Downing Street Says

Put to him that on a situation as critical as the security of the nation, PPSs being offered an amnesty if they abstained rather than vote against the Government was a sign that the Government was in disarray and had lost its authority, the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman (PMOS) replied that that this was not the case. There were a number of PPSs who were very much in favour of Government policy and would also not be present to vote for various reasons. The important thing was that the Government’s position on this issue was very clear. We had to take a decision now, because not to do so was equally taking the decision not to have a nuclear deterrent in 17 years time.

Asked to explain why there would be a number of PPSs absent at the vote, the PMOS replied that they would be on other business. Asked if this applied to any members of the Cabinet, the PMOS replied that the Cabinet was completely united behind the Government policy. Asked how many of the Cabinet would not be voting today, the PMOS replied that he was not aware of any members of the Cabinet who would not be voting. Put to him that this implied that PPSs had more urgent business away from Westminster than Cabinet Ministers, the PMOS replied that this was part of the parliamentary system.

Asked if any PPSs had been explicitly told that if they abstained they would not lose their jobs, the PMOS replied that he was not aware that anybody had been told this.

Put to him that it was extraordinary that in the past Ministers had been rushed back from foreign trips for a tough vote, and did this suggest that the Prime Minister was quite relaxed about getting it through with Tory support, the PMOS replied that the best time to talk about these matters was after the vote.

Asked to clarify if this was the decision on whether or not Britain should retain a nuclear deterrent, the PMOS replied that it would be helpful to set out the timetable. It would take 17 years to design, build and deploy the first of the class of replacement submarines. This included: two years from now for concept and assessment work, for example whether it would be possible to maintain a continuous deterrent with three submarines; seven years for detailed design of the submarines; seven years on top of that to manufacture; and one to two years for commissioning and testing.

Asked if the Government was tempted at all by John Denham’s idea of doing the preliminary work first, the PMOS replied that if the industry was to maintain the skills base, it needed the certainty of the decision to be taken now.

Asked if there was any suggestion from the Government that there would be another chance for Parliament to vote again on the issue at some point further on, the PMOS replied that the future was a matter for the future. The decision was being taken now.

Put to him that the White Paper suggested that there was another decision to be made in the next parliament on the question of warheads, and was it practical to have a vote today on submarines only to face another vote on warheads further down the track, the PMOS replied that as he had said before, he would not speculate on the future. The reality was that we needed to take a decision today, because if a decision were not taken then replacements would not be ready in time.

Asked at what point the Government had to let the contracts for the design and build of the submarines, the PMOS replied that first and foremost, a signal had to be sent to the industry that they had to maintain the skills base if they wanted to be awarded these contracts. The timetable was as set out earlier.

Asked if the Prime Minister felt that it was important that the decision was taken under his watch, the PMOS replied that it was the lead-time to get an operational submarine in place by 2024 that was driving this decision.

Put to him that the White Paper described the 17 years as a "reasonable estimate", and therefore this was an arguable decision not hard fact, the PMOS replied that it would only become clear in retrospect, what had to be done now was to set out a best estimate. What could not be done was say in 17 years time that we had hoped it would take less time, but oops it didn’t, because at that point we would end up without operational submarines. We had extended the life of the existing submarines by 5 years, this was the absolute maximum, and therefore we had to work on the basis that it would take 17 years. This was because of the complexity of what we were doing and the fact that we were trying to retain the capability to do so in this country.

Put to him that the Defence Secretary’s comments on the radio this morning seemed to indicate that this vote was starting a process not finishing it, the PMOS repeated that the future was the future. The important thing was that people today actually made the decision about retaining the ability to have a nuclear deterrent in 17 years time.

Asked if the Prime Minister was utterly relaxed about relying on Conservative votes, and that the important thing was to get the policy through, as in future years no one would remember who voted for it, the PMOS replied that the important thing was that we had a nuclear deterrent in 17 years time.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Trident

No Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries