The Guardian view on the Trident failure: an alarming cover-up
|
Version 0 of 1. Today we finally learned that Theresa May was briefed last summer about the failed test launch of an unarmed nuclear missile, conducted just before she became prime minister. But she chose to withhold that information from MPs about to vote on the renewal of Trident, Britain’s nuclear defence system. Instead, parliament has only been made aware of a potentially serious malfunction in our nuclear capability as a result of leaks to the press. Even then, Mrs May repeatedly sought to obfuscate and evade questions about exactly what she knew when probed by the BBC’s Andrew Marr. Given the number of MPs who voted in favour of Trident renewal, it is unlikely Mrs May coming clean would have changed the result of the parliamentary vote. But that is hardly the point. The failed test raises critical questions about the safety and effectiveness of Britain’s nuclear weapons system, given what was being tested was not cutting-edge technology, but a missile first deployed over 25 years ago, launched using a submarine in service since 1999. The Ministry of Defence has dismissed the test failing as a minor issue, pointing out the submarine in question was returned to service later that month. But the inescapable fact is that a missile supposed to be launched across the southern Atlantic ended up tracing a path towards continental North America. Had it been armed with nuclear warheads the consequences could have been catastrophic. Could such a malfunction, which has happened in one of the only five tests the UK has carried out since 2000, happen again? The government has tried pleading national security as grounds for cover-up. Yet it is almost inconceivable Russia would have been unaware of what had happened. The commander of the submarine involved in the last successful British test launch, in 2012, received a congratulatory message from a Russian spy ship monitoring the launch, according to a book on the UK’s nuclear submarines by Peter Hennessy and James Jinks. Why, then, conceal what happened from MPs? All this creates the alarming impression of a prime minister comfortable concealing critical truths from parliament in order to avoid making the debate about Trident renewal trickier than she felt it had to be. This is only the latest in a series of poor judgments six months into her premiership. Mrs May has considerable form when it comes to sidelining parliament, contesting its right to a vote on triggering article 50 all the way up to the supreme court. She has stubbornly refused to countenance further funding for the NHS and social care, reportedly telling NHS leaders they should look to cuts made to the Home Office and defence budgets for inspiration, despite the starkly different contexts. One of her first decisions as prime minister was to delay the approval of a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point due to security concerns, only to announce that it would be going ahead months later. There is a justifiably growing sense that Mrs May’s preferred style of government is secretive, risk averse and inflexible. These may have been characteristics that served her well in her tenure as Britain’s longest serving home secretary in 50 years. But if she continues to shun openness and transparency, they may result in a shorter spell as prime minister. |