Written Ministerial statement, Defence: Atomic Weapons Establishment, 14 May 2012
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
I should like to provide an update to the House regarding the continuing programme of investment at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE).
On 3 April 2012 an agreement was reached between the Ministry of Defence and AWE Management Limited (AWEML) to continue the priced period of work, within the existing overarching 25-year contract with the company, to 31 March 2018. This agreement, providing important investment in skills and facilities at AWE, is valued at an average of around £1 billion per annum with approximately 40% to be invested in capital projects.
This arrangement, and the continuing need for investment in skills and facilities at AWE, is in accordance with the December 2006 White Paper “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent” (Cm 6994) and the “Defence Plan 2008-2012” (Cm 7385). The programme of investment is continuing both to ensure we can maintain our existing nuclear warhead in service for as long as necessary, and to ensure we retain the capability to design and manufacture a replacement warhead should that be necessary.
Written answers to questions, Defence: Trident, 16 April 2012
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Trident Alternatives Review being conducted by his Department will consider alternative basing locations for the nuclear deterrent fleet.
Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)
It will not.
As a separate point of clarification, the Trident Alternatives Review is led by officials in the Cabinet Office under my oversight, with support from the Ministry of Defence and other Departments.
Written answers to questions, Defence: Trident, 16 April 2012
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to the public purse was in the current spending round of the maintenance of Trident and all aspects of preparation for its successor.
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
As stated in the White Paper ‘The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent’ (Cm 6994), published in December 2006, the costs of maintaining the UK’s nuclear deterrent are around 5% of the defence budget. This is expected to remain the case during the current comprehensive spending review (CSR) period, which covers the financial years 2011-12 to 2014-15.
The assessment phase of the programme to replace the Vanguard class submarines started in February 2011 and will continue through to Main Gate approval in 2016. As noted in the parliamentary report ‘The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: The Submarine Initial Gate’, published in May 2011, we expect to spend £3 billion on the assessment phase.
I am withholding further information on expenditure during the CSR period at this time, as this would be likely to prejudice commercial interests and the development of Government policy.
Ministerial Statement, Defence: Nuclear Security Summit, 26 March 2012
Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)
Along with the US and France, the UK aims to raise the profile of nuclear security on the international agenda. In the interests of increasing transparency, we have decided to release more information about our own capabilities. This includes our ability to respond to terrorist incidents involving nuclear or radiological material, and to improve international standards for the security of nuclear material.
The following statement will be released today at the nuclear security summit in Seoul:
“The governments of the United States, United Kingdom, and French Republic each understand the threat of nuclear terrorism and share the collective responsibility to inform and strengthen international measures designed to secure sensitive information, technology or nuclear material from access by terrorists and to encourage the development of appropriate emergency response measures. In recognition of these shared principles, consistent with our rights and obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, our three governments are taking the following initial steps:
INFCIRC/225/Rev.5 recognises that nuclear security protection levels are critically dependent upon the attractiveness of nuclear materials to potential adversaries with intent to assemble a nuclear explosive device. We will actively engage in international workshops to address graded approaches for the characterisation of nuclear material attractiveness to further enhance the effectiveness and sustainability of physical protection measures.
We have the specialised knowledge and capability to diagnose, render safe, characterise and dispose of a nuclear terrorist threat device. We each have a focused effort to continually enhance the technical capabilities of our emergency detection and response assets to any such threat. As such we will seek, wherever possible, to engage with the international community to further strengthen worldwide preparedness to contend with the threat of nuclear terrorism.”
Written answers to questions, Defence: Trident, 26 March 2012
Julian Lewis (New Forest East, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the study on alternatives to Trident to be completed.
Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)
The Trident alternatives review is expected to report to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister at the end of this year.
Written answers to questions, Defence: Iran: Military Intervention, 6 March 2012
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to seek the approval of Parliament before allowing the use of US bases in the UK by the (a) US Administration and (b) governments of other countries to launch military strikes against targets in Iran.
Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)
The UK continues to work with other countries to achieve a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. We want a negotiated solution, not a military one, but all options should be kept open.
The potential use by US forces of bases in the UK would be a matter for joint decision by the two Governments in light of the circumstances prevailing at the time. The Government have made clear in the Cabinet Manual their intention to abide by the convention that before the commitment of UK forces to military action, Parliament should have an opportunity to debate the matter.
Written answers to questions, Defence: Nuclear Submarines, 22 February 2012
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) what estimate he has made of the cost of establishing new facilities for the arming of nuclear submarines due to (a) a change in Government policy after a referendum in Scotland and (b) a major incident which disables existing facilities;
(2) at how many sites nuclear submarines can be armed in addition to existing bases.
Paul Flynn (Newport West, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the likely cost of relocating the facilities and functions of the Royal Armaments Depot at Coulport to another part of the UK.
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
holding answer 19 January 2012
The Government are clear that Scotland benefits from being part of the UK and that the UK benefits from having Scotland within it. The Government are not making plans for independence as we are confident that the people of Scotland will continue to support the Union in any referendum.
No detailed work has therefore been undertaken to estimate the cost of setting up new facilities for the arming of nuclear submarines or for relocating the Royal Armaments Naval Depot at Coulport to another part of the UK. It is clear from first principles, however, that the cost of relocating such families from Scotland would be extremely high.
Information regarding the number of sites at which nuclear submarines can be armed, in addition to existing bases, is being withheld for the purpose of safeguarding national security.
Written answers to questions, Defence: Nuclear Weapons: Security, 21 February 2012
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is undertaking any review of arrangements for the security or protection of defence nuclear materials.
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
Our nuclear security arrangements are kept under continual review and frequently tested. We do not comment on the detailed arrangements for the security or protection of defence nuclear materials.
Written answers to questions, Defence: Trident Submarines, 20 February 2012
Nick Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the financial effect of (a) retaining, (b) replacing and (c) disposing of (i) the Vanguard-clan fleet of submarines and (ii) Britain’s nuclear deterrent.
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
As stated in the White Paper, “The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent” (Cm 6994) published in December 2006, the in-service costs of the UK’s nuclear deterrent are around 5% of the defence budget.
The White Paper also stated that the expected cost of replacing the submarine, warhead and infrastructure is £15 to £20 billion (at 2006 constant prices), of which £11 to £14 billion is for the replacement submarine. As noted in the Parliamentary Report “The United Kingdom’s Future Nuclear Deterrent: The Submarine Initial Gate”, published in May 2011, we assess that these estimates are still accurate.
The costs of disposing of the Vanguard class submarines fall within the costs of the Ministry of Defence’s Submarine Dismantling Project. It is not possible at this stage of the project, however, to separate out the costs of disposing of the Vanguard class from the overall cost of the project. We do not hold estimates for the disposal costs of the UK’s nuclear deterrent as a whole.
Written answers to questions, Defence: Trident Missiles, 30 January 2012
Paul Flynn (Newport West, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what annual service fees are paid to the US Administration for the storage and reprocessing of Trident missiles at the Strategic Weapons Facility Atlantic, Kings Bay, Georgia.
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
Under the Polaris Sales Agreement as amended for Trident, the UK pays the US Department of Defence an annual contribution towards the overall cost of the US Navy’s Strategic Weapons Facility at Kings Bay, Georgia.
This contribution, which includes storage and reprocessing work, is based on the UK’s share of the overall missile inventory, and amounts to around £12 million a year.
Written answers to questions, Defence: Nuclear Submarines, 30 January 2012
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) which locations are being considered as an alternative operating base for the Vanguard class SSBN submarines;
(2) what criteria his Department plans to use to evaluate future locations for the operating base of Vanguard class SSBN submarines;
(3) which Royal Navy sites are equipped to become the operating base of Vanguard class SSBN submarines;
(4) if he will estimate the likely cost of developing a new operating base for the Vanguard class SSBN submarines.
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of moving (a) T class and (b) Astute class submarines to Plymouth.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has made plans for the base porting of Royal Navy nuclear submarines in the case of future independence of Scotland and Scotland becoming a nuclear-free zone.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to the possibility of Scottish independence, what assessment he has made of the feasibility of moving Vanguard class SSBN submarines from Faslane to Devonport.
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
The Ministry of Defence is not making plans to change the base ports of those classes of submarines currently base-ported at Her Majesty’s Naval Base Clyde. The Department does not therefore hold cost estimates or other information that would relate to such changes.
The Government are clear that Scotland benefits from being part of the UK and the UK benefits from having Scotland within it. The Government are not making plans for independence as we are confident that people in Scotland will continue to support the Union in any referendum.
Written answers to questions, Defence: Submarines, 24 January 2012
Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the Royal Navy’s requirement for (a) numbers and (b) types of submarines to be available for operations in the next 10 years.
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
The Royal Navy’s requirement for submarines was assessed during the strategic defence and security review. Over the next 10 years we plan to maintain a fleet of four Vanguard class ballistic-missile submarines delivering the strategic nuclear deterrent, and a fleet of seven nuclear attack submarines consisting of a mixture of Trafalgar class boats and the new Astute class boats which are replacing them.
Written answers to questions, Defence: Arms Trade, 10 January 2012
Ivan Lewis (Bury South, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of his Department’s officials at each grade are working on the arms trade treaty negotiations; whether there has been any change in the personnel leading on this matter; and whether he expects any further changes to be made before July 2012.
Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)
Two officials from the Department’s Arms Control and Counter-Proliferation branch cover arms trade treaty issues and are active members of the cross-Whitehall team which is led by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. These
officials are able to call upon other specialist advice from within the Department as required. There have been no changes to the personnel leading on this matter since June 2011 and it is not expected that there will be any changes to personnel before July 2012.
Written answers to questions, Defence: Arms Trade, 10 January 2012
Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which representatives from his Department have attended each of the UN Preparatory Committee meetings for the international arms trade treaty; and which representatives from his Department will attend the meeting in February 2012.
Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)
Representatives from the Department’s Arms Control and Counter Proliferation branch have attended previous preparatory committee meetings on the arms trade treaty. The exact size and make-up of the UK delegation for the preparatory committee meeting in February 2012 will be finalised shortly.
