FactCheck: Was there 'public debate' over Trident renewal?
Updated on 14 March 2007
John Reid promised it but did the government deliver?
The claim
"We are not going to have a secret Chevaline-like decision taken by some of the Cabinet which then proceeds without any public discussion or debate. Even if that was desirable, and it is not, it is not possible."
John Reid, then defence secretary, quoted in the Guardian, 13 September 2005.
Background
Four months after a historic third election victory, defence secretary John Reid made the first public admission Trident renewal was on the government's immediate 'to do' list.
He promised "public discussion" and "debate"; vowing the process would not be like "secret" decisions of the past.
But has the road to £20bn of new nuclear weapons been the transparent and reasoned journey Reid promised?
Analysis
A few weeks after Reid's pledge, his department seemingly failed to stand by such lofty promises.
Freedom of Information requests by Greenpeace about studies on Trident replacement were rejected by the Ministry of Defence (MoD). The MoD acknowledged there was a "strong public interest" argument for disclosure, but insisted the information would not be placed in the public domain.
Thus the public was left to make up its mind without the very evidence - or perhaps lack of it - on which the MoD was basing its stance.
'I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss [Trident renewal] before the final decision is taken.'Tony Blair, June 2006
The following June Sunderland MP Chris Mullin used Prime Ministers' Questions to ask when Parliament was going to be involved in the decision-making process - amid fears the MoD was making its mind up behind closed doors.
Blair replied: "It is too early to rule in or to rule out any particular option.
"As we set out in our manifesto, we are committed to retaining the UK's independent nuclear deterrent, but I am sure that there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss that before the final decision is taken."
So according to the PM the UK's nuclear future was very much up in the air - yet just 161 days later a White Paper on Trident was on the table. Quite a quick turnaround for a policy that will go a long way to shaping Britain's future, and not allowing too much time for the discussion Reid promised.
One day after Blair's 'nothing is ruled in or out' comments an influential Commons' defence committee called for a public debate on Trident, as one did not appear to be happening. The MoD refused to give evidence to the committees' inquiries.
Next, Hemsworth MP Jon Trickett asked to see the attorney-general's advice on the legality of the proposed Trident update, because some lawyers had said it breached the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
In December Blair unveiled a White Paper on Trident renewal. Note, this was a White not a Green Paper.
The Government refused. When Nottingham MP Alan Simpson asked the same question this month, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office again said the information was "confidential".
On 4 December 2006 Blair unveiled a White Paper on £20bn plans for Trident renewal.
Note this was a White Paper, not a Green Paper.
A Green Paper is traditionally designed to promote broad discussion while a White Paper is very much at the detailed planning stage.
A Cabinet meeting was held to discuss the plans, two-and-a-half hours before the White Paper was published - not leaving much time to make amendments at the printers.
Number 10 would not say why no official Cabinet debate had taken place.
Fast forward to this March, the Commons defence committee which had criticised the lack of debate remerged to raise further fears.
It said ministers had failed to answer fundamental questions about plans to renew the Trident nuclear missile system, including its true cost, why a decision must be taken now, and who it is meant to deter.
The cross-party group chastised the government for failing to explain how its plans are compatible with its commitment to nuclear non-proliferation.
Rating: 4
How ratings work
Every time a FactCheck article is published we'll give it a rating from zero to five.
The lower end of the scale indicates that the claim in question largerly checks out, while the upper end of the scale suggests misrepresentation, exaggeration, a massaging of statistics and/or language.
In the unlikely event that we award a 5 out of 5, our factcheckers have concluded that the claim under examination has absolutely no basis in fact.
Verdict
There's no doubt when you compare today's process of nuclear renewal it's a lot more open than the past.
After all, when Harold Wilson's government extended the life of Polaris with the Chevaline programme, there was no vote, Parliament was not told - not even cabinet.
A handful of ministers made the decision.
Nonetheless, the debate and discussions promised by John Reid 18 months ago don't appear to have happened.
From FoI rejections to the MoD refusal to talk to the Common's committee to a detailed White Paper emerging 161 days after Blair said nothing was ruled in or out, the reality doesn't match the promise.
Your view
You've read the article, now have your say. We want to know your experiences and your views. We also want to know if there are any claims you want given the FactCheck treatment. Email factcheck@channel4.com
FactCheck will correct significant errors in a timely manner. Readers should direct their enquiries to the Editor at the email address above.<
