I beg to move,
That this House believes that Trident should not be renewed.
It is a pleasure to move the motion, which stands in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru—the party of Wales—and the Green party. I am also pleased that the motion is supported by other Members, such as Jeremy Corbyn, who has a long-standing, principled position on this issue.
I thank, in advance, the Secretary of State for Defence for replying to this SNP-Plaid Cymru debate and the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Dunne, who has responsibility for defence equipment, support and technology, for closing the debate, and the shadow Secretary of State for his participation on behalf of the official Opposition.
Today’s debate is the first opportunity to debate Trident replacement since the publication of the Government’s 2014 update to Parliament on Trident, published on 18 December. That document confirmed that a further £261 million had been reprofiled to be spent on the project ahead of the maingate stage, when MPs will decide whether to authorise construction of new submarines, thereby confirming that Trident is not subject to the Government’s austerity agenda. The document also confirms that the maingate decision will be reached in early 2016. MPs re-standing for election in 2015 and candidates for all parties can expect to be asked by electors how they would vote on Trident.
This debate also offers the first opportunity for the Government and Members to report back from the international conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, held in December in Vienna, and comes ahead of a demonstration on scrapping Trident taking place this Saturday in London, organised by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The event starts outside the Ministry of Defence on Horse Guards avenue, just off Whitehall, at noon, and I encourage as many people as possible who want Trident scrapped to attend.
I also put on the record the sincere appreciation of myself, my colleagues and others in the House to Kate Hudson of CND UK, John Ainslie of CND Scotland and Ben Folley, who supports parliamentary CND, as well as all colleagues in other disarmament and non-proliferation organisations.
The hon. Gentleman is being fulsome in his praise for CND. Does he think that that organisation was right during the cold war to dismiss the Soviet threat?
I do not think anybody should dismiss threats at any time, but the question is whether one believes that the threat of catastrophic nuclear annihilation worked. I happen to believe that nuclear deterrents have not worked, and there are plenty of examples of conflicts that were not avoided—
Forgive me, but I want to make some progress. The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a speech later, and I look forward to hearing it.
The time has come to put down a marker about scrapping Trident and not replacing these weapons of mass destruction. At present, a UK Trident submarine remains on patrol at all times, and each submarine carries an estimated eight missiles, each of which can carry up to five warheads. In total, that makes 40 warheads, each with an explosive power of up to 100 kilotons of conventional high explosive—eight times the power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945, killing an estimated 240,000 people from blast and radiation.
The hon. Gentleman and I have agreed on a number of foreign policy and defence issues, but can he not see that recent events, even on NATO’s border, again remind us of the importance of retaining the ultimate insurance policy in order to help keep Britain and its allies safe?
The difficulty with that position, of course, is that, were it true, it would mean that Germany, Italy and Spain were not safe and required nuclear weapons. In fact, it is the same argument made by the North Korean regime, which believes it needs nuclear weapons to protect itself. It is a dangerous argument to pursue.
I have yet to hear a supporter of Trident convincingly explain in what circumstances they would be prepared to justify the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children and the causing of massive environmental damage to the world for generations to come. Those are the consequences of using nuclear weapons, and surely if one has them, one has to be prepared to use them. I have yet to hear anybody give an example of circumstances where they would be prepared to kill millions of people.
Will the hon. Gentleman explain in what circumstances he would be in favour of using nuclear weapons?
Will the hon. Gentleman explain the logic of his party’s position? It thinks that nuclear weapons are an abomination, but wants an independent Scotland to remain part of NATO, which is an explicitly nuclear alliance founded on the concept of overall nuclear protection.
The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the position of the SNP on NATO is exactly the same as that taken by the Governments of Denmark and Norway—countries that have provided the most recent NATO Secretaries-General. Those countries do not want to possess or host nuclear weapons, which is exactly the SNP’s position, but that has not precluded their participation in NATO. Perhaps having countries take that position might offer the opportunity to change the global approach to nuclear weapons currently pursued by NATO and nuclear-hosting states.
On the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s long-standing and principled support for nuclear weapons, I would be pleased to take an intervention.
In return, I acknowledge the seriousness of the hon. Gentleman’s point about not finding anybody prepared to kill millions of people, but the logical conclusion of that standpoint is that we remain pacifists —[Interruption.] Let me explain. It would mean we could never declare war on any country, whatever the circumstances, because when we do, millions of people inevitably die. The question is, therefore: how do we prevent war? We do it by showing someone that they cannot attack us with these weapons without suffering similar retaliation.
I like the hon. Gentleman a great deal, but I note that even he, one of the leading supporters of nuclear weapons, could not give an example of circumstances where he would be prepared to see the killing of hundreds of millions of people.
The case is stronger than ever for embracing the non-replacement of Trident, which would offer serious strategic and economic benefits, as outlined in the June 2013 report “The Real Alternative”, including,
“improved national security—through budgetary flexibility in the Ministry of Defence and a more effective response to emerging security challenges in the 21st century”
“improved global security—through a strengthening of the non-proliferation regime, deterring of nuclear proliferation and de-escalation of international tensions”.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that opposition to Trident is not limited to CND or parties such as ours, but includes many in the military? The former British armed forces head described nuclear weapons as “completely useless” and “virtually irrelevant”.
The hon. Lady makes a good point. We are hearing ever more—and respected—people from within the defence community understanding the consequences of the replacement of Trident and the displacement effect that would have on conventional defence within the MOD budget.
I will come to that last issue shortly, but first I want to return to the advantages outlined in the 2013 report “The Real Alternative”, including
“vast economic savings—of more than £100 billion over the lifetime of a successor nuclear weapons system, releasing resources for effective security spending, as well as a range of public spending priorities”
as well as our
“adherence to legal obligations including responsibilities as a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)”,
and—think about this—the
“moral and diplomatic leadership in global multilateral disarmament initiatives such as a global nuclear abolition treaty and the UN’s proposed Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East”.
All this would be possible if the UK Government were prepared to embrace a new approach to weapons of mass destruction.
What evidence is there that if we got rid of our nuclear weapons, anybody else would get rid of theirs? Would the French give up their nuclear weapons? Would the Russians?
If common sense were to prevail, it would have a positive impact on other countries. In the first instance, we have to be responsible for the decisions we make in this country, but I remember that when President Nelson Mandela announced he was changing the South African Government’s position on nuclear weapons, he was lauded for it by Members on both sides of the House. I think the UK would be lauded for making a similar decision.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I am going to make some progress now. I have given way generously to Members on both sides of the House.
The benefits that I have outlined from the 2013 report could inform the strategic defence and security review that will follow the general election if we were to recast the UK’s approach to nuclear weapons. The reasons for doing so should be obvious to all; they were written about this week in an article, which I would commend to Members, by Paul Mason of “Channel 4 News”. He wrote:
“Russia, jihadis or cyberwarfare—which is the most urgent of the new threats we face? The forthcoming strategic review will force the British military establishment to ask difficult questions. It must separate real threats from imagined ones.
It is in this context that Britain’s hapless defence establishment has to carry out yet another strategic defence and security review. The last one, in 2010, was a valiant effort to impose philosophical coherence on policies, commitments and projects that had become self-perpetuating, strategically meaningless and financially unsustainable. It did not succeed.
In 2010, the essential problem boiled down to two things: maintaining (and modernising) Britain’s capacity to do expeditionary warfare, as in the Falklands, Iraq and Afghanistan; and boosting the strategic end of the armed forces—Trident and the Royal Navy—so that we could still claim to be a world power.”
It is worth reflecting on what Paul Mason wrote because of the squeeze to UK conventional defence capabilities in recent years. We have seen significant cuts to personnel, basing, capabilities and, frankly and sadly, too often a substandard approach to the safety of our service personnel.
Members are well aware of the recent difficulties the MOD is in, in terms of cutting regular troop numbers and filling the gaps with reserves. Bases have been closed, including the end of flying operations from two out of three air bases in Scotland. Crucial capability gaps have been exposed, including the absence of a single maritime patrol aircraft since the scrapping of the entire Nimrod fleet. I observe that the Irish Air Corps has more maritime patrol aircraft than the UK at present. In recent weeks in my constituency, one has been able to regularly see maritime patrol aircraft from other countries operating from RAF Lossiemouth, helping to fill a capability that the UK currently has no concrete plans to fill.
Similar shortcomings have been exposed with other capabilities needed to deal with
“violations of national airspace, emergency scrambles, narrowly avoided midair collisions, close encounters at sea, simulated attack runs and other dangerous actions”.
As has been officially confirmed, the Royal Navy has on a number of occasions “gapped” the provision of fleet ready escort vessels; that is, there was no availability of the appropriate vessel to patrol and screen in UK waters.
My constituents have on a number of occasions been able to see the Admiral Kuznetsov, the largest vessel in the Russian northern fleet, and it has been widely reported about the MOD initially depending on reports from Scottish fishing boats before Royal Navy vessels interdicted the visiting vessels from Russia after being dispatched from the south coast of England.
In recent years we have also had to go through a variety of issues where service personnel equipment malfunctioned or was not up to the appropriate safety standard. Most recently, and tragically, this was exposed after the death of three of my constituents aboard two RAF Tornados that collided above the Moray firth. The Tornado fleet still does not have collision avoidance systems fully installed, decades after they were recommended, and there are no concrete plans or timetables for that potentially life-saving equipment for Typhoons or F35 jets. The MOD has the wrong priorities, investing billions in nuclear weapons that it can never use but not properly managing the conventional armed forces which are so necessary.
The national security strategy noted in 2010 that, in a period of changing security threats, it would be sensible to consider how ending the Trident replacement programme would release resources that could be spent on more effective security measures. What commitment will the Secretary of State give to the national security strategy informing the strategic defence and security review on the issue of nuclear weapons? In 2010, the NSS downgraded the threat of a nuclear weapon conflict without the SDSR downgrading the role of nuclear weapons in our military capability. That mistake should not be repeated in 2015.
The Defence Committee, in its report “Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century”, argued that at some point in the future the core role of nuclear weapons could be achieved by the deployment of advanced conventional weapons. The NSS and SDSR 2015 should model and scenario-plan such situations, and allow MPs to assess the findings, before we commit further billions to the construction of Trident replacement. Ahead of a final decision on the construction of Trident replacement submarines at the 2016 main gate, the role of SDSR 2015 should be to deliver the most open consultation and debate on the role of UK nuclear weapons and whether we should maintain them at all.
Does the Secretary of State recognise that with the national security strategy placing international terrorism, cybercrime and major accidents and natural hazards such as coastal flooding at the top tier of threats to the UK, recent experience suggests that these areas need greater resources, rather than the false priorities of the nuclear deterrent?
On the cost of Trident replacement, we know from studies, including “In the Firing Line”—an investigation into the hidden costs of replacing Trident—that the costs are astronomic and approach £100 billion. It is not just the costs of development and construction. It is also about the in-service running costs over decades. It is worth noting that despite the fact that Parliament has not given maingate approval for Trident replacement, the MOD has already spent between £2 billion and £3 billion on what are called long-lead items.
Most recently, news emerged about the purchase of the “common missile compartment” that is being built in the US at a cost of approximately £37 million. The spec of the common missile compartment has 12 launch tubes and runs contrary to claims by the MOD in the 2010 SDSR that it will
“reduce the number of operational launch tubes on the submarines from 12 to eight”.
Also the UK’s disarmament ambassador, John Duncan, told the UN that the plan was to
“configure the next generation of submarines accordingly with only eight operational missile”
The Royal United Services Institute has estimated that the construction cost of Trident replacement will consume 35% of the procurement budget by the early 2020s. The Minister should be concerned that the cost overruns we have seen with other MOD major projects, such as the Astute submarines, Queen Elizabeth aircraft carriers and A400M refuelling aircraft, will be replicated with Trident replacement and will further impact on resources for other equipment and capabilities.
Has the Secretary of State read the recent media reports that the replacement of Britain’s nuclear deterrent means that his Department will be forced to make more significant cuts to troop numbers unless the next Government agree to keep real-terms increases to the defence budget—something that is not being offered to other Departments?
The hon. Gentleman is making a strong case. Has he made any estimate of the savings that might be made if the House were to vote for the motion and the Government decided to follow that as a policy, bearing in mind that the Government might still wish to proceed with submarine capability?
As I have outlined, there are a number of reports that the through-life costs are nearly £100 billion. There is an issue as to how much one is spending year on year on the existing Trident fleet and then the construction costs, which will peak, I think, between 2019 and 2030.
The former Armed Forces Minister is, I think, concurring with that. It is billions and billions of pounds every year that could be saved and reprioritised. Given all the debates that we are currently having on austerity, the growth of food banks and many other issues—no doubt there are great supporters of the MOD who would wish to see increased spending within the MOD—there are alternatives. A significant amount of money could be saved were one to vote for the motion or if we were to ensure that, at the general election, as many Members as possible are returned to this place who share the views of those of us who wish to see Trident scrapped.
The hon. Gentleman has been very generous with his time. Has he calculated the cost to UK manufacturing of not going ahead with the submarine successor programme at this late stage?
Occasionally I hear from Members who have a constituency interest, and I understand that they want to stand up for firms in their constituency. What I would say to them—I represent a constituency with a very significant defence footprint—is that there are alternatives to spending £100 billion on Trident, and it cannot be beyond the wit or imagination of the Government to look at alternatives for those people with amazing engineering and design skills. They do not need to produce nuclear weapons to have successful careers or, indeed, for their companies to be successful.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his choice of Opposition day motion. He will be aware that the west of Scotland is very dependent on defence jobs. Does he agree that both the Scottish Government and the Westminster Government should be investing heavily in defence diversification, because that is essential if we are going to put our communities in a position where they are not reliant on one particular weapons system?
Indeed. The hon. Lady makes a very strong point, and I am pleased that there are Members in other parties who are clearly supporting the direction of the motion before us. Of course, it is not beyond the wit of Government or companies in the defence sector to concentrate their efforts on the conventional areas of defence rather than on nuclear submarines which have to be one of the most expensive ways of creating and maintaining jobs.
May I take my hon. Friend back to the question of costs and try to put some numbers on this? Is it not the case that according to the last comprehensive assessment, the cost was something in the order of 9% of the MOD budget, around £2.9 billion a year, moving to around £4 billion throughout the 2020s? Does that not give a clear indication of the scale—the quantum—of the money we are wasting on these systems?
My hon. Friend makes a good point and it is what I was trying to outline in response to the interventions from those on the Liberal Democrat Benches. This is about many billions of pounds about which we have a choice: do we want to invest in something we can never use, or do we spend the money in an entirely more beneficial way for society as a whole?
Does the Secretary of State recognise the assessment that during the next decade more than £40 billion is due to be spent on submarines—among them, Trident’s replacement submarines—and that this figure is more than is due to be spent on new land equipment and air equipment combined? Does he agree that the waste of £4 billion with the scrapping of the Nimrod patrol aircraft is now being replicated with the expenditure of £4 billion on the Trident replacement submarine programme ahead of the maingate decision?
The scrapping of Nimrod has limited Vanguard’s operational effectiveness and must mean that the scrapping of Trident is now more certain. What cost has been incurred by the MOD in requesting the deployment of maritime patrol aircraft by allied forces since October 2010, now that Vanguard operates without the support of Nimrod? On how many occasions has the MOD
requested deployment of MPA by allied forces since October 2010, now that Vanguard operates without the support of Nimrod?
The issue of Trident replacement comes at a time when the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are being taken seriously by the international community. In December the overwhelming majority of countries attended the international conference on the subject hosted by the Austrian Government. After the US Government confirmed their attendance, the UK relented on its intended boycott and attended in an official capacity, which I welcome. A number of Members of the House, including me, attended the conference, which had a huge impact, forcing attendees to confront the calamity of what would actually happen should there be a planned or unintended nuclear explosion. The UK and other countries need to give a commitment that they will take this issue seriously.
Does the Secretary of State agree with the International Committee of the Red Cross’s findings that global cooling as a result of nuclear conflict could cut food production for many years and put 1 billion people at risk of starvation worldwide. Is this stark warning not further evidence that we must act on disarmament and scrap Trident? Does he not agree that publishing a UK assessment of the global atmospheric consequences of nuclear war would be a positive contribution to the international discussion on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons? Will the Government ensure that the issues raised at the Vienna conference are discussed at the meeting of the P5 nuclear weapons states in February?
While on the international issues relating to Trident, may I say to the Secretary of State that it is high time the Government stated their support for a new legal instrument prohibiting nuclear weapons that would complement our disarmament commitment under article 6 of the non-proliferation treaty? It is time that the Government recognised that the success of past international bans on weapons of mass destruction such as landmines, cluster munitions and chemical and biological weapons must be applied to nuclear weapons. Does the Secretary of State recognise, as those on the Opposition Benches do, the success of past international bans on weapons of mass destruction such as landmines, cluster munitions and chemical and biological weapons, and that this principle must be extended to nuclear weapons?
Before concluding, may I seek clarification relating to the Trident maingate decision that will follow if this vote is unsuccessful today? Will the maingate decision for Trident replacement be published as a report and discussed as a stand-alone issue, separately from the strategic defence and security review? Will the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State both commit to a binding vote of the House at the maingate decision point for Trident replacement?
In conclusion, today’s debate and vote are an important opportunity to show that there is opposition to Trident renewal at Westminster. May I thank all the constituents who have lobbied all of us in past days, sending e-mails and messaging us via Twitter, encouraging us to vote for the motion?
Opposition to Trident is of course particularly strong in Scotland. It is opposed by our faith communities, including the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church, the Episcopal Church and many others among our faith communities. It is also opposed by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and the Scottish voluntary sector. Opinion opposing Trident is covered fully in today’s The National newspaper, which splashes on a new opinion poll that shows that, of those with an opinion, 60% of respondents in Scotland do not want Trident. Today, sadly, I fear that the Labour party will not represent the majority of its own supporters: in that poll it is clear that a significant majority of Labour voters agree with the SNP in not wanting Trident in Scotland. In the forthcoming general election, we have a huge opportunity to underline our opposition to Trident by electing MPs who have a policy opposed to Trident—in Scotland, that is the SNP; in Wales, it is Plaid Cymru; and in England, it is the Green party. With polls showing that we may very well hold the balance of power after the next general election, we will do everything we can to ensure that Trident replacement does not go ahead.
Today’s debate is about the primary responsibility of any Government: the security of our nation, our freedoms and our way of life. It is not about short-term politics. Whatever the current threats to this country, we cannot gamble with tomorrow’s security. That is why this Government, and all previous Governments for the last six decades, have retained an operationally independent nuclear deterrent, and today this Government are committed to maintain that credible, continuous and effective minimum nuclear deterrent based on Trident and operating in a continuously at-sea posture for as long as we need it.
We also committed in the 2010 strategic defence and security review to renew our deterrent by proceeding with the programme that Parliament approved in March 2007 by a majority of 409 to 161 to build a fleet of new ballistic missile submarines. For 45 years, Britain has kept a ballistic missile submarine at sea, providing the ultimate guarantee of security against nuclear attack or nuclear blackmail 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. In December I saw that deterrent for myself at Faslane, and let me pay tribute to the crews of Vanguard, Vengeance, Victorious and Vigilant, their families and all those whose support has been essential to Operation Relentless, our continuous at-sea deterrent patrols. It is Faslane that is truly Britain’s peace camp. Whether we like it or not, there remain approximately 17,000 nuclear weapons globally. We cannot uninvent those weapons.
Does my right hon. Friend recall that during the Scottish referendum a number of people said that somehow, because there was a base in Scotland, the rest of England was getting away without having bases related to our nuclear deterrent? It is worth reminding people that from my bedroom window I can see the towers of Aldermaston, Greenham common and the royal ordnance factory at Burghfield. The defence footprint relating to the support of our nuclear deterrent is as important throughout the United Kingdom as it is in Scotland.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. From Aldermaston and Burghfield to Barrow and Scotland, the United Kingdom together has an interest in the nuclear industry.
Does my right hon. Friend also recognise that Devonport plays a significant part in this matter, because it has the licence for the refitting and refuelling of our nuclear submarines?
I certainly recognise the importance of Devonport and all our naval bases in sustaining our naval operations, including the submarine fleet.
In the context of 17,000 nuclear weapons globally, we cannot gamble with our country’s national security. We have to plan for a major direct nuclear threat to this country, or to our NATO allies, that might emerge over the 50 years during which the next generation of submarines will be in service. We already know that there are substantial nuclear arsenals and that the number of nuclear states has increased. Russia is modernising its nuclear forces, actively commissioning a new Dolgoruky class of eight SSBN vessels, preparing to deploy a variety of land-based ICBM classes, and planning to reintroduce rail-based intercontinental missiles. North Korea has carried out three nuclear tests, threatened a fourth, and carried out ballistic missile tests in defiance of the international community. Iran’s nuclear programme remains a real concern: we see a worrying lack of progress from Iran with the international agency on the military dimensions of its nuclear programme.
The Secretary of State is right to discuss some of the new, emerging external threats, but the major external threat faced by this country is from IS—from jihadists. Would they not be encouraged if we threatened them with nuclear weapons?
There are of course current threats to this country from ISIL and the jihadists, as, indeed, there are from Russia’s behaviour over the past year or so, but we must also plan for future threats to this country, including nuclear threats. Some may well argue, like the hon. Gentleman, that in the face of terrorism and the other immediate threats that we have seen over the past year, a nuclear deterrent is somehow less relevant. That is an argument, but we have never suggested that those other threats should or can be countered by the nuclear deterrent. We are clear that the nuclear deterrent is the only assured way to deter nuclear threats.
Others have suggested that we should move away from continuous patrols and have a part-time deterrent, as if our enemies did not work the full week, but there is simply no alternative to a continuous at-sea deterrent that can provide the same level of protection and the ability to deter an aggressor. We know that because successive Governments have looked at the different options for delivering a deterrent capability. Most recently, the Trident alternatives review in 2013 demonstrated that no alternative system is as capable or cost-effective as a Trident-based deterrent. It also found:
“None of these alternative systems and postures offers the same degree of resilience as the current posture of Continuous at Sea Deterrence, nor could they guarantee a prompt response in all circumstances.”
All the previous studies have also shown that four submarines are required to maintain the continuous posture.
I wanted to intervene earlier, at the end of my right hon. Friend’s arguments about the nature of the gamble that one would be taking with the future security of the United Kingdom by not having a nuclear weapons system. Is not the rather difficult truth that we are making a series of risk assessments and gambles about what we spend on defence and the particular type of defence we buy? While it is funded from the defence budget, Trident comes at the expense of a larger Army, Navy and Air Force, so it is all part of a wider risk assessment, not, as the Secretary of State has suggested, an absolute. If there was no money left for anything except Trident, is that really the decision that we would take?
My hon. Friend is of course right that we must assess future risks and the capabilities that we will have to deal with them. All I can say to him is that every successive Government who have looked at the future threat have, in the end, decided to continue to renew our continuous at-sea deterrent. In a world that is becoming more dangerous, there are no alternatives that offer the level of protection and security that this country needs.
Let me be clear, particularly to the Scottish National party, about what we are planning to replace and when. Subject to a maingate decision in 2016, we are planning to replace the current Vanguard submarines—not the Trident missile or the warheads. We are planning to replace the submarines in the late 2020s, by which time our Vanguard submarines will be 35 years old.
The Secretary of State has spoken about the need to take defence and security seriously and the necessity of nuclear weapons to achieving that. Is he saying that nations that do not have nuclear weapons are not taking their defence and security seriously?
No, I am not. I am saying that countries such as ours that have nuclear weapons cannot simply uninvent them; a responsibility comes with those nuclear weapons, and I will come on to explain how we should discharge it.
Let me be clear about the decision that we are going to take in 2016. With the approval of Parliament, the previous Government began the design phase of that decision. In May 2011, we announced the assessment phase, and since then we have reported progress to Parliament annually—most recently, as Angus Robertson pointed out, just before Christmas. We are now more than halfway through that five-year, £3.3 billion assessment phase, the main purpose of which is to refine the design and mature the costs ahead of the maingate decision. After all, this is the largest British submarine project in a generation and one of the most complex ever undertaken by British industry. Of that £3.3 billion of assessment costs, I can confirm that so far we have invested around £1.2 billion as part of the assessment phase. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend Mr Dunne, will be giving further details of those costs when he winds up the debate.
I want to be clear with the House: no submarines are being built before the maingate decision in 2016. However, as with any major programme of this complexity, it is essential and more cost-effective to order now certain items that would delay the programme if we were to wait until the maingate decision. Such items include propulsion components, generators, main engines, condensers and electrical distribution components.
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way so generously. Given how much work has been done on this matter in the Ministry of Defence—he is well supported by a large team of civil servants—will he confirm at the Dispatch Box today the total cost of Trident replacement, including its through-life costs? Is it approaching £100 billion or not?
I do not recognise the £100 billion figure, and it is not possible to answer that question until the maingate decision is made which will be put before this House next year.
Let me turn directly to the issue that Angus Robertson quite rightly and fairly put to me—the issue of affordability.
If we are going to talk about through-life costs, is it not important to point out that the amortised costs of our nuclear deterrent will be only some 6% of the overall defence budget or 0.3% of gross domestic product? The idea that cancellation of this programme will pay for all the goodies outlined by the Scottish National party—one presumes that the SNP will want to carry on building different types of submarine at the these yards in any case—is just moonshine.
My hon. Friend who, having served as shadow Defence Secretary, knows a great deal about this issue, is absolutely right. These are replacement submarines that are going to last us until 2060, so it is very important to look at the cost of the project over the next 45 years.
I want to make some progress. Given the £38 billion hole in the defence budget that we inherited from the shower opposite, this Government have scrutinised the procurement programme to ensure value for money. We have identified savings and we will continue to submit the programme to rigorous scrutiny. Let me assure the House that no part of that programme will be exempt. As I have just said to my hon. Friend Mr Jenkin, we are talking about maintaining a capability in service until 2060—for the next 45 years.
We told the House in the 2011 parliamentary report that the cost of the four submarines was estimated to be around £25 billion at out-turn prices. Those costs, of course, will be spread over 25 years. Indeed, if the costs were spread evenly, it would represent an annual insurance premium of around 0.13% of total Government spending. Let me put it another way. Crossrail is costing us around £14.8 billion. Replacing four 16,000-tonne submarines will cost around £25 billion; Crossrail 2 will cost around £27 billion. I hope that provides some context.
Let me now turn to the position of the various parties. The SNP has set out very clearly its opposition to the renewal of Trident. I believe and suggest to the House that that is a highly irresponsible position. It would sacrifice the security of the United Kingdom on the wrong-headed notion that opposes nuclear in all its forms and on the basis of cost savings that would be minuscule compared with the impact on our national security and the damage to our economy, to jobs and to the submarine building industry.
HM Naval Base Clyde is, by the way, the largest single employment site in Scotland, and it is set to increase to 8,200 jobs by 2020 when all of the Royal Navy’s submarines will be based at Faslane. It is the SNP that would put all those jobs at risk. Indeed, the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Moray, who has regularly raised the issue of maritime patrol aircraft and foreign submarines, does not seem to see anything odd about wanting the capability to spot other countries’ submarines without making the case for retaining our deterrent in the first place. It is pretty hard to deter our enemies when we do not have the means to do so.
We should also note the nonsense of somehow promising a nuclear-free Scotland. In 2013, the percentage of electricity generated in Scotland from nuclear power increased to nearly 35%—nearly double that of England. Indeed, an independent Scotland would rank seventh in the nuclear league table of EU member states. I do not think, of course, that we should expect consistency from an SNP that wants to dispense with nuclear weapons, but wants also, as John Woodcock pointed out, to join NATO—a nuclear alliance. Indeed, according to the document of November 2013, “Scotland’s Future”, the SNP would allow nuclear-armed vessels to use Scottish ports. Perhaps the hon. Member for Moray could explain some of those inconsistencies.
The Secretary of State was unable to tell us earlier what the through-life costs of Trident replacement would be, so let me ask him a second question: when are the UK armed forces going to have a maritime patrol aircraft in service? When will that be?
On his first question—I notice that the hon. Gentleman has not addressed any of the inconsistencies I pointed out—I have already made it clear that we cannot be final about the full-length costs of the renewal until we come to take that maingate decision next year. That will be explained to Parliament. So far as maritime patrol aircraft are concerned, we inherited a situation in which some 21 Nimrod aircraft were supposed to be available by 2003, yet when we came to office seven years later, none was available. As part of the painful decisions we had to take to regularise the defence budget and sort out the £38 billion black hole, it was necessary to cancel a programme that had not in any case delivered. The hon. Gentleman asked me when we were going to examine this matter again, and the answer is very clear: we will, of course, look at that particular capability, along with other capabilities, as part of the strategic defence review, which will be initiated immediately after the general election.
On the issue of security, I have been arguing for some two or three years that Iran had no intention of giving up its ability to make weapons-grade fissionable material and that it is intent on building a nuclear weapon, which is the only reason why it is pursuing its particular plan. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that that is now the case, and that Iran simply wanted to ease the sanctions for a short time? Should we not now be really frightened of that threat from the middle east?
Indeed, we should certainly be concerned about the lack of progress in the talks that have been dragging on for months now, and we should be particularly concerned about the military dimension to Iran’s nuclear programme.
Let me deal now with the position of the official Opposition. On 14 November, the shadow Defence Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary wrote to the Prime Minister declaring that Britain should maintain
“a minimum credible independent, nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent”.
However, on 5 January this year, the Leader of the Opposition told Andrew Marr that “we have got to have the least-cost deterrent that we can have, and that’s my philosophy.”
How, then, can we explain this apparent shift away from the continuous at-sea deterrent? Perhaps it has something to do with the comments of the leader of the SNP who, in talking about coalition, said that Labour would “have to think again about putting a new generation of Trident nuclear weapons on the River Clyde.”
The public and those whose jobs depend on this programme have a right to know whether the Labour party would be prepared to trade our security if that were the price of power, and I offer Vernon Coaker the opportunity to make that clear.
I think that the Defence Secretary used wise words when, at the beginning of his speech, he said that we should not use this issue to play short-term politics. Let me gently warn him. We—he and I, and his party and mine—have worked constructively on this issue during difficult times in recent years. I hope that when the shadow Defence Secretary speaks, the right hon. Gentleman will take it from him—if he will not take it from me—that we remain absolutely committed to the statement that he read out. We remain absolutely committed to an independent minimum credible strategic deterrent delivered by means of the submarine programme that we started in government and will finish. A least-cost deterrent is, to our mind, exactly the same as a minimum deterrent. If the Defence Secretary wants to spend more than least costs, he should say so now.
What I am seeking, and what I have still not heard, is a recommitment to a continuous at-sea deterrent, but those words seem to have slipped out of Labour’s position. I hope that, when we hear from the hon. Member for Gedling—
Ah! We are going to hear from the hon. Gentleman.
The Defence Secretary read out our policy, and my hon. Friend John Woodcock reiterated it. Our policy is quite clear: we want a minimum independent credible
deterrent based on continuous at-sea deterrence, and of course we want to provide it in the most cost-effective way possible. Indeed, when he reads Hansard tomorrow, the Defence Secretary will find that that is exactly what he said a few moments ago.
I think that the House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that he is still committed to a continuous at-sea deterrent. I hope that he will send a copy of those words to the Leader of the Opposition, so that there can no longer be any lingering doubt in Scotland about whether or not this is a continuous at-sea deterrent.
The right hon. Gentleman is putting up a sterling smokescreen for the Government’s position, as many of his Back-Bench colleagues know. He talks of coalitions. He is not getting on with this because he is in an unholy coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who are preventing him from taking action. He is making a good show of it, but, as he says that he is being clear, let him now be clear to the House.
The right hon. Gentleman anticipates me, because I now want to turn—indeed, I think we all now want to turn—to the position of the Liberal Democrats. On one hand, the Liberal Democrats have said that they want to spend billions to “replace some of the submarines”, and to make our deterrent part time. They have also committed themselves—at their most recent conference—to allowing our submarines to go to sea with unarmed missiles. Those would be pointless patrols, and that is a pointless nuclear deterrent policy. There are no Liberal Democrats in the Ministry of Defence, and the fact that they have adopted such a reckless and, frankly, dangerous approach explains why.
This country faces the threat of nuclear blackmail from rogue states. It is therefore contemptible for the Scottish nationalists or the Liberal Democrats to suggest that they might use the ultimate guarantor of our freedom and independence as some kind of bargaining chip in some grubby coalition deal. To put it more simply, it is only the Conservative party that will not gamble with the security of the British people.
While the Secretary of State is dealing with the Liberal Democrats—only two of whom I see in the Chamber today—will he confirm that a policy of sending unarmed submarines to sea and waiting for a crisis to arise, then sending them back to port to be rearmed while the enemy stands idly by, is actually more dangerous than a policy of keeping them in port all along? Will he also confirm that there will never again be a deal between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to delay the maingate decision, as there was in 2010? That is something with which he had nothing to do, but which should never have been allowed to happen.
Let me assure my hon. Friend, in response to his first point, that we are not planning to make future deals of any kind with the Liberal Democrats. On the contrary, we hope to be returned in May with an absolute majority that will restore defence policy to the hands of a Conservative Government. As for my hon. Friend’s first point, he is entirely right to draw attention to the absurdity of an unarmed submarine, perhaps several hundred miles from its base, asking our enemies to hold off for a time while it returns to be kitted out with missiles before heading off on patrol again. That is an absurd policy, and we rather look forward to hearing the Liberal Democrat spokesman try to justify it.
Will the Secretary of State return to the point that was raised by Mr MacNeil, and pursue the logic of his argument? If he believes that nuclear weapons are so essential to our security, will he tell us whether he agrees that it is legitimate and logical for every country in the world to seek to apply them? Yes or no?
I do not think that that logic follows at all, but I am about to turn to the issue of disarmament—which has been quite fairly raised—and our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.
Let me be clear: we hope never to use nuclear weapons, but to go on delivering a deterrent effect. However, we also share the vision of a world that is without nuclear weapons, achieved through multilateral disarmament. Retaining a nuclear deterrent and seeking to create the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons are not mutually exclusive options. Indeed, I am happy to announce that the Government have now met their 2010 strategic defence review commitment to reduce the number of deployed warheads on each submarine from 48 to 40, and that the total number of operationally available warheads has therefore been reduced to 120. Unfortunately, those reductions have not encouraged other states seeking a nuclear weapons capability to forgo their attempts; nor have they encouraged some other states that already possess nuclear weapons to follow our example. It is our conclusion that it would be rash further to disarm unilaterally while the capability to threaten us remains.
We ascribe the utmost importance to avoiding any use of nuclear weapons, to preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and nuclear weapon technology, and to keeping nuclear weapons safe and secure. We are working hard to ensure that the forthcoming review conference on the nuclear non-proliferation treaty—which is the cornerstone of global efforts to prevent the spread of those weapons—is successful, and next month we will host a conference in London for the five nuclear non-proliferation treaty states.
As I have said from the outset, the first duty of any Government is to ensure the security of the nation, its people and our vital interests. Defending the nation has always been challenging, and never more so than in a nuclear age. It was complex in the first nuclear age of cold war certainties, and it has become even more complex in this second nuclear age, when the problems of proliferation have become sharper and the emergence of new nuclear states has become a reality. We are now in an age of uncertainty and confrontation. History teaches us that the defence of this country means being ready for the unexpected, and that means a full-time nuclear deterrent—not one that clocks off for weeks or months at a time, or one that patrols pointlessly. The need for the nuclear deterrent is no less now than it has ever been, and I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion.
May I apologise at the outset, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the fact that I have a long-standing constituency engagement and I will not be here for the wind-ups? However, I am confident that both Front Benchers will say only good things about me.
There is a well-known saying in the peace movement that a unilateralist is a multilateralist who means it, and I am one of those. Whatever I have to say today about nuclear weapons goes for all nuclear weapons, and when the British Government, of whatever persuasion, say they want to rid the world of nuclear weapons and when they signed the non-proliferation treaty committing themselves to do just that, I also expect that they mean it. As one of only nine nuclear-armed states, the UK cannot escape its duty to progress disarmament talks. So why would we seek to upgrade Trident for another 50 years without exploring what might be done to bring forward multilateral nuclear disarmament? Why do we not ask ourselves whether spending up to £100 billion on weapons of mass destruction is actually the best way to defend the people of this country, when we cannot raise millions out of poverty or fund our precious national health service? Why do we not ask? It is because too many politicians in this country—we just heard such a speech—remain locked in cold war thinking when much of the world has moved on.
The right hon. Lady says that most of the world has moved on. Has she had any intimation from President Putin that the Russians have any intention of engaging in discussions with her about nuclear disarmament? Has she heard from the North Koreans that they intend to abandon their nuclear capability? How does she respond to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s comment that we have reduced our capability and it has made not one jot of difference to those other nations with nuclear weapons?
The hon. Gentleman is citing countries that are of course the minority—the nuclear-armed states. They all have the same attitude as him: they all have cold war thinking. Many of them have reduced their nuclear arsenals, but they remain more dangerous today.
I will try to deal with this in the same theoretical terms as the right hon. Lady is trying to do. If her argument is that we have moved on from the cold war—it must be noted that at the height of the cold war she, as the head of CND, wanted us unilaterally to disarm—the point is that there can be no guarantee that we will not move back into a cold war or face some other threat. We cannot know what threats will arise over the next 30 to 50 years, which is why we need an array of deterrent weapons.
The hon. Gentleman says we cannot know what will happen in the future, but we have a pretty good idea. The threats that were part of the cold war scenario are very different from those we face today.
As I go on in my speech, I hope to indicate that I am talking about today and tomorrow.
Eilidh Whiteford (Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Agriculture and Fisheries), Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Women), Shadow SNP Spokesperson (International Development), Shadow SNP Spokesperson (Work and Pensions); Banff and Buchan, Scottish National Party)
The right hon. Lady is making an important speech about the way we think about these issues. Does she agree that the threats emerging in the world at a geopolitical level relate to terrorism? Does she agree that a nuclear bomb is no use at all against terrorists?
I agree with the hon. Lady, but, interestingly, the Government do not, and I will address that point, too.
So what do the true believers say Trident renewal is for? Three threat scenarios are usually advanced: the re-emergence of a major nuclear threat, which is code for Russia; new states acquiring nuclear capability, which is code for Iran; and state-sponsored nuclear terrorism. Russia is behaving badly, it is modernising its nuclear arsenals and it is threatening Ukraine, but why would Russia specifically target Britain for a nuclear attack? We have to ask the same question of Iran, surrounded as it is by nuclear-armed Pakistan on one side and nuclear-armed Israel on the other: what would be the motivation for an attack on the UK? Is it not clear that, however unpalatable, painstaking diplomatic negotiation with this regime aimed at preventing its acquisition of nuclear weapons is more likely to succeed than military threats?
On the Ukraine example, the nuclear deterrent is going to ensure, as it has done for many years, that any war—God forbid we have one—is conventional, not nuclear. Ukraine could turn nasty, as Mr Gorbachev was warning only the other day, so we need the ultimate deterrent to fight a war—if we ever need to—at a conventional level, not a nuclear one.
All the hon. Gentleman is advocating, of course, is conventional war, which can kill hundreds of thousands of people, as we see in Iraq. He is not making an argument. We need to look at where the real threats are and where real security lies. I will argue that real security lies in nuclear disarmament.
It is on the third scenario, state-sponsored nuclear terrorism, where nuclear deterrence is least credible. The UK has promised—this is official policy—a proportionate response to a state that sponsored a nuclear attack, and a mechanism is in place to trace the perpetrators. The nuclear material will be sent to the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston for analysis before a retaliatory attack is ordered. Can anyone imagine what might happen in those hours or days when analysis was under way? When that is concluded, would the Secretary of State, in the cold light of day, give the order to fire even a single Trident missile? Of course, if he did so, he would immediately be charged with a crime against humanity, but he does not even have that power. He conveniently forgets, as he did throughout his speech today, that Trident is not independent and is assigned to NATO; it is the United States that would call the shots. So why is it, when 47 out of 50 sovereign European states feel more secure without nuclear weapons than with them, that this country remains so blinkered?
Does my right hon. Friend also recognise that those other members of NATO are part of the nuclear umbrella of NATO and agree to NATO nuclear policy?
My hon. Friend needs to go back and look at his geography. There are not 47 sovereign states in Europe which belong to NATO—
NATO ones do.
The NATO ones do, but if my hon. Friend listened, he would know that I referred to 47 sovereign states, and they are not all members of NATO by any means.
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does she appreciate that almost all my constituents and millions of Labour supporters up and down the country cannot understand why, when we are seeing massive cuts in our public sector and welfare state, we are going to spend upwards of £20 billion on a weapons system that will not make us safe and is not genuinely independent?
My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
The right hon. Lady mentioned that 47 Governments of the 50 in Europe do not have nuclear weapons. On the UK Government’s logic, their description of countries not taking their defence and security “seriously” would apply to those countries. Does she think that is an appalling position for the UK Government to hold on our allies and friends in Europe?
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Nuclear weapons have no utility. They cannot be used to advance any cause or secure any territory without the most devastating effects. The true believers present them as benign, silently gliding under the oceans or quietly snoozing in bunkers doing no harm, but it is not so. Some 18 months ago, a book called “Command and Control” was published detailing more than 1,000 nuclear accidents in the United States. Its author, Eric Schlosser, spent six years researching and submitting freedom of information requests. The results are terrifying and would be unbelievable if they had not come directly from official military sources. Historic accidents range from the proverbial spanner being dropped, causing a fuel leak, leading to a missile explosion, and a warhead being blown off, to a nut being left off a bomber, resulting in the engine catching fire and the fire only failing to reach the bomb bay due to the prevailing wind. Today, there is far more dependence on computer technology than on the mechanical, but there is no consolation in that. In 2008, an engineer went to a Minuteman silo, realised that there had been a fire and that the fire alarm had failed. Luckily, the fire burned itself out before it got to the missile. In 2010 at the same base, online contact was lost for an hour with 50 Minuteman missiles—a computer chip had come loose, but it could have been a cyber-attack.
Even more terrifying is the true story of Stanislav Petrov, now portrayed in a film called “The Man Who Saved The World.” Petrov was a colonel in charge of a Soviet nuclear early warning centre when an alarm went off signifying that five American nuclear missiles were heading towards the USSR. Petrov took it on himself to refuse to follow protocol and did not send the signal for a retaliatory strike. He believed that the alarm had to be a malfunction, and he was right, but just suppose somebody else had been on duty. Had a nuclear exchange occurred at that time, we know that the world’s eco-system would have been destroyed. Today we are told that nuclear arsenals are smaller, which is true, and that the world is a safer place, which is not true.
In 2007-08, several groups of scientists published new and peer-reviewed research on the effects of a regional exchange of nuclear weapons, such as might occur between India and Pakistan. The firepower used for modelling purposes was 50 Hiroshima-sized bombs on each side, which represents just 0.03% of the explosive power of the current global arsenal.
We have known since 1945 of the immediate effects of nuclear weapons—blast, firestorms and radioactivity that would kill millions, but only those who are near the targets. This is what the scientists say of the indirect effects: about five megatons of black smoke would be produced and, as the smoke lifts into the stratosphere, it would be transported around the world. The climatic effects of this high layer of smoke would be unprecedented, plunging the planet into temperatures colder than the little ice age that began in the 17th century. Worldwide agriculture would be severely affected. A larger nuclear exchange, including that involving UK weapons, would result in a true nuclear winter, making agriculture impossible. Both scenarios show climate effects lasting more than a decade and up to 2 billion people dying of starvation.
The right hon. Lady speaks with great passion and great authority on these matters. The question is whether or not she thinks that the awful scenario that she describes would be more or less likely if we did away with nuclear deterrents.
I will come on to suggest what the world community thinks about that. It is of course my opinion that we would be safer without nuclear weapons. If the hon. Gentleman were both to read the research on nuclear winters and the report of the accidents that have been recently published, he would realise that there is no safety in the possession of nuclear weapons, even if they are not used in anger.
It is instructive to look at how we view the world. We need to reflect on the deaths of those 17 people in Paris at the hands of terrorists. We were rightly outraged and right to mourn them, so how can it be that we are willing to contemplate the deaths of millions? Why do we have such moral certitude over the banning of chemical and biological weapons, land mines and cluster bombs but not nuclear weapons? It is also instructive to inquire how other countries and institutions view the nuclear weapon states such as Britain.
As always, the right hon. Lady is enormously courteous in giving way. It was discovered after the event that the Russians had been massively cheating on the 1972 biological weapons treaty. Therefore, it is the assurance of the underlying deterrent against other weapons of mass destruction that we have to worry about and be concerned with.
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not make a coherent case. Chemical weapons have certainly been used in recent times—we do not know whether biological weapons have been used—which means that nuclear weapons did not act as a deterrent, so his argument is not sound.
The right hon. Lady makes a necessary contribution to this debate and she asks a very interesting question about the banning of other unacceptable weapons systems while we continue to possess nuclear weapons. But is it not the case that nuclear weapons represent, in the psychology of our global civilisation, an unacceptable threshold of use? Therefore, they have a deterrent effect because the release of one weapon could release many. I ask her this question: why, since the end of the second world war when nuclear weapons were first deployed, did war between the great powers end? Why was that the last world war? Could the possession of nuclear weapons have something to do with it?
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman does not know his history. There have been hundreds of wars since that time and hundreds of thousands of people have died. Many of the wars were proxy wars between the superpowers, so his argument is completely invalid. If he argues that deterrence is so wonderful because the weapons are never used, then he has to ask: why have them at all? Let us get rid of them rather than posture and spend vast fortunes and create a situation in which, at the very least, accidents and misjudgments could happen. The point about luck is that eventually it runs out, and that could happen.
It is instructive to inquire how other countries and institutions view the nuclear weapon states. I had an opportunity to find that out last December when I attended a conference organised by the Austrian Government on the humanitarian effects of the use of nuclear weapons, to which Angus Robertson has already referred. Building on two previous meetings hosted by Norway and Mexico, this conference was attended by representatives of no fewer than 157 Governments. Most telling were the contributions of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent, the bodies on which the whole world depends, regardless of politics, in cases of natural disaster. Let me quote from their statement:
“Even though only a few states currently possess nuclear weapons, they are a concern to all states…They can only bring us to a catastrophic and irreversible scenario that no one wishes and to which no one can respond in any meaningful way.”
Their statement continues:
“All other weapons of mass destruction, namely chemical and biological weapons, have been banned. Nuclear weapons—which have far worse consequences than those weapons—must now be specifically prohibited and eliminated as a matter of urgency.”
I do not think that there is anyone who could not respect a statement from the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.
I am just about to finish.
After the conference, the Austrian Government issued a pledge in which they promised
“to identify and pursue effective measures to fill the legal gap for the prohibition…of nuclear weapons”.
About 40 countries have already signified their support for progressing towards an international treaty that could ban all nuclear weapons.
The renewal of Trident flies in the face of such international action and it must not be allowed to do so. The real threats to this country are cyber-warfare, terrorism, climate change and pandemics. We need all the resources we can muster to confront these threats and we cannot afford to squander billions of pounds on a weapons system that by general consent can never be used.
I declare an interest in that I am a trustee of VERTIC—the Verification Research, Training and Information Centre, a charity that carries out the verification of nuclear disarmament. I am also the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces, with special responsibility for the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy. This is an issue about which I feel very strongly.
As you might know, Madam Deputy Speaker, on my election in 2010 I submitted a paper for the 2010 strategic defence and security review. I am preparing my contribution for the next SDSR in 2015, in which I argue that we should spend at least 2% of GDP on the defence of this country. I would also urge those in the Treasury, if they are listening, to take the cost of the nuclear deterrent out of the defence budget. I confirm my commitment to our retaining our nuclear deterrent because, in my opinion, it is the cornerstone of our membership of NATO and of our seat on the UN Security Council.
I represent Devonport, the only UK dockyard with a nuclear licence, so I can speak with some relevance about how my constituency is on the front line of defending our maritime interests. Nobody knows what the outcome of May’s general election will be, but the Scottish National party, the Greens and Plaid Cymru have all made it quite clear that they will not enter coalition with the Conservatives. According to The Independent on 15 December, the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Greens, as their price for supporting the Labour party in a hung Parliament, would demand the scrapping of Britain’s nuclear weapons programme.
The Liberal Democrats appear still to be opposed to renewing Trident. Earlier today, I checked their website. That is an interesting thing to do and I encourage Members to do it. It clearly states:
“Britain’s nuclear deterrent, which consists of four Trident submarines, is out-dated and expensive. It is a relic of the Cold War and not up-to-date in 21st century Britain. Nowadays, most of our threats come from individual terrorist groups, not communist countries with nuclear weapons.
The Liberal Democrats are the only main party willing to face up to those facts.
The UK has four Trident submarines on constant patrol, which are nearing the end of their life. A decision needs to be made about what we do to replace them.
It would be extremely expensive and unnecessary to replace all four submarines, so we propose to replace some of the submarines instead. They would not be on constant patrol but could be deployed if the threat from a nuclear-armed country increased.
This would keep Britain safe while allowing us to move down the nuclear ladder in a realistic and credible way. While we cannot predict the future, making this first move on the road to international nuclear disarmament is the right thing to do.”
We either have deterrents or we do not. It is not a grey area, it is not a mishmash: we either have them or we do not. We cannot have a part-time deterrent, as it does not work. It is not part of the strategy.
That was what I was coming to. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has repeatedly said, such an approach would mean that we would have only a part-time deterrent. We would depend on a part-time enemy. No doubt we could also go on holiday all the time.
May I commend to my hon. Friend and the whole House the lyrics of a song that was prevalent at the Liberal Democrats’ last conference, which came from their own side? Sadly, I have not committed all the verses to memory, but they were wonderful, and the chorus was, “We believe in a part-time submarine.” It was sung to the tune of “Yellow Submarine”, made famous by the Beatles.
I thank my hon. Friend for that.
Scrapping or even reducing the number of nuclear submarines would have a devastating impact on my constituency and on Plymouth’s travel-to-work economy and skills base. No SNP, Green or Plaid Cymru Members have talked about the importance of nuclear submarines to my constituency and I hope that my comments on Plymouth will be in accord with the views of Alison Seabeck, who is unable to comment as she sits on the Opposition Front Bench. In the past we have had a similar approach and I am sure that we will continue to do so. I hope that I and my hon. Friend Mr Streeter, my hon. and learned Friend Mr Cox, my hon. Friend Sheryll Murray and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View, all of whom have constituencies in the Plymouth travel-to-work area, speak with one voice on this issue, which involves Devonport’s future. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister again for the £2.6 billion of investment in the future of Devonport announced last September. That will secure 3,000 to 4,000 jobs over the next four years.
Retaining Britain’s nuclear deterrent, a strategic concept that seeks to prevent war, is a key element of and cornerstone in the defence of our country. It is a vital ingredient of our membership of NATO and of our relationship with the United States, which is our strongest ally, and it ensures our seat on the UN Security Council. It helps to prevent attacks from would-be aggressors and stops other countries from using their nuclear arsenal to try to blackmail us. The United Kingdom is an island nation that is dependent on protecting its trade routes, which means that we need a strong Royal Navy.
Our ownership of this highly successful deterrent came about after the bombing of Hiroshima, which brought about the very dramatic final phase of world war two. I note that there has been no mention in the debate of Hiroshima, the event that ended the second world war. Like a slap in the face, it shocked the world
with its catastrophic implications, which were so dramatic that no one has ever dared to push international conflicts to a point at which any country has used nuclear weapons again.
The nuclear deterrent has been Britain’s most effective insurance policy and it continues to play a significant role in maintaining peace throughout the world. Unpredictable countries such as Iran and North Korea, which are threatening to develop nuclear capabilities, make it vital that Britain retains its nuclear deterrent. It continues to act as a pressure point—conventional capabilities cannot and will not have the same deterrent effect as nuclear weapons. To quote the Prime Minister, it is the “ultimate weapon of defence”.
Indeed, the development of nuclear weapons since Hiroshima continues to have a significant impact on those veterans who were dispatched to Christmas Island, Montebello and Malden Island to take part in the tests that made the nuclear deterrent we are discussing today possible. I pay tribute to them and encourage the Government to try to look after those people. We must remember that we owe them a great debt of gratitude and it would be most helpful if my hon. Friend the Minister paid tribute to them when he winds up the debate.
For Plymouth, the deterrent is not just a defence weapon but a key part of our local economy, as well as of the national economy. It helps us retain our skills base, especially in Devonport, which is part of my constituency, and, of course, in Barrow-in-Furness. Devonport dockyard, which is responsible for refuelling and refitting our nuclear submarines, is a vital part of our local economy as more than 25,000 people in the Devonport travel-to-work area depend on defence for their livelihood. The mind-boggling announcement by the Liberal Democrats that the UK should move away from a continuous at-sea deterrent and reduce the number of submarines from four to three would have a devastating impact on my city’s economy. Their insistence that the main-gate decision should be delayed until after 2015 has produced real uncertainty in our local economy.
If the ill-minded desire of the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish national party, Plaid Cymru and the Greens were to become reality, it could damage not only the livelihoods of 25,000 people but the skills base in a city with a low-skills and low-wage economy. It would damage the job prospects of those young people who are at the university technical college in Devonport, which is set to give youngsters an education that will eventually deliver a skilled work force who want to be employed in our dockyard. The measure would be most unhelpful.
A reduction in the number of nuclear submarines would mean less refitting work, and our highly skilled work force in the dockyard would have to move elsewhere in the country, which would also be problematic for the local economy. Given the importance of Devonport to the south-west economy and the defence of our nation, I find it extraordinary that the majority of the smaller parties in the House are doing everything they can to delay main gate for the Trident replacement. It is quite apparent that the future security of our country is going to be one of the bargaining tools that they can use in any negotiations that they have with Labour, should the result of the general election be a score draw, as happened in 2010.
Sadly, the leader of the Labour party has not said that the future of four nuclear submarines and a continuous at-sea deterrent is not up for negotiation in any potential coalition or supply and demand agreement. At least we now know that only an outright Conservative victory will ensure that our country will continue to play a significant part in global politics and that we have the necessary tools to defend ourselves. That is why I will continue to use the Royal Navy’s truly excellent toast from the Napoleonic wars: confusion to the enemy on this issue so that we can ensure that Drake’s drum can be put away for the next five years and we will not hear a drum beat for many a year yet.
May I say at the outset that I have never been a member of CND, and am never likely to be a member? I have always supported NATO, and I did so at a time when there was great controversy about NATO and its role in the cold war. I have always believed that NATO is the most successful mutual defence pact in history. It kept the peace in Europe for 50 years until the end of the cold war, and it gave rise to the American nuclear umbrella, which I support, because I have no ethical objection to nuclear weapons. Of course, I would prefer a world without them.
We have not had the pleasure and privilege of a Labour spokesperson contributing to the debate, and we all very much look forward to that. Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Labour party will oppose the motion, or is it going to abstain? What is his Whip telling him to do?
I have not had the pleasure of being asked to be a Labour spokesperson, so I cannot answer that question. What I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that I will go into the same Lobby as him, and I shall explain why.
I have no ethical objections to nuclear capability or to nuclear weapons. As I said, NATO is the most successful mutual defence pact the world has ever seen. It has never attacked anyone, unlike the Warsaw pact, and it kept the peace in Europe for 50 years. I am one of the people who regret the change in strategy that resulted in NATO becoming the world’s policeman. That was dangerous, and it has put enormous strains on NATO, but it is still an effective mutual defence pact. I shall argue that that is how we get our security, rather than with the mythical idea that we have an independent nuclear deterrent. There are two myths.
I do not think that it is mythical. We have command and control. The management of some of the systems is based on the east coast of America when we change them, but command and control arrangements are entirely ours, so the deterrent is independent.
I am coming on to that. Let me deal with, in my opinion, myth No. 1. The UK has four nuclear submarines. Each can carry up to eight missiles, and each missile can carry up to five nuclear warheads. That is 40 nuclear weapons of the 17,000 that the Minister said are in existence. The UK does not own the missiles on its submarines. It leases Trident II D5 missiles from the United States, where they are made, maintained and tested. Our four submarines have to go to the American naval base in Georgia to have those missiles fitted. If Members like to believe that somehow that means that we are an independent nuclear power, so be it, but I would say that we are totally dependent on America. I do not oppose our being dependent in defence on America; I am a strong supporter of the Atlantic alliance, but I am not a supporter of mythology.
If the United States withdrew co-operation for the maintenance of our nuclear deterrent, the fact is that the capabilities with which they provide us have a long lead time, so we would have time to develop our own indigenous capacity to provide those capabilities. There is no point in our doing so while the US is happy to share the costs with us and help us to provide a cheaper, better-value nuclear deterrent.
I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but we are where we are. We acquired these weapons from the USA.
The hon. Gentleman, as always, is being very thoughtful on the subject. What he has said is true: the missile bodies are from a common pool that we share with the Americans. What makes a weapon system independent is not who manufactures it, and not who co-owns it—it is who is in a position to launch it if the need arises. There would be an enormous lead time to any withdrawal of the sort of co-operation that we need from America, so if there were any attempt at a surprise attack on the UK, because America does not have its finger on our nuclear trigger, the independent system is exactly that.
The hon. Gentleman is knowledgeable about defence issues, but he will recognise that one of NATO’s founding beliefs was, and still is, that an attack on one is an attack on all. The view that the country could be subject to a nuclear attack without the response of the American nuclear umbrella is, in my opinion, inconceivable, and is completely contrary to what NATO is and why it has been successful.
Is there not a paradox? If we reduced the nuclear arsenals so that only the United States and NATO possessed one we would have the problem that an attack on one would be a response by one. The absence of diversity would make the NATO structure much less resilient.
I have consistently said throughout this speech that I believe our security is based on our membership of NATO. I strongly support NATO and always have, and I strongly support the basis on which NATO was set up, which is that an attack on one is an attack on all. The idea that just because one country, America, which provides the nuclear umbrella, has far, far more nuclear capability than our 40 missiles or than the French nuclear capability—
I am trying to understand this more broadly, strategically speaking. Is this not in danger of being an argument simply that the whole of NATO should be freeloading on the United States?
The hon. Gentleman says that we are freeloading on the United States. In fact, NATO has taken part, I think wrongly, in actions to be the world’s policeman where its component forces, not just Americans but British and other participants, have gone into theatres of operations as part of the collective NATO force. I would argue that we are far better off maintaining and developing our conventional forces. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been incidents where British troops have been killed in the middle east because of a lack of body armour and because some of our machinery has not been fit for purpose. If it is a choice between modernising and maintaining good conventional forces, properly equipped to do the job, and the mythology of an independent nuclear deterrent, I would most certainly go for the conventional forces.
There is at the moment quite a debate across the United States about freeloading, with a high degree of concern that about 70% of the costs of NATO are paid for by the US. Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that we should front-load further costs and renege on our own responsibilities in relation to the nuclear deterrent? I honestly do not think we can say that and hold our heads high in the world. In relation to the body armour, that was an issue of slow procurement, not cost.
My hon. Friend is suggesting that if, all of a sudden, we gave up our 40 missiles, America would rush in to create 40 extra missiles to compensate for those that we are not going to have. The Americans have expressed regret to us about cuts that we have made in our conventional forces; they would like us to do more in that regard. I would strongly argue that that is a much greater priority than the myth of our so-called independent nuclear deterrent.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
May I make some progress, as I have been generous in giving way?
Oliver Colvile said that it is absolutely vital that we maintain our nuclear capability because otherwise our position as a member of the United Nations Security Council could be endangered. When the UN was set up in 1947 or 1948 there was only one nuclear power, and that was America. The other five countries that ended up on the Security Council were not nuclear countries; they were the victors of the second world war. If, as he suggests, a country has to have a nuclear capability in order to become a member of the Security Council, that does not say much for our championing, quite rightly, the aspirations of Japan, as a non-nuclear power, to become a member, or Germany’s desire to become a member. If that were a criterion, the two obvious applicants would be Israel and North Korea.
The hon. Gentleman refers to the Americans developing their nuclear capability. Does he not accept that the Americans did that, in very large measure, in consultation and in conjunction with the research carried out here in the United Kingdom?
The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and we are where we are. I can only say again that I believe that committing £100 billion to renewing our nuclear capability is not money well spent. I have sat here with my hon. Friends watching Defence Ministers come to the Dispatch Box to announce the cutting of this regiment, the cutting of that regiment, the abolition of the other regiment. Those are massive cuts in a defence capability that should have far greater priority than our so-called independent nuclear deterrent.
The need for our security is of course absolute. We have to ensure that we are protected from attack from without or within. I believe that our security is best achieved through collective action through NATO with other countries, and I believe very strongly in our membership. I also believe that the greatest threat to this country comes not from other countries but from groups, some of which operate outside this country but some of which operate within this country. In a choice between spending money on conventional weapons and improving our internal security or committing £100 billion to a mythical so-called independent deterrent, I know which I would choose. That is why I will be voting against my party and in favour of the motion.
The decision to procure the existing Trident nuclear system was taken in 1980. My starting point is that the world has changed a very great deal since then. Back then, we were at the height of the cold war. We had a known nuclear adversary that had the capability to strike us and had stated its willingness, if provoked, to do so. We, in turn, felt that it was absolutely essential that we had the ability to respond at a moment’s notice. Thus it was that we concluded that we needed an inter-continental ballistic missile capable of being launched at a moment’s notice, and that because we did not know when our adversary would attack, we would sustain a patrol 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. There was logic in that position.
But, as I say, the world has changed. The cold war is over. The iron curtain has come down. The Soviet Union, which was our known adversary, no longer exists. In 1994, Britain and Russia de-targeted each other and changed their policy to say that we were not nuclear adversaries of each other. Yet nothing changed: since that time, we have continued with 24/7 patrolling. I join the Secretary of State in saluting those who have been involved in sustaining that for all that time. The Royal Navy and all those at the Faslane base and in the supply and support chains have mounted a gargantuan effort to keep continuous at-sea deterrence going, and they deserve great praise for that. It has been at considerable human cost and very substantial financial cost, but it is very much harder to discern quite what practical utility it is fulfilling in 2015 when we do not have a known nuclear adversary.
I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman because he is making a very good case, but does not he agree that Trident is a weapons system designed for the Brezhnevs of the world, not the bin Ladens and the current threat?
As I have said, it was something that we calibrated to be our need in 1980. If one casts one’s mind back to 1980, one will see that our conventional defences were very much greater than they are today. The scale of the nuclear deterrent that we mounted at that time was a relatively small proportion of a large defence, but what we are considering now, as we look forward to the next 30 or 40 years, is a much greater proportion of a much smaller defence because of the succession of cuts that have been made since then.
The hon. Gentleman says that we can look forward in anticipation of certain types of dangers but that there is no known nuclear threat. May I remind him of how suddenly the crisis in Ukraine blew up; if it were to develop, as it could, into all-out war that then spilled over into Lithuania or Poland, which are NATO members, nuclear deterrents might become very relevant indeed, very quickly.
I will come on to talk about the implications and the consequences of using nuclear weapons, but—although the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the security situation in and around Ukraine deteriorated rapidly—I do not accept for one moment that anything that has happened there makes the prospect of nuclear conflict between ourselves and Russia any more likely than it was before all that started.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of the following words:
“I admit to some miscalculations about Russia. I did not calculate how the collective mood of Russia was so ready to respond to a dominant and ruthless leadership…Nor did I expect that the perestroika and glasnost that we welcomed so enthusiastically in this country and elsewhere would become so despised at home in Russia.”—[Hansard, 18 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 670.]
Those were the words of his colleague, Sir Menzies Campbell. Why is the right hon. Gentleman so confident that he can predict the future when the right hon. and learned Gentleman has admitted that he was wrong?
I am making absolutely no attempt to predict the future; I am talking about the threat that I believe we face now at this point in time. For another nation sate to be taken seriously as a nuclear adversary, it needs a combination of capability and intent. Although it is certainly the case that the Russians and many others have the capability to strike us with a nuclear weapon, I do not believe for one moment that they have the intent to do so. If things should deteriorate in the future, that is a different position, but I do not believe that we face such a threat.
I am going to make some progress and I will take another intervention in a little while.
Our defences have seen round after round of cuts as the financial situation has deteriorated, and later this year we face the gloomy prospect of the whole thing happening all over again. Whatever the outcome of the election, there will be a strategic defence and security review this summer and a comprehensive spending review this autumn.
The Secretary of State dismissed the cost figures offered by Angus Robertson, who opened the debate for the SNP, but I readily recognise those figures. It is a fact that if we go ahead and build four submarines, they will cost us between £25 billion and £30 billion. It is a fact that running the nuclear deterrent currently costs us £2.9 billion a year, and if we do that for another 30 or 40 years the cost will multiply. Whatever the outcome, at some point we will have to decommission it all at the end, so I would have thought that £100 billion is the very least it would cost. I would take a private guess that the quantum would in fact be well in excess of that figure, but I certainly recognise it as a starting point.
On the basic maths, if the figure of £2.9 billion is right and, as CND’s own estimates say, the £100 billion figure is stretched over the whole lifetime of 50-plus years, could the hon. Gentleman tell me what is £2.9 billion times 50?
I was taking the lifetime of the submarines as being more like 25 to 30 years. If we operate them for 25 years at almost £3 billion, that would take us into the realms of £75 billion plus the building and decommissioning costs, which would certainly take us over £100 billion very quickly indeed. I would have thought that, in reality, it will cost a great deal more than that.
We know that the national deficit remains a serious problem and we do not hear from any of the political parties—mine or anybody else’s—that defence will be insulated or protected from a tough comprehensive spending review later this year. If defence were to face another cut comparable to that which it took in 2010, which seems entirely possible, the proportion of our gross domestic product that we spend on defence, which is already destined to go below 2% next year, will make rapid headway down towards 1.5%.
We know, however, that on the table for discussion in this summer’s SDSR is a whole series of big procurement projects. The two new aircraft carriers are due to have joint strike fighter craft flying off them—we do not know how much their unit cost will be or how many of them we will be able to afford. The Type 26 frigate is due to be built in the next few years, but it is very difficult to know how much that will cost. We need more helicopters and more intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance assets. We need another generation of remotely piloted aircraft. The existing amphibious shipping is due to become redundant in the latter part of this decade and will need replacing if we are going to sustain that capability. The Army’s vehicle crisis remains unresolved after the collapse of most of the future rapid effect system programme.
All of those things will be on the table and wrestled over in agony this summer. In addition, paper exercises are already being done looking at what an Army of just 60,000 would look like, because of the financial crunch that the Department will face. Yet, for some reason, keeping a nuclear deterrent going at the level we thought necessary at the height of the cold war in 1980 gets an automatic bye and is assumed to be beyond debate. Nobody even wants to put it on the table and debate it alongside those other things that are there to mitigate the dangers that our own security assessment said in 2010 are first-league threats that we face here and now.
The hon. Gentleman has spoken fluently about the kit, but I still do not understand the strategic vision. What threats does he think we face? Why does he think that the frigates are important and that nuclear weapons are not for deterring that threat? What kind of intent does he think Russia has? What kind of obligations does he believe we have for NATO, and why are nuclear weapons irrelevant to that obligation?
The 2010 national security strategy identified the primary threats faced by the United Kingdom. Personally, I think it was correct in identifying the threat from international terrorism, cyber-attack, international crime, the security consequences of the sudden mass migrations of peoples, and pandemics as a result of climate change. All of those are very real threats that we face, and they are probably greater than the threat we face from direct state-on-state warfare. We see every day that our armed forces—through, for example, the work they perform off the African coast countering piracy and in the Caribbean countering narcotics—are very flexible and capable of dealing with this wide and diverse range of threats. It is actually maintaining a broad spectrum of capabilities to deal with such diverse situations and the willingness to use them that secures us our place at the United Nations Security Council, not the fact that we happen to be a nuclear state. In any case, we can change the composition of the United Nations Security Council only by unanimity, and there is no reason why the UK should agree to give up its seat.
Does the hon. Gentleman recall that representatives from NATO came to my constituency last year? I was very happy to welcome them. Of the 28 countries, 25 are non-nuclear states, and they found no difficulty walking with their heads held high.
It is certainly true that very few NATO states possess nuclear weapons, although a few have them on their soil. Other Members have spoken about the nuclear umbrella, but none of us knows how real it is, and let us hope that it is never pushed to the test.
We are asked to focus our minds on whether we should proceed with a replacement programme in 2016. It is not of course the Trident missile that needs replacing, but, as other hon. Members have said, the submarines. I believe that we should be willing to build some more submarines at this time, but I shall add some riders in a moment.
The hon. Gentleman is being very good speaking his mind, but I am somewhat confused. Will he vote for or against the motion?
If the hon. Gentleman bears with me, I shall do my best to explain my position and where I am coming from.
I profoundly agree that we should not allow the Barrow submarine-building capability to fall apart—if we do not place such orders at that shipyard in the next few years, it will be necessary to give it other contracts—but I do not support the construction of submarines whose sole purpose and capability is to carry a nuclear weapon, thus committing us to a £30 billion investment programme with but one purpose and forcing us to be a nuclear power for the next 30 and 40 years unless we are prepared to write off a capital investment of that scale.
The United States has used some of its Ohio class submarines for quite different purposes. The US has developed a means of firing conventional weapons through their missile tubes, and it has used those submarines in a tactical role and in support of special forces operations. To my mind, it is certainly the case that if we are to build new submarines—I think we should, for the reasons I have given—we must ensure that they are capable of performing other functions, as the United States has done with its large submarines.
The hon. Gentleman is being terribly generous in giving way. The fact is that his party’s policy, strange though it is, is to build another two Trident submarines, however they are deployed. Does it not follow logically, given the terms of the motion, that the hon. Gentleman and his party should vote with us against it?
No, because that would imply that we were in favour of a full-scale, like-for-like replacement of the Trident programme. [Interruption.] If one is going to be pedantic, the motion refers to a missile system that is not due for replacement for some years. In fact, what needs to be decided in the next year or so is whether we shall build new submarines. I think we should, but if we make such an investment, it is essential that the submarines are capable of performing other functions. I do not believe that it makes any sense whatever for us to sail the high seas 24/7, waving weapons of mass destruction at the rest of the world, because we thought it was necessary in 1980 or because we would be left looking embarrassed if we did not make that £30 billion investment.
The Defence Secretary seemed to suggest that to adopt any deployment posture other than continuous at-sea deterrence was somehow risible and laughable, but many sensible studies by serious people have looked at a ladder of different postures for the UK to take. My belief is that we should for the time being retain the components of a nuclear deterrent—the warhead, and the ability to look after it; the missile, and the arrangement with the Americans; and the submarines capable of firing a nuclear weapon—and maintain a highly skilled work force that is regularly exercised in how to put back together the deterrent’s components. NATO air-based nuclear systems in eastern Europe operate on the same basis of a well exercised drill to put the pieces of the deterrent together if it is thought necessary.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, as I said I would.
In this day and age, it does not make sense for us to go out to sea armed with nuclear weapons and on patrol when we do not believe, on our own assessment, that we face a primary threat. I do not believe that we have a nuclear adversary at this time, but in future we might reach a different conclusion and believe that the international security situation had so deteriorated that we faced a nuclear adversary. For that purpose, it seems to me to make sense to keep the component parts of the nuclear deterrent and the ability to put them together again should we ever need it.
I do not at all accept that that would be a part-time deterrent. I do not believe that the Royal Air Force—or the Army or the Navy for that matter—represents a deterrent to a potential enemy only when on patrol. The fact that it is known to have the capabilities it has is in itself a deterrent. If one wanted to be pedantic and to cling to the belief that it has a deterrent effect only when on patrol, let me make it perfectly clear that I am proposing patrols not for part of the time but for none of the time. I propose that we simply retain nuclear capability as a contingency against a future situation where we made an assessment that we needed to operate a patrol.
When I studied the strategy of deterrence, it was predicated on the fact that a country deters by being ready to strike back, and that deterrence therefore works. We cannot deter by saying, “Well, in a couple of weeks’ time, we might actually fire something at you,” or whatever. The whole point of deterrence is that we do not want anything to happen, and it works because everyone is frightened to do anything.
I do not think that I have made my point quite clear to the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that we have a nuclear adversary, but I am saying that we should keep the component parts of the deterrent for the time being so that if in future we concluded that we did have such an adversary, we could resume patrols. I am absolutely with him in saying that for something to have a deterrent effect, it needs to be mobilised and deployed in a timely matter, but I simply do not accept his proposition that—out of the blue, out of nowhere—an adversary will pop up who wishes to do us irreparable harm and to take the global consequences of doing so.
The hon. Gentleman is very kind to give way. He was a Minister at the time of the strategic defence and security review, and he signed up to it. I did not agree with many parts of that review, but it made it very plain that this country has nuclear opponents and that there is a nuclear threat. Has his opinion therefore changed not just since the 1980s but since 2010, because that is what he is saying?
I remind the hon. Lady that the national security strategy identified such a nuclear attack as a second level threat. I believe that we have potential nuclear adversaries, but I do not believe that we have actual nuclear adversaries at the moment. To be an actual adversary requires a combination of capability and intent. I can see plenty of countries with the capability but none with the intent, and countries that may have an intent to launch a nuclear weapon at us in future are still a considerable way away from having such a capability. If any of that should change, and if any future Government should arrive at a different calculation and believe there was an enemy with both capability and intent, they would need to revisit our posture.
Trident should be retained on a flexible basis that can be ramped up or down according to our reading of the security situation, which is exactly how we approach all our other military capability. The rest of our military capability is not kept on constant patrol on the basis that that is the only point at which it has any deterrent effect; it is kept at different levels of readiness, according to our assessment of the particular threat that it is designed to mitigate.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the one scenario in which there could be an instant attack, without the build-up and norms of international discussions or whatever, would be a terrorist nuclear attack, not state sponsored but by something like ISIS? In those circumstances, does he agree that our nuclear weapons system is completely useless and does not deter?
The right hon. Lady makes a good point. If a threat emerges from nowhere, it will be either at the hands of terrorists or a by rogue state sponsored by terrorists, against which a conventional state-on-state nuclear deterrent of the sort that we have would have absolutely no value or purpose. It is important to remember that we have moral and legal obligations to try to bring about global nuclear disarmament, and with one notable exception I hope that all Members of the House believe that that is a desirable objective.
In 1968 the non-proliferation treaty was in effect a pact between the nuclear states that were going to use their best endeavours to negotiate away their weapons and the rest of the world that agreed not to develop nuclear programmes. In terms of non-proliferation the treaty has been moderately successful, but it has made astonishingly little progress on disarmament. Very few signatories to that treaty can have imagined that by 2015 so little progress would have been made. Things are stirring and changing, and the British Government need to wake up to that. More than 150 nation states have attended international conferences and considered in detail and depth the humanitarian consequences of using nuclear weapons.
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time, but his remarks are taking Liberal Democrat policy into a new out-of-body, out-of-mind, out-of-space dimension. Some points are unclear from his remarks, and I would be grateful if he would be clear about them before he concludes his speech. I think he said that his party’s policy now is to have all the components and capability delivery of a nuclear system but with none of them joined up, and therefore with none capable of being trained and exercised in a way that—as he will know from his time as Minister for the armed forces—takes months if not years to deliver. There would therefore be no deterrent capability at all: not a part-time deterrent, but no deterrent. How will he vote tonight?
I invite the Minister to look at how the NATO air-based nuclear capability in eastern Europe operates, because what I am describing is a precise replica of what goes on there. That capability is not on constant patrol or constantly armed; it exists in its component parts, and there is a well-rehearsed exercise for mobilising it and putting it together. Does that have a deterrent impact? I believe it does. If anybody intends to strike faster than that capability can be put together again perhaps it would not, but who is going to do that?
This brings us to the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, which I think are singularly under-perceived in this country and many others, although that is changing fast. The participation of many Governments at conferences—the first in Oslo, the second in Mexico, and the most recent in Vienna—is bringing a far greater degree of awareness around the globe of the impact of using nuclear weapons. I do not believe that the public that has come of age since 1983—the last time we had a meaningful national debate about our nuclear deterrent—understand what the consequences of unleashing the payload of one of our Vanguard submarines, armed with Trident missiles, would constitute.
If one of our submarines were to unleash its payload against, for instance, Moscow—those were the traditional criteria on which we based our capability—I think that some people in this country, possibly even in the House, labour under the misapprehension that the consequences would be pretty grim for people in Moscow and perhaps not very clever for those a few hundred miles around. In reality, if we were to unleash the payload of one of our submarines, the consequences would be global and felt for at least a decade, and at least a billion people would be at risk of dying. The more widely that is understood, the more inconceivable it is that any sane person could ever push the button, and the more widely that is understood, the less deterrent effect the possession of this great paraphernalia comes to have.
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that although the British deterrent is used all the time to deter, the only scenario in which it is conceivable that it would be fired would be in retaliation for someone having fired a nuclear salvo against us? Therefore, all the consequences that he mentions would already have happened, and the only question would be whether it would be worthwhile replying under those terrible circumstances. The purpose is to prevent anyone firing the weapons in the first place, and that is how we avoid the environmental consequences.
I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman make that case, because I believe he is right. After such a volley had been unleashed against us, no earthly good could possibly be done by firing one back in retaliation, and the more we think our way through that, the more pointless the whole exercise becomes. Indeed, it is not simply pointless, but the rest of the world is becoming increasingly irate about the complacency of those who continue to have these weapons while saying to everybody else, “You’ve got not right to them, but we’re all right, Jack. We’re going to have them.” That situation is not sustainable for much longer, and it was regrettable that the P5 boycotted the first two conferences. It is much to be welcomed that there was British, American and even Chinese attendance at the most recent conference, because I predict an increasing clamour from other countries around the globe for the nuclear states to begin taking steps down the nuclear ladder. Traditionally that has been done by reducing the stockpile of warheads, but today I have attempted to explain that there are other ways of doing that, and the posture we strike and the way we use our capabilities has an important part to play. It is not 1980 and we do not face the threats we thought we faced then; it is a very different world and there is a way for us to begin climbing down the nuclear ladder. We have the opportunity to do that, and we should take that opportunity and get on with it.
It is a treat to follow Sir Nick Harvey, and the House should take a moment to appreciate his tenacity. This is a man who at the last election spearheaded his party’s drive not to have deterrent successor submarines at all, but to have an entirely new form—a mini-deterrent, with adapted Astute submarines and nuclear-tipped cruise missiles. The Liberal Democrats were so sure of that policy that they put it before the electorate. It was not successful, but they retained it. As Minister, the hon. Gentleman was so determined that he persuaded the Government to fund the Trident alternatives review. That review took 18 months or two years to examine that option exhaustively, finally to conclude what we had been saying all along, which is that the policy was complete nonsense and would cost even more than the current system and be far less efficient.
The hon. Gentleman is not deterred by that. In the manner of a child jumping from sandcastle to sandcastle as the tide comes in, he seeks to find new ways to differentiate himself from the Opposition while never saying the words, after his exhaustive speech, that he is a unilateralist and his party is a unilateralist party. There is an absurdity—I think I have it right—to having not a part-time deterrent, but a no-time, or IKEA, deterrent that he could put together at some point. IKEA furniture can be difficult to assemble, but it does not take the months or years that his proposal would take. In the meantime, would we put glass in the submarines so they can become public viewing vessels? Could they carry grain, so that they could become underwater famine relief vessels, which is one of the more famous suggestions from the unilateralist CND members in my constituency? What is it? Tell the House, or is he going to leave this policy until the election to reveal it?
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that famine relief vessels are a crazy idea?
Goodness! If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell me that firing grain out of the torpedo tubes of the successor to Vanguard-class submarines is an effective use of public money, then he should go ahead. I will come on to his policy in a little while, if he does not mind.
I am greatly enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Coming back to the real world, is it not the case that the need to have a continuous at-sea deterrent follows directly from the fact that we have a minimum strategic deterrent? We only have four submarines. At any one time only one or two of them can use or fire their missiles—they use them all the time to deter—but the fact is that if we did not have one continuously at sea, a surprise attack would wipe out the whole capacity.
That is exactly right, which is why a part-time deterrent is no real deterrent at all. The point of having submarines that are continuously at sea means that they are, in effect, completely invulnerable. If, in a future nightmare scenario, the UK was seriously threatened by a nuclear attack, any potential nuclear adversary would know that they could not fire without being fired on. Even if they flattened the UK, they would always face the counter-strike. That is why it is a genuine deterrent and makes a nuclear attack less likely.
Was my hon. Friend not surprised to hear Sir Nick Harvey say that his strategy is to try to acquire a nuclear weapon if it turned out we might need one? If someone fired on us it would be pointless responding by then. Potential adversaries of Britain would know that if they fired at a Liberal Democrat Government our response would be too late.
Exactly. The fact is that the hon. Gentleman does not believe it. He and his party should come clean that they are unilateralists and stop this charade of ever-new inventive fantastical solutions.
I will give way, but then I really want to take up less time than others have done.
Does my hon. Friend think that the world is a safer place since 1980? North Korea and Russia have increased their arsenals, Pakistan’s arsenal has grown exponentially and Iran is trying to develop a nuclear capability. Are we actually safer since 1980?
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The global situation is profoundly unstable. Whether or not there is a nuclear adversary precisely at this moment, we simply cannot say what will be the case in the next 20, 30 or 40 years. That is the decision we are making now: what threats we will face while other countries are increasing, rather than decreasing, their arsenals.
Labour is proud of its record on non-proliferation. My right hon. Friend Margaret Beckett was the Labour Foreign Secretary who committed the UK to a “global zero”—a world completely free from nuclear weapons. Britain was the first nuclear state in the world to sign up, before President Obama, before Russia—although it has clearly reneged on what it said—and, to the best of my knowledge, before either of the parties who have proposed the motion. They were busy thinking small, as is their wont. They were telling Scots that the answer to this issue was to expel nuclear submarines a couple of hundred miles south of the border—they are not coming to Barrow, by the way. They did that while having the cheek—I am not sure whether this is parliamentary language or not, Madam Deputy Speaker—to have the unbridled hypocrisy to say that nuclear weapons were grotesque and inhuman, but that they wished an independent Scotland to remain part of the specifically nuclear alliance of NATO.
I realise that, as the hon. Gentleman represents Barrow and Furness, he might have a slightly different answer to this question than other hon. Members, but at what point and at what cost does this weapon system cease to be a proper value-for-money decision for the United Kingdom? How much of the defence budget does it need to take before he would say, “Actually, we are better off investing in other weapon systems that are much, much more likely to be used”? What would his number be?
I will come on to figures later; I will make some progress first.
We will not insult people by saying that Trident is effectively fine as long as it is not coloured tartan. We are a party whose ambition is big. We have acted by reducing stockpiles and reducing to a single nuclear platform the minimum credible independent deterrent that it is responsible to maintain while others hold a threat that one day could be used to blackmail the United Kingdom. We led the world on “global zero” and we will lead again in government. Britain is an outward-looking country that shoulders its responsibilities. It will make genuine progress through multilateral negotiation, not futile unilateral gestures.
Labour is not a unilateralist party. I was at a CND “ban the bomb” demonstration at RAF Molesworth. I think it was in 1984 and I was aged five. If my mum will forgive me, I appreciate the fruit gums she gave me on that day but we are not going back to those days—we have moved on as a party. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend Dame Joan Ruddock, who has had to leave for a constituency engagement, but I was left questioning her opening statement. She called herself a multilateralist, but scrapping the programme to replace the ageing Vanguard-class deterrent submarines is tantamount to unilateral disarmament—not today, but a decade or so hence, once the Vanguard-class submarines are no longer seaworthy. As a result of the delays in bringing their successor into service, they are now projected to be the longest-serving submarines in the history of the Royal Navy, but they cannot go on for ever. At that point, we would lose our nuclear capability for ever, yet we cannot possibly know what threats we will face in decades hence. Not only would it put our security at risk, but for any genuine multilateralist, it would be a missed opportunity to encourage other countries and bind them into a deal that makes genuine progress across the world.
The construction taking place in my constituency, and in all parts of the UK, is among the most highly skilled, cutting-edge engineering in the world. We cannot just put these submarines on hold and then pick them up when they might come in handy some years down the track. While a “global zero” remains beyond the horizon, we will finish the programme of renewal that we started in government but which this Administration have delayed to the point that there is precious little contingency left.
The investment announced is significant, but the £100 billion is highly flimsy at best. We do not accept the figure, but—imagining that we did—let me put it into the context of overall UK Government spending, on current levels, over those 50-plus years, a time period that never makes it on to CND posters. According to my office’s estimate, all things being equal, Government spending over those 50 years will be £35,700 billion, which I am told is £3.7 quadrillion—not a number I have used before. Within that, pensions would account for £7,160 billion, and health for £6,475 billion—I used to work for my right hon. Friend Mr Brown, but not even he would use such figures. Education would account for £4,510 billion, and conventional defence for £2,115 billion. Over that period, the £100 billion figure does not seem quite the show-stopper unilateralists would have us believe.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will not. I have given way once, and I want others to speak.
With money so tight, my right hon. Friend Edward Miliband understandably ordered his defence team to re-examine the case for renewal and the most cost-effective way of maintaining the minimum credible deterrent, to which we have always been committed, and it concluded that the submarine- based, strategic, continuously at-sea system remained overwhelmingly the most appropriate system for the UK, and that the most cost-effective way to deliver it was to continue with the successor submarine-building programme, which we began in government and will be voted on in the next Parliament.
It is for the nationalists to explain why they are seeking to prioritise unilateral disarmament by making it, as far as I understand it, their one red line in any future coalition talks—they would prioritise it over all the pressing issues of health, jobs, education and the economy that matter to the people of Scotland and Wales. It is also for them to say how their stance fits with their desire to remain a member of NATO. But Labour’s view is settled. The Leader of the Opposition will never accept an irresponsible deal that trades the nuclear security of future generations in a deeply uncertain world for nationalist support to enter Downing street. We will carry on campaigning for a Labour majority. Plaid Cymru and the SNP can dream on.
It is a great privilege to follow John Woodcock, who gave an extremely eloquent, entertaining and serious speech.
I will try to speak briefly. The great challenge here is to try to work out, after nearly 60 or 70 years of this debate, what new there is to say. The huge ethical issues that have been raised by Opposition members and the huge strategic issues that have been raised on this side of the House have been gone through again and again.
The one thing we should perhaps say is that, at the beginning of the 21st century, certain kinds of argument should no longer be relevant. The first argument that I do not believe we should be having is fundamentally an argument about economics. This is a large question. As was pointed out by Opposition Members, it is a question of Armageddon. It is question of deep, deep strategy. This is the fifth-largest economy in the world and we should not be making the decision on whether to keep nuclear weapons on the basis of either the belief that we could save some money by cutting them or alternatively the belief that we should retain them in order to keep some jobs in a marginal constituency. It is much more important than that.
What can we say? The first thing that we notice is that the nature of deterrence and the threats that we face have changed. The threats that we are facing now, particularly posed by Russia in Ukraine, which has been raised again and again, are not exactly the same as the kind of threats raised by the Soviet Union. I say absolutely straight out that I will be voting in favour of the retention of the Trident nuclear deterrent. It is a very important thing for us to do. But I have enormous respect for the people on the Opposition Benches who have anxieties about it, and it is to them that I want to address a few short remarks.
The history of the last 30 years, unfortunately, has shown that the kind of arguments made by people in favour of nuclear disarmament were, in the end—although well intentioned and frequently led by impressive intellectuals, bishops and scholars—proved wrong. In the end, it turned out that the people who were characterised as Dr Strangelove—the people written off as irrational and macho—had a better understanding of the mentality of Stalin and a better idea of how to protect western Europe. They should be thanked for the work they did, which contributed in no small way to ensuring that, today, we have had 70 years of the greatest and most productive and prosperous period of peace in Europe conceivable. We should also thank the Labour party for its contribution to the setting up of NATO and the commitment it has made to the nuclear deterrent since the second world war. We should continue to work together on this.
But the threat that we now face is a different one. We do not know what Putin is doing and before we decide how to deter him, we need to work out what the threat is. Is he intending to use nuclear weapons? We have noticed, for example, that he has been investing heavily in his tactical nuclear arsenal. He has also committed a great deal of money towards modernising his nuclear arsenal. He has been running exercises recently, including the deployment of a nuclear bomber to Venezuela. At the same time, the activities in which he is engaged, and which have been laid out by his chief of staff Gerasimov, are all arranged around the idea of ambiguous warfare, almost at the very opposite end of the spectrum from nuclear war; the use of special forces, intelligence operatives and cyber warfare to create a situation such as in Donetsk where he continues to be able to try to claim deniability while putting Russian special forces and Russian weapons in on the ground. The question for us in coming up with a deterrent is how we deal with that threat.
What does the United States do to protect NATO? What is the United Kingdom prepared to do to protect NATO? Listening to the debate, I am not clear—I would be interested to hear what the shadow Spokesman says on this—as to what Britain is proposing to do with our nuclear weapons if Russia were to attack a Baltic state. We knew what we were proposing to do in the 1980s. The basic concept of the tripwire was that we had forces on the ground and were the Soviet Union to attack those forces, nuclear weapons would be fired at Moscow. In this debate there now seems to be some ambiguity. Are British nuclear weapons used only to defend British soil, or would they be used to defend the Baltic?
Is not the question: what will America do if there is an attack on the Baltic states from Russia? Our involvement in this is peripheral. We do not provide a deterrent; America does. We are clinging to this virility symbol as a gesture of our old national pride when it is not relevant. The whole point of multilateral disarmament is to reduce the number of nations with nuclear weapons down to two. By possessing them we are encouraging other nations to acquire them.
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but I think the fundamental nature of our disagreement is going to be about our whole relationship to the NATO structure and the kind of role we wish to play within it. Although the hon. Gentleman is speaking very eloquently about nuclear weapons, I suspect he would also disagree with many Government Members about conventional weapons, and the role we generally play in protecting countries like the Baltic states against attacks from Russia.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again, I would be very interested to hear what he proposes Britain should do to defend the Baltic states against such an attack.
I know the Baltic states very well: I visited them four times in the ’80s and ’90s. I am not suggesting that we pretend some fantasy nuclear war is going to take place with us as the main participant. Where we have been successful is in humanitarian interventions in places like East Timor and Sierra Leone. Where we have failed is where we have gone into Iraq and Afghanistan with all guns blazing. We are good at humanitarian intervention and that is where our money should be invested.
With respect, as I suspected, the hon. Gentleman is focused on issues like East Timor and humanitarian intervention which have very little to do with the question of NATO. This whole idea of an attack on one being an attack on all is fundamentally predicated on the idea of deterrence. It is fundamentally predicated on the idea that we in the UK, as a major member of NATO, would protect these states if they were attacked, and my suspicion is that the hon. Gentleman has no strategy whatsoever on how to defend them. Giving up on the nuclear weapon is simply a symbol from the hon. Gentleman—a virility symbol, perhaps—of actually giving up in general on our obligations to protect NATO states. If I have misunderstood, I am very happy to take another intervention.
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous. If he went to Tallinn or Vilnius and asked the people there who they would look to to defend them if Russia attacked, they would say they look to America, not us.
We can, of course, agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. That is true. One of the questions is working out what Britain is going to do, but of course the biggest question for Vladimir Putin is what the United States is going to do. But the reason why these questions, and the uncertainty around them, are relevant is that Vladimir Putin’s decisions on whether to use ambiguous warfare, conventional troops or nuclear weapons will be guided by his perception of what we—the United States or Britain—are likely to do in response.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the whole point of article 5 of the NATO treaty is not the question of which of the members of NATO an attacked country will look to to get most military help; rather, it is to take any uncertainty out of the question of who will declare war if a NATO country is attacked? Therefore, if a NATO country is attacked, our existing obligations are to declare war on the attacker. Does that not mean that we must be very careful how widely we extend NATO membership?
I agree absolutely, and that is a very important point. This NATO obligation is an unbelievably serious and important obligation. We have stretched it absolutely to its breaking point. If we are going to be serious about it, we have to follow through and that absolutely means we should not be giving guarantees to people we have no intention of protecting. We should not be writing cheques we are not prepared to have cashed.
The nub of this issue is, of course, that deterrence depends not on whether Britain would use a nuclear weapon, but on whether the other side believes that we would use it. Therefore, the most important support for our nuclear warheads lies not in the Trident missiles or even the submarines; it lies in the character of our nation, which is why there is absolutely no point in our having a discussion about a nuclear deterrent without looking at our defence strategy and posture in general. Deterrence cannot make sense if we get ourselves into a situation, which I sometimes worry my hon. Friend Sir Nick Harvey is getting himself into, where we believe that simply investing in fancy bits of kit is going to keep us safe. If people do not believe we are going to use them—that we are serious about using them—they will be entirely meaningless.
We can see the problems already, so let us just run through the various justifications that have been laid out here for nuclear weapons. The first was P5 membership. The big question for Britain on P5 membership is whether we are serious about our role in the United Nations at all. Why are we not contributing more to UN peacekeeping?
The subject of Iraq has been raised. The big question on Iraq is not our posturing about caring about terrorism or saying it is a tier 1 threat, but what we are actually doing? At present on the ground outside Kurdistan, while Australia has 300 soldiers, and Italy and Spain are deploying 300, we have exactly three. That means that Britain is not displaying and consistently demonstrating seriousness. This is not about combat troops; it is about being able to analyse the mission, have an intelligent conversation with the Iraqi Government, engage with our coalition allies and play the global role that our enormous defence budget is supposed to provide us with.
On Ukraine and Russia, again, we cannot simply rely on kit; we need to be doing things. The big question for us in Britain is how are we responding to the ambiguous warfare that we can see being propagated in Ukraine? What kind of investments are we making in military intelligence? What kind of investments are we making in cyber and in special forces? How much do we understand the situation on the ground in Ukraine and Russia?
On NATO, it is fine to talk about how important it is for us to be in NATO and to have nuclear weapons, and indeed it is. But it is meaningless if we are not going to stick to the commitments that we made in Wales of 2% of GDP. The most important thing we can do to deter Russia now is to ensure that Russia believes that NATO is serious about defending itself. If we say in a Wales summit that we will spend 2% of GDP, and if we go around telling other countries to spend 2% of GDP—and we should be telling other countries to spend 2% of GDP—we must retain our own promise and commitment, otherwise the nuclear deterrent will not be taken seriously.
Putin will look at us and ultimately conclude that there is a minimal chance of our doing anything if he were to intervene in the Baltic, because in respect of the rapid reaction force commitments, the framework nations—Germany, France and Britain—appear to be struggling to commit in 2016 to maintaining a deployable brigade. It seems to be very difficult to get the countries to work out how that will be funded in 2016. Whereas Russia can deploy 40,000 troops at 72 hours’ notice, the NATO deployment rates are running at about six months.
If we do not reach out to the public, which is why this debate is important, if we do not talk about why Britain is a global power, why we care about the Baltic, why we care about the global order, why we set up NATO, why we have nuclear weapons in the first place, all this will be lost.
To conclude, the fundamental rationale for all this depends on something on which Paul Flynn and I disagree. This is the nub of the disagreement: do we believe in a world order? Do we believe in NATO? Do we believe Britain is a global power? Do we wish to play a role in the world? If we do, I will vote in favour of those weapons, but the deterrent will not make sense unless the character of the nation is in place, otherwise what we will be doing is creating something a little like the gold inkstand on the Table—a golden pinnacle on top of a cathedral, when the foundations and the structure of that cathedral are lacking and the faith of the nation has been lost.
It is a great pleasure to follow Rory Stewart. There was a time when we paddled together down the Thames in a canoe, I recall, but this afternoon we are certainly not paddling in the same direction at all.
I have been struck by the many themes of this debate. Two themes come to the fore—security and the avoidance of the real issue in its many forms. On security, it seems to be the view of the UK Government—perhaps this is an emerging view—that any Government not holding nuclear weapons are not taking defence and security seriously. That was the view of the Defence Secretary.
The logical upshot of this Pyongyang policy, which may now be the London Tory policy, is that everybody should have nuclear weapons. It is the global equivalent of the USA handgun policy, and we know what trouble that has created in the society of the United States of America and the deaths and destruction caused by widespread armaments, whether they be personal in one society or global across many countries that have weapons of mass destruction.
Under scrutiny, the Defence Secretary’s position melted. When I asked him about other Governments not having nukes, he dodged the question, unable to defend his logic. After being pressed further by Caroline Lucas, he still could not support his assertions. Despite the assertions and bluster that those who do not have nukes do not take defence and security seriously, the reality is to the contrary. As my hon. Friend Angus Robertson pointed out earlier, the current NATO Secretary-General and his predecessor are from Norway and Denmark respectively. Are the UK Government saying that people such as Jens Stoltenberg and Anders Fogh Rasmussen do not take defence and security seriously? I think not.
The Secretary of State went on to say that political parties that do not approve of a deterrent are irresponsible. I challenge him, or members of his Government, to tell me whether it is now the view of the UK Government that any political party in Europe that is opposed to nuclear weapons is irresponsible. Is it the UK Government view that any political party on the globe that is opposed to nuclear weapons is irresponsible? That certainly seems to be what they are saying. My argument is to the contrary: they are being very responsible indeed.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are powerful arguments on both sides of the Trident debate, particularly in Scotland, which generates certain strains. Nowhere is that more true than in the hon. Gentleman’s party, which recently voted on whether or not an independent Scotland would join NATO. Some members of his party who are genuinely opposed to nuclear weapons voted against joining, and so left the SNP; others voted for an independent Scotland to join NATO as long as the nuclear weapons were somewhere else—the nimby proposals. How did the hon. Gentleman vote on that issue?
Order. I am not singling out Jim Sheridan, but interventions have been far too long, which is making speeches so long that soon we may have to set a time limit. That should not be necessary in a good debate such as this, in which interventions are to be encouraged because they make for a better debate. I simply make a plea for short interventions—I am not singling out the hon. Gentleman—so that everyone can contribute with long speeches and short interventions.
Thank you very much for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that it will be listened to by all Members present.
In answer to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and I led the SNP debate on NATO. The policy seems to have been quite popular. Indeed, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is well aware that the SNP is up in the mid-40s in the polls. Who knows? I may have played my part in securing that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is very pleased with the SNP’s current polling, which could have us winning as many as 50 seats at the general election. Who knows? It is certainly change for the SNP and, by definition, it is change for Labour in Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman says that it is SNP policy to join NATO. Does he therefore accept NATO’s nuclear umbrella? Would Ministers and armed forces personnel in an independent Scotland sit on the NATO planning group that controls its nuclear deterrent?
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that three of the 25 or 26 members of NATO have nuclear weapons. If we joined NATO, we would of course join other nations that have nuclear weapons, as well as nations that have maritime patrol aircraft, which the UK does not have. That would be an improvement. Scotland would certainly have maritime patrol aircraft.
I have given way enough; I want to make some progress. I have commitments, but if time allows, I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
I was discussing the Government’s use of the term “irresponsible”. Why do they use such terms when they know that mainstream opinion is not behind them? It is because they want to create a phoney debate on a phoney choice. They want to give the public a very narrow view on what is actually a very broad mainstream consensus. The SNP, the Greens and Plaid Cymru are in the international mainstream of common sense, not blighted by the hangover of imperial lustre and the narrow thinking that controls too much of the UK debate on this subject.
This week on this issue and last week on austerity, we have seen two dividing lines in Westminster politics: austerity, supported by Labour and the Tories, and nuclear weapons, supported by Labour and the Tories—I am not quite sure where the Liberal Democrats are, but I am sure they will clarify their position. These are the new dividing lines in politics, and these are the choices that people face. This is a tectonic shift in politics.
There are people in the corridors of Westminster who are even talking about the prospect of a Labour-Tory coalition, and even if that is tongue in cheek, it throws up a huge challenge on nuclear weapons and austerity—a challenge squarely laid at the feet of the broadcasters. Do they have a debate based on a false pretence, with Labour and Tory agreeing on nuclear weapons and austerity, or do they do a real public service and show that there are real choices to be made? Any free society should show that and should freely challenge these assertions; otherwise, the impression will be given by the broadcasters that anybody opposed to nuclear weapons is not taking defence and security seriously, and these matters will not be challenged.
I challenge the hon. Gentleman again. He says that he wants to be part of NATO, which is SNP policy. Does he therefore agree that he will be joining a nuclear alliance, and that if we had an independent Scotland, members of that Government would sit on the NATO joint nuclear planning policy group? Is it not a fact that the SNP will, by joining NATO, be joining a nuclear alliance, so the hon. Gentleman cannot claim that an SNP Government will be completely non-nuclear?
It seems that the hon. Gentleman did not hear me the first time. By joining NATO, Scotland would be joining a club, 90% of whose members do not have nuclear weapons. Scotland would be one of those nations. The hon. Gentleman seems to be having some difficulty comprehending that—[Interruption.] No, he has had his answer, even if he cannot comprehend it. We will fulfil our obligations in NATO. The hon. Gentleman can ask again and again, and he will find the same difficulty in understanding it.
But the hon. Gentleman misses the point. Scotland would be a member of the nuclear planning group, even though it did not have nuclear weapons on its soil. If the SNP were to rule Scotland, would it be a member of the NPG or not? Everyone else is!
The hon. Gentleman tempts me on the rule of Scotland, but my final word on this is that we will fulfil our full NATO obligations as a non-nuclear member of NATO. About 90% of its members have no difficulty with that. My goodness, there is all this excitement about Norway and Denmark as well as Scotland—Members should get over all this!
I listened intently to the speech by Dame Joan Ruddock. She mentioned the 1980s—a time I clearly remember as a teenager, when nuclear annihilation was seriously talked about and people did seem to comprehend the awful, frightening and terrifying possibility of the use of nuclear weapons. Over time, people have perhaps become more blasé and this has crept into our discourse, so there is a not as much understanding of the insanity of nuclear weapons as there used to be. That may be to protect our own sanity personally from day to day, because if we were to comprehend it, it would blight our lives. We have a feeling of powerlessness about it, so why worry about it day to day—if it is going to happen, it is going to happen. I say as a crofter from the highlands, however, that this is akin to the happy lambs who play in a meadow unaware of the autumn slaughter—the mass slaughter—to come.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford reminded us of the wisdom and courage of Colonel Petrov, who had the data and information available to his senses from the best technology available at that time—that the west had fired five nuclear weapons at the USSR. What would have happened if he had acted in the way he was meant to act or in the way we were told he would act, or if he had acted logically on the basis of MAD—mutually assured destruction? If my memory serves me correctly, this comes from the theories of John Nash, the Nobel prize winner in economics. If Colonel Petrov had responded in that way, I would not have seen my 16th birthday. I have thus had 28 bonus years as a result.
If Colonel Petrov is still alive, I say that if ever there were a man deserving of the Nobel peace prize, it is certainly he. We were saved by our alleged enemies—perhaps by their humanity. We were saved again by a Soviet submarine commander during the Bay of Pigs incidents in Cuba in the early 1960s. The actions of those two men disproved the MAD theories, which were the foundation of the nuclear club to which the UK had itself belonging. They behaved in a way in a way that was outside MAD. They did not do mutually assured destruction, although they thought they would be destroyed themselves.
As the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford said, our luck will eventually run out. Nuclear weapons have been in the hands of human beings for only 70 years. Given the two near misses that I have cited—and there have been more—I invite Members to engage in a thought experiment. Had nuclear weapons existed since Roman times, how much would history have progressed before nuclear annihilation? If we extend our 70 years to 140, or 210, or 300, how long will it be before it all goes wrong and our luck runs out? If our luck does run out, it will run out big style. I have to say, with respect to my friends in the Green party, that it is not gradual global warming that should be worrying us, but immediate global frying and the destruction of all creation—a sin like no other, which may result from omission or commission.
There will be more years of this possibility if mankind continues to possess nuclear weapons. The statistical chance of their use keeps increasing. If we had had them in Roman times, many events in history might not have happened. The world could have ended in 300 AD. If nuclear weapons had fallen into the hands of a Hitler, a Genghis Khan or even Jihadi John, or any similar despot or madman, he would have used them and the planet would have been destroyed. MAD—mutually assured destruction—could well have been framed for such people.
Nuclear weapons seem, bizarrely, to be subject to the law of triviality, which was summed up well by C. Northcote Parkinson in his 1959 book, “Parkinson’s Law, or the Pursuit of Progress”. If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall quote from it. Parkinson said:
“The Law of Triviality…briefly stated, it means that the time spent on any item of the agenda will be in inverse proportion to the sum involved.”
I would add “or to the danger of the position.” I believe that the £100 billion cost of the renewal of Trident will go through on an extremely small nod. Indeed, the issue is so trivial that Labour in Scotland has described tonight’s vote as meaningless, and its newly elected leader has described his party’s former policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament as a “flirtation with surrealism”. As was pointed out by John Woodcock, Labour has indeed moved, and that is why the polls are showing what they are showing in Scotland. It seems that Labour policy is not to engage properly in this debate, at a time when food banks are on the rise and Labour is supporting austerity.
Perhaps there is some movement in a graveyard in Cumnock where lie the remains of Keir Hardie, because it is a disgrace, and a significant example of the law of triviality, that Labour is ignoring this issue and is not taking it seriously. Parkinson’s law of triviality actually refers to something that deserves greater engagement and understanding.
I cannot believe what the hon. Gentleman has just said. At a time when submarines from Russia are going up the Clyde and tankers from the same place are at the top of Scotland, he is trying to tell us that we should not have a deterrent. That is absolutely unreal. The idea that we should find ourselves defenceless in those circumstances is a crazy notion.
This is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has struggled to comprehend or believe things, but it is very alarming that he has told us that Russian submarines are going up the Clyde. My goodness! I thought that we had a deterrent. It is clear that his nuclear policies are failing, because by the sound of things, those submarines will be docking in Greenock or Port Glasgow any minute now.
This is not a trivial matter, and it is perhaps due to the difficulty of comprehending it that it is subject to the law of triviality. If ever there was an issue that required engagement for the safeguarding of our future and that of the planet, it is the awfulness, the ghastliness, the death and the destruction that nuclear weapons could cause—and perhaps, sadly, will cause one day.
I begin by saying a word in defence of the Labour party. Scottish National party Members seem to regard anyone who disagrees with them as trivialising the subject and anyone who agrees with them as taking it seriously. I personally greatly value the bipartisan approach taken by successive Labour and Conservative Governments to the maintenance of the nuclear deterrent. It is true that for a few years in the 1980s, the Labour party was captured by its left wing and went down the unilateralist road, but after two massive election defeats in 1983 and 1987, when the nuclear deterrent issue was central to the campaigns, the Labour party changed back to its bipartisan policy of nuclear deterrence.
We saw that reflected the last time we had a vote on this subject, as far as I can recall, which was on 14 March 2007. Tony Blair was still Prime Minister and he was proposing the approval of the renewal of the nuclear deterrent—the first stages of the process which should have got to maingate during this Parliament but are now due to get there in the next one. In that debate, we saw something interesting: almost all the Conservative MPs voted in favour of renewing the nuclear deterrent and keeping it in existence for the next generation; a considerable majority of Labour MPs were also in favour, but a sizeable minority of about 90 were opposed—they were the CND supporters who have been consistent in their principled opposition to nuclear weapons throughout their political lifetime; and also in the “against” camp were the Liberal Democrats and the nationalists. The result of that vote came about because of an agreement between the Front-Bench teams, with the motion being carried by 409 votes to 161.
That vote represented something more than a decision taken in this House; it also represented, quite fairly, the general spread of opinion consistently in this country throughout the cold war and in the years afterwards. When the fundamental question is asked in poll after poll, “Do you think that Britain should continue to have nuclear weapons as long as other countries have them?”, almost exactly two thirds of the population say yes and almost exactly one quarter say no, with single figures or thereabouts, if my arithmetic is correct, for the undecided. It is indeed a very divisive issue and it is one on which it is difficult to have a foot in both camps, although, as we have seen today, our friends the Liberal Democrats are doing their best to do that.
The hon. Gentleman will probably know that the last time this was debated was in 2007—and there was a vote—the majority of Scottish MPs voted against—we had an example of English votes for Scottish bombs.
I was generous in giving way to the hon. Gentleman so soon after he has made his own contribution. All I would say is that I know there was a vote on that day—that is what I just said—and if he tells me that a
majority of Scottish MPs may have voted the other way, I accept that; but Scotland is, by choice, part of the United Kingdom and decisions on issues such as this are decisions for the United Kingdom as a whole. I do not believe even the SNP thinks that devo-max ought to include defence policy. If it does, we are in an even worse situation than I anticipated.
We heard from Sir Nick Harvey, who is a friend of mine, about moving away from the cold war. What one moves away from, one can move back to, and more quickly than one anticipates—particularly if, as the Chairman of the Defence Committee, my hon. Friend Rory Stewart, said in his excellent speech, one’s enemies or potential enemies have good reason to doubt one’s will and determination to stand up for the agreements one has made and to use the deterrent power one has to prevent war from breaking out in the first place. I was very surprised that the hon. Member for North Devon did not think that the events in Ukraine had any bearing on our discussions today. I think the events in Ukraine are highly relevant, particularly as NATO has a rather strange open-door policy to membership, which it should not have. It should not grant membership to any country that we are not prepared to go to war for if it is invaded.
Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that the importance of Ukraine and Kiev is that this is the first time that we have had a unilateral breach of international borders since world war two? It is the kind of thing that we thought would not happen again, and it has, so the context remains the same.
It does indeed, and what really worries me is that because the intensity of the fighting has been so great, it is easy to imagine that it could spill over into a nearby country that is a member of NATO. If that happens, we would be at war with Russia. It is frightening to think what our summer would have been like if we had previously gone down the route of admitting Ukraine to NATO membership, sympathetic though we are. I remember that we stood by during the uprisings in central and eastern Europe that occurred when half the continent was under Russian control. We were very sympathetic to the Hungarians, and I remember with total clarity that we were terribly sympathetic to the Czechoslovakians, but nobody seriously suggested that we could go to war for those countries because of the geo-political realities at that time.
I seem to recall in December 1994 that four nations—three nations and Ukraine—guaranteed the sovereign integrity of Ukraine in return for it getting rid of its nuclear weapons. It has got rid of its nuclear weapons, but we have not guaranteed its security.
Yes, and that should serve as a warning to us not to enter lightly into agreements that we have no intention of defending—I mean defending in the military sense.
It is just over 100 years since the outbreak of the first world war. I remember looking back in the archives of the inter-war period when a great debate was raging over whether or not it was safe to continue with the 10-year rule. I have mentioned it in the House before. It is highly relevant, so I will mention it again. The idea of the 10-year rule was that the Government would look ahead for a decade and see whether they thought there was any danger of a major war breaking out. If they did not see any such danger, they would cut the defence budget. That was rolled forward from 1919 right through to the early 1930s when it was eventually scrapped when Hitler came to power. It had a very damaging effect on our level of preparedness.
Lord Hankey, as he later became, was the Military Secretary of the Cabinet. In 1931, as an argument for scrapping the 10-year rule, he looked back to that summer of 1914 and said that far from having 10 years’ warning of the outbreak of the first world war, we had barely 10 days because of the rapidity with which the various alliances triggered each other into action. Suddenly, from nowhere, we have found ourselves drawn into a conflict with practically no notice whatever.
My hon. Friend pointed out in an essay that Maurice Hankey had said that we had failed to predict the 1870 Franco-Prussian war. Most recently, we failed to predict Russia going into Ukraine and Daesh taking over western Iraq, so I agree very wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.
I am flattered to know that my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee reads my writings, and even quotes them back to me. I am very grateful to him.
I want to stress that I believe that the SNP has chosen this debate today—I congratulate Angus Robertson, who I am pleased to see back in his place to hear my contribution, on securing it—with a particular political scenario in mind. SNP Members know that the majority of Labour Members and their supporters across the country agree with the concept of nuclear deterrence. They know that an overwhelming majority of Conservatives agree with nuclear deterrence. They are hoping to obtain something that they can use in the event of a future hung Parliament, in precisely the way that the Liberal Democrats were able to use their bargaining power to secure the postponement of the passing of the maingate decision from this Parliament to the next one. I think that was a terrible decision and it set a terrible precedent, but I am greatly reassured by the strength of the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary today.
When my hon. Friend the Minister winds up, I wish to hear that something will be done about the future of Trident and the holding of the maingate vote on time, as scheduled, in 2016 similar to what we have said about other areas of policy. We have seen authoritative statements in the press that no coalition will be entered into by the Conservatives unless it provides for an in/out referendum on the EU; similarly we have seen that no coalition will be entered into by the Conservatives unless it provides for passage of the draft Communications Data Bill. Those are two very important issues, but I submit that the future of the British minimum strategic nuclear deterrent is just as important as those two issues, if not more so. Until that vote is held, and held successfully, I shall continue to press those on my Front Bench for a commitment that we will never again allow the future of the strategic nuclear deterrent to be used in the way that it was in 2010 by a minority party in coalition negotiations.
I feel I must correct the historical record. In the summer of 2010, a value-for-money study on the successor programme concluded that savings could be made by slipping the time scale slightly. This was not something the Liberal Democrats demanded, although it was something we welcomed. It had the happy consequence of moving maingate into the next Parliament, but it was not something we sought, demanded or—
Order. The hon. Gentleman spoke for 31 minutes, and very long interventions will not help those Members who want to speak.
I shall also try to be more concise in the remainder of my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker.
All I can say to the hon. Member for North Devon, whom I greatly respect and admire, is that he ought to have a word with the then president of the Liberal Democrats, who proudly proclaimed on the Liberal Democrats’ official website that it was entirely as a result of the Liberal Democrats that we had not taken the decisive step of signing the maingate contract in this Parliament. I can only leave them to decide the issue between themselves.
Let me return to some of the purely military arguments in favour of the continuation of the strategic deterrent, mercifully leaving the politics to one side. The most important argument, as I have stated in previous debates in this House, is the recognition that future military threats and conflicts will be no more predictable than those that engulfed us throughout the 20th century. That is the overriding justification for preserving armed forces in peace time as a national insurance policy. No one knows which enemies might confront us during the next 50 years, for that is the period we are discussing by the time everything is designed, constructed and deployed, and has served out its operational lifetime. It is highly probable that at least some of those potential enemies will be armed with weapons of mass destruction.
Secondly, it is not the weapons themselves that we have to fear but the nature of the regimes that possess them. While democracies are usually reluctant to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear dictatorships, although they did so against Japan in 1945 as has been pointed out, the reverse is not true.
There is consensus in the international community about the Iranian nuclear programme and efforts to reduce it. Significant nuclear proliferation in the middle east is likely in the next 20 or 30 years, which feeds into my hon. Friend’s argument about the 50-year time span that we should consider in this debate.
It does indeed. I cannot think of an existing nuclear power that has done more than the United Kingdom to slim down and reduce the firepower of its independent nuclear deterrent. The response, as has been repeatedly pointed out by Government Members and by some Opposition Members, to those unilateral reductions on our part has been absolutely zero. There is not the slightest shred of evidence that if we were to abandon our nuclear deterrent completely any other country would follow suit. All that would happen would be that those near-misses, which have been discussed so eloquently today—the risks of nuclear Armageddon by accident—would continue between the superpowers if they are tangible risks, but we would add another risk: the risk that someone hostile to us with a nuclear armament could blackmail us into concessions, surrender or absolute annihilation. The risk of the deliberate firing of nuclear weapons against us is something that we would be crazy to accept voluntarily and unnecessarily.
Returning to the reluctance of democracies to launch nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them—although we use them, as I have said, continuously as deterrents—we should consider the alternative. If a dictatorship such as that in Argentina had had an arsenal of even a few small atomic weapons and the means to deliver them, no matter how many conventional forces we had had, we would not have dared to retake the Falkland Islands, because we must not project on to other countries that do not share our political principle s and freedoms the sense of self-restraint that we apply to ourselves.
The third argument that I always outline is that the United Kingdom has traditionally played a more important and decisive role in preserving freedom than other medium-sized democracies have been able or willing to do. Democratic countries that do not have a nuclear deterrent have little choice but to declare themselves neutral and hope for the best or to rely on the nuclear umbrella of more powerful allies. The United Kingdom, for historical reasons, is a nuclear power, and it is much harder to defeat it than many other democracies by conventional means because of our physical separation from the continent.
The next argument is that our prominence as the principal ally of the United States, our strategic geographical position, to which I have just referred, and the fact that we are the junior partner might tempt an aggressor to risk attacking us separately. Given the difficulties of overrunning the UK with conventional forces, compared with our more vulnerable allies, an aggressor might be tempted to use one or more mass-destruction weapons against us on the assumption that the United States would not respond on our behalf. Even if that assumption were false, the attacker would find out his mistake only when it was too late for all concerned. An independently controlled British nuclear deterrent massively reduces the prospect of such a fatal miscalculation.
The fifth military argument, which was mentioned earlier, is that no amount of conventional force can compensate for the military disadvantage that faces a non-nuclear country in a conflict against a nuclear-armed enemy. The atomic bombing of Japan is especially instructive not only because the emperor was forced to surrender but because of what might have happened in the reverse scenario. If Japan had developed atomic bombs in the summer of 1945 and the allies had not, a conventional allied invasion to end the war would have been out of the question.
I tend to find that people wish to try to sweep aside the patent logic of nuclear deterrence by projecting on to historical figures events that did not happen and could never possibly be tested. Mr MacNeil, who has now left his place, asserted that Hitler would not have been constrained by a nuclear deterrent held by the allies if he had had nuclear weapons. In 1943, Hitler proposed to use the nerve gas, tabun, which was far, far more deadly than the gases that the allies then possessed. When he consulted his chief scientists, they said that it was most unlikely that the allies had not discovered tabun too, and he therefore decided not to employ it, even though it would have had a devastating effect. That is an example of even Hitler being deterred by the mistaken belief that his enemies had a weapon when in fact they did not.
The hon. Member for Moray made his points with clarity and calmness, as always. He said that he did not think that deterrence had worked. Of course, when something does not happen—that is, world war three—it is difficult to show that it would have happened if one had done something different. However, I always apply the test of the proxy war. Dame Joan Ruddock observed that throughout the cold war period many proxy wars went on around the globe. In fact, that is an argument in favour of the case that nuclear deterrence had something to do with the fact that the superpowers did not fight each other in Europe. If no other conflicts had been going on among proxies of the superpowers, one could have argued that they would not be likely to have been at each others’ throats if they did not have a nuclear deterrent. The fact that they were fighting each other by every means possible other than open war—state to state—on the European continent strongly suggests that the possession of the nuclear deterrent, and the balance of terror, had something to do with that stability.
The hon. Gentleman will no doubt agree that in the preceding period, which is the only thing we can base our evidence on, there was a whole series of European wars with the major powers fighting each other.
Exactly. That leads us back to the heart of what the concept of deterrence requires in order to work. Deterrence means that a potential aggressor must not only face a degree of retaliation that is unacceptable if inflicted, but be convinced that that retaliation is unavoidable.
The key point about nuclear deterrence was made in a 1945 study by the leading defence scientist when nuclear weapons were first being considered as a concept. I love quoting the example—I have done so on previous occasions—given by Professor Sir Henry Tizard, who was one of the chief scientific advisers to the wartime Government, when he first considered what the atomic bomb would mean if it worked. He said that he could see no way of preventing an atomic bomb from being used except by the fear of retaliation, and he illustrated that by saying:
“A knowledge that we were prepared, in the last resort”—
our deterrent has always been the final resort, if the future existence of the nation is at stake—
“might well deter an aggressive nation. Duelling was a recognised method of settling quarrels between men of high social standing so long as the duellists stood twenty paces apart and ?red at each other with pistols of a primitive type. If the rule had been that they should stand a yard apart with pistols at each other’s hearts, we doubt whether it would long have remained a recognised method of settling affairs of honour.”
The hon. Member for Moray referred to a number of things that I will touch on briefly. He talked about our obligations under article VI of the non-proliferation treaty, which states:
“Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”
The only thing that is time-limited in that commitment is the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date. We are not engaged in a nuclear arms race with anyone. We never have been and we have successively, as I said earlier, been reducing our capacity with little or no response from the other nuclear powers.
The other two, open-ended commitments are to achieve nuclear disarmament and to achieve general and complete disarmament. The article wisely recognises the link between the two, because one thing we do not wish to do by removing the balance of terror and by achieving even multilateral nuclear disarmament is to make the world safe again for conventional conflict between the major powers.
Will the hon. Gentleman update the House on the initiatives led by his Government to fulfil their obligations? He will forgive me, but I have not caught up with the discussions his Government have had with other nuclear powers to fulfil those obligations.
I do not think the hon. Gentleman has understood the three obligations I have listed. The first is to work for the cessation of the nuclear arms race—we are not a part of the nuclear arms race—at an early date. The second is to achieve world nuclear disarmament, and the third is to achieve general and complete conventional disarmament. I believe that those are, frankly, utopian visions that we work towards but which suffer setbacks according to the state of the world at any time, and the state of the world at the moment is one of grave disturbance and serious potential threats.
I am sorry that I missed the earlier part of my hon. Friend’s speech. Surely the point is that there is no obligation at all to disarm unilaterally in any shape or form, yet that seems to be the policy favoured by the supporters of this motion.
I entirely agree.
I must bring my remarks to a close for the sake of other Members, but I would simply say that, although much has been said about the cost of the deterrent, so far as I know our deterrent has never amounted to more than 10% of the overall defence budget. Arguments about the deterrent must be made on the basis either that people believe it is necessary to have one to prevent this country from facing nuclear blackmail, or they do not. If people believe that a deterrent is necessary for such a role, 10%, 20% or even 30% of the defence budget is not too much to pay. Fortunately, we will not have to pay anything like that sum. It is comparable with the cost of the High Speed 2 rail system that we propose to build. In my opinion, our priorities should lie in a slightly different direction, given the cuts that defence has taken.
My hon. Friend is an expert on these matters and is making a compelling case. Does he agree that it would be completely naive to accept the SNP’s position as set out in the motion, particularly in thinking that if we disarm in this sense, others will follow?
Yes, indeed. As I said, the evidence points in the opposite direction.
I have covered the point about gaps in conventional capability. If the nuclear deterrent were scrapped, there is no guarantee that the money saved—all of it, or even any of it—would be put towards conventional forces. Even if it were, no amount of conventional forces can compensate for the absence of the ability to deter nuclear blackmail.
We have heard in graphic terms the consequences of the explosion of a nuclear weapon. All I can say is that everybody agrees it would be a disaster if nuclear weapons were fired and exploded. The question is: what is the best way of preventing that from happening? Time after time, when asked the key question about keeping a nuclear deterrent as long as other countries have one, people have shown in overwhelming numbers that they subscribe to the route of peace through deterrence. I subscribe to that, as do most Labour Members, but the smaller parties do not. It would be an outrageous betrayal of the first duty of government—namely, defence—if either of the two main parties, if there were a hung Parliament after the next election, allowed this matter to become a negotiating issue in forming a coalition. The issues at stake are far too important for that.
I thank Dr Lewis for the contribution he has made, and often makes, in his speeches on this issue in the House of Commons. I do not mean to question the other parts of his speech, but may I tell him that its last couple of minutes encapsulated what the debate is about in a nutshell?
I do not believe that anybody in the House would not prefer a world without nuclear weapons or would not wish to see the end of nuclear weapons as soon as possible. No matter what party we belong to or how big or small it is, we are all united in trying to secure a world that is safe and secure, and rid of nuclear weapons. As hon. Members have said, this debate is about how we go about achieving that. I congratulate Angus Robertson on holding this debate. We disagree with each other, but I do not doubt that we all want to achieve the same end.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I will make some progress first. I have only just started my speech, so let me have a minute or two.
I am grateful for the opportunity to outline clearly our position on nuclear deterrence and multilateral disarmament. The Labour party is an internationalist, multilateralist party, and proud to be so. We are firmly committed to working with our allies and partners around the world to advance our ultimate goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and we are proud of our strong record in office on multilateral nuclear disarmament.
The previous Labour Government abolished the UK’s free-fall bombs, reduced the number of deployed warheads from 96 to 48, and almost halved the UK’s nuclear warhead stockpile to 160. Today, a written statement in response to the hon. Member for Moray, states that the current Government have continued that policy with further reductions from 48 to 40 warheads, and that available operational warheads have reduced from 160 to 120—something we all commend. However, we believe that the Government could be doing more to advance that agenda. That is why, as the Defence Secretary said, the shadow Foreign Secretary and I wrote to the Prime Minister in November, urging the Government to ensure UK representation at the recent Vienna conference on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons—a conference they did attend in the end.
Multilateralism is making progress and the UK took the lead in achieving global reductions and international bans on landmines, chemical and biological weapons and cluster munitions. A strong and consistent voice for nuclear disarmament on the world stage means that the UK has played its part in reducing the global nuclear stockpile by more than 70% since the end of the cold war.
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify an important matter? His Labour colleague, Neil Findlay, is a member of the shadow Cabinet in Scotland and responsible for fair work, skills and training. On the “Andrew Marr show” on 16 November 2014 he said,
“Andrew, it’s already Labour party policy in Scotland to oppose the renewal of Trident. Has been for some time.”
Is that correct?
All I can say is that I am espousing the UK position, and what I am saying is consistent with the leader of the Scottish Labour party. Clearly, there is much more to do. The non-proliferation treaty conference later this year will be a key moment for a future Labour Government—or indeed any Government —to achieve concrete progress on global disarmament and anti-proliferation measures, and it would be wrong to jeopardise the significant progressive steps in multilateral nuclear disarmament made in recent years. To abandon unilaterally our nuclear deterrent at this stage in the disarmament process would do more harm than good, and in the current climate it would make Britain less secure and send out exactly the wrong signals at a sensitive moment in international relations.
The House will be all too aware of the significant and multifaceted challenges that this country faces from re-emerging and newer threats, as well as those that may emerge in future. Russia has been testing in UK waters and airspace while upgrading its conventional and nuclear capabilities—as the Chair of the Defence Committee mentioned in his thoughtful remarks—and the House will be aware of the serious events in eastern Ukraine and Crimea. We have an increasingly erratic and unstable nuclear armed North Korea, and nuclear negotiations with Iran have reached a key moment. Now is not the time for the UK to act unilaterally.
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on from multilateralism may I say that, to me, Trident renewal is unilateral nuclear rearmament that is adding to the stockpile of nuclear weapons. The vote will be on Trident renewal. Will Labour Members oppose the motion, or are they happy to spend £100 billion and vote with the Tories in favour of an extra £30 billion of austerity?
To try to be fair to the hon. Gentleman, this is about replacement and maintenance of our deterrent. He does not believe in us having a nuclear deterrent. Labour’s position is the policy I have espoused, which is that we must look at replacing our deterrent. He disagrees and that is fine; that is his point of view and he will articulate it in his own remarks, but Labour does not agree with it.
So you’ll vote with the Tories?
The hon. Gentleman tempts me to respond. We will vote for the policy we believe in. That is the policy I am laying out before the House, and we will vote accordingly.
Multilateral disarmament works only if all parties feel more secure. Were the UK to abandon its nuclear deterrent on its own, and not in conjunction with other nuclear states, then neither the British people nor our NATO allies would feel safer.
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that we would be in deep breach of not only the principle of deterrence, but the collective international responsibility we currently have through owning Trident and being a member of P5?
I very much agree on the need for us to recognise our international obligations.
On the subject of NATO, I would like to return to a point that others have made. Is it not time for the Scottish Nationalists to be frank and open with us all? NATO is a nuclear alliance. The Scottish National party wants to be a part of that nuclear alliance. It has to recognise—I say this with respect—that membership of NATO comes with membership of the nuclear umbrella group and the nuclear planning group. Every single nation that the SNP points to as not having nuclear weapons is a member of that nuclear planning group, and is therefore involved in nuclear possession. The SNP position appears to be: no to nuclear weapons unless they belong to NATO. I understand that the motion has been moved not only by the Scottish National party, which is in favour of being in NATO, but by Plaid Cymru and the Green party, which are against being in NATO. Clearly, the smaller parties need to talk to each other.
Labour is clear. Let me say this unequivocally: our position, in an increasingly uncertain and unstable world, is that it is right for the UK to maintain a credible, minimum independent nuclear deterrent based on a continuous at-sea posture. It is right to want to deliver that deterrent in the most capable and cost-effective way, and in a way that best contributes to global security. It is right, therefore, to want to examine all the UK’s military capabilities, including nuclear, as part of the next strategic defence and security review, and to state that we would require a clear body of evidence for us to change our view that continuous at-sea deterrence provides the most credible and cost-efficient form of deterrent. That is why, as the hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned, in 2007 Parliament voted to maintain the deterrent and to authorise spending on the concept phase and initial gate. It is why MPs will be asked again to vote on constructing a new class of Vanguard submarines in 2016. As the Defence Secretary said, no single successor submarine will be built until approval is guaranteed by this sovereign Parliament. We should not forget that this is a programme that would create thousands of high quality jobs and apprenticeships in Scottish docks, Barrow construction yards and throughout a multibillion pound supply chain that will benefit about 850 companies, the overwhelming majority of which are based right here in the UK.
The shadow Defence Secretary has just laid out very clearly to the House the current Front Bench position of Her Majesty’s Opposition. Will he add to that clarity by confirming that he believes at present the most cost-effective way to deliver continuous at-sea deterrence is with a four boat solution?
As I have said, the evidence before us is that the continuous at-sea deterrent requires the current posture. What we have said is that, as part of the strategic defence and security review, we will consider whether a continuous at-sea deterrent can be delivered in a more cost-effective way. That is exactly what the Defence Secretary said in his remarks earlier today. I suggest to the Minister that the important principle here is that there is continuous at-sea deterrence. It is incumbent on all of us to do that in the most cost-effective way.
Of course, a decision on the UK’s future nuclear capabilities must primarily be based on strategic requirements and an assessment of the global proliferation and disarmament agenda. However, does that mean we can afford to ignore the thousands of livelihoods that depend on our building a new class of Vanguard submarine? Neither should we be drawn into a debate between funding vital public services and maintaining the deterrent. A future Labour Government would commit to delivering public services that the British people can be proud of and to maintaining the security of the country.
As well as issues of capability, costs and jobs, it is right to ask serious questions about how the UK can best contribute to multilateral nuclear disarmament efforts, and for that, Britain needs to show leadership on the global stage. It does not need a part-time deterrent of the like proposed by the Liberal Democrats—or whatever Sir Nick Harvey was talking about. Theirs is a policy that would only add to instability and insecurity and which their own “Trident Alternatives Review” did not even consider worthy of consideration.
Is it not more telling that the review by the British American Security Information Council into Trident—a cross-party, independent assessment of the UK’s nuclear capabilities that, unlike the “Trident Alternatives Review”, did consider unilateral disarmament as an option—recommended that the UK continue its current Trident system while seeking to further enhance our multilateral disarmament record. For the avoidance of doubt, it is worth quoting a section of the report. On page 6 of the 2014 final document, it says:
“Based upon the two key specific considerations, namely national security concerns and responsibility towards the”
“Alliance, the Commission has come to the unanimous conclusion that the UK should retain and deploy a nuclear arsenal, with a number of caveats expressed below. Most notably, it remains crucial that the UK show keen regard for its position within the international community and for the shared responsibility to achieve progress in global nuclear disarmament.”
We could not agree more. The UK should maintain the minimum, credible, independent nuclear deterrent through a continuous-at-sea system, delivered in the most cost effective way, while advancing along the path to multilateral disarmament. We have the opportunity to advance the cause of global disarmament for a safer world. Britain can play a leading role in this while ensuring the security of the British people. Let us grasp this opportunity.
Order. Rather than imposing a time limit, I suggest that hon. Members keep their speeches to about 10 minutes.
Plato, among other Greek scholars, is reported to have said:
“If you want peace, prepare for war”.
That is the fundamental principle behind the theory of deterrence, and why the United Kingdom has to maintain its independent nuclear deterrent. We need one now and in the future. Our independent nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantee that a potential aggressor state—possibly possessing nuclear weapons itself—will not attack us. As we have heard, over the past 10 years or so we have watched the Russians greatly enhance their military and strategic weaponry. They most certainly are not scrapping their nuclear weaponry. Indeed their military presence, around our shores, in the air, on the seas and under it, is increasing not decreasing, especially around Scotland. Why are they doing this, and why should we abandon a defence against such a latent threat?
No other nuclear state has given up its nuclear deterrent, with the possible exception of Ukraine, but that is a fairly good case study—is it not?—and a warning too. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, about one third of the Soviet nuclear arsenal remained within an independent Ukraine. Then in December 1994, Ukraine, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom signed a memorandum to give Ukraine security assurances if it gave up its nuclear arsenal, which it did. Twenty years later—last year—Crimea was seized back from Ukraine by Russia, and then Moscow fomented discontent and military action in eastern Ukraine. Hardly surprisingly, some Ukrainian leaders and outside commentators have argued that if Ukraine had not removed its nuclear weapons, Russia might have been deterred from its aggression in Ukraine. Do they have a point? Is there a lesson there for us?
Once given up, we will never realistically be able to reactivate a nuclear deterrent capability. Our nuclear know-how has been built up since the second world war, with, of course, considerable American support. But once gone, it is gone for ever. I accept that international terrorist groups may well be trying to get their hands on a nuclear device and that they may not act rationally, as is a normal requirement of the strategy of deterrence. However, even international terrorists such as the Daish in Iraq and Syria may—just may—think twice about exploding a nuclear device, assuming they get their hands on one and have the specialised knowledge required to use it. After all, the so-called Islamic State may not face its own obliteration with the same enthusiasm with which they murder countless people.
Is not the crucial point, which was also made by my hon. Friend Dr Lewis, that the deterrent needs to be sufficiently credible, as in the point about Hitler, to deter even an irrational actor from the thought of using nuclear weapons against us?
I agree absolutely. Armageddon is seldom faced by anyone with equanimity.
I was an officer who spent several years in the 1st British Corps in Germany, supposedly preparing to face a Soviet threat from the east. We knew that the group of Soviet forces in eastern Europe had a huge conventional advantage over us and realised that our chances of survival would be very slight if the balloon went up. But we also trained and practised the use of tactical nuclear weapons. The Soviets knew that full well and it gave those of us due to be positioned right up against the inner German border some comfort. We felt that our possession of nuclear weapons was definitely a deterrent that the Soviet Union would have to take seriously. Most of my fellow front line officers agreed with me. Some did not, but the majority did.
Remember: smaller NATO countries such as Denmark also have aeroplanes fitted with bomb racks to pick up tactical nuclear bombs from American stockpiles to fly and to use them. It is not just the nuclear members of NATO.
Most of us in 1st British Corps felt that our possession of nuclear weapons was a very sound insurance policy. Of course the situation is different today, but I use the example to explain how possession of a nuclear capability can help conventional forces.
I hate the idea of war. Who doesn’t? All my friends in the military are of the same mind as Winston Churchill, who once said that “jaw-jaw” is better than “war-war”. But in truth jaw-jaw often depends on the ability to have war-war. In the 1960s, I remember the US strategic nuclear bombers had a special motto that they painted on the noses of their B52s—“Peace is our profession”.
Nuclear weapons are a fact in our world and potential enemies may use them whether we like it or not. So I believe that we as a nation must also possess them. If you want peace, prepare for war—so that you deter it.
Jonathan Edwards (Shadow PC Spokesperson (Treasury), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Business, Innovation and Skills), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Transport), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Culture, Media and Sport), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Wales); Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Plaid Cymru)
Many of the founding fathers of my party fought in the first world war. It was their experiences of pointless human destruction that led them to base their political beliefs on the importance of Welsh national political identity, to counteract the imperialism of the great powers of the day. Wales lost more soldiers per head than any other nation in that war, and ever since, our party’s foreign policy has been based on building a peaceful role for Wales in the world, very much like our cousins in Ireland, who, of course, gained their independence in the aftermath of that war.
While not strictly a pacifist party, our voting record in this House over nearly half a century clearly shows that we are not supportive of the aggressive foreign policy pursued by successive UK Governments and their allies. Our first MP, Gwynfor Evans, was a vocal critic in this place of the Vietnam war; my predecessor, Adam Price, endeavoured to impeach the former Prime Minister for his conduct in the build-up to the second Gulf war; and in this Parliament we have voted against military action on several occasions.
Fairness and social justice also lie at the heart of what our party stands for. Those principles could never be upheld if we believed that wasting billions of pounds on weapons of mass destruction at a time when public services are being slashed was in any way acceptable. As we have heard several times today, Trident renewal is estimated to cost about £100 billion over the system’s lifetime, and Sir Nick Harvey, a former Defence Minister in this Parliament, said earlier that that figure was an underestimate. In my view it is obscene to suggest that this is a justifiable figure when our schools and hospitals are crying out for investment.
Last week, Labour and the Tories voted in favour of billions of pounds of more cuts in the next Parliament, all the while being committed to spending a similar amount on a new generation of nuclear weapons. Given the Westminster parties’ warped priorities, it is no wonder that more and more people in Wales are backing Plaid Cymru’s progressive alternative—and the Greens in England and the SNP in Scotland.
Due to the sums involved in the Trident renewal programme, it is vital that this House debates whether or not it is a justifiable use of public money—and I must say that this has been a very good debate. It will be the biggest spending decision made by the next Parliament, and with an election in just over three months the electorate deserve to know where those seeking election stand on this issue.
When reports emerged yesterday in the Glasgow Herald that Labour was boycotting this debate, I labelled it an insult to the electorate. However, I am glad that a few Labour MPs have broken the boycott, and they have made some very valuable contributions to the debate.
While ahead of the May election Labour will tell people how nasty the Tories are and how it would do things differently, the reality is that it would not do much differently at all, and that it would still press ahead with wasting £100 billion on Trident despite its proclaimed supposed opposition to cuts to public services and the ideological shrinking of the state. No wonder many esteemed commentators, not least Martin Shipton of the Western Mail, are beginning to ponder that the most likely coalition after the next election will be between the Conservative party and Labour.
“Living within our means” was the slogan of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister last week. Bizarrely, wasting £100 billion on unnecessary nuclear weapons did not figure in his speech, but it should have. While the UK Government, and the Labour party through its voting in support of the austerity charter, are committed to reducing spending on public services to levels last seen in the 1930s as a share of GDP, and while millions of citizens are struggling to make ends meet and watch the essential public services that they depend on crumble in front of them, it is obscene that any Government could go ahead and plough £100 billion into an outdated virility symbol, as Paul Flynn described it.
Politics is about priorities. Rather than spending £100 billion on a weapons system that nobody in their right mind would want to use, we say invest in schools, hospitals and affordable homes, in skills and education, and in industry to rebalance the economy, all of which would represent better value for money and would be spent on what people need to improve their lives.
Of course no one in their right mind would want to use these weapons. That is the whole point. Deterrence is not use; it is deterring someone from using a weapons system. The best deterrence is when nothing happens, as has happened in Europe since the second world war.
Jonathan Edwards (Shadow PC Spokesperson (Treasury), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Business, Innovation and Skills), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Transport), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Culture, Media and Sport), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Wales); Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Plaid Cymru)
I am grateful to my fellow former Aberystwyth graduate for that intervention, but the reality is that if we are going to spend £100 billion on a weapons system, surely there is an intention to use it if necessary.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister talked of his commitment to full employment, although I strongly suspect that his concept of full employment differs greatly from the one envisaged by William Beveridge, John Maynard Keynes and others. While Trident renewal would arguably create 7,000 jobs—as we have heard from some Members representing constituencies with a direct interest—that £100 billion could instead be used to employ 150,000 nurses across the UK for 30 years—or if just over half of it was used to invest in low-carbon technologies, renewables and energy-efficiency industries, it could create up to 1 million jobs according to RES Compass.
The projected cost breakdown, for which I am most grateful to CND, is as follows: submarine procurement £26 billion, cost of missile extension programme £250 million, replacement warheads from the 2030s onwards £3 billion, in-service costs £57 billion, conventional military forces directly assigned to support Trident £900 million, and, critically, decommissioning costs of £13 billion.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for outlining why the costs of Trident replacement are around the £100 billion figure. Does he have any idea why the Secretary of State for Defence was unable to give the Government’s own projections of its cost? Is it, perhaps, because it is such an eye-wateringly high figure, possibly significantly higher than the £100 billion outlined by the former Armed Forces Minister, Sir Nick Harvey, and that would be a scandal in the country?
Jonathan Edwards (Shadow PC Spokesperson (Treasury), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Business, Innovation and Skills), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Transport), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Communities and Local Government), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Culture, Media and Sport), Shadow PC Spokesperson (Wales); Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Plaid Cymru)
I am grateful for that intervention. That has been one of the highlights of the debate, and it is why it is so important that Plaid Cymru, the Green party and the SNP have brought this debate to the House. As I say, Trident renewal will be the biggest spending decision made by the next Parliament, yet the UK Government have no idea of the lifetime costs of the project, despite work done by CND and others.
Let me outline further how some of the £100 billion to be spent on Trident renewal could be spent instead. Although the cost of building homes varies throughout the UK, the average cost is around £150,000. That means that the Government, in partnership with local authorities, housing associations and others, could build up to 650,000 new affordable homes. Of course, home building, where it is needed, would stimulate the economy in ways that simply ploughing £100 billion into nuclear weapons would not. For the money spent investing in housing in that way, the Treasury would benefit from higher-value employment, reducing expenditure on in-work and out-of-work benefits, and the investment would help to ease the UK’s acute housing crisis, as the CND so ably demonstrated in its “People not Trident” document.
In terms of education, investing roughly a quarter of the amount earmarked for Trident would result in a fivefold return on investment. In its regular publication, “Education at a Glance”, the OECD demonstrated that for every £1 invested in higher education by the UK Government, the return is £5 over the working life of the graduate. This arises from higher tax revenues and lower outlays resulting from reduced unemployment. As the OECD said, investment in education boosts jobs and tax revenues.
The alternatives are there. Plaid Cymru has long supported investment in infrastructure and public services as a means of reducing the deficit over the long term.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about all the things that he would like the money to be spent on instead of Trident, but is that not all based on the assumption that we are still going to be here and a potential aggressor has not unloaded its nuclear weapons arsenal on to us because we had no deterrent?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which brings me to the next part of my speech—the defence and security justifications for Trident renewal. Again, the arguments do not properly stack up. If the UK did not already possess nuclear weapons and I were to stand here today and argue for us to spend £100 billion on them, I do not believe anyone would support me. Trident is not an independent deterrent. The software, hardware and expertise are all provided by the US. Indeed, the UK could not fire Trident, heaven forbid, without the permission of the US. Supporters of Trident renewal will say that the world is a dangerous place, and that spending £100 billion on nuclear weapons offers peace of mind. “The first duty of Government is the security of its people, and the world is a dangerous and unpredictable place,” they will say. “Nuclear weapons are the ultimate insurance policy.”
Those are both arguments that we have heard during today’s debate. Yet this line of argument ignores the current strategic security challenges that the UK faces, and spending £100 billion on nuclear weapons is a dereliction of duty in the face of those challenges. In addition, to describe nuclear weapons as an insurance policy is an odd turn of phrase, given that insurance policies are designed to pay out after an undesirable event has taken place, not to prevent it from happening in the first place. If nuclear weapons were ever used, the consequences would be catastrophic.
I know the hon. Gentleman’s party is clear that it does not want to be part of NATO. Is he comfortable, then, with the fact that his partner on the motion, the SNP, is happy to join NATO and to join the nuclear umbrella which that membership gives?
It is true Plaid Cymru and the SNP come from different political traditions. The SNP looks more towards the Nordic countries, which are members of NATO. Plaid Cymru looks more across the Irish sea towards Ireland, which is not a member of NATO. I do not see the contradiction in working together on a joint motion on Trident renewal. It is a different issue from NATO membership.
In the age of asymmetric warfare, surely it is better to have troops, not Trident, as a means of meeting security challenges. Indeed, the list of generals and top military figures who oppose Trident renewal, viewing it as a waste of money that would not meet security requirements, is for ever growing. The former head of the armed forces, Field Marshal Lord Bramall, the retired Army generals Lord Ramsbotham and Sir Hugh Beach, and Major General Patrick Cordingley signed a letter to The Times that stated:
“Nuclear weapons have shown themselves to be completely useless as a deterrent to the threats and scale of violence we currently face or are likely to face, particularly international terrorism…Our independent deterrent has become…irrelevant, except in the context of domestic politics.”
Former NATO commander General Jack Sheehan also called on the UK to ditch Trident.
Improving global security by strengthening the non-proliferation regime would lead to a de-escalation of international tensions, ensuring budgetary flexibility for the Ministry of Defence to allow it to prepare a more effective response to the actual security challenges facing us today, instead of locking it in and chaining it to several decades of nuclear weapons. The UK Government should be adhering to their legal obligations, including their responsibilities as a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. They should be showing diplomatic leadership and helping to guide multilateral disarmament initiatives, such as paving the way for a global nuclear abolition treaty.
The UK’s recent one-sided Trident commission concluded that there would be no lasting gains if the UK were to abandon its nuclear weapons programme. Meanwhile, international experts disagree. Dr Hans Blix, the former United Nations weapons inspector and chair of the weapons of mass destruction commission, recently said that the UK should abandon Trident altogether, and that that would be a “big gain” towards disarmament, pointing out:
“Japan and Germany seem respected…even without nuclear weapons”.
All our European neighbours, except France, consider themselves to be safe and secure without nuclear arsenals.
The only nations that could remotely pose a nuclear threat to the UK in the foreseeable future are Russia and possibly China. However, despite current tensions relating to Ukraine, there has generally been a positive trend in the UK’s and the European Union’s relationships with both countries since the end of the cold war. Sir Michael Quinlan, a former permanent under-secretary at the Ministry of Defence and an expert on nuclear deterrence, wrote that,
“even if grounds for unease about Russia’s internal evolution intensify, it is hard to imagine that country re-emerging as a military threat to the political freedom of the countries of the European Union”.
Not only is the defence and security case for Trident extremely weak, but politicians would do well to listen to the voice of the public on this matter. In a February 2014 ComRes poll, 65% of respondents said they would feel uncomfortable living near a nuclear weapons base and 64% thought there should be an international convention banning nuclear weapons. In June 2010, 63% of the public said that they would back scrapping Trident to reduce the deficit in a BPIX survey for
The Mail on Sunday
. Only 30% of the public would spend money on Trident when offered the alternatives of spending on nurses’ salaries or affordable homes, according to a YouGov poll for
in July 2009. A poll by Populus in March 2007 found that 72% of the public did not support the Government’s plans to replace Trident.
The forthcoming election represents the opportunity for the electorate to vote on their priorities—weapons of mass destruction or public services. In Wales, there is a long tradition of opposing nuclear weapons, not only from a non-conformist-inspired pacifism with its roots in the Welsh radical tradition; there is also the practical issue of what a small country like Wales would need nuclear weapons for. Where would they be housed or stored? Could we reasonably ask our compatriots to live next to them? The answer is, of course, no. Much as the other smaller countries of Europe—and even the larger ones—seem to get along just fine, we do not need nuclear weapons.
In following Jonathan Edwards, it is worth reflecting on how important it is to have these debates. We do not necessarily hear anything new and startling emerge in the arguments put forward, but it is important that the British public—our voters—see that we are having this discussion. If there was one shortcoming in the decision taken at the end of Tony Blair’s reign, it was that it was felt to have been taken in an unseemly rush. It is absolutely right that we should continue to debate this matter until the main-gate decision is taken.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr remarked that the main decision is going to be taken after the next election. To that extent, this debate is rather otiose. It is not a turning-point debate; it is about political positioning. To some extent, it is rather laughable. I would not usually pick holes in a motion, but this one says that this House believes that Trident should not be renewed. We know what the Scottish and Welsh nationalists mean by the motion, but we are not renewing Trident; we are renewing the submarines. We are not renewing the missiles or the warheads, but simply renewing the submarines. For Pete Wishart, currently sitting in the place of the SNP leader, to say that a vote against this motion is a vote for “stockpiling” nuclear weapons really is an exaggeration. That does not excuse itself from the mouth of a unilateralist.
There are many points to pick up from the debate. The cost needs to be put in context. The extra cost that has occasioned this debate is a mere—I say a mere—£261 million. That is a tiny, minute part of the defence budget. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, it is merely a pull forward of what will be spent later, and spending it now probably saves money in the long term. Even if one accepted this £100 billion lifetime cost of Trident over, say, 50 years, that would be less than our net contribution to the European Union in each of those years. It would be less than many other costs that we sign away without a breath. I will never forget the day we underwrote all the banks with hundreds of billions of pounds of capital in an extraordinarily under-populated and uncontroversial debate. This is a relatively small decision—less than HS2, as was pointed out.
Dame Joan Ruddock, who used to represent CND and apparently still does, asked why we should waste this money on weapons that we never use. This is another misconception. These weapons are in use every day. They are deployed and they are ready to fire at a few moments’ notice. They are not targeted on any particular country or city, but they are ready to be deployed in anger on any day of any year at any hour. I echo the Secretary of State’s tribute to the Trident submarine crews and their families and all those who support their operation. It is an immense achievement that we maintain a continuous at-sea deterrent.
The presence of this capability at our disposal in the oceans helps to shape the global security environment. It is not just to keep us safe; it is to keep the world safe. It is to keep all those non-nuclear members of NATO under an umbrella. It is to engage the United States in what happens in Europe. If we gave up our nuclear weapons and France gave up its, which I presume is what is advocated by proponents of the motion, why would the United States be bothered to defend us when we cannot be bothered to defend ourselves? That is what the US would think; in fact, it is what the US already thinks in respect of conventional capability. If we were to take our piece off the board, it would be the final nail in the obligation of the US to defend us in extremis. It is the same question as whether we would pull the trigger to defend a non-NATO country without any nuclear capability, should Russia become aggressive with that country.
What is the difference between the hon. Gentleman’s policy and attitude towards this issue and the policy and attitude of people in America who feel that they need to have handguns to protect themselves “for security”?
I do not think there is a parallel. The people who own handguns as individuals are not accountable for their behaviour. We have a licensing system in this country that is vigorous, makes people much more accountable and limits the number of such guns in circulation, particularly when it comes to people who might be less accountable. I can understand the hon. Gentleman’s rather trivial point, but it is a rhetorical debating point, so I am not going to spend much time on it.
There is another question that we keep hearing: “Is this really an independent deterrent?” I have spent plenty of time around a deterrent and around people who know about the deterrent, and if the Americans had some secret switch in some bunker in the United States that could disable our deterrent and prevent us from firing it, I think that we would know about it. That switch does not exist. The fact is that once the submarine is at sea, the command and control of the firing of the weapons system is completely autonomous. One of the factors that give us leverage over American policy is
that if this country were in trouble, or if Europe were in trouble, America too would be in trouble, because the possibility of a nuclear exchange would bind it inextricably into the conflict. Europe and the United States have many mutual interests, and there are many reasons why we should support each other’s security policies, but, in extremis, we can strengthen that position by means of the capability that we possess.
Another question that we keep being asked is, “Does deterrence work?” There is evidence that it does, and those who argue that deterrence had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war are flying in the face of that evidence. There was an arms race, and the options that were available to the Soviet Union as it sought to solve its internal problems by expanding were contained by deterrence. It lost the arms race because it could not afford to keep up with the cost of the technology that the west could afford.
If deterrence worked and mutually assured destruction worked, why did Colonel Petrov not respond in the 1980s when he thought that five missiles were bound for the USSR? If what the hon. Gentleman is saying were true, the world would have been annihilated in the 1980s.
We do not expect the people who man the nuclear weapons systems in responsible countries such as ours—I even include Russia in that—to act as automatons; we expect them to use their judgment, and Colonel Petrov used his judgment. I would expect anyone in a position of that kind to use his judgment. As for the idea that we are all living on a knife edge because there will be some hideous nuclear accident at any minute, there is absolutely no evidence of that. The book that was referred to by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford, speaking for CND, is full of scare stories, none of which has actually led to any disaster. That is because safety is built into the systems, and those postulated disasters are extremely unlikely to occur.
The point that I make to the hon. Gentleman is the point that I would make to the right hon. Lady. Why does he think war between great powers ended at the same time as nuclear weapons were invented? It is because war between great powers possessing nuclear weapons suddenly became unthinkable. Other wars have occurred, but they have been wars in which the participants have not had nuclear weapons. The reason we live in what is perhaps a safer world is that we live in a world with nuclear weapons. I know that the hon. Gentleman will find that very hard to accept.
What has happened since the end of the second world war is that colonial wars have ended. Colonialism has gone and imperialism has gone, and that is why wars between the great powers have gone. There was a change in the mindset of many countries when colonialism went. It had nothing to do with nukes.
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s assertion. There was a great competition between two great powers from 1945 until 1990, but it never resulted in an all-out conflict because both sides possessed nuclear weapons. I think that that speaks for itself.
Why must the United Kingdom be the country that carries this responsibility? That is another question that we hear. I am afraid that it is an accident of history. We must because we can, and we must because others cannot or will not. Do we want Germany to become a nuclear power instead of us? Do we want France to be the only nuclear power in Europe? Do we want Italy and Spain to become nuclear powers? No. They do not want to, and we do not want them to. It is better for us to have a limit of two nuclear powers in Europe, and to share the responsibility with the United States. That is the way in which the dice of history have fallen, but it has advantages for us. We are one of the most powerful countries in the world. We project our power and status through the possession of nuclear weapons, and we hold our position on the P5 as a nuclear weapons state. We are, even now, one of the great powers in this world, providing global security for us and our allies, and indeed for so many of the countries that might consider themselves our enemies—that is one of the ironies of the situation—and shaping the global strategic environment in all our interests, not least our own.
Let us deal with another myth: the idea that scrapping Trident would allow a spending bonanza on other public programmes or on defence. There is no evidence to suggest that the Treasury would allow the cancellation of Trident and allow the Ministry of Defence to keep that money to spend on conventional weapons. No amount of expenditure on conventional weapons that we could possibly afford would replace the stabilising and security effects of possessing the nuclear deterrent.
The one really laughable bit of this debate is the Liberal Democrats’ attempt to revive their now totally discredited “Trident Alternatives Review”. Why do we need four submarines? I hear the caveat the Labour party gingerly puts on its commitment to that, but the fourth submarine is so far in the future that it will not affect the spending plans of the next Government or the one after, so the problem is almost academic at this stage. The question is whether or not we build submarines one, two and three—I will settle for that. We have four submarines to ensure the resilience of the system towards the end of its life. If we did not have four, we would by now have suffered an interruption of the continuous at-sea deterrence. If we do not maintain that, we have a part-time deterrent, which is no deterrent; there is no point in a temporary deterrent.
Let us deal with the fantasy that we could create joint-role submarines. The Americans may have them but they have 12 submarines. For them to maintain a continuous at-sea deterrence, they can have some submarines doing completely different tasks while some of their nuclear ballistic missile submarines are carrying out the deterrent role. They have a completely different force concept from us, and it would be improper to import it. They do not understand how we can manage continuous at-sea deterrence with just four submarines and they admire the resilience of our system. We should not fiddle with it, or we will disturb its resilience.
People then ask, “Why not have a cheaper or different system?” That argument has all been disposed of, because there is no cheaper or different system of which to avail ourselves, be it submarine-launched Cruise missiles, land-based missiles or air-launched weapons. We would require new submarines. There is no submarine that can carry a nuclear-tipped Cruise missile. There is no nuclear Cruise missile. We would have to develop a new warhead and a new missile to have nuclear-launched Cruise missiles. We would need to have a new submarine because the payload of a nuclear Cruise missile is so much bigger than a conventional Cruise missile. We would need to develop a completely new submarine, which is what we are doing for the Trident system in any case—it is actually the cheapest system available. There is no alternative system. If we were to diversify into a completely new weapons system, it could be argued that we would be in breach of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty because we would not be replacing like with like.
Let us deal with the concept of these different proposals, and the idea that we should abandon the continuous at-sea deterrence and keep our submarines on the Clyde until there is an emergency. Let us imagine that halfway through the Ukraine crisis we had decided to deploy our ballistic missile submarine to a continuous patrol. The cameras would have been out and the families would have known. When a submarine sails, people know about it. The submarine deploys down the Clyde on the surface, so people can take pictures of it—it is not difficult—so the world would have known that we were escalating the crisis. To make ourselves safer we have to escalate the crisis—what an absurd position to put ourselves in. Were there a real crisis at that moment of escalation, our deterrent on the surface, visible by satellite, would itself be vulnerable to attack; we would be inviting a pre-emptive attack in order to prevent us from deploying our deterrent capability.
It is strategic nonsense to move to a part-time deterrent, and the same applies in respect of submarine-launched cruise missiles. A cruise missile is a subsonic weapon, whose launch would be detected and tracked long before it arrived on target. It would be vulnerable then to interception. How many cruise missiles would we need, to be able to provide a credible deterrent? Nobody knows —nobody knows the costs of this, but they would be astronomical. In any case, it is likely that our enemy would launch a ballistic missile, which would arrive on target in our own country within minutes and long before our missile had arrived at its target. Therefore, it is not a deterrent. The same goes for land-based missiles: there is no land-based system available. Where would we put it if we were to have a land-based system? [Interruption.] Incidentally, we would need to develop our own warheads to deploy on any different weapons system, and that cost would have to be factored in.
The “Trident Alternatives Review” has been completely trashed and rubbished. The reason that the option appears to be on the table is not that the Liberal Democrats believe it is viable—I do not believe they do—but that they think it is a bargaining chip to use in the negotiations with one of the two major parties at a time of a hung Parliament if that were to emerge after the general election.
The two main parties are quite near to making it clear to the Liberal Democrats that there is simply no deal. Until that stupid policy is taken off the table, there is no conversation to be had about any future coalition with the Liberal Democrats. That is what should have happened in 2010. I am sorry that it did not, but I am very encouraged by the confidence and determination of the Labour party that continuous at-sea deterrences will be maintained after the next election. There is a simple reason why that should happen: it is entirely probable, indeed almost certain, that there will be a clear majority in this House for continuous at-sea deterrents and the Trident submarine system—there was a majority last year and in 2007. Even if there is a party in coalition with a caveat, the majority of this House wants to maintain this system and that is the obligation. That is something that we can demonstrate for the public good, without party politics, across the Floor of the House. There is consensus and agreement on this. Sometimes we put our national interests ahead of our own party interests and we get on with the job that we are here to do, which is to govern our country and keep it safe.
It is a pleasure to follow Mr Jenkin. I listened very carefully to his words, as I did with all the other Conservative hawks. Indeed, we have heard a few Labour hawks, too. I say to him that there is at least an intellectual consistency running through the heart of the debate. We heard it during the period of high Thatcherism when there was a real and substantial threat and we knew what we were up against with the Soviet Union. We are hearing it again now, but we do not know from where the threat is coming or from what we are trying to protect ourselves. I have no idea at whom these weapons will be targeted. Even if we had a nirvana of world peace, we would still have the Tory hawks arguing for their nuclear weapons. They would be telling us why they were an absolute necessity and why the deterrent would have to be a feature of every community in our country.
I want to get back to what motivates us. I know what motivates the hawks on the Tory Benches. They like their nuclear weapons—of course they do—and they think they are an important feature of this country. But we all come to this matter with a set of principles—a value system—that helps to inform the important decisions that we have to take as public representatives and legislators. That is our political and moral compass, and it helps us to determine our approach to public life and the important decisions that we take in this House.
Nothing is more important to me than my fundamental belief, desire and drive to rid my country of nuclear weapons and to end the absurdity, nonsense and madness of nuclear deterrence. For me, it is an unshakeable imperative and a moral, non-negotiable responsibility. I could never countenance agreeing to have nuclear weapons as an ongoing feature of my nation.
I am appalled that my beautiful country is defiled by the presence of these evil weapons of mass destruction, 40 miles from our largest city. My lovely Scotland—
Yes, I know what the hon. Gentleman is going to say, so let us get it over with.
The hon. Gentleman said that he had a principled position to rid Scotland of nuclear weapons, but he is prepared to join NATO, which is a nuclear alliance. Would he, as an SNP member in an independent Scotland, join the nuclear planning group and allow nuclear-armed submarines to visit Scotland?
That intervention was predictable. The hon. Gentleman is like a stuck record. I have been to Denmark—I actually sold 250,000 records in Denmark with my previous group—and for him to tell the Danes that they are a nuclear power would be a gross—
No, I will not give way. I have heard that so many times: Denmark, Norway, Spain. Canada, for goodness’ sake, got rid of American nuclear weapons and is still in NATO. The hon. Gentleman does not understand and I am not prepared to take an intervention from him. He is a stuck record, spinning round and round all day, and I think the whole House is sick of it.
My peaceful Scotland is host to the largest silo of weapons of mass destruction in western Europe. Lorries carrying all sorts of parts to service and keep this genocidal arsenal roll happily along the roads of Scotland almost unnoticed and untroubled with their death-maintaining cargo. Weapons of mass destruction such as Trident sit uneasily and angularly with everything I know about the fantastic values of my country. It is a country of social solidarity, trying to promote the common weal and strong community values, yet my country hosts the biggest arsenal of genocidal weapons in western Europe.
Is not the situation actually worse than that? A previous speaker talked about other nuclear installations around the country, but is it not the case that convoys are bringing these nuclear weapons through the city of Glasgow to get to Faslane?
I heard, and I am sure my hon. Friend is aware of these reports, that these cargoes were being shipped through the city centre of Glasgow only last week. That is what we have to put up with in Scotland: these death convoys on our roads.
I am so pleased that nuclear weapons and Trident became a defining iconic feature of the independence referendum. The progressive voices of Scotland got together and ensured that this debate was promoted and taken around the halls of Scotland. I am so proud that I was on the right side of the debate. I would never side with people who believe in nuclear weapons and who continue to support the case for them.
We are not even asking the House to scrap nuclear weapons, or even to reduce their number. We are simply asking the House not to agree to £100 billion of new nuclear weapons. We use the terms multilateralist and unilateralist, but by committing ourselves to Trident renewal we are indulging in a unilateral nuclear rearmament. We are adding to the stock of nuclear weapons worldwide, and that does nothing for the ambition mentioned by those on the Labour Front Bench of ridding the world of nuclear weapons and it does nothing for achieving any multilateral aim.
We are asking the House not to agree to pursue £100 billion of spending on weapons of mass destruction that can never be used. This will be the second time in two weeks that those on the Labour Front Bench and their colleagues will walk through the Lobby with the Tories. Last week, they committed themselves to £30 billion of further austerity, agreeing with the Conservatives.
Today, they will march through the Lobby with the Tories to support them on the subject of £100 billion of spending on nuclear weapons. Last week, Labour said that it was all a gimmick. They have not described our debate today as a gimmick, although I have seen some reports of that, but they are still prepared to support the Conservatives on both issues. People are rightly asking what on earth Labour is for.
We need to hear exactly what people believe will be the biggest spending issue of the next Parliament. Already, £250 million is being spent each year on what is called the assessment phase—the lead-in phase to Trident renewal. Some £1.4 million a day is being spent on preparing for this weapon of mass destruction and an estimated £1.24 billion has been spent on the project so far. That just happens to be the same amount as the Chancellor has pledged to find in new money for the NHS.
We do not know how much this project will cost. We say that it will be £100 billion, but that figure was challenged by the Conservatives. The Secretary of State refused to say how much it would cost, and when he was challenged on the figure, we got nothing from him. We do not know the Government’s estimate of the cost of all this. They talk about the main-gate decision in 2016. I suggest to Ministers that they should slam that main gate closed and leave it padlocked. This country does not want Trident renewal.
How can we justify spending so much money on obscene weapons of mass destruction when food banks are a feature of every community in every constituency in Scotland? The Westminster establishment parties have rarely been held in such contempt. The Westminster elite who run those parties can barely get more than 30% support in the polls. The Westminster establishment parties are so out of kilter with what the public want and the everyday experience of people in every community it is no wonder that they are held in such low esteem and that the House is held in contempt.
The motion is signed by members of the SNP, the Green party and Plaid Cymru, which suggests that we are beginning to do something different. It is an absolute challenge to the old failure of the Westminster—Tory/Labour, Labour/Tory, austerity-voting, Trident-supporting —establishment. We offer the people of Britain the opportunity of a different way of doing things: a progressive alliance that is not prepared to accept that we just go along with £30 billion of further austerity spending and the renewal of Trident weapons.
I am pleased about that, because it means that people in England, for example, do not have to vote for a Europhobic, immigrant-loathing, quasi-racist UK Independence party. They and my hon. Friend Caroline Lucas have something substantial to support and vote for. We have already seen the results, with a Green surge. No wonder that the Labour and Tory parties want Nigel Farage, another establishment public school banker, to take part in the election debates. It does not surprise me that they will do everything that they can to keep my hon. Friend and the SNP out of those debates, although the Prime Minister has stood up, rather late, for the inclusion of the Green party.
Let us see what these weapons do, and challenge and test the assumptions of my friends, the Conservative defence hawks who enjoy nuclear weapons so much. There were unashamed in saying that Trident and weapons of mass destruction were necessary as a virility symbol, allowing us to be part of the P5—as if the British people cared the least bit about any of that. The British people care about spending on the NHS and education. They are concerned about food banks. Being able to sit with other nuclear powers to play with their toys? I do not think that that is what the British people want, and we are beginning to see that in opinion polls here.
We are told that deterrence works because of all sorts of external threats. We have heard some really dodgy stuff about the prospect of using nuclear weapons against Ukraine, and including that in any discussion or debate.
If France, Britain and America do not dominate the P5, who does? There is always talk about other powers joining the P5. If India, or perhaps less savoury countries, joined the P5, that would not be good for British security and the democratic world. We are there for a purpose, which is to serve the democratic world, and we do it very well.
That is the difference between the hon. Gentleman and me. He believes that that is important, but I could not care less about that sort of thing. I believe that it is increasingly the case that the British people could not care less about that. We are struggling—there is real need and deprivation—with Tory obscenities like the bedroom tax. Does he honestly believe that people in the constituency of Jim Sheridan care whether they can sit around the table with the big boys and their weapons of mass destruction? No, I do not believe that that is the case, and the British people have begun to wake up to that.
The Government say that nuclear weapons defend us against threats. The biggest threat we face is from IS and jihadists, who would be almost delighted if we threatened them with weapons of mass destruction. They would celebrate and punch the air, because Britain would be turning it on—they would appreciate and enjoy it. This is a weapons system designed to deal with the Brezhnevs of this world, not the bin Ladens. It is a cold war response to a cold war situation, and it is ill equipped to deal with the very serious external threats that we face. North Korea is a cartoon caricature of a totalitarian state. Are we seriously suggesting that we contain these nonsensical states with nuclear weapons?
I do not even know whether we are an ally of Iran this week or an enemy, such is the state of continuing flux with all the former enemies who are now new friends. We cannot keep pace with identifying who these external threats are, but the only thing we must consistently have is nuclear weapons to threaten them. If there was ever a logic to nuclear weapons—it would be a perverted logic if so—it was the idea of mutually assured destruction during the cold war: “We could kill all you guys because you could kill all our guys.” It is utter madness to think that that is an applicable argument in this modern age with this new variety of threats.
We are going to spend £100 billion on these weapons of mass destruction that we will never use just so that Mr Jenkin and his friends in the Conservative Government can sit at the top table. This is on top of the £30 billion of extra austerity promised to us by both the Conservative party and the Labour party. People are increasingly talking about a new alliance with the 30 per centers, as we could call them—the Conservative and Labour parties, which cannot get above that figure. That is a realistic prospect, because this will be the second time in a week that they have voted together on such issues. There is a new way of doing things in this country and a new alliance is beginning.
The hon. Gentleman is expressing the view that nuclear disarmament is very popular. When was the last time that a Government in this country were elected on the basis of nuclear disarmament?
Let me tell the hon. Gentleman about the front page of a national newspaper in Scotland today showing that 60% of the Scottish people are now opposed to nuclear weapons. That is people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, in my constituency, and in the constituency of Gemma Doyle. This is now a popular movement that is beginning to gain traction.
Let me clarify this for the record. I have seen the figures that the hon. Gentleman mentions, and he excluded the “don’t knows” in that poll. In fact, fewer than half, not 60%, of people hold the position that he describes.
The hon. Lady and I have been through lots of opinion polls in the past year. If she is so confident about her position, she should go out on the hustings and explain why Scottish Labour is a nuclear party that is prepared to spend £100 billion on Trident renewal. That is what she will have to do, and I wish her all the best in trying to get re-elected on that basis, because there is now an alternative.
There is a new way of doing things. The Westminster establishment and the Westminster elite that run this place are beginning to experience real electoral difficulties. People across the country are recognising that the old ways of doing things are not good enough. Cold war weapons for an austerity future: that is what both parties are promising, and that is what will be rejected at the next election.
It is a pleasure to follow the part-polemic by Pete Wishart. He was unable to answer a question put to him when he was challenged by Opposition Front Benchers about the extent to which his party, as the head of an independent Scotland, would be prepared to shelter under the American nuclear alliance. That is an important question that his party has to answer.
I say that from the perspective of someone who intends to vote with the hon. Gentleman this evening. It is right that there should be a proper debate about this, and I therefore welcome the debate that his party colleagues have introduced. We should have a cool, calm consideration of the merits of the Trident weapons system. Over the course of a decade, I have been increasingly uncomfortable about the prospect of renewing this weapons system. It is a system, and we are renewing the submarines that make up part of it. Some people have said that the motion is therefore technically in error, but without the submarines the system is pointless and without the missiles it is pointless. That is what the motion means and it is on that basis that I support it. Let me explain why.
The clinching argument for me—although I also want to refer to lots of other issues—is the opportunity cost of spending, let us say, £100 billion on renewing the weapons system over its lifetime. I am wearing the regimental tie of the Light Dragoons and want to make it clear that I spent a long time in defence, professionally and then subsequently as a special adviser in the Ministry of Defence and then in the Foreign Office. I remember trying to plan a scenario, in a political sense, for the circumstances in which the United Kingdom would decide to use nuclear weapons or weapons of similar destructive power, but, frankly, I found it impossible to find such a scenario. I think that that is still the case, and the deterrent effect of that uncertainty has been discussed.
Thirty years on from the decision taken in the 1980s to acquire the Trident system, things have changed significantly and, given the opportunity cost of acquiring the system, I believe that the decision to spend £100 billion should be altered. This weapons system is of much less practical utility than it used to be in deterrence terms and, given the cost-benefit analysis, the time has come to say that this is a business that the United Kingdom should probably get out of. As a nation, given the other potential demands on our defence budget, we can no longer justify the expense.
I listened carefully to the arguments made by my hon. Friend Mr Jenkin—he made an extremely good speech—and they need to be addressed. First, if we buy this system, will it come at the expense of other parts of the defence budget? My view is that it will. My hon. Friend maintained that if the system is not bought, the Treasury will not give the Ministry of Defence the money. However, we have just made a significant political commitment to maintain defence expenditure at 2% of GDP.
It was a political commitment made by the leaders of NATO at a summit hosted by the United Kingdom, so I believe we have made that commitment. The Government have not made it explicit and the Prime Minister will not do so before the general election, because we have to address serious budget issues and he is, rightly, giving himself room for manoeuvre. Everyone present knows that defence expenditure is already at historically low levels in terms of its share of national wealth. We are making economies in defence and in my view our defence posture is, frankly, incoherent, because we can no longer afford a coherent defence policy for the United Kingdom due to the amount of resources we are devoting to it.
That is an issue for another debate, but it illustrates the point about the cost of acquiring this system. In the 1980s it cost between 2.5% and 3% of the total defence budget. The cost of renewing the system will be at about the same level of real expenditure, which means that it will cost about 6% of the defence budget. In private conversations with colleagues who share the same back -ground as me, when I ask them whether they would rather have that money spent on the field army or on acquiring this weapons system, their answer is clear: they would rather have it spent on actual deployable defence—soldiers, sailors, airmen and the equipment deployed with them on operations—or even on the deterrence that a decent set of conventional armed forces provides. The names of some of the distinguished former Chiefs of the Defence Staff or those in other roles who have questioned the value for money of taking such a sum out of the defence budget have already been paraded.
I would argue very strongly to the Defence Secretary that if we are committed to this system, we should understand that it is a political weapons system, and that it is of very doubtful military utility. I do not entirely buy the deterrence argument, but that is a qualified position, because all these things are matters of judgment. If we do buy the argument, however, that should not come at the expense of a coherent defence programme. If we need 2% of GDP to provide a coherent conventional defence programme, we should buy this political weapons system not out of that budget, but from a separate source of funding.
In an intervention on John Woodcock, I asked just how much he would spend on acquiring this weapons system. He represents Barrow, where the submarines will be made, so I understand that his view of their value is rather different from that of other Members. However, we must answer this question, which we have not properly addressed: at what point does the expense become unaffordable for the United Kingdom?
I am perfectly content to continue to shelter under the American nuclear umbrella. I accept that the decision matrix would be profoundly different if the United States of America was not a rock-solid ally, the Atlantic alliance was not extremely important to the Americans or we could not place the same degree of reliability on their support as we now do. If we had good reason to believe that the United States was not going to be intimately tied into the defence of ourselves and Europe, the decision would be different. I happen to believe, however, that our interests are so closely intertwined, as they have been in all sorts of ways, that we can continue to rely on that alliance.
Frankly, I am not sure that the Americans place very much value on a separate source of nuclear deterrence decision making in London. I think that they would prefer us to bring such resources to the table in the form of deployable conventional forces. The United States Government will not of course take a public view that embarrasses the UK Government, but if we scratched them, we would find that they would rather we had more effective conventional forces.
I do not buy the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex that we would lose the money from the defence budget altogether and not be able to spend it on anything else. However, even if the money was lost, it would have value: £100 billion off the debt or spent on other parts of the public service would be valuable.
I therefore ask: what are we buying with the system? There should be a debate about whether we are buying security or, given the laws of unintended consequences, insecurity. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire said that he thought we were buying status for our leaders so that they can parade themselves appropriately at conferences. I do not buy that argument—our leaders are perfectly capable of thinking in hard terms about what hard security is affordable—but I am concerned about the political background to this discussion, and about whether we can have a sensible debate on the cost-benefit analysis of acquiring this system.
The problem is the inheritance of the politics of the 1980s. When the decision was made to acquire the Vanguard and Trident system, the then Labour Opposition came out against it in 1983 as part of the “longest suicide note in history” that they presented to the United Kingdom electorate. I think that that policy was wrong and that at the time, because of the cold war, it was right to renew the deterrent. The people of the United Kingdom took the same view in the general election, as they did about the rest of the basket of promises that Michael Foot and his colleagues presented to the country, and they gave that policy, very properly, an extremely large raspberry and possibly the biggest Conservative majority in the history of Parliament—I am sure I will be corrected if that is wrong.
The scarring effect of that event, and the fact that there might be some proper debate, particularly on the Opposition Benches, means that dissent is suppressed. I am proud to stand here as a Conservative and question the efficacy of the decision under discussion, particularly in terms of its opportunity cost. It may be that I have discounted my future career prospects to such an extent that I feel free to make these points, but for the benefit of the Government Whip who is making a note, I say that this is where my judgment lies currently, but it would not prevent me from exercising collective responsibility to support the decision as part of any future Administration. [Laughter.] We should be able to have this debate and ask questions. How much money would we be prepared to spend on this system if its cost was not going to be 6% of the defence budget? What about if it was 10% or 20% of the defence budget? At what point does it cease to be sensible to invest in this system?
Many Members support deterrence in principle, or at least are not against the possession of weapons of this destructive power in principle—that is a perfectly proper position to take, although I do not share it because to a degree I buy the arguments that I grew up with in the 1970s and 1980s about the principle of a defence. I agree that during the cold war these weapons ensured that the world did not elide into direct hot war engagements that had the ability to escalate into catastrophe. The potential for catastrophe at the root of deterrence in a cold war, bipolar world kept us safe, but we are now in a different world and different calculations must be made.
My view is that for the United Kingdom, 6% of the defence budget is not justifiable, and that also relates to my view of Britain’s place in the world. Unlike most of my colleagues, I would be prepared to put our permanent seat on the Security Council up for negotiation and debate in a reform of the UN Security Council, to try to make that institution more effective. I think it is difficult to justify a British veto on the UN Security Council, and because it is so difficult to justify, the veto is hardly ever used by the United Kingdom. We must also think about Britain’s role in the world, and I do not think that we have properly had the debate about exactly what we can bring to the councils of the world, and what Britain’s position in the world should be.
We will be much better equipped to defend our interests if we are a wealthy, successful, entrepreneurial and trading nation that looks out to the entire world, and I am not sure that landing us with a weapons system that we are never going to use is a sensible use of resources, and it therefore might become a burden—
Order. I am loth to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He is making an extremely interesting speech, which is being listened to with respect. He said that the debate needed to happen and I just want, very politely, to make the point that six other hon. Members, who will have a lot less time than the hon. Gentleman, are waiting to speak. Therefore, I feel confident in predicting that his last sentence is coming.
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. I looked around to see who was standing and got to a different number, so I am immensely grateful and will conclude my arguments.
I had taken the view of Sir Nick Harvey that there should be an alternative way of buying this kind of deterrence, or at least some kind of deterrence, in a cheaper way. I now accept that the alternatives review has answered that question, and has at least made the decision matrix around this much clearer. I do not think it is now possible, on the basis of that work, for us to buy a deterrent in a different way.
However, I gently point out to those who think that by renewing these weapons we are buying an invulnerable system, that I do not think we are. I think the nature of surveillance under the sea will make the future generation of submarines much more discoverable than present science suggests, and the question of Scottish independence will come around again in the lifetime of this weapons system. Had we had to move this weapons system from an independent Scotland, the cost of making a base for it in Plymouth or elsewhere would have been eye-watering. All of those uncertainties need to be factored in. On that basis, and on the opportunity cost, I will with deep regret be voting against most of my colleagues this evening.
It is an old adage in Parliament that there are no votes in defence. Perhaps today has blown that out of the water. As I sat here, I was wondering whether the party political stuff should enter into this debate on a crucial defence and security issue. I have come to the view that it is helpful. I think the public need to know where the parties stand and the consequences of the votes they will be casting in May.
I was disappointed that the Secretary of State chose to refer to the Labour party as “the shower opposite”. Personally, I found that offensive and it was beneath the dignity of his office. I therefore feel free to point out that he was wrong to suggest that the Labour party is in any way lacking a total commitment to
“a minimum credible independent, nuclear deterrent, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent”.
I will point out to the Conservative party that the one thing on which I have agreed with the Scottish National party is that its decision—in front of the Defence Committee, the Secretary of State seemed not to understand or know about it—to remove the capability offered by the Nimrod maritime reconnaissance and attack aircraft, the MRA4, would, as the National Audit Office has said, have an adverse effect on the protection of the strategic nuclear deterrent.
The Secretary of State told the Committee that the planes were not available and had never flown. Later in the evidence session, however, we were told by a senior officer in the RAF that he had actually flown the MRA4. Let us get our act together. Let us get our facts accurate. The Labour party is for a continuous at-sea deterrent and is committed to the defence and security of the United Kingdom.
I am pleased that we have a red line regarding some of the coalitions being talked about. The public need to understand that it will be impossible for Labour to enter a coalition with the Scottish nationalists, the Green party and Plaid Cymru, because of their red line on removing the nuclear deterrent. That is fine; at least we know where we stand. The public also know where the Liberal Democrats stand: they want to buy nuclear submarines but park them somewhere. It is like saying, “We’ll have a burglar alarm on our house but we’ll never turn it on, because we don’t believe there are any burglars out there.” The party political thing has gone too far but it has been helpful, in that at least the public now know where the parties stand.
Those opposed to the nuclear deterrent like to take the moral high ground, as if opposition to mass slaughter and a desire to protect this green and pleasant land were more in their blood than in the blood of we who believe that a nuclear deterrent is essential to the protection of the UK. I used to be a paid-up member of CND. When I was first elected to the House 10 years ago—new Members arrive with nothing, no office, no computer, no staff—the first letter that came across my desk was from a Mrs Hopkins in Bridgend, asking where I stood on the nuclear deterrent. I thought I knew where I stood, but I wanted to be the best MP that Bridgend could have, and I was not just going to tell her what my opinion was. I did my research and I spent a lot of time in the Library, and she was shocked by the letter she got back, because it was not what she had expected, and neither was it what I had expected to write. Having done the research and looked at all the risks and arguments, I realised that the nuclear deterrent was critical to Britain’s defence and security.
There has been lots of talk about finances and how much of the defence budget we should be comfortable with spending. We are told it is 5% or 6% at the moment, but some ask, “What if it rose to 10%?” Quite honestly, I would be worried about what the Government were spending the money on, and whether they were spending across the board and taking the security of the UK seriously, if the majority of our defence budget was going on the nuclear deterrent. It is part of a package. It is not the only thing; it is part of the thing. Yes, there are new risks and threats to this country—there always are—but just because there are new ones coming does not mean that the old ones have disappeared, because they have not; they are still there, and they are serious.
I am a member of the Defence Committee and of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, so I talk a lot with other Governments about defence issues and where Britain stands in the world of defence. I have been to the Pentagon and the State Department, and I have asked them how critical is Britain’s nuclear deterrent. They see it not as an add-on, a joke, an irrelevance, but as essential to NATO. How do they think the American people would feel if we said, “We can’t afford to spend this, so you fess up. You pay for Britain and the rest of NATO’s nuclear capability”? That is not going to happen—let’s be real. America should not and cannot pay for the whole of the defence of NATO. It already pays too much, which is why Britain, at the NATO conference, was urging NATO allies to step up to the 2%. It is why we were so vociferous about it.
I have not just talked to the Americans; I have talked to countries in eastern Europe who face the nuclear threat and know the reality of Russia. They are terrified of that nuclear threat from Russia. It is something we need to take seriously. I have talked to the Afghans and the Pakistanis. I have repeatedly asked questions and the thing that comes out clearly is that nobody in the world would feel safer if we stepped back from our responsibilities to maintain our nuclear deterrence.
This debate is timely and important. I am aware, Mr Speaker, that you want others to speak, but may I briefly say that if Members still have any doubts, they should look at the Trident commission, which was cross-party and reported in July 2014? It said:
“If there is more than a negligible chance that the possession of nuclear weapons might play a decisive future role in the defence of the United Kingdom and its allies in preventing nuclear blackmail or in affecting the wider security context with which the UK sits, then they should be retained.”
They were cross-party speakers—key individuals in the history of this House. That was their finding; it should be ours too.
There is just under seven minutes for remaining speakers, so I would appeal to colleagues to help each other.
This has been a very interesting debate. I very much want to see a world free of nuclear weapons and we should put every effort into the nuclear non-proliferation treaty talks to try to achieve that. Nuclear weapons are an appalling invention but the reality is that they have been invented. If Britain were to give up our nuclear deterrent unilaterally, as the movers of the motion propose, that would not persuade one single other country to follow suit. It is not our nuclear deterrent that worries me, but that those who wish us harm might obtain a nuclear deterrent themselves.
I, like my hon. Friend, believe in multilateral disarmament. He has studied the issue carefully. Does he believe that there is any realistic alternative to Trident as the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent?
No, there is no realistic alternative. The Government were right to have the review, which showed clearly that Trident was the minimal-cost credible nuclear deterrent.
We have no idea what nuclear threats might emerge over the next 50 years. A nuclear deterrent is like an insurance policy; the intention is never to use it, so it may appear to some to be a waste of money. But if it succeeds in its aim of deterring possible adversaries, it has done its job and is worth the money.
The Vanguard submarines are nearing the end of their life and next year we must take a decision on whether or not to replace them. It was right to put off a decision for as long as we could so that we have the most up-to-date information available to us before taking that decision, but next year is definitely the final possible date for taking that decision. Barring some dramatic and unexpected breakthrough on multilateral nuclear disarmament, the right decision next year has to be to build the replacement submarines for the Vanguards.
Since the end of the cold war, Britain has contributed greatly to nuclear disarmament. We have given up our tactical maritime and airborne nuclear capabilities, as well as our nuclear-capable Lance missiles and artillery. Britain possesses the smallest nuclear capability of any of the five nuclear weapons states recognised by the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and we have only one delivery platform.
It is very important to note that there are no proposals to upgrade the capability of the Trident system or to acquire additional nuclear warheads. The motion is incoherent. It talks about not replacing Trident, but Trident refers to the missiles. It is not the missiles that need replacement; it is the submarines. Next year’s decision is purely about building new submarines to replace those that will soon go out of service. The SNP in its motion wants us not to renew Trident, yet it wants to join NATO, a nuclear weapons alliance, and it wants to be protected by French and American nuclear weapons. That policy is just incoherent.
A submarine system with ballistic missiles remains the most effective and least vulnerable form of deterrent. Aircraft can be shot down. Land-based silos are vulnerable to attack. In contrast, a submarine can hide in the depths of the ocean. The submarine base at Faslane is in my constituency, and, like other speakers, I pay tribute to all those who serve in our submarines and their families. Our submariners are very committed to serving their country and are away from their families for months on end. I also pay tribute to those who work at Faslane and the armaments depot at Coulport. They carry out very highly skilled jobs with an extremely high level of professionalism.
We should be doing our utmost to work to rid the world of nuclear weapons, and I was pleased to hear the Defence Secretary say that Britain will be hosting a non-proliferation treaty conference next month, but it would be wrong for Britain, as the movers of the motion want, to give up our nuclear deterrent unilaterally. That would not remove anyone else’s and would not make the world any safer.
I apologise for missing part of this debate, but I had duties to perform on the Serious Crime Bill this afternoon.
When I was 20 years old Mrs Thatcher had just been elected for the first time, and it was the height of the cold war. Like any idealistic 20-year-old, I wanted to live in a peaceful world free of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear annihilation. I did not think it was too much to ask. I was young and had the rest of my life ahead of me, so I joined CND.
CND wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons unilaterally —“just like that,” as if they could be magicked away. Although CND’s approach to nuclear disarmament was well-meaning, the organisation elevated unilateral nuclear disarmament from a tactic to a principle. CND implied at the time that “If you’re a unilateralist, you’re a peace lover. If you’re a multilateralist, you’re a warmonger.” I doubt very much that the British people are warmongers and they taught me a valuable lesson in 1983 when they let the Labour party know in no uncertain terms at the ballot box what they thought of our position on unilateral nuclear disarmament. Shortly after that, I left CND.
I relay that story because I believe those who are unilateralists hold strongly held convictions, but so do multilateralists. Both unilateralism and multilateralism are tactics—they are a means to an end—and are not principles. A world of peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and of the threat of nuclear annihilation are the principles and the goals we should be pursuing. To hold up unilateralism as anything more than a tactic and to try and portray it as a superior and moral principle is a lamentable fallacy and could turn, like this motion before us today, into something wholly disingenuous and hypocritical. For example, I do not understand how the SNP can promote unilateral nuclear disarmament and want to see the removal of nuclear bases from the Clyde, but want to stay part of NATO, which is a nuclear alliance. I now understand, however, that the SNP wants to remain part of NATO only if NATO takes all possible steps to bring about nuclear disarmament. I think we can all agree with that objective whether we are unilateralists or multilateralists, and we already know that nuclear stockpiles have been significantly reduced by NATO members through multilateral action. The SNP would have the deterrent move south of the border, because if there were, God forbid, a nuclear catastrophe, any nuclear fallout would stop drifting north once it reached Hadrian’s wall.
But what is the principle at stake? For the SNP it is a belief in a narrow-minded and short-sighted nationalism, where its contribution to a nuclear weapon-free world is the removal of such weapons from Scottish soil while leaving the deterrent itself intact because, after all, the SNP wants to be protected by NATO’s nuclear umbrella. That is what I mean about its being disingenuous. For the rest of us, the principle at stake is a secure world where prosperity is shared and people live as best they can together. For me that is a laudable ambition and it is one that the SNP will say it adheres to, but how do we achieve that ambition—by withdrawing from the world and making our country smaller, or by embracing the world with all its faults? Surely it is the latter approach that offers the best chance of success.
However, I believe that the supporters of the motion want to retreat from the world and renege on their responsibilities by giving up on the tools already at their disposal to do the job. What do I mean by this? The nationalist parties may seem bigger than they are because they are taking on more than what they are. In this case, they are taking on the rest of the United Kingdom, but their stated ambition of breaking up the United Kingdom will diminish not only Scotland but the opportunity to achieve what the SNP sees as the most important goal of all—a world free of nuclear weapons, which we all want to see. The irony is that the SNP and Plaid Cymru will never achieve any of this without remaining part of the UK. That is why the motion is disingenuous. The proposers of the motion know that; and if they do not, at least the Scottish people do.
The SNP’s stance will diminish what it wants to achieve. If the United Kingdom were no longer united, and if the SNP’s sister party, UKIP, had its way and we left Europe, the UK’s permanent seat on the UN Security Council would rightly be jeopardised. That would be a disaster because—I know this is not popular with the SNP and Plaid Cymru—Britain is a force for good in the world. I do not believe in a little England; I believe in a Great Britain. Britain is a force for good which should not be diminished by impotent nationalism which believes that the best way of solving the problems of the world is withdrawing from the world.
If the SNP has its way, it may see the removal of a nuclear deterrent from Scotland to another part of these islands that it shares with the rest of us, but it will further diminish the prospect of achieving its stated aim of a nuclear weapon-free world. Like nuclear fall-out, my aspirations for a world free of nuclear weapons do not end at Hadrian’s wall. Until agreement can be reached on further reductions in nuclear weapons, Britain should be at the table shaping the future, not succumbing to it. Let us not forget that it is not just England that is represented on the UN Security Council as a permanent member, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Why the SNP wants to relegate Scotland from such a seat, I do not know.
If we do not take ourselves seriously, no one else will. In a globalised world the trick is not to be small and make ourselves even smaller, but to walk tall and be part of, not against, something greater than ourselves. As a consequence, Trident or its equivalent continually at-sea as a deterrent is the burden that we need to carry until multilateral disarmament opportunities arise. As I learned in the early 1980s, wishful thinking gets us nowhere.
I apologise to the House for not being here at the start of the debate. As I explained to you in a letter, Mr Speaker, I was attending the funeral of a friend of mine, Mike Marqusee, a great writer who passed away last week. He had an enormous funeral this afternoon. My hon. Friend John McDonnell was there, too. When I informed the massive audience that we were leaving to come to vote against Trident, they burst into rapturous applause.
Mike Marqusee wrote a great deal and thought a great deal. He started by opposing the Vietnam war and spent his life campaigning for peace and a nuclear-free world. During the funeral we received a message from another good friend of mine, Achin Vanaik, who is an anti-nuclear campaigner in India. He does not want India to have nuclear weapons or to be a nuclear power, and he does not want Britain to be a nuclear power. He wants to see a nuclear-free world. He is not alone. There are millions around the world who do not see nuclear weapons as their peace and their security. They see such weapons, first, as an enormous expenditure and, secondly, as an enormous threat to this world.
I attended the Vienna conference on the humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons, along with other colleagues from the House. I was very pleased that, at the last moment, the British Government decided to attend, as did the United States Government. That was a good step forward, because they had not attended previous conferences in Oslo and Mexico. I hope that all the delegates took in the reality of what a nuclear explosion is. When Members talk glibly about the deterrent or the threat—the possibility of deterring people through the use of nuclear weapons—they should pause and think for a moment. If someone says that they have a deterrent and it is a threat, they must be prepared to use it. If anyone anywhere in the world uses a nuclear weapon of any size, millions die and there is an environmental catastrophe, a global recession, a food shortage and a nuclear winter. It would mean the destruction of an awful lot of things that we hold very dear. We talk glibly about the security that these weapons give us, but that security is one of destroying everything that we hold dear. Perhaps we should be a little less glib and a little more sanguine about the real humanitarian effects of nuclear weapons.
Next month, the Government will host a meeting of the P5, the permanent members of the UN Security Council that also happen to be the five declared nuclear weapons states, but please let no one tell me that if a country gives up nuclear weapons it can no longer be a permanent member of the Security Council, because that is simply not the case. Presumably, the meeting was designed to work out the line to take ahead of the five-yearly review conference on nuclear weapons, which will take place in New York in May.
The non-proliferation treaty was the product of good work by the Wilson Labour Government, and others, in 1970, and contains two key demands. The first is that the five declared nuclear weapons states—Britain, France, China, Russia and the USA—take steps towards disarmament. The second is that all other signatories agreed not to develop nuclear weapons, and the declared nuclear weapons states agreed not to export nuclear technology. Is the development of a new submarine and nuclear weapons systems by Britain part of taking steps towards disarmament? Or is it the very opposite—taking steps towards re-armament? Perhaps we could have more credibility by going to the P5 meeting in February with a proposal for the non-replacement of Trident and the start of a process of disarmament by all five P5 members. We could report back to the conference in May.
We have been discussing morality and credibility. At the conference on the humanitarian effects of war, the British representative, the ambassador to Vienna, delivered a speech on behalf of the Foreign Office in which he outlined the British Government’s case for nuclear weapons, which was that they believe them to bring security—we have heard many of the same arguments today. It was met with silence, sadness, disappointment and incredulity, particularly after we had heard from people who had witnessed nuclear explosions and seen their effects.
That speech was followed by one from the representative of the South African Government, who explained how South Africa had nuclear technology but had specifically given it up in order to make the continent of Africa a nuclear weapons-free zone. How did the conference receive that speech? There was amazing sympathy, support and optimism. We offered pessimism, threats and insecurity; the South Africans offered hope and some kind of justice around the world. I hope that the House will understand that many of us will never give up on the idea that we can and will live in a nuclear-free world, and that our existence as a country does not depend on being able to destroy the rest of the planet.
When 2016 comes, we will presumably be invited to vote on the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile system and expenditure on it of about £100 billion over the next 25 years. That is an utterly incredible sum of money. I obviously hope that we do not undertake the renewal, and that if we do we never use the weapons. An enormous amount of resources is taken up in creating a weapon of mass destruction when we could be setting our engineering industry, which is highly skilled, highly motivated and able to produce many things, to producing things of social and economic good rather than the drain involved in the cost of nuclear weapons. That, in turn, would help our economic development, whereas the development of nuclear weapons will not.
To those who say that it is all for our security and that our security is enhanced by nuclear weapons, let me say this. If we follow that argument, any country in the world can say, “We need nuclear weapons.” Iceland could say it wants them; Paraguay could say it wants them; Japan could say it must have nuclear weapons—the list goes on, the countries get bigger and the possibilities become more dangerous.
The last review conference reiterated the previous decision that there should be a middle east weapons of mass destruction-free zone conference that would be hosted by the Finnish Government. It did not happen, and because it did not happen, Egypt walked out. Others in the Arab League and in the region warned that if this conference did not take place, there would be a danger to the whole non-proliferation treaty process. I hope that the Government are aware of that danger. Every single country at the last review conference agreed that the conference I mentioned for the middle east should take place, and I hope that it will. It would provide a way of getting Israel and Iran around the same table. We got together on chemical weapons and a load of other things, so we should get together on that. Otherwise, there will be a danger of a nuclear arms race developing across that region, with obvious dangers to the rest of the world.
Others wish to speak, so let me conclude with these thoughts. We were elected to this place to try to improve people’s lives; we were elected to represent our constituents and to ensure that they have homes, jobs, schools, hospitals and security. A secure world is not created by an arms race, and it is not created by creating more and more threats. A secure world is created by looking at the issues that divide the world—the racism that divides the world; the poverty that divides the world; the environmental destruction that divides the world. Can we not look in a different direction and deliver a different foreign policy, rather than hold to the arid idea that all we need to do is to spend phenomenal sums of money in order to threaten to destroy the whole planet?
It is a huge pleasure to follow my hon. Friend Jeremy Corbyn and to join him in paying tribute to Mike Marqusee—I knew him, too—who was involved in many campaigns, including many anti-war ones.
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to put on record my opposition to Trident and to Trident renewal. I believe that continuing the Trident programme would be wrong politically, economically and militarily. At the beginning of the debate, there was a good deal of discussion about the costs of Trident, which have been disputed. What we know, however, is that if we look at the history of nuclear weapons systems, the costs have escalated and the eventual costs have on every occasion been hugely greater than was originally indicated by the Governments in power.
Some £100 billion, or something of that nature, is an absolutely obscene amount to spend in a country where the gap between rich and poor is getting greater, where far too many of our constituents are relying on food banks and where the political debate is dominated by discussion of what cuts should take place. It is interesting to note that some of the strongest advocates of Trident renewal are also the most robust advocates of cuts in other areas of public expenditure, such as public services and welfare. I do not believe that a decision to proceed with Trident, and the Trident renewal at main gate in 2016, will be acceptable to any of our constituents in any part of the country.
Too much of the debate has been dominated by the politics of the 1980s, and Labour Members believe that the politics of those years still dominate much of the thinking on this issue. Crispin Blunt made the same point in one of today’s most interesting speeches. I think that, over the decades, the arguments of those who believe that the retention of a nuclear capability is not a sensible use of Britain’s resources have become stronger and stronger. Nuclear weapons are no defence against the challenges that we face from terrorism; indeed, the more nuclear installations we have, the more vulnerable we become. We need to devote all our energies to nuclear disarmament throughout the world, and to the prevention of nuclear proliferation.
As has been pointed out repeatedly, all the arguments advanced by those who believe that it is essential for Britain to have nuclear weapons are equally valid in respect of every country in the world. We need to act politically in order to put nuclear disarmament at the top of the agenda. We need to turn up at discussions, as the British Government often do not. Deciding not to proceed with Trident, and to use the money in other ways, would be a hugely important step symbolically, and would have a huge impact throughout the world.
Given that a decision will be made in 2016, we need to engage in a full and open debate about whether Britain actually needs nuclear weapons. Certainly they are hugely unpopular in the part of the world that I represent, where we see the weapons and the submarines.
Only last Thursday, a nuclear convoy travelled through the roads of many parts of Scotland. It is clear that what the main political parties are saying is increasingly out of step with public opinion. We should be concentrating on redeveloping our economy by investing in defence diversification and in growth and jobs, rather than spending money on nuclear weapons systems, which are an incredibly ineffective and inefficient method of job creation.
I hope that Members in all parts of the House will make clear this evening that we must have a proper debate, and that we must make a decision that will be in the interests of the people of this country.
I am very pleased to follow Katy Clark, and, indeed, Jeremy Corbyn, who is a fellow member of the council of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I am also very pleased to speak in support of this important motion. I support it for moral, security, economic and legal reasons.
Let me begin with the legal reasons. I believe that using Trident would be illegal. That is what the International Court of Justice concluded about nuclear weapons in its advisory opinion of 1996, an opinion that reflected international humanitarian law and the principle that states must never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets. Even more specifically, that is the opinion of lawyers from Matrix Chambers who were asked for their judgment on two separate occasions, and who determined in both instances that
“The use of the Trident system would breach customary international law”,
in particular, under article 2(4) of the UN charter. The same lawyers found:
“Renewal or replacement of Trident at the same capability is likely to be inconsistent with Article VI”
of the non-proliferation treaty, to which the UK has been a signatory since 1968.
I wish to spend a moment discussing the NPT, because those in favour of nuclear weapons often cite it when making the case that countries such as Iran should not seek to acquire nuclear weapons. I certainly do not want to see Iran acquire nuclear weapons, but I recognise that the NPT is based on two key clauses. It is based on a bargain, the first part of which is that nations that do not have nuclear weapons should not seek to acquire them. The other part of the bargain—the forgotten part—is that nations with nuclear weapons should seek to negotiate them away in all earnestness. We seem to forget that second part, and we are not seeing much earnestness from Members on either side of the House.
It is useful briefly to consider the claim, often repeated by many Government and Opposition Members, that we need Trident for our security. I argue that nuclear weapons make us less safe. They divert major resources away from tackling our main security threats, and the Government have stated that the security threats we face today are primarily terrorism and cyber-attacks; I would add climate insecurity to that list. It is not difficult to find experienced military and political figures who confirm that nuclear weapons are not strategically useful. I do not often quote Michael Portillo, but when he was Defence Secretary he described Trident as
“completely past its sell-by date”.
As I have said, the former head of the armed forces has described our nuclear weapons as “completely useless” and “virtually irrelevant”.
We need to examine this word “deterrent” in a bit more detail, because it is used far too simply. Calling Trident “the deterrent” as though that were somehow an intrinsic part of its identity is just plain silly—the language does not confer the capability to deter any more than calling a cat “dog” would give a cat the ability to bark. We need a mix of tools for deterrence and security, rather than investing blind faith in voodoo defence based on a cold war weapon that cannot deter but could very well obliterate us. The truth is that the idea of a nuclear deterrent is a public relations euphemism from the early days of the cold war. It was meant to close down debate by making nuclear weapons sound as if they were safe, sensible, useful and necessary—but they are not. Military history is littered with examples of too much reliance being placed on the latest weapon that some leader believed would deter. The consequences were often tragic, in part because those relying on the notion of a deterrent had failed to pay attention to the really important things that would have kept their people safer and more secure.
So it is even more short-sighted and dangerous for Britain to rely on a weapon of mass destruction that, if launched, would put our own survival at risk. If we are going to debate deterrence, we should do so honestly, recognising that it is a complex relationship requiring us to understand the fears, threat perceptions, and needs and values of others, and to communicate carefully and effectively. The best deterrence of all is to work with other nations to address the global threats we face, such as fossil fuel-induced climate disruption, transnational trafficking in weapons, people and drugs, and the poverty and desperation that fuel so many conflicts and so much hunger and violence around the world.
Perhaps even more controversially for some Government Members, Britain needs to have a realistic view of its role in the world. We can be a force for good, and I hope we are, but the truth is that we are a small nation in an interdependent world. Recognising that fact, rather than seeking to grandstand on the world stage, might just be an important step towards making us more secure. The MOD has made clear its knowledge of the fact that climate change plays a big role in the major strategic threats we face. It has put on the record that things such as coastal flooding, climate-driven migration and rising food prices owing to drought and water stress will be some of the most significant impacts of climate change over the next 30 years, and that those pose a far greater security risk than anything a nuclear weapon might help us with. I agree strongly with that view.
I want to reiterate what others have said about the obscene cost of Trident. To be seeking to spend £100 billion on Trident replacement and maintenance at any time would be a massive diversion of funds from more socially useful things, but to do so at a time of economic austerity, when we have 1 million people using food banks and welfare is being slashed for so many of the most vulnerable in this country, is morally wrong and obscene.
Let me conclude by saying that that £100 billion could pay for 150,000 new nurses, tuition fees for 4 million students, 1.5 million affordable homes, insulation of 15 million homes and 2 million jobs. Those are concrete, tangible things that we could have and yet we are turning them down, not in return for something that will genuinely give us security, but, even worse, in return for something that is likely to make us less safe.
We have had a very good, full and thoughtful debate. I thank everyone who has taken part, even those with whom I fundamentally disagree.
Speaking as I do for Plaid Cymru, I must begin by referring to the largely empty Labour Benches. I understand that Labour MPs are on a one-line Whip, and Welsh Labour MPs on the whole appear to have taken full advantage of that indulgence. Over the past few days, I have seen copies of many messages to Welsh Labour MPs, asking them to be here today. The empty Benches speak eloquently of their response. Some Welsh Labour MPs believe sincerely in the nuclear deterrent. Mrs Moon, who is in her place, is one such MP. I respect her for her position and for explaining her views. I am afraid that, for others, it is a matter of calculation. There is a grim balance between mutually assured destruction and, sadly, what effect a vote either way today will have on Members’ majorities in May. There are, however, Labour MPs and one Tory MP who have spoken in favour of our motion, and they are a shining example to others.
Some Welsh Labour MPs have dismissed today’s debate as posturing, a gimmick and a stunt. Opposition to aerial bombardment has been central to Plaid Cymru’s policy since our very earliest days—opposition that was tragically proved correct by the Nazi bombardment of Guernica and the destruction in the blitz of so much of central London, Coventry, Liverpool, Swansea, Glasgow and some of the great European cities such as Dresden. Then we have Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all the bombing in later years from Korea to Vietnam and Iraq to Afghanistan. We must mention also those women, some of whom were from Plaid Cymru, who marched all the way from Cardiff to Greenham to set up the first peace camp—some posturing, some gimmick, some stunt.
My hon. Friend Angus Robertson opened the debate with a long, detailed and very thoughtful speech. He made some hard-headed and practical points that would sit well in the mouths of military people. He looked at alternative ways to spend the money that goes into Trident and at the costs of Trident, and that has been a continual theme today. I was disappointed that the Secretary of State would not or could not answer that particular question on costs.
My hon. Friend posed a particular question about marine patrol aircraft, and again we got no answer. He finished by pointing out that there is determined and national opposition to the matter in Scotland. In reply, the Secretary of State talked about the fearsome nuclear arsenal in the world—17,000 nuclear weapons. He pointed out quite reasonably that the Russians are modernising, that North Korea is looking for capability, that Iran is dangerous and so on. He pointed out all those dangers. He also talked about the current threat from ISIL and again referred to Russia and Ukraine. He stressed that the nuclear threat is there for the long term.
The Secretary of State was questioned by my hon. Friend about the total cost of Trident. It is interesting because some Members put that cost at £25 billion to £30 billion. Others suggested £130 billion. Whatever way we look at it, that is an enormous amount of money. The point was made that that money could be spent in a much, much better way.
The Secretary of State mentioned the jobs that are dependent on the nuclear industry, such as those at Faslane. Other Members also made that point.
Dame Joan Ruddock made an excellent speech about how the decision would lock us into nuclear deterrence for a very long time and about how the dangers have changed over the years. She also talked about the dangers of a nuclear winter.
Oliver Colvile talked about Trident as the cornerstone of membership of NATO and noted that jobs in his constituency are reliant on its renewal.
Mr Godsiff made a careful and thoughtful speech in which he pointed out that security is best achieved collectively with other countries and I welcome his support for our arguments today.
Sir Nick Harvey outlined the Liberal Democrat position and also pointed out that the world has changed. He questioned the utility in 2015 of a system that was first devised in the ’70s and ’80s and also pointed out the other choices. Tellingly, he pointed out that there is now discussion about bringing the Army down to 60,000 members, rather than 80,000. He then explained the Liberal Democrat position on retaining capability as a contingency, but I must confess that I did not quite follow his argument. No doubt those arguments will be rehearsed again as we approach the election.
John Woodcock rehearsed the mutually assured destruction argument for Trident. He said that he was proud of Labour’s record, and when he was asked by Crispin Blunt when Trident would not be affordable, he seemed to say that it was a wonderful bargain. He is the MP for Barrow.
Rory Stewart talked about Armageddon, not economics, making a good general point, and then went on to the new bogey man, Russia, and a possible attack on the Baltics, a possibility that other Members discussed and roundly dismissed. He finished with an interesting point when he said that it is not just about kit but about a determination to defend ourselves. The character reference reminded me of Mr Tony Blair’s reference to the United Kingdom as a war-fighting nation. Wales is not a war-fighting nation.
My hon. Friend Mr MacNeil argued that if nuclear weapons are so good, why should not everyone have them? He also pointed towards the interesting possibility of a Labour-Tory coalition after the election.
Many hon. Members spoke and I apologise to them for not being able to refer to their speeches. I should mention the hon. Member for Bridgend, about whom I spoke earlier, as a fellow Welsh Member. She welcomed the political debate and we will engage with her in the run-up to the election. I suspect that those are words that she might come to regret. She said that Labour is in favour and that there would be no coalition, so can I tell her from this Bench that we do not want one? She also explained her conversion from CND membership to supporting Trident and I found that very interesting. Other Members, including Phil Wilson, have moved from supporting the CND to supporting Trident.
There were eloquent and passionate speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). Those will repay close heed. In fact, this entire debate should be read and examined by people well outside this House as the arguments have been rehearsed well and interestingly. I think we can say that a line has been drawn this afternoon. On this side, we have the Green party, Plaid Cymru and the SNP as well some of our friends in other parties, whereas on the other side we have the other parties.
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
I think not, as I have no time at all.
I will in fact finish my speech, saying that peace and peacemaking have been central to the culture of my country for a very long time. I finish with lines from the 19th-century poet, Gwilym Hiraethog, which might be a suitable epitaph for Trident. They are:
“Segurdod yw clod y cledd,
A rwd yw ei anrhydedd.”
“Idleness is the glory of the sword,
And rust is its distinction.”
Today’s debate has shown one thing above all, which is that the House takes a strong interest in nuclear deterrence.
I should like to begin by congratulating the minor parties on securing the debate, and all those who have made a contribution. I may not be able to refer to everyone individually in the time available. We are fortunate to be able to rely on the crews of our submarines and their families, and the men and women, both military and civilian, who support the nuclear enterprise. Their support is essential to maintaining our nation’s credible and effective minimum nuclear deterrent based on Trident, operating on a continuously at-sea posture, and we thank them for their unwavering dedication.
I am afraid that I cannot take interventions.
I remind the House that it is the first duty of any Government to ensure the security of the nation, its people and their vital interests. This Government do not, and will not, gamble with the United Kingdom’s security. We recognise that people wish to be reassured that money spent on replacing the current Vanguard-class submarines will be money well spent. That has been reflected by several hon. Members in the debate. As my hon. Friend Rory Stewart, who chairs the Select Committee on Defence, eloquently pointed out, this is not just about money. It is a big decision, but costs are important too. The Government agree that the strategic deterrent should be subject to the same discipline in bearing down on securing value for money for taxpayers that we are applying across defence procurement.
We will continue to scrutinise and improve the procurement programme for Successor, but we should not forget that capability is a long-term issue. We are talking about maintaining a strategic deterrent in service until 2060, and it is essential that we can protect the UK against future uncertainties during that period. The world has always been an uncertain place, and the task of defending the nation has always been supremely challenging, and never more so than in the nuclear age. Some hon. Members have questioned the threats and the nature of deterrence—Members have very different views on the subject. As the Secretary of State said, we are now in the second nuclear age, with existing nuclear powers commissioning new capabilities. The problems of proliferation have become sharper, and the emergence of new nuclear states is a reality. The need for the nuclear deterrent is no less than it has ever been. Only today there have been reports in the US raising doubts about continuing co-operation by Russia and its working with the United States to protect stockpiles of weapons and materials.
We have heard impassioned speeches by Members on both sides of the debate. I commend the consistency that most speakers have shown on this vital topic. I was reminded by some speakers, notably Dame Joan Ruddock, and the hon. Members for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), of speeches from the 1980s. My hon. Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) argued with equal passion and considerable expertise. My hon. Friend Crispin Blunt has clearly travelled in one direction in this debate, while at the same time the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) have travelled in the opposite direction.
Angus Robertson, as usual, is trying to have it both ways. During the campaign last year on the referendum, which settled the issue of independence for Scotland, he argued that Scotland’s defence would rest on the presumption of NATO membership. To be accepted as a member of NATO requires a nation to accept protection under an umbrella of nuclear compatibility, yet the motion seeks to do precisely the opposite in respect of our own nuclear deterrent. As Vernon Coaker pointed out, all NATO allies except France, a nuclear-weapons state, participate in NATO’s nuclear planning group, so an independent Scotland would either have to participate in NATO’s nuclear planning process, which would be odd for a Government with a declared opposition to nuclear weapons, or it would have to persuade the 28 allies that it should hold a unique anti-nuclear position in a nuclear alliance—not a credible position.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex pointed out, Pete Wishart showed that he did not understand his own party’s motion. We should be clear about this. We are making the main-gate decision next year on replacing four Vanguard-class submarines with four Successor submarines—that is, no increase in proliferation or stockpiling of weapons. In fact, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, and as set out in today’s written statement, this Government have already reduced the number of warheads deployed on each boat from 48 to 40 and the number of operationally available warheads from 160 to 120.
The hon. Member for Moray and several others made much of the cost of the overall programme, particularly the sums being spent or committed ahead of the main-gate investment decision. It might help the House if I clarify the actual rather than the fantasy costs of the programme. Several hon. Members have referred to £100 billion as the cost of replacing Trident. We simply do not recognise this figure. The Government White Paper presented to Parliament in 2006 estimated a cost of £15 billion to £20 billion, at 2006 prices, for the Successor submarine infrastructure and refurbishment of warheads. We remain within these initial estimates, which in 2011 were updated for the capital costs of Successor submarines to £25 billion at outturn prices.
Some hon. Members acknowledged the economic impact of this programme. In addition to the important design and manufacturing facilities for the submarines at Barrow, which John Woodcock mentioned, for the propulsion in Derby, and for the warheads in Berkshire, there are of course those involved in the submarine operating base at Faslane—the largest employer in Scotland. We have identified over 850 businesses in the supply chain across the UK that will potentially be involved in the Successor programme. This is one of the largest capital projects in the UK.
The shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for Gedling, revealed two things. First, we heard the renewed commitment to a minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent delivered through CASD—continuous-at-sea deterrence—in the most cost-effective way. I, and other Government Members, welcome that. It will be interesting to see how many of his colleagues join him and me in the Lobby to reject the motion. I hope that he has the support of his party. I noticed that he claimed the support of the leader of the Scottish Labour party, but not of his own leader.
Secondly, and revealingly, the hon. Gentleman declined to confirm, in answer to my specific question, that the Labour party is committed to a four boat solution. Perhaps this explains the nuances between the hon. Gentleman, who spoke before Christmas of a minimum credible deterrent, and the Leader of the Opposition, who, when challenged, talked of a least-cost CASD.
We should not be playing party politics with an issue like this, but if we are, does the hon. Gentleman agree with Dr Fox, who said,
“At the moment the assessment is we need four…So at the moment the technology says four. That’s something that can always be kept under review”?
Every study that we have looked at so far has said four, so that is where we stand, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman does too.
Finally, I turn to the position advocated by my hon. Friend Sir Nick Harvey, whom we found dancing on the head of a pin in talking about a bizarre new Lib Dem policy aspiration. Far from a minimum nuclear deterrent capability delivered with a two boat option for dual use, he has developed a new policy on the hoof—not a part-time deterrent but a kit-part deterrent. Apart from the fact that neither of those options was even considered by the alternatives review, this has demonstrated that the Liberal Democrat party is—
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Main Question accordingly put.
The House proceeded to a Division.
I wonder whether in the light of the delay—it has been 17 minutes thus far—the Serjeant at Arms might investigate the delay in both Lobbies.
The House having divided: Ayes 35, Noes 364.