“I’ve tried to find out what he’s eating and how much but no one seems to know and the nursing staff just tell me they have too many plates to clear to remember who was eating what. My Dad is wasting away in front of my eyes and they just keep telling me they’re too busy to help. My Dad is 76 and he has always been fit and well but I’m fearful now that he will never come home from hospital alive.”
“Having continually pushed for the best care available during his time there, it seemed that complaining wouldn’t make any difference, other than making me relive every humiliation, discomfort, stupidity and indifference…My father spent a month in hospital, and he said it was worse than his experiences in the Second World War…We watched one man fading away, naked apart from a soiled nappy, in full view of visiting families.”
The wife of a whistleblower wrote:
“My husband was a senior nurse who recorded what he considered to be gross ill treatment of patients to his senior Consultant…he was subjected to prolonged bullying campaigns and subjected to pseudo disciplinary procedures. He was supported by the RCN who managed to keep him in his job…To cut a long story short,
17 July 2013 : Column 1199
after six years of abuse, stress and fear my husband suffered a major stroke while working at the hospital. He was later subjected to a vicious attack”
“at his back to work interview. He retired from the NHS on medical grounds. He was 46 years old. He lost the job he loved. The NHS lost a highly skilled super intelligent practical nurse who loved his patients and worked hard for them. His colleague who supported him lasted a bit longer but was also forced into retirement after her health was destroyed by bullying because she also witnessed and reported the abuse of patients”.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): The right hon. Lady is telling us some very compassionate and emotional stories. Does she feel that the voice of families, which she has illustrated very well, needs to be heard more by management and staff, and does she feel that the process should be improved to enable that to happen?
Ann Clwyd: Many people are afraid to complain. Some complain many years later, and some never do so at all. It must be made easier for people to complain.
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con): I was reluctant to intervene when the right hon. Lady was giving all those examples, but this seems to be a natural break. I share her huge concern about end-of-life care in hospitals, and she may share my concern about the Government’s announcement this week that the Liverpool care pathway will end this year. I hope that the Government are clear about what will replace it, and that we do not end up with confusion about responsibilities in hospitals, which could lead to less dignity and care as people reach the end of their lives.
Ann Clwyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. My next piece of testimony comes from a man who wrote this about his mother’s death in hospital:
“'My mother died under unspeakable conditions. The treatment she received, being deliberately dehydrated to death, on the so called ‘Pathway’, and total lack of sedation resulted in a death of anxiety, pain and total lack of dignity, which I personally witnessed.
The callous attitude of the staff beggared belief. My mother suffered incredible levels of neglect and abuse. We initiated a complaint, resulting in several distressing meetings. The whole procedure was to no avail as we only received platitudes of regret resulting in written statements of denial of any lack of patient care”.
“I left my wife with the assurance from nursing staff that she would be given a bath. I found her the next day some 15 hours later in her own excreta and vomit. Her face had been wiped clean. Nothing else. I was told the hoist was not working and that the bath was not plumbed in, and, in any event, nursing staff did not have the time to bathe her. Having found the equipment in perfect working order I bathed her.
I was caring for a fragile lady. I couldn’t make a complaint, I was frightened because my complaining would upset her and more uncomfortably, I had no trust in the nursing staff. Complain and how much worse could the callousness be? I took her home saying nothing. I'm still ashamed”.
Another man wrote this about his treatment for a punctured lung:
“My drip was not changed for six days, my chest hair that was shaved was left to fall under my bed and not cleaned up properly. I was never washed and in the end went by myself to the shower past the nurses station pulling my drip trolley—no one helped or
17 July 2013 : Column 1200
worse enquired what I was doing. Water was taken away very early in the morning and not returned for at least two hours although there was obvious chatter coming from the nurses station”.
All the testimonies that I have read out come from Wales.
6.28 pm
Dr Phillip Lee (Bracknell) (Con): The title of the debate, “Managing risk in the NHS”, is very important. Indeed—although this may not be a topic for today—we ought to start thinking about the whole concept of risk and what patients will accept in terms of risk, especially given that everyone now has access to information via the internet. Invariably, the first thing someone puts into Google is the thing they are least likely to be suffering from as a consequence of the symptoms they are experiencing, so it is extremely important that risk is discussed much more with the patient population. As the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said, it is extremely difficult to be a GP and to try to manage the demands being placed on the health service when people are coming in thinking that their headache is a brain tumour and so on.
It is particularly appropriate that I am speaking in this debate, because today the Care Quality Commission has published a report on Heatherwood and Wexham Park Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) has not taken the opportunity to speak in this debate as a consequence. The report highlights significant concerns about the trust and the care of patients. None of the concerns was news to me: I approached the then Health Secretary about them in June 2010; I spoke to Monitor, whose chief executive told me, remarkably, that he had no concerns whatsoever and nothing had come across his radar about the trust; and I also spoke to Cynthia Bower in September 2010 about them. I say that because Monitor and the CQC were clearly not fit for purpose and doing their job of finding out what was wrong with hospitals.
I recognise the current Secretary of State’s desire to have a chief inspector of hospitals, and I wholeheartedly support him on that concept. However, I counsel colleagues on both sides of the House that if we start looking properly at the performance of hospitals, we will, judging by the list of experiences that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) has just shared with the Chamber, have plenty more stories to deal with about hospitals, and how they fail or are failing.
I wish to concentrate primarily on legacy and the genesis of these problems, which probably blight both parties. A hospital does not suddenly become a problem in the space of a couple of years; that can occur over a number of decades. The problem we have in this country is that a large number of our hospitals are not fit for purpose. There is a legacy of poor location, not only because the land was often bequeathed, but because the buildings are often not fit for purpose. That is the particular problem at Heatherwood, and with its theatres, as was highlighted in the CQC report.
There is also a legacy in respect of the district general hospitals in general. They have had their day and we do not need them any more; we need regional specialist hub hospitals such as the one I have been proposing for the Thames valley for the past three to four years. I say
17 July 2013 : Column 1201
that because if we are trying to provide care, it is incredibly difficult to mitigate risk when the theatre is not fit for purpose or when the hospital cannot be staffed appropriately. Labour Members have made much mention of nursing numbers, but the issue is much bigger than that; it is about the quality of the clinicians. Most clinicians have to specialise and sub-specialise, and the only way in which we will be able to provide the very best care in the 21st century is by having fewer acute hospitals. All the royal colleges share that opinion; I am not cornering that market. The flip side, however, is that we will have more community hospitals and more community care, which can only be a good thing.
If I were allowed to advise Members, I would tell them to be cautious on the issue of end-of-life care, because it will be extremely difficult to provide that in an increasingly ageing society. We are going to have some very difficult decisions to make for people in their 90s and for people over 100. There is no easy solution to this. The Liverpool care pathway was probably an honourable approach to try to take. I am not saying that it was perfect, but there was a desire to do the right thing in its implementation.
The reconfiguration is necessary and, for it to be appropriate, it will need cross-party support. We are not going to get anywhere by trading insults and taking political positions over various hospitals. Quite a few hospitals are not fit for purpose, with some in Conservative seats, some in Labour seats and some in marginal seats. If those of us who are interested in this topic truly want to improve care for all, we really need to remove party politics from the reconfiguration debate and engage in a cross-party discussion about where these hospitals should be. If we did that, if we managed to build some new hospitals—I suspect that we will have to build quite a few, because, as I said, the problem with a number of established hospitals is that their locations are inappropriate, as is certainly the case in my part of the world—and if we could come to a consensus and some agreement on this, we would be bequeathing to future generations a hospitals sector to be proud of. We do not have one to be proud of, however. We heard that mortality rates have been going down, but of course that is the case, because we are getting better at medicine, but with that come challenges regarding the end of life.
Charlotte Leslie: Does my hon. Friend have any information about how Britain’s reducing mortality rate compares with that of comparable European countries?
Dr Lee: I do not have such information to hand, but it would be interesting to compare our mortality rates for various conditions with those of Germany, Holland and France over the past seven to 10 years to determine whether there has also been a decline in those countries. It is difficult to claim that it was just the investment of money that led to reduced mortality rates in this country. I do not rule out the fact that the investment was a factor, but I suspect that the decline was due to advances in medicine and technology, and indeed in the skill base of consultants.
If we reconfigure, consultants will have a larger throughput of patients. It is interesting to note that Tameside covers about 175,000 patients—not enough—that Basildon and Thurrock covers about 300,000 or so, and that Mid Staffs covers about 225,000. Hospitals should
17 July 2013 : Column 1202
cover a minimum of 500,000 people, if not 750,000, if they are truly to deliver the best acute and surgical care. The staff, especially the consultants, will want such a throughput of patients so that they can maintain and enhance their skills, and thereby improve mortality statistics. I therefore conclude by begging the Government and the Opposition to take the party politics out reconfiguration so that we can secure a hospital sector of which we can be proud for the next five decades.
6.36 pm
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab): It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee). I do not think that hon. Members have had a chance properly to mention that the NHS is 65 years old.
We now have two figureheads atop the NHS: the Secretary of State and the chief executive of NHS England. Hon. Members might have missed the change of name from the NHS Commissioning Board to NHS England. Such is the power of the chief executive that he neither had to come to Parliament nor to deal with elected representatives to achieve that. The two of them sit there like Laurel and Hardy, whose catchphrase was, “Here’s another fine mess you’ve gotten me into.” We know there is a mess, as there is a host of ongoing reviews.
Let me start by referring to the Francis report, which was produced by a leading QC who started his work in 2009 after being picked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), so that was something he got right. Some £10 million later, after sifting the evidence and hearing bereaved people give their testimony, Robert Francis produced a report with 290 recommendations. At the time, it appeared that they had been accepted in full, but all is not as it seems, because apparently there needs to be a review on its implementation.
Yesterday, we received Sir Bruce Keogh’s thoughtful review. It is actually a model report, as it gives clarity on what needs to be done. The Secretary of State mentioned Don Berwick’s report on the Francis review, which is due in the autumn. Camilla Cavendish has reported on health care and social care assistants. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and Tricia Hart will review how patients make complaints, although no date has been given for when that will report. Sir Bruce Keogh is busy again, as he is producing a further report on a plan for vulnerable older people, which I think is also due in the autumn.
You would be forgiven for thinking that that was the end of it, Mr Speaker, but that is not quite the case. The chief executive of NHS England announced to the Health Service Journal—not to the Secretary of State nor to Parliament—that he would do some work to determine what NHS England’s strategic direction might be. One would have thought that he would already know, and the process seems somewhat late given when the body was set up. He told me that the cost would be £3 million over three years, but how many doctors and nurses would that buy?
What has been the response of the Secretary of State to date? Urgent care boards and chief inspectors—PR and an extra layer of bureaucracy. The Health Committee heard evidence that urgent care boards were the management that was removed by what happened to the strategic health authorities. What are the costs? The Treasury has already clawed back £3 billion from the
17 July 2013 : Column 1203
NHS. According to the National Audit Office, the efficiency gains of £5.8 billion that were made in the first year were a result of reducing the tariff to providers and the public sector pay freeze, but how long can that carry on?
The NAO has published interesting statistics following the passage of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. The reported cost of the reforms was £1.1 billion. The Secretary of State told the Health Committee that he had seen—he did not know—a figure of between £1.5 billion and £1.6 billion. Professor Kieran Walshe has put the figure at £3 billion.
The NAO said that of the 170 organisations closed down, 240 have been opened, and 10,094 full-time equivalent staff have been made redundant. It is a shame, when there is an underspend of £3 billion, that the College of Emergency Medicine is crying out for extra emergency doctors and consultants, and at least half a million pounds is spent on locums in A and E, and all before we have even looked at integration.
Many have endorsed what is rapidly becoming known as the Burnham plan, including the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr Dorrell). The Health Committee has seen the work at Torbay, which was piloted in 2004-05—by the previous Government, incidentally—but we were told that the Health and Social Care Act could affect the way it works.
I want to ask the Secretary of State to do something fairly useful: ask someone at the Department of Health to pull together and publicise best practice from across the country. The Health Committee heard evidence that some of the A and E hospitals had got it right by moving elderly people directly to consultant geriatricians.
Finally, it is very easy for those of us who are exposed to the world of NHS structures to say how we can fix it, but Robert Francis took evidence from those who use the service directly on how they came across the inaction and indifference of a large institution. Sir Bruce Keogh has done the same with his report. They talked directly to those on the front line and those who use the service, not just those in the boardroom. They are the ones who should be listened to—all those who work in the NHS and have to provide a service when their pay is frozen. The people who use our NHS want professional people who are competent at their job caring for them when they are at their most vulnerable. Only if we listen to them will we be able to wish the NHS many happy returns in future.
6.41 pm
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) in this important debate. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) said, over the past three years the biggest risk to NHS patients and taxpayers has been this Government’s decision to force through the largest back-room reorganisation in the NHS’s history at the same time it faces the biggest financial challenge of its life.
We left government with the lowest ever waiting lists and the highest ever patient satisfaction, but we knew that further changes were essential to improving the
17 July 2013 : Column 1204
safety and quality of patient care and getting better value for taxpayers’ money. And we had a plan to make it happen in every region in England, through Lord Darzi’s report, “High Quality Care for all”, which set out precisely how we would achieve the kind of reconfigurations of hospitals that the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) mentioned and precisely the kind of integrated services focused on prevention in the community mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South. But Ministers scrapped those plans and instead forced through a top-down reorganisation that not only wasted billions of pounds, but meant that local services lost grip and focus precisely when they were needed most.
The Government were repeatedly warned about the risks of their Health and Social Care Bill. While they have refused to publish their own national risk register, up and down the country local NHS organisations did the job for them. Those local NHS risk registers warned that front-line staff would be cut. They were right: over 4,000 nursing posts have been lost under this Government. They warned that specialist cancer networks would be scrapped, and they have, along with Labour’s stroke networks, both of which were vital to improving the quality of patient care. The local risk registers also warned that structural upheaval and fewer front-line staff would destabilise winter planning and mean more patients waiting longer in A and E. That is precisely what has happened.
This Government have presided over the worst A and E crisis in a decade. At its height, 100 trusts failed to meet the four-hour A and E target. Even during spring, more than half of all hospital trusts missed the target. The risk to patients is not just that they have been left waiting for hours in distress and pain on trolleys or in the back of ambulances. As Sir Bruce Keogh’s excellent review states,
“over 90% of deaths in hospital happen when patients are admitted in an emergency rather than for a planned procedure”.
“The performance of the majority of the trusts was much worse than expected for their emergency patients.”
He is right. At the end of last year all 14 of those trusts were missing this Government’s lower A and E target, yet under the previous Government all 14 were meeting our higher A and E target.
Instead of getting to grips with the real causes of the A and E crisis so that they can deliver real solutions for patients, the Government have consistently sought to score political points by blaming the 2004 GP contract. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State says from a sedentary position that that is what the evidence says. Well, NHS England, the NHS Alliance and the NHS Confederation beg to disagree, to name just a few. They say that the real causes are primarily that more very elderly, sick patients are ending up in hospital and getting stuck there because of pressures on social care budgets, and that there are not enough services for specific groups of patients such as those with mental health problems and drug and alcohol addiction.
Ministers’ sheer incompetence in introducing the NHS 111 phone line has compounded the pressures in A and E. They were repeatedly warned, by the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association, the Ambulance
17 July 2013 : Column 1205
Service Network, NHS Direct and potential private providers, about problems with their rushed roll-out, but they ploughed on regardless. The result was patients left hanging on the phone or waiting hours for call-backs, more ambulances being sent, and more patients ending up in already struggling A and Es. A report on this fiasco by the NHS Alliance, which represents primary care providers and commissioners, says that
“providers were put under unprecedented pressure by the Department of Health to meet their go live dates even if...they weren’t prepared”.
They say that the Government’s contracts focused more on cost than quality, yet they have disgracefully ended up failing on both.
We now face the real risk that the Government will fail to put in place many of the key changes that patients and the public desperately need. It is right that the Government are looking at the training of nurses throughout the NHS. I have no doubt that Sir Mike Richards will be an excellent chief inspector of hospitals. However, regulation happens after the event, whereas we need to focus on preventing problems from happening in the first place. That means having clear lines of accountability and responsibility from the bedside to the boardroom. It means listening to patients and the public. It means having a strong voice for local Healthwatch bodies. Hon. Members will know that up and down the country those have been very slow to get up and running and have very few staff. The task put on to them—to make sure that they are a strong voice for patients and the public—will be extremely difficult to carry out.
The Government are missing out on three key issues that have repeatedly come up in this debate. The Keogh review found time and again that staff shortages in the 14 hospitals with higher mortality rates are a real risk to the safety and quality of patient care, as did the Francis inquiry into the appalling failings at Mid Staffs hospital. That is why Francis makes very clear recommendations about staff numbers. The Secretary of State would not take an intervention from me earlier, so I will tell him what I was going to say now. Recommendations 22 and 23 in the Francis report say:
“The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence should”
“standard procedures and practice”
and those should include what each service
“is likely to require as a minimum in terms of staff numbers and skill mix. This should include nursing staff on wards, as well as clinical staff.”
“no unregistered person should…provide…direct physical care to patients”
“should apply to healthcare support workers”.
We tried for many years to improve their training, but without their being registered so that it could be guaranteed that they had the training required, it was not possible to do so. I called for this back in 2001, before I became an MP. The same arguments were being made then. We have not made progress and we need to do so now.
Finally, Francis says there should be a statutory duty of candour on individual registered staff as well as providers, yet the Government are dragging their feet
17 July 2013 : Column 1206
on all those key recommendations. As Peter Walsh, the chief executive of Action against Medical Accidents, said yesterday,
“ministers are still refusing to accept key recommendations such as minimum staffing levels for wards and regulation of healthcare assistants.”
He also said that he hoped that Sir Bruce Keogh’s report will change the Government’s mind, and Opposition Members agree with him.
Government Members have made unfounded accusations that Labour Members covered up problems in the NHS, but our record proves that we did the precise opposite: independent inspection of the NHS for the first time; national data published on heart and stroke care and hip and knee operations for the first time; patient choice of hospital enshrined for the first time; and, far from ignoring mortality rates, it was the Labour Government who published them on the NHS Choices website for the first time.
Government attempts to smear former Ministers are shameful, but the real tragedy is not the cynical, political agenda being pursued by the Conservative party; it is that over the past three years the Government have put the NHS through risks that could have been avoided and they are failing to put in place the real changes and reforms that patients and the public need. I commend the motion to the House.
6.51 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter): It is a great pleasure to rise to speak in support of the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
Both sides of the House believe in our NHS, the staff who work in it and the care they provide for patients. I am also sure that both sides recognise that, in the wake of the Francis inquiry and yesterday’s report from Sir Bruce Keogh, the 65th year of the NHS has been its most challenging and that we need to face up to those challenges.
This debate has had three key themes: the importance of the NHS, the staff who work in it and the care they provide for patients; the importance of making greater productivity gains in the NHS to improve care and make sure that we do more with our resources; and the importance of openness and transparency and the need to learn lessons from things that have gone wrong, so that patient care can be improved.
Back Benchers have made some high-quality contributions. It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) made a very strong case for his local health care services. I pay particular tribute to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who has done some tremendous work in looking at how we can improve the NHS complaints procedure. She read out a number of examples of things that have gone badly wrong, from which we need to learn lessons for the future. The work she is doing at the moment is hugely important and valuable, and the Government look forward to receiving her report shortly.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) highlighted some of the challenges with the existing
17 July 2013 : Column 1207
NHS estate and the need to modernise facilities and make some of the older buildings more fit for purpose to meet the needs of patients in the modern world. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) made a very brave speech. She spoke at great length—and rightly so—about the importance of involving the medical royal colleges in deciding how hospital inspection processes should be implemented and about the importance of clinical leadership and involvement in those inspections to help understand what good care looks like. After all, those colleges are centres of excellence in their fields and it is right that we listen to what they have to say.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) made a particularly thoughtful speech. He called for good management and spoke of the need for good managers in the NHS. He also made the important point that, in all our debates on patients who have been let down, the regulators have often not played their part. That is why we need to ensure that the regulators continue to come to the table and that the improvements at the CQC continue. The regulators need to remain fit for purpose.
The problem with mandatory staffing ratios is that they would just provide another tick box that would not necessarily bear a relation to what good clinical care looks like. There is a clear difference between mandatory staffing ratios and appropriate staffing levels, as the Francis report indicated. We need staffing levels that reflect the needs of the patients on the ward. Those will vary from ward to ward and will change on a daily basis according to the needs of different patients. It is important that we consider the patients who are in front of the doctors and nurses on the day. It may not be nursing care that is needed, but care from other members of the multi-disciplinary team such as physiotherapists and health care assistants. That is why it is wrong to use mandatory staffing ratios as a measure of good care.
Barbara Keeley: The point that I keep raising with the hon. Gentleman, other Ministers and the Secretary of State is that there must be transparency in the numbers. Ratios of 2:29 have been reported to me, which nobody would be comfortable with. My excellent local hospital puts information about staffing ratios on the boards in each ward. Does he not think that we should move rapidly to provide transparency on this matter? I am asking not for mandated ratios, but transparency so that patients and their families can see what the ratio is.
Dr Poulter: The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the importance of having staffing levels that are appropriate to the needs of the patients. That is why NHS England is considering toolkits that will help hospitals to build the right care in the right place and at the right time for patients and to adapt care so that it is provided by the appropriate professionals, according to patient need.
The debate has rightly focused on transparency and openness. We have not got that right in the NHS since the Bristol heart inquiry, which took place under the previous Government. Both the Government and the Opposition believe that we need to support staff who feel that they need to speak out and that there needs to
17 July 2013 : Column 1208
be greater transparency and openness. I believe that the steps that the Government are taking will make a difference. We are introducing a contractual right for staff to raise concerns and issuing guidance on good practice in supporting staff to raise concerns. We are strengthening the NHS constitution and have set up the whistleblowing hotline to support whistleblowers. We are also amending legislation to secure protection for all staff through the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. We are doing good work and it is right that we continue to do all that we can to support staff in raising concerns about patient care, where that is appropriate.
We must focus on improving productivity in the NHS so that we can do more with the resources that we have. As the Secretary of State outlined, that is about improving the technology in the NHS so that we can spend more money on care and free up staff time. If we use technology to better join up health and social care, staff will spend less time on paperwork and more time with patients, which will improve patient care.
It is important to consider the fact that there are higher levels of morbidity and mortality at weekends and in the evenings. There needs to be more consultant cover and out-of-hours cover at those crucial times to ensure that the service is more responsive to patients. The Government are addressing that.
In conclusion, at the beginning of this debate, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) rightly highlighted the long-standing problems in our NHS. Although Labour is now talking about social care, it was the last Labour Government who cut the social care budget between 2005 and 2010. Although Labour is now talking about the risk register, the last Labour Government refused to publish it.
Ms Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab) claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question put accordingly(Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
The House divided:
Ayes 214, Noes 277.
Division No. 67]
[
6.59 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr Joe
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Sir Tony
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Durkan, Mark
Eagle, Ms Angela
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hanson, rh Mr David
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mark
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Irranca-Davies, Huw
James, Mrs Siân C.
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Joyce, Eric
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Khan, rh Sadiq
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
McCabe, Steve
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Osborne, Sandra
Pearce, Teresa
Phillipson, Bridget
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, John
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Sawford, Andy
Seabeck, Alison
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Watts, Mr Dave
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williamson, Chris
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wood, Mike
Woodcock, John
Wright, David
Tellers for the Ayes:
Heidi Alexander
and
Alison McGovern
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, rh Danny
Amess, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Sir Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Baron, Mr John
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Bradley, Karen
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Field, Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Gray, Mr James
Green, rh Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Harvey, Sir Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Lewis, Brandon
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Main, Mrs Anne
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Menzies, Mark
Metcalfe, Stephen
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, rh Sir James
Patel, Priti
Pawsey, Mark
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Phillips, Stephen
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, rh Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Tapsell, rh Sir Peter
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
White, Chris
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Noes:
Jenny Willott
and
Mr Robert Syms
Question accordingly negatived.
17 July 2013 : Column 1209
17 July 2013 : Column 1210
17 July 2013 : Column 1211
17 July 2013 : Column 1212
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.
The House divided:
Ayes 276, Noes 212.
Division No. 68]
[
7.12 pm
AYES
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, rh Danny
Amess, Mr David
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Bacon, Mr Richard
Baker, Steve
Baldry, Sir Tony
Baldwin, Harriett
Barclay, Stephen
Baron, Mr John
Bebb, Guto
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benyon, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Binley, Mr Brian
Blunt, Mr Crispin
Boles, Nick
Bone, Mr Peter
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Bray, Angie
Brazier, Mr Julian
Bridgen, Andrew
Brine, Steve
Brooke, Annette
Browne, Mr Jeremy
Bruce, Fiona
Bruce, rh Sir Malcolm
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burley, Mr Aidan
Burns, Conor
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, rh Paul
Burt, Lorely
Byles, Dan
Cairns, Alun
Campbell, rh Sir Menzies
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Chishti, Rehman
Chope, Mr Christopher
Clappison, Mr James
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Coffey, Dr Thérèse
Colvile, Oliver
Cox, Mr Geoffrey
Crabb, Stephen
Crouch, Tracey
Davies, David T. C.
(Monmouth)
Davies, Glyn
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
de Bois, Nick
Dinenage, Caroline
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Donaldson, rh Mr Jeffrey M.
Dorrell, rh Mr Stephen
Doyle-Price, Jackie
Drax, Richard
Duddridge, James
Duncan, rh Mr Alan
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Ellis, Michael
Ellison, Jane
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Eustice, George
Evans, Graham
Evans, Jonathan
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Fallon, rh Michael
Field, Mark
Foster, rh Mr Don
Fox, rh Dr Liam
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Fullbrook, Lorraine
Gale, Sir Roger
Garnier, Sir Edward
Garnier, Mark
Gauke, Mr David
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Gray, Mr James
Green, rh Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Griffiths, Andrew
Gummer, Ben
Gyimah, Mr Sam
Halfon, Robert
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, rh Mr Philip
Hammond, Stephen
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Harvey, Sir Nick
Haselhurst, rh Sir Alan
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Heaton-Harris, Chris
Hemming, John
Hendry, Charles
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Hoban, Mr Mark
Hollingbery, George
Hollobone, Mr Philip
Hopkins, Kris
Horwood, Martin
Howarth, Sir Gerald
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Hunt, rh Mr Jeremy
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Javid, Sajid
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, rh Mr David
Jones, Mr Marcus
Kelly, Chris
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Kwarteng, Kwasi
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lancaster, Mark
Lansley, rh Mr Andrew
Latham, Pauline
Leadsom, Andrea
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leech, Mr John
Lefroy, Jeremy
Leigh, Sir Edward
Leslie, Charlotte
Lewis, Brandon
Lewis, Dr Julian
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Stephen
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Lumley, Karen
Macleod, Mary
Main, Mrs Anne
Maynard, Paul
McCartney, Jason
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
McPartland, Stephen
McVey, Esther
Menzies, Mark
Metcalfe, Stephen
Mills, Nigel
Milton, Anne
Moore, rh Michael
Mordaunt, Penny
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, Anne Marie
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mowat, David
Mulholland, Greg
Mundell, rh David
Munt, Tessa
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
Nokes, Caroline
Norman, Jesse
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Dr Matthew
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Ottaway, Richard
Paice, rh Sir James
Patel, Priti
Pawsey, Mark
Penrose, John
Percy, Andrew
Phillips, Stephen
Pincher, Christopher
Poulter, Dr Daniel
Prisk, Mr Mark
Pugh, John
Raab, Mr Dominic
Randall, rh Mr John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reevell, Simon
Reid, Mr Alan
Rifkind, rh Sir Malcolm
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Robertson, rh Hugh
Robertson, Mr Laurence
Rogerson, Dan
Rosindell, Andrew
Rudd, Amber
Ruffley, Mr David
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sandys, Laura
Scott, Mr Lee
Selous, Andrew
Sharma, Alok
Shelbrooke, Alec
Skidmore, Chris
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Henry
Smith, Julian
Smith, Sir Robert
Soames, rh Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Spencer, Mr Mark
Stanley, rh Sir John
Stevenson, John
Stewart, Iain
Stewart, Rory
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, rh Sir Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Teather, Sarah
Thurso, John
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Tredinnick, David
Truss, Elizabeth
Turner, Mr Andrew
Uppal, Paul
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Vickers, Martin
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Ward, Mr David
Watkinson, Dame Angela
Weatherley, Mike
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
White, Chris
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Yeo, Mr Tim
Young, rh Sir George
Zahawi, Nadhim
Tellers for the Ayes:
Jenny Willott
and
Karen Bradley
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Abrahams, Debbie
Ainsworth, rh Mr Bob
Alexander, rh Mr Douglas
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Anderson, Mr David
Ashworth, Jonathan
Austin, Ian
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Bain, Mr William
Balls, rh Ed
Banks, Gordon
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Bayley, Hugh
Beckett, rh Margaret
Begg, Dame Anne
Benn, rh Hilary
Benton, Mr Joe
Berger, Luciana
Betts, Mr Clive
Blackman-Woods, Roberta
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Lyn
Brown, rh Mr Nicholas
Brown, Mr Russell
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Burden, Richard
Burnham, rh Andy
Campbell, Mr Alan
Campbell, Mr Ronnie
Caton, Martin
Champion, Sarah
Chapman, Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clwyd, rh Ann
Coaker, Vernon
Coffey, Ann
Connarty, Michael
Cooper, Rosie
Cooper, rh Yvette
Corbyn, Jeremy
Crausby, Mr David
Creagh, Mary
Creasy, Stella
Cruddas, Jon
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Alex
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Cunningham, Sir Tony
Curran, Margaret
Dakin, Nic
Danczuk, Simon
Darling, rh Mr Alistair
David, Wayne
Davidson, Mr Ian
Davies, Geraint
De Piero, Gloria
Denham, rh Mr John
Dobbin, Jim
Dobson, rh Frank
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Doran, Mr Frank
Doughty, Stephen
Dowd, Jim
Doyle, Gemma
Dromey, Jack
Eagle, Ms Angela
Efford, Clive
Elliott, Julie
Ellman, Mrs Louise
Engel, Natascha
Evans, Chris
Farrelly, Paul
Field, rh Mr Frank
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Flello, Robert
Flint, rh Caroline
Flynn, Paul
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francis, Dr Hywel
Gapes, Mike
Gardiner, Barry
Gilmore, Sheila
Glass, Pat
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Goggins, rh Paul
Goodman, Helen
Greatrex, Tom
Green, Kate
Greenwood, Lilian
Griffith, Nia
Gwynne, Andrew
Hanson, rh Mr David
Havard, Mr Dai
Healey, rh John
Hendrick, Mark
Hilling, Julie
Hodge, rh Margaret
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hoey, Kate
Hood, Mr Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin
Howarth, rh Mr George
Irranca-Davies, Huw
James, Mrs Siân C.
Jamieson, Cathy
Jarvis, Dan
Johnson, rh Alan
Johnson, Diana
Jones, Graham
Jones, Helen
Jones, Mr Kevan
Jones, Susan Elan
Jowell, rh Dame Tessa
Kaufman, rh Sir Gerald
Keeley, Barbara
Kendall, Liz
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lavery, Ian
Lazarowicz, Mark
Leslie, Chris
Lewell-Buck, Mrs Emma
Lewis, Mr Ivan
Love, Mr Andrew
Lucas, Caroline
Lucas, Ian
Mactaggart, Fiona
Mahmood, Shabana
Malhotra, Seema
McCann, Mr Michael
McCarthy, Kerry
McClymont, Gregg
McDonagh, Siobhain
McDonald, Andy
McFadden, rh Mr Pat
McGovern, Jim
McGuire, rh Mrs Anne
McKechin, Ann
McKenzie, Mr Iain
Meale, Sir Alan
Mearns, Ian
Miliband, rh Edward
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morden, Jessica
Morrice, Graeme
(Livingston)
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Murphy, rh Mr Jim
Murphy, rh Paul
Nandy, Lisa
Nash, Pamela
O'Donnell, Fiona
Osborne, Sandra
Pearce, Teresa
Phillipson, Bridget
Pound, Stephen
Qureshi, Yasmin
Reed, Mr Jamie
Reed, Mr Steve
Reynolds, Emma
Reynolds, Jonathan
Ritchie, Ms Margaret
Robertson, John
Rotheram, Steve
Roy, Mr Frank
Roy, Lindsay
Ruddock, rh Dame Joan
Sarwar, Anas
Sawford, Andy
Seabeck, Alison
Shannon, Jim
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Sheridan, Jim
Shuker, Gavin
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Angela
Smith, Nick
Smith, Owen
Spellar, rh Mr John
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry
Tami, Mark
Thomas, Mr Gareth
Thornberry, Emily
Timms, rh Stephen
Trickett, Jon
Turner, Karl
Twigg, Derek
Twigg, Stephen
Vaz, rh Keith
Vaz, Valerie
Walley, Joan
Watts, Mr Dave
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Williamson, Chris
Winnick, Mr David
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wood, Mike
Woodcock, John
Wright, David
Tellers for the Noes:
Alison McGovern
and
Heidi Alexander
Question accordingly agreed to.
17 July 2013 : Column 1213
17 July 2013 : Column 1214
17 July 2013 : Column 1215
The Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No.31(2)).
That this Housewelcomes the Government’s swift action in response to the Francis Report; notes the rapid establishment of reviews on key components of the Report’s findings, including the
17 July 2013 : Column 1216
Cavendish review on healthcare assistants, the Clwyd-Hart review on complaints and the Berwick review on patient safety; further notes the drive to improve standards through the appointment of a Chief Inspector of Hospitals, the introduction of Ofsted-style ratings and the recruitment of specialist hospital inspectors; regrets the Opposition’s continued refusal to support these practical measures to expose and improve poor care; welcomes the watershed decision to expose and investigate 14 hospitals with high death rates through the recent Keogh review; further notes the Government’s decisive action to drive improvements in these hospitals by placing 11 hospitals in special measures; and applauds the Government’s wide-ranging efforts to introduce greater transparency and accountability in the NHS.
Business without Debate
Deferred Divisions
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),
That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Greg Clark relating to the Multiannual Financial Framework, 2014–2020.—(Anne Milton.)
Business of the House
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 15),
That, at this day’s sitting, the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Trident Alternatives Review may be proceeded with, though opposed, until 10 o’clock or for three hours, whichever is the later.—(Anne Milton.)
European union documents
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),
Multiannual Financial Framework, 2014–2020
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 8041/13, draft Amending Budget No. 2 to the General Budget 2013: general statement of revenue: statement of expenditure by section: Section III: Commission, No. 11295/13, a draft Council Regulation laying down the Multiannual Financial Framework for the years 2014–2020, No. 11298/13, a draft Inter-Institutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management, and No. 11307/13, a draft Council Regulation laying down the Multiannual Financial Framework for the years 2014–2020 and Inter-Institutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission on budgetary discipline, cooperation in budgetary matters and on sound financial management: Draft Declarations; agrees with the Government that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the MFF agreement reached, which delivers a reduction of €35 billion on the current period in the seven year payment ceilings to €908.4 billion, a real-terms reduction of over three per cent in payment appropriations, represents a good deal for taxpayers; welcomes the Government’s successful defence of the UK abatement, noting that UK contributions to the EU budget have risen in recent years due to the 2005 decision to give away parts of the abatement, shares the Government’s disappointment at the Council Decision to agree an additional €7.3 billion in 2013 in draft Amending Budget No. 2 and welcomes the Government’s opposition to that decision, reflecting as it does the weaknesses in the 2007-13 deal.—(Anne Milton.)
17 July 2013 : Column 1217
Mr Speaker: I have now to announce the results of a number of deferred Divisions. On the Question relating to the draft Unfair Dismissal Order 2013, the Ayes were 300 and the Noes were 204, so the Question was agreed to.
In the deferred Division on the Question relating to the draft order to amend the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Ayes were 299 and the Noes were 205, so the Question was agreed to.
In the deferred Division on the Question relating to the Court of Judicature, Northern Ireland, the Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 203, so the Question was agreed to.
In the deferred Division on the Question relating to the senior courts of England and Wales, the Ayes were 300 and the Noes were 202, so the Question was agreed to.
[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House is probably not aware that the Central Lobby reception staff, William and Carlos, are due to be subject to a major change. Central Lobby reception staff, as the first point of contact for Members and the public, give a positive impression of both Houses in their fine formal clothing, mirroring that of our excellent Doorkeepers. They have an extensive knowledge of the Members of both Houses and the ability to provide an important extra layer of security to the Palace of Westminster. All that is set to change this October.
Gone will be the smart formal wear, to be replaced by what in my opinion, by comparison, is a sort of glorified school uniform. The staff will be on rotation, so that valuable knowledge will be lost, and I believe security will be seriously weakened. May I ask, Mr Speaker, that
17 July 2013 : Column 1218
your Committee meeting in September urgently considers this issue, and perhaps considers transferring the function of Central Lobby staff to the Serjeant at Arms Office? In the meantime, may we have a moratorium on these changes until the end of the year?
Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I make two points in response. First, security matters should not be discussed on the Floor of the House, and the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to do so. Secondly, with reference to the changes that he describes, it is of course open to the hon. Gentleman and others to discuss these matters with the Serjeant at Arms if he so wishes. If there is a feeling among Members that they would wish this matter to come before the House of Commons Commission, I cannot off the top of my head see any reason why that should not be possible. I think I would want to consider the matter further, but my instinctive reaction to the hon. Gentleman is what I have just set out. I hope that that is helpful to him and to others interested in the matter.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not aware of that proposal until I heard about it a moment ago from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello). I am bound to say that what he said shocks me. I hear what you have said, Mr Speaker, and I would like to make it known that I, with a few years’ experience in this House, strongly endorse everything the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr Speaker: On the strength of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, it looks to me as though he is potentially joining forces with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) and could be part of a delegation. It is always a pleasure to hear from both hon. Members—on this occasion and, it would appear, in the autumn. I hope that is helpful.
17 July 2013 : Column 1219
Trident Alternatives Review
Mr Speaker: Before I call the Minister responsible for the review to move the motion, I should stress that 16 Members are seeking to catch the Chair’s eye. I therefore propose that there should be a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions. Such a limit would of course have to be reviewed in the light of Front-Bench contributions. I feel confident, therefore, that the Minister and shadow Minister will wish considerately to tailor their contributions to facilitate the participation of their colleagues.
7.30 pm
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander): I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Trident Alternatives Review.
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I shall certainly do as you say. I will also tailor the number of interventions I take to meet your invocation.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister published the Trident alternatives review—the most thorough review of nuclear weapon systems and postures that the UK has undertaken for decades, and the most comprehensive analysis ever made public. For the first time in a generation—
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) rose—
Danny Alexander: I will make some progress before giving way.
For the first time in a generation, the Trident alternatives review shows that there are credible and viable alternatives to the United Kingdom’s current approach to nuclear deterrence. A different approach would allow the UK to contribute meaningfully to the new multilateral drive for disarmament initiated by President Obama, while maintaining our national security and our ultimate insurance policy against future threats.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) rose—
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con) rose—
Danny Alexander: I will take some interventions later, but in the light of what Mr Speaker has said, I will make some progress.
A different approach could allow long-term savings—about £4 billion over the life of the system—to be made against current plans. Let me be clear: this does not change current Government policy to maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent and prepare for a successor system. It does mean that we can at last have an open and much more informed debate about what our nuclear weapons are for and how they should be deployed—a debate that provides our country with a chance to change course before the main-gate decision for a successor system is taken in 2016.
Dr Julian Lewis: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for giving way. He says this is the most comprehensive examination for many years—that is open to question—but will he explain why it considered only the four-boat and three-boat options for Trident, not the two-boat options that the Liberal Democrats plan to put to their conference as Liberal Democrat policy?
17 July 2013 : Column 1220
Danny Alexander: My hon. Friend will have a chance to see the proposed Liberal Democrat policy paper when it is published in a few weeks’ time. The purpose of this debate is to consider the Trident alternatives review.
Caroline Lucas: On the review’s comprehensive nature, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a review that fails even to consider the option of not replacing Trident at all and having no nuclear submarines is ultimately flawed? Decades after the cold war and in the midst of austerity, the key question that has to be asked is whether Britain needs a nuclear submarine system that will cost us £100 billion over the next 30 years.
Danny Alexander: That is of course a legitimate point for political debate, but the purpose of the review was to consider alternative nuclear weapon systems that could act as a deterrent. The review was never designed to consider the option of unilateral disarmament, although the hon. Lady is free to argue for that.
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab) rose—
Danny Alexander: I give way to the former Secretary of State.
Mr Ainsworth: If this was the most comprehensive examination of our nuclear weapons system in a generation, why did the right hon. Gentleman not take evidence from individuals outside government?
Danny Alexander: It was a review conducted within government, taking advice from senior officials, as with every other government review. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has been involved in such reviews in the past, and I am sure he knows better.
Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con) rose—
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con) rose—
Danny Alexander: I will take one more intervention and then make some progress.
Mr Ellwood: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for coming to the Chamber today. He says this is the most comprehensive review we have had. That is open to question, but is he saying that after a two-year study we still do not know what the Liberal Democrat position is on this important subject?
Danny Alexander: I am here to set out the details of the review. Those are the terms of the debate today. I will set out my own views in the course of my speech, if my hon. Friend will allow me time to get on with it.
Danny Alexander: I will, however, give way to the Chairman of the Select Committee first.
Mr Arbuthnot:
I am grateful to the Chief Secretary. I am trying to take this document seriously, but I am having some difficulty, not least because of the removal
17 July 2013 : Column 1221
by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister of the excellent Liberal Democrat Minister from the Ministry of Defence, which shows something of his party’s attitude towards defence. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury accept that his policy would destroy the submarine building industry of this country?
Danny Alexander: No, I certainly do not accept that, but I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), who made an enormous contribution to this review.
Danny Alexander: I will take one more intervention, then I will make some progress.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op): I very much appreciate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury giving way. Further to the point on the submarine building industry, and in relation to the £4 billion saving that he has just mentioned, does he accept that chart 2 on page 42 of the document includes the platform, the missile, the infrastructure, the warhead and the policy change costs, but does not include the cost of bringing forward the next submarine project to plug the gap in the Barrow shipyard’s order book? That omission could cripple submarine building in this country for ever.
Danny Alexander: One of the review’s assumptions is that we would wish to maintain our sovereign submarine building capability. That is the policy of the Government and it sounds as though it is the hon. Gentleman’s policy, too—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will calm down for a second, I will tell them that it does include the cost of maintaining that capability. All the alternatives include the procurement of further submarines after the successor.
As the House knows, the review was commissioned by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, initially with my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon as the Minister in charge. My hon. Friend deserves a huge share of the credit for this work. It has been taken forward under the auspices of the Cabinet Office, with a cross-government team of expert civilian and military officials. I should like to take this opportunity to thank them for their hard work.
During my visits to Aldermaston, Faslane and Coulport as part of the review, I had the privilege of meeting many of the submariners of the Royal Navy, as well as the scientists, engineers and other civilians who support them. They are some of Britain’s hidden heroes, often unsung, who operate at the limits of human understanding. Seeing them in action also gives me confidence that if the next Government were to change their mission, they would deliver it just as effectively, and in the most efficient and credible way. The review will provide the opportunity to do that.
As I said in response to an earlier intervention, it is also important to be clear what the review was not about. First, it was not about short-term savings to help to deal with the current deficit. It is possible under some of the options that savings against current plans would start to accrue from the mid-2020s, but this is not about back-filling budgets in the next Parliament. As I also said earlier, the review has not addressed the question of
17 July 2013 : Column 1222
whether the UK should remain a nuclear weapon power, because complete unilateral disarmament is not the policy of either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats—or, indeed, of Labour. The review did not seek to address the question of whether we should possess nuclear weapons. However, the scale and posture of our nuclear weapon capability can change.
Mr Baron: Many of us who believe that a continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent is absolutely essential, and that anything else involves living in cloud cuckoo land, also believe that we should honour those who were in at the very beginning of our nuclear arms age—the British nuclear test veterans. The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association and many parliamentarians from both sides of the House have come together to campaign for recognition for the veterans. We have written to the Prime Minister and had meetings with Ministers. Will the Government look again at the campaign, because we rank very lowly on the international table of decency on this issue—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention has gone on for too long.
Danny Alexander: I certainly hear the point my hon. Friend is making. The veterans clearly played an important role in the development of the deterrent, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), who is going to reply to the debate, will be able to add something more on that in his comments.
The review was tasked to answer three questions. First, are there credible alternatives to submarine-based deterrence; secondly, are there credible submarine-based alternatives to the current proposal; and, thirdly, are there alternative nuclear postures that could maintain credibility? The review has been thorough, detailed, extensive and objective. The analysis looks in detail at specific combinations of platform, delivery vehicle and warhead design, but excludes technologies that could not be ready by 2035. Variants of the current successor programme are included.
As for alternative platforms, the review considered large aircraft, combat jets, surface ships and multiple types of submarine, including those with a dual role. As for alternative delivery systems, the final analysis was focused on two types of potential future cruise missile—a subsonic stealthy cruise missile and a supersonic cruise missile, each carrying one warhead. Warhead design issues were considered and were important in the review.
An assessment of our ability to deliver alternative options showed that producing the warhead and its integration into a cruise missile or bomb would be the critical challenge. The reality is that the UK nuclear warhead programme is highly optimised around producing and maintaining warheads for the Trident missile. The review found that moving towards an alternative would add technical, financial and schedule risk to the programme. Delivering a warhead for an alternative system would therefore take at least 24 years—deliverable with some risk by about 2040. The crucial point is that the review judged this warhead time scale to be longer than the Vanguard submarines can safely be operated for. There are, of course, options to bridge the gap, but when we
17 July 2013 : Column 1223
look at the cost of alternative systems, it becomes clear that each cruise missile-based option includes an extra £10 billion on its price tag because of the need to bridge the gap.
The bottom line is this, and I quote from the review:
“The analysis has shown that there are alternatives to Trident that would enable the UK to be capable of inflicting significant damage such that most potential adversaries around the world would be deterred.”
The analysis shows that cruise missile-based options are militarily credible, but, because of the gap, my conclusion is that a replacement nuclear deterrent based on the current Trident system is the most cost-effective for the period we are considering.
Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and I welcome his conclusion on submarines, but will he accept that continuous-at-sea deterrence is rather like pregnancy—nature admits of no middle position?
Danny Alexander: I will come to that, but I do not accept the point; that may be an accurate description of pregnancy, but not of deterrent postures.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): I want to come back to the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis of the threat. Does he agree with President Obama who said in Prague that
“the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up”?
Danny Alexander: I agree with many of the things President Obama has said, including in his recent Berlin speech. I would point the hon. Lady, however, to the Government’s own threat assessment in the strategic security and defence review, which says that state-on-state nuclear attacks are a tier 2 threat. I will come to the threat analysis in a moment.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): This is the nub of matter. That is just one threat assessment, but no serious conflict with which this country has been involved over decades—extending even to the second world war—has been expected. Wars are unexpected, so why does the right hon. Gentleman rest any assurance on a single threat assessment? How does he know that that threat assessment will not have to be changed in a few days’ time, let alone in 10 or 20 years?
Danny Alexander: I will address that point as I move through my speech, although I am glad to have taken my hon. Friend’s intervention. All I would say is that the degree of readiness of our conventional weapons and forces is scaled to the threats of the time, and my precise proposal is that we could adopt a similar approach here.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD):
In assessing the contribution of President Obama to this debate, will my right hon. Friend take into account the fact that the United States is intending to reduce its fleet of submarines carrying Trident missiles from 18 to 12,
17 July 2013 : Column 1224
and that the Berlin speech was the second time that President Obama has argued very strongly for multilateral nuclear disarmament?
Danny Alexander: I entirely agree. I applaud President Obama’s leadership of the disarmament debate. I think that the review gives the United Kingdom an opportunity to contribute further both to disarmament and to the global movement towards the de-alerting of our nuclear weapons.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Danny Alexander: No, I will not. I will give way later, but I want to make some progress first.
The review presents a much greater opportunity for change and the consideration of alternative postures, and that in turn presents the possibility of maintaining our nuclear deterrent capability with fewer submarines. This is where the real opportunity resides for making long-term savings, for recalibrating our policy to the requirements of our ages, and—as we just heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell)—for contributing to nuclear disarmament.
Analysis of the national security strategy confirms the position adopted by successive Governments that
“no state currently has both the intent and the capability to threaten the independence or integrity of the UK. But we cannot dismiss the possibility that a major direct nuclear threat to the UK might re-emerge.”
With no hostile backdrop and a surprise attack against the UK highly unlikely, the United Kingdom could adopt a number of viable and credible alternative postures while maintaining a nuclear deterrence capability that meets the needs of national security.
The review demonstrates that our current nuclear posture of continuous-at-sea deterrence is not the only one available. Let me briefly describe four of the alternative postures that were considered in the review, from highest to lowest readiness. Each of them represents a different rung on the nuclear ladder, with CASD at the top.
A posture of focused deterrence would maintain a continuous nuclear deterrent for a specific period in response to a specific threat. At all other times, the system could adopt a reduced readiness level. We considered three options for reduced readiness. A so-called sustained-deterrence posture would mean regular patrols that maintained deterrence capability, but the number of platforms could be reduced. A responsive posture would allow gaps of irregular frequency and length between deployment, so that a potential adversary could not predict when and for how long a gap in deployment might occur. A posture of preserved deterrence would hold forces at low readiness. Under preserved deterrence, no platforms would be regularly deployed, but the UK would maintain the ability to deploy if the context changed.
The review clearly demonstrates that the concept of a ladder of nuclear capability and readiness is viable and credible, and that there are a number of options for taking steps down the rungs without getting off altogether.
David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
17 July 2013 : Column 1225
Danny Alexander: I will happily give way after I have made a bit more progress.
According to the review’s description of alternative postures, those options could include operating fewer Vanguard submarines, ending CASD for less frequent patrols, and unarmed patrols.
Of course, coming down the ladder depends on judgments that we make about future threats and our legal and international obligations. I should make it clear that adopting a non-continuous posture means accepting a different calculation of risk from that which existed during the cold war. However, I consider it imperative for us to update our calculation of risk. If CASD is an insurance policy, we are paying too high a premium for our needs.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Danny Alexander: I am going to make some more progress.
The 2010 national security strategy considers state-on-state nuclear war to be a second-tier threat. The argument that a current adversary would take the opportunity to target the UK during a period when no boat is covertly deployed and to launch an overwhelming nuclear strike against Britain is not supported by any analysis that I have seen.
Dr Fox: Will my right hon. Friend give way on that point?
Danny Alexander: I am going to make some progress—oh, I am sorry. I will give way to the former Defence Secretary.
Dr Fox: What level of threat assessment would require us to go back up the ladder and reinstate CASD, and how quickly could that be done if it had been abandoned at this point?
Danny Alexander: As my right hon. Friend will know, the first question is a matter of political judgment for the Government of the day. As for the second, it would depend on which of the alternative postures was adopted. They would all be designed to allow us to surge back to the so-called focused deterrence, which would sustain a continuous posture in response to our needs.
The reality is that in the current circumstances, and for the foreseeable future, the ultimate guarantee does not need to sit on a hair trigger. We can afford to go much further in de-alerting our nuclear deterrent. The option of non-continuous deterrence does not threaten current security, and by changing postures we can reduce cost at the same time. For example, ending CASD and procuring one fewer successor submarine would make a saving of about £4 billion over the life of the system.
Jeremy Corbyn: May I put a simple question to the right hon. Gentleman? In what circumstances would he envisage the use of nuclear weapons, and the problems that would follow as a result of their use?
Danny Alexander: The whole purpose of nuclear deterrents is to deter their use.
17 July 2013 : Column 1226
The judgment must be made about where on the ladder we believe that it is credible to stand, provided that the ability to scale up or down as threats change and the momentum of proliferation on the one hand and disarmament on the other shift. As a recognised nuclear weapon state under the non-proliferation treaty, we have an obligation to move towards a world in which nuclear weapons are no longer part of state security and defence postures. It is true that Britain has made significant steps since the cold war in disarmament terms. Some would argue that Britain has done its bit for disarmament and we have reached the minimum level possible. That argument has been deployed at every point at which we have scaled down over the past 20 years, but each time it has proven not to be true. The next step down the ladder is to reduce the salience of nuclear weapons in our defence policy itself, which means accepting that a cold-war-style continuous deterrent has become unnecessary.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op): If the right hon. Gentleman accepts that the UK will have a non-continuous deterrent, it means that there will be times when the UK does not have an active deterrent. Why then did he rule out the option, at least, of not continuing with the deterrent programme at all?
Danny Alexander: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question and I have answered the substance of it in answer to an earlier intervention.
David T. C. Davies: Surely we either have a full-time deterrent or we do not. If we do not have one, we might as well stand as high as we possibly can on the ladder so that our enemies can see the white flag that we will need to wave at them.
Danny Alexander: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has clearly not been listening to the analysis or read the review. Just last month, in Berlin, President Obama called for movement beyond the “cold war nuclear postures” and announced a major reduction in the US nuclear arsenal. It is my hope that in the next Parliament the UK will answer that call with a serious consideration of ending continuous nuclear deterrence.
The review is the most comprehensive study on nuclear weapon platforms and postures ever published by the UK Government. I believe that as large numbers of nuclear weapons remain and the risk of proliferation continues, it is right that the UK retains a nuclear capability for as long as the global security situation makes that necessary. But I also believe that that capability should be scaled and deployed to meet the threat we face now, and held as a contingency to deal with the threats we may face in the future. We should seek to balance the costs of this insurance policy against the other needs of defence and, indeed, other priorities across government.
The conclusion I draw from the Trident alternatives review is that although alternatives exist, there is no new system available before the lives of the current Vanguard submarines come to an end to meet those criteria. But a step down the ladder is available: ending 24-hour patrols when we do not need them and procuring fewer successor submarines, moving on from an outdated cold war concept of deterrence to one fit for the world we inhabit now. For the remainder of this Parliament the coalition
17 July 2013 : Column 1227
Government’s policy will remain exactly as set out in the strategic defence and security review. We will maintain the deterrent as it is, and preparations for a successor system will continue. But the final main-gate decision on whether to proceed with a like-for-like replacement of Trident will be made in 2016, after the next general election. It is therefore up to the different political parties in this House to decide the positions they will take before that time. For the country, I hope that the publication of this review will mark the start of a national debate on one of the most profound questions of our time, and I commend the Trident alternatives review to the House.
7.52 pm
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab): I have to say at the outset that I have a little difficulty here, because the Chief Secretary to the Treasury either has a different report in front of him or he has read the report and not understood it. The Government commissioned the alternatives review into the future of UK nuclear deterrence back in 2011. It was part of the agreement in the shotgun marriage between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats following the 2010 general election. As he said, the Government’s stated position was to “maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent”, but the Liberal Democrats had an opt-out in that they could be allowed to make the case for alternatives. So, more than two years later, we have finally been presented with those alternatives.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con): Will the Labour party confirm its admirable commitment to continuous-at-sea deterrence in any coalition negotiations? Will the hon. Gentleman say that in Labour’s view this is non-negotiable?
Mr Jones: My position is very clear: I am working for a Labour victory at the next general election. But on the issue of continuous-at-sea deterrence, my answer is yes. Even though the report was commissioned by Her Majesty’s Government, its first line has the strange disclaimer:
“This…is not a statement of government policy.”
This must be the first time ever that the findings of a Government policy review have been abandoned at birth.
Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD): Will the hon. Gentleman explain why today’s edition of The Times carries a headline that reads “Labour could cut Trident fleet after review suggests this would save £1.7bn”?
Mr Jones: I am not sure where that came from, first, because the figure that the hon. Lady cites is not correct—this would not be the first time that a newspaper had failed to do its sums—and, secondly, because we agree with what the Defence Secretary says. If changes in technology make the nuclear submarines more reliable, meaning that we can go down to three, we will consider that.
Many Labour Members have waited anxiously to see the report’s conclusion but, 26 months later, the review to make the case for the alternatives, which had the full
17 July 2013 : Column 1228
weight of the Government’s resources behind it, presents us with no conclusions, makes no recommendations and does not even support adopting any of the alternatives put forward by the Chief Secretary. Only the Liberal Democrats could envisage an alternatives review that rejects all the alternatives. It is the equivalent of starting a journey to discover the ark of the covenant only to end up where we began with the conclusion that it does not exist.
The Liberal Democrats’ 2010 manifesto said:
“At a cost of £100 billion over a lifetime”
“is unaffordable, and Britain’s security would be better served by alternatives.”
If that was the case in 2010, given that those alternatives have not been identified in the review, surely it is not too much to ask that the Deputy Prime Minister and his Liberal Democrat colleagues admit that what they claimed in 2010 was wrong. One by one, each of the alternative platforms to Trident are rejected in the review. Heavy bombers, fast jets, low-orbit vehicles, land silos and maritime surface vessels are all discredited for not offering sufficient capability while costing more.
The review even dismisses the Liberal Democrats’ most favoured option of replacing Trident with nuclear-armed cruise missiles. Page 45 of the document states that cruise missiles
“offer a much reduced level of destructive and second-strike capability and an increased level of operational complexity”.
“Maintaining the same level of assurance that the UK deterrent can overcome an adversary’s defences is…likely to be harder with a cruise missile-based system.”
Page 8 points out that the cost of developing a nuclear-armed cruise missile would more than double the cost of Trident missiles and would take some 24 years. In support of that argument, the Deputy Prime Minister told Andrew Marr in 2010 that the UK
“could use Astute class submarines and use cruise missiles.”
It is true that they are alternatives but, as the report says, they are not only very expensive, but not very good.
The review totally discredits the Liberal Democrats’ previous policy decisions. In fact, some of the more ludicrous suggestions were not considered in the report because exploring them was deemed to be a waste of civil service time and energy. Page 16 dismisses some of those more wacky ideas, such as using helicopters, unmanned air vehicles or space-based platforms. Hand-held devices on the ground were also excluded
“as they would not meet several constraints, including in particular credibility and absolute range.”
The report is therefore credible, as even the most far-fetched suggestions put forward in the outer reaches of the Liberal Democrat world have been addressed.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD): The hon. Gentleman is right that not all parties have been entirely consistent on this matter, but may I remind him that, prior to the 1992 election, the Labour party refused to commit to a fourth submarine, but suggested that one way of maintaining employment at Barrow-in-Furness would be to turn the submarine into an underwater oil carrier?
17 July 2013 : Column 1229
Mr Jones: I had not heard that one. I thought the Liberal Democrats might come forward with a proposal to turn one of the submarines into an underwater famine relief vessel, or some such nonsense.
John Woodcock: The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has a point, but does it not prove that we have learnt from our past mistakes and clearly the Liberal Democrats have not?
Mr Jones: I could not have put it better myself. I will move on to discuss my hon. Friend’s constituency in a minute.
Sir Menzies Campbell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Jones: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had enough time, and the time is limited.
There was another option that was deemed unworthy of examination by what is otherwise a thorough and forensic document: sending two unarmed submarines out on patrol with the intention of stepping up our posture in a time of crisis. That is the policy the Chief Secretary has just proposed.
Dr Julian Lewis: I read that report in The Times, and it seems to me that what was being said was that the Labour party is committed to continuous-at-sea deterrence and the only question is whether it can do it with three submarines or whether it would have to do it with four. The one thing that is absolutely certain from the report is that it cannot be done with two, yet the Chief Secretary’s position is that if a crisis arose they would step up their performance. How could we build a third or fourth extra submarine in time to step up our performance if a crisis arose?
Mr Jones: I know that the hon. Gentleman has studied this subject thoroughly and is an expert. I totally agree with him. As I said, the Chief Secretary clearly has not read his own report because, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, it outlines the problem with having only two submarines.
The Liberal Democrats briefed the newspapers earlier this week that the two-boat option would be a way forward, and the Chief Secretary has just re-outlined that ludicrous policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) hit the nail on the head yesterday when he said that it was a little like installing a very expensive burglar alarm on one’s house with no batteries and putting up a sign saying, “Burglars, come in.” The only difference is that this would be a multi-billion pound deterrent that would not deter.
Caroline Lucas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, and indeed the Government, would pride themselves on adhering to international law, so can he explain how maintaining an arsenal of nuclear weapons for decades to come is in line with the UK’s obligation under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is
“to pursue negotiations in good faith on… nuclear disarmament”?
Mr Jones:
It is very consistent, and I am very proud of the Labour Government’s record on reducing our nuclear stockpiles, as we reduced the number of WE177
17 July 2013 : Column 1230
bombs and the number of warheads. I disagree with the hon. Lady’s position, but I respect the fact that she has one, which is a lot more honest that the Liberal Democrats.
However, credit should be given where credit is due. I think that the Chief Secretary should get some credit, because he managed to do something yesterday that I thought was remarkable, although I am sad that it was not reported more in this morning’s newspapers: he got the Prime Minister and Len McCluskey, the general secretary of Unite, to agree with one another, on this occasion on the Liberal Democrat proposals. That was some feat. If he is able to bring two individuals with such diametrically opposed views together, clearly he should turn his attention to the middle east peace process. Quite rightly, Unite described the Liberal Democrats’ position not only as reckless, but as a farce and a fudge, and that is exactly what we have here—[Interruption.] The Chief Secretary says that if Len McCluskey agrees with it, it must be a nonsense position, but he agrees with the Prime Minister, so is the Chief Secretary suggesting that the Prime Minister’s position is ridiculous?
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): If wishing to end a continuous deterrent is such a reckless position, how does the hon. Gentleman think our other NATO allies in Europe can possibly cope with their current situation? Is he recommending that they should escalate their own nuclear posture?
Mr Jones: The hon. Gentleman has got to try better. The fact of the matter is that France has a continuous-at-sea nuclear deterrent. Our deterrent is part of the nuclear umbrella for NATO. He and his Liberal Democrat colleagues would have more credibility if they came out and said that they were unilateralists, because that is a defendable and credible position, unlike the nonsense they are putting forward.
The importance of the nuclear programme to this country’s submarine-building capability has been overlooked in the Liberal Democrats’ proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) is right to point out its importance not only to his constituency but to constituencies in Derby and to the wider supply chain in the United Kingdom. If we are to maintain our sovereign capability, we have to do it by building submarines, and we cannot do that if we follow the Chief Secretary’s suggestion.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also recognise that 25,000 people in Devonport’s travel-to-work area are dependent on defence, and this would have a very damaging impact on the local economy, which is a low-skills, low-wage economy.
Mr Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. No doubt at the general election he will remind his constituents and others of the Liberal Democrats’ position. We have some indication of what they think of people in Barrow and Furness because the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) suggested that they could move to the Bahamas to find work if we killed off the submarine-building industry there.
Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD) indicated dissent.
17 July 2013 : Column 1231
Mr Jones: But I have the quote here:
“The idea that you should produce weapons of mass destruction in order to keep 1,500 jobs going in the Barrow shipyard is palpably ludicrous. We could give them all a couple of million quid and send them to the Bahamas for the rest of their lives , and the world would be a much better place, and we would have saved a lot of money.”
If that is the Liberal Democrats’ policy, I am sure that the people of Barrow and other places in the supply chain will have a clear view on it. He will have a chance later to tell us whether he has changed his position on sending my hon. Friend’s constituents to the Bahamas.
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): I must chide my hon. Friend. If he reads the reports on alternatives to Trident, he will see that even the one on the future of Barrow-in-Furness makes the very important point that no one should ever argue for making weapons of mass destruction on the basis of employment, because there are alternative places for people to work. Both reports produced so far have said that alternative work could be found if we invested properly in other things. It is wrong to argue that employment is a reason for having weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Jones: I am not saying that; I am saying that we cannot dismiss the fact that these industries do not just employ people. I am proud of the high-technology industries in this country that support the nuclear programme. If the Liberal Democrats are not proud of that technology and the individuals involved in it, then that is their position, but I am certainly proud not only of their skills but of the wealth they create for many communities across the UK. I agree that that is not the only reason we should have the nuclear deterrent, but it is a very important one.
Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): I commend the hon. Gentleman for the strength of his argument. Let me point out—I am sure that he shares this view—that we came perilously close to losing this country’s submarine-building capability. That is a strategically important capability that we need to maintain, and it looks as though the Liberal Democrats are prepared to sacrifice it.
Mr Jones: I did not want to go down this road because obviously the Conservative Government have learned the lessons from the mistake that they made in the 1990s which created the current problems with Astute. We cannot turn these vital skills on and off like a tap when we need them. I have heard various people say, “Is this a justification for Trident?” No, it is not, but we have to take it into consideration when forming policy, and the Liberal Democrats’ position set out in the review document clearly does not do that.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party may reduce the number of successor submarines from four to three. What would be the implication of that for Barrow?
Mr Jones:
I did not say that, actually. I said what the Defence Secretary has said—that in thinking about the new nuclear submarines, we should consider whether it would be viable to have three. That is an option worth looking at. We would then have to bring forward the
17 July 2013 : Column 1232
successor programme for Astute. If we deleted two boats—
[
Interruption.
]
The hon. Member for North Devon says, “It’s all right if we do it.” The fact is that if we went down to two we would have a deterrent that is absolutely useless. It would not save the £4 billion that the Chief Secretary suggested because unless we had mass lay-offs in the submarine-building programme, we would have to bring forward more work, including on the successor for Astute.
John Woodcock: Is that not the exact point? Would it not be helpful if the Chief Secretary made clear whether he wants to save that £4 billion over 30 years and decimate Barrow and the submarine-building industry, or whether he will bring forward the work and eliminate all those savings?
Mr Jones: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. These are questions that the Liberal Democrats and their nonsense policy have to answer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne): The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point as part of what appears to be a shift in the official Opposition’s position on continuous-at-sea deterrence. I would be grateful if he would confirm what I think he is saying. Is it the case that he wants to maintain a minimum deterrent capability, which would most likely be four boats unless technological change suggested that it could be maintained with fewer than four boats?
Mr Jones: That is exactly the case, and I think that the Defence Secretary has said the same thing. It will be achieved not by sticking a finger in the air and thinking of a policy, but by thinking about what we need to keep our nuclear deterrent credible and by maintaining the important continuous-at-sea deterrent.
As has been said, we are convinced that the only credible way forward for a minimum nuclear deterrent is a continuous-at-sea deterrent; otherwise, the UK would be vulnerable. The Chief Secretary’s suggestion would not only make the UK more vulnerable, but lead to a situation where we would not possess first strike or even second-strike capabilities. It would also be a significant escalatory factor if the UK stepped up its armed CASD posture. It is simply not credible and it is also very dangerous.
There are options that the alternatives review did not consider, so why are the Liberal Democrats set on the proposals outlined by the Chief Secretary? I think it is the old Liberal Democrat trick—many of us who have dealt with them in local government have seen this over many years—of trying to ride both horses at the same time. They want to appease the party’s unilateralist wing and persuade them that they are scaling down the nuclear ladder, while simultaneously claiming to the electorate that they have a credible nuclear policy, but they have been found out by the alternatives review.
The Liberal Democrats have commissioned a review in Government time, using taxpayers’ money and resources, in order to supplement their own party’s policy manifesto for 2015. I tabled a written question to the Chief Secretary yesterday asking how much the review cost, and I await his response. The Lib Dem plans have been found wanting and they are now scrambling around frantically
17 July 2013 : Column 1233
for a bizarre policy solution in order to advance their much-heralded differentiation strategy, through which they are trying to place themselves between the Labour party and their coalition partners.
We have all waited for the publication of this report and I think we all genuinely thought it would suggest a credible alternative. Our position is clear: we are committed to the minimum, credible independent nuclear deterrent, which is why we put that policy to the House in 2006. I completely disagree with the Chief Secretary’s comment that this is the most thorough review undertaken. That is complete nonsense, because that review was done in 2006. He should also look at the three comprehensive reports commissioned by the Defence Committee, which covered all the issues.
Mr Ainsworth: We consulted on it.
Mr Jones: As my right hon. Friend reminds me, we also consulted on the issue and did not conduct our review behind closed doors, as was the case with this one.
We also believe that the best way to deliver the nuclear deterrent is through a continuous-at-sea deterrent. The review does not appear to suggest anything to the contrary. In fact, it reinforces our point.
Danny Alexander: How much longer have you got?
Mr Jones: The Chief Secretary asks how much longer I have left. It is taking time to get through the nonsense he has come up with, but I will draw my remarks to a conclusion. I know that this is not very comfortable for the Chief Secretary, but he is going to have to sit there and listen.
Sir Menzies Campbell: This is a serious subject.
Mr Jones: It is a serious subject. I just wish that Liberal Democrats would treat it seriously, rather than coming up with the nonsense that they keep peddling.
The alternatives review reinforces my point. On page 5, it states:
“The highest level of assurance the UK can attain with a single deterrent system is provided by SSBN submarines operating a continuous at sea deterrence posture.”
“None of these alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances.”
I could not put it better myself. Breaking CASD would involve an unacceptable downgrading of our capabilities.
To return to the issue of cost, we have been told by the Liberal Democrats that the alternatives to Trident would be cheaper, but their review shows that to be complete nonsense. We were told by the Chief Secretary yesterday that the review was not about savings, but about the nuclear deterrent.
In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats’ review has not only unmasked their political posturing, but reinforced the case for the policy voted for by this House in 2006. [Interruption.] I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) is muttering. When he is put under detailed
17 July 2013 : Column 1234
examination, he will have to explain the nonsense that he peddled in the run-up to the last general election, which his party’s review has completely discredited. Perhaps he has not read the report. The Liberal Democrats must want to have some credibility. I know that it is not unusual for them to look both ways and ignore the truth, but the report clearly discredits most of the things that he has said over the past few years.
The alternatives review has looked at the alternatives and come forward with the conclusion that we all thought it would reach: the minimum credible nuclear deterrent for the UK is submarine-based continuous-at-sea deterrent. [Interruption.] Well, that is what it is saying—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. That really is enough. It is impossible for Hansard to keep a proper record of this debate when senior Members keep shouting across the Chamber and the Member on their feet then replies. Either we have interventions or we do not. We are up against the clock and I would appreciate it if we could get on to the Back-Bench speeches.
Mr Jones: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I await the examination of the report by the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife and his justification of his comments over the past few years on this subject.
The standards that we set in this area are important not just in terms of cost. I know that the Opposition and the Government are conscious of the need to ensure that we not only get value for money, but we have a—
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Stephen Lloyd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Given that he is suggesting that we should retain a like-for-like deterrent, what cuts to conventional services is the Labour party proposing? Would it cut the destroyers or the joint strike aircraft?
Mr Jones: Oh my God! Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am getting a bit frustrated with these people who clearly do not know what they are talking about. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the equipment programme, he will see that the deterrent is in there now. He and his colleagues are peddling the nonsense that we can have either Trident or something else in the defence budget. Is he suggesting that if we cut Trident, the money would be ring-fenced for defence? That would be the first time that the Liberal Democrats have been proactive in support of defence matters.
The alternatives review has discredited the alternatives completely and exposed the reckless policy of the Liberal Democrats on this issue. We await the clear examination of their policy at the Liberal Democrat party conference, where they will no doubt look both ways—portraying themselves as unilateralists while at the same time arguing that they are strong on the nuclear defence of this country.
17 July 2013 : Column 1235
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. At the beginning of the debate, Mr Speaker indicated that he was minded to set a time limit of six minutes depending on how much time was taken up by the opening remarks from the two Front-Bench spokesmen. We have made up some time with speeches that were commendably short, so I will start the time limit at seven minutes for Back Benchers. However, that might need to be reviewed if others are not disciplined and do not stick to the seven minutes or less limit.
8.19 pm
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con): I will begin by saying that this is not the most comprehensive review of this subject carried out in recent years: the previous Labour Government carried out a comprehensive review. I can say that with some confidence, because one of the first things I did as Defence Secretary when we came into government was to ask to see that work and check whether its assumptions and costs were still valid. It was my view that they were, and that continuous-at-sea deterrence still represented the best system and best value for our nuclear deterrence.
In our review, we looked at the previous Government’s review and at the systems that have since been rejected again. No Member wants to have an air-launch system or a silo-based system in their constituency. At the time, the Liberal Democrats put forward a proposal on the cruise-based system that they believed to be credible. We, of course, maintained our belief that CASD was the best, along with a replacement for the Trident programme.
There are a number of reasons why I was happy for the review to go ahead. In particular, it would show the Liberal Democrats that the cruise-based system was a non-starter. First, it would be too expensive. It would require research and development for the missile system and for changes to the submarine programme. It would be slower and more easily intercepted. It would require our submarines to be closer to target, and therefore more likely to be detected. It would also—no small point—be illegal under the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. It was a non-starter. I am therefore pleased that the Chief Secretary, who is not in his place at the moment, came to the conclusion, rather belatedly, that it would be good to keep the Trident replacement system. It is a gain for the whole House and the country that the Liberal Democrats have seen sense.
What is deeply depressing, however, is the willingness of the Liberal Democrats to abandon CASD. It has been the position of both major parties—the Labour party and the Conservative party—to have CASD based on four boats, or fewer if technology allowed. Let us be frank: in the foreseeable future, technology will not allow us to go below four boats. We need one going out, one coming in, one in refit and one in training. It is not possible to maintain what we have and what we want at lower levels than that, given present technology. If we go down to three, CASD cannot be guaranteed. If we go to two boats, we cannot have it at all, so that is an unrealistic proposition.
What are the Liberal Democrats saying with this policy? They are saying that we would abandon CASD, but deploy at times of increased international tension. What does any Member think would happen to international tension if we deployed a nuclear system
17 July 2013 : Column 1236
that was not otherwise deployed? That would be a crazy foreign policy. I have to say to my Liberal Democrat colleagues that it is all very well to talk about stepping down the ladder, but if the bottom of the ladder is hanging off a cliff, that is not exactly a sensible manoeuvre.
On cost, the Chief Secretary said that they would save £4 billion over the lifetime of the programme—£4 billion over a 34 to 50-year period. That £4 billion is the equivalent to less than two weeks’ spending on the national health service, or six days of what we spend on pensions and welfare. This is supposed to be value for money. For that infinitesimally small saving over a 50-year period, they would abandon a crucial element of our national security—a very interesting definition of value for money.
Dr Julian Lewis: For the sake of clarity, it is important to stress that in the report the only options for Trident are a four-boat fleet or a three-boat fleet. That is where the £4 billion would come into it. The report does not even consider or cost a two-boat fleet, because it would be impossible to reinstate to a higher level of readiness.
Dr Fox: It is not possible to put in monetary terms the risk that moving to a two-boat fleet would pose to the UK. They are completely different currencies. It is ridiculous to say that there would be a £4 billion saving, given the monumental disruption it would cause to our submarine-building programme and all the jobs likely to be lost, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) pointed out many times. The calculations in the report are fraudulent economics.
The crucial question to be asked by anyone who wants to dismantle or diminish the CASD posture is: what will the world look like in 30, 40 or 50 years? It is all very well to say, “The risk assessments says that at the moment it’s okay”, but we do not know what the risk assessments will be in the future, and it is not our job to play roulette with the security of future generations in our country. We are being offered 50 years of protection from nuclear blackmail for the people of our country. There are those who say that £20 billion or more of capital costs is too much for 50 years’ protection from nuclear blackmail, but that it was all right to spend £9.5 billion for six weeks for the Olympics. We need to get our priorities right in this country and recognise what is important in the longer term.
CASD gives us secure insurance that is proven. It is the best deterrent, and to say anything other is political posturing, I am afraid. As has been said, we could drive a nuclear submarine through this report. We all like a good joke in politics, but this is no laughing matter. If it is a joke, however, let us hope it rebounds on the Liberal Democrats, not on the people of this country.
8.26 pm
Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab):
The political class in this country and others struggles to communicate and maintain credibility with the electorate. It is not always our fault, but sometimes we are to blame, and when we commission such a report and present it in this manner, we do serious damage to our credibility when talking to our electorate. In my opinion, the report was born of unworthy motives and conducted without any outside consultation, and to present it with the kind of hyperbole we have heard tonight—as the
17 July 2013 : Column 1237
most comprehensive examination of our nuclear deterrent in a generation—is clear and utter nonsense. The report picks apart nothing in the 2006 White Paper; indeed, despite the best efforts of the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) at the last general election, it confirms the basic underpinning of the report and denies the credibility of what was said at the last general election: that we can have a cheap nuclear deterrent.
Of course, there is the question of whether we should have a nuclear deterrent at all. It is raised in all our constituencies all the time and is a perfectly reasonable question. Some Members believe and say openly that we should not have one, while others, I think, believe the same, but do not say so openly. The first question, then, is whether we should have one at all, but the report was not commissioned to examine that question; it was commissioned to examine the second question, which inevitably flows from the first: if we decide to have a nuclear deterrent, what kind should it be? What is the best system? What is affordable, effective and a real deterrent? That is where the report falls down.
There is no such thing as a non-credible or a less-credible deterrent. There can be no such thing as a part-time deterrent. To be a deterrent, something has to deter. Doing anything less than deter stops a nuclear deterrent being a deterrent at all. It turns it into what? Potentially, at times of crisis, it turns into an invitation; it most certainly turns it from a deterrent into a weapon. If we look at what underpins the White Paper— and as the previous speaker clearly stated—we have seen that such a weapon would be dangerous to deploy. How, when and in what circumstances would it be put to sea? How would we disguise, at a time of rising tension, that we were doing that? It would be dangerous to deploy and difficult to sustain. It is all right to say that if we have three boats, we could, for a time in some circumstances, up our level of deterrent and go back to continuous-at-sea deterrence. Yes, we could do that for a while if we got ahead of the crisis, stepped back to CASD, deployed a boat at sea and kept it at sea throughout that time. But with three boats, for how long could we do that?
The Government and the Labour party accept—indeed, it would be nonsense not to accept it—that technology may change the need for a fourth boat. If it does, why on earth would we do anything other than have three boats? However, if technology does not change those basic parameters, we will lose our ability to deter for a considerable time. This is not something we can just rescale in a matter of months; it would take years to rescale and we would therefore be rendering our deterrent non-sustainable.
This report does not ask an honest question and I do not believe it was an honest process, but the review has at least flushed out the issue of whether Trident can be done on the cheap. I would not want to have an examination in a cheap operating theatre by a doctor who had been trained on the cheap, and I would not want a deterrent that was done on the cheap. If we are to have a deterrent, let us have a deterrent that deters, as that is the only one worth having.
8.32 pm
Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD):
I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) on bringing
17 July 2013 : Column 1238
this piece of work to fruition, and I believe it has genuinely taken an open-minded look at the whole issue. The review did not set out at the beginning by offering preconceived conclusions to those carrying out the work, and I believe it has been a worthwhile exercise. I also note that the principal reason why alternative systems were found not to be viable was not—as some have suggested—because they were not technically viable. In contrast, it was because the length of time such alternatives would take, and the amount of money it would involve to equip a warhead to an alternative system, would make such alternatives prohibitive in the medium term. That is the expert view of those tasked with looking at the matter. If that is the conclusion to which they have come, I for one would not seek to question it and we must accept it.
The second part of the study, which looks at alternative postures, concerns the debate that this report can now seek to inform and trigger.
Dr Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Nick Harvey: Not at the moment.
Given that this report was commissioned by a Government who are a coalition of two parties with fundamentally different opinions on the issue, it was never going to come forward with proposals. It was about considering the alternatives and informing the debate that might follow.
I contend that nobody can rationally argue that the nature and scale of the nuclear threat that the United Kingdom faces in 2013 is the same as it was at the height of the cold war. Then we had a known nuclear adversary, the Soviet Union, that had British targets in its sights and we, similarly, had Soviet targets in our sights. We believed that it might strike at a moment’s notice and we therefore thought it was essential that we were ready at a moment’s notice to strike back. But 25 years after the Berlin wall came down, one cannot rationally argue that the threat we face today is the same as it was then. We can debate what threats we might face in the future, but we cannot argue that the threat we face today is the same as it was in 1980.
Sir Nick Harvey: I give way to my good friend the former Defence Secretary.
Dr Fox: We are talking about building a system that will protect us against the potential risks in 20, 30 or 40 years. The year before the Berlin wall came down, no one could have predicted the world we would be in today. No one can predict what the world will look like in the future. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to take an irrational and dangerous risk.
Sir Nick Harvey: I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend that we must consider the threat we might face in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time, so we must therefore ensure that we have a nuclear deterrent in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time that is capable of deterring the threat that we might face at that point. My point is simply that the threat we face today is not the same as it was at the height of the cold war. It therefore cannot make sense to operate it on a 24/7 continuous basis facing a threat that simply does not exist at the moment.