Beckett calls for public debate on Trident
Margaret Beckett has called for a public debate on Trident, saying circumstances are “very, very different” from when the nuclear deterrent was first developed.
The foreign secretary said a white paper was due soon on the future of the Trident missile system, which will reach the end of its life span in 20 years, but made clear she thought the public should have a say in what happens.
Although Labour has a manifesto commitment to keeping Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, many Labour MPs are unhappy about spending up to £20 billion on a replacement for Trident that may be useless against today’s biggest threat, terrorism.
Tony Blair has promised a parliamentary debate on Trident “this year”, but has refused to confirm there will be a vote before any decision is taken. More than 120 MPs have now signed a motion put by former environment minister Michael Meacher calling for a vote.
The prime minister has previously backed a replacement for Trident, saying it is an “essential part” of Britain’s defence system. Chancellor Gordon Brown, who is widely expected to be his successor, has also indicated his support for the nuclear deterrent.
In an interview with the Sunday Times yesterday, Ms Beckett said there was “real merit” in publishing a white paper on Trident because it would be a “very good thing for all of us as a country to think carefully about what the situation of today is”.
She said: “The nature and shape of the nuclear deterrent we have and are maintaining and keeping up to date was dictated in the cold war circumstances of decades ago. The security situation today across the world is very, very different.
“But whether it is less dangerous, and what decisions that leads you to, is quite another matter. And I think that is something people deserve to have laid out before them and to be able to think about it for themselves.”
Ms Becket acknowledged concerns about the cost and utility of Trident, saying that during a public debate, “I’m sure people will question whether we need one or not”.
She added: “Obviously whenever you look at these issues the question is: do we go on with this? And, if we do, in what way? And why? And what are the issues the government is taking into account when they are considering what their decision should be?”
