British Policy
Trident Replacement:
Assessing UK Security Needs and Nuclear Policy
Back to the Main British Policy page
Debates in the House of Commons
- Defence Procurement, February 2, 2006 [excerpts]
- Defence in the United Kingdom, November 17, 2005
[excerpts]
- Adjournment
Debate on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, October 26, 2005, Column 426
- Debate on UK Relations with Iran, Westminster Hall,
October 11, 2005 [excerpts]
- Debate on the Address [Queen's Speech], May 18,
2005 [excerpts]
Defence Procurement, February 2, 2006 [excerpts]
2 Feb 2006 : Column 563
Mr. Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con): On the subject of submarines,
the Minister spoke of keeping a skills base in the long term and retaining
the industrial capability of our submarine industry. Will he comment on
the future of that capability after the construction of the Astute class
has been completed in 2010? How will we maintain our skills base and what
capability will be retained if there is a significant production gap between
the completion of the Astute class and the potential replacement of Trident?
The nuclear deterrent has not been mentioned much, apart from in the
excellent contribution by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr.
Crausby). Our position on the nuclear deterrent is unequivocal: we are
committed not only to retaining the current nuclear deterrent, but replacing
it when necessary. We welcome the Defence Committee's inquiry into the
strategic context and timetable for decision making for the replacement
of Trident. I am sure that the Minister will also welcome the start of
the debate on that issue...
2 Feb 2006 : Column 527
Mr. David Crausby (Bolton, North-East) (Lab): I strongly suspect—I
am optimistic—that we will persevere with the JSF, largely because we
are so committed to the project, not least given the design of our new
aircraft carriers, but we have been betrayed by the denial of ITAR, and
we must learn some lessons from the behaviour of the US Congress. Of course
questions about the availability of the short take-off and vertical landing
version must be asked and answered urgently, because the impact on the
design and cost of our future aircraft carriers, which are the cornerstone
of our plans, will be crucial. Most importantly, we must apply the lessons
learned from that sorry episode to the transfer of technology and independence
when we decide to replace our nuclear deterrent. I urge the Government
to ensure that we have a full and extensive debate on the replacement
of our Vanguard submarines and Trident missiles.
I have no doubt that in a world on the edge of major nuclear weapons
proliferation, we have no alternative but to retain a British independent
nuclear deterrent. While India and Pakistan have a deterrent, with Israel
and North Korea almost certainly in possession of one, Iran desperately
wanting one, and Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Egypt and other countries
waiting in the wings, we have little choice but to retain our nuclear
defensive position. We find ourselves within 15 years of the end of the
25-year hull life of the first submarine, HMS Vanguard, although I understand
and accept that its service life has been extended to 2024-25. The detail
of its replacement clearly must be up for debate. We must decide not only
whether to replace it, but the purpose and shape of our future delivery
system.
Given the limited size of Britain's nuclear stockpile, it makes obvious
sense to use submarine delivery because air or ground-launched missiles
cannot possibly offer us the same security as a submarine. I am encouraged
by the determination expressed in the defence industrial strategy to maintain
key capabilities in the UK, but I urge an early published resolution to
what we intend to replace the Vanguard class with, alongside firm decisions
on the acquisition of the proposed Astute class
2 Feb 2006 : Column 528
nuclear-powered submarines so that we can ensure, most importantly, that
we retain necessary skills and design capabilities onshore...
2 Feb 2006 : Column 516
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): I intended to refer to Trident,
but I shall leave that to my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean
(Mr. Harper) in his winding-up speech. I simply want to put it on record
that I have not forgotten ballistic missile defence. The House should
turn its attention to that at some point because the United States is
developing ballistic missile defence and is convinced that that is critical
for the defence of the United States and its allies. The United States
is willing to make its facilities and technology available to its allies,
yet the Government appear to have no interest in discussing those matters
with the United States. As all of us have benefited from the umbrella
of the American nuclear deterrent and the American presence on the continent
of Europe during the past half century, we ought to look carefully at
the offer that the United States is making to help us in that regard.
Mr. Walter: Does my hon. Friend agree that the French appear to be developing
their replacement nuclear deterrent, and that it would be unacceptable
for France to be the only nuclear power on the continent of Europe?
Mr. Howarth: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I could not have expressed
that point better. Indeed, the only person who might have done so is my
hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East, who is the master in these
matters...
Defence in the United Kingdom, November 17, 2005
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1159
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab):
It was interesting to hear Sir Ian Blair deliver the Dimbleby lecture
and discuss the need for a great and open debate on policing in this country.
His speech reminded me that the Secretary of State for Defence recently
said that there should be a national debate about what replaces Trident,
and I want to discuss the changed circumstances and whether we need to
replace Trident.
The strategic defence review reported in 1998. The House of Commons Library
note on the review makes the valid remark that the SDR then was evolutionary
rather than revolutionary. However, it did not face up in a radical way
to many of the circumstances that it should have done, but continued the
pre-existing policy.
The one thing on which I will agree with the Government is that circumstances
have changed dramatically since 9/11. We are told that it was year zero
and that all the rules of the game have changed. If so, we need a proper
review of our overall defensive strategy.
Before the debate, I jotted down some of the things that have happened
since 9/11 to change dramatically our stance, or implied stance, given
our close relationship with the United States on a bilateral basis and
through NATO. Our close allies, to whom, we are told, we are inextricably
linked, are considering the weaponisation of space. Members on both sides
of the House recently went to a briefing with the Washington-based Centre
for Defence Studies on exactly how the air force is developing plans for
that. The Americans have adopted the notion of full spectrum dominance,
with the aspiration of dominating land, sea, air, space and cyberspace.
They have taken up the notion of
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1160
pre-emptive war, which we thought was unacceptable for the west. They
have even started to moot, with some support from the previous Secretary
of State for Defence, the idea that nuclear strikes on non-nuclear countries,
even in a pre-emptive mode, would be feasible. There have been various
withdrawals from treaties to which we all subscribed, and a failure to
implement others, including those that have a direct impact on whether
Trident is replaced.
We are entering a time frame in which we are considering earmarking expenditure
for Trident's successor. There is ample evidence that a lot of money has
been allocated in preparation for the new generation of warheads for it.
Refitting has already taken place at Aldermaston.
We are in a different world and about to embark on a new course. There
is no more suitable time for a complete review of what our defence objectives,
strategy and priorities should be.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): In support of the hon.
Gentleman's remarks about Trident, although from the opposite side of
the argument, I remind him that in the 1980s, in the run-up to Trident,
the then Conservative Government published a series of open government
defence documents that aired the arguments about the decision to replace
Polaris with Trident. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the Government
are serious about starting the debate, they should begin by publishing
a similar rationale, so that the public debate can get under way as to
why we need a successor or, indeed, why we do not?
Mr. Kilfoyle: A future risk assessment was carried out in March
2003 to consider our changing circumstances, but unfortunately it was
not taken up politically. We are in a different world. The Government
have to show us what enemy, real or potential, Trident would be aimed
at, and how that fits in with the emphasis on asymmetrical warfare that
was mentioned in the future risk assessment. The stuff that Kitson predicted
many years ago about the sort of warfare that would be endemic—I would
argue, throughout the 21st century—has come to pass. We should consider
that through a great national debate, not, as the current Secretary of
State suggested, simply on a successor to Trident but on what our policy
objectives should be.
We must not be pre-emptive in our discussions. Nothing should be excluded
and nothing should necessarily be included. We should have a full and
open debate analogous to that for which Ian Blair called for the police.
Why do we not hold such a debate on the future role of our defence forces?
That does not in any way minimise their current importance or disposition—we
will all have arguments about that—but we need to look to the future with
an open mind, not a closed one.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, not the military, should lead such
a review. If we accept another old adage, that warfare is diplomacy by
other means, we should establish our diplomatic priorities first and everything
else should fit around that. The only way to avoid the accusation that
big boys' toys win out is to hold a serious, wide-ranging and open debate
on what we face in the 21st century...
I am conscious that we have only a short time, and I do not have a great
deal more to say. I support a complete and open debate, before we are
committed to a successor to Trident, to take account of the same circumstances
that are drilled into us at every opportunity by Government spokesmen
and women...
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1162
Mr. Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk)
(LD): The defence White Paper, "Delivering Security in a Changing
World", published in December 2003, first raised the issue of the replacement
of Trident when it indicated that a decision was "likely to be required"
in this Parliament. At the time, the quote might have looked as though
it was tucked away in relative obscurity at the bottom of page 10, but
since the election it has attracted a great deal of attention in this
House and elsewhere. That is entirely understandable, as this is one of
the most important debates that the country will have.
Our election manifesto committed us to work first and foremost for the
elimination of nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis while retaining
the United Kingdom's current minimum nuclear deterrent. We retain that
position. If we are to be able to make a decision on the replacement of
Trident, however, a properly informed debate is needed beforehand. There
are significant questions about the timing—why now? We need information
about the options being considered and the costs that go with them, assessing
not only whether it is a cost that the country can afford, but the opportunity
costs in the sense of what will be lost if we divert resources to that
particular investment. We also need a full and frank debate about the
strategic context, not just about the nature of the threat—we need to
bear in
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1163
mind that we are trying to predict 20 or 30 years on—as we also need
to take account of the projected alliances of which we are members.
There are, of course, philosophical, moral and many other—including even
instinctive—reasons that will be brought into the debate. We must have
that debate, and to inform it I would endorse what was said by the hon.
Member for Liverpool, Walton and the hon. Member for New Forest, East
(Dr. Lewis) about the need for a consultation paper. In response to a
question put by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on Monday, the
Secretary of State indicated that he might come forward with a Green Paper
on the matter, and we believe that he should. I hope that in replying
to this afternoon's debate, the Under-Secretary will be able to give us
a firmer commitment on that, and preferably a timetable...
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1170
David Wright (Telford) (Lab): Clearly, we will
have to make some decision in the coming months and years about whether
we retain an independent nuclear deterrent. The manifesto on which I stood
understandably commits us to retention of that independent deterrent,
but I hope that we will have a wide-ranging debate about how appropriate
that is, in the sense that the world has changed somewhat. Certainly,
a replacement for Trident would be extremely expensive.
I put it clearly on the record that I would support the Government and
vote for the replacement of the independent nuclear deterrent. I am not
suggesting that
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1171
we abandon it, but I am not sure that we need to go for an extremely
expensive deterrent option. We must look at a raft of options. We may
have to consider nuclear-tipped cruise missiles, which may be deployed
from different platforms. We need a wide-ranging debate on that and to
think about the money that we are spending. Certainly the concern of members
of the armed forces is that, if we are to deploy troops effectively in
a modern environment and meet the challenges that now face us as a country,
we need to invest significantly in flexible response conventional forces.
David T.C. Davies: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments and
I am delighted that he supports Britain having an independent nuclear
deterrent. Is he pleased about the fact that a Conservative Government
won elections in 1979, 1983 and 1987 when his colleagues were trying to
scrap our independent nuclear deterrent?
David Wright: That is an interesting point, but times have moved
on. I hope that I have made my position very clear this afternoon...
My position is clear. I support the retention of an independent nuclear
deterrent, but we need to consider a range of costed options before we
decide to commit.
Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend confident that this deterrent
is either a deterrent or independent?
David Wright: That is the very debate that we need to have, but
I have put my position clearly on the line this afternoon. I would vote
for retention. Some of the people in my local Labour party may disagree
with me, but I am willing to say that I think that we need to have that
independent deterrent but that we need to look at options other than Trident
or a replacement for Trident, which are incredibly expensive. There must
be cheaper options that we can use and divert resources into conventional
forces...
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1172
Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con):
The Defence Committee will move on to discuss the topic that is increasingly
coming up in this debate: the independent nuclear deterrent. I echo the
comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House. When the Secretary
of State said that we needed a debate about that subject, he was absolutely
right but, for heaven's sake, when is it going to begin? The Committee
will play its part in making sure that there is a debate on that matter,
but we will need to encourage the MOD to be open, as it was when Trident
was first introduced. Perhaps we will need to encourage the MOD to an
openness that it has previously resisted, but which would greatly strengthen
its hand.
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1173
Jeremy Corbyn: I am pleased by what the right hon. Gentleman says
about the possibility of the Defence Committee undertaking an inquiry
on the issue. Could it do so in combination with the Foreign Affairs Committee,
so that issues of non-proliferation and disarmament could be considered?
They are also part of the debate and should form part of the discussion.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I shall draw that question to the attention of
my Committee. It is an interesting idea and it would not be right for
me to rule it out or in. I shall leave that to the Committee in its wisdom,
which is - I think - great.
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1175
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): Turning
to the important matter of this country's future nuclear policy, I am
a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, as is well known, and
I chair the parliamentary CND group. The arguments against the nuclear
deterrent are very strong, and we need to have a serious public debate
about it. I therefore welcome what a number of hon. Members have said,
particularly the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot),
who chairs the Select Committee on Defence and said that it may be prepared
to undertake an investigation or inquiry into the matter. I repeat what
I said in my intervention, when he kindly gave way to me. The Defence
Committee ought to be joined by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
The Defence Committee has responsibility for defence matters, but it does
not have responsibility for disarmament policy nor, indeed, for the operation
of the non-proliferation treaty, which is clearly relevant.
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1176
I therefore hope that that suggestion will be considered seriously by
both Committees, because it would make an important contribution to the
public debate.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) talked about US
strategy, which includes full-spectrum dominance and thus the development
of a new generation of nuclear weapons. Indeed, there are many signs that
the US is already spending very large sums of money on preparing for a
post-Trident world, but that does not mean that the UK should do so. We
must consider two things: first, our existing expenditure; and, secondly,
what happens afterwards. I recently asked the Secretary of State about
the cost of running AWE Aldermaston and capital investment in the base.
I was astonished to learn that over the past five years, AWE Aldermaston
has cost £1.5 billion of the defence budget, of which almost £100 million
has been spent on capital investment in the past year. I would be interested
to know what that capital investment was. I hope the money was not spent
on preparation for, or manufacture of, a new generation of nuclear weapons
to succeed Trident. We have been told, and I accept that we were told
in good faith, that no decision has been made on a post-Trident world
through the refurbishment of Trident or some new nuclear weapons system.
It is worth thinking for a moment about the costs involved. They are
huge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) pointed
out. The original cost of Trident was £12.52 billion and the annual running
costs are about £1.5 billion. Trident's lifespan was predicted to be 30
years. The Trident refit that is taking place at Devonport docks in Plymouth
was estimated in 1997 to cost £650 million, but it is already running
at almost £1 billion—about a third more than the original estimate. It
is not a cheap system, even with the current refit. A replacement of Trident
would cost around £25 billion. There is a great deal else that one could
spend such a sum on—not least, it would allow us to meet the UN millennium
development goals every year for the next six years. It is important that
in the debate we throw all these factors into the equation.
The wider question is how secure the world is with nuclear weapons or
with Trident. If we replace Trident nuclear missiles, we will be running
contrary to the rule and expectation of the non-proliferation treaty.
Although it puts the five declared nuclear weapons states in a special
position, it does not allow them to develop new generations of nuclear
weapons while at the same time saying that the signatory nations to the
non-proliferation treaty cannot develop their own nuclear weapons. If
we do not want proliferation, a good example must be set by the five declared
nuclear weapons states. I hope the UK does not develop a new generation
of nuclear weapons. I do not believe them to bring security. I believe
them to be immoral and dangerous, and to encourage others to develop nuclear
weapons.
The Secretary of State said that there must be a public debate on the
matter. We all welcome that. It would be helpful if, in his reply, he
could set out the options, the cost of the existing system, the cost of
replacement and the legal opinion with respect to the non-proliferation
treaty, so that there can be a serious, informed public
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1177
debate about it. That debate will take place anyway in the public arena.
It is extremely important that it also takes place in the Chamber and
in the Committees of the House.
We are debating defence. The world is obviously not a simple or a stable
place. We must ask ourselves whether such fantastic levels of expenditure
on defence make the world a safer place, or whether we would be better
off spending a little more energy addressing issues of inequality, poverty
and instability around the world, rather than assuming that there is a
military solution to every problem. I say that because I want to see a
more peaceful world, as does the entire House, I am sure. The possession
or development of nuclear weapons does not bring that about...
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1184
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): The
cold war demonstrated as much. Our independent nuclear deterrent won the
cold war for us. For some 20 years, the Labour party wanted to get rid
of it. If that had happened, the Russians and communism would have won.
We would not be where we are today if we had done what Labour wanted and
disarmed, and the same is true now. We cannot defeat al-Qaeda or international
terrorism by laying down our arms, so we need a sensible military deterrence
to sort out the terrorist threat...
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1200
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) (Con): A great
many Members—the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), for
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore), for Telford (David Wright),
for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), my hon. Friends the Members for
New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) and
my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot)—raised
the question of a full-scale
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1201
debate and consultation on the future of the nuclear deterrent. We know,
because the Government have told us, that a decision will be made in this
Parliament about a replacement for Trident. The Government should, as
the Conservatives did in the 1970s when Trident was being discussed, publish
papers stating the facts and the arguments for and against, so that we
can have an informed debate...
17 Nov 2005 : Column 1208
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Defence (Mr. Don Touhig): The Chairman of the Defence Committee, the
right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), has an important
role. His Committee scrutinises on our behalf what we do day-to-day in
the Ministry of Defence. I pay tribute to him and his Committee for their
hard work. He mentioned a debate about Trident. I am sure that when my
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reads Hansard tomorrow he will
take note of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, and if there is a wide-ranging
debate I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will welcome it.
Debate on UK Relations with Iran, October 11, 2005
11 Oct 2005 : Column 5WH
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): Does my hon.
Friend agree that it is about time that the Government made plain their
intention in principle and in practice to make clearer the announcements
on a replacement for Trident, given the threats from places such as Iran?
...
11 Oct 2005 : Column 19WH
The Minister for the Middle East (Dr. Kim Howells):
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) asked whether we would
replace Trident. I laughed at the very idea that I would say such a thing
in this Room. If, Iran did develop a nuclear weapon, however, it would
throw the whole issue of how we get rid of our nuclear stocks—how we demilitarise—back
into the melting pot. The issue poses enormous challenges to everyone.
Debate on the Address [Queen's Speech]
Foreign Affairs and Defence [Excerpts]
18 May 2005 : Column 175
Jeremy Corbyn: I want to conclude with a point
that I made during an intervention on the Minister, and that is the issue
of the non-proliferation treaty review conference that is going on in
New York at present. That was a landmark treaty achieved during the cold
war in which we talked clearly about the long-term proposal for the five
declared nuclear weapon states to disarm. It has to be welcome; it has
to be a good thing. That was its long-term objective. Because of the existence
of that treaty, it has been possible to say firmly to other countries
that were thinking of developing nuclear weapons that they should not
do so. It has had considerable effect. There are some estimates that as
many as 25 countries would have developed nuclear weapons by now had it
not been for that treaty.
But to achieve success requires a clear statement by the Government.
I welcome the fact that the Queen's Speech said nothing about developing
a new generation of nuclear weapons. I wish that it had said that there
would be no new generation of nuclear weapons, but at least by not saying
the opposite it gives that possibility.
I have received reports about the NPT conference-I must declare that
I am a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and that I have
been a member of CND for as long as I have been a member of the Labour
party, which is since the age of 16-and I shall quote from the comprehensive
overview of the situation released by the director general of the International
Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed el-Baradei:
"as long as some countries place strategic reliance on nuclear weapons
as a deterrent, other countries will emulate them"
and
"we cannot delude ourselves into thinking otherwise".
We would do well to recognise Mohamed el-Baradei's wise words.
I have received a report about the unfortunate news from New York:
"The US has refused to accept the inclusion of any reference to both
the 1995 and 2000 NPT Review Conference. This means reneging on a significant
step made at the 2000 Conference when the UK and the four other declared
nuclear weapons states gave an 'unequivocal undertaking to work toward
the total elimination of their nuclear weapons' and the 13-point practical
step agreement to achieve that goal".
When the BBC's "Newsnight" programme interviewed the Prime Minister,
I was disturbed to hear him say that we must retain our nuclear deterrent
and that we have had an independent nuclear deterrent for a long time.
I question the use of the word, "independent", in respect of the British
nuclear deterrent, but we clearly possess nuclear weapons. We should strongly
support the NPT process and recognise that Trident must not be replaced
by a new generation of nuclear weapons. As Trident ceases to be operational,
we should stop living with nuclear weapons. Nuclear
18 May 2005 : Column 176
weapons have not brought peace to the world, because they take up a lot
of resources and present the danger of proliferation.
The Government's approach to Iran, which involves a troika talking to
the Iranian regime, is welcome and helpful, and I hope that it continues.
If we transmit positive signals through our participation in the NPT review
conference, it will help to bring about the possibility of wider nuclear
disarmament, which we all want to achieve. Many tens of thousands died
at Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the only use of nuclear weapons in wartime.
Surely we can take a step forward on the 60th anniversary of those events
by saying that we will get rid of nuclear weapons worldwide and by setting
the example of getting rid of ours.
This debate comes at a very important time. We live in a world in which
serious wars, which are currently occurring in Iraq, Colombia and the
Congo, are a danger. Wars occur because of competition for resources,
poverty, nationalism and other reasons. We cannot say that we live in
a world of peace, when, as I have said, so many people live in desperate
poverty. We live in one of the richest countries in the world, and surely
it is up to us to do all that we can to eliminate poverty around the world,
to promote peace through disarmament and to recognise the need for justice.
We should bequeath those changes to future generations, rather than bringing
up a new generation on a diet of weapons of mass destruction, war and
conflict.
Back to the Top of the Page
18 May 2005 : Column 247
John Reid: We will have big decisions to make quite apart from
those on Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of operational disposition
of our troops. One was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Islington,
North and for Sunderland, South, and they were visibly and helpfully assisted
by the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes. I refer to Trident and
the continuation of our nuclear deterrent. I think that we have been pretty
open about that. The defence White Paper in 2003 indicated clearly that
it was likely that decisions on whether to replace Trident would be needed
during this Parliament and that we were taking steps to keep options open
until a decision point was reached, and that continues to be the case.
It would be irresponsible for me to speculate from the Dispatch Box within
days of arriving in my position about exactly what decisions might be
needed, or exactly when they will be needed. However, I shall keep
18 May 2005 : Column 248
the House informed about the matter, as we have tried to do in the past.
As I have been asked questions today, I confirm to the House that no decisions
on any replacement have been taken in principle or otherwise. However,
it is likely that such decisions will have to be taken during the course
of this Parliament.
Mr. Mullin: Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that before
any irreversible decisions are taken, proper discussions will take place
in the House about the merits of a new generation of nuclear weapons?
John Reid: My hon. Friend has answered that question himself by raising
the matter several times during today's debate. I have no doubt that a
matter discussed in the first debate in the House will be raised continually.
Obviously the Government will listen to hon. Members on both sides of
the House before taking the decision that we are elected to make in the
course of discharging our responsibilities. I do not think that I can
be more specific than that because the decisions that must be taken and
the exact time frame in which that must happen are not yet clear.
Mr. Mullin: I want to avoid the situation that occurred in the latter
days of Mr. Callaghan's Government, when a decision was taken without
most of the Cabinet or the House being informed. Labour Members discovered
that a decision had been taken only when Tory Defence Ministers revealed
some years later that a decision had been taken under the Callaghan Government.
We do not want that to happen again, but I am sure that it will not, will
it?
John Reid: Not if it is up to my hon. Friend or me. Without going into
specifics, I can tell him that we do not regard the development of the
Chevaline project as a role model for decision making by this Government.
Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his new appointment.
He will no doubt have heard earlier contributions to the debate. I specifically
raised the non-proliferation treaty conference in New York that is going
on at present. Will he give us some indication of whether the UK Government's
position is to support a reiteration that there should be no new nuclear
weapons and the ultimate removal of all nuclear weapons, including those
held by the five declared nuclear weapon states?
John Reid: Our policy has not changed on either of those issues. Of course
we would all like a world in which there were no threats and thus no requirement
to develop a response to threats. However, we live in a world in which
there are such threats. I shall deal with this matter in detail at a later
stage, but we must decide the best way of handling our response to them.
We have tried to do that over the years and our policy remains exactly
what it has been on nuclear weapons and deterrents, although of course
we must deal with the changing nature of threats. I give my hon. Friend
the assurance that I think he and his colleagues want: as the discussion
develops, we will try to keep the House informed in a way that will satisfy
hon. Members.
Sir Menzies Campbell: The Secretary of State will remember, as I do,
endless debates provoked by the then
18 May 2005 : Column 249
Conservative Government in an attempt to embarrass the Labour Opposition
about whether the fourth Trident submarine should be constructed at Barrow-in-Furness.
Those debates were, frankly, hopeless as a basis for discussing nuclear
policy. He knows, too, that nuclear policy is arcane and sometimes pretty
difficult to grasp. Will he give an undertaking that when allowing the
House to reach what will be a significant decision, he will, without breaching
secrets or anything of that kind, make as much professional information
as possible available to hon. Members? Will he assure us that there will
be no question of people scrambling to find information that is available
to Ministers, but no one else?
John Reid: Let me say two things. First, the idea that a decision of
that nature could be taken in all contexts without an open and continual
discussion in this House and elsewhere, including the United States, is
not realistic. I think that it will be open and continual. Of course,
when it comes to nuclear deterrence and other matters relating to this
country's security, it is not possible to put everything into the public
domain. We have found from our experience over the past few years that
when we try to do that and ensure that the sanctity of some of the information
is retained, it is easy for people to accuse us of misrepresenting the
information that is in the public domain. It is a continual challenge,
but I think that the process will be much more open than people perhaps
think.
Secondly, the great debate on the fourth Trident submarine and so on
took place in an entirely different context. The right hon. and learned
Member for North-East Fife will remember that it took place in the context
of a Labour party that was accused of having a defence policy that was
basically "Surrender. Hands up." Those days are long gone, just as the
days when Labour was regarded as a party of economic incompetence and
the Tories were regarded as a party of economic competence and as strong
on defence have gone.
We know what the contrast is now. We introduced a £3.7 billion increase
in defence expenditure under my predecessor, now the Leader of the House.
We know that we have reconfigured the British armed forces, with all their
failings, in the strategic defence review, which was lauded internationally
as well as here. We know that during the election there was no debate
whatsoever on defence-[Interruption.] Perhaps the right hon. and learned
Member for Devizes can contain himself for a second while I finish.
People contrast that record with the 29 per cent. cut in real terms in
defence expenditure that took place under the previous Government in the
terrible days running up to 1997 and with the flip-flopping over Iraq,
when the defence policy of the Leader of the Opposition appeared to be
determined by him wetting his finger and sticking it in the air to see
which way popular opinion was going. The whole context has changed. There
is a degree of confidence in the Government's posture on defence. I can
give a degree of confidence to my colleagues that we will, as part of
a Government who are
18 May 2005 : Column 250
confident in our willingness and ability to defend our country, discuss
such matters a little more openly than might otherwise have been the case.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State give way?
John Reid: I will, but then I must make progress.
Jeremy Corbyn: It is kind of the Secretary of State to give way a second
time.
In the context of what we have said about the non-proliferation treaty
and my right hon. Friend's response to the questions asked by my hon.
Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), will he confirm
that there is no preparation at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston
for the construction of a facility to make any new nuclear weapons, free-fall
bombs or anything similar, and that all decisions will be in the open
before such construction work begins?
John Reid: My hon. Friend posits something that envisages a qualitative
and quantifiable watershed between the maintenance of facilities, whereby
they are updated and rendered continually safe so that our existing nuclear
deterrent is made more effective, and, a new weapon. The world does not
work like that any more than one day we will have capitalism and the next
we will have socialism, but my hon. Friend and I have argued about that
as well. I do not think that the world develops like that.
The reality is that the preparations necessary to maintain a nuclear
deterrent in a safe condition, which is constantly updated to meet new
threats in terms of accuracy and new technology, are an integral part
of what might become-I do not say will become-one possible avenue for
one of the many alternatives that we might have to consider if are going
to update, replace or modernise our nuclear deterrent. That is as honest
an answer as I can give to my hon. Friend. In the real world, there is
no such complete gap.
Back to the Top of the Page
© 2005 The Acronym Institute.
|
