---

Defence in the United Kingdom

I have no intention of turning it into a debate on Iraq, but Iraq is an important factor in British military expenditure and the approach taken by the Ministry of Defence. It is clearly central to the Ministry’s policy making. When the Secretary of State replies to the debate, as I am sure he will, I hope that he can tell us when those 8,000 troops will come home. At the moment, it appears that it will be December 2006 at the earliest. In view of the disturbing news earlier this week about the use of phosphorus by United States and British forces, we want an assurance that chemical weapons will not be used in any form, even as an incendiary device to guide others into an attack, because of the danger of their use against civilians, which is illegal under the 1925 convention on chemical warfare. Turning to the important matter of this country’s future nuclear policy, I am a member of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, as is well known, and I chair the parliamentary CND group. The arguments against the nuclear deterrent are very strong, and we need to have a serious public debate about it. I therefore welcome what a number of hon. Members have said, particularly the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), who chairs the Select Committee on Defence and said that it may be prepared to undertake an investigation or inquiry into the matter. I repeat what I said in my intervention, when he kindly gave way to me. The Defence Committee ought to be joined by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Defence Committee has responsibility for defence matters, but it does not have responsibility for disarmament policy nor, indeed, for the operation of the non-proliferation treaty, which is clearly relevant. I therefore hope that that suggestion will be considered seriously by both Committees, because it would make an important contribution to the public debate. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) talked about US strategy, which includes full-spectrum dominance and thus the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons. Indeed, there are many signs that the US is already spending very large sums of money on preparing for a post-Trident world, but that does not mean that the UK should do so. We must consider two things: first, our existing expenditure; and, secondly, what happens afterwards. I recently asked the Secretary of State about the cost of running AWE Aldermaston and capital investment in the base. I was astonished to learn that over the past five years, AWE Aldermaston has cost £1.5 billion of the defence budget, of which almost £100 million has been spent on capital investment in the past year. I would be interested to know what that capital investment was. I hope the money was not spent on preparation for, or manufacture of, a new generation of nuclear weapons to succeed Trident. We have been told, and I accept that we were told in good faith, that no decision has been made on a post-Trident world through the refurbishment of Trident or some new nuclear weapons system. It is worth thinking for a moment about the costs involved. They are huge, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) pointed out. The original cost of Trident was £12.52 billion and the annual running costs are about £1.5 billion. Trident’s lifespan was predicted to be 30 years. The Trident refit that is taking place at Devonport docks in Plymouth was estimated in 1997 to cost £650 million, but it is already running at almost £1 billion—about a third more than the original estimate. It is not a cheap system, even with the current refit. A replacement of Trident would cost around £25 billion. There is a great deal else that one could spend such a sum on—not least, it would allow us to meet the UN millennium development goals every year for the next six years. It is important that in the debate we throw all these factors into the equation. The wider question is how secure the world is with nuclear weapons or with Trident. If we replace Trident nuclear missiles, we will be running contrary to the rule and expectation of the non-proliferation treaty. Although it puts the five declared nuclear weapons states in a special position, it does not allow them to develop new generations of nuclear weapons while at the same time saying that the signatory nations to the non-proliferation treaty cannot develop their own nuclear weapons. If we do not want proliferation, a good example must be set by the five declared nuclear weapons states. I hope the UK does not develop a new generation of nuclear weapons. I do not believe them to bring security. I believe them to be immoral and dangerous, and to encourage others to develop nuclear weapons. The Secretary of State said that there must be a public debate on the matter. We all welcome that. It would be helpful if, in his reply, he could set out the options, the cost of the existing system, the cost of replacement and the legal opinion with respect to the non-proliferation treaty, so that there can be a serious, informed public debate about it. That debate will take place anyway in the public arena. It is extremely important that it also takes place in the Chamber and in the Committees of the House. We are debating defence. The world is obviously not a simple or a stable place. We must ask ourselves whether such fantastic levels of expenditure on defence make the world a safer place, or whether we would be better off spending a little more energy addressing issues of inequality, poverty and instability around the world, rather than assuming that there is a military solution to every problem. I say that because I want to see a more peaceful world, as does the entire House, I am sure. The possession or development of nuclear weapons does not bring that about.