UK's Nuclear Deterrent

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of the motion, for the following reasons. First, it is the policy on which I was elected. My Labour colleagues and I were elected on the basis of a manifesto commitment to support the retention of an independent nuclear deterrent, and that is what we must do tonight. As a committed democrat, I intend to fulfil the mandate given to me by the 15,000 people in Aberavon who elected me, and my colleagues should do the same and fulfil the mandate they have from the 9.3 million people who voted Labour last May.

The second reason is jobs. As a Member of Parliament proud to represent the steelmaking heartland of Britain and Wales, I am acutely aware of the industrial implications that a vote against the motion would have. Across its lifetime, Trident will support almost 26,000 jobs, including 13,000 in advanced manufacturing. It will affect more than 1,000 businesses in almost 450 towns and cities across Britain. Scrapping Trident would further skew the economy, defence being one of the few sectors reliably and consistently creating sustainable, highly skilled and well-paid jobs outside London. As Unite the union stated just a few days ago, there can be no

“moral case for a trade union accepting the obliteration of thousands of its members’ jobs and the communities in which they live being turned into ghost towns.”

Thirdly, some years before entering this place, I worked for the British Council as director of its St Petersburg office. I have seen at first hand the nature of the Putin regime. I was withdrawn from Russia owing to concerns about my personal security, after the Kremlin’s campaign of intimidation in the wake of the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. Just remember that. This is a regime that responds to having been caught red handed murdering a British citizen on British soil using nuclear material with denial, aggression and intimidation. My experiences in Russia convinced me of the need to retain our nuclear deterrent. We must be able to stand up to bullies.

We live in an unstable and unpredictable world. We know that expansionist, belligerent regimes such as the one currently governing Russia thrive in such conditions. The Russian Government have pressed forward with the development of the Dolgorukiy ballistic missile submarine and the next generation of cruise missiles. This is not the type of missile that we can hope James Bond will sneak in and disarm. The threat represented by this type of weapon can be prevented only through deterrence. Nuclear weapons exist precisely so that we will never have to use them.

I would dearly like to live in a world without nuclear weapons, but we must engage with the world as it is, not how we would like it to be. We must be realists, not fantasists. Deterrence has kept the peace for over 70 years. To give up the capacity for independent action would not only expose us to nuclear blackmail but severely weaken our standing in the world. So I ask all hon. Members to stand up for Britain when they enter the Division Lobby this evening and to join me in supporting the motion.

Tributes to Jo Cox

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Jo and I have been friends for over 20 years, and we have had a wonderful 12 months sharing an office since our election last May. Jo used to use my cupboard as a wardrobe, and I will never forget her dashing around in her cycling gear, grabbing her clothes and shouting something over her shoulder about her latest project or campaign. She often brought her lovely children into the office with her, and if I was lucky I would get a dinosaur drawing or a chance to read them a story. They are wonderful kids, who are truly bathed in love.

The murder of Jo Cox was a national tragedy, but we must also remember the unspeakable personal suffering that it has caused. Jo’s family have lost a loving mother, wife, daughter and sister. The fearless Jo Cox never stopped fighting for what is right. She gave voice to the voiceless. She spoke truth to power. She exemplified the best values of our party and of our country: compassion, community, solidarity and internationalism. She put her convictions to work for everyone she touched—for the people of Batley and Spen, for the wretched of Syria and for victims of violence and injustice everywhere.

On Thursday, Jo was assassinated because of what she was and because of what she stood for. But out of the deep darkness of Jo’s death must now come the shining light of her legacy. So let us build a politics of hope, not fear; respect, not hate; unity, not division. I can only imagine Jo’s reaction had she seen the poster that was unveiled hours before her death—a poster on the streets of Britain that demonised hundreds of desperate refugees, including hungry, terrified children, fleeing from the terror of ISIS and from Russian bombs. She would have responded with outrage, and with a robust rejection of the calculated narrative of cynicism, division and despair that it represents, because Jo understood that rhetoric has consequences. When insecurity, fear and anger are used to light a fuse, an explosion is inevitable.

In the deeply moving tribute that Brendan Cox made last Thursday, he urged the British people to unite and fight against the hatred that killed Jo. It is the politics of division and fear, the harking back to incendiary slogans and the rhetoric of “Britain First” that twists patriotism from love of country into an ugly loathing of others. We must now stand up for something better, because of someone better. In the name of Jo Cox and all that is decent, we must not let this atrocity intimidate our democracy. We must now work to build a more respectful and united country. This is our time to honour the legacy of the proud Yorkshire lass who dedicated her life to the common good and who was so cruelly taken away from us in the prime of her life. Jo Cox, we love you, we salute you and we shall never forget you.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is particularly important for constituencies, such as his, that are close to the border, to make sure that decisions that are made, quite sensibly and rightly, by the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies do not disadvantage the rest of the United Kingdom. That was the principle set out, and the Chancellor will report regularly on that as he updates the House on his fiscal plans.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I trust that the Prime Minister will be aware that there is a critical meeting of the board of Tata in Mumbai on Tuesday. I will be flying out to Mumbai with the general secretary of the Community union to make the case for British steel. That meeting will decide the future of the Port Talbot steelworks in my constituency. Will the Prime Minister join me in exhorting Tata to stand with that plan and secure the future of the Port Talbot steelworks?

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely give the hon. Gentleman my backing on that. A team of Ministers met yesterday to discuss all the things that we can do to get behind the steel industry at this vital time. It is an extremely difficult market situation, with massive global overcapacity and the huge fall in steel prices, but there are areas where we have taken action already and we will continue to look at what more we can do: state aid compensation so that we can secure the energy costs; greater flexibility over EU emissions regulations. We have done a huge amount in terms of public procurement, which I think can make a big difference to our steel industries. We are doing all those things and more, and we are making sure that Tata and others understand how valuable we believe this industry is to the UK and that the Government, within the limits we have, want to be very supportive and very helpful.

European Council

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We certainly stand ready to help any country. One point that needs to be made is that all of the countries that migrants are crossing are, of course, safe countries for the purpose of claiming asylum. I think that one of the longer-term answers to the crisis is to make sure that we have a system whereby people claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister is aware of the fact that the British steel industry faces a crisis and that massive dumping of Chinese steel is a major contributory factor. Does he agree that all of the other steel-producing nations in the EU are much smarter at applying anti-dumping measures, and that it is time for the UK to smarten up how it uses such measures and to act unilaterally where necessary?

[The Prime Minister]

I would say to the hon. Gentleman, first, that we voted with others to put in place the anti-dumping fines—that is important—and we are also working very hard with the steel industry to address excessive energy costs and to get that through the European permission regime. We are also setting out, in our infrastructure plan, our steel needs in the years ahead.

One of the key things we need to do is to look at exactly what other European countries do in making sure, where possible, that we source steel for our own infrastructure needs from our own country. If other countries can do it within the rules, we should do exactly as they do.