Emma votes in Parliament to renew Trident submarines

After more than five hours of discussion on Monday, the House of Commons backed the renewal of the UK’s Trident nuclear weapons system by 472 votes to 117.

Our vote approves the manufacture of four replacement submarines that each carry up to eight Trident missiles at a current estimated cost of £40bn which accounts for 6 % of the Ministry of Defence’s overall budget.

Labour MPs were given a free vote at a time when Labour is still considering its defence review, which is looking at options ranging from complete replacement to disarmament by the 2030s. However the Labour party already has a clear policy to uphold an at-sea deterrent, which reads:

‘Labour remains committed to a minimum, credible, independent nuclear capability, delivered through a Continuous At-Sea Deterrent. We will actively work to increase momentum on global multilateral disarmament efforts and negotiations, and look at further reductions in global stockpiles and the numbers of weapons.’

Therefore it is not surprising that in total, 140 Labour MPs voted in favour of the motion and 47 against, with 40 absent and one abstention.

I listened carefully to the debate from all sides of the House and came to the conclusion that in these very uncertain times, the UK is safer with a nuclear deterrent.

But these decisions are always difficult to make – because if, God forbid, we were ever required to use these missiles, the scale of human suffering would be unimaginable.

But without a deterrent, I believe our country would be at risk.

Since 1969, according to government documents, a British submarine carrying nuclear weapons has always been on patrol, gliding silently beneath the waves, somewhere in the world’s oceans.

The logic is to deter a nuclear attack on the UK because, even if the nation’s conventional defence capabilities were destroyed, the silent submarine would still be able to launch a catastrophic retaliatory strike on the aggressor, a concept known as mutually assured destruction.

Each of the four submarines carries a sealed “letter of last resort” in the Prime Minister’s hand, containing instructions to follow if the UK has been devastated by a nuclear strike and the government annihilated.

Nobody can predict the future so we can’t predict the future threats the UK may face. However, we do know that others have sought to increase their own capabilities.

Russia is modernising its entire nuclear force – warheads, aircraft, and missiles.

Iran has the largest Ballistic Missile force in the Middle East. China is developing the ability to launch ballistic missiles from submarines, and North Korea remains committed to its nuclear programme.

In this uncertain environment, I believe the UK needs to ensure it is taking decisions now which mean that in future decades we have options available for defence and deterrence.

I listened carefully to those in the House who object to renewal on ethical grounds, who say the UK should never be a country that is willing to threaten or use nuclear weapons against an enemy, even in the most extreme circumstances and that the humanitarian consequences of doing so would be catastrophic.

I really understand this position. I don’t want to be responsible for human suffering. But that is precisely why Trident is there as a deterrent. It exists to deter those who would have no qualms about pressing the button to cause maximum harm, unimaginable human suffering and destruction on us. When I voted to renew Trident, I did it as I felt a responsibility to protect this country from the potential of human suffering on a catastrophic scale.

Of course I would love to live in a world that is free of nuclear weapons but we must engage with the world as it is, not how we would like it to be. We must be realists, not fantasists. So I support the next best thing – multilateral disarmament – a binding Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, (NPT) with the United States, Russia, China and France whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament.

By 2025, the UK will have achieved a 65% reduction in the size of its nuclear stockpile, making it the smallest of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty nuclear weapon states. So we are heading in the right direction but I do not believe it is our countries interests to disarm alone. I think this makes us vulnerable.

I listened to others in the House who object to Trident renewal on the basis of cost assessments who say that the UK should not be spending at least £40bn on a programme that is designed for uncertainty. They argue that the money would be better spent on the NHS, schools, policing, houses, transport, on the poor, on children and the elderly. Normally, I am always the first to argue in favour of better public services but the idea that it’s a binary choice is a straw man argument. I know that constituents in Shields want to know that as well as defending public services I am also working hard to ensure we are kept safe. Trident, I believe offers us this safety.

Finally, I also voted for Trident renewal to protect the 30,000 highly-skilled UK jobs that sustain our defence programme. Scrapping Trident would place skilled manufacturing jobs in the North East in jeopardy. Twenty businesses across the region- 10 in Tyne and Wear are involved in the supply chain of Britain’s Navy defence submarines. We know from bitter experience that when industries in the area are destroyed, they are never replaced.

My Labour colleagues and I were elected on the basis of a manifesto commitment to support the retention of an independent nuclear deterrent, and that is why I voted to keep this country safe and agreed to Trident renewal.

You can read Emma’s speech below.

As we know it was the famous post-war Labour Government who first acquired Britain’s nuclear deterrent. Clement Attlee had just been elected Prime Minister when America dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945. He realised in an instant that the air raid wardens and fire ​engines that had fought to limit the damage done by Hitler’s bombs were now useless in the face of the awesome destructive power of this new weapon. He reasoned that the only way to protect the population was to have the ability to fight back, and therefore to deter the initial threat.

Since then, Labour has for the most part adopted a multilateralist stance on disarmament, believing that while other countries possess nuclear weapons, Britain should not disarm unilaterally. Our 2015 manifesto maintained our commitment to a minimum credible independent nuclear capability, and to looking at further reductions in global stockpiles. By 2025, the UK will have achieved a 65% reduction in the size of its nuclear stockpile.

This Parliament has always taken our disarmament goals seriously, but the world is too unstable and unpredictable right now to contemplate getting rid of our main defence strategies. Part of the abolitionist argument generally relies on the belief that nuclear weapons would not work against the current threats to the modern world from terrorist organisations such as Daesh and Boko Haram. However, just because they would not be used to combat such threats, that does not negate their use as a deterrent against other or future unknown threats. Those with whom we do not always agree—Russia, Iran, China and North Korea, for example —understand the relevance of nuclear weapons and have sought to increase their own capabilities.

I am proud of the superb engineering skills that are nurtured in this highly skilled industry. The MOD has stated that

“maintaining and sustaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent supports over 30,000 UK jobs and makes a significant contribution to the UK economy.