---

Trident

I am not going to take any more interventions, because I am running out of time fast. For those reasons and a range of others, I do not think that we need to make a decision today. We should not take a decision, because the Government have not convinced us. Finally, I want to refer to the exchange of letters between the Prime Minister and the President. Some 72 hours after the White Paper came out as a consultation document, the Prime Minister sent a letter, on 7 December, to the President in which he wrote:"““We have therefore…set in train the steps necessary to maintain our current submarine-based nuclear deterrent system””." I asked the Attorney-General’s view about the letter because it seemed to be a binding commitment effectively to bring about the process of beginning to rearm. The rest of the two letters referred to the missile system. The Attorney-General’s response failed to convince me that a decision has not already been taken. This afternoon’s debate has thus been pre-empted by a Government decision. That is a serious charge to make, but the letters stand in an appendix to a Select Committee report for any Member to have a look at. If that is the case, surely the Government ought to say clearly where we stand legally. Today’s edition of The Guardian reports that work has already begun on the process of rearmament. I wonder whether the House’s decision has been pre-empted. The Attorney-General’s letter tells me that the Government will have regard to any vote of the House today. I hope that the House is the sovereign body in this country. If we were to choose to delay, or to refuse to accept, the decision, I would hope that we had not already entered into an agreement with George Bush that would effectively pre-empt the House. If the amendment falls—as it might; I do not know—I recommend that hon. Members vote against the substantive motion.