Oral Answers to Questions — Defence – in the House of Commons at 2:30 pm on 13 July 2009.
What progress his Department has made towards procurement of the next generation of the nuclear deterrent; and if he will make a statement.
The Government are committed to the current nuclear deterrent and to the development of a replacement system. Good progress is being made in completing the actions set out in the 2006 White Paper "The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent".
The Secretary of State mentions the 2006 White Paper, but Tony Blair told the House in December 2006 that Britain could maintain its minimum strategic deterrent while reducing the number of warheads from 200 to 160. Less than three years later, the current Prime Minister seems to be offering to reduce that number to below 160 warheads. How can he do that while maintaining a minimum level of deterrence?
The Prime Minister also made it clear that he was committed to maintaining the nuclear deterrent. We need to try to make an appropriate contribution to any multilateral nuclear proposition, while at the same time ensuring that we have a credible minimum nuclear deterrent. The entire Government-not only the defence team-are committed to doing that.
In view of the impact of the recession and of President Obama's meeting last week with the President of Russia, when they committed themselves to reducing their nuclear warheads by 500 each, is it not about time we publicly stated that we are not going to upgrade Trident?
No, it is not. If my hon. Friend wants to look at the record since we came to power, he will see that we have made significant reductions in our deployable nuclear capability. We have made a significant contribution to the reduction of nuclear weapons and we will obviously seek to be constructive when any propositions are made, but within the parameters of maintaining the British nuclear deterrent.
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether any future nuclear deterrent that involved reliance on nuclear-armed Cruise missiles, as some recommend, would be compatible with the provisions of the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty?
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we considered different methods of maintaining the nuclear deterrent during the White Paper process. We decided-I think for good reasons of invulnerability-to stick with the ballistic missile system based on submarines. That is what we intend to do.
Does the Secretary of State think it a good idea to commit ourselves to expenditure, during the lifetime of a new Trident, of £76 billion, ahead of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference next year and in the face of a declared aspiration by President Obama, which is shared by the Government, of a nuclear-free world? Would not a better contribution be not replacing Trident?
My hon. Friend's views are well known and have been consistent over the years. I am glad they have not changed, but he knows that I disagree with him. I have done so in the past and I still do.