| ||||||||||||
Speech in Scottish Parliament Jim Wallace |
||
| 21 December 2006 | ||
|
Mr Jim Wallace (Orkney) (LD): It is useful for the Parliament to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, although the decision is properly taken by the people whom we elect to Westminster. I have some reservations about calling it a debate when only the fifth paragraph of the Prime Minister's foreword to the white paper says: "We have therefore decided to maintain our deterrent system beyond the life of the Vanguards with a new generation of ballistic missile-carrying submarines. We will also extend the life of the Trident D5 missile." I do not call that a genuine consultation. The Liberal Democrat position, as set out in our amendment, is that we reject the reasoning in the white paper that we must rush to a decision in spring next year. We have argued a cogent case that crucial decisions on whether and how to procure a successor system to Trident need not be taken before 2014, when a clearer picture could have emerged of the proliferation of states that possess nuclear weapons and their ability to threaten directly Britain's security. We are not alone in making the case for deferral. In June, the House of Commons Defence Committee concluded that a programme to extend the lifetime of the four Vanguard-class submarines would make it unnecessary to take a binding decision on a replacement for Trident until some time between 2010 and 2014—in other words, beyond the next UK general election, when the issue can be debated before the electorate. So why the rush? I believe that technical procurement arguments call into question the Government's haste. The most recent Vanguard submarine entered service less than six years ago. With a design life of 25 years, to which an extension of five years is possible, such submarines could operate until the late 2020s. Moreover, the House of Commons committee has said that the United States' decision to keep the Trident missile in service until 2042 means that that cannot be said to be a driver in the present debate. There are substantial reasons why we should reconsider our reliance on the strategic ballistic nuclear missile system, which was ordered when the cold war was particularly chilly. The international strategic scene has changed out of recognition from the world of the 1980s. Successive UK Cabinet ministers alert us to the terrorist threat but, with barely an exception, those who gave evidence to the Commons Defence Committee's inquiry took the view that a strategic nuclear defence system would "serve no useful or practical purpose in countering this kind of threat." General Sir Michael Jackson voiced support for the Government's Trident announcement in his recent Dimbleby lecture, but he deplored the lack of resources for soldiers' accommodation and basic fighting equipment. Yet the procurement costs for retaining our independent deterrent are estimated at £15 billion to £20 billion—more than the cost of procuring Trident at today's prices. I was a member of the Liberal-SDP Defence Commission in 1986, which said, in respect of the original Trident procurement: "a compelling argument against continuing with the Trident project is that of defence priorities and resources. Trident will account for at least 6% of the equipment budget during the period of its acquisition ... at a time when the defence budget as a whole is severely overstretched." Those words have an echo of today. If that was true 20 years ago, the argument is possibly even more compelling today. However, we need a reality check. Six Christmases ago, no one envisaged the dreadful events of 11 September 2001 and how they would change the international strategic environment. Few today would be so bold as to identify with any certainty what future threats the United Kingdom is likely to face. North Korea recently tested a nuclear weapon and Iran continues a programme of uranium enrichment, in contravention of a Security Council resolution. Their activities could trigger a course of nuclear proliferation that would change materially today's strategic equation. That is why my party has not advocated unilateral renunciation of our existing deterrent. I respect but disagree with those who argue the unilateralist position. However, with such uncertainty, I ask why we must decide to commit to replacement before we need to do so. We know that once things start rolling, they will continue. Alasdair Morgan (South of Scotland) (SNP): Will the member give way? Mr Wallace: I am in the last minute of my speech, so I will conclude. The threat of proliferation should prompt us to make a renewed effort to breathe life into the non-proliferation treaty and non-proliferation in practice. Britain should make an active contribution to supporting non-proliferation and kick-starting multilateral disarmament talks. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed going much further than the Government's intended 20 per cent reduction in the number of warheads. Our proposals would cut in half Britain's stockpile of nuclear weapons now and send a strong signal to the international community that nuclear disarmament must be back on the agenda. All members believe that a nuclear weapons-free world would be a precious prize. I fear that the headlong rush next spring to a new generation of British nuclear deterrence would make that goal ever more distant. The prize is surely worthy of a debate more serious and genuine than the fait accompli that has been presented to us and the rush to replacement that was announced in the white paper earlier this month. I urge members to support the Liberal Democrat amendment in my name. I move amendment S2M-5355.3, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert: "rejects the case made by the UK Government in its White Paper on the future of the Trident nuclear missile system published on 4 December 2006 that the decision on a replacement for Trident needs to be made in early 2007 and calls on the UK Government not to go ahead with the proposals in the White Paper at this time." The Presiding Officer: We move to open debate. As members are aware, time is tight; therefore, speeches will be limited to four minutes.
|