Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Luff and Linda Riordan

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. The original White Paper for the Trident replacement programme estimated a figure of £11 billion to £14 billion in 2006 prices, but in a recent letter to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark), the Minister stated that “the combined cost of the Concept Phase, totalling approximately £900 million, and the Assessment Phase, totalling approximately £3 billion at outturn prices is consistent with the departmental guidance that programmes should spend approximately 15% of the total costs before Main Gate.”It appears that this would put the cost of the whole programme at £26 billion. Will he confirm that that is an accurate projection?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

As I previously explained in an Adjournment debate, all the costs that we are using are entirely consistent with the original projections. I will be delighted to spend some time with the hon. Lady explaining to her in detail exactly why that is the case.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Luff and Linda Riordan

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Peter Luff]

I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour. The strategic defence and security review identified cyber-risks as one of the four tier 1 risks to national security, pledged additional funding for investment in this area of capability and said that partnership with industry will be key to ensuring value for money. It is also a theme that we are exploring in the Green Paper on defence industry and technology policy, which has been extended to include security, and I would be delighted to visit the companies in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Bromsgrove at some stage in the future, if he would find that helpful.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. More than two thirds of defence experts think that the defence review was a lost opportunity. Does that not prove that the review lacks strategy and was rushed to fit the needs of the spending review, rather than the needs of the armed forces?