1-20 of 137 results for subject:Trident
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.261 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Trident
- We searched for
- subject_t:Trident OR subject_ses:13379
Year
X
2011
Type
+
Members' contributions (93)
-
Business questions (1)
-
Oral answers to questions (24)
+
Oral questions (27)
-
Prime Minister's questions (6)
-
Topical questions (4)
-
Proceeding contributions (42)
+
Parliamentary papers (1)
-
Deposited papers (1)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (2)
+
Debates (2)
-
Adjournment debates (2)
+
Parliamentary questions (69)
-
Business questions (1)
+
Oral questions (27)
-
Prime Minister's questions (6)
-
Topical questions (4)
-
Written questions (41)
House
Session
Month
Department
Member
More
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
What is the point of having a review if no one, except a select few, has an opportunity to look at its findings? Should not the Liberal Democrats, in particular, be allowed some access to that information? [Interruption.]
What is the point of having a review if no one, except a select few, has an opportunity to look at its findings? Should not the Liberal Democrats, in particular, be allowed some access to that information? [Interruption.]
Asked by
Tessa Munt
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
19 December 2011
As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces says, I was of the view that the Deputy Prime Minister was a Liberal Democrat—and he will see the report.
Subjects
Trident
Date
19 December 2011
Reference
537 c1045
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Given that both the Polaris and Trident submarines came in on budget and on time, is that not a good precedent for the successor system? Will the Minister take the opportunity to repeat in resounding terms the assurance that the Prime Minister gave to Conservative MPs when the coalition was formed—that Trident will be renewed, whether the Liberal Democrats like it or not?
Given that both the Polaris and Trident submarines came in on budget and on time, is that not a good precedent for the successor system? Will the Minister take the opportunity to repeat in resounding terms the assurance that the Prime Minister gave to Conservative MPs when the coalition was formed—that Trident will be renewed, whether the Liberal Democrats like it or not?
Asked by
Julian Lewis
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
19 December 2011
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.
Subjects
Trident
Date
19 December 2011
Reference
537 c1044
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
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?
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?
Asked by
Lord Walney
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
19 December 2011
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.
Subjects
Trident
Date
19 December 2011
Reference
537 c1044
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
No, I do not think that at all. In fact, not spending that money would prevent us from preserving the option for the next Parliament to take the decision. The hon. Gentleman is fond of pointing out the problems in respect of the capability for the nuclear deterrent, but let me assure him that the work we are undertaking will have benefits for other classes of nuclear submarines in future— particularly in respect of the primary propulsion systems, for example with the PWR3. There are real benefits from doing this work—not just for the security of the nation in the short term, but for the long term as well.
No, I do not think that at all. In fact, not spending that money would prevent us from preserving the option for the next Parliament to take the decision. The hon. Gentleman is fond of pointing out the problems in respect of the capability for the nuclear deterrent, but let me assure him that the work we are undertaking will have benefits for other classes of nuclear submarines in future— particularly in respect of the primary propulsion systems, for example with the PWR3. There are real benefits from doing this work—not just for the security of the nation in the short term, but for the long term as well.
Answered by
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Asked by
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
By the Minister's own figures, the Government are proposing to spend £5 billion on the submarine replacement and the preparations for a new missile system from AWE Aldermaston, which means that after the next election the new Parliament will be confronted with the decision whether to renew the Trident system, having already spent £5 billion on it. Does the Minister not think that we are walking—indeed, sleepwalking—into a massive expenditure, after that, of £25 billion on a replacement, plus the running costs? Is it not time we brought this vanity project to an end and cancelled the Trident system?
Subjects
Trident
Date
19 December 2011
Reference
537 c1044
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
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.
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.
Answered by
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Asked by
Lord Walney
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
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?
Subjects
Trident
Date
19 December 2011
Reference
537 c1044
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces says, I was of the view that the Deputy Prime Minister was a Liberal Democrat—and he will see the report.
As my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces says, I was of the view that the Deputy Prime Minister was a Liberal Democrat—and he will see the report.
Answered by
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Asked by
Tessa Munt
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
What is the point of having a review if no one, except a select few, has an opportunity to look at its findings? Should not the Liberal Democrats, in particular, be allowed some access to that information? [Interruption.]
Subjects
Trident
Date
19 December 2011
Reference
537 c1045
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
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.
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.
Answered by
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Asked by
Julian Lewis
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
Given that both the Polaris and Trident submarines came in on budget and on time, is that not a good precedent for the successor system? Will the Minister take the opportunity to repeat in resounding terms the assurance that the Prime Minister gave to Conservative MPs when the coalition was formed—that Trident will be renewed, whether the Liberal Democrats like it or not?
Subjects
Trident
Date
19 December 2011
Reference
537 c1044
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
We expect to spend £3.9 billion on the successor submarine programme by the maingate decision-point in 2016. We have deferred the decision on the future warhead until the next Parliament. We are spending around £900 million a year at AWE—the Atomic Weapons Establishment—on capital investment and running costs to ensure that we can sustain the capabilities to maintain the current stockpile. As a consequence of this sustainment, we will also have the capability to design and produce a new warhead, should that be required. We expect to spend around £8 million over the next three years to examine the condition of the physical infrastructure at the naval bases and current communications systems for the successor submarines.
We expect to spend £3.9 billion on the successor submarine programme by the maingate decision-point in 2016. We have deferred the decision on the future warhead until the next Parliament. We are spending around £900 million a year at AWE—the Atomic Weapons Establishment—on capital investment and running costs to ensure that we can sustain the capabilities to maintain the current stockpile. As a consequence of this sustainment, we will also have the capability to design and produce a new warhead, should that be required. We expect to spend around £8 million over the next three years to examine the condition of the physical infrastructure at the naval bases and current communications systems for the successor submarines.
Answered by
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Asked by
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
What expenditure on the Trident replacement he expects to have incurred by 2016.
Subjects
Trident
Date
19 December 2011
Reference
537 c1043-4
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
By the Minister's own figures, the Government are proposing to spend £5 billion on the submarine replacement and the preparations for a new missile system from AWE Aldermaston, which means that after the next election the new Parliament will be confronted with the decision whether to renew the Trident system, having already spent £5 billion on it. Does the Minister not think that we are walking—indeed, sleepwalking—into a massive expenditure, after that, of £25 billion on a replacement, plus the running costs? Is it not time we brought this vanity project to an end and cancelled the Trident system?
By the Minister's own figures, the Government are proposing to spend £5 billion on the submarine replacement and the preparations for a new missile system from AWE Aldermaston, which means that after the next election the new Parliament will be confronted with the decision whether to renew the Trident system, having already spent £5 billion on it. Does the Minister not think that we are walking—indeed, sleepwalking—into a massive expenditure, after that, of £25 billion on a replacement, plus the running costs? Is it not time we brought this vanity project to an end and cancelled the Trident system?
Asked by
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
19 December 2011
No, I do not think that at all. In fact, not spending that money would prevent us from preserving the option for the next Parliament to take the decision. The hon. Gentleman is fond of pointing out the problems in respect of the capability for the nuclear deterrent, but let me assure him that the work we are undertaking will have benefits for other classes of nuclear submarines in future— particularly in respect of the primary propulsion systems, for example with the PWR3. There are real benefits from doing this work—not just for the security of the nation in the short term, but for the long term as well.
Subjects
Trident
Date
19 December 2011
Reference
537 c1044
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
What expenditure on the Trident replacement he expects to have incurred by 2016.
What expenditure on the Trident replacement he expects to have incurred by 2016.
Asked by
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Answered by
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Tabled on
13 December 2011
For answer on
19 December 2011
Answered on
19 December 2011
We expect to spend £3.9 billion on the successor submarine programme by the maingate decision-point in 2016. We have deferred the decision on the future warhead until the next Parliament. We are spending around £900 million a year at AWE—the Atomic Weapons Establishment—on capital investment and running costs to ensure that we can sustain the capabilities to maintain the current stockpile. As a consequence of this sustainment, we will also have the capability to design and produce a new warhead, should that be required. We expect to spend around £8 million over the next three years to examine the condition of the physical infrastructure at the naval bases and current communications systems for the successor submarines.
Subjects
Trident
Date
19 December 2011
Reference
537 c1043-4; 86897
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Westminster Hall adjournment debate on the cost of Trident nuclear missile and submarine replacement.
Westminster Hall adjournment debate on the cost of Trident nuclear missile and submarine replacement.
Lead member
Jeremy Corbyn
Answering member
Peter Luff
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Adjournment debates
Subjects
Finance; Nuclear weapons; Trident
Date
7 December 2011
Reference
537 c140-50WH
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
House
House of Commons
It is my intention to do that, but I am conscious of the time. I hope to be able to answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions. I should now like to turn to the specific costs of the current and future deterrent programmes. The simple fact is that being a...
It is my intention to do that, but I am conscious of the time. I hope to be able to answer all the hon. Gentleman's questions. I should now like to turn to the specific costs of the current and future deterrent programmes. The simple fact is that being a...
Member
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Finance; Nuclear weapons; Trident
Date
7 December 2011
Reference
537 c148-50WH
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
House
House of Commons
The Minister shakes his head. It is his head, and he is allowed to shake it, but I hope that when he replies, he will be able to explain why Parliament has not been consulted on spending £2 billion on the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston. If my figures are...
The Minister shakes his head. It is his head, and he is allowed to shake it, but I hope that when he replies, he will be able to explain why Parliament has not been consulted on spending £2 billion on the Atomic Weapons Establishment in Aldermaston. If my figures are...
Member
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Finance; Nuclear weapons; Trident
Date
7 December 2011
Reference
537 c141-2WH
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
House
House of Commons
indicated dissent.
indicated dissent.
Member
Peter Luff
(Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Finance; Nuclear weapons; Trident
Date
7 December 2011
Reference
537 c141WH
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
House
House of Commons
I know from long experience with CND that nothing to do with CND can be counted as a pecuniary interest. Absolutely no one has ever made any money out of being a CND member. There is nothing financial to be declared, so I set the hon. Lady's mind at rest....
I know from long experience with CND that nothing to do with CND can be counted as a pecuniary interest. Absolutely no one has ever made any money out of being a CND member. There is nothing financial to be declared, so I set the hon. Lady's mind at rest....
Member
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Finance; Nuclear weapons; Trident
Date
7 December 2011
Reference
537 c141WH
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
House
House of Commons
I apologise for not having declared that I have membership of CND at Mid Somerset level and I am vice-chair of that organisation. I should have said that earlier.
I apologise for not having declared that I have membership of CND at Mid Somerset level and I am vice-chair of that organisation. I should have said that earlier.
Member
Tessa Munt
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Finance; Nuclear weapons; Trident
Date
7 December 2011
Reference
537 c141WH
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
House
House of Commons
I am pleased that you are chairing the debate, Mr Gale, and that we have secured it. I regret that it will be only 30 minutes long, but we will do our best. A number of hon. Members want to intervene during my contribution, and I will be happy to...
I am pleased that you are chairing the debate, Mr Gale, and that we have secured it. I regret that it will be only 30 minutes long, but we will do our best. A number of hon. Members want to intervene during my contribution, and I will be happy to...
Member
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Finance; Nuclear weapons; Trident
Date
7 December 2011
Reference
537 c140WH
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
House
House of Commons
As a Liberal Democrat, I remain absolutely committed to my belief that this is a ludicrous waste of money. I am boiling with anger at the fact that, despite an alternatives review having been commissioned, it will not be published. There is no basis for not publishing it so that...
As a Liberal Democrat, I remain absolutely committed to my belief that this is a ludicrous waste of money. I am boiling with anger at the fact that, despite an alternatives review having been commissioned, it will not be published. There is no basis for not publishing it so that...
Member
Tessa Munt
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Finance; Nuclear weapons; Trident
Date
7 December 2011
Reference
537 c140-1WH
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
House
House of Commons
I would be happier if we killed off the whole project straight away—but I suspect that that might not happen. I also draw to the House's attention the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence has announced that he has no plans to publish the Trident alternatives review, which...
I would be happier if we killed off the whole project straight away—but I suspect that that might not happen. I also draw to the House's attention the fact that the Secretary of State for Defence has announced that he has no plans to publish the Trident alternatives review, which...
Member
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Finance; Nuclear weapons; Trident
Date
7 December 2011
Reference
537 c140WH
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
House
House of Commons
I understand that the hon. Lady is boiling with rage. I, too, am boiling with rage, so we will boil together.
I understand that the hon. Lady is boiling with rage. I, too, am boiling with rage, so we will boil together.
Member
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Finance; Nuclear weapons; Trident
Date
7 December 2011
Reference
537 c141WH
Chamber / Committee
Westminster Hall
House
House of Commons