from Sunday Herald, 10 January 2010
The UK government’s controversial £20 billion programme to replace the Trident nuclear weapons system on the Clyde has been thrown into disarray by an indefinite delay, the Sunday Herald can reveal.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has admitted that “further time” is now needed before a crunch decision can be taken on the design of the submarines needed to carry the new nuclear missiles. The decision was originally meant to be made last year.
One official statement released last week suggested that the earliest the decision could now be taken was July, which would take it beyond the forthcoming general election. But this timetable was later disowned by the MoD in an apparent attempt to save face, without giving an alternative date.
The main reason for the delay is suspected to be difficulties in agreeing the type of nuclear reactors that will power the submarines. According to one senior official, this was “the most tricky issue we have to deal with”.
The revelation has prompted fierce attacks from opposition politicians and anti-nuclear groups. “The government’s plans for Trident replacement are unravelling,” alleged the LibDem defence spokesman, Nick Harvey MP. “They have raised expectations prematurely and now it is rebounding.”
The weapons system should be up for negotiation at an international nuclear conference this summer, Harvey argued. Even if Britain still needed a nuclear “deterrent” after that, it could be smaller and cheaper than the current Trident system.
The Westminster government, backed by a majority of the UK parliament, took the decision in principle to replace Trident submarines three years ago. But before this translates into reality, two other major decisions have to be made, known in MoD jargon as “initial gate” and “main gate”.
Initial gate, which involves approving the major designs for the submarines, was originally due to be taken last September, then postponed until December. It is now clear, however, that it has been postponed again, this time without any fixed deadline.
An official summary of a meeting of the MoD’s Defence Board, one of its top decision-making bodies, on 26 November 2009 was released on request to the Sunday Herald (see below). The summary said that the board “took stock of progress on the successor submarine programme, and the challenges that remained before it could be initially considered by the Investment Approvals Board next July.”
This suggests that the many hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money involved in the initial gate decision won’t be committed until at least July. But when this was put to the MoD, a spokesman claimed the official summary was mistaken.
The language “was based on an early draft of the Defence Board minutes which did not fully describe the position,” he said. “This will be amended when the final minutes are published.”
The MoD spokesman insisted that “no final decisions” had yet been made on the timing of the initial gate decision. Although it had originally been planned for last autumn “further time has been required to ensure that we take decisions based on the most robust information,” he added.
This is the line that the UK defence secretary, Bob Ainsworth, is likely to reiterate this week in response to parliamentary questions put down by MPs. Although ministers are reluctant to spell out the reasons for the delay, the main problem is likely to be the choice of reactor to power the submarines.
The reactor manufacturer, Rolls Royce, has suggested a wholly new design, but there are disagreements over whether to opt for this, or stick with a design similar to existing reactors. This issue has been highlighted by Guy Lester, the senior MoD official in charge of Trident replacement, in evidence to the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee.
“This decision has been delayed and postponed time after time because UK ministers clearly know people do not want weapons of mass destruction in our waters,” argued the Scottish Nationalist defence spokesman, Angus Robertson MP.
“Deferring the initial gate decision will not prevent this obscene waste of money from becoming a key issue in the general election. The next election is about choices for the future.”
The Scottish Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) welcomed the delay, which would ensure that Trident was an election issue. “Every candidate who stands for election should make it clear whether they are going to cut Trident or vital public services,” said the Scottish CND chair, Alan Mackinnon.
“Bob Ainsworth should agree with the recommendation from the Defence Board and postpone the initial gate decision until July. Better still, he could decide now to scrap the project and save the taxpayer billions of pounds.”
The summary of recent top-level meetings released by the Ministry of Defence on 6 January 2010 is reprinted in full below:
"There have been a number of meetings of the Department's top Boards and Committees in the last month or so.
"The Defence Ministerial Committee met on 25 November and received an update from Lord Drayson, the Minister for Strategic Defence Acquisition Reform, on work to develop a new Departmental Strategy for Acquisition Reform. The committee welcomed the news that the Department was making good progress by building on previous reforms to address the recommendations of Bernard Gray's independent review of Defence Acquisition.
"The committee also discussed the content of the Green Paper that will be published in the New Year, including a draft of the opening chapter. They are clear that the Green Paper should pose the right key questions about Defence in a changing world, whilst explaining the complexity of the Department's business in a way that enhances understanding and stimulates debate both internally and externally.
"The Defence Board met on 26 November and discussed health and safety, including the Haddon-Cave Review, the future deterrent programme, the Department's performance over the second quarter of the financial year, in-year financial management, and strategic risk in the MOD.
"On health and safety, the Board noted with sadness two non-operational fatalities that had occurred since their last meeting. They also looked at the Department's emerging approach to implementing the Haddon-Cave review recommendations, which is being taken forward by the Nimrod Review Analysis Sub-Group, led by Ursula Brennan, the 2nd PUS.
"The Board agreed in principle to the group's recommendations and provided them with some guidance on the scope and content of the Department's public response to the review, which the Secretary of State will report to Parliament during the week commencing 14 December 2009. The Board met again on 10 December for a further discussion of the Haddon-Cave Review before that statement, and the statement and associated internal communications will reflect those discussions also.
"The Board also took stock of progress on the successor submarine programme, and the challenges that remained before it could be initially considered by the Investment Approvals Board next July. The Board will continue to hold further discussions as work continues, and will look at nuclear matters more broadly at its January meeting.
"In reviewing departmental performance the Board focused, in line with its clear priorities, on current operations, readiness, and how we recuperate in order to ensure we can meet our standing commitments and possible future contingencies. It also looked at Service and civilian manning. The Board stressed the need to explain in layman's terms to external audiences what our assessments of readiness (which can be quite complex) mean in practice. The Board noted the upward trend in Armed Forces numbers and the downward trend in civilian numbers. Both forecasts would require further analysis to inform the Department's future planning. The Board also re-emphasised the importance it attached to the civilian contribution to Defence.
"The in-year situation has improved since the Board's last discussions but remains very challenging. The Board recognised the steps taken by TLB holders and their staffs to implement cost-saving measures but stressed the need to continue bearing down on costs to the end of the financial year, in line with the various directions that have been issued.
"The Board took a more in-depth look at the performance of the Defence Estates and Land Forces Top Level Budgets, in line with their commitment to periodically scrutinise all TLB Holders. They welcomed the achievements in relation to Project MoDEL and sustainable development that Vice Admiral Tim Laurence had reported and those under Operation Entirety that General Sir David Richards had reported. The Board acknowledged the challenges that both TLB Holders faced respectively in managing the Defence Estate and sustaining the main effort in Afghanistan.
"Finally the Board looked at proposals for a changed approach to its management of strategic risk and approved a new approach that linked to strategic objectives and risks to the Department's main processes, through the Strategic Performance Management System that will be introduced and publicised early next year."
Comments