Gordon Prentice - Pendle's Campaigning Labour MP
| The UK Nuclear Deterrent |
 |
 |
 |
Tags: Campaign | Nuclear | Trident | War
| Written by Gordon Prentice |
| Thursday, 07 July 2005 00:00 |
 Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I had to think twice about whether I wanted to speak: this is a very sombre day. I shall confine my remarks to the subject of the nuclear deterrent. I do not want to be painted as some kind of eccentric or peacenik, or as someone who would gamble with the nation's security. That is the charge that is normally levelled at people who question our need for the nuclear deterrent. It is a funny old world, is it not? We have a former Conservative Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, saying publicly and very cogently that there are better ways of spending the money. I have often told people outside that this place is like a giant adult education institute where we can learn things. Four or five weeks ago, I learned a huge amount from Robert McNamara, who spoke in the Moses Room in the House of Lords. Opposition Members were present. It was as if I were in touch with history. Robert McNamara was 88 years old and as sharp as a tack — slightly deaf, but so impressive. There he was, 40 years ago, in the Oval Office at 4.30 pm on Saturday 27 October 1962 — not as a note-taker but as an active participant, advising the President on how to respond to the Cuban missile crisis. There were three people in the Oval Office: McNamara himself, President Kennedy and the chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Robert McNamara referred to him as "the chief". Robert McNamara told us that the military were pressing for an invasion of Cuba. The military said that the CIA had intelligence showing that the missiles — there were photographs of them — did not have nuclear weapons on them. I was a paper boy at the time, frightened out of my wits like everyone else. Kennedy was told that there was a flotilla approaching Cuba with those nuclear warheads. The military said "You have got to invade, Mr. President." Of course, Kennedy did not invade. The flotilla turned round and went back to the Soviet Union. Robert McNamara told us that it was only on the dissolution — the collapse — of the Soviet Union that we found out that there were missiles there that were targeted and had nuclear weapons attached. The information that the CIA and the military gave Kennedy was simply wrong. Had they decided, at 4.30 pm on Saturday 27 October 1962, to invade, there would probably not be a planet Earth now — or it would be just a charred sphere circling the sun. Robert McNamara spent a lot of time thinking about that. He is not a peacenik; he is not an eccentric; he is a man who knows what he is talking about. He is advocating a massive cutback in the world's nuclear arsenal. He told us, and Opposition Members, that the United States had 6,000 strategic nuclear warheads, each with the destructive power to cause a Hiroshima. Of those 6,000 nuclear warheads, 2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, and can be launched in 15 minutes. Robert McNamara told us that that was "so bizarre as to be beyond belief". Despite the end of the cold war fifteen or so years ago, McNamara said that US nuclear weapons policies are today essentially what they were 40 years ago. He said that they are "immoral, illegal, militarily unnecessary and very, very dangerous in terms of the risk of accidental use". That is despite the non-proliferation regime that has been with us for 40 years. His speech was an education to me and to all those MPs and peers who listened to him with such rapt attention. It is not only Robert McNamara to whom we should listen. We should also listen to the former US Defence Secretary — a succession of Defence Secretaries are speaking out on this issue — William Perry, who served in the Clinton Administration. My friend the Secretary of State for Defence appeared to be unaware of William Perry's remarks, which is unfortunate, because they are important. William Perry said: "There is a greater than 50 per cent. probability of a nuclear detonation on US soil within the decade." Why did he say that? He said it because there is fissile material lying around all over the shop that is not being safeguarded. In the former Soviet Union, there are nuclear dumps everywhere. There are rotting nuclear submarines in the Arctic. The whole world is scattered with debris left over from the cold war. The US spends the staggering figure — I would run out of zeroes if I tried to write it down — of $400 billion on defence. Robert McNamara told us that if it spent a tiny fraction of that, perhaps $1 billion, on attempting to safeguard the fissile material, we would all sleep more safely in our beds. Peter Viggers (Gosport) (Con): I am listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest. For the sake of completeness and accuracy, he should perhaps mention the significant amount of money and support that the US gives to the disposal of nuclear weapons within the former Soviet Union. Mr. Prentice: I do not doubt that, but Robert McNamara says that more should be done. It is an incontestable fact that those dumps exist and that they are not secure. They should be safeguarded. In fact, two US senators, Sam Nunn and Richard Lugar, sought to make appropriations to safeguard and protect those nuclear dumps, but their efforts were not taken up by the Administration, which is astonishing. We have the bombs in London today and the tragedy of what has happened, but it is hard to imagine what might happen if some of these crazed, fundamentalist, Osama bin Laden terrorist groups got their hands on fissile material and had a suitcase nuclear bomb. I am not being fanciful. We must wake up to the possibilities. We need our Ministers to talk to the Americans and the others on the UN Security Council to get them to start taking the issue seriously. Instead of lecturing the country about how we need to update Trident, we should do something about safeguarding that fissile material, which could be the end of us. My generation has grown used to the bomb. We grew up with it and it is very familiar. I was chatting to a colleague of mine, George Adam, who is the deputy mayor of my local council. He told me of his time as a serviceman, when he was sent to Christmas island for the British nuclear tests. He and the others were told to dress in white overalls. When the bomb was about to go off, he was told to turn his back to it, screw up his eyes and put his hands over them. He did that, but he told me that, when the bomb went off, he saw a blinding flash of light through his hands. He has not forgotten that and, when he told me about the Christmas Island experience, I thought we should perhaps educate or re-educate people about the consequences of nuclear weapons and the terrible instability that they cause. As we know, the Prime Minister is a great believer in open debate; he wants to encourage it. A couple of weeks ago, in answer to my friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), he said that the Government were going to "listen to hon. Members before making any decisions".—[Official Report, 29 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 1292.] He said "listen", but the tragedy is that we will not have a vote on the matter in this House of Commons. We could spend billions on what, if anything, is to replace Trident. What is the point about endless debate on the deterrent if we cannot decide here whether it is the right thing for the country? My friends the Members for Erith and Thamesmead (John Austin) and for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) and I have tabled a motion for debate in the parliamentary Labour party. It is not there to embarrass the Government. It says: "This PLP questions the wisdom of spending billions replacing the Trident nuclear deterrent." The chair of the PLP has told me that the motion will come up for debate before we break for the recess, and I shall press it to a vote in the PLP. I see my friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) shaking his head, but it does not matter whether the vote is lost. Sometimes we just need a vote, instead of having decisions taken by some kind of osmosis. A lot of people out there, and many young people, want us to take a more robust line on nuclear disarmament. They do not want to hear macho posturing; they want us to take the issue seriously. The Minister who replies will tell me that it was a manifesto commitment that we retain the nuclear deterrent. Sometimes before we enter into manifesto commitments, we could have a ballot of all Labour party members. If we had such a ballot of all members — a kind of clause IV moment — we would not spend billions replacing Trident. My friend the Defence Secretary said in the debate and on Monday in defence questions that the Government are making progress. I acknowledge that. He told us that the Government unilaterally — so they can do some things unilaterally — have got rid of the WE177 freefall nuclear bomb and have de-targeted the Trident missiles. All those Trident missiles are prowling about on the ocean floor, but they are not targeted at an enemy. The Government have reduced — this is my Government — the number of warheads and the number of boats at sea, and I think that that is great. We ought to applaud and acknowledge what the Government have done unilaterally, but it is not enough. We still have Trident submarines, whose sole purpose — they do not have a dual purpose — is to blow up the world. I would get rid of all the Trident submarines, unconditionally. There are some people on my side and definitely some on the Opposition Benches who say that that is a step too far. Perhaps the former Soviet Union, or Russia, is no longer a threat, but what about the Irans and North Koreas of this world? We could spend a few millions on a stand-off cruise missile, pop it in a fast jet and send it over the horizon to Korea if that is what we want. There are ways of having a nuclear deterrent without spending billions. Mr. Kevan Jones: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying and it is bringing back all my yesterdays in the 1980s Labour party — I still have some of the scars from those days. He argues for unilaterally giving up our nuclear deterrent, which is fine and I respect him for that. However, in his last comment he argued for a cheaper version of the nuclear deterrent. He cannot argue that we should give up the deterrent, yet say that a cheaper option could be available to deal with possible threats from failed states such as North Korea. Mr. Prentice: I thought that I was speaking as clearly as I am capable of doing, so it saddens me that my friend, who said that he was listening to my words, misunderstood me. Let me say it again slowly for him. I am not in favour of the Trident submarine system, so I would get rid of it—I said that. I also said that some of my friends on this side of the House would look at other options and went on to describe the cheaper options, such as stand-off cruise missiles. There is no contradiction in my position. Jeremy Corbyn : My hon. Friend will recall that Rob McNamara made a similar plea when he spoke at the non-proliferation treaty review conference in New York recently. Will he acknowledge that one of the arguments used by the elements in Iran and North Korea that want to develop nuclear weapons is the fact that the five declared nuclear weapons states show no signs of disarming? Indeed, their position is quite the opposite because Britain and the United States show every sign of wanting to re-arm further. It becomes harder to argue against nuclear proliferation if we ourselves are expanding the nuclear horizons. Mr. Prentice: That good point allows me to return to my old friend Michael Portillo. He has turned into a real ally because he wrote in The Sunday Times on 19 June: "Whitehall thinks that possessing nuclear weapons helps to secure Britain's position as one of the five members of the UN security council. But if the ability to blow up the planet is the qualification for presiding over the world's peacekeeping body, then we should already have rewarded India, Pakistan and Israel with membership and we should be preparing to welcome Iran and North Korea." I do not know whether the British Government think that the nuclear deterrent is a pre-condition of retaining our membership of the UN Security Council. I appreciate that the situation is immensely fluid, so we must start to think laterally about the way in which we respond to new challenges, instead of staying locked in an old position. Mr. Kevan Jones: I am amazed that my hon. Friend is now a bedfellow of a right-wing individual such as Robert McNamara, who impressed me when I met him. I am also amazed by the idea of my hon. Friend getting into bed with Michael Portillo. Rather than trying to close the argument down, surely the way forward would be to do exactly what the Government want to do and have a serious debate about the shape and form that our nuclear deterrent should take, which I would support. Mr. Prentice: What a chilling thought: getting into bed with Michael Portillo. I too want a debate, but I do not want an open-ended debate that goes nowhere. I said in Defence questions on Monday — I think — that I want a focused debate. I want the Government to produce background papers showing advantages, disadvantages and costs. We must consider the effect on the Royal Navy. It was said earlier that the fleet is going down from 33 boats to 27 — Mr. Ancram: To 25 ships. Mr. Prentice: The fleet is going down to 25 ships. Spending a fortune on replacing the boats — the terminology for the submarines — will have implications for the Royal Navy budget. I want to end —[Interruption.] Is my friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) listening? I do not know how much it would cost to replace Trident because although I have tabled parliamentary questions about it, I am waiting for the answers to come through the pipeline. The Library has just published an excellent paper, which I would recommend to all hon. Members. It is called "Trident and the future of the British Nuclear Deterrent" and it tells us that Trident cost more than £9 billion — that is £9,000 million —at 1991 costs. If we go down that road again, another staggering sum of money that we cannot afford will be expended. It is a matter not only of Trident, but of something much more prosaic that we have all grown up with —the nuclear weapons establishment in Aldermaston. Since 2000 — only five years ago — it has cost us £1.5 billion, as the Library paper tells us. If people knew that, they would be marching again today. That is my view and I hope that the Prime Minister is listening — not just today, but subsequently. That is my contribution to the start of our debate. I hope that we can have an open debate, that the Government can be serious rather than just going through the motions and that we can secure in due course a cogent response to the points that I have made. |
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 07 October 2008 17:05 ) |