Member News
Jeremy Corbyn MP claims the government is acting dishonestly in not publishing the Trident Alternatives Review.
Today's debate on the cost of Trident replacement is vital, given recent announcements that show the government is ploughing ahead with the programme and undermining efforts to scrutinise it.
I was one of many who condemned Trident's exclusion from consideration in the Strategic Defence and Security Review last year, but six months ago I cautiously thought things were starting to look more positive for openness and transparency around Trident. The SDSR had at least pushed the Main Gate construction decision, and therefore the bulk of the spending, for the new submarines beyond the next general election, and we'd had an Alternatives Review announced.
Fast forward to today and we now know that, in addition to the £4bn that will have been spent designing the subs by 2016, £500m will be spent on items for construction, even before that construction decision has been made and another £2bn spending will be under way upgrading the Aldermaston warhead facility – again, another spending project taking place before the formal decision (in this case on refurbishing or replacing the warhead) has been made.
So far, so bad. Over £6bn invested to prepare both for new submarines and warheads – far more than was spent on Nimrod by the time it was cancelled – seems a clear attempt to undermine the importance of the Main Gate and guarantee the programme goes through unchallenged.
But if that were not enough, we now hear that the government has 'no plans' to publish the Trident Alternatives Review being carried out to assist the Liberal Democrats make the case for alternatives to the Trident system.
This is an extraordinary state of affairs. We know those carrying out the review will report to Clegg as well as Cameron, but surely it has to be a fully public document if it is really to assist the Lib Dems' own deliberations and message to the public? Surely their backbench MPs will want to read it as much as those on my side of the House? No doubt some sort of conclusions, as with the Trident Value for Money Review, will be sneaked out, but to publicly state there are 'no plans' smacks of arrogance that its work is irrelevant to Tory intentions.
£25bn on submarines, £100bn over the system's lifetime; a huge waste that's made all the more stark when we see jobs being lost, pensions cut and homelessness increasing. The whole Trident programme is an enormous waste of resources on weapons of mass destruction we have already agreed to get rid of.
It seems right now we have a government that is acting rather dishonestly; it is time to for a serious debate on Trident. As a start, the Trident Alternatives Review must be published, and it must contribute to a full defence review, to take place before the Main Gate point.
Jeremy Corbyn has been the Labour Member of Parliament for Islington North since 1983.
Dods Parliamentary Communications Ltd