|
Proliferation in ParliamentBack to Proliferation in Parliament, Summer 2009 Westminster ParliamentTrident and Nuclear SubmarinesOral Questions and Debates
Written Questions
Early Day Motion
Trident and Nuclear SubmarinesOral Questions and DebatesNuclear Deterrent, Defence Oral Questions, 13 July 2009 : Column 11Mr. Greg Hands (Hammersmith and Fulham) (Con): What progress his Department has made towards procurement of the next generation of the nuclear deterrent; and if he will make a statement. The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): The Government are committed to the current nuclear deterrent and to the development of a replacement system. Good progress is being made in completing the actions set out in the 2006 White Paper, “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent”. Mr. Hands: The Secretary of State mentions the 2006 White Paper, but Tony Blair told the House in December 2006 that Britain could maintain its minimum strategic deterrent while reducing the number of warheads from 200 to 160. Less than three years later, the current Prime Minister seems to be offering to reduce that number to below 160 warheads. How can he do that while maintaining a minimum level of deterrence? Mr. Ainsworth: The Prime Minister also made it clear that he was committed to maintaining the nuclear deterrent. We need to try to make an appropriate contribution to any multilateral nuclear proposition, while at the same time ensuring that we have a credible minimum nuclear deterrent. The entire Government—not only the defence team—are committed to doing that. Mr. Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab): In view of the impact of the recession and of President Obama’s meeting last week with the President of Russia, when they committed themselves to reducing their nuclear warheads by 500 each, is it not about time we publicly stated that we are not going to upgrade Trident? Mr. Ainsworth: No, it is not. If my hon. Friend wants to look at the record since we came to power, he will see that we have made significant reductions in our deployable nuclear capability. We have made a significant contribution to the reduction of nuclear weapons and we will obviously seek to be constructive when any propositions are made, but within the parameters of maintaining the British nuclear deterrent. Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Can the Secretary of State confirm that any future nuclear deterrent that involved reliance on nuclear-armed Cruise missiles, as some recommend, would be compatible with the provisions of the 1987 intermediate-range nuclear forces treaty? Mr. Ainsworth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we considered different methods of maintaining the nuclear deterrent during the White Paper process. We decided—I think for good reasons of invulnerability—to stick with the ballistic missile system based on submarines. That is what we intend to do. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): Does the Secretary of State think it a good idea to commit ourselves to expenditure, during the lifetime of a new Trident, of £76 billion, ahead of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference next year and in 13 July 2009 : Column 12 the face of a declared aspiration by President Obama, which is shared by the Government, of a nuclear-free world? Would not a better contribution be not replacing Trident? Mr. Ainsworth: My hon. Friend’s views are well known and have
been consistent over the years. I am glad they have not changed, but he
knows that I disagree with him. I have done so in the past and I still
do. Trident, Defence Oral Questions, 13 July 2009 : Column 13Danny Alexander (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (LD): When he expects the initial gate decision on the planned replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent to be made; and if he will make a statement. The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): We currently expect to consider initial gate later this year. Danny Alexander: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. However, given that a number of people, including retired military officers, former Defence Secretaries and academics, are now saying that Trident is both irrelevant and unaffordable, will the Secretary of State defer the initial gate process and the hundreds of millions of pounds that it would commit us to spending until a further, full debate in this place that takes into account the new financial and strategic circumstances? Mr. Ainsworth: Initial gate does not entail the commitments that
the hon. Gentleman talks about, and the answer is no. Armed Forces: Trident, House of Lords, Oral Question, 9 July 2009 : Column 759
Asked By Lord Judd To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of the timetables for and costs of replacing Trident nuclear weapons and commissioning new aircraft carriers.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering our sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, Trooper Joshua Hammond, Private Robert Laws, Lance Corporal David Dennis, Lance Corporal Dane Elson, Captain Benjamin Babington-Browne and the soldier from the Light Dragoons killed in Helmand province on Tuesday 7 July. All were killed on operations this week in Afghanistan. We also offer our condolences to the family and friends of Flight Lieutenant Kenneth Thompson and Flight Lieutenant Nigel Morton, who were killed when their Tornado F3 crashed on Thursday 2 July in Scotland while on a routine training flight. This Government are committed to the current nuclear deterrent and to the development of the replacement system, as set out in the 2006 White Paper. We estimate that this replacement will cost between £15 billion and £20 billion at 2006-07 prices and we expect the first successor submarine to enter service in 2024. As part of the 2008 equipment examination, we decided to delay the carriers by one to two years, recognising that this would add cost. Our 9 July 2009 : Column 760 latest, yet-to-be-approved, estimated cost is £4.6 billion. We expect the in-service dates to be towards the end of 2015 and 2018 respectively. Lord Judd: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will endorse without reservation the tribute to the fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. With our forces as stretched as they are, in operations that are likely to be the pattern for the future, is not the top priority to ensure that they have the very best equipment for the tasks that they are undertaking and are likely to be undertaking? Is it not, therefore, essential to reassess the replacement of Trident because of the vast expenditure involved? Should we not look at alternatives and is it not essential that the House should have an opportunity to debate this issue before initial gate decisions are made? If aircraft carriers are essential for flexibility in deployment around the world—and I, for one, believe that they are—do we really need the kind of, arguably, oversophisticated vessels that are currently planned? Would not more simple vessels do the task very well? Indeed, will the aircraft be available to make the expensive, sophisticated carriers fully operational? Lord Drayson: My Lords, we put absolutely as our first priority the support to our troops on operations. We have shown that by providing through the UOR process more than £2.2 billion to operations. But we need to do both. It our primary responsibility to provide for the security of this nation and we cannot do that without a nuclear deterrent. We have said that the nuclear deterrent will not come at a cost to investment in our conventional forces and, no, there is no alternative to the provision of the capability that the carriers will provide. As my colleague on these Benches said when he was First Sea Lord, this is four acres of British sovereign territory that can move 500 miles in a day without the by your leave of any other nation. Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister repeat the assurance given to your Lordships’ House the last time that this subject was raised in Oral Questions, to the effect that the two new aircraft carriers will not be diluted into any European defence force? Lord Drayson: I am happy to give that assurance, my Lords. Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, in the private sector, if one trades when one knows that one’s operation is insolvent, that is a criminal offence. At the present time, the Ministry of Defence, frankly, is bust. There is a yawning gap between resources and commitments. We have a belated defence review that should have come two or three years ago, as many of us were asking for. What are a Government who place a Secretary of State for Defence 21st out of 23 in the Cabinet’s pecking order going to do about the desperate financial situation of the MoD? Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not recognise at all the characterisation that the noble Lord has just set out. On returning to the Ministry of 9 July 2009 : Column 761 Defence recently, I have been struck by the way in which it has been able to respond to the pressures of operations and by the success that our forces have achieved in Iraq, for example. We recognise the pressures that they are under, but we are supporting them and seeing progress in the way in which they are making their contribution to the international effort in Afghanistan. We obviously have to manage our finances adequately and we are committed to doing that, which is why we announced earlier this week the Strategic Defence Review. Viscount Tenby: My Lords, in the light of recent reports in the press about a £1 billion overrun on the two carriers, to which the Minister referred in his original Answer, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that this undesirable trend does not occur year on year? Lord Drayson: My Lords, this increase in costs is due to the decision that we took last year to put back the delivery date of the carriers. The project itself is not leading to increased costs; the primary cost increase caused by the delay is due to the inflationary effect on working capital because of the length of the project. Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, from these Benches we, too, send our condolences to the families of the soldiers and the two flight lieutenants whom the Minister mentioned. I very much welcome the noble Lord back to the Dispatch Box with his defence brief. Last month in the other place, the Prime Minister claimed that,
Is that really the case? Lord Drayson: Yes, it is, my Lords. The Prime Minister is absolutely right. Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, the very sad list that the Minister read out at the start of his Answer, on which I am sure the whole House expresses its condolences, draws attention yet again to the fact that the operations that we are conducting require people. The Minister has confirmed that the equipments mentioned in the Question are covered in the budget. Can he confirm or deny reports that three infantry battalions are likely to be cut from the budget, while these equipments are to be retained? Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am not aware of those reports at all, so I cannot comment on them. Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, is it the view of Her Majesty’s Government that Russia, in particular, still presents a risk sufficient to warrant our acquiring the defensive assets referred to in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, as a prudent insurance policy? Lord Drayson: My Lords, this is not about Russia or any other country. We need to recognise that the replacement of our deterrent will come into service 9 July 2009 : Column 762 from 2024 and will stay in service until the late 2050s. It is very difficult
for us to predict what the world will be like at that time, which is why
we are committed to maintaining our deterrent and replacing the Vanguard
submarines. Written QuestionsAstute Class Submarines, Written Questions, 20 July 2009 : Column 879WMr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated in-service date is for each of the first four Astute-class submarines. Mr. Quentin Davies: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave
him on 22 January 2009, Official Report, column 1667W. The Astute programme
is currently being re-baselined and I will make an announcement in due
course. Clyde Naval Base: Radioactive Waste, Written Questions, 20 July 2009 : Column 880WJo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 12 May 2009, Official Report, column 753W, on radioactive waste: waste management, if he will introduce an annual review of compliance with best practice of arrangements for the handling, movement, processing, storage and disposal of radioactive waste at HM Naval Base, Clyde, Faslane. Mr. Quentin Davies: Management of radioactive waste at Her Majesty’s
Naval Base (HMNB) Clyde is carried out in accordance with a comprehensive
set of requirements, both statutory and those derived from MOD policy,
including authorisation conditions (ACs) imposed by the Department’s Defence
Nuclear Safety Regulator. These ACs require an annual review to be carried
out for all nuclear facilities, including the two facilities that deal
with radioactive waste: the Active Processing Facility and the Radioactive
Effluent Disposal Facility. Nuclear Weapons, Written Questions, 20 July 2009 : Column 888WDr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a British nuclear deterrent system consisting of (a) land-based, (b) air-launched and (c) ship-borne nuclear cruise missiles would be compatible with the provisions of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty. Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty is a bilateral treaty between the US and Russia. The UK is not a state party to the treaty and our nuclear deterrent is not bound by its provisions. Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the lifetime cost of a replacement system for Trident. Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave
on 13 July 2009, Official Report, column 19W, to the hon. Member for Orkney
and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). Freedom of Information: Trident, Written Questions, 14 July 2009 : Column 334WMr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in respect of which his Department has disclosed information in the last 12 months have related to the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system and its launch platform. Chris Bryant: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received
no requests in the last 12 months under the Freedom of Information Act
2000 related to the replacement of the Trident nuclear weapons system
and its launch platform. Trident, Written Questions, 13 July 2009 : Column 19WMr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his most recent estimate is of the cost to his Department of replacing Trident. Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The estimated procurement costs for replacing
the Trident nuclear deterrent are £15-20 billion, at 2006-07 prices for
a four-boat fleet. Once the new fleet of submarines comes into service
annual in-service capital and running costs of the deterrent, which includes
the costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, are expected to be similar
to today. This cost is currently around 5 to 6 per cent. of the annual
defence budget. Trident, Written Questions, 7 July 2009 : Column 634WJoan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his Department’s evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee’s inquiry into Global Security: Non-Proliferation, HC 222, Ev 118, what assessment he has made of the merits of suspending the Trident replacement programme in the context of negotiations to reduce warhead numbers; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Ivan Lewis: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated
on 17 March 2009, as soon as it becomes useful for our nuclear arsenal
to be included in broader multilateral negotiations, Britain stands ready
to participate and to act. A decision now not to renew our Ship Submersible
Ballistic Nuclear (SSBN) submarine fleet would pre-empt any such negotiation,
by committing a future government to unilateral disarmament at the end
of the current fleet’s lifespan, regardless of the strategic circumstances
at that time. Radioactive Waste: Waste Management, Written Questions, 7 July 2009 : Column 662WJo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 12 May 2009, Official Report, column 753W, on radioactive waste: waste management, which of the recommendations of the report have been implemented; and what the outstanding issues are which he expects to be addressed by the end of September 2009. Mr. Quentin Davies: Of the 27 recommendations in the report, 23 have been implemented. It is anticipated that, of the four remaining recommendations, two covering design drawings and maintenance of underground pipe work will be completed by the end of September 2009. It has been decided that the final two recommendations, which cover the requirement for safety justification and for new equipment, can best be addressed as part of a future options study to determine Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde’s long-term plans for radioactive waste management arrangements. This is due to report in the first quarter of 2010. In the meantime, all radioactive waste handling is carried out in accordance
with procedures that have been agreed with the appropriate regulatory
bodies, including the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Trident, Written Questions, 7 July 2009 : Column 663WJoan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy not to take any decision on the initial gate stage of Trident until proposals for such a decision have been debated on the floor of the House; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave
on 22 June 2009, Official Report, column 628W, to my hon. Friend the Member
for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). Nuclear Weapons, House of Lords, Written Questions, 7 July 2009 : Column WA144Asked by Lord Dykes To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will respond to the recent report, Stepping down the nuclear ladder by Nick Ritchie of the University of Bradford Department of Peace Studies, in respect of alternatives to the renewal of the United Kingdom's nuclear arsenal. The Minister for International Defence and Security (Baroness Taylor of Bolton): Dr Ritchie sent the First Sea Lord a copy of his paper. The First Sea Lord acknowledged the paper and took the opportunity to reiterate that the Government's policy as set out by the 2006 defence White Paper (Cm 6994) remains extant. There are no plans to issue a more substantive reply to Dr Ritchie's
paper. Nuclear Weapons: Public Opinion, Written Questions, 24 Jun 2009 : Column 902WDr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department’s most recent opinion poll data are on public opinion on the retention of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent. Mr. Bob Ainsworth [holding answer 22 June 2009]: Questions on the retention of the UK’s nuclear deterrent were included in the public poll on perceptions of the Ministry of Defence and UK armed forces conducted in December 2003. The following figures were collated for the public opinion poll on whether the UK should keep its nuclear weapons:
Nuclear Weapons: Transport, Written Questions, 24 Jun 2009 : Column 902WNick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the role of the Fleet Protection Group Royal Marines is in the protection of nuclear weapons road convoys. 24 Jun 2009 : Column 903W Bill Rammell: The Fleet Protection Group Royal Marines element
of the nuclear weapon convoy security escort provides specific capabilities
to counter a no-notice terrorist attack. Nuclear Weapons: Trident, House of Lords, Written Question, 24 Jun 2009 : Column WA291Asked by Lord Judd To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider the planned September date for the Initial Gate decision on the replacement of Trident nuclear weapons to allow for parliamentary debate of what they propose. The Minister for International Defence and Security (Baroness Taylor
of Bolton): I refer the noble Lord to the Answer my right honourable
friend the Defence Secretary gave in another place on 22 June 2009 (Official
Report, col. 628W) to the honourable Member for Islington North (Mr Corbyn). Trident, Written Questions, 22 Jun 2009 : Column 628WJeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to place before Parliament proposals for Initial Gate approval for the programme to replace the UK's Trident nuclear weapons system. Mr. Bob Ainsworth: It is not normal for Parliament to be involved
in Initial Gate decisions for procurement projects. I do however propose
to update Parliament on progress after Initial Gate. The main investment
decision point, and the point at which we would issue the main contracts
to industry for the construction of the new submarines, is still several
years away. Nuclear Weapons, Written Questions, 18 Jun 2009 : Column 468WNick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many activities requiring the permission of the Defence Nuclear Weapons Regulator have been authorised at Royal Naval Armament Depot Coulport since July 2007. Mr. Quentin Davies: There has been no change to the scope of nuclear
activities at the Royal Naval Armament Depot Coulport since July 2007.
No additional permissions have, therefore, been required from the Defence
Nuclear Safety Regulator, which includes the Nuclear Weapons Regulator. Radioactive Waste: Waste Management, Written Questions, 17 Jun 2009 : Column 341WMr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much liquid radioactive waste has been discharged into the sea loch at Faslane in each year since it first hosted Polaris nuclear submarines; and whether he has received recent representations from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency on the matter. Mr. Quentin Davies: Officials are currently in the process of collating the information held by the Department; I will write to the hon. Member once this work is complete. Substantive answer from Quentin Davies to Dai Davies:
RAND Corporation, Written Questions, 11 Jun 2009 : Column 1007WDr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of each study commissioned by his Department from the RAND Corporation since 1997. Mr. Quentin Davies: The following studies are accessible electronically as follows: ... Monitoring the Progress of Shipbuilding Programmes:
How Can the Defence Procurement Agency More Accurately Monitor Progress? Differences Between Military and Commercial Shipbuilding:
Implications for the United Kingdom's Ministry of Defence Options for Reducing Costs in the United Kingdom's
Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) Programme The United Kingdom's Naval Shipbuilding Industrial
Base: The Next Fifteen Years The United Kingdom's Nuclear Submarine Industrial
Base, Volume 1: Sustaining Design and Production Resources The United Kingdom's Nuclear Submarine Industrial
Base, Volume 2: Ministry of Defence Roles and Required Technical Resources The United Kingdom's Nuclear Submarine Industrial
Base, Volume 3: Options for Initial Fuelling http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG725/ Copies of some studies are not held or are being withheld as their disclosure would, or would be likely
11 Jun 2009 : Column 1008W to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed
forces, prejudice relations between the United Kingdom and another state
or prejudice commercial interests. Submarines, Written Questions, 10 Jun 2009 : Column 868WDr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the repair work to the UK vessel occasioned by the collision between French and British ballistic missile submarines will be completed; and if he will make a statement. Mr. Bob Ainsworth [holding answer 8 June 2009]: I can confirm
that HMS Vanguard has returned to operational service following repair
work at Her Majesty's Naval Base Clyde. Submarines, Written Questions, 8 Jun 2009 : Column 702WDr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether each of the boats in the Astute submarine programme are on target to enter service on their scheduled dates. Mr. Quentin Davies: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave
him on 22 January 2009, Official Report, column 1667W. The Astute programme
is currently being re-baselined and I will make an announcement in due
course. Trident, Written Questions, 8 Jun 2009 : Column 702WBob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that initial gate decisions on the Trident replacement programme are not announced during the 2009 summer adjournment. Mr. Bob Ainsworth: It is not normal for Parliament to be involved in Initial Gate decisions for procurement projects. I do however propose to update Parliament on progress following the Initial Gate decision. 8 Jun 2009 : Column 703W The main investment decision point, and the point at which we would issue the main contracts to industry for the construction of the new submarines, is still several years away. Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will re-evaluate his Department’s recommendation for an upgraded Trident missile programme. Mr. Bob Ainsworth: No. On 14 March 2007 the House of Commons voted
by a significant margin to accept the recommendations set out in the December
2006 White Paper “The UK’s Future Nuclear Deterrent”. There has been no
substantive change in international security since then that would suggest
that a further vote is required. Trident, Written Questions, 1 Jun 2009 : Column 22WWillie Rennie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will hold discussions with the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on inclusion of the UK's future Trident nuclear deterrent in negotiations at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2010. Mr. Hutton: The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
Affairs and I regularly discuss a wide range of issues. The UK gave a
detailed statement to the 2007 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory
Committee on decisions regarding the future of the UK nuclear deterrent.
We will make further statements to future NPT conferences as appropriate. Astute Class Submarines, Written Questions, 1 Jun 2009 : Column 40WDr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost of the Astute-class submarine from the (a) direct resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL), (b) indirect resource DEL and (c) capital DEL was at 31 March (i) 2001, (ii) 2002, (iii) 2003, (iv) 2004, (v) 2005, (vi) 2006, (vii) 2007, (viii) 2008 and (ix) 2009. Mr. Quentin Davies: The information requested is detailed in the following table. The figures include the cost of the Assessment, Demonstration and Manufacture Phases.
1 Jun 2009 : Column 41W I am withholding the figure for 31 March 2009 as this information is
intended for future publication in the Major Projects Report 2009. Nuclear Submarines: Decommissioning, Written Questions, 1 Jun 2009 : Column 48WMr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when his Department will commence formal discussions with Plymouth City Council on the decommissioning of nuclear submarines at Devonport Royal Dockyard; (2) when he expects the public consultation on the decommissioning of nuclear submarines at Devonport Royal Dockyard to begin. Mr. Quentin Davies: A decision on the location of the dismantling site has not yet been made. A Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the Submarine Dismantling Project will consider location options for both the dismantling site and the interim storage of the resulting Intermediate Level Waste. Engagement with local councils on both dismantling and storage sites will take place as part of the public consultation period for the SEA. This is planned to begin towards the end of 2009 and to complete in spring 2010. Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the planned dates of decommissioning are of (a) each of the Royal Navy’s Trafalgar class submarines and (b) its Swiftsure submarine. Mr. Quentin Davies: Against current planning assumptions, which are regularly reviewed, the out of service dates for the remaining Swiftsure and Trafalgar Class submarines are shown in the following table.
Radioactive Waste: Waste Management, Written Questions, 21 May 2009 : Column 1507WJoan Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent of 12 May 2009, Official Report, column 753W, on radioactive waste: waste management, if he will place in the Library a copy of his response to the hon. Member when it is issued. Mr. Quentin Davies: A copy of my response will be placed in the
Library of the House. Trident, Written Questions, 20 May 2009 : Column 1417WMr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which potential aggressors he expects to be deterred by the Trident nuclear deterrent programme in 2024. Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The 2006 White Paper: The Future of the United
Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent (Cmd 6994), section three, paragraphs 3-8
to 3-13, states that over the next 20 to 50 years we can foresee nuclear
risks in three areas: Re-emergence of a major nuclear threat; emerging
nuclear states and state-sponsored terrorism. Clyde Submarine Base, Written Questions, 18 May 2009 : Column 1171WNick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department plans to change to Faslane the homeport of (a) HMS Trenchant, (b) HMS Talent and (c) HMS Triumph; and when each vessel will have its mid-commission major maintenance period. Mr. Quentin Davies: HMS Trenchant, HMS Talent and HMS Triumph
will transfer progressively to HM Naval Base Clyde between 2014 and 2017
upon completion of their mid commission major maintenance periods. Nuclear Weapons, Written Questions, 14 May 2009 : Column 952WMr. Godsiff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his most recent estimate is of the cost to the public purse of the Trident replacement programme. Mr. Hutton: Our current estimate, published in the December 2006
White Paper “The Future of the UK’s Nuclear Deterrent” (Cm 6994), is that
the total procurement costs of the successor deterrent capability will
be in the region of £15-£20 billion, at 2006-07 prices, for a four-boat
fleet. This comprises £11-14 billion for the submarines, £2-3 billion
for the possible refurbishment or replacement of the warhead and £2-3
billion for infrastructure. These costs are being refined as experts continue
to engage in detailed discussion with industry. Submarines: Decommissioning, Written Questions, 14 May 2009 : Column 954WWillie Rennie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the submarine dismantling project. Mr. Quentin Davies: The project currently has approval to undertake
a £14 million assessment phase due to complete in 2011. This will be followed
by the demonstration phase which will run from 2011 to 2013; costs for
this phase have not yet been approved. Whole life cost figures will be
developed as part of the preparation of the main gate business case, which
is planned to be submitted for approval in 2013. Submarines: Radiation Exposure, Written Questions, 14 May 2009 : Column 954WDr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many instances there have been of radioactive leaks from (a) nuclear-armed and (b) conventionally-armed nuclear-powered submarines in each of the last 12 years. Mr. Quentin Davies: There have been nine leaks that were potentially radioactive. All these instances involved Ship Submersible Nuclear submarines which are conventionally armed submarines. The following table shows in which year each instance occurred.
Radioactive Waste: Waste Management, Written Questions, 12 May 2009 : Column 753WMr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department published its report on Future Radioactive Waste Management Capability, RWMF/URD/001; and what representations have been received on the report since that date. Mr. Quentin Davies: The Future Radioactive Waste Management Capability—User Requirement Document was published within the Department in August 2008 and was provided to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in September 2008. No representations have been received on the report since it was issued. Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much liquid radioactive waste has been discharged into the sea loch at Faslane in each year since it first hosted Polaris nuclear submarines; and whether he has received recent representations from the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency on the matter. Mr. Quentin Davies: Officials are currently in the process of collating the information held by the Department; I will write to the hon. Member once this work is complete. Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the extent to which the recommendations in the report Assessment of Arrangements to Comply with Best Practicable Means for the Handling, Movement, Processing, Storage and Disposal of Radioactive Waste at HM Naval Base Clyde, Faslane have been complied with; and upon what data his assessment is based. Mr. Quentin Davies: An internal assessment of the report was completed by officials at HMNB Clyde during March 2009. The majority of the recommendations arising from the report have now been implemented and we expect that outstanding issues will be addressed by the end of September 2009. Officials continue to work with the various regulatory authorities to ensure they are content with the work that is being undertaken. Jo Swinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken at HM Naval Base Clyde to ensure that requirements on waste prevention and minimisation have been incorporated into waste generation procedures and training at the base. Mr. Quentin Davies: Waste generation is always considered during
the planning of any nuclear work, and efforts are made to minimise the
rate of production and the quantity of waste produced. Initial and refresher
training is provided to both submarine and base staff that specifically
addresses the requirement to prevent and reduce radioactive waste. Waste
disposals from HM Naval Base Clyde continue to be well below the agreed
disposal limits. Submarines, Written Questions, 12 May 2009 : Column 754WWillie Rennie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what locations will be included in the Strategic Environmental Assessment for the Submarine Dismantling Project; what timetable he has set for the conduct of the assessment; and against what criteria the assessment will be made. Mr. Quentin Davies: The Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) for the Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP) will consider location options for both the submarine dismantling facility and the interim storage of the resulting Intermediate-Level Waste (ILW). In both cases, the SEA proposes to consider the following types of location:
12 May 2009 : Column 755W It is the intention for the SEA report to be completed before spring 2010, following a period of public consultation. Assessment will be made against the criteria detailed in EU Directive
2001/42/EC 'On the Assessment of the Effects of Certain Plans and Programmes
on the Environment' and the 'Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes
Regulations 2004 (SI 2004 No 1633)'. It should be noted that the latter
document normally applies only to England but, in line with the Office
of the Deputy Prime Minister (now Department of Communities and Local
Government) guidance, is also applicable to those activities with a UK-wide
remit. Clyde Submarine Base, Written Questions, 12 May 2009 : Column 744WAngus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Faslane primary effluent barge to return to service; and what plans he has for its replacement in the long-term. Mr. Quentin Davies: The primary effluent barge was retired in February 2008 and will not be returned to service. Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde is currently undertaking a future waste management options study to determine the long-term plans for radioactive waste management. Primary effluent tanks will continue to collect liquid waste in the interim. Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for a new facility to handle radioactive waste at Faslane. Mr. Quentin Davies: Work is currently being undertaken to determine the future waste management plans at Faslane, the results of which will inform the design and development of a new capability. Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) procedures and (b) protocols will apply to the discharge of radioactive coolant from submarines at the new Astute jetty. Mr. Quentin Davies: The procedures and protocols for the discharge
of radioactive coolant from submarines at the new Astute jetty will be
similar to those in place for current berths. Primary Effluent Tanks will
be used for the discharge of radioactive liquid effluent, a process that
is regulated and inspected by both the Scottish Environment Protection
Agency and the Defence Nuclear Safety Regulator. Trident, House of Lords Written Questions, 5 May 2009 : Column WA111Question Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the current estimated cost of replacing Trident submarines. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness
Taylor of Bolton): Our current estimate, published in the December
2006 White Paper The Future of the UK's Nuclear Deterrent (Cm 6994), is
that the total procurement costs of the new submarines will be in the
region of £11 to £14 billion, at 2006-07 prices, for a four-boat fleet.
These costs are being refined as experts continue to engage in detailed
discussion with industry. Early Day MotionParliamentary Scrutiny of Trident Replacement, Early Day Motion 660, 3 February 2009, sponsored by Jeremy Corbyn MPThat this House recalls the commitment given during the parliamentary debate on the prospective programme for the replacement of the Trident system on 14 March 2007, Official Report, column 309, by the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Derby South, that the Government would ensure regular reports to Parliament as the programme proceeds; contrasts this with the answer given by the Permanent Under Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, Sir Bill Jeffrey, in oral evidence to the Public Accounts Committee on 19 November 2008, when it was highlighted that the Ministry of Defence had announced its intention to conclude the Initial Gate decision in September 2009, during the parliamentary recess, that these would normally be decisions taken by Ministers; notes that the Secretary of State for Defence said in a written Answer on 10 December 2008, Official Report, column 341W, that decisions will be taken on the Initial Gate in autumn 2009 and that the Government proposed to update Parliament on progress after Initial Gate; believes this undermines the commitment made to Parliament by the Foreign Secretary in March 2007; and requests that the Initial Gate decision be delayed until Parliament is in session and can be presented with the report for scrutiny. At time of going to press this EDM had 165 signatures. Back to Proliferation in Parliament, Summer 2009 © 2009 The Acronym Institute. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||