We need a party debate on Trident – and a vote on it at conference

Ed Miliband has stated on a number of occasions that upon publication of the Government’s Trident Alternatives Review, the Labour Party should have an informed debate. It is therefore regrettable to read Kevan Jones pronounce his response, reportedly on behalf of the party, to the publication of the Government’s Trident Alternatives Review last week – ahead of any party discussion.

With Ed Balls calling for ‘iron discipline’ in considering the next Labour Government’s spending priorities, Kevan Jones’ espousal of full Trident replacement, with four new submarines on continuous patrol, can only be interpreted as a hawkish defence team trying to bounce the Labour Party into a policy that has gigantic spending implications before we commit to almost any spending on public services in other departments. Certainly all the reports coming from members of the National Policy Forum suggest that it is far from convinced Trident replacement is a sensible policy for the next Labour Government.

While the Trident Alternatives Review didn’t explore the non-nuclear option of scrapping Trident and any plans to replace it, some of the findings of the review should be welcomed by the Labour Party as a step forward. The costs of replacement are again being brought to the fore, and the debate has changed in other ways too.

Previously those defending Trident replacement described it as ‘the minimum deterrent’. The review has made use of that language impossible since full replacement clearly isn’t the lesser option in any sense. ‘Continuous-at-sea deterrence’ (CASD) is the new chosen phrase for defenders of Trident – the majority of whom concede that there are no current nuclear threats, while still advocating round-the-clock patrols. Saying ‘we don’t know what the world will be like in 50 years’ – the usual justification for Trident replacement – and committing now to maintain non-stop patrols, with the exorbitant cost which that entails, are two quite different things.

Rather, in that period, Labour should be arguing for a process of de-escalation and disarmament – working for the peace and security which we seek. Kevan Jones says we can’t move away from continuous-at-sea patrols because to ever return to it ‘would be significantly escalatory’.  But the end of continuous patrols, as suggested in the Trident Alternatives Review, should be welcomed – not as a final policy position but as part of a road map to global disarmament, tackling nuclear proliferation, and creating genuine international security.

The starting point of a Labour Government, if elected in 2015, should be attending the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s review conference that year.   Ed Miliband should commit to attending himself, as Prime Minister, to make history and kick-start multilateral disarmament. To do that he needs to say, “this is our road map: our Trident submarines are immediately coming off routine patrol; the United Kingdom is cancelling plans to replace Trident. We add our names to the scores of countries already committed to a Nuclear Weapons Convention. The United Kingdom is now committed, not only to the global abolition of nuclear weapons, but the means to achieve it too.”

A Labour Government cannot commit to perpetual at-sea patrols and have any credibility in disarmament negotiations. The front bench defence team shouldn’t try to bounce the party into such an expensive commitment, but the party’s final policy should be debated, and voted on, at this year’s annual conference.