Question to the Ministry of Defence:

To ask His Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the comments of former Cabinet Secretary Simon Case that the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent should be expanded to include a second means of launch in addition to the existing submarine capability.

Answered by Lord Coaker - Minister of State (Ministry of Defence)

This Government keeps the UK’s nuclear posture under constant review considering the international security environment and the actions of potential adversaries. Our nuclear deterrent can respond to any emerging crises.

The recent announcement that the UK is acquiring 12 nuclear capable F35-A fighter jets, and will join the NATO nuclear mission, is not a decision to acquire a second sovereign delivery system. It complements Continuous At Sea Deterrence, our operationally independent, sovereign deterrent, which remains the ultimate guarantor of our security.

Question

To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker whether it was assessed that the new security fence outside the House of Lords amounted to “substantial harm” or “less than substantial harm” to the Palace of Westminster as a Grade I Listed Building; if “less than substantial harm”, where within the range of “less than substantial harm” the harm falls.

Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble

I am informed that the assessment of harm was conducted by the bicameral Strategic Estates department of Parliament and submitted to Westminster City Council as part of the planning application.

Westminster City Council, through the planning process, recognised that the fence would cause some harm to designated heritage assets, but in its design and due to the temporary nature of the proposal, this harm was assessed to be less than substantial and in the low to moderate end of that spectrum.

In circumstances of less than substantial harm, the proposals must be justified and the public benefits of the scheme considered. In this case, the justification of providing a secure perimeter to the palace was considered by Westminster City Council to be compelling and the public benefits of providing a greater level of security to both the building and its users is assessed to outweigh the harm caused.

Question

To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker whether the new security fence outside the House of Lords was determined to be in accordance with relevant policies of the City of Westminster’s City Plan 2019–2040 and the London Plan 2021; if so, on what basis; and if not, what alternatives were taken into account in considering whether material considerations indicated otherwise than in accordance with the development plan.

Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble

I am informed that Westminster City Council considered whether the planning application relating to the newly installed Abingdon Street Fence was in accordance with relevant policies of the City of Westminster’s City Plan 2019–2040 and the London Plan 2021 as part of the consideration of the planning application for the works.

Westminster City Council determined the proposals were in accordance with its development plan, when considered as a whole.

Throughout the design process, the Parliamentary Authorities carefully considered the proposals, in reference to the policies set out in the statutory development plan.

The planning permission for the ‘siting of a boundary fence’ is temporary and was granted for ten years.

Question

To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker whether Historic England, SAVE Britain’s Heritage and Buckingham Palace were consulted on the specific design of the new security fence outside the House of Lords.

Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The safety and security of all those who work on and visit the Parliamentary Estate is a top priority. I am informed that Parliamentary authorities carefully considered the importance of improving safety on the Parliamentary Estate alongside their need to protect the Palace of Westminster and its status as a UNESCO World Heritage site. It is vital to ensure that this iconic building is safeguarded for future generations to visit and enjoy.

Historic England is a statutory consultee and was included as part of pre-application discussions and consulted by Westminster City Council, as part of the application.

Neither SAVE Britain’s Heritage nor Buckingham Palace are statutory consultees and therefore were not consulted as part of the planning process.

Question

To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker on what basis it was determined that, having regard to potential alternatives, the public benefits of the new security fence outside the west front of the House of Lords outweighed any heritage harm.

Answered by Lord Gardiner of Kimble

The need for an effective perimeter was identified during independent reviews of Parliament’s security and the designs were progressed on that basis. The safety and security of all those who work on and visit the Parliamentary Estate is a top priority.

The fence design was endorsed on the balance of all considerations, including security, above and below ground heritage, deliverability, and value for money.

The newly installed fence can be removed for significant state or ceremonial events.

Found: LORD BANNER 99_ Clause 48, page 63, line 2, at end insert— “(7) In section 303ZA(2) of the Town and

Found: LORD BANNER 99_ Clause 48, page 63, line 2, at end insert— “(7) In section 303ZA(2) of the Town and

Found: LORD BANNER _ Clause 48, page 63, line 2, at end insert— “(7) In section 303ZA of the Town and Country

Found: LORD BANNER _ Clause 48, page 63, line 2, at end insert— “(7) In section 303ZA of the Town and Country

Found: LORD BANNER _ Clause 48, page 63, line 2, at end insert— “(7) In section 303ZA of the Town and Country