Parliamentary Search

Written question asked by Julian Lewis (Conservative) on Thursday, 18 July 2013, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Tuesday, 3 September 2013. It was answered by Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat) on Tuesday, 3 September 2013 on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister. Treasury was asked to reply.

Trident

Question

To ask the Deputy Prime Minister to what use he will put the Trident Alternatives Report; for what reason the report excluded consideration of the (a) costs and (b) utility of a two-submarine Trident force; how many Civil Servant man-hours were expended upon this report; and at what attributable cost to the public purse.

Answer

I have been asked to reply as the Minister responsible for the Trident Alternatives Review.

The report on the Trident Alternatives Review, which the Government published on 16 July, is intended to inform public debate on this important topic. The review examined the option and costs of an interim procurement of two Successor submarines to supplement the reducing fleet of Vanguard-class submarines during the transition to a different system in 2040. The review did not examine a long-term fleet of two Successor submarines because such a force would be unable to sustain back-to-back patrols over an extended period of time, unlike a three boat fleet. Neither the hours nor costs of the review are centrally recorded; these could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Secondary information

Type
Written question
Reference
167090; 567 c342W
Session
2013-14
Subjects
Trident
Contains statistics
Yes
Link
View this Written question on www.publications.parliament.uk