Challenges for the New Year

The coming year, I am in no doubt, is going to offer us all great challenges and great opportunities. There’s no need for any spin.

Politicians have a useful phrase that they use when they have decided what they think needs to be done, but want to give pause for thought and an opportunity for consultation and comment before announcing a final decision. We say we are ‘minded’ to do something. So I’d like to take the opportunity of saying which way I am minded to cast my vote in Parliament on a number of controversial issues.

First, there’s the vote coming up in March on the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent. I have always supported it. But do we still need a nuclear deterrent?

No easy Christian answer
As a Christian, I have to make up my own mind. The Archbishop of Canterbury says we should give it up. The Bishop of Liverpool says nuclear knowledge cannot be unlearned, its evil genie can’t be sucked back into the test tube and it’s a fact of the modern world, as factual as those sinister imaginations that can not only contemplate human terror but actually inflict it.

The Defence Committee of The House embarked last year on a detailed three-stage enquiry into the future of our deterrent. We reported in June 2006 on the strategic context. We interrogated fifteen expert witnesses and took evidence from eighty-two organisations and individuals from the Government to CND and from religious organisations and individuals.

Public debate
We reported to The House that the public debate should consider whether the possession of nuclear weapons enhances the UK’s international influence or status; whether our deterrent is truly independent – compared to France, for example – and if this matters; what weight should be given to the evidence we received that our deterrent served no useful purpose in countering international terrorism and that we face no threat from existing nuclear powers.

Meanwhile, we should continue to invest in the UK nuclear infrastructure and skills base until a final decision is taken. The second stage of our enquiry would concentrate on that.

Fact- finding
So, we visited the submarine basing and infrastructure at Faslane on the Clyde, the shipyard at Barrow-in-Furness where they are built, the maintenance and support yard at Plymouth and the warhead research and manufacturing establishment at Aldermaston. We talked to scores of the tens of thousands of people involved. We concluded that the UK possesses world-class science, skills and facilities that must be maintained for many decades to come even if our deterrent is not replaced.

The third stage of our enquiry will focus on the Government’s White Paper. We will consider the Government’s arguments for the retention and renewal of the current Trident system and we will analyse their assessment of the role of nuclear deterrence in the 21st Century. We will examine the analysis of deterrent options, solutions and costs. We will consider the international treaty implications and the possible impact of the decision on the UK’s non-proliferation efforts. We will publish our conclusions before The House debates and votes on the future of the nuclear deterrent next March.

Risk analysis
With all this work behind us – and much more to come – it would be foolish to say I am sure how I will vote. However, I believe that the defence of the realm is the first duty of any Government and that the security of our citizens and of British national interests should not be put at risk. Those advocating disarmament must show how that would help our security. They would need to prove that such a gesture would change the minds of hardliners and extremists in countries which are developing nuclear capabilities or who wish us ill. That is why I am minded to support the retention of a nuclear deterrent.

Energy
National security is not just about military might. It is also about the maintenance of prosperity for our people – and the quantity and quality of energy necessary to achieve that. Energy infrastructure is vulnerable to terrorism – to cyber-terrorism as well as to physical destruction. Relying on gas pipelines to bring 80% of our energy thousands of miles across unstable territories and the ocean floor, is just not sensible.

I believe we need a combination of new, sustainable technologies such as bio-fuels, tidal flows, micro-generation and off-shore wind turbines to complement a new generation of safer, cleaner, low-waste nuclear power stations for our base-load generation. So I am minded to support proposals from the private sector to build and operate replacement nuclear generating plant. Eventually I hope we will achieve nuclear fusion generation and the hydrogen revolution in energy supply to our beleaguered planet.

Genetics
Other great debates must be had about genetic modification of plants and animals and about human reproductive technology. I have spent a great deal of time over many years, on your behalf, on both these difficult and testing issues. I am minded to recognise the value to mankind of taking a cautiously positive approach. These new technologies cannot be dis-invented.

I will not bow to prejudice, ignorance or fear. I will be guided by good science and by the imperative of Parliament deciding, on your behalf, just how far we should go – for these are religious and moral questions, too. Just because mankind can do something does not necessarily mean we should. On the other hand, God gave us brains to do these things – and the power to distinguish between right and wrong. That is why I am minded to respond positively to the challenges and choices with which science confronts us.

Robert Key MP
Salisbury, December 2006