---

Trident

Obviously, I do not agree with my right hon. Friend. We will be able to maintain the replacement for Trident with the same percentage of the defence budget for running costs with which we maintain the existing deterrent. The cost that we are giving is the cost of maintaining that submarine capability. I do not agree with my right hon. Friend that the proposal is contrary to our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. Article VI states"““Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament””." In other words, there are obligations to pursue negotiations in good faith with other countries. That is precisely why it is clear that we are fully able to maintain our existing nuclear deterrent under the non-proliferation treaty. Of course, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say—as I said in my statement—that the cold war is no longer with us; but the one thing we cannot say is that there are not potentially new and hazardous security threats out there, and in any event there are still major nuclear powers. I agree that it is—let us say—highly improbable, highly unlikely, that we will ever be threatened by any of those powers, but I am certainly not prepared to say that such a thing is impossible to think of. I believe that we must be in a position to protect ourselves against every potential threat, and ultimately I think that giving up our independent nuclear deterrent in what is a very uncertain and insecure world would be irresponsible.