Trident

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 24th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Toby Perkins]

I shall talk in more detail shortly about the way in which the review is being put together. However, in the case of an issue of this kind, on which there are plainly differences of opinion, it is nonsense to suggest that the involvement of different people with different opinions is a shambles. The position is absolutely clear: the Labour party is discussing this decision, and we will listen to a variety of views before reaching a conclusion.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I think that many Conservative Members will be very sympathetic to the serious way in which the hon. Gentleman is tackling this matter, but will he undertake to return to the House when the review has been completed, in order to clarify the Labour party’s position for the benefit of the nation? It is obvious that there can be no fudging on the issue of nuclear deterrence: you are either in or out.

[Toby Perkins]

I will be able to offer a bit more clarity to the hon. Gentleman very shortly.

The SNP motion has, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute was honest enough to admit, not been without problems. The original motion, which each SNP Member signed without noticing the mistake, said Trident should not be “removed”. Subsequently, they discovered they had made that mistake.

As the Secretary of State made clear, the motion talks about Trident, but actually the decision we are facing at the moment is about renewal of the Vanguard class of submarines, not renewing Trident at all. Important details like that may be lost on SNP Members, as, indeed, apparently was the outcome of the Scottish independence referendum, in which the majority of Scots voted in favour of staying part of the United Kingdom and they will be aware that that involved having Trident.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, in highlighting the fact that war is the real enemy, we need look only at the loss of life that we have seen from war this century. In the first and second world wars, we saw terrible destruction from conventional weapons. Ironically, those weapons were stopped by the two attacks on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Though those attacks were utterly awful, and I will not in any way say that they were not, it is quite clear that what they did was prevent the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives—not just American lives, but Japanese lives too. Many prisoners of war, many of our relatives, survived the second world war—I am talking about the relatives of Members not just on the Government Benches but on the Opposition Benches too—because the horror of those two attacks brought an early end to that war, and thank God they did, because hundreds of thousands of lives were saved.

However, nuclear weapons do not work alone. They work as part of the spectrum of defence. They are part of everything from the infantry soldier with his bayonet right the way through to the Trident nuclear submarine. They work across the entire spectrum, because it is only the range that allows Her Majesty’s armed forces to intervene at an appropriate level on each occasion. In exactly the same way as a diplomat requires the military for his words to have credibility, so too the soldier requires the submarine to know that he will not be undermined by an attack from one of the other states that may sympathise with the enemy.

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful contribution. In his considerable experience working in the Ministry of Defence, has he ever seen a viable reorientation of defence expenditure away from the nuclear deterrent which would give us the same level of assurance around our defence?

[Tom Tugendhat]

Some work has been done on that, but only at a very basic level. The truth is that, when people rightly talk about the cost of defence and the cost of the nuclear deterrent, what they rarely consider is how much the conventional alternative costs. If we truly wish to deter and to persuade an enemy that we will not be steamrollered by their wish or blackmailed by their desires, we need to have a deterrent that allows us not to strike first, but to strike back. No conventional force offers the same pound-for-pound capability as the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent. Members may not like it, but that is why the nuclear deterrent is the cheapest alternative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Exactly. I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

This debate is not about war-mongering. It is not about a desire to launch nuclear weapons; it is the direct opposite. It is about the fact that a nuclear deterrent has prevented major world conflicts, but today we see that there are conflicts taking place. We talk about Daesh getting its hands on nuclear weapons, or about North Korea, which would be able to launch an attack on South Korea. Let us not forget that there was never a peace treaty between North Korea and South Korea. Technically they are still at war, but they have been able to face each other off with conventional weapons for several decades. If that game changed with nuclear weapons, there would have to be western intervention concerning South Korea to make sure that it could counteract that threat from North Korea; otherwise, hundreds of thousands of innocent people would be murdered by a regime with no other intention than wiping out its neighbour. That is what a deterrent prevents. That is why this debate is so important.

Nobody in this Chamber, nobody in NATO, nobody in the western world and probably not even President Putin would want to use nuclear weapons. That is not what this debate is about. It is about making sure that when something exists, those enemies who would use it do not have the opportunity to do so because they know it would be pointless. North Korea will not launch a nuclear weapon at South Korea if it knows that 10 seconds later it would disappear off the face of the map as well. However unpalatable that truth may be, that is the truth that has kept the peace.

If we consider the first world war, and then the second world war, which was fought with conventional weapons but had a much higher death toll and in which far more civilians were killed than in the first world war, we see that as technology advances and wars increase, more and more of the civilian population die. It was noticeable that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box earlier this week, he made it absolutely clear that military action that may be considered in Syria would be part of a wider programme with targeted intervention to try to prevent civilian deaths. Western leaders today spend most of their time trying to work out how we can intervene to reduce civilian deaths, and there is nothing better for that than having the Government who may be pushing their people into war know that they themselves would be wiped out. That is hugely important.

There has been a lot of talk about whether Trident is the right thing to spend money on. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said, it amounts to 0.2% of GDP. What would a war, even one fought with conventional weapons to which we may not be able to respond, do to the GDP of Europe, of the western world?

[John Glen]

Would my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that the £31 billion is rather less than the debt interest payment that we are still having to make as a consequence of the legacy of the previous Government?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I agree with my hon. Friend, although I do not want to be too skewed towards other debates. My hon. Friend’s comment is important, though, because this country cannot have a solid defence or a capable strategic defence review unless we have a strong economy. That has to go hand in hand with this debate.

None of us today wants to renew Trident because we are war-mongers. We are the exact opposite. But we have to be aware of the threats in our world—threats that we have to be capable of responding to even though we hope that we never have to respond to them. The last 70-odd years has proved that. In the Cuban missile crisis, when President Kennedy said that we were eyeball to eyeball with the Russians, they backed down because they knew that doing otherwise would mean the destruction of their own country as well as the country that they were attacking. That is the proof that, however unpalatable Trident renewal may be, the nuclear deterrent works.