Vote on the future of the UK's nuclear deterrent (Trident)

6.29.08pm UTC (GMT +0000) Wed 14th Mar 2007

I have set out below the Liberal Democrat position regarding the vote in the house of Commons on Wednesday, 14th March have shared a few of my own thoughts on this matter.

1. Liberal Democrat 2005 Manifesto

Nuclear weapons have terrifying power. A single warhead of the size currently retained by the UK can have the destructive power six times greater than that dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Nuclear weapons are rightly considered in a class apart from conventional weapons and even chemical or biological weapons. Working towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons is a central principle of Liberal Democrat international and defence policy.

Our 2005 general election manifesto set out our commitment to press for a new round of multilateral arms reduction talks and retain the UK's current minimum nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future, until sufficient progress has been made towards the global elimination of such weapons.

We recognise the danger over the next decade of states such as Iran and North Korea developing nuclear weapons and the pressure this would place on other powers in their regions to consider acquiring nuclear weapons themselves. Such proliferation could lead in the longer term to a possibility of one or more such states posing a threat to Britain, its neighbours or allies.

2. Government policy to decide now to replace Trident

I do not however support the Government's proposal to decide now - prematurely in our view - to proceed with a new generation of submarines to carry nuclear weapons. Tony Blair has jumped the gun on this because he wants the decision made while he is still Prime Minister - he wants it to be part of his legacy.

We accept that Britain should start the planning for a replacement and look at all the options, but we do not believe that any such decision is necessary for some years. We endorse the view of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee that no binding decision is needed until the next decade.

The majority of the costs associated with any replacement system would only begin to be incurred at the 'main gate' approval stage, when the actual manufacture of a replacement would begin. The pre-concept and design work that takes place before main gate approval incurs a small proportion of the overall procurement costs. Therefore, a final decision on whether and, if so, how to procure any successor system could be taken at any point up to a decision on main gate approval, without incurring significant procurement costs. The 'main gate approval' for a replacement for the current submarines is likely to be around 2014.

Scheduling the final decision for a more realistic date in the next decade would give Britain several years which should be put to good use trying to create the circumstances in which replacing Trident could prove strategically unnecessary.

3. Some disarmament now

We also propose however an immediate reduction of Britain's nuclear capacity by 50% to reinvigorate the multilateral disarmament process and re-energise multilateral negotiations. Currently, Britain retains approximately 200 warheads with each submarine carrying up to 48 warheads. Liberal Democrats believe that Britain should cut its stockpile by half, retaining no more than 100 warheads with each submarine carrying no more than 24 warheads. This would be sufficient to provide Britain with a credible minimum deterrent, and demonstrate that Britain is determined to bring down the size of our own arsenal.

Such a significant reduction to Britain's nuclear arsenal would send a strong signal to non-nuclear weapons states that Britain continues to meet its obligations under the NPT and is serious about cutting its nuclear weapons.

If Britain used all its influence to spearhead a renewed drive towards disarmament, expressing a sincere willingness to give up our remaining nuclear weapons if progress is made, and hopefully with a more sympathetic American administration post-George Bush, we could encourage other countries considering nuclear development to sit down and discuss a non-nuclear future. And the NPT review conferences in 2010 and 2015 could make progress again after the failure in 2005.

By keeping our options open for some years, we can make a final assessment of whether we need to insure against an uncertain future with the advantage of being somewhat closer to it and better able to judge.

4. Liberal Democrat Policy-making

I serve on the party Federal Policy Committee which considered the report of a working group which took evidence from experts. At the committee I argued that we should have full and fair debate on this policy set against an alternative of deciding now not to replace Trident at the end of its life (but with no immediate cut in warheads). The above position was therefore decided democratically by local representatives at our recent party conference in Harrogate, albeit by a narrow margin of 40 votes . We are the only major party to decide our policy democratically - or even to debate it. I enclose the motion as passed.

5 The Parliamentary Debate

The Prime Minister and Gordon Brown are forcing this rash decision through now and the vote on Wednesday 14th March will be on a Government motion to approve their policy. The liberal Democrats have fashioned an amendment to this motion disagreeing along with a significant number of back-bench Labour MPs. I have signed this amendment. All Lib Dem MPs will vote for this amendment. Unfortunately the Government's position will be supported by the majority of Labour MPs and by the Conservative Party, so the policy will pass.

I have also signed two Early Day Motions on this matter:

Early Day Motion 579 'Consultation on Trident'

Early Day Motion 798 'Future of Trident and the Process of Global Nuclear Disarmament'

6. Final Remarks

When I came into politics over 20 years ago, during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, I was a strong supporter of NATO and the principle of nuclear deterrence. I spent much time debating and arguing with Labour politicians who wanted unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from NATO. They did not support deterrence even though the west was faced by overwhelming conventional superiority and a potentially hostile nuclear super-power.

Now that the Cold War is over I believe it is hard to see who we are deterring by possessing a (nominally) independent nuclear weapon capability. Deterrence only works when engaged against rational nation state. It can not work effectively against terrorists or against rogue states. What is required instead is a major global effort to prevent nuclear proliferation and the possession of nuclear weapons by states like Iran. A premature decision taken now to renew Trident is wholly counter-productive to that process and is a damning indictment of Labour and Conservative Foreign Policy.

I find it ironic that these days I am facing the same Labour politicians I debated with 20 years ago, but this time taking an opposite view, born of tribal loyalty to their leadership, US leadership or some bizarre sense of over-compensation against right wing tabloid allegations of being "soft on defence". These Labour politicians have - in my opinion - been wrong both times. I am pleased these days to find myself with the support of CND.

Related Links:

House of Commons Defence Committee - The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: the White Paper.

Early Day Motion 579 'Consultation on Trident'.

Early Day Motion 798 'Future of Trident and the Process of Global Nuclear Disarmament'.