18/07/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.issues around this. It is a case I've just started looking at. He

:00:00. > :00:00.will understand if I say I can't say too much on it publicly at this

:00:07. > :00:10.point but it is being taken very seriously.

:00:11. > :00:19.Speak seek we must move on. Statement the Home Secretarx.

:00:20. > :00:22.Secretary Amber Rudd. Thank you Mr Speaker. With

:00:23. > :00:25.permission I would like to lake a statement about the terrorist attack

:00:26. > :00:33.in Nice and the threat that we face from terrorism in the UK. The full

:00:34. > :00:37.horror of last Thursday night's attack in Nice, defies all

:00:38. > :00:44.comprehension. At least 84 people were killed, when a heavy goods

:00:45. > :00:47.lorry was driven deliberately into crowds enjoying Bastille Dax

:00:48. > :00:50.celebrations. Ten of the de`d are believed to be children and

:00:51. > :00:55.teenagers. More than 200 people have been injured and a number are in

:00:56. > :00:59.critical condition. Consular staff on the ground are in touch with

:01:00. > :01:03.local authorities and assisting British nationals caught up in the

:01:04. > :01:06.attack. The Foreign and Comlonwealth Office are providing support to

:01:07. > :01:11.anyone concerned about friends or loved ones. Over the weekend, the

:01:12. > :01:15.French police made a number of arrests and in the coming wdeks we,

:01:16. > :01:22.will learn more about the circumstances behind the attack Mr

:01:23. > :01:27.Speaker, these were innocent people enjoying national celebrations. They

:01:28. > :01:31.were families, mothers, fathers brothers, sisters, daughters, sons,

:01:32. > :01:36.friends, many of them were children. They were attacked in the most

:01:37. > :01:40.brutal and cowardly way possible as they simply went about their lives.

:01:41. > :01:45.Our thoughts and prayers must be with the families who have lost

:01:46. > :01:49.loved ones, the survivors, fighting for their lives, victims, f`cing

:01:50. > :01:53.appalling injuries and all those who have been mentally scarred by the

:01:54. > :01:57.events of the night. I've spoke ton my counterpart to

:01:58. > :02:00.offer him the sympathy of the British people and to make clear

:02:01. > :02:06.that we stand ready to help in any way that we can. We have offered

:02:07. > :02:10.investigative assistance to the French authorities and security

:02:11. > :02:16.support to the French diplolatic and wider community in London. This is

:02:17. > :02:23.the third terrorist attack hn the last 18 months with a high number of

:02:24. > :02:27.deaths in France and we cannot underestimate its destating impact.

:02:28. > :02:30.Swre seen attacks in many other countries and those killed `nd

:02:31. > :02:35.maimed by these murderers, hnclude people of many nationalities and

:02:36. > :02:40.faiths. Recently we've seen attacks in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Iraq,

:02:41. > :02:45.Turkey and America, as well as the ongoing conflict in Syria. Last

:02:46. > :02:49.month, we marked a year since 3 people, 30 of them British, were

:02:50. > :02:56.murdered at a beach resort hn Tunisia. In the UK, the thrdat from

:02:57. > :03:02.international terrorism, whhch is determined by the independent joint

:03:03. > :03:07.terrorism analysis centre, remained at severe, meaning that an `ttack is

:03:08. > :03:11.highly likely. The public should be vigilant but not alarmed. On Friday,

:03:12. > :03:21.following the attack in Nicd, the police and the security and

:03:22. > :03:25.intelligence agencies ensurdd we have robust procedures in place I

:03:26. > :03:28.am receiving regular updates. All tlees forces have reviewed tpcoming

:03:29. > :03:34.events taking place in their regions tone sure that security measures are

:03:35. > :03:40.appropriate and proportionate. I can also tell the House that thd UK has

:03:41. > :03:44.considerable experience in lanaging and policing major events. Dxtra

:03:45. > :03:47.security measures are used `t particularly high profile events,

:03:48. > :03:52.including where the police `ssess there to be a risk of vehicle

:03:53. > :03:57.attacks, the deployment of leasures known as the national barridr asset.

:03:58. > :04:00.This is made up of a range of temporary equipment, includhng

:04:01. > :04:05.security fences and gates that enable the physical protecthon of

:04:06. > :04:10.sites. Since the terrorist `ttacks in Mumbai in 2008, we have `lso

:04:11. > :04:14.taken steps time prove the response of police firearms teams and other

:04:15. > :04:20.emergency services to a moo raweding gun attack. We have protectdd and

:04:21. > :04:23.increased in real terms counter-terrorism police funding for

:04:24. > :04:29.2016/17 and over the next fhve years, we are providing ?143 million

:04:30. > :04:34.for the police to further boost their firearms capability. We

:04:35. > :04:37.continue to test our response to terrorist attacks, including

:04:38. > :04:42.learning the lessons from attacks like those we have seen in France,

:04:43. > :04:46.through national skier sizes, which involve the Government, milhtary,

:04:47. > :04:55.police, ambulance, and other agencies. But the threat from

:04:56. > :04:58.terrorism is serious and growing. Our security and Intel jelings

:04:59. > :05:00.services are first rate and they work tirelessly around-the-clock to

:05:01. > :05:07.keep the people of this country safe. Over the next five ye`rs, we

:05:08. > :05:14.are making an extra 2. ?2.5 billion available to those agencies. This

:05:15. > :05:20.will include funding for an addition 1,900 staff at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ as

:05:21. > :05:24.well as strengthening our ndtwork of counter-terrorism experts in the

:05:25. > :05:28.Middle East, north Africa, south Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. We have

:05:29. > :05:33.taken steps to deal with foreign fighters and to prevent ral

:05:34. > :05:39.cliezation by providing new powers through the counter-terrorism and

:05:40. > :05:42.security act. We continue to take forward to investigatory powers bill

:05:43. > :05:45.to ensure that the police, security and intelligence agencies h`ve the

:05:46. > :05:51.powers that they need to kedp people safe in the digital age.

:05:52. > :05:56.Mr Speaker, the UK has in place strong measures to respond to

:05:57. > :06:00.terrorist attacks. Since coling to office in 2010, the Governmdnt has

:06:01. > :06:06.taken significant steps to bolster that response. But Daesh and other

:06:07. > :06:11.terrorist organisations seek to poison people's minds and they

:06:12. > :06:14.peddle sickening hate and lhes to encourage people to plot acts of

:06:15. > :06:19.terrorism or leave their falilies to join them. This is not just in

:06:20. > :06:24.France or this country, but in countries all around the world. We

:06:25. > :06:28.must confront this hateful propaganda and expose it for what it

:06:29. > :06:34.is. In this country, that mdans working to expose the emptiness of

:06:35. > :06:39.extremism and safeguard vulnerable people from becoming radicalised.

:06:40. > :06:43.Our Prevent programme works with families, communities and shx

:06:44. > :06:47.society groups to challenge the poisonous ideology that supports

:06:48. > :06:53.terrorism. This includes supporting civil society groups to build their

:06:54. > :06:57.own capacity and since Janu`ry 014, their counternarrative prodtct have

:06:58. > :07:01.had widespread engagement whth communities. In addition, over a

:07:02. > :07:05.thousand people have receivdd support through channel since 2 12,

:07:06. > :07:10.the voluntary and confidenthal support programme for those at risk

:07:11. > :07:14.of radicalisation. This is `n international problem that requires

:07:15. > :07:17.an international solution. We're working closely with Europe`n

:07:18. > :07:20.partners, allies in the counter-Daesh coalition and those

:07:21. > :07:25.most affected by the threat that Daesh poses to share inform`tion,

:07:26. > :07:29.build counter-terrorism cap`bility and exchange best practice. As the

:07:30. > :07:34.Prime Minister has said, we must work with France and our partners

:07:35. > :07:42.around the world to stand up for our values and for our freedom. Nice was

:07:43. > :07:45.attacked on Bastille Day, itself a French symbol of liberation and

:07:46. > :07:50.national unity. Those who attack seek to divide us and spread hatred,

:07:51. > :07:55.so our resounding response lust be one of ever greater unity bdtween

:07:56. > :08:01.different nations, but also between ourselves. This weekend, we saw

:08:02. > :08:05.unity and action as people came together to support each other.

:08:06. > :08:08.People sent messages of condolence and Muslims in this country and

:08:09. > :08:13.around the world have said that those who carry out such attacks do

:08:14. > :08:18.not represent the true Islal. But I want to end by sending a message to

:08:19. > :08:24.our French friends and neighbours, what happened in Nice last Thursday

:08:25. > :08:27.was cruel and incomprehensible. The horror and devastation is something

:08:28. > :08:32.many people will live with for the rest of their lives. We know you are

:08:33. > :08:38.hurting. We know this will cause lasting pain. Let me be quite clear

:08:39. > :08:41.- we will stand with you. Wd will support you in this fight and

:08:42. > :08:50.together, with our partners around the world, we will defeat those who

:08:51. > :08:55.seek to attack our way of lhfe. Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I start by

:08:56. > :09:00.welcoming the Home Secretarx to her new position and her well jtdge and

:09:01. > :09:05.heart felt words to the House today. She spoke for us all in condemning

:09:06. > :09:09.this naseating attack and in sending our sympathy and solidarity to the

:09:10. > :09:16.families affected and to thd French people. At the very outset of her

:09:17. > :09:21.tenure, let me assure her of my ongoing support in presenting a

:09:22. > :09:25.united front from this Housd to those who plan and perpetrate these

:09:26. > :09:29.brutal acts. It is a sad reflection of the dark times in which we live

:09:30. > :09:33.that this is the third time in nine months that this House has gathered

:09:34. > :09:38.to discuss a major terrorist incident in mainland Europe. Each

:09:39. > :09:42.new incident brings new factors and changes perceptions on the nature of

:09:43. > :09:51.the threat posed by modern terrorism and this was no different. This was

:09:52. > :09:53.an act of discriminate and sickening brutality, made more abhorrdnt by

:09:54. > :09:57.the targeting of families and children. Ten children and babies

:09:58. > :10:02.were killed. 50 more are behng treated. Many more are orph`ned and

:10:03. > :10:06.left with lasting psychologhcal scars. Unlike other attacks, this

:10:07. > :10:10.wasn't planned by a cell with sophisticated tactics and wdapons. A

:10:11. > :10:13.similar attack could be launched anywhere at any time and th`t is

:10:14. > :10:18.what makes it so frightening and so difficult to prevent and prdvent. --

:10:19. > :10:22.predict and prevent. Let me start on whether there are immediate

:10:23. > :10:24.implications for the UK. On Friday a spokesman for the Prime Minhster

:10:25. > :10:28.said UK police were reviewing security plans for large, ptblic

:10:29. > :10:31.events this week. Can she tdll the House what conclusions were reached

:10:32. > :10:38.as part this afternoon revidw and whether any changes were made in the

:10:39. > :10:43.light TV? Will she also be hssuing updated advice to the organhsers of

:10:44. > :10:48.numerous large public galleries and vest Vales taking place throughout

:10:49. > :10:51.the country. We welcome the Mayor of London's confirmation that the Met

:10:52. > :10:54.were reviewing safety measures in the capital. Are similar reviews

:10:55. > :10:59.taking place in large cities all over the UK? After the attacks in

:11:00. > :11:02.Paris, her predecessor commhtted to an urgent review of our response to

:11:03. > :11:05.firearms attacks. It has bedn suggested in the French medha that

:11:06. > :11:09.if armed officer had been more quickly on the scene in Nicd, they

:11:10. > :11:13.could have prevented the lorry travelling as far as it did. Can she

:11:14. > :11:17.confirm whether the review commissioned has been compldted And

:11:18. > :11:22.if so, what changes to fire`rms capability are proposed as ` result?

:11:23. > :11:25.Her predecessor promised to protect police budgets in the wake of Paris,

:11:26. > :11:28.that has not been honoured. There are real terms cuts to the police

:11:29. > :11:32.this year. Will the new Homd Secretary pledge today to protect

:11:33. > :11:37.police budgets in real terms going forward? She mentions the Prevent

:11:38. > :11:42.programme. I have to say I do not share her complacent view of what it

:11:43. > :11:47.is achieving. In fact, some would say it is counterproductive,

:11:48. > :11:49.creating a climate of suspicion and mistrust, far from tackling

:11:50. > :11:53.extremism creating the very conditions for it to flourish.

:11:54. > :11:56.Indeed the Government's inddpendent reviewer of terrorism legislation

:11:57. > :12:01.has said the same and said the whole programme in his words could benefit

:12:02. > :12:06.from independent review. So will the Home Secretary today accept Labour's

:12:07. > :12:10.call for a cross-party revidw on how the Prevent duty is working? After

:12:11. > :12:13.this attack it was described in the media as an act of Islamic terrorism

:12:14. > :12:18.and yet it is clear that thd lifestyle of the individual had

:12:19. > :12:22.absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic faith and the French

:12:23. > :12:25.authorities have cast doubt on whether there was any link between

:12:26. > :12:31.this individual and Daesh. Does the Home Secretary agree with md that to

:12:32. > :12:35.quickly label this Islamic terrorism hands a propaganda coup to the

:12:36. > :12:37.terrorists, whose whole purpose is to deepen the rift between the

:12:38. > :12:42.Muslim community and the rest of the society? Does she further agrow that

:12:43. > :12:47.more care needs to be taken on how these atrocities are labelldd in

:12:48. > :12:51.future? Finally, this is of course, the first attack in Europe since the

:12:52. > :12:56.European referendum. Can thd Home Secretary assure the House that she

:12:57. > :13:00.and the wider Government ard making every effort in these times to

:13:01. > :13:03.maintain strong collaboration with the French and the European

:13:04. > :13:08.authorities and to send to them a very clear message that whatever our

:13:09. > :13:15.differences, Britain will always be by their side and ready to help

:13:16. > :13:19.Well, I thank the right honourable gentleman for his statement and for

:13:20. > :13:23.his comments and for his confirmation early on that we work

:13:24. > :13:27.across the House to address and fight this dangerous terrorhsm and

:13:28. > :13:31.we'll be able to continue to do so. He asks particularly about the

:13:32. > :13:34.reviewing the public events. I'd like to reassure him and thd whole

:13:35. > :13:38.House that we are constantlx ensuring that we make avail`ble

:13:39. > :13:42.expert advice to the people who are running these events. We have 1 0

:13:43. > :13:47.counter-terrorism security `dvisors. They are in touch with people

:13:48. > :13:50.running these events, including where necessary, large citids, so

:13:51. > :13:55.that they can get the right advice and that advice is being taken up so

:13:56. > :13:59.that we can ensure they are as safe as possible. He asked and m`de

:14:00. > :14:03.comments about Prevent. Let me correct him on one thing. There is

:14:04. > :14:09.nothing complacent on this side of the House about what we do to

:14:10. > :14:13.address terrorism and dangerous ideology. I accept that there is

:14:14. > :14:18.always more to do, but he should not underestimate what has been achieved

:14:19. > :14:22.so far by the Prevent stratdgy. There are many people who h`ve been

:14:23. > :14:25.deterred from going to Syri`. There are many children who have been

:14:26. > :14:32.introduced to the strategy `t schools and other people in public

:14:33. > :14:35.sector business, sorry publhc sector arrangements where they havd had

:14:36. > :14:39.some benefit from the Prevent strategy and been stopped from going

:14:40. > :14:42.to Syria. As I say, there is always more to do. But a lot is behng

:14:43. > :14:48.accomplished by this strategy. Finally, he made some comments about

:14:49. > :14:52.the reporting in the press `bout the role and word of Islam. I would

:14:53. > :14:57.simply say to him, that it hs for all faiths and all people to unite

:14:58. > :15:00.against the barbarity of thhs attack. That is the clear mdssage

:15:01. > :15:11.that this House should convdy. As chairman of our group between the

:15:12. > :15:15.two parliaments, may I encotrage my good friend the Secretary of State

:15:16. > :15:26.state, we served on the Council of Europe on various issues,... French

:15:27. > :15:39.SPEAKS FRENCH. My honourabld friend is entirely white. Now we whll

:15:40. > :15:42.return to English. I was able to speak to Bernard Cazeneuve, my

:15:43. > :15:46.French counterpart, this morning. In part response to the Right

:15:47. > :15:50.Honourable gentleman, we will continue our very strong frhendship

:15:51. > :15:57.and mutual support for the French whatever the outcome. Can I

:15:58. > :16:01.congratulate the Home Secretary on her new role and welcome her to her

:16:02. > :16:05.place. I trust she will bring to her role the rigour and wit she

:16:06. > :16:10.displayed on behalf of the lain campaign during the referendum. I

:16:11. > :16:15.also hope the fact we are both graduate of Edinburgh University

:16:16. > :16:19.will enable us to work together in the same constructive fashion that I

:16:20. > :16:22.did with her predecessor. Mr Speaker, there are no words to

:16:23. > :16:26.describe adequately the unspeakable horror, merciless cruelty and

:16:27. > :16:30.senselessness of the attack perpetrated this last week. 1's

:16:31. > :16:33.heart goes out to the victils, breed and injured, especially children. I

:16:34. > :16:37.wish to add condolences of lyself and my colleagues on these benches

:16:38. > :16:44.to the people of France. I'd like to welcome the Home Secretary's

:16:45. > :16:47.statement. I'd like to associate myself and the Scottish Nathonal

:16:48. > :16:51.party with her comments abott the gratitude we feel to those who

:16:52. > :16:55.strive to keep us safe, whether it be the police or intelligence

:16:56. > :16:58.services. Scotland, like thd rest of the UK, stand in sadness and

:16:59. > :17:01.solidarity with France. A country that has already had to bear away

:17:02. > :17:07.more than any country should be expected to. We stand ready to offer

:17:08. > :17:11.whatever assistance we can. While there are no doubt challengds we

:17:12. > :17:14.face from this increasingly savage criminality and terrorism, the

:17:15. > :17:20.Scottish Government is commhtted to working with the United Kingdom

:17:21. > :17:23.government to defeat these threats against the freedom we valud so

:17:24. > :17:26.dearly. I'm pleased by the reassurance is the Home Secretary

:17:27. > :17:31.has already given but I havd three questions for her. First, c`n I ask

:17:32. > :17:34.her to make a commitment th`t her response to terrorist attacks will

:17:35. > :17:39.never beat knee jerk but always proportionate and targeted `s well

:17:40. > :17:42.as effective? Secondly, will she makes assurances to made by her

:17:43. > :17:48.predecessor, to affirm the accordance of having a unitdd

:17:49. > :17:52.community across the UK at the core of our efforts fighting terrorism,

:17:53. > :17:55.in particular will she acknowledged the importance of avoiding

:17:56. > :17:59.alienating our Muslim community who are a highly valued and intdgral

:18:00. > :18:03.part of the Scottish and Unhted Kingdom society? Thirdly and

:18:04. > :18:08.finally, there are camps in northern France filled with refugees who have

:18:09. > :18:12.experienced similar violencd to that perpetrated in Nice. Last wdek the

:18:13. > :18:16.camp at Calais where people had had to make their homes was thrdatened

:18:17. > :18:20.with bulldozing and demolithon. Will the Home Secretary work with the

:18:21. > :18:24.French government to enter the understandable anger of the French

:18:25. > :18:27.populace is not misdirected towards these innocents who are also fleeing

:18:28. > :18:32.from violence in their own countries? I Yiadom Hear, hdar! I

:18:33. > :18:38.thank the honourable and Leonard lady for her comments. And for

:18:39. > :18:40.repeating the same message we receive from the opposition, that we

:18:41. > :18:45.will work together addressing this dangerous issue. She's asked a

:18:46. > :18:49.number of key questions. I would reassure her I hope there whll never

:18:50. > :18:52.be anything knee jerk in our response to these events. I hope

:18:53. > :18:58.we'll be able to build on the experiences we have in order to get

:18:59. > :19:01.a more secure future. She's asked us to work across communities, I

:19:02. > :19:07.imagine she meant default as well as all faith communities, and of course

:19:08. > :19:12.we will do that. I'm reminddd Mr Speaker, because we've had puestions

:19:13. > :19:16.already about large events, it was a good example of us working with

:19:17. > :19:20.devolved administrations, when we worked together on the Glasgow,

:19:21. > :19:26.games in 2014. Jointly. To combat any terrorism there. Finallx, an

:19:27. > :19:30.Calais, she's absolutely right, we need to work closely with French

:19:31. > :19:33.counterparts. I did discuss that this morning with Bernard C`zeneuve

:19:34. > :19:40.and I will be taking it forward with him to make sure we get the best

:19:41. > :19:43.outcome. SPEAKER: sur Michadl Gove. Can I welcome my right honotrable

:19:44. > :19:48.friend to her new position `nd thank her for her measured, assurdd and

:19:49. > :19:51.authoritative statement. Wotld she agree with me that both the last by

:19:52. > :19:58.Minister and the new Prime Linister have always made clear that there is

:19:59. > :20:02.a distinction between the ideology of Islamist extremism that `nimates

:20:03. > :20:06.organisations like Daesh and is driven by prejudice and hatd, and

:20:07. > :20:10.the great religion of Islam, which is a religion of peace which brings

:20:11. > :20:15.spiritual nourishment to millions. Is it not vital in the days ahead

:20:16. > :20:19.that while we focus on countering extremism we also underlined the

:20:20. > :20:26.benefits that the faith of Hslam has brought to so many. Hear, hdar! I

:20:27. > :20:30.thank the right honourable gentleman for making that important point as

:20:31. > :20:35.is so often the case. So eloquently. He's right. We need to make that

:20:36. > :20:40.distinction. I would say once more it is for all faiths and all people

:20:41. > :20:47.to unite together and make sure we condemn this dreadful terrorism

:20:48. > :20:52.SPEAKER: Keith Vaz. Can I w`rmly welcome the Home Secretary to her

:20:53. > :20:57.new position and remind her that her predecessor had a career enhancing

:20:58. > :21:02.20 appearances before the sdlect committee during her time in office.

:21:03. > :21:05.I hope she will continue with that engagement in her new officd.

:21:06. > :21:12.LAUGHTER Reports have emerged from France,

:21:13. > :21:18.Bernard Cazeneuve, and many more correction and Manuel Valls, that

:21:19. > :21:21.the perpetrator of this atrocity had been radicalised quickly by the

:21:22. > :21:25.Internet. Does she agree with me whatever the truth of it as it

:21:26. > :21:30.emerges, the Internet remains a key battle ground in our fight `gainst

:21:31. > :21:33.terrorism, and will she do `ll she can to work with Europol and

:21:34. > :21:41.Interpol to make the Interndt companies do more to take down these

:21:42. > :21:44.subversive videos? I think the right honourable gentleman for his

:21:45. > :21:49.question and look forward to every one of my appearances beford his

:21:50. > :21:54.select committee. He raises a very important point about how pdople are

:21:55. > :21:58.radicalised. I think I must first of all suggest a moment of caution

:21:59. > :22:02.because we do not know the `nswer to that yet. We do know some of the

:22:03. > :22:06.examples of where he wasn't radicalised but we don't know

:22:07. > :22:10.exactly how he was and that investigation is going on. H do

:22:11. > :22:14.agree with him that making sure the Internet is not used as a d`ngerous

:22:15. > :22:18.tool for radicalising peopld is incredibly important. We do have a

:22:19. > :22:21.strategic Communications unht based in the Foreign Office which takes

:22:22. > :22:26.down websites. We always make sure we can do as much as possible to

:22:27. > :22:30.address that particular source. SPEAKER: Keith Simpson. Can I

:22:31. > :22:35.congratulate my right honourable friend on her elevation to the Home

:22:36. > :22:40.Office. Can I ask her whethdr any lessons have been learned from this

:22:41. > :22:47.latest terrorist attack, given she emphasised the global threat of

:22:48. > :22:49.terrorism, as to the security Lane Giants correction occur sectrity

:22:50. > :22:56.arrangements for the Olympic Games. And whether she is satisfied the

:22:57. > :23:01.effort our security services are putting in will mean our

:23:02. > :23:05.participants will be safe. H think my honourable friend for th`t

:23:06. > :23:10.question and can reassure hhm we are already engaged with the Olxmpics in

:23:11. > :23:14.Brazil are the people running it, to make sure we make it as safd as

:23:15. > :23:21.possible. Our London Olympics team went over to ensure that was the

:23:22. > :23:25.case. We think we have some fairly substantial expertise here `nd we're

:23:26. > :23:30.happy to share it, particul`rly when there are large events like the

:23:31. > :23:36.Olympics. SPEAKER: Pat McFadden Can I welcome the Home Secretarx to her

:23:37. > :23:40.new post. Terrorism is aptlx named, as it thinks up new and mord awful

:23:41. > :23:44.ways of committing mass murder. Can I ask what discussions she has had

:23:45. > :23:52.with the intelligence and sdcurity services about this unconventional

:23:53. > :23:58.weapons being used in terrorism And given that Nice is a provincial city

:23:59. > :24:01.in France, can she tell me honestly that my constituents in

:24:02. > :24:08.Wolverhampton enjoy the samd level of protection against terrorism as

:24:09. > :24:12.people living in London. He`r, hear! I'm here to reassure the honourable

:24:13. > :24:17.gentleman and his constituents we are doing everything we can to

:24:18. > :24:20.nature his constituents, all our constituents, are kept safe. We will

:24:21. > :24:24.always keep particular incident under review to make sure wd can

:24:25. > :24:28.give them as much certainty as possible. One of the things we are

:24:29. > :24:33.particularly focused on is large crowds, big events, and the security

:24:34. > :24:38.service and the police will be monitoring and reviewing particular

:24:39. > :24:45.events, places of large gatherings, to ensure we do keep it safd.

:24:46. > :24:52.SPEAKER: Bob Stewart. Thank you Mr Speaker. Our security forces face

:24:53. > :24:57.huge inhibitions to overcomd before making a decision to open fhre

:24:58. > :25:04.against someone who poses a lethal threat to innocent people. Can the

:25:05. > :25:12.Home Secretary confirm that if such a decision is made, the intdntion

:25:13. > :25:21.must be to stop that threat in its tracks, which invariably me`ns

:25:22. > :25:25.shooting to kill, not wound? My honourable friend puts it vdry well,

:25:26. > :25:32.there is clearly... The priority must be here to save innocent lives.

:25:33. > :25:37.We must always ensure our sdcurity forces at police firearm officers,

:25:38. > :25:40.have the right tools, not jtst the tools in terms of the agreelent but

:25:41. > :25:48.also the right permissions to be able to do that to keep us `ll safe.

:25:49. > :25:52.Can I welcome the Home Secrdtary to her new place, albeit in tr`gic

:25:53. > :25:56.circumstances. Media reports state today unlike previous terrorist

:25:57. > :26:01.attacks in France, there was no clear link established betwden the

:26:02. > :26:04.person who committed this tdrrible offence and recognised terrorist

:26:05. > :26:08.groups. With the Home Secretary agree that is the case and hf so

:26:09. > :26:13.what is that the UK have and are taking to address this worrxing

:26:14. > :26:19.development. I think the honourable lady for her question. I must just

:26:20. > :26:24.point out there is a French citizen in Nice, we are awaiting further

:26:25. > :26:27.information. She's drawing `ttention to the potential radicalisation from

:26:28. > :26:31.the Internet, which is what some people are suggesting maybe because.

:26:32. > :26:36.We will of course keep it under review and see what other action

:26:37. > :26:40.began take. We must wait a little to see what the conclusions ard.

:26:41. > :26:43.SPEAKER: Nigel Evans. Hundrdds of thousands of reddish familids will

:26:44. > :26:47.already have booked holidays this summer, many going to the French

:26:48. > :26:50.Riviera, Paris, some of the other wonderful cities around France.

:26:51. > :26:54.Could she work with the Fordign Secretary to ensure common-sense

:26:55. > :26:57.guidance can be given to Brhtish families in order for them to be

:26:58. > :27:01.safe during their holidays `nd hopefully none of them will change

:27:02. > :27:04.their plans and part of us standing side-by-side with them will be that

:27:05. > :27:09.many British families will dnjoy holidays in France this year. My

:27:10. > :27:11.honourable friend raises an important point committees put his

:27:12. > :27:16.finger on exactly what a lot of people will be thinking at the

:27:17. > :27:18.moment. What I would say is I would advise him, his constituents,

:27:19. > :27:24.friends who are concerned about this, quite frankly, check the

:27:25. > :27:28.Foreign Office website, we will ensure there is always as mtch

:27:29. > :27:33.helpful and current information on there. SPEAKER: David Hanson. Could

:27:34. > :27:37.the Home Secretary give an indication of what progress is being

:27:38. > :27:41.made on making sure the investigatory Powers Bill rdaches

:27:42. > :27:45.the statute book? Because she will know that the powers in that bill

:27:46. > :27:49.are essential to help support the security services in dealing with

:27:50. > :27:55.potential loan attackers profiling those attackers and ensuring we use

:27:56. > :27:58.the Internet to protect our safety as well as the right to indhvidual

:27:59. > :28:03.liberties. The honourable gdntleman raises such an important pohnt, he

:28:04. > :28:07.is right, the investigatory Powers Bill will give us additional help in

:28:08. > :28:12.order to intercept the sort of potential terrorism created from

:28:13. > :28:16.this sort of event of last weekend. I would hope we'll be able to get it

:28:17. > :28:20.on the statute book by the dnd of the year, but this is entirdly the

:28:21. > :28:28.sort of event that makes it even more pressing to ensure we do. The

:28:29. > :28:31.Secretary of State might be aware of the home affairs select comlittee

:28:32. > :28:35.inquiry into radicalisation and home-grown terrorism. We took

:28:36. > :28:38.evidence on the alarming trdnd of online radicalisation, especially

:28:39. > :28:41.loners, and low-level criminals You've already mentioned thd

:28:42. > :28:46.Internet. Social media sites were not seen as robust enough in

:28:47. > :28:52.removing or blocking content posted by Daesh and affiliate 's, which is

:28:53. > :29:02.only ever uploaded to terrorise a group of would-be terrorists. Would

:29:03. > :29:07.you undertake a review of social sites? It is critical we address the

:29:08. > :29:10.radicalisation that can takd part through social media, through

:29:11. > :29:14.Internet sites, that is why we have a strategic communication unit based

:29:15. > :29:17.on the Foreign Office, which is particularly focused on takhng down

:29:18. > :29:22.those sorts of websites. We'll continue to keep that under review

:29:23. > :29:26.to make sure we do as as possible. On behalf of the Liberal Delocrats

:29:27. > :29:31.I'd like to welcome her to her new position and echo her condolences to

:29:32. > :29:35.the families and friends of those so senselessly murdered. The m`ssacre

:29:36. > :29:39.of the innocent in Nice will strengthen the resolve of all those

:29:40. > :29:42.who believe in democracy and freedom to confront terrorists wherdver they

:29:43. > :29:47.strike in the world. Does the Home Secretary agree when our closest

:29:48. > :29:50.ally is under attack the UK must use all organisations and measures at

:29:51. > :29:54.our disposal to help the ally, including Interpol, Europe `nd the

:29:55. > :30:00.European arrest warrant, and the closest co-operation possible is our

:30:01. > :30:06.best defence against the murderers activities of terrorist or lone

:30:07. > :30:10.wolves. I thank the honourable gentleman for his comment and the

:30:11. > :30:13.support of the Liberal Democrats for this consensus, to stand with our

:30:14. > :30:18.allies in France. He is right we need to have a very close

:30:19. > :30:21.relationship with our allies. European and outside Europe. In

:30:22. > :30:24.order to make sure we deepen the knowledge and are able to share the

:30:25. > :30:26.information we have two combat terrorism. I will make sure that we

:30:27. > :30:39.continue to do that. Thank you Mr Speaker. We've seen

:30:40. > :30:42.tragically that tourist destinations are the target of evil terrorist

:30:43. > :30:46.acts. Can I have affirm asstrance from the Home Secretary that Gatwick

:30:47. > :30:50.Airport will receive the security resources that it needs to dnsure

:30:51. > :30:56.that those travelling through will be safe this summer and beyond? Yes,

:30:57. > :31:00.I'm pleased that my honourable friend has raised that, bec`use I'm

:31:01. > :31:04.keen to re-assure everybody that is exactly what will happen. Wd will

:31:05. > :31:08.continue to keep our airports under constant review. We must do that.

:31:09. > :31:11.But we will do that making sure that we make everybody who works there,

:31:12. > :31:18.who lives around there and who travels through there as safe as

:31:19. > :31:21.possible. Snvm Can I also thank the Secretary of State for her statement

:31:22. > :31:27.and wish her well in her new role. Our hearts ache for those who have

:31:28. > :31:30.lost loved once. It seems that security levels just after the euros

:31:31. > :31:35.in Nice and across France, there's been a high level of rediness in the

:31:36. > :31:38.United Kingdom for some years and in Northern Ireland since 2010. Does

:31:39. > :31:42.the Secretary of State accept we are at a severe level of threat for the

:31:43. > :31:47.foreseeable future and that we all need to be vigilant, careful and

:31:48. > :31:52.responsive and that more th`n ever, the public, security Fire Sdrvices

:31:53. > :31:57.and exchange of intelligencd from countries must continue? I thank the

:31:58. > :32:02.honourable gentleman for his comments. We are already at the

:32:03. > :32:06.severe level. He is right wd must all be vigilant. We will continue to

:32:07. > :32:10.take that approach until we have information to the contrary. Our

:32:11. > :32:14.current status, given there are so many people who want to do ts harm,

:32:15. > :32:19.that we must be vigilant and the terror level is at severe.

:32:20. > :32:24.Mr Speaker, once upon a timd it was useful to talk about lone wolves,

:32:25. > :32:28.individuals who would attack without any institutional support. Would my

:32:29. > :32:33.right honourable friend agrde with me those people don't exist today

:32:34. > :32:38.because of the internet, because of online radicalisation, behind every

:32:39. > :32:44.lone wolf is a pack of wolvds to support them online? Will mx right

:32:45. > :32:48.honourable friend make it a priority to tack thl online radicalisation so

:32:49. > :32:52.we can be better protected hn the foo youure -- future. My honourable

:32:53. > :32:57.friend is right. It is a thdme coming up here from so many asking

:32:58. > :33:01.questions about the radicalhsation of people through the internet. I

:33:02. > :33:05.will make sure that we put dxtra effort and keep it under review and

:33:06. > :33:09.make sure we take down the relevant websites as often as possible. May I

:33:10. > :33:15.welcome the Home Secretary to her new post. My right honourable friend

:33:16. > :33:17.the Shadow Home Secretary s`id a similar attack to this terrhble

:33:18. > :33:21.attack could happen anywherd any time in. Salford our policing

:33:22. > :33:25.resources are stretched handling high levels of crime, involving

:33:26. > :33:29.stabbing and shootings, as well as these new threats. Can the Home

:33:30. > :33:31.Secretary assure me she will protect Greater Manchester Police btdgets so

:33:32. > :33:37.the police can protect my constituents? Well, I mean the

:33:38. > :33:41.police play the critical role in ensuring that we are all kept safe,

:33:42. > :33:46.which is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister protected

:33:47. > :33:50.the police budget in the review of last year. But I will certahnly take

:33:51. > :33:54.a careful look at all the spending within the police budget to ensure

:33:55. > :33:58.that the maximum amount is `vailable to ensure that we get clear, visible

:33:59. > :34:05.policing on our streets that plays such an important part in ddterring

:34:06. > :34:09.criminal activity. In light of the budget annotncement

:34:10. > :34:13.which the Home Secretary just referred to, could she confhrm that

:34:14. > :34:17.the Metropolitan Police did indeed increase its armed response vehicle

:34:18. > :34:22.capacity and that our armed officers in this country have the capacity to

:34:23. > :34:26.neutralise a threat like th`t in Nice and indeed, that we have the

:34:27. > :34:30.most professional armed offhcers in the world? My honourable frhend is

:34:31. > :34:33.absolutely right. We are very proud of the high standards by our

:34:34. > :34:36.professional armed officers and we announced in April that the number

:34:37. > :34:40.of armed police will increase by more than a thousand over the next

:34:41. > :34:44.two years. Additional round the clock specialist team is behng set

:34:45. > :34:48.up outside London and 40 additional police armed response vehicles are

:34:49. > :34:55.on our streets. I happen to be on the promenade on

:34:56. > :34:58.Thursday evening, watching the fireworks with the crowd and was

:34:59. > :35:04.very lucky to have left just a few minutes before the attack. Hf I may,

:35:05. > :35:08.Mr Speaker, the haunting sight for me, having been so fortunatd not to

:35:09. > :35:18.have seen the carnage itself, was to drive to the airport through what is

:35:19. > :35:23.actually the busy thorough fare and see the stretch of the flowdrs laid

:35:24. > :35:30.for each victim. It went on and on and on. It was truly somethhng which

:35:31. > :35:37.will haunt me for a long tile. Given that, could I ask the Home Secretary

:35:38. > :35:43.if she is as troubled as I `m by the tension that we have between our

:35:44. > :35:50.natural, human desire to focus in on the horror of things like this,

:35:51. > :35:53.which happen, the world's mddia focussing on one point, to have

:35:54. > :35:56.Parliamentary statements like this and the inevitable extra publicity

:35:57. > :36:02.that gives to the terrorists who want to show that they can create a

:36:03. > :36:07.level of carnage and disruption far beyond their actual militarx

:36:08. > :36:11.capability would otherwise `llow? Well, I thank the honourabld

:36:12. > :36:17.gentleman for sharing that with us. It's those certainly stories that

:36:18. > :36:21.make the real tragedy come to life for us. He raises an import`nt

:36:22. > :36:24.point. We want people to be aware, but we don't want to give the

:36:25. > :36:29.terrorists the sort of publhcity they want. But our intelligdnce is

:36:30. > :36:33.that because we are making progress against them, we are making progress

:36:34. > :36:36.against them, against Daesh in general, they are trying to find

:36:37. > :36:41.ways to lash out and being dangerous in this way. I have to say, it is

:36:42. > :36:47.right that we know that this is taking place and that everybody can

:36:48. > :36:52.be vigilant against it. Can I welcome my right honotrable

:36:53. > :36:56.friend to her new position. As it is some time since the initial

:36:57. > :37:00.announcement was made of thd recruitment of 1900 more security

:37:01. > :37:06.staff, can the Home Secretary tell the House how many have so far

:37:07. > :37:09.actually been recruited? I thank my honourable friend for that puestion.

:37:10. > :37:13.I cannot, at the moment, give him the exact number. But I can tell him

:37:14. > :37:18.that we have made good progress I will write to him further whth that

:37:19. > :37:23.number. Could I wish the right honotrable

:37:24. > :37:29.lady well in her appointment. With many British citizens due to take

:37:30. > :37:33.part in battle of the Somme events this year, will she do all she can

:37:34. > :37:38.to ensure these visits go ahead and all that she can in terms of

:37:39. > :37:44.cooperation with our French allies to ensure the safety and security of

:37:45. > :37:47.British people taking part? Well, I thank the honourable gentlelan for

:37:48. > :37:51.that points. He is absolutely right. It is essential that these dvents go

:37:52. > :37:56.on, particularly to remember something like the Battle of the

:37:57. > :37:59.Somme, which puts some of the difficulties we have here in

:38:00. > :38:03.perspective, the scale of the massacre there. I will indedd engage

:38:04. > :38:08.with my French counterpart to ensure we do all we can to give thdm the

:38:09. > :38:13.support they need to keep everybody safe. Can I congratulate thd Home

:38:14. > :38:16.Secretary on her statement `nd welcome her and her team to their

:38:17. > :38:20.places. Does she agrow whether we are in or out of Europe, we must

:38:21. > :38:23.stand with Britain, Britain and France must stand together to tackle

:38:24. > :38:28.terrorism, to tackle human trafficking, to keep our borders

:38:29. > :38:32.safe and secure, upholding our treaties, that way our two nations

:38:33. > :38:37.are safer, stronger and mord secure? I thank my honourable friend. He's

:38:38. > :38:42.absolutely right. National security remains the sole responsibility of

:38:43. > :38:44.member states. We will conthnue to work bilaterally with Francd,

:38:45. > :38:47.sharing information and deepening that relationship so we can make

:38:48. > :38:52.sure we keep both our countries safe.

:38:53. > :38:59.The Home Secretary, and I wdlcome her to her post, is right to condemn

:39:00. > :39:06.these vicious atrocities in Nice. After the Paris attacks in November,

:39:07. > :39:11.her predecessor, the new Prhme Minister, committed to a review on

:39:12. > :39:16.firearms responses in the United Kingdom. Can she update the House on

:39:17. > :39:21.how that review has gone and whether any changes have been instigated as

:39:22. > :39:26.a result of it? I thank the honourable gentleman. That review is

:39:27. > :39:30.ongoing. It is not finished yet I will make sure that I get hhm an

:39:31. > :39:35.update of where we are, so H can make sure he's fully informdd. Can I

:39:36. > :39:40.welcome my right honourable friend to her place and condemn thhs

:39:41. > :39:44.barbarous attack. I welcome the extra money that she talks `bout.

:39:45. > :39:49.Can I ask her, is she happy that the training facilities that thd armed

:39:50. > :39:53.police are now going to havd are sufficient to meet the extrdme level

:39:54. > :39:57.they may be put to, ie, storming buildings and so forth, to rescue

:39:58. > :40:02.those taken hostage? This rdquires a huge level of skill, I suspdct,

:40:03. > :40:05.investment and training? Le w, I can tell my honourable friend -, well, I

:40:06. > :40:09.can tell my honourable friend that we have some of the best in the

:40:10. > :40:13.world who are our armed offhcers who can do that response. We ard no

:40:14. > :40:18.doubt that we will take all action we need to keep our people safe If

:40:19. > :40:21.that requires additional tr`ining or additional expertise, we will take

:40:22. > :40:25.it seriously. We will keep ht constantly under review to dnsure we

:40:26. > :40:31.can deliver that. THE SPEAKER: Very unseemly. Thank

:40:32. > :40:35.you very much indeed Mr Spe`ker I welcome the Home Secretary to her

:40:36. > :40:38.post. This horrific attack was carried out using no specialised

:40:39. > :40:42.equipment, but it's not enotgh for husband to play catch up and be

:40:43. > :40:48.thinking how to protect people from a lorry attack, but to be ilagining

:40:49. > :40:51.the unthinkable, pre-emting and taking precautions against dvery

:40:52. > :40:54.other method of attack, without going into detail, can she give

:40:55. > :41:00.assurances that the Securitx Services are doing this? I thank the

:41:01. > :41:05.honourable lady and she makds an important point about the txpe of

:41:06. > :41:09.weapon used in this case. I would repeat, though, there is an ongoing

:41:10. > :41:13.investigation in France, so we no further investigation about the

:41:14. > :41:17.access or the details of it. But I would say, that we are keephng under

:41:18. > :41:20.particular review large events so we can make sure that the people who

:41:21. > :41:24.are promoting these events or hosting them always have thd

:41:25. > :41:30.important information they need to keep the attendees safe.

:41:31. > :41:35.The murderous rampage of thhs evil terrorist was eventually halted by

:41:36. > :41:39.armed police in Nice. Can the Home Secretary just reiterate how

:41:40. > :41:41.satisfied she is with the availability of rapid armed response

:41:42. > :41:47.units in our regional towns and cities? I thank the honourable

:41:48. > :41:51.gentleman and -- my honourable friend. We will continue to keep

:41:52. > :41:55.this under review to ensure that we always keep people safe. Ovdr the

:41:56. > :41:58.next five years, we are, for example, providing ?143 million for

:41:59. > :42:05.the police to further boost their firearms capability. There will be

:42:06. > :42:10.no risk taken with the security As well as deploying its Securhty

:42:11. > :42:15.Services and its police force, France has also deployed ovdr 1 ,000

:42:16. > :42:20.of its army and also has talked about calling up 55,000 resdrvists.

:42:21. > :42:24.Dewing the Olympics, the Brhtish military played an important part in

:42:25. > :42:27.our security. Can I assume that the Home Secretary is talking to the

:42:28. > :42:32.Secretary of State of defence about the lessons the British milhtary can

:42:33. > :42:38.also teach in terms of ensuring security of large events? I thank

:42:39. > :42:44.the honourable lady. She rahses an important point about the v`lue of

:42:45. > :42:47.collaboration between defence and home to ensure we get the bdst

:42:48. > :42:49.outcome. We have done that previously and I look forward to

:42:50. > :42:53.continuing that with my right honourable friend. I wonder if I can

:42:54. > :42:56.ask the Home Secretary to s`y a little more about the defence

:42:57. > :43:01.measures we might have here in the UK against such an attack t`king

:43:02. > :43:08.place in the UK and particularly, the ability of potential totrists -

:43:09. > :43:12.terrorists to get hold of something such as a commercial vehicld. I

:43:13. > :43:15.thank my honourable friend. We do have particular assets which we use

:43:16. > :43:19.in order to combat that sort of attack. We have, for instance, a

:43:20. > :43:22.national barrier asset, where the police assess there to be a risk for

:43:23. > :43:27.vehicle attacks, my honourable friend may have seen them. They are

:43:28. > :43:32.these big, almost plastic items set out outside areas of risk, hn order

:43:33. > :43:36.to combat exactly that sort of attack. We will make those `vailable

:43:37. > :43:41.to areas having big gatherings, which is exactly the sort of area

:43:42. > :43:44.which could be most valuabld. Can I welcome the Home Secretary to her

:43:45. > :43:49.new role. Last year, the Opposition joined with the Government to

:43:50. > :43:52.support measures to be introduced for returning jihadists to restrict

:43:53. > :43:55.their movements when they rdturn to the UK. Can the Home Secret`ry say

:43:56. > :44:00.how often those powers have been used? Well, I'm certainly aware that

:44:01. > :44:04.we have those powers and we are using them. Of course, the best

:44:05. > :44:08.thing is to try and discour`ge people in the first place from

:44:09. > :44:12.going. We are aware, we are also making sure that we use those powers

:44:13. > :44:15.to stop people when they cole back and potentially to arrest them. I'm

:44:16. > :44:20.happy to right to the honourable lady to give more information about

:44:21. > :44:26.the actual numbers. I was privileged in being able to

:44:27. > :44:29.attend an inter-faith Eid celebration dinner last night,

:44:30. > :44:34.hosted by a group that your new Prime Minister is aware of. A fine

:44:35. > :44:37.example of a group teaching love, not hatred, and committed to helping

:44:38. > :44:42.their local communities in raising hundreds of thousands of potnds for

:44:43. > :44:46.UK charities. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that we need

:44:47. > :44:50.to work with our Muslim comlunities to ensure that they're not targeted

:44:51. > :44:52.with hate crimes in the UK `nd not linked to these appalling attacks,

:44:53. > :44:59.which they condemn? THE SPEAKER: People ought to show

:45:00. > :45:02.some sensitivity to the House. Forgive me, but that question was

:45:03. > :45:06.far too long. I thank the honourable lady. She makes such an important

:45:07. > :45:09.point about the role of comlunities and other faith groups to m`ke sure

:45:10. > :45:14.that the sort of terrorism we've seen and the sort of hate that can

:45:15. > :45:20.grow up so, apparently so e`sily sometimes, is combatted early on. I

:45:21. > :45:28.join her in congratulated the group. THE SPEAKER: Order. To move motion

:45:29. > :45:29.number one on the UK's nucldar deterrent, I call the Prime

:45:30. > :45:43.Minister. Mr Speaker, I beg to move in motion

:45:44. > :45:46.on the order paper in the n`me of my name and my right honourabld

:45:47. > :45:49.friends. The Home Secretary has just made a statement about the `ttack in

:45:50. > :45:52.Nice and I'm sure the whole house will join me in sending our deepest

:45:53. > :45:54.condolences to the families and friends of all those killed and

:45:55. > :46:01.injured in last Thursday's ttterly horrifying attack in knees. Innocent

:46:02. > :46:04.victims brutally murdered bx terrorists who resent the freedoms

:46:05. > :46:09.we treasure and want nothing more than to destroy our way of life

:46:10. > :46:14.This latest attack in Francd, pounding the tragedies of the Paris

:46:15. > :46:18.attacks in January and Novelber last year is another grave reminder of

:46:19. > :46:22.the growing threat that Britain and all our allies face from terrorism.

:46:23. > :46:27.On Friday I spoke with presdnt land and assured him we will stand

:46:28. > :46:32.shoulder to shoulder with the French people as we have done so often the

:46:33. > :46:37.past. -- I spoke with President Hollande. We will never be cowed by

:46:38. > :46:41.terror. Though the battle whth terrorism may be long, thesd

:46:42. > :46:47.terrorists will be defeated and the values will prevail. Mr Spe`ker I

:46:48. > :46:51.should note the serious events over the weekend in Turkey. We h`ve

:46:52. > :46:56.firmly condemned the attempted coup by certain members of the Ttrkish

:46:57. > :47:00.military which began on Friday evening. Britain stands firlly in

:47:01. > :47:05.support of Turkey's democratically elected government and insthtutions,

:47:06. > :47:07.we call for the full observ`nce of Turkey's constitutional orddr, and

:47:08. > :47:10.stressed the importance of the rule of law prevailing in the wake of

:47:11. > :47:16.this failed coup. Everything must be done to avoid further violence, to

:47:17. > :47:19.protect lives and restore c`lm. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has

:47:20. > :47:22.worked around the clock to provide help and advice to the many

:47:23. > :47:25.thousands of reddish tackles on holiday or working in Turkex at this

:47:26. > :47:30.time and my right honourabld friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to

:47:31. > :47:34.the Turkish Foreign Minister and I expect to speak to President Erdogan

:47:35. > :47:38.shortly. Before I turn to otr nuclear deterrent, I'm sure the

:47:39. > :47:44.house will welcome the news that Japan's Softbank group intends to

:47:45. > :47:47.acquire UK tech firm arm Holdings. I've spoken to Softbank dirdctly and

:47:48. > :47:51.they have confirmed their commitment to keep the company in Cambridge and

:47:52. > :47:56.invest further to double thd number of UK jobs over five years. This ?24

:47:57. > :48:02.billion investment would be the largest ever Asian investment in the

:48:03. > :48:08.UK. It's a clear demonstrathon that Britain is open for business, as

:48:09. > :48:12.attractive to international investment as ever. Hear, hdar! Mr

:48:13. > :48:15.Speaker there is no greater responsible Diaz by Minister than in

:48:16. > :48:20.chewing the safety and security of our people, that is why I'vd made my

:48:21. > :48:23.first duty in this house to move today's motion so we can get on with

:48:24. > :48:29.the job of renewing an essential part of our national security for

:48:30. > :48:34.generations to come. For allost half a century every hour of every day

:48:35. > :48:41.our Royal Navy nuclear subm`rines have been patrolling Boeoti`ns.

:48:42. > :48:46.Unseen and undetected. -- p`trolling the oceans. Our ultimate insurance

:48:47. > :48:50.against nuclear attack. Our sub mariners endure months away from

:48:51. > :48:53.their families, often withott any contact with their loved onds,

:48:54. > :48:58.training relentlessly fought the duty they hope never to carry out. I

:48:59. > :49:04.hope Mr Speaker that whatevdr our views on the deterrent, we can today

:49:05. > :49:08.agree on one thing, that our country owes an enormous debt of gr`titude

:49:09. > :49:13.to all our sub mariners and their families for the sacrifices they

:49:14. > :49:17.make in keeping us safe. He`r, hear! As former Home Secretary, I'm

:49:18. > :49:20.familiar with the threats f`cing our country, in my last post I was

:49:21. > :49:25.responsible for counterterrorism for over six years, I received daily

:49:26. > :49:28.intelligence briefings about threats to national security, I chahred a

:49:29. > :49:32.weekly security meeting with representatives of all the countries

:49:33. > :49:37.security and intelligence agencies, military and police, and receive

:49:38. > :49:40.personal briefings from the director-general of MI5. Ovdr six

:49:41. > :49:44.years as Home Secretary I w`s focused on the decisions nedded to

:49:45. > :49:49.keep our people safe and it remains my first priority as Prime Linister.

:49:50. > :49:53.The threats we face are serhous It is vital for our national interest

:49:54. > :50:01.that we have the full spectrum of our defences at. To meet thdm. - at

:50:02. > :50:05.full strength to meet them. Under my leadership is government will meet

:50:06. > :50:09.our Nato obligation to spend 2% of our GDP on defence, we will maintain

:50:10. > :50:13.the most significant security and military capability in Europe and

:50:14. > :50:16.continue to invest in all the capabilities set out in the

:50:17. > :50:21.strategic defence and Securhty review last year. We will mdet the

:50:22. > :50:26.growing terrorist threat coling from Daesh in Syria and Iraq, Boko Haram

:50:27. > :50:30.in Nigeria, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Karsh about in E`st

:50:31. > :50:36.Africa, and other terrorist groups planning attacks in Pakistan and

:50:37. > :50:46.Afghanistan. -- Walsh about in East Africa.

:50:47. > :50:52.Would my right honourable friend agree that Ukraine would have been

:50:53. > :50:58.less likely to have lost a sizeable portion of its territory to Russia I

:50:59. > :51:03.did continue to keep its nuclear weapons, and there are lessons in

:51:04. > :51:07.that for us. My honourable friend is absolutely right that there are

:51:08. > :51:11.lessons some people suggest to us that we should be removing our

:51:12. > :51:14.nuclear deterrent. This has been a vital part of our national security

:51:15. > :51:17.and defence were nearly half a century now and it would be quite

:51:18. > :51:21.the wrong... I will give wax to the honourable gentleman in a mhnute...

:51:22. > :51:27.It would be quite wrong to go down that particular pass. I think the

:51:28. > :51:32.premise to four giving way. Correction I thank the Primd

:51:33. > :51:35.Minister for giving way. Will she be reassured it remains steadf`stly

:51:36. > :51:42.Labour Party policy to renew the deterrent while other countries have

:51:43. > :51:44.the capacity to threaten thd United Kingdom and many of my colldagues

:51:45. > :51:49.will do the right thing for the long-term security of our n`tion and

:51:50. > :51:56.a vote to complete the programme we ourselves started in governlent

:51:57. > :52:00.Hear, hear! Can I commend the honourable gentleman for thd words

:52:01. > :52:05.he has just said, he's absolutely right, the national interest is

:52:06. > :52:08.clear. The manifesto on which Labour members of Parliament stood for the

:52:09. > :52:15.general election last year said the following... Britain must rdmain

:52:16. > :52:17.committed to a minimum credhble independent nuclear capabilhty

:52:18. > :52:21.delivered through a continuous at the deterrent. I welcome thd

:52:22. > :52:27.commitment the honourable gdntleman and many of his colleagues will be

:52:28. > :52:29.giving tonight to that nucldar deterrent by joining the government

:52:30. > :52:36.and members of Parliament in voting for this motion. I add my

:52:37. > :52:40.congratulations to her in hdr new role. If keeping an renewing our

:52:41. > :52:43.nuclear weapons is so vital to our national security and safetx, does

:52:44. > :52:47.she accept the logic of that position must be every other single

:52:48. > :52:52.country must seek to acquird nuclear weapons and the she really think the

:52:53. > :52:59.world would be a safer placd if it did? Our nuclear weapons ard driving

:53:00. > :53:02.a reparation, not the opposhte. -- driving proliferation. I don't

:53:03. > :53:05.accept that at all. I have to say to the honourable lady that sadly she

:53:06. > :53:09.and some other members of the Labour Party seem to be the first to defend

:53:10. > :53:17.the country's enemies and the last to accept the capabilities...

:53:18. > :53:22.INAUDIBLE Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, nond of this

:53:23. > :53:26.means there will be no thre`t from nuclear state in coming dec`des As

:53:27. > :53:28.I will set out for the housd today, the threats from countries like

:53:29. > :53:34.Russia and North Korea remahn very real. As our strategic defence and

:53:35. > :53:40.Security review made clear, there is a continuing risk of further

:53:41. > :53:43.proliferation of weapons. Wd must continually convince any potential

:53:44. > :53:47.aggressors the benefits of `n attack on Britain are far outweighdd by

:53:48. > :53:51.their consequences and we c`nnot afford to relax our guard or rule

:53:52. > :53:55.out further shifts which put our country in great danger. We need to

:53:56. > :54:01.be prepared to deter threats to our lives and livelihoods and those of

:54:02. > :54:07.generations yet to be born. I will give way. Very grateful to the Prime

:54:08. > :54:11.Minister giving way. We on these benches go through the lobbx

:54:12. > :54:15.tonight, 58 of Scotland's 58 MPs will be voting against this. What

:54:16. > :54:20.message is the Prime Ministdr sending to the people of Scotland,

:54:21. > :54:21.who are demonstrating through their elected representatives we don't

:54:22. > :54:30.want Trident on our soil. I have decided the honourable

:54:31. > :54:33.gentleman it means 58 of thd 59 Scottish members of Parliamdnt will

:54:34. > :54:37.be voting against jobs in Scotland. CHEERING

:54:38. > :54:46.Supported by the nuclear deterrent. I give way to the honourabld... I

:54:47. > :54:49.thank the Prime Minister for giving way and congratulate her on her

:54:50. > :54:55.appointment. She mentioned the security threat the country faces

:54:56. > :55:00.from terrorism. What does she say to those whose eight is a choice

:55:01. > :55:04.between renewing the Trident programme or confronting thd

:55:05. > :55:08.terrorist threat. -- who sax it is a choice. I say it is not advhce, but

:55:09. > :55:13.the country needs to do is recognise it faces a variety of threats and to

:55:14. > :55:15.ensure we have the capabilities necessary and appropriate to deal

:55:16. > :55:21.with each of those threats. As the Home Secretary has just madd clear

:55:22. > :55:23.in response to questions in her statement, the government is

:55:24. > :55:29.committed to extra funding, extra moves to let macro resources --

:55:30. > :55:34.extra resources going to agdncies as they face terrorist threat. This

:55:35. > :55:38.that we are talking about today is the necessity for us having a

:55:39. > :55:41.nuclear deterrent which has been an insurer 's policy for this country

:55:42. > :55:46.for nearly 50 years and I bdlieve should remain so. -- insurance

:55:47. > :55:51.policy. I'd like to make a little progress before I take more

:55:52. > :55:53.interventions. Mr Speaker, H know there are serious and important

:55:54. > :55:56.questions at the heart of this debate and I want to address them

:55:57. > :56:03.all this afternoon. First, hn light of the evolving nature of the threat

:56:04. > :56:08.we face, is a nuclear deterrent still necessary and essenti`l? Is

:56:09. > :56:11.the cost of the deterrent to great? That, is building four subm`rines

:56:12. > :56:15.the right way of maintaining the deterrent. Could we not relx on our

:56:16. > :56:20.nuclear armed allies like Alerica and France to provide the ddterrent?

:56:21. > :56:23.Do we not have a moral duty to lead the world in nuclear disarm`ment

:56:24. > :56:32.rather than maintaining our own deterrent? I will take each of these

:56:33. > :56:35.questions in turn. Could I congratulate the Prime Minister on

:56:36. > :56:38.her sure-footedness today in bringing this motion before the

:56:39. > :56:41.house, and at last allowing Parliament in this session to make a

:56:42. > :56:49.decision. We will proudly stand behind the government on thhs issue

:56:50. > :56:51.to act. Could I encourage hdr to encourage the Scottish Nationalists

:56:52. > :56:57.if they don't want those jobs in Scotland, they will happily be taken

:56:58. > :57:00.in Northern Ireland. I'm gr`teful to the honourable gentleman for his

:57:01. > :57:06.intervention and the support he and colleagues will be showing tonight.

:57:07. > :57:10.Mr Speaker, I will take one more intervention... I'm grateful and

:57:11. > :57:14.would like to congratulate her on becoming Prime Minister. Can she

:57:15. > :57:18.confirm that when the Labour government of Clement Attled took

:57:19. > :57:24.the decision to have nuclear weapons, it had to do so in a very

:57:25. > :57:28.dangerous world. And that stccessive Labour governments kept those

:57:29. > :57:35.nuclear weapons are cars thdre was a dangerous world. Isn't it, now, as

:57:36. > :57:39.you said, a dangerous time? -- kept weapons because. The last L`bour

:57:40. > :57:43.government held votes on thd retention of the nuclear deterrent.

:57:44. > :57:47.I think it's a great pity there are members of the Labour Party's front

:57:48. > :57:51.bench today who failed to sde the necessity of this nuclear ddterrent,

:57:52. > :57:54.given the Labour Party in the past has put the British national

:57:55. > :58:01.interest first in looking at this issue. Mr Speaker, I want to set out

:58:02. > :58:03.for the house why our nucle`r deterrent remains as necess`ry and

:58:04. > :58:07.essential today as it was when we first established it. The ntclear

:58:08. > :58:12.threat has not gone away, if anything, it has increased. First

:58:13. > :58:16.there is the threat from exhsting nuclear states like Russia. We know

:58:17. > :58:20.President Putin is upgrading his nuclear forces. In the last two

:58:21. > :58:23.years there has been a disttrbing increase in Russian rhetoric about

:58:24. > :58:33.the use of nuclear weapons `nd the free -- snap nuclear exercises.

:58:34. > :58:36.There is no question about his willingness to undermine thd rule

:58:37. > :58:39.-based international system to advance his own interests. He has

:58:40. > :58:43.already threatened to base nuclear forces in the Crimea and Kalann

:58:44. > :58:48.inbred, the Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea that neighbours Poland

:58:49. > :58:53.and Lithuania. There are cotntries that wish to acquire nuclear

:58:54. > :58:57.capabilities illegally. North Korea has stated clearly tend to develop

:58:58. > :59:03.and employ a nuclear weapons and continues to work towards that goal.

:59:04. > :59:08.In flagrant violation... I'l going to make some progress... Of UN

:59:09. > :59:12.Security Council resolutions. It is the only country in the world to

:59:13. > :59:15.have tested nuclear weapons this century, carrying out its fourth

:59:16. > :59:20.test of this year, as well `s a space launch that used the list of

:59:21. > :59:24.missile technology. It also claims to be attempted to develop `

:59:25. > :59:27.submarine launch capability and to have withdrawn from the nuclear

:59:28. > :59:32.Non-Proliferation Treaty. B`sed on the route tick advice received,

:59:33. > :59:37.North Korea could have enough fissile material to produce more

:59:38. > :59:44.than a dozen nuclear weapons. - based on evidence received. There is

:59:45. > :59:48.of course the danger North Korea might share its technology or

:59:49. > :59:53.weapons with other countries or organisations who wish to do us

:59:54. > :59:58.harm. Third, there is the qtestion of future nuclear threat, that we

:59:59. > :00:02.cannot even anticipate todax. Let me be clear why this matters. Once

:00:03. > :00:07.nuclear weapons have been ghven up, it's almost impossible to gdt them

:00:08. > :00:11.back. The process of creating a new deterrent takes many decades, you

:00:12. > :00:15.could not redevelop a deterrent fast enough to respond to a new `nd

:00:16. > :00:19.unforeseen nuclear threat. The decision on whether to renew our

:00:20. > :00:22.nuclear deterrent in just not just on the threats we face todax but

:00:23. > :00:26.also on an assessment of wh`t the world will be like over the coming

:00:27. > :00:31.decades. It is impossible to say for certain that no such extremd threats

:00:32. > :00:35.in the next 30-40 years to threaten our security and way of lifd. It

:00:36. > :00:40.would be an act of gross irresponsibility to lose thd ability

:00:41. > :00:46.to meet such threats by discarding the ultimate insurance against those

:00:47. > :00:49.risk in future. With the exhsting fleet of Vanguard submarines

:00:50. > :00:54.beginning to leave service by the early 2030s and the time it takes to

:00:55. > :00:58.build and test new submarinds, we need to take the decision to replace

:00:59. > :01:03.them now. Maintaining our ntclear deterrent is not just essential for

:01:04. > :01:08.our own national security, ht is also vital for the future sdcurity

:01:09. > :01:15.of our Nato allies. The Prile Minister. Last year the Minhster for

:01:16. > :01:19.defence procurement said thd cost of the replacement programme w`s, and I

:01:20. > :01:25.quote, being withheld, as it relates to the formulation of government

:01:26. > :01:28.policy and would prejudice commercial interests. Given the

:01:29. > :01:32.scale of the decision we ard being asked today, but the Prime Linister

:01:33. > :01:35.tell us the cost of that, the life cost.

:01:36. > :01:41.I'm coming onto the cost in a minute. Britain is going to leave

:01:42. > :01:46.the European Union, but we `re not leaving Europe. We will not leave

:01:47. > :01:55.our European and Nato allies behind. Being recognised as one of the five

:01:56. > :01:57.nuclear weapons states under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

:01:58. > :02:04.confers unique responsibilities They did so on the understanding

:02:05. > :02:08.that they were protected by Nato's nuclear umbrella, abandoning our

:02:09. > :02:11.deterrent would undermine otr future security and that of our allies too.

:02:12. > :02:15.That is not something that H am prepared to do.

:02:16. > :02:19.I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. I wonder if the Prime

:02:20. > :02:26.Minister in her busy schedule this morning caught the interview on

:02:27. > :02:32.radio five, where it was st`ted that he was a member of CND but then he

:02:33. > :02:36.grew up. Isn't it the maturd view, the adult view in a world where we

:02:37. > :02:43.have a nuclear north crow y`, an expansionist Russia, we must keep

:02:44. > :02:46.our independent nuclear detdrrent? Well I absolutely agree with my

:02:47. > :02:49.honourable friend. I think he's right to point out there ard members

:02:50. > :02:53.on the benches opposite who do support that view. Sadly, not many

:02:54. > :03:01.of them seem to be on the frontbench of the party opposite. But we may

:03:02. > :03:04.see, maybe my speech will change the views of some of the frontbdnches. I

:03:05. > :03:07.said to the right honourabld gentleman I would come onto the

:03:08. > :03:11.question of cost. I want to do that now. Of course, no credible

:03:12. > :03:17.deterrent is cheap. It's estimated that the four new submarines will

:03:18. > :03:21.cost ?31 billion to build whth a contingency of ?10 billion. With the

:03:22. > :03:27.acquisition costs spread ovdr 3 years, this is effectively `n

:03:28. > :03:31.insurance premium of 0. 2% of total annual Government spending, 20 pence

:03:32. > :03:35.in every ?100 for a capabilhty to protect our people through to the

:03:36. > :03:40.2060s and beyond. I'm very clear our national security is worth dvery

:03:41. > :03:46.penny. There's a significant economic benefit to the rendwal of

:03:47. > :03:48.our nuclear deterrent - I'm very grateful for the Prime Minister

:03:49. > :03:53.taking a second intervention on It I asked a simple question the first

:03:54. > :03:57.time round. I think the Prile Minister has concluded of what the

:03:58. > :04:02.cost is for Trident replacelent But she didn't say what that nulber was.

:04:03. > :04:08.Would she be so kind to say what the total number is for Trident

:04:09. > :04:12.replacement? I've given the figures for the cost of bidding the

:04:13. > :04:18.submarines. I've cleared th`t the in-service cost is about 6% of the

:04:19. > :04:23.defence Budget or about 13 p in every ?100 of Government spdnding.

:04:24. > :04:29.There is also a significant economic benefit to the renewal of otr

:04:30. > :04:32.nuclear deterrent. Our nucldar which might be of interest to

:04:33. > :04:39.members of the Scottish Nathonal Party. I give way. Would shd pay

:04:40. > :04:42.tribute, quite rightly to otr submariners, but should she pay

:04:43. > :04:46.tribute to the men and women who work in our defence industrhes who

:04:47. > :04:50.are going to be working on the successor. They're highly skilled

:04:51. > :04:54.individuals, well paid, but also these skills cannot be just turned

:04:55. > :05:00.on and off like a tap when xou need them. Does she agree it's in the

:05:01. > :05:04.national interest to keep these people employed? I think he makes an

:05:05. > :05:08.incredibly important point. Our nuclear defence industry makes a

:05:09. > :05:12.major contribution to our ddfence industrial base, supporting more

:05:13. > :05:17.than 30,000 jobs across the UK. It benefits hundreds of supplidrs

:05:18. > :05:20.across 350 constituencies. H just finish this point, while thd skills

:05:21. > :05:24.required in this industry whll keep our nation at the cutting edge for

:05:25. > :05:30.years to come, and I also along with the honourable gentleman pax tribute

:05:31. > :05:36.to all those who are working in this industry and by their contrhbution

:05:37. > :05:39.helping to keep us safe I'd like to welcome her to the place as Prime

:05:40. > :05:44.Minister. Would she not agrde with me that like the honourable member

:05:45. > :05:48.for barrow, Morecambe has a lot of people in the defence industry and

:05:49. > :05:52.the thuck leer power industry and science sector there. Would this not

:05:53. > :05:55.be a kick in the teach to mx -- teeth to my constituents if we

:05:56. > :06:02.didn't have this deterrent dnacted today? My honourable friend make a

:06:03. > :06:05.very important point. There are some constituencies particularly affected

:06:06. > :06:08.in relation to this. As I'vd just said, there are jobs across

:06:09. > :06:12.something like 350 constitudncies in this country that are relatdd to

:06:13. > :06:17.this industry. Of course, if we weren't going to renew our nuclear

:06:18. > :06:22.deterrent those people would risk losing their jobs as a result. I

:06:23. > :06:26.will give way then I will m`ke some progress. I thank the Prime Minister

:06:27. > :06:32.for giving way. I hope she's going to come on to an explanation as to

:06:33. > :06:35.how like-for-like replacement of Trident complies with article six of

:06:36. > :06:40.the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? I'm going to come onto the

:06:41. > :06:43.whole question of nuclear proliferation a little later in my

:06:44. > :06:54.speech, if the right honour`ble gentleman will just hold fire. Thank

:06:55. > :06:58.you Mr Speaker, will the Prhme Minister confirm for me and to the

:06:59. > :07:03.House that the cost that is involved in this, the vast, vast majority of

:07:04. > :07:06.that will be invested in jobs, skills, businesses in this country

:07:07. > :07:10.over many decades. This is `n investment in our own securhty. This

:07:11. > :07:15.is not outsourcing. This is keeping things safe at home. My honourable

:07:16. > :07:18.friend is absolutely right. This is about jobs here in the Unitdd

:07:19. > :07:22.Kingdom. It is also about the development of skills here hn the

:07:23. > :07:26.United Kingdom. Skills which will be of benefit to our engineering and

:07:27. > :07:30.design base for years to cole. But the decision will also spechfically

:07:31. > :07:35.increase the number of jobs in Scotland. HMS Naval Base Clxde is

:07:36. > :07:39.one of the largest employment sites in Scotland, sustaining arotnd ,800

:07:40. > :07:43.military and civilian jobs `s well as having a wider impact on the

:07:44. > :07:48.local economy. As the base becomes home to all Royal Naval sublarines,

:07:49. > :07:55.the number of people employdd there is set to increase to 8 testimony

:07:56. > :08:00.200 by -- 8,200 by 2022. If honourable members vote agahnst

:08:01. > :08:06.today's motion, they will bd voting against those jobs. I say to

:08:07. > :08:11.honourable members, and that is why the Unite union said that ddfending

:08:12. > :08:14.and securing the jobs of tens of thousands of defence workers

:08:15. > :08:21.involved in the successor stbmarine programme is its priority. H thank

:08:22. > :08:26.the Prime Minister for giving way. On the issue of jobs there's a lot

:08:27. > :08:31.of steel in successor submoo reebz. -- submarines. Can she commht to

:08:32. > :08:40.using UK steel? The honourable gentleman might have noticed that

:08:41. > :08:46.the Government has been looking at Government procurement related to

:08:47. > :08:49.steel. For the honourable gentleman's confirmation, I have

:08:50. > :08:53.been in Wales this morning `nd one of the issues that I discussed with

:08:54. > :08:56.the First Minister in Wales was the future of Tata and the work that the

:08:57. > :09:02.Government has been doing whth the Welsh Government in relation to

:09:03. > :09:07.that. Mr Speaker, I will now turn to the specific question of whdther

:09:08. > :09:10.building four submarines is the right approach, whether there could

:09:11. > :09:13.be cheaper and more effective ways of providing a similar effect to the

:09:14. > :09:18.Trident system. The facts hdre are very clear. A review of altdrnatives

:09:19. > :09:23.to Trident, undertaken in 2013, found that no alternative sxstem is

:09:24. > :09:26.as capable, resilient or cost effective as a Trident-based

:09:27. > :09:31.deterrent. Submarines are ldss vulnerable to attack than ahrcraft,

:09:32. > :09:36.ships or silos. They can mahntain a continuous, round the clock cover in

:09:37. > :09:40.a way that aircraft cannot. Alternative delivery systems, such

:09:41. > :09:50.as crumbs do not have the -, cruise missiles do not have the sale reach.

:09:51. > :09:54.We do not believe that they will be rendered obsolete by unmanndd cyber

:09:55. > :09:58.vehicles, as has been suggested The former First Sea Lord has s`id we

:09:59. > :10:02.are more likely to put a man on Mars in six months than make the seas

:10:03. > :10:05.transparent within 30 years. With submarines operating in isolation

:10:06. > :10:08.when deployed, it is hard to think of a system less susceptibld to

:10:09. > :10:12.cyber attack. Other nations think the same. That's why the Amdricans,

:10:13. > :10:16.Russia, China and France all continue to spend tens of bhllions

:10:17. > :10:19.on their own submarine based weapons. Delivering Britain's

:10:20. > :10:24.continuous at-sea deterrents also means we need all four subm`rines to

:10:25. > :10:28.ensure that one is always on patrol, taking account of the cycle

:10:29. > :10:35.deployment, training and rottine and unplanned maintenance. Thred

:10:36. > :10:40.submarines cannot provide rdsilience against breaks in service. Nor can

:10:41. > :10:44.they deliver a cost savings, as suggested since large costs for

:10:45. > :10:49.infrastructure and training are not reduced by any attempt to ctt to

:10:50. > :10:55.three. It is right to replace our four vanguard submarines with four

:10:56. > :10:59.successors. I will not seek false economies with the future of the

:11:00. > :11:04.nation and I will not be prdpared to settle with something that does not

:11:05. > :11:07.do the job. I was listening very carefully to the questions from the

:11:08. > :11:13.leader of the SNP group abott the cost. Isn't it clear that whatever

:11:14. > :11:18.the cost, he and his group `re against our nuclear deterrent?

:11:19. > :11:23.Scottish public opinion is clear that people in Scotland want the

:11:24. > :11:27.nuclear deterrent. When my right honourable friend, the Scottish

:11:28. > :11:30.Secretary, votes to retain the nuclear deterrent tonight, he is

:11:31. > :11:37.speaking for the people of Scotland, not the party op similarity --

:11:38. > :11:41.opposite. I couldn't agree with my right honourable friend mord. He has

:11:42. > :11:46.put it very well indeed. Mr Speaker, let me turn to the issue of whether

:11:47. > :11:49.we could simply rely on othdr nuclear armed allies, like @merica

:11:50. > :11:53.and France, to provide our deterrent. The first question is how

:11:54. > :11:56.would America and France re`ct if we suddenly announced we were

:11:57. > :12:00.abandoning our nuclear capabilities but expecting them to put their

:12:01. > :12:04.cities at risk to protect us in a nuclear crisis. That's hardly

:12:05. > :12:10.standing shoulder to shoulddr with our allies. At Nato summit last

:12:11. > :12:13.month, our allies made clear by maintaining our independent nuclear

:12:14. > :12:21.deterrent alongside America and France, we provide Nato with three

:12:22. > :12:23.separate centres of decision making. This prevents adversaries

:12:24. > :12:30.threatening the UK or our allies with impunity. With drawing from

:12:31. > :12:34.this arrangement would weakdn us now and in the future, undermind Nato

:12:35. > :12:39.and embolden our adversaries. It might allow them to gamble that one

:12:40. > :12:41.day the US or France might not put itself at risk in order to deter an

:12:42. > :12:48.attack on the UK I'm most grateful to the Prime

:12:49. > :12:52.Minister giving way. Is it the point Prime Minister that it's all very

:12:53. > :12:55.well looking at the cost of what it takes to build the submarinds and

:12:56. > :12:58.run them, but the cost of instability in the world, where you

:12:59. > :13:02.haven't got a counterbalancd, reduces the ability to tradd and

:13:03. > :13:06.reduces GDP. This isn't just a measure what have it costs, it's

:13:07. > :13:10.what would happen if we didn't have this system and more instabhlity was

:13:11. > :13:13.in the world. Well, my honotrable friend made a very valid and

:13:14. > :13:17.important point, this is solething that has to be looked at in the

:13:18. > :13:23.round, not just in the one set of figures. I will give way. C`n I

:13:24. > :13:26.congratulate the Prime Minister on her appointment and tell her that I

:13:27. > :13:29.shall be voting for the mothon this evening, because I believe the

:13:30. > :13:33.historic role of the Labour Party and Labour governments has been on

:13:34. > :13:37.the right side on this. Can I just say, I love the fact that she's

:13:38. > :13:42.shown this strong support of Nato, but there is a niggle - havd we the

:13:43. > :13:45.capacity and the resources to maintain conventional forces to the

:13:46. > :13:50.level that will match the other forces that we have? I say to the

:13:51. > :13:54.honourable gentleman the answer to that is yes. We're very cle`r that

:13:55. > :13:58.there are different threats that we face. We need different cap`bilities

:13:59. > :14:04.to face those threats. We h`ve now committed to that 2% of GDP being

:14:05. > :14:07.spent on defence spending. Hndeed, have been increasing the defence

:14:08. > :14:14.budget and the money we're `ble to spend on the more conventional

:14:15. > :14:20.forces. Mr Speaker, I give way. Let me congratulate the Prime Mhnister

:14:21. > :14:26.on her new role. Can we cut to the chase - is she personally prepared

:14:27. > :14:33.to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men

:14:34. > :14:36.women and children? Yes. And I have to say to the honourable gentleman,

:14:37. > :14:39.the whole point of a deterrdnt is that our enemies need to know that

:14:40. > :14:46.we would be prepared to use. It -- use it. Unlike some stggestion

:14:47. > :14:49.that's we could have the deterrent but not actually be willing to use

:14:50. > :14:56.it, which came from the Labour Party frontbench. I will give way. Thank

:14:57. > :15:01.you, Prime Minister, for giving way. I'm sure the Prime Minister is aware

:15:02. > :15:06.that Russia has ten times the amount of tactical nuclear weapons than the

:15:07. > :15:09.whole of the rest of Nato. @t a recent Defence Select Committee to

:15:10. > :15:14.Russia, we were told by senhor military leaders that they reserve

:15:15. > :15:19.the right to use nuclear we`pons as first strike. Is that not something

:15:20. > :15:24.that should make us very afraid if we ever thought of giving up our

:15:25. > :15:29.nuclear weapons? The honour`ble lady is absolutely right. Russia is also

:15:30. > :15:34.modernising its nuclear cap`bility and it would be, I think, it would

:15:35. > :15:36.be a dereliction of our dutx in terms of our responsibility for the

:15:37. > :15:41.safety and security of the British people if we were to give up our

:15:42. > :15:45.nuclear deterrent. Mr Speakdr, we must send an unequivocal message to

:15:46. > :15:48.any adversary that the cost of an attack on our United Kingdol or our

:15:49. > :15:53.allies will always be far greater than anything it might hope to gain

:15:54. > :15:56.through such an attack, onlx the retention of our own independent

:15:57. > :15:59.deterrent can do this. This Government will never endanger the

:16:00. > :16:03.security of our people and we will never hide behind the protection

:16:04. > :16:07.provided by others, while claiming the mistaken virtue of unil`teral

:16:08. > :16:12.disarmament. Let me turn to the question of our moral duty to lead

:16:13. > :16:16.nuclear disarmament. Stopping nuclear weapons being used globally

:16:17. > :16:21.is not achieved by giving them up unilaterally. It's about working

:16:22. > :16:23.towards a multilateral procdss. That process is important and Brhtain

:16:24. > :16:27.could not do more to support this varietial work. Britain is committed

:16:28. > :16:31.to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in

:16:32. > :16:34.line with our obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

:16:35. > :16:39.I'm just going to make some more progress. We play a leading role on

:16:40. > :16:45.disarmament verification, together with Norway and America, we continue

:16:46. > :16:49.to press for key steps towards multilateral disarmament, including

:16:50. > :16:52.the test ban treaty and for successful negotiations on ` cut-off

:16:53. > :16:56.treaty. Further more, we ard committed to retaining the linimum

:16:57. > :17:01.amount of destructive power needed to deter any aggressor. We've cut

:17:02. > :17:03.our stock piles by over half since the Cold War peak. Last year, we

:17:04. > :17:07.delivered on our commitment to reduce the number of deploydd

:17:08. > :17:11.warheads on each submarine from 48 to #406789

:17:12. > :17:17.We will retain no more than 120 operational warheads and further

:17:18. > :17:22.reduce our stockpile of nuclear weapons to more than 180 warheads by

:17:23. > :17:27.the middle of the next decade. Britain has approximately 1$ of the

:17:28. > :17:31.17,000 nuclear weapons in the world, for us to disarm unilaterally would

:17:32. > :17:34.not significantly change thd calculations of other nucle`r

:17:35. > :17:40.states, nor those seeking to acquire such weapons. To disarm unilaterally

:17:41. > :17:44.would not make us safer, nor would make the use of nuclear weapons less

:17:45. > :17:47.likely, in fact it would have the opposite effect because it would

:17:48. > :17:51.remove the deterrent that for 6 years has helped to stop others

:17:52. > :17:56.using nuclear weapons against us. Mr Speaker, our national interdst is

:17:57. > :17:59.clear, Britain's nuclear decision is an insurance policy we simply cannot

:18:00. > :18:04.do without, we cannot come from eyes on our national security, wd cannot

:18:05. > :18:08.outsource the grave responshbility we shoulder for keeping our people

:18:09. > :18:11.safe and cannot abandon our ultimate safeguard out of misplaced hdealism,

:18:12. > :18:16.it would be a reckless gamble, that would end feeble our allies and

:18:17. > :18:19.embolden our enemies, a gamble with the safety and security of families

:18:20. > :18:23.in Britain we must never be prepared to take. Mr Speaker, we havd waited

:18:24. > :18:28.long enough, it's time to gdt on with building the next generation of

:18:29. > :18:31.our nuclear deterrent. It is time to take this essential decision to

:18:32. > :18:36.deter the most extreme thre`ts to our society and preserve our way of

:18:37. > :18:44.life for generations to comd. I commend this motion to the house.

:18:45. > :18:48.SPEAKER: order! The question is motion number one as on the order

:18:49. > :18:52.paper, I call the Leader of the Opposition Mr Jeremy Corbyn. Thank

:18:53. > :18:59.you, Mr Speaker, can I start by welcoming and congratulations the

:19:00. > :19:01.member for Maidenhead on her appointment as Prime Ministdr. I'm

:19:02. > :19:09.glad her election was quick and short. LAUGHTER

:19:10. > :19:15.Can I also commend her... It's all right, I'm looking at you. Can I

:19:16. > :19:20.also amend the remarks she lade about the horrific events in Nice,

:19:21. > :19:23.absolutely horrific what happened in those innocent people that lost

:19:24. > :19:29.their lives. And one hopes this is not going to be repeated elsewhere.

:19:30. > :19:33.I was pleased that she menthoned the situation in Turkey. And I support

:19:34. > :19:37.her call for calm and restr`int on all sides in Turkey. After the

:19:38. > :19:40.attempted coup I called a ntmber of friends in Istanbul and Ank`ra and

:19:41. > :19:47.ask them what was going on. The older ones there felt it was like a

:19:48. > :19:52.repeat of the 1980 coup and were horrified that bombs were f`lling

:19:53. > :19:55.near the Turkish parliament. Can we please not return to a Europe of

:19:56. > :20:01.military coups and dictatorships, which is what was still pertaining

:20:02. > :20:04.at that time? I endorsed thd Prime Minister's comment in that respect

:20:05. > :20:08.and I'd like to pay tribute to the Foreign Office staff who helped

:20:09. > :20:13.British citizens in France `nd in Turkey caught in recent events. The

:20:14. > :20:19.motion today, Mr Speaker, is one of enormous importance to this country,

:20:20. > :20:23.and, indeed, to the wider world There is nothing particularly new in

:20:24. > :20:27.this motion, the principal on nuclear weapons was debated in 007,

:20:28. > :20:32.but I think this is an opportunity to scrutinise what the government is

:20:33. > :20:37.doing. The funds involved in Trident renewal are massive, we must, I

:20:38. > :20:44.think, also consider the colplex, both moral and strategic, issues of

:20:45. > :20:48.our country possessing weapons of mass destruction. Their restlts of

:20:49. > :20:53.the question of its utility. Do these weapons of mass destrtction,

:20:54. > :20:59.for those are what they are, act as a deterrent to the threat wd face,

:21:00. > :21:02.and is that deterrent credible? The motion, Mr Speaker, says nothing of

:21:03. > :21:08.the cost involved, ballooning ever upwards. In 2006 the Ministry of

:21:09. > :21:13.Defence estimated constructhon costs would be 20 billion. By last year

:21:14. > :21:21.that had become 50% higher `t 3 billion, with another 10 billion

:21:22. > :21:26.added as a contingency fund. The very respected member for Rdigate

:21:27. > :21:29.has estimated the cost at 167 billion, so it is understood delays

:21:30. > :21:33.may have added to those credible figures since that estimate was

:21:34. > :21:40.made. I've seen some estimates as high as 200 billion for the

:21:41. > :21:46.replacement... I'm coming to you... And the running costs. Of course. On

:21:47. > :21:50.the subject of cost isn't it true the key cost here is the ond we

:21:51. > :21:54.remember every Remembrance Sunday, the millions of lives we lost in two

:21:55. > :21:58.world wars, and would he care to estimate the millions of lives that

:21:59. > :22:01.would have been lost in a third conventional war, which was avoided

:22:02. > :22:07.before 1989 because of the nuclear deterrent. We all remember those who

:22:08. > :22:12.lost their lives on Remembr`nce Sunday and all the other tiles, that

:22:13. > :22:15.is the price of war. My question is does our possession of nucldar

:22:16. > :22:20.weapons make us more secure or. . And make the world more sectre, yes

:22:21. > :22:24.or no? Of course there is a debate about that, that is what a

:22:25. > :22:28.Democratic parliament does. It has a debate about these issues. H'm

:22:29. > :22:30.putting forward a point of view that the honourable member may not agree

:22:31. > :22:40.with but I'm sure he's going to listen to it with great respect as

:22:41. > :22:43.he always does. Yes? Ian Pahsley. The Labour leader has shown to us in

:22:44. > :22:52.the past is domestic solution to domestic security threat has been

:22:53. > :22:56.with the provisional IRA. What is his tactic now in how he will deal

:22:57. > :23:02.with a real threat to all of the people of this nation? The Prime

:23:03. > :23:07.Minister towards the end of her speech got to the point of the

:23:08. > :23:10.nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and multilateral disarmament, I was

:23:11. > :23:15.interested in that. Surely we should start from that basis that we want

:23:16. > :23:18.and are determined to bring about a nuclear free world. There are six

:23:19. > :23:24.party talks going on with North Korea, China is a major economic

:23:25. > :23:28.provider for North Korea, I would have thought the relationshhp with

:23:29. > :23:30.China and North Korea is perhaps the key to a way forward in that

:23:31. > :23:35.respect. I'll give wait one more time over there. How would the Right

:23:36. > :23:40.honourable gentleman has wehghed my thousands of Korean constittents

:23:41. > :23:45.that it is a good idea to dhsarm unilaterally while their falilies

:23:46. > :23:49.and friends living in our ally, South Korea, face a constant nuclear

:23:50. > :23:57.deterrent from a belligerent regime over their northern border. I, too,

:23:58. > :24:00.have Korean constituents, as do many of us, and we welcome their work and

:24:01. > :24:05.participation in our societx. The point I was making is that the six

:24:06. > :24:11.party talks are a very important way forward of bringing about a peace

:24:12. > :24:16.treaty on the Korean peninstla. That, surely, is in the intdrest of

:24:17. > :24:19.everybody to achieve. Not e`sy, I fully understand, but nevertheless

:24:20. > :24:24.something we should be trying to do. I'd be grateful if the Primd

:24:25. > :24:28.Minister or Secretary of St`te for Defence, when he replies, whll let

:24:29. > :24:33.us know the government estilate of the total lifetime cost of what

:24:34. > :24:39.we're being asked to endorsd today. It's hardly surprising that in May

:24:40. > :24:45.2009 there was, Mr Speaker, a very intense debate going on in the then

:24:46. > :24:50.Shadow Cabinet about going for a less expensive upgrade by converting

:24:51. > :24:54.to air launched missiles. The right Honourable member for Mid Stssex

:24:55. > :24:58.said at the time, the argumdnts have not yet been had in public hn nearly

:24:59. > :25:03.an adequate enough way to w`rrant the spending of this nation's

:25:04. > :25:09.treasure on the scale that will be required. Seven years later perhaps

:25:10. > :25:14.we're in the same situation. This motion proposes an open-enddd

:25:15. > :25:20.commitment to maintain Brit`in's's current nuclear capability for as

:25:21. > :25:23.long as the global security situation demands. We on thdse

:25:24. > :25:28.benches, despite our differdnces on some issues, have always argued for

:25:29. > :25:32.the aim of a nuclear free world We might differ on how it's gohng to be

:25:33. > :25:37.achieved, but we are united in our commitment to that end. In 2007 my

:25:38. > :25:41.right honourable friend the member for Derby South embarked on a

:25:42. > :25:46.meaningful attempt to build consensus for the multilateral

:25:47. > :25:52.disarmament. Will the government address where these submarines are

:25:53. > :25:58.going to be based? The people of Scotland have rejected Triddnt being

:25:59. > :26:03.located in Faslane on the Clyde the SNP government is opposed to it as

:26:04. > :26:05.is Scottish Labour. We're not debating a nuclear deterrent, but

:26:06. > :26:11.our continued possession of weapons of mass destruction. We are

:26:12. > :26:16.discussing eight missiles, 41, with each warhead believed to be eight

:26:17. > :26:25.times as powerful as the atomic bomb which killed 140,000 people in

:26:26. > :26:30.Hiroshima in 1945. We are t`lking about, Mr Speaker, 40 warhe`ds, each

:26:31. > :26:36.one with the capacity to kill more than 1 million people. What is the

:26:37. > :26:44.threat we are facing that over million people's deaths detdrs? It

:26:45. > :26:49.is not from the so-called Islamic State, their poisonous death cult

:26:50. > :26:53.glory is in killing as many people as possible, as we seen in Syria,

:26:54. > :26:57.East Africa, France, Turkey. It hasn't deterred our ally, S`udi

:26:58. > :27:04.Arabia, from committing dre`dful acts in Yemen. It didn't stop Saddam

:27:05. > :27:10.Hussein's atrocities in the 198 s, or the invasion of Kuwait in 19 0.

:27:11. > :27:18.It didn't deter the war criles in the Balkans in the 1990s, nor the

:27:19. > :27:22.genocide in Rwanda. Mr Speaker, I make it clear today... Coming to

:27:23. > :27:25.you... I make it clear todax I would not take a decision that kills

:27:26. > :27:30.millions of innocent people, I do not believe the threat of m`ss

:27:31. > :27:34.murder is a legitimate way to go about dealing with internathonal

:27:35. > :27:40.relations. I'm grateful to ly right honourable friend for giving way.

:27:41. > :27:43.Can you explain to the housd when the last time you sought and

:27:44. > :27:47.received such a briefing is, and what is his assessment of the new

:27:48. > :27:51.Russian military nuclear protocols which permit first strike using

:27:52. > :27:56.nuclear weapons, and that they can be used to de-escalates conventional

:27:57. > :28:01.military conflicts, what is his assessment of that? Britain also at

:28:02. > :28:07.the current time retains thd right to first strike as well, I would

:28:08. > :28:10.have thought the best way forward is to develop the nuclear

:28:11. > :28:14.Non-Proliferation Treaty into a no first strike situation as a good way

:28:15. > :28:18.forward. I respect my honourable friend's wished to live in ` nuclear

:28:19. > :28:25.free world, I know he believes that very strongly. I think, Mr Speaker,

:28:26. > :28:30.we should take our commitments under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

:28:31. > :28:37.very seriously. It was in 1868. . It was in 1968, Mr Speaker, whdn the

:28:38. > :28:40.then Labour government led by Harold Wilson inaugurated and, indded,

:28:41. > :28:46.signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 2007, our then Foreign Sdcretary,

:28:47. > :28:51.my friend the member for Derby South, rightly said, we must

:28:52. > :28:54.strengthen the NPT in all aspects, the judgment we made 40 years ago,

:28:55. > :28:59.that the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons was in all of our

:29:00. > :29:04.interests. The then Labour government committed to redtce our

:29:05. > :29:08.stocks of operationally avahlable warheads by a further 20%. H would

:29:09. > :29:15.congratulate our government on doing that. I attended NPT review combines

:29:16. > :29:20.when that was spoken. Can the government say what the Labour

:29:21. > :29:25.Foreign Secretary said in 2007, my commitment to the vision of a world

:29:26. > :29:30.free of nuclear weapons is `n didn't. Is this government's vision

:29:31. > :29:34.of a nuclear free world undhmmed? She spoke of the international

:29:35. > :29:40.community's clear commitment to a Middle East nuclear weapons free

:29:41. > :29:48.zone. Instead, Mr Speaker, despite unanimous support... No, I won't

:29:49. > :29:52.give way... At the last two nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty five-year

:29:53. > :29:55.review conferences calling for a weapons of mass destruction free

:29:56. > :30:01.zone across the Middle East... That surely is something we can `ll sign

:30:02. > :30:03.up to and all support. And H look forward to the Defence Secrdtary's

:30:04. > :30:10.support for that position when he replies to the debate this dvening.

:30:11. > :30:17.He's speaking about previous party policy. At the Shadow Cabindt last

:30:18. > :30:21.Tuesday, there was an agreelent that the party policy will be conveyed by

:30:22. > :30:29.the frontbench. When will wd hear? I thank my friend for his view, as he

:30:30. > :30:34.well knows, the party deciddd that it wanted to support the retention

:30:35. > :30:38.of nuclear weapons. We also decided that we would have a policy review,

:30:39. > :30:42.which is being undertaken bx my friend the member for Norwich south

:30:43. > :30:46.at the present time. He's as well aware as I am of what the existing

:30:47. > :30:50.policy is. He is also aware of the views that I put forward in the

:30:51. > :30:54.leadership election last ye`r, quite clearly, on my views on nuclear

:30:55. > :30:57.weapons, hence the fact that we re having a free vote so far as Labour

:30:58. > :31:06.members of Parliament are concerned, here this evening. Mr Speakdr, other

:31:07. > :31:16.countries have made serious efforts to... I'll come to you in a moment.

:31:17. > :31:19.Has made serious efforts... To bring about nuclear disarmament whthin the

:31:20. > :31:24.terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. South

:31:25. > :31:29.Africa abandoned all of its nuclear programmes after the end of

:31:30. > :31:33.apartheid and thus brought `bout a nuclear weapons free zone across the

:31:34. > :31:38.continent. After negotiation, Libya ended all research into nuclear

:31:39. > :31:43.weapons. The Ukraine at the end of the Cold War gave up its nuclear

:31:44. > :31:49.weapons, albeit those weapons were under the control of the former

:31:50. > :31:54.Soviet Union and raterly of Russia. Likewise, Kazakhstan did thd same

:31:55. > :32:00.which helped to bring about a central Asia nuclear weapons-free

:32:01. > :32:05.zone and in Latin America, @rgentina and Brazil both gave up thehr

:32:06. > :32:09.nuclear programmes. I do colmend the Government and other governlents

:32:10. > :32:15.around the world that negothated seriously with great patience and at

:32:16. > :32:21.great length with Iran, which helped to encourage Iran to give up its

:32:22. > :32:31.programme. We should pay trhbute to President Obama for doing that. The

:32:32. > :32:34.former Conservative Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo said,

:32:35. > :32:38."To say we need nuclear weapons in this situation, would imply that

:32:39. > :32:41.Germany and Italy are trembling in their boots because they don't have

:32:42. > :32:47.a nuclear deterrent. Which H think is clearly not the case." Is it not

:32:48. > :32:54.time, Mr Speaker, for us to step up to the plate and promote rapidly

:32:55. > :33:02.nuclear disarmament. He likd me stood in May 2015 on a partx policy

:33:03. > :33:07.agreed at the conference for the renewal of continuous at-se`

:33:08. > :33:11.deterrent. He has a Shadow frontbench and Shadow Cabindt in his

:33:12. > :33:16.own image, which agreed last week, I understand, to put that polhcy from

:33:17. > :33:20.the frontbench. Is he going to do it or is it going to be during the

:33:21. > :33:24.winding up? I thank my friend for the intervention. He is well aware

:33:25. > :33:28.of what the policy was. He's well aware there's a policy revidw being

:33:29. > :33:39.undertaken. He's also very well aware of the case that I'm laking

:33:40. > :33:44.for nuclear disarmament. I'l grateful for his giving way. He will

:33:45. > :33:47.be aware that there is a currently a multilateral process going on at the

:33:48. > :33:50.UN, where over 130 countries are negotiating in good faith for a

:33:51. > :33:55.treaty to ban nuclear weapons. Does he agree with me that this

:33:56. > :33:58.Government's refusal to even attend let alone take part in that

:33:59. > :34:01.seriously raises questions `bout their commitment to a world without

:34:02. > :34:05.nuclear weapons? I think it is a great shame that the Governlent

:34:06. > :34:10.doesn't attend those negoti`tions and I wish they would, becatse I do

:34:11. > :34:14.thank the Government for attending the humanitarian effects of war

:34:15. > :34:17.conference in 2014. I do th`nk them for their participation in the

:34:18. > :34:22.Non-Proliferation Treaty, btt I think they should go and support the

:34:23. > :34:29.idea of a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons. Nobody in this House

:34:30. > :34:33.actually wants nuclear weapons. The debate is about how one gets rid of

:34:34. > :34:40.them and the way one does it. There are questions too, Mr Speakdr, about

:34:41. > :34:44.the operational utility of nuclear-armed submarines. I would

:34:45. > :34:47.ask the minister again, perhaps the Secretary of State can answdr in his

:34:48. > :34:53.reply, what assessment the Government has made of the hmpact of

:34:54. > :34:56.underwater drones, surveill`nce of wave patterns and advanced detection

:34:57. > :35:01.techniques which could make the submarine technology...

:35:02. > :35:11.THE SPEAKER: Order. Order, Lr Shellbrook, I want you to aspire to

:35:12. > :35:14.the apogy of statesmanship. Shrieking from your position,

:35:15. > :35:18.despite your magnificent suht, is not the way to achieve it. Calm

:35:19. > :35:24.yourself, man. I am trying to help you, even if you don't know it. Mr

:35:25. > :35:30.Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker, account Prime Minister

:35:31. > :35:33.confirm whether the UK will back proposed nuclear weapons ban treaty,

:35:34. > :35:38.which I understand will be put before the UN general Assembly in

:35:39. > :35:41.September, probably before we return to the House, after the sumler

:35:42. > :35:49.recess. I think that's an ilportant point. Yes, OK. I thank the right

:35:50. > :35:53.honourable member for giving way. We can agree that nuclear weapons are

:35:54. > :35:56.truly the most repugnant representens that have ever been

:35:57. > :36:01.invented by man. The key is invented. We cannot disinvent them.

:36:02. > :36:06.We can control them and this is what this is all about, controllhng

:36:07. > :36:10.nuclear weapons. If this is all about controlling them, then,

:36:11. > :36:16.perhaps we should think for a moment of the obligations we have signed up

:36:17. > :36:21.to as a nation by signing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,

:36:22. > :36:27.article six of which says ddclared nuclear weapons states, of which we

:36:28. > :36:31.are one, must take steps towards disarmament and others must not

:36:32. > :36:36.acquire nuclear weapons. It hasn't been an easy passage. The NPT has

:36:37. > :36:39.helped to reduce the level of nuclear weapons around the world.

:36:40. > :36:42.Yes, I'll give way. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way.

:36:43. > :36:46.I'm stunned to hear the argtment made from the opposite side on the

:36:47. > :36:52.Tory benches that you cannot disinvent. You could employ that you

:36:53. > :36:56.could use for chemical and biological weapons.

:36:57. > :37:01.The member is absolutely right because we have achieved thd

:37:02. > :37:06.chemical weapons convention. We have achieved a ban on cluster wdapons.

:37:07. > :37:14.We have achieved other things around the world by serious, long-term

:37:15. > :37:22.negotiation. There is obviotsly the question - yes, of course. Ly

:37:23. > :37:29.honourable friend is very fond of telling us all that party conference

:37:30. > :37:33.is sovereign. Last year we voted overwhelmingly in favour of

:37:34. > :37:37.maintenance of the nuclear deterrent. Why aren't we he`ring a

:37:38. > :37:40.defence of the Government's position from the dispatch box now? Party

:37:41. > :37:47.policy is also to review our policies, that is why we have

:37:48. > :37:54.reviews. What I would also say is that we have to look at the issues

:37:55. > :37:59.of employment, the issues of investment and the necessitx, I

:38:00. > :38:02.think, of having Government intervention through a defence

:38:03. > :38:06.diversification agency, as we had under the previous Labour

:38:07. > :38:11.Government, to support industries that become overreliant on defence

:38:12. > :38:16.contracts and therefore wish to move into other contracts and other work

:38:17. > :38:20.as well. The Prime Minister mentioned the unite policy

:38:21. > :38:26.conference last week, which I also attended that conference. Unite the

:38:27. > :38:30.union, as do other unions, have members working in all sectors of

:38:31. > :38:33.hi-tech manufacturing, which of course includes the defence sector,

:38:34. > :38:36.which of course includes thd development of those submarhnes and

:38:37. > :38:42.warheads and the nuclear re`ctors that go into the submarines. Their

:38:43. > :38:46.policy conference, Unite's, endorsed its previous position, which is

:38:47. > :38:51.opposed to Trident, but wants a Government in place with a proper

:38:52. > :38:54.diversionification agency. The union has been thinking these things

:38:55. > :38:59.through. And thinking these things through on a way of maintaining jobs

:39:00. > :39:03.within that sector, the verx high skills that jobs that are there Our

:39:04. > :39:07.defence review is being unddrtaken by my friend the member for Norwich

:39:08. > :39:13.south. I pay tribute to the excellent work done by my friend the

:39:14. > :39:19.member for Islington south `nd Finsbury in undertaking that review.

:39:20. > :39:21.Mr Speaker, whatever people's views -

:39:22. > :39:25.THE SPEAKER: Order. Order. H think the right honourable gentlelan has

:39:26. > :39:30.signalled an intention to t`ke an intervention. I just make the point

:39:31. > :39:35.that there's a lot of noise, but at the last reckoning - order. Order.

:39:36. > :39:38.Order! Order! . Order. I'll tell the honourable gentleman what the

:39:39. > :39:42.position is and he'll take ht whether he likes it or not. 53

:39:43. > :39:45.members wish to speak in thhs debate and I want to accommodate mdmbers. I

:39:46. > :39:51.ask members to take account of that to help each other, that's `ll.

:39:52. > :39:54.Caroline Flint. Could I ask my right honourable friend, in the l`st

:39:55. > :39:57.Labour Government, because of our stand on supporting

:39:58. > :40:02.nonproliferation, as a nucldar deterrent country we were able to

:40:03. > :40:05.influence the reduction of lany many nuclear warheads around the

:40:06. > :40:08.world. Does he really think abandoning our position as one of

:40:09. > :40:13.those countries that hold ntclear weapons we would have had as much

:40:14. > :40:17.influence without them as whth? We did indeed help to reduce the number

:40:18. > :40:19.of nuclear warheads. Indeed I attended a number of conferdnces

:40:20. > :40:23.where British Government representatives were there that made

:40:24. > :40:27.the point the number of UK warheads had reduce and they encouraged

:40:28. > :40:29.others to do the same. I talked about the nuclear weapons free zones

:40:30. > :40:34.around the world. That's a good thing. However, we're into ` step

:40:35. > :40:39.change where we're saying wd're prepared to spend a very, vdry large

:40:40. > :40:42.sum of money on the developlent of a new generation of nuclear wdapons. I

:40:43. > :40:49.draw her attention, I'm surd she's aware of it, to article six of the

:40:50. > :40:52.NPT which requires us to take steps towards disarmament. That's what it

:40:53. > :40:55.actually says. So Mr Speaker, in case it's not obvious to thd House,

:40:56. > :41:00.at the moment, I'm not going to give way any more, I'm running up against

:41:01. > :41:03.the clock. I will actually be.. I will actually be voting agahnst this

:41:04. > :41:09.motion tonight, Mr Speaker, which I'm sure will be of enormous

:41:10. > :41:14.surprise to the whole House (! I do it because of my own views. I do

:41:15. > :41:18.it because - THE SPEAKER: Order. Order, H

:41:19. > :41:24.apologise having to interrupt. Point of order Mr Jamie Reid. Seeking your

:41:25. > :41:29.guidance on the accuracy of the language used by the leader of the

:41:30. > :41:33.Opposition, we not voting tonight on new nuclear warheads, simplx the

:41:34. > :41:36.submarines used with which to deploy those missiles. This is somdthing

:41:37. > :41:40.fundamentally different to new missiles.

:41:41. > :41:44.THE SPEAKER: The answer to the honourable gentleman is that it is

:41:45. > :41:48.up to each honourable and rhght honourable member to read the

:41:49. > :41:51.motion, to interpret it as he or she thinks fit and to make a judgment

:41:52. > :41:55.accordingly. Not a matter for the chair. Mr Jeremy Corbyn.

:41:56. > :41:58.The issue of course, is the submarines, but also, the ndw

:41:59. > :42:01.weapons that will have to go into those submarines, as and whdn

:42:02. > :42:07.they've been built, if they're built. I just think we should pause

:42:08. > :42:11.for a moment, Mr Speaker, and think of the indiscriminate naturd of what

:42:12. > :42:19.nuclear weapons do and the catastrophic effects of thehr use

:42:20. > :42:24.anywhere. As I said, I've attended NPT conferences and preparer to

:42:25. > :42:28.conferences over -- preparatory conferences over many years. I was

:42:29. > :42:31.very pleased when the last Government, the coalition

:42:32. > :42:34.Government, finally, if slightly reluctantly, accepted the invitation

:42:35. > :42:42.to take part in the humanit`rian effects of war conference in Vienna

:42:43. > :42:47.in 2014. Anyone who attended that, who heard from British nucldar test

:42:48. > :42:52.veterans, Pacific islanders or civilians in Russia or the Tnited

:42:53. > :42:57.States who've suffered the dffects of nuclear explosions cannot be

:42:58. > :43:01.totally fashionate about thd effects -- dispassionate about the dffects

:43:02. > :43:05.of nuclear weapons. It is a weapons of mass destruction. Many colleagues

:43:06. > :43:09.across the House will vote for weapons tonight, because thdy

:43:10. > :43:16.believe they do serve a useful military purpose. But for those who

:43:17. > :43:21.believe in multilateral zpalentment, I -- disarmament, I ask is this not

:43:22. > :43:26.an unwise motion by the Govdrnment with no answers on costs or

:43:27. > :43:30.disarmament. For those of us who believe in aiming for a nuclear free

:43:31. > :43:35.world, for those deeply concerned about the spiralling costs, this

:43:36. > :43:40.motion has huge questions to answer, which I believe has failed to

:43:41. > :43:44.address in this debate. If we want a nuclear weapons free world this is

:43:45. > :43:48.an opportunity when we can start down that road and try and bring

:43:49. > :43:53.others with us as has been `chieved to some extent, over the past few

:43:54. > :43:57.decades. Surely, Mr Speaker, it s an effort we should try and make,

:43:58. > :44:00.rather than go down the road the Government is suggesting for us this

:44:01. > :44:07.evening. THE SPEAKER: Order. In aaccordance

:44:08. > :44:14.with usual practice, no timd limit on backbench speeches will `pply,

:44:15. > :44:21.until after the frontbench opening speeches have been made. Th`t said,

:44:22. > :44:26.sensitivity to the very large demand is of the essence and extrele

:44:27. > :44:31.self-discipline is required. Dr Julian Lewis.

:44:32. > :44:36.Thank you Mr Speaker. I must say I've often had the pleasure of

:44:37. > :44:40.debating this topic with thd right honourable gentleman for Islington

:44:41. > :44:44.North both in and outside the House and never in either of our wildest

:44:45. > :44:49.dreams or nightmares did we imagine that one day he would end up as

:44:50. > :44:55.leader of the Labour Party. It only goes to show the unpredictability of

:44:56. > :45:00.political developments. Aftdr the Falklands War, opponents of our

:45:01. > :45:04.strategic deterrent often pointed out that our polaris submarhnes did

:45:05. > :45:09.nothing to deter Argentina for invading the islands. Indeed there

:45:10. > :45:12.never was and never will be any prospect of democratic Brit`in

:45:13. > :45:16.threatening to launch our ntclear missiles except in response to the

:45:17. > :45:22.use of mass destruction weapons against us. But just becausd we

:45:23. > :45:26.would balk at threatening to launch nuclear missiles, except whdn our

:45:27. > :45:31.very existence is at stake, it doesn't mean that dictators share

:45:32. > :45:37.our scruples or our values or our sense of self-restraint. An example

:45:38. > :45:42.from history will do. Following the horror of poison gas attacks in the

:45:43. > :45:47.First World War, it was widdly expected that any future major

:45:48. > :45:51.conflict would see large-sc`le aerial bombardment drenching cities

:45:52. > :45:56.and peoples with lethal gasds. Why did Hitler not do this? Bec`use

:45:57. > :46:00.Churchill had warned him, in advance, that British stocks of

:46:01. > :46:04.chemical weapons greatly exceeded his own and that our retali`tion

:46:05. > :46:10.would dwarf anything Nazi Gdrmany could inflict.

:46:11. > :46:16.Poisoned gases are not mass destruction weapons, but nerve gases

:46:17. > :46:20.are. Hitler seriously considered using them against the Allids in

:46:21. > :46:27.1943 but he didn't do so because his principal scientist advised him that

:46:28. > :46:31.the Allies had almost certahnly invented them, too. As we h`d done

:46:32. > :46:37.no such thing and were horrhfied to discover the Nazi stocks of nerve

:46:38. > :46:41.gas at the end of the war, this is a classic example of a dictator being

:46:42. > :46:47.deterred from using a mass destruction weapons by the listaken

:46:48. > :46:53.belief that we could retali`te in kind when, actually, we could not do

:46:54. > :46:57.so. Such examples show in concrete terms why the concept of deterrence

:46:58. > :47:02.is so important in constraining the military options available to

:47:03. > :47:05.dictators and aggressors. In the time remaining I will briefly list

:47:06. > :47:11.the five main military argulents in favour of continuing the spdcific

:47:12. > :47:15.British policy pursued, as we've heard, by successive Labour and

:47:16. > :47:21.Conservative governments, of maintaining at all times a British

:47:22. > :47:24.minimum strategic nuclear retaliatory capacity. The fhrst

:47:25. > :47:28.military argument is that ftture military threats and conflicts will

:47:29. > :47:34.be no more predictable than those which involve dust throughott the

:47:35. > :47:39.20th-century. This is the overriding justification for preserving Armed

:47:40. > :47:42.Forces in peace time as a n`tural insurance Wallasey. -- National

:47:43. > :47:48.insurance. No one knows what enemies might confront us between the years

:47:49. > :47:52.2030 and 2060. The anticipated life span of the Trident successor

:47:53. > :47:58.system. It's highly probabld at least some of those enemies will be

:47:59. > :48:03.armed with mass destruction weapons. The second argument... I won't be

:48:04. > :48:06.because of the time pressurd, normally I like to take

:48:07. > :48:10.interventions. Secondly, it is not the weapons themselves we nded to

:48:11. > :48:15.fear, but the nature of the regimes which possess them. Whereas

:48:16. > :48:17.democracies are generally rdluctant to use nuclear weapons against

:48:18. > :48:23.non-nuclear dictatorships, though they did against Japan in 1845, the

:48:24. > :48:28.reverse is not true as alre`dy mentioned, think of eight

:48:29. > :48:32.non-nuclear Britain in 1982 facing and Argentina, for example, in

:48:33. > :48:36.possession of a few tactical nuclear bombs and the means of delivering

:48:37. > :48:43.them. Conventional retaking of the islands would have been out of the

:48:44. > :48:47.question. The United Kingdol has traditionally played a more

:48:48. > :48:49.important and decisive role in preserving freedom than othdr

:48:50. > :48:53.medium-sized states have bedn able or willing to do. Democratic

:48:54. > :48:59.countries without nuclear wdapons have little choice but to ddclare

:49:00. > :49:03.themselves neutral and hope for the best or rely upon the nucle`r

:49:04. > :49:09.umbrella of powerful allies. The United Kingdom is eight nuclear

:49:10. > :49:15.power already and much harddr to defeat by conventional means because

:49:16. > :49:20.of our physical separation from the continent. Our prominent as

:49:21. > :49:24.principal ally of the United States, strategic geographical position and

:49:25. > :49:30.the fact we obviously the jtnior partner, might tempt an aggressor to

:49:31. > :49:32.risk attacking us separatelx, given the difficulty of overrunning the

:49:33. > :49:37.United Kingdom with conventhonal forces in contrast to more

:49:38. > :49:42.vulnerable allies, an aggressor could be tempted to use one or more

:49:43. > :49:46.mass destruction weapons ag`inst us on the assumption that the Tnited

:49:47. > :49:51.States would not reply on otr behalf. Even if that assumption were

:49:52. > :49:54.false, the attacker would fhnd out his terrible mistake when, only

:49:55. > :50:00.when, it was too late for all concerned. And independentlx

:50:01. > :50:04.controlled British nuclear deterrent massively reduces the prospdct of

:50:05. > :50:10.such a fatal miscalculation. The fifth and final military argument is

:50:11. > :50:15.that no quantity of conventhonal forces can compensate for the

:50:16. > :50:20.military disadvantage which faces eight non-nuclear country in a war

:50:21. > :50:29.against a nuclear warned endmy. The Emperor of Japan was not only

:50:30. > :50:33.forced to surrender, but also in terms of the reverse scenarho, if

:50:34. > :50:38.Japan had developed atomic bombs and the Allies had not, an invasion of

:50:39. > :50:45.Japan to end the war would have been out of the question. The re`son

:50:46. > :50:48.nuclear weapons deter more reliably than conventional ones desphte the

:50:49. > :50:55.huge destructiveness of conventional warfare, is nuclear destruction is

:50:56. > :50:59.not only unbearable, it is `lso unavoidable once the missilds have

:51:00. > :51:04.been launched. The certaintx, as well as the scale of potenthal

:51:05. > :51:09.retaliation, means no nucle`r aggressor can gamble on success and

:51:10. > :51:14.an escaping an acceptable punishment. Mr Speaker, opponents of

:51:15. > :51:18.our Trident deterrent say it is a weapon which can never be used. Two

:51:19. > :51:24.thirds of the British peopld, who have endorsed and continue to end

:51:25. > :51:28.doors in poll after poll, as well as in two general elections in the

:51:29. > :51:33.1980s, keeping nuclear weapons as long as other countries havd them,

:51:34. > :51:38.are better informed. They understand Trident is in use every day of the

:51:39. > :51:44.week, its use lies in its ability to deter other states from credibly

:51:45. > :51:49.threatening us with weapons of mass destruction. Of course beat British

:51:50. > :51:51.nuclear deterrent is not a panacea, it is not designed to forestall

:51:52. > :51:58.every kind of threat, such `s those from stateless terrorist groups Yet

:51:59. > :52:02.the threat it is designed to counter is so overwhelming that no other

:52:03. > :52:08.form of military capability could manage to avert it. If the

:52:09. > :52:13.consequences of possessing ` lethal weapon is that nobody launches it,

:52:14. > :52:18.the consequences of not possessing it is that somebody who does possess

:52:19. > :52:22.it launches it against you... Which is the more moral thing to do, to

:52:23. > :52:27.possess the weapon and avoid anyone being attacked, or to renounce it

:52:28. > :52:33.and lay yourself and your country open to a obliteration? If

:52:34. > :52:36.possessing a nuclear system and threatening to lord it in

:52:37. > :52:41.retaliation, will avert conflict in which millions would otherwhse die,

:52:42. > :52:44.can it seriously be claimed the more ethical policy is to announce the

:52:45. > :52:51.weapon and let the millions meet their fate. Even if one argtes that

:52:52. > :52:54.the threat to retaliate is htself immoral, is it as immoral as the

:52:55. > :53:00.failure to forestall so manx preventable deaths. More choices

:53:01. > :53:05.are, more often than not, choice is to determine the lesser of two

:53:06. > :53:09.evils. The possession of thd nuclear deterrent may be unpleasant, but

:53:10. > :53:14.it's an unpleasant necessitx. The purpose of which lies not in it ever

:53:15. > :53:20.being fired, but in its nattre as the ultimate insurance policy

:53:21. > :53:25.against unpredictable futurd existential threats. It is the

:53:26. > :53:31.ultimate stalemate weapon. Hn the nuclear age, stalemate is the most

:53:32. > :53:38.reliable source of security available to us all. Hear, hear

:53:39. > :53:42.SPEAKER: Mr Angus Robertson. Thank you Mr Speaker, may I begin by

:53:43. > :53:45.joining with the Leader of the Opposition and Prime Ministdr in

:53:46. > :53:51.their comments about the very unhappy the relevant both in France

:53:52. > :53:56.and Turkey. I also understand the Prime Minister needs to leave this

:53:57. > :53:59.debate shortly. To attend to some important matters. I would give her

:54:00. > :54:06.a wink when I finish on the consensual stuff, which I w`nt to

:54:07. > :54:10.start with very genuinely bdcause it is the first opportunity I've had in

:54:11. > :54:13.the house to wish her well `s the Prime Minister. And also to her

:54:14. > :54:17.husband, Philip, who I don't know, but we all know how important it is,

:54:18. > :54:20.the support we get at home, it will be a test for both of them. We won't

:54:21. > :54:25.agree on many things, where we will we will, where we won't, we'll

:54:26. > :54:32.remain effective opposition in the House of Commons. Hear, hear! A

:54:33. > :54:37.little bit from my role abott the national security responsibhlities

:54:38. > :54:40.of the Home Secretary. It gdts even bigger, the challenges, when one

:54:41. > :54:46.becomes Prime Minister. I whsh her strength and wisdom in dealhng with

:54:47. > :54:49.matters that are potentiallx life and death questions. Those `re

:54:50. > :54:53.matters for the Home Secret`ry and the Prime Minister, and we wish her

:54:54. > :54:56.well in those. I am pleased the Prime Minister has led in the

:54:57. > :54:59.debate, that wasn't the plan of the government, perhaps it is the new

:55:00. > :55:02.style of the new government that she thought on this important issue she

:55:03. > :55:08.should lead and we very much welcome that because this is a huge matter.

:55:09. > :55:12.It's probably going to be the biggest spending decision bx this

:55:13. > :55:17.government and given that, H'll come back to this, I find it uttdrly

:55:18. > :55:25.remarkable that now a number of hours into this debate we still have

:55:26. > :55:29.no idea whatsoever what the through life cost of Trident replacdment is.

:55:30. > :55:33.We can have different views, on whether it is good or bad,

:55:34. > :55:36.necessary, not necessary, I asked the prime Minster twice, shd had the

:55:37. > :55:40.opportunity, she can intervdne to give us that number, I think she is

:55:41. > :55:44.not because she would prefer not to say the number. Go to explahn

:55:45. > :55:50.without her spouts, will be asked either for the state, why is the

:55:51. > :55:54.government asking us to votd for something but can't tell us how much

:55:55. > :55:58.it's going to cost, it's relarkable that in this, the biggest... I will

:55:59. > :56:00.take an intervention from the Prime Minister if she wishes... Unless the

:56:01. > :56:08.honourable gentleman can give that number to the house now. Can he No.

:56:09. > :56:14.I was Millie going to ask the right honourable gentleman, at wh`t cost

:56:15. > :56:19.would he be supporting it? ,- I was merely going to ask. That is a smoke

:56:20. > :56:22.screen, it's not a matter of spending. I'll help him and his

:56:23. > :56:29.colleagues, there no circumstances we would spend any on nucle`r

:56:30. > :56:33.weapons whatsoever. You're supposed to be a conservative. This hs a

:56:34. > :56:37.motion before the house being proposed by the government, that the

:56:38. > :56:40.honourable gentleman and his honourable and right honour`ble

:56:41. > :56:43.friends are being asked to support in the lobbies. The last tile I

:56:44. > :56:50.looked I thought Conservative MPs took pride in fiscal rectittde, of

:56:51. > :56:54.making good decisions about taxpayer money. Remarkable, that not one

:56:55. > :56:58.single one of them has insisted their front bench can tell ts this

:56:59. > :57:01.evening, on the biggest spending decision of this Parliament, what

:57:02. > :57:09.it's going to cost. Will anxbody from the Treasury bench and light in

:57:10. > :57:13.the house, anybody again? And so their claim? None. I haven't ended

:57:14. > :57:16.with the consensual stuff, incidentally. I got ahead of myself

:57:17. > :57:20.a little bit, my apologies. I wanted to make the point about somdthing

:57:21. > :57:24.that hasn't been brought up this far. Perhaps it is a reason the

:57:25. > :57:27.Prime Minister is here todax, it wouldn't surprise me, one of the

:57:28. > :57:31.first things a Prime Ministdr needs to do on taking office is to write

:57:32. > :57:36.four letters. I'm not asking what the Prime Minister has written or is

:57:37. > :57:39.writing in that letter. She writes to the four submarine commanders and

:57:40. > :57:45.we pay tribute to those who serve in our numbers on these benches whose

:57:46. > :57:48.husband served as a sub Marhner on a Trident submarine, one of the last

:57:49. > :57:53.people to fire one of those missiles in testing. He is now an SNP

:57:54. > :57:59.councillor and is opposed to the renewal of Trident. Remaining..

:58:00. > :58:04.Forgive me, I mentioned my right honourable friend. I thank ly right

:58:05. > :58:10.honourable friend for mentioning my husband, who did fire the Trident

:58:11. > :58:14.missile. Not only is he an SNP councillor, he's here in Parliament

:58:15. > :58:20.today, and he's a member of Scottish CND, I've made the point before ..

:58:21. > :58:24.We support the personnel working in these submarines absolutely 100 ,

:58:25. > :58:29.but not all of those personnel support the weapon they've been

:58:30. > :58:33.asked to deliver. Hear, hear! My honourable friend makes her point

:58:34. > :58:37.very well. Remaining on the consensual side of this important

:58:38. > :58:42.debate, I want to stress th`t we on these benches do not confusd those

:58:43. > :58:46.who are in favour of renewing Trident with the thought thdy would

:58:47. > :58:51.actually want to kill millions of people. However, as the Prile

:58:52. > :58:55.Minister herself has confirled from the dispatch box today, the theory

:58:56. > :59:00.of nuclear deterrence is based on the credible potential use of

:59:01. > :59:04.weapons of mass destruction. So for those who vote for its renewal, they

:59:05. > :59:10.need to square the theory whth the practice of what this actually

:59:11. > :59:13.means. Having said all of that, given the boldness of the Prime

:59:14. > :59:18.Minister's personnel decisions in recent days, she has clearlx been

:59:19. > :59:23.thinking about new ways on how to take things forward in a nulber of

:59:24. > :59:29.different ways. In that respect I do think it's hugely disappointing that

:59:30. > :59:32.she clearly has not taken any time to consider, perhaps reconshder the

:59:33. > :59:38.wisdom of spending frankly `n absolute fortune on something that

:59:39. > :59:43.can never be used and is not deterring the threats that we face

:59:44. > :59:49.today. I say again, we have yet not had any confirmation on what this

:59:50. > :59:52.government plans... Plans to spend on this. And expect members, both on

:59:53. > :59:59.the Labour benches, the Labour benches and government benches, to

:00:00. > :00:03.sign a blank check for this. I'm sorry the Prime Minister has clearly

:00:04. > :00:07.not given any new or detaildd consideration for embracing the

:00:08. > :00:10.non-replacement of Trident. Which would offer serious strateghc and

:00:11. > :00:15.economic benefits, as outlined in the June 3013 report, the rdal

:00:16. > :00:22.alternative. For those who haven't read it, I suggest they do. -- 013.

:00:23. > :00:30.And the last debate that took place in this House, col by the SNP on

:00:31. > :00:33.Trident replacement, with stpport from Plaid Cymru and the Grden

:00:34. > :00:41.Party, I think I'm right in saying it was co-sponsored by the

:00:42. > :00:45.honourable member for Islington the advantages, and I quote, improved

:00:46. > :00:52.national security through btdgetary flexible than in the MOD as well as

:00:53. > :00:58.improved global security for a strengthening of the

:00:59. > :01:00.nonproliferation regime, deterring nuclear proliferation and

:01:01. > :01:05.de-escalating International tensions. It then goes on to point

:01:06. > :01:09.out the vast economic savings of over ?100 billion over the lifetime

:01:10. > :01:12.of our successive nuclear wdapons system, releasing resources for

:01:13. > :01:19.ineffective security spending and a range of public spending prhorities.

:01:20. > :01:23.-- for effective security spending. This seems important given that in

:01:24. > :01:27.every 2015, when the Ministry of Defence was asked this question the

:01:28. > :01:33.honourable member form of mtltiple, who is not in his place, but was

:01:34. > :01:41.here before, and I give him notice I'm be raising this, in 2014 last

:01:42. > :01:47.year he said that the estim`ted annual spending on the Triddnt

:01:48. > :01:50.replacement programme beyond 20 6 was, and I quote, being withheld as

:01:51. > :02:00.it relates to the formulation of Government policy and release would

:02:01. > :02:03.prejudice commercial interests. We are expected to sign a blank check

:02:04. > :02:08.for something that we have absolutely no idea what the final

:02:09. > :02:11.cost is going to be. Of course the right honourable gentleman who

:02:12. > :02:13.serves as chairman for the foreign affairs select committee has made a

:02:14. > :02:20.calculation. Perhaps he was going to be speaking about it, if he catches

:02:21. > :02:23.your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. He pointed out that the in-service

:02:24. > :02:34.costs of this elephant into 201 , the total cost, would be ?167

:02:35. > :02:40.billion. I will give way. I can dispose of this part of my speech.

:02:41. > :02:45.The actual updated figure is now ?179 billion. Based on the capital

:02:46. > :02:50.costs, these are the current's own figures, of 31 billion, with a 10

:02:51. > :02:54.billion contingency, and thdn the Government's assumptions about % of

:02:55. > :03:01.the defence budget as running costs, making assumption of a 32 ydar in

:03:02. > :03:08.service life, and that then brings you to 179 billion total. A very

:03:09. > :03:13.helpful intervention. I am not sure whether those numbers take `ccount

:03:14. > :03:17.of the currency fluctuations that has impacted on sterling. It

:03:18. > :03:22.doesn't, I see him shaking his head. So we should assume that it is even

:03:23. > :03:28.higher than ?179 billion. Of course there was a calculation madd in May

:03:29. > :03:32.this year that suggested it would be 205 billion pounds. This is a

:03:33. > :03:36.massive, massive... The Defdnce Secretary shakes his head. Would he

:03:37. > :03:47.like to intervene on me know and tell us this number? Tell us! I am

:03:48. > :03:50.happy to give way. If the honourable gentleman aware that when there was

:03:51. > :03:53.a freedom and permission repuests on the full life course, the MOD came

:03:54. > :03:58.back with this response. Thd Government needs a safe space away

:03:59. > :04:02.from public gaze to allow it to consider a policy options unfettered

:04:03. > :04:09.from public comments about their affordability. I suppose we should

:04:10. > :04:14.then be asking ourselves whdther that safe space is the Housd of

:04:15. > :04:19.Commons. Because we are nond the wiser. We have asked again `nd again

:04:20. > :04:22.and again, and I am looking at the Defence Secretary again, and he has

:04:23. > :04:27.the opportunity to intervend on me know again to tell the Housd, to

:04:28. > :04:39.tell Parliament, how much money has Government wishes to invest in the

:04:40. > :04:45.successor programme. Blank cheques! It is not just about the cost. For

:04:46. > :04:48.since college, to the questhon also about democracy. -- for us hn

:04:49. > :04:53.Scotland. The people of Scotland have shown repeatedly and clearly

:04:54. > :04:59.and consistently that we ard opposed to the renewal of nuclear wdapons.

:05:00. > :05:04.When we went to the country, the electorate, on a manifesto

:05:05. > :05:11.commitment, we won elections in 2007, in 2011, in 2015 and 06,

:05:12. > :05:19.running on an explicitly anti-Trident manifesto. I al

:05:20. > :05:24.delighted to be joined on the front bench ID honourable member

:05:25. > :05:28.representing Faslane and Cotlport, because the electorate of Argyll and

:05:29. > :05:40.Bute preferred an SNP parli`mentary collected on a non-Trident platform.

:05:41. > :05:43.It is much more than an isste of party political difference, because

:05:44. > :05:49.of Scottish public life, civic life, from the Scottish trade union

:05:50. > :05:54.Congress to Scotland's churches the Church of Scotland, the Bishop's

:05:55. > :05:57.conference issued a statement this week, the Scottish Parliament has

:05:58. > :06:02.voted on the subject, all h`ve voted or called for opposition to Trident

:06:03. > :06:07.renewables doctors cross-party support, not just from the SNP, but

:06:08. > :06:12.from the Greens, from Scotthsh Labour, almost every single one of

:06:13. > :06:18.Scotland's MPs tonight will vote against Trident replacement. It is a

:06:19. > :06:24.per indictment of the new administration that the first motion

:06:25. > :06:28.in Parliament is renewing Trident when there are so many other

:06:29. > :06:33.pressing issues facing the country in the context of Brexit. It is

:06:34. > :06:37.obscene that the priority of this Government, and sadly too m`ny

:06:38. > :06:42.people on the Labour benches, at a time of Tory austerity and dconomic

:06:43. > :06:46.uncertainty following the ET referendum, is to spend billions of

:06:47. > :06:52.pounds on outdated nuclear weapons that we do not want, do not need,

:06:53. > :06:56.and could never use. With the debt, deficit and borrowing levels

:06:57. > :07:04.forecast to get worse after Brexit, and more than ?40 billion to be cut

:07:05. > :07:10.from public services by 2020, spending ?167 billion order ?17

:07:11. > :07:12.billion, or ?205 billion, or whatever the number the Govdrnment

:07:13. > :07:19.is not prepared to tell us ht actually is, is an outrage. The

:07:20. > :07:23.Prime Minister's first bought is on Trident, and in the current climate,

:07:24. > :07:26.this is totally wrong. It is the wrong approach to queue priorities.

:07:27. > :07:32.We should be working to stabilise the economy and sort out thd chaos

:07:33. > :07:35.caused by the Brexit result. The Prime Minister has already

:07:36. > :07:40.undermined the words of her first speech, which I think many people

:07:41. > :07:48.across all parties find important. She vowed to fight against burning

:07:49. > :07:55.injustice, and we agree, but Trident fights no injustices. Trident is an

:07:56. > :07:59.immoral, obscene and redund`nt weapons system. The vote on Trident

:08:00. > :08:04.is one of the most important this parliament will ever take, `nd we

:08:05. > :08:08.have a Government and as a Parliament an obligation to inform

:08:09. > :08:13.the public about such a massive decision. They have failed to do

:08:14. > :08:16.that. The Labour opposition is facing three ways at the sale time,

:08:17. > :08:21.and letting the Government get away with this. We in the SNP ard

:08:22. > :08:28.absolutely clear in our opposition to Trident. We would not colmit to

:08:29. > :08:31.spend hundreds of billions of pounds on WMD, particularly at a thme when

:08:32. > :08:36.this Government is making significant cuts to public services.

:08:37. > :08:43.It would be both morally and economically indefensible. H am

:08:44. > :08:48.summing up. Mr Speaker, Mad`m Deputy Speaker, today almost every single

:08:49. > :08:52.Scottish MP will vote against renewing Trident. Only a few short

:08:53. > :08:58.weeks ago, Scotland voted to remain within the European Union. Hf

:08:59. > :09:05.Scotland is a nation, and Scotland is a nation, it is not a normal

:09:06. > :09:11.situation for the state to totally disregard the wishes of the people,

:09:12. > :09:14.and this Government has a ddmocratic deficit in Scotland, and with

:09:15. > :09:19.two-day's vote on Trident, ht is going to get worse, not better. It

:09:20. > :09:23.is for the Scottish people to determine whether we are properly

:09:24. > :09:28.protected in Europe and better represented by a Government that we

:09:29. > :09:39.actually elect. At this ratd, that day is fast approaching. Order,

:09:40. > :09:42.order! Before I call the ch`ir of the foreign affairs select

:09:43. > :09:48.committee, can I remind honourable member that there are five linutes

:09:49. > :09:52.of limit on speeches, and if too many interventions are taking, the

:09:53. > :09:57.limit will reduce very rapidly. Thank you, Madam Deputy Spe`ker

:09:58. > :10:00.Because I suspect I may be the only person on these benches makhng

:10:01. > :10:05.arguments that I am going to make this evening, I have taken some care

:10:06. > :10:11.with these, and with the tile limit, I will not be able to deplox Michael

:10:12. > :10:14.arguments, but I will publish them on my own website, because H know

:10:15. > :10:19.there will be many people ottside this House following this ddbate. --

:10:20. > :10:23.might fill argument. I agred this is an extremely important debate. It is

:10:24. > :10:27.because I care about the security of my country that I will not be

:10:28. > :10:33.joining my honourable and rhght honourable friend in our lobby

:10:34. > :10:37.tonight. It is because we h`ve scattered defence expenditure at 2%

:10:38. > :10:44.of GDP that the cost of this programme comes at the expense of

:10:45. > :10:48.our own, the rest of the defence programme, and therefore we need to

:10:49. > :10:52.make, my argument is, and more rational judgment about the balance

:10:53. > :10:57.of expenditure in order to leet the risks the country faces. Thhs is a

:10:58. > :11:01.colossal investment in a we`pon system that will become increasingly

:11:02. > :11:07.vulnerable, and for his sectrity and believe we will have to throw good

:11:08. > :11:09.money in order to secure it, tens of billions, more than already

:11:10. > :11:15.estimated, in order to keep it safe in the years to come. I was just

:11:16. > :11:21.listening to my right honourable friend's remark. He said we have

:11:22. > :11:27.capped defence expenditure `t 2 of GDP. My understanding is we have a

:11:28. > :11:34.follower of at least 2% of GDP. -- we have a floor of at least 2%. My

:11:35. > :11:37.honourable friend is technically right, but it would be a trhumph of

:11:38. > :11:44.hope over expectation that we will see more than 2% spent on ddfence

:11:45. > :11:48.any time soon. When that happens, and if this is taken in isolation to

:11:49. > :11:51.be spent outside the defencd budget, then I would accept that my

:11:52. > :11:57.arguments would need to be re-evaluated. But as things are set

:11:58. > :12:04.no, this budget for this we`pon system comes at the cost of the rest

:12:05. > :12:07.of our defence budget. Brit`in's independent possession of ntclear

:12:08. > :12:12.weapons has turned into a political touchstone for a commitment to

:12:13. > :12:16.national defence. But this hs an illusion. The trick is that this is

:12:17. > :12:23.a political weapon aimed rather effectively at the Labour P`rty It

:12:24. > :12:30.is justification rest on defence economics and the politics of over

:12:31. > :12:33.three decades ago. But it is of less relevant to the United Kingdom

:12:34. > :12:40.today, and it is certainly surplus to the needs of Nato. It dods pass

:12:41. > :12:44.any rational course effectiveness tests. -- cost effectiveness. Surely

:12:45. > :12:48.the conventional thrillers, the ignominious retreat from Basra and

:12:49. > :12:54.Helmand and in past decade, tell us that something is badly out of

:12:55. > :12:57.balance in our strategic posture. This does not forget the risks that

:12:58. > :13:02.this particular weapon systdm presents to the United Kingdom. The

:13:03. > :13:06.thing it in Scotland reinforces the nationalist narrative, and

:13:07. > :13:12.ironically, for a system justified that it protects the UK, it could

:13:13. > :13:16.prove instrumental in the union s undoing. -- basing it in Scotland.

:13:17. > :13:20.We were told last November that the capital costs for the replacement of

:13:21. > :13:23.the four submarines would bd ?4 billion with a contingency fund of

:13:24. > :13:27.10 billion. We have been told that the running costs of the Successor

:13:28. > :13:36.programme be 6% of the defence budget. In exchange with thd leader

:13:37. > :13:45.of the Scottish Nationalist, I came to my calculation, which is 110

:13:46. > :13:49.billion for the whole progr`mme The honourable gentleman's figure is now

:13:50. > :13:54.being used widely. I asked whether it could be broken down. I `sked

:13:55. > :14:00.various think tanks. They h`ve been unable to do so. Could he explain

:14:01. > :14:07.how he gets to that figure's it is extremely true board. It is 6% of 2%

:14:08. > :14:11.of GDP, for the Government's proposed in-service dates of the

:14:12. > :14:20.system. -- it is extremely straightforward. This is 6%, and it

:14:21. > :14:28.is not surprising that that is the number. That it should be 6$ of GDP,

:14:29. > :14:32.which is double the share of the defence budget that it was hn the

:14:33. > :14:36.1980s, because the share of defence from GDP has halved since the 1 80s.

:14:37. > :14:42.The cost of this project ard enormous, and I have asked privately

:14:43. > :14:46.a number of my honourable friends, at what point do they believe these

:14:47. > :14:51.costs become prohibitive? And I cannot get an answer, short of those

:14:52. > :14:55.who say, whatever it takes. But I do not believe an answer of infinity is

:14:56. > :15:02.rational. It is not only dalaging to our economic security. It comes at a

:15:03. > :15:05.deeply injurious opportunitx cost to conventional defence. And at what

:15:06. > :15:13.point do either of these prhces cease to be worth paying?

:15:14. > :15:20.The standard programme risks already applied with the currency rhsk and

:15:21. > :15:24.Pele in compare with the technical risk of this project. There is a

:15:25. > :15:32.growing body of evidence th`t emerging technologies will render

:15:33. > :15:36.this in the foreseeable futtre. Detecting acoustic, magnetic and

:15:37. > :15:40.electromagnetic signature is on-board unmanned vehicles hn the

:15:41. > :15:45.mutation with each other ushng swarming algorithms and autonomous

:15:46. > :15:48.operations associated with unofficial intelligence abld to

:15:49. > :15:52.patrol indefinitely and using the extraordinary process thinkhng

:15:53. > :15:56.abilities now available and improving month by month. The

:15:57. > :16:02.geometric improvement in processing power means that today's sm`rtphone

:16:03. > :16:07.is far superior to that of the latest American fighter aircraft.

:16:08. > :16:13.Unmanned aircraft will detect service weight of deeply submerged

:16:14. > :16:17.submarines communicating with those underwater receiving active sonar.

:16:18. > :16:23.Marine biologists are already able to track shoals of fish in real time

:16:24. > :16:27.from several hundred miles `way Ballistic submarines depend utterly

:16:28. > :16:34.upon their stealth utilising the sheer size of the ocean but if we

:16:35. > :16:39.are, today, able to detect the gravitational waves first created by

:16:40. > :16:43.Big Bang, how can we be so confident that a capable adversarial would not

:16:44. > :16:51.be able to track our submarhnes 20 to 40 years from now's but the

:16:52. > :16:53.vulnerabilities are not restricted to its increasingly detectable

:16:54. > :17:00.signatures. What about the security of a Trident system from cyber

:17:01. > :17:04.attack's part of the Governlent s case is that all the other he fired

:17:05. > :17:08.stakes are also investing in submarine technology for thd nuclear

:17:09. > :17:12.weapons systems. It wouldn't be the first time that states have followed

:17:13. > :17:16.each other down a blind alldy but the UK is the only nuclear `rmed

:17:17. > :17:22.state to depend entirely upon a submarine. If Nato's technical head

:17:23. > :17:28.of anti-submarine warfare c`n firstly the end of the error of the

:17:29. > :17:36.submarine, our P five colle`gues at least have their bets laid we won't.

:17:37. > :17:39.Thank you. It is a pleasure to follow that imaginative spedch. I

:17:40. > :17:45.only wish he could have brotght in his facts so the we could understand

:17:46. > :17:50.better the figures on which he was trying to explain to us to no avail

:17:51. > :17:55.in the chamber does now. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am proud, unlike

:17:56. > :18:00.the people acting for our front bench today, the Speaker for the

:18:01. > :18:06.Labour Party in this debate. For the party of Attlee and bedding, the men

:18:07. > :18:11.who witnessed the terrible birth of nuclear destruction and unddrstood,

:18:12. > :18:18.with heavy hearts, that thex should protect the world with the capacity

:18:19. > :18:31.to deter others from unleashing it again. Once, I will. I thank my

:18:32. > :18:36.friend forgiving way. Detection a nuclear deterrent also protdcts our

:18:37. > :18:40.soldiers in the field. Many of us, including my honourable fridnd here,

:18:41. > :18:44.where soldiers in Germany. We took great comfort from the fact that we

:18:45. > :18:50.had nuclear weapons because the other side, the Warsaw Pact, could

:18:51. > :18:55.well have blasted us to hell and they were put off, we hope very much

:18:56. > :19:01.by the fact that we possess nuclear weapons. Protection of our soldiers

:19:02. > :19:05.matters and is good for mor`le. The honourable member is absolutely

:19:06. > :19:08.right and those who wish to eradicate the nuclear weapons from

:19:09. > :19:13.the United Kingdom cannot explain what would happen any scenario where

:19:14. > :19:17.the Russia invaded in Nato state and there was no nuclear protection from

:19:18. > :19:24.our site and we were open to nuclear blackmail of the dreadful scale I

:19:25. > :19:30.am pleased to be standing alongside members of the Unite and GMB have

:19:31. > :19:33.come down here to remind us just how effective the workforces and how

:19:34. > :19:37.important it is to so many parts of the UK. I am also proud that I'm

:19:38. > :19:43.going to be in the same lobby as the then Labour Foreign Secretary, from

:19:44. > :19:50.Derby South, who committed the United Kingdom, the first of any

:19:51. > :19:54.nuclear capable nation to a global zero, a world free from nuclear

:19:55. > :19:57.weapons. But and this is thd one thing that the Leader of thd

:19:58. > :20:04.Opposition didn't seem to w`nt to mention, she knew, unilater`lly

:20:05. > :20:09.disarming while others keep the bomb is not an act of global leadership.

:20:10. > :20:16.It wouldn't show others the way it would be destabilising and ` futile

:20:17. > :20:22.abdication of responsibilitx. I am also speaking for the Labour members

:20:23. > :20:30.and trade unionists who eng`ged in policy-making in good faith. Those

:20:31. > :20:36.people are now being ignored by the party leader who claims and clings

:20:37. > :20:47.to an idea of Labour Party democracy to save his own skin and it is not

:20:48. > :20:50.right. The leaders Trident review has not materialised yet so let me

:20:51. > :20:55.mention the report of the b`ckbench defence committee which I chair

:20:56. > :21:00.After ten sessions, 23 expert speakers and many MPs are attending,

:21:01. > :21:05.though not be Shadow Foreign Secretary, not anyone from the

:21:06. > :21:09.leader 's office, nor the Shadow development secretary, who seems to

:21:10. > :21:14.want to take part in this ddbate by Twitter but not apparently from

:21:15. > :21:20.standing up for himself. We found that there has been no substantive

:21:21. > :21:24.change in the circumstances which led the Labour Party firmly to

:21:25. > :21:30.support renewing the Vanguard submarines, which currently carry

:21:31. > :21:36.the deterrence. Madam Deputx Speaker, for the official opposition

:21:37. > :21:41.to have a free vote on a matter of such strategic national importance

:21:42. > :21:48.is a terrible indictment of how far this once great party has f`llen.

:21:49. > :21:51.There has long been a princhpled decision of unilateralism in the

:21:52. > :22:00.Labour Party. I myself was born into it. But what Labour's current front

:22:01. > :22:05.bench are doing is not principled. It shows contempt for the ptblic,

:22:06. > :22:11.her party members and often in what they say for the truth. This

:22:12. > :22:16.situation would have been up rent even to Labour's last great

:22:17. > :22:20.unilateralist who fought all his shortcomings as a leader, would

:22:21. > :22:25.never have allowed our partx to stand direction live in the face of

:22:26. > :22:31.such an important question. We don't know what's going to happen to the

:22:32. > :22:37.Labour Party. This is an uncertain time but whatever happens, H am

:22:38. > :22:42.proud to stand here today and speak for Barrow, to speak for thd town

:22:43. > :22:46.that is steeped in the great British tradition of shipbuilding and to

:22:47. > :22:51.speak for the men and women who give greater service to their cotntry

:22:52. > :22:57.with the incredible work th`t they do. I will walk through the lobby

:22:58. > :23:02.tonight to pass a project that the last Labour Government began in a

:23:03. > :23:07.vote which Liebert itself promised when we sat over there. -- labour.

:23:08. > :23:13.Failing to endorse the subm`rine programme that will support up to

:23:14. > :23:19.30,000 jobs across the UK whll not only do great damage to our

:23:20. > :23:23.manufacturing base, it would be a clear act of unilateral dis`rmament.

:23:24. > :23:28.It will tell the public that we are prepared to give more credence to

:23:29. > :23:33.improbable theories and wild logic than the solid weight of evhdence

:23:34. > :23:39.that points to renewing Trident It is our enduring duty, Madam Deputy

:23:40. > :23:43.Speaker, to do what we can to protect the nation for decades

:23:44. > :23:49.ahead. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting established

:23:50. > :23:56.labour policy in the ayes lobby tonight. I think that was one of the

:23:57. > :24:00.most courageous speeches I've heard in my time in this house. I am very

:24:01. > :24:06.sad the right honourable gentleman, the member for Gardner is not here

:24:07. > :24:09.because family last debated this in 2007, I was sitting on the

:24:10. > :24:13.opposition benches and he swept his arm to his right and said, xou in

:24:14. > :24:17.the Home Counties cannot understand what it is like to have a wdapon as

:24:18. > :24:23.powerful as this on your doorstep and I was able to point out to him

:24:24. > :24:29.that if he came into my bedroom and looked across the valley, hd would

:24:30. > :24:33.see the rooftops of the autonomy -- Tana -- atomic weapons

:24:34. > :24:36.Establishment, he would also see the Royal Ordinance factory and if he

:24:37. > :24:45.climbed onto my roof, he cotld probably seem the missiles silo We

:24:46. > :24:49.need no lessons from anyone about the impact or the effect of living

:24:50. > :24:55.close to the nuclear deterrdnt in my part of Berkshire. He, of course,

:24:56. > :24:59.replied in a consummate way that clever politicians do but that was

:25:00. > :25:03.the first and last time he'd ever be asked injury Tory MP's bedroom but

:25:04. > :25:09.the point is that the nucle`r deterrent is my constituents's

:25:10. > :25:12.biggest employer and there `re many advantages to having it there, not

:25:13. > :25:20.least in the Supply chain of 27 local companies, 1500 supplx chain

:25:21. > :25:23.organisations nationally, the effect it has an advising the Government

:25:24. > :25:33.doing counterterrorism on ntclear threat reduction, forensics. On

:25:34. > :25:40.nonproliferation and its second to none and apprenticeship schdme and

:25:41. > :25:45.its academic collaboration. All of that would not matter one jot if the

:25:46. > :25:52.decision we were taking tod`y was wrong and the decision we are taking

:25:53. > :25:57.today is right. The truth is... I listen to great interest wh`t he

:25:58. > :26:00.said in a situation of nucldar materials are weapons in his

:26:01. > :26:04.constituency, but would he `gree with me there is one big difference

:26:05. > :26:09.between his constituency and the constituency of my rough rent,

:26:10. > :26:14.Argyll and Bute. His constituents witnessed once nuclear weapons, the

:26:15. > :26:20.constituents of all of us do not want nuclear weapons. There are many

:26:21. > :26:26.polls that conflict with thd information she says. I was elected

:26:27. > :26:31.on a resounding majority but who knows how much of that decision was

:26:32. > :26:35.taken because of nuclear we`pons being based locally? It was a wide

:26:36. > :26:38.variety of different issues. The truth is that the nuclear ddterrent

:26:39. > :26:43.has saved lives and that is a point that has not been made and tp

:26:44. > :26:48.tonight. It has saved lives of the last few decades because I progress

:26:49. > :26:55.'s have been deterred. What we have to ask ourselves is how predictable

:26:56. > :27:00.our future conflicts? The ldader of this SNP said we are talking about

:27:01. > :27:05.an issue today. We are not. We are talking about an issue in 20 or 30

:27:06. > :27:09.or 40 years. They may have ` crystal ball and maybe voters say there will

:27:10. > :27:13.be no threat to us in that time I don't have a crystal ball and is the

:27:14. > :27:19.protection of future generations of this country that I want to ensure

:27:20. > :27:23.that we protect. What role hs nuclear weapons played in the

:27:24. > :27:28.catastrophe in Libya and Syria's what contribution did they lake to

:27:29. > :27:33.that? Ridiculous intervention, not worthy of a reply. He might like to

:27:34. > :27:39.consider what kind of aggressor we might face in the future, not just

:27:40. > :27:44.Russia, what about groups and nations are in division reasons We

:27:45. > :27:46.know that nuclear weapons h`ve proliferated indecent years as we

:27:47. > :27:51.have reduced our arsenal, others have raised it and he needs to think

:27:52. > :27:54.about not just today, not jtst him and his constituents but thd future

:27:55. > :28:02.generations we are talking `bout protecting. In the few minutes that

:28:03. > :28:05.I have, no interventions. You just have to think through the rdcent

:28:06. > :28:12.conflict in our lifetime, not ones that were ordered nuclear

:28:13. > :28:15.retaliation would have been appropriate, the Falklands War,

:28:16. > :28:21.mentioned by my right honourable friend, the invasion of Kuw`it, 911,

:28:22. > :28:24.last week's you in Turkey. We didn't know this is going to happen. Who

:28:25. > :28:30.can sit here today and say we're going to be any wiser if an

:28:31. > :28:34.operation took place that would not have taken place if that potential

:28:35. > :28:38.enemy had been deterred by the fact that we had the kind of weapons that

:28:39. > :28:43.would just make them sit up and think? What we need to conshder

:28:44. > :28:52.tonight is the potential endmy hold in their mind there is no advantage

:28:53. > :28:56.to them in aggression. I talked so much tonight about our constituents

:28:57. > :29:00.and future generations but let us talk about the concept of using

:29:01. > :29:07.nuclear weapons because there is a very good and honest and decent

:29:08. > :29:12.concept I can respect of disarmament and passengers in this country and

:29:13. > :29:16.it goes back many generations. I happen to think in this context it

:29:17. > :29:21.is wrong that you can respect it but when people talk about using nuclear

:29:22. > :29:25.weapons, they need to understand the doctrine of Government and that

:29:26. > :29:29.doctrine is our nuclear detdrrent is being used every single day of every

:29:30. > :29:36.single year that has been ddployed and that is what it is. What it says

:29:37. > :29:41.on the tin. It deters. No one believes, I am sorry to say, that an

:29:42. > :29:46.independent Scotland would suddenly start investing in a type 26

:29:47. > :29:49.destroyers and fast jets and all the other paraphernalia of a nation that

:29:50. > :30:00.wants to somehow engage in the world but the British do. I think their

:30:01. > :30:05.sudden attraction to the idda of massive defence spending is complete

:30:06. > :30:09.nonsense. No, I will not give away. The nature of regimes any more

:30:10. > :30:13.dangerous world out what thdy need to consider today and while we are

:30:14. > :30:18.reducing our arsenal for nuclear weapons by 50% in recent ye`rs, the

:30:19. > :30:24.opposition ignored the fact that we have reduced the number of `rsenal

:30:25. > :30:29.so considerably. The number of states with nuclear weapons

:30:30. > :30:35.increases and the number of weapons in the world is now over 17,000

:30:36. > :30:42.On the question of cost, I would state that with 31 billion over 35

:30:43. > :30:47.years plus the contingency, all of this equates to about 0.2% of total

:30:48. > :30:54.Government spending, and thdn you can reduce from that the advantage

:30:55. > :31:00.this has two the supply chahn of developing this replacement suite of

:31:01. > :31:04.submarines. I would just finish Madam Deputy Speaker, by saxing that

:31:05. > :31:08.what our allies need to be listened to in this as well. We have an

:31:09. > :31:13.agreement with the French, ` long-standing agreement with the

:31:14. > :31:18.united states. Our nuclear defence is networked into our allies as

:31:19. > :31:22.well. We need to be thinking of the response to what we are talking

:31:23. > :31:29.about tonight as much as thd future generations that we protect through

:31:30. > :31:35.our decision tonight. Until three weeks ago, I was anticipating how I

:31:36. > :31:38.would be considering today's debate as Labour's shadow Armed Forces

:31:39. > :31:43.minister. Today I do so frol the backbenches. But either way, I am

:31:44. > :31:51.grateful to my honourable friend to ensure that Labour's approach was

:31:52. > :31:56.evidence base. He conducted an exhaustive series of seminars on the

:31:57. > :32:02.renewal. A wide range of contributors, including two former

:32:03. > :32:04.labour Secretary of State for Defence, trade unions and fhrms

:32:05. > :32:09.responsible for the thousands of jobs that hang in the balance, and

:32:10. > :32:12.from academics and historians who placed the decision we face today

:32:13. > :32:16.into an appropriate global, strategic, and historical context.

:32:17. > :32:25.I'll so have a historical context. My mother in the 1980s was `

:32:26. > :32:31.protest. I believe both of ly parents were members of the NDE I

:32:32. > :32:41.did not personally have a b`dge -- members of the CMD. As with much

:32:42. > :32:44.discourse in the Labour Party right now, we are having a retro debate

:32:45. > :32:50.that we thought had been settled three decades ago. We fought

:32:51. > :32:53.elections on a unilateralist platform before. Some peopld

:32:54. > :32:56.surrounding the leader may think that winning elections is jtst a

:32:57. > :33:00.small bet that matters to the political elite, but to most of us

:33:01. > :33:07.and Judy to my constituents, it is pretty fundamental to delivdring the

:33:08. > :33:10.change our society needs. I approached the review with `n open

:33:11. > :33:13.mind, heard all of the tried and tested opposition arguments to

:33:14. > :33:17.Trident. But I have to say that the weight of evidence in support of the

:33:18. > :33:21.decision the Government havd taken today was overwhelming. So H was

:33:22. > :33:25.told many things. I was told that once I got to meet senior mhlitary

:33:26. > :33:29.figures, I would learn none of them really wanted it, they wantdd the

:33:30. > :33:35.money spent elsewhere. That survey was not true. From a range of

:33:36. > :33:37.experience an expert opinion, I learned that our Armed Forcds

:33:38. > :33:45.understand the strategic importance of sending a powerful message, the

:33:46. > :33:51.importance of it to a relathonship with Nato allies. Either edhted Nato

:33:52. > :33:55.with two previous Shadow Secretary of State for Defence. We met with

:33:56. > :33:59.representatives from Estoni`, Latvia, Poland, and several other

:34:00. > :34:04.Nato allies, countries for whom the Russian threat is not a dinner table

:34:05. > :34:06.conversation, but a matter of chilling daily reality. My

:34:07. > :34:12.honourable friend from Islington South was told how desperatdly wear

:34:13. > :34:14.for Britain to retain that nuclear deterrent and sent a powerftl signal

:34:15. > :34:19.to President Putin. We were also told that we should not Mikd that it

:34:20. > :34:25.was too soon to make a decision but Lord West made it clear to the PLP

:34:26. > :34:28.committed that the existing extension meant that further delays

:34:29. > :34:33.to the programme would mean we were no longer able to maintain `

:34:34. > :34:39.permanent and continuous posture. As the case against Trident, against

:34:40. > :34:44.not having Trident has falldn apart, the alternative options we have

:34:45. > :34:47.heard have become ever more absurd. First we had, build the sumlaries,

:34:48. > :34:52.but don't equip them with ntclear capability. All the spending but

:34:53. > :34:56.none of the benefits. Second we were told we could read performance the

:34:57. > :35:03.alternatives review and havd another five years of indecision. The

:35:04. > :35:09.honourable gentleman from otr Bute told us all his constituents do not

:35:10. > :35:14.want it, but actually 44% of his constituents voted for a party that

:35:15. > :35:19.was getting rid of Trident, 56% voted for a party committed to

:35:20. > :35:25.retention of Trident. So th`t does not stand up to the scrutinx he

:35:26. > :35:30.suggests. Representatives of the GMB union, where my honourable friend

:35:31. > :35:34.suggested they might like to make wind turbines and said, polhtely but

:35:35. > :35:37.firmly informed her they were involved in designing and producing

:35:38. > :35:40.one of the most complex is technology on the face of the earth,

:35:41. > :35:47.and that winter rains had already been invented. -- wind turbhnes The

:35:48. > :35:52.House has been asked today to make it difficult and cost the ddcision.

:35:53. > :35:57.I will give way. He will have heard, as I have, many people pickdd the

:35:58. > :36:01.case to us as Labour MPs th`t they do not back unilateralism btt would

:36:02. > :36:08.prefer an alternative nucle`r platform. It is a very important

:36:09. > :36:13.point. The Government themsdlves tried precisely to come to that

:36:14. > :36:17.conclusion on behalf of thehr liberal Democrat allies in the last

:36:18. > :36:20.current. The truth of the m`tter is, ballistic missile system and a

:36:21. > :36:25.submarine -based system absolutely crucial to ensuring that it is

:36:26. > :36:29.undetectable to our adversaries and also to ensure that it provhdes a

:36:30. > :36:32.genuine and credible deterrdnt in terms of the missile defencd systems

:36:33. > :36:35.that our adversaries have. Some Labour members should have

:36:36. > :36:39.confidence that the world-class technology produced by the very best

:36:40. > :36:43.of British manufacturing benefiting suppliers in almost every shngle

:36:44. > :36:48.constituency in the land, including my own, is delivering the mhnimum

:36:49. > :36:52.credible continuous deterrent we can deliver. It will aid global security

:36:53. > :36:56.and be viewed with great gr`titude, not just by the workers whose

:36:57. > :36:59.livelihoods depend on it, btt by partners who nervously watch our

:37:00. > :37:02.adversaries every move. Labour members should know they ard voting

:37:03. > :37:07.in accordance with the policy they were elected on in support of

:37:08. > :37:11.working trade union members and our heroic Armed Forces personndl, that

:37:12. > :37:14.they are contributing towards global security, and that batting hs in

:37:15. > :37:18.keeping with our internationalist principles and have the right thing

:37:19. > :37:25.to do. -- that backing of is in keeping with our principles. I rise

:37:26. > :37:29.to support the motion, and this would tirelessly and with a heavy

:37:30. > :37:37.heart. Nobody can stand in the missile compartment of a sulmary

:37:38. > :37:43.without a sense of terrible. I have the capacity to destroy 40 lillion

:37:44. > :37:46.people, and I know all here holds that responsibility and feel that

:37:47. > :37:49.responsibility extremely acttely, and that certainly goes for my

:37:50. > :37:53.honourable and Right Honour`ble friends on this front bench and its

:37:54. > :37:58.predecessors. I spent much of my 20 year naval career at the tahl end of

:37:59. > :38:08.the Cold War. But the Cold War is over, and one can see the Cold War

:38:09. > :38:12.was one. The Cold War did not become a real war in part because of the

:38:13. > :38:19.possession of the terrible weapons we are discussing this afternoon. We

:38:20. > :38:22.must not be preparing to fight the last war, and honourable and right

:38:23. > :38:30.Honourable members across the House to say that tomorrow's wars are

:38:31. > :38:34.likely to be asymmetric, hybrid wars involving terrorism, involving

:38:35. > :38:42.climate change, conflicts involving climate change. What I cannot fully

:38:43. > :38:46.understand as we sit here today -- war we cannot fully underst`nd. But

:38:47. > :38:50.simply because those threats exist does not mean that nuclear blackmail

:38:51. > :38:53.does not and will not. I fully accept that there are shades of grey

:38:54. > :38:59.in this argument, and I absolutely reject the absolute and poshtions

:39:00. > :39:03.taken by some commentators hn this matter. -- the absolutist positions.

:39:04. > :39:08.I fully understand the respdct arguments in relation to opportunity

:39:09. > :39:14.costs. But we have to make ` decision no, and we have bedn here

:39:15. > :39:17.before, several times. In 2006, under the party opposite, wd

:39:18. > :39:25.conducted what was called a deep dive, appropriately enough, on this

:39:26. > :39:29.matter. In 2013, thanks largely to the Liberal Democrats, it p`ins me

:39:30. > :39:33.to say so, but nevertheless, we undertook an alternatives rdview and

:39:34. > :39:37.dealt with many of the issuds that I have no doubt we'll be disctssing

:39:38. > :39:41.this afternoon in relation to what alternatives there may be at that

:39:42. > :39:46.time. In the time available to me, I would like to talk very bridfly

:39:47. > :39:49.about two propositions. Those of redundancy and those of repttation.

:39:50. > :39:54.They are respectable arguments and deserve to be dealt with properly.

:39:55. > :39:59.The redundancy proposition... I will give way. Before you start on those

:40:00. > :40:02.two crucial points, would hd agree with me that the speech we just

:40:03. > :40:06.heard from the Honourable mdmber for Chesterfield was one of the most

:40:07. > :40:10.powerful arguments made on core beliefs that he has clearly thought

:40:11. > :40:12.about very deeply for a long period of time, and should be very

:40:13. > :40:17.compelling for those of our constituents why not quite clear

:40:18. > :40:22.what the party lines on this article is yes, my honourable friend is

:40:23. > :40:26.absolutely right, and the mdmber for Barrow-in-Furness also made a very

:40:27. > :40:32.powerful speech. The redund`ncy proposition holds that advancing

:40:33. > :40:34.technology will make the nuclear deterrent redundant. It is ` boys we

:40:35. > :40:40.will have an unmanned underwater vessel that will appear, render our

:40:41. > :40:44.oceans are transparent, this despite all evidence to the contrarx and the

:40:45. > :40:50.fact it is pure supposition. We cannot approach our future defence

:40:51. > :40:55.on supposition about what mhght happen in the future. History is

:40:56. > :41:00.usually a gate in these matters and I know that this year we mark the

:41:01. > :41:04.centenary of the introduction of tanks into the battle space. --

:41:05. > :41:09.history is usually a gate. We could have said then, we must not develop

:41:10. > :41:15.this technology because of the possibility of sticky bombs and tank

:41:16. > :41:20.traps, but we did not. I give way. One of the lessons from history has

:41:21. > :41:25.to be nigh Bevan, who as Foreign Secretary said, don't send le naked

:41:26. > :41:29.into the conference chamber. What sort of Emperor in new clothing

:41:30. > :41:33.would someone be you who went into a conference chamber with President

:41:34. > :41:36.Putin, for example, and said, I do not have any nuclear weapons, or I

:41:37. > :41:41.have some nuclear powered stbs but no weapons on them? The honourable

:41:42. > :41:45.lady is quite right, and I have to say I am enjoying the consensual

:41:46. > :41:49.nature of this debate today. It is the House of Commons at its very

:41:50. > :41:55.best. Jesse Fuller in 1929 said that tanks would be made redundant..

:41:56. > :42:01.Would make in 20 redundant. Actually any sense he was right, but the time

:42:02. > :42:04.frame was completely wrong, and what happened was the infantry actually

:42:05. > :42:09.adapted rather than abolishdd. The imminent end of man's fightdrs was

:42:10. > :42:16.confidently predicted in a Government White Paper in 1857. The

:42:17. > :42:23.fact of the matter is, we c`nnot base our defence on what we imagine

:42:24. > :42:25.might happen, and that is, H think, the important point. I think the

:42:26. > :42:33.point the honourable lady w`s trying to make. The threat of cyber and

:42:34. > :42:36.unmanned underwater vessels should rather invigorate our own

:42:37. > :42:41.countermeasures and attempts to detect and potentially disrtpt

:42:42. > :42:48.aggressors. Never the less, just as lightning to GSF may only h`ve half

:42:49. > :42:53.of a life before it is renddred obsolescent, we have to be open to

:42:54. > :42:56.the possibility that the successor submarine may itself, or Brhsbane

:42:57. > :43:01.area long life, at some point be made obsolete. I do not think that

:43:02. > :43:07.is a sufficient argument to deploy against the decision I think we will

:43:08. > :43:10.be making today. My second proposition is that of reputation

:43:11. > :43:17.theory. The argue it unilatdralism will in some way raise our standing

:43:18. > :43:27.internationally. I have to say, that is hopelessly naive. Try saxing that

:43:28. > :43:33.two people in Ukraine. Try waving the Budapest mammal at them. Many of

:43:34. > :43:41.them will say that had we not given up our share of the USSR's nuclear

:43:42. > :43:44.armament to, about one third of it, when we became independent, our

:43:45. > :43:50.territory now would be assured. We would not have been invaded. It is

:43:51. > :43:53.not an argument I necessarily want to take too far, because others will

:43:54. > :43:58.make can drag about the wisdom of Ukraine having to clear up weapons,

:43:59. > :44:02.personally I am very pleased that they do not. But never the less

:44:03. > :44:07.from the perspective of a state that is trying to face down an aggressor,

:44:08. > :44:13.it is a powerful argument for it to make. There are those who s`y that

:44:14. > :44:16.if we cut our nuclear arsen`l, others will follow. There is no

:44:17. > :44:20.evidence to suggest that is the case at all. We have cut our personal

:44:21. > :44:27.dramatically in recent years, and yet you have seen other states

:44:28. > :44:31.increase mirrors. And finally, if I may say, in this atmosphere of

:44:32. > :44:36.Brexit, where we are right for urging our links with other

:44:37. > :44:41.international organisations and operating in an outward fachng way I

:44:42. > :44:47.find repression, we have to think about our membership of the UN

:44:48. > :44:53.permanent Security Council. That membership is contingent. It is

:44:54. > :44:56.contingent on this country offering something. It made pain somd

:44:57. > :45:01.honourable and right Honour`ble members to ponder on it, but in

:45:02. > :45:03.large part, I membership of that body is down to our continudd

:45:04. > :45:15.possession of this terrible weapon. I rise to support the motion for us

:45:16. > :45:19.today. I know that there ard those including those in my home party who

:45:20. > :45:26.do not agree with my position but I don't disagree the right to hold

:45:27. > :45:31.their position. I respect their position, I don't question their

:45:32. > :45:36.motives and I also think th`t an alternative position to mind is one

:45:37. > :45:40.that people can argue for it. Unfortunately at the moment in our

:45:41. > :45:48.political landscape is something of a rarity, that includes people

:45:49. > :45:54.within my own party. Our independent nuclear deterrent has its origins in

:45:55. > :45:59.the great radical Labour Party of 1945. Political giant of my party

:46:00. > :46:03.took the decision that the TK should develop its own nuclear weapons The

:46:04. > :46:08.site as being vital for our nation's Security against the rising threat

:46:09. > :46:13.from the Soviet bloc and thd uncertain world which they faced.

:46:14. > :46:17.That commitment to our national security while pursuing outward

:46:18. > :46:21.looking international engagdment has been the cornerstone of the Labour

:46:22. > :46:27.Party position and I think ht is one that is universally shared by our

:46:28. > :46:32.supporters. Today, we face `n uncertain world where there are some

:46:33. > :46:37.threat but still faces which our forbearance based in 1945, state on

:46:38. > :46:44.state conflict, a resurgent Russia not now wedded to Communist doctrine

:46:45. > :46:47.but the crude nationalism which has no respect of international

:46:48. > :46:55.boundaries are a path which is clear to increase its nuclear arsdnal and

:46:56. > :47:00.retreat doctrine as fears of influence which are reminiscent of

:47:01. > :47:06.the 1940s. Yes, it is true that we face other threats such as Hslamic

:47:07. > :47:11.terrorism and the uncertainty of global warming and economic

:47:12. > :47:16.uncertainty. Is there one shlver bullet to face of these thrdats No,

:47:17. > :47:21.there isn't. I am quite cle`r the retention of our nuclear deterrent

:47:22. > :47:26.is vital to resist the resurgent Russia which is developing hts

:47:27. > :47:30.nuclear weapons. There is uncertainty -- protrude on our front

:47:31. > :47:34.bench today by the Leader of the Opposition about what the L`bour

:47:35. > :47:39.Party position is. In opposhtion, I was asked by the Lib Dem Le`der of

:47:40. > :47:44.the Opposition to conduct a review into our deterrent. It is mdt with

:47:45. > :47:46.28 state holders from all shdes of the argument including the

:47:47. > :47:52.honourable member for Islington North who was then the chair of

:47:53. > :47:57.Labour CND, it resulted in ` report which was a 45,000 words long. It

:47:58. > :48:03.built on the word of the Defence Select Committee, the labour White

:48:04. > :48:08.Paper in 2006 and the Trident review. Every single piece of that

:48:09. > :48:13.evidence was taken and came to the conclusion that replacing otr

:48:14. > :48:18.current Vanguard Class subm`rines was the only alternative. That then

:48:19. > :48:25.fed into our policy review `nd was adopted at our 2014 conference. That

:48:26. > :48:29.is the policy which I stood on and every other Labour candidatd,

:48:30. > :48:36.including the member for Islington North, stood up as well. Th`nk you.

:48:37. > :48:40.I am grateful to my honourable friend. 1.I hope we get to hn his

:48:41. > :48:45.speech if time permits is the issue that affects a lot of my

:48:46. > :48:48.constituents and constituents in the north Staffordshire which is a lot

:48:49. > :48:52.of our young people join thd military, to get involved and put

:48:53. > :48:55.their lives on the line for this country. How can we stand hdre in

:48:56. > :48:58.this chamber and knowing we are putting their lives online `nd we

:48:59. > :49:04.are not giving them the back-up that the nuclear deterrent gives them?

:49:05. > :49:08.What he is saying is that Eric Labour addition wants to support our

:49:09. > :49:13.Armed Forces. The manifesto which I stood on an user of the opposition

:49:14. > :49:19.student was also voted on and supported by 9.3 million of our

:49:20. > :49:24.electricity. The argument is being put forward there in the motion

:49:25. > :49:28.tonight is identical to what was put forward in that manifesto. Ht is

:49:29. > :49:33.ironic that we now have a free vote on this. This was put forward by my

:49:34. > :49:37.honourable friend, the membdr for Hillwood, to the lure of thd

:49:38. > :49:42.opposition in 2015. It resulted in a removal from the front bench and I

:49:43. > :49:46.had no option but to resign from the front bench. We have now had the

:49:47. > :49:50.alternative reviewed by the honourable member for Islington

:49:51. > :49:54.south, that's been going on for the last seven months. Much airtime has

:49:55. > :50:00.been given to him but not a single word has yet been published. People

:50:01. > :50:06.believe it exists but it's never actually been cited. The important

:50:07. > :50:10.point on our deterrent is about security. We cannot forget `bout the

:50:11. > :50:18.jobs which are on the line `nd I am proud to support both Unite and GMB

:50:19. > :50:22.members who work in that industry. They are a professional, skhlled and

:50:23. > :50:25.dedicated to the work they do. I would challenge those that `re

:50:26. > :50:29.wooden against this motion tonight to look those workers directly in

:50:30. > :50:33.the aye and actually say to them, what is the alternatives to their

:50:34. > :50:38.communities? No jobs tomorrow I think the future but actually what

:50:39. > :50:43.is going to happen now. My party also has a proud track record in

:50:44. > :50:49.Government on disarmament. Ht is one a committed to and I am glad this

:50:50. > :50:53.motion tonight has commitment to multi-lateral disarmament. Ht is an

:50:54. > :50:57.important time for our nation. Walking away from our commitments to

:50:58. > :51:00.our Nato partners would be ` fundamental mistake, it would give

:51:01. > :51:04.the indication that somehow we are withdrawing from the world. We

:51:05. > :51:09.cannot afford to do this. Would include this motion tonight is in a

:51:10. > :51:13.long tradition of my party which believes in the security of our

:51:14. > :51:19.nation, committed to a peacdful outward looking wild and ensuring

:51:20. > :51:21.that what would appeared to do it this house makes a difference and

:51:22. > :51:29.that is about improving people's lives which cannot be done tnless we

:51:30. > :51:33.have the security behind. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker and I `m

:51:34. > :51:38.grateful to you for allowing me to contribute to the's debate. I

:51:39. > :51:42.represent Plymouth and we h`ve a long and proud naval historx and the

:51:43. > :51:45.Vanguard Class submarines are prepared and refitted there. I am

:51:46. > :51:50.not seeking to make a lengthy contribution today but I wotld like

:51:51. > :51:52.to add my experience of the representation of my constituency

:51:53. > :51:57.with the Trident programme plays a significant role in our loc`l

:51:58. > :52:01.economy. As representatives of Plymouth centre to represent our

:52:02. > :52:05.city, we are taken every sponsor of these very seriously both to the

:52:06. > :52:08.nation security and to the employment prospects of those who

:52:09. > :52:14.have loyally maintained and continue to maintain the submarines that

:52:15. > :52:16.carry the Trident mistrial. Submarines are repaired and

:52:17. > :52:20.refitted, similar to my colleagues also representing areas of Plymouth

:52:21. > :52:26.as well as other members who have naval constituencies. A source of

:52:27. > :52:30.employment for thousands and not as easily replaced as some might think.

:52:31. > :52:35.Their view as mine is simplx a gamble to fire. We live in `

:52:36. > :52:39.desperately unstable world. This weekend just past has been the most

:52:40. > :52:42.and stable for years and thhs weekend should not be an argument

:52:43. > :52:45.for why we should maintain @rab Trident programme but how wd simply

:52:46. > :52:51.cannot predict events in thd future let alone beyond next week `nd

:52:52. > :52:54.fundamental to delivering all we get into politics, fairer society,

:52:55. > :52:59.social justice and opportunhties for all this is national security.

:53:00. > :53:03.Without that, none of these causes which I share with others are

:53:04. > :53:06.achievable. The Government has a responsibility to put the sdcurity

:53:07. > :53:09.of the nation and its peopld first and foremost and that is whx we need

:53:10. > :53:14.to maintain our ultimate deterrent because we do not know what the

:53:15. > :53:20.future holds. I am not deaf to those who are concerned about the cost,

:53:21. > :53:23.about the risk in maintaining the work in Plymouth where therd is an

:53:24. > :53:27.active community that writes to me very often on these issues. On any

:53:28. > :53:32.other contentious issue I h`ve sought to understand the argument

:53:33. > :53:36.and speak to those who disagree with me. On this issue, I am

:53:37. > :53:39.single-mindedly sure we must maintain our commitment to this

:53:40. > :53:43.programme and replace the V`nguard Class submarines with the ndw

:53:44. > :53:47.Successor submarines. Stratdgically, we cannot and we should not wait the

:53:48. > :53:54.risk that comes with abandoning our policy of continuous deterrdnce and

:53:55. > :54:03.the message we would centre our Nato allies. Thank you. I would like to

:54:04. > :54:08.ask them member who represent Plymouth, what about relocating

:54:09. > :54:14.climate to -- what they be locating Trident to plummet? I would support

:54:15. > :54:22.that move. We would be more than happy to have it and build `n aye

:54:23. > :54:25.naval heritage in that regard. Can I assure him that all of them who

:54:26. > :54:29.represent constituents and the south-westward be more than

:54:30. > :54:33.delighted that work would bd transferred from Scotland to the

:54:34. > :54:40.south-west in the event that are deterrent was to move. I th`nk you.

:54:41. > :54:44.We are very proud of our naval heritage in the south-west, very

:54:45. > :54:47.proud of the people we support, of our service men and women and we'd

:54:48. > :54:52.be delighted to make their lives easier by providing the fachlities

:54:53. > :54:55.that the south-west affords. Locally, it also means thousands of

:54:56. > :54:59.jobs in Plymouth and the continuance of our naval tradition I have talked

:55:00. > :55:03.about in Plymouth that makes so many of us so proud. It is part of the

:55:04. > :55:06.fabric of our city and to lose that would be disastrous for the commute

:55:07. > :55:12.is that I am here to represdnt. Let us not abstain tonight, let's stand

:55:13. > :55:16.up for Britain's place in the world and renew our nuclear deterrent and

:55:17. > :55:20.the members on the opposite benches, not to the SNP and I must s`y "aye"

:55:21. > :55:24.have been struck by the rather childlike interventions arotnd Libya

:55:25. > :55:28.and Iraq and nuclear weapons which are two totally separate issues but

:55:29. > :55:31.to my friends on the benches opposite, I know that many of you

:55:32. > :55:35.will be of a similar mind to me on this but to those who are not, I

:55:36. > :55:38.don't believe you love this country less are in any way less th`n those

:55:39. > :55:42.who are supporting this, but I would say all those things that you come

:55:43. > :55:46.into politics for nothing whthout national security and that come

:55:47. > :55:50.first. In order to deliver those causes that I know I is so dear to

:55:51. > :55:57.you and me, we must renew otr nuclear deterrent. All steps must be

:55:58. > :56:02.taken to ensure the safety of this country's people. Engineering jobs,

:56:03. > :56:06.they can be risked and now with everything that's going on, we see

:56:07. > :56:11.across last year and this wdekend, now is not the time to lower our

:56:12. > :56:15.guard. The PM in her speech this afternoon, she talked about North

:56:16. > :56:19.Korea. Can we really lose ott nuclear weapons at this timd? In an

:56:20. > :56:23.ideal world, it would be grdat not to have nuclear weapons but how do

:56:24. > :56:25.you diss invent something that has been invented? The Government must

:56:26. > :56:30.use to base decisions on thd reality with which they are faced, others

:56:31. > :56:33.have the luxury to do otherwise Those who would harm this country

:56:34. > :56:37.and our people, Trident rem`ins the ultimate deterrent against `n attack

:56:38. > :56:40.and has been for 60 years and I reiterate the point was madd earlier

:56:41. > :56:44.that this system is never used. It is used, it is used every shngle day

:56:45. > :56:50.and it does what it says is an equally deterrent. No, I will not

:56:51. > :56:53.give way. The Government's property is to insure the safety and security

:56:54. > :56:57.of its nation and that is why tonight I will be supporting the

:56:58. > :57:08.Government's mission and LB pride to wok through that lovely. Th`nk you.

:57:09. > :57:13.As my right honourable friend said earlier, there exists in Scotland a

:57:14. > :57:19.broad consensus against Trident and tonight I expect to see 58 of

:57:20. > :57:26.Scotland's 59 members of Parliament voting against this notion. That is

:57:27. > :57:31.98% of Scottish MPs. In doing so, we will be reflecting a consensus

:57:32. > :57:34.opinion that exists in Scotland the Scottish Government, the Scottish

:57:35. > :57:39.parliament, the SNP, the Labour Party in Scotland, the Scottish

:57:40. > :57:44.Green party, the Scottish TTC, great swathes of Scottish civil society

:57:45. > :57:49.and Scotland's faith communhties who are opposed to having these nuclear

:57:50. > :57:53.weapons forged upon us. Just last week, the Church of Scotland and the

:57:54. > :57:57.Roman Catholic Bishop of Scotland publicly reaffirmed their opposition

:57:58. > :58:05.to the UK possessing these weapons. I give way. Can you just cl`rify,

:58:06. > :58:09.Beasley the SNP policy is for Scotland to be independent. That

:58:10. > :58:13.being so and no longer having a nuclear deterrent, what would be the

:58:14. > :58:18.strategy to defend Scotland in the event of an exiting to thre`ten

:58:19. > :58:23.United Kingdom as a whole? @s an independent nation, we will back as

:58:24. > :58:28.every other independent sovdreign nation in this world act and somehow

:58:29. > :58:33.the idea that Scotland is incapable of defending itself as part of the

:58:34. > :58:38.Nato alliance, I find it but will bring and quite unbelievablx

:58:39. > :58:43.patronising. Despite what the Tory benches like to think, Scotland has

:58:44. > :58:50.spoken and Scotland does not want these weapons of mass destrtction. I

:58:51. > :58:54.will give way one last time. Thank you. We have heard enough a lot this

:58:55. > :59:01.afternoon in this debate about John -- job losses. Is this something

:59:02. > :59:07.that concerns may honourabld friend? I thank my friends of the

:59:08. > :59:11.interventions. Job losses are a concern, wherever they are `nd

:59:12. > :59:16.whoever the members but what I can say about Faz Lane is that the SNP

:59:17. > :59:23.has never and will never abdicate the closure of Faz Lane. Faz Lane,

:59:24. > :59:26.as a conventional naval basd, has a bright, non-nuclear future `s part

:59:27. > :59:32.of an independent Scotland `nd I look forward to representing it as

:59:33. > :59:36.such. In the decade since the Government ever gave over thme to

:59:37. > :59:41.debate Trident, the world h`s changed almost beyond recognition

:59:42. > :59:45.and emerging from what is the rapidly changing world could force

:59:46. > :59:49.us to re-examine everything we once took for granted. We have hdard

:59:50. > :59:54.often this afternoon that the world is a far more dangerous place than

:59:55. > :59:58.it ever has been before and just as the threats that we currently face

:59:59. > :00:02.our former complex and formdr nuanced, so therefore it should our

:00:03. > :00:09.response reflect that and s`dly I am sorry to say, the Governlent have

:00:10. > :00:14.failed to address that todax. As rushing to arm ourselves with even

:00:15. > :00:18.bigger submarines, carrying even more devastating nuclear we`pons is

:00:19. > :00:22.certainly does not reflect reality. Indeed, the reality that was spelt

:00:23. > :00:28.out in last year's STS are. Just nine months DS DSR spoke about what

:00:29. > :00:33.the Government said was the one threats these in the countrx. The

:00:34. > :00:36.one threat defined by the Government were international terrorisl, cyber

:00:37. > :00:42.attacks, hybrid warfare and natural disaster. Nuclear attack by a

:00:43. > :00:48.foreign power was not regarded as the cure one threat. We are told we

:00:49. > :00:53.cannot sleep safely in our beds unless the green light is ghven to

:00:54. > :00:58.spend, as my right honourable friend the member for Reigate points out,

:00:59. > :01:06.almost 200,000 million pounds on a renewal programme.

:01:07. > :01:11.The world is changing, the threats are changing, and the UK will be

:01:12. > :01:15.faced with how to deal with this new world, and the choices now will

:01:16. > :01:20.determine what we can do with the future. To be absolutely cldar, as

:01:21. > :01:26.much as we would like to, wd cannot do everything, and this is `bout

:01:27. > :01:30.stark choices. Those choices, I believe, get an awful lot h`rder for

:01:31. > :01:36.the proponents of Trident S`int Brexit. Now we are facing coming out

:01:37. > :01:40.of the European Union, and recent analysis by the edited of fhscal

:01:41. > :01:46.studies said the UK's GDP whll reduce by up to 2.5%, resulting in

:01:47. > :01:49.the infamous black hole to public finances of up to ?40 billion by

:01:50. > :01:55.2020. Surely in those circulstances, this House has to know what that

:01:56. > :02:00.means for defence procurement before we sign a blank check for Trident?

:02:01. > :02:08.Surely we are entitled to ask before the sanctioning of somewherd in the

:02:09. > :02:15.region of 200 million pounds, what will the effect beyond convdntional

:02:16. > :02:25.military forces? Can he tell us where the axe will fall in order to

:02:26. > :02:29.secure Trident? Is a patchy helicopter programme at risk? Will

:02:30. > :02:34.be a 35 programme be skilled back, or will the axe once again fall on

:02:35. > :02:39.our already hard-pressed service personnel? I do not think it is no

:02:40. > :02:45.Regis asked by this House, who has been asked to write a blank cheque,

:02:46. > :02:51.for us to be given a full analysis of the cost of Brexit and the effect

:02:52. > :02:55.of the contraction of the UK economy will have on defence procurdment. --

:02:56. > :03:01.I do not think it is an outrageous ask. We have been asked to buy for

:03:02. > :03:05.submarines. Their unique capability, we are told, is they cannot be

:03:06. > :03:08.detected by hostile forces `nd therefore can move freely and

:03:09. > :03:14.undisturbed, and today, that may well be the case. But can wd in all

:03:15. > :03:17.honesty, having spent around 20 ,000 million pounds say in 16 ye`rs'

:03:18. > :03:24.time, that that unique capability will still exist? Because wd are

:03:25. > :03:29.well aware that every day, highly paid and highly intelligent people

:03:30. > :03:37.across laboratories in Russha, China, the USA, go to work dvery day

:03:38. > :03:40.with the express intention of making the summary is detectable and

:03:41. > :03:47.therefore useless. In probldmatic, by the time these new books coming

:03:48. > :03:54.to service, they will be obsolete. -- in all probability. By the time

:03:55. > :03:57.these new boats come into sdrvice. There is no economic or milhtary

:03:58. > :04:01.case being made for the possession of these weapons, and I will join

:04:02. > :04:05.with my 58 colleagues from Scotland in voting against this motion. But

:04:06. > :04:10.despite the overwhelming rejection of Trident by Scotland, sadly I

:04:11. > :04:13.expect this motion to carry, and Scotland will find itself in the

:04:14. > :04:18.intolerable position of havhng weapons of mass destruction that we

:04:19. > :04:23.do not want foisted upon us by a Government that we did not dlect.

:04:24. > :04:25.Madam Deputy Speaker, it is an intolerable situation, and H

:04:26. > :04:33.question how much longer it can continue. It is a privilege to speak

:04:34. > :04:36.in this debate. It is one of the most essential issues that we will

:04:37. > :04:40.discuss in this House, becatse this issue is not about the vari`tion in

:04:41. > :04:45.tax policy that can be reversed It is not about a change in social

:04:46. > :04:49.norms that will evolve with time. It is about the ultimate securhty of

:04:50. > :04:54.our nation over the coming century. This is not a debate for gales, or

:04:55. > :05:00.are minor interventions on puestions that have no relevance. It hs a

:05:01. > :05:04.debate for the security of our very state. This, indeed, is the debate

:05:05. > :05:09.based on the strategy of thd United Kingdom and her place in thd world.

:05:10. > :05:13.That is why a very proud to stand here on the Conservative benches and

:05:14. > :05:19.a look across at the Labour benches and know that many people who value

:05:20. > :05:23.the United Kingdom, who valte our freedom, sovereignty, liberty, our

:05:24. > :05:29.right to self termination, understand that they requird an

:05:30. > :05:32.ultimate guarantee. -- our right to self-determination. The truly

:05:33. > :05:36.horrific nature of these we`pons is something we all., indeed, hs in

:05:37. > :05:41.their horror and there are very threat that the work. If thdy were

:05:42. > :05:48.not so horrific, if they were not so terrible, the deterrent would not be

:05:49. > :05:56.so complete. We have seen thme and again that the fullness of weaponry

:05:57. > :06:01.demands a graduated responsd. - the awfulness of weaponry. When we see

:06:02. > :06:05.the initial use of force, wd see the ornaments of the infantrymen, we see

:06:06. > :06:09.the remains of small aircraft, and we have seen this time and `gain in

:06:10. > :06:13.Europe even in the last century Even in the years since the Second

:06:14. > :06:22.World War. We have seen Kosovo, Ukraine, and indeed threats to our

:06:23. > :06:27.very close allies in Estoni`. But we see this because, of course, the

:06:28. > :06:32.weapons that are used are controllable, measurable, they are,

:06:33. > :06:36.that full phrase, small arms. The capability and the purpose of the

:06:37. > :06:41.nuclear deterrent is that it is not measurable. It is not controllable

:06:42. > :06:47.to that degree. It is truly horrific. And in that, it works It

:06:48. > :06:52.works not because of the first strike capability. Any fool can have

:06:53. > :06:58.a first-rate capability. It works in the second strike. It works only...

:06:59. > :07:03.I will not take an intervention right now. It works only whdn it is

:07:04. > :07:08.not a weapon of aggression, but a postmortem weapon, a weapon that

:07:09. > :07:13.assures your enemy that no latter what you have done to them, or

:07:14. > :07:19.rather, no matter what they have done to you, you can still respond.

:07:20. > :07:23.That is the ultimate guarantee of sovereignty, and the ultimate

:07:24. > :07:27.guarantee of security. It strikes me as astonishing that having just had

:07:28. > :07:32.a referendum in which we discussed the sovereignty and control of our

:07:33. > :07:35.nation, we are looking to h`nd it over. We are looking to hand it over

:07:36. > :07:42.and diminish that capabilitx, even though we know what counts. That is

:07:43. > :07:46.why I welcome so much of thd words of our Prime Minister today. When

:07:47. > :07:50.asked whether or not she wotld consider using the weapon, she said

:07:51. > :07:59.yes. She gave the clarity that deterrence requires. She showed the

:08:00. > :08:04.strength that will make our -- will make her a fine Prime Minister. It

:08:05. > :08:08.is that clarity with the most horrific weapon systems that keeps

:08:09. > :08:13.our sovereignty and our freddom So I hear today voices talking about

:08:14. > :08:18.what is the place of the Unhted Kingdom? And I will tell yot what I

:08:19. > :08:22.see it as. Very clearly, our place is at the top table, guaranteeing

:08:23. > :08:25.the international order, guaranteeing the freedom and the

:08:26. > :08:30.routines of our friends, and so when I hear talk of unilateral

:08:31. > :08:35.determinant, when I Jurat of appeasement, I hear talk not of

:08:36. > :08:41.honour and morals, but I he`r talk of dishonour and immorality. Because

:08:42. > :08:48.it is to abandon our position, it is to abandon our friends, to say that

:08:49. > :08:51.dictators should keep weapons of destruction is, dictators and

:08:52. > :08:56.despots should have nuclear power, but Democrats should abandon the

:08:57. > :09:01.ability to defend themselves and their friends. I see that as

:09:02. > :09:05.unacceptable. It is quite clear to me that the spectrum of defdnce all

:09:06. > :09:11.the way from the infantrymen to the nuclear missile, are intertwined.

:09:12. > :09:18.They are one. They are blended. And to try to pick, to try to dhvide is

:09:19. > :09:23.to disarm using the infantrxmen at the front. Therefore it is not only

:09:24. > :09:27.wrong to talk about spending being reduced on nuclear weapons. It is a

:09:28. > :09:35.lie, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see that the money is better spdnt on

:09:36. > :09:41.conventional weapons. -- to say that the money is better spent. Ht is a

:09:42. > :09:47.privilege to follow the honourable member for Tonbridge in the remarks

:09:48. > :09:50.he made. I want to stand here as somebody who is proud to st`nd here

:09:51. > :09:55.and the tradition that the Labour Party has always stood for, proud to

:09:56. > :09:58.recognise the international responsibilities that we have and

:09:59. > :10:04.proud to recognise that strong defence is essential to our country.

:10:05. > :10:08.There is not anybody in this chamber who doesn't wish to rid the world of

:10:09. > :10:14.nuclear weapons. There isn't anybody in the chamber who believe they have

:10:15. > :10:21.a superior morality to anyone else. People disagree on the way hn which

:10:22. > :10:25.it to pursue the goal that we all have, reducing the number of nuclear

:10:26. > :10:27.weapons we have and ultimatdly, if at all possible, having a world

:10:28. > :10:34.complete with tree of nucle`r weapons. -- completely free of

:10:35. > :10:42.nuclear weapons. But you can make a choice to unilaterally disarm normal

:10:43. > :10:45.to literally disarm, and a few years ago, who would have predictdd the

:10:46. > :10:49.rise of Daesh? Who would have predicted what the Russians have

:10:50. > :10:55.done in the eastern Ukraine or indeed have done in the Crilea? The

:10:56. > :11:01.answer to that as far as I can see in reading back then, is th`t nobody

:11:02. > :11:07.foresaw those events. Given that we are trying to predict what will

:11:08. > :11:10.happen over the next 40 or 40 years, why is it that in those

:11:11. > :11:16.circumstances, a Government would say, we will give up what wd regard

:11:17. > :11:21.as the ultimate insurance policy and security for our nation in those

:11:22. > :11:26.circumstances? I do not think.. I will give way in a moment. H do not

:11:27. > :11:29.think that is something that the Government should do, and edit the

:11:30. > :11:34.Prime Minister was right to argue, as she did, I think the mothon

:11:35. > :11:40.before the House today is rdasonable and responsible. I will givd way. --

:11:41. > :11:44.I think the premise was right. We'll be honourable gentleman not accept

:11:45. > :11:48.that the examples he chooses, the rise of Daesh, shows the shder

:11:49. > :11:56.absurdity of spending money on this? We are investing in cavalry after

:11:57. > :12:00.the onset of the machine gun. I am pleased the honourable membdr has

:12:01. > :12:04.asked that, it is having set out the reasons for the uncertainty of the

:12:05. > :12:07.future we face, one of the things I wanted a spell in the coupld of

:12:08. > :12:12.minutes I have got is to talk about some of the myths that are

:12:13. > :12:19.perpetrated when the debate happens around nuclear weapons. There is

:12:20. > :12:22.nobody in this House who under any circumstances believes that nuclear

:12:23. > :12:29.weapons are going to deter the source of attacks, the awful attacks

:12:30. > :12:33.that we have seen on the London underground or any of those things.

:12:34. > :12:39.Of course not. Of course not, it is not meant to deal with that. You

:12:40. > :12:40.have conventional weapons, counterterrorism specialists, all

:12:41. > :12:46.those things to deal with those particular things. It is not for

:12:47. > :12:50.nuclear weapons to deal with those particular terrorist outragds. It is

:12:51. > :12:53.not the to deal with that. Ht is they are to deal with the start of

:12:54. > :12:58.interstate actors we may sed from Russia or Korea or other rogue

:12:59. > :13:04.states who we cannot predict at the present time. It is not for the sort

:13:05. > :13:10.of situation the honourable member has articulated. With the honourable

:13:11. > :13:16.gentleman agree with me that there is not a bottomless pit of loney,

:13:17. > :13:20.and there is not that inexh`ustible supply, and therefore choicds have

:13:21. > :13:25.to be made? We have been at a blank check this evening for Triddnt. --

:13:26. > :13:30.we have asked to write a bl`nk cheque. At what point does Trident

:13:31. > :13:34.become too much? That is a legitimate point to us, and a

:13:35. > :13:37.legitimate choice to make. H say that I support the Government was my

:13:38. > :13:41.choice that in an uncertain world as we live, this is a price worth

:13:42. > :13:47.paying for the defence and security of our nation. The honourable

:13:48. > :13:52.gentleman and I know which other, so I know that he reads this stuff I

:13:53. > :14:00.was surprised. It says here that if you make an assumption about 6% of

:14:01. > :14:05.the defence budget tween 2031 and 2060, you get to 71.4 billion. If

:14:06. > :14:11.you make the assumption as the honourable member for by Gatt made,

:14:12. > :14:16.you get a 170 main billion. If you make other soldiers, you can get to

:14:17. > :14:21.another figure. But the figtres are all in there. And what I am saying

:14:22. > :14:29.is, yes, it is a cost word paying, because it provides a great team for

:14:30. > :14:38.our nation. -- it is a cost worth paying. I was reading the SLP's

:14:39. > :14:43.debate from 2012. MSP 's resigned because of the ludicrous situation

:14:44. > :14:47.that the SNP have got themsdlves into. The Defence Secretary should

:14:48. > :14:52.make more of this. The ludicrous situation but they are not prepared

:14:53. > :14:56.to accept British nuclear wdapons, but they will accept the Amdrican

:14:57. > :15:00.nuclear umbrella in Nato. That is the sort of thing they need to

:15:01. > :15:05.answer. It is no wonder somd of their MS please resign, bec`use they

:15:06. > :15:10.saw that that policy was totally and utterly ridiculous. Let thel explain

:15:11. > :15:13.that to the Scottish people. They will withdraw Trident, but want to

:15:14. > :15:21.remain a part of Nato. You dxplain that to them. Can I take ond more?

:15:22. > :15:29.I am very grateful for giving me the opportunity to explain the SNP

:15:30. > :15:34.policy. Is the honourable gdntleman are aware that the majority of

:15:35. > :15:38.members of Nato do not have an independent nuclear deterrent? Is he

:15:39. > :15:43.aware of that? Of course I'l aware that. Is the honourable ladx aware

:15:44. > :15:47.of the fact that the Nato h`s been nuclear planning group and dvery

:15:48. > :15:52.single person in Nato has to be a member of the nuclear plannhng group

:15:53. > :15:55.and they have two agree to certain things which include the usd of

:15:56. > :16:00.nuclear weapons in certain circumstances by the Americ`ns. Is

:16:01. > :16:06.the honourable lady aware that? I can get away because I have given me

:16:07. > :16:12.three times. Let me see this as well. The other aspect of it of

:16:13. > :16:16.course is the aspect of jobs, the whole aspect of jobs. We have tens

:16:17. > :16:22.of thousands of jobs across this country which are dependent upon the

:16:23. > :16:25.nuclear deterrent, dependent upon the continuation of this programme

:16:26. > :16:29.and whilst the continuation of the programme cannot just be based on

:16:30. > :16:34.jobs, it is an important consideration whether those jobs in

:16:35. > :16:42.Scotland, Plymouth or elsewhere Let me conclude, Mr Deputy Speaker, I

:16:43. > :16:46.support very much the mission that is before us today. It is consistent

:16:47. > :16:51.with the traditions of the Labour Party, we've always been proud to

:16:52. > :16:54.defend our country, always proud to recognise the international

:16:55. > :16:59.obligations that we have, to stand up against those who would hmpose

:17:00. > :17:04.tyranny on the rest of us, to recognise the responsibilitx we have

:17:05. > :17:09.is a senior member of Nato, of the Security Council of the United

:17:10. > :17:12.Nations, that brings obligations and responsibilities and this L`bour

:17:13. > :17:24.Party or part of it except those responsibilities and will vote for

:17:25. > :17:28.it. If I may say, it's an honour to follow the honourable member very

:17:29. > :17:34.deadly who has not only madd a very passionate speech but an extremely

:17:35. > :17:37.well informed and able speech that puts the case for maintaining our

:17:38. > :17:43.independent nuclear deterrent very well. It is striking that mx right

:17:44. > :17:46.honourable friend, the Primd Minister, should choose this as the

:17:47. > :17:53.first occasion on which to `ppear at the dispatch box as Prime Mhnister,

:17:54. > :17:58.to reinforce her personal wdll and determination to stand up this

:17:59. > :18:02.country, the stand up global peace and security and to demonstrate how

:18:03. > :18:09.personal resolve to project the values that our country represent

:18:10. > :18:16.around the world. It is also striking that her very first act as

:18:17. > :18:19.Prime Minister was to pay rdspect to Scotland and the Scottish executive

:18:20. > :18:23.by paying a visit to the First Minister in Scotland at the end of

:18:24. > :18:29.last week and if I may, I jtst wish to address the Scottish dimdnsion to

:18:30. > :18:37.this debate. The SNP is cle`rly represented in this house bx many

:18:38. > :18:40.sincere unilateralists. No one need doubt there is uncertainty but

:18:41. > :18:46.whether it's actually as representative of Scottish opinion

:18:47. > :18:50.as they claim, I very much doubt. Because a recent poll showed the

:18:51. > :18:53.majority in Scotland are in favour of maintaining the nuclear

:18:54. > :18:57.deterrent, they shake their heads, they are entitled to do so, I would

:18:58. > :19:02.expect them to do so. I put it to them that there are many re`sons why

:19:03. > :19:06.the SNP is ascendant in Scottish politics. I don't think thehr

:19:07. > :19:12.defence policy at one of those reasons. The SNP will be dohng very

:19:13. > :19:18.well in Scotland if they were in favour of maintaining the Trident

:19:19. > :19:23.nuclear deterrent. I don't think the case of Trident renewal was

:19:24. > :19:27.uppermost in the voters mind in Scotland at the time of the last

:19:28. > :19:35.general election. I appreci`te they had it in their manifesto btt the

:19:36. > :19:42.one bit of hypocrisy highlighted by the Honourable gentleman done so

:19:43. > :19:47.ably was that the on the ond hand reject a whole notion of nuclear

:19:48. > :19:51.defence and yet they want an independent Scotland to join Nato

:19:52. > :19:54.without a nuclear alliance `nd benefit from the shelter th`t other

:19:55. > :20:02.countries are prepared to provide them with their nuclear umbrella. I

:20:03. > :20:04.give way. Perhaps with his hn-depth knowledge of Scottish polithcs, he

:20:05. > :20:09.could explain that my appearance in this chamber today as the mdmber for

:20:10. > :20:13.Argyll and Bute which includes both Faz Lane and Coulport. Perh`ps you

:20:14. > :20:18.want to explain why the people of Faz Lane and the rest of Argyll and

:20:19. > :20:22.Bute chose me when I stood explicitly on an anti-Trident

:20:23. > :20:31.ticket? If it is such a terrible and divisive vote. Can I just rdmind

:20:32. > :20:35.people, there is a lot of SNP voices to hear later. Long intervention

:20:36. > :20:41.stop people getting in. I whll move on to the next point which hs that

:20:42. > :20:47.my right honourable friend the Defence Secretary is fond of

:20:48. > :20:53.describing this as an insur`nce policy. I think I would counsel him

:20:54. > :20:56.to use this phrase sparinglx because the maintenance of our nucldar

:20:57. > :21:05.deterrent is so much more than just an insurance policy. It is not a

:21:06. > :21:09.premium. It DS I is as how the deterrent is continuously used,

:21:10. > :21:12.shaping our global security environment, expressing the

:21:13. > :21:18.character of our country and national well and resolve. Ht

:21:19. > :21:25.doesn't emphasise enough its deterrent quality, which is not to

:21:26. > :21:33.deter terrorism are in much lower form of combat but it is certainly

:21:34. > :21:37.ended that the intervention of nuclear weapons large state and

:21:38. > :21:42.state water for and it would be so bold as to suggest that if we were

:21:43. > :21:49.the days events nuclear weapons we would be inviting large state on

:21:50. > :21:54.state warfare. I'm not sure that human nature miraculously changed

:21:55. > :21:57.after 1945 but something in the global strategic environment

:21:58. > :22:02.certainly did and now that we no longer see large scale staydd on

:22:03. > :22:06.state warfare. I may just end and the question of the cost. The SNP

:22:07. > :22:14.has made much of the cost of Trident today. I might just ask thel the

:22:15. > :22:18.question, how cheap wouldn't need to be before the regarded it as good

:22:19. > :22:22.value for money? That is not an argument they are prepared to in

:22:23. > :22:28.gauge with. The RA against nuclear weapons whatever the cost. Ht's

:22:29. > :22:32.perfectly sincere as a would I invite them to stop bellyaching

:22:33. > :22:38.about the cost because it's an irrelevant part of their argument.

:22:39. > :22:43.With the honourable gentlem`n agree with me that huge figures and

:22:44. > :22:46.isolation is at best and helpful and at worst misleading because these

:22:47. > :22:52.figures were applied over a 35 year time horizons. They would bd dwarfed

:22:53. > :22:58.by the international aid budget It is not helpful to look at these

:22:59. > :23:01.figures and isolation. Becatse of maintaining a quid talent on a

:23:02. > :23:06.year-on-year basis is much less than aid budget and is the equiv`lent of

:23:07. > :23:16.the week's cost for the Nathonal Health Service. It is a quarter of

:23:17. > :23:23.net contributing to the European Union and I look forward saving that

:23:24. > :23:28.but this weapon system at about 6% of the overall defence budgdt and 2%

:23:29. > :23:32.of GDP is an extraordinarilx good value expenditure given that it

:23:33. > :23:36.deters large scale stayed on state warfare enters a matter of great

:23:37. > :23:44.pride that our country has hnherited this role and it is our dutx,

:23:45. > :23:50.precisely because we don't warrant a Rudy took untrue to have nuclear

:23:51. > :23:54.weapons. It is our duty as global citizens to carry on with this

:23:55. > :24:01.weapon system contributing `s we do to the global security and safety of

:24:02. > :24:04.the world. I will give way. Would you like to reconsider before you

:24:05. > :24:09.sit down, your comment about us being hypocrites for not wanting an

:24:10. > :24:14.independent nuclear time wanting to be in Nato. He is calling the

:24:15. > :24:23.majority of the UK's allies Nato hypocrites. As was explained so ably

:24:24. > :24:28.before, if you are a member of Nato, you are a member of the Nato nuclear

:24:29. > :24:31.group and involved in the planning of deployment of nuclear we`pons

:24:32. > :24:37.whether they are your own or not your own. Why would Scotland under

:24:38. > :24:43.the SNP be so reluctant to play such a vital role in the global security

:24:44. > :24:46.of the country? I respect the have personal scruples about nuclear

:24:47. > :24:50.weapons and the are entitled to them. I just argue that worry the

:24:51. > :24:54.Scottish people truly to put on that issue and that issue alone, they

:24:55. > :25:00.would find their view was not representative of the aspir`tion of

:25:01. > :25:07.the true majority of Scotland. Thank you. Listening to contributhons from

:25:08. > :25:11.some this afternoon, it is felt at times like we're in the Cold War and

:25:12. > :25:15.come on Eileen should be nulber one and then the other extent, we are

:25:16. > :25:22.wasting their 4-2 attack. It does seem slightly bizarre. This is a

:25:23. > :25:27.hugely serious issue. We he`rd a lot about the cost and finance. Let s

:25:28. > :25:32.take a step back from that, let s consider the worst-case scenario,

:25:33. > :25:36.nuclear weapons being fired in this country, there's been an attack and

:25:37. > :25:41.it's gone off. Are we reallx saying that the guys first action we would

:25:42. > :25:45.take in that scenario would be to carry out the ultimate act of

:25:46. > :25:49.vengeance and fire in nucle`r weapons at those who had attacked

:25:50. > :25:55.as? No. LAUGHTER

:25:56. > :26:02.It is beyond belief that at a time of national tragedy, the first thing

:26:03. > :26:08.we would look to do would bd to strike out. We have heard enough

:26:09. > :26:12.from the honourable member. We need to be looking at how we acttally

:26:13. > :26:16.present ourselves in the cotntry. We cannot simply be sitting here saying

:26:17. > :26:24.vengeance as the answer to `ll the problems we face. Some call it the

:26:25. > :26:29.towns, to me it is vengeancd and a revenge attack will be lookhng at.

:26:30. > :26:33.The honourable member from the Midlothian and sewed the Prhme

:26:34. > :26:38.Minister, would you kill hundreds and thousands of innocent mdn, women

:26:39. > :26:42.and children? Let's consider that. That is the point we need to be

:26:43. > :26:46.looking at here. That is wh`t these weapons do. I am not taking

:26:47. > :26:52.interventions, and getting through as fast as I can. That's thd

:26:53. > :26:56.position we find ourselves hn. We are asking ourselves here, `nd we

:26:57. > :27:02.genuinely looking to renew this weapon of vengeance? That is what

:27:03. > :27:07.this boils down to. Rogue states, situations we cannot possibly begin

:27:08. > :27:11.to comprehend. When we look at the threat this country faces at the

:27:12. > :27:16.current time, it is not states with nuclear weapons, it is terrorist

:27:17. > :27:22.attacks, cyber attacks, nuclear weapons are not the answer to these

:27:23. > :27:26.situations. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the

:27:27. > :27:31.men who have lobbied us in Parliament from CND, CND Scotland

:27:32. > :27:37.and across the country thosd who came to parliament last week to CS,

:27:38. > :27:41.at events across the countrx and those who are today. Members will

:27:42. > :27:45.know that I launched a ten linute rule Bill last year on the nuclear

:27:46. > :27:49.convoys that regularly come through my constituency and I have to say

:27:50. > :27:53.that sadly we ran out of Parliamentary time for that to have

:27:54. > :27:58.a second reading. To me, thd answer to do with that situation is simple.

:27:59. > :28:01.If we don't have nuclear we`pons, we don't need in a clear convoxs and we

:28:02. > :28:04.actually reduce the risk to those and we actually reduce the risk to

:28:05. > :28:10.those in committees. Mr Deptty Speaker, I would perhaps le`ve a

:28:11. > :28:15.thought for members to ponddr. If Renta spoke to me at the wedkend and

:28:16. > :28:21.made the comment that at 15 nuclear warheads were to be set of, that's

:28:22. > :28:25.not impossible. We've got that capability. What you would be

:28:26. > :28:29.looking at is the situation of worldwide famine. That is the

:28:30. > :28:33.reality of the type of weapons we are dealing with here. Therd can be

:28:34. > :28:37.no place for the wet weapons in the world we live in today. It hs time

:28:38. > :28:41.for this country the elite `nd make a stand and say we are taking the

:28:42. > :28:45.first step year and by doing that then you can genuinely make other

:28:46. > :28:53.countries follow your step `nd we can actually get rid of nuclear

:28:54. > :28:57.weapons across the world. Wd've been debating this issue on whether we

:28:58. > :29:07.should have an independent nuclear deterrent for 70 years now. We've

:29:08. > :29:10.already had the quote about walking naked in the conference chalber but

:29:11. > :29:14.he also said we got to have this thing. Only he could speak like

:29:15. > :29:17.this. We've got to have this thing over here whatever it costs and

:29:18. > :29:25.we've got to have it with the union Jack on it. I've thought about this

:29:26. > :29:31.sly columnist for many years. Like most people, I've come to the

:29:32. > :29:35.reluctant conclusion we havd to have an independent nuclear deterrent.

:29:36. > :29:40.This debate actually isn't just about whether and not we have an

:29:41. > :29:43.independent nuclear deterrent, I was campaigning with my right honourable

:29:44. > :29:47.friend for new Forest eased 30 years ago in the coalition for pe`ce and

:29:48. > :29:52.security. That was an argumdnt about the existence of independent weekly

:29:53. > :29:56.deterrent against unilateralists. We were supporting Michael Hesdltine

:29:57. > :30:01.against unilateralists parthcularly in the Labour Party. This is a

:30:02. > :30:06.serious debate in which we have to ask what sort of independent nuclear

:30:07. > :30:11.deterrent do we want's again, I think it is a general concltsion

:30:12. > :30:15.that an independent nuclear deterrent based on submarinds is the

:30:16. > :30:17.only viable form of a deterrent because it is the most undetectable

:30:18. > :30:27.given modern technology. So I have got no ideological qualms

:30:28. > :30:31.either with an independent nuclear deterrent or one based on

:30:32. > :30:35.submarines. But those who argue in favour of Trident have to kdep

:30:36. > :30:43.making the case, because during the Cold War, the threat was cldar, it

:30:44. > :30:49.was known. An independent ntclear deterrent based on ballistic missile

:30:50. > :30:55.designed to penetrate Moscow defences made a great deal of sense.

:30:56. > :30:59.We knew who would be striking us, we knew who to strike back, and this

:31:00. > :31:09.mutuality of awareness was what kept the Cold War called. Those who argue

:31:10. > :31:13.against a nuclear deterrent have to argue against this fact of history.

:31:14. > :31:21.The existence of nuclear we`pons kept the Cold War cold. But

:31:22. > :31:25.insisting the... Of course. In support of what he has just said, if

:31:26. > :31:31.there had not been many conflicts going on in other parts of the world

:31:32. > :31:36.where the nuclear balance of terror did not apply in the Cold W`r, it

:31:37. > :31:40.would not be possible to argue that nuclear deterrence had playdd no

:31:41. > :31:43.part. But the fact was, Comlunist regimes, proxy clients for the

:31:44. > :31:48.superpowers, were fighting dach other all over the globe. The one

:31:49. > :31:52.area where communism and capitalism did not fight each other was in