SECRECY is part of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, Sir Michael Fallon, has insisted as he made clear that there were certain things the public had to trust the UK Government on and Trident “is one of them”.
In an interview with The Herald, the Defence Secretary also declined to comment in detail on what the cost was to the taxpayer of the fall in sterling in terms of buying military equipment, saying that any suggestion it could be £1 billion a year was “speculation”. He insisted the public should be reassured that the Ministry of Defence took “precautions” against currency fluctuations but declined to elaborate.
Last month, Perth-born Sir Michael was forced to the Commons dispatch box to respond to MPs’ questions following a report that in June an unarmed Trident missile had misfired during a training exercise off the coast of America.
Read more: Theresa May rules out Scots deal on immigration despite warnings
The MoD insisted that HMS Vengeance and its crew had been “successfully tested” but, when MPs asked about the alleged misfiring, the Secretary of State steadfastly refused to give any “operational details of the demonstration and shakedown operation”.
In an interview with The Herald Sir Michael was asked if the public had a right to know that Britain’s nuclear deterrent worked or not, to which he replied: “I have made it clear that we are in no doubt about the effectiveness of the deterrent. So, the answer to that is Yes. The public has every right to be reassured that we have a deterrent that’s capable and effective.”
But he was asked how could the public, through its elected representatives, hold the Government to account on Trident when secrecy was at the heart of its policy on the nuclear deterrent.
Read more: Theresa May rules out Scots deal on immigration despite warnings
Sir Michael declared: “Secrecy is part of the deterrent. The deterrent’s credibility obviously depends on us keeping its operation as secure as possible, so there is obviously a compromise there to keep it secret.”
When it was suggested that the Government’s approach was simply to tell the public: ‘Just trust us,’ the Defence Secretary said: “There are some things that people have to trust the Government on and the nuclear deterrent is one of them.
“But, let me just reassure you, that we would not have asked Parliament to renew the submarine fleet if we had had any doubts about the safety, capability or effectiveness of the deterrent.”
Asked if the reporting of the alleged misfiring had been irresponsible, Sir Michael replied: “Any discussion of the details of the deterrent can only help our adversaries.”
Asked if the reports had undermined the effectiveness of the deterrent, he said: “I have made it clear that we’re not discussing in public details of the deterrent or the way it operates or details of how the different systems were tested. All the rest is speculation but that speculation is not helpful.”
Read more: Theresa May rules out Scots deal on immigration despite warnings
The Cabinet Minister was also asked about the impact on defence procurement of the dramatic fall in sterling following last summer’s Brexit vote since when the pound against the dollar has dropped by around 20 per cent.
“Like any other large organisation we take precautions against fluctuations in the currency and it’s too early to be certain as to exactly where the pound is likely to settle against either the dollar or the euro. It’s not something I’m going to comment on I’m afraid,” said Sir Michael.
In August, RUSI, the respected defence think-tank, estimated that the defence costs to the Treasury because of the fall in sterling would rise by around £700 million a year; yet since then the pound has fallen even further.
Asked if the additional cost could now be topping £1bn a year, Sir Michael said: “That is speculation and speculation about future movements in the currency. I can reassure you, we take precautions against fluctuations in the currency like any large organisation.”
But when it was suggested a fluctuation of 20 per cent was quite a significant move, he noted: “I can’t add to what I’ve said.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel