| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Trident
15. Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): What is the total warhead capacity of the Trident fleet. [122654]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As announced in the strategic defence review, our minimum nuclear deterrent requires a stockpile of fewer than 200 operationally available warheads. The submarine on deterrent patrol carries 48 warheads.
Mr. Corbyn: Does the Secretary of State accept that even 48 warheads--about half the possible capacity--represent a huge proliferation of weapons compared with the previous Trident submarine system? Does he not follow the thinking of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and agree that, having signed up to the principle of nuclear disarmament, we should at least take Trident off patrol, ending the use or consideration of the use of such weapons, so that we may set an example to other countries that are thinking of acquiring or developing nuclear weapons?
Mr. Hoon: Perhaps my hon. Friend inadvertently referred to Trident when he meant Polaris. Nevertheless, the size of the United Kingdom's minimum deterrent depends not on the size of other nations' arsenals but on the minimum necessary to deter any threat to our vital interest. That was set out in the strategic defence review, and remains the Government's clear position.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): Would the Secretary of State like to reconsider his rather complacent answer about the possible nuclear threat from third-world countries? In view of the first conclusion of the American presidential commission on defence that that country faces a severe potential threat from the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of third-world countries, is it not time that we thought about some of the other measures that the
Americans are taking besides Trident--a system of ballistic missile defence and a proper system of civil defence, which has almost disappeared in this country?
Mr. Hoon: I do not need, at this stage at any rate, to reconsider the answer that I gave only a few moments ago. As I made clear, we keep threats to the United Kingdom under continuous review. A threat consists both of the ability to deliver a ballistic weapon to the UK--capability--and of the intent to do so. We assess, for the moment, that no country in the world has both the capability and the intent to attack the UK with a ballistic weapon.
Ministerial Discussions (ESDI)
16. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): What discussions he has had with the French Defence Minister about the European security and defence identity. [122655]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We continue to make excellent progress on the European defence initiative, in the course of which my ministerial colleagues and I have had several discussions with the French Defence Minister.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply, complacent though it was. Given that President Chirac, supported by the Germans, Italians, Portuguese and others, said as recently as 30 May that the development of an EU defence and foreign policy was fundamentally a "political project", and that the American ambassador to NATO has warned that the European
security and defence identity threatens to damage and rupture NATO, are Ministers just too dozy to perceive the threat that exists, or are they determined to hoodwink the rest of us into thinking that it does not exist?
Mr. Hoon: It is because we do not see this as a political project that we have concentrated on the question of capabilities. Throughout all the agreements into which we have entered on behalf of the UK, we have emphasised the need to improve Europe's military capability. A number of UK Governments have sought to achieve that, and I am delighted to say that this Government are doing something about it. By improving Europe's military capability, we are not in any sense undermining or weakening NATO, but strengthening its capability. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have been sufficiently awake to realise that.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): If one is to fight successfully in any army, however, should one not be quite clear to whom one owes one's allegiance? Is it not therefore very worrying that the Government should be assuming that it will be possible to create a unified force without accepting the idea of political control over its objectives?
Mr. Hoon: May I reassure my hon. Friend? None of our proposals contains the slightest suggestion that we are creating a unified force. The proposal that we are dealing with is no different from any of the multinational military organisations that have existed in the past and will continue to exist in future. In reality, each country will, rightly, remain responsible for its own forces, but those forces will operate together in multinational operations.
Point of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received any indication that a Minister from the Department for Education and Employment plans to come to the House to make a statement to clear up the astonishing confusion in the mind of Baroness Jay? You will be aware that on 28 May this year, the noble Baroness said that she had gone to a pretty standard grammar school. Given that it has now been revealed that the school she attended was an independent fee-paying school, she has abused that school, misrepresented her past and denigrated grammar schools. Do not Ministers have quite a lot of explaining and apologising to do?
Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that any Minister wishes to make a statement today. If the hon. Gentleman has anything to say about a Member of the upper House, he should do so through our usual procedures, by means of the Order Paper.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It is usual for Opposition Front Benchers not to abuse the right to raise points of order from the Dispatch Box. As has been said by successive Speakers for many years, it is for Front Benchers to abide by the rules and not abuse them. Will you deprecate what you have just witnessed here in the House of Commons?
Madam Speaker: To the best of my knowledge, Front Benchers do, from time to time, raise points of order with me--but they usually couch those points of order in language that is acceptable to me and to the House. On this occasion, I felt that the comments made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) were not in keeping with those that he has made as a Back Bencher, which are generally interesting; Opposition Front Benchers should take note of my remarks. In addition, if reference is to be made to a Member of the upper House, it is usual to do so by means of the Order Paper, through an early-day motion.
Orders of the Day
Financial Services and Markets Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)
3.32 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I beg to move,
- That the Order of the House [9th February] be supplemented as follows:
Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at today's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at Eleven o'clock.
2.--(1) This paragraph applies for the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1.
(2) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(3) If that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, the Speaker shall then put forthwith--
(a) the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.
(4) The Speaker shall then put forthwith--
(a) the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment, and
(b) the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House agrees or disagrees with the Lords in the Amendment or (as the case may be) in the Amendment as amended.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, that this House disagrees with the Lords in a Lords Amendment.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments.
(7) As soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments, or disposed of an Amendment relevant to a Lords Amendment which has been disagreed to, the Speaker shall put forthwith a single Question on any Amendments moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.
Subsequent Stages
3.--(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.
(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
(3) Sub-paragraphs (4) to (7) apply for the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion.
(4) The Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided.
(5) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair.
(6) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on or relevant to any item.
(7) The Speaker shall then put forthwith the Question, That this House agrees with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.
Reasons Committee
4. The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.
5.--(1) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.
(2) Proceedings in the Committee shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion 30 minutes after their commencement.
(3) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (2) the Chairman shall--
(a) first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided; and
(b) then put forthwith successively Questions on motions which may be made by a Minister of the Crown for assigning a Reason for disagreeing with the Lords in any of their Amendments.
(4) The proceedings of the Committee shall be reported without any further Question being put.
Miscellaneous
6. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
7.--(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments, on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.
(2) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(3) The proceedings shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
8. If proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House would, by virtue of Standing Order No. 24 (Urgent matters), commence at a time when proceedings to which paragraph 7 applies are in progress, proceedings on the Motion shall be postponed to the conclusion of those proceedings.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |