tridentreplacement.net

'The intention of this note is to provide a brief update on the status of the programme, the decisions that have yet to be taken and the wider debate on the feasibility of replacing the UK’s nuclear deterrent in the current economic and political climate.'

 
1 Background
 
2 Procurement Status 
 
2.1 Initial Gate
 
2.2 Coalition Government’s Value for Money Review
 
3 Spending on Trident Replacement
 
3.1 Funding the Capital Costs of Trident – Treasury v. MOD
 
Initial Procurement of Trident
 
2007 Comprehensive Spending Review
 
4 Parliamentary Scrutiny of Initial Gate
 
4.1 A Parliamentary Vote? 
 
5 Debate on Renewal

SDSR 01
 
Memorandum from the Ministry of Defence
 
1. The Government’s primary responsibility is to ensure national security. The Coalition Partnership Agreement and the Queen’s Speech set out the Government’s commitment to holding a full Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) alongside the Spending Review, with strong involvement of the Treasury. It is overseen by the National Security Council (NSC) alongside development of a wide ranging National Security Strategy (NSS). The combination of the SDSR and NSS will provide a coherent approach to security across Government and ensure the right balance of resources to meet our commitments. It is a fundamental objective to ensure that our Armed Forces have what they need to do what is asked of them.

Defence Select Committee source
 
Extract:
 
'Q23 John Woodcock: The Trident value-for-money review – would it be fair to call that the 42nd strand of work? If not, why not?
 
 
Dr Fox: On the value for money? That is a very discrete programme; it is not looking at options in the way that the other work strands are looking. It is looking simply at the programme as it is and how we might be able to deliver the same programme at lesser cost.
 
 
Q24 John Woodcock: Are you still on track to finish it by the end of this month, and will you be publishing it ahead of the review?
 
 
Dr Fox: I am hoping that we will be able to finish it as soon as possible. I had hoped that we would be able to be finished, in that I would be able to report to Parliament, before recess, but the recess date keeps crawling backwards, and it is not possible just to keep pulling all the work forward. I hope the Committee understands the huge amount of work that is falling on this Parliament as a consequence. It is unlikely, therefore, we would be able to publish it, but I will consider whether in September, when the House comes back, we may want to see something then, and be able to say something then.
 
 
Q25 John Woodcock: Just very briefly, if it was solely on the changing dates – you are talking about two days of Parliamentary time – you could publish it in September, as was your original intention. If not, why has that intention changed?
 
 
Dr Fox: A slight complication, Chairman, is that it will go to the NSC for consideration when we get the value-for-money report. That timetable is not entirely within my gift at the present time, and it may well be that the value for money, therefore, in terms of being able to report to Parliament, slips until the SDSR, given the summer recess that we have.'
 
Full transcript below:
 

Extract 'Several analysts have concurred that the review may well recommend that the UK bring its declaratory policy into line with the US Nuclear Posture Review in order to harmonise UK and US nuclear policy and avoid any potential confusion within NATO. It will also be for the new government to determine whether parliamentary scrutiny of the programme going forward will also be subject to further debate and votes in the House, as several commentators have called for and whether technical proposals put forward under Labour, such as the reduction to a three-boat class, will now be pursued. As outlined above, the decision on whether to replace or refurbish the UK’s nuclear warhead will also be required within the lifetime of the current Parliament.' [p 63]

Hansard source - 27 July 2010 : Column 1069W Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has assessed the merits of delivering the first boat in the Vanguard-successor class submarines before the completion of the final boats of the Astute-class order. [9781] 

Hansard source - 26 July 2010 : Column 621W
Dr Huppert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that parliamentary approval is obtained for any Main Gate decision to commit funds to building a successor system to Trident. [11152]

Hansard source - 26 July 2010 : Column 621W
Cathy Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department's Investment Approvals Board will next discuss the Trident replacement Initial Gate; when the Board is due to reach a decision on the replacement programme; and if he will place in the Library and publish on his departmental website details of the decision. [10490]

Hansard source - 26 July 2010 : Column 621W
Hywel Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had on the inclusion of a future nuclear weapons programme in the Strategic Defence and Security Review. [10749]