Hello Greenpeace and CND.

Copy of letter from Defence Sec' Dr John Reid received yesterday (via MP Michael Howard) on Trident renewal. Original info requested as part of Greenpeace & CND campaigns against this started back in October etc. (The reply below is little more than a long winded restatement of the Government's 'line')
(Letter follows- sorry for any typos')

---------------------------

Ministry of Defence, London.

7 December 2005. Ref: D/S of S/JR 5385/05/C

Dear Micheal (Howard)

Thank you for letter of 17 November enclosing one from your constituent Mr.......of.....,Folkestone, about the possible replacement of the UK's nuclear deterrent.

First and foremost, as I have made clear on many occassions, and as was repeated by the prime minister in the House on 19 october, no decisions on this issue have yet been taken, eithert in principle or in detail. It is likley that some decisions will be required in the current Parliament, but these are still some way off.

The additional investment at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, to which your constiturent refers, is aimed at sustaining facilities and skills that are required to maintain the safety and effectiveness of the current Trident warhead stockpile without recourse to nuclear testing, in compliance with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. This in part is also a reflection of the fact that much of the infrastructure at Aldermaston dates bacxk to the 1950's. It is not, therefore, as has been claimed in the media, an indication that decisions have already been taken to replacce Trident.

Your constituent asks whether any documents surrounding this issue could be published. It is true to say that officials have now started the process of preparing for decisions on the possible replacement of Trident. But this work is at an extremely early stage and Ministers have not yet engaged in the process in any detail, let alone made any decisions. It is therefore premature for us to consider putting formal documentation in the public domain.

We are of course mindful of the legitamate public interest in this important issue, but, as is the case for any responsible government, we do also have a very onerous responsibility to protect national security both now and into the future. We have, however, made clear that this decision-making process will be as transparent as possible and that we do not intend repeating the approach that was used, for example, when previous Governments took decisions on the Chevaline programme.

Your constituent also comments on the position with respect to other states that might be trying to develop a nuclear weapons capability such as Iran and North Korea. The UK, along with China, France, Russia and the US, is recognised as a Nuclear Weapon State under Article IX(3) of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Article VI requires all State Parties to the Treaty, both nuclear and non-nuclear Weapons States, to pursue negociations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. Iran, for example, signed the NPT as a non-nuclear Weapons State and therefore any attempt to develop nuclear weapons is in contravention of its treaty obligations.I should also say that recent comments by the President of Iran regarding Israel only serve to reinforce our concerns at the risks of nuclear proliferation.

Finally, your constituent calls for a full and informal debate on this issue. As we are still some way from taking decisions,it is rather too early to speculate on what precise mechanisms for consultation we might use to support future decision-making by the Government on this issue. The House of Commons Defence Committe has already become engaged- I answered a series of questions on this issue during my meeting with the Committee on 1 November.The issue also continues to be debated on each occassion that Defence Ministers come to the dispatch box, most recently the 'Defence in the UK'' debate on 17 November and during Defence Questions on 14 November. I have no doubt the discussion and debate will continue.

I hope this is helpful.

Kind regards. Dr John Reid.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------