| Acronym Institute Home Page | Calendar | UN/CD | NPT/IAEA | UK | US | Space/BMD |
| CTBT | BWC | CWC | WMD Possessors | About Acronym | Links | Glossary |
Back to the Main British Policy page
Mr. David Cameron (Witney) (Con): May I echo what the Prime Minister said about the two young soldiers who have been killed in Afghanistan? Our thoughts and prayers are with their families.
When asked about the need to replace Britain's independent nuclear deterrent, the Prime Minister said at that Dispatch Box last week that he wanted the fullest possible debate, and that a decision would be taken later in this Parliament. That afternoon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer went around saying that he had made a decision and that it would be announced later this year. Will the Prime Minister tell us what the Chancellor was up to?
The Prime Minister: It was made clear in the Labour manifesto that we are committed to maintaining the independent nuclear deterrent, and I have also said that we think that it is right to do so. A decision will be taken in this Parliament, and that will happen later this year. It is important that Britain makes sure that it can defend itself properly. I believe that an independent nuclear deterrent is an essential part of that.
Mr. Cameron: In his speech, the Chancellor repeated what was in Labour's manifesto, but he went around briefing something completely different. The BBC's political editor said that he wished the Chancellor
"would use code and spin less and speak in plain English a little more. Then we could focus on the real debate."
One of the things that the Chancellor said was that there should be a vote. So will the Prime Minister tell us, in plain English: will the House of Commons have a vote on whether Trident is replaced?
The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House dealt with this during business questions last week. He said, rightly, that we will of course consult the House fully. The method of doing so will be announced at the time when we publish the White Paper. I can assure the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) that there will of course be the fullest possible debate, as there would have to be.
I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not want to debate today the policy he announced yesterday on the Bill of Rights. Since we are having a debate, at long last, on policy, I thought he might want to debate one of his.
Mr. Cameron: It is a simple enough question: the Chancellor wants a vote and the Education Secretary has said there ought to be vote; can we have a vote in the House?
The Prime Minister: I have already explained that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House made the position clear last Thursday. That is the position, and we will announce the means of consultation when we publish the White Paper. Of course, we believe it is extremely important to have the fullest possible debate on the subject.
22 Jun 2006 : Column 1466
Mrs May "A year ago, my friend told us that a decision to replace Trident would have to be made in this Parliament. Would not it be an absolute outrage if billions were squandered on a new generation of nuclear weapons without a vote in the House?"
The Prime Minister's response was:
"As I think I said before, there should be the fullest possible debate on the issue. I am sure that there will be and that, yes, the decision will have to be taken in this Parliament."-[ Official Report, 21 June 2006; Vol. 447, c. 1315.]
He did not comment on whether there would be a vote in the House, so will the Leader of the House tell us whether the debate on Trident and the future of the nuclear deterrent will take place on a substantive motion, thus enabling hon. Members to vote on the issue? When will that debate be held?
Of course, that question of timing is more relevant given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Mansion House speech last night that he believed in retaining the UK's independent nuclear deterrent in the long term. Of course, what the Chancellor said and what his aides briefed out were different. He talked about retaining the nuclear deterrent, yet the briefing referred to the replacement of Trident. The Financial Times reported:
"'Gordon is in no doubt that if the military chiefs recommend a full replacement for Trident then that is what we must deliver,' said a close ally of Mr Brown."
I know that a defence debate is about to take place, but will the Leader of the House arrange for the Chancellor to come to the House to make a statement on Trident so that he may answer questions from hon. Members about his speech and Government policy in the area?
Of course, it is not unusual for the Chancellor to deal with matters that are not in his direct remit. In the past six months, he has spoken about liberty and the role of the state, Britishness, security and anti-terrorism, and the environment. Given that the Chancellor now has such a wide-ranging role, will the Leader of the House arrange for time in the parliamentary programme for questions to the Prime Minister-designate?
22 Jun 2006 : Column 1468
Mr Straw: The right hon. Lady then asked me about Trident. Our manifesto at the 2005 general election stated that we-the Labour Government-are
"committed to retaining the independent nuclear deterrent".
In speaking about the longer term, as well as this Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was fully consistent with that manifesto commitment put before the British people at the last election. Decisions on Trident's replacement have yet to be taken. When they have been taken, they will be put to Parliament in a White Paper. I cannot anticipate at this stage the most appropriate form of debate, but it will be in a form that shows proper respect for the House. I hope that by the time of our White Paper and the debate, the Conservative party will have determined not just what its policy is on Trident, but whether it has a policy.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Of course we have a policy: retain and replace.
Mr. Straw: If that is the policy, why was it not mentioned in the Conservatives' 2005 manifesto? The 2005 Conservative manifesto was completely silent on the issue of Trident's replacement.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): A year ago, my friend told us that a decision to replace Trident would have to be made in this Parliament. Would not it be an absolute outrage if billions were squandered on a new generation of nuclear weapons without a vote in the House?
The Prime Minister: As I think I said before, there should be the fullest possible debate on the issue. I am sure that there will be and that, yes, the decision will have to be taken in this Parliament.
Sir Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife) (LD): From these Benches, Mr. Speaker, may we offer you a very warm welcome back? I also associate myself with the expressions of sympathy to the friends and family of Lieutenant Palmer.
Staying on the issue of Iran, the Foreign Secretary has said that military action against Iran would be inconceivable and that to use nuclear weapons would be nuts. Does the Prime Minister agree with him?
The Prime Minister: As I said a moment or two ago and have said constantly, nobody is talking about a military invasion of Iran or military action against Iran. We are taking diplomatic action through the United Nations Security Council. I repeat to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) a moment or two ago. Let us be quite clear about what is happening and the reason why Iran is in the news headlines. It is because it is in breach of its international obligations and not co-operating properly with the International Atomic Energy Agency. I would have thought that this is the moment for the world to send a clear and united message to the Iranian regime that it has to desist from that and, in particular, to desist 19 Apr 2006 : Column 118 from helping and financing terrorist activities around the world and get back into line with its international obligations.
Sir Menzies Campbell: But it is very important to know what that clear and united message is. Yesterday, President Bush said that all options remain on the table. Is there any military option, including nuclear weapons, that the Prime Minister would rule out?
The Prime Minister: As I said, nobody is talking about these things. In respect of the President of the United States, let me just say this. The President of the United States is not going to take any option off the table-neither, incidentally, do I suspect that any President of the United States would at this moment in time. That is perfectly sensible for all the reasons that have been given many, many times by the President himself. However, we are actually pursuing a diplomatic solution to the issue of Iran. That diplomatic solution is now being taken forward in the UN Security Council. There will be a report back by Mr. el-Baradei, I think within the next couple of weeks, and then the UN Security Council has got to sit down and work out what action to take. But it is important that we take action if Iran continues to be in breach of its obligations.
Nuclear Deterrent, 27 Feb 2006, Column 15
11. Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con) : What plans he has to replace the British nuclear deterrent. [53943]
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Reid): The Government are committed to retaining our minimum nuclear deterrent, as currently represented by Trident, for the foreseeable future. No decisions have yet been taken on any replacement for our current system.
Nick Herbert: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply, but since our sole nuclear deterrent, Trident, will no longer be viable in 15 to 20 years' time, are we not reaching the point where decisions can no longer be avoided about replacing it? Is not the danger of nuclear proliferation in the middle east reason enough to begin a debate now on the need to update our nuclear deterrent as the ultimate guarantor of our national security?
John Reid: As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, we are talking about decisions that may have to be taken in 15 to 20 years' time. I do not think that the whole situation has become that much more urgent since the last time I was asked that question last month. Let me make the position absolutely clear: for the foreseeable future, we are retaining our minimum nuclear deterrent. At some stage, preferably in the course of this Parliament, we will have to take a decision about how we wish to continue after that-that is, in 15 to 20 years' time. When I have received papers or advice on this matter, I will begin to share the discussion with the House. I have no doubt that, at the next Question Time, the hon. Gentleman will return to the subject, as he is entitled to do, but at this stage I have nothing more to say because we have not yet embarked on the process of making the decision in principle or in detail.
5. Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the future of nuclear submarine facilities in Scotland. [54022]
28 Feb 2006 : Column 112
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Cairns): My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence on a range of issues.
Mr. Hollobone: Given the importance of the naval base at Faslane to the Scottish economy, by what date does the Under-Secretary expect a decision on the replacement for Trident to be announced?
David Cairns: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said yesterday in Defence questions that it was hoped that a decision would be made during this Parliament. Of course, the decision does not have to come into force for 20 or 25 years, so there is no rush.
The future of Faslane does not depend on a replacement for Trident. It depended on the Government's decision to base the Astute class submarine at Faslane, which means £135 million of investment in Faslane and the local economy. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con): Will the Under-Secretary confirm whether the Scottish Executive has any form of veto over future nuclear defence development in Scotland?
David Cairns: No, defence is reserved.
4. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con): What his assessment is of the
role of nuclear deterrence in the future security of the United Kingdom; and
if he will make a statement. [44071]
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1152
7. Gregory Barker (Bexhill and Battle) (Con): What his assessment is
of the role of nuclear deterrence in the future security of the United Kingdom.
[44074]
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Reid): As our last manifesto made clear, our minimum nuclear deterrent capability, currently represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element of our security while there continues to be any risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and while other countries retain substantial nuclear arsenals.
Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for that unequivocal answer. Will the Secretary of State confirm that whatever any future deterrent might be—theatre, strategic or tactical—as long as countries such as Iran and North Korea strive for nuclear weapons, the United Kingdom must maintain some form of nuclear deterrent for the defence of the realm?
John Reid: Our present deterrent is viable for about 15 to 20 years, so, as we made plain in our manifesto as recently as six months ago, we shall retain the nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future. We shall do so on the assumption that, as long as anyone else who is a potential enemy has a nuclear weapon, we shall retain ours. That of course will have to be tested in analysis, with a forward look of between 20 and 50 years, if we are looking at a successor to our present system of nuclear deterrence; it is that very assumption that we will test against future threats and insecurities. If that assumption proves correct, the conclusion that the hon. Gentleman drew from it will prove to be correct.
Gregory Barker: Many of us will be pleased to hear that categorical assurance from the Secretary of State, but does he agree that the threat comes not only from the states that possess nuclear weapons, but from all those that may seek to possess them? Will he therefore be a little clearer as to what "the foreseeable future" means, and tell us when he expects to place firm plans before Parliament for the replacement of Trident?
John Reid: "The foreseeable future" means the lifetime of our present system, the end of which is approximately 15 to 20 years away. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues need not get too excited that anyone is going to take any sudden decisions, because we will retain our present nuclear deterrent during that period, as we made clear in our manifesto. The debate will be about whether we should extend the minimum nuclear deterrent in this country beyond that period, so we are talking about analysing the threats and risks between 20 and 50 years hence. Once we have done that, if the same assumptions apply, if there is a possibility that a potential enemy of this country could have access to nuclear weapons, and if we retain the same assumptions that we have now, we would obviously retain a minimum nuclear deterrent.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): The Prime Minister told us nine
months ago that a decision would be taken in this Parliament on the replacement
of Trident, and that he wanted to listen to the views of hon. Members. Is it
my Friend's intention to publish a Green Paper setting out the options
on this matter—we need
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1153
not stick with just a submarine-based deterrent; there could be any number of
other permutations—and will there be a vote in this Parliament on whether
we retain our nuclear deterrent?
John Reid: Just to correct my hon. Friend, the Prime Minister said that it was likely that—[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] As accuracy is demanded of me in these matters, I am entitled to demand accuracy from my hon. Friends. The Prime Minister said that it was likely and preferable that the decision be taken in this Parliament. Indeed, lest Conservative Members again get excited without due reason, may I say that it would be not only preferable but my intention to see that decision taken in this Parliament? Now that everyone has calmed down, may I also say that my hon. Friend is right on his second point? That is that, quite apart from the principle about whether we retain a minimum nuclear deterrent, if we did so, there would be a range of options open to us. On his third point about our being fully prepared, I fully accept that there would need to be a discussion on both the principle and the means, if we decide to do so, of maintaining a minimum nuclear deterrent. There is plenty of time to discuss the exact method of doing that, and the exact voting patterns, which are a matter for the business managers, because there are no imminent decisions to be taken. Indeed, I have not even begun to consider the matter either in principle or in detail, nor have I received any papers on the principle or the detail from any officials. I am unlikely to do so for some time.
Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) (Lab): The Secretary of State for Defence will recall that on 3 and 4 December 1998 at St. Malo, the Prime Minister and President Chirac agreed to move towards a progressive framing of a common European defence policy. In the light of President Chirac's statement last week that he would be prepared to use nuclear weapons as a first strike against rogue states, what further discussions is the Secretary of State having with his European counterparts to discuss a common approach to these issues?
John Reid: If, by that, my hon. Friend means a common or joint approach to nuclear deterrence outside the framework of NATO, the answer at present is none.
Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton) (Con): In considering a replacement for our nuclear deterrent, will the Secretary of State take into account the reaction to President Chirac's speech last week, which was widely regarded as misguided or even counter-productive? Does not he accept that the biggest threat to this country is in more conventional areas and the overstretch of British forces? There must be a rebalancing of our thinking if we are really to protect the lives of our citizens, both in terms of overseas activities and in terms of homeland security.
John Reid: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I know that he
will understand that I no more speak for President Chirac than he does for Britain
on such matters. If he has problems with the statements of Monsieur le Président,
it would be better to write to him. On his second point, which juxtaposes conventional
and nuclear forces, I do not believe that that is a useful way of examining
matters. It is perfectly true that there are
23 Jan 2006 : Column 1154
new threats arising from terrorism, but that does not mean that the old threats
have disappeared. It is equally true that the type of forces that we would need
to develop to counter terrorism, such as special forces, extra surveillance
and extra mobility, are not necessarily nuclear weapons. That nuclear weapons
are not a response to the threat of terrorism does not mean, however, that we
should, for instance, get rid of special forces because they are not a response
to the threat of nuclear weapons. The truth is that we need a range of responses
to a range of threats.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring) (Con): Our position on the nuclear deterrent is unequivocal: we are committed not only to retaining the current nuclear deterrent but to replacing it when necessary. Will the Secretary of State therefore tell us whether he or any of his officials have had discussions with their US counterparts on the options for replacing Trident?
John Reid: First, I realise that the hon. Gentleman was not his party's defence spokesman at the time that its manifesto was written, but for a party that says that it is unequivocally committed to the nuclear deterrent not to have mentioned it in one sentence in its manifesto—[Interruption.] I understand that nothing that was written in the Conservative manifesto has any relationship with today's policies, but it would have been useful if such strident commitment to the nuclear deterrent had been in the manifesto.
Secondly, although I have not received any papers on the principle or detail of nuclear deterrents, I have asked my officials to explore all the options in order to bring together the facts, figures, themes, assessments and assumptions about threats and responses in the nuclear field. Therefore, discussions have and will be ongoing between my officials and a range of people in order to assess and present the arguments to me. At that stage, we will have a wider discussion inside and no doubt outside Parliament.
Dr. Fox: We look forward with relish to discussion on the continuity of the nuclear deterrent. On Saturday, the Belgian Foreign Minister said:
"If we want an integrated European defence system, it is logical that it would integrate existing nuclear arsenals . . . A strong European branch will increase the equilibrium within NATO. The integration of existing nuclear arsenals in this system will also boost Europe's political clout . . . We cannot be in favour of a European defence system and act as if the French and British nuclear arsenals do not exist."
Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to make it clear that there is not a snowball in hell's chance of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent becoming part of any European defence structure, now or in the future?
John Reid: I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that for some 40 years it has, and it is called NATO.
Q3. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) (Lab): Does my right hon. Friend agree with the statement by the late Robin Cook that our nuclear weapons are hopelessly irrelevant to the task of dealing with terrorism and helping our vital role in international peacekeeping? Will he answer the question of which I gave him notice earlier today and tell us that, before any decision is made about spending a massive amount of money—at least £10 billion—on a replacement for Trident, we can have a debate and a vote in the House?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that there will be a debate as my hon. Friend suggests, and I have no doubt that there will be a great deal of discussion on the issue as the months and years unfold. I do not think that anyone pretends that the independent nuclear deterrent is a defence against terrorism; none the less, I believe that it is an important part of our defence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already made it clear that the Government will listen to hon. Members before making any decisions on replacing Trident. No decisions on replacing it have yet been made but they are likely to be necessary in the current Parliament. It is too early to rule in or rule out any particular option. As we set out in our manifesto, we are committed to retaining the UK's independent nuclear deterrent. My hon. Friend will doubtless make his views clear, as will other hon. Members, and we will make our decision ultimately in the best interests of the country.
3. Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): When he intends to initiate discussions on the future of the British nuclear deterrent.
5. Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab): When he expects a decision to be made on a new generation of nuclear weapons; and if he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Reid): Decisions on any replacement of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent are likely to be necessary in the lifetime of the current Parliament, which will of course last some years. I have no doubt the issue will be raised whenever we discuss defence in this House.
Michael Gove: Can the Secretary of State assure me that he will no longer appease the hard-left sentiments of the unilateralist disarmers who are sadly so numerous on Labour's Back Benches? Will he end prevarication on this question and give us a firm commitment that the nuclear deterrent will be modernised urgently in the interests of the defence of this country?
John Reid: I can certainly say to the hon. Gentleman, who is relatively new to the House, that I have never appeased nor will I appease those who call, in today's circumstances, for unilateral nuclear disarmament, such as the former Conservative Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Michael Portillo, who did so several weeks ago. Nor will the hon. Gentleman find me, unlike colleagues of his on the Front Bench, co-authoring articles in The Guardian with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
Mr. Mullin: All I am looking for is a little transparency. With respect to my right hon. Friend and, indeed, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with whom I raised this subject the other day, official pronouncements on the subject so far have been
4 Jul 2005 : Column 6
remarkably vague. May we know when the decision has to be taken and, in due course, what the cost is likely to be and, perhaps, what the purpose of a new generation of nuclear weapons will be? Is my right hon. Friend in a position to assist with inquiries? If he is not, who is?
John Reid: As they would say in Glasgow, "Ah'm yer man" when it comes to assisting my hon. Friend. I have been pretty transparent. First, we pledged no longer than two months ago in our manifesto-to which my hon. Friend was as committed as I was, as far as I am aware-that we would retain the minimum nuclear deterrent, so that is our position. Secondly, the minimum nuclear deterrent that we have at the moment will last us between 10 and 20 years. Thirdly, as far as the situation beyond that is concerned, I have said to my hon. Friend that we have not started even considering, far less taking decisions on, the details of that. That is why I cannot give him costs for the various alternatives. That is as straight as I can make it. It also has the benefit of being honest, even though it may not satisfy my hon. Friend.
Adam Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (PC): More than 50 years ago, a Tory Government made a unilateral announcement that the UK would no longer develop offensive biological and chemical weapons. Would not a similar announcement that there would be no successor to Trident make a positive contribution to the global process of eliminating those weapons of mass destruction?
John Reid: Well, we are talking about events 10 to 20 years away. Although the hon. Gentleman may think that making such decisions arbitrarily is a good method-
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) indicated assent.
John Reid: I see the hon. Gentleman nods, but at this very moment his party is discussing whether to join NATO, which would of course mean joining the nuclear club. What is sauce for the goose has to be sauce for the gander. The House should consider the matter carefully, rather than taking any arbitrary decisions. If the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) can tell us off the top of his head what the situation will be in 10 to 20 years' time, we would all greatly benefit from that.
Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston) (Lab): Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the event that he intends not only to retain the deterrent but to replace it, he would expect the defence budget to be increased? If he does not expect that budget increase, would it not be entirely rational to decide that it might be wiser to husband his budget for the peacekeeping and stability missions that the British forces do so well and which, as I can testify, greatly enhance Britain's standing in the world?
John Reid: If my right hon. Friend will allow me, I would rather study the options and their implications before drawing conclusions from any of those options, 4 Jul 2005 : Column 7 whether on the basis of cost or anything else. When we consider the dynamics of change over the last six years, we find, in terms of our nuclear deterrent, that on the one hand we have reduced to a single form of nuclear deterrence-the only nation to do so; we have abolished the WE177 freefall bomb, detargeted our missiles and reduced the number of warheads and the number of boats we have at sea. On the other hand, since then, we have discovered that North Korea, Pakistan, India and, formerly, Libya were in the process of developing programmes, and there may have been aims in Iraq, too. The situation is constantly fluid and it behoves all of us to give the matter serious and prolonged consideration rather than pre-empting or prejudging it, or making arbitrary decisions on something so important.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): As the co-author of the article to which the Secretary of State referred, may I advise him and the House that it is a sorry state of affairs when a former head of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and a former leading opponent of CND have to get together to write such an article to try to persuade the Government to let the debate begin? Our key question to the Secretary of State is not will he keep Trident until the end of its useful life, but will he continue to possess nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them? When the people of Britain are asked, two thirds say yes, we should, and one quarter say no, we should not. Hardly anyone is undecided. Why is the Secretary of State undecided?
John Reid: I am decided and I have told the hon. Gentleman what I have decided. Unfortunately, I am in government and he is not-that is really the source of frustration. However, I am glad that he raised the matter, because when we consider what could possibly bring CND and Conservative Front Benchers together on defence-[Hon. Members: "Debate."] It is not a matter of debate. We have debated it at every Question Time; every time we have a debate on defence we debate the issue, so it cannot be lack of debate that brought them together. The fact is that it has nothing to do with a serious decision about our strategic needs, whether nuclear or otherwise, but that CND and Conservative Front Benchers want to discomfit the Government. Well, they can continue debating, but I am afraid that they do not discomfit me in the least.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that he wanted to listen to the views of the House. How will he discern those views? Will we just have open-ended debate, or will there be a vote at some stage where opinions can crystallise?
John Reid: The answer to the first question is that I discern those views by listening, although listening does not necessarily mean that I accept them; it depends on the rationale and logic of what is put to me. As regards debate, I find myself in the peculiar position where I am attacked from both sides of the House for not debating the issue and by my hon. Friend for endless debate on it.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): The Prime Minister told us yesterday that the Government will listen to Members before making any decisions on replacing Trident. I realise that we will have a debate on defence in the world on 7 July, but is there not a powerful case for having in due course a focused debate on the Trident nuclear deterrent, with background papers provided by the Government, and a vote on whether we want to replace it?
Mr. Hoon (The Leader of the House of Commons): My hon. Friend slyly dismisses the prospect of next week's debate on defence in the world, but it is surely a perfect opportunity for him to spend a Thursday afternoon in the House debating these vital matters. I look forward to reading his speech in detail, although I anticipate that I will not be surprised by its content. Nevertheless, that debate will be the start of the discussion of what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear is an important issue for the United Kingdom, and for the future of its armed forces.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab): As my right hon. Friend will be aware, he will shortly have to make a decision about whether to invest in a new generation of nuclear weapons. What assurance can he give the House that, before any irrevocable decisions are made, he will take Parliament into his confidence?
The Prime Minister: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already made it clear that the Government will listen to hon. Members before making any decisions on replacing Trident. I also have to say to my hon. Friend that no decisions on replacing Trident have yet been taken, but these are likely to be necessary in the current Parliament. It is too early to rule in or to rule out any particular option. As we set out in our manifesto, we are committed to retaining the United Kingdom's independent nuclear deterrent, but I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss that before the final decision is taken.
8. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): Whether it is his policy to replace Trident with a new generation of strategic nuclear deterrent.
10. Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): Whether the decision has been taken in principle in favour of a new generation strategic nuclear deterrent.
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Reid): Labour's recent general election manifesto spelled out our commitment to the retention of the independent nuclear deterrent. However, as I confirmed to the House on 18 May, no decision on any replacement for Trident has been taken, either in principle or otherwise.
Mr. Swayne: The Secretary of State will be aware that last year's White Paper stated categorically that a decision on the replacement for Trident would need to be taken in the lifetime of this Parliament. Does he agree with that, and does he still believe in the principle that Britain should continue to hold a nuclear deterrent so long as others do so?
John Reid: The answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to the second is that I have already answered it by reading out our manifesto commitment, which made it clear that we are committed to retaining an independent nuclear deterrent.
Mark Pritchard: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but I am rather intrigued by its vagueness. My question on the Order Paper is quite clear in referring to the principle. Will the Secretary of State therefore underline again the Government's view of the principle—not the platform or the technology—of the UK having its own nuclear deterrent? Despite the unilateralists on the Government Benches behind him, I hope that he will reassure the House by saying yes to that principle.
John Reid: I can do no better than read out my initial answer. It must be my accent that has troubled the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Incidentally, I take great offence at the comparison between my accent and the Minister of State's, as mine is much posher than his. I have been modelling myself for years on the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames), who is in his place, as he so often is for defence debates.
6 Jun 2005 : Column 986
Let me repeat my first answer: Labour's recent general election manifesto spelled out our commitment to the retention of the independent nuclear deterrent. If the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) is still intrigued, I can read out our manifesto. Given his suspicions of anyone who fails to mention or who is against nuclear weapons, it may be even more intriguing for the House if I read out the Conservative party manifesto. There is no mention of nuclear weapons at all in that. I searched for some reference to them, but found only the brilliant analysis that the world is obviously more dangerous—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that we can all read party manifestos in our leisure time.
Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Are not nuclear weapons macho politics for the countries that want them, but extremely dangerous if many countries adopt the same attitude? The former US Secretary of Defence, Robert McNamara, is in Parliament today. Does the Secretary of State agree with him that human fallibility and nuclear weapons mean the destruction of nations? Will not a new generation of nuclear weapons blow apart our obligations to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and make future international agreement unachievable?
John Reid: I sincerely hope not, and I take my hon. Friend's point about the great danger of proliferation. That is why, during the strategic defence review, which I had the honour to chair under the noble Lord Robertson, we diminished the number of our warheads, reduced the targeting of those warheads and reduced the number of Trident submarines at sea at any time. It is also why we have been supportive on the non-proliferation treaty and expressed disappointment that, despite our efforts, we did not make further advances in the recent period of that treaty. I can assure my hon. Friend that anything we do in future will be fully consistent with our obligations under the NPT.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend outline some of the key milestones in the lead-up to this important decision, and will he ensure that the interests of those who work in Devonport dockyard are listened to with care?
John Reid: I welcome my hon. Friend to the House and promise that, as ever, I will listen with great care to anyone connected with Devonport. I have to say that it is a little too early to highlight particular milestones, other than to say that the hon.
Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) was right to suggest that a decision will have to be taken during the course of this Parliament, although the decision we take—whether we modify, replace, update or diminish Trident—will not take effect in the course of this Parliament. Indeed, that lies some decades ahead.
Mr. Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD): On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, I join the Secretary of State in passing on our condolences to the families and friends of servicemen who have recently given their lives while serving this country.
6 Jun 2005 : Column 987
The strategic nuclear deterrent has been a crucial aspect of Britain's defences in the post-war period, and we continue to support it. We recognise that there are rapidly changing threats to the United Kingdom and the rest of the world, not least the danger of proliferation of nuclear weapons. As the Government consider the possible replacement of Trident, and in the aftermath of the failure of the review conference for the non-proliferation treaty, will the Secretary of State make it clear how the UK will take forward its obligations under article 6, and will he tell us how he will implement the Government's welcome manifesto pledge to put an end to the international network of trade in weapons of mass destruction?
John Reid: Our record illustrates the lengths to which we are prepared to go to stand against that trade, potential or otherwise, or the coming together of terrorist groups and weapons of mass destruction. To be asked about a resolution of that question from the Liberal Benches surprises me, however. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has been deeply involved in dealing with the general arms trade, and I think that we will get a fruitful outcome. The hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate point about the relationship between our continuing consideration of the retention of our independent nuclear deterrent and our NPT obligations. I assure him, as I assured my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) a second ago, that before we take any decision on our independent nuclear deterrent, we will need to look at a range of options, including the different ways in which new systems might provide deterrence. There are also options for extending the life of elements of the existing system. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all those will be considered in the context of the prevailing international situation and our NPT obligations.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that a replacement for Trident would be compatible with our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty?
John Reid: As a general statement, it could be—[Interruption.] Conservative Members, who could not spend even three words in their manifesto discussing this important issue, laugh at that judicious use of words. Of course, we have to use our words judiciously. To my hon. Friend, I say that the answer depends on what we do: if we replace the existing system with a massive increase in our capability, that may not be compatible; if we reduce capability, that may well be compatible. So the answer to the question is precisely as I said: it could well be in line with our existing obligations.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Am I alone in having detected in the Secretary of State's first answer a slight contradiction? He quoted the manifesto as stating that his party believed in the continuation of the nuclear deterrent, but went on to say that no decision had been taken in principle on that very matter. The question that he was asked and on which my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) was right to press him was whether in principle the Government think that this country should continue to
6 Jun 2005 : Column 988
possess nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them. Do not the contributions of his colleagues the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) show the sort of difficulties that he will run into if he accepts such a principle? As for the Conservative position, I refer the Secretary of State to early-day motion 149, which enunciates that principle. Will he sign it and encourage his colleagues to sign it?
John Reid: I am sure that the whole nation is reassured by the fact that when it went to the polls assuming that there was no nuclear policy it could have referred to early-day motion 149, which outlines one. The hon. Gentleman has been a strong supporter of our independent nuclear deterrent over many years, and I have discussed many issues with him, but he perceives wrongly if he perceives a contradiction in my first two statements. I said, first, that our manifesto commits the Labour Government to the retention of our independent nuclear deterrent, and, secondly, that we had not taken a decision in principle about the replacement of the existing system because that decision, in principle and in practice, must await the outcome of our deliberations, considerations and analysis. I said that that would happen in the context of prevailing international conditions and our obligations under the NPT. He should therefore be in no doubt that the two statements are not contradictory in any way.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): I welcome the Secretary of State, and his accent, to his new position, but I remind him of the recent opinion poll indicating that 78 per cent. of Scots are opposed to the replacement of Trident. In a time of procurement overspends and cuts in the Navy, the Air Force and the Army, why do the Government not fully fund conventional defence, rather than wasting £20 billion on weapons of mass destruction?
John Reid: I am too emollient a character to point out that 82 per cent. of Scots are opposed to the SNP, but that has not persuaded the hon. Gentleman of the wrongness of his position. Of course we listen carefully to opinion polls, but the prevailing message from them over many decades is that if people are asked whether, as long as other nations have a nuclear deterrent, this nation should retain one, some two thirds of the population consistently say yes. I have made plain the terms of our manifesto commitment to the retention of an independent nuclear deterrent. I have also made it plain that we have taken no decisions in principle or in practice about the replacement of the existing system. The hon. Gentleman will have to await further discussions, and it may be useful to wait until we have given the matter some consideration before demanding answers from me.
© 2006 The Acronym Institute.