|
Proliferation in ParliamentBack to Proliferation in Parliament, December 2007 - February 2008 Westminster ParliamentKey to Column Numbering
UK Nuclear Programme
Trident, Written Answers, 18 Feb 2008 : Column 112WMr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 21 January 2008, Official Report, column 1605W, on Trident, how much highly enriched uranium the UK had on the latest date for which data is available. Des Browne: The most recent published figure for the Department's holdings of highly enriched uranium is 21.86 tonnes held as at March 2002. This figure was published in the “Historical Accounting for UK Defence Highly Enriched Uranium” report, in March 2006, which is available via the MOD website: Trident: Finance, Written Answers, 4 February 2008Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his most recent estimate is of the total annual cost of the Trident replacement system; and if he will make a statement. Des Browne [holding answer 29 January 2008]: As the December 2006
White Paper, ‘The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent' (Cm
6994), made clear, we have decided to maintain our nuclear deterrent capability
by procuring a new class of submarines to replace the Vanguard-class and
by participating in a programme to extend the life of the Trident IID5
missile. We expect that once the new fleet of submarines comes into service
the annual in-service costs of the UK's nuclear deterrent, including the
costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, will be similar to today (around
5 to 6 per cent. of the defence budget). Nuclear Submarines: Decommissioning, Written Answers, 4 Feb 2008, Column 801WMr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of the decommissioning of the Vanguard Class submarines; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Nuclear decommissioning costs are the subject of current work within the Department. 4 Feb 2008 : Column 802W When this work is complete, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House. Substantive answer from Bob Ainsworth to Alex Salmond : I undertook to write to you in my answer of 7 January 2008 (Official Report, column 53W) to respond to your Question, regarding the cost of the decommissioning of Vanguard Class submarines. As you may be aware from the answers to previous questions, it is not possible to provide costs broken down by class; the furthest they can be broken down at present is to the total decommissioning cost for in-service submarines only. Nuclear decommissioning provisions are the estimated costs of future liabilities. These are principally related to future facility decommissioning and the treatment and storage of nuclear waste arising from operations at MOD sites, operations of Royal Navy submarines, and the Departmental share of planning and constructing a national repository for the eventual disposal of that waste. We have recently undertaken a review of the nuclear provisions. Our estimated current liability for in-service submarines only (i.e. excluding facility decommissioning, and the decommissioning of out of service submarines and submarines not yet in service) is £455 million. This is an 'undiscounted' figure, meaning that it includes an estimate of potential inflation; the equivalent discounted figure is £240 million. I hope that this is helpful. Trident: Operating Costs, Written Answers, 31 Jan 2008, Column 526WMr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current annual operating cost is of the Trident submarine fleet and missiles. Des Browne [holding answer 28 January 2008]: The annual expenditure
for capital and running costs of the current Trident nuclear deterrent,
excluding costs for the Atomic Weapons Establishment, is expected to be
around £720 million in 2007-08. Nuclear Weapons: Operating Costs, Written Answers, 31 Jan 2008, Column 525WMr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current annual operating cost is of the UK's nuclear warhead programme. Des Browne [holding answer 28 January 2008]: I refer the right
hon. Member to the reply I gave on 11 December 2007, Official Report,
column 400W, to the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). AWE Management: Trident Missiles, Written Answers, 24 Jan 2008, Column 2138WNick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether the Atomic Weapons Establishment manufactured (a) any new Trident warheads and (b) any new plutonium pits in 2007; (2) when the Atomic Weapons Establishment plans to end the production of (a) new Trident warheads of the current design and (b) new plutonium pits of the current design. Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I am withholding the information requested
as its release would or would be, likely to prejudice national security
and defence of the UK. Nuclear Weapons, Written Answers, 23 Jan 2008, Column 2012WAndrew George: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken by the Government to assess the feasibility of implementing non-nuclear strategic defence options after the expiration of the viability of the UK's current nuclear deterrent. Des Browne [holding answer 22 January 2008]: As the December 2006
White Paper "The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent" (Cm
6994) made clear, the continuing risk from the proliferation of nuclear
weapons and the certainty that a number of other countries will retain
substantial nuclear arsenals, means that our minimum nuclear deterrent
capability is likely to remain a necessary element of our security. We
can only deter such threats in future through the continued possession
of nuclear weapons. Conventional capabilities cannot have the same deterrent
effect. On 14 March 2007, the House of Commons voted by a clear majority
to support the Government's decision to sustain the UK's nuclear deterrent
beyond the life of the Vanguard class submarines. Trident, Written Answers, 21 Jan 2008, Column 1605WMr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of whether a new production plant for highly enriched uranium is needed for Trident nuclear warheads. Des Browne: It is currently assessed that existing stocks of highly enriched uranium are sufficient to meet the needs of the Trident warhead programme. In 1995 the UK declared a moratorium on the future production of fissile
material. This was reaffirmed in the 2006 White Paper on the Future of
the UK's Nuclear Deterrent. Negotiating a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty,
banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons, remains
the UK's disarmament priority. Prime Minister's Questions, 16 Jan 2008, Column 928Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon) (Con): Following the Government's recent naval base review, there was widespread concern at Plymouth's Devonport naval base that ships currently based there could be moved to Portsmouth in the next few years. Will the Prime Minister reassure the base's work force that their reward for generations of dedicated service to this nation's security will not be simply death by a thousand cuts? The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, Plymouth will
refit the Trident submarine, and it has a huge amount of work in the years
ahead. A massive amount of investment has gone into Plymouth, and I can
assure him of our commitment to the dock yard there. At the same time,
he will acknowledge that that commitment is possible only because we are
spending more on defence every year. We will continue to do so, and that
depends on there being a healthy economy. House of Commons Defence Committee, Ministry of Defence Annual Report and Accounts 2006–07, Fifth Report, HC 61 of Session 2007–08, 15 January 2008, ExcerptReplacement of strategic nuclear deterrent 111. We asked how much would be spent on the replacement of the strategic nuclear deterrent in the CSR 2007 period. Mr Jeffrey said that the figures in the “existing baseline” are of “the order of £200 million, £300 million, £40 million, 400 million in the the three years of the ree spending review period”. Mr Woolley added that “it is about a billion over the course of the CSR period”. Mr Jeffrey told us that the fund funding of the replacement of the strategic nuclear deterrent “as the White Paper said… is provided separately within the defence budget”. We asked whether these costs would come out of the 1.5% overall increase. Mr Jeffrey said that they did. We sought further clarification on how the cost of replacing the current strategic nucleardeterrent would affect the other elements in the defence budget. Mr Jeffrey told us that:
112. We note that the costs of replacing the current nuclear deterrent
will amount to some £1 billion over the three years of the Comprehensive
Spending Review 2007 period. The MoD told us that the undertaking in the
White Paper, that these costs are “provided additionally” and will not
impact upon conventional capability, has been met. Nuclear Submarines, Written Answers, 7 Jan 2008, Column 53WMr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 13th December 2007, Official Report, column 778W, on nuclear submarines, what safeguards are in place to prevent UK submarine commanders launching a nuclear attack on their own initiative; and if he will make a statement. Des Browne: There are a number of technological and procedural
safeguards built into the UK's nuclear deterrent to prevent an unauthorised
launch of its Trident missiles. Any launch of a Trident missile would
require a large proportion of the submarine's crew to act in concert.
I am withholding further details as its disclosure would, or would be
likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed
forces. Nuclear Submarines: Decommissioning, Written Answers, 7 Jan 2008 : Column 53WMr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of the decommissioning of the Vanguard Class submarines; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Nuclear decommissioning costs are the subject
of current work within the Department. When this work is complete, I will
write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library
of the House. UK Nuclear Weapons, Written Answers, 7 Jan 2008, Column 53WMr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much he plans to spend on a replacement for the UK strategic nuclear deterrent in each year of procurement; and whether this spending is included in the overall allocation for his Department announced as part of the conclusions of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review. Des Browne: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 October 2007, Official Report, columns 1357-58W, to the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and chapter D8 of the Comprehensive Spending Review White Paper (CM 7227). Spending plans for 2011-12 and beyond will be set as part of the Government's
spending review process. Nuclear Submarines, Written Answers, 13 Dec 2007, Column 778WMr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will introduce safeguards to ensure that UK submarine commanders are unable to launch a nuclear attack on their own initiative under any circumstances; and if he will make a statement. Des Browne: I am satisfied that all the necessary safeguards are
in place. Trident Missiles, Written Answers, 13 Dec 2007, Column 780WNorman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what formal procedure has to be followed for submarine commanders to launch Trident missiles; and what role security codes play in that procedure. Des Browne: I am withholding the information as its disclosure
would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or
security of the armed forces. Nuclear Weapons, Written Answers, 11 Dec 2007, Column 399WNick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected expenditure on the Nuclear Warhead Capability Sustainment Programme is (a) in each year from 2008-09 to 2010-11 and (b) over the lifetime of the programme from 2005 to 2015. 11 Dec 2007 : Column 400W Des Browne: Our financial planning for the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) from 1 April 2008 makes no distinction between management and operation costs and those associated with the Nuclear Warhead Capability Sustainment Programme (NWCSP), which we announced on 19 July 2005, Official Report, column 59WS. This reflects the incorporation of the NWCSP into the core AWE programme, expenditure on which over the next three years is expected to be:
On the same basis, expenditure at AWE over the last three years was:
In line with our announcement of July 2005, some £1.1 billion of the expenditure for the years 2005-06 to 2007-08 is associated with sustaining key skills and facilities. Spending plans for 2011-12 and beyond will be set as part of the Government's
spending review process. Nuclear Weapons, Written Answers, 3 Dec 2007, Column 842WNick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings have taken place between UK and US officials on concept studies for the development of a new missile system to replace Trident with particular reference to the underwater launched missile system in the last three years. Des Browne: Since the vote in this House on the future of the
UK nuclear deterrent on 14 March 2007, there have been three meetings
of the Joint Steering Task Group that oversees the execution of the Polaris
sales agreement. Concept studies for the development of a new underwater
launched missile system have been discussed by officials at those meetings. Nuclear Weapons, Written Answers, 3 Dec 2007, Column 842WNick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the function is of the Warhead Pre-Concept Working Group in the nuclear weapons programme; and what the projected cost is of work carried out by this Working Group over the next three years. Des Browne: The Warhead Pre-Concept Working Group was set up to co-ordinate research in support of the detailed review described in paragraph 7-4 of the December 2006 White Paper: "The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent" (Cmd 6994). This review will examine the optimum life of the UK's existing nuclear warhead stockpile and assess the range of replacement options that might be available to help inform decisions likely to be necessary in the next Parliament. The value of work being overseen by the WPCWG in 2007-08 amounts to some
£10 million. Comparable levels of expenditure are projected for 2008-09
and 2009-10. Back to Proliferation in Parliament, December 2007 - February 2008 © 2007 The Acronym Institute. |