18/07/2016 House of Commons

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

will understand if I say I can't say too much on it publicly at this

point but it is being taken very seriously.

Speak seek we must move on. Statement the Home Secretarx.

Secretary Amber Rudd. Thank you Mr Speaker. With

permission I would like to lake a statement about the terrorist attack

in Nice and the threat that we face from terrorism in the UK. The full

horror of last Thursday night's attack in Nice, defies all

comprehension. At least 84 people were killed, when a heavy goods

lorry was driven deliberately into crowds enjoying Bastille Dax

celebrations. Ten of the de`d are believed to be children and

teenagers. More than 200 people have been injured and a number are in

critical condition. Consular staff on the ground are in touch with

local authorities and assisting British nationals caught up in the

attack. The Foreign and Comlonwealth Office are providing support to

anyone concerned about friends or loved ones. Over the weekend, the

French police made a number of arrests and in the coming wdeks we,

will learn more about the circumstances behind the attack Mr

Speaker, these were innocent people enjoying national celebrations. They

were families, mothers, fathers brothers, sisters, daughters, sons,

friends, many of them were children. They were attacked in the most

brutal and cowardly way possible as they simply went about their lives.

Our thoughts and prayers must be with the families who have lost

loved ones, the survivors, fighting for their lives, victims, f`cing

appalling injuries and all those who have been mentally scarred by the

events of the night. I've spoke ton my counterpart to

offer him the sympathy of the British people and to make clear

that we stand ready to help in any way that we can. We have offered

investigative assistance to the French authorities and security

support to the French diplolatic and wider community in London. This is

the third terrorist attack hn the last 18 months with a high number of

deaths in France and we cannot underestimate its destating impact.

Swre seen attacks in many other countries and those killed `nd

maimed by these murderers, hnclude people of many nationalities and

faiths. Recently we've seen attacks in Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Iraq,

Turkey and America, as well as the ongoing conflict in Syria. Last

month, we marked a year since 3 people, 30 of them British, were

murdered at a beach resort hn Tunisia. In the UK, the thrdat from

international terrorism, whhch is determined by the independent joint

terrorism analysis centre, remained at severe, meaning that an `ttack is

highly likely. The public should be vigilant but not alarmed. On Friday,

following the attack in Nicd, the police and the security and

intelligence agencies ensurdd we have robust procedures in place I

am receiving regular updates. All tlees forces have reviewed tpcoming

events taking place in their regions tone sure that security measures are

appropriate and proportionate. I can also tell the House that thd UK has

considerable experience in lanaging and policing major events. Dxtra

security measures are used `t particularly high profile events,

including where the police `ssess there to be a risk of vehicle

attacks, the deployment of leasures known as the national barridr asset.

This is made up of a range of temporary equipment, includhng

security fences and gates that enable the physical protecthon of

sites. Since the terrorist `ttacks in Mumbai in 2008, we have `lso

taken steps time prove the response of police firearms teams and other

emergency services to a moo raweding gun attack. We have protectdd and

increased in real terms counter-terrorism police funding for

2016/17 and over the next fhve years, we are providing ?143 million

for the police to further boost their firearms capability. We

continue to test our response to terrorist attacks, including

learning the lessons from attacks like those we have seen in France,

through national skier sizes, which involve the Government, milhtary,

police, ambulance, and other agencies. But the threat from

terrorism is serious and growing. Our security and Intel jelings

services are first rate and they work tirelessly around-the-clock to

keep the people of this country safe. Over the next five ye`rs, we

are making an extra 2. ?2.5 billion available to those agencies. This

will include funding for an addition 1,900 staff at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ as

well as strengthening our ndtwork of counter-terrorism experts in the

Middle East, north Africa, south Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa. We have

taken steps to deal with foreign fighters and to prevent ral

cliezation by providing new powers through the counter-terrorism and

security act. We continue to take forward to investigatory powers bill

to ensure that the police, security and intelligence agencies h`ve the

powers that they need to kedp people safe in the digital age.

Mr Speaker, the UK has in place strong measures to respond to

terrorist attacks. Since coling to office in 2010, the Governmdnt has

taken significant steps to bolster that response. But Daesh and other

terrorist organisations seek to poison people's minds and they

peddle sickening hate and lhes to encourage people to plot acts of

terrorism or leave their falilies to join them. This is not just in

France or this country, but in countries all around the world. We

must confront this hateful propaganda and expose it for what it

is. In this country, that mdans working to expose the emptiness of

extremism and safeguard vulnerable people from becoming radicalised.

Our Prevent programme works with families, communities and shx

society groups to challenge the poisonous ideology that supports

terrorism. This includes supporting civil society groups to build their

own capacity and since Janu`ry 014, their counternarrative prodtct have

had widespread engagement whth communities. In addition, over a

thousand people have receivdd support through channel since 2 12,

the voluntary and confidenthal support programme for those at risk

of radicalisation. This is `n international problem that requires

an international solution. We're working closely with Europe`n

partners, allies in the counter-Daesh coalition and those

most affected by the threat that Daesh poses to share inform`tion,

build counter-terrorism cap`bility and exchange best practice. As the

Prime Minister has said, we must work with France and our partners

around the world to stand up for our values and for our freedom. Nice was

attacked on Bastille Day, itself a French symbol of liberation and

national unity. Those who attack seek to divide us and spread hatred,

so our resounding response lust be one of ever greater unity bdtween

different nations, but also between ourselves. This weekend, we saw

unity and action as people came together to support each other.

People sent messages of condolence and Muslims in this country and

around the world have said that those who carry out such attacks do

not represent the true Islal. But I want to end by sending a message to

our French friends and neighbours, what happened in Nice last Thursday

was cruel and incomprehensible. The horror and devastation is something

many people will live with for the rest of their lives. We know you are

hurting. We know this will cause lasting pain. Let me be quite clear

- we will stand with you. Wd will support you in this fight and

together, with our partners around the world, we will defeat those who

seek to attack our way of lhfe. Thank you Mr Speaker. Can I start by

welcoming the Home Secretarx to her new position and her well jtdge and

heart felt words to the House today. She spoke for us all in condemning

this naseating attack and in sending our sympathy and solidarity to the

families affected and to thd French people. At the very outset of her

tenure, let me assure her of my ongoing support in presenting a

united front from this Housd to those who plan and perpetrate these

brutal acts. It is a sad reflection of the dark times in which we live

that this is the third time in nine months that this House has gathered

to discuss a major terrorist incident in mainland Europe. Each

new incident brings new factors and changes perceptions on the nature of

the threat posed by modern terrorism and this was no different. This was

an act of discriminate and sickening brutality, made more abhorrdnt by

the targeting of families and children. Ten children and babies

were killed. 50 more are behng treated. Many more are orph`ned and

left with lasting psychologhcal scars. Unlike other attacks, this

wasn't planned by a cell with sophisticated tactics and wdapons. A

similar attack could be launched anywhere at any time and th`t is

what makes it so frightening and so difficult to prevent and prdvent. --

predict and prevent. Let me start on whether there are immediate

implications for the UK. On Friday a spokesman for the Prime Minhster

said UK police were reviewing security plans for large, ptblic

events this week. Can she tdll the House what conclusions were reached

as part this afternoon revidw and whether any changes were made in the

light TV? Will she also be hssuing updated advice to the organhsers of

numerous large public galleries and vest Vales taking place throughout

the country. We welcome the Mayor of London's confirmation that the Met

were reviewing safety measures in the capital. Are similar reviews

taking place in large cities all over the UK? After the attacks in

Paris, her predecessor commhtted to an urgent review of our response to

firearms attacks. It has bedn suggested in the French medha that

if armed officer had been more quickly on the scene in Nicd, they

could have prevented the lorry travelling as far as it did. Can she

confirm whether the review commissioned has been compldted And

if so, what changes to fire`rms capability are proposed as ` result?

Her predecessor promised to protect police budgets in the wake of Paris,

that has not been honoured. There are real terms cuts to the police

this year. Will the new Homd Secretary pledge today to protect

police budgets in real terms going forward? She mentions the Prevent

programme. I have to say I do not share her complacent view of what it

is achieving. In fact, some would say it is counterproductive,

creating a climate of suspicion and mistrust, far from tackling

extremism creating the very conditions for it to flourish.

Indeed the Government's inddpendent reviewer of terrorism legislation

has said the same and said the whole programme in his words could benefit

from independent review. So will the Home Secretary today accept Labour's

call for a cross-party revidw on how the Prevent duty is working? After

this attack it was described in the media as an act of Islamic terrorism

and yet it is clear that thd lifestyle of the individual had

absolutely nothing to do with the Islamic faith and the French

authorities have cast doubt on whether there was any link between

this individual and Daesh. Does the Home Secretary agree with md that to

quickly label this Islamic terrorism hands a propaganda coup to the

terrorists, whose whole purpose is to deepen the rift between the

Muslim community and the rest of the society? Does she further agrow that

more care needs to be taken on how these atrocities are labelldd in

future? Finally, this is of course, the first attack in Europe since the

European referendum. Can thd Home Secretary assure the House that she

and the wider Government ard making every effort in these times to

maintain strong collaboration with the French and the European

authorities and to send to them a very clear message that whatever our

differences, Britain will always be by their side and ready to help

Well, I thank the right honourable gentleman for his statement and for

his comments and for his confirmation early on that we work

across the House to address and fight this dangerous terrorhsm and

we'll be able to continue to do so. He asks particularly about the

reviewing the public events. I'd like to reassure him and thd whole

House that we are constantlx ensuring that we make avail`ble

expert advice to the people who are running these events. We have 1 0

counter-terrorism security `dvisors. They are in touch with people

running these events, including where necessary, large citids, so

that they can get the right advice and that advice is being taken up so

that we can ensure they are as safe as possible. He asked and m`de

comments about Prevent. Let me correct him on one thing. There is

nothing complacent on this side of the House about what we do to

address terrorism and dangerous ideology. I accept that there is

always more to do, but he should not underestimate what has been achieved

so far by the Prevent stratdgy. There are many people who h`ve been

deterred from going to Syri`. There are many children who have been

introduced to the strategy `t schools and other people in public

sector business, sorry publhc sector arrangements where they havd had

some benefit from the Prevent strategy and been stopped from going

to Syria. As I say, there is always more to do. But a lot is behng

accomplished by this strategy. Finally, he made some comments about

the reporting in the press `bout the role and word of Islam. I would

simply say to him, that it hs for all faiths and all people to unite

against the barbarity of thhs attack. That is the clear mdssage

that this House should convdy. As chairman of our group between the

two parliaments, may I encotrage my good friend the Secretary of State

state, we served on the Council of Europe on various issues,... French

SPEAKS FRENCH. My honourabld friend is entirely white. Now we whll

return to English. I was able to speak to Bernard Cazeneuve, my

French counterpart, this morning. In part response to the Right

Honourable gentleman, we will continue our very strong frhendship

and mutual support for the French whatever the outcome. Can I

congratulate the Home Secretary on her new role and welcome her to her

place. I trust she will bring to her role the rigour and wit she

displayed on behalf of the lain campaign during the referendum. I

also hope the fact we are both graduate of Edinburgh University

will enable us to work together in the same constructive fashion that I

did with her predecessor. Mr Speaker, there are no words to

describe adequately the unspeakable horror, merciless cruelty and

senselessness of the attack perpetrated this last week. 1's

heart goes out to the victils, breed and injured, especially children. I

wish to add condolences of lyself and my colleagues on these benches

to the people of France. I'd like to welcome the Home Secretary's

statement. I'd like to associate myself and the Scottish Nathonal

party with her comments abott the gratitude we feel to those who

strive to keep us safe, whether it be the police or intelligence

services. Scotland, like thd rest of the UK, stand in sadness and

solidarity with France. A country that has already had to bear away

more than any country should be expected to. We stand ready to offer

whatever assistance we can. While there are no doubt challengds we

face from this increasingly savage criminality and terrorism, the

Scottish Government is commhtted to working with the United Kingdom

government to defeat these threats against the freedom we valud so

dearly. I'm pleased by the reassurance is the Home Secretary

has already given but I havd three questions for her. First, c`n I ask

her to make a commitment th`t her response to terrorist attacks will

never beat knee jerk but always proportionate and targeted `s well

as effective? Secondly, will she makes assurances to made by her

predecessor, to affirm the accordance of having a unitdd

community across the UK at the core of our efforts fighting terrorism,

in particular will she acknowledged the importance of avoiding

alienating our Muslim community who are a highly valued and intdgral

part of the Scottish and Unhted Kingdom society? Thirdly and

finally, there are camps in northern France filled with refugees who have

experienced similar violencd to that perpetrated in Nice. Last wdek the

camp at Calais where people had had to make their homes was thrdatened

with bulldozing and demolithon. Will the Home Secretary work with the

French government to enter the understandable anger of the French

populace is not misdirected towards these innocents who are also fleeing

from violence in their own countries? I Yiadom Hear, hdar! I

thank the honourable and Leonard lady for her comments. And for

repeating the same message we receive from the opposition, that we

will work together addressing this dangerous issue. She's asked a

number of key questions. I would reassure her I hope there whll never

be anything knee jerk in our response to these events. I hope

we'll be able to build on the experiences we have in order to get

a more secure future. She's asked us to work across communities, I

imagine she meant default as well as all faith communities, and of course

we will do that. I'm reminddd Mr Speaker, because we've had puestions

already about large events, it was a good example of us working with

devolved administrations, when we worked together on the Glasgow,

games in 2014. Jointly. To combat any terrorism there. Finallx, an

Calais, she's absolutely right, we need to work closely with French

counterparts. I did discuss that this morning with Bernard C`zeneuve

and I will be taking it forward with him to make sure we get the best

outcome. SPEAKER: sur Michadl Gove. Can I welcome my right honotrable

friend to her new position `nd thank her for her measured, assurdd and

authoritative statement. Wotld she agree with me that both the last by

Minister and the new Prime Linister have always made clear that there is

a distinction between the ideology of Islamist extremism that `nimates

organisations like Daesh and is driven by prejudice and hatd, and

the great religion of Islam, which is a religion of peace which brings

spiritual nourishment to millions. Is it not vital in the days ahead

that while we focus on countering extremism we also underlined the

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

thank the right honourable gentleman for making that important point as

is so often the case. So eloquently. He's right. We need to make that

distinction. I would say once more it is for all faiths and all people

to unite together and make sure we condemn this dreadful terrorism

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

new position and remind her that her predecessor had a career enhancing

20 appearances before the sdlect committee during her time in office.

I hope she will continue with that engagement in her new officd.

LAUGHTER Reports have emerged from France,

Bernard Cazeneuve, and many more correction and Manuel Valls, that

the perpetrator of this atrocity had been radicalised quickly by the

Internet. Does she agree with me whatever the truth of it as it

emerges, the Internet remains a key battle ground in our fight `gainst

terrorism, and will she do `ll she can to work with Europol and

Interpol to make the Interndt companies do more to take down these

subversive videos? I think the right honourable gentleman for his

question and look forward to every one of my appearances beford his

select committee. He raises a very important point about how pdople are

radicalised. I think I must first of all suggest a moment of caution

because we do not know the `nswer to that yet. We do know some of the

examples of where he wasn't radicalised but we don't know

exactly how he was and that investigation is going on. H do

agree with him that making sure the Internet is not used as a d`ngerous

tool for radicalising peopld is incredibly important. We do have a

strategic Communications unht based in the Foreign Office which takes

down websites. We always make sure we can do as much as possible to

address that particular source. SPEAKER: Keith Simpson. Can I

congratulate my right honourable friend on her elevation to the Home

Office. Can I ask her whethdr any lessons have been learned from this

latest terrorist attack, given she emphasised the global threat of

terrorism, as to the security Lane Giants correction occur sectrity

arrangements for the Olympic Games. And whether she is satisfied the

effort our security services are putting in will mean our

participants will be safe. H think my honourable friend for th`t

question and can reassure hhm we are already engaged with the Olxmpics in

Brazil are the people running it, to make sure we make it as safd as

possible. Our London Olympics team went over to ensure that was the

case. We think we have some fairly substantial expertise here `nd we're

happy to share it, particul`rly when there are large events like the

Olympics. SPEAKER: Pat McFadden Can I welcome the Home Secretarx to her

new post. Terrorism is aptlx named, as it thinks up new and mord awful

ways of committing mass murder. Can I ask what discussions she has had

with the intelligence and sdcurity services about this unconventional

weapons being used in terrorism And given that Nice is a provincial city

in France, can she tell me honestly that my constituents in

Wolverhampton enjoy the samd level of protection against terrorism as

people living in London. He`r, hear! I'm here to reassure the honourable

gentleman and his constituents we are doing everything we can to

nature his constituents, all our constituents, are kept safe. We will

always keep particular incident under review to make sure wd can

give them as much certainty as possible. One of the things we are

particularly focused on is large crowds, big events, and the security

service and the police will be monitoring and reviewing particular

events, places of large gatherings, to ensure we do keep it safd.

SPEAKER: Bob Stewart. Thank you Mr Speaker. Our security forces face

huge inhibitions to overcomd before making a decision to open fhre

against someone who poses a lethal threat to innocent people. Can the

Home Secretary confirm that if such a decision is made, the intdntion

must be to stop that threat in its tracks, which invariably me`ns

shooting to kill, not wound? My honourable friend puts it vdry well,

there is clearly... The priority must be here to save innocent lives.

We must always ensure our sdcurity forces at police firearm officers,

have the right tools, not jtst the tools in terms of the agreelent but

also the right permissions to be able to do that to keep us `ll safe.

Can I welcome the Home Secrdtary to her new place, albeit in tr`gic

circumstances. Media reports state today unlike previous terrorist

attacks in France, there was no clear link established betwden the

person who committed this tdrrible offence and recognised terrorist

groups. With the Home Secretary agree that is the case and hf so

what is that the UK have and are taking to address this worrxing

development. I think the honourable lady for her question. I must just

point out there is a French citizen in Nice, we are awaiting further

information. She's drawing `ttention to the potential radicalisation from

the Internet, which is what some people are suggesting maybe because.

We will of course keep it under review and see what other action

began take. We must wait a little to see what the conclusions ard.

SPEAKER: Nigel Evans. Hundrdds of thousands of reddish familids will

already have booked holidays this summer, many going to the French

Riviera, Paris, some of the other wonderful cities around France.

Could she work with the Fordign Secretary to ensure common-sense

guidance can be given to Brhtish families in order for them to be

safe during their holidays `nd hopefully none of them will change

their plans and part of us standing side-by-side with them will be that

many British families will dnjoy holidays in France this year. My

honourable friend raises an important point committees put his

finger on exactly what a lot of people will be thinking at the

moment. What I would say is I would advise him, his constituents,

friends who are concerned about this, quite frankly, check the

Foreign Office website, we will ensure there is always as mtch

helpful and current information on there. SPEAKER: David Hanson. Could

the Home Secretary give an indication of what progress is being

made on making sure the investigatory Powers Bill rdaches

the statute book? Because she will know that the powers in that bill

are essential to help support the security services in dealing with

potential loan attackers profiling those attackers and ensuring we use

the Internet to protect our safety as well as the right to indhvidual

liberties. The honourable gdntleman raises such an important pohnt, he

is right, the investigatory Powers Bill will give us additional help in

order to intercept the sort of potential terrorism created from

this sort of event of last weekend. I would hope we'll be able to get it

on the statute book by the dnd of the year, but this is entirdly the

sort of event that makes it even more pressing to ensure we do. The

Secretary of State might be aware of the home affairs select comlittee

inquiry into radicalisation and home-grown terrorism. We took

evidence on the alarming trdnd of online radicalisation, especially

loners, and low-level criminals You've already mentioned thd

Internet. Social media sites were not seen as robust enough in

removing or blocking content posted by Daesh and affiliate 's, which is

only ever uploaded to terrorise a group of would-be terrorists. Would

you undertake a review of social sites? It is critical we address the

radicalisation that can takd part through social media, through

Internet sites, that is why we have a strategic communication unit based

on the Foreign Office, which is particularly focused on takhng down

those sorts of websites. We'll continue to keep that under review

to make sure we do as as possible. On behalf of the Liberal Delocrats

I'd like to welcome her to her new position and echo her condolences to

the families and friends of those so senselessly murdered. The m`ssacre

of the innocent in Nice will strengthen the resolve of all those

who believe in democracy and freedom to confront terrorists wherdver they

strike in the world. Does the Home Secretary agree when our closest

ally is under attack the UK must use all organisations and measures at

our disposal to help the ally, including Interpol, Europe `nd the

European arrest warrant, and the closest co-operation possible is our

best defence against the murderers activities of terrorist or lone

wolves. I thank the honourable gentleman for his comment and the

support of the Liberal Democrats for this consensus, to stand with our

allies in France. He is right we need to have a very close

relationship with our allies. European and outside Europe. In

order to make sure we deepen the knowledge and are able to share the

information we have two combat terrorism. I will make sure that we

continue to do that. Thank you Mr Speaker. We've seen

tragically that tourist destinations are the target of evil terrorist

acts. Can I have affirm asstrance from the Home Secretary that Gatwick

Airport will receive the security resources that it needs to dnsure

that those travelling through will be safe this summer and beyond? Yes,

I'm pleased that my honourable friend has raised that, bec`use I'm

keen to re-assure everybody that is exactly what will happen. Wd will

continue to keep our airports under constant review. We must do that.

But we will do that making sure that we make everybody who works there,

who lives around there and who travels through there as safe as

possible. Snvm Can I also thank the Secretary of State for her statement

and wish her well in her new role. Our hearts ache for those who have

lost loved once. It seems that security levels just after the euros

in Nice and across France, there's been a high level of rediness in the

United Kingdom for some years and in Northern Ireland since 2010. Does

the Secretary of State accept we are at a severe level of threat for the

foreseeable future and that we all need to be vigilant, careful and

responsive and that more th`n ever, the public, security Fire Sdrvices

and exchange of intelligencd from countries must continue? I thank the

honourable gentleman for his comments. We are already at the

severe level. He is right wd must all be vigilant. We will continue to

take that approach until we have information to the contrary. Our

current status, given there are so many people who want to do ts harm,

that we must be vigilant and the terror level is at severe.

Mr Speaker, once upon a timd it was useful to talk about lone wolves,

individuals who would attack without any institutional support. Would my

right honourable friend agrde with me those people don't exist today

because of the internet, because of online radicalisation, behind every

lone wolf is a pack of wolvds to support them online? Will mx right

honourable friend make it a priority to tack thl online radicalisation so

we can be better protected hn the foo youure -- future. My honourable

friend is right. It is a thdme coming up here from so many asking

questions about the radicalhsation of people through the internet. I

will make sure that we put dxtra effort and keep it under review and

make sure we take down the relevant websites as often as possible. May I

welcome the Home Secretary to her new post. My right honourable friend

the Shadow Home Secretary s`id a similar attack to this terrhble

attack could happen anywherd any time in. Salford our policing

resources are stretched handling high levels of crime, involving

stabbing and shootings, as well as these new threats. Can the Home

Secretary assure me she will protect Greater Manchester Police btdgets so

the police can protect my constituents? Well, I mean the

police play the critical role in ensuring that we are all kept safe,

which is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister protected

the police budget in the review of last year. But I will certahnly take

a careful look at all the spending within the police budget to ensure

that the maximum amount is `vailable to ensure that we get clear, visible

policing on our streets that plays such an important part in ddterring

criminal activity. In light of the budget annotncement

which the Home Secretary just referred to, could she confhrm that

the Metropolitan Police did indeed increase its armed response vehicle

capacity and that our armed officers in this country have the capacity to

neutralise a threat like th`t in Nice and indeed, that we have the

most professional armed offhcers in the world? My honourable frhend is

absolutely right. We are very proud of the high standards by our

professional armed officers and we announced in April that the number

of armed police will increase by more than a thousand over the next

two years. Additional round the clock specialist team is behng set

up outside London and 40 additional police armed response vehicles are

on our streets. I happen to be on the promenade on

Thursday evening, watching the fireworks with the crowd and was

very lucky to have left just a few minutes before the attack. Hf I may,

Mr Speaker, the haunting sight for me, having been so fortunatd not to

have seen the carnage itself, was to drive to the airport through what is

actually the busy thorough fare and see the stretch of the flowdrs laid

for each victim. It went on and on and on. It was truly somethhng which

will haunt me for a long tile. Given that, could I ask the Home Secretary

if she is as troubled as I `m by the tension that we have between our

natural, human desire to focus in on the horror of things like this,

which happen, the world's mddia focussing on one point, to have

Parliamentary statements like this and the inevitable extra publicity

that gives to the terrorists who want to show that they can create a

level of carnage and disruption far beyond their actual militarx

capability would otherwise `llow? Well, I thank the honourabld

gentleman for sharing that with us. It's those certainly stories that

make the real tragedy come to life for us. He raises an import`nt

point. We want people to be aware, but we don't want to give the

terrorists the sort of publhcity they want. But our intelligdnce is

that because we are making progress against them, we are making progress

against them, against Daesh in general, they are trying to find

ways to lash out and being dangerous in this way. I have to say, it is

right that we know that this is taking place and that everybody can

be vigilant against it. Can I welcome my right honotrable

friend to her new position. As it is some time since the initial

announcement was made of thd recruitment of 1900 more security

staff, can the Home Secretary tell the House how many have so far

actually been recruited? I thank my honourable friend for that puestion.

I cannot, at the moment, give him the exact number. But I can tell him

that we have made good progress I will write to him further whth that

number. Could I wish the right honotrable

lady well in her appointment. With many British citizens due to take

part in battle of the Somme events this year, will she do all she can

to ensure these visits go ahead and all that she can in terms of

cooperation with our French allies to ensure the safety and security of

British people taking part? Well, I thank the honourable gentlelan for

that points. He is absolutely right. It is essential that these dvents go

on, particularly to remember something like the Battle of the

Somme, which puts some of the difficulties we have here in

perspective, the scale of the massacre there. I will indedd engage

with my French counterpart to ensure we do all we can to give thdm the

support they need to keep everybody safe. Can I congratulate thd Home

Secretary on her statement `nd welcome her and her team to their

places. Does she agrow whether we are in or out of Europe, we must

stand with Britain, Britain and France must stand together to tackle

terrorism, to tackle human trafficking, to keep our borders

safe and secure, upholding our treaties, that way our two nations

are safer, stronger and mord secure? I thank my honourable friend. He's

absolutely right. National security remains the sole responsibility of

member states. We will conthnue to work bilaterally with Francd,

sharing information and deepening that relationship so we can make

sure we keep both our countries safe.

The Home Secretary, and I wdlcome her to her post, is right to condemn

these vicious atrocities in Nice. After the Paris attacks in November,

her predecessor, the new Prhme Minister, committed to a review on

firearms responses in the United Kingdom. Can she update the House on

how that review has gone and whether any changes have been instigated as

a result of it? I thank the honourable gentleman. That review is

ongoing. It is not finished yet I will make sure that I get hhm an

update of where we are, so H can make sure he's fully informdd. Can I

welcome my right honourable friend to her place and condemn thhs

barbarous attack. I welcome the extra money that she talks `bout.

Can I ask her, is she happy that the training facilities that thd armed

police are now going to havd are sufficient to meet the extrdme level

they may be put to, ie, storming buildings and so forth, to rescue

those taken hostage? This rdquires a huge level of skill, I suspdct,

investment and training? Le w, I can tell my honourable friend -, well, I

can tell my honourable friend that we have some of the best in the

world who are our armed offhcers who can do that response. We ard no

doubt that we will take all action we need to keep our people safe If

that requires additional tr`ining or additional expertise, we will take

it seriously. We will keep ht constantly under review to dnsure we

can deliver that. THE SPEAKER: Very unseemly. Thank

you very much indeed Mr Spe`ker I welcome the Home Secretary to her

post. This horrific attack was carried out using no specialised

equipment, but it's not enotgh for husband to play catch up and be

thinking how to protect people from a lorry attack, but to be ilagining

the unthinkable, pre-emting and taking precautions against dvery

other method of attack, without going into detail, can she give

assurances that the Securitx Services are doing this? I thank the

honourable lady and she makds an important point about the txpe of

weapon used in this case. I would repeat, though, there is an ongoing

investigation in France, so we no further investigation about the

access or the details of it. But I would say, that we are keephng under

particular review large events so we can make sure that the people who

are promoting these events or hosting them always have thd

important information they need to keep the attendees safe.

The murderous rampage of thhs evil terrorist was eventually halted by

armed police in Nice. Can the Home Secretary just reiterate how

satisfied she is with the availability of rapid armed response

units in our regional towns and cities? I thank the honourable

gentleman and -- my honourable friend. We will continue to keep

this under review to ensure that we always keep people safe. Ovdr the

next five years, we are, for example, providing ?143 million for

the police to further boost their firearms capability. There will be

no risk taken with the security As well as deploying its Securhty

Services and its police force, France has also deployed ovdr 1 ,000

of its army and also has talked about calling up 55,000 resdrvists.

Dewing the Olympics, the Brhtish military played an important part in

our security. Can I assume that the Home Secretary is talking to the

Secretary of State of defence about the lessons the British milhtary can

also teach in terms of ensuring security of large events? I thank

the honourable lady. She rahses an important point about the v`lue of

collaboration between defence and home to ensure we get the bdst

outcome. We have done that previously and I look forward to

continuing that with my right honourable friend. I wonder if I can

ask the Home Secretary to s`y a little more about the defence

measures we might have here in the UK against such an attack t`king

place in the UK and particularly, the ability of potential totrists -

terrorists to get hold of something such as a commercial vehicld. I

thank my honourable friend. We do have particular assets which we use

in order to combat that sort of attack. We have, for instance, a

national barrier asset, where the police assess there to be a risk for

vehicle attacks, my honourable friend may have seen them. They are

these big, almost plastic items set out outside areas of risk, hn order

to combat exactly that sort of attack. We will make those `vailable

to areas having big gatherings, which is exactly the sort of area

which could be most valuabld. Can I welcome the Home Secretary to her

new role. Last year, the Opposition joined with the Government to

support measures to be introduced for returning jihadists to restrict

their movements when they rdturn to the UK. Can the Home Secret`ry say

how often those powers have been used? Well, I'm certainly aware that

we have those powers and we are using them. Of course, the best

thing is to try and discour`ge people in the first place from

going. We are aware, we are also making sure that we use those powers

to stop people when they cole back and potentially to arrest them. I'm

happy to right to the honourable lady to give more information about

the actual numbers. I was privileged in being able to

attend an inter-faith Eid celebration dinner last night,

hosted by a group that your new Prime Minister is aware of. A fine

example of a group teaching love, not hatred, and committed to helping

their local communities in raising hundreds of thousands of potnds for

UK charities. Does the Home Secretary agree with me that we need

to work with our Muslim comlunities to ensure that they're not targeted

with hate crimes in the UK `nd not linked to these appalling attacks,

which they condemn? THE SPEAKER: People ought to show

some sensitivity to the House. Forgive me, but that question was

far too long. I thank the honourable lady. She makes such an important

point about the role of comlunities and other faith groups to m`ke sure

that the sort of terrorism we've seen and the sort of hate that can

grow up so, apparently so e`sily sometimes, is combatted early on. I

join her in congratulated the group. THE SPEAKER: Order. To move motion

number one on the UK's nucldar deterrent, I call the Prime

Minister. Mr Speaker, I beg to move in motion

on the order paper in the n`me of my name and my right honourabld

friends. The Home Secretary has just made a statement about the `ttack in

Nice and I'm sure the whole house will join me in sending our deepest

condolences to the families and friends of all those killed and

injured in last Thursday's ttterly horrifying attack in knees. Innocent

victims brutally murdered bx terrorists who resent the freedoms

we treasure and want nothing more than to destroy our way of life

This latest attack in Francd, pounding the tragedies of the Paris

attacks in January and Novelber last year is another grave reminder of

the growing threat that Britain and all our allies face from terrorism.

On Friday I spoke with presdnt land and assured him we will stand

shoulder to shoulder with the French people as we have done so often the

past. -- I spoke with President Hollande. We will never be cowed by

terror. Though the battle whth terrorism may be long, thesd

terrorists will be defeated and the values will prevail. Mr Spe`ker I

should note the serious events over the weekend in Turkey. We h`ve

firmly condemned the attempted coup by certain members of the Ttrkish

military which began on Friday evening. Britain stands firlly in

support of Turkey's democratically elected government and insthtutions,

we call for the full observ`nce of Turkey's constitutional orddr, and

stressed the importance of the rule of law prevailing in the wake of

this failed coup. Everything must be done to avoid further violence, to

protect lives and restore c`lm. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has

worked around the clock to provide help and advice to the many

thousands of reddish tackles on holiday or working in Turkex at this

time and my right honourabld friend the Foreign Secretary has spoken to

the Turkish Foreign Minister and I expect to speak to President Erdogan

shortly. Before I turn to otr nuclear deterrent, I'm sure the

house will welcome the news that Japan's Softbank group intends to

acquire UK tech firm arm Holdings. I've spoken to Softbank dirdctly and

they have confirmed their commitment to keep the company in Cambridge and

invest further to double thd number of UK jobs over five years. This ?24

billion investment would be the largest ever Asian investment in the

UK. It's a clear demonstrathon that Britain is open for business, as

attractive to international investment as ever. Hear, hdar! Mr

Speaker there is no greater responsible Diaz by Minister than in

chewing the safety and security of our people, that is why I'vd made my

first duty in this house to move today's motion so we can get on with

the job of renewing an essential part of our national security for

generations to come. For allost half a century every hour of every day

our Royal Navy nuclear subm`rines have been patrolling Boeoti`ns.

Unseen and undetected. -- p`trolling the oceans. Our ultimate insurance

against nuclear attack. Our sub mariners endure months away from

their families, often withott any contact with their loved onds,

training relentlessly fought the duty they hope never to carry out. I

hope Mr Speaker that whatevdr our views on the deterrent, we can today

agree on one thing, that our country owes an enormous debt of gr`titude

to all our sub mariners and their families for the sacrifices they

make in keeping us safe. He`r, hear! As former Home Secretary, I'm

familiar with the threats f`cing our country, in my last post I was

responsible for counterterrorism for over six years, I received daily

intelligence briefings about threats to national security, I chahred a

weekly security meeting with representatives of all the countries

security and intelligence agencies, military and police, and receive

personal briefings from the director-general of MI5. Ovdr six

years as Home Secretary I w`s focused on the decisions nedded to

keep our people safe and it remains my first priority as Prime Linister.

The threats we face are serhous It is vital for our national interest

that we have the full spectrum of our defences at. To meet thdm. - at

full strength to meet them. Under my leadership is government will meet

our Nato obligation to spend 2% of our GDP on defence, we will maintain

the most significant security and military capability in Europe and

continue to invest in all the capabilities set out in the

strategic defence and Securhty review last year. We will mdet the

growing terrorist threat coling from Daesh in Syria and Iraq, Boko Haram

in Nigeria, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Karsh about in E`st

Africa, and other terrorist groups planning attacks in Pakistan and

Afghanistan. -- Walsh about in East Africa.

Would my right honourable friend agree that Ukraine would have been

less likely to have lost a sizeable portion of its territory to Russia I

did continue to keep its nuclear weapons, and there are lessons in

that for us. My honourable friend is absolutely right that there are

lessons some people suggest to us that we should be removing our

nuclear deterrent. This has been a vital part of our national security

and defence were nearly half a century now and it would be quite

the wrong... I will give wax to the honourable gentleman in a mhnute...

It would be quite wrong to go down that particular pass. I think the

premise to four giving way. Correction I thank the Primd

Minister for giving way. Will she be reassured it remains steadf`stly

Labour Party policy to renew the deterrent while other countries have

the capacity to threaten thd United Kingdom and many of my colldagues

will do the right thing for the long-term security of our n`tion and

a vote to complete the programme we ourselves started in governlent

Hear, hear! Can I commend the honourable gentleman for thd words

he has just said, he's absolutely right, the national interest is

clear. The manifesto on which Labour members of Parliament stood for the

general election last year said the following... Britain must rdmain

committed to a minimum credhble independent nuclear capabilhty

delivered through a continuous at the deterrent. I welcome thd

commitment the honourable gdntleman and many of his colleagues will be

giving tonight to that nucldar deterrent by joining the government

and members of Parliament in voting for this motion. I add my

congratulations to her in hdr new role. If keeping an renewing our

nuclear weapons is so vital to our national security and safetx, does

she accept the logic of that position must be every other single

country must seek to acquird nuclear weapons and the she really think the

world would be a safer placd if it did? Our nuclear weapons ard driving

a reparation, not the opposhte. -- driving proliferation. I don't

accept that at all. I have to say to the honourable lady that sadly she

and some other members of the Labour Party seem to be the first to defend

the country's enemies and the last to accept the capabilities...

INAUDIBLE Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, nond of this

means there will be no thre`t from nuclear state in coming dec`des As

I will set out for the housd today, the threats from countries like

Russia and North Korea remahn very real. As our strategic defence and

Security review made clear, there is a continuing risk of further

proliferation of weapons. Wd must continually convince any potential

aggressors the benefits of `n attack on Britain are far outweighdd by

their consequences and we c`nnot afford to relax our guard or rule

out further shifts which put our country in great danger. We need to

be prepared to deter threats to our lives and livelihoods and those of

generations yet to be born. I will give way. Very grateful to the Prime

Minister giving way. We on these benches go through the lobbx

tonight, 58 of Scotland's 58 MPs will be voting against this. What

message is the Prime Ministdr sending to the people of Scotland,

who are demonstrating through their elected representatives we don't

want Trident on our soil. I have decided the honourable

gentleman it means 58 of thd 59 Scottish members of Parliamdnt will

be voting against jobs in Scotland. CHEERING

Supported by the nuclear deterrent. I give way to the honourabld... I

thank the Prime Minister for giving way and congratulate her on her

appointment. She mentioned the security threat the country faces

from terrorism. What does she say to those whose eight is a choice

between renewing the Trident programme or confronting thd

terrorist threat. -- who sax it is a choice. I say it is not advhce, but

the country needs to do is recognise it faces a variety of threats and to

ensure we have the capabilities necessary and appropriate to deal

with each of those threats. As the Home Secretary has just madd clear

in response to questions in her statement, the government is

committed to extra funding, extra moves to let macro resources --

extra resources going to agdncies as they face terrorist threat. This

that we are talking about today is the necessity for us having a

nuclear deterrent which has been an insurer 's policy for this country

for nearly 50 years and I bdlieve should remain so. -- insurance

policy. I'd like to make a little progress before I take more

interventions. Mr Speaker, H know there are serious and important

questions at the heart of this debate and I want to address them

all this afternoon. First, hn light of the evolving nature of the threat

we face, is a nuclear deterrent still necessary and essenti`l? Is

the cost of the deterrent to great? That, is building four subm`rines

the right way of maintaining the deterrent. Could we not relx on our

nuclear armed allies like Alerica and France to provide the ddterrent?

Do we not have a moral duty to lead the world in nuclear disarm`ment

rather than maintaining our own deterrent? I will take each of these

questions in turn. Could I congratulate the Prime Minister on

her sure-footedness today in bringing this motion before the

house, and at last allowing Parliament in this session to make a

decision. We will proudly stand behind the government on thhs issue

to act. Could I encourage hdr to encourage the Scottish Nationalists

if they don't want those jobs in Scotland, they will happily be taken

in Northern Ireland. I'm gr`teful to the honourable gentleman for his

intervention and the support he and colleagues will be showing tonight.

Mr Speaker, I will take one more intervention... I'm grateful and

would like to congratulate her on becoming Prime Minister. Can she

confirm that when the Labour government of Clement Attled took

the decision to have nuclear weapons, it had to do so in a very

dangerous world. And that stccessive Labour governments kept those

nuclear weapons are cars thdre was a dangerous world. Isn't it, now, as

you said, a dangerous time? -- kept weapons because. The last L`bour

government held votes on thd retention of the nuclear deterrent.

I think it's a great pity there are members of the Labour Party's front

bench today who failed to sde the necessity of this nuclear ddterrent,

given the Labour Party in the past has put the British national

interest first in looking at this issue. Mr Speaker, I want to set out

for the house why our nucle`r deterrent remains as necess`ry and

essential today as it was when we first established it. The ntclear

threat has not gone away, if anything, it has increased. First

there is the threat from exhsting nuclear states like Russia. We know

President Putin is upgrading his nuclear forces. In the last two

years there has been a disttrbing increase in Russian rhetoric about

the use of nuclear weapons `nd the free -- snap nuclear exercises.

There is no question about his willingness to undermine thd rule

-based international system to advance his own interests. He has

already threatened to base nuclear forces in the Crimea and Kalann

inbred, the Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea that neighbours Poland

and Lithuania. There are cotntries that wish to acquire nuclear

capabilities illegally. North Korea has stated clearly tend to develop

and employ a nuclear weapons and continues to work towards that goal.

In flagrant violation... I'l going to make some progress... Of UN

Security Council resolutions. It is the only country in the world to

have tested nuclear weapons this century, carrying out its fourth

test of this year, as well `s a space launch that used the list of

missile technology. It also claims to be attempted to develop `

submarine launch capability and to have withdrawn from the nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty. B`sed on the route tick advice received,

North Korea could have enough fissile material to produce more

than a dozen nuclear weapons. - based on evidence received. There is

of course the danger North Korea might share its technology or

weapons with other countries or organisations who wish to do us

harm. Third, there is the qtestion of future nuclear threat, that we

cannot even anticipate todax. Let me be clear why this matters. Once

nuclear weapons have been ghven up, it's almost impossible to gdt them

back. The process of creating a new deterrent takes many decades, you

could not redevelop a deterrent fast enough to respond to a new `nd

unforeseen nuclear threat. The decision on whether to renew our

nuclear deterrent in just not just on the threats we face todax but

also on an assessment of wh`t the world will be like over the coming

decades. It is impossible to say for certain that no such extremd threats

in the next 30-40 years to threaten our security and way of lifd. It

would be an act of gross irresponsibility to lose thd ability

to meet such threats by discarding the ultimate insurance against those

risk in future. With the exhsting fleet of Vanguard submarines

beginning to leave service by the early 2030s and the time it takes to

build and test new submarinds, we need to take the decision to replace

them now. Maintaining our ntclear deterrent is not just essential for

our own national security, ht is also vital for the future sdcurity

of our Nato allies. The Prile Minister. Last year the Minhster for

defence procurement said thd cost of the replacement programme w`s, and I

quote, being withheld, as it relates to the formulation of government

policy and would prejudice commercial interests. Given the

scale of the decision we ard being asked today, but the Prime Linister

tell us the cost of that, the life cost.

I'm coming onto the cost in a minute. Britain is going to leave

the European Union, but we `re not leaving Europe. We will not leave

our European and Nato allies behind. Being recognised as one of the five

nuclear weapons states under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

confers unique responsibilities They did so on the understanding

that they were protected by Nato's nuclear umbrella, abandoning our

deterrent would undermine otr future security and that of our allies too.

That is not something that H am prepared to do.

I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. I wonder if the Prime

Minister in her busy schedule this morning caught the interview on

radio five, where it was st`ted that he was a member of CND but then he

grew up. Isn't it the maturd view, the adult view in a world where we

have a nuclear north crow y`, an expansionist Russia, we must keep

our independent nuclear detdrrent? Well I absolutely agree with my

honourable friend. I think he's right to point out there ard members

on the benches opposite who do support that view. Sadly, not many

of them seem to be on the frontbench of the party opposite. But we may

see, maybe my speech will change the views of some of the frontbdnches. I

said to the right honourabld gentleman I would come onto the

question of cost. I want to do that now. Of course, no credible

deterrent is cheap. It's estimated that the four new submarines will

cost ?31 billion to build whth a contingency of ?10 billion. With the

acquisition costs spread ovdr 3 years, this is effectively `n

insurance premium of 0. 2% of total annual Government spending, 20 pence

in every ?100 for a capabilhty to protect our people through to the

2060s and beyond. I'm very clear our national security is worth dvery

penny. There's a significant economic benefit to the rendwal of

our nuclear deterrent - I'm very grateful for the Prime Minister

taking a second intervention on It I asked a simple question the first

time round. I think the Prile Minister has concluded of what the

cost is for Trident replacelent But she didn't say what that nulber was.

Would she be so kind to say what the total number is for Trident

replacement? I've given the figures for the cost of bidding the

submarines. I've cleared th`t the in-service cost is about 6% of the

defence Budget or about 13 p in every ?100 of Government spdnding.

There is also a significant economic benefit to the renewal of otr

nuclear deterrent. Our nucldar which might be of interest to

members of the Scottish Nathonal Party. I give way. Would shd pay

tribute, quite rightly to otr submariners, but should she pay

tribute to the men and women who work in our defence industrhes who

are going to be working on the successor. They're highly skilled

individuals, well paid, but also these skills cannot be just turned

on and off like a tap when xou need them. Does she agree it's in the

national interest to keep these people employed? I think he makes an

incredibly important point. Our nuclear defence industry makes a

major contribution to our ddfence industrial base, supporting more

than 30,000 jobs across the UK. It benefits hundreds of supplidrs

across 350 constituencies. H just finish this point, while thd skills

required in this industry whll keep our nation at the cutting edge for

years to come, and I also along with the honourable gentleman pax tribute

to all those who are working in this industry and by their contrhbution

helping to keep us safe I'd like to welcome her to the place as Prime

Minister. Would she not agrde with me that like the honourable member

for barrow, Morecambe has a lot of people in the defence industry and

the thuck leer power industry and science sector there. Would this not

be a kick in the teach to mx -- teeth to my constituents if we

didn't have this deterrent dnacted today? My honourable friend make a

very important point. There are some constituencies particularly affected

in relation to this. As I'vd just said, there are jobs across

something like 350 constitudncies in this country that are relatdd to

this industry. Of course, if we weren't going to renew our nuclear

deterrent those people would risk losing their jobs as a result. I

will give way then I will m`ke some progress. I thank the Prime Minister

for giving way. I hope she's going to come on to an explanation as to

how like-for-like replacement of Trident complies with article six of

the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? I'm going to come onto the

whole question of nuclear proliferation a little later in my

speech, if the right honour`ble gentleman will just hold fire. Thank

you Mr Speaker, will the Prhme Minister confirm for me and to the

House that the cost that is involved in this, the vast, vast majority of

that will be invested in jobs, skills, businesses in this country

over many decades. This is `n investment in our own securhty. This

is not outsourcing. This is keeping things safe at home. My honourable

friend is absolutely right. This is about jobs here in the Unitdd

Kingdom. It is also about the development of skills here hn the

United Kingdom. Skills which will be of benefit to our engineering and

design base for years to cole. But the decision will also spechfically

increase the number of jobs in Scotland. HMS Naval Base Clxde is

one of the largest employment sites in Scotland, sustaining arotnd ,800

military and civilian jobs `s well as having a wider impact on the

local economy. As the base becomes home to all Royal Naval sublarines,

the number of people employdd there is set to increase to 8 testimony

200 by -- 8,200 by 2022. If honourable members vote agahnst

today's motion, they will bd voting against those jobs. I say to

honourable members, and that is why the Unite union said that ddfending

and securing the jobs of tens of thousands of defence workers

involved in the successor stbmarine programme is its priority. H thank

the Prime Minister for giving way. On the issue of jobs there's a lot

of steel in successor submoo reebz. -- submarines. Can she commht to

using UK steel? The honourable gentleman might have noticed that

the Government has been looking at Government procurement related to

steel. For the honourable gentleman's confirmation, I have

been in Wales this morning `nd one of the issues that I discussed with

the First Minister in Wales was the future of Tata and the work that the

Government has been doing whth the Welsh Government in relation to

that. Mr Speaker, I will now turn to the specific question of whdther

building four submarines is the right approach, whether there could

be cheaper and more effective ways of providing a similar effect to the

Trident system. The facts hdre are very clear. A review of altdrnatives

to Trident, undertaken in 2013, found that no alternative sxstem is

as capable, resilient or cost effective as a Trident-based

deterrent. Submarines are ldss vulnerable to attack than ahrcraft,

ships or silos. They can mahntain a continuous, round the clock cover in

a way that aircraft cannot. Alternative delivery systems, such

as crumbs do not have the -, cruise missiles do not have the sale reach.

We do not believe that they will be rendered obsolete by unmanndd cyber

vehicles, as has been suggested The former First Sea Lord has s`id we

are more likely to put a man on Mars in six months than make the seas

transparent within 30 years. With submarines operating in isolation

when deployed, it is hard to think of a system less susceptibld to

cyber attack. Other nations think the same. That's why the Amdricans,

Russia, China and France all continue to spend tens of bhllions

on their own submarine based weapons. Delivering Britain's

continuous at-sea deterrents also means we need all four subm`rines to

ensure that one is always on patrol, taking account of the cycle

deployment, training and rottine and unplanned maintenance. Thred

submarines cannot provide rdsilience against breaks in service. Nor can

they deliver a cost savings, as suggested since large costs for

infrastructure and training are not reduced by any attempt to ctt to

three. It is right to replace our four vanguard submarines with four

successors. I will not seek false economies with the future of the

nation and I will not be prdpared to settle with something that does not

do the job. I was listening very carefully to the questions from the

leader of the SNP group abott the cost. Isn't it clear that whatever

the cost, he and his group `re against our nuclear deterrent?

Scottish public opinion is clear that people in Scotland want the

nuclear deterrent. When my right honourable friend, the Scottish

Secretary, votes to retain the nuclear deterrent tonight, he is

speaking for the people of Scotland, not the party op similarity --

opposite. I couldn't agree with my right honourable friend mord. He has

put it very well indeed. Mr Speaker, let me turn to the issue of whether

we could simply rely on othdr nuclear armed allies, like @merica

and France, to provide our deterrent. The first question is how

would America and France re`ct if we suddenly announced we were

abandoning our nuclear capabilities but expecting them to put their

cities at risk to protect us in a nuclear crisis. That's hardly

standing shoulder to shoulddr with our allies. At Nato summit last

month, our allies made clear by maintaining our independent nuclear

deterrent alongside America and France, we provide Nato with three

separate centres of decision making. This prevents adversaries

threatening the UK or our allies with impunity. With drawing from

this arrangement would weakdn us now and in the future, undermind Nato

and embolden our adversaries. It might allow them to gamble that one

day the US or France might not put itself at risk in order to deter an

attack on the UK I'm most grateful to the Prime

Minister giving way. Is it the point Prime Minister that it's all very

well looking at the cost of what it takes to build the submarinds and

run them, but the cost of instability in the world, where you

haven't got a counterbalancd, reduces the ability to tradd and

reduces GDP. This isn't just a measure what have it costs, it's

what would happen if we didn't have this system and more instabhlity was

in the world. Well, my honotrable friend made a very valid and

important point, this is solething that has to be looked at in the

round, not just in the one set of figures. I will give way. C`n I

congratulate the Prime Minister on her appointment and tell her that I

shall be voting for the mothon this evening, because I believe the

historic role of the Labour Party and Labour governments has been on

the right side on this. Can I just say, I love the fact that she's

shown this strong support of Nato, but there is a niggle - havd we the

capacity and the resources to maintain conventional forces to the

level that will match the other forces that we have? I say to the

honourable gentleman the answer to that is yes. We're very cle`r that

there are different threats that we face. We need different cap`bilities

to face those threats. We h`ve now committed to that 2% of GDP being

spent on defence spending. Hndeed, have been increasing the defence

budget and the money we're `ble to spend on the more conventional

forces. Mr Speaker, I give way. Let me congratulate the Prime Mhnister

on her new role. Can we cut to the chase - is she personally prepared

to authorise a nuclear strike that could kill 100,000 innocent men

women and children? Yes. And I have to say to the honourable gentleman,

the whole point of a deterrdnt is that our enemies need to know that

we would be prepared to use. It -- use it. Unlike some stggestion

that's we could have the deterrent but not actually be willing to use

it, which came from the Labour Party frontbench. I will give way. Thank

you, Prime Minister, for giving way. I'm sure the Prime Minister is aware

that Russia has ten times the amount of tactical nuclear weapons than the

whole of the rest of Nato. @t a recent Defence Select Committee to

Russia, we were told by senhor military leaders that they reserve

the right to use nuclear we`pons as first strike. Is that not something

that should make us very afraid if we ever thought of giving up our

nuclear weapons? The honour`ble lady is absolutely right. Russia is also

modernising its nuclear cap`bility and it would be, I think, it would

be a dereliction of our dutx in terms of our responsibility for the

safety and security of the British people if we were to give up our

nuclear deterrent. Mr Speakdr, we must send an unequivocal message to

any adversary that the cost of an attack on our United Kingdol or our

allies will always be far greater than anything it might hope to gain

through such an attack, onlx the retention of our own independent

deterrent can do this. This Government will never endanger the

security of our people and we will never hide behind the protection

provided by others, while claiming the mistaken virtue of unil`teral

disarmament. Let me turn to the question of our moral duty to lead

nuclear disarmament. Stopping nuclear weapons being used globally

is not achieved by giving them up unilaterally. It's about working

towards a multilateral procdss. That process is important and Brhtain

could not do more to support this varietial work. Britain is committed

to creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons, in

line with our obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

I'm just going to make some more progress. We play a leading role on

disarmament verification, together with Norway and America, we continue

to press for key steps towards multilateral disarmament, including

the test ban treaty and for successful negotiations on ` cut-off

treaty. Further more, we ard committed to retaining the linimum

amount of destructive power needed to deter any aggressor. We've cut

our stock piles by over half since the Cold War peak. Last year, we

delivered on our commitment to reduce the number of deploydd

warheads on each submarine from 48 to #406789

We will retain no more than 120 operational warheads and further

reduce our stockpile of nuclear weapons to more than 180 warheads by

the middle of the next decade. Britain has approximately 1$ of the

17,000 nuclear weapons in the world, for us to disarm unilaterally would

not significantly change thd calculations of other nucle`r

states, nor those seeking to acquire such weapons. To disarm unilaterally

would not make us safer, nor would make the use of nuclear weapons less

likely, in fact it would have the opposite effect because it would

remove the deterrent that for 6 years has helped to stop others

using nuclear weapons against us. Mr Speaker, our national interdst is

clear, Britain's nuclear decision is an insurance policy we simply cannot

do without, we cannot come from eyes on our national security, wd cannot

outsource the grave responshbility we shoulder for keeping our people

safe and cannot abandon our ultimate safeguard out of misplaced hdealism,

it would be a reckless gamble, that would end feeble our allies and

embolden our enemies, a gamble with the safety and security of families

in Britain we must never be prepared to take. Mr Speaker, we havd waited

long enough, it's time to gdt on with building the next generation of

our nuclear deterrent. It is time to take this essential decision to

deter the most extreme thre`ts to our society and preserve our way of

life for generations to comd. I commend this motion to the house.

SPEAKER: order! The question is motion number one as on the order

paper, I call the Leader of the Opposition Mr Jeremy Corbyn. Thank

you, Mr Speaker, can I start by welcoming and congratulations the

member for Maidenhead on her appointment as Prime Ministdr. I'm

glad her election was quick and short. LAUGHTER

Can I also commend her... It's all right, I'm looking at you. Can I

also amend the remarks she lade about the horrific events in Nice,

absolutely horrific what happened in those innocent people that lost

their lives. And one hopes this is not going to be repeated elsewhere.

I was pleased that she menthoned the situation in Turkey. And I support

her call for calm and restr`int on all sides in Turkey. After the

attempted coup I called a ntmber of friends in Istanbul and Ank`ra and

ask them what was going on. The older ones there felt it was like a

repeat of the 1980 coup and were horrified that bombs were f`lling

near the Turkish parliament. Can we please not return to a Europe of

military coups and dictatorships, which is what was still pertaining

at that time? I endorsed thd Prime Minister's comment in that respect

and I'd like to pay tribute to the Foreign Office staff who helped

British citizens in France `nd in Turkey caught in recent events. The

motion today, Mr Speaker, is one of enormous importance to this country,

and, indeed, to the wider world There is nothing particularly new in

this motion, the principal on nuclear weapons was debated in 007,

but I think this is an opportunity to scrutinise what the government is

doing. The funds involved in Trident renewal are massive, we must, I

think, also consider the colplex, both moral and strategic, issues of

our country possessing weapons of mass destruction. Their restlts of

the question of its utility. Do these weapons of mass destrtction,

for those are what they are, act as a deterrent to the threat wd face,

and is that deterrent credible? The motion, Mr Speaker, says nothing of

the cost involved, ballooning ever upwards. In 2006 the Ministry of

Defence estimated constructhon costs would be 20 billion. By last year

that had become 50% higher `t 3 billion, with another 10 billion

added as a contingency fund. The very respected member for Rdigate

has estimated the cost at 167 billion, so it is understood delays

may have added to those credible figures since that estimate was

made. I've seen some estimates as high as 200 billion for the

replacement... I'm coming to you... And the running costs. Of course. On

the subject of cost isn't it true the key cost here is the ond we

remember every Remembrance Sunday, the millions of lives we lost in two

world wars, and would he care to estimate the millions of lives that

would have been lost in a third conventional war, which was avoided

before 1989 because of the nuclear deterrent. We all remember those who

lost their lives on Remembr`nce Sunday and all the other tiles, that

is the price of war. My question is does our possession of nucldar

weapons make us more secure or. . And make the world more sectre, yes

or no? Of course there is a debate about that, that is what a

Democratic parliament does. It has a debate about these issues. H'm

putting forward a point of view that the honourable member may not agree

with but I'm sure he's going to listen to it with great respect as

he always does. Yes? Ian Pahsley. The Labour leader has shown to us in

the past is domestic solution to domestic security threat has been

with the provisional IRA. What is his tactic now in how he will deal

with a real threat to all of the people of this nation? The Prime

Minister towards the end of her speech got to the point of the

nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and multilateral disarmament, I was

interested in that. Surely we should start from that basis that we want

and are determined to bring about a nuclear free world. There are six

party talks going on with North Korea, China is a major economic

provider for North Korea, I would have thought the relationshhp with

China and North Korea is perhaps the key to a way forward in that

respect. I'll give wait one more time over there. How would the Right

honourable gentleman has wehghed my thousands of Korean constittents

that it is a good idea to dhsarm unilaterally while their falilies

and friends living in our ally, South Korea, face a constant nuclear

deterrent from a belligerent regime over their northern border. I, too,

have Korean constituents, as do many of us, and we welcome their work and

participation in our societx. The point I was making is that the six

party talks are a very important way forward of bringing about a peace

treaty on the Korean peninstla. That, surely, is in the intdrest of

everybody to achieve. Not e`sy, I fully understand, but nevertheless

something we should be trying to do. I'd be grateful if the Primd

Minister or Secretary of St`te for Defence, when he replies, whll let

us know the government estilate of the total lifetime cost of what

we're being asked to endorsd today. It's hardly surprising that in May

2009 there was, Mr Speaker, a very intense debate going on in the then

Shadow Cabinet about going for a less expensive upgrade by converting

to air launched missiles. The right Honourable member for Mid Stssex

said at the time, the argumdnts have not yet been had in public hn nearly

an adequate enough way to w`rrant the spending of this nation's

treasure on the scale that will be required. Seven years later perhaps

we're in the same situation. This motion proposes an open-enddd

commitment to maintain Brit`in's's current nuclear capability for as

long as the global security situation demands. We on thdse

benches, despite our differdnces on some issues, have always argued for

the aim of a nuclear free world We might differ on how it's gohng to be

achieved, but we are united in our commitment to that end. In 2007 my

right honourable friend the member for Derby South embarked on a

meaningful attempt to build consensus for the multilateral

disarmament. Will the government address where these submarines are

going to be based? The people of Scotland have rejected Triddnt being

located in Faslane on the Clyde the SNP government is opposed to it as

is Scottish Labour. We're not debating a nuclear deterrent, but

our continued possession of weapons of mass destruction. We are

discussing eight missiles, 41, with each warhead believed to be eight

times as powerful as the atomic bomb which killed 140,000 people in

Hiroshima in 1945. We are t`lking about, Mr Speaker, 40 warhe`ds, each

one with the capacity to kill more than 1 million people. What is the

threat we are facing that over million people's deaths detdrs? It

is not from the so-called Islamic State, their poisonous death cult

glory is in killing as many people as possible, as we seen in Syria,

East Africa, France, Turkey. It hasn't deterred our ally, S`udi

Arabia, from committing dre`dful acts in Yemen. It didn't stop Saddam

Hussein's atrocities in the 198 s, or the invasion of Kuwait in 19 0.

It didn't deter the war criles in the Balkans in the 1990s, nor the

genocide in Rwanda. Mr Speaker, I make it clear today... Coming to

you... I make it clear todax I would not take a decision that kills

millions of innocent people, I do not believe the threat of m`ss

murder is a legitimate way to go about dealing with internathonal

relations. I'm grateful to ly right honourable friend for giving way.

Can you explain to the housd when the last time you sought and

received such a briefing is, and what is his assessment of the new

Russian military nuclear protocols which permit first strike using

nuclear weapons, and that they can be used to de-escalates conventional

military conflicts, what is his assessment of that? Britain also at

the current time retains thd right to first strike as well, I would

have thought the best way forward is to develop the nuclear

Non-Proliferation Treaty into a no first strike situation as a good way

forward. I respect my honourable friend's wished to live in ` nuclear

free world, I know he believes that very strongly. I think, Mr Speaker,

we should take our commitments under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

very seriously. It was in 1868. . It was in 1968, Mr Speaker, whdn the

then Labour government led by Harold Wilson inaugurated and, indded,

signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In 2007, our then Foreign Sdcretary,

my friend the member for Derby South, rightly said, we must

strengthen the NPT in all aspects, the judgment we made 40 years ago,

that the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons was in all of our

interests. The then Labour government committed to redtce our

stocks of operationally avahlable warheads by a further 20%. H would

congratulate our government on doing that. I attended NPT review combines

when that was spoken. Can the government say what the Labour

Foreign Secretary said in 2007, my commitment to the vision of a world

free of nuclear weapons is `n didn't. Is this government's vision

of a nuclear free world undhmmed? She spoke of the international

community's clear commitment to a Middle East nuclear weapons free

zone. Instead, Mr Speaker, despite unanimous support... No, I won't

give way... At the last two nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty five-year

review conferences calling for a weapons of mass destruction free

zone across the Middle East... That surely is something we can `ll sign

up to and all support. And H look forward to the Defence Secrdtary's

support for that position when he replies to the debate this dvening.

He's speaking about previous party policy. At the Shadow Cabindt last

Tuesday, there was an agreelent that the party policy will be conveyed by

the frontbench. When will wd hear? I thank my friend for his view, as he

well knows, the party deciddd that it wanted to support the retention

of nuclear weapons. We also decided that we would have a policy review,

which is being undertaken bx my friend the member for Norwich south

at the present time. He's as well aware as I am of what the existing

policy is. He is also aware of the views that I put forward in the

leadership election last ye`r, quite clearly, on my views on nuclear

weapons, hence the fact that we re having a free vote so far as Labour

members of Parliament are concerned, here this evening. Mr Speakdr, other

countries have made serious efforts to... I'll come to you in a moment.

Has made serious efforts... To bring about nuclear disarmament whthin the

terms of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. South

Africa abandoned all of its nuclear programmes after the end of

apartheid and thus brought `bout a nuclear weapons free zone across the

continent. After negotiation, Libya ended all research into nuclear

weapons. The Ukraine at the end of the Cold War gave up its nuclear

weapons, albeit those weapons were under the control of the former

Soviet Union and raterly of Russia. Likewise, Kazakhstan did thd same

which helped to bring about a central Asia nuclear weapons-free

zone and in Latin America, @rgentina and Brazil both gave up thehr

nuclear programmes. I do colmend the Government and other governlents

around the world that negothated seriously with great patience and at

great length with Iran, which helped to encourage Iran to give up its

programme. We should pay trhbute to President Obama for doing that. The

former Conservative Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo said,

"To say we need nuclear weapons in this situation, would imply that

Germany and Italy are trembling in their boots because they don't have

a nuclear deterrent. Which H think is clearly not the case." Is it not

time, Mr Speaker, for us to step up to the plate and promote rapidly

nuclear disarmament. He likd me stood in May 2015 on a partx policy

agreed at the conference for the renewal of continuous at-se`

deterrent. He has a Shadow frontbench and Shadow Cabindt in his

own image, which agreed last week, I understand, to put that polhcy from

the frontbench. Is he going to do it or is it going to be during the

winding up? I thank my friend for the intervention. He is well aware

of what the policy was. He's well aware there's a policy revidw being

undertaken. He's also very well aware of the case that I'm laking

for nuclear disarmament. I'l grateful for his giving way. He will

be aware that there is a currently a multilateral process going on at the

UN, where over 130 countries are negotiating in good faith for a

treaty to ban nuclear weapons. Does he agree with me that this

Government's refusal to even attend let alone take part in that

seriously raises questions `bout their commitment to a world without

nuclear weapons? I think it is a great shame that the Governlent

doesn't attend those negoti`tions and I wish they would, becatse I do

thank the Government for attending the humanitarian effects of war

conference in 2014. I do th`nk them for their participation in the

Non-Proliferation Treaty, btt I think they should go and support the

idea of a worldwide ban on nuclear weapons. Nobody in this House

actually wants nuclear weapons. The debate is about how one gets rid of

them and the way one does it. There are questions too, Mr Speakdr, about

the operational utility of nuclear-armed submarines. I would

ask the minister again, perhaps the Secretary of State can answdr in his

reply, what assessment the Government has made of the hmpact of

underwater drones, surveill`nce of wave patterns and advanced detection

techniques which could make the submarine technology...

THE SPEAKER: Order. Order, Lr Shellbrook, I want you to aspire to

the apogy of statesmanship. Shrieking from your position,

despite your magnificent suht, is not the way to achieve it. Calm

yourself, man. I am trying to help you, even if you don't know it. Mr

Jeremy Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker, account Prime Minister

confirm whether the UK will back proposed nuclear weapons ban treaty,

which I understand will be put before the UN general Assembly in

September, probably before we return to the House, after the sumler

recess. I think that's an ilportant point. Yes, OK. I thank the right

honourable member for giving way. We can agree that nuclear weapons are

truly the most repugnant representens that have ever been

invented by man. The key is invented. We cannot disinvent them.

We can control them and this is what this is all about, controllhng

nuclear weapons. If this is all about controlling them, then,

perhaps we should think for a moment of the obligations we have signed up

to as a nation by signing the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty,

article six of which says ddclared nuclear weapons states, of which we

are one, must take steps towards disarmament and others must not

acquire nuclear weapons. It hasn't been an easy passage. The NPT has

helped to reduce the level of nuclear weapons around the world.

Yes, I'll give way. I thank the honourable gentleman for giving way.

I'm stunned to hear the argtment made from the opposite side on the

Tory benches that you cannot disinvent. You could employ that you

could use for chemical and biological weapons.

The member is absolutely right because we have achieved thd

chemical weapons convention. We have achieved a ban on cluster wdapons.

We have achieved other things around the world by serious, long-term

negotiation. There is obviotsly the question - yes, of course. Ly

honourable friend is very fond of telling us all that party conference

is sovereign. Last year we voted overwhelmingly in favour of

maintenance of the nuclear deterrent. Why aren't we he`ring a

defence of the Government's position from the dispatch box now? Party

policy is also to review our policies, that is why we have

reviews. What I would also say is that we have to look at the issues

of employment, the issues of investment and the necessitx, I

think, of having Government intervention through a defence

diversification agency, as we had under the previous Labour

Government, to support industries that become overreliant on defence

contracts and therefore wish to move into other contracts and other work

as well. The Prime Minister mentioned the unite policy

conference last week, which I also attended that conference. Unite the

union, as do other unions, have members working in all sectors of

hi-tech manufacturing, which of course includes the defence sector,

which of course includes thd development of those submarhnes and

warheads and the nuclear re`ctors that go into the submarines. Their

policy conference, Unite's, endorsed its previous position, which is

opposed to Trident, but wants a Government in place with a proper

diversionification agency. The union has been thinking these things

through. And thinking these things through on a way of maintaining jobs

within that sector, the verx high skills that jobs that are there Our

defence review is being unddrtaken by my friend the member for Norwich

south. I pay tribute to the excellent work done by my friend the

member for Islington south `nd Finsbury in undertaking that review.

Mr Speaker, whatever people's views -

THE SPEAKER: Order. Order. H think the right honourable gentlelan has

signalled an intention to t`ke an intervention. I just make the point

that there's a lot of noise, but at the last reckoning - order. Order.

Order! Order! . Order. I'll tell the honourable gentleman what the

position is and he'll take ht whether he likes it or not. 53

members wish to speak in thhs debate and I want to accommodate mdmbers. I

ask members to take account of that to help each other, that's `ll.

Caroline Flint. Could I ask my right honourable friend, in the l`st

Labour Government, because of our stand on supporting

nonproliferation, as a nucldar deterrent country we were able to

influence the reduction of lany many nuclear warheads around the

world. Does he really think abandoning our position as one of

those countries that hold ntclear weapons we would have had as much

influence without them as whth? We did indeed help to reduce the number

of nuclear warheads. Indeed I attended a number of conferdnces

where British Government representatives were there that made

the point the number of UK warheads had reduce and they encouraged

others to do the same. I talked about the nuclear weapons free zones

around the world. That's a good thing. However, we're into ` step

change where we're saying wd're prepared to spend a very, vdry large

sum of money on the developlent of a new generation of nuclear wdapons. I

draw her attention, I'm surd she's aware of it, to article six of the

NPT which requires us to take steps towards disarmament. That's what it

actually says. So Mr Speaker, in case it's not obvious to thd House,

at the moment, I'm not going to give way any more, I'm running up against