Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Luff and Lord Walney

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Peter Luff]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we understand the vital importance of keeping the minimum effective nuclear deterrent for precisely the reasons she sets out so eloquently.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The decision finally to go ahead is welcomed on the Opposition side of the House, and indeed in my constituency, but the previous Secretary of State put the cost of delaying at between £1.2 billion and £1.4 billion, so is the new Secretary of State’s estimate of the extra cost of delay higher, lower or about the same?

[Peter Luff]

I must be honest and say that I am not sure what delay the hon. Gentleman refers to, so I suggest that we have a conversation about it later.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Debate between Peter Luff and Lord Walney

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock]

Oh, there are no wind-ups. Perhaps the Minister could find time to intervene in the short time remaining to make something clear. There are significant cuts to the MOD police. Do they mean that there are plans to reduce the MOD police presence at Faslane or Coulport? Would the Minister like to intervene?

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

indicated dissent.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

Okay. If he wants to write and make the position clear at a later stage, that is absolutely fine.

[Peter Luff]

indicated assent.

[John Woodcock]

On the risk that has been created around renewal, the alternatives to Trident review, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East referred, will be led by the Minister for the Armed Forces—it is a shame he cannot be here for the debate. Essentially, the review uses Government resources actively to explore the idea of adapting Astute class submarines for nuclear capability that falls far short of being a deterrent. That could be a cause of increased proliferation and could increase the risk of confusion. If a cruise missile is launched from a submarine at a point of war and the aggressor nation does not know whether it is nuclear or conventionally tipped, the prospects of escalation and horrible consequences increase. The Government have put that in train and we await the review.

In conclusion, the delay in the proposed in-service date of the successor to the deterrent is—it must be stressed—driven not by national security or primarily industrial concerns, but by a political fudge to delay the vote until the next Parliament. That creates increased costs for taxpayers because the overall cost of renewing our deterrent will increase. In addition, it risks stretching the life of the current Vanguard class submarine to the limit of safe operation. Pressure on the delivery timetable of the successor has been increased by putting political deals above the national interest.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Luff and Lord Walney

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Peter Luff]

I believe that, notwithstanding the views of the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), no programme is subject to greater scrutiny in the House than the nuclear deterrent. That is one of the reasons for the accuracy of our costings. Let me assure my hon. Friend that the primary responsibility for our nation is the security of the country, that the nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantee of the country’s security, and that we stand firmly behind it.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister tell us how many Government staff are working on his review of alternatives to the Trident system, when he now expects the review to end, and whether he has reached a final conclusion on whether its findings will be published?

[Peter Luff]

I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman off the top of my head exactly how many Government colleagues are involved in the review, but I will write to him about it. What I can tell him is that its findings will be available towards the end of next year for the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to consider, and that, given that it will constitute a full and frank exploration of the alternative systems at a highly classified level, there are no plans to publish either the report or the information on which it draws. However, we are a long way from the end of the review, and it is therefore premature to speculate on how the final assessment might be used once it has been completed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Peter Luff and Lord Walney

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I take the Minister back to RAF search and rescue? Does he not understand the concerns of my constituents and the many thousands of people who walk and climb in the Lake district that we might be about to pay substantially more for an inferior service? If it remains the cheapest and best-value option to re-fit the existing helicopters, will he consider doing so?

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

I can reassure the House that the Government are absolutely committed to best-value options, unlike the Labour party. I repeat that the announcement will be made very shortly and the hon. Gentleman will be able to judge the decision on its merits. I am afraid I can say nothing further until then.

AWE: Manpower

Debate between Peter Luff and Lord Walney

Monday 11th October 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[John Woodcock]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed at the Atomic Weapons Establishment sites in (a) Aldermaston and (b) Burghfield.

[Official Report, 9 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 621W.]

Letter of correction from Peter Luff:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on 9 September 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Peter Luff]

Atomic Weapons Establishment plc employs 4,230 staff at the Aldermaston site and 340 staff at the Burghfield site. These numbers are full-time equivalent staff employed on 27 August 2010 and are rounded to the nearest 10.

In addition some 2,000 staff are employed by contractors at these sites.

The correct answer should have been:

Military Aviation Industry

Debate between Peter Luff and Lord Walney

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Peter Luff]

It is the nature of Adjournment debates not to be too partisan, so I shall just spell it out in very simple language. The problem facing the MOD—the £38 billion—is nothing to do with international crises or bankers. It is because the last Government made commitments that they had no money to pay for. It is nothing to do with deficit reduction or the crisis. I could not be clearer about that. The £38 billion is a problem that we have inherited that we would have had to deal with irrespective of any need to address the extraordinarily large structural deficit that we also have in the UK. The £38 billion is a starting point before we address the consequences of the crisis.

[John Woodcock]

I hope that the Minister will accept my apologies for coming in slightly late for his speech. Members on both sides of the House accept that there is an over-commitment in the budget. Will he accept the findings of the Defence Committee’s report today that there is a grave danger that if the correction is done in the wrong manner—and it is being done very quickly—we will lose the capacity to maintain or restore capability in vital areas in future years?

[Peter Luff]

The Select Committee’s statement was constructive and thoughtful. I have not read every word of it yet, but it is a very helpful document. In some areas, it has not quite understood the process, but never mind—it is a good response, and today’s debate shows that Members on both sides of the House, including me, understand how important it is to maintain these capabilities and to ensure that we can take part in the next generation, particularly of unmanned aerial systems, which are the future of fast jet production. I will not labour the £38 billion point any more, but it does set the framework of what the Government have to contend with.

For Britain’s defence, and despite all the financial constraints we linger under—both inherited ones and the structural problems caused by irresponsibility in fiscal policy generally—that means taking strategic decisions for the long term. These are the realities we face as we approach the critical decision-making phase of the SDSR. I reiterate that no decisions have been taken on any of the issues debated in the House this evening. The right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) referred to the A400M. Everything is in the pot, including the Nimrod MRA4. Everything is there together, and nothing has been singled out or decided. We have to do that to ensure we address both the fiscal challenges and the defence issues facing our country.