Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Questions to the Foreign Secretary
#1
Order, order.

Questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.

(FCO, MoD and DfID)
Speaker of the House of Commons (The Right Honourable Ann Widdecombe)

Admin/Civil Servant for Public Services (Health and Education)

Labour Party adviser
Reply
Thanks given by:
#2
Madame Speaker,

First and foremost, I'd like to welcome the Foreign Secretary to his new role. I hope future discussions, debates and disagreements can be productive and I also hope that on matters of importance we can work together for the betterment of Britain and her people.

Why is the government putting forward an arbitrary timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan, and does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that there are many strategic disadvantages and flaws that come with arbitrary withdrawals?
Alun Harte
Labour Party
MP for Aberdeen South (1987-1992).
AM for Swansea East (1999-2001).
MP for Rhondda (2001-).
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee (2008-2012).
Labour Foreign Affairs Spokesman & House Leader (2012-).


Reply
Thanks given by:
#3
Mme Speaker,

This government is committed to transparency as it progresses with its withdrawal from Afghanistan. It is standard practice for government projects to have timelines, and our military operation within Afghanistan is no different with that regard. We will continue to work with our partners in the region and the Afghani government to ensure a peaceable transition.
The Rt Hon L Christopher Havilland PC MP DPhil (Oxon)
HM Principal Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs
Member of Parliament for Warwick and Leamington
Reply
Thanks given by:
#4
Mme. Speaker,

The Rt. Hon. Secretary has recently made his intention to put Britain in a "leadership" position as it pertains to the global fight against climate change. Those of us who have been interested in the topic of environmental preservation for some time will recall Britain's long list of accords agreed to and conferences attended which have sought to find a consensus on how to move forward on the issue: the Kyoto Protocol, the other 7 COPs, the Hague Conference, the Montreal conference, and so on. All in all, there have been at least 17 global conferences on climate change and all of them have been and can only be described as colossal failures. My question for the Rt. Hon. Gentleman is simple: what is different about this one?
Henry St. John
Member of Parliament for The Cities of London and Westminster
Reply
Thanks given by:
#5
Madam Speaker,

One of the primary reasons for the basing of the Trident missile system at HMNB Faslane is precisely to take advantage of its strategic location, which is ideal for housing nuclear-armed stealth submarines. The depth, seclusion and navigability of Gare Loch allows our Vanguard submarines to easily and stealthily enter and leave the base, while its position allows for quick access to a number of strategic patrolling areas, including the North Atlantic, the North Channel, the GIUK Gap, and the Norwegian Sea. Experts have repeatedly said that Faslane is the only viable location to base these submarines.

In the Queen's Speech, however, the Government announced its intention to relocate the Trident system within ten years. This costly endeavour would not only cost jobs in the Clyde in an area with few other economic opportunities, but would also severely hinder Trident's operational capabilities.

Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House, other than for the political expedience on which their working majority relies, why the Government wants to relocate the Trident system, with all the negative consequences involved?
[Image: XJerI6o.pnghttp:]
The Hon. Catherine Willoughby MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2012-present)
Member of Parliament for Windsor (2008-present)
Reply
Thanks given by:
#6
(06-17-2017, 01:01 PM)Henry St. John Wrote: Mme. Speaker,

The Rt. Hon. Secretary has recently made his intention to put Britain in a "leadership" position as it pertains to the global fight against climate change. Those of us who have been interested in the topic of environmental preservation for some time will recall Britain's long list of accords agreed to and conferences attended which have sought to find a consensus on how to move forward on the issue: the Kyoto Protocol, the other 7 COPs, the Hague Conference, the Montreal conference, and so on. All in all, there have been at least 17 global conferences on climate change and all of them have been and can only be described as colossal failures. My question for the Rt. Hon. Gentleman is simple: what is different about this one?

Mme Speaker,

We are firmly optimistic that we can build a consensus around what has been an increasingly clear and increasingly urgent call from the scientific community that the nations of this world – all nations of this world – must work together to limit the impact that humans have on the Earth's environment. What is different is that we have new lessons which have learned, including the limitations of the Kyoto process that we can evolve and improve from.

(06-17-2017, 06:35 PM)Catherine Willoughby Wrote: Madam Speaker,

One of the primary reasons for the basing of the Trident missile system at HMNB Faslane is precisely to take advantage of its strategic location, which is ideal for housing nuclear-armed stealth submarines. The depth, seclusion and navigability of Gare Loch allows our Vanguard submarines to easily and stealthily enter and leave the base, while its position allows for quick access to a number of strategic patrolling areas, including the North Atlantic, the North Channel, the GIUK Gap, and the Norwegian Sea. Experts have repeatedly said that Faslane is the only viable location to base these submarines.

In the Queen's Speech, however, the Government announced its intention to relocate the Trident system within ten years. This costly endeavour would not only cost jobs in the Clyde in an area with few other economic opportunities, but would also severely hinder Trident's operational capabilities.

Can the Foreign Secretary explain to the House, other than for the political expedience on which their working majority relies, why the Government wants to relocate the Trident system, with all the negative consequences involved?
Mme Speaker,

It is the opinion of this government that the Trident system is a shared burden upon this United Kingdom and a burden that will be shared.
The Rt Hon L Christopher Havilland PC MP DPhil (Oxon)
HM Principal Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs
Member of Parliament for Warwick and Leamington
Reply
Thanks given by:
#7
Madam Speaker,

I think the right honourable gentleman for his rousing defence of Government policy, but I am afraid his equivocation does not come close to answering my question. What 'burden' is the right honourable gentleman referring to? The burden of up to 7,000 jobs in the Clyde? And how does relocating the system 'share' the 'burden'? Would that not simply shift the 'burden' from one area to another?
[Image: XJerI6o.pnghttp:]
The Hon. Catherine Willoughby MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2012-present)
Member of Parliament for Windsor (2008-present)
Reply
Thanks given by:
#8
(06-18-2017, 03:14 AM)Catherine Willoughby Wrote: Madam Speaker,

I think the right honourable gentleman for his rousing defence of Government policy, but I am afraid his equivocation does not come close to answering my question. What 'burden' is the right honourable gentleman referring to? The burden of up to 7,000 jobs in the Clyde? And how does relocating the system 'share' the 'burden'? Would that not simply shift the 'burden' from one area to another?

Mme Speaker,

My answer, like her question, referred to the maintenance of the Trident system. This government believes that it is not appropriate for the Clyde to be the continuous and sole location for this system as we make the arrangements related to its discontinuation when the time for renewal arrives.
The Rt Hon L Christopher Havilland PC MP DPhil (Oxon)
HM Principal Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs
Member of Parliament for Warwick and Leamington
Reply
Thanks given by:
#9
Madam Speaker,

What consultations with defence experts has the Government had regarding the planned relocation of Trident, and are these the same experts who have said time and again that HMNB Faslane is the only viable location for Trident that does not hinder its operational capabilities?
[Image: XJerI6o.pnghttp:]
The Hon. Catherine Willoughby MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2012-present)
Member of Parliament for Windsor (2008-present)
Reply
Thanks given by:
#10
(06-18-2017, 05:34 PM)Catherine Willoughby Wrote: Madam Speaker,

What consultations with defence experts has the Government had regarding the planned relocation of Trident, and are these the same experts who have said time and again that HMNB Faslane is the only viable location for Trident that does not hinder its operational capabilities?
Mme Speaker,

It is public knowledge that this government have consulted with civil and military service officials on this matter, and we continue to do so.
The Rt Hon L Christopher Havilland PC MP DPhil (Oxon)
HM Principal Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs
Member of Parliament for Warwick and Leamington
Reply
Thanks given by:
#11
Madam Speaker,

I can only assume these 'consultations' have consisted of little besides smalltalk, as the Government continues to give nothing but vague non-answers to this House on the most pressing matters of national security. What conclusions have these consultations yielded regarding the future of Trident? Does the Government have any idea of where Trident might be relocated, and if so, where?
[Image: XJerI6o.pnghttp:]
The Hon. Catherine Willoughby MP
Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (2012-present)
Member of Parliament for Windsor (2008-present)
Reply
Thanks given by:
#12
Madame Speaker.

I find the Secretary of State's response interesting in that he refers to having multiple locations available for Trident storage. I wonder did he consult his party's nationalistic bedfellows when he presumably decided that Faslane will continue to be available to store Trident nuclear weapons? I also wonder why this Government has, at a time of national belt-tightening, decided that the best way to cut back is to create more bases completely superfluously when the existing infrastructure is more than sufficient. Mr Speaker, does this mean that the Government will abandon efforts to balance the books and instead needlessly increase spending?
Dr. Dylan Macmillan MP.

Conservative MP for Preseli Pembrokeshire
Former AM for South West Wales 2003-2007
Former AM for Presely Pembrokeshire 2007-2011
Reply
Thanks given by:
#13
(06-19-2017, 11:03 PM)Catherine Willoughby Wrote: Madam Speaker,

I can only assume these 'consultations' have consisted of little besides smalltalk, as the Government continues to give nothing but vague non-answers to this House on the most pressing matters of national security. What conclusions have these consultations yielded regarding the future of Trident? Does the Government have any idea of where Trident might be relocated, and if so, where?

Mme Speaker,

The assumptions of the honourable member opposite are her business and of no concern to this government. I'm sure she is aware that our answers are, sensibly, limited at this time to preserve the necessities of national security as we appropriately shepherd the remaining years of the Trident system. I will update this House is due course as details may be made publicly available on an appropriate timescale. This government will not waver or concede the necessities of national security.

(06-20-2017, 12:32 AM)Dylan Macmillan Wrote: Madame Speaker.

I find the Secretary of State's response interesting in that he refers to having multiple locations available for Trident storage. I wonder did he consult his party's nationalistic bedfellows when he presumably decided that Faslane will continue to be available to store Trident nuclear weapons? I also wonder why this Government has, at a time of national belt-tightening, decided that the best way to cut back is to create more bases completely superfluously when the existing infrastructure is more than sufficient. Mr Speaker, does this mean that the Government will abandon efforts to balance the books and instead needlessly increase spending?

Mme Speaker,

Questions about "balancing the books" are best directed to the Chancellor, but this government has every intention of pursuing a reasonable budget that means the needs of the British people, their welfare, and their security.
The Rt Hon L Christopher Havilland PC MP DPhil (Oxon)
HM Principal Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs
Member of Parliament for Warwick and Leamington
Reply
Thanks given by:


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)