Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): This is a significant day for Parliament. There is no denying that deciding to build a new generation of submarines to maintain our nuclear deterrent is a big decision, costing billions of pounds, having implications over several decades and committing us to continue as the guardians of a weapon of terrible destructive power, with all the responsibility that that brings. This is a decision that Governments have faced periodically over the years. The difference today is that Parliament has the chance to debate it and vote on it at an earlier stage in the process than ever before, and I hope that it is better informed than ever before.
Just over three months ago, we published a White Paper that set out our plans, and I am grateful to the Chairman of the Defence Committee and to his Committee for their generous remarks about the White Paper. In fact, even those who disagree with it, including the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), agree that it is clear, informative and a good basis for debate. It is a debate that my colleagues and I have taken forward in speeches, public discussions, televised appearances and appearances before parliamentary Committeesto name but some of the engagementsculminating in the wide-ranging and impressive debate that we have had today.
Almost every contribution to todays debate has been characterised by some degree of respect for opposing viewswith the exception of two discordant notes. The first was the speech by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who I must say is a skilled debater, but his sense of moral righteousness and certainty was not matched by the quality of his argument.
Des Browne: The second discordant noteI say this with some diffidencecame from the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) and for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), which were unworthy of them and were based on constant assertions of dishonesty, which they simply could not make stand up. On the question of legal advice
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the Secretary of State is not associating dishonesty with any hon. Member. I do not like interrupting him, but I would not like him to associate any hon. Member with dishonesty in this House.
Des Browne: Not dishonesty, but constant assertions of misleading, which could not be made to stand up.
Mr. Speaker: Inadvertently misleading would be better. We try to work our way around words here, so inadvertently misleading is better, but I think it would be best if the Secretary of State moved on from this difficult territory.
Des Browne: I am grateful for the support of my right hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, South (Mr. George), for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) and of my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Salmond must sit down.
Des Browne: I am also grateful for the support, among others, of the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key). I welcome the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and, indeed, of the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). The nature of their contributions gives the lie to the accusation that we have sometimes heardthat Members have not had the time or been given the information to form their views and engage in a full and proper debate. I believe that we have seen that debate today.
From what I have seen and heard today and over the last three months, it is clear that opposition to the plans set out in the White Paper falls into three broad camps. First, there are those who believe that nuclear weapons are inherently wrong. Secondly, there are those who do not believe that they are inherently wrong, but believe that there is no longer any need for them because the world has changed. Thirdly, there are those who, regardless of what they think about the morality or the strategic case, think that we do not need to take the decision now.
Let me start with the last. For some, the argument that we do not need to decide today is based on technical concerns such as whether the current submarines must go out of service when we say, or
whether it really takes 17 years to build new ones. In the limited time available to me today, it would be pointless to try to set out the full range of reasons why I believe that those assertions are wrong; they are in the White Paper, and can be found in the evidence given to the Select Committee. I can only say that I am confident, and the Navy is confident, that they are wrong.
I can also say that back in December when the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) told me that he had received different advice, I said that I would like to see it. Indeed, I was anxious to see it, because if we really were wrong I would have welcomed it. However, I have not heard back. Nor have I heard anything else over the last three months that goes beyond mere assertion, or false comparisons with other types of submarines or previous procurement processes. I have heard nothing to alter my belief that trying to extend the current boats any further, or to squeeze the build time any shorter, would be taking an unacceptable risk.
I must also say that I believe it to be fundamentally wrong to hide behind such an argument about timing if what really motivates someone is opposition to the decision itself. It is an abdication of our responsibility as democratic representatives charged with the job of facing these decisions with clarity and honesty. I am not suggesting that all the reservations that we have heard about timing are disingenuous. Some Members have registered a more serious and genuine concern. I am thinking of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and supported, among others, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). They have made it clear that they accept the Governments case and that we need to take a decision now, but argue that we should see it as a provisional or conditional decision, and make it clear that we intend to revisit it further down the line.
Our position was set out earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he said, It is absolutely right that this Parliament cannot bind the decisions of a future Parliament and it is always open to us to come back and look at these issues...when we get to the gateway stagebetween 2012 and 2014when we let the main contracts...it will always be open to Parliament to take a decision. This happened when the previous generation of submarines was built, and it would be surprising if it did not happen again. However, the precise details of how future Parliaments should approach this issue is something that they must decide.
As the Prime Minister went on to say, the fundamental point is that we need to take a decision now to start the process, and we have deliberately chosen to bring this decision to Parliament at the right time at the start rather than proceeding in secret and then presenting it later as a foregone conclusion. The hon. Member for North Devon is absolutely right when he says that we are asking the House not just to keep our options open but to take the big decisionthe decision in principle.
Let me turn briefly to the second camp, who believe that there is no longer any need for nuclear weapons because the world has changed. The world has
changed, but a proper understanding of that change suggests that, although right now there is no nuclear threat and no country with both the capability and the intent to threaten us, which is why we have de-targeted our missiles, we cannot rule out the possibility that the threat will re-emerge. Indeed, recent events reinforce our view that this is not just a mere possibility but a very real risk. We should remember that other countries intentions can change faster than we could possibly rebuild our deterrent if we allowed it to lapse.
Finally, I come to the first camp, whose objections are essentially moral. I will not say much about this other than to echo what my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in opening the debate. We in this country and in the Government can be proud of our moral record on disarmament. We remain absolutely committed to it and we believe that it is completely compatible with the decision that we are asking Parliament to approve today. I know that that will not have persuaded everyone. The view that maintaining our nuclear deterrent is morally wrong, or morally or practically incompatible with working towards disarmament, is a position I respect, but one that I profoundly disagree with.
It would be wrong not to acknowledge again the support of the official Opposition. The right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks asked several detailed questions about costs and other matters, and he also said that they were questions for the future. I hope that he will be satisfied if I say that I will write to him. Given the limited time I had today, I wanted to spend it on the key arguments and factors in the decision that the House is about to make.
I should not finish, however, without also acknowledging the contribution of the hon. Member for North Devon. I do not think that he actually finished his speech, given that he covered only two of the five points that he promised. I was particularly disappointed not to hear, finally, an explanation of why the Liberal Democrats settled on 100 as the right number of warheadsother than, of course, the fact that it is a round number. However, I think that I can summarise what he said. His party now accepts that the Government are entirely right to make the decision and right to make it now, but that there was no need to tell anyone about it. Instead, we should just have carried on in secret without any public scrutiny and only come to Parliament some years down the line
It being six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [13 March].
Next Section | Index | Home Page |