Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Gordon Prentice (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 14 March 2007. It occurred during Debate on Trident.


Trident

If our friend the late Robin Cook were here today, he would vote against the Government. My friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) quoted extensively from what Robin said. Let me quote just a couple of sentences. Shortly before he died, Robin said this:"““Investment in a new strategic nuclear system would be worse than an irrelevance… It is… against Britain's national interests to replace Trident. It is also against our international obligations, notably the commitment in the non-proliferation treaty to proceed in good faith to nuclear disarmament.””" The White Paper is full of assertions. Our friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) made that point. It asserts, as if it were a truth, that"““Renewing the current Trident system is fully consistent with the NPT and with all our international legal obligations.””" I simply do not believe that. When I asked Ministers three weeks ago to supply me with the Attorney-General’s advice—the legal advice that allowed the Prime Minister and the Government to say that—I was told that it was confidential. I am not prepared to take these matters on trust, not after Iraq, not after weapons of mass destruction and not after the ““45 minutes”” assertion. If the Prime Minister came here and told us that we had to invade Iran, do you think the military would go along with that without having sight of the Attorney-General’s—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
458 c390-1 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Defence Arms control Expenditure National security Nuclear weapons Procurement Navy Military bases Nuclear disarmament Proliferation Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Terrorism USA Nuclear submarines Trident
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk