| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament Mike Rumbles |
||
| September 2006 | ||
|
Mike Rumbles (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): Liberal Democrats north and south of the border have a long-standing commitment to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons on a multilateral basis while retaining the UK's current nuclear deterrent until progress has been made to that end. Replacing the Trident system is clearly a reserved decision for Westminster, but the Liberal Democrats believe that it is vital for a properly informed public debate to take place. Bruce Crawford: Including in this place? Mike Rumbles: Yes, including in this place, and throughout the United Kingdom. At the end of the public debate, there must be a vote in the House of Commons on any decision made by the UK Government on whether to replace the Trident system. Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP): Does the member agree that, even if we accept the distinction between reserved and devolved matters, one problem is that votes in the House of Commons are determined by members elected on the first-past-the-post system rather than any kind of proportional representation? Mike Rumbles: That is the democratic system that we have. We are a democracy and must abide by its results. I know that we would all like to see proportional representation throughout the United Kingdom. In the aftermath of last year's failure of both the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference and the United Nations summit to make any meaningful progress on nuclear disarmament, the Liberal Democrats are continuing to press the UK Government to initiate arms reduction talks. To say the least, it is hugely disappointing that, although the Prime Minister said that there would be the fullest possible debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown has pre-empted the debate with his recent statement making a clear commitment to replacing the Trident system. Liberal Democrats believe that the chancellor's commitment to replacing our strategic nuclear arsenal is a huge mistake. It makes a mockery of the call for a full and inclusive debate. What is the point of initiating debate if the Government has already made a decision? My personal view is straightforward. The UK Government should be taking real steps to initiate the removal of strategic nuclear weapons systems from the world's arsenals. What is the point of the UK spending billions of pounds on a system that could not possibly be used? Bill Butler (Glasgow Anniesland) (Lab): What is the Liberal position? Will Mr Rumbles encourage his Liberal Democrat Westminster colleagues to vote against the replacement of Trident when it comes to the debate in the House of Commons? Mike Rumbles: Yes. What sane Prime Minister would ever launch an intercontinental nuclear missile attack on another country aimed at destroying civilian population centres? That is what the weapons system is for. Mutually assured destruction always was a mad concept when it held sway between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries in the days of the cold war. It is equally mad in today's world. What sort of chancellor on the one hand condemns weapons of mass destruction held by other countries while on the other hand plans to update, improve and replace our own weapons of mass destruction? I can envisage no circumstances—no circumstances at all—in which a so-called strategic nuclear deterrent such as Trident or a replacement for it could possibly be used. I look forward to hearing other contributors to the debate, but I have yet to hear anyone who can outline a scenario in which they would advocate the use of the Trident missile system. If the replacement for Trident is to cost the British people billions of pounds but is of no military value whatsoever, what is its purpose? Mark Ballard (Lothians) (Green): If Mike Rumbles does not believe that there is any conceivable military use for the replacement of Trident, why does he want to retain Trident or any other nuclear deterrent? The same criticism applies to our current deterrent as would apply to one that will not deter in the future. The Presiding Officer: Mr Rumbles, you have one minute. Mike Rumbles: Mark Ballard should pay attention to what I am saying. We believe in multilateral nuclear disarmament. We want the Government to take the initiative and use our weapons systems to convince other countries to move down the path that we want to move down. I am running out of time, so I will close. I ask myself what Trident's purpose is, because it does not have any military value. It seems to me to be a very expensive status symbol for Gordon Brown, who sees himself as the future Prime Minister of Great Britain. In the great debate on the issue, which should be taking place across the length and breadth of the country, I hope that our MPs will listen to the moral lead given by the heads of the Christian churches in Scotland. I have heard criticisms of them, but this is exactly the lead that our religious leaders should be giving the nation. There can be no moral justification for the use of Trident or its successor. When the decision is taken by MPs in Westminster, I hope that our own phalanx of Scots MPs from all parties make the right decision. I move amendment S2M-4864.3, to leave out from "believes" to end and insert: "wishes to see the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons; notes the UK Government's commitment, made in June 2005, to reach a decision on the replacement of the Trident system by the end of the current Westminster Parliament; further notes that the Secretary of State for Defence stated in June 2005 that 'no decision on any replacement for Trident has been taken, either in principle or otherwise'; calls on the UK Government to ensure that there is a full public debate on the issue; further calls on the UK Government to press for a new round of multilateral arms reduction talks, and believes that the United Kingdom's current minimum nuclear deterrent should be retained for the foreseeable future until sufficient progress has been made towards the global elimination of nuclear weapons." |