UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Comments

  • Robert Hicks – 1982 Parliamentary Question on HMS Fisgard

    Robert Hicks – 1982 Parliamentary Question on HMS Fisgard

    The parliamentary question asked by Robert Hicks, the then Conservative MP for Bodmin, in the House of Commons on 16 November 1982.

    Mr. Hicks asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has yet determined the future use of the land now occupied by HMS “Fisgard”, Torpoint; and if he will make a statement.

    The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin)

    As has been announced, HMS “Fisgard” is due to close in December 1983. Provided that there is no other Ministry of Defence requirement for the land and buildings there, the property will be passed to the Property Services Agency for disposal in the usual way.

    Mr. Hicks

    Will my hon. Friend state whether there is any prospect of the Royal Marines or some other Service unit occupying this valuable and extensive site? If not, can he give the House the assurance that he will instruct the PSA to get on as quickly as possible with the sale of the site for some other positive use?

    Mr. Wiggin

    As the search has not been completed, I cannot say whether there will be any other Service use. If there is not, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. I can also inform him that the Royal Marines will not be going there.

  • David Ennals – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Pressurised Water Reactor at Sizewell

    David Ennals – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Pressurised Water Reactor at Sizewell

    The parliamentary question asked by David Ennals, the then Labour MP for Norwich North, in the House of Commons on 15 November 1982.

    Mr. Ennals asked the Secretary of State what representations he has received concerning his decision to refuse financial support to organisations wishing to present to the public inquiry evidence against the establishment of a pressurised water reactor at Sizewell, Suffolk; and if he will now reconsider his decision.

    Mr. Lawson

    I have received 12 letters on this matter since I wrote to the inquiry inspector on 21 September. My decision stands.

    Mr. Ennals

    Is the Secretary of State aware that this inquiry is of great national as well as local importance because it may determine the pattern for energy and capital expenditure over the next 20 years? Does he agree that it is vital that the public should know that both sides of the argument have been effectively and properly put forward? Bearing in mind the funds available to the Central Electricity Generating Board, does he agree that some assistance should be given to organisations taking a contrary view so that the case may be fairly presented?

    Mr. Lawson

    I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of the inquiry, but I do not agree on the other points. As time is short, I merely refer him to the arguments that I set out at considerable length in my letter to Sir Frank Layfield explaining why I did not think it right to do as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. As I know that the right hon. Gentleman has great concern for the views of the trade unions, I am sure that he will be pleased to know that I have received a letter from the Employees’ National Committee for the Electricity Supply Industry, the chairman and secretary of which are Mr. Frank Chapple and Mr. John Lyons, expressing strong opposition to any public funding for the objectors at the Sizewell inquiry.

  • John Tilley – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Lead-Free Petrol

    John Tilley – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Lead-Free Petrol

    The parliamentary question asked by John Tilley, the then Labour MP for Lambeth Central, in the House of Commons on 15 November 1982.

    Mr. Tilley asked the Secretary of State for Energy what information is available to him as to the capacity of the oil industry to provide lead-free petrol.

    Mr. Gray

    The oil industry would have no difficulty in producing lead-free two-star petrol. It is engaged in a very large investment programme to enable the lead in four-star petrol to be reduced to 0·15 grams per litre.

    Mr. Tilley

    Will the Minister encourage the industry to provide lead-free petrol for motorists who wish to use it? Does he agree that, as well as increasing consumer choice, which the Conservative Party is said to support, it will reduce health risks to children in inner cities?

    Mr. Gray

    It must not be forgotten that the Government’s decision to reduce the lead content from 0..4 to 0·15 grams per litre by 1985 is the most major step that could have been taken in the short term. The industry is prepared to co-operate. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the forthcoming Royal Commission report on environmental pollution will be studied carefully. All points of view will be taken into account.

    Mr. Waller

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that a change to lead-free petrol, rather than a reduction in the lead content to which the Government are committed, would lead to a severe increase in the use of scarce fuels? Does he also agree that, because existing engines cannot run on lead-free petrol for a long time, we should need twice as many petrol pumps as we now have? As there is no proof that airborne lead is damaging to health, does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s attitude is extremely responsible?

    Mr. Gray

    My hon. Friend is correct. It is worth pointing out that no more than about 10 per cent. of the 15 million petrol-driven vehicles now on our roads could use lead-free petrol, if it existed.

  • Richard Page – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Whether Arthur Scargill Should Resign

    Richard Page – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Whether Arthur Scargill Should Resign

    The parliamentary question asked by Richard Page, the then Conservative MP for South West Hertfordshire, in the House of Commons on 15 November 1982.

    Mr. Richard Page

    If my hon. Friend lost three consecutive votes in the House, I know that he would resign. Why does Arthur Scargill not do the decent thing and resign and leave the representation of the workers in the coal industry to those who care about coal and not personal politics?

    Mr. Moore

    We are not involved in the detailed management of the National Union of Mineworkers, for which we have no responsibility. I hope that all who are committed to coal and are interested in its future will welcome the result of the ballot, for the sake of the miners, the industry, and the industry’s customers, let alone for Great Britain.

  • Bill Esterson – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Offshoring Warship Production

    Bill Esterson – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Offshoring Warship Production

    The parliamentary question asked by Bill Esterson, the Labour MP for Sefton Central, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)

    Of course, if the whole contract was coming to UK yards, the investment would be more than £77 million. Now that the Minister has confirmed that the consortium is indeed Spanish-led, I remind him that no other G7 country offshores its warship production. Will he tell us how many jobs are going to Spain that would have come to this country as a result of this reckless decision by his Government?

    Alex Chalk

    I say respectfully that that is an absurd mischaracterisation. I am pleased that the overwhelming majority are coming here. By the way, jobs are also included for the people who designed this—BMT in Bath—which the hon. Member should welcome. The majority of the manufacturing is coming here. This decision also means that we will have the know-how to ensure that we have the pipeline to the future. If he wants to say that there are some jobs in Spain, that is perfectly true, but the overwhelming majority are here. Some of the Typhoons, for example, are assembled in Italy, so does he resent the fact that there are British jobs making some of the components? Of course he does not, because that is the modern world in which we live. Crucially, that modern world ensures that, as opposed to having some sort of prehistoric, antediluvian approach, we have strength for the United Kingdom, strength for the British armed forces and strength for British industry.

  • Alex Sobel – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Prime Contractor for the Fleet Solid Support Ships

    Alex Sobel – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Prime Contractor for the Fleet Solid Support Ships

    The parliamentary question asked by Alex Sobel, the Labour MP for Leeds North West, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)

    In responding to the urgent question, the Minister seems to have left out a number of important details. Will he confirm whether the prime contractor for the fleet solid support ships will be the Spanish state-owned company Navantia, or will it be a British company?

    Alex Chalk

    I invite the hon. Member to look at the things that really matter—that is, the jobs that will come into British yards. Since we set out the national shipbuilding strategy, which was refreshed earlier this year, we have ensured that, for the first time in decades, there is a lasting pipeline for all Government-procured ships, whether for defence or elsewhere. That is important because the stability ensures that there can be investment.

    On the hon. Member’s specific point, there is, of course, a role for Navantia UK—there is no secret about that—just as there is a role for BAE Systems and all sorts of other industries in other badged weapons systems. That does not mean, however, that there is any reduced benefit for British workers. On the contrary, there is £77 million of investment. I respectfully say to him that the question that he has to answer is: would he set his face against a deal that would mean £77 million-worth of investment in a British yard, which, by the way, desperately needs it? Without that investment, who knows what the future would be for Harland & Wolff? With that investment, we can be sure that it is bright, and he should welcome that.

  • Derek Twigg – 2022 Parliamentary Question about Building British Warships in Spain

    Derek Twigg – 2022 Parliamentary Question about Building British Warships in Spain

    The parliamentary question asked by Derek Twigg, the Labour MP for Halton, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) said, the Defence Committee is very clear that British ships should be built in British yards. As I understand it, this consortium is led by the Spanish. Will he confirm whether it is the case that they are ultimately responsible for the contract, and how can he square that with what the Conservative party has told us for many years, which is that leaving Europe would ensure that British ships would be built in this country?

    Alex Chalk

    It is perfectly true that there is an international collaboration, but I gently point out that that is not unusual and nor is it unwelcome. In any modern sophisticated piece of engineering, whether Typhoon or F-35, there will be an international component. If all nations produced everything themselves, that would become incredibly expensive and would defeat the object. Through international collaboration, which by the way we are proud of, we will produce something world-class and meet the needs of the taxpayer as well as the needs of our armed forces, and—I have not emphasised it enough before, so I must do so now—critically, a world-class shipbuilder will bring a lot of its technical know-how into Harland & Wolff, allowing it to build excellent ships long into the future.

  • Mick Whitley – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Whether Ship-Building Contracts Should be UK Only

    Mick Whitley – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Whether Ship-Building Contracts Should be UK Only

    The parliamentary question asked by Mick Whitley, the Labour MP for Birkenhead, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)

    The union Prospect has warned that, as a result of this decision, as much as 80% of the work on these vessels could be offshored to Spain. This is a devastating blow to British shipyards and will compound the anxiety felt by workers at Cammell Laird in my constituency following last week’s announcement that, as a result of procurement laws imposed by Whitehall, much of the work on the new Mersey ferries will take place in Romania. It is time that the Government began to back British business. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister now commit to implementing Sir John Parker’s recommendation that all Defence-funded vessels should be open to UK-only competition and speak to Cabinet colleagues about the need for a broader overall procurement law so that, at last, we can begin to build in Britain by default?

    Alex Chalk

    These are British ships built to British designs in a British dockyard. I am pleased to be able to make that absolutely clear. The contract is essential to ensure not just that there are British jobs but, critically, that there is the best know-how—wherever in the world it comes from—so that our yards are equipped with the expertise, skills and talent they need to sustain these ships and ships into the future.

  • Rishi Sunak – 2022 Comments During Visit to Ukraine

    Rishi Sunak – 2022 Comments During Visit to Ukraine

    The comments made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, on 19 November 2022 on a trip to Ukraine.

    I am proud of how the UK stood with Ukraine from the very beginning. And I am here today to say the UK and our allies will continue to stand with Ukraine, as it fights to end this barbarous war and deliver a just peace.

    While Ukraine’s armed forces succeed in pushing back Russian forces on the ground, civilians are being brutally bombarded from the air. We are today providing new air defence, including anti-aircraft guns, radar and anti-drone equipment, and stepping up humanitarian support for the cold, hard winter ahead.

    It is deeply humbling to be in Kyiv today and to have the opportunity to meet those who are doing so much, and paying so high a price, to defend the principles of sovereignty and democracy.

  • Janet Daby – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Damp in Properties

    Janet Daby – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Damp in Properties

    The parliamentary question asked by Janet Daby, the Labour MP for Lewisham East, in the House of Commons on 16 November 2022.

    Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)

    Last month, a 52-year-old gentleman contacted me, crying down the phone. He said that, in his previous accommodation, he had developed breathing problems due to the damp, rot and mould in that home, that there was no heating in his present home and that he was worried and scared. What will the Secretary of State’s Department do to invest in social housing, enforce capacity and provide legal aid to help to end this scandal once and for all?

    Michael Gove

    I am very sorry to hear about that individual case. I would be grateful if the hon. Lady let me and my office know about that and the landlord responsible, and we will seek to follow it up. On her broader point, I hope that the regulator and the ombudsman together can help to ensure that individuals like her constituent have their concerns addressed. However, if more needs to be done, my Department will do what we can to review that.