|
Proliferation in ParliamentBack to Proliferation in Parliament, Spring 2009 Westminster ParliamentDebates - Excerpts
Defence in the UK Debate, 26 Mar 2009 : Column 476The Minister for the Armed forces (Mr. Bob Ainsworth):Operationally, it is worth reminding ourselves that the Royal Navy has provided a continuous independent nuclear deterrent at sea since 1969. That is the ultimate guarantee of our national security, and it involves a submarine under the sea, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. I drifted on to the conservativehome website the other day, as I do from time to time, and I looked at the debate there. That is part of the democratic process, and I accept that parties have to have these debates, but it would be enormously helpful to the people who provide that service to our nation if Opposition Members clarified—they can do so now, if they wish, or in their speeches—their support or otherwise for that continued provision. 26 Mar 2009 : Column 477 Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): I am terribly disappointed. For a moment, I thought that the Minister was going to say that he had read my long essay on the vital need for the nuclear deterrent, which appears on the conservativehome website. I am terribly disappointed that he appears to have overlooked it. Mr. Ainsworth: I have read the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to that debate but, equally, I read what others say. There is a difficulty for Opposition Members, is there not? On the one hand, they are committed to a bigger Army—or are they? Clarification would be most welcome. On the other hand, I think they are committed—or are they?—to no increases in defence spending and, indeed, no promise to maintain the current level of defence spending. That is the Opposition position—not of the hon. Gentleman, who is always careful about these things, but it is certainly the position of his hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. The gap has to be filled somehow. The question of where the cuts would be made is an intriguing one. Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) (Con) rose— Mr. Ainsworth: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to enlighten me. Mr. Jenkin: Would the Minister like to set out his own party’s pledges for the next Parliament with regard to defence spending? Mr. Ainsworth: We do that, and we will continue to do that, and I am here in order to do that. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is a duty on Her Majesty’s Opposition. Opposition Members have made statements that are clearly out of line with one another—there are commitments to increase defence spending in one way, but no explanation of how that would be paid for in another area, as would be inevitable—so I invite them now, or when they make their speeches, to enlighten the House as to where the cuts might fall to pay for the commitments that they desire to make... Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring) (Con): As we debate the subject of defence in the United Kingdom, we would be negligent if we overlooked two major elements underpinning our nation’s defence and, indeed, our role in the world: our nuclear deterrent and our ability to project power with aircraft carriers... Many of the same arguments for supporting the carrier programme are applicable to the nuclear deterrent. The Minister began by asking about the commitment of my party to a nuclear deterrent. If hon. Members think back, they will remember that my party has always been committed to such a deterrent. It was those on the left who tried throughout the 1980s to go for unilateral nuclear disarmament and who did not support the nuclear deterrent. There are three reasons why we must have a nuclear deterrent. The first is the unpredictable nature of the post-cold war era. The harsh reality is that in many ways we had it easy with the bipolarity and general predictability of the cold war. As opposed to the concept of east versus west, or democracy versus communism, the global security environment in which we are now forced to operate more closely resembles the multipolarity of the 19th century—not the 20th century, for which our instruments of national defence are structured. No one can accurately predict the threats that the UK will face between 2025 and 2055, when the next generation of the deterrent will be in service, just as no one 20 years ago could have predicted the speed of the collapse of the Soviet Union or the nature of the conflicts in which we are involved in Afghanistan and Iraq. Secondly, nuclear weapons simply cannot be uninvented; they will remain part of the international security picture in the future. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea and their attempted acquisition by Iran are real threats to our security. We do not have the right to gamble with the security of future generations. Thirdly, the United Kingdom has traditionally played a bigger role in acting on a number of global security-related issues than many of our medium-sized allies, especially in Europe. Consequently, we are more susceptible to future nuclear blackmail by rogue states in possession of nuclear arms. Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD): I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman. Do I understand the logic of his argument to be that there are no circumstances in which it would ever be possible for the UK to renounce its nuclear weapons? Dr. Fox: If, in the improbable event that we were able to technically uninvent nuclear weapons, they did not exist in any other part of the globe and there was no chance of them coming into existence in any other part of the globe, that might be a realistic suggestion, but while they do exist and while this country may be threatened or subjected to nuclear blackmail, we must maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent. There are strong arguments for big reductions in the number of warheads held globally. There is a strong economic, moral, political and military argument for big reductions in the stockpiles of Russia and America, and I can see no strong argument against such reductions, but we in the United Kingdom have to be the arbiters of our own destiny. We have to be able to determine our own security, and while nuclear weapons exist, we in the UK are prudent and wise to retain and maintain a minimum effective nuclear deterrent. 26 Mar 2009 : Column 488 Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab): In the light of what the hon. Gentleman said, what does he make in the letter of 16 January in The Times in the names of Field Marshal Lord Bramall, General Lord Ramsbottom and General Sir Hugh Beach—people who would not normally be partial on these things—which was headlined, “The UK does not need a nuclear deterrent”? Would he say that they are old soldiers who are out of touch? Dr. Fox: They are perfectly entitled to their opinion. I happen to think that it is wrong. The nature of the threats that we face has changed quickly from the relative symmetry of the cold war to a range of other asymmetric and complex threats, and it could very well change again. Ultimately, the onus of explanation is not on those of us who wish to retain a deterrent, but on those who want to scrap it. They must tell us why they believe that they can predict the risks that we will face in half a century’s time. The Government’s White Paper, published in 2006, described the independent British nuclear deterrent as
I fully endorse that sentiment. It is an interesting element of the political debate that many of the opponents of the carrier programme and our nuclear deterrent are the same individuals who at other times claim that Britain is already too dependent on, and too close to, American foreign and defence policy. In fact, not having the aircraft carriers or a nuclear deterrent would make us even more dependent on the United States for our security. While British and American interests are likely to coincide in the future, and the Anglo-American relationship remains our most important strategic alliance, the UK must ultimately be able to guarantee its own security. It has been widely reported in the media and written answers that Russia has once again taken up its cold war habit of probing UK airspace. I understand, as we all do, that for operational security reasons the Government are unable to comment in detail on the Floor of the House on what actions have been taken to deal with Russia’s actions, but I hope that in his winding-up speech this evening, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), will be able to give us an idea of the number and frequency of incursions and offer the House assurances that procedures are fully in place to deal with them. In addition, will the Minister say whether his Department has seen an increase in Russian submarine incursions into British territorial waters? We hear often about Russian planes challenging the integrity of our airspace, but seldom, if ever, about what is going on below the surface. There is good reason to be believe that such incursions are occurring, and as we are an island nation with only three naval bases, it is an important matter. I hope that he will address it. Those who think that state-on-state warfare is a thing of the past need only look at the recent invasion of Georgia by Russia and the build-up of Russian armed forces to have a sense of foreboding. One thing is certain: the global economic downturn has not deterred Russia from driving ahead with vast military reforms, requiring huge sums of money. On the contrary, it looks like it is spending at an ever-increasing rate. Russia may 26 Mar 2009 : Column 489 be building up from a low base, given the degraded state of its conventional forces, and it may not pose a direct threat to the security of this country, but the Russian leadership has shown in Georgia how it could destabilise our allies and threaten our security indirectly through a stranglehold on energy supplies. The cyber-attacks in Estonia, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, for which the finger points at Russia, mean that we must maintain our vigilance and invest in the technology to deal with threats that could in future occur in this country... Nick Harvey: It does not surprise me, in the light of the current economic storm, that Trident and the proposal to renew it has been mentioned. We heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) that some distinguished retired military figures have been debating it. We heard from the Minister that people have been debating it on the ConservativeHome website. There is renewed interest in the subject in the light of the economic crisis. Mr. Kilfoyle: It is not only distinguished ex-military personnel, but they have been fairly outspoken. I would far sooner listen to people who have been on the front line than the armchair generals of the television studios or newspaper columns. Ted Postol, the man who designed the Trident system, has pointed out that it could be 26 Mar 2009 : Column 499 adapted for the needs of our country, if that is what we wish, instead of spending an as yet indeterminate sum replacing it. Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is right to ask questions about this issue. We believe that the House was premature in seeking to make a decision two years ago. A final decision does not have to be made, and in truth will not be made, until main gate, which is the point at which the Thatcher Government made the political decision about Trident. The significant costs of Trident replacement will begin to rack up only midway through the next decade. I do not suggest that the questions need to be answered today, any more than they had to be two years ago, but it is right that the questions are being asked. They will continue to be asked from now right through to the time at which any decision is made. It is especially apt that the questions arise at the moment, as we progress towards the 2010 non-proliferation treaty conference talks. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who expressed his sincerely held view, which can be fairly characterised as being that there were no circumstances in which he thought it would ever be possible for the UK to give up its nuclear deterrent. That is a point of view, and he is entitled to hold it, but if he, as a Minister, were to articulate that position on behalf of the UK, it would undoubtedly put us in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. We have binding and solemn commitments under that treaty that it is our duty to try to fulfil at all times... Ms Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I want particularly to raise two issues that are of great concern to my constituency and have been raised with me by a considerable number of constituents. The first issue, which has already been raised by several hon. Members, is Britain’s possession of nuclear weapons, particularly the decision to renew and replace the current Trident nuclear weapons system. As the Minister will be aware, this has for many generations been higher up the political agenda in Scotland than in other parts of the United Kingdom. There has traditionally been a far higher level of opposition to nuclear weapons in Scotland, for a variety of reasons. From the 1950s, we have had ongoing campaigns against nuclear weapons, so the issue has been very visible in the public eye. Since the 1950s, we have seen considerable shifts to the left in public opinion. Parties of the left are far stronger in Scotland than in other parts of the UK, and social democratic ideas are much more central in the political establishment. There is also the fact that nuclear weapons systems—Polaris, Poseidon and Trident—have been physically based on the west coast of Scotland, which is our major population base. In constituencies such as mine, we do on occasion see the submarines travelling up and down the Clyde, so people feel that this is far closer to them. That cuts both 26 Mar 2009 : Column 509 ways. A number of jobs are provided at the Faslane nuclear weapons base, but there is awareness of and concern about the situation and a debate about whether it is appropriate for Britain to possess nuclear weapons at all. I welcome some of the statements recently made by the Government, particularly by the Prime Minister, on the proliferation of nuclear weapons and their possession by countries throughout the world. Those statements are reinforced by what is being said by the newly elected Administration in the United States of America. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) said, we are moving towards next year’s non-proliferation treaty review conference. It is therefore appropriate that the British Government are trying to put this issue far higher up the political agenda, not only because of the new US Administration but because of the greater risks that we all face in the world as the years go by. The position taken by the Conservative Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), suggests that his party sees no circumstances whatsoever in which Britain could move towards not having nuclear weapons. My fear for many years has been that many of the arguments made for Britain’s possession of nuclear weapons could be used by any country in the world. The implication of those arguments is that any and every country in the world will possess nuclear weapons as time goes on, and that is a world that we should all fear. We need to put moves on restricting and removing weapons of mass destruction at the top of the international agenda. Such points have been put to me repeatedly by my constituents, and increasingly in the last few months I been asked whether, given the current difficult economic circumstances, it is appropriate for Britain to be spending something in the region of £76 billion on these weapons. The figure is indeterminate; we do not know exactly what it will cost to replace the current Trident nuclear weapons systems, but we know that historically such projects have tended to end up being more expensive than originally envisaged. Whatever the cost, it is likely to be huge, and given some of the other comments made in the debate about our armed personnel and the support that people receive not just through pay, but when they return home having been in the military—particularly those suffering from physical or psychological injury—we have to question whether that is the best use of the nation’s resources. I place on the record my hope that the Government will look again at the issue of Trident renewal, and use opportunities available in the coming debates on the non-proliferation treaty to consider ways whereby Britain can move to a non-nuclear future, and perhaps more importantly, to use that as mechanism to ensure that we restrict as much as possible the possession of such weapons of mass destruction throughout the world. Any other position that Britain took would be hypocritical. If we say that it is good enough for us, it is difficult to say that it is not good enough for other nations. In our foreign policy in general, such hypocrisy has damaged us, particularly in the past few years in the lead-up to the Iraq war, and in the repercussions of that war and the war on terror. It would be a significant failing if we continued down that path. Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): One of the reasons why we were never under threat of imminent invasion was that we were sensible enough to keep our defences strong, not least by retaining a nuclear deterrent that made it clear to any other power that no matter, how many times over they could obliterate this country, they would not be able to do it without paying an unacceptable price... I now come to the question of the nuclear deterrent. It was pleasant to hear the traditional voice of Labour unilateralism coming in an intervention from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), who spoke of the letter in The Times from three retired generals, and from the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark), who was concerned that other countries would follow the UK’s example if we do not get rid of our nuclear weapons, presumably by acquiring nuclear weapons of their own, and claimed that such projects are historically far more expensive than when planned. I have to correct the hon. Lady on both points. Both Trident and Polaris are famous, if not unique in MOD terms, for having come in on time and on budget and, in 26 Mar 2009 : Column 539 at least one case, under budget. As for other countries, they will not make a decision to acquire nuclear weapons because Britain, an existing nuclear power, continues to maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent as long as other countries still have nuclear weapons themselves. Whether countries acquire nuclear weapons or not is a matter of their hard-headed interpretations of their own strategic interests. Throughout the cold war and subsequently, whenever people on that side of the argument were challenged to name a particular nuclear or near-nuclear country that would follow suit if we unilaterally gave up our nuclear deterrent, they have never been able to give an example. As for the letter from the three generals, I would like to think of one of the three, Sir Hugh Beach, as a friend of mine. He is a very gallant and courteous man, who won a military cross fighting the Nazis in world war two. I think very highly of him, but he has always been against Britain’s having an independent nuclear deterrent. I was pleased that, when the Royal United Services Institute invited him to write a long article for its journal, I was encouraged to write the rejoinder for the opposite side of the case. I invite anoraks on this subject to get hold of the February 2009 edition and immerse themselves in those two articles... I turn now to the contribution made by the Minister for the Armed Forces. I was surprised at his feeble attempt to suggest that the Conservative policy on the maintenance of Trident was unclear. The Conservative party is only major party in this House that has supported the maintenance of the strategic nuclear deterrent ever since Britain acquired one. I take the Minister back to that happy day of 14 March 2007, when this House voted by 409 votes to 161 to proceed with the steps necessary to renew Trident and keep the nuclear deterrent for a new generation. On that day, 87 Labour MPs joined the Liberal Democrats in opposing the motion. If the Conservative party had done what the Liberal Democrats did and found an excuse to vote against the Government, the Government would have been defeated. So it really ill behoves the Government to say that the Conservative party, which saved their correct policy to go on with the nuclear deterrent, is in any way uncertain about the matter. If the Minister had any doubts in that regard before today, the excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Secretary of State, means that he can have no more in the future. 26 Mar 2009 : Column 540 Mr. Bob Ainsworth: All I was seeking was clarification. Dr. Fox: Well, you got it! Mr. Ainsworth: Absolutely, we certainly have it now, but it is something that the shadow Chancellor will have to bear in mind when he draws up his plans. As I said, the Conservative party must somehow stretch its ambitions around the money that it is applying, and the two do not match. Dr. Lewis: Here is a litmus test for the Minister: when he sees that my hon. Friends the Members for Woodspring and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—and, I venture to say, myself—have been quietly shifted away from the defence portfolio to other responsibilities, he may have some grounds for suggesting that there is something in what he has said. One never knows, as all such matters are in the lap of the gods—or, in this case, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), the leader of my party, whom we all greatly admire and respect. I particularly admire and respect my right hon. Friend because I remember his excellent response to Tony Blair at the end of 2006, when the statement about the Government’s intention to go on with a new generation of the nuclear deterrent was made. I was somewhat involved in the drafting of that reply and my right hon. Friend made only two alterations, both of which made it even tougher than it had been in the original draft. I therefore have no doubts whatsoever on that matter... The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Kevan Jones): Today, on the Conservative Front Bench we saw the neo-cons versus the Cameroons. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) is a strong advocate for the nuclear deterrent—I would recommend to anyone his pamphlet arguing the case for it. It would be interesting if there were a Conservative Government—I shall not say that I look forward to the day—and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the hon. Member for New Forest, East at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, with the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) running some bit of Government equivalent to a Siberian power station. 26 Mar 2009 : Column 544 My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Ms Clark) raised
the issue of nuclear deterrence. As the hon. Member for New Forest, East
said, it is nice to see that the unilateralist flame still burns in our
party—although that is not something that I ever supported, I hasten to
add. My hon. Friend mentioned the DSDA, and I will take that message back
to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member
for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). Foreign Policy, House of Lords Debate, 26 Feb 2009 : Column 364Lord Marlesford: Iran is another country which has been sadly mishandled. The Shah, a weak and rather vain man whose overthrow 30 years ago was last month celebrated in Tehran, alienated his religious subjects by confusing modernisation with the introduction of some of the least attractive aspects of western culture. We should not be surprised that accusations of western global arrogance land on fertile ground in Iran. The Anglo-American monarchist plot in 1953 which overthrew the elected Prime Minister Mosaddeq because he had dared to nationalise British-owned oil is still remembered, and America's decision to back Saddam Hussein when he attacked Iran in 1980 cost more than 1 million Iranian lives. Iran is another country whose long and distinguished history entitles it to our respect. We, after all, are relative newcomers to civilisation. Yet we patronisingly appear to deny the Iranians the right to nuclear reactors for power generation lest they be used for building nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are probably as controversial as they have ever been. There are those who say that the great challenge is to rid the world of such abominations, and that every country which joins the nuclear club increases the chances of world disaster, so almost any 26 Feb 2009 : Column 318 steps are justified to prevent entry to it. I myself am not of that persuasion. First, science, however frightening, is irreversible. Secondly, had the bomb not been deployed against Japan, the world would never have recognised the horrors of its effects until uninhibited competitors, probably the United States and Russia, had resorted to a nuclear exchange. After that, there would have been little further debate because there would have been no debaters. Nuclear weapons have been clearly demonstrated as unusable. They kept the peace during nearly half a century of cold war, and perhaps what is most important is that they made conventional warfare between nuclear states too risky. Indeed in this they may in recent years have prevented serious conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir. That there should be as few nuclear states as possible is desirable. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty ensured that the number of states with nuclear weapons rose only from five to nine over 40 years. Next year there will be an opportunity to reinvigorate it, and it will be worth paying a high price to do so. For example, the idea of the central provision of nuclear fuel for those countries that wish to generate nuclear power should be fully endorsed. A price not worth paying is a pre-emptive military attack against a state thought to be acquiring nuclear weapons. I refer of course to the possibility of an attack by Israel on Iran. Nonetheless, progress towards nuclear disarmament with a considerable reduction in the thousands of warheads still held by the United States and Russia must be a priority. My instinct, but not yet my conviction, is that we should renew our own
Trident nuclear deterrent. However, the two carriers are another large
cost and the fleet of smaller ships is dangerously reduced. Nor are supplies
for the Army or the Royal Air Force what they would like to have and what
I believe they need. Our Armed Forces are already overstretched and it
is an act of political immorality to commit to an operation without the
best available—I deliberately say available rather than affordable—equipment.
Equally, to embark on military action without adequate resources is to
risk not only lives but also the reputation of our Armed Forces. That,
sadly, seems to have been one result of our recent operations in the Basra
area where the Americans had to sort out the mess. Lord Ramsbotham: I should like to cover two totally different subjects: Trident and prisoners. I was flattered that both the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, should quote from a letter that my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall, General Sir Hugh Beach and I wrote to the Times earlier in the year on the subject of Trident replacement. We did that not to try to suggest precipitate unilateral disarmament but rather to encourage a debate about whether this weapon system, and the capability that it represents, is a vital part of securing national self-defence, or whether there is an alternative. Four questions have to be answered if that debate is to be held. While taking part in a debate on the World Service, I was disturbed to be told by a senior Member of the other place that such a debate was unnecessary because a vote in the House of Commons had already decreed that Trident should be replaced. I told that Member that that was not the point, as many wider issues had to be considered. Is Trident independent? The answer is strictly no, because the D-11 missile belongs to the United States. I have always thought it unthinkable that we should consider launching the Trident system without the backing and support of the United States. What is its current utility? Can we really see a weapon of this magnitude being used in wars or in an anti-terrorist situation? That is not to say, of course, that we do not have to consider threats that we cannot predict at the moment. It used to be said that possession of this weapon guaranteed you a seat at the top table. I do not 26 Feb 2009 : Column 367 believe that that applies anymore, because the place at the top table is now much more related to economics than to possession of a strategic nuclear deterrent. My final point—there are others—concerns affordability. There are two definitions of “affordability”: can you afford it or can you afford to give up what you have to give up in order to afford it? As many noble Lords have said, the fact that our conventional arsenal is not equipped with all that we need to carry out what we have to do must raise questions about whether the cost of Trident is affordable in terms of what we cannot have because of it. The climate is right for such a debate. First, Trident has a limited shelf life. Secondly, President Obama has already announced where he is heading in this direction. An Australian-Japanese commission is examining the whole subject of multilateral disarmament. SALT and the nuclear proliferation treaties are coming up for renewal. Therefore, it seems to me that we would be wise to have a proper debate on this to make certain that all those taking part in the discussions are equipped with the relevant information. On costs, the letter that we wrote states that our independent deterrent
has become virtually irrelevant except in the context of domestic politics.
In that context, I wonder therefore whether the time has come to remove
it from the defence budget so that it is no longer weighed against conventional
forces in the examination of that budget, and either put into another
budget, such as the Foreign Office’s, or ring-fenced within the Ministry
of Defence budget so that it is no longer an either/or with our required
conventional force. Lord Wallace of Saltaire: We know that we need much stronger regional and global governance but we are stuck with a world system in which nearly 200 state entities cling to their sovereignty and indeed a popular narrative in Britain which clings to our sovereignty as well while suggesting that others should co-operate more. There are some real challenges, therefore, for British foreign policy. Our foreign policy posture looks back—indeed, it is in many ways nostalgic. We talk about Britain as a world power, punching above our weight. We emphasise our “independent” deterrent. We wish to invest in aircraft carriers. The whole narrative of British foreign policy is, as Tim Garton-Ash has written, a footnote to Churchill. He defined Churchill's view of British foreign policy as an unambiguous commitment to the United States and an ambiguous commitment to Europe... The Liberal Democrat response to all of this is that we should cut our coat according to our cloth. We should co-operate with our neighbours at least as closely as with Washington. We should pursue a transatlantic relationship based on interests and not on illusions or sentiment. We note how enormously overstretched we are in defence and that we have to have a radical review of what we can afford in defence terms. That may pose large questions about future defence commitments and it certainly requires us, as my much regretted friend and colleague Tim Garden used to argue, to go further down the road of co-operation with our French partners and with others across the channel. We need a strong push for nuclear disarmament built around the review of the non-proliferation treaty next year and we must be prepared to think through what that means for the renewal of our own nuclear deterrent, an enormous cost hanging over future defence procurement which we have to start paying heavily from 2011 to 2012 onwards. Lord Davies of Oldham: I cannot offer to the noble Lords whom I just mentioned support for their view that additional resources might be available for our forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere if we thought again about Trident. The Government's position on Trident is clear: we intend to replace Trident because we regard nuclear weapons as a necessary element of the capability that we need to deter threats from others. Conventional forces cannot have the same deterrent effect and we all recognise that we live in a nuclear world. I hear what noble Lords have said about the necessity for adequate resources for our conventional forces—those issues have to be addressed, particularly if the obligations on our forces increase—but I disavow the idea that our forces are not currently provided with the necessary resources and I certainly do not think that we could solve the problem of resources for conventional forces by saving money on the renewal of Trident. The Government have made that quite clear. Lord Howe of Aberavon: In the mean time, there has been an important intervention from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and others in the letter that they wrote to the Times on 16 January. They drew attention to the way in which the world is changing, a point also touched on by my noble friend Lord Marlesford. The issue of a world free of nuclear weapons is now firmly on the public agenda. It was placed there initially, a year or more ago, by a galère of distinguished American statesmen, including Secretaries of State Shultz and Kissinger, Secretaries of Defence Perry and Carlucci and Senator Sam Nunn. It is now known and widely supported as the “nuclear security project”. It has been endorsed by many Members of this House and recognised in the qualified response from my noble friend Lord Marlesford. The letter to the Times written by the noble and gallant Lord and other noble Lords said that having,
The letter continues, in the context of our own defence strategy: “Rather than perpetuating Trident, the case is much stronger for funding our Armed Forces with what they need to meet the commitments actually laid upon them”. That seems to be the important conclusion. I recognise that the difference
between my noble friend and me is not as large as all that, because the
process that one undertakes by accepting that analysis can be conducted
with respect for both arguments. Back to Proliferation in Parliament, Spring 2009 © 2009 The Acronym Institute. |