BASIC Comment

Ministers have failed to make a case for nuclear deterrent, MPs say

• Committee says Trident no use against terrorism
• Call for public debate on future of missile system

By Richard Norton-Taylor

The Guardian, 30 June 2006

The government must explain the purpose of a British nuclear deterrent, something it has failed to do so far, a cross-party committee of MPs says in a hard-hitting report on the future of the Trident missile system published today.

"The most pressing threat currently facing the UK is that of international terrorism," says the Commons defence committee. But witnesses to its inquiry - the Ministry of Defence refused to give evidence - overwhelmingly argued that "the strategic nuclear deterrent could serve no useful or practical purpose in countering this kind of threat".

The MPs say they heard no evidence that Britain faced a current or impending threat from any established nuclear weapons state, and it was not possible to identify future threats with any certainty.

The government must also explain, the committee says, whether it believes possessing nuclear weapons makes any difference to its international influence. Previous Labour administrations have thought so, and officials in the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence claim it would be difficult for any British government to contemplate France being Europe's sole nuclear power. However, Sir Michael Quinlan, a former official at the MoD once regarded as the high priest of nuclear deterrence, told the committee that he did not find the "seat at the top table" argument persuasive.

The committee says: "Before making any decisions on the future of the strategic nuclear deterrent, the MoD should explain its understanding of the purpose and continuing relevance of nuclear deterrence now and over the lifetime of any potential Trident successor system."

Any decision to keep nuclear weapons, must be made "only after a full public debate ... It must not be made in secret".

The MPs express their surprise and disappointment at the refusal of the MoD to give evidence to the inquiry. The MoD told the committee late last year that "whilst work has started in government to begin the process of preparing for future ministerial decisions, this work by officials is still at a very early stage and no advice has been presented to ministers".

The MPs acknowledge that while future threats are "unknowable", a world in which nuclear proliferation had "taken hold would create deep uncertainties in international relations". They add: "If the MoD believes in the value of a nuclear deterrent as an insurance policy, rather than in response to any specific threat, we believe it is important to say clearly that is the reason for needing the deterrent."

The committee suggests Britain's nuclear posture, already scaled back after the end of the cold war, could be further reduced. The existing force is made up of four Vanguard-class nuclear-powered submarines, each capable of carrying up to 16 Trident II D5 missiles armed with up to 12 nuclear warheads, with one vessel always at sea. "In the light of the reduced threat we currently face, an alternative possibility would be to retain a deterrent, but not continuously at sea," the MPs say.

James Arbuthnot, chairman of the defence committee, says in a statement today: "We need a full discussion of the role and purpose of the nuclear deterrent and the changing strategic environment."

Tony Blair, who has made it clear he intends to ensure Britain retains strategic nuclear weapons, told the Commons on Wednesday that a decision would be taken this year, but declined to say whether MPs would be allowed to vote on the issue.

Separately, former chiefs of staff said yesterday that the armed forces were seriously underfunded. Field Marshal Lord Inge warned peers about the shortcomings of equipment, highlighting the "vulnerability of the old Northern Ireland 'snatch' Land Rovers" in Iraq and Afghanistan. The former chief of the defence staff, Admiral Lord Boyce, said: "Our armed forces are operating well above the level expected and resourced for under defence planning assumptions, and the impact of lack of adequate funding is hurting."

Minister hints at nuclear vote

Liverpool Daily Post, 25 June 2006

Defence Secretary Des Browne held out the possibility of a vote in Parliament over whether Britain should renew its independent nuclear deterrent.

Prime Minister Tony Blair has said there should be "the fullest possible debate" on the issue, but has steered clear of promising MPs a vote.

Chancellor Gordon Brown's declaration last week that the Government would retain the deterrent in the long term led to accusations from anti-nuclear campaigners and MPs on the Labour left that ministers have already decided to press ahead with a replacement for the UK's ageing Trident missiles.

Mr Browne made clear that he expected ministers to reach a firm view by the end of this year on whether or not Trident, and the Vanguard submarines which carry it, should be replaced or renewed.

And he said it was possible that their decision would then be put to MPs in a vote in the House of Commons.

"We will come to precisely how we deal with this when we see what the decisions are," he told BBC1's Sunday AM.

"We need to marshal the facts, we need to marshal the issues, we need to marshal the arguments and the options. It is the responsibility of Government ministers to make decisions, then those decisions, of course, can be subject to parliamentary debate.

"But we need to make recommendations to put forward to Parliament.

"Whether we actually need votes in Parliament will be determined by the nature of the decisions we are making."

The Trident system originally ordered by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s is due to become obsolete around 2024, but Mr Blair has said that decisions on whether it will be updated or replaced by a new system need to be made before the end of this Parliament, expected in 2009 or 2010.