Local Labour MPs have taken opposing views on the future of the Trident nuclear deterrent.

The issue was discussed by MPs at Westminster last week.

Katy Clark MP, a long standing opponent of nuclear arms, welcomed the opportunity to reaffirm her views. However, her Labour colleague Brian Donohoe - who represents Irvine and parts of South Ayrshire - took the opposing view and hit out at a proposal not to renew the Trident programme lodged by the SNP and Welsh party Plaid Cymru.

Mr Donohoe referred to reports that the Ministry of Defence had to call on NATO to help track a ‘Russian submarine’ in the Clyde after reports of a periscope being spotted near the Faslane naval base - home to the Trident fleet.

He attacked the SNP’s Angus MacNeil, who had proposed the move. Mr Donohoe said: “I cannot believe what the honorable gentleman has just said. At a time when submarines from Russia are going up the Clyde and tankers from the same place are at the top of Scotland, he is trying to tell us that we should not have a deterrent.

“That is absolutely unreal! The idea that we should find ourselves defenceless in those circumstances is a crazy notion.” However, Ms Clark was clear on her position.

She said: “I believe that continuing the Trident programme would be wrong politically, economically and militarily. At the beginning of the debate, there was a good deal of discussion about the costs of Trident, which have been disputed. What we know, however, is that if we look at the history of nuclear weapons systems, the costs have escalated and the eventual costs have on every occasion been hugely greater than was originally indicated by the governments in power.

“Some £100 billion, or something of that nature, is an absolutely obscene amount to spend in a country where the gap between rich and poor is getting greater, where far too many of our constituents are relying on food banks and where the political debate is dominated by discussion of what cuts should take place.

“It is interesting to note that some of the strongest advocates of Trident renewal are also the most robust advocates of cuts in other areas of public expenditure, such as public services and welfare. I do not believe that a decision to proceed with Trident, and the Trident renewal at main gate in 2016, will be acceptable to any of our constituents in any part of the country.

“Too much of the debate has been dominated by the politics of the 1980s, and Labour members believe that the politics of those years still dominate much of the thinking on this issue. I think that, over the decades, the arguments of those who believe that the retention of a nuclear capability is not a sensible use of Britain’s resources have become stronger and stronger.

“Nuclear weapons are no defence against the challenges that we face from terrorism; indeed, the more nuclear installations we have, the more vulnerable we become. We need to devote all our energies to nuclear disarmament throughout the world, and to the prevention of nuclear proliferation.

“As has been pointed out repeatedly, all the arguments advanced by those who believe that it is essential for Britain to have nuclear weapons are equally valid in respect of every country in the world.

“We need to act politically in order to put nuclear disarmament at the top of the agenda. We need to turn up at discussions, as the British Government often do not. Deciding not to proceed with Trident, and to use the money in other ways, would be a hugely important step symbolically, and would have a huge impact throughout the world.

“Given that a decision will be made in 2016, we need to engage in a full and open debate about whether Britain actually needs nuclear weapons. Certainly they are hugely unpopular in the part of the world that I represent, where we see the weapons and the submarines.”