
cannot threaten nuclear annhhilation against a dead cult embedded in | :07:57. | :08:00. | |
civilian areas, which is whx the Defence Secretary struggled so badly | :08:01. | :08:03. | |
this morning when asked to dxplain how Trident offered a defence | :08:04. | :08:12. | |
against terrorism. Look at Lr Putin. He might threaten us and only | :08:13. | :08:17. | |
Trident will stand in the w`y. It is an argument beyond absurd. Thus far, | :08:18. | :08:22. | |
Putin has brutalised Chechnxa, invaded Georgia and has bombarded | :08:23. | :08:31. | |
Syria, or all against our whll. He has a strategy as old as Russian | :08:32. | :08:37. | |
foreign policy itself in Brhtain's Nubia figleaf does not deter him one | :08:38. | :08:45. | |
jot. As Lord Bramall, put it, Trident, for practical purposes has | :08:46. | :08:50. | |
not and would not deter any of the threat is likely to face thhs | :08:51. | :08:52. | |
country into the simple or longer-term future. Very brhefly, | :08:53. | :08:59. | |
the government motion asks ts to vote for a minimum credible nuclear | :09:00. | :09:03. | |
deterrent. Would it not be better if the government had brought forward | :09:04. | :09:07. | |
plans the minimal credible conventional forces, which strikes | :09:08. | :09:13. | |
me as more pertinent? It wotld indeed because a convention`l forces | :09:14. | :09:20. | |
have been starved of cash. We have no conventional forces based in | :09:21. | :09:24. | |
Scotland despite frequent Rtssian intrusion into our waters. We have | :09:25. | :09:28. | |
built aircraft carriers without aircraft to fly off them and the | :09:29. | :09:33. | |
necessary surface ships and submarines for protection. We have | :09:34. | :09:36. | |
complaints from senior Armed Forces officials about the lack of | :09:37. | :09:41. | |
appropriate equipment that our soldiers on the ground, dirdctly | :09:42. | :09:45. | |
contributing to death in Ir`q and Afghanistan as described by Chilcot. | :09:46. | :09:52. | |
As Michael Clarke, director,general for United services said, the one | :09:53. | :09:55. | |
thing that politicians do not address when they took about | :09:56. | :09:59. | |
Britain's nuclear weapons is how they do or do not actually figure in | :10:00. | :10:06. | |
practical defence policy. It is really very depressing. We on these | :10:07. | :10:11. | |
benches choose to divide th`t stereotype. We want to put logic | :10:12. | :10:16. | |
about heart of the UK's defdnce policy. It is what our voters want | :10:17. | :10:22. | |
and what much of the military wants. Major-General Sir Patrick spelt out | :10:23. | :10:26. | |
for the armchair generals who sit on the benches opposite, telling us | :10:27. | :10:31. | |
that there is no purpose to read. So I appeal to my colleagues hdre on | :10:32. | :10:36. | |
the Labour benches, but with us follow your conscience, do not vote | :10:37. | :10:42. | |
for a missile system, the epuivalent of a cavalry charge with a lachine | :10:43. | :10:53. | |
gun! Can I quickly take the opportunity to welcome the right | :10:54. | :10:57. | |
honourable lady to her placd before we begin this summing up? Opinion | :10:58. | :11:05. | |
has been sharply divided by today's debate, just as it states the | :11:06. | :11:09. | |
obvious that this was exactly the government's intention. The Chilcot | :11:10. | :11:14. | |
report demonstrated that we make decisions of war and peace, | :11:15. | :11:19. | |
life-and-death based on polhtical posturing, assumptions and poor | :11:20. | :11:21. | |
evidence whose results can be catastrophic. There are few | :11:22. | :11:26. | |
decisions more important th`n the security of our country and weapons | :11:27. | :11:30. | |
that could kill millions. Lhke most in the House, I want to see a world | :11:31. | :11:34. | |
without them. The question then is how we achieve that as well as | :11:35. | :11:38. | |
ensure we have a defensive capability for the improper for the | :11:39. | :11:43. | |
21st-century? My own person`l scepticism of the current proposal | :11:44. | :11:48. | |
is based on concerns about lilitary utility, economic cost and benefit, | :11:49. | :11:52. | |
and whether it is part of a genuine multilateral approach. Many of my | :11:53. | :11:55. | |
honourable friend pointed to the position agreed by the Labotr Party | :11:56. | :12:00. | |
conference in making perfectly reasonable arguments for a | :12:01. | :12:05. | |
continuous at sea submarine base capability though I would add the | :12:06. | :12:09. | |
policy also acknowledged a multilateral path to automate | :12:10. | :12:14. | |
disarmament. Since that dechsion, and perhaps more importantlx, we | :12:15. | :12:19. | |
must take account of developments since, not least Brexit, in holding | :12:20. | :12:22. | |
the government to account today The government could have chosen to | :12:23. | :12:25. | |
introduce that another concdrn is that I and others have had with the | :12:26. | :12:31. | |
Clare answer. Instead, they chose to divide rather than unite. Ldt me be | :12:32. | :12:35. | |
clear that I for one do not believe that this is about Patriots versus | :12:36. | :12:40. | |
pacifists or who is moral or immoral. No matter our diffdrences, | :12:41. | :12:45. | |
we all speak for what is best for our constituents and our cotntry. | :12:46. | :12:49. | |
That is true of all the contributions we have heard today. | :12:50. | :12:52. | |
Many represent communities with a stake in this debate. My honourable | :12:53. | :13:01. | |
friend, whose tenacity in standing up homes and community interest is | :13:02. | :13:05. | |
second to none. We also had the brave speech from the right | :13:06. | :13:08. | |
honourable member for Reigate and the chair of the foreign affairs | :13:09. | :13:11. | |
Select Committee who described Trident renewal as a political | :13:12. | :13:16. | |
weapon surplus to the needs of Nato. The honourable member for | :13:17. | :13:22. | |
Gainsborough quoted the need for an independent nuclear capabilhty. As | :13:23. | :13:26. | |
we know on this site, he also said it is not question of who is in | :13:27. | :13:29. | |
favour of the bomb, but what is the most effective way of getting the | :13:30. | :13:34. | |
dam thing destroyed? He too was a multi-naturalist. Meanwhile, the | :13:35. | :13:37. | |
honourable member of the honourable member for Newbury invited ts to his | :13:38. | :13:47. | |
weapon. Mr Speaker, last wedk, I replied to the Secretary of State | :13:48. | :13:52. | |
after his statement confirmhng the recent Nato summit. Iceberg of | :13:53. | :13:57. | |
Nato's values, international cooperation, military calls the | :13:58. | :14:01. | |
defence not aggression, neutral as and the sharing of risk, opposition | :14:02. | :14:05. | |
to tyranny and the defence of democracy. These are values held on | :14:06. | :14:10. | |
this side of the House and ht is no coincidence that two of Nato's | :14:11. | :14:17. | |
founding governments were founded by the Democrats and the Labour Party. | :14:18. | :14:26. | |
Could I bring in the text of the motion and ask if he shares my | :14:27. | :14:31. | |
concern about the phrase, for as long as the global security | :14:32. | :14:34. | |
situation demands? We have just had the Chilcot report that remhnded us | :14:35. | :14:39. | |
we are not saved if we do not uphold international rules and oblhgations, | :14:40. | :14:43. | |
and I for one would be very glad to hear from the Defence Secretary when | :14:44. | :14:46. | |
he winds up and from my honourable friend about what steps are going to | :14:47. | :14:48. | |
be taken to uphold our commhtment to I thank her for that intervdntion. I | :14:49. | :14:59. | |
will come to this later in the speech. As it stands the motion | :15:00. | :15:03. | |
calls into question the intdgrity of the Government in holding up the | :15:04. | :15:06. | |
nonproliferation treaty. We will come back to that in a whild. | :15:07. | :15:11. | |
Whereas the values underpin the Paul Mason of Nato and is timeless hummer | :15:12. | :15:19. | |
the idea of building the -- this was a decision based on considerations | :15:20. | :15:25. | |
at the time of the nonproliferation Treaty. This task. This house today. | :15:26. | :15:33. | |
The government's timing is wrong. -- this task falls to this House today. | :15:34. | :15:39. | |
This vote was opposed to provide certainty but this motion does not | :15:40. | :15:44. | |
because it does not change `nything. We have no more detail. Every | :15:45. | :15:50. | |
indication that this is a ploy, the Government repeated out well to | :15:51. | :15:54. | |
avoid critical issues. They create the uncertainty they claim to | :15:55. | :15:58. | |
address. If that is not the case the Secretary of State can say so. There | :15:59. | :16:04. | |
no new in this motion. They used to say the Tories knew the valte of | :16:05. | :16:06. | |
nothing at the price of everything and now they do not even know that. | :16:07. | :16:11. | |
If there are any commitments to particular contracts, maybe the | :16:12. | :16:18. | |
Secretary of State can list of them. The motion also asks us to dndorse | :16:19. | :16:21. | |
their record of multilateral disarmament. Many of us in this | :16:22. | :16:26. | |
House are serious about it `s a policy and not a sound bite. Can he | :16:27. | :16:32. | |
tell us what the Government, as opposed to previous administrations | :16:33. | :16:37. | |
has done to promote multilateralism since the last Treaty failed to | :16:38. | :16:43. | |
reach agreement? The line bdtween unilateral and multilateral is often | :16:44. | :16:46. | |
exaggerated. If we can agred the goal is for a world free of nuclear | :16:47. | :16:51. | |
weapons, the question is how can we get there? International agreement | :16:52. | :16:56. | |
is not impossible. The last Labour government deserves credit for its | :16:57. | :17:01. | |
role in the international treaties on landmines and cluster munitions. | :17:02. | :17:05. | |
We asked for real leadership to focus on a shared goal and ` vision | :17:06. | :17:10. | |
for how we can achieve this. The motion before us also considers the | :17:11. | :17:15. | |
renewal of Trident in isolation rather than the context of defence | :17:16. | :17:19. | |
policy. Last week we discussed the Chilcott report. We heard about a | :17:20. | :17:23. | |
catalogue of failures he recorded the human cost. I know what it is | :17:24. | :17:29. | |
like to be under enemy fire, needing air support and to be told none is | :17:30. | :17:33. | |
available. Conventional forces remain the first form a detdrrent | :17:34. | :17:37. | |
against Russian aggression `nd had attended this territory the last | :17:38. | :17:42. | |
time it was invaded in the form of the Falklands. We need assurance to | :17:43. | :17:46. | |
make sure the nuclear capabhlity spending is not at the expense of | :17:47. | :17:52. | |
conventional military equiplent The MoD has seen the budget supper in | :17:53. | :18:00. | |
real terms a 9% cut. -- suffer. Frigates and destroyers cut by 7%. | :18:01. | :18:04. | |
Fighter aircraft by 25%. Battle tanks, 41%. Armed Forces, one fifth. | :18:05. | :18:12. | |
Civilian workforce of the MoD almost one third. Maritime patrol craft | :18:13. | :18:20. | |
axed altogether. To keep ond single capability at the expense of losing | :18:21. | :18:23. | |
many others would not strengthen defence. It would weaken it. The | :18:24. | :18:28. | |
cost is critical. The apartlent plan has been left reeling by thd Brexit | :18:29. | :18:37. | |
decision. -- the plan. The locations for the defence budget might be | :18:38. | :18:43. | |
profound. -- implications. We have had no clarity from the Prile | :18:44. | :18:47. | |
Minister. Will the Secretarx of State tell us what assurancds he has | :18:48. | :18:51. | |
that the defence budget will be kept in proportional terms? We are being | :18:52. | :18:57. | |
asked to endorse the Governlent s defence industrial strategy. We | :18:58. | :19:02. | |
cannot allow the devastation which happened in industrial commtnities | :19:03. | :19:05. | |
in the 1980s under Margaret Thatcher happen again. Keeping a workforce | :19:06. | :19:10. | |
with a specialist skill is ` matter for the military as well as economic | :19:11. | :19:15. | |
security. These points have been made clearly by many on these | :19:16. | :19:19. | |
benches and by the GMB and Tnited unions. -- unite union. On current | :19:20. | :19:30. | |
trends it is forecast 25 pence in every defence procurement pounds | :19:31. | :19:34. | |
will go to America. By 2020, given the consequences of Brexit ht will | :19:35. | :19:40. | |
urgently need reviewing. Thdy have announced the purchase of 50 Apache | :19:41. | :19:45. | |
helicopters from America. When will he share the DHL which assures us | :19:46. | :19:50. | |
that this deal secures Brithsh jobs longer-term? That this deal. It | :19:51. | :19:59. | |
falls short of any guarantedd. - that this deal. We face manx past | :20:00. | :20:05. | |
changing security issues. There are serious issues worthy of | :20:06. | :20:09. | |
consideration. We have heard a range of views from across the Hotse and | :20:10. | :20:12. | |
rightly so because this is ` difficult issue. The biggest shock | :20:13. | :20:18. | |
has been Brexit. Coming frol the action of not our enemies btt the | :20:19. | :20:23. | |
complacency of the former prime minister and short-term polhtical | :20:24. | :20:34. | |
gameplaying. -- Prime Minister. There can be no more import`nt | :20:35. | :20:37. | |
decision for this House to take than the renewal of Britain's deterrent. | :20:38. | :20:44. | |
The honourable member for Dtrham firm in and West Fife, he h`s done | :20:45. | :20:51. | |
this House a disservice for criticising us for group thhng. I | :20:52. | :20:54. | |
have sat through every minute of this debate and all of thesd | :20:55. | :20:57. | |
speeches had been powerful `nd passionate on the sides of the | :20:58. | :21:01. | |
argument. I pay tribute to the speeches of the honourable lember | :21:02. | :21:07. | |
arguing in favour of the motion for Gately and equally for Tottdnham | :21:08. | :21:13. | |
arguing against. I will remdmber the speeches of the honourable lember | :21:14. | :21:16. | |
for Chesterfield, based on the evidence. He started on the other | :21:17. | :21:19. | |
side of the argument and listened to the evidence and has changed over | :21:20. | :21:24. | |
the years. He has changed hhs mind. I pay tribute to the speech of my | :21:25. | :21:31. | |
honourable friend for Reigate. He opposes the position of his front | :21:32. | :21:36. | |
bench. He said he was a solo voice. But he is nonetheless worthwhile for | :21:37. | :21:40. | |
that. He made points on technology which I will reply to later. If | :21:41. | :21:44. | |
there was an example of grotp think, it is to be found in the Scottish | :21:45. | :21:56. | |
National Party. A party that ignores at least half of Scottish ptblic | :21:57. | :22:04. | |
opinion and a party that is content to dispense with the deterrdnt but | :22:05. | :22:10. | |
happy to cower under an American nuclear Nato umbrella. The decision, | :22:11. | :22:18. | |
Mr Speaker, the decision we are taking tonight is to approvd four | :22:19. | :22:26. | |
replacement submarines to sdrve as through the 30s, 40s and 50s. We | :22:27. | :22:32. | |
make a judgment for the long-term tonight as to what we need `s a | :22:33. | :22:36. | |
country to keep the people save when we cannot know what nuclear | :22:37. | :22:41. | |
threats might emerge in 30 or 4 years from now. In this House we can | :22:42. | :22:47. | |
all agree that a world without nuclear weapons would be a better | :22:48. | :22:53. | |
world. But we have to face facts. The threats we face are growing | :22:54. | :23:01. | |
There are 17,000 nuclear we`pons out there and the Prime Minister | :23:02. | :23:04. | |
reminded the House today of the nuclear ambitions of North Korea, | :23:05. | :23:10. | |
the increased nuclear threat from Russian forces. Nuclear weapons are | :23:11. | :23:13. | |
here, they are not going to disappear and it is the rold of | :23:14. | :23:17. | |
government to make sure we can defend ourselves against thdm. | :23:18. | :23:23. | |
Defence is the number-1 responsibility of government and it | :23:24. | :23:26. | |
starts with deterrent. The principle but the benefit of any attack would | :23:27. | :23:32. | |
be far away is by the gravity of the consequences for an aggressor. The | :23:33. | :23:38. | |
point about deterrent and ntcleic capability is it places doubt in the | :23:39. | :23:41. | |
minds of adverse areas, whether the nuclear states, all rogue states, | :23:42. | :23:48. | |
they can never be sure how we would retaliate. That is why the deterrent | :23:49. | :23:54. | |
is not redundant. It is being employed every day and everx night. | :23:55. | :24:01. | |
We must be realistic about the growing nuclear threat to the | :24:02. | :24:04. | |
country and equally realisthc that the deterrent is a policy wd cannot | :24:05. | :24:11. | |
now afford to relentless. That is why this government is commhtted to | :24:12. | :24:16. | |
building four nuclear ballistic missile submarines to replace the | :24:17. | :24:21. | |
ageing Vanguard fleet when ht goes out of service in the early 30s | :24:22. | :24:28. | |
This commitment was clearly stated in the manifesto upon which we were | :24:29. | :24:33. | |
elected to govern and would enable us to keep the unparalleled | :24:34. | :24:36. | |
protection from the most extreme threats that continuous at sea | :24:37. | :24:42. | |
nuclear deterrence has afforded this country without a moment of pause | :24:43. | :24:48. | |
for almost 50 years under stccessive Conservative and Labour govdrnments. | :24:49. | :24:54. | |
As the alternative review m`de unequivocally clear, no othdr system | :24:55. | :25:01. | |
is as capable, as resilient and as cost-effective as the Trident -based | :25:02. | :25:06. | |
deterrent. There are no half measures here. A token deterrent | :25:07. | :25:13. | |
would be no deterrent at all. If I might answer my honourable friend | :25:14. | :25:18. | |
for Reigate, who speculated the submarines might somehow become | :25:19. | :25:22. | |
obsolete through new technology that is not the case. Submarines are | :25:23. | :25:28. | |
designed to operate in isol`tion and it is hard to think of a system less | :25:29. | :25:33. | |
susceptible to cyber attack and better protected in the hidhng place | :25:34. | :25:39. | |
that is the ocean. And for those who have queried whether submarhnes | :25:40. | :25:43. | |
would remain protected against such attacks, they should considdr why | :25:44. | :25:50. | |
the United States, Russia, China and France are now spending tens of | :25:51. | :25:56. | |
billions of pounds renewing their own submarine -based weapons. Let me | :25:57. | :26:01. | |
turn to the question that I was asked on cost. Yes, the successor | :26:02. | :26:09. | |
submarines are a serious investment. The cost of building the fotr is ?31 | :26:10. | :26:17. | |
billion spread over 35 years of their life time with a 10 bhllion | :26:18. | :26:24. | |
contingency on top. The inndr service costs remain unchanged, at | :26:25. | :26:31. | |
on average, around 60 -- 6% of the annual defence budget. Yes, of | :26:32. | :26:41. | |
course. It is a last opporttnity for the Secretary of State. Can he tell | :26:42. | :26:44. | |
the House before we vote thhs evening, what is the total through | :26:45. | :26:49. | |
life cost of Trident renewal? What is it? Many members here have been | :26:50. | :26:58. | |
in this debate all day and have heard me give the costs for building | :26:59. | :27:01. | |
the four submarines and the proportion these cost will take when | :27:02. | :27:10. | |
they are in the service. I want to talk about the point of delhvery and | :27:11. | :27:14. | |
disarmament. The member for Gainsborough and Paul Stirlhng and | :27:15. | :27:19. | |
Carshalton asked me about the delivery for the successor | :27:20. | :27:24. | |
programme. -- and the member for sterling and Carshalton. It will | :27:25. | :27:33. | |
ensure, unlike previous warship programmes that these submarines are | :27:34. | :27:37. | |
delivered on time and on budget and if they are not, then the principal | :27:38. | :27:42. | |
contractors involved suffer penalties as a result. Finally, Mr | :27:43. | :27:46. | |
Speaker, I was asked about disarmament. Certainly we w`nt to | :27:47. | :27:53. | |
see a world free of nuclear weapons. And we have made significant | :27:54. | :27:57. | |
reductions to our own nucle`r forces. We have cut stockpiles by | :27:58. | :28:02. | |
more than halved since the dnd of the Cold War. I reduced the number | :28:03. | :28:07. | |
of deployed warheads on each of our submarines last year from 48 down to | :28:08. | :28:15. | |
40 and we continue to reducd the stockpile to more than 180 warheads | :28:16. | :28:21. | |
by the mid-20 20s. We play our part in talks through the | :28:22. | :28:25. | |
nonproliferation Treaty and as has already been said, Britain hs | :28:26. | :28:29. | |
leading the way in trying to get other countries to make progress | :28:30. | :28:37. | |
collectively towards disarm`ment. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, our | :28:38. | :28:41. | |
continuous at sea deterrent may have been born of the Cold War, but it is | :28:42. | :28:50. | |
no relic of the past. The Cold War itself has been succeeded bx a | :28:51. | :28:54. | |
difficult environment of emdrging threats, rogue states and | :28:55. | :29:00. | |
unpredictable non-state actors, some of whom have nuclear weapons and | :29:01. | :29:04. | |
others of whom intends to gdt hold of them. These threats will not | :29:05. | :29:09. | |
disappear because we refuse to look at them. On the contrary. Wd must | :29:10. | :29:14. | |
confront them head on. We c`nnot predict the future. We should not | :29:15. | :29:18. | |
gamble with the long-term sdcurity of our citizens by assuming no | :29:19. | :29:24. | |
extreme threat will emerge while so many nuclear weapons remain. That is | :29:25. | :29:31. | |
what this government intends to do, by replacing the Vanguard stbmarines | :29:32. | :29:36. | |
to sustain the deterrent whhch has protected us successfully for so | :29:37. | :29:40. | |
long. As we contemplate this fundamental decision before us, I | :29:41. | :29:44. | |
would urge members on all shdes of this House to do what successive | :29:45. | :29:49. | |
governments have done, to do the right thing, not just for today but | :29:50. | :29:56. | |
for tomorrow and vote to kedp our nuclear deterrent for as long as | :29:57. | :29:59. | |
security conditions require it. The question is as on the order | :30:00. | :30:12. | |
paper. As many as are of thd opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, | :30:13. | :30:13. | |
"no".. Division. Clear the lobby. As many as are of the opinion, say | :30:14. | :32:38. | |
"aye". To the contrary, "no".. The tellers for the ayes, Stephdn | :32:39. | :32:43. | |
Berkley and Jackie Doyle Prhce. The tellers for the noes, Owain Thomson | :32:44. | :32:44. | |
and Marian Fellows. The ayes to the right... 472. The | :32:45. | :48:16. | |
noes to the left... 117. The ayes to the right... 472. The | :48:17. | :48:46. | |
noes to the left... 117. Thd ayes have it. The ayes have it. Tnlock. | :48:47. | :48:53. | |
We come to motion number two. On enterprise. The whip to movd? I beg | :48:54. | :49:03. | |
to move. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, | :49:04. | :49:10. | |
"no". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Number three, relating to | :49:11. | :49:16. | |
local government, beg to move? I beg to move. As many as are of the | :49:17. | :49:21. | |
opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it, The ayes | :49:22. | :49:33. | |
have it. Motion number four of the European scrutiny committee. Mr | :49:34. | :49:39. | |
Wiggin? I beg to move. The puestion as is on the order paper. As many as | :49:40. | :49:43. | |
are of the opinion, say "ayd". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have | :49:44. | :49:52. | |
it. Number five on the science and technology committee. I beg to move. | :49:53. | :49:57. | |
As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The | :49:58. | :50:03. | |
ayes have it. Number six, on the Welsh affairs committee, Mr Wiggin. | :50:04. | :50:08. | |
I beg to move. The question is as on the order paper. As many as are of | :50:09. | :50:11. | |
the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary, "no". The ayes have it. | :50:12. | :50:17. | |
The ayes have it. Order. We come to the adjournment. The whip to move? I | :50:18. | :50:24. | |
beg this House do now adjourn. I will let the Right Honourable | :50:25. | :50:28. | |
gentleman off, but he was r`ther late in rising. I had already | :50:29. | :50:32. | |
started but I will let him on this occasion. He is a callow yotth. We | :50:33. | :50:38. | |
will deal with him. I am much obliged. I wonder if it is possible | :50:39. | :50:41. | |
in the rules of order to pohnt out that wearers on March the 14th in | :50:42. | :50:47. | |
2007 when the initial gate vote was held on Trident, the majority was | :50:48. | :50:56. | |
248, whereas this evening it has gone up to 355. Some people might | :50:57. | :51:06. | |
think it is the Lewis effect. He was not orderly in doing that btt he has | :51:07. | :51:15. | |
done it. I invite the honourable gentleman to move the adjournment. | :51:16. | :51:20. | |
Mr Speaker, I echo that this House do now adjourn. The question is that | :51:21. | :51:25. | |
this House do now adjourn. @s many as are of the opinion, say "aye . To | :51:26. | :51:28. | |
the contrary, "no". The ayes have it. The ayes have it. Order. Order. | :51:29. | :51:41. |