24/11/2015 House of Commons

Order, order. Questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and

Commonwealth Affairs Mr Fabian Hamilton. Question one, Mr Speaker.

During last month's state visit my right honourable friend the Prime

Minister and the president discussed the importance of issues on which we

disagree, including human rights. I also set out the government's

position on Tibet, including our human rights concerns in a

Parliamentary debate secured by the honourable gentleman in June. I

thank the Minister for that answer. The Minister will be aware that the

UN committee against torture met last week in Geneva to review

China's record and expressed serious concerns over its continued use of

torture to extract confessions from prisoners. In its response, the

Chinese delegation denied all allegations of endemic, systemic am

a systematic acts of torture. China also claims to hold no political

prisoners at all. Bilby Minister or the Foreign Secretary ensure that

the routine use of torture in jails is raised with China at the next UN

human rights Council? In Tibet or anywhere else, we would raise these

matters. May I congratulate the honourable gentleman in keeping

Tibet at the forefront of this House's deliberations. We had to

debate recently. I should say that during the recent state visit, which

was a huge success, the president acknowledged the importance of

improving human rights protection and said China was ready for

increased cooperation on this issue with the UK. The UK is one of the

few countries in the world to have an annual human rights dialogue with

China, and that is an important architecture within which to press

the Chinese, and to raise these matters. We shall continue to do so.

Mr Speaker, the Minister will recall in an exchange on October 22 he

confirmed that China is ready to cooperate with the UK and other

countries in the area of human rights. On the subject of Tibet, but

also the persecution of practitioners, the alleged

harvesting of organs, were those matters discussed with the Chinese

president when he visited the UK? Well, the honourable gentleman

credit me with almost total recall, but I will say that our position has

been consistent on this matter. My right honourable friend on these

issues, did raise these matters with the state councillor during the

strategic dialogue with China in Beijing in August. We have also

raised specific concerns over reports of organ harvesting on

numerous occasions, including in answer to a written question on July

the 15th. Catherine West. Could the Minister please tell the House what

discussions have taken place to promote the importance of the

freedom of religious expression in Tibet, and in particular amongst the

weaker people? I would say to the honourable lady, these are issues

which we raise consistently with the Chinese within the framework of the

UK Chinese human rights dialogue. We publish the report which is updated

every six months. The recent comments about the state visit, that

the ratio with China is now based purely on one of commerce, this is

wrong. This is not a winery relationship. So as we get closer to

the Chinese we are seen as a good partner to China, and in terms of

inward investment and trade with both countries, so we can discuss

these things with him in a more mature way than many other countries

can, it boils down to whether or not you believe in megaphone diplomacy

by getting alongside the people you are trying to talk to and pointing

out that the way to do things is the way that we do things. Question two.

The UK is actively supporting UN efforts led by the Secretary

General's new special representative to reach a lasting political

agreement in Libya. We are also helping Tunisia and other North

African countries to develop their economies, as well as strengthening

their CTK abilities. I will be visiting Tunisia shortly to assess

the effectiveness of UK medical and strategic cooperation and I will

meet with the representative later this week. With the secretary of

state agrees that it is in our interests that those countries at

risk of extremist infiltration receives support controlling their

borders? Yes, I would agree with that. What we have recognised since

the attacks in Tunisia is that we need to focus more attention on

those countries that are one step away from the chaos that is going on

in Libya, countries that are making a success of things might but which

still have some fun abilities, and which are being targeted by the

extremists. We need to help them to build resilience against extremism.

The Minister will know that Tunisia's economy has been badly hit

to the collapse of its tourist industry. What steps is he taking to

help other countries reach stability, particularly those in the

Gulf States? We need to work with the Tunisians to improve security so

that the tourist trade can resume as soon as is practical. The EU is also

looking at relaxation of olive oil quotas to allow Tunisia greater

access to the European market for olive oil, a product which it has

plenty, if it is able to export it. My honourable friend, the

Parliamentary undersecretary, visited the country a few weeks ago

and discussed a 49 .1 with the Tunisians around support for the

economy, and we are with the French seeking to act as the cheerleaders

for support for the Tunisian economy within the EU. With the Foreign

Secretary agree with me that we should also take this opportunity to

encourage organisations such as the foundation for democracy, and a

range of other organisations and institutions within our Western

allies, United States, France and Germany, to name but three? The work

they can do to ensure that we have political stability and democracy to

other North African countries. Yes, I agree with my honourable friend,

and of course Tunisia is ahead of the game, as it were. One of the

success stories of the 2011 Arab Spring with a functioning

constitution, democratic elections, but all of it challenged by the

desire of the extremists to target success stories like that. We must

stand with them. Mr Speaker, I am sure the Foreign Secretary will join

us in expressing outrage at the terrorist atrocity in Mali in which

22 were slaughtered, citizens of China, Mali, Belgium, amongst

others, and we now see affiliated organisations operating across the

wider area, could he say what is happening across the Sahara to

tackle terrorism? We are working with a wide range of countries,

including crucially Nigeria, because this is a pincer movement coming

across the Sahara, so we are working with the full range of countries.

But I would say that if we are going to stop this spread of terrorism, we

have two tackle it at its heart, and its heart is in Raqqa in Syria. The

security situation in the Sinai is a threat to Egypt, other countries in

North Africa, as well as the coalition against Isil, as we saw

with the recent terrorist attack. What is the Foreign Secretary's

assessment of the security situation and its impact in Sinai? The

security situation in Sinai is serious. The Egyptian army is

engaged in combat with terrorist groups across Sinai, and in fact on

the Foreign Office's travel advice recommends against all travel to

Sinai, except the area around Sharm el-Sheikh which is itself still

considered safe for travel, although travel through the airport is

advised against. We seek to work with the Egyptian authorities to

deal with the terrorist challenge that they are facing in Sinai. Does

the Foreign Secretary believe that further air strikes alone will move

us towards political stability in the wider region? Perhaps he could

take this opportunity to address the efficacy of military intervention in

Syria, and how it would contribute to a wider initiative to end civil

war and does he have a plan for securing the peace, a plan which

should include measures to close down all sources of finance and new

recruits to the terrorist cult, including a government inquiry into

their financing question mark why is this government attempted to make a

case for war while Felling to address the need for a long-term

competency of peace plan? I think the short answer is that air

strikes alone will not alone destroy Daesh. But they have to be a part of

the overall solution. In respect of our other specific enquiries, if she

will wait until Thursday, she can look forward to hearing from the

Prime Minister himself into how this fits into our wider strategy. I wait

in anticipation for Thursday's statement. I am also grateful for

the use of Daesh and all the other parties will follow suit. The US are

bombing Daesh. France are also targeting rebels. Turkey are bombing

Daesh and are bombing Kurdish forces in the North. If military action

forces Daesh give up Sony and Iraq, in the coming weeks and months,

which forced us the foreign secretary expected take its place on

the ground? Again, the short answer is the honourable lady is correctly

identifying the situation is complex. As the Prime Minister

himself has said, we have to resolve these two things in parallel. We

have to get a political solution to the Civil War in Syria so we can get

everybody dealing with the problem of Daesh instead of fighting each

other. That is what our comprehensive strategy will seek to

achieve. I discuss progress on central registers of the central

Cayman Islands and brand-new dog yesterday. -- berm you does. Paul

Moynihan. The Prime Minister wrote to the overseas territories. It is

clear that the Prime Minister wants the overseas territories to have

public registers of ownership. Can he ensure that overseas territories

adopt public registers or at the very least ensure access for the

public. I think the honourable gentleman should give the overseas

territories where credit is due. Progress has been made to central

registers full working on security forces and police forces access to

that register. But longer term, he is entirely right. The public access

to that information is the direction we need to go and will have to go

alternately. But the Overseas Territory 's are making progress.

Can my right honourable friend let us know what progress we have made

on tax evasion? This is a clear area where progress has already been

made. The territories have fulfilled their commitments are automatic tax

exchange and this was achieved in working in partnership with them.

Number four, Sir. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to group this

with question 15. One of the five principal strands of Isil strategy

is stabilisation support. The UK has spent in the forefront in providing

humanitarian support with ?1 billion committed to supporting host

countries. I am grateful to my honourable friend for that answer.

Will the Minister while carrying on this important work will work flat

out to build a robust and energised consensus against Isil among the

other countries in the Middle East? Mr Speaker, he is right. We must be

energised. The government is committed to working with the now 65

strong counter Isil coalition. On our 5-point strategy. Cutting off

Daesh's funding scream. Providing humanitarian stabilisation support I

have mentioned already. -- stream. Does my right honourable friend

agreed that we must do all we can to support those living in refugee

camps. And to ensure that they can return to their homes and rebuild

their lives and safety and security? We have done a lot to do just that,

to allow people to stay in the region, to help the vulnerable who

need to be taken away from the region and supported. Which is why

we are taking 20,000 refugees here in the UK. They are not allowed to

be working illegally. What is the government doing to help countries

like Jordan economic lace of that can change and that refugees can't

work legally? That is a valid point. A bit of tension locally with people

in the camp, willing to be paid less but wanting to work. We're working

programmes and United Nations, so programmes and United Nations, so

that they can feel that they can keep skills up. So when the guns

finally fall silent in Syria, we need those skills to be transferred

back into the country. When I visited the refugee camp, I could

see first-hand the amount of aid that the UK government is giving to

help the situation of the ground in Syria, as well as in Lebanon in

Turkey and well swear. The UK is the second highest honour to those

countries. Can the Minister update us as to what progress he has made

in getting other neighbouring countries and other partners to make

their proper contribution to helping humanitarian crisis in the region?

Firstly, I am grateful for his support. Sometimes this number of

20,000 refugees that we are taking in the UK is taken out of context,

in comparison with the work we are doing to support those, such as

those in the Zaatari count. We are providing support to other countries

but we are also encouraging the neighbours. That is why we are

hosting a conference here in February along with Kuwait to

encourage other countries to provide a conference here in February along

with Kuwait to encourage other countries to provide donations so we

can be ready for post-conflict reconstruction balls in Iraq and in

Syria. -- both ends. I discussed the situation in Syria to recent of the

support Syria support group. The Prime Minister discussed Syria with

President Putin at the margins of the G20 summit last week. When I saw

represents the most immediate threat to our national security, we should

be targeting its headquarters in Syria instead of leaving military

action there to other countries? I think, Mr Speaker, my honourable

friend knows my views and reviews of the Prime Minister very well. We do

believe it is morally unacceptable to outsource an action which is

essential to the defence of the United Kingdom and UK citizens

around the world to others. That is why we will be seeking to build a

consensus in this House for taking military action to Daesh and Raqqa.

Regarding the situation in Syria, has the Foreign Secretary 's seen

the letter into the's Times paper were nearly 200 Islamic scholars

have denounced the strongest possible terms, ISAs terror. That is

the sort of propaganda we should use and the foreign office should use in

every way in all parts of the world. Shouldn't we make it perfectly

clear, as they have done, that the atrocities in Paris have nothing to

do with the wicked West. We went to war over Kosovo in order to protect

Muslims and we were right to do so. -- Isis. Our position is a moral

position. We are defending the right of people, Christians, years the

Dees, Jews and Muslims to practice their religion freely against

tyranny that imposes its view by beheadings, by rates, by mass

deportations. And we must end this terror. He is right, that are vital

to in our armoury is the very substantial body of thoughtful,

moderate Islamic scholarship around the world. And we, when I say we,

all nations of goodwill, this should be essentially led by the Muslim

countries of the world. We need to ensure that that view prevails. We

need to help the Muslims of the world reclaim their religion from

the extremists. Is my honourable friend aware of the appalling news

this morning that a Russian bomber has been shot down by a Nato

country, Turkey. Is this not a potentially dangerous situation

given that nothing like that happened during the whole of the

Cold War. If we are going to get a solution in the north, we need to

look at building a moderate Sunni regime. That may go back, we may

have to go back to read drying the boundaries. Mr Speaker, I review and

the strong view of all of our partners and allies is that we need

to preserve the territorial integrity of Syria. If we start

opening up boundaries in the region, I can promise my honourable friend

we will prolong the agony. As far as the reports coming in this morning

of a potential Russian air force jet shot down near the Turkish border,

we are seeking further details urgently bores and gong Kok --

Moscow and Ankara. This is potentially a serious incident. But

it will not be unwise to comment further until we have the facts.

Following their shockingly brutal attacks in Paris, no one doubts that

we have to defeat Daesh in both Iraq and in Syria. This must be linked to

the urgent need for the peace line to end the Civil War in Syria. Can

he tell the House when he expects a decision to be reached on which

opposition groups will take part in the talks due to start on the 1st of

January? What is as current assessment of the chances of

securing a ceasefire as part of these discussions about the

formation of a transitional government? As the right -- right

honourable gentleman has said, it is the heart of the group s' work. They

are tasked with the drawing up a list, and agreed list, of opposition

participants. I hope that when the team meets next, and we expect that

to beat in the second week of December, that we will be able to

approve a list at that point. It is right that I should emphasise that

there are still some differences among the international support

group. The Russians and Iranians do not take the same view of who is an

acceptable interlocutor as are other partners do. I thank the Foreign

Secretary for that reply. The unanimous agreement of UNC to the

Council resolution to 249 last Friday was a significant moment in

the fight against Daesh because the world community has come together to

fight this evil, using in the words of the resolution, all necessary

measures. Can the right honourable gentleman give us an idea of how

macro three's position in Syria -- Daesh's is two events around the

world? As the Prime Minister has said on many occasions, there is no

doubt that the head of this multi-tentacled monster is in Raqqa,

in Syria. Its logistics, is controlling brain, its strategic

Communications, which are extremely effective, are all run from that

headquarters. We will not destroy it by cutting off its limbs, we can

only destroy it by going for the heart. It is right that I should say

that some of the activity conducted around the world in the name of Isil

is directed, clearly directed, from Raqqa. In other cases, it is

inspired by Isil propaganda, but not directly controlled from Raqqa. So

it is a mixture. Our immediate priority is to ensure that it passes

into law. The government is also committed to supporting efforts to

maximise registration and the electoral commission plans a

campaign in the run-up to the campaign in the run-up to the

referendum itself. Given that the unelected House of Lords are now

calling for voting franchise to be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. And

given the change in public attitudes, could the government look

again and legislate the franchise? This House, the elected House has

voted on three occasions in recent months against lowering the voting

age to 16 for this referendum. The government will propose to overturn

this latest amendment from the Lords. I have to say it is a bit

rich for him and his party to carp about the franchise when they voted

against having a referendum at all. Will he sure that be sufficient time

to have both arguments before having the referendum itself on the EU? I

can assure my honourable friend that there will be ample time for those

arguments to be aired, both in this House and outside. Can I pressed the

minister a little bit further on this issue of 16 and 17-year-old.

The other house passed their amendment by a big majority on the

18th of November on this. There are rumours of disagreements within the

government and within the Cabinet on how to respond. The Prime

Minister... The Prime Minister has left the door open so far to change

in the West is that he has been asked previously about this. We know

that 16 and 17-year-olds are capable of understanding the issues. We know

that they are interested and want to take part, so why won't the Minister

agree to the amendment and give 16 and 17-year-olds a proper say in the

future of our country? There are honourable members in various parts

of the House who champion the cause of reducing the voting age to 16,

but I would say to the right honourable gentleman that the right

time to debate that issue is during legislation where such a change

would apply to the franchise for all elections and referendums, and not

just as a one-off tacked onto a bill for a particular referendum. Carolyn

Harris. Question seven, Mr Speaker. I discussed the current migration

rises with my EU counterparts on a regular basis, for example be

foreign affairs Council last Monday, in Brussels, and when I met with a

group of EU countries in Prague the previous Friday. All of them agree

on the importance of a competence of approach to tackling the underlying

causes of regular migration, and the UK is playing a leading role in

delivering this approach. Maybe the minister could share with us what

progress is being made with our European colleagues to create simple

and safe routes for refugees to be united with their families who have

already found Santry in Britain? -- sanctuary. The refugees we are

mainly discussing in terms of the question she asked about discussions

with my EU colleagues are those who are arriving within the Schengen

area. Clearly, those people, since people are -- Britain is not in that

area, would not be able to access the UK in the normal course of

events, so their future will be within the Schengen area, unless at

some point they pertain EU citizenship. Will my right

honourable friend explain what's more action can be taken to stop

resident Assad's murder of his own people, which is contributing to the

refugee crisis that we are seeing at the moment? Mr Speaker, she is

absolutely right. The honourable lady is absolutely right. Clearly

there is agreement across the European Union that we need to

address these issues upstream, and one of the most pressing challenges

is the Civil War in Syria. As I have already said once this afternoon,

the Prime Minister will set out our preference of approach to that

problem, military, political and two and, on Thursday. As part of those

discussions with the European Council, what part of those

discussions are centred on the real genocide that is happening,

including in UN HCI refugee camps in Lebanon, Jordan, the Kurdish

autonomous region, I radicalised Islamist linked to Daesh, who are

killing Christians in those camps and driving them out of them? I

would have to tell the honourable gentleman candidly that that has not

been the focus of discussion in foreign affairs Council about the

migration crisis, but I am aware of concerns about what is going on in

the camp, and of course the UK's approach is to invest heavily in

providing safe and appropriate facilities for refugees in the

region so that they can return to Syria in due course. We will

continue to advocate that approach and to encourage our EU partners to

put more money into that effort. Question eight, Mr Speaker. With

permission, Mr Speaker, I shall answer this bastion together with

the question nine. My right honourable friend the Minister has

had deductive rounds of talks with every European leader, and with the

president of the European Council, the European Parliament and the

European Commission. The Foreign Secretary, Chancellor and I, also

maintain regular contact with our counterparts right across Europe.

Can the Minister go further and confirmed that the government will

not seek to tear up hard one employment rights as part of this

negotiation with the EU? We believe that the flexibility of the opt out

that we have from the 48 hour week under the working time direct live

is one that is very important to keeping employment in this country

high, compared with the tragic levels of unemployment in many other

European nations. We shall certainly ensure we will keep this. Will the

Minister and accept that there will be no treaty changes secured before

the referendum? I set out the position on that in the statement

and subsequent answers that I gave a week ago. What he -- is very

important is that we secure a package of changes which will be

seen by all as irreversible and as legally binding. The government used

to complain about Tony Blair giving up the UK rebate back to the

European Union, so why did the Prime Minister not ask for a reduction in

our membership fee to the EU as part of his letter? Is it that the

government is now happy that we gave up the rebate, or is it that the

primary step has only asked for the things that he has already had

agreed by the EU so he can say the negotiations were a success, on the

basis that if you ask for nothing, when you get nothing it will be a

success? Mr Speaker, my honourable friend would be right to applaud the

Prime Minister's success in getting the first ever reduction in the EU

Sakho multi annual budget. I can assure him that what lies ahead will

be negotiations that will be tough, that will at times be difficult,

which I am confident will end with a better set of relationships between

this country and the EU. Surely is it not the case that these very

modest proposals which were set out in that letter were the only ones

which the government believed that the rest of the EU would agree to,

which is why an end to free movement, which is something so many

people want to see, is not even going to be discussed? Well we have

made it clear that we want to see the freedom of movement for workers

be just that, and not a freedom of movement to elect the best welfare

system anywhere in Europe. I would say to my honourable friend that we

must also take account in our approach to this subject the fact

that there are hundreds of thousands of British citizens who themselves

are able to work, study and live elsewhere in Europe. Further to the

previous question, will the issue of freedom of movement, the principle,

not the detail, the principle of freedom of movement, will it be

discussed or not? I has to ask the honourable gentleman to go and read

again the letter that the Prime Minister sent last week because that

makes clear that, while we accept the principle of a freedom of

movement for workers, we want to secure changes which ensure that we

can reduce the core factors which element of our welfare system exert

in adding to migration into this country. Following what my

honourable friend said, if the bar is so hah and -- so high and so

tough, what is the Prime Minister really going to fight for? What is

holding him back? Come on, the bar is so low, this negotiation is just

a joke. I perhaps look forward to the day when my honourable friend is

able to join me at ministerial meetings in Europe when he can

actually see that the task of negotiating is not quite as easy as

he has made out in his question. I can't give a running commentary on

ongoing negotiations, but I remind my honourable friend that the

president commented that the British are task and they would be "really

difficult to find an agreement". That indicates we have a real

negotiation in front of us. Mr Martin day. Question ten. Thank you,

Mr Speaker. Britain has made its support for the president in Yemen

clear in deed, and recognised his legitimate request for military

assistance which has compounded and Jackie -- a dire humanitarian

situation. The Foreign Secretary and I received assurances of compliance.

I wonder if he can give a timeline for the proper investigations that

were pledged earlier this month into any breaches of humanitarian law in

Yemen? Mr Speaker, these investigations must be concluded,

they must be looked into, and they will be ongoing. It is a very

difficult situation on the ground, unable to have access in many cases

to verify what has happened. Progress is being made by the envoy

in bringing the parties together in Geneva very shortly, and that is

where we need to focus on action getting a ceasefire in place. The

humanitarian consequences of the conflict in Yemen after hunt

clay-macro heart-rending. Would my honourable friend agree that peace

talks leading to a political settlement would be the best way to

bring an end to the humanitarian suffering and any breaches of

international law in this country? My honourable friend is right. We

have discussed some important challenges in the Middle East, but

the scale of the situation in Yemen is dire. 20 million people are

facing starvation. The lack of water and support that they need. There is

no government there, and until we have a ceasefire, the port will not

be able to open up to allow the humanitarian support to enter the

country. Human rights watch has documented 27 air strikes since

March 26 that appear to violate the laws of war in Yemen. On November

the 11th, the Foreign Secretary said he supported proper investigations

into human rights violations from all sides in the Yemen conflict. Can

the Minister explain why the United Kingdom failed to support the Dutch

at the last meeting of the UN human rights Council when they call for a

credible investigation into these violations? Mr Speaker, this is an

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

policy. There was an international discussion on this matter. We have

been working on encouraging Saudi Arabia and other parties involved in

this coalition. There are ten other countries as well. Those cases need

to be looked into efficiently and properly by the country itself.

Question 11. Since operations by the global coalition began last year, I

still has lost more than 30% of the territory it once controlled in

Iraq. Most recently, Kurdish forces retook Singel, and slowly but surely

Isil is being pushed back, and I am confident that it will be driven out

of Iraq in time. As Chair of the all-party group on Islamic phobia, I

would like them be formally termed as Daesh. But does my honourable

friend agree that cutting supply lines with Syria will hasten its

defeat and bring about the restoration of the territory? The

retaking of Sinjar is important, but we need to go to the heart and head

of the beast in Iraq. Does he regard Turkey as a reliable

ally in the battle against Isil, when you consider that not only

today they have shot down a Russian jet, who are also trying to fight

Isil, they are buying oil from Isil in order to prop them up, they are

bombing the Kurds, who are also fighting Isil. This Syrian

engagement is an almighty guess. -- mess.

Turkey holds the key to a number of questions. And also the migration

challenge for Europe. It will be an important partner for this country

and the European Union. For, sir. Following my recent discussions in

Vienna, an international Syria support group will meet on a regular

basis in parallel with Syrian lead discussions with the opposition and

the facilitated by the UN to take forward a transition process for

that country. The UK will work with our international partners to mean

men took -- momentum in this important endeavour. Is it not

clearer than ever that Isil pose a threat to our national security. Is

it not incumbent upon us in this House to support our allies and that

the failure to do so would call complete the world and on their

part? It is true that we have military capabilities, the precision

weapons available on Tornado aircraft, which would make a

difference to the military battle on the ground in Syria. But it is

incumbent upon us and we have accepted this challenge to make the

case is not just for military intervention to set that case in a

broader context of a comprehensive approach to the Syria problem. The

Prime Minister has taken upon him himself the responsibility of

delivering his comprehensive strategy to the House. It is ever

more apparent that unless we deal with the biggest recruitment drive

for Daesh by the Assad regime, we will not tackle the cancer that is

Daesh. Can he tell us how he will prioritise UK engagement to get a

ceasefire and a complex compounds of plan question worked through the

international support group for Syria that we have set up. She is

right. We will not get a ceasefire, we will not get the opposition

groups working with the rump of regime forces against Daesh unless

and until they can be clear that Assad is going at a certain point, a

clear and defined point, in the transition process. At the moment we

do not have agreement across the ISS GE about that point. But that is

where we have to go and that is the fundamental thrust of all

discussions, around tried to get agreement on a route for an exit by

Assad, so that the rest of the pieces of this chicks can follow in

to place. -- jigsaw. Given Britain's economic ties with Gulf

nations and other states in the Middle East, both I and the Foreign

Secretary meet our counterparts to discuss a range of issues including

security. In recent weeks, the UK hosted the Egyptian president and I

have returned from all man and will be heading to Kuwait, looking at the

whip on duty. We face an epidemic of Jihadist violence. Can my honourable

friend assure the House that it is close dialogue with our golf friends

and partners that they will press on them that funding by some of them of

these dangerous organisations must stop?

My right honourable friend is right. This is one of the key trait of the

strategy is to prevent funding taking place. It is important all

countries across the Middle East work hard to prevent this from

happening. With the Minister raise in his discussions the current

terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. With 108 Israelis killed

or injured by shootings or stabbings in the street in recent weeks and

will he condemned the incitement that goes with that, including the

statement from the Palestinian... That Jewish body parts should be put

out in pieces to remove the thought from their heads. She races are very

serious point. In the past few weeks we have seen a reduction in the

violence that is taking place in the West Bank. Since the start of this

current scale of violence, we have spoken regularly with all sides with

the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority, we need to DS

intentions and get all parties back to the table. Number 14, Mr Speaker.

I saw for myself in July the desperate plight of the community.

Relieving that plight remains a priority. We will press the incoming

government to do so. I thank the Minister for his answer. Elections

in Burma were a victory for the people of Burma, not withstanding

the fact that the Rohingya registered franchise from that

election. I could only just conclude by concurring what press --

President Obama said about the Rohingya. He hopes they will be

treated fairly and justly in their own country and we believe as he

does, they are deserving of the world's protection and support. The

incoming government will have a lot on its plate. It will have to expect

expectation. We stand ready to help them do that. But the... I have

written to them. I am grateful to the Minister for what he said. My

priorities remain the struggle against violence in all its forms

including a response to the recent despicable attacks in Paris and the

Middle East. The containment of Russian actions that threaten the

international rules -based system and the renegotiation of Britain's

relationship with the European Union. Decisions taken in the

strategic defence and offence review will underpin the diplomacy that

allows us to make effective progress in all of those areas. Backing a

round out its off power with hard power. Tomorrow, Mr Speaker, I will

travel to Malta for the Commonwealth heads of government meeting and for

the state visit of her Majesty the Queen. Given the changes to the

Ministerial Code, is at his view that ministers and the civil and

diplomatic services remain bound by the UK boss Mac international treaty

obligations? I think the answer to that, Mr Speaker, is yes. How does

the strategic defence spending review provide the foreign office

with new tools to deal with the situation in Syria, particularly in

context of a wider strategy and coordination? Mr Speaker, I have

said longer for the publication of the report to the colleagues across

government, that the most important reinforcement that we could have

diplomacy would be clear statements about this country's determination

to back its Armed Forces. We have turned that into specific programmes

and plans that will deliver a romp forces the capability that we need

to backers of parks with hard power. I have spend a lot of time this

weekend hearing about my constituent members about their views on Syria.

They do want to know what practical difference Britain can make, how

civilians will be protected and whether there is a comprehensive

plan to rebuild Syria after was whether proper government in place

of Assad to as used chemical weapons on his people? I am glad to hear he

is taking the pulse of his constituents. On the last point, as

I've said before, the Prime Minister will set out a comprehensive

strategy. It is not just about military intervention, it is about

how we use that military intervention achieve the political

set -- solution that we need. On the military point, yes, the UK does

have capabilities that will make a difference. We have the dual mode

Brimstone missile carried an attorney dope aircraft which is a

precision weapon, unlike any of the other allies have in the coalition.

It will insure minimisation of collateral damage and collateral

casualties, and that is one of the reasons our allies as sucking me

take part in this campaign. There has been another weekend of deadly

terror attacks on Israeli citizens, including a brutal stabbing

yesterday. Will he condemn these attacks and does he agree that

sanctions incitement to commit terror must end? -- sanctioned. My

honourable friend is right. We need to get all parties back to the

table. Unfortunately it does seem that the planet seamer misaligned at

the moment. We need to reconfigure and make sure that all parties come

back and prevent the scale of violence from increasing. What steps

does the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that genuine law-abiding

refugees leaving Syria are not locked out of the asylum process as

a result of border measures being introduced across the EU after the

brutal attacks in Paris? Clearly, it is a matter for each member state of

the European Union and other European countries to determine

their own border controls. The way forward has to be for asylum seekers

to be properly assessed and screamed at the first safe country that they

go to and for us to tackle the problem in the camps, in the near

East, so that people get some assurance of a decent life and

opportunities for education for their children. Rather than

hazarding these appalling journeys to Europe. With the Foreign

Secretary agree with me that in order that we play a constructive

role in dealing with Isis and other instabilities in the region, we need

a comprehensive strategy towards the Middle East as a whole, not just

Syria? Yes, Mr Speaker, I do agree with that. The government is working

up a golf strategy, looking at how the UK will engage with this very

important region, important for our security and important for our

prosperity as well, over the next 5-10 years. Does the Foreign

Secretary agree that defeating Daesh abroad provides security at home? I

saw headlines yesterday that cast doubt on that. The result unity in

the UK hate Daesh. The Sun newspaper published divisions yesterday when

we need unity. It is clear to me that the majority of the Muslim

population here in the UK and across the world applaud what is going on

and are sickened by the fact that it it is being done ostensibly in the

name. They are very clear that their religion does not in any way support

or authorise the action is being carried out by Daesh and we should

help them to reclaim their religion from the terrorists and the

extremists. In improving economic times in the UK and sub-Saharan

Africa is important. What are the government's objectives at the

summit next week? The honourable gentleman is right. Economic

development is central to everything that we do. I head of the global

African investment Summit, I will be meeting a collection of presidents,

prime ministers and foreign ministers at Lancaster House,

looking at economic Dev elements, looking at working with those

countries to develop their businesses, alongside Ritter 's

business, to grow Africa out of poverty. In the course of questions

today, the Foreign Secretary has mentioned the need for compounds of

strategy. We have heard before about financial sanctions. Update the

House on what conversations he has had with counterparts in the US and

EU about stopping the supply of cash and financial services to Daesh? Mr

Speaker, she is right to say that it is not just on the battlefield, it

is about cutting down on the finances as well. We are looking to

freeze accounts, huge amounts of work to be done through the

Financial Services Authority is in order to identify the flow of funds

coming from large donors, individuals. In addition to that, we

are looking at the money streams coming into Daesh itself, as it

sells antiquities and oils. It is reflected in the fact that the

amount of foreign fighters, the amount they get on a monthly debases

has been reduced because funds into Daesh are being reduced. Will he

talk about what the UK is doing in Burundi. I am grateful for him to

raise the situation in the ruined it. It is important there is a

regional solution. I have had discussions with the role London

government which is in gauging -- Rwandan government. This is a matter

of grave concern and I have had a number of frank and open

conversations with the Burundi and Foreign Minister and issues an open

letter to him as well as a number of the international community.

It is estimated that Russian bombings have killed many people,

when the Foreign Minister met with the Foreign Minister and he urged

him to refocus those air strikes away from the opposition armies who

are fighting President Assad's reign of terror, and towards those

terrorists who brought down that Russian airliner? Absolutely right,

that is what we have been urging the Russians to do. If they want to

fight Isil, we will be happy to work with them. But at the moment, what

we have seen is that a significant proportion, the majority in fact, of

their air strikes have been directed against the moderate opposition

fighting Assad. In fairness, since the Russians acknowledged that it

almost certainly was terrorist action that brought down that

airliner, they have directed a larger proportion of air strikes

against Isil held territories. Good my right honourable friend find

any further detail on discussions he has had with the Iraqi government

about ensuring measures are taken to promote security and enhanced

erupt's liberation of areas. Focus needs to be done on supporting

Iraqi, but unfortunately many Sunni Muslims in Iraq believe they are not

properly represented in Baghdad, so we are working with the Prime

Minister to encourage financial services laws and National Guard

laws to go through so that they have a place, and are represented

properly in Baghdad. I would like to thank the

Parliamentary secretary of state for writing to me about my Yemeni

constituent. I read the Home Office device he directed me to on this

issue. Does he agree it does not inspire confidence that the Home

Office managed to miss translate medicines some frontier, and will he

meet with me to discuss this? I am grateful that she raises this matter

and I would be delighted to meet with her later to discuss it in more

detail. The world's attention is rightly on the Middle East and Syria

at the moment, but there is an ongoing situation in Ukraine. Has my

right honourable friend made any assessment of the situation in

Ukraine? We remain concerned about the situation in Ukraine. I was last

there in early October this year, when I met the Prime Minister, the

Foreign Minister, and other Ukrainian leaders and

parliamentarians. The latest situation is that there has been an

upsurge of fighting in certain locations around Donetsk. The key

thing now is to ensure that the Minsk process is followed through to

the end, and all parts of it are completed. We are right not to be

part of Shannon and DIY to call for reform, but doesn't the invoking of

the EU defence clause remind us why we have to be part of a reformed EU,

as well as part of Nato? I think that what France has done by in

vogue in that article in the treaty has been to ask other member

states, and crucially not the European institutions under that

article, to come to its assistant in all possible ways, as they need to

react to the terrorist onslaught on Paris. It is important to bear in

mind that that treaty article also makes reference to the need for the

EU always to coordinate its work with that of Nato. The Foreign

Secretary will be aware that the former primary of Canada Stephen

Harper was rebuffed in his support for self-determination of the people

of the Falkland islands. Will he take the opportunity when Mr Trudeau

visits this week to emphasise how grateful we are for the Canadian

support for the Falkland Islands, and will be policy remain the same

under his premiership? My honourable friend can be reassured that we

expect the same from Mr Trudeau on who is on his way to London to meet

with our Prime Minister and Her Majesty before travelling on. We

expect the same relationships. It is an ancient and potent ratio between

ourselves and Canada. The honourable gentleman will be aware that has

been an election in Argentina, and we look forward to working with the

new government of Argentina who hopefully will not suffer from the

bullying and hostility shown by the former government of Argentina to

the people of the Falkland Islands. A point of order. Mr Speaker, last

week the Prime Minister in PMQ is told the House, and I quote," we

have seen an increase of 3800 in the number of neighbourhood officers

over the Parliament, and a 31% cut in crime". If I can be brief, on the

3800 figure, in 2012, the government lifted the ring fencing on the

neighbourhood policing budget, despite warnings from HMRC that it

would be the area most at risk from a cut of 25% in the last Parliament.

Crucially, the Home Office figures are, as a consequence of the

subsequent beta that arises in of officers on response, as having a

neighbourhood function. It is not an increase in neighbourhood policing.

In truth, the government's own figures show 17,000 police officers

gone, 12,000 from the front line, 4500 PCS owes. On the other issues,

on the crime figures, I can do no better than quote from what is a

government exercise coordinated by the National fraud coordinator in

which he says the results of the next crime survey of England and

Wales will show a 40% increase in crime. If I can say this in

conclusion, Mr Speaker, I am sure you will agree that on matters like

police, crime and national security, it is essential that the

deliberations of this House are informed by the facts. Can I ask if

the MS has indicated to come to this House and put the record straight?

Or do, I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for his

attempted point of order, and for giving me advance notice of his

intention to raise it. I have not received any indication that the

Prime Minister proposes to come to the House to correct the record. It

is the responsibility of every honourable and right honourable

member to ensure the veracity of what he or she says in the event

that any member things that he or she has aired, that member has the

responsibility to put the record straight. I know the House will

understand that disagreement about statistics is part of the currency

of political debate in which the honourable gentleman is a practised

and dextrous expert. If there is an opposition day along, I have a hunch

we will hear from the honourable gentleman. Meanwhile, he has had a

bite of the cherry, and I hope he was satisfied with the taste. Point

of order, Graham Allen. The Commissioner for children in England

published today a report protecting children from harm which outlines

the prevalence of child sex abuse in this country, where only one in

eight cases of child sex abuse are reported to the authorities. Would

it be in order, Mr Speaker, to ask a minister from the Department for

Education to respond urgently to this very important matter about

prevalence of child sex abuse, hopefully even before education

questions on Monday. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for that

point of order. The question about whether a minister comes to the

House to make a statement voluntarily is a matter for the

Minister. I was conscious of this matter, which was courteously drawn

to my attention by the honourable gentleman. My understanding is that

the government has just received the report, and has not yet penned a

response. I had a sense that the House would benefit from an exchange

on the matter at the point at which the government had determined a

response. These matters, as the honourable gentleman knows, are kept

under review. It would be open to a minister to come to the House before

education questions, or even if not, to do so pretty soon. I guess they

the honourable gentleman has his back channels by which to keep in

touch with what the government's thinking might be about it, and I

feel sure that it will not be long before a very thorough exploration

of the issues will take place on the floor of the Chamber.

Mr Tom brake. Did you have it in your powers to extend Foreign

Commonwealth Office questions because I know there are a number of

members here who would like to have raised an attack in Pakistan against

the anti-Muslim community, and to hear from ministers what they were

going to call in the High Commissioner from Pakistan to

challenge him, and to say attacking people on the basis of faith is not

acceptable. I am grateful to the honourable gentleman for his point

of order. He speaks with all the moral force of a former deputy

Leader of the House, no less. I note what he says, or what he enquired

about correction to my powers. The short answer is that I do not have

power to extend Foreign Office questions, or any other Western Time

session, although I find myself sometimes doing so anyway as the

Treasury bench was quick to point out more or less good-naturedly. The

truth of the matter is, we often overrun a bit because I want to hear

backbenchers, and the honourable gentleman has cheekily and

inappropriately, but I think on this occasion, forgive agree, made his

own point in his own way, even though he did not have a right to do

so. If there are no further points of

order, I think we come now to the ten minute rule motion. Mr Steve

McCabe. Mr Speaker, I beg to move that leave

be given for me to bring in a bill for the protection of family homes,

enforcement and elliptical development. The parts of my

constituency work particular the attractive places, full of family

homes and small terraces within a series of quite interlocking

tree-lined streets. Nowadays, a walk down a number of these roads reveals

a very different scene. One is visually assaulted by a series of to

let boards of all shapes and sizes, installed at all angles. The

streets, pavements and small front gardens are littered with skips,

builders rubble, sand and cement, and there is a constant noise at all

hours, including weekends, of additional bedrooms being hammered

and bolted onto existing dwellings. Once we could expect to see rows of

small family homes, we now witness architectural carbuncles jutting at

odd angles, extending into adjacent houses, and covering rear gardens

with additional bedrooms variously described as games rooms, sheds and

saunas. My local authority seems powerless to arrest this

destruction. They say enforcement action is costly, and the guidance

from central government is unclear. Enforcement action, as you know, is

discretionary, and local authorities are required to act purportedly.

Birmingham City Council has advised me that there has been no policy on

their part to limit the number of planning enforcement cases they

pursue, but I note there has been a steady reduction in recent years. To

be fair, they have initiated a limited article four direction

covering a small part of my constituency, which means that

planning permission is needed before a family house can be converted into

a house of multiple occupation. What I understand to be a change from a

class three to a class for use. But, Mr Speaker, the problems

continue, and it is not confined to one area of my constituency, or

indeed to one part of Birmingham, but is an issue which affects many

towns and cities across the country, as I think is evidence by

the broad support for this bill. Examples of these problems include

Mr and Mrs White, a retired couple who, I believe, are in the gallery

today. The developer who bought the House next door commenced an

extension that effectively changed their detached home into a

semidetached oddity, as the roof extension expanded to sit on top of

their roof, and guttering. The council failed to take enforcement

action, despite what commencing without planning approval and being

beyond the scope of permitted at element. A survey's report has

indicated the damage that has been done to the external wall of their

home. This has cost them thousands of pounds in court fees, and as yet,

the problem continues. Mrs O'Sullivan complained of a work on

her extension, which included digging up the foundations in a shed

alleyway had commenced without planning permission. The council

agreed to investigate, but advised in advance "in deciding whether it

would be expedient to take enforcement action, the council has

to take into account whether any breach of planning control an

acceptably affects public amenity or the use of land and buildings, which

should be protected in the public interest". In this case, the

extension was not covered by permitted development delegations

and needed planning approval. Nonetheless, the council charged

that the risk to Mrs O'Sullivan's property constituted and limited

harm. Her loss of life did not justify action. A constituent

complained about a landlord's development that exceeded the

dimensions on the plan available on the council website. But was told

that officers had concluded that it wasn't expedient to take any action.

Mr Tempest complained that the Britannia group continued to build

extensions designed to convert existing homes into eight bedroom

properties, despite planning permission being refused. Elsewhere,

cowboy builders demolished, without permission, the chimneys and gas

fruits which supported the gas fire of an elderly couple, putting them

at serious risk. Gas flutes. Is another property when a constituent

complained, a 3 level development overlooking his garden and his

neighbours, was completed with disregard to the Article four

direction and without permission. I could go on, Mr Speaker, I have case

after case of rogue developers and cowboy builders doing as they

please. All of these cases are not ordinary people, who have worked and

saved for their family home, only to find landlords and developers

working hand and glove with cowboy builders, buying up nearby

properties and turning their road or street into a series of mini

hostels. It's no surprise that the value of their properties begin to

plummet to the point where the only one buying is yet another

developer. So, the cycle begins again. As I have been investigating

this issue, I have become aware of an unintended consequence of the

permitted development arrangements. I want to be clear that I have

nothing against permitted development. I welcome the

government's good intentions in trying to make it easier for people

to make small alterations or additions to their home. But, I'm

not sure that the government ever intended that this permission would

be exploited by ruthless landlords and developers, destroying family

homes and bringing misery to thousands of ordinary families and

retired couples like The Wyatt Family. The local authority advisers

knew that the changes in the law means that many individual owners

are unclear about what they can and cannot build. Those that advise the

rogue landlords always there on the side of ever greater expansion. My

ten minute rule Bill seeks to achieve four things. Firstly it

calls for the Department for Communities and Local Government to

produce clearer guidance for planning authorities on when

enforcement action should be taken. It asks that although called

authorities published an enforcement plan so that grey areas are reduced.

Secondly, it calls for a simple right of appeal for those who are

the victims of this rogue building, where the local authority concludes

that it is not expedient to act. Thirdly, it asks that these

extension should be independently checked against a building

regulations, to make sure that they are safe. At present, there is

nothing to stop a rogue developer employing his or her own inspector

to sign off the dodgy work done by his or her team of cowboy builders.

If we don't act on this, a tragedy will surely follow. Finally, it

calls on the government to consider the introduction of fixed penalty

fines, to serve as a deterrent against the action of rogue

developers. Such penalties to be modelled on those the government

already proposes in clause 86 of the Housing and planning Bill, to deal

with rogue landlords. This tenement rule Bill calls for a modest number

of changes, designed to protect family homes, addressed the

enforcement problems and ease the position on permitted development.

So that once again it fulfils the aspirations of government ministers

without giving a licence to ride roughshod over local people and

destroying family homes and local communities I commend it to the

house. The question is that the honourable member have leave to

bring in the Bill. The ayes have it. Who will prepare

the bills? Nigel Evans, Michael fabricant, Diana Johnson, Norman

Lamb, Greg Mulholland, Jess Phillips, Alan Whitehead and myself,

Mr Speaker. Protection of family homes,

enforcement in permitted development Bill. Second reading, what day. 29th

of January, 2016. Thank you, order, we come to the main business and to

the opposition day debate in the name of the Scottish National party.

It may be for the convenience of the house for me to tell it that the

amendment has not been selected. To move the motion, I call Mr Brendan

O'Hara. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I beg to move

that this house believes that Trident should not be renewed. It is

a very important type... It should not be renewed. It is a pleasure to

move this motion, which stands in my name and those of my honourable and

Right Honourable friends from the Scottish National party. Applied

country and the Green party. When the SNP were elected in such

numbers to this place in May, we were elected on a promise to do

three things. Firstly, argued that the number of maximum powers be

devolved to the Scottish Parliament. That we would fight tooth and nail

against austerity and protect the poorest and vulnerable in our

society from the worst excesses of this government and to a -- oppose

Trident. The SNP can say that within the first six months of being here,

we have done exactly what we promised to do. Of course, there is

much more that we still need to do on all of these issues, but no one

will be ever able to accuse us of not doing what we said we would do.

Therefore, Mr Speaker, I beg to move the motion that Trident should not

be renewed. In recent months, tried it and the issue of the UK's

nuclear... I will make some progress if the lady will give me... Mr

Speaker, no one can deny that Trident and the issue of the nuclear

deterrent has not been in the forefront of the public debate for

many, many years. Not only because this is the 70th anniversary of the

dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki another very

soon, the United Kingdom will decide whether or not to commit to spend

167,000 million pounds over the lifetime of the Trident programme.

We had high hopes that we would not be a lone voice. When the rank of

the British Labour Party elected the Right Honourable member for

Islington and about unilateralist, we on this bench is felt there was a

certain hope of a serious opposition to Trident. The mere thought of such

a thing happening caused palpitations in the red and blue

shades of the British establishment. But I do genuinely wish the Right

Honourable member for Islington well in continuing his robust opposition

to Trident. I would say to him and his members that the Scottish

National Party... Yes? While the honourable gentleman is

outlining the reasons for his motion in his beach, I wonder if you could

explain to me the SNP's apparent incoherence. -- in his speech.

During the Scottish referendum campaign, they were pledging to

scrap Trident on one hand, but saying that they would seek to join

Nato, a nuclear Alliance, on the other hand.

The honourable lady will... Forgive me if I don't accept for a moment

her definition of incoherence. LAUGHTER

To be incoherent, you would have to do suggest that Germany, Spain, so

many other members of Nato are equally incoherent... Please,

gentlemen, let me finish the answer. The last two general secretaries of

Nato have been Danish and Norwegian. They have exactly the same position

that we currently advocate. I realise you are very keen to get

in on this, so keen you left a message on my door this morning.

LAUGHTER I am not keen to get into this

debate and I didn't leave a message on anybody's. ! Mr Brendan O'Hara.

My apologies, the honourable member left a note on my door this morning.

Make a speech! I will come to you. Was it a last note? The honourable

gentlemen... LAUGHTER That is a matter of debate! The

honourable gentleman has the floor, when it is clear that he is not

taking an intervention, he must not be hollered at from a sedentary

position from either side of the house, he is free to develop his

case. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do wish the Right Honourable member for

Islington well. I would say to his benches that being against Trident

can actually be a vote winner. The SNP have returned in such great

numbers on an explicitly anti-Trident platform. In recent

weeks, the Scottish Parliament, yet again, has reaffirmed its half-life

and other farming opposition to Trident. The Scottish Government,

the Scottish TUC, churches and great swathes of civic society has set its

face against Trident -- other government opposition. Will my

honourable friend take the opportunity to remind us how the

different political parties in the Scottish parliament voted on

Trident? And remind us what decision was reached at the annual conference

of the Scottish Labour Party? Does he not think it strange that the

single member of Parliament for the Scottish Labour Party whose party

opposes Trident, he opposes Trident, isn't even in the chamber

for this debate? I thank my right honourable friend for that

intervention. As he correctly points out, there is now an established

consensus among the Scottish political parties against Trident.

The Scottish National Party, the Scottish Green party, Scottish

Socialists and he is correct... Two seconds, the Scottish Labour Party

are all opposed to Trident. Yet, we have a government in Westminster

with just one elected member of Parliament representing a party who

failed to achieve even 15% of the vote in Scotland. Yet, they insist,

they insist, that they have the right to foist on Scotland, weapons

of mass destruction, which Scotland has said we do not want. It doesn't

suit you. Does he not find it strange the contrast between the

unified voice from Scotland and the confusion from the Wales Labour

Party? Quite apart from the First Minister, who wants to move it down

to west Wales! I agree with my honourable friend.

It is interesting that the number of times I have been asked why the

media and the press, are you doing this simply to embarrass the Labour

Party? My reply would be... The Labour Party need to embarrass the

Labour Party? My reply would be... The Labour Party to counter this

issue. I have always argued that there is

no moral common economic and no military case for Trident, unless

the Lee macro and let's be absolutely clear that there is no

moral case for any state possessing weapons of mass destruction.

Possessing the ability to destroy the world several times over and

everything in it is not something to be proud of, and indeed it is

something I believe to be deeply shaming, and there is no article of

faith that has ever said it is okayed to hold the threat of

annihilation over your neighbour and disguise it as peacekeeping. With

the honourable gentleman not agree that the possession of nuclear

weapons sirs as a deterrent which has worked well for many years, and

that if one nation unilaterally disarm is, as Ukraine did in 1994,

in reliance on a treaty with Russia that they would not invade, and that

was broken and Ukraine are now suffering the absence of those

weapons. I will pick up those points later on. I think the idea of a

deterrent is important and it is something I will address. Not only

is Trident morally questionable, it is economic madness. In 2006 when

the success of the programme was discussed, the likely cost of

building new submarines was put at up to ?20 billion. There was on top

of that a ?10 billion contingency. ?41 billion set aside to build

submarines. That has at least doubled in the last decade, and I

shudder to think what it will be in the next decade. Indeed, based on

the government's own figures, and figures coming from the government

benches, the lifetime cost of Trident will be in the region of

?167,000 -- 167,000 million pounds. That is real money, and there was no

escaping the fact, and it should embarrass the Labour Party, that

that money has been made on the banks of the poor and the most

vulnerable in our society. On the day that the Chancellor appeared at

Faslane, appearing out of nowhere like the cartoon character Mr Benn,

to announce ?500 million worth of extensions to jetties, on the same

day the United Nations announced that they would be investigating as

to whether this government's policy on cutting welfare support to the

disabled was in violation of their human rights. I know that the right

honourable member who represents Barrow, I do believe that he is

extremely anxious to get involved, but I would say that as the member

of Parliament for Argyle? As the member for Argyll and Bute, I

represent Faslane, I live roughly six miles from the base, and for

decades, my constituents have been told that their jobs and their

prosperity totally depends on it. I will give way. Does my honourable

friend, who is in a neighbouring constituency of mine, have the same

grave concerns over the alarming number of nuclear safety incidents

that have been reported at Faslane naval base? There have been a 54%

increase in the mothers of incidents reported in 2013-14, compare to

2012-13. These incidents threaten the safety, not only of the workers

of Faslane nuclear base in their constituency, but the majority of

whom live in my constituency, but the communities who also surround

it? Before we proceed, can I remind the House that interventions should

be brief. It is not proper for a member to read out what amounts to a

mini speech which purports to be an intervention. The intervention must

be brief. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do agree with my honourable friend,

that safety is paramount. Indeed, it was something I brought up last week

at the Westminster Hall debate when there was huge safety concerns,

among workers at Faslane about cuts that have been made. I would hope

that my honourable friends would realise that my election in Argyll

and Bute would suggest you do not have too put all your eggs in one

basket, but what I would say, and let me be absolutely clear that in

saying no to Trident we are not saying no to Faslane, far from it.

The SNP has never and will never consider closing the Faslane base.

Hopefully soon not rather than later as an independent Scotland, Faslane

will have a bright, non-nuclear future as a conventional naval

base. Faslane is a fantastic facility and its proximity to the

north Atlantic means that future prospects are not dependent on

having nuclear submarines based there. Given the outrageous

chortling from both sides of the House on this, it is clear that the

only way that the UK is established and parties will support Faslane is

that if there are nuclear weapon is there. What a shocking proposal that

is. I absolutely agree, and what we have seen today is any pretence that

the Labour Party will somehow take a radical position on nuclear

weapons... I will give way. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving

way, and some embers of the Labour Party do support his view. --

members. I am one of those. I thank my honourable friend for his support

and it is very much appreciated. I will make progress and I will come

back to the honourable gentleman. I am grateful to the honourable

gentleman for giving way. Just on the point the honourable gentleman

said that without nuclear submarines at Faslane, and with the separation

of Scotland from the rest of the UK, that he would seek to have a naval

base with ships at Faslane, as I understood it. He had also said that

he considered it a waste of money, building new hardware for the Navy

because it could be better spent on welfare. Those points do not seem to

marry up. I understand what you are saying, but we have at no point said

we will double spend this money. Money we save from not renewing

Trident, would be in the region of ?15 billion over a lifetime of

Trident, money that could be invested in conventional defences,

and in turning Faslane from a nuclear submarine port to a state of

the art naval base and a conventional naval base. I will make

progress. I believe I have been very generous. I have always argued that

there is no military case for Trident. Quite simply because

Trident is not a military weapon. Trident is a political weapon. It is

a political weapon which can never, and will never, be used. And yet it

is set to consume anything between 30 and 50% of the UK defence

procurement budget. I will give way. I am grateful, but does he not

understand that it is being used every day? In every moment that we

have continuous at sea deterrence, it is being used as a deterrent. The

fact that it is never fired in anger is actually a symbol of its success.

It will come as no surprise to the honourable gentleman, I do not agree

at all, and I move on to the point of deterrence. I will make progress.

I think I have been very generous open till now. Let's be honest, the

money that is being spent on Trident is being put into keeping Britain at

the top table of the United Nations Security Council. Money that should

be doing good, whether peacekeeping, reacting to emergencies like Ebola

or the humanitarian crisis unfolding in front of us in the Middle East

and North Africa, I believe has been sacrificed on eight elective

military and political ego trip that has more to do with status than it

does defence. I will make some progress, I will come back to you.

Don't take my word for it, the evidence at the Defence Select

Committee last week, General Sir Richard Sheriff, referring to money

for Trident said "we either go down the line of nuclear capability at

the expense of conventional capability, or conventional

capability at the expense of nuclear". It seems to be that sort

of zero sum game. The problem with Trident is it puts pressure on the

rest of the defence budget to the detriment, I believe, of the overall

security. Even Tony Blair am not someone I would seek to quote often

in This Place, Tony Blair in his memoirs, when talking about Trident

said, " the expense is huge, and the utility nonexistent in terms of

military use, but he decided to go down the road of Trident renewal

because it would be too big a downgrading of our status as a

nation". I will give way.

Would he agree that nuclear weapons actually are making us less safe,

not more safe, because they get a signal to the rest of the world to

said that the only way you can guarantee your security is by

acquiring nuclear weapons, so it is not countering it? I would

absolutely agree. But Tony Blair summed it up. The UK's obsession

with having an independent nuclear deterrent is little more than a form

of Imperial power indulging in a desperate search for a better

yesterday. Possessing Trident is not about defence. It is about the

illusion of continuing upon past glories, regardless of cost.

Regardless of the fact that we cannot afford it, pride it seems

will not let us back down. We would rather cut benefits from the

disabled, we would rather take tax credit away from the working poor,

as long as the bottomless pit of Trident is fed. Would you give way?

I will. I am grateful to stop I have written to the former First Minister

about these issues are a number of occasions and not yet received

answers. In the event of decommissioning the nuclear fleet at

Faslane, where in Scotland would those nuclear materials be disposed

of? Scotland is absolutely set to take its responsibility. Scotland

act we have responsibilities to do it, and Scotland will do so, but to

use that as an argument to rearm, is frankly ridiculous. I will make

progress. Possession of top end military capabilities, without the

ability to exercise them effectively, is known in strategic

powers as a hollow force. To put it in a more colloquial way, we are

acting as having a fur coat and no knickers. Trident is a military and

political ego trip that is being paid for on the backs of the poor.

The UK independent nuclear deterrent is not, I believe, all that

independent. I refer you to the Defence Select Committee report on

the 30th of June 2006 which said" in theory, the British premise that

could give the order to fire Trident without getting prior approval from

the White House. The UK can maintain a facade of being a global military

power. In practice, it is difficult conceive of any situation in which a

Prime Minister would fire Trident without prior US approval. In

reality, it would be an American US commander in chief who will

ultimately decide, and in 18 months' time, that commander in chief could

be president Donald Trump. Does anyone seriously think that Trident

makes the world a safer place? I have already given way once to the

honourable gentleman. Everyone accepts that the world has never

been in a more uncertain place. The world is changing, and the threats

are changing. They are most certainly not as they were 30 or 40

years ago. Many military strategists recognise that these changes has to

be prepared for according. They have identified potent threats, mass

migration into mega cities, by the 2040s they reckon that 70% of the

world will be open eyes. Great movement of people because of

climate change and the search for natural resources such as water and

sources of energy, are going to cause huge global problems. We are

increasingly engaged in an ideological war with terrorism,

hybrid warfare and cyber attacks. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself

said that Daesh were and existential threat to the UK, and we have to

assume sadly that, after the evil of Daesh is destroyed, there will be

other ideological driven groups who will emerge. Looking ahead in many

ways, this traditional state will not be the main enemy. So, why,

given the radical changes that are happening in the world, it is the

UK's response exactly as it was 30 or 40 years ago question not having

nuclear armed submarines at the 24 hours a day, seven days a week 365

days a year, armed with nuclear missiles are pointed and designed to

arbitrate European cities. I will give way. Are a case we have heard

many times. How does he addressed the single inescapable fact that the

only nation that has ever had nuclear weapons used against it,

didn't have any? That was, namely, Japan. Is that the intellectual Tory

argument? I'm not entirely sure what the gentleman is driving at. It

wasn't exactly worth waiting for. It makes no military sense at all... I

return to the view that Trident is not a military weapon, it is purely

a political weapon. For the last time, I will give way to the

honourable lady. I thank the honourable member for giving way. He

is clearly satisfied that the Russian state is no longer a threat

to Western security and UK security. Perhaps he can give us the

reasons why that is the case, why he is so confident that Russia is no

longer a threat to the security in the UK? I would have to say to the

honourable lady that what she is advocating is that every country in

the world arms itself to the teeth. Germany and Poland and Norway and

Sweden, is that what the honourable lady is honestly are doing? That if

you believe that Russia is going to come speeding across the plains and

invade the United Kingdom, is that what you honestly advocating? In

that case, if you want to argue that every country in the world should

possess its own nuclear weapons, I would advise you take it to the

Labour Party. From the sound of it, you may be able to get support. Mr

Speaker, as I mentioned at the speech, a forlorn hope indeed, but

there was a genuine hope that perhaps with the election of the

Right Honourable member for Islington they would at least be a

debate on Trident in this place. I fear that the leader has not managed

to take his party with him at the attendance, paltry attendance,

today, from the Labour Party would suggest exactly that. The Labour

Party's refusal to debate Trident will disappoint many among their own

rank and file. I've no doubt that when, as he did yesterday, the Prime

Minister promised a vote on the main decision, I have no doubt I will see

the Right Honourable member for Islington voting with the SNP

against Trident renewal. But, I fear that he will have to have swum

through a tide of his own MPs going through the lobbies with the

Conservative Party again to support Trident renewal at the cost of

167,000 million pounds. You love to talk about being a multilateralist

party. The Labour Party cannot hide behind the figleaf of

multilateralism while committing the United Kingdom to this massive

increase in nuclear weapons free. It is an absolute figleaf. I'm afraid

the Labour Party, if they decide to support the government in renewing

the Trident missile programme, I believe they are as morally bankrupt

as the Conservative Party. If Trident ever was an answer to a 20th

century problem, not to the problems we face in the 21st-century. Trident

is purely political. It is not a military weapon. It does not make us

any more safe than nations who do not possess weapons of mass

destruction. I am just about to wind up. Trident is all about the UK

projecting power. And a desperate attempt to cling on to the remnants

of a fading imperialist past. It is paid for on the backs of the poor.

Trident is diminishing the rest of the UK's capability. Therefore, Mr

Speaker, there is no moral, economic or military case for renewing

Trident. The question is as on the order

paper, called the Secretary of State for Defence, secretary Michael

Fallon. Thank you, Mr Speaker. On these

benches, we welcome the opportunity to discuss our nuclear deterrent.

Let me thank the honourable member for Argyll and Bute for taking this

motion today. In his statement yesterday, the Prime Minister set

out the growing scale, diversity and complex city of the threats that we

face. And to tackle those threats, we have to have an array of weapons.

Up to and including a nuclear deterrent. It is worrying that in a

more dangerous world that the cross-party consensus we used to

enjoy on our deterrent does now seem to be weakening. I should remind

members of it was Labour ministers, Ashley and Bevan, who, in the 1940s,

argued for a nuclear deterrent with a union Jack on the top of it.

Today, we find a leader of the Labour Party opposing his party's

official policy. He wants to scrap Trident. He said he is no longer

prepared to use it. What is perhaps equally worrying is the

nonattendance, now, the shadow Secretary of State. Because, she has

been admirably clear in opposing her leader. While the -- agreeing to

lead a review of the policy. I can understand her anger at the decision

to appoint as co-chair of that review, Mr Ken Livingstone.

Somebody, of course, who doesn't want to review Trident, he wants to

abolish Trident. Indeed, he declared London to be a nuclear free zone.

This is like pointing an arsonist as the code chief fire officer. --

joint chief. Our international allies will look on with dismay at

this shambles opposite. Which, I have to say this, can only be of

comfort to adverse threes. Let me appeal, again, today -- comfort to

those opposed to us. I want to ask the Labour party who proudly wanted

to renew the consensus between us. To put aside, the Chancellor said on

television on Sunday, party politics in the national interest and join us

in remaking the case for the deterrent. Of course. I thank the

Secretary of State for giving way. I can give him the pledge that Labour

MPs will help him get through the programme that we started in

government. Will he make a pledge in the house, today, that he will base

the main gate decision on the operational contracting need of this

programme, and not on political considerations? I'm very happy to

give him that particular assurance. And I look forward to debating in

this house and deciding on the principle of renewing the four

submarines, not the Trident sub, but four submarines, a decision this

Parliament must take next year. Of course. Can the honourable gentleman

tell us when we will actually have a debate on Trident when we actually

take a decision? That decision of course had to await the publication

of the strategic defence and security review yesterday. I hope we

can take that decision in 2016. Then we have to get on and start building

the successor submarines, as I shall explain. Successive governments,

Labour and Conservative, have charged that a minimal credible

nuclear deterrent is credible to our national security. That a nuclear

deterrent is the only assured way of deterring nuclear threats and

blackmail, by nuclear states. For more than 60 years, our nuclear

deterrent has done that job. And let us, whatever side of the argument we

are on, paid tribute to the crews of HMS Vanguard, vengeance, victorious

and vigilant. To their families and all those at Faslane who ensure and

has ensured that one of those boats is on patrol, 24 hours a day, 365

days a year. Of course. Thank you for giving way. I also thank him for

his tribute, as I stand here as a wife of a sub Mariner, serving on

HMS victorious. However, the crews are doing a job,

they are doing a service. They are serving, as they are sent to do.

They are there, defending our democracy. The Secretary of State

has to realise the crews are doing their job. Not all of them will

agree with his views on Trident. I accept what the honourable lady

says. Of course, if she is married to one of them, she will know better

than anybody in this house. But I do say I have met the crews of some of

the submarines. I have yet to meet a sub Mariner who does not have faith

in the job he is doing, but there we are. Let me be clear what the

decision that the honourable member asked me about. The decision we have

to take next year as a parliament is not to replace the Trident missile

or renew warheads, it is to replace the Vanguard submarines. That needs

to be replaced by the early 20 30s. Of course.

I would like to thank my right honourable friend. He has mentioned

fast lane. Can he actually tell me what the future of Faslane might be

without nuclear submarines and the largest site in Scotland would be

lost if nuclear submarines were banned.

There would be a significant implication. For Faslane. If the

nuclear deterrent was no longer there. It was pointed out yesterday

by GMB Scotland, who said the commitment in the strategic review

for multilateralism and the successor programme going ahead is

welcome, as it is crucial to jobs in Scotland. That is what GMB Scotland

said. I want to make progress. I have given way four times already

but I will give way again. This governments was elected on a

manifesto commitment to replace the Vanguard submarines. It takes over a

decade to build and trial a nuclear submarine. We have to take that

decision in 2016. Let me tell the house that design work is already

far advanced. Yesterday, the review announced a further investment of

?600 million, taking the assessment phase cost from ?3.3 billion, to

?3.9 billion. If I may just make a little progress, it brings me to

the... Cost. It brings me to the question of why renewal is viable. I

want to make three basic points. First, this is about realism. We

are, of course, committed to creating the conditions where

nuclear weapons will no longer be necessary. In this country, we've

reduced our nuclear forces by well over half, since the height of the

Cold War. This year, this very year, I cut the number of deployed

warheads on each submarine from 48, down to 40. By the mid 2020s we will

reduced our stockpile to know more than 180 warheads. Unfortunately,

those actions have not been matched anywhere by any other nuclear

nation. Nor have they stopped on stable nations from continuing to

seek to acquire or develop nuclear weapons -- unstable nations. My

honourable friend was first. You mentioned the cost. Yesterday and

perhaps even today, we had effective opposition, there would be more

focus on cost overruns. This worries me. You are making honourable

efforts to do this at the MoD and I salute him, but can he give a

commitment that he really will hold the private sector with their feet

to the fire that there will be no more cost overruns? This is too big

a project to take money from the conventional forces. I can certainly

give my friend that assurance and I will come to that, how we we will

deliver the programme and keep the downward pressure on costs that he

wishes to see. I said that other nations have not matched our own

disarmament. Russia, indeed, is commissioning a new class of eight

nuclear submarines. Developing and preparing to deploy a variety of

land-based ICBM classes and is planning to introduce rail -based

ICBMs. Last month, North Korea showed off a long-range ballistic

missile carrying miniaturised nuclear warheads and North Korea has

carried out three nuclear tests and in defiance of the international

community, has conducted ballistic missile tests. In an unpredictable

nuclear age, we can't simply wish away threats that exist now or

threats that may emerge in the 20 30s the 20 40s and right through the

2050s. I give way. On the 14th of July this year,

China, the Russian Federation, the UK and the USA reached an agreement

with Iran which included the sentence. Under no circumstances

well the run ever seek to develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.

Progress is being made by negotiation -- under no

circumstances will Iran ever seek. Yes, but we have not had similar

promises from other states using nuclear weapons and there are still

a large number of trying to get their hands nuclear weapons. Let me

move on to... I will give way later on but I must make progress. My

second point is about the practical effect of the deterrent. Our nuclear

deterrent works. It deters aggression every single day. There

have been many conflicts in the last six decades and not one of them has

involved a direct conflict and wean nuclear states. Not one country

under the protection of an extended nuclear umbrella has been invaded --

conflict between nuclear states. The member for Argyll and Bute is quite

wrong about that. It is operationally independent, with the

command and control system as well as the decision making process being

ours and ours alone and it of course offers a second decision making

centre within Nato that will compromise an adversarial's plans.

It is worth remembering that Nato is a nuclear alliance. One of the

absurdities, if I may say so, the SNP position is that while opposing

Trident they would, if voters had not actually rejected separatism

last year, they would have sought Nato membership and then not

benefited from the nuclear umbrella. The third reason why we must renew

our nuclear submarines is because at the moment there is no alternative.

How do we know that? We commissioned the Trident Alternatives Review in

2013 and that demonstrated, having looked at all the alternatives,

non-submarine and other submarines, in non-continuous deterrent, it

demonstrated no alternative system is as capable or cost-effective as

the Trident -based deterrent. If you accept there is a threat, and

perhaps the party there does not, but if you accept there is a threat

that needs to be deterred and if you accept our enemies work nights, the

work weekends, then you must also accept there can be no half

measures. A full boat, continuous at sea, posture is the way to offer the

security we need, at minimum. Thanks for giving way. Can he then

explained to me and my colleagues how Trident aggressors the real