Hansard March/April, NPT and AWE - Nuclear Information Service

Hansard entries 29th March to 24th April

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmhansrd.htm

*Written Answers*

*29 Mar 2007 : Column 1775W
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty*

*Alan Simpson: *To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the answer of 6 March 2007, Official
Report, column 1843W, on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, whether
any informal representations have been made (a) directly and (b)
indirectly to the UK Government on Trident and the UK's compliance with
its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. [129945]

*Mr. McCartney: *No informal representations with respect to
non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) have been
made directly to the UK by another state party to the treaty. We are
also unaware of any indirect statements to this effect. As stated in the
2006 White Paper ‘The future of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrence’
and accompanying fact sheets: renewing the current Trident system is
fully consistent with the NPT and with all our international obligations.

*29 Mar 2007 : Column 1776W
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty*

*Mr. Hoon: *We have no record of any recent informal representations by
any states on UK compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The Treaty entered into force in 1970. A thorough search of all
historical records since then would incur disproportionate cost.

*29 Mar 2007 : Column 1769W
Nuclear Power*

*Mrs. May: *To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
pursuant to the answer of 5 March 2007, Official Report, column 1778W,
on nuclear power, which stakeholders (a) he, (b) departmental Ministers
and (c) officials have met to discuss the use of nuclear energy in the
United Kingdom since the publication of the Energy Review Report. [130291]

*Malcolm Wicks: *Government are taking forward development of the policy
proposals set out in the Energy Review Report and is preparing for a
further consultation on nuclear power. Formal and informal discussions
with stakeholders have been a key part of informing this work. We expect
to publish the Energy White Paper and the new nuclear consultation in May.

16 Apr 2007 : Column 143W
Astute Class Submarines

***

*Mr. Hancock:* To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the
reasons are for time taken to agree a contract price for the second and
third Astute class SSNs; and if he will make a statement. [125145]

*Mr. Ingram:* The development of robust and mature prices for Astute
Boats 2 and 3 has required the design for the first 3 boats and the Boat
1 build programme to reach a higher level of maturity. The contract
prices remain subject to approval.

*16 Apr 2007 : Column 509W
Trespass*

*Mr. Clegg: *To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how
many people have been (a) arrested for trespass and (b) stopped by
police on suspicion of trespassing in each of the designated areas
established by the Serious Organised Crime and Policing Act 2005 since
their designation. [129654]

*Mr. Ingram: *I have been asked to reply.

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 defines a "designated"
site as meaning a site specified or described in an order by the
Secretary of State. A "protected" site is defined as a nuclear site or a
designated site. Therefore, all designated sites and nuclear licensed
sites are protected sites.

There are a number of designated sites in the Ministry of Defence. They are:

Her Majesty's Naval base Clyde

Northwood Headquarters

RAF Brize Norton

RAF Croughton

RAF Fairford

RAF Feltwell

RAF Fylindales

RAF Lakenheath

RAF Menwith Hill

RAF Mildenhall

RAF Welford

Royal Naval Armaments Depot Coulport

Sea Mounting Centre Marchwood.

In addition to the above designated sites the MOD has three protected
(nuclear) sites at:

AWE Aldermaston

AWE Burghfield

HMNB Devonport.

Since 2005, 11 arrests have been made by the Ministry of Defence Police
(MDP) for trespass; one at Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE)
Aldermaston, two at RAF Menwith Hill and eight at RAF Lakenheath. No one
has been stopped by the MDP on suspicion of trespass in any of the
designated areas.

*19 Apr 2007 : Column 738W
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty*

*Lynne Jones: *To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs (1) what plans she has for proposals to take
forward the UK’s multilateral disarmament commitments in the run up to
the May 2007 Preparatory Committee meeting for the 2010 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference; and whether she has had any
discussions with her United States counterparts on such proposals; [131817]

*(*2) what initiatives she is planning to take forward the UK’s
multilateral disarmament commitments in the run up to the Preparatory
Committee meeting for the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review
conference in Vienna in May; and whether she has had any discussions
with her United States counterpart on such proposals. [132289]

*Dr. Howells: *The Government are strongly committed to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which is the cornerstone of the nuclear
non-proliferation regime and the framework for nuclear disarmament. The
UK is determined to make every effort to ensure that this review cycle
results in a positive and substantive final document at the 2010 Review
Conference that moves forward all aspects of Treaty implementation,
including disarmament. We are working with allies, including the US, to
lay the groundwork for this at the April-May 2007 NPT Preparatory
Committee. We believe we have already made a contribution by announcing,
in the White Paper on the Future of the UK’s Nuclear Deterrent, a
further 20 per cent. cut in our warhead stockpile.

*19 Apr 2007 : Column 738W
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty*

*Mr. Blizzard: *To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs what matters she plans to raise at the meeting of
the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee starting on
30 April; and if she will make a statement. [132572]

*Dr. Howells: *The United Kingdom will work with the EU, with its allies
in the Western European and Others’ Group and with the other nuclear
weapon states towards strengthening the nuclear non-proliferation treaty
(NPT) and the wider nuclear non-proliferation regime. There are a number
of issues on which useful work could be undertaken, many of which were
set out in the EU Common Position agreed for the 2005 review conference
and remain outstanding. It will be important to build consensus on these
areas, and any new workstreams, in this and future Preparatory
Committees. We hope that this process will culminate in a substantive
final document being agreed at the 2010 NPT review conference.

*23 Apr 2007 : Column 919W
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty*

*Mark Lazarowicz: *To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs what progress her Department has made on
negotiations towards a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty; and what the key
obstacles are to such negotiations. [132720]

*Mr. McCartney: *The UK continues to push for the early start of
negotiations, without preconditions, on a Fissile Material Cut off
Treaty (FMCT) in the Conference on Disarmament (CD). The UK’s, and the
wider EU’s, support for such a Treaty is well known. In the Common
Position negotiated in advance of the 2005 Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty Review Conference (7768/05), the EU appealed to the CD for the
immediate commencement and early conclusion of a non-discriminatory,
universally applicable Treaty banning the production of fissile material
for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The UK welcomes
the US initiative made in Geneva in May 2006 to table a draft treaty
text and draft mandate for negotiations. We hope that all CD member
states are able to accept the very broad mandate proposed and agree to
open negotiations towards a treaty without delay.

Progress has been blocked by some nations linking the start of FMCT
negotiations to progress on other unrelated CD agenda items.

*23 Apr 2007 : Column 920W
Nuclear Test Ban*

*Mark Lazarowicz: *To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs what steps her Department has taken to bring the
comprehensive test ban treaty into force. [132719]

*Dr. Howells: *We continue to take every appropriate opportunity at
ministerial and official level to encourage states who have not ratified
the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty to do so, particularly the 10
remaining annex two countries (those that formally participated in the
treaty's negotiation and have nuclear power or research reactors), which
must ratify before the treaty can enter into force. We have carried out
demarchés, both as part of the EU and bilaterally, and will continue to
assist where we can. We have used our overseas missions to assist both
the provisional technical secretariat and the executive secretary of the
comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty organisation in regional outreach
work. We have also supported the special representative of the ratifiers
of the treaty, ambassador Ramaker, with his programme of visits and will
continue to do so.

Commons Debates

17 Apr 2007 : Column 49WH
Military Procurement
12.30 pm

Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater) (Con):

[…] In my local Royal Ordnance factory, the famous bouncing bombs that
destroyed the Ruhr dams were designed and built. I dare say that Sir
Barnes Wallis, their inventor, would rotate in his grave if he thought
that the factory was doomed. The bombs that we aimed successfully at
Saddam Hussein's bunkers were primed in Puriton and the explosives, the
final charges, for Trident missiles are also made there.

The work force were, and remain, very special. Originally, they-experts
with cool heads-were recruited from all over Britain, and the Royal
Ordnance factory maintained an enviable reputation for safety. When the
factory became part of BAE Systems, the employees faced the change with
their typical can-do attitude; they really felt that they could make it
work for the future. Even when the plant was under threat of closure a
couple of years ago, everybody volunteered for extra productivity
without any problems. I know that because I worked alongside the trade
unions and local management to keep the factory in business, and I will
continue to do so.

[not sure this is true and chunks of this speech seem to have originated
from the website "WW2 and Cold War History in Britain"
http://www.century20war.co.uk/page3.html
<http://www.century20war.co.uk/page3.html>. It is ROF Chorley which is
the subject of EDM 1234 ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY AT CHORLEY 27.03.2007,
Hoyle, Lindsay]

/**

*Post Mortems (Nuclear Industry)
18 Apr 2007 : Column 306*

*Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North) (Lab):
*Although I welcome the alacrity with which my right hon. Friend has
moved, will he consider extending the remit of the inquiry to the
nuclear submarine industry, where there is a long history of people
being affected? Given the relevance of our nuclear developments at
present, we ought to cover our tracks there, too, before we proceed.

*Post Mortems (Nuclear Industry)
18 Apr 2007 : Column 301*

*The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alistair Darling):
*Most of the employees concerned worked at Sellafield, but one
individual worked at the Capenhurst nuclear site in Cheshire, and had
transferred from Sellafield. There are data, but not medical records, at
Sellafield relating to an employee at the Springfields nuclear site in
Lancashire and to a further six who worked at Aldermaston. BNFL, which
holds the relevant medical records, tells me that to date it has been
able to identify 65 cases in which tissue was taken from individuals and
analysed for the radionuclide content of organs.

*Post Mortems (Nuclear Industry)
18 Apr 2007 : Column 303*

*Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con):
*The Secretary of State has told us that those involved worked at
Sellafield, Capenhurst, Springfields and Aldermaston. Will the inquiry
establish whether other nuclear sites might have been involved, and is
it his understanding that the issue related purely to civil nuclear
personnel, or might military personnel working with our military nuclear
programme have been involved?

*Post Mortems (Nuclear Industry)
18 Apr 2007 : Column 306*

*Susan Kramer (Richmond Park) (LD):
*There are particular concerns that there may have been far more
extensive practice at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston
and Burghfield than has been revealed by the cases that have surfaced so
far, so the question in everybody's mind is whether the 65 cases are the
tip of an iceberg or are they-

*Mr. Speaker:* Order. May I point out to the hon. Lady that she has
taken more than three minutes?

*19 Apr 2007 : Column 148WH
Nuclear Industry*

*Peter Luff: *I am grateful for that admiration; the feeling is mutual.

The Trade and Industry Committee decided to look at three major aspects
of the Government's review of energy policy: nuclear power; local
energy, as we call it; and the security of our gas and coal supplies.
The report was the first of three, but it was also the most difficult.
The debate about nuclear power raises considerable passions. I decided
that the Committee could not reach a decision on whether, in Sellar and
Yeatman terminology, nuclear power was a good or a bad thing. However,
the Committee could inform debates on the subject in the House by
looking dispassionately at the issues and reaching definitive judgments
on as many of them as possible. Its approach was similar to that adopted
by the Defence Committee during the recent consideration of the decision
on the replacement of the Trident nuclear deterrent. By way of a tribute
to the co-operative spirit of the Trade and Industry Committee, I am
delighted that it was able to produce a unanimous report. Irrespective
of their long-held views, members of the Committee engaged objectively
and dispassionately with the evidence, which is what Select Committees
should do.

*19 Apr 2007 : Column 157WH
Nuclear Industry*

*Mr. Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab):
*Nuclear as a last resort means no nuclear ever. If we do not take the
decisions now for the nuclear industry, our skills base will wither.
That was exactly the argument used by Opposition Members in the Trident
debate: if we did not take the decision, the skills would be lost, and
we should have to outsource our manufacturing requirements and seek the
products overseas. The same is true for the nuclear industry. The
Conservative party's policy has to change.

*19 Apr 2007 : Column 171WH
Nuclear Industry*

*Mr. Drew: *I take that information as being completely genuine. The
reality is that it will not make a blind bit of difference, because
whoever is elected as the new President of the French Republic will be
avowedly nuclear. They will be nuclear not only for the generation of
power; sadly, I think that the force de frappe will remain in place.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, I voted
against the renewal of Trident. I think that the two issues are
completely separate. It does immeasurable damage to the argument in
favour of nuclear power that it is always linked to nuclear weaponry. I
would hope that we could convince other countries that the two issues
are separate; perhaps we could do more to lay that ghost to rest.

*19 Apr 2007 : Column 188WH
Nuclear Industry*

*David Howarth:
*However, there is a fundamental problem with that argument. That is,
that nuclear power, because of its inherent technical links with nuclear
weapons and weapons technology, can never be purely private. It will
always have a security element. It is interesting, for example, that the
person who was recently appointed to head the Civil Nuclear Constabulary
is not a career police officer; he is a career intelligence officer from
the Secret Intelligence Service. There will always be a link and,
because of that link, the industry can never be wholly open. That
applies both to techniques and to materials. I agree that the industry
would do itself a lot of good by being as open as possible. However, I
think that it is an impossible dream that the industry could be as open
as other industries.

*Business of the House*

*19 Apr 2007 : Column 444*

*Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) (Lab): *The Leader of the House will
recall that last month we had a good debate in the House on nuclear
disarmament and the replacement of the Trident system. Before next
week’s debate on defence, will he make sure that the Secretary of State
for Defence can set out what the Government’s position will be at the
non-proliferation treaty review committee preparation meeting in Vienna,
which is due to open at the beginning of May, so that the House can be
informed exactly of what the Government’s position is on nuclear
non-proliferation?

*Mr. Straw: *I shall do my best, because my hon. Friend makes an
important point. Our position on the revision conferences of the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty has been consistent, and very much in the
vanguard of reform. We in the United Kingdom led the case and the call
for improvement and change at the revision conference that took place in
May 2005, almost exactly two years ago, but I regret to say that other
members of the Security Council-permanent and non-permanent-blocked the
measures we were trying to introduce.

*House of Lords
Cumulative list of unanswered Questions for Written Answer
Tabled on the dates in bold and due for answer by the dates in brackets.*

*17 April *(1 May)

*Lord Dykes *to ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have responded
to the suggestion of Mikhail Gorbachev on 8 March that a final decision
on maritime nuclear weapons replacements should not be made until after
the next review conference of the Non Proliferation Treaty in 2010. HL3291

*Future Business
Monday 14 May at 2.30pm*

*†*Lord Hannay of Chiswick *to ask Her Majesty’s Government what
assessment they have made of the United Kingdom’s membership of the
Seven Nation Initiative on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament;
and what are their intentions with regard to the future work of the
group, particularly in the run up to the next review of the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2010.