23/01/2017 House of Commons

it. The noes have it. Order. Urgent question. Can I ask the Secretary of

State for defence if he'll make a statement on the test firing of a

Trident nuclear missile in June 2016.

Mr Speaker. In June last year, the Royal Navy conduct aid demonstration

and shake down operation designed to certify HMS Vengeance and her crew

prior to their return to operations. This included a routine unarmed

Trident missile test launch. Contrary to reports in the weekend

press, HMS Vengeance and her crew were successfully tested and

certified as ready to rejoin the operational cycle. We do not comment

on the detail of submarine operations. I can, however, assure

the House that during any test firing, the safety of the crew and

public is paramount and is never compromised. Prior to conducting a

Trident test fire, the United Kingdom strictly add meres to all --

adheres it all relevant treaty obligations, notifying relevant

nations and other interested parties. Here, the chairman of the

Defence Select Committee, the Opposition defence spokesperson and

the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee were informed in advance.

I can assure the House that the capability and effectiveness of the

United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent is not in doubt. The

Government has absolute confidence in our deterrent and in the Royal

Navy crews who protect us and our Nato allies every hour of every day.

Can I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. He will know that I

am one who is a strong believer in this country's independent nuclear

deterrent. In recent decades there have been major inroads made to

transparency of nuclear issues amongst the public. An important

message in terms of maintaining the consensus and support of our

independent nuclear deterrent. Included in that has been the

openness and publicity about the test launches in Florida. Can I ask

the Secretary of State with regard to the latest test, will he, he will

have seen the press at the weekend, the cla claimsthat the missile

Veered off towards the United States. Could he confirm whether

that was the case? Could he tell the House when he was first informed

there was a problem with the test and when his department informed the

then Prime Minister, David Cameron, of the problem? Could he also say

whether it was him or the Prime Minister, David Cameron, at the

time, who took the decision of his department to shelf the customary

practice of pub list sizing the test and ordering a news blackout?

Finally, could he also say what discussions he has had with the

present Prime Minister about this test and why it was not relayed to

Parliament before the debate on successor submarine programme last

July. Can I finish by paying tribute to the members of our armed forces

who for the last 48 years have maintained operation relentless,

which has maintained our continuing at-sea deterrent. I'm grateful to

the honourable gentleman. I do appreciate that he's not only takes

a very close interest in defence and has borne responsibility for the

defence of our country and is a supporter of the deterrent. I have

to say to him, though, that I disagree with him on his call for

greater transparency in these matters. There are very few things

that we cannot discuss openly in Parliament, but the security of our

nuclear deterrent is certainly one of them. It has never been the

practice of governments to give Parliament details of the

demonstration and shake down operations. There have been previous

examples where some publicity has been decided on a case by case

basis, informed by the circumstances at the time and by national security

considerations. # Would my right honourable friend agree with me

there is absolutely no evidence of suss tomorrowic failure anywhere in

the system? And would he confirm that he, like me, has total

confidence in our Trident defences as being both deadly and reliable? I

can certainly confirm that. I repeat to the House that HMS Vengeance

successfully certified and has passed the test that was set and has

therefore rejoined the operational cycle and is part of that

operational cycle today. Mr Speaker, I'm grateful to the Secretary of

State for his answers. But I'm just sorry that it's taken allegations in

a Sunday paper and an urgent question to bring him to Parliament

this afternoon. Let me be clear, we are not asking the Secretary of

State to disclose any sensitive or inappropriate detail. All we want is

clarity and transparency. Because yesterday, the Prime Minister

refused four times on live television to say when she became

aware of the details of this missile test. Today Number Ten admitted that

the Prime Minister was told about this incident as soon as she took

office. Yet when she came to this House on July 18 to call on members

to back the renewal of Britain's nuclear submoo reerns, she did not

say a word, not a single word. Mr Speaker, this is just not good

enough. The British public deserve the facts on a matter as important

as Britons nuclear deterrent. They deserve to hear those fact from

their Prime Minister, not in allegations sprawled across a Sunday

paper. Can I ask the Secretary of State a simple question: Why was

this information deliberately kept from Parliament and the British

public? Who made the decision to keep this incident quiet? Was it his

department or was it Number Ten? Whilst respecting the limits of what

he can disclose, can he set out what investigation his departments has

carried out into what happened in June? And what assurances can he

give there will be no future cover ups on important matters like this.

Mr Speaker, at the heart of this issue is a worrying lack of

transparency and a Prime Minister who's chosen to cover up a serious

incident rather than coming clean with the British public. This House,

and more importantly the British public deserve better. Let me just

be very, very clear, neither I nor the Prime Minister are going to give

operational details of our submarine operations or of the systems and

subsystems that are tested through a demonstration and shake down

operation. She asked me very specifically about the Prime

Minister's knowledge. Let me again be clear, the Prime Minister has

ultimate responsibility for our nuclear deterrent. She is kept

informed as to how the nuclear deterrent is maintained, including

the successful return of HMS Vengeance to the operational cycle.

Is the Secretary of State telling us that nothing went wrong on this

particular launch? While accepting that the nuclear deterrent needs to

be shrouded in secrecy, it also needs to deter. Once stories get out

there that a missile may have failed, isn't it better to be quite

Frank about it, especially if it has no strategic significance, as in

this case, it probably has none. Sir Craig Oliver vehementing denies that

he or any other members of David Cameron's media team ever knew about

the aborted Trident test. Will the Secretary of State tell us when Mr

Cameron was told about it, when he himself was told about it, and will

he accept an invitation to attend the defence committee tomorrow

morning to resolve any outstanding issueser in closed session for --

issues in closed session for some questions if need be? As I've said,

the details of the demonstration and shake down operation I am not going

to discuss publicly on the floor of this House. All I can do is repeat

that HMS Vengeance has successfully been certified again to rejoin the

operational cycle. So far as the Prime Minister is concerned, I think

I've already answered the responsibility of the Prime Minister

and made it very clear that the previous Prime Minister and this

Prime Minister are, of course, were, of course, informed about the

maintenance of the nuclear deterrent and the outcome of the test and the

successful return of HMS Vengeance to the operational cycle. The basic

rule of deterrent is it has to be credible and capable. Given

yesterday's sensational revelations, it's safe to assume that Trident is

neither. Given that one of the UK's nuclear missiles Veered off towards

the United States, it really is an insuggest to our intelligence to try

and claim, as the Government has, that it's Trident's capability and

effectiveness is unquestionable. There is however an equally serious

matter to arise, this the deliberate withholding of information from this

House ahead of crucial Commons vote on the renewal last July. It is

absolutely outrageous that this House had to rely on the leak to a

Sunday newspaper to find out about this and the subsequent cover up.

Account Secretary of State tell me when did he first find out about

this missile failure? Was it he who informered the new Prime Minister

about the failure? And who took the decision not to inform Parliament of

this incident? The honourable gentleman is opposed

to the Trident deterrent that has kept this country safe for so many

years. Let me first of all caution him against believing everything he

has red in the weekend press. Let me repeat to him that this government

is in no doubt about the capability and effectiveness of our deterrent

and would not have asked This House to endorse the principle of the

deterrent and our plans to build four new submarines if there had

been any question about the capability and effectiveness of our

deterrent. Would my right honourable friend agree that secrecy and

transparency are simply incompatible and it is right that every British

and indeed American and French government, our other nuclear

allies, have always put secrecy first in this area? I agree with my

honourable friend. As I said to the House earlier, there are very few

issues that cannot be discussed openly in This House, but the

security of the nuclear deterrent is clearly a prime example of something

that cannot be discussed in detail. Can the Secretary of State confirm

that whether through the notice to Gehrman system or other warning

systems are enemies would have been aware of the failure of this test

and would he agree with me that four members of This House to be able to

debate the merits of Trident or its like-for-like replacement

effectively we need timely and security appropriate information and

that we did not get it in this case? On the first point, the honourable

gentleman may be aware that under our international treaty

obligations, and as funny test-firing does have to be given to

other countries and other interested parties and in the case of the June

test-firing, that was done. I do not agree with this latter point. The

government would not have put the motion in front of This House last

July had it had any doubt about the continuing capability and

effectiveness of the deterrent. Can I remind the House that the Russians

do not just contemplate using nuclear weapons, but they practice

their employment and their exercises? Is it not crucial,

therefore, that we retain our own independent nuclear deterrent to

ensure that our potential enemies, such as Russia, our deterrent and

think twice before they even contemplate using such a weapon of

mass destruction? I am grateful to my honourable friend and that indeed

was the proposition that before this new parliament last July and

endorsed by 472 members of This House against a vote of only 117.

117 including, of course, the Leader of the Opposition. As the government

instigated a bleak enquiry to find out who the source for the Sunday

Times was and will it do so? As I said earlier, I am not confirming

speculation in the weekend press and I would caution the House against

believing everything they have read in the weekend press. Could I ask

the Secretary of State whether the MoD and US partners have shared

information about the test-firing and subsequent evaluation? This will

be important to reassure our service personnel and the public in the

validity of the nuclear deterrent. I understand why my honourable friend

has asked the question, but I am afraid I have to say that it takes

us into the detail of the operation of the nuclear deterrent and I am

not going there. Following on from that, the government continually

refers to Trident as the independent nuclear deterrent it the science in

the malfunction was designed, manufactured and owned by the US

with a US guidance system and leasing arrangements. It isn't an

operational issue to tell us whether he has known that the malfunction

last year was reported at the time today's president, or whether the

new president has been briefed about it and nor who decided to cover it

up, the UK Government or the US. Our Trident nuclear deterrent is

completely operationally independent of the United States and, in our

country, only the Prime Minister can authorise the firing of these

weapons, even if they are employed as part of an overall visual

response. Can I congratulate my right honourable friend in the

approach he has taken on this issue? I think that the whole area of our

independent nuclear deterrent is of crucial importance and I think the

arguments he has made very strongly about not being as open as he might

at times like to be on the operational side is absolutely

correct. I am grateful to my honourable friend. It might well be

that earlier governments in different situations, indeed in more

benevolent times, might have taken different decisions about how much

information they were prepared to reveal about these particular

demonstration and shakedown operations. These are not, of

course, benevolent times and the decision would have taken was not to

release any information about the testing of all the systems and

subsystems involved in the operational cycle of HMS venture. I

think there is no doubt as to why The Member For North East Somerset

wanted to have this in private, not just to keep our Zoo Bridge from the

Russians, but to save the ministers and the Prime Minister the

embarrassment. It is worse than a crime. I have known him long enough

to know he is naturally pugnacious and combative in spirit but that

mustn't elide into impugning the integrity of another honourable

member. He has had his bit of fun, but he must now wash his mouth out,

withdraw those words and put a question, for which the nation will

be grateful. I certainly withdraw an implication that the honourable

member was worried about embarrassment to the Minister. Could

the Minister confirm whether it is the case that in the book the silent

deep there is a full description of a previous firing in 2012. How is it

an operational matter or a security threat merely to ask when the

Minister and when the Prime Minister were made aware of the problem and

why they decided to keep it quiet? On the first point, I have made it

clear that, of course, earlier governments in different

circumstances have taken different decisions not to share details with

Parliament, but to release information publicly about the

completion of these particular tests. We have to take our decision

in the light of the circumstances that prevailed at the time and the

National security considerations. So far as his second question is

concerned, I have made it clear that both I and the Prime Minister are

informed of nuclear matters at all times and, in particular, of the

successful return of HMS vengeance to the operational cycle. I welcome

the approach so far from the Secretary of State. These things

should always be super. Will he speculate with me why it should be

that when the debate last was on renewal, neither to do with Trident

missiles, while the should be any suggestion the Prime Minister would

announce this failure? Well, I think I have already said Mr Speaker. The

government would not have brought the motion before the House last

year had there been any doubt about the safety, the capability or the

effectiveness of the Trident missile system. He is right to remind us

that that vote and the huge majority that it secured, that vote was, of

course, on the principle of our deterrent and the government plan to

renew our four submarines. Mr Speaker, the essence of deterrence

is uncertainty about when or whether or if missiles will be fired. Can I

take it that the purpose of the statement today by the Secretary of

State is that he wishes to add to uncertainty and, therefore, increase

deterrence? Well, to take his question seriously, he is right that

the principle of deterrence, of course, is to leave your allies

uncertain as to the circumstances in which you would employed. I have

simply made clear to the House today that the outcome of the test was a

successful return by HMS vengeance to the operational cycle. I am not

prepared to go into further operational details of the tests

themselves. I welcome the approach by the government to this and I also

thank my right honourable friend for his reassurance of the effectiveness

of the Trident system. I wonder if he could confirm that there have

been 160 successful firings of this missile and that surely it reassure

the British people rather more than the prospect of the Leader of the

Opposition haven't his finger on the button. He is right to draw

attention of the House to the previous testing regime and the

House might want to know that the demonstration and shakedown

operation is critical at intervals for demonstrating the effectiveness

of the deterrent. It comprises a comprehensive series of system and

subsystem tests, as I have said, and it provides a period of intensive

training for the submarine crew. It evaluates the complex weapon system

involved in Trident, including the performance of the crew and it

concludes, each time, with an unarmed missile firing. He HMS

vengeance successfully concluded that shakedown operation. As a

supporter of the deterrent, doesn't the Secretary of State understand

that a leak to a Sunday newspaper followed frankly by government

stonewalling does not enhance support for the deterrent, it

undermines it? I can understand why the honourable gentleman, he is a

supporter of deterrent, why he has said that, but the security of our

deterrent is absolutely paramount at a time like this and whether he

likes it or not, I am not going to respond to speculation about the

test that occurred last June and I am not going to give details of the

particular operation of HMS vengeance during the test. Does my

right honourable friend agree with me that the continuing secrecy of

our nuclear deterrent has kept this free from aggression day in day out

since 1968 and that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the men and

women that operated? I wholeheartedly endorse that. I hope

that would at least be common ground. The nuclear deterrent has

played its part in keeping this country safe through a series of

continuous at sea patrols, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year. I

joined my honourable friend in paying tribute to the crews of all

four of our nuclear submarines. There is now a question about the

effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent. This in itself, is in

terms of what is in The Papers, this undermines our national security. We

need to send a clear message that our deterrent is still able to do

its job. I urge the Secretary of State to accept the invitation of

the chair of the Select Committee, reassure us and the House that our

deterrent is fit for purpose. Let me just reassure the honourable lady

who does follow these matters extremely closely and on the defence

committee, that there is absolutely no doubt about the effectiveness of

our deterrent and, again, had the government had any doubts about the

continuing capability or effectiveness of the deterrent it

would not have brought the motion before the House last July. Would my

right honourable friend agree with me that not only was the Prime

Minister absolutely right not to discuss this on national television,

but that a 90% success rate in testing for a weapon system is

phenomenal and that once it has been tested, all but that go out are

fully operational and 100% capable and this is something we should a

huge tribute to Her Majesty's Royal My honourable friend is right to

draw attention to the importance of these tests and to also hint at the

complexity of the tests themselves, of the systems and the subsystems

that are involved in maintaining the Trident deterrent. I think it is to

the dread it of the crew of HMS Vengeance, they were able to

complete these tests last July and now take their part again in the

operational cycle. Since the minister's not prepared to confirm

very much at all, can I ask him whether he would confirm that each

test of a Trident missile costs at least ?17 million. No, I'm not able

to confirm that either. Thank you Mr Speaker, it is regrettable that the

phrase cover up has been used concerning this, when this concerns

our national security. Would my right honourable friend agree with

me, if things go wrong, the last things you do is give succour to the

enemy by telling them that is the case? I agree with my honourable

friend. It is important that we maintain the secrecy of our

deterrent and it is important for us the, for our adversaries to

understand that we attach the paramount importance to making sure

the operational details of the deterrent are as closely guarded as

possible. I look forward it meeting with the Secretary of State tomorrow

at the defence committee if he's available, would he not agree with

me that credibility lies at the heart of this urgent question today.

Will there be an official inquiry into the malfunction and overall

credibility of how the UK would deliver its weapons of mass

destruction and will there be a further inquiry by the PM could not

answer a question on four separate occasions on the Andrew Marr Show

yesterday. Our nation really does deserve better as does our serving

personnel On the first point, I am uponering the invitation that --

pondering the invitation that I've received to answer questions again

tomorrow as fully as I've been answering them today. I will give

that... LAUGHTER

I will give that further thought. The Prime Minister, of course, did

answer questions yesterday. She didn't give the answer that the

honourable gentleman may have wanted. But she did answer that

question. I want again to be clear with the House, the Prime Minister

who retains the ultimate responsibility and an awesome one at

that for our deterrent, is kept informed as to how that deterrent is

maintained and was informed, of course, as her predecessor was of

the return of HMS Vengeance, the successful return of HMS Vengeance

to the operational cycle. As these missiles get older there are bound

to be increasing maintenance programme costs as well as costs

from I merging and as yet unforeseen threats to the system. What is the

United Kingdom's exposure to these costs of maintaining and protecting

the Trident missile system this side of 2060? My honourable friend draws

attention to the relative age of the Trident system, which I know he's

had some doubts about in the past and probably continues today. But

that is one of the reasons why these tests are conducted every four or

five years, to make sure that our submarines are able to fire the

Trident missile when they return from periods of long maintenance. On

the very specific question, perhaps my honourable friend would allow me

to write to him. As an accident is the most likely cause of the nuclear

catastrophe that we all fear, either by misunderstandings between the

nations or because of human error or because of technical failure. Now

President Trump has his impulsive finger on the nuclear button,

shouldn't our prime course now be to persuade him not to encourage South

Korea, Japan and other small nations to acquire nuclear weapons, thus

magnifying the risk of all by accident.

THE SPEAKER: Especially in relation to Trident testing. I'll do my best

but that might be quite hard. I hope you'll join me with Mr Speaker in

congratulating President Trump on his inauguration and say how much

our Prime Minister looks forward to meeting him later this week. And

discussing the importance of our Nato alliance to both our countries

and the importance of the nuclear deterrent within that Nato alliance.

THE SPEAKER: What the Secretary of State has merit but I was more

inclined to congratulate the young gentleman on the ink newt of his

question. Ingenuity? This deterrent has brought us not only peace since

1968 and rot tection of western Europe but is congrunt as our

position as a permanent five member of Nato. Isn't this all in line with

unicks complaining about the cost of Viagra. A gree.

THE SPEAKER: I am sure it went down very well at the Oxford union.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister was asked nothing that

compromised security, she was asked what she knew and her refusal to

answer that four times is an embarrassment not just to the

Government but to the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State

not understand at a time when the Government is piking cuts in

virtually all areas that to not deal with this misfiring will not make

people believe that the huge price tag of Trident is worth it and that

needs to be addressed. We've had this debate last July in this -- and

this House decided by an overwhelming majority committed to

the plan to build the four new submarines. I've made the Prime

Minister's position extremely clear. She has the responsibility for the

deterrent. She is coped informed as to how that -- kept informed as to

how that nuclear deterrent is maintained including the successful

return of HMS Vengeance to the operational cycle. Like myy of my

constituents -- many of my constituents, I live in the shadow

of a nuclear facility. I want to be certain that those weapons at every

stage of their development are tested to the utmost, even to the

point of failure. Will my right honourable friend confirm those

tests should be secret. For them not to be secret gives aid to those who

mean us harm. I agree with my honourable friend that the vital

importance of keeping this work secret and let me also pay tribute

to the secret work that is done by his constituents working at

Aldermarston and you are field alongside as part of the -- burfield

alongside as part of the importance of verifying the detent. Having been

in Florida for the 2009 firing I know this is not the first time

there's been a media blackout to suit a particular Government's

agenda. That firing was of course carried out by my own husband. The

MoD press statement says that the crew were successfully tested. What

about the missile? How can the nuclear deterrent be certified when

the system has catastrophicically failed? As I said the honourable

lady and I know she has family connections in this area, must not

believe everything she read in the newspapers yesterday. I am not going

into particular operational details, except to confirm that HMS Vengeance

successfully concluded her demonstration and shake down

operation. Mr Speaker, there say huge difference between -- there is

a huge difference between subjects which are of interest to the public

and things in the public interest. Would my right honourable friend

agree with me, whilst intelligence operations, counter-terrorism

operations and nuclear submarine operations are of massive interest

to the public, it is not in the public interest or national interest

to discuss them openly, either in in place or any other place. I

completely agree with my honourable friend. The Secretary of State has

advised us not to believe everything we read in the Sunday newspapers,

but should we believe the White House official who while we've been

sitting here debating has confirmed to CNN that the missile did

autoself-destruct off the coast of Florida and if that is the case, why

is the British Parliament and the British public the last people to

know? It's as I've said, we do not in this House, nor has any previous

Government given operational details of the demonstration and shake down

operation of one of our submarines conducting a test with one of our

Trident missiles. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that a most

important conclusion from this particular missile test is that our

excellent submariners or HMS Vengeance prove they can deal with

unexpected challenges with a ballistic missile system known to be

the most reliable in the world. That should be of enormous reassurance to

the British people. I congrape late the crew on completing their test

and -- congratulate the crew on completing their test and returning

to the operational cycle of the submarines that discharge this duty

on our behalf. But again, I'm not going into operational details. How

can this be an independent nuclear deterrent if on the one hand, Donald

Trump, the President of the United States of America, a man that is

thick as two short planks is given the information and the whole of the

Opposition benches are not allowed it? How can it be independent? The

honourable gentleman knows very well the nuclear deterrent that has

served us so well is independent because its operational control

rests with our Prime Minister not with the President of the United

States. Can my right honourable friend confirm that the full debate

we had in this place six months ago, on July 18, and which was endorsed

by 472 right honourable friends and members was on the principle of our

deterrents and replacing the vanguard class boats, it was not on

a routine test. I can confirm that. It was an overwhelming majority. It

has allowed us now to proceed to start with the construction of the

submarines and I had the honour to cut steel on the first of those four

submarines in October of last year. But I do repeat to the House, had

the Government any doubt at this time of the safety, capability or

effectiveness of our nuclear deterrent, it would not have brought

the motion before the House. Can the Secretary of State tell us what

further Trident missile tests are planned and will he keep the House

updated on the outcome of future tests? These particular

demonstration and shake down operations take place when each of

our submarines emerges from a period of long-term maintenance. So they

tend to take place every four or five years. It would follow from

that there is not likely to be another one in the immediate future.

As, on this occasion, we will of course keep the, keep interested

parties informed as we wrote to the chairman of the defence committee,

the Shadow defence spokesman and the chairman of the Public Accounts

Committee. In certain theatres of war such as

Ukraine, Russia has been testing and refining its electronic and cyber

warfare techniques. I'm not blaming Russia for this interdent, but will

this be taken against possible countermeasures? Yes, I was in

Ukraine last week, discussing this amongst other matters. Of course, we

are taking very good care to ensure that our deterrent is properly

protected against any new technologies that our adversaries

might get hold of. Does the minister not realise because the Trident

programme was approved by the House as a whole, it doesn't mean there

after there should be total silence, either from members of Parliament or

the media. As far as the failed test is concerned, this is not ironical,

but if the information had been given at the time and there had been

no cover up, there would be far less publicity for what is taking place

now. I don't accept that. Previous governments that he supported in

this House have not given details, operational details of previous

demonstration and shake down operations that comprise the major

tests of the systems and subsystems that we've been dealing with today.

Can I commend the reticence of my right honourable friend to get drawn

into this and the reticence of the prime ministers which was entirely

appropriate given the subject at issue. Isn't it ironic to hear

honourable and right honourable members complaining about the

possible lack of credibility of the deterrent and some them don't

actually believe in the doctrine of deterrence at all and it would be

unwise of the Russians or any other potential adversaries to suggest

they can take the risk of invading this or that country on the basis

that we might have in misfire of one of our missiles. Again, I agree with

my honourable friend and we should not forget that there were many in

that particular debate to take the opposite view that we no longer

needed the deterrent. I am pleased that the majority, the overwhelming

majority, of This House from both sides of This House that voted in

favour of renewing the deterrent that has kept us safe for so long.

We now know, despite a refusal to answer on the Andrew Marshall, that

the Prime Minister did know about this. What specific discussions took

place with the Prime Minister about whether to disclose this will

function to Parliament, when it did these discussions take place and how

was it determined it should not be shared and does realise how

inadequate his responses today have been in relation to This House and

to be watching public? It might be that she and members of the watching

public might want and would like to know further operational details of

our nuclear deterrent, but I am not going to assist them. So far as her

specific programme is concerned, this promised, as a predecessor, is

kept informed as to how the nuclear deterrent is maintained and was

fully aware of the successful return of HMS Vengeance to the operational

cycle. As my right honourable friend followed the argument given by some

opposite that perhaps we would have voted differently had this

information being given back in July? Can I tell my right honourable

friend. That is the case? We would not have been influenced by the

result of one out of many tests. Indeed, is there anyone on this side

of the House who would have voted differently had this information

come out? No. I haven't confirmed any information today and have been

careful to try not to confirm any particular information today, except

to one of the House repeatedly not to believe everything that was in

the newspapers yesterday. He is right to remind us that the vote in

July was on the principle of the deterrent and our plans to replace

the current boats with the four new dreadnought submarines. When we

voted in July last year on funding Trident, unfortunately the official

opposition was split. Now, properly informed scrutiny is vital to the

effective and accountable operation of his Department. Is he satisfied

with the level of scrutiny by the official opposition on this matter?

I have been disappointed for some time in the scrutiny of the official

opposition but perhaps my fifth defence Shadow will improve on the

record of her four predecessors. I am sure she will. There is clearly a

balance to be struck. Parliament is rightly keen to know details of the

expenditure involved in replacing the four submarines and that was a

big part of the debate and we will make sure that the Defence Select

Committee and the Public Accounts Committee are kept fully informed as

the board replacement programme continues. Will know of my special

interest in the Royal Navy. Like many of my constituents. With over

160 successful Trident missile tests, isn't it ridiculous for some

people to be claiming that this system does not work? Well, let me

reassure my honourable friend who does take a close interest in these

matters, that the Trident system does work and we are in absolutely

no doubt about its capability and its effectiveness. It will come as

no surprise to the Secretary of State for those of us who live

within the blast zone of fast lane, but we do not share the Secretary of

State's confidence. If he has absolute confidence in the

capabilities of HMS Vengeance and the system, what steps is his

Department taken to rectify the error that caused the aborted launch

itself? As I have already said, HMS Vengeance completed its

demonstration and shakedown operation successfully, otherwise it

would not have been able to rejoin the four broad operational cycle.

Good my right honourable friend confirm that while Devonport

dockyard in my constituency was responsible for the refitting and

refuelling of HMS Vengeance, the Dock Yard is not responsible for the

missiles and weaponry as some ill informed people might think? Yes, I

can confirm that. Thank you Mr Speaker, so far today we have had a

Secretary of State who has told me he doesn't believe in greater

transparency and his backbenchers agree with them. The Prime Minister,

if this test was successful, why did the promise to not answer that

yesterday? I don't understand how he can tell us everything is OK, when

this generation of Trident is not good enough. Our constituents demand

an enquiry. The honourable gentleman and I disagree. I do not believe in

greater transparency in This House when it comes to our nuclear

deterrent. With a resurgent Russia and an unstable world, would the

Secretary of State agree with me that nothing would have heard in the

exchange today undermine the clear rationale for the renewal of our

continuous at the nuclear deterrent to secure the long-term security of

our country? The security of the deterrent and its effectiveness is

underlined by the testing and shakedown programme when these boats

come out of their long-term refit and are being tested again to see

whether they are fit and ready to rejoin the operational cycle. That

is what HMS Vengeance has now done. Doesn't the Secretary of State's

character -- don't tell approach make no sense at all, given that

with the reports we have had, or American and abroad will certainly

be given full details of what happened around this test and that

his stonewalling here does nothing to strengthen our security and

everything to undermine the credibility of This House? This is

our deterrent, carried by our submarines and the secrecy that we

rightly put round it is in our national interest. Would my right

honourable friend agreed that ever since Clement Attlee sought our

first nuclear deterrent without a debate in Parliament, without even a

debate within the Labour Party, successive responsible governments

have always treated these issues with the utmost discretion and we

must not allow the present tortured relationship between the Labour

Party and the nuclear deterrent to change that? I do agree with that.

Previous governments have been very careful to maintain the secrecy of

the deterrent and I think it is important we keep to that. Have

there been any other missile test failures of this type the government

has chosen not to share with the House of Commons? Or should I watch

a White House briefing if I want that information? I am not

confirming particular details of the operation and testing of the various

systems and subsystems involved must all I Kunduz remind the gentleman

that this demonstration and shakedown operation was concluded

successfully, along HMS Vengeance to take it apart now in the four boat

operational cycle. Mr Speaker, to clear up any confusion, can the

Secretary of State share with us, has there been any change in the

approach of the government to informing the sounds of this

demonstration and shakedown operation? No, there hasn't.

Previous governments have not given details, have not given details, of

previous demonstration and shakedown operations to Parliament. The

replacement of the Trident submarine system does not only enjoyed the

support of the majority of members of parliament, it also enjoys the

support of the majority of people in every one of the four nations of the

United Kingdom. On that basis, does the Secretary of State recognise

that the wake this information is coming out, the fact that in the

last hour, Moore has been revealed by the US defence Department than in

this Parliament massively undermined that confidence that we need the

public to have inconsistent? I do not think members of the public

agree and I do not agree. They understand that the effectiveness of

the deterrent does depend on the secrecy that is needed regarding the

detail of that operation. Does might right honourable friend agree with

me that the continuing effectiveness of the system depends upon its

routine testing question mark this is not a secret. A spokesperson for

the opposition was informed in advance. What does damage national

security is to give a running commentary on the success or

otherwise of those tests. I agree with Mike honourable friend. Members

of This House, senior members of This House, were informed of the

forthcoming demonstration and shakedown operation which, as I have

described, involves a series of very complex tests of all the different

systems and subsystems involved. But operation was concluded

successfully. What the Secretary of State has been saying today is that

members of the public in this country have no right to know about

a nuclear missile miss firing, but the people of America and the people

elected as politicians in America do. How does he believe that that

incontinence is any in this system? This is our deterrent, carrying our

missile and it is for us to decide its level of security. That is why I

am not going in to particular operational details and, again, I

caution the honourable gentleman against believing everything he has

been reading in the weekend newspapers. If there is an

investigation into the successful certification of HMS Vengeance last

year, can I have assurances from my right honourable friend, the Defence

Secretary, but that information will remain classified for the sake of

British national security? It will not suddenly remain classified, it

will remain top secret. I information regarding our nuclear

deterrent properly should. The Prime Minister is responsible for our

deterrent and yet again she is not here to account to this Parliament

or to reassure the public or our allies. The Secretary of State has

been asked a times about who knew what and when, what it was the

promised are told, what it was the former promise to told and what it

was a good question I am not asking for operational details, I am asking

for dates. The question was addressed at the honourable

gentleman to me, which is why I am here answering. So far of the Prime

Minister is concerned, I made it clear that both prime ministers who

had separately ultimate responsibility for the nuclear

deterrent -- deterrent, both are kept fully informed as to how that

deterrent is maintained and both were made aware of the successful

return of HMS Vengeance to the operational cycle. Does my right

honourable friend agree with Steve Aiken, a former experienced

submarine commander, she told the BBC this morning that this makes no

difference to the case for renewal and the government is correct in not

commenting on matters which could prejudice our national defence and

certainly not on live television? I completely agree with that. Given

that the Russians had to be informed in advance of this test and given he

clearly would have the capability to monitor the test is he seriously

trying to tell us that our enemies and allies can know what happened,

but this democratically elected chamber must be kept in the dark?

The notice under our international treaty obligations, notice of a

future test firing is given to other nuclear powers, including, in this

instance, to France and, as he says, to Russia. Operational details are

obviously not disclosed. Without reference to any particular test and

the necessary security that must surround each, can he confirm that

the very point of this testing process is to both certified the

crews of Her Majesty's submarines but also to allow Lockheed Martin to

maximise the reliability and lethality of this weapon system?

Yes in essence that's right. The system is tested to ensure the

complex parts and various systems involved are fully understood and

that the crew of the submarine concerned are ready to be able to

operate it. That operation was, as I've said, several times now,

successfully concluded. Mayion of us on these benches share the Defence

Secretary's commitment to the deterrent and for that matter his

concern about national security, but the logic of what the Secretary of

State has said to us today is that there has been a security breach,

it's been this weekend. American officials are now briefing CNN and

British officials secretly are briefing the Guard yand and the

Sunday Times, surely according to his own logic there must be now be a

full investigation in Certainly we deplore the leakage of any

information about the nuclear deterrent. But it is not for me to

comment on what may or may not be happening or said by the United

States administration. This is our submarine, our deterrent. It is our

responsibility to apply to it the very highest security

classification. Would my right honourable friend confirm that no

government has ever routinely reported an operational matters

relating to our nuclear deterrent at any time because to do so would not

only be irresponsible it would also be dangerous? That is absolutely

correct. Mr Speaker, he says media publicity is decided on a case by

case basis, so was the decision not to publicise this test taken before

or after the test? Was any footage taken of the test and were any

journalists present in case the decision was made to publicise it?

The decision on what publicity to give particular tests, tests that

take place every four or five years, is decided by the Government of the

day in the light of the circumstances of each test and in

the light of the national security considerations that apply at that

particular time. They, of course, influence the decision that was

taken last June. Since we have to notify other nuclear powers every

time a missile test takes place, the number is not unknown to them. So

can the Secretary of State confirm to the House that there have been

160 tests of the Trident missile system and if he can, won't that

give our constituents full confidence that the system provides

us the deterrent that we need? I think my honourable friend is

broadly correct about the number, but if I'm wrong about that I hope

he will allow me to write to him and give him the correct figure. The

Government has every confidence in the Trident deterrent system. Again,

we would not have brought the motion before the House if we'd any doubt

about it. Despite the Secretary of State's refusal to clarify, it is

commonly understood that the missile went the wrong way. Now I'm no

expert, but that strikes me as a major flaw. And friendly fire with a

nuclear weapon is not exactly what the Secretary of State might be

looking for. Can the Secretary of State at least tell us whether the

new Trident missiles will have better guidance systems? I'm not

able to confirm the speculation in which the honourable lady is

indulging about the root of the missile that was fired. Would the

Secretary of State agree with me that much as there is no doubt of

the valour of the men and women of the Royal Navy who keep us safe,

that Coke wally we must use discretion when talking about

weapons systems they use to keep us safe? Absolutely. I think we owe it

to those crews on whom an obligation of secrecy is placed, indeed for

their livetime, we owe it to them not to break the security

classification of the information surrounding the deterrent or to

treat that information in any frivolous way. The Secretary of

State has been quizzed by members for over an hour now. I've not heard

any member ask for any operational details that might compromise

national security. We simply want to know - was this test successful or

not? And his refusal to answer that question when his counterpart across

the Atlantic is answering it, surely is giving credence to the concerns

that it was not successful and as well as not being a deterrent the

system simply may not work. I think when the honourable gentleman reads

the account of today's proceedings he will see that I have been asked

for all kinds of different operational details, but let me

repeat to him that the demonstration and shake down operation of which

this was one of a number of tests was concluded sat factorily. Many

residents of my constituency, some of whom live within 13 miles of

Faslane, are extremely angry because of this Government's lack of

transparency on this crucial matter. Can the Secretary of State ensure

the House that any significant problem relating to future test

firing will be reported to the House at his earliest convenience or do

with ehave to wait for the Sunday Times to confirm it? I those who

work on our behalf at Faslane are very much aware of the importance of

the secrecy with which they naturally have to concur. They

understand that obligation. Even though he doesn't, I think they too

support the importance of the deterrent.

THE SPEAKER: Order. Well, I shall take this point of order from the

originator of the urgent question if it relates exclusively to the

matters under discussion. Not in the attempt to continue the schaengs but

new information with which the honourable gentleman thinks the

House should be favoured. Point of order. It has become apparent

throughout this debate that there are US officials now briefing more

detail than has been given by the Secretary of State today. He's

hidden behind secrecy for the demonstration shake down, even

though his own department authorised a book last year giving a full

description of what happens. The chair of the Select Committee made a

generous offer I thought to actually offer him to come before them. How

can Parliament actually hold this department to account for this

issue, if it is not going to even take up the generous offer which the

right honourable gentleman has made? THE SPEAKER: I thank the honourable

gentleman for his point of order. I would simply say that the Secretary

of State will have heard the right honourable gentleman the chair of

the Select Committee, extremely diligent and extraordinarily

intelligence and persistent chair of the Select Committee, whom I've

known a damn sight longer than the Secretary of State has known. How

the Secretary of State wants to deal with the right honourable member is

entirely a matter for his judgment to exercise to the best of his

ability. We'll leave it there for now. To pick a fight with the

chairman of the Select Committee is a rather stupid thing to do.

THE SPEAKER: Order. Statement the Secretary of State for business,

energy and industrial strategy. Thank you Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker,

this is a hugely important moment for the United Kingdom. A moment

when we must prepare a new strategy to earn a prosperous living in the

years ahead. Leaving the European Union allows and requires Britain to

make long-term decisions about our economic future. We will, of course,

be ambitious in the upcoming negotiations and will secure the

best possible access tore firms to trade with and trade in the European

market. The competitiveness of our own economy is important. That's why

the Government is committed to a modern industrial strategy. Its

objective is to improve living standards and economic growth by

increasing productivity and driving growth across the whole country.

Today's green paper is part of an open dialogue to develop this

strategy as the enduring foundation of an economy that works for

everyone. Now Mr Speaker, we start from a position of considerable

strength. We are the fifth biggest economy in the world, despite having

the 22nd highest population. We've achieved higher levels of employment

than ever before in our history, in fact 2. 7 million more than in 2010.

We have businesses, research institutions and cultural

achievements at the very forefront of global excellence. For all these

reasons, we attract investment and talented individuals from around the

world. But there are challenges that Britain must face up to now and in

the years ahead. The first is to build on those strengths and to

extend that excellence into the future. British excellence in key

technologies, in professions, in research disciplines and

institutions provide us with crucial competitive advantages. But we can't

take them for granted. If other countries invest more in research

and development and we don't, then we Cabinet expect -- can't expect to

keep our technological lead in key sectors. The same goes for our

record, as Europe's leading destination for inward investment or

opposition as a centre for finance. Our competitors are upgrading

infrastructure networks and reforming systems of governance. We

too must strive for improvement. In industrial sectors from automotive

and aerospace to financial and professional serviced and the

creative industries, the UK has a global reputation, but the

competition for new investment is fierce and unending. The conditions

that have allowed UK investment destinations to succeed include the

availability of supportive research programmes, relevant skills in local

labour markets and capable supply chains. For continuing success,

these foundations must be main tands and strengthened. -- maintained. The

second challenge to make sure that we work to close the gap between our

industries places and people and those that are less productive. For

the global excellence of the UK's best companies, industries and

places we have too many who lie behind the leaders. That's why on

average workers in France, Germany and the United States produce about

as much in five days as UK workers - as much in four days as UK workers

do in five. It's why despite having the most prosperous local economy in

northern Europe in Central London, we also have 12 of the 20 poorest

among our closest neighbours. We must address these long tales of

underperformance if we are to ensure sustainable growth in living

standards. To do so is a huge opportunity for the whole nation to

benefit from improved productivity, which is to say earning power in all

parts of the country. The third challenge is to make the UK one of

the most competitive places in the world to start or to grow a

business. A fatal flaw of 1970s-style industrial strategies

was their dominant focus on existing industries and the companies within

them. Then mostly the bigger firms. Too often they became strategies of

incumbency. It's worth noting that many of the most important companies

in the world today didn't eeb exist 25 years ago. Unlike in the past,

industrial strategy must be about creating the right conditions for

new and growing enterprise to thrive not protecting the position of

incombens. To meet these challenges, we've identified ten pillars around

which the strategy is structured. That is to say, ten areas of action

to drive growth across the economy and in every part of the country. To

invest in science, research and innovation, to further develop our

skills, to upgrate infrastructure, to support businesses to start and

grow, to improve public procurement, to encourage trade and investment,

to deliver affordable energy and clean growth, to cultivate world

leading sectors, to drive growth across all parts of the country. And

to create the right institutions to bring together sectors and places.

Across all these areas, the Government is taking strategic

decisions to keep British business on the front foot. For instance, the

go ahead for major upgrades to infrastructure, such as Heathrow,

and high speed two, in the Autumn Statement, the biggest inacross in

research and development spending since 1979. In conjunction with

today's green paper, we're launching a range of further measures. They

include a gnaw preach to enabling existing and emerging sectors to

grow through sector deals with reviews taking place regarding life

sciences, ultralow emission vehicles, industrial digitalisation,

nukeler and creative industries. To decide on the priority challenges

for the new industrial strategy challenge fund and to embark On Tour

overall of technical education, club capital funding to set up new ibs

tugss of technology, to deliver education in science. In a world

containing uncertainty, public policy should aim to be a

counterforce for stability not to be an additional source of

unpredictability. Our aim is to establish an industrial strategy for

the long torm, to provide a policy framework against which major public

and private sector investment decisions can be made about

confidence. It's vital that the development of our strategy should

take place with and not just for British enterprise. The full

involvement of innovators, investors, job creators, workers and

consumers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, is the

only base is on which we can produce an enduring proemgra of action.

That's why this is a green paper, a set of proposals for discussion and

consideration and an invitation to all to contribute collaboratively to

their development. Mr Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.

Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you to the Secretary of State for

his statement on at this location. Mr Deputy Speaker, today would be a

moment this day if it was indeed the day that the Conservative Party

finally broke free of the free market fundamentalism that has

dogged them and of the country for decades. Will the Secretary of State

tell us whether the new, active role for the state means the government

is abandoning the approach of the last Prime Minister and Chancellor

and his predecessor who banned the term industrial strategy from the

previous Department? If so, I will make clear at the outset, that we

welcome that, alongside the good intentions set out in the Green

Paper today. The question is whether the details will live up to them.

For example, action and skills will be welcomed given the challenges

provided by automation and the pace of technological challenge and

change. This government have already cut adult education by more than ?1

billion. Can the Secretary of State is then how ?170 million of one-off

capital spending can even begin to close the skills gap? Nor will the

government be equipped to support an industrial strategy if his

predecessor's cuts are implemented. Can he confirm the 2020 project has

now been thrown into the bin along with the rest of his predecessor's

legacy? He sets of the goal of developing a competitive edge in

industries of the future, but how does he reconcile this with his

government's plan to privatise the green investment bank? If the

Secretary of State is serious about tackling the product of the crisis,

will he finally bring investment in R and infrastructure in line with

the Secretary of State promise a fundamental rethink of business

rates which many businesses say would help them much more than and

other single measure? And does he agree that a successful industrial

strategy must include partnership and cooperation with the workforce?

Yet the Green Paper doesn't mention trade unions once. Surely now is the

time to promise that the toxic trade union Act will be repealed. Steel is

a critical sector for our future but it is only mentioned once. Will he

commit to implement the recommendations on procurement and

supply chains contained in the all-party Parliamentary group on the

out today? Because we cannot let our focus to high-tech manufacturing, Mr

Deputy Speaker. An industrial strategy that narrows its focus to a

future was sectors will let them the majority of businesses in this

country and the people they employ. Can he tell us what this industrial

strategy will do for small and medium enterprises who are huge

employers for financial services which are our main exporters, for

foundation industries or retail outlets that shape our high streets

up and down the country? Finally, there is a glaring inconsistency

between the noble aims paper and the threats made by the Prime Minister

to turn Britain into an offshore tax haven if she feels in her Brexit

negotiations. The industrial strategy has consisted of one of the

made in secret with Nissan. If that be didn't last six months, how can

business be confident of the other commitments in this Green Paper? It

is often said, correctly, that an industrial strategy is a long-term

project and that is what that must outlast particular governments. I

can put our support for its broad aims from this side of the chamber,

but I feel compelled to ask, can the Secretary of State can't on the same

from his own side? When we debated the industrial strategy here one of

his own honourable friends said they had two problems with it, one was

industrial and the other was strategy. I hope the Secretary of

State faces down such attitudes because now is not the time for half

measures, Mr Speaker. The BBC reported this morning that the

government want to be in the driving seat but not up to hands on the way.

I look members opposite do not like safety legislation, but that is not

an approach I would recommend if you keep making U-turns. If the

Secretary of State and himself isolated in the coming months, my

party will be happy to help. We too are ambitious for a proper

industrial strategy, but it will only succeed if the means match at

the end. Thank you very much indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is true that

an industrial strategy that wants to help all parts of the United

Kingdom, I look forward to engagement with colleagues on all

sides of the House you can represent the views of their constituencies. I

have to say, I find myself relieved that the honourable gentleman is so

grudging in his support for this, given that the last time he appeared

at the dispatch box he said, and I quote, we on this side of the House

the public good, Private bad. A disastrous signal to the investors

that we want to invest in this country. I am pleased to be on the

other side of that particular argument. When it comes to the

points and the questions that he made, the commitment to transforming

our technical education is one of the things that has been most widely

welcomed by the business community up and down the country today. Given

that this is a Green Paper, it is highly unusual for a Green Paper to

commit any funds. This is about the consultation on the direction and

the fact that the Chancellor has announced ?170 million for Institute

of Technology is a great step forward. In terms of research and

development, he asks about increasing the level of research and

development, he might have missed when I said, in which the Chancellor

has committed the biggest increase in research and development since

1979. 1979, I recall as a period that included several years of

Labour government, so by implication, it was a big increase

that took place during the 13 years of Labour government. On business

rates, we on this side of the House are legislating, putting forward

legislation, this afternoon to have 100% retention of business rates by

local councils so the interest of local businesses and the councils

are aligned. He asks about the workforce. I was clear that the

consultation is with employees as well and I am looking forward to a

roundtable with the trade union Congress and its member

organisations and Steve. Honesty he will see in the paper and approach

to sector deals. I have already met with the chief executives of the

steel companies and I am about to meet with the trade unions and look

forward to that being one of the deals that is being put forward. He

asks about involving small business. I should say that the chairman of

the Federation of Small Businesses today has said the FSB has

appreciated being part of the discussions with Business Secretary

to ship the industrial strategy and it fits well with the small business

community. It carries their endorsement. As far as the

honourable gentleman's position on the fiscal arithmetic goes, he

should reflect on the fact that the first foundation of any credible

industrial strategy is confidence in the public finances that were left

in such a disastrous state during the time that he was in government.

As far as the unanimity of purpose goes, as far as the industrial

strategy goes, as far as I understand from the port in recent

days, he is having a consultation with himself about whether he can

support his own party's position and trigger Article 50. In terms of the

consultation we are engaged in, we will be looking forward to responses

from all parts of the House as we form a strategy for the years ahead.

Can I congratulate my friend on an intelligent approach set out in this

Green Paper, building on what has been achieved over the last six

years, but taking it much further in skills, signs and in the woods and

powerhouse. Can I ask about universities sector which, of

course, is a jewel in the crown of British industry and stop the new

sector will be opened up just as in the 19th and 20th century we opened

up universities to the arrival of London University and the redbrick

universities. It now faces opposition in the House of Lords

from people who represent the existing players and that sector.

Will he reassure me he will see off proposition? Let me say to my

honourable friend that he will see in the approach we are sitting

forward here a vigorous continuation of many of the measures, such as the

northern powerhouse, that he championed in his time in government

that is making such a big difference in the north and in other parts of

the country. I can confirm that, with my honourable friend and our

colleagues in the House of Lords, we will drive the reforms that have

proven so successful in the past in expanding the institutions that

contribute to our higher educational excellence. The standard and is

standing of higher education in this country has never been higher and

that is a reflection of the sounds of the policies pursued in recent

years. Can I give a cautious welcome to this proposal. I think it is on

us in some ways in its reflection of the state of the economy, in other

ways it is brutally honest in terms of the problems such as the regional

disparity and the problem of productivity. It recognises some

successful sectors, automotive, aviation and Aberdeen as an oil and

gas hob. In terms of these problems, which are not new, how can he ensure

these same mistakes are not repeated and in support of new industries,

how will he ensure existing ones are not sacrificed in that process

question mark when it comes to research and development, the new

money that has been allocated, can he confirm that will be in addition

to anything that would have come from the European Union and will

give long-term commitment to match European Union funding? Can he

outlined how much of that spending will be outside of London and the

south-east Finland? In terms of regional disparities and EU

structural funds, imagine how much worse that regional disparity would

have been without those funding streams. Can he commit to long-term

replacement for those funds? When it comes to renewables and carbon

capture and storage, you will not be surprised I am disappointed by the

lack of ambition in what will be an industry worth hundreds of billions,

if not trillions, of dollars in the near future. When it comes to

sectoral dealers, will he consider one for renewables and will he work

with the Scottish Government in terms of how that can be done in

Scotland? Access to finance is identified as a problem, I shared

the concerns about the green investment bank, it is short-sighted

to sell off when one of the key industry sectors need access to

funding and that is the perfect vehicle to do it. Can I ask about

the consultation and how this process will work with the devolved

governments? Finally, however that this industrial strategy might be,

we have to accept that the biggest threat to the Scottish economy and

the UK economy is a lack of access to the markets and the skilled

people that come through our EU membership. Will he give serious

consideration to the Scottish Government plans that would see

Scotland maintain its membership of the European single market? Can I

thank the honourable gentleman for his thoughtful opening remarks and I

am impressed he has got to page 91 already in this document. It shows

his diligence. He is right in saying this is brutally honest. If you are

going to look to the future and have an industrial strategy that reflects

on the challenges that we have then you need to be clear eyed about it

and, when it comes to the force of technical education, for example,

when it comes to the imbalances that we have, some very prosperous areas,

some that can catch up, then it is right to be ambitious. When it comes

to research and development of the honourable gentleman mentioned, the

money the Chancellor announced in the Autumn Statement was separate

from whatever might be decided on the European funds. It was

independently granted and is available to universities and

research institutions through that. The consultation on how that money

is spent is part of the consultation on this exercise. It is for research

and development and one of the points we make is that we have often

been excellent at producing brilliant new ideas, but less

successful at commercialising them. So, to push further on how we can

translate good ideas into practice is a very important feature of that.

He mentions renewables, very important in Scotland, of course.

The emissions reduction plan that is in preparation at the moment will

address that particularly, but the commitment that we have in a chapter

of the Green Paper on the green economy has a big commitment to

doing what we can to make sure that we obtain industrial advantage from

the investments we are breaking in green technology. Finally, he

mentions what he regards as the biggest threat to the economy as

being the exit from the European Union. I would say to him, the

United Kingdom economy has been very successful in recent weeks and I

would suggest the biggest threat that would be if that successful

alliance of our There is so much to welcome in this

very thoughtful report and I congratulate my right honourable

friend and his team for delivering this. When it comes to

infrastructure, could he say more about how this unprecedented

investment in infrastructure our Government is making will deliver

export growth? He I'm sure will not be surprised but may be disappointed

to know that our export potential particularly from our rail

independent have -- our rail industry is outstripped. My

honourable friend knows how important making connections are

between places. It is a very important means to provide the

under-Pinocheting of growth. She will be aware that through the fund

that has been established, the national infrastructure fund, this

will rise by 60% from this year to 2022, that is a huge investment and

appropriate one to make sure that the quality of our infrastructure

keeps pace with the investments our competitors are making. May I warmly

welcome and support Government endorsement of an industrial

strategy that is long-term and interventionist. I hope it will play

an active role in ensuring workers are upskilled and receive high wages

and that British firms can scale up and become more enterprising,

competitive and productive. May I ask the Secretary of State what's

different this time from previous it ragss of industrial strategy,

include those of which he was a Cabinet minister. What will be the

short-term, medium and long-term metrics by which this will be

evaluated in terms of success or failure? I'm grateful to the

honourable gentleman for his welcome. He says it's an

interventionist strategy. It's true I think the Government should be

engaged with the economy to make sure that we have the right

conditions for success. But I would also point out the real importance

of making sure that the openness, that the ability for competition to

have its full run in our economy is vital to our success. I know as

chairman of the Business Select Committee he will reflect that. I

look forward to the Select Committee's inquiry on this. He asks

how it's different from its predecessors. I would suggest two

ways in particular. One is he will have observed that the, many of the

themes that I've talked about are not about investing in particular

companies or subsidising particular businesses. But they are

cross-cutting, they're horizontal, if you like. ,. . They're looking at

skills across the economy, looking at infrastructure, look being at

importance of place and differences between places, of science and

research. So they are looking at cross-economy measures. That is a

different approach from that has been taken in the past. The second

thing I would draw to as attention, a lot of efforts in industrial

policy in the past have been correctly about innovation but have

concentrated just op new discoveries -- on new discoveries and new

inventions. That's very important, we need to extent our excellence

into the future. But there is a big opportunity to make differences for

the following companies and the regions that are not competing at

the top level. If you can really increase productivity there, you can

make a big difference to the whole economy. That hasn't been the focus

of previous industrial strategies. May I congrape late my right

honourable friend in a bold and ambitious statement. May I give him

a unique, once in a lifetime chance to get his technical college, his

new training plans off to a really tremendous start. In Haywards Heath

in my constituency, there is a sixth form college bankrupted by Labour's

ferocious education cuts and corporate governments that will have

done credit to Al Capone. It lies empty. It would be a perfect

starting place for one of his excellent new colleges. I'm grateful

for the early pitch from my right honourable friend he highlights that

it's very important that we should have right across the country a

better and more reliable ability to give technical education to those

who can benefit from it. There are pane jobs that are available in West

Sussex, but are not accessible if people don't have the right skills.

This will help solve that. I welcome the Government's acceptance finally

that we have got a skills challenge in this country, particularly with

the long trail of underachievement. How does the Secretary of State

square this with the huge cuts faced to further education and adult

education over the last six-and-a-half years of his

Government? And why isn't there more emphasis on what can be done to

really close that productivity gap if we invest in child care and get

more women back to work, not even mentioned in his report? The first

thing, as I said to her friend on the frontbench, the task that the

Conservative-led Government had in restoring Sanity to the public Fire

Services is -- finances is foundational to a successful

strategy. She will be aware in the field of child care, this Government

has been particularly innovative in extending child care to large parts

of the country, many people who previously were not able to access

child care and that is an important foundation on which we build. Would

my right honourable friend agrow with me that many of the highly

impressive propositions on technical education within this green paper

owe their owe gin to the work undertaken by our honourable friend,

the member for Grantham when he grew up -- drew up the skills plan laid

before the House in July. Would he full agree with me that the success

of specialist maths schools at Kings College London and Exeter university

is an example that other universities should follow if they

hope to hang onto their current high level of tuition fees? What I would

say to my right honourable friend is first of all, to endorse warmly the

acknowledgement that he makes to our honourable friend the member for

Grantham and Stanford. He made a massive contribution. He's

absolutely right, in fact I text him yesterday to flag that many of the

proposals there owe their owe gin to our honourable friend. We wish him

well in his recovery. I commend very warmly the examples of the maths

schools that my right honourable friend friend mentioned. To expand

maths schools across the country so that people with a real flair for

maths can be pushed further and be equipped to go even higher in their

ambitions I think is a fantastic thing, whether it's in Exeter or in

London, they are a good template for others to follow. My right

honourable friend for Manchester Central pointed this out, isn't one

of the things that has held industrial strategies back in this

country for decades has been the skills gap? In the green paper that

the Secretary of State has brought forward, there's mention of an

overhaul of technical and reindicational education. Can I say

to him, I think what this country needs is a cultural change, a shift

to valuing technical and vocational education and skills education as

highly as academic education. Until that changes, the Secretary of State

will not achieve what he wants, however much all of us want him to.

I agree with the right honourable gentleman's analysis. I hope he'll

join with us in making that change. I hope he will approach this with a

spirit of both optimism and determination to make that change

that the country needs. I very much welcome this common

sense statement. Does my right honourable friend agree with me that

the pillars will provide the ideal opportunities to enable regions to

use their assets to the best effect for more balanced UK economy? And

also further grow the Midlands engine for growth? I do agree with

my honourable friend. We are one of the most centralised countries in

the world. But it is patently the case that our levels of prosperity

are not uniformly high. I think we should learn from other countries

and learn from what has worked well when we have devolved powers and

given people who know what is going to make a difference locally, a

better ability to take those decisions. The minister's right to

make upgrading infrastructure a pillar of his industrial strategy. I

welcome the investment in HS2, how can he claim to be providing greater

certainty and a clear long-term direction when the East Midlands top

transport priority, electrification of Midland main line has been

paused, unpaused, delayed by four years and now dropped all together.

Doesn't he understand that it follows up the previous question

that this uncertainty damages our economy, damages the East Midlands

industry and actually harms its potential to grow exports? I would

have thought she would welcome the commitment to upgrading

infrastructure across the country, right across the country. This is a

green paper that is proposing priorities for the years ahead. I

would hope that she would welcome that. As well as welcoming the fact

that there is a 60% increase in the investment in infrastructure that

the Chancellor has provided, which will be of benefit I hope to the

East Midlands and other parts of the country. I strongly welcome this

paper in particular three elements of it, the battery re -- review, and

the considerable efforts to create a hub for autonomous vehicles. Those

three together should give the UK the opportunity to become one of the

world's leading producers of the electric and autonomous vehicles

that we will all be driving 20 or 30 years from now? I agree with my

right honourable friend. What is important, what is the opportunity

of an industrial strategy is to align policies that reinforce each

other. We have some of the world's best researchers in energy storage.

We have one of the world's most effective and efficient and

innovative automotive sectors. We are one of the leaders in renewable

energy through offshore wind. If you bring them together, then one

reinforces the other and gives us this chance to be a world leader in

a set of technologies that seems likely on any reasonable estimate to

be taken up around the world in the future. The last thing we need is

10% tariffs imposed on autonomous vehicles. The Secretary of State is

right to make the point that we've been the leading destination in

Europe for overseas investment, but much of that was from companies

outside Europe wanting to gain access to the single market which

the Prime Minister's now told us we're going to leave. Does he

believe that the UK can remain Europe's leading destination for

inward investment outside the single market? Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. What

I said right at the beginning of my statement was that as a Government

and as a country, I hope, that believes in free trade, we want to

have the best possible access to the single market and we continue to be,

as I said, a very attractive destination but we want to be even

more attractive, which is why to set out the commitments that we're

making on upgrading or science and research, on building better

technical skills for example, on improving our infrastructure, these

are investments. These are policies that will enhance the reputation and

attractiveness of the British economy. Will the Government, under

this new strategy, when reviewing procurement make sure that we find

all those areas where British companies could supply better and

cheaper and give them the contracts. At the moment, we're importing large

quantity of military vehicles, building materials, steel for

submarines, medical equipment, things that we could make

competitively here if we have an intelligence Government customer. My

right honourable friend is right. He will see various proposals on

procurement which I hope will have his support. One I emphasise is

opening up Government procurement to smaller and medium sized enterprises

who too often find that the bureaucracy associated with

procurement regimes in the part has literally kept them off the list.

That is something we can reform. The green paper rightly identifies the

crucial role that better connectivity to regional airports

could play in growing economies and highlights the vital importance of

the route from Newcastle airport increasing imports from the

north-east. Could the Secretary of State confirm what discussions he is

having with his Treasury colleagues about devolving Air Passenger Duty

on airports like Newcastle? I think in the context of a Green

Paper on industrial strategy I will with the representations from the

honourable lady. I am pleased she acknowledges and recognises the

emphasis we have placed on connection is not just through road

and rail airport connections to every region of the country and the

importance of establishing links to other nations with which we have

good trading relationships. Could I ask my right honourable friend how

much priority he gives to the establishment of a digital real way

and will he encourage network in their plans to bring this technology

to the great Eastern Main line and hopefully the West Anglia mainline

as well? The nutrients which are on order can be equipped in advance to

take advantage, rather than be fitted retrospectively at great

expense. -- the nutrients. He is right and it is one of the proposals

in the Green Paper I hope will have his support the concentration. The

Green Paper rightly focuses on productivity, but there is one area

of infrastructure where Britain lacks behind all our competitors and

that is with the cost of childcare. Childcare in Britain costs more than

every other OECD country apart from Switzerland and takes up over 40% of

the average wage is up yet, it is hardly mentioned in his Green Paper.

This is the way to liberate the talent of women. What will he do

about it? It is a Green Paper that invites comments and proposals and I

look forward to the honourable lady's response to the Green Paper.

As I said, this government has taken seriously the importance of

childcare in allowing women and men to return to work. We have made good

progress in it, I would be interested in her response to the

consultation. I welcome the opportunity to join the Secretary of

State on his visit to the Warwick Manufacturing group on Friday. An

institution which represents many important elements of this

industrial strategy. Would my right honourable friend agreed that the

Midlands can play a leading role in the development of such a strategy

being home to world-class research, advanced manufacturing in the

skilled workforce? I agree with my honourable friend. One thing I found

striking in visiting the National automotive innovation Centre, a

fantastic centre that is being built, is the fact that, as well as

having research and development facilities that will be available to

large but also small challenger firms, there is, on the same side,

is good for apprentices that will take in 1000 apprentices every year

to equip them with the skills that the motor industry across the West

Midlands can benefit from. That is a good example of how research and

development can tie up with this agenda of driving improved standards

of technical skills. If the Secretary of State is serious about

building an industrial strategy that works for the whole country and one

which encourages and maximises the opportunity for research and

innovation, debt must be space in that for the development of marine

renewable energy, wave and tidal power. The word leading work in that

is being done in my constituency at the European Union Marine energy

Centre, can he come and see for himself the way in which our island

communities can help them build a strategy that he says he wants to

create? I would be delighted to visit his constituency. He will see

when he reads the Green Paper, I know it is quite a time commitment,

but I am sure it is worth it, there are a number of sources of support

for innovation. The competitive way, the research and development funding

is available for scientists and researchers to bid for. He will also

note there is a chapter on the green economy that is making a suggestion

as to how we can get industrial advantage as well as keeping costs

low from our renewables. Both routes might be applicable to the green and

tidal technologies. I have been calling for ambitious, bold and

visionary redevelopment plans for the power station planned to attract

businesses that will create highly skilled jobs. Can I welcome his

statement on the Green Paper and does he agree with me that the new,

modern industrial strategy will provide the framework and conditions

to help deliver this vision? I am grateful for the question. I

remember visiting the site with and I think it has great potential to be

a home for not just the start up businesses that are very important

in our economy, but also as a place in which technical skills can be

imparted to the next generation of her constituents so they can have

good, well and satisfying jobs. I welcome some of the things in the

Green Paper, looking at the future of industry and our strategy moving

forward, however, in order to do that we have two secure what

industry we have now. In light of the comments from the CEO of Nissan

saying he would revisit the competitiveness of the plant in

Sunderland, could the minister tell us what his view is on that in

securing the jobs in Sunderland that already exist? Well, the decision to

back Sunderland and to build the two new models here was a very

significant moment for her constituents and for the country. It

is true to say that all investors, domestic or international, will

constantly look to make sure that they are competitive and what this

document, every page of this Green Paper, does is show our

determination to make sure that this economy is competitive now and into

the future, to take the actions that will make it so. May I welcome this

wide-ranging discussion of government policies at this time?

Even if the broad survey of good things outlined will unleash a

torrent of insatiable demands, not least from the Davos business

leaders jetting back with their government advisers to barge their

way to the front of the table. Will my right honourable friend assure me

that his agenda will be set by entrepreneurs? Would he be honest

that for every sector that is favoured Adobe sectors of the

economy that we can and will he assure me that he understands that

in his Department there are no magic levers saying raise productivity or

improve skills? The eluded his predecessors, they will likely elude

him. In order to get running can have brevity in questions and

answers? By honourable friend is right. What I would say is the

essence of our strategy has to be to support the ability of people to

compete and enter and make life difficult for the incumbents. There

are no cosy club's for the incumbents. That is the test of our

support in sectors as to whether this helps new businesses emerge.

That is extremely important. The Federation of Small Businesses

reported last year that significant numbers of women are starting small

businesses and enterprises. Is he not therefore surprised, as the

House is, but there is no mention of women in this industrial strategy,

no mention of inclusion and very little mention of diversity? Will he

undertake to review that? To this document we want to close the gaps

that mean we do not achieve powerful performance and that is absolutely

the case when it comes to the position of women at the highest

levels in science and research. As minister in the Department in the

past I have been successful in driving the appointment under my

gift to increase the proportion of women at the top level. She is

absolutely right, when there is an underrepresentation of people of

talent it is the whole economy that suffers from that and that should be

corrected. I strongly welcome the statement and consultation paper

today. When you visit large and innovative manufacturers like Toyota