24/11/2015

:00:19. > :00:26.Order, order. Questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and

:00:27. > :00:35.Commonwealth Affairs Mr Fabian Hamilton. Question one, Mr Speaker.

:00:36. > :00:39.During last month's state visit my right honourable friend the Prime

:00:40. > :00:45.Minister and the president discussed the importance of issues on which we

:00:46. > :00:49.disagree, including human rights. I also set out the government's

:00:50. > :00:52.position on Tibet, including our human rights concerns in a

:00:53. > :00:57.Parliamentary debate secured by the honourable gentleman in June. I

:00:58. > :01:01.thank the Minister for that answer. The Minister will be aware that the

:01:02. > :01:06.UN committee against torture met last week in Geneva to review

:01:07. > :01:10.China's record and expressed serious concerns over its continued use of

:01:11. > :01:14.torture to extract confessions from prisoners. In its response, the

:01:15. > :01:19.Chinese delegation denied all allegations of endemic, systemic am

:01:20. > :01:25.a systematic acts of torture. China also claims to hold no political

:01:26. > :01:32.prisoners at all. Bilby Minister or the Foreign Secretary ensure that

:01:33. > :01:37.the routine use of torture in jails is raised with China at the next UN

:01:38. > :01:41.human rights Council? In Tibet or anywhere else, we would raise these

:01:42. > :01:45.matters. May I congratulate the honourable gentleman in keeping

:01:46. > :01:50.Tibet at the forefront of this House's deliberations. We had to

:01:51. > :01:54.debate recently. I should say that during the recent state visit, which

:01:55. > :01:56.was a huge success, the president acknowledged the importance of

:01:57. > :02:00.improving human rights protection and said China was ready for

:02:01. > :02:04.increased cooperation on this issue with the UK. The UK is one of the

:02:05. > :02:09.few countries in the world to have an annual human rights dialogue with

:02:10. > :02:12.China, and that is an important architecture within which to press

:02:13. > :02:21.the Chinese, and to raise these matters. We shall continue to do so.

:02:22. > :02:24.Mr Speaker, the Minister will recall in an exchange on October 22 he

:02:25. > :02:28.confirmed that China is ready to cooperate with the UK and other

:02:29. > :02:34.countries in the area of human rights. On the subject of Tibet, but

:02:35. > :02:37.also the persecution of practitioners, the alleged

:02:38. > :02:43.harvesting of organs, were those matters discussed with the Chinese

:02:44. > :02:47.president when he visited the UK? Well, the honourable gentleman

:02:48. > :02:52.credit me with almost total recall, but I will say that our position has

:02:53. > :02:59.been consistent on this matter. My right honourable friend on these

:03:00. > :03:03.issues, did raise these matters with the state councillor during the

:03:04. > :03:08.strategic dialogue with China in Beijing in August. We have also

:03:09. > :03:12.raised specific concerns over reports of organ harvesting on

:03:13. > :03:20.numerous occasions, including in answer to a written question on July

:03:21. > :03:23.the 15th. Catherine West. Could the Minister please tell the House what

:03:24. > :03:27.discussions have taken place to promote the importance of the

:03:28. > :03:32.freedom of religious expression in Tibet, and in particular amongst the

:03:33. > :03:36.weaker people? I would say to the honourable lady, these are issues

:03:37. > :03:41.which we raise consistently with the Chinese within the framework of the

:03:42. > :03:49.UK Chinese human rights dialogue. We publish the report which is updated

:03:50. > :03:52.every six months. The recent comments about the state visit, that

:03:53. > :03:58.the ratio with China is now based purely on one of commerce, this is

:03:59. > :04:03.wrong. This is not a winery relationship. So as we get closer to

:04:04. > :04:07.the Chinese we are seen as a good partner to China, and in terms of

:04:08. > :04:10.inward investment and trade with both countries, so we can discuss

:04:11. > :04:16.these things with him in a more mature way than many other countries

:04:17. > :04:18.can, it boils down to whether or not you believe in megaphone diplomacy

:04:19. > :04:22.by getting alongside the people you are trying to talk to and pointing

:04:23. > :04:30.out that the way to do things is the way that we do things. Question two.

:04:31. > :04:35.The UK is actively supporting UN efforts led by the Secretary

:04:36. > :04:40.General's new special representative to reach a lasting political

:04:41. > :04:46.agreement in Libya. We are also helping Tunisia and other North

:04:47. > :04:49.African countries to develop their economies, as well as strengthening

:04:50. > :04:58.their CTK abilities. I will be visiting Tunisia shortly to assess

:04:59. > :05:00.the effectiveness of UK medical and strategic cooperation and I will

:05:01. > :05:06.meet with the representative later this week. With the secretary of

:05:07. > :05:11.state agrees that it is in our interests that those countries at

:05:12. > :05:17.risk of extremist infiltration receives support controlling their

:05:18. > :05:23.borders? Yes, I would agree with that. What we have recognised since

:05:24. > :05:28.the attacks in Tunisia is that we need to focus more attention on

:05:29. > :05:32.those countries that are one step away from the chaos that is going on

:05:33. > :05:38.in Libya, countries that are making a success of things might but which

:05:39. > :05:43.still have some fun abilities, and which are being targeted by the

:05:44. > :05:51.extremists. We need to help them to build resilience against extremism.

:05:52. > :05:58.The Minister will know that Tunisia's economy has been badly hit

:05:59. > :06:06.to the collapse of its tourist industry. What steps is he taking to

:06:07. > :06:10.help other countries reach stability, particularly those in the

:06:11. > :06:15.Gulf States? We need to work with the Tunisians to improve security so

:06:16. > :06:22.that the tourist trade can resume as soon as is practical. The EU is also

:06:23. > :06:25.looking at relaxation of olive oil quotas to allow Tunisia greater

:06:26. > :06:30.access to the European market for olive oil, a product which it has

:06:31. > :06:36.plenty, if it is able to export it. My honourable friend, the

:06:37. > :06:40.Parliamentary undersecretary, visited the country a few weeks ago

:06:41. > :06:45.and discussed a 49 .1 with the Tunisians around support for the

:06:46. > :06:50.economy, and we are with the French seeking to act as the cheerleaders

:06:51. > :06:56.for support for the Tunisian economy within the EU. With the Foreign

:06:57. > :07:02.Secretary agree with me that we should also take this opportunity to

:07:03. > :07:05.encourage organisations such as the foundation for democracy, and a

:07:06. > :07:10.range of other organisations and institutions within our Western

:07:11. > :07:14.allies, United States, France and Germany, to name but three? The work

:07:15. > :07:20.they can do to ensure that we have political stability and democracy to

:07:21. > :07:25.other North African countries. Yes, I agree with my honourable friend,

:07:26. > :07:32.and of course Tunisia is ahead of the game, as it were. One of the

:07:33. > :07:35.success stories of the 2011 Arab Spring with a functioning

:07:36. > :07:40.constitution, democratic elections, but all of it challenged by the

:07:41. > :07:49.desire of the extremists to target success stories like that. We must

:07:50. > :07:53.stand with them. Mr Speaker, I am sure the Foreign Secretary will join

:07:54. > :07:56.us in expressing outrage at the terrorist atrocity in Mali in which

:07:57. > :08:06.22 were slaughtered, citizens of China, Mali, Belgium, amongst

:08:07. > :08:12.others, and we now see affiliated organisations operating across the

:08:13. > :08:19.wider area, could he say what is happening across the Sahara to

:08:20. > :08:25.tackle terrorism? We are working with a wide range of countries,

:08:26. > :08:31.including crucially Nigeria, because this is a pincer movement coming

:08:32. > :08:35.across the Sahara, so we are working with the full range of countries.

:08:36. > :08:41.But I would say that if we are going to stop this spread of terrorism, we

:08:42. > :08:50.have two tackle it at its heart, and its heart is in Raqqa in Syria. The

:08:51. > :08:54.security situation in the Sinai is a threat to Egypt, other countries in

:08:55. > :08:59.North Africa, as well as the coalition against Isil, as we saw

:09:00. > :09:03.with the recent terrorist attack. What is the Foreign Secretary's

:09:04. > :09:09.assessment of the security situation and its impact in Sinai? The

:09:10. > :09:14.security situation in Sinai is serious. The Egyptian army is

:09:15. > :09:19.engaged in combat with terrorist groups across Sinai, and in fact on

:09:20. > :09:26.the Foreign Office's travel advice recommends against all travel to

:09:27. > :09:29.Sinai, except the area around Sharm el-Sheikh which is itself still

:09:30. > :09:36.considered safe for travel, although travel through the airport is

:09:37. > :09:40.advised against. We seek to work with the Egyptian authorities to

:09:41. > :09:45.deal with the terrorist challenge that they are facing in Sinai. Does

:09:46. > :09:51.the Foreign Secretary believe that further air strikes alone will move

:09:52. > :09:56.us towards political stability in the wider region? Perhaps he could

:09:57. > :09:59.take this opportunity to address the efficacy of military intervention in

:10:00. > :10:03.Syria, and how it would contribute to a wider initiative to end civil

:10:04. > :10:08.war and does he have a plan for securing the peace, a plan which

:10:09. > :10:13.should include measures to close down all sources of finance and new

:10:14. > :10:17.recruits to the terrorist cult, including a government inquiry into

:10:18. > :10:22.their financing question mark why is this government attempted to make a

:10:23. > :10:24.case for war while Felling to address the need for a long-term

:10:25. > :10:39.competency of peace plan? I think the short answer is that air

:10:40. > :10:48.strikes alone will not alone destroy Daesh. But they have to be a part of

:10:49. > :10:51.the overall solution. In respect of our other specific enquiries, if she

:10:52. > :10:56.will wait until Thursday, she can look forward to hearing from the

:10:57. > :11:02.Prime Minister himself into how this fits into our wider strategy. I wait

:11:03. > :11:08.in anticipation for Thursday's statement. I am also grateful for

:11:09. > :11:16.the use of Daesh and all the other parties will follow suit. The US are

:11:17. > :11:22.bombing Daesh. France are also targeting rebels. Turkey are bombing

:11:23. > :11:29.Daesh and are bombing Kurdish forces in the North. If military action

:11:30. > :11:35.forces Daesh give up Sony and Iraq, in the coming weeks and months,

:11:36. > :11:41.which forced us the foreign secretary expected take its place on

:11:42. > :11:46.the ground? Again, the short answer is the honourable lady is correctly

:11:47. > :11:50.identifying the situation is complex. As the Prime Minister

:11:51. > :11:54.himself has said, we have to resolve these two things in parallel. We

:11:55. > :11:59.have to get a political solution to the Civil War in Syria so we can get

:12:00. > :12:03.everybody dealing with the problem of Daesh instead of fighting each

:12:04. > :12:13.other. That is what our comprehensive strategy will seek to

:12:14. > :12:22.achieve. I discuss progress on central registers of the central

:12:23. > :12:33.Cayman Islands and brand-new dog yesterday. -- berm you does. Paul

:12:34. > :12:46.Moynihan. The Prime Minister wrote to the overseas territories. It is

:12:47. > :12:54.clear that the Prime Minister wants the overseas territories to have

:12:55. > :12:57.public registers of ownership. Can he ensure that overseas territories

:12:58. > :13:08.adopt public registers or at the very least ensure access for the

:13:09. > :13:12.public. I think the honourable gentleman should give the overseas

:13:13. > :13:17.territories where credit is due. Progress has been made to central

:13:18. > :13:22.registers full working on security forces and police forces access to

:13:23. > :13:27.that register. But longer term, he is entirely right. The public access

:13:28. > :13:31.to that information is the direction we need to go and will have to go

:13:32. > :13:38.alternately. But the Overseas Territory 's are making progress.

:13:39. > :13:47.Can my right honourable friend let us know what progress we have made

:13:48. > :13:51.on tax evasion? This is a clear area where progress has already been

:13:52. > :13:55.made. The territories have fulfilled their commitments are automatic tax

:13:56. > :14:04.exchange and this was achieved in working in partnership with them.

:14:05. > :14:09.Number four, Sir. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to group this

:14:10. > :14:17.with question 15. One of the five principal strands of Isil strategy

:14:18. > :14:21.is stabilisation support. The UK has spent in the forefront in providing

:14:22. > :14:32.humanitarian support with ?1 billion committed to supporting host

:14:33. > :14:37.countries. I am grateful to my honourable friend for that answer.

:14:38. > :14:45.Will the Minister while carrying on this important work will work flat

:14:46. > :14:50.out to build a robust and energised consensus against Isil among the

:14:51. > :14:55.other countries in the Middle East? Mr Speaker, he is right. We must be

:14:56. > :15:00.energised. The government is committed to working with the now 65

:15:01. > :15:11.strong counter Isil coalition. On our 5-point strategy. Cutting off

:15:12. > :15:17.Daesh's funding scream. Providing humanitarian stabilisation support I

:15:18. > :15:22.have mentioned already. -- stream. Does my right honourable friend

:15:23. > :15:25.agreed that we must do all we can to support those living in refugee

:15:26. > :15:33.camps. And to ensure that they can return to their homes and rebuild

:15:34. > :15:40.their lives and safety and security? We have done a lot to do just that,

:15:41. > :15:44.to allow people to stay in the region, to help the vulnerable who

:15:45. > :15:48.need to be taken away from the region and supported. Which is why

:15:49. > :15:57.we are taking 20,000 refugees here in the UK. They are not allowed to

:15:58. > :16:02.be working illegally. What is the government doing to help countries

:16:03. > :16:13.like Jordan economic lace of that can change and that refugees can't

:16:14. > :16:19.work legally? That is a valid point. A bit of tension locally with people

:16:20. > :16:24.in the camp, willing to be paid less but wanting to work. We're working

:16:25. > :16:27.programmes and United Nations, so programmes and United Nations, so

:16:28. > :16:31.that they can feel that they can keep skills up. So when the guns

:16:32. > :16:37.finally fall silent in Syria, we need those skills to be transferred

:16:38. > :16:40.back into the country. When I visited the refugee camp, I could

:16:41. > :16:45.see first-hand the amount of aid that the UK government is giving to

:16:46. > :16:49.help the situation of the ground in Syria, as well as in Lebanon in

:16:50. > :16:53.Turkey and well swear. The UK is the second highest honour to those

:16:54. > :16:57.countries. Can the Minister update us as to what progress he has made

:16:58. > :17:01.in getting other neighbouring countries and other partners to make

:17:02. > :17:07.their proper contribution to helping humanitarian crisis in the region?

:17:08. > :17:12.Firstly, I am grateful for his support. Sometimes this number of

:17:13. > :17:16.20,000 refugees that we are taking in the UK is taken out of context,

:17:17. > :17:21.in comparison with the work we are doing to support those, such as

:17:22. > :17:25.those in the Zaatari count. We are providing support to other countries

:17:26. > :17:29.but we are also encouraging the neighbours. That is why we are

:17:30. > :17:32.hosting a conference here in February along with Kuwait to

:17:33. > :17:34.encourage other countries to provide a conference here in February along

:17:35. > :17:36.with Kuwait to encourage other countries to provide donations so we

:17:37. > :17:48.can be ready for post-conflict reconstruction balls in Iraq and in

:17:49. > :17:54.Syria. -- both ends. I discussed the situation in Syria to recent of the

:17:55. > :17:58.support Syria support group. The Prime Minister discussed Syria with

:17:59. > :18:05.President Putin at the margins of the G20 summit last week. When I saw

:18:06. > :18:09.represents the most immediate threat to our national security, we should

:18:10. > :18:16.be targeting its headquarters in Syria instead of leaving military

:18:17. > :18:19.action there to other countries? I think, Mr Speaker, my honourable

:18:20. > :18:23.friend knows my views and reviews of the Prime Minister very well. We do

:18:24. > :18:29.believe it is morally unacceptable to outsource an action which is

:18:30. > :18:33.essential to the defence of the United Kingdom and UK citizens

:18:34. > :18:38.around the world to others. That is why we will be seeking to build a

:18:39. > :18:45.consensus in this House for taking military action to Daesh and Raqqa.

:18:46. > :18:50.Regarding the situation in Syria, has the Foreign Secretary 's seen

:18:51. > :18:55.the letter into the's Times paper were nearly 200 Islamic scholars

:18:56. > :19:00.have denounced the strongest possible terms, ISAs terror. That is

:19:01. > :19:04.the sort of propaganda we should use and the foreign office should use in

:19:05. > :19:09.every way in all parts of the world. Shouldn't we make it perfectly

:19:10. > :19:14.clear, as they have done, that the atrocities in Paris have nothing to

:19:15. > :19:24.do with the wicked West. We went to war over Kosovo in order to protect

:19:25. > :19:29.Muslims and we were right to do so. -- Isis. Our position is a moral

:19:30. > :19:34.position. We are defending the right of people, Christians, years the

:19:35. > :19:39.Dees, Jews and Muslims to practice their religion freely against

:19:40. > :19:44.tyranny that imposes its view by beheadings, by rates, by mass

:19:45. > :19:49.deportations. And we must end this terror. He is right, that are vital

:19:50. > :19:56.to in our armoury is the very substantial body of thoughtful,

:19:57. > :20:01.moderate Islamic scholarship around the world. And we, when I say we,

:20:02. > :20:05.all nations of goodwill, this should be essentially led by the Muslim

:20:06. > :20:09.countries of the world. We need to ensure that that view prevails. We

:20:10. > :20:15.need to help the Muslims of the world reclaim their religion from

:20:16. > :20:18.the extremists. Is my honourable friend aware of the appalling news

:20:19. > :20:24.this morning that a Russian bomber has been shot down by a Nato

:20:25. > :20:27.country, Turkey. Is this not a potentially dangerous situation

:20:28. > :20:31.given that nothing like that happened during the whole of the

:20:32. > :20:34.Cold War. If we are going to get a solution in the north, we need to

:20:35. > :20:40.look at building a moderate Sunni regime. That may go back, we may

:20:41. > :20:47.have to go back to read drying the boundaries. Mr Speaker, I review and

:20:48. > :20:53.the strong view of all of our partners and allies is that we need

:20:54. > :20:58.to preserve the territorial integrity of Syria. If we start

:20:59. > :21:02.opening up boundaries in the region, I can promise my honourable friend

:21:03. > :21:08.we will prolong the agony. As far as the reports coming in this morning

:21:09. > :21:13.of a potential Russian air force jet shot down near the Turkish border,

:21:14. > :21:18.we are seeking further details urgently bores and gong Kok --

:21:19. > :21:23.Moscow and Ankara. This is potentially a serious incident. But

:21:24. > :21:29.it will not be unwise to comment further until we have the facts.

:21:30. > :21:34.Following their shockingly brutal attacks in Paris, no one doubts that

:21:35. > :21:39.we have to defeat Daesh in both Iraq and in Syria. This must be linked to

:21:40. > :21:44.the urgent need for the peace line to end the Civil War in Syria. Can

:21:45. > :21:47.he tell the House when he expects a decision to be reached on which

:21:48. > :21:52.opposition groups will take part in the talks due to start on the 1st of

:21:53. > :21:56.January? What is as current assessment of the chances of

:21:57. > :21:59.securing a ceasefire as part of these discussions about the

:22:00. > :22:10.formation of a transitional government? As the right -- right

:22:11. > :22:16.honourable gentleman has said, it is the heart of the group s' work. They

:22:17. > :22:22.are tasked with the drawing up a list, and agreed list, of opposition

:22:23. > :22:26.participants. I hope that when the team meets next, and we expect that

:22:27. > :22:31.to beat in the second week of December, that we will be able to

:22:32. > :22:36.approve a list at that point. It is right that I should emphasise that

:22:37. > :22:39.there are still some differences among the international support

:22:40. > :22:45.group. The Russians and Iranians do not take the same view of who is an

:22:46. > :22:51.acceptable interlocutor as are other partners do. I thank the Foreign

:22:52. > :22:58.Secretary for that reply. The unanimous agreement of UNC to the

:22:59. > :23:01.Council resolution to 249 last Friday was a significant moment in

:23:02. > :23:06.the fight against Daesh because the world community has come together to

:23:07. > :23:11.fight this evil, using in the words of the resolution, all necessary

:23:12. > :23:35.measures. Can the right honourable gentleman give us an idea of how

:23:36. > :23:39.macro three's position in Syria -- Daesh's is two events around the

:23:40. > :23:43.world? As the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, there is no

:23:44. > :23:49.doubt that the head of this multi-tentacled monster is in Raqqa,

:23:50. > :23:54.in Syria. Its logistics, is controlling brain, its strategic

:23:55. > :23:58.Communications, which are extremely effective, are all run from that

:23:59. > :24:02.headquarters. We will not destroy it by cutting off its limbs, we can

:24:03. > :24:06.only destroy it by going for the heart. It is right that I should say

:24:07. > :24:12.that some of the activity conducted around the world in the name of Isil

:24:13. > :24:19.is directed, clearly directed, from Raqqa. In other cases, it is

:24:20. > :24:30.inspired by Isil propaganda, but not directly controlled from Raqqa. So

:24:31. > :24:38.it is a mixture. Our immediate priority is to ensure that it passes

:24:39. > :24:40.into law. The government is also committed to supporting efforts to

:24:41. > :24:43.maximise registration and the electoral commission plans a

:24:44. > :24:49.campaign in the run-up to the campaign in the run-up to the

:24:50. > :24:53.referendum itself. Given that the unelected House of Lords are now

:24:54. > :24:57.calling for voting franchise to be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. And

:24:58. > :25:06.given the change in public attitudes, could the government look

:25:07. > :25:10.again and legislate the franchise? This House, the elected House has

:25:11. > :25:15.voted on three occasions in recent months against lowering the voting

:25:16. > :25:19.age to 16 for this referendum. The government will propose to overturn

:25:20. > :25:24.this latest amendment from the Lords. I have to say it is a bit

:25:25. > :25:26.rich for him and his party to carp about the franchise when they voted

:25:27. > :25:44.against having a referendum at all. Will he sure that be sufficient time

:25:45. > :25:48.to have both arguments before having the referendum itself on the EU? I

:25:49. > :25:52.can assure my honourable friend that there will be ample time for those

:25:53. > :25:59.arguments to be aired, both in this House and outside. Can I pressed the

:26:00. > :26:04.minister a little bit further on this issue of 16 and 17-year-old.

:26:05. > :26:10.The other house passed their amendment by a big majority on the

:26:11. > :26:14.18th of November on this. There are rumours of disagreements within the

:26:15. > :26:29.government and within the Cabinet on how to respond. The Prime

:26:30. > :26:34.Minister... The Prime Minister has left the door open so far to change

:26:35. > :26:38.in the West is that he has been asked previously about this. We know

:26:39. > :26:42.that 16 and 17-year-olds are capable of understanding the issues. We know

:26:43. > :26:48.that they are interested and want to take part, so why won't the Minister

:26:49. > :26:53.agree to the amendment and give 16 and 17-year-olds a proper say in the

:26:54. > :27:01.future of our country? There are honourable members in various parts

:27:02. > :27:05.of the House who champion the cause of reducing the voting age to 16,

:27:06. > :27:08.but I would say to the right honourable gentleman that the right

:27:09. > :27:15.time to debate that issue is during legislation where such a change

:27:16. > :27:19.would apply to the franchise for all elections and referendums, and not

:27:20. > :27:26.just as a one-off tacked onto a bill for a particular referendum. Carolyn

:27:27. > :27:33.Harris. Question seven, Mr Speaker. I discussed the current migration

:27:34. > :27:36.rises with my EU counterparts on a regular basis, for example be

:27:37. > :27:41.foreign affairs Council last Monday, in Brussels, and when I met with a

:27:42. > :27:47.group of EU countries in Prague the previous Friday. All of them agree

:27:48. > :27:53.on the importance of a competence of approach to tackling the underlying

:27:54. > :27:59.causes of regular migration, and the UK is playing a leading role in

:28:00. > :28:03.delivering this approach. Maybe the minister could share with us what

:28:04. > :28:08.progress is being made with our European colleagues to create simple

:28:09. > :28:15.and safe routes for refugees to be united with their families who have

:28:16. > :28:20.already found Santry in Britain? -- sanctuary. The refugees we are

:28:21. > :28:23.mainly discussing in terms of the question she asked about discussions

:28:24. > :28:29.with my EU colleagues are those who are arriving within the Schengen

:28:30. > :28:38.area. Clearly, those people, since people are -- Britain is not in that

:28:39. > :28:39.area, would not be able to access the UK in the normal course of

:28:40. > :28:43.events, so their future will be within the Schengen area, unless at

:28:44. > :28:49.some point they pertain EU citizenship. Will my right

:28:50. > :28:56.honourable friend explain what's more action can be taken to stop

:28:57. > :28:59.resident Assad's murder of his own people, which is contributing to the

:29:00. > :29:14.refugee crisis that we are seeing at the moment? Mr Speaker, she is

:29:15. > :29:19.absolutely right. The honourable lady is absolutely right. Clearly

:29:20. > :29:22.there is agreement across the European Union that we need to

:29:23. > :29:27.address these issues upstream, and one of the most pressing challenges

:29:28. > :29:31.is the Civil War in Syria. As I have already said once this afternoon,

:29:32. > :29:35.the Prime Minister will set out our preference of approach to that

:29:36. > :29:41.problem, military, political and two and, on Thursday. As part of those

:29:42. > :29:47.discussions with the European Council, what part of those

:29:48. > :29:52.discussions are centred on the real genocide that is happening,

:29:53. > :29:56.including in UN HCI refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, the Kurdish

:29:57. > :30:02.autonomous region, I radicalised Islamist linked to Daesh, who are

:30:03. > :30:08.killing Christians in those camps and driving them out of them? I

:30:09. > :30:11.would have to tell the honourable gentleman candidly that that has not

:30:12. > :30:16.been the focus of discussion in foreign affairs Council about the

:30:17. > :30:20.migration crisis, but I am aware of concerns about what is going on in

:30:21. > :30:25.the camp, and of course the UK's approach is to invest heavily in

:30:26. > :30:29.providing safe and appropriate facilities for refugees in the

:30:30. > :30:34.region so that they can return to Syria in due course. We will

:30:35. > :30:40.continue to advocate that approach and to encourage our EU partners to

:30:41. > :30:46.put more money into that effort. Question eight, Mr Speaker. With

:30:47. > :30:48.permission, Mr Speaker, I shall answer this bastion together with

:30:49. > :30:53.the question nine. My right honourable friend the Minister has

:30:54. > :30:58.had deductive rounds of talks with every European leader, and with the

:30:59. > :31:00.president of the European Council, the European Parliament and the

:31:01. > :31:04.European Commission. The Foreign Secretary, Chancellor and I, also

:31:05. > :31:11.maintain regular contact with our counterparts right across Europe.

:31:12. > :31:16.Can the Minister go further and confirmed that the government will

:31:17. > :31:22.not seek to tear up hard one employment rights as part of this

:31:23. > :31:25.negotiation with the EU? We believe that the flexibility of the opt out

:31:26. > :31:30.that we have from the 48 hour week under the working time direct live

:31:31. > :31:34.is one that is very important to keeping employment in this country

:31:35. > :31:41.high, compared with the tragic levels of unemployment in many other

:31:42. > :31:46.European nations. We shall certainly ensure we will keep this. Will the

:31:47. > :31:51.Minister and accept that there will be no treaty changes secured before

:31:52. > :31:56.the referendum? I set out the position on that in the statement

:31:57. > :32:04.and subsequent answers that I gave a week ago. What he -- is very

:32:05. > :32:09.important is that we secure a package of changes which will be

:32:10. > :32:14.seen by all as irreversible and as legally binding. The government used

:32:15. > :32:20.to complain about Tony Blair giving up the UK rebate back to the

:32:21. > :32:24.European Union, so why did the Prime Minister not ask for a reduction in

:32:25. > :32:29.our membership fee to the EU as part of his letter? Is it that the

:32:30. > :32:33.government is now happy that we gave up the rebate, or is it that the

:32:34. > :32:37.primary step has only asked for the things that he has already had

:32:38. > :32:40.agreed by the EU so he can say the negotiations were a success, on the

:32:41. > :32:54.basis that if you ask for nothing, when you get nothing it will be a

:32:55. > :32:59.success? Mr Speaker, my honourable friend would be right to applaud the

:33:00. > :33:03.Prime Minister's success in getting the first ever reduction in the EU

:33:04. > :33:07.Sakho multi annual budget. I can assure him that what lies ahead will

:33:08. > :33:12.be negotiations that will be tough, that will at times be difficult,

:33:13. > :33:19.which I am confident will end with a better set of relationships between

:33:20. > :33:24.this country and the EU. Surely is it not the case that these very

:33:25. > :33:27.modest proposals which were set out in that letter were the only ones

:33:28. > :33:35.which the government believed that the rest of the EU would agree to,

:33:36. > :33:38.which is why an end to free movement, which is something so many

:33:39. > :33:45.people want to see, is not even going to be discussed? Well we have

:33:46. > :33:53.made it clear that we want to see the freedom of movement for workers

:33:54. > :33:56.be just that, and not a freedom of movement to elect the best welfare

:33:57. > :34:02.system anywhere in Europe. I would say to my honourable friend that we

:34:03. > :34:05.must also take account in our approach to this subject the fact

:34:06. > :34:08.that there are hundreds of thousands of British citizens who themselves

:34:09. > :34:16.are able to work, study and live elsewhere in Europe. Further to the

:34:17. > :34:19.previous question, will the issue of freedom of movement, the principle,

:34:20. > :34:26.not the detail, the principle of freedom of movement, will it be

:34:27. > :34:29.discussed or not? I has to ask the honourable gentleman to go and read

:34:30. > :34:35.again the letter that the Prime Minister sent last week because that

:34:36. > :34:39.makes clear that, while we accept the principle of a freedom of

:34:40. > :34:46.movement for workers, we want to secure changes which ensure that we

:34:47. > :34:50.can reduce the core factors which element of our welfare system exert

:34:51. > :34:58.in adding to migration into this country. Following what my

:34:59. > :35:05.honourable friend said, if the bar is so hah and -- so high and so

:35:06. > :35:11.tough, what is the Prime Minister really going to fight for? What is

:35:12. > :35:17.holding him back? Come on, the bar is so low, this negotiation is just

:35:18. > :35:23.a joke. I perhaps look forward to the day when my honourable friend is

:35:24. > :35:27.able to join me at ministerial meetings in Europe when he can

:35:28. > :35:33.actually see that the task of negotiating is not quite as easy as

:35:34. > :35:37.he has made out in his question. I can't give a running commentary on

:35:38. > :35:43.ongoing negotiations, but I remind my honourable friend that the

:35:44. > :35:49.president commented that the British are task and they would be "really

:35:50. > :35:53.difficult to find an agreement". That indicates we have a real

:35:54. > :36:05.negotiation in front of us. Mr Martin day. Question ten. Thank you,

:36:06. > :36:08.Mr Speaker. Britain has made its support for the president in Yemen

:36:09. > :36:18.clear in deed, and recognised his legitimate request for military

:36:19. > :36:24.assistance which has compounded and Jackie -- a dire humanitarian

:36:25. > :36:33.situation. The Foreign Secretary and I received assurances of compliance.

:36:34. > :36:37.I wonder if he can give a timeline for the proper investigations that

:36:38. > :36:44.were pledged earlier this month into any breaches of humanitarian law in

:36:45. > :36:47.Yemen? Mr Speaker, these investigations must be concluded,

:36:48. > :36:51.they must be looked into, and they will be ongoing. It is a very

:36:52. > :36:55.difficult situation on the ground, unable to have access in many cases

:36:56. > :37:01.to verify what has happened. Progress is being made by the envoy

:37:02. > :37:04.in bringing the parties together in Geneva very shortly, and that is

:37:05. > :37:10.where we need to focus on action getting a ceasefire in place. The

:37:11. > :37:13.humanitarian consequences of the conflict in Yemen after hunt

:37:14. > :37:18.clay-macro heart-rending. Would my honourable friend agree that peace

:37:19. > :37:23.talks leading to a political settlement would be the best way to

:37:24. > :37:26.bring an end to the humanitarian suffering and any breaches of

:37:27. > :37:30.international law in this country? My honourable friend is right. We

:37:31. > :37:34.have discussed some important challenges in the Middle East, but

:37:35. > :37:42.the scale of the situation in Yemen is dire. 20 million people are

:37:43. > :37:45.facing starvation. The lack of water and support that they need. There is

:37:46. > :37:51.no government there, and until we have a ceasefire, the port will not

:37:52. > :37:57.be able to open up to allow the humanitarian support to enter the

:37:58. > :38:00.country. Human rights watch has documented 27 air strikes since

:38:01. > :38:06.March 26 that appear to violate the laws of war in Yemen. On November

:38:07. > :38:10.the 11th, the Foreign Secretary said he supported proper investigations

:38:11. > :38:14.into human rights violations from all sides in the Yemen conflict. Can

:38:15. > :38:20.the Minister explain why the United Kingdom failed to support the Dutch

:38:21. > :38:23.at the last meeting of the UN human rights Council when they call for a

:38:24. > :38:34.credible investigation into these violations? Mr Speaker, this is an

:38:35. > :38:38.important point. I met NGO's and had a band table discussion on this

:38:39. > :38:44.policy. There was an international discussion on this matter. We have

:38:45. > :38:49.been working on encouraging Saudi Arabia and other parties involved in

:38:50. > :38:54.this coalition. There are ten other countries as well. Those cases need

:38:55. > :39:03.to be looked into efficiently and properly by the country itself.

:39:04. > :39:07.Question 11. Since operations by the global coalition began last year, I

:39:08. > :39:12.still has lost more than 30% of the territory it once controlled in

:39:13. > :39:21.Iraq. Most recently, Kurdish forces retook Singel, and slowly but surely

:39:22. > :39:31.Isil is being pushed back, and I am confident that it will be driven out

:39:32. > :39:35.of Iraq in time. As Chair of the all-party group on Islamic phobia, I

:39:36. > :39:39.would like them be formally termed as Daesh. But does my honourable

:39:40. > :39:44.friend agree that cutting supply lines with Syria will hasten its

:39:45. > :39:58.defeat and bring about the restoration of the territory? The

:39:59. > :40:02.retaking of Sinjar is important, but we need to go to the heart and head

:40:03. > :40:08.of the beast in Iraq. Does he regard Turkey as a reliable

:40:09. > :40:14.ally in the battle against Isil, when you consider that not only

:40:15. > :40:20.today they have shot down a Russian jet, who are also trying to fight

:40:21. > :40:24.Isil, they are buying oil from Isil in order to prop them up, they are

:40:25. > :40:30.bombing the Kurds, who are also fighting Isil. This Syrian

:40:31. > :40:43.engagement is an almighty guess. -- mess.

:40:44. > :40:56.Turkey holds the key to a number of questions. And also the migration

:40:57. > :41:02.challenge for Europe. It will be an important partner for this country

:41:03. > :41:06.and the European Union. For, sir. Following my recent discussions in

:41:07. > :41:11.Vienna, an international Syria support group will meet on a regular

:41:12. > :41:16.basis in parallel with Syrian lead discussions with the opposition and

:41:17. > :41:21.the facilitated by the UN to take forward a transition process for

:41:22. > :41:25.that country. The UK will work with our international partners to mean

:41:26. > :41:30.men took -- momentum in this important endeavour. Is it not

:41:31. > :41:40.clearer than ever that Isil pose a threat to our national security. Is

:41:41. > :41:46.it not incumbent upon us in this House to support our allies and that

:41:47. > :41:51.the failure to do so would call complete the world and on their

:41:52. > :41:55.part? It is true that we have military capabilities, the precision

:41:56. > :41:58.weapons available on Tornado aircraft, which would make a

:41:59. > :42:04.difference to the military battle on the ground in Syria. But it is

:42:05. > :42:07.incumbent upon us and we have accepted this challenge to make the

:42:08. > :42:11.case is not just for military intervention to set that case in a

:42:12. > :42:18.broader context of a comprehensive approach to the Syria problem. The

:42:19. > :42:20.Prime Minister has taken upon him himself the responsibility of

:42:21. > :42:25.delivering his comprehensive strategy to the House. It is ever

:42:26. > :42:35.more apparent that unless we deal with the biggest recruitment drive

:42:36. > :42:41.for Daesh by the Assad regime, we will not tackle the cancer that is

:42:42. > :42:47.Daesh. Can he tell us how he will prioritise UK engagement to get a

:42:48. > :42:51.ceasefire and a complex compounds of plan question worked through the

:42:52. > :42:56.international support group for Syria that we have set up. She is

:42:57. > :43:02.right. We will not get a ceasefire, we will not get the opposition

:43:03. > :43:06.groups working with the rump of regime forces against Daesh unless

:43:07. > :43:11.and until they can be clear that Assad is going at a certain point, a

:43:12. > :43:18.clear and defined point, in the transition process. At the moment we

:43:19. > :43:23.do not have agreement across the ISS GE about that point. But that is

:43:24. > :43:26.where we have to go and that is the fundamental thrust of all

:43:27. > :43:31.discussions, around tried to get agreement on a route for an exit by

:43:32. > :43:39.Assad, so that the rest of the pieces of this chicks can follow in

:43:40. > :43:42.to place. -- jigsaw. Given Britain's economic ties with Gulf

:43:43. > :43:46.nations and other states in the Middle East, both I and the Foreign

:43:47. > :43:51.Secretary meet our counterparts to discuss a range of issues including

:43:52. > :44:00.security. In recent weeks, the UK hosted the Egyptian president and I

:44:01. > :44:10.have returned from all man and will be heading to Kuwait, looking at the

:44:11. > :44:14.whip on duty. We face an epidemic of Jihadist violence. Can my honourable

:44:15. > :44:18.friend assure the House that it is close dialogue with our golf friends

:44:19. > :44:22.and partners that they will press on them that funding by some of them of

:44:23. > :44:27.these dangerous organisations must stop?

:44:28. > :44:35.My right honourable friend is right. This is one of the key trait of the

:44:36. > :44:39.strategy is to prevent funding taking place. It is important all

:44:40. > :44:45.countries across the Middle East work hard to prevent this from

:44:46. > :44:50.happening. With the Minister raise in his discussions the current

:44:51. > :44:55.terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. With 108 Israelis killed

:44:56. > :44:59.or injured by shootings or stabbings in the street in recent weeks and

:45:00. > :45:07.will he condemned the incitement that goes with that, including the

:45:08. > :45:20.statement from the Palestinian... That Jewish body parts should be put

:45:21. > :45:25.out in pieces to remove the thought from their heads. She races are very

:45:26. > :45:28.serious point. In the past few weeks we have seen a reduction in the

:45:29. > :45:34.violence that is taking place in the West Bank. Since the start of this

:45:35. > :45:38.current scale of violence, we have spoken regularly with all sides with

:45:39. > :45:41.the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, we need to DS

:45:42. > :45:50.intentions and get all parties back to the table. Number 14, Mr Speaker.

:45:51. > :46:02.I saw for myself in July the desperate plight of the community.

:46:03. > :46:06.Relieving that plight remains a priority. We will press the incoming

:46:07. > :46:40.government to do so. I thank the Minister for his answer. Elections

:46:41. > :46:44.in Burma were a victory for the people of Burma, not withstanding

:46:45. > :46:50.the fact that the Rohingya registered franchise from that

:46:51. > :46:55.election. I could only just conclude by concurring what press --

:46:56. > :47:00.President Obama said about the Rohingya. He hopes they will be

:47:01. > :47:04.treated fairly and justly in their own country and we believe as he

:47:05. > :47:08.does, they are deserving of the world's protection and support. The

:47:09. > :47:13.incoming government will have a lot on its plate. It will have to expect

:47:14. > :47:32.expectation. We stand ready to help them do that. But the... I have

:47:33. > :47:37.written to them. I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. My

:47:38. > :47:43.priorities remain the struggle against violence in all its forms

:47:44. > :47:48.including a response to the recent despicable attacks in Paris and the

:47:49. > :47:51.Middle East. The containment of Russian actions that threaten the

:47:52. > :47:54.international rules -based system and the renegotiation of Britain's

:47:55. > :47:59.relationship with the European Union. Decisions taken in the

:48:00. > :48:03.strategic defence and offence review will underpin the diplomacy that

:48:04. > :48:08.allows us to make effective progress in all of those areas. Backing a

:48:09. > :48:13.round out its off power with hard power. Tomorrow, Mr Speaker, I will

:48:14. > :48:16.travel to Malta for the Commonwealth heads of government meeting and for

:48:17. > :48:23.the state visit of her Majesty the Queen. Given the changes to the

:48:24. > :48:28.Ministerial Code, is at his view that ministers and the civil and

:48:29. > :48:34.diplomatic services remain bound by the UK boss Mac international treaty

:48:35. > :48:44.obligations? I think the answer to that, Mr Speaker, is yes. How does

:48:45. > :48:50.the strategic defence spending review provide the foreign office

:48:51. > :48:55.with new tools to deal with the situation in Syria, particularly in

:48:56. > :49:01.context of a wider strategy and coordination? Mr Speaker, I have

:49:02. > :49:06.said longer for the publication of the report to the colleagues across

:49:07. > :49:10.government, that the most important reinforcement that we could have

:49:11. > :49:20.diplomacy would be clear statements about this country's determination

:49:21. > :49:24.to back its Armed Forces. We have turned that into specific programmes

:49:25. > :49:28.and plans that will deliver a romp forces the capability that we need

:49:29. > :49:35.to backers of parks with hard power. I have spend a lot of time this

:49:36. > :49:42.weekend hearing about my constituent members about their views on Syria.

:49:43. > :49:46.They do want to know what practical difference Britain can make, how

:49:47. > :49:49.civilians will be protected and whether there is a comprehensive

:49:50. > :49:54.plan to rebuild Syria after was whether proper government in place

:49:55. > :49:58.of Assad to as used chemical weapons on his people? I am glad to hear he

:49:59. > :50:03.is taking the pulse of his constituents. On the last point, as

:50:04. > :50:07.I've said before, the Prime Minister will set out a comprehensive

:50:08. > :50:10.strategy. It is not just about military intervention, it is about

:50:11. > :50:16.how we use that military intervention achieve the political

:50:17. > :50:20.set -- solution that we need. On the military point, yes, the UK does

:50:21. > :50:25.have capabilities that will make a difference. We have the dual mode

:50:26. > :50:33.Brimstone missile carried an attorney dope aircraft which is a

:50:34. > :50:39.precision weapon, unlike any of the other allies have in the coalition.

:50:40. > :50:44.It will insure minimisation of collateral damage and collateral

:50:45. > :50:48.casualties, and that is one of the reasons our allies as sucking me

:50:49. > :50:52.take part in this campaign. There has been another weekend of deadly

:50:53. > :50:57.terror attacks on Israeli citizens, including a brutal stabbing

:50:58. > :51:00.yesterday. Will he condemn these attacks and does he agree that

:51:01. > :51:10.sanctions incitement to commit terror must end? -- sanctioned. My

:51:11. > :51:15.honourable friend is right. We need to get all parties back to the

:51:16. > :51:18.table. Unfortunately it does seem that the planet seamer misaligned at

:51:19. > :51:22.the moment. We need to reconfigure and make sure that all parties come

:51:23. > :51:29.back and prevent the scale of violence from increasing. What steps

:51:30. > :51:35.does the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that genuine law-abiding

:51:36. > :51:41.refugees leaving Syria are not locked out of the asylum process as

:51:42. > :51:46.a result of border measures being introduced across the EU after the

:51:47. > :51:53.brutal attacks in Paris? Clearly, it is a matter for each member state of

:51:54. > :51:57.the European Union and other European countries to determine

:51:58. > :52:03.their own border controls. The way forward has to be for asylum seekers

:52:04. > :52:09.to be properly assessed and screamed at the first safe country that they

:52:10. > :52:13.go to and for us to tackle the problem in the camps, in the near

:52:14. > :52:17.East, so that people get some assurance of a decent life and

:52:18. > :52:22.opportunities for education for their children. Rather than

:52:23. > :52:30.hazarding these appalling journeys to Europe. With the Foreign

:52:31. > :52:35.Secretary agree with me that in order that we play a constructive

:52:36. > :52:38.role in dealing with Isis and other instabilities in the region, we need

:52:39. > :52:44.a comprehensive strategy towards the Middle East as a whole, not just

:52:45. > :52:51.Syria? Yes, Mr Speaker, I do agree with that. The government is working

:52:52. > :52:56.up a golf strategy, looking at how the UK will engage with this very

:52:57. > :52:59.important region, important for our security and important for our

:53:00. > :53:06.prosperity as well, over the next 5-10 years. Does the Foreign

:53:07. > :53:18.Secretary agree that defeating Daesh abroad provides security at home? I

:53:19. > :53:29.saw headlines yesterday that cast doubt on that. The result unity in

:53:30. > :53:33.the UK hate Daesh. The Sun newspaper published divisions yesterday when

:53:34. > :53:37.we need unity. It is clear to me that the majority of the Muslim

:53:38. > :53:41.population here in the UK and across the world applaud what is going on

:53:42. > :53:46.and are sickened by the fact that it it is being done ostensibly in the

:53:47. > :53:50.name. They are very clear that their religion does not in any way support

:53:51. > :53:54.or authorise the action is being carried out by Daesh and we should

:53:55. > :54:00.help them to reclaim their religion from the terrorists and the

:54:01. > :54:05.extremists. In improving economic times in the UK and sub-Saharan

:54:06. > :54:12.Africa is important. What are the government's objectives at the

:54:13. > :54:15.summit next week? The honourable gentleman is right. Economic

:54:16. > :54:22.development is central to everything that we do. I head of the global

:54:23. > :54:25.African investment Summit, I will be meeting a collection of presidents,

:54:26. > :54:30.prime ministers and foreign ministers at Lancaster House,

:54:31. > :54:32.looking at economic Dev elements, looking at working with those

:54:33. > :54:37.countries to develop their businesses, alongside Ritter 's

:54:38. > :54:43.business, to grow Africa out of poverty. In the course of questions

:54:44. > :54:48.today, the Foreign Secretary has mentioned the need for compounds of

:54:49. > :54:52.strategy. We have heard before about financial sanctions. Update the

:54:53. > :54:59.House on what conversations he has had with counterparts in the US and

:55:00. > :55:06.EU about stopping the supply of cash and financial services to Daesh? Mr

:55:07. > :55:09.Speaker, she is right to say that it is not just on the battlefield, it

:55:10. > :55:12.is about cutting down on the finances as well. We are looking to

:55:13. > :55:17.freeze accounts, huge amounts of work to be done through the

:55:18. > :55:21.Financial Services Authority is in order to identify the flow of funds

:55:22. > :55:26.coming from large donors, individuals. In addition to that, we

:55:27. > :55:31.are looking at the money streams coming into Daesh itself, as it

:55:32. > :55:34.sells antiquities and oils. It is reflected in the fact that the

:55:35. > :55:39.amount of foreign fighters, the amount they get on a monthly debases

:55:40. > :55:54.has been reduced because funds into Daesh are being reduced. Will he

:55:55. > :56:00.talk about what the UK is doing in Burundi. I am grateful for him to

:56:01. > :56:04.raise the situation in the ruined it. It is important there is a

:56:05. > :56:14.regional solution. I have had discussions with the role London

:56:15. > :56:20.government which is in gauging -- Rwandan government. This is a matter

:56:21. > :56:25.of grave concern and I have had a number of frank and open

:56:26. > :56:30.conversations with the Burundi and Foreign Minister and issues an open

:56:31. > :56:35.letter to him as well as a number of the international community.

:56:36. > :56:43.It is estimated that Russian bombings have killed many people,

:56:44. > :56:47.when the Foreign Minister met with the Foreign Minister and he urged

:56:48. > :56:51.him to refocus those air strikes away from the opposition armies who

:56:52. > :56:55.are fighting President Assad's reign of terror, and towards those

:56:56. > :56:58.terrorists who brought down that Russian airliner? Absolutely right,

:56:59. > :57:02.that is what we have been urging the Russians to do. If they want to

:57:03. > :57:07.fight Isil, we will be happy to work with them. But at the moment, what

:57:08. > :57:10.we have seen is that a significant proportion, the majority in fact, of

:57:11. > :57:14.their air strikes have been directed against the moderate opposition

:57:15. > :57:17.fighting Assad. In fairness, since the Russians acknowledged that it

:57:18. > :57:21.almost certainly was terrorist action that brought down that

:57:22. > :57:26.airliner, they have directed a larger proportion of air strikes

:57:27. > :57:29.against Isil held territories. Good my right honourable friend find

:57:30. > :57:33.any further detail on discussions he has had with the Iraqi government

:57:34. > :57:41.about ensuring measures are taken to promote security and enhanced

:57:42. > :57:48.erupt's liberation of areas. Focus needs to be done on supporting

:57:49. > :57:53.Iraqi, but unfortunately many Sunni Muslims in Iraq believe they are not

:57:54. > :57:57.properly represented in Baghdad, so we are working with the Prime

:57:58. > :57:59.Minister to encourage financial services laws and National Guard

:58:00. > :58:06.laws to go through so that they have a place, and are represented

:58:07. > :58:10.properly in Baghdad. I would like to thank the

:58:11. > :58:15.Parliamentary secretary of state for writing to me about my Yemeni

:58:16. > :58:21.constituent. I read the Home Office device he directed me to on this

:58:22. > :58:25.issue. Does he agree it does not inspire confidence that the Home

:58:26. > :58:36.Office managed to miss translate medicines some frontier, and will he

:58:37. > :58:39.meet with me to discuss this? I am grateful that she raises this matter

:58:40. > :58:47.and I would be delighted to meet with her later to discuss it in more

:58:48. > :58:51.detail. The world's attention is rightly on the Middle East and Syria

:58:52. > :58:56.at the moment, but there is an ongoing situation in Ukraine. Has my

:58:57. > :59:02.right honourable friend made any assessment of the situation in

:59:03. > :59:06.Ukraine? We remain concerned about the situation in Ukraine. I was last

:59:07. > :59:12.there in early October this year, when I met the Prime Minister, the

:59:13. > :59:16.Foreign Minister, and other Ukrainian leaders and

:59:17. > :59:19.parliamentarians. The latest situation is that there has been an

:59:20. > :59:27.upsurge of fighting in certain locations around Donetsk. The key

:59:28. > :59:31.thing now is to ensure that the Minsk process is followed through to

:59:32. > :59:39.the end, and all parts of it are completed. We are right not to be

:59:40. > :59:43.part of Shannon and DIY to call for reform, but doesn't the invoking of

:59:44. > :59:51.the EU defence clause remind us why we have to be part of a reformed EU,

:59:52. > :59:55.as well as part of Nato? I think that what France has done by in

:59:56. > :00:01.vogue in that article in the treaty has been to ask other member

:00:02. > :00:04.states, and crucially not the European institutions under that

:00:05. > :00:11.article, to come to its assistant in all possible ways, as they need to

:00:12. > :00:17.react to the terrorist onslaught on Paris. It is important to bear in

:00:18. > :00:22.mind that that treaty article also makes reference to the need for the

:00:23. > :00:31.EU always to coordinate its work with that of Nato. The Foreign

:00:32. > :00:35.Secretary will be aware that the former primary of Canada Stephen

:00:36. > :00:39.Harper was rebuffed in his support for self-determination of the people

:00:40. > :00:42.of the Falkland islands. Will he take the opportunity when Mr Trudeau

:00:43. > :00:47.visits this week to emphasise how grateful we are for the Canadian

:00:48. > :00:52.support for the Falkland Islands, and will be policy remain the same

:00:53. > :00:58.under his premiership? My honourable friend can be reassured that we

:00:59. > :01:02.expect the same from Mr Trudeau on who is on his way to London to meet

:01:03. > :01:08.with our Prime Minister and Her Majesty before travelling on. We

:01:09. > :01:11.expect the same relationships. It is an ancient and potent ratio between

:01:12. > :01:16.ourselves and Canada. The honourable gentleman will be aware that has

:01:17. > :01:23.been an election in Argentina, and we look forward to working with the

:01:24. > :01:28.new government of Argentina who hopefully will not suffer from the

:01:29. > :01:40.bullying and hostility shown by the former government of Argentina to

:01:41. > :01:49.the people of the Falkland Islands. A point of order. Mr Speaker, last

:01:50. > :01:55.week the Prime Minister in PMQ is told the House, and I quote," we

:01:56. > :01:59.have seen an increase of 3800 in the number of neighbourhood officers

:02:00. > :02:06.over the Parliament, and a 31% cut in crime". If I can be brief, on the

:02:07. > :02:10.3800 figure, in 2012, the government lifted the ring fencing on the

:02:11. > :02:14.neighbourhood policing budget, despite warnings from HMRC that it

:02:15. > :02:21.would be the area most at risk from a cut of 25% in the last Parliament.

:02:22. > :02:26.Crucially, the Home Office figures are, as a consequence of the

:02:27. > :02:32.subsequent beta that arises in of officers on response, as having a

:02:33. > :02:36.neighbourhood function. It is not an increase in neighbourhood policing.

:02:37. > :02:40.In truth, the government's own figures show 17,000 police officers

:02:41. > :02:49.gone, 12,000 from the front line, 4500 PCS owes. On the other issues,

:02:50. > :02:54.on the crime figures, I can do no better than quote from what is a

:02:55. > :02:59.government exercise coordinated by the National fraud coordinator in

:03:00. > :03:02.which he says the results of the next crime survey of England and

:03:03. > :03:08.Wales will show a 40% increase in crime. If I can say this in

:03:09. > :03:12.conclusion, Mr Speaker, I am sure you will agree that on matters like

:03:13. > :03:16.police, crime and national security, it is essential that the

:03:17. > :03:21.deliberations of this House are informed by the facts. Can I ask if

:03:22. > :03:27.the MS has indicated to come to this House and put the record straight?

:03:28. > :03:29.Or do, I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for his

:03:30. > :03:34.attempted point of order, and for giving me advance notice of his

:03:35. > :03:38.intention to raise it. I have not received any indication that the

:03:39. > :03:42.Prime Minister proposes to come to the House to correct the record. It

:03:43. > :03:47.is the responsibility of every honourable and right honourable

:03:48. > :03:53.member to ensure the veracity of what he or she says in the event

:03:54. > :03:59.that any member things that he or she has aired, that member has the

:04:00. > :04:03.responsibility to put the record straight. I know the House will

:04:04. > :04:08.understand that disagreement about statistics is part of the currency

:04:09. > :04:16.of political debate in which the honourable gentleman is a practised

:04:17. > :04:21.and dextrous expert. If there is an opposition day along, I have a hunch

:04:22. > :04:30.we will hear from the honourable gentleman. Meanwhile, he has had a

:04:31. > :04:37.bite of the cherry, and I hope he was satisfied with the taste. Point

:04:38. > :04:41.of order, Graham Allen. The Commissioner for children in England

:04:42. > :04:47.published today a report protecting children from harm which outlines

:04:48. > :04:51.the prevalence of child sex abuse in this country, where only one in

:04:52. > :04:57.eight cases of child sex abuse are reported to the authorities. Would

:04:58. > :05:01.it be in order, Mr Speaker, to ask a minister from the Department for

:05:02. > :05:07.Education to respond urgently to this very important matter about

:05:08. > :05:11.prevalence of child sex abuse, hopefully even before education

:05:12. > :05:14.questions on Monday. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for that

:05:15. > :05:18.point of order. The question about whether a minister comes to the

:05:19. > :05:23.House to make a statement voluntarily is a matter for the

:05:24. > :05:26.Minister. I was conscious of this matter, which was courteously drawn

:05:27. > :05:31.to my attention by the honourable gentleman. My understanding is that

:05:32. > :05:38.the government has just received the report, and has not yet penned a

:05:39. > :05:44.response. I had a sense that the House would benefit from an exchange

:05:45. > :05:48.on the matter at the point at which the government had determined a

:05:49. > :05:52.response. These matters, as the honourable gentleman knows, are kept

:05:53. > :05:57.under review. It would be open to a minister to come to the House before

:05:58. > :06:01.education questions, or even if not, to do so pretty soon. I guess they

:06:02. > :06:04.the honourable gentleman has his back channels by which to keep in

:06:05. > :06:08.touch with what the government's thinking might be about it, and I

:06:09. > :06:12.feel sure that it will not be long before a very thorough exploration

:06:13. > :06:18.of the issues will take place on the floor of the Chamber.

:06:19. > :06:20.Mr Tom brake. Did you have it in your powers to extend Foreign

:06:21. > :06:23.Commonwealth Office questions because I know there are a number of

:06:24. > :06:28.members here who would like to have raised an attack in Pakistan against

:06:29. > :06:33.the anti-Muslim community, and to hear from ministers what they were

:06:34. > :06:36.going to call in the High Commissioner from Pakistan to

:06:37. > :06:40.challenge him, and to say attacking people on the basis of faith is not

:06:41. > :06:43.acceptable. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for his point

:06:44. > :06:51.of order. He speaks with all the moral force of a former deputy

:06:52. > :06:55.Leader of the House, no less. I note what he says, or what he enquired

:06:56. > :06:58.about correction to my powers. The short answer is that I do not have

:06:59. > :07:03.power to extend Foreign Office questions, or any other Western Time

:07:04. > :07:07.session, although I find myself sometimes doing so anyway as the

:07:08. > :07:12.Treasury bench was quick to point out more or less good-naturedly. The

:07:13. > :07:16.truth of the matter is, we often overrun a bit because I want to hear

:07:17. > :07:20.backbenchers, and the honourable gentleman has cheekily and

:07:21. > :07:23.inappropriately, but I think on this occasion, forgive agree, made his

:07:24. > :07:26.own point in his own way, even though he did not have a right to do

:07:27. > :07:32.so. If there are no further points of

:07:33. > :07:38.order, I think we come now to the ten minute rule motion. Mr Steve

:07:39. > :07:45.McCabe. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that leave

:07:46. > :07:48.be given for me to bring in a bill for the protection of family homes,

:07:49. > :08:03.enforcement and elliptical development. The parts of my

:08:04. > :08:06.constituency work particular the attractive places, full of family

:08:07. > :08:14.homes and small terraces within a series of quite interlocking

:08:15. > :08:19.tree-lined streets. Nowadays, a walk down a number of these roads reveals

:08:20. > :08:25.a very different scene. One is visually assaulted by a series of to

:08:26. > :08:31.let boards of all shapes and sizes, installed at all angles. The

:08:32. > :08:35.streets, pavements and small front gardens are littered with skips,

:08:36. > :08:41.builders rubble, sand and cement, and there is a constant noise at all

:08:42. > :08:45.hours, including weekends, of additional bedrooms being hammered

:08:46. > :08:53.and bolted onto existing dwellings. Once we could expect to see rows of

:08:54. > :08:58.small family homes, we now witness architectural carbuncles jutting at

:08:59. > :09:05.odd angles, extending into adjacent houses, and covering rear gardens

:09:06. > :09:10.with additional bedrooms variously described as games rooms, sheds and

:09:11. > :09:15.saunas. My local authority seems powerless to arrest this

:09:16. > :09:22.destruction. They say enforcement action is costly, and the guidance

:09:23. > :09:27.from central government is unclear. Enforcement action, as you know, is

:09:28. > :09:34.discretionary, and local authorities are required to act purportedly.

:09:35. > :09:39.Birmingham City Council has advised me that there has been no policy on

:09:40. > :09:44.their part to limit the number of planning enforcement cases they

:09:45. > :09:50.pursue, but I note there has been a steady reduction in recent years. To

:09:51. > :09:54.be fair, they have initiated a limited article four direction

:09:55. > :09:59.covering a small part of my constituency, which means that

:10:00. > :10:09.planning permission is needed before a family house can be converted into

:10:10. > :10:13.a house of multiple occupation. What I understand to be a change from a

:10:14. > :10:19.class three to a class for use. But, Mr Speaker, the problems

:10:20. > :10:23.continue, and it is not confined to one area of my constituency, or

:10:24. > :10:27.indeed to one part of Birmingham, but is an issue which affects many

:10:28. > :10:32.towns and cities across the country, as I think is evidence by

:10:33. > :10:39.the broad support for this bill. Examples of these problems include

:10:40. > :10:43.Mr and Mrs White, a retired couple who, I believe, are in the gallery

:10:44. > :10:48.today. The developer who bought the House next door commenced an

:10:49. > :10:52.extension that effectively changed their detached home into a

:10:53. > :10:58.semidetached oddity, as the roof extension expanded to sit on top of

:10:59. > :11:03.their roof, and guttering. The council failed to take enforcement

:11:04. > :11:07.action, despite what commencing without planning approval and being

:11:08. > :11:12.beyond the scope of permitted at element. A survey's report has

:11:13. > :11:16.indicated the damage that has been done to the external wall of their

:11:17. > :11:25.home. This has cost them thousands of pounds in court fees, and as yet,

:11:26. > :11:28.the problem continues. Mrs O'Sullivan complained of a work on

:11:29. > :11:34.her extension, which included digging up the foundations in a shed

:11:35. > :11:39.alleyway had commenced without planning permission. The council

:11:40. > :11:42.agreed to investigate, but advised in advance "in deciding whether it

:11:43. > :11:46.would be expedient to take enforcement action, the council has

:11:47. > :11:51.to take into account whether any breach of planning control an

:11:52. > :11:56.acceptably affects public amenity or the use of land and buildings, which

:11:57. > :12:02.should be protected in the public interest". In this case, the

:12:03. > :12:06.extension was not covered by permitted development delegations

:12:07. > :12:09.and needed planning approval. Nonetheless, the council charged

:12:10. > :12:16.that the risk to Mrs O'Sullivan's property constituted and limited

:12:17. > :12:20.harm. Her loss of life did not justify action. A constituent

:12:21. > :12:24.complained about a landlord's development that exceeded the

:12:25. > :12:29.dimensions on the plan available on the council website. But was told

:12:30. > :12:36.that officers had concluded that it wasn't expedient to take any action.

:12:37. > :12:41.Mr Tempest complained that the Britannia group continued to build

:12:42. > :12:44.extensions designed to convert existing homes into eight bedroom

:12:45. > :12:52.properties, despite planning permission being refused. Elsewhere,

:12:53. > :12:56.cowboy builders demolished, without permission, the chimneys and gas

:12:57. > :13:03.fruits which supported the gas fire of an elderly couple, putting them

:13:04. > :13:08.at serious risk. Gas flutes. Is another property when a constituent

:13:09. > :13:13.complained, a 3 level development overlooking his garden and his

:13:14. > :13:18.neighbours, was completed with disregard to the Article four

:13:19. > :13:25.direction and without permission. I could go on, Mr Speaker, I have case

:13:26. > :13:30.after case of rogue developers and cowboy builders doing as they

:13:31. > :13:35.please. All of these cases are not ordinary people, who have worked and

:13:36. > :13:40.saved for their family home, only to find landlords and developers

:13:41. > :13:44.working hand and glove with cowboy builders, buying up nearby

:13:45. > :13:48.properties and turning their road or street into a series of mini

:13:49. > :13:52.hostels. It's no surprise that the value of their properties begin to

:13:53. > :13:58.plummet to the point where the only one buying is yet another

:13:59. > :14:04.developer. So, the cycle begins again. As I have been investigating

:14:05. > :14:07.this issue, I have become aware of an unintended consequence of the

:14:08. > :14:09.permitted development arrangements. I want to be clear that I have

:14:10. > :14:14.nothing against permitted development. I welcome the

:14:15. > :14:19.government's good intentions in trying to make it easier for people

:14:20. > :14:24.to make small alterations or additions to their home. But, I'm

:14:25. > :14:29.not sure that the government ever intended that this permission would

:14:30. > :14:33.be exploited by ruthless landlords and developers, destroying family

:14:34. > :14:38.homes and bringing misery to thousands of ordinary families and

:14:39. > :14:42.retired couples like The Wyatt Family. The local authority advisers

:14:43. > :14:47.knew that the changes in the law means that many individual owners

:14:48. > :14:55.are unclear about what they can and cannot build. Those that advise the

:14:56. > :15:03.rogue landlords always there on the side of ever greater expansion. My

:15:04. > :15:07.ten minute rule Bill seeks to achieve four things. Firstly it

:15:08. > :15:11.calls for the Department for Communities and Local Government to

:15:12. > :15:15.produce clearer guidance for planning authorities on when

:15:16. > :15:18.enforcement action should be taken. It asks that although called

:15:19. > :15:25.authorities published an enforcement plan so that grey areas are reduced.

:15:26. > :15:30.Secondly, it calls for a simple right of appeal for those who are

:15:31. > :15:33.the victims of this rogue building, where the local authority concludes

:15:34. > :15:39.that it is not expedient to act. Thirdly, it asks that these

:15:40. > :15:41.extension should be independently checked against a building

:15:42. > :15:47.regulations, to make sure that they are safe. At present, there is

:15:48. > :15:52.nothing to stop a rogue developer employing his or her own inspector

:15:53. > :15:57.to sign off the dodgy work done by his or her team of cowboy builders.

:15:58. > :16:02.If we don't act on this, a tragedy will surely follow. Finally, it

:16:03. > :16:08.calls on the government to consider the introduction of fixed penalty

:16:09. > :16:13.fines, to serve as a deterrent against the action of rogue

:16:14. > :16:18.developers. Such penalties to be modelled on those the government

:16:19. > :16:22.already proposes in clause 86 of the Housing and planning Bill, to deal

:16:23. > :16:29.with rogue landlords. This tenement rule Bill calls for a modest number

:16:30. > :16:33.of changes, designed to protect family homes, addressed the

:16:34. > :16:38.enforcement problems and ease the position on permitted development.

:16:39. > :16:44.So that once again it fulfils the aspirations of government ministers

:16:45. > :16:49.without giving a licence to ride roughshod over local people and

:16:50. > :16:54.destroying family homes and local communities I commend it to the

:16:55. > :16:55.house. The question is that the honourable member have leave to

:16:56. > :17:13.bring in the Bill. The ayes have it. Who will prepare

:17:14. > :17:19.the bills? Nigel Evans, Michael fabricant, Diana Johnson, Norman

:17:20. > :17:22.Lamb, Greg Mulholland, Jess Phillips, Alan Whitehead and myself,

:17:23. > :18:05.Mr Speaker. Protection of family homes,

:18:06. > :18:14.enforcement in permitted development Bill. Second reading, what day. 29th

:18:15. > :18:21.of January, 2016. Thank you, order, we come to the main business and to

:18:22. > :18:25.the opposition day debate in the name of the Scottish National party.

:18:26. > :18:32.It may be for the convenience of the house for me to tell it that the

:18:33. > :18:36.amendment has not been selected. To move the motion, I call Mr Brendan

:18:37. > :18:43.O'Hara. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move

:18:44. > :18:50.that this house believes that Trident should not be renewed. It is

:18:51. > :18:55.a very important type... It should not be renewed. It is a pleasure to

:18:56. > :18:59.move this motion, which stands in my name and those of my honourable and

:19:00. > :19:00.Right Honourable friends from the Scottish National party. Applied

:19:01. > :19:10.country and the Green party. When the SNP were elected in such

:19:11. > :19:13.numbers to this place in May, we were elected on a promise to do

:19:14. > :19:21.three things. Firstly, argued that the number of maximum powers be

:19:22. > :19:28.devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That we would fight tooth and nail

:19:29. > :19:31.against austerity and protect the poorest and vulnerable in our

:19:32. > :19:39.society from the worst excesses of this government and to a -- oppose

:19:40. > :19:43.Trident. The SNP can say that within the first six months of being here,

:19:44. > :19:48.we have done exactly what we promised to do. Of course, there is

:19:49. > :19:52.much more that we still need to do on all of these issues, but no one

:19:53. > :19:57.will be ever able to accuse us of not doing what we said we would do.

:19:58. > :20:01.Therefore, Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion that Trident should not

:20:02. > :20:07.be renewed. In recent months, tried it and the issue of the UK's

:20:08. > :20:12.nuclear... I will make some progress if the lady will give me... Mr

:20:13. > :20:15.Speaker, no one can deny that Trident and the issue of the nuclear

:20:16. > :20:20.deterrent has not been in the forefront of the public debate for

:20:21. > :20:23.many, many years. Not only because this is the 70th anniversary of the

:20:24. > :20:27.dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki another very

:20:28. > :20:34.soon, the United Kingdom will decide whether or not to commit to spend

:20:35. > :20:39.167,000 million pounds over the lifetime of the Trident programme.

:20:40. > :20:46.We had high hopes that we would not be a lone voice. When the rank of

:20:47. > :20:50.the British Labour Party elected the Right Honourable member for

:20:51. > :20:54.Islington and about unilateralist, we on this bench is felt there was a

:20:55. > :21:01.certain hope of a serious opposition to Trident. The mere thought of such

:21:02. > :21:04.a thing happening caused palpitations in the red and blue

:21:05. > :21:10.shades of the British establishment. But I do genuinely wish the Right

:21:11. > :21:14.Honourable member for Islington well in continuing his robust opposition

:21:15. > :21:18.to Trident. I would say to him and his members that the Scottish

:21:19. > :21:27.National Party... Yes? While the honourable gentleman is

:21:28. > :21:34.outlining the reasons for his motion in his beach, I wonder if you could

:21:35. > :21:39.explain to me the SNP's apparent incoherence. -- in his speech.

:21:40. > :21:42.During the Scottish referendum campaign, they were pledging to

:21:43. > :21:47.scrap Trident on one hand, but saying that they would seek to join

:21:48. > :21:54.Nato, a nuclear Alliance, on the other hand.

:21:55. > :22:00.The honourable lady will... Forgive me if I don't accept for a moment

:22:01. > :22:04.her definition of incoherence. LAUGHTER

:22:05. > :22:12.To be incoherent, you would have to do suggest that Germany, Spain, so

:22:13. > :22:19.many other members of Nato are equally incoherent... Please,

:22:20. > :22:25.gentlemen, let me finish the answer. The last two general secretaries of

:22:26. > :22:26.Nato have been Danish and Norwegian. They have exactly the same position

:22:27. > :22:35.that we currently advocate. I realise you are very keen to get

:22:36. > :22:39.in on this, so keen you left a message on my door this morning.

:22:40. > :22:43.LAUGHTER I am not keen to get into this

:22:44. > :22:49.debate and I didn't leave a message on anybody's. ! Mr Brendan O'Hara.

:22:50. > :22:56.My apologies, the honourable member left a note on my door this morning.

:22:57. > :23:05.Make a speech! I will come to you. Was it a last note? The honourable

:23:06. > :23:10.gentlemen... LAUGHTER That is a matter of debate! The

:23:11. > :23:15.honourable gentleman has the floor, when it is clear that he is not

:23:16. > :23:18.taking an intervention, he must not be hollered at from a sedentary

:23:19. > :23:25.position from either side of the house, he is free to develop his

:23:26. > :23:28.case. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do wish the Right Honourable member for

:23:29. > :23:39.Islington well. I would say to his benches that being against Trident

:23:40. > :23:43.can actually be a vote winner. The SNP have returned in such great

:23:44. > :23:48.numbers on an explicitly anti-Trident platform. In recent

:23:49. > :23:51.weeks, the Scottish Parliament, yet again, has reaffirmed its half-life

:23:52. > :23:57.and other farming opposition to Trident. The Scottish Government,

:23:58. > :24:00.the Scottish TUC, churches and great swathes of civic society has set its

:24:01. > :24:05.face against Trident -- other government opposition. Will my

:24:06. > :24:08.honourable friend take the opportunity to remind us how the

:24:09. > :24:12.different political parties in the Scottish parliament voted on

:24:13. > :24:17.Trident? And remind us what decision was reached at the annual conference

:24:18. > :24:21.of the Scottish Labour Party? Does he not think it strange that the

:24:22. > :24:24.single member of Parliament for the Scottish Labour Party whose party

:24:25. > :24:29.opposes Trident, he opposes Trident, isn't even in the chamber

:24:30. > :24:35.for this debate? I thank my right honourable friend for that

:24:36. > :24:39.intervention. As he correctly points out, there is now an established

:24:40. > :24:42.consensus among the Scottish political parties against Trident.

:24:43. > :24:48.The Scottish National Party, the Scottish Green party, Scottish

:24:49. > :24:54.Socialists and he is correct... Two seconds, the Scottish Labour Party

:24:55. > :24:59.are all opposed to Trident. Yet, we have a government in Westminster

:25:00. > :25:03.with just one elected member of Parliament representing a party who

:25:04. > :25:09.failed to achieve even 15% of the vote in Scotland. Yet, they insist,

:25:10. > :25:15.they insist, that they have the right to foist on Scotland, weapons

:25:16. > :25:22.of mass destruction, which Scotland has said we do not want. It doesn't

:25:23. > :25:25.suit you. Does he not find it strange the contrast between the

:25:26. > :25:31.unified voice from Scotland and the confusion from the Wales Labour

:25:32. > :25:33.Party? Quite apart from the First Minister, who wants to move it down

:25:34. > :25:41.to west Wales! I agree with my honourable friend.

:25:42. > :25:47.It is interesting that the number of times I have been asked why the

:25:48. > :25:51.media and the press, are you doing this simply to embarrass the Labour

:25:52. > :25:53.Party? My reply would be... The Labour Party need to embarrass the

:25:54. > :25:55.Labour Party? My reply would be... The Labour Party to counter this

:25:56. > :26:06.issue. I have always argued that there is

:26:07. > :26:11.no moral common economic and no military case for Trident, unless

:26:12. > :26:14.the Lee macro and let's be absolutely clear that there is no

:26:15. > :26:19.moral case for any state possessing weapons of mass destruction.

:26:20. > :26:22.Possessing the ability to destroy the world several times over and

:26:23. > :26:29.everything in it is not something to be proud of, and indeed it is

:26:30. > :26:33.something I believe to be deeply shaming, and there is no article of

:26:34. > :26:36.faith that has ever said it is okayed to hold the threat of

:26:37. > :26:41.annihilation over your neighbour and disguise it as peacekeeping. With

:26:42. > :26:45.the honourable gentleman not agree that the possession of nuclear

:26:46. > :26:48.weapons sirs as a deterrent which has worked well for many years, and

:26:49. > :26:54.that if one nation unilaterally disarm is, as Ukraine did in 1994,

:26:55. > :26:59.in reliance on a treaty with Russia that they would not invade, and that

:27:00. > :27:05.was broken and Ukraine are now suffering the absence of those

:27:06. > :27:09.weapons. I will pick up those points later on. I think the idea of a

:27:10. > :27:16.deterrent is important and it is something I will address. Not only

:27:17. > :27:20.is Trident morally questionable, it is economic madness. In 2006 when

:27:21. > :27:24.the success of the programme was discussed, the likely cost of

:27:25. > :27:37.building new submarines was put at up to ?20 billion. There was on top

:27:38. > :27:42.of that a ?10 billion contingency. ?41 billion set aside to build

:27:43. > :27:45.submarines. That has at least doubled in the last decade, and I

:27:46. > :27:50.shudder to think what it will be in the next decade. Indeed, based on

:27:51. > :27:54.the government's own figures, and figures coming from the government

:27:55. > :28:02.benches, the lifetime cost of Trident will be in the region of

:28:03. > :28:06.?167,000 -- 167,000 million pounds. That is real money, and there was no

:28:07. > :28:09.escaping the fact, and it should embarrass the Labour Party, that

:28:10. > :28:14.that money has been made on the banks of the poor and the most

:28:15. > :28:20.vulnerable in our society. On the day that the Chancellor appeared at

:28:21. > :28:30.Faslane, appearing out of nowhere like the cartoon character Mr Benn,

:28:31. > :28:34.to announce ?500 million worth of extensions to jetties, on the same

:28:35. > :28:38.day the United Nations announced that they would be investigating as

:28:39. > :28:42.to whether this government's policy on cutting welfare support to the

:28:43. > :28:50.disabled was in violation of their human rights. I know that the right

:28:51. > :28:55.honourable member who represents Barrow, I do believe that he is

:28:56. > :29:03.extremely anxious to get involved, but I would say that as the member

:29:04. > :29:09.of Parliament for Argyle? As the member for Argyll and Bute, I

:29:10. > :29:13.represent Faslane, I live roughly six miles from the base, and for

:29:14. > :29:19.decades, my constituents have been told that their jobs and their

:29:20. > :29:27.prosperity totally depends on it. I will give way. Does my honourable

:29:28. > :29:33.friend, who is in a neighbouring constituency of mine, have the same

:29:34. > :29:35.grave concerns over the alarming number of nuclear safety incidents

:29:36. > :29:42.that have been reported at Faslane naval base? There have been a 54%

:29:43. > :29:50.increase in the mothers of incidents reported in 2013-14, compare to

:29:51. > :29:56.2012-13. These incidents threaten the safety, not only of the workers

:29:57. > :30:02.of Faslane nuclear base in their constituency, but the majority of

:30:03. > :30:08.whom live in my constituency, but the communities who also surround

:30:09. > :30:15.it? Before we proceed, can I remind the House that interventions should

:30:16. > :30:23.be brief. It is not proper for a member to read out what amounts to a

:30:24. > :30:29.mini speech which purports to be an intervention. The intervention must

:30:30. > :30:33.be brief. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do agree with my honourable friend,

:30:34. > :30:38.that safety is paramount. Indeed, it was something I brought up last week

:30:39. > :30:44.at the Westminster Hall debate when there was huge safety concerns,

:30:45. > :30:48.among workers at Faslane about cuts that have been made. I would hope

:30:49. > :30:55.that my honourable friends would realise that my election in Argyll

:30:56. > :30:59.and Bute would suggest you do not have too put all your eggs in one

:31:00. > :31:05.basket, but what I would say, and let me be absolutely clear that in

:31:06. > :31:13.saying no to Trident we are not saying no to Faslane, far from it.

:31:14. > :31:27.The SNP has never and will never consider closing the Faslane base.

:31:28. > :31:32.Hopefully soon not rather than later as an independent Scotland, Faslane

:31:33. > :31:37.will have a bright, non-nuclear future as a conventional naval

:31:38. > :31:41.base. Faslane is a fantastic facility and its proximity to the

:31:42. > :31:43.north Atlantic means that future prospects are not dependent on

:31:44. > :31:51.having nuclear submarines based there. Given the outrageous

:31:52. > :31:56.chortling from both sides of the House on this, it is clear that the

:31:57. > :32:00.only way that the UK is established and parties will support Faslane is

:32:01. > :32:06.that if there are nuclear weapon is there. What a shocking proposal that

:32:07. > :32:14.is. I absolutely agree, and what we have seen today is any pretence that

:32:15. > :32:23.the Labour Party will somehow take a radical position on nuclear

:32:24. > :32:26.weapons... I will give way. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving

:32:27. > :32:41.way, and some embers of the Labour Party do support his view. --

:32:42. > :32:45.members. I am one of those. I thank my honourable friend for his support

:32:46. > :32:50.and it is very much appreciated. I will make progress and I will come

:32:51. > :32:53.back to the honourable gentleman. I am grateful to the honourable

:32:54. > :32:59.gentleman for giving way. Just on the point the honourable gentleman

:33:00. > :33:03.said that without nuclear submarines at Faslane, and with the separation

:33:04. > :33:07.of Scotland from the rest of the UK, that he would seek to have a naval

:33:08. > :33:12.base with ships at Faslane, as I understood it. He had also said that

:33:13. > :33:16.he considered it a waste of money, building new hardware for the Navy

:33:17. > :33:23.because it could be better spent on welfare. Those points do not seem to

:33:24. > :33:29.marry up. I understand what you are saying, but we have at no point said

:33:30. > :33:33.we will double spend this money. Money we save from not renewing

:33:34. > :33:39.Trident, would be in the region of ?15 billion over a lifetime of

:33:40. > :33:42.Trident, money that could be invested in conventional defences,

:33:43. > :33:48.and in turning Faslane from a nuclear submarine port to a state of

:33:49. > :33:56.the art naval base and a conventional naval base. I will make

:33:57. > :34:02.progress. I believe I have been very generous. I have always argued that

:34:03. > :34:07.there is no military case for Trident. Quite simply because

:34:08. > :34:12.Trident is not a military weapon. Trident is a political weapon. It is

:34:13. > :34:19.a political weapon which can never, and will never, be used. And yet it

:34:20. > :34:27.is set to consume anything between 30 and 50% of the UK defence

:34:28. > :34:31.procurement budget. I will give way. I am grateful, but does he not

:34:32. > :34:39.understand that it is being used every day? In every moment that we

:34:40. > :34:43.have continuous at sea deterrence, it is being used as a deterrent. The

:34:44. > :34:51.fact that it is never fired in anger is actually a symbol of its success.

:34:52. > :34:56.It will come as no surprise to the honourable gentleman, I do not agree

:34:57. > :35:01.at all, and I move on to the point of deterrence. I will make progress.

:35:02. > :35:11.I think I have been very generous open till now. Let's be honest, the

:35:12. > :35:16.money that is being spent on Trident is being put into keeping Britain at

:35:17. > :35:20.the top table of the United Nations Security Council. Money that should

:35:21. > :35:26.be doing good, whether peacekeeping, reacting to emergencies like Ebola

:35:27. > :35:31.or the humanitarian crisis unfolding in front of us in the Middle East

:35:32. > :35:35.and North Africa, I believe has been sacrificed on eight elective

:35:36. > :35:43.military and political ego trip that has more to do with status than it

:35:44. > :35:48.does defence. I will make some progress, I will come back to you.

:35:49. > :35:52.Don't take my word for it, the evidence at the Defence Select

:35:53. > :35:56.Committee last week, General Sir Richard Sheriff, referring to money

:35:57. > :36:00.for Trident said "we either go down the line of nuclear capability at

:36:01. > :36:03.the expense of conventional capability, or conventional

:36:04. > :36:09.capability at the expense of nuclear". It seems to be that sort

:36:10. > :36:13.of zero sum game. The problem with Trident is it puts pressure on the

:36:14. > :36:17.rest of the defence budget to the detriment, I believe, of the overall

:36:18. > :36:22.security. Even Tony Blair am not someone I would seek to quote often

:36:23. > :36:29.in This Place, Tony Blair in his memoirs, when talking about Trident

:36:30. > :36:33.said, " the expense is huge, and the utility nonexistent in terms of

:36:34. > :36:39.military use, but he decided to go down the road of Trident renewal

:36:40. > :36:43.because it would be too big a downgrading of our status as a

:36:44. > :36:48.nation". I will give way.

:36:49. > :36:52.Would he agree that nuclear weapons actually are making us less safe,

:36:53. > :36:55.not more safe, because they get a signal to the rest of the world to

:36:56. > :36:58.said that the only way you can guarantee your security is by

:36:59. > :37:05.acquiring nuclear weapons, so it is not countering it? I would

:37:06. > :37:09.absolutely agree. But Tony Blair summed it up. The UK's obsession

:37:10. > :37:14.with having an independent nuclear deterrent is little more than a form

:37:15. > :37:20.of Imperial power indulging in a desperate search for a better

:37:21. > :37:25.yesterday. Possessing Trident is not about defence. It is about the

:37:26. > :37:29.illusion of continuing upon past glories, regardless of cost.

:37:30. > :37:34.Regardless of the fact that we cannot afford it, pride it seems

:37:35. > :37:38.will not let us back down. We would rather cut benefits from the

:37:39. > :37:42.disabled, we would rather take tax credit away from the working poor,

:37:43. > :37:50.as long as the bottomless pit of Trident is fed. Would you give way?

:37:51. > :37:54.I will. I am grateful to stop I have written to the former First Minister

:37:55. > :37:57.about these issues are a number of occasions and not yet received

:37:58. > :38:03.answers. In the event of decommissioning the nuclear fleet at

:38:04. > :38:14.Faslane, where in Scotland would those nuclear materials be disposed

:38:15. > :38:17.of? Scotland is absolutely set to take its responsibility. Scotland

:38:18. > :38:24.act we have responsibilities to do it, and Scotland will do so, but to

:38:25. > :38:33.use that as an argument to rearm, is frankly ridiculous. I will make

:38:34. > :38:38.progress. Possession of top end military capabilities, without the

:38:39. > :38:45.ability to exercise them effectively, is known in strategic

:38:46. > :38:51.powers as a hollow force. To put it in a more colloquial way, we are

:38:52. > :38:58.acting as having a fur coat and no knickers. Trident is a military and

:38:59. > :39:05.political ego trip that is being paid for on the backs of the poor.

:39:06. > :39:09.The UK independent nuclear deterrent is not, I believe, all that

:39:10. > :39:16.independent. I refer you to the Defence Select Committee report on

:39:17. > :39:19.the 30th of June 2006 which said" in theory, the British premise that

:39:20. > :39:25.could give the order to fire Trident without getting prior approval from

:39:26. > :39:29.the White House. The UK can maintain a facade of being a global military

:39:30. > :39:33.power. In practice, it is difficult conceive of any situation in which a

:39:34. > :39:38.Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. In

:39:39. > :39:45.reality, it would be an American US commander in chief who will

:39:46. > :39:50.ultimately decide, and in 18 months' time, that commander in chief could

:39:51. > :39:57.be president Donald Trump. Does anyone seriously think that Trident

:39:58. > :40:04.makes the world a safer place? I have already given way once to the

:40:05. > :40:10.honourable gentleman. Everyone accepts that the world has never

:40:11. > :40:14.been in a more uncertain place. The world is changing, and the threats

:40:15. > :40:20.are changing. They are most certainly not as they were 30 or 40

:40:21. > :40:26.years ago. Many military strategists recognise that these changes has to

:40:27. > :40:31.be prepared for according. They have identified potent threats, mass

:40:32. > :40:35.migration into mega cities, by the 2040s they reckon that 70% of the

:40:36. > :40:43.world will be open eyes. Great movement of people because of

:40:44. > :40:45.climate change and the search for natural resources such as water and

:40:46. > :40:51.sources of energy, are going to cause huge global problems. We are

:40:52. > :40:58.increasingly engaged in an ideological war with terrorism,

:40:59. > :41:03.hybrid warfare and cyber attacks. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself

:41:04. > :41:09.said that Daesh were and existential threat to the UK, and we have to

:41:10. > :41:12.assume sadly that, after the evil of Daesh is destroyed, there will be

:41:13. > :41:18.other ideological driven groups who will emerge. Looking ahead in many

:41:19. > :41:22.ways, this traditional state will not be the main enemy. So, why,

:41:23. > :41:27.given the radical changes that are happening in the world, it is the

:41:28. > :41:32.UK's response exactly as it was 30 or 40 years ago question not having

:41:33. > :41:37.nuclear armed submarines at the 24 hours a day, seven days a week 365

:41:38. > :41:42.days a year, armed with nuclear missiles are pointed and designed to

:41:43. > :41:54.arbitrate European cities. I will give way. Are a case we have heard

:41:55. > :41:57.many times. How does he addressed the single inescapable fact that the

:41:58. > :42:01.only nation that has ever had nuclear weapons used against it,

:42:02. > :42:10.didn't have any? That was, namely, Japan. Is that the intellectual Tory

:42:11. > :42:18.argument? I'm not entirely sure what the gentleman is driving at. It

:42:19. > :42:23.wasn't exactly worth waiting for. It makes no military sense at all... I

:42:24. > :42:27.return to the view that Trident is not a military weapon, it is purely

:42:28. > :42:31.a political weapon. For the last time, I will give way to the

:42:32. > :42:34.honourable lady. I thank the honourable member for giving way. He

:42:35. > :42:38.is clearly satisfied that the Russian state is no longer a threat

:42:39. > :42:45.to Western security and UK security. Perhaps he can give us the

:42:46. > :42:48.reasons why that is the case, why he is so confident that Russia is no

:42:49. > :42:55.longer a threat to the security in the UK? I would have to say to the

:42:56. > :43:00.honourable lady that what she is advocating is that every country in

:43:01. > :43:05.the world arms itself to the teeth. Germany and Poland and Norway and

:43:06. > :43:10.Sweden, is that what the honourable lady is honestly are doing? That if

:43:11. > :43:15.you believe that Russia is going to come speeding across the plains and

:43:16. > :43:19.invade the United Kingdom, is that what you honestly advocating? In

:43:20. > :43:23.that case, if you want to argue that every country in the world should

:43:24. > :43:27.possess its own nuclear weapons, I would advise you take it to the

:43:28. > :43:37.Labour Party. From the sound of it, you may be able to get support. Mr

:43:38. > :43:40.Speaker, as I mentioned at the speech, a forlorn hope indeed, but

:43:41. > :43:42.there was a genuine hope that perhaps with the election of the

:43:43. > :43:45.Right Honourable member for Islington they would at least be a

:43:46. > :43:50.debate on Trident in this place. I fear that the leader has not managed

:43:51. > :43:54.to take his party with him at the attendance, paltry attendance,

:43:55. > :43:59.today, from the Labour Party would suggest exactly that. The Labour

:44:00. > :44:03.Party's refusal to debate Trident will disappoint many among their own

:44:04. > :44:10.rank and file. I've no doubt that when, as he did yesterday, the Prime

:44:11. > :44:13.Minister promised a vote on the main decision, I have no doubt I will see

:44:14. > :44:17.the Right Honourable member for Islington voting with the SNP

:44:18. > :44:24.against Trident renewal. But, I fear that he will have to have swum

:44:25. > :44:27.through a tide of his own MPs going through the lobbies with the

:44:28. > :44:35.Conservative Party again to support Trident renewal at the cost of

:44:36. > :44:42.167,000 million pounds. You love to talk about being a multilateralist

:44:43. > :44:44.party. The Labour Party cannot hide behind the figleaf of

:44:45. > :44:53.multilateralism while committing the United Kingdom to this massive

:44:54. > :44:56.increase in nuclear weapons free. It is an absolute figleaf. I'm afraid

:44:57. > :45:02.the Labour Party, if they decide to support the government in renewing

:45:03. > :45:08.the Trident missile programme, I believe they are as morally bankrupt

:45:09. > :45:15.as the Conservative Party. If Trident ever was an answer to a 20th

:45:16. > :45:20.century problem, not to the problems we face in the 21st-century. Trident

:45:21. > :45:25.is purely political. It is not a military weapon. It does not make us

:45:26. > :45:30.any more safe than nations who do not possess weapons of mass

:45:31. > :45:36.destruction. I am just about to wind up. Trident is all about the UK

:45:37. > :45:42.projecting power. And a desperate attempt to cling on to the remnants

:45:43. > :45:46.of a fading imperialist past. It is paid for on the backs of the poor.

:45:47. > :45:52.Trident is diminishing the rest of the UK's capability. Therefore, Mr

:45:53. > :45:53.Speaker, there is no moral, economic or military case for renewing

:45:54. > :46:02.Trident. The question is as on the order

:46:03. > :46:03.paper, called the Secretary of State for Defence, secretary Michael

:46:04. > :46:11.Fallon. Thank you, Mr Speaker. On these

:46:12. > :46:16.benches, we welcome the opportunity to discuss our nuclear deterrent.

:46:17. > :46:20.Let me thank the honourable member for Argyll and Bute for taking this

:46:21. > :46:24.motion today. In his statement yesterday, the Prime Minister set

:46:25. > :46:29.out the growing scale, diversity and complex city of the threats that we

:46:30. > :46:33.face. And to tackle those threats, we have to have an array of weapons.

:46:34. > :46:40.Up to and including a nuclear deterrent. It is worrying that in a

:46:41. > :46:44.more dangerous world that the cross-party consensus we used to

:46:45. > :46:50.enjoy on our deterrent does now seem to be weakening. I should remind

:46:51. > :46:56.members of it was Labour ministers, Ashley and Bevan, who, in the 1940s,

:46:57. > :47:02.argued for a nuclear deterrent with a union Jack on the top of it.

:47:03. > :47:06.Today, we find a leader of the Labour Party opposing his party's

:47:07. > :47:14.official policy. He wants to scrap Trident. He said he is no longer

:47:15. > :47:17.prepared to use it. What is perhaps equally worrying is the

:47:18. > :47:21.nonattendance, now, the shadow Secretary of State. Because, she has

:47:22. > :47:29.been admirably clear in opposing her leader. While the -- agreeing to

:47:30. > :47:33.lead a review of the policy. I can understand her anger at the decision

:47:34. > :47:39.to appoint as co-chair of that review, Mr Ken Livingstone.

:47:40. > :47:44.Somebody, of course, who doesn't want to review Trident, he wants to

:47:45. > :47:49.abolish Trident. Indeed, he declared London to be a nuclear free zone.

:47:50. > :47:55.This is like pointing an arsonist as the code chief fire officer. --

:47:56. > :48:02.joint chief. Our international allies will look on with dismay at

:48:03. > :48:07.this shambles opposite. Which, I have to say this, can only be of

:48:08. > :48:12.comfort to adverse threes. Let me appeal, again, today -- comfort to

:48:13. > :48:22.those opposed to us. I want to ask the Labour party who proudly wanted

:48:23. > :48:26.to renew the consensus between us. To put aside, the Chancellor said on

:48:27. > :48:30.television on Sunday, party politics in the national interest and join us

:48:31. > :48:37.in remaking the case for the deterrent. Of course. I thank the

:48:38. > :48:40.Secretary of State for giving way. I can give him the pledge that Labour

:48:41. > :48:44.MPs will help him get through the programme that we started in

:48:45. > :48:48.government. Will he make a pledge in the house, today, that he will base

:48:49. > :48:54.the main gate decision on the operational contracting need of this

:48:55. > :49:00.programme, and not on political considerations? I'm very happy to

:49:01. > :49:06.give him that particular assurance. And I look forward to debating in

:49:07. > :49:10.this house and deciding on the principle of renewing the four

:49:11. > :49:13.submarines, not the Trident sub, but four submarines, a decision this

:49:14. > :49:19.Parliament must take next year. Of course. Can the honourable gentleman

:49:20. > :49:25.tell us when we will actually have a debate on Trident when we actually

:49:26. > :49:28.take a decision? That decision of course had to await the publication

:49:29. > :49:36.of the strategic defence and security review yesterday. I hope we

:49:37. > :49:42.can take that decision in 2016. Then we have to get on and start building

:49:43. > :49:44.the successor submarines, as I shall explain. Successive governments,

:49:45. > :49:52.Labour and Conservative, have charged that a minimal credible

:49:53. > :49:57.nuclear deterrent is credible to our national security. That a nuclear

:49:58. > :50:00.deterrent is the only assured way of deterring nuclear threats and

:50:01. > :50:06.blackmail, by nuclear states. For more than 60 years, our nuclear

:50:07. > :50:10.deterrent has done that job. And let us, whatever side of the argument we

:50:11. > :50:17.are on, paid tribute to the crews of HMS Vanguard, vengeance, victorious

:50:18. > :50:22.and vigilant. To their families and all those at Faslane who ensure and

:50:23. > :50:32.has ensured that one of those boats is on patrol, 24 hours a day, 365

:50:33. > :50:38.days a year. Of course. Thank you for giving way. I also thank him for

:50:39. > :50:40.his tribute, as I stand here as a wife of a sub Mariner, serving on

:50:41. > :50:50.HMS victorious. However, the crews are doing a job,

:50:51. > :50:55.they are doing a service. They are serving, as they are sent to do.

:50:56. > :51:02.They are there, defending our democracy. The Secretary of State

:51:03. > :51:03.has to realise the crews are doing their job. Not all of them will

:51:04. > :51:12.agree with his views on Trident. I accept what the honourable lady

:51:13. > :51:16.says. Of course, if she is married to one of them, she will know better

:51:17. > :51:21.than anybody in this house. But I do say I have met the crews of some of

:51:22. > :51:26.the submarines. I have yet to meet a sub Mariner who does not have faith

:51:27. > :51:31.in the job he is doing, but there we are. Let me be clear what the

:51:32. > :51:37.decision that the honourable member asked me about. The decision we have

:51:38. > :51:43.to take next year as a parliament is not to replace the Trident missile

:51:44. > :51:48.or renew warheads, it is to replace the Vanguard submarines. That needs

:51:49. > :51:53.to be replaced by the early 20 30s. Of course.

:51:54. > :51:59.I would like to thank my right honourable friend. He has mentioned

:52:00. > :52:09.fast lane. Can he actually tell me what the future of Faslane might be

:52:10. > :52:12.without nuclear submarines and the largest site in Scotland would be

:52:13. > :52:16.lost if nuclear submarines were banned.

:52:17. > :52:24.There would be a significant implication. For Faslane. If the

:52:25. > :52:30.nuclear deterrent was no longer there. It was pointed out yesterday

:52:31. > :52:34.by GMB Scotland, who said the commitment in the strategic review

:52:35. > :52:38.for multilateralism and the successor programme going ahead is

:52:39. > :52:44.welcome, as it is crucial to jobs in Scotland. That is what GMB Scotland

:52:45. > :52:50.said. I want to make progress. I have given way four times already

:52:51. > :52:53.but I will give way again. This governments was elected on a

:52:54. > :52:59.manifesto commitment to replace the Vanguard submarines. It takes over a

:53:00. > :53:06.decade to build and trial a nuclear submarine. We have to take that

:53:07. > :53:11.decision in 2016. Let me tell the house that design work is already

:53:12. > :53:15.far advanced. Yesterday, the review announced a further investment of

:53:16. > :53:21.?600 million, taking the assessment phase cost from ?3.3 billion, to

:53:22. > :53:28.?3.9 billion. If I may just make a little progress, it brings me to

:53:29. > :53:32.the... Cost. It brings me to the question of why renewal is viable. I

:53:33. > :53:38.want to make three basic points. First, this is about realism. We

:53:39. > :53:40.are, of course, committed to creating the conditions where

:53:41. > :53:46.nuclear weapons will no longer be necessary. In this country, we've

:53:47. > :53:54.reduced our nuclear forces by well over half, since the height of the

:53:55. > :53:58.Cold War. This year, this very year, I cut the number of deployed

:53:59. > :54:06.warheads on each submarine from 48, down to 40. By the mid 2020s we will

:54:07. > :54:14.reduced our stockpile to know more than 180 warheads. Unfortunately,

:54:15. > :54:18.those actions have not been matched anywhere by any other nuclear

:54:19. > :54:25.nation. Nor have they stopped on stable nations from continuing to

:54:26. > :54:29.seek to acquire or develop nuclear weapons -- unstable nations. My

:54:30. > :54:35.honourable friend was first. You mentioned the cost. Yesterday and

:54:36. > :54:40.perhaps even today, we had effective opposition, there would be more

:54:41. > :54:45.focus on cost overruns. This worries me. You are making honourable

:54:46. > :54:48.efforts to do this at the MoD and I salute him, but can he give a

:54:49. > :54:52.commitment that he really will hold the private sector with their feet

:54:53. > :54:57.to the fire that there will be no more cost overruns? This is too big

:54:58. > :55:02.a project to take money from the conventional forces. I can certainly

:55:03. > :55:08.give my friend that assurance and I will come to that, how we we will

:55:09. > :55:12.deliver the programme and keep the downward pressure on costs that he

:55:13. > :55:18.wishes to see. I said that other nations have not matched our own

:55:19. > :55:24.disarmament. Russia, indeed, is commissioning a new class of eight

:55:25. > :55:30.nuclear submarines. Developing and preparing to deploy a variety of

:55:31. > :55:37.land-based ICBM classes and is planning to introduce rail -based

:55:38. > :55:41.ICBMs. Last month, North Korea showed off a long-range ballistic

:55:42. > :55:45.missile carrying miniaturised nuclear warheads and North Korea has

:55:46. > :55:49.carried out three nuclear tests and in defiance of the international

:55:50. > :55:57.community, has conducted ballistic missile tests. In an unpredictable

:55:58. > :56:02.nuclear age, we can't simply wish away threats that exist now or

:56:03. > :56:08.threats that may emerge in the 20 30s the 20 40s and right through the

:56:09. > :56:21.2050s. I give way. On the 14th of July this year,

:56:22. > :56:26.China, the Russian Federation, the UK and the USA reached an agreement

:56:27. > :56:31.with Iran which included the sentence. Under no circumstances

:56:32. > :56:41.well the run ever seek to develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.

:56:42. > :56:46.Progress is being made by negotiation -- under no

:56:47. > :56:50.circumstances will Iran ever seek. Yes, but we have not had similar

:56:51. > :56:54.promises from other states using nuclear weapons and there are still

:56:55. > :56:58.a large number of trying to get their hands nuclear weapons. Let me

:56:59. > :57:03.move on to... I will give way later on but I must make progress. My

:57:04. > :57:08.second point is about the practical effect of the deterrent. Our nuclear

:57:09. > :57:12.deterrent works. It deters aggression every single day. There

:57:13. > :57:17.have been many conflicts in the last six decades and not one of them has

:57:18. > :57:22.involved a direct conflict and wean nuclear states. Not one country

:57:23. > :57:33.under the protection of an extended nuclear umbrella has been invaded --

:57:34. > :57:37.conflict between nuclear states. The member for Argyll and Bute is quite

:57:38. > :57:41.wrong about that. It is operationally independent, with the

:57:42. > :57:45.command and control system as well as the decision making process being

:57:46. > :57:51.ours and ours alone and it of course offers a second decision making

:57:52. > :57:58.centre within Nato that will compromise an adversarial's plans.

:57:59. > :58:03.It is worth remembering that Nato is a nuclear alliance. One of the

:58:04. > :58:07.absurdities, if I may say so, the SNP position is that while opposing

:58:08. > :58:14.Trident they would, if voters had not actually rejected separatism

:58:15. > :58:17.last year, they would have sought Nato membership and then not

:58:18. > :58:22.benefited from the nuclear umbrella. The third reason why we must renew

:58:23. > :58:28.our nuclear submarines is because at the moment there is no alternative.

:58:29. > :58:36.How do we know that? We commissioned the Trident Alternatives Review in

:58:37. > :58:40.2013 and that demonstrated, having looked at all the alternatives,

:58:41. > :58:46.non-submarine and other submarines, in non-continuous deterrent, it

:58:47. > :58:51.demonstrated no alternative system is as capable or cost-effective as

:58:52. > :58:55.the Trident -based deterrent. If you accept there is a threat, and

:58:56. > :58:59.perhaps the party there does not, but if you accept there is a threat

:59:00. > :59:05.that needs to be deterred and if you accept our enemies work nights, the

:59:06. > :59:12.work weekends, then you must also accept there can be no half

:59:13. > :59:20.measures. A full boat, continuous at sea, posture is the way to offer the

:59:21. > :59:24.security we need, at minimum. Thanks for giving way. Can he then

:59:25. > :59:28.explained to me and my colleagues how Trident aggressors the real

:59:29. > :59:32.current threat we are expecting, that from radical jihadis? Would

:59:33. > :59:34.they not be jumping for joy if the United Kingdom ever thought about

:59:35. > :59:40.threatening IS with nuclear weapons? As the document yesterday

:59:41. > :59:43.pointed out there are a series of threats to our country at the moment

:59:44. > :59:50.and we need to deal with all of them. One of them has been the

:59:51. > :59:54.proliferation of nuclear weapons and indeed the commitment of countries

:59:55. > :59:58.like Russia to continue to spend more on developing their nuclear

:59:59. > :00:03.weapons, as I have pointed out. Now we have to... I must make a little

:00:04. > :00:08.the consequences of passing this the consequences of passing this

:00:09. > :00:15.motion tonight. It is scarcely believable that other nations,

:00:16. > :00:20.hearing this news from 4pm today in the House of Commons, will suddenly

:00:21. > :00:26.decide to disarm or to stop seeking nuclear weapons. There are 17,000

:00:27. > :00:32.nuclear weapons in the world at the moment. We would wish there were

:00:33. > :00:39.not, but there are, and anybody voting in this division tonight has

:00:40. > :00:50.to answer, who, after we have got read of hours, would continue to

:00:51. > :00:55.provide the deterrent? -- rid of ours. Madam Speaker, I wonder what

:00:56. > :00:59.message it sends to Rourke and unstable nations if Britain was to

:01:00. > :01:05.scrap its nuclear deterrent? -- Road. It would send a message we are

:01:06. > :01:11.not serious about deterrent other countries and particularly those

:01:12. > :01:15.rogue countries now seeking everyday to develop the kind of nuclear

:01:16. > :01:21.weapons exactly that we already have. In a moment, but we have

:01:22. > :01:27.touched in this debate on the future of HM Naval base clade, one of the

:01:28. > :01:34.largest employment basis in Scotland, a site set to increase to

:01:35. > :01:43.2000 jobs by 2020 when all of the Royal Navy's submarines will be

:01:44. > :01:48.based at five slain -- Naval base Clyde, when they will be based at

:01:49. > :01:54.Faslane. It involves hundreds of firms across our country, including

:01:55. > :01:58.in Scotland, because our state of the art submarines require skills

:01:59. > :02:02.that keep our Royal Navy in our country at the cutting edge and will

:02:03. > :02:05.inspire the next generation of engineers, software developers and

:02:06. > :02:09.designers. If the honourable gentleman had his way, thousands of

:02:10. > :02:14.jobs would disappear and those manufacturing skills would be lost.

:02:15. > :02:19.In a moment, I am just finishing, in a moment. It was not made clear to

:02:20. > :02:25.us how the Scottish National Party plan to deal with the industrial

:02:26. > :02:28.damage that would result from their decision. In the Scottish Parliament

:02:29. > :02:35.they hid behind a vague notion, and I quote, firm commitments must be

:02:36. > :02:40.made to the trade unions on the retention of defence workers' jobs.

:02:41. > :02:43.Workers on the Clyde do not want parliamentary motions. They want to

:02:44. > :02:50.be sure of a pay check every month, they want to know they have a job,

:02:51. > :02:57.and they'd either acting Scottish secretary of the GMB, Gary Smith, he

:02:58. > :03:03.said diversification, and I quote, "is based on Alice In Wonderland

:03:04. > :03:08.politics, promising pie in the sky alternative jobs for workers vital

:03:09. > :03:12.to our national security". That is the authentic voice of the Scottish

:03:13. > :03:21.trade unions. Of course I will give Billy. -- I will give way. The

:03:22. > :03:24.permanent undersecretary said in October that this project, the

:03:25. > :03:31.Trident project, is a project that keeps him awake at night. Given

:03:32. > :03:34.their excessive escalation in Trident costs announced yesterday

:03:35. > :03:40.can he not see how it undermines conventional forces? He may not lose

:03:41. > :03:43.sleep over this but if the UK not sleepwalking into a reduction in

:03:44. > :03:50.conventional forces due to your decisions? Well, the document we

:03:51. > :03:54.published yesterday, the Strategic Defence and Security Review, it

:03:55. > :03:58.really gives a lie to the honourable gentleman's comment because we are

:03:59. > :04:01.spending more on that as well as renewing our programme. He is

:04:02. > :04:04.correct that the management of that programme has to be done properly

:04:05. > :04:09.and cost effectively and I will now turn, if I made, to this whole issue

:04:10. > :04:13.of cuts. Let me make a little progress and then I will try to give

:04:14. > :04:18.way again because I know a number of honourable members want to get in.

:04:19. > :04:22.There have been some wild reports, even accentuated today, that the

:04:23. > :04:28.Trident replacement will cost, I think, ?167 billion, it was

:04:29. > :04:35.suggested. That sessions a year on year growth in GDP of 2.5%. That

:04:36. > :04:41.same logic would see as spending ?800 billion on overseas aid over

:04:42. > :04:46.the same period and a defence budget of ?100 billion in 2060. Let's look

:04:47. > :04:54.at the facts. We now estimate four new submarines would cost ?31

:04:55. > :05:04.billion. That cost, spread over 35 years, amounts to an insurance

:05:05. > :05:09.policy of less than 0.2% per year. That of total Government spending,

:05:10. > :05:17.for a capability that will remain in service until 2060. Let me put that

:05:18. > :05:24.?31 billion in context for the's, and indeed in context for those of

:05:25. > :05:29.my honourable friends who are so keen on advanced high-speed railway

:05:30. > :05:33.lines. It will cost ?31 billion, the programme, with a contingency above

:05:34. > :05:41.that taking the total budget to some ?40 billion. High-speed two will

:05:42. > :05:49.cost ?50 billion. Of course I will give way to the honourable member in

:05:50. > :05:53.the second row -- HS2. You said you would put the ?31 billion in

:05:54. > :05:57.context, but is that not only just an increase of six Boeing pounds in

:05:58. > :06:04.the last year? At the contingency of tenderly and pounds -- ?6 billion.

:06:05. > :06:06.Then the 12 billion extra pounds, which is clearly actually on Trident

:06:07. > :06:12.and therefore the Defence Secretary must be making cuts to the tier one

:06:13. > :06:20.threats to pay for a nuclear deterrent that has passed a tear two

:06:21. > :06:23.threat. There is no doubt that it is coming in the place of conventional

:06:24. > :06:27.protection. There are no cuts to weapons in this document we

:06:28. > :06:32.published yesterday. On the contrary, there are more ships, more

:06:33. > :06:36.planes, more equipment for the special forces, more frigates being

:06:37. > :06:40.built on the Clyde. Let me be very clear. The figure has increased, and

:06:41. > :06:45.we gave the update correctly to the House yesterday. It has increased

:06:46. > :06:51.since last set out in a 2006 White Paper and then adjusted again in

:06:52. > :06:56.2011 so we have given a figure, yesterday, that has been updated

:06:57. > :07:03.from the original estimate four years ago. The cost, to be clear, is

:07:04. > :07:08.?31 billion for the submarines, the four sub range, with the contingency

:07:09. > :07:12.of ?10 billion on top of that. -- four submarines. As far as the

:07:13. > :07:16.question asked by my honourable friend, from the depths of his

:07:17. > :07:20.experience from the Public Accounts Committee, yes, we have to be eagle

:07:21. > :07:27.eyed where costs are concerned. The new conventional submarine being

:07:28. > :07:35.built, -- submarine playback, they are late, but the new successor ones

:07:36. > :07:40.cannot be late -- submarines. We need to reform the way in which the

:07:41. > :07:43.submarines are delivered to ensure the continuous sea deterrence can be

:07:44. > :07:49.maintained and to ensure the taxpayer gets proper value for

:07:50. > :07:53.money, so we are establishing a new delivery body for the success of

:07:54. > :07:56.programme and a new team at the Ministry of Defence headed by an

:07:57. > :08:01.experienced commercial specialist to act as the single sponsor for all

:08:02. > :08:09.aspects of the defence nuclear enterprise, from requirement to

:08:10. > :08:13.disposal. Yes, of course. I thank the Secretary for giving way. Does

:08:14. > :08:19.he agree with me it is not a choice if we want to keep Britain safe,

:08:20. > :08:23.between renewing our nuclear deterrent and taking the necessary

:08:24. > :08:29.action against Isil. Both are vital, and that it would be foolhardy, not

:08:30. > :08:34.to seek arrogant, to believe anyone in this House can predict the risks

:08:35. > :08:39.and threats Britain will face in the next 30 or 40 years? I could not

:08:40. > :08:44.have put that better. We tried to estimate here, in this document

:08:45. > :08:49.yesterday, our latest assessment, the threats to our country, but we

:08:50. > :08:53.should be honest and humble about this, the 2010 review did not

:08:54. > :08:58.predict Russia, the actions they would take in Crimea or Ukraine and

:08:59. > :09:01.nor did it predict the rise of Isil. We tried to predict ahead but we

:09:02. > :09:09.cannot be sure further ahead. Let me see, finally, in conclusion, that

:09:10. > :09:15.the people of Scotland voted last year to remain as part of the United

:09:16. > :09:20.Kingdom, and let me mind of the House that the deterrent, no, I have

:09:21. > :09:24.been generous in giving way, the deterrent is for the whole of the

:09:25. > :09:27.United Kingdom. The people of Scotland will benefit from the

:09:28. > :09:33.security that the deterrent provides. Parliament last fought it

:09:34. > :09:48.on Trident by a majority, to support Trident, by a majority earlier this

:09:49. > :09:50.year -- last voted. It bought on the principle of continuous sea

:09:51. > :09:57.deterrence and the plans for the successor, today, this afternoon, we

:09:58. > :10:05.face the SNP motion -- the vote earlier this year. This is not a

:10:06. > :10:09.time to gamble with our security. It is a time, on the contrary, to

:10:10. > :10:15.safeguard this generation and generations to come. Let me put this

:10:16. > :10:20.as simply as the honourable member just put it to me. If you can be

:10:21. > :10:26.sure, on either side of this House, that there will be no nuclear threat

:10:27. > :10:33.that will emerge to this country throughout the 2030s, the 2040s, and

:10:34. > :10:40.the 2050s, if you can be absolutely sure of that then vote for the

:10:41. > :10:43.motion today. I cannot be sure... I cannot be prepared on this side of

:10:44. > :10:53.the House to gamble with our nation's security. Toby Perkins.

:10:54. > :10:57.Thank you, Madame Deputy Speaker. A great pleasure to respond to the

:10:58. > :11:00.Opposition Day Debate on the renewal of Trident. Clearly this comes at a

:11:01. > :11:05.time the Labour Party is conducting a review of our defence policies in

:11:06. > :11:08.general and our approach to Trident in particular. The decision which

:11:09. > :11:11.Parliament will make in the coming months regarding the future of the

:11:12. > :11:16.UK's nuclear deterrent is a matter of huge importance for this country.

:11:17. > :11:19.It will affect this country's defence and security strategy for

:11:20. > :11:24.decades to come and our global standing. It will affect thousands

:11:25. > :11:27.of livelihoods, as we heard, already today on the United Kingdom that

:11:28. > :11:31.depend on renewing the deterrent. It will affect the role the naked

:11:32. > :11:34.kingdom can play in the global process on disarmament and goes to

:11:35. > :11:43.the very heart -- the United Kingdom. The heart of a relationship

:11:44. > :11:47.with our Nato allies. Operation Relentless, the name for the current

:11:48. > :11:51.at sea deterrent currently undertaken by the Vanguard class of

:11:52. > :11:56.sub breeds has been patrolling since April 1969 and the British people,

:11:57. > :11:58.rightly, do not expect parliamentarians to take such a

:11:59. > :12:04.decision to end continue such controls like that -- of

:12:05. > :12:09.submarines. They recognise it is complex and a fine political balance

:12:10. > :12:12.as well as the question of military effectiveness. There are strong

:12:13. > :12:16.views on each side of this debate and we have utmost respect for all

:12:17. > :12:21.of those deeply held views, but let me be absolutely clear, this issue

:12:22. > :12:27.is too important, for the future of our country, for members in this

:12:28. > :12:32.House to play party political games with it. We all know the reason the

:12:33. > :12:35.SNP have scheduled this half-day debate is not to influence

:12:36. > :12:43.Government policy. There was in fact not one single to the -- single

:12:44. > :12:46.question to the Government, but it was to score cheap political points.

:12:47. > :12:50.If anyone seriously believe what we would hear today was a serious case

:12:51. > :12:55.brought forward by the SNP, all they had to say, all they had to do was

:12:56. > :12:59.to witness the speech made by the honourable gentleman for Argyle, who

:13:00. > :13:03.could barely contain his delight in the fact that the Labour Party were

:13:04. > :13:07.reviewing their position. There was no serious contribution to the

:13:08. > :13:11.debate about Trident, no serious challenge to the Government, but

:13:12. > :13:17.this is simply cheap political point scoring in exactly the same way they

:13:18. > :13:23.did in the Opposition Day Debate back in January. As we are

:13:24. > :13:30.conducting our... I have just said, in a moment.

:13:31. > :13:37.Border! We don't have that in the chamber.

:13:38. > :13:43.That's enough. The honourable gentleman does not wish to give way

:13:44. > :13:50.at the moment, I am sure he will, in June course. Mr Perkins. Indeed, I

:13:51. > :13:56.will. Once again, they are laughing, they think this is a highly

:13:57. > :14:00.hilarious debate. This is not highly hilarious for the people whose lives

:14:01. > :14:05.depend on it. And it is not highly hilarious for those who rely on the

:14:06. > :14:07.Nato umbrella for their security and the nuclear deterrent. It is not

:14:08. > :14:12.appropriate to vote on this motion when we are still conducting our

:14:13. > :14:16.review, this is political point scoring. On the subject of cheap

:14:17. > :14:22.political point scoring, I give way to the honourable gentleman. Labour

:14:23. > :14:26.are in a total and utter shambles and mess with Trident. If the result

:14:27. > :14:29.of this review being undertaken by the former Mayor of London

:14:30. > :14:33.recommends that the Labour Party support their leader when it comes

:14:34. > :14:38.to unilateral disarmament, will be rest of the Labour Party back him in

:14:39. > :14:44.that? I will return in more detail to the we the review is put

:14:45. > :14:48.together. To say an issue of this, where there are clearly differences

:14:49. > :14:51.of opinion, for different people to be involved in, who have a

:14:52. > :14:55.difference of opinion, is a shambles. It is a nonsense. It is

:14:56. > :15:00.clear that the Labour Party are discussing this position. We will

:15:01. > :15:05.listen to a variety of views. At the end, we will come to a conclusion. I

:15:06. > :15:08.give way. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman. Many on this

:15:09. > :15:13.side of the house would be sympathetic to the serious way that

:15:14. > :15:18.he is tackling this matter. But, will he undertake to come back to

:15:19. > :15:22.the house, when the review is complete, in order to clarify for

:15:23. > :15:28.the nation watched the position is of the Labour Party? Clearly, it is

:15:29. > :15:33.something where there cannot be fudging, you are in or out when it

:15:34. > :15:37.comes to nuclear deterrent. -- to the nation what the position. I will

:15:38. > :15:43.be able to offer more clarity very shortly. The motion that the SNP

:15:44. > :15:47.brought forward, as the honourable gentleman was honest enough to

:15:48. > :15:50.admit, has not been without problems. The original motion, which

:15:51. > :15:58.each one of them signed without noticing the mistake, said that

:15:59. > :16:03.Trident shouldn't be removed. Subsequently, they discovered that

:16:04. > :16:06.they had made that mistake. As the Secretary of State made clear, the

:16:07. > :16:10.motion talks about Trident. The decision we are facing at the moment

:16:11. > :16:15.is about the renewal of the Vanguard class of submarines. Not about

:16:16. > :16:21.renewing Trident. Important details like that may be lost to them. As

:16:22. > :16:24.indeed, was apparently the outcome of the Scottish independence

:16:25. > :16:29.referendum, which the majority of Scots voted in favour of staying in

:16:30. > :16:36.the United Kingdom. Which they will be aware, involves being a part of

:16:37. > :16:39.having Trident. I will give way. I am somewhat perplexed at this

:16:40. > :16:42.assertion that we shouldn't be discussing Trident. This debate is

:16:43. > :16:46.about Trident. It is vital we understand the position of the

:16:47. > :16:52.members on this very important issue. Once again, it makes it clear

:16:53. > :16:57.that this is about the Labour Party's position. I have attempted

:16:58. > :17:00.to clarify the difference between the decision this council will face

:17:01. > :17:07.shortly at the wording of the motion that is in front of us. I will

:17:08. > :17:11.happily give way. I thank my honourable friend for giving way.

:17:12. > :17:15.Does he share my disappointment, that even though the SNP called this

:17:16. > :17:19.debate, they failed to set up their position either on how they would

:17:20. > :17:23.replace jobs or how they would dispose of the weapons. Shouldn't

:17:24. > :17:24.this debate be about their policy, since they called this debate

:17:25. > :17:32.today? I have to say Madam Deputy Speaker,

:17:33. > :17:38.for the second time today, she has hit the nail on the head. As a whole

:17:39. > :17:41.series of inconsistencies about the SNP's position. Not only today. We

:17:42. > :17:47.heard that the decision to go forward with Trident would be

:17:48. > :17:51.choosing to go forward with that. Buying nuclear capabilities on the

:17:52. > :17:55.backs of the poor. Only half an hour before that, we heard them saying

:17:56. > :17:58.that all the money being spent on Trident would instead be spent on

:17:59. > :18:02.conventional weapons. Either the money they are saving for Trident

:18:03. > :18:06.will be spent on hospitals and schools and transport or it will be

:18:07. > :18:11.spent on conventional forces. No one can blame the honourable gentleman

:18:12. > :18:16.for being confused, the history of the SNP has a history of confusion.

:18:17. > :18:22.2012, the honourable gentleman for Gordon said the savings would be

:18:23. > :18:26.spent on conventional defence. But, he and Nicola Sturgeon was saying in

:18:27. > :18:32.2014 they would spend the money saved on Trident on childcare. Good

:18:33. > :18:38.morning Scotland, 2012, it would be spent on youth unemployment and

:18:39. > :18:43.colleges. Scottish Parliament motion in 2012 is that it should be spent

:18:44. > :18:45.on welfare. A whole variety and history of the Scottish National

:18:46. > :18:51.Party utterly baffled about what this money will be spent on. I thank

:18:52. > :18:54.you for giving way. It would be interesting to hear, I was being

:18:55. > :18:59.heckled that this magic money tree could be spent on tax credits.

:19:00. > :19:04.Another one to add to his long list. I will put it on my list at the end

:19:05. > :19:08.if he doesn't mind. LAUGHTER It is an important point. We are

:19:09. > :19:12.having a laugh but the truth is that people deserve clarity on what is

:19:13. > :19:16.being said in this house, this is a matter of the utmost importance. I

:19:17. > :19:21.will make progress but I will happily take more interventions

:19:22. > :19:27.later. The honourable gentleman said a moment ago that Labour's position

:19:28. > :19:30.needs to be clarified. As agreed by the national policy Forum in in 2014

:19:31. > :19:34.and approved by the Labour party conference in Brighton, we are

:19:35. > :19:41.committed to a minimal credible nuclear deterrent at sea. That is

:19:42. > :19:47.the policy that was in the manifesto and all Labour Party members fought

:19:48. > :19:51.the 2015 general election on. We are proud of the previous Labour

:19:52. > :19:55.government's approach on disarmament. We made huge progress

:19:56. > :19:59.on nuclear disarmament through international frameworks and almost

:20:00. > :20:06.half the number of operationally available warheads. Reduced the

:20:07. > :20:10.number of deployed warheads. We scrapped the tactical nuclear

:20:11. > :20:15.weapons in 1998, making the UK the only recognised nuclear armed NPT to

:20:16. > :20:20.possess just one nuclear system. That is simply a declaration of

:20:21. > :20:23.fact. Let me finish on this and I will happily give way. The member

:20:24. > :20:27.for Islington North has recently been elected to the leader of the

:20:28. > :20:32.Labour Party and his views on the subject are well known and he

:20:33. > :20:35.appointed the honourable friends to be Secretary of State for Defence.

:20:36. > :20:41.Knowing her clear position on this question. Thank you for the way you

:20:42. > :20:45.are conducting this part. We'll be member indicated in terms of the

:20:46. > :20:51.review that his party is carrying out, consider the invitations for

:20:52. > :20:55.HMS Clyde, the submarine base at Faslane, the Royal Naval armaments

:20:56. > :21:04.depot and the implications for Plymouth? I can absolutely give him

:21:05. > :21:09.that assurance. This is very much a question about our military

:21:10. > :21:16.capability. We can never removed the fact that this is a very important

:21:17. > :21:21.economic regeneration question. As my right honourable friend for

:21:22. > :21:26.Islington and Shadow Secretary of State for Defence on all aspects of

:21:27. > :21:30.our defence policy including our nuclear deterrent, she has been

:21:31. > :21:34.clear and she will read an evidence -based review in an open-minded and

:21:35. > :21:37.inclusive and transparent way. It will investigate the issues that has

:21:38. > :21:43.been reviewed on many occasions and searches for new relevant evidence.

:21:44. > :21:49.I would be grateful if you could clarify for the house, you are doing

:21:50. > :21:55.something important. Explaining how this review will operate. When he

:21:56. > :21:58.says his honourable friend Shadow Secretary of State will lead the

:21:59. > :22:01.view, will that be with Ken Livingstone or without him? If you

:22:02. > :22:08.had been slightly more patient I would have got precisely to that

:22:09. > :22:16.point. Bear with me. I will enlighten him. My honourable friend

:22:17. > :22:20.will lead that review. The next sentence in fact. As is standard for

:22:21. > :22:24.policy commissions, it will feed into the National policy Forum and a

:22:25. > :22:27.member of the National executive committee, Ken Livingstone, will

:22:28. > :22:33.convene that with you as per half of the NSC. It will be led by my

:22:34. > :22:37.honourable friend, the member for Garston and Halewood.

:22:38. > :22:43.Let me make progress, there are a lot of people who want to contribute

:22:44. > :22:47.to this debate. I am keen to give them the opportunity to do so. It is

:22:48. > :22:51.really important for our politics and all those on both sides of the

:22:52. > :22:56.debate that we embrace the opportunity to debate the cases for

:22:57. > :23:00.and against. Politics is changing. There is a mood for more

:23:01. > :23:04.transparency, not just in our party but society as a whole. In the

:23:05. > :23:09.Labour Party will welcome this opportunity. Assuming a policy of

:23:10. > :23:12.multilateral, not unilateral disarmament has been the major

:23:13. > :23:16.position for politics in 30 years. Many of these issues haven't been

:23:17. > :23:20.the subject of widespread and inclusive debates. We welcome this

:23:21. > :23:22.opportunity. As someone who willingly support the policy that

:23:23. > :23:26.the Labour Party for the last general election on, I say that all

:23:27. > :23:29.of us who support maintaining a nuclear presence should not be

:23:30. > :23:34.afraid to allow open and honest debate on this important issue. I

:23:35. > :23:38.will crack on. There are a lot of people who want to contribute and I

:23:39. > :23:43.will try and take some more towards the end. They produce beta, it will

:23:44. > :23:46.be ludicrous for me to pretend they're not differences of opinion

:23:47. > :23:52.within the Labour Party and wider party about whether this is the

:23:53. > :23:55.right policy. The National party conference and forum decide what the

:23:56. > :23:59.Labour Party's approach will be in the future. This year's Labour Party

:24:00. > :24:06.conference concluded that there were more pressing contemporary motions

:24:07. > :24:09.to debate. The National policy Forum report reaffirmed the party's

:24:10. > :24:14.support for the continuous at sea deterrent. I will give way briefly.

:24:15. > :24:19.If the honourable gentleman mentions the Labour Party UK conference, but

:24:20. > :24:24.he does not mention the Labour Party's Scottish conference, which

:24:25. > :24:27.voted against Trident. Does that count for absolutely nothing? As

:24:28. > :24:29.your boss told her Labour Party colleagues? Scotland just doesn't

:24:30. > :24:37.matter, does it? Those kind of comments are utterly

:24:38. > :24:41.offensive. LAUGHTER The truth of the matter... Once

:24:42. > :24:44.again, we have an important matter here, people are watching and

:24:45. > :24:49.people's jobs are on the line and the SNP are laughing their way

:24:50. > :24:51.through this debate. The truth is that Scottish Labour Party had a

:24:52. > :24:55.vote at their conference. Of course that will be considered as part of

:24:56. > :24:59.many contributions that are made to this debate. The views of many

:25:00. > :25:04.people and a variety of views will be considered. That vote that was

:25:05. > :25:07.taking place, the views of individual members, will be

:25:08. > :25:08.considered as part of that. I will give way to my honourable friend.

:25:09. > :25:18.Thank you. As a neighbouring MP, he will

:25:19. > :25:21.understand how important the Trident contract successor programme

:25:22. > :25:25.contract will be to places like Sheffield in terms of jobs and

:25:26. > :25:30.supply chain. But the tone of the debate today is important. The

:25:31. > :25:36.importance of the debate but the tone is important. It is a UK matter

:25:37. > :25:38.and it deserves a focus which is UK orientated, and not on a narrow

:25:39. > :25:49.nationalist outlook. My honourable friend... My

:25:50. > :25:57.honourable friend is absolutely right to say that there is a real

:25:58. > :26:00.desire and real importance in this project to the supply chain right

:26:01. > :26:07.across the country, not just in the areas where it will be built.

:26:08. > :26:13.Absolutely this is a decision for the whole of the UK and it is one

:26:14. > :26:19.that we will all be responsible for and all have a opportunity to

:26:20. > :26:23.benefit from. In light of the lengthy procurement process required

:26:24. > :26:27.for complex weapons systems, parliament voted in 2007 to maintain

:26:28. > :26:31.the strategic nuclear deterrent beyond the lifetime of the existing

:26:32. > :26:36.system. The Secretary of State spoke in more detail about some of the

:26:37. > :26:39.history, but we should also remember that there are 28 Nato Alliance

:26:40. > :26:44.members who are offered protection by each other. Our contribution is a

:26:45. > :26:48.vital reassurance which was brought home to meet on a recent trip to

:26:49. > :26:58.Brussels to meet with Nato allies. On the subject of unilateral

:26:59. > :27:01.weapons, there is no guarantee that if Britain and France appeared to be

:27:02. > :27:05.weak in their contribution, other countries couldn't decide that they

:27:06. > :27:10.were not secure any longer and wouldn't look to procure their own

:27:11. > :27:18.deterrence. That could lead to an increase in the number of nuclear

:27:19. > :27:23.states. Today's events, the shooting down of a Russian aeroplanes

:27:24. > :27:29.apparently by Turkish forces, should underline for us how pressures that

:27:30. > :27:35.includes connection -- interconnection and mutuality is.

:27:36. > :27:38.And how important it is that the UK sends a message to those who

:27:39. > :27:44.threaten us that we resolute and trustworthy. Can I say I respect to

:27:45. > :27:50.lead the way in which he is addressing this issue. But can he

:27:51. > :27:54.talk, when he talks about the Labour Party reviewing its policies, can he

:27:55. > :27:58.addressed the very worrying point is that whatever the outcome of the

:27:59. > :28:03.review, the leader of the Labour Party has made it clear that under

:28:04. > :28:08.no circumstances would he use the deterrent. Therefore, has the policy

:28:09. > :28:13.not been decided, even if the Labour Party decides to go ahead, the

:28:14. > :28:18.leader has said he will not do so and therefore denying its potency as

:28:19. > :28:22.a deterrent. I understand what's the honourable gentleman is saying, but

:28:23. > :28:30.I have to say that this is a project that will take place and will be

:28:31. > :28:34.valuable to our country over 25, 30, many more years, and I think that as

:28:35. > :28:41.a result, when you are making the significant infrastructure

:28:42. > :28:46.decisions, the day to day of what is occurring is actually less important

:28:47. > :28:54.than the longer term capability that you have. He has been so persistent

:28:55. > :28:59.that I will give way. Earlier in his remarks about this review, he said

:29:00. > :29:03.it would be co-convened by Ken Livingstone. Can I ask you to

:29:04. > :29:09.clarify exactly what he means by court convened? What is happening

:29:10. > :29:13.here is we have a review being taken place that is being led by the

:29:14. > :29:23.shadow Secretary of State for Defence. Without going into too many

:29:24. > :29:29.details about Labour Party processors -- processes... The

:29:30. > :29:36.member of the National executive committee is involved in supporting

:29:37. > :29:40.that process and that is the role that Ken Livingstone is going to be

:29:41. > :29:46.playing. As I have said a moment ago, this is not the first time that

:29:47. > :29:50.the SNP has brought this question to the house, but they will know that

:29:51. > :29:56.their own policy has failed to stand up to scrutiny. The White Paper that

:29:57. > :30:02.preceded their failed referendum campaign provided no cost for

:30:03. > :30:06.personnel are budgets... I am not giving way. I will complete my

:30:07. > :30:10.speech. We listen to the gentleman for quite some length and I'd still

:30:11. > :30:16.do not do what he thinks. The White Paper failed to confront the

:30:17. > :30:23.contradictions of the SNP and their desire to join Nato, to remove all

:30:24. > :30:27.nuclear weapons from Scottish soil. It was very clear in his

:30:28. > :30:29.contribution that he had no clear understanding of what they were

:30:30. > :30:33.signing up to when they said they were going to join Nato. It was

:30:34. > :30:38.clear they thought they were going to be a part of this alliance but

:30:39. > :30:43.somehow removed from the policies that Nato have. Does the honourable

:30:44. > :30:47.gentleman believe that there is no such thing as a non-nuclear member

:30:48. > :30:51.of Nato and does he not understand that as I pointed out, the last two

:30:52. > :30:59.general secretaries of NATO come from those non-nuclear countries of

:31:00. > :31:04.Denmark and Norway? It is not a case of my opinion. It is a matter of

:31:05. > :31:08.simple fact that NATO is a nuclear alliance. Membership of Nato, which

:31:09. > :31:12.the SNP supports, requires allies to be members of the Nato nuclear

:31:13. > :31:16.alliance and to sit on the appropriate committees, so the fact

:31:17. > :31:19.of the matter is that an independent Scotland that was a part of NATO

:31:20. > :31:29.would be covered by the nuclear umbrella and I suspect if I am

:31:30. > :31:34.entirely frank I suspect it is because they are covered that they

:31:35. > :31:37.want to be a part of it, to try to give reassurance to their own

:31:38. > :31:42.members, so it is not a matter of my own opinion, it is a simple

:31:43. > :32:00.statement of fact. On the back of yesterday's FDS or -- SDSR the

:32:01. > :32:03.Government needs to give the latest figures of warhead refurbishment and

:32:04. > :32:06.can the Minister confirm that the Treasury are to take the lead

:32:07. > :32:10.regarding the procurement of the Vanguard successor class and can he

:32:11. > :32:14.explain why in setting up the mechanics of that arrangement, can

:32:15. > :32:21.he say what he thinks that says about the level of confidence the

:32:22. > :32:24.Chancellor has in his department. Was this decision made with the

:32:25. > :32:27.support of the secretary of state and if so why did he think it was

:32:28. > :32:30.better handled outside of his department and finally can he

:32:31. > :32:33.clarify the timescales of the successor programme and what

:32:34. > :32:37.criteria have the decided to further extend the lives of the existing

:32:38. > :32:40.fleet? What is the strategy underpinning this decision, and most

:32:41. > :32:42.importantly, can the department resolutely guarantee that this

:32:43. > :32:48.decision will not adversely of effect the maintenance of art

:32:49. > :32:52.continuous at the deterrent? I hope that the minister who is in his

:32:53. > :32:58.place will have the opportunity to respond to those points at the end.

:32:59. > :33:00.These are points that you might reasonably have expected the people

:33:01. > :33:04.bringing the debate, who had much longer to scrutinise the Government

:33:05. > :33:06.on, but of course are only interested in highlighting the

:33:07. > :33:11.difficulties that they perceive in the Labour Party. In summary, the

:33:12. > :33:15.Labour Party's review under the stewardship of my honourable friend

:33:16. > :33:19.from Garston will consider any new evidence, it will examining the

:33:20. > :33:23.views of people from across the spectrum and will allow people from

:33:24. > :33:25.across the party, the trade union movement, and in communities right

:33:26. > :33:30.across the land to engage in the debate. It will learn about the

:33:31. > :33:34.facts, it will debunk the myths as part of the national conversation.

:33:35. > :33:37.We will not strengthen the debates, we will relish them. This is an

:33:38. > :33:44.issue on which we believe there needs to be more like ambushed

:33:45. > :33:47.heat. -- is more like an less heat. The house can be assured that when

:33:48. > :33:50.that review has been concluded, the Labour Party will have a position

:33:51. > :33:54.that has been the subject of the widest public debates in the history

:33:55. > :33:59.of military decision-making and will be able to real confidence that the

:34:00. > :34:06.decision reached is one the party and indeed the country can support

:34:07. > :34:08.with confidence. Order. A great many people have indicated to me that

:34:09. > :34:11.they would like to speak in this debate and the house will be aware

:34:12. > :34:14.that there is another important debate to follow. I therefore have

:34:15. > :34:19.to put a time limit on that bench speeches of six minutes, starting

:34:20. > :34:26.with immediate effect as we hear from Mrs Cheryl Murray. Thank you

:34:27. > :34:31.very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members will know of my special

:34:32. > :34:34.interest in the Royal Navy, as the mother of a serving Royal Navy

:34:35. > :34:38.warfare officer, although I am absolutely sure that my daughter

:34:39. > :34:43.would want to stick to surface ships and she wouldn't want to serve in

:34:44. > :34:48.any of the four Vanguard class submarines. I am really pleased that

:34:49. > :34:52.the honourable member for Glasgow North has joined the family of

:34:53. > :34:57.people in this house who have connections with the Royal Navy and

:34:58. > :35:05.I hope that she will make a contribution to many debates. It is

:35:06. > :35:09.now over 70 years since these bombs were used in anger, and we must

:35:10. > :35:14.remember that this is not new technology, but the threat is real

:35:15. > :35:21.and that is why we must have a credible nuclear deterrent, that

:35:22. > :35:29.others believe will be used if we are attacked. A continuous at sea

:35:30. > :35:35.nuclear deterrent is essential because that deterrent must have two

:35:36. > :35:42.also be credible. It gives the UK the ability to respond instantly

:35:43. > :35:45.from a movable location, which assists security against any

:35:46. > :35:50.possible threats. Throughout my life, no matter if we have had a

:35:51. > :35:53.Labour or Conservative Government, I believe we have had a credible

:35:54. > :36:02.deterrent because we had the leadership to back it up. The

:36:03. > :36:07.honourable member and many of her colleagues have criticised the

:36:08. > :36:11.Leader of the Opposition because presumably if you promise not to use

:36:12. > :36:16.it, it is not a deterrent. Did the honourable member tellers in what

:36:17. > :36:21.circumstances she would in all conscience launch an attack that

:36:22. > :36:26.would annihilate tens of thousands of innocent civilians? The point is,

:36:27. > :36:32.if you have the deterrent and you lead people to think you can use it,

:36:33. > :36:38.then that is what the deterrent is about. It is no good publicising the

:36:39. > :36:45.fact that you are never going to fire it. That is a useless

:36:46. > :36:49.deterrent. Thank you for giving weight. May be concluded in simpler

:36:50. > :36:53.terms since they are struggling to understand what he deterrent as,

:36:54. > :36:57.maybe we could use an analogy with a burglar alarm. You have a burglar

:36:58. > :37:01.alarm which you turn on when you go out because you hope that it will

:37:02. > :37:03.put people off from breaking in. We have a nuclear deterrent which is

:37:04. > :37:08.there when we go to bed to keep our there when we go to bed to keep our

:37:09. > :37:13.country safe. We need also to remember that the UK's nuclear

:37:14. > :37:22.deterrent contributes towards our collective security as part of NATO.

:37:23. > :37:26.If the UK did not have a deterrent, NATO's collective security would be

:37:27. > :37:31.weakened, leaving the UK dependent on others, which seems to be what

:37:32. > :37:37.the party opposite are determined to want to do. I thank the member for

:37:38. > :37:41.giving weight. On the message of deterrent, does it not also mean we

:37:42. > :37:44.are the most direct threat to other states which have nuclear weapons,

:37:45. > :37:50.therefore rather than be a deterrent, we are a key target in

:37:51. > :37:54.this family of nations? A deterrent is extremely important and that is

:37:55. > :38:00.precisely what it is. It is not there to use in anger and I remind

:38:01. > :38:08.him that the words that I started with, 70 years ago, was the last

:38:09. > :38:13.time that these bombs were used in anger. Now, I speak today not just

:38:14. > :38:21.because I believe in credible nuclear deterrent, but because I do,

:38:22. > :38:26.but also because of the importance it has two my constituents. Trident

:38:27. > :38:31.has provided the massive amount of employment for my constituents in

:38:32. > :38:36.South East Cornwall. In the same way as at Faslane and Coalport provide a

:38:37. > :38:45.massive amount of employment north of the border. No, I am sorry. I

:38:46. > :38:55.have used up my time. Repair, refuelling and refit of the Vanguard

:38:56. > :38:59.class submarines is carried out at D154 in the constituency of my

:39:00. > :39:02.honourable friend the member for Plymouth, Sutton and Davenport. The

:39:03. > :39:09.expertise and experience that Davenport now has should be utilised

:39:10. > :39:12.in any future programme. As a local County Council at the time, I will

:39:13. > :39:23.never forget standing by the banks of the River Kmart -- Taymar and

:39:24. > :39:27.watching the first nuclear submarine come in for a refit, continuing to

:39:28. > :39:33.refuel and refit the submarines is likely to safeguard around 2000

:39:34. > :39:40.jobs. I fully support the Government in its global -- in its goal is to

:39:41. > :39:44.have the successor submarines replace the existing Vanguard class

:39:45. > :39:49.ones and also to have a credible nuclear deterrent to protect this

:39:50. > :39:56.nation for future decades. John Woodcock. Thank you Madam Deputy

:39:57. > :39:58.Speaker and what a pleasure it is to follow such a thoughtful and well

:39:59. > :40:04.informed speech from the honourable lady. Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish

:40:05. > :40:08.you had been in for the start of this today. What a shambles it was.

:40:09. > :40:15.Just let me give you, for background, the context. We have a

:40:16. > :40:21.party over their who is frankly presiding over the mismanagement of

:40:22. > :40:29.the core activities of Government in its nation in health and education,

:40:30. > :40:37.which is frankly a disgrace. Let me just tell the house the dreadful

:40:38. > :40:42.mess that they are making of health and education because there is a

:40:43. > :40:50.need for this. If you will just take a seat for a moment. Let me just

:40:51. > :41:01.explain. The honourable gentleman has

:41:02. > :41:12.indicated he will give way shortly. Mr John Woodcock. A point of order.

:41:13. > :41:20.Point of order, sir. The honourable member said he is talking about

:41:21. > :41:26.health and education. It is not applicable to today's motion. I

:41:27. > :41:30.thank the honourable gentleman for his point of order. I am listening

:41:31. > :41:34.carefully to what the honourable gentleman is saying and I will

:41:35. > :41:38.decide if he has strayed from the motion. At the moment my

:41:39. > :41:42.interpretation is that the honourable gentleman is introducing

:41:43. > :41:50.his speech and he will come to the precise point of the motion very

:41:51. > :41:56.shortly. Mr Woodcock. They do not like people holding them to account

:41:57. > :42:01.for the terrible failure. I was just explaining the disgraceful mess that

:42:02. > :42:06.they are making of skills in Scotland where the poorest children

:42:07. > :42:13.are being left behind. If you would not mind. I would have been happy to

:42:14. > :42:18.take every single one of you robots, getting your instructions. I would

:42:19. > :42:24.have been happy, but the thing is, Madame Deputy Speaker, that the

:42:25. > :42:34.proposers of your motion refused point-blank to take me... Point of

:42:35. > :42:39.order, Mr Nicholson. Can we have some clarification on whether the

:42:40. > :42:48.charming expression robot is parliamentary language or not? Yes,

:42:49. > :42:53.Mr Nicholson, I was just turning over in my mind whether the

:42:54. > :43:00.description robot for a member of this house would be considered to be

:43:01. > :43:04.derogatory. I have come to the conclusion that in some

:43:05. > :43:14.circumstances it might and in some it might not. For the moment I am

:43:15. > :43:19.concluding for my own peace of mind that the honourable gentleman was

:43:20. > :43:25.thinking of a high functioning, intelligent robot and therefore, for

:43:26. > :43:31.the moment, I will not call him to order for the use of the word. But I

:43:32. > :43:39.am sure the House will be warned that we should be very careful in

:43:40. > :43:48.our use of language. Mr Woodcock. Point of order, Mr Paisley. I got

:43:49. > :43:52.the honourable gentleman called them Roberts and anyone from Scotland

:43:53. > :44:00.should not mind being called Robert the Bruce. As to Mr Paisley's point

:44:01. > :44:06.of order, every elder male member of my own family for the last 100 years

:44:07. > :44:13.has been called Robert, it must be a good thing. Point of order. Given

:44:14. > :44:22.colleagues from the SNP will miss report this on twitter, with the use

:44:23. > :44:27.of cider in that be acceptable? We will have no more points of order on

:44:28. > :44:32.this issue, any term that is considered in any way derogatory

:44:33. > :44:39.will not be allowed and I will be listening very carefully for the

:44:40. > :44:42.rest of the debate. Mr Woodcock. I am very happy to refer to them as

:44:43. > :44:48.honourable robots, if that is any help. But robots they are, following

:44:49. > :45:05.the instructions and an almost never be before seeing unity. I was

:45:06. > :45:09.discussing the failure hospitals over which they are presiding.

:45:10. > :45:13.Instead of dealing with that they seek this Parliamentary distraction

:45:14. > :45:21.of a debate on Trident. We are not going to fall for it. I will give

:45:22. > :45:28.way. I must say I appreciate the fact you have given way to me

:45:29. > :45:33.because you should have given way earlier in the opening debate. You

:45:34. > :45:38.have set the context, but would it surprise the honourable gentleman

:45:39. > :45:42.that today in another place in the Northern Ireland assembly Sinn

:45:43. > :45:46.Fein, who butchered and bombed people across the entire United

:45:47. > :45:50.Kingdom have a similar motion calling for the cancellation of

:45:51. > :45:56.Trident also? Would he like to reflect on that? It is something the

:45:57. > :46:02.party may wish to reflect on one day when they are winding up. I will go

:46:03. > :46:07.back to them in a moment. If I could just employ the Minister in

:46:08. > :46:11.responding, because I was not able to intervene for a second time with

:46:12. > :46:17.the Secretary of State. If he wants to intervene, it would be helpful if

:46:18. > :46:21.he could make clear that the change in management structure for this

:46:22. > :46:24.programme will in no way affect the superb workforce in

:46:25. > :46:31.Barrow-in-Furness, in Derby and in so many constituencies around the

:46:32. > :46:36.country. This is a measure that has been long discussed and is meant to

:46:37. > :46:42.get increased effectiveness out of the programme. If he could also in

:46:43. > :46:49.his winding up give us a comment on what the extra pressure which may be

:46:50. > :46:53.placed on an already ageing Vanguard class by the further delay and

:46:54. > :47:00.whether the Royal Navy and his department have done the scoping

:47:01. > :47:07.that this extra delay will engender? This is a debate about the

:47:08. > :47:20.party next to me. They seem perfectly happy to cancel, to scrap,

:47:21. > :47:27.10,000 jobs in Faslane. If you would just sit down. All just sit down. I

:47:28. > :47:37.will explain to them. I would have been happy to take them all, but the

:47:38. > :47:43.honourable chief robot refused to take me even once. I am not taking

:47:44. > :47:47.them at all. They would be happy to throw on the unemployment

:47:48. > :47:57.scrapheap... I am not going to give weight to any of them. Not at all,

:47:58. > :48:01.no matter how many times they asked. -- give way. Let me read very

:48:02. > :48:07.quickly in the remaining time I have a list of some of the constituencies

:48:08. > :48:15.that are affected in Scotland by the submarine supply chain. Aberdeen

:48:16. > :48:21.North, Coatbridge, Bellshill, Cumbernauld, Dunfermline, East

:48:22. > :48:29.Kilbride, central Glasgow, is Glasgow, Kirkcaldy, Cowdenbeath,

:48:30. > :48:36.Paisley, Midlothian, West Aberdeenshire, West Dunbartonshire.

:48:37. > :48:42.All of those constituencies, they would throw their constituents on

:48:43. > :48:48.the unemployment scrapheap. I am not going to get any more time. I want

:48:49. > :48:56.to finish on this argument that he has made very clearly of it being

:48:57. > :49:00.morally indefensible for a state to possess nuclear weapons. I do not

:49:01. > :49:05.agree with him at all because they are there to prevent nuclear weapons

:49:06. > :49:12.being fired. If they think it is morally indefensible, if they think

:49:13. > :49:17.it is repugnant, how is it that they are happy to be under the nuclear

:49:18. > :49:25.umbrella of another nation? This is not a case of other Nato members not

:49:26. > :49:33.having nuclear weapons. I do not think I can use the word hypocrisy.

:49:34. > :49:38.It is a rank wrong that they feel able to shelter when they are happy

:49:39. > :49:43.to name call the rest of the United Kingdom for wanting to keep nuclear

:49:44. > :49:50.weapons. In fact, the question here is not do we not not go ahead with

:49:51. > :49:56.Trident? The votes for that I nailed on. This will go past the point of

:49:57. > :50:01.no return. The real question in this debate is where in which one of

:50:02. > :50:05.those members' constituencies is the nuclear toxic waste that they have

:50:06. > :50:12.admitted they would take. Where is it going to go? Which plays in

:50:13. > :50:16.Scotland? This is an extremely important debate and already this

:50:17. > :50:21.afternoon we have heard some errant wrongs in the nature of our Nato

:50:22. > :50:28.alliance. I hope you will forgive me for correcting them. Nato is a

:50:29. > :50:33.nuclear pact, Nato demands nuclear capability, Nato requires states to

:50:34. > :50:38.allow deployable nuclear weapons. It is simply incorrect to say that any

:50:39. > :50:44.Nato member states can be a member with that tolerating, allowing and

:50:45. > :50:49.even permitting the deployment of nuclear weapons from its states.

:50:50. > :50:52.Germany has artillery that is nuclear capable, Belgium has

:50:53. > :51:01.aircraft, Denmark has runways for it. Denmark has submarines based

:51:02. > :51:06.sport it in Danish waters. Every Nato state is nuclear capable and

:51:07. > :51:12.allows the firing of nuclear weapons from its territory. That is part of

:51:13. > :51:18.the 1949 lives. If you do not like it, do not sign it. It is very

:51:19. > :51:25.clear. And the reason Nato countries signed this alliance is for a good

:51:26. > :51:29.reason. It is because nuclear weapons work. Since 1949 no nuclear

:51:30. > :51:35.states have fought each other and no nuclear states have gone to war in

:51:36. > :51:41.any way. Why? Because nuclear weapons are utterly awful. Does he

:51:42. > :51:47.agree with many venerable academics who believe that if it had not been

:51:48. > :51:51.for nuclear weapons, it is almost certain that in the Cold War period

:51:52. > :51:54.we would have had a third conventional world war which would

:51:55. > :52:02.have been far more bloody and brutal than the first and second? I agree

:52:03. > :52:07.absolutely. The appalling nature of nuclear weapons is what keeps us

:52:08. > :52:11.safe. The very fact they are an existential threat to so many

:52:12. > :52:17.regimes and dreadful leaders around the world is exactly what puts them

:52:18. > :52:22.off. A few bunkers and no society could survive a nuclear attack and

:52:23. > :52:28.that is why they work. Nobody wishes to face them. I will give way. He is

:52:29. > :52:37.giving a very powerful speech, would he agree that Nato is about making

:52:38. > :52:43.an attack either conventional or nuclear on its members absolutely

:52:44. > :52:47.futile? The honourable member is absolutely right and in highlighting

:52:48. > :52:54.the fact that war is the real enemy, we only need look at the loss of

:52:55. > :52:58.life that war has seen in the past century. The terrible destruction

:52:59. > :53:05.led by conventional weapons that were, with great irony, stopped by

:53:06. > :53:11.the two attacks on Hiroshima. They were utterly awful and I will not in

:53:12. > :53:16.any way say that they were not. It is clear what they did was to

:53:17. > :53:21.prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of American lives and

:53:22. > :53:26.Japanese lives as well. Prisoners of war survived those and many of our

:53:27. > :53:32.relatives survived the Second World War because those two attacks, the

:53:33. > :53:35.shop and the horror of them, ended the Second World War early and thank

:53:36. > :53:43.God it did because hundreds of thousands of lives were saved. But

:53:44. > :53:47.nuclear weapons are part of a spectrum of defence, part of

:53:48. > :53:49.everything from the infantry soldier with his bayonet right the way

:53:50. > :53:56.through to the Trident nuclear submarine. They work across the

:53:57. > :54:00.entire spectrum because it is only the range that allows her Majesty's

:54:01. > :54:07.Armed Forces of the United Kingdom to intervene at an appropriate level

:54:08. > :54:12.on each occasion. But in exactly the same way as the diplomat requires

:54:13. > :54:16.the military for his words to have credibility, so too does the soldier

:54:17. > :54:22.required the submarine to know that he will not be undermined by some

:54:23. > :54:26.attack from one of the other states which may sympathise with their

:54:27. > :54:32.enemies. I am very grateful to my honourable friend who is making a

:54:33. > :54:35.powerful contribution. In his considerable experience working in

:54:36. > :54:40.the Ministry of Defence, has he ever seen a viable reorientation of

:54:41. > :54:43.defence expenditure away from the nuclear deterrent that would give us

:54:44. > :54:50.the same level of assurance round our defence? Someone has been done

:54:51. > :54:56.at various times, but only at the basic levels. The truth is when

:54:57. > :55:00.people talk about the cost of defence, and quite rightly, and they

:55:01. > :55:03.look at the cost of the nuclear deterrent, what they rarely look at

:55:04. > :55:11.is how much would the conventional alternative cost? If you truly wish

:55:12. > :55:14.to deter and persuade an enemy that you will not be steam-rollered by

:55:15. > :55:18.their wish, you will not be blackmailed by their desires, you

:55:19. > :55:25.need to have a deterrent that allows you not to strike first, but to

:55:26. > :55:29.strike back. Nothing, no conventional force, offers the same

:55:30. > :55:35.pound for pound capability as the continuous, at sea, nuclear

:55:36. > :55:42.deterrent. That is why you may not like it, but the nuclear deterrent

:55:43. > :55:46.is the cheapest alternative. I thank the honourable gentleman. He talks a

:55:47. > :55:49.lot about the deterrent. The deterrent is not working when we

:55:50. > :55:57.have Russian submarines in our coastal waters, spotted not by

:55:58. > :56:01.maritime patrol aircraft or vessels, but by fishing boats. We are in the

:56:02. > :56:06.ridiculous situation that our deterrent is either nuke them or

:56:07. > :56:15.chased them away with these bayonets.

:56:16. > :56:20.The lady makes a factually unsound point at the factually unsound point

:56:21. > :56:24.is that our capabilities are indeed to chase them away with Hunter

:56:25. > :56:27.submarines and with the Royal Navy patrol vessels and that is exactly

:56:28. > :56:31.what they are doing, but what is most important is that when we see

:56:32. > :56:36.those Russian submarines coming towards us, we not immediately

:56:37. > :56:44.think, let us bow to Mr Putin's latest desires, let us bow towards

:56:45. > :56:50.the Kremlin's wishes. No, we think, they won't dare and we know that

:56:51. > :56:54.they won't dare and that is what guarantees as the independence of

:56:55. > :56:57.movement that we require as an active supporter of human rights and

:56:58. > :57:02.of the dignity of humanity in this world. Would you accept that the

:57:03. > :57:06.ultimate proof that they are a deterrent is the fact that while the

:57:07. > :57:12.submarines may be circling around the UK, they are not firing

:57:13. > :57:16.missiles? The honourable member is absolutely right, of course. The one

:57:17. > :57:20.last point I would like to make is that as we look around the world

:57:21. > :57:28.today and we say the real threat is of course militant Jihad -ism or

:57:29. > :57:32.something to do with the dirty bomb. Well, of course, that is true

:57:33. > :57:36.but I wonder how many members would have looked around the world 20

:57:37. > :57:39.years ago and said we have got to be worried about Isis. I wonder how

:57:40. > :57:42.many members would have looked around the world and said a

:57:43. > :57:49.resurgent Russia after the end of the Cold War... I must make

:57:50. > :57:52.progress. The problem is not going to be that Russia is going to be one

:57:53. > :57:56.of our allies as we very much hoped it would be in the 90s, but the fact

:57:57. > :57:59.that she's going to be resurgent. She would have changed one of the

:58:00. > :58:03.borders of a European country since the first time since 1945. She's

:58:04. > :58:13.going to be sponsoring militias in the UK going -- in the Ukraine. Who

:58:14. > :58:17.would have predicted this? I would wager no one and because of this

:58:18. > :58:23.inability to predict, it is essential that we here in the UK

:58:24. > :58:27.guarantee the ultimate security for us and for our children. It is not

:58:28. > :58:30.enough to wish for peace. You must work for it and you must fight for

:58:31. > :58:34.it and the nuclear deterrent is the ultimate proof that we will both

:58:35. > :58:43.work and fight for our own security. I should start by

:58:44. > :58:49.declaring an interest as a member of the Scottish CND. Like the other

:58:50. > :58:53.members of the Public Accounts Committee, has died this debate with

:58:54. > :58:57.some advantage in that we took evidence from the permanent

:58:58. > :59:02.undersecretary to the Ministry of Defence and we heard for ourselves

:59:03. > :59:04.the MoD's misgivings about Trident, about how it is unaffordable and

:59:05. > :59:10.about how would threaten spending on other equipment. We are hearing the

:59:11. > :59:14.Prime Minister's war drums beating, that he wants to open another

:59:15. > :59:17.waterfront in Syria to enter the current commitments of service

:59:18. > :59:24.personnel around the globe including you rock and Afghanistan. While we

:59:25. > :59:27.have troops engaged abroad, the MoD was telling us that the inventory of

:59:28. > :59:30.support material for the Armed Forces has been cut by a quarter in

:59:31. > :59:35.the last four years and is about to be slashed from ?30 million to less

:59:36. > :59:41.than ?10 billion by keeping what is described as the minimum amount of

:59:42. > :59:46.kit. But spending on Trident is to be protected and enhanced. We were

:59:47. > :59:50.told that a huge gap, some ?8.5 billion exist between what the

:59:51. > :59:54.generals, the admirals, in the air Chief Marshal 's say that the Armed

:59:55. > :59:57.Forces need and what is Whitehall is prepared to provide. In the words of

:59:58. > :00:00.the permanent undersecretary, a process of going through what people

:00:01. > :00:04.want and saying, I know you would like that fantastic new thing,

:00:05. > :00:10.actually what you need is this will lower the bill. So why can't the

:00:11. > :00:14.encounters will be telling the Armed Forces what they really need but

:00:15. > :00:17.spending on Trident will be sacrosanct. There will not be

:00:18. > :00:20.back-up body armour for troops on the battlefield but there will be

:00:21. > :00:23.plenty of cash for Trident. Provision of troop transport options

:00:24. > :00:27.will be a matter for Whitehall, but the transport of weapons of mass

:00:28. > :00:31.destruction cannot be questioned. I have to say, the nuclear enterprise

:00:32. > :00:34.we were told is what keeps the MoD senior civil servants awake at

:00:35. > :00:40.night. The permanent undersecretary said that the current annual running

:00:41. > :00:45.costs of Trident is in excess of ?3.5 billion. But if it is renewed,

:00:46. > :00:52.this will rise to be more than ?5 billion per year. He said that he

:00:53. > :00:57.could drive savings in other areas, but that project is a monster, I am

:00:58. > :01:01.quoting, and it is an incredibly completed area in which to try to

:01:02. > :01:06.estimate future costs. So while Trident and other unusable and

:01:07. > :01:10.abhorrent abuse of scientific discovery and human imagination can

:01:11. > :01:14.name its pride and pick the pockets of any other bodies in the MoD,

:01:15. > :01:19.other parts of the servers are resourced or started on a white win.

:01:20. > :01:22.The honourable member is very kind in giving way and I appreciate that

:01:23. > :01:28.she was in Australia at the time and indeed acting in various episodes of

:01:29. > :01:33.home and away but would she be aware that the CND during the 1970s was

:01:34. > :01:36.largely funded by the KGB as has been proven and some of these

:01:37. > :01:40.arguments that come out to sound a little hollow when they are made

:01:41. > :01:43.with the Castlebar enemies. I think that is a very amusing intervention

:01:44. > :01:51.given that I am mentally quoting from the MoD's so-called chief

:01:52. > :01:56.executive. Really, comments about me. That is not worthy of this

:01:57. > :02:03.place. The air crews that the Prime Minister wants in the Syrians guide

:02:04. > :02:07.can't be sure of a reliable surprise of spare parts for their planes but

:02:08. > :02:13.Trident will always have whatever it needs. In the midst of that mess,

:02:14. > :02:17.there is actually another insult as the MoD outsources logistics and

:02:18. > :02:22.supply for the Armed Forces to an American firm that started out

:02:23. > :02:24.providing advice to the American defence industry. Those of us who

:02:25. > :02:28.campaigned in the independence referendum will recall being told

:02:29. > :02:30.that no vital pieces of defence infrastructure are provided by

:02:31. > :02:37.companies from outwith your borders. How things change and yet stay so

:02:38. > :02:43.much the same. We might want to take note of the legal position as well.

:02:44. > :02:47.My constituent, Lord Murray, a former Lord Advocate for Scotland

:02:48. > :02:49.and a respected legal figure has offered the opinion that nuclear

:02:50. > :02:57.weapons are illegal under international law. In light of what

:02:58. > :03:01.the honourable member was saying about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Lord

:03:02. > :03:05.Murray was a serving soldier preparing to attack Japanese

:03:06. > :03:09.positions when the first atomic bomb was dropped in Hiroshima 70 years

:03:10. > :03:13.ago and he thinks that may well have saved his life. However, he formed

:03:14. > :03:16.the opinion then in spite of the preservation of his own life, that

:03:17. > :03:21.the weapon is probably illegal and his opinion has not changed in the

:03:22. > :03:23.seven deadly sins. He suggests that the International Court of Justice

:03:24. > :03:36.might use the occasion of the case being brought by the Marshall

:03:37. > :03:39.Islands to update and enhance its 1996 ruling. In 1996, the ICJ ruled

:03:40. > :03:42.that the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons was illegal and it

:03:43. > :03:44.may well decide now to rule that the possession of these weapons is

:03:45. > :03:50.illegal. The Government might not wish to take any note of legal

:03:51. > :03:53.advice on military issues some previous governments have indeed

:03:54. > :03:56.shown a reluctance to take such advice do, but surely ministers will

:03:57. > :04:00.not wish to ignore the effects on other areas of defence spending that

:04:01. > :04:04.communes Trident would have. They don't have to listen to us. They can

:04:05. > :04:08.speak to the official that the MoD. Cancelling Trident would be very

:04:09. > :04:12.good for their sleep patterns. The combined effects of spending cuts

:04:13. > :04:18.and the blind insistence on spending huge sums on a virility Tilton would

:04:19. > :04:22.leave poorly equipped front-line service personnel even worse off. I

:04:23. > :04:23.would certainly hope the Government would have the decency to consider

:04:24. > :04:30.them. Thank you very much, Madam them. Thank you very much, Madam

:04:31. > :04:33.Deputy Speaker. I was concerned with this debate today when I saw that it

:04:34. > :04:36.was one sentence, that this house believes that Trident should not be

:04:37. > :04:39.renewed. There is not much substance behind that and as the debate has

:04:40. > :04:43.gone on this it worries me more me more and more. We're deserted beach

:04:44. > :04:46.which talks about whether Trident may be legal or not. That is a

:04:47. > :04:50.matter for a legal debate, but the fact is, Madam Deputy is bigger, it

:04:51. > :04:56.exists. Nuclear weapons exist. I will give away. Does my honourable

:04:57. > :05:01.friend think that there are so many nations that have already been

:05:02. > :05:07.mentioned that have nuclear deterrents that nobody has looked

:05:08. > :05:11.into this? Maybe the honourable lady should admit she is perhaps wrong or

:05:12. > :05:16.it is a personal interpretation. As my honourable friend makes clear

:05:17. > :05:19.their, a lot of legal advice on issues like this are interpretation,

:05:20. > :05:23.but I think the point I want to come to you is that we can't worry our

:05:24. > :05:27.head in the sand and say we are not going to be involved with something

:05:28. > :05:32.which exists. The fact is a nuclear threat exists. I am afraid he

:05:33. > :05:37.doesn't appear to be still in his place, but the honourable gentleman

:05:38. > :05:41.and myself went to Ukraine. We went to Kiev. This is after the Russian

:05:42. > :05:50.intervention in that area and, as was mentioned earlier, it was made

:05:51. > :05:54.clear that for unilateral disarmament, the borders of Ukraine

:05:55. > :05:57.would be protected by the US and UK and the Russian Federation, and yet

:05:58. > :06:02.when the Russian Federation Walton, there was nothing that could be

:06:03. > :06:05.done. I just mentioned in a Foreign Office questions earlier today, the

:06:06. > :06:08.world's attention may have shifted to the situation in the Middle East

:06:09. > :06:16.and Syria, but there is a live war going on today in Ukraine and I hold

:06:17. > :06:20.the US part responsible for that, because the weak foreign policy by

:06:21. > :06:23.what I consider to be one of the worst presidents that the United

:06:24. > :06:27.States has had, which allowed Russia to take strategic decisions and what

:06:28. > :06:32.into countries like Ukraine, knowing that there was no deterrent to do

:06:33. > :06:38.that and that is what this debate is about. It is about deterrent and my

:06:39. > :06:41.honourable friend said you don't have a burglar alarm because you

:06:42. > :06:48.want people to burgle your house, you have it as a deterrent and it is

:06:49. > :06:55.incredible that any world which is so dangerous today that we have a

:06:56. > :07:02.debate which would try to disarm was as if the rest of the world would

:07:03. > :07:05.then fall into line. I will give way. I was intrigued by what you

:07:06. > :07:08.were saying and following your logic about Russia invading Ukraine, given

:07:09. > :07:15.that we have this deterrent, it surely hasn't worked there in

:07:16. > :07:19.Russia, has it not? And grateful for the intervention because actually he

:07:20. > :07:24.makes my point the other way. There was no deterrent to stop Russia

:07:25. > :07:28.going into Ukraine because the present rightly recognised that

:07:29. > :07:32.President Obama will not intervene into these international affairs.

:07:33. > :07:36.There was no checks and balances, no counter weight to what has become a

:07:37. > :07:42.new superpower and he just walked in and has been allowed to do so. Will

:07:43. > :07:47.my friend recognise that Ukraine was persuaded to give up its nuclear

:07:48. > :07:50.weapons? As a result, Putin has been able to rule Russia over

:07:51. > :07:57.international agreement. I would come to this point, this debate

:07:58. > :08:02.today is not about war mongering. It is not about a desire to launch

:08:03. > :08:07.nuclear weapons. It is in fact the direct opposite of that. It is about

:08:08. > :08:14.the fact that a nuclear deterrent has stopped major world conflicts

:08:15. > :08:23.and today we see there are conflicts taking place in these countries and

:08:24. > :08:26.when we talk about the threat of perhaps Daesh getting their hands on

:08:27. > :08:30.nuclear weapons or North Korea who would be able to launch an attack on

:08:31. > :08:33.South Korea, let's not forget there was never a peace treaty between

:08:34. > :08:37.North Korea and South Korea. Technically, they are still at work,

:08:38. > :08:43.but they been able to face each other off with conventional weapons

:08:44. > :08:47.from the last decade which, if that didn't track within nuclear

:08:48. > :08:50.Western intervention on South Korea Western intervention on South Korea

:08:51. > :08:55.to make sure that it can counteract that threat from North Korea.

:08:56. > :09:00.Otherwise, there will be hundreds of thousands of innocent people

:09:01. > :09:06.murdered. By a regime with no other intention than just wanting to wipe

:09:07. > :09:09.out its neighbour. That is what a deterrent prevents, Madam Deputy

:09:10. > :09:18.Speaker. That is why this debate is so important, because nobody in this

:09:19. > :09:22.room in Nato, nobody in the Western world, probably not even President

:09:23. > :09:26.Putin, would want to use nuclear weapons. That is not what this

:09:27. > :09:31.debate is about. But it is about making sure that when something

:09:32. > :09:36.exists that those enemies who would use it don't have the opportunity to

:09:37. > :09:41.use it because they know it would be pointless. They know it would not

:09:42. > :09:45.lead to anything. North Korea will not launch an nuclear weapons on

:09:46. > :09:50.South Korea if it knows that ten seconds later it will disappear off

:09:51. > :09:53.the face of the map as well. That, however unpalatable that truth may

:09:54. > :09:57.be, that is the truth would have kept the peace. And if we look at

:09:58. > :10:01.the First World War and then we look at the Second World War, fought with

:10:02. > :10:06.conventional weapons, but the death toll in those third years was far

:10:07. > :10:12.higher and far more civilians killed in the Second World War than the

:10:13. > :10:16.First World War and as technology advances, as the war is increased,

:10:17. > :10:22.you notice that civilian population dies more and more. It was

:10:23. > :10:25.noticeable that when my right honourable friend the Prime Minister

:10:26. > :10:31.stood in that dispatch box earlier this week, he made it absolutely

:10:32. > :10:35.clear that military action which may be considered in Syria is being

:10:36. > :10:43.considered as part of a wider programme with targeted intervention

:10:44. > :10:48.to try and stop civilian death. Western leaders today spend most of

:10:49. > :10:51.their time trying to work out how we can intervene by reducing civilian

:10:52. > :10:55.deaths and there is nothing better to reduce a civilian death if you

:10:56. > :10:59.know that the Government who may be pushing their people into this work

:11:00. > :11:02.knows that they themselves would be wiped out. And that is hugely

:11:03. > :11:14.important in this area. There has been a lot of talk about

:11:15. > :11:20.whether it is the right thing to spend the money on. It amounts to is

:11:21. > :11:30.euro .2% of GDP. I question in this house what would award, even with

:11:31. > :11:36.conventional weapons do to the GDP production of Europe and the Western

:11:37. > :11:40.world? Would also like to reflect on the fact that the 31 billion is

:11:41. > :11:47.rather less than the debt interest payment we have to make as a legacy

:11:48. > :11:53.from the last government? I perhaps do not want to get too skewed into

:11:54. > :11:58.other debates today, but he sees a very important issue. He makes an

:11:59. > :12:04.important comment. We cannot have a solid defence in this country and we

:12:05. > :12:08.cannot have a capable, Strategic Defence Review unless we have a

:12:09. > :12:14.strong economy and that has to go hand in hand with this debate. In

:12:15. > :12:18.summing up, none of us today want to renew Trident because we are

:12:19. > :12:25.warmongers, we are the exact opposite. But we have to be aware of

:12:26. > :12:30.the threat that exist in our world, threats we have to be capable of

:12:31. > :12:36.responding to, but we hope we never do have to respond to. The proof of

:12:37. > :12:41.the last 70 odd years has shut shown that even in the Cuban missile

:12:42. > :12:47.crisis when President Kennedy said we are eyeball to eyeball, why did

:12:48. > :12:50.the Russians back down? They knew it would mean unilateral destruction of

:12:51. > :12:55.their own country as well as the country they were attacking. No

:12:56. > :13:05.matter how unpalatable the renewal of Trident may be, it works. This is

:13:06. > :13:10.a matter of profound national importance and is a debate about the

:13:11. > :13:15.security of our nation and about the standing of our nation amongst our

:13:16. > :13:19.allies and in the eyes of our adversaries. The history of our

:13:20. > :13:23.position as a nuclear power stems from our desire to protect ourselves

:13:24. > :13:28.and to not shy away from our responsibilities globally. We must

:13:29. > :13:33.acknowledge the historically critical role the Labour Party has

:13:34. > :13:38.played in the development of the United Kingdom's independent nuclear

:13:39. > :13:43.deterrent. It is important to recognise the Secretary of State's

:13:44. > :13:48.call for consensus on this, which I welcome. It was Clement Attlee who

:13:49. > :13:55.began the preliminary work that paved the way for an independent,

:13:56. > :14:01.nuclear deterrent in 1945. It was in October, 1946, that the Labour

:14:02. > :14:07.Foreign Secretary pushed ahead with plans for our own system, Ernie

:14:08. > :14:11.Bevin. Let me join him in praising Clement Attlee who fought with

:14:12. > :14:14.courage and the First World War and does he not think that his own

:14:15. > :14:21.former leader would have looked at the nuclear Alliance and would have

:14:22. > :14:27.thought, if you seek peace, prepare for war as the Roman said. I

:14:28. > :14:36.absolutely agree with that. He invented it and he would agree with

:14:37. > :14:40.it. As an individual I welcome that. One of the reasons it is important

:14:41. > :14:44.for me is that my constituency of Barrow-in-Furness has always been at

:14:45. > :14:49.the heart of our independent deterrent and it is a source of

:14:50. > :14:54.immense pride in Cumbria. Not only this, but I was elected very clearly

:14:55. > :14:58.on a clear manifesto commitment and so were my colleagues which reads,

:14:59. > :15:04.Labour remains committed to a minimum, credible, independent

:15:05. > :15:11.nuclear capability. The honourable gentleman mentioned Nato and the

:15:12. > :15:13.principle of maintaining an independent deterrent is

:15:14. > :15:21.demonstrated through our commitment to our Nato allies. I thank my

:15:22. > :15:26.honourable friend and have actually visited the Barrow ship yard and

:15:27. > :15:30.understand his passion to the workforce and his commitment to the

:15:31. > :15:33.project. But is it not also the case that not only did major Attlee

:15:34. > :15:37.support the nuclear deterrent, but also figures from the left of the

:15:38. > :15:40.left of them look Labour Party, including Nye Bevan who said we

:15:41. > :15:48.should not walk naked into the conference chamber? I could not put

:15:49. > :15:50.it better. It is one of our party's greatest achievements and that

:15:51. > :15:55.should be recognised at every opportunity. Can I thank my

:15:56. > :16:01.honourable friend for her steadfast support for the industry and for the

:16:02. > :16:04.deterrent. She knows what this means to the manufacturing sector in her

:16:05. > :16:12.constituency. I thank you for giving way. To bring things into a more

:16:13. > :16:16.modern context, does the honourable member agree with one of my

:16:17. > :16:23.constituency predecessors, Lord Browne, a former Defence Secretary,

:16:24. > :16:31.who today drew attention to the US report which basically says nuclear

:16:32. > :16:36.weapons going forward are as much at risk from cyber threat and they

:16:37. > :16:41.might be useless for deployment because of cyber attacks. You deploy

:16:42. > :16:49.them and you cannot use them. No, I do not agree with that. The most

:16:50. > :16:54.recent strategic concept from Nato reaffirmed that as long as nuclear

:16:55. > :17:00.weapons are in the world, Nato will remain a nuclear Alliance. It

:17:01. > :17:07.remains a core element of Nato strategy. I need to make some

:17:08. > :17:12.progress. The security of the allies is provided by the strategic,

:17:13. > :17:19.nuclear forces of the Alliance and we have to recognise the United

:17:20. > :17:25.Kingdom. We must maintain these relationships in regard to our Nato

:17:26. > :17:29.relationship, and we must maintain an independent nuclear deterrent.

:17:30. > :17:35.Whilst other nations have nuclear weapons, so should we. This is not

:17:36. > :17:40.about bravado or a one-upmanship, or a virility kind of test, it is a

:17:41. > :17:46.demonstration of strength and capability which provides our

:17:47. > :17:50.deterrent. Only the most naive would claim that this is fully diminished.

:17:51. > :17:55.Whilst there are other nuclear weapons in the world, the only

:17:56. > :18:01.effective nuclear deterrent is found in maintaining our own independent,

:18:02. > :18:06.nuclear weapons. Unilateralism will never work and this party has tested

:18:07. > :18:09.that theory to destruction. Only a multinational approach can rid the

:18:10. > :18:17.world of nuclear missiles. The fact of the matter is that in our country

:18:18. > :18:20.we have managed to maintain our deterrent whilst reducing our

:18:21. > :18:27.warheads. That should be acknowledged and celebrated. We are

:18:28. > :18:31.the only major, advanced, nuclear country to have demonstrated that.

:18:32. > :18:36.We cannot disregard the economics. Those well versed in history of

:18:37. > :18:43.military and civil engineering will understand the benefits of this to

:18:44. > :18:48.my constituency. The expertise in Copland and Barrow-in-Furness has

:18:49. > :18:58.cemented our leadership in the world and has provided a basis for jobs.

:18:59. > :19:05.It has attracted vast private investment. This position as world

:19:06. > :19:08.leaders has been hard earned principally by my honourable friend

:19:09. > :19:13.from Barrow-in-Furness and I, but hard earned through decades of work

:19:14. > :19:17.in the nuclear industry maintaining these skills and expertise, which is

:19:18. > :19:22.crucial to economic well-being and growth to my constituency and by

:19:23. > :19:28.county and the north-west of England. Trident replacement is

:19:29. > :19:32.forecast to generate as many as 26,000 jobs and 6000 will be based

:19:33. > :19:37.in Barrow-in-Furness. The livelihoods of many of those in the

:19:38. > :19:44.south of my constituency depend on the renewal of Trident. We heard

:19:45. > :19:48.from the Secretary of State that the GMB has described this as pie in the

:19:49. > :19:54.sky, but they have yet to put forward a comprehensive plan. We

:19:55. > :19:58.have to take into account the impact on smaller companies that make up

:19:59. > :20:04.the supply chain. The update to Parliament in February said there

:20:05. > :20:11.were over 850 potential suppliers over the UK and it is a significant

:20:12. > :20:16.national undertaking that draws on innovation, design and engineering

:20:17. > :20:20.skills available in the UK and provides employment opportunities

:20:21. > :20:25.for apprentices, trainees and graduates in a wide range of

:20:26. > :20:28.technical and other disciplines. The expertise and the innovation all

:20:29. > :20:36.have their birthplace in west and south-west Cumbria. There are

:20:37. > :20:40.benefits for thousands of graduates, apprenticeships and trainees.

:20:41. > :20:43.Opponents of the renewal will make the case that skills can be deployed

:20:44. > :20:52.in other industries without making clear what these other industries

:20:53. > :20:57.are. In fact, the proponents of diversification have had nearly four

:20:58. > :21:00.decades to come up with a plan to demonstrate how diversification

:21:01. > :21:05.would work and they still have not done it because there is no plan and

:21:06. > :21:11.there never will be a plan. We have to approach the world as we find it,

:21:12. > :21:16.not how we want it to be. To vote against renewal is to put thousands

:21:17. > :21:22.of people out of work and to waste knowledge and expertise, to neglect

:21:23. > :21:25.our duties to our allies, to diminish our ability to defend

:21:26. > :21:29.ourselves and to diminish our standing in the world. Britain has

:21:30. > :21:34.punched above its weight for centuries. We are a global leader

:21:35. > :21:39.and we should never step back from this responsibility. I find myself

:21:40. > :21:45.today in a position where I am proud to support my constituents, my

:21:46. > :21:50.constituency, my country and Labour Party policy in the best traditions

:21:51. > :21:56.of Clement Attlee. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I write this

:21:57. > :22:01.afternoon in support of renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent, but

:22:02. > :22:06.before I do that, can I pay tribute to those Labour MPs who have put

:22:07. > :22:10.party politics to one side and I'm thinking very much of the British

:22:11. > :22:14.national interest. There is no member of Parliament more valiant in

:22:15. > :22:19.that cause than the member for Barrow-in-Furness, who has been a

:22:20. > :22:23.shining example of what it looks like to stand up for your

:22:24. > :22:26.constituents, to fight for the local economy that you represent and to

:22:27. > :22:31.ensure the arguments you passionately believe in are held not

:22:32. > :22:35.just in this house, but throughout the country. Many of us could learn

:22:36. > :22:41.from the work that the honourable member does on this important

:22:42. > :22:45.matter. Can I say that I grew up on the Clyde coast, not 1 million miles

:22:46. > :22:54.away from Faslane. I went to school in Dumbarton, very close to Faslane.

:22:55. > :23:00.I know very much how important Faslane is to the local economy of

:23:01. > :23:05.that area. With over 8000 jobs that will be there by 2020, that is the

:23:06. > :23:10.engine of that part of Scotland. It is by far the largest employer in

:23:11. > :23:18.that part of Scotland. I will give way. There are in fact many jobs

:23:19. > :23:22.associated with HM Naval base Clyde and these jobs are support staff,

:23:23. > :23:29.staff in accommodation and local businesses. They would still be

:23:30. > :23:36.there if there were conventional warships based in Faslane. I admire

:23:37. > :23:40.the honourable lady's optimism, but if we are being told there will be

:23:41. > :23:47.8200 jobs, and increase as a result of the work of moving the submarines

:23:48. > :23:54.up there, if she honestly believes there will be that level of jobs

:23:55. > :24:00.directly and even more indirectly and an independent Scotland would

:24:01. > :24:05.have glorified fishery protection vessels, they could be anywhere... I

:24:06. > :24:10.will not give way. That is what we are talking about. It is misleading

:24:11. > :24:15.at best to the people of Dumbarton show to save those number of jobs

:24:16. > :24:20.and those qualities and those skills will be there without a nuclear

:24:21. > :24:23.deterrent. Does the honourable gentleman believe the people of

:24:24. > :24:27.Argyll and Bute and the people of Dumbarton are so unaware of the

:24:28. > :24:31.circumstances in which they live that day at the general election

:24:32. > :24:35.could not have worked that out themselves? Had they not believe

:24:36. > :24:42.what we were saying, I would not have been collected and Norwood my

:24:43. > :24:47.honourable friend for Dumbarton. Elections are always referendums on

:24:48. > :24:52.the future. We spent a day together on Thursday going round the aircraft

:24:53. > :24:57.carriers. Can I say to my honourable friend that if you were to take HMS

:24:58. > :25:01.Clyde out of the equation and Coulport and Faslane out of the

:25:02. > :25:05.equation and the skills and high-paid jobs, his constituency

:25:06. > :25:11.would be a poorer place as a result. I want to make progress. The

:25:12. > :25:15.independent nuclear deterrent is vital for the future of this country

:25:16. > :25:21.and for our manufacturing base, our skills base, apprenticeships. I have

:25:22. > :25:27.got constituents at BAE Systems who will be working on the programme,

:25:28. > :25:32.engineers and apprentices who are looking forward to working on that.

:25:33. > :25:38.The length of the United Kingdom will have people, men and women,

:25:39. > :25:44.young and old and apprenticeships across all skills bases who will be

:25:45. > :25:48.dependent on the nuclear deterrent and the successor class programme.

:25:49. > :25:56.We know that at our peril. You take the programme out of our proposal

:25:57. > :25:59.and it is not the threat on national security, nor the devastating impact

:26:00. > :26:03.it would have in places like HMS Clyde, it is the fact all of our

:26:04. > :26:11.communities would suffer as a result. I would beg the Labour Party

:26:12. > :26:17.to come to its senses when it comes to this matter. It should not be

:26:18. > :26:19.down to independent minded, Labour MPs who passionately believe in

:26:20. > :26:30.national security. It should Part of the Labour's defence review,

:26:31. > :26:33.I hope, will come to appreciate the unique importance that Trident has,

:26:34. > :26:38.that British national security cannot be put at risk. We cannot

:26:39. > :26:44.hope for a safer #w0r8d, we have to work in order to secure it and

:26:45. > :26:49.Trident is an integral part of that security -- safer world. And it is

:26:50. > :26:54.very much, that deterrent. I hope the Labour Party will not let us

:26:55. > :26:59.down when it comes to that crucial moment. But can I also put on record

:27:00. > :27:04.my thanks to the Secretary of State and the team at the Ministry of

:27:05. > :27:07.Defence, for yesterday they outlined in the defence and strategic review

:27:08. > :27:11.how conventional forces would fit in with the future of our country. We

:27:12. > :27:13.are not just reliant on Trident for our defence. Indeed, I do welcome

:27:14. > :27:16.the anti-submarine warfare capability aircraft which were

:27:17. > :27:19.announced yesterday, which will be based in Scotland and they will be

:27:20. > :27:25.an integral part in looking after the deterrent. I will give way. Is

:27:26. > :27:30.it not noticeable in the report published yesterday, that there were

:27:31. > :27:35.no threats in Tier 1 for which Trident would be appropriate as a

:27:36. > :27:42.response? Well, we know, we live in an unpredictable world. In fact, the

:27:43. > :27:45.key thing here is that every single Strategic Defence Review has almost

:27:46. > :27:51.been redundant by the time the you I think was dry on the paper. No-one

:27:52. > :27:58.recalled the so-called Arab Spring at the time of the last review or

:27:59. > :28:02.the resurgent Russia. We have to look at the threats, regardless what

:28:03. > :28:05.they may look like and it is never at a time of our choosing. But, the

:28:06. > :28:11.importance of conventional weapons at the heart of our defence is

:28:12. > :28:14.absolutely fightal. That's why yesterday the Government outlined

:28:15. > :28:19.across all the three services, a very, very clear strategy to ensure

:28:20. > :28:22.that conventional weapons and modernisation of our Armed Forces

:28:23. > :28:27.was integral within that, but they would not be as effective if the UK

:28:28. > :28:31.were to be stripped, unilateral of our nuclear deterrent because

:28:32. > :28:36.ultimately, it is the ween we all hope and pray -- it is the weapon we

:28:37. > :28:41.all hope and pray will never, ever be used but the very in fact we have

:28:42. > :28:45.it, sends out a very powerful message to any potential

:28:46. > :28:49.adversaries, that the UK takes our security seriously. The UK takes its

:28:50. > :28:55.defence seriously. The UK will defend its allies within Nato and we

:28:56. > :28:59.are not a country, Madame Deputy Speaker, who can sit back and hope

:29:00. > :29:02.that someone else will secure our future for us. Whenever we have done

:29:03. > :29:07.that in the past, we have sometimes been found to be wanting. The United

:29:08. > :29:12.Kingdom must always, always look after its own defence and, Madame

:29:13. > :29:16.Deputy Speaker, I hope that Trident and its successor class submarines

:29:17. > :29:22.will always be at the heart of that U thank you very much.

:29:23. > :29:32.-- thank you very much. Alistair car mikele Thank you Madame

:29:33. > :29:39.Deputy Speaker, can I thaung for the thank you for the opportunity to

:29:40. > :29:43.take place in this debate. It is a debate that the House hasn't given

:29:44. > :29:48.sufficient time to in recent years, although we know it is an issue we

:29:49. > :29:51.have to address and for any Government business managers, for

:29:52. > :29:55.future purpose, the House would be better served by more substantial

:29:56. > :29:59.moment in Government time, which may allow a wider consideration of the

:30:00. > :30:04.challenges that face us. Inevitably, we are dealing here today with an

:30:05. > :30:08.Opposition Day debate and I listened with very great care to the speech

:30:09. > :30:12.of the honourable member for Argyll and Bute. It is rives remarkable, I

:30:13. > :30:15.thought that -- it was quite remarkable, I thought that much of

:30:16. > :30:20.his speech focussed on the position of the Labour Party, as it did on

:30:21. > :30:24.the Government. That's a novel position for an Opposition Day

:30:25. > :30:28.debate. But I have to say, in fairness, I'm not entirely without

:30:29. > :30:38.sympathy for the approach, given the difficulties that there are in the

:30:39. > :30:41.Labour Party. It's not that they lack a clear position, Madame Deputy

:30:42. > :30:45.Speaker, I would suggest it is that they have too many clear positions

:30:46. > :30:51.and it is difficult to reconcile them all within the party. I have

:30:52. > :30:55.sympathy for them with the review they have under taken, I wish it

:30:56. > :30:58.well. But I have to say, I have severe misgivings when I hear that

:30:59. > :31:02.they have put Ken Livingstone in charge of it. Putting Ken

:31:03. > :31:08.Livingstone in charge of a review of nuclear weaponry is a bit like

:31:09. > :31:13.putting King Herod in charge of the nursery. But when it comes to this

:31:14. > :31:16.review - I would say and I commend the honourable member for

:31:17. > :31:23.Chesterfield for his contribution in the debant the manner in which he

:31:24. > :31:27.did it - debate. The review could do worse than taking at starting point

:31:28. > :31:31.the Trident review that was carried out at the instance of my party in

:31:32. > :31:34.the last Government which looked at all the different number of

:31:35. > :31:38.alternatives and different ways in which this question could be

:31:39. > :31:42.approached. Of course I give way. I'm grateful to the honourable

:31:43. > :31:50.gentleman for giving way. Perhaps he could clarify the stance within his

:31:51. > :32:02.own party. A member in my constituency claimed that - who

:32:03. > :32:08.represents his in his party claimed you didn't need to have it as it

:32:09. > :32:15.wasn't used in the Falkland Islands. Maybe the honourable gentleman can

:32:16. > :32:20.give clarification. I will not be responsible for referry member of my

:32:21. > :32:24.party in every constituency, any more than the honourable lady would

:32:25. > :32:28.for her party. I will come to my party's position in a second. I

:32:29. > :32:34.think it is one that is central to the debate which I do wish to put in

:32:35. > :32:37.record. If she wish to know it, she could have advantage of considering

:32:38. > :32:39.the terms of the amendment which has been tabled but unfortunately has

:32:40. > :32:42.not been selected for division today. It is worth remembering that

:32:43. > :32:46.we are only having this debate because in fact the main gate

:32:47. > :32:51.decision, which was to have been held in the last Parliament, or

:32:52. > :32:57.taken in the last Parliament, was in fact delayed until this Parliament

:32:58. > :33:01.and when the minister who is going to look at this debate, I would

:33:02. > :33:08.invite him to accept that although his party wanted to take McMain gate

:33:09. > :33:10.decision in the last Parliament, in fact, events would vindicate

:33:11. > :33:15.decisions that were taken and this is the right point in the cycle in

:33:16. > :33:21.which to be taking T Madame Deputy Speaker, we live in an ever-changing

:33:22. > :33:26.and uncertain world. -- taking it. As the honourable member from El

:33:27. > :33:32.Americas t I think, said earlier, we cannot ignore the in fact that

:33:33. > :33:37.nuclear weapons exist. -- Elmet. I would be they could be uninp

:33:38. > :33:41.vented but they are not. That's the basis on which we should approach

:33:42. > :33:47.this debate. It is not just about whether they should be renewed or

:33:48. > :33:50.not, it is what we, as the UK, as a permanent member of the United

:33:51. > :33:53.Nations Security Council, can do to take a lead in the international

:33:54. > :33:57.security and the nuclear power, to ensure that there is now a serious

:33:58. > :34:03.movement towards multilateral new clear disarmament. This was a

:34:04. > :34:06.formative debate, in my early political years, Madame Deputy

:34:07. > :34:11.Speaker, as indeed I think it probably was for yourself in the

:34:12. > :34:15.1987 general election but the world was a very different place in 1987.

:34:16. > :34:20.The Cold War was still at its height. The Soviet Union still

:34:21. > :34:25.existed. We have seen enormous change in that time, but the change

:34:26. > :34:29.has not all been in one direction. You have only to look at the

:34:30. > :34:34.situation in Ukraine and the Crimea, to realise in fact that these old

:34:35. > :34:39.enmities never die. And it is not really pertinent to say what is a

:34:40. > :34:44.Tier 1 or a tinchts er 2 risk at this point. It is what is going to

:34:45. > :34:48.be the situation in the future. -- or Tier 2 risk. Having said all

:34:49. > :34:52.that, I would still say that the Government's determination to pursue

:34:53. > :34:57.a like-for-like replacement for Trident ignores the different world

:34:58. > :35:02.in which we now live, and indeed it misses the opportunity that we have,

:35:03. > :35:06.as a force for multilateral nuclear disarmament, to take a different

:35:07. > :35:12.approach, to take a step down the nuclear ladder. And as a result

:35:13. > :35:16.actually, as a nuclear power, to meet our obligations, under the

:35:17. > :35:20.various nuclear nonproliferation treaties. The Secretary of State,

:35:21. > :35:25.when he was addressing the House, spoke of what he has done to reduce

:35:26. > :35:29.the number of nuclear warheads that are currently available for

:35:30. > :35:38.deployment. And I commend him for that. He lamented the fact that this

:35:39. > :35:41.has solace I had little response from other nuclear or

:35:42. > :35:45.nuclear-aspiring countries. I have to say to him, that I suspect the

:35:46. > :35:50.reason for that is because despite the reduction inform the number of

:35:51. > :35:56.warheads, the Government continues to cling to the notion of continued

:35:57. > :36:00.at-sea deterrent. I think the time has now come for a very long and

:36:01. > :36:03.serious look to whether that remains a an appropriate way. The conclusion

:36:04. > :36:09.my party has reached is that it is no longer necessary, it is no longer

:36:10. > :36:14.appropriate and that is what we would like to see, the end to

:36:15. > :36:17.continuous at-sea nuclear deterrents, whilst of course

:36:18. > :36:25.maintaining our deterrent would allow us to take something of a lead

:36:26. > :36:31.in taking the step down... If the how many wants to intervene, I will

:36:32. > :36:34.take an intervention, I will not take sedentary chunteringing. We are

:36:35. > :36:40.baffled about how this part-time deterrent would work. Why would it

:36:41. > :36:43.save money? How would it stop the fist strike capability? And what

:36:44. > :36:48.would they do when they were not deterring? If the honourable member

:36:49. > :36:51.wishes to have a serious debate about this, then I'm well in the

:36:52. > :36:56.market for that. He should understand that this is a legitimate

:36:57. > :37:01.and substantial proposal which does command a lot of support amongst

:37:02. > :37:05.many people hop understand and accept the need for nuclear weaponry

:37:06. > :37:12.but who are prepared to look at how we use our position as a nuclear

:37:13. > :37:19.power as a proponent of nuclear disarmament, rather than as

:37:20. > :37:24.something which is... Well, before he continues, to finish, to shake

:37:25. > :37:28.his head, he may well find his own review comes up to something very

:37:29. > :37:32.similar to this. So, just be careful not to disparage today what you

:37:33. > :37:41.might find in your manifesto tomorrow. Madame Deputy Speaker,

:37:42. > :37:44.time I'm afraid is against me. It is unfortunate that this debate has

:37:45. > :37:48.occasionally generated more heat than light, but it is an important

:37:49. > :37:52.one that this House has to have. I suspect we shall be returning to it

:37:53. > :37:59.in the months and years to come. When we do so, we shall do that on

:38:00. > :38:09.the basis that this is our opportunity to be a a leading force.

:38:10. > :38:13.In nuclear disarmament. Order, it is a lively debate. But we are running

:38:14. > :38:17.out of time. After the next contribution, I will have to reduce

:38:18. > :38:22.the time limit for backbench speeches to four minutes.

:38:23. > :38:27.Dr Julian Lewis. Thank you very much Madame Deputy

:38:28. > :38:31.Speaker for permission to speak to this debate. I apologise to the

:38:32. > :38:35.House that because I was chairing a public session of the Defence Select

:38:36. > :38:39.Committee, I could not be here for the opening speeches. And I have

:38:40. > :38:46.deliberately refrained for making any interventions for that reason as

:38:47. > :38:49.well. I must say that although the issue of strategic nuclear deterrent

:38:50. > :38:54.is very divisive, I think there is one thing we can agree about, which

:38:55. > :39:00.is that the calibre of the speeches on both sides of the House, and on

:39:01. > :39:07.both sides of the argument, has been very high indeed. Now, if the

:39:08. > :39:11.Chairman of the Defence Select Committee had to mirror the views of

:39:12. > :39:16.the members of that committee, I would spend probably just over 90%

:39:17. > :39:22.of my time arguing passionately in favour of the nuclear deterrent and

:39:23. > :39:25.just under 10% of my time arguing equally passionately against the new

:39:26. > :39:32.clear deterrent because we have and are delighted to have on the Defence

:39:33. > :39:38.Select Committee the honourable member for Dunfermline and West

:39:39. > :39:42.Fife, who is a consistent and thoughtful opponent of Trident.

:39:43. > :39:46.Fortunately, however, I do not have to mirror those views. The views I'm

:39:47. > :39:51.expected to put forward are clearly marked. They are my own views, and

:39:52. > :39:54.they have been pretty much the same for 35 years, half of them outside

:39:55. > :40:00.this House and the remaining time inside this House. And it sometimes

:40:01. > :40:03.comes as a bit of a surprise to people on my having been elected to

:40:04. > :40:09.zap chair the Defence Select Committee, when they look at the

:40:10. > :40:17.list of five people from the Labour Opposition who were kind enough to

:40:18. > :40:20.nominate me to that role. One was the Shadow Armed Forces Minister,

:40:21. > :40:26.the honourable gentleman for North Durham and that hardly comes as a

:40:27. > :40:32.surprise. But at the other end of the spectrum I was fortunate enough

:40:33. > :40:36.to enjoy the support of the President Leader of the Opposition,

:40:37. > :40:42.and the reason for that was that we both agree on one thing, even though

:40:43. > :40:46.our views are diametrically opposed from one another on whether we

:40:47. > :40:49.should continue to have a nuclear deterrent, we both agree that both

:40:50. > :40:53.sides of the case have a good argument to make and when you make

:40:54. > :41:00.it on the floor of the House, everybody learns something. And, in

:41:01. > :41:05.particular, with the support of the now Leader of the Opposition, on the

:41:06. > :41:10.17th January 2013, I managed to secure the first full debate on the

:41:11. > :41:17.whole issue of Trident and deterrents, in this main chamber,

:41:18. > :41:24.since that vote on 14th March 2007, when the initial gate was approved.

:41:25. > :41:30.I think that anybody that really wants to see both sides of the

:41:31. > :41:34.intellectual argument at their best could do no better than to copy that

:41:35. > :41:40.of that debate. I shall just pick out from it the five main military

:41:41. > :41:46.arguments and I fear I won't have enough time to deal with the point

:41:47. > :41:52.about cyber vulnerability, so I commend to the house the article in

:41:53. > :41:58.the Guardian today and the comments by Doctor Franklin Miller, a leading

:41:59. > :42:01.expert on the American nuclear systems and the holder of an

:42:02. > :42:06.honorary knighthood from this country about why it is that there

:42:07. > :42:10.is no question of the nuclear deterrent being connected in any way

:42:11. > :42:18.to the Internet and in being anyway vulnerable. Also on the question of

:42:19. > :42:21.tears. Tier two threats are often more dangerous than Tier one threats

:42:22. > :42:26.and that is why the select committee has just published a report

:42:27. > :42:30.challenging the utility of ranking frets in this way. Let me stick to

:42:31. > :42:37.my few arguments and there is not much time for many. -- any detail,

:42:38. > :42:42.unless anyone is kind enough to intervene. The first is the most

:42:43. > :42:49.important, the future military threats and complex will be no more

:42:50. > :42:51.predictable than those who have engulfed us throughout the 20th

:42:52. > :43:04.century. That is the justification for preserving Armed Forces in peace

:43:05. > :43:09.time. Does he agree a deterrent is probably our best defence? This

:43:10. > :43:13.directly leads to what it is to say you are using Trident. Those of us

:43:14. > :43:19.who believe that a position of a deadly weapon is the best method of

:43:20. > :43:24.stopping people who possess similar ones against using it against you is

:43:25. > :43:31.that Trident is in use every day of the week. And if ever the button had

:43:32. > :43:42.to be pressed,, it would have totally failed in its purpose. Where

:43:43. > :43:46.as democracies are reluctant to use nuclear weapon against non-nuclear

:43:47. > :43:50.dictatorships, although they did in 1945 against Japan, the reverse is

:43:51. > :43:58.not true. Let's consider what might have happened in 1982 if non-nuclear

:43:59. > :44:00.Britain had been facing Argentina with just a few nuclear bombs. Would

:44:01. > :44:16.we have been dared to use? The we have been dared to use? The

:44:17. > :44:22.United Kingdom has played a important role. Democratic countries

:44:23. > :44:25.without nuclear weapons have little choice but to either declare

:44:26. > :44:34.themselves neutral and help for the best all rely on the nuclear

:44:35. > :44:39.umbrella of their allies. We are a nuclear power already and it is hard

:44:40. > :44:45.to defeat us conventionally, because of the English Channel. The fourth

:44:46. > :44:49.argument is that because the United States is our closest ally, if the

:44:50. > :44:55.continent of Europe were ever occupied and the nuclear forces of

:44:56. > :45:01.the United States had not been used, and enemy might feel that they could

:45:02. > :45:08.attack us with nuclear weapons. For those who say that there are nuclear

:45:09. > :45:13.deterrent in the hands of the Americans, what would he make of

:45:14. > :45:17.every Prime Minister having to write a letter about every submarine,

:45:18. > :45:23.which he hasn't seen? He is absolutely right. The Trident

:45:24. > :45:28.nuclear system is entirely autonomous and nothing, not the

:45:29. > :45:35.Americans or any form of cyber bug can possibly intervene if, heaven

:45:36. > :45:41.forbid, the worst happened and the United Kingdom were attacked in part

:45:42. > :45:45.or in whole and the submarine commander had to open that dread

:45:46. > :45:51.letter, which the Prime Minister has written. And the fifth and final of

:45:52. > :45:55.the military argument is my most important of all. And that is the

:45:56. > :46:04.one I put two people who try and say, well, you're inflicting cuts on

:46:05. > :46:10.our conventional capability. There is no quantity of conventional

:46:11. > :46:14.forces which can compensate for the military disadvantage that faces a

:46:15. > :46:20.non-nuclear country in a war against a nuclear armed enemy. The atomic

:46:21. > :46:24.bombing of Japan is the perfect example, because the emperor was

:46:25. > :46:29.forced soon surrender, but also because what might have happened

:46:30. > :46:37.under the reversed scenario. -- forced to surrender. If Joe van --

:46:38. > :46:47.Japan had developed nuclear weapons and the allies hadn't... I

:46:48. > :46:53.congratulate the SNP on having given us this opportunity today. Can I

:46:54. > :47:01.make it clear at the beginning that during the Cold War period, I was a

:47:02. > :47:14.multi-naturalist. I have no moral objections to nuclear weapons of

:47:15. > :47:23.nuclear power. -- multi-. Naturalist. Time has moved on and we

:47:24. > :47:28.live in a different world nowadays. There are two arguments put forward

:47:29. > :47:33.as to why the UK should have a independent nuclear deterrent. I

:47:34. > :47:37.have to say, in my opinion, both of them are myths. The first myth is

:47:38. > :47:43.that the system is independent, it is not. The UK has for nuclear

:47:44. > :47:47.submarines, each can carry up to eight missiles. Each missile can

:47:48. > :47:56.carry up to five nuclear warheads. The UK does not own the missiles. It

:47:57. > :48:01.loans them from America, where they are made and maintained and tested.

:48:02. > :48:06.They had to go to a naval base in Georgia to have the missiles fitted.

:48:07. > :48:12.It is said that we have operational independence. Well, that is also a

:48:13. > :48:18.myth. Because does anybody seriously believe that the UK could deploy and

:48:19. > :48:23.use nuclear weapons anywhere in the world without the approval of the

:48:24. > :48:34.Americans? I don't believe that. Well... Well, let those who believe

:48:35. > :48:40.it make their arguments. I don't. The second... The second myth is

:48:41. > :48:49.that if the United Kingdom did not have nuclear weapons, that

:48:50. > :48:54.somehow... I will. I am very grateful. He states as a matter of

:48:55. > :48:58.fact that he asserts that it is a myth. Can he substantiate why he

:48:59. > :49:05.thinks what we on this side of the house say is independent in

:49:06. > :49:11.operational terms, why it is a myth, apart from just spouting something

:49:12. > :49:20.that has been used by Labour Party members without substantiation. --

:49:21. > :49:30.multi-lateralist. The last time the UK acted with Israel and the Suez

:49:31. > :49:35.Canal, if they read the memoirs of Harold Macmillan, he made it

:49:36. > :49:40.perfectly clear that the Americans said we had to leave the Suez Canal

:49:41. > :49:44.and end our military action. If they didn't, they would bankrupt the

:49:45. > :49:48.country. If the honourable member feels that the Americans would quite

:49:49. > :49:53.happily let us go and deploy our nuclear weapons and use them, he

:49:54. > :50:00.can't believe that. I don't. Move on. The second... I will. Thank you.

:50:01. > :50:05.I think he makes an extremely good point. Should the British public

:50:06. > :50:11.sleep soundly in their beds, knowing that in a few years' time, when it

:50:12. > :50:18.comes to our nuclear weapons, Donald might hold the trump card? The

:50:19. > :50:25.second myth, I believe, which has been argued to date, that is often

:50:26. > :50:29.put around is that if the UK didn't have nuclear weapons, it would lose

:50:30. > :50:34.its place on the UN Security Council. Of course, that is another

:50:35. > :50:38.nonsense. Because when the security council was formed, only one of the

:50:39. > :50:46.five permanent members had nuclear weapons. That was America. None of

:50:47. > :50:52.the others did. This country, like all other developed countries, does

:50:53. > :50:55.face threats with security from rogue states, international

:50:56. > :51:01.terrorist groups and from groups within our own society who want to

:51:02. > :51:06.destroy it. In my opinion, these threats are best met by our

:51:07. > :51:10.membership of Nato. The most successful mutual defence pact in

:51:11. > :51:16.history, which had never attacked anybody between the time it was set

:51:17. > :51:22.up in 1948 until the ending of the Cold War. The tragedy of Nato was

:51:23. > :51:27.that after the Cold War, it became not a mutual defence pact, but the

:51:28. > :51:34.world's placement. That has caused enormous problems within member

:51:35. > :51:39.countries of Nato. The way of dealing with threats from domestic

:51:40. > :51:46.terrorism is by having a fully staffed, fully financed security

:51:47. > :51:56.service. By ensuring that the police have money to do the job. They need

:51:57. > :52:00.to do. And by ensuring that our own conventional forces are given the

:52:01. > :52:07.tools of the job when they are sent into military conflicts on our

:52:08. > :52:12.behalf. And let me make this point. We've witnessed in this country

:52:13. > :52:18.terrible terrorist atrocities. The London bombings. Did our ownership

:52:19. > :52:25.of nuclear weapons do anything to prevent that? We have seen at the

:52:26. > :52:32.weekend what happened in Paris. The terrible attacks in Paris. But

:52:33. > :52:39.France is a nuclear power. France does have a nuclear deterrent. But

:52:40. > :52:43.did their ownership of their nuclear deterrent deter the terrorist groups

:52:44. > :52:54.who carried out the atrocities in Paris? I am not convinced that we

:52:55. > :52:59.should spend a huge sum of money on renewing our own nuclear deterrent,

:53:00. > :53:03.which as I have already said, in my opinion, is not independent. I

:53:04. > :53:10.believe that very strongly indeed, that we should be members of Nato. I

:53:11. > :53:16.believe also that members of Nato should not be averse to contributing

:53:17. > :53:24.to the nuclear umbrella that America provides. I would have no objection

:53:25. > :53:27.to it, but the idea somehow that we should have a so-called independent

:53:28. > :53:38.nuclear deterrent, I believe, just doesn't stack up. Yesterday's

:53:39. > :53:48.national-security strategy indicated that the future of arrangements and

:53:49. > :53:54.continued reliance remains at its heart. I will content in these

:53:55. > :54:03.contribution that they do not serve Scotland at all. The costing over

:54:04. > :54:10.the lifetime is ?167 billion. These are expensive weapons. It is a

:54:11. > :54:18.status symbol for the United Kingdom, as opposed to a military

:54:19. > :54:23.weapon, I would argue. Today, we have successive Westminster

:54:24. > :54:27.governments who are obsessed with keeping a system for the next

:54:28. > :54:33.generation. Submarines equipped with missiles for the sole purpose of

:54:34. > :54:36.destroying an entire city indiscriminately and every living

:54:37. > :54:42.person in it, this cannot be legitimate. They are not weapons of

:54:43. > :54:47.war. We do not live in a time when our security is strengthened by

:54:48. > :54:53.these. It is not something that defends us. In the past few weeks,

:54:54. > :54:59.we have seen the evil but hate groups can bring to our doorsteps.

:55:00. > :55:04.These splinter networks, are formidable to take on. I would argue

:55:05. > :55:17.this is where we should take action. And pooling of resources. Investment