The vote to reform the House of Lords was a landmark decision to move to a more democratically accountable second chamber. The Commons voted for both a 100% elected and an 80% elected chamber with the first being passed by a greater majority. I voted for both of these options, and none of the others, although I did also vote for a motion that there should be no second house.These votes are at least progress on the position three years ago when none of seven options were carried. The current decisions of the Commons are not binding, but the Government has indicated its intention to bring legislation based on these votes following further cross-party discussions.I remain to be convinced that sufficient thought has yet been given to the role and function of a second chamber before agreeing its composition.

 The vote to renew the Trident launch system was not an easy one for me, or indeed for most of the PLP. On balance I have decided to back the Government motion, largely because this is only a decision about replacing the submarines and not the warheads.The key argument is the strategic uncertainty we face and the real risks and trends we need to consider. Very large arsenals remain elsewhere (Russia has about 13,000 warheads – over 50 times our number) and some are being expanded (China) and modernised (Russia).  This is not a decision we can delay. Continuous patrols are the bedrock of our deterrent system – they make our deterrent virtually invulnerable, but also are the least likely form of deterrent to escalate a crisis. I am persuaded on the basis of the technical arguments that there are no alternative launch systems, or options for sufficiently delaying the need to replace the submarines. The capital cost of replacing the submarines and extending the life of the missiles is estimated to be £15 – 20 billion, spread over 15 years. The running costs will be the same as now, around £1.5 bn a year – a third of what people spend on the national lottery. Much of this expenditure will not take place for ten years or so, but design costs need to start now. The decision is consistent with the UK being a signatory to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The NPT recognises 5 Nuclear Weapons States – defined not by their permanent membership of the UN Security Council but as those who had tested nuclear weapons before 1967. It recognises the legality of their possession of nuclear weapons, while imposing on them an obligation to pursue disarmament.  

There is no obligation on nuclear weapons states to unilaterally abandon their nuclear arsenals. We are continually working to persuade others to take forward multilateral disarmament. UK Ministers and diplomats vigorously lobby their counterparts in other states in order to take forward the process of multilateral disarmament. We have made considerable progress. The UK is the only nuclear state with a single nuclear system. All battlefield and tactical weapons have been decommissioned.  We have made it clear that the 20% cut in number of operationally available warheads is a real reduction – it is NOT an announcement of something we have already done or some accounting trick. It means that our operationally available stockpile will have halved compared to the plans of the previous government. We plan to make the change in numbers this year. We have already made clear that we will in due course actually be dismantling about 40 warheads. Trident remains an independent deterrent, and whilst the warheads are manufactured in the USA all aspects of operation are independent. I cannot however identify any circumstance in which their use might be outside the auspices of NATO decision making. I have to accept that I was elected on an election platform of maintaining the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent. I am afraid, at the end of the day it is politically dishonest to hide behind a smokescreen and pretend that this is a decision that can just be delayed. No real argument has been made for deferring the decision to 2012 and I am now persuaded there has been sufficient public debate on the White Paper, particularly given the on-going discussion there can now be on the issue of renewing warheads over the next fifteen or more years.

 I have been serving on the General Committee to consider the UK Borders Bill. General Committees have replaced Standing Committees and give the option to committees to hear from witnesses before carrying out line-by-line scrutiny.The UK Borders Bill seeks to implement some aspects of the Government’s five-year plan for immigration and asylum, its review of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and its plans for an identity card scheme. It does not propose an integrated borders agency. Its main provisions would give  immigration officers more police powers; require foreign nationals living in the UK to get biometric immigration ID cards which could be compulsorily checked; and provide for automatic deportation orders with limited rights of appeal for foreign national prisoners. Other provisions would allow residence and reporting conditions to be imposed on foreign nationals in the UK; extend the scope of offences of facilitating illegal immigration and human trafficking; and give immigration officers access to HM Revenue and Customs information. 

Chris Mole MP