Trident Renewal

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Angus Robertson]

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”

and

“improved global security—through a strengthening of the non-proliferation regime, deterring of nuclear proliferation and de-escalation of international tensions”.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

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”.

[Angus Robertson]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

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 trying to justify it.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Secretary of State return to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), and pursue the logic of his argument? If the Secretary of State 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?

[Michael Fallon]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), and, indeed, the hon. Member for Islington North (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.