Former Navy chief and Labour peer Lord West has urged the UK Government not to exploit his party’s infighting over Trident to score points.
He said while it might be “fun to watch Labour wriggling in anguish”, the future of Britain’s nuclear deterrent was too important an issue with which to play politics.
The former First Sea Lord called on the Tories not to delay the Commons vote on the replacement of the Vanguard-class submarines that carry the ballistic missiles, which he said could have taken place any time since November.
Shadow defence secretary Emily Thornberry, who is overseeing Labour’s defence review, sparked controversy this week when she suggested Trident could become quickly outdated like the Spitfire.
It prompted an outspoken attack from Lord West who panned her claim the Trident-carrying nuclear submarines could become obsolete due to new drones that can search under water.
Both Jeremy Corbyn and Ms Thornberry are known to support immediate nuclear disarmament.
But Lord West has said he will quit Labour if it abandons support for Trident.
Speaking in the House of Lords yesterday, Lord West said the decision was being “delayed and delayed”, adding: “It could have come at any time since last November.
“I know it’s fun to watch Labour wriggling in anguish … But actually this is too important to score party political points.”
Defence Minister Earl Howe insisted his government had no wish to point score on the issue, adding: “We are moving ahead with all speed.”
Reaffirming the Tories’ commitment to maintaining a continuous at-sea deterrent, he said he was confident the system remained “safe and secure” and would do in the future.
Labour peer Lord Touhig told David Cameron to “pull your finger out” and get on with the Commons vote, adding: “It’s the first duty of any government to protect our country.”
In an apparent swipe at Ms Thornberry, crossbench peer and former chief of defence staff Lord Boyce said there had been “some badly informed talk by some people in positions of responsibility on the subject of the vulnerability of the successor (replacement submarine) to detection in future years”.
He added: “Such statements are totally speculative, they show serious lack of understanding of anti-submarine warfare, the science of oceanography and the science of the impenetrability of water.
“And they are probably being made with the intent of being irresponsibly and wilfully misleading.”