8 Jan 2007 : Column 99W, Nuclear Submarines
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many warheads in the stockpile of operationally available warheads will be dismantled as a result of the reductions in the stockpile announced in the White Paper CM6994; and if he will make a statement. [108792]
Des Browne: The 20 percent reduction in the maximum number of operationally available warheads from fewer than 200 to fewer than 160, announced in the White Paper “The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent” (Cm 6994) published on 4 December, will be matched by a corresponding number of warheads (ie about 40) being dismantled.
8Jan 2007 : Column 80W, Atomic Weapons Establishment
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected total cost is of the capital programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment from 2005 to 2025. [108856]
Des Browne: Additional investment averaging some £350 million per annum over the years 2005-06 to 2007-08 was announced last year. As was made clear in the White Paper (CM 6994) on the Future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent (at para. 5-13), spending plans for subsequent years will be set as part of the Government’s Spending Review process.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 80W, Atomic Weapons Establishment
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected average annual cost is of operating the Atomic Weapons Establishment from 2007 to 2055. [108857]
Des Browne: I have nothing further to add to paragraph 5-13 of the White Paper (Cm 6994) on the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent, which was published on 4 December.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 81W, Atomic Weapons Establishment
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when his Department expects to complete the major capital programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment. [108858]
Des Browne: The investment programme at the Atomic Weapons Establishment is aimed at sustaining the capabilities needed to ensure we can maintain the existing warhead for as long as necessary and to enable us to develop a replacement warhead if that is required. Investment at AWE will continue as long as these capabilities are required.
23 Jan 2007 : Column 1631W, Nuclear Submarines
Dr. Gibson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the submarine supply chain could be maintained for the construction of future ship submersible nuclear submarines in the absence of a positive decision on a Vanguard successor; and if he will make a statement. [116646]
Mr. Ingram: As noted by the HCDC in their recent report “The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: the Manufacturing and Skills Base”, submarine build rates will need to be maintained in order to sustain the industrial skills base.
25 Jan 2007 : Column 1942W, Nuclear Weapons
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the UK is dependent on the US for conducting tests on the Trident warhead. [114895]
Des Browne: holding answer 15 January 2007]: /There are a number of areas where the UK and US undertake joint trials programmes under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement as it is more cost effective than each nation undertaking wholly independent trials programmes. For these trials, each nation is dependent on the other for the provision of agreed facilities and trials information.
1 Feb 2007 : Column 501W, Aldermaston
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what groundwater contamination remedial measures have been necessary as a result of the Laser building project at AWE Aldermaston; and what the cost was of such measures. [117534]
Mr. Ingram: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 14 February 2006, /Official Report,/ column 1891W, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid). Since construction work commenced on the Orion laser building project, no remediation work has been required.
5 Feb 2007: Column 685W, Aldermaston
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected cost is of the AWE development plan at Aldermaston; what the expected duration of the project is; how expenditure has been committed to the project to date; and if he will make a statement. [117533]
Mr. Ingram: The Government will continue to make the necessary investment at AWE Aldermaston to ensure that it has the facilities and skills to meet our current and possible future requirements. We will continue to make the necessary investment in the establishment for as long as these requirements endure. The Government announced on 19 July 2005, /Official Report/, column 59WS, that investment at AWE would increase by an average of some £350 million per year for the years up to and including 2007-08. Details of investment at AWE for the period beyond 2007-08 will be determined over the next year, following this year's comprehensive spending review.
As the White Paper, ‘The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent’ published in December 2006, made clear, further investment at AWE will be necessary and early in the next decade the costs of AWE are likely—at their peak—to be the equivalent of about 3 per cent. of the current defence budget.
6 Mar 2007 : Column 1876W
Military Bases
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many full-time equivalent employees are employed by contractors at (a) HM Naval Base, Clyde, (b) AWE Aldermaston and (c) AWE Burghfield. [120589]
Derek Twigg: The Department does not centrally hold data concerning employees of contractors.
Information from Babcock Naval Services, the MOD's industrial partner at HM Naval Base, Clyde, indicate that in addition to the number of people employed at Babcock Naval Services, which stands at around 1,430 (headcount), there are around 300 (headcount) additional sub-contractors at the base.
Information from AWE plc, the primary contractors at the combined sites of AWE Aldermaston and AWE Burghfield, indicates that approximately 2,000 people are employed through various contracting arrangements with AWE plc to support operations at those sites. This is in addition to the staff that AWE plc themselves employ, about which the hon. Member has asked separately.