Trident Alternatives Review Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: HM Treasury

Trident Alternatives Review

Edward Leigh Excerpts
Wednesday 17th July 2013

(11 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beamish Portrait Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have to say at the outset that I have a little difficulty here, because the Chief Secretary to the Treasury either has a different report in front of him or he has read the report and not understood it. The Government commissioned the alternatives review into the future of UK nuclear deterrence back in 2011. It was part of the agreement in the shotgun marriage between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats following the 2010 general election. As he said, the Government’s stated position was to “maintain Britain’s nuclear deterrent”, but the Liberal Democrats had an opt-out in that they could be allowed to make the case for alternatives. So, more than two years later, we have finally been presented with those alternatives.

Edward Leigh Portrait Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Will the Labour party confirm its admirable commitment to continuous-at-sea deterrence in any coalition negotiations? Will the hon. Gentleman say that in Labour’s view this is non-negotiable?

Lord Beamish Portrait Mr Jones
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My position is very clear: I am working for a Labour victory at the next general election. But on the issue of continuous-at-sea deterrence, my answer is yes. Even though the report was commissioned by Her Majesty’s Government, its first line has the strange disclaimer:

“This…is not a statement of government policy.”

This must be the first time ever that the findings of a Government policy review have been abandoned at birth.