The Government’s motion put before Parliament in March 2007 had two key components:

1. To take a decision in principle on whether to replace Trident and therefore begin a process to design, build and commission replacement submarines to carry the Trident missiles. This was presented as a decision in principle to authorise the first ‘Concept’ phase of research and design work for a replacement submarine in order to keep open the option of replacing the submarines until a main gate procurement decision is needed in 2012-2014.
2. To take further steps towards meeting the UK’s disarmament responsibilities under Article VI of the NPT. An important incentive offered by the Government was a commitment to a 20 per cent reduction in warheads if the motion was carried.

A decision in principle to replace Trident would not only authorise initiation of the research and design phase for a fleet of replacement submarines but also participation in the US Navy’s Trident II (D5) life extension (D5LE) programme to extend the service life of the Trident missile fleet to 2040. This was not part of the Government’s motion but was set out in its December 2006 White Paper and formalised in an exchange of letters between London and Washington two days after the release of the White Paper. The D5LE programme was initiated by America in 2002. The US Navy awarded a procurement contract to Lockheed Martin in April 2007.[5] Production will begin in 2008 with initial deployment in 2011. The UK had to make a decision on whether to participate by 2007.[6] The Government clearly decided this was not a decision that required Parliamentary consent.

During the debate in Parliament preceding the vote the Government made three important assurances:

1. That there will be renewed efforts to secure measures pursuant to nuclear disarmament under Article VI of the NPT, in particular to bring about negotiations on a Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty (FMCT) to end production of fissile materials for use in nuclear weapons.
2. That the replacement system will not involve any upgrading or expansion of current nuclear capability.
3. That the decision in principle to replace Trident by authorising research and design on a new fleet of submarines will not bind a future government or parliament to that decision and that there will opportunities in the future for Parliament to revisit the decision, particularly around the ‘main gate’ procurement decision.

In presenting the motion to Parliament Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett stated that “Some Members have sought assurances on whether this is only a provisional decision, dependent on further decisions down the line. Today’s decision does not mean that we are committing ourselves irreversibly to maintaining a nuclear deterrent for the next 50 years…That would be absurd, unnecessary and, indeed, incompatible with the nuclear proliferation treaty”.[7]

During Prime Minister’s Questions on the day of the Trident vote Tony Blair stated that “we need to take the decision today if we want to get parliamentary approval for the work that has to begin now on the concept and design phase – of course, the actual contracts for the design and construction are to be left for a later time. If we want to get proper parliamentary authorisation, this decision has to be taken now”…“we have to take the decision now if we want parliamentary approval for the concept and design phase”.[8]

The Prime Minister went on to state that “It is absolutely right that this Parliament cannot bind the decisions of a future Parliament and it is always open to us to come back and look at these issues. He is right to suggest that when we get to the gateway stage – between 2012 and 2014 – when we let the main contracts for design and construction, it will always be open to Parliament to take a decision. However, I believe that the reason why we have to take the decision today is that if we do not start the process now, we will not be in the position in 2012 or 2014 to continue with the nuclear deterrent should we wish to do so. The real dilemma is that we decided rightly or wrongly – but I think rightly – that we should seek parliamentary approval even for the design and concept stage”.[9]

Secretary of State for Defence Des Browne went on to quote the Prime Minister’s statement above and add “This happened when the previous generation of submarines was built [parliamentary approval being sought at the main gate stage], and it would be surprising if it did not happen again…the fundamental point is that we need to take a decision now to start the process”.[10] This formulation was repeated to foreign government representatives by Ambassador John Duncan at the 2007 NPT Preparatory Committee meeting. “I should make clear what we have decided”, he stated, “The UK has decided to begin concept and design work required to make possible a replacement for our current ballistic missile submarine fleets; and to maintain the option of using the D5 missile beyond its current life expectancy”.[11]

The Government’s formal position was that it was seeking parliamentary authorisation to initiate ‘Concept’ research and design work on a new generation of ballistic missile submarines so that a decision can be made by the government and parliament of the day at the time of the main gate decision on whether or not to replace the current Vanguard submarine fleet.

At the same time statements by government ministers contradicted this formal position by arguing that the vote in March 2007 was the vote on Trident replacement. Des Browne, for example, stated that “we are asking the House not just to keep our options open but to take the big decision – the decision in principle”.[12] This reflected the view of the Conservative Opposition, which argued that the Government was misleading Parliament by implying that the decision could be revisited around the time of the main gate decision. They argued that a decision in principle, as the Government put it, to all intents and purposes would mean an agreement to retain nuclear weapons into the 2050s barring “fundamental and utterly unexpected change in world affairs”.[13] The Government’s motion represented the decision to retain nuclear weapons for another generation. The Liberal Democrat view was that “the appropriate moment for the House to take the decision in principle should be at the main gate decision”.[14]

Parliament should hold the Government to its formal position. The parliamentary vote in March 2007 should not be interpreted as the decision on replacing Trident with no further substantive debate until a ‘successor to the successor’ in another 25 years.

Previous / Next