---

Trident

Of course, timing is a very important issue. I agree with the Government’s view, and I shall say why shortly if I may proceed with my speech, but I feel that the subject under discussion and the decision to be made are sufficiently important that I need to set out why in principle the Opposition support the decision, as well as our views on the details of the timing. ““Strategic Trends””, the document I was quoting from, states that"““the proliferation of nuclear weapons....particularly to weak and unstable states will increase the risks of more uninhibited, assertive and intemperate behaviour””" by those countries. Furthermore, it states that"““states with nuclear weapons, such as Pakistan, possibly North Korea and potentially Iran will remain vulnerable to instability””," with the possibility of the collapse of central authority and nuclear material falling into the hands of hostile regimes. In summary, it states that"““accelerating nuclear proliferation will create a more complex and dangerous strategic environment, with the likely clustering of nuclear armed states in regions that have significant potential for instability””." The decision on which the Government are seeking the endorsement of the House tonight would enable us to have an independent nuclear deterrent until at least the 2040s and possibly into the 2050s. We cannot, of course, see 50 years into the future, but that is the whole point. While none of the existing nuclear weapons powers poses an imminent military threat to the United Kingdom, to retain our deterrent is, in the words of the Defence Committee, to maintain ““the prudent hedge”” against an unknowable and possibly unpleasant future. It represents a vital ability to deter potential aggressors who will be both more diverse and less predictable than in the past.