1-18 of 18 results for subject:Trident
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.26 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Trident
- We searched for
- subject_t:Trident OR subject_ses:13379
Member
X
Lord Drayson
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Drayson, Lord (18)
Primary member
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering our sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, Trooper Joshua Hammond, Private Robert Laws, Lance Corporal David Dennis, Lance Corporal Dane Elson, Captain Benjamin Babington-Browne and the soldier from the Light Dragoons killed in Helmand province on Tuesday 7 July. All were killed on operations this week in Afghanistan. We also offer our condolences to the family and friends of Flight Lieutenant Kenneth Thompson and Flight Lieutenant Nigel Morton, who were killed when their Tornado F3 crashed on Thursday 2 July in Scotland while on a routine training flight.
This Government are committed to the current nuclear deterrent and to the development of the replacement system, as set out in the 2006 White Paper. We estimate that this replacement will cost between £15 billion and £20 billion at 2006-07 prices and we expect the first successor submarine to enter service in 2024. As part of the 2008 equipment examination, we decided to delay the carriers by one to two years, recognising that this would add cost. Our latest, yet-to-be-approved, estimated cost is £4.6 billion. We expect the in-service dates to be towards the end of 2015 and 2018 respectively.
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering our sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, Trooper Joshua Hammond, Private Robert Laws, Lance Corporal David Dennis, Lance Corporal Dane Elson, Captain Benjamin Babington-Browne and the soldier from the Light Dragoons killed in Helmand province on Tuesday 7 July. All were killed on operations this week in Afghanistan. We also offer our condolences to the family and friends of Flight Lieutenant Kenneth Thompson and Flight Lieutenant Nigel Morton, who were killed when their Tornado F3 crashed on Thursday 2 July in Scotland while on a routine training flight.
This Government are committed to the current nuclear deterrent and to the development of the replacement system, as set out in the 2006 White Paper. We estimate that this replacement will cost between £15 billion and £20 billion at 2006-07 prices and we expect the first successor submarine to enter service in 2024. As part of the 2008 equipment examination, we decided to delay the carriers by one to two years, recognising that this would add cost. Our latest, yet-to-be-approved, estimated cost is £4.6 billion. We expect the in-service dates to be towards the end of 2015 and 2018 respectively.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
Subjects
Costs; Nuclear weapons; Procurement; Aircraft carriers; Trident
Date
9 July 2009
Reference
712 c759-60
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Yes, it is, my Lords. The Prime Minister is absolutely right.
Yes, it is, my Lords. The Prime Minister is absolutely right.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, from these Benches we, too, send our condolences to the families of the soldiers and the two flight lieutenants whom the Minister mentioned. I very much welcome the noble Lord back to the Dispatch Box with his defence brief. Last month in the other place, the Prime Minister claimed that, ""it is important for us to remember that we have funded defence services for the next two years".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/6/09; col. 31.]"
Is that really the case?
Subjects
Costs; Nuclear weapons; Procurement; Aircraft carriers; Trident
Date
9 July 2009
Reference
712 c761
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, we put absolutely as our first priority the support to our troops on operations. We have shown that by providing through the UOR process more than £2.2 billion to operations. But we need to do both. It our primary responsibility to provide for the security of this nation and we cannot do that without a nuclear deterrent. We have said that the nuclear deterrent will not come at a cost to investment in our conventional forces and, no, there is no alternative to the provision of the capability that the carriers will provide. As my colleague on these Benches said when he was First Sea Lord, this is four acres of British sovereign territory that can move 500 miles in a day without the by your leave of any other nation.
My Lords, we put absolutely as our first priority the support to our troops on operations. We have shown that by providing through the UOR process more than £2.2 billion to operations. But we need to do both. It our primary responsibility to provide for the security of this nation and we cannot do that without a nuclear deterrent. We have said that the nuclear deterrent will not come at a cost to investment in our conventional forces and, no, there is no alternative to the provision of the capability that the carriers will provide. As my colleague on these Benches said when he was First Sea Lord, this is four acres of British sovereign territory that can move 500 miles in a day without the by your leave of any other nation.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Judd
(Labour)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will endorse without reservation the tribute to the fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan. With our forces as stretched as they are, in operations that are likely to be the pattern for the future, is not the top priority to ensure that they have the very best equipment for the tasks that they are undertaking and are likely to be undertaking? Is it not, therefore, essential to reassess the replacement of Trident because of the vast expenditure involved? Should we not look at alternatives and is it not essential that the House should have an opportunity to debate this issue before initial gate decisions are made? If aircraft carriers are essential for flexibility in deployment around the world—and I, for one, believe that they are—do we really need the kind of, arguably, oversophisticated vessels that are currently planned? Would not more simple vessels do the task very well? Indeed, will the aircraft be available to make the expensive, sophisticated carriers fully operational?
Subjects
Costs; Nuclear weapons; Procurement; Aircraft carriers; Trident
Date
9 July 2009
Reference
712 c760
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, this is not about Russia or any other country. We need to recognise that the replacement of our deterrent will come into service from 2024 and will stay in service until the late 2050s. It is very difficult for us to predict what the world will be like at that time, which is why we are committed to maintaining our deterrent and replacing the Vanguard submarines.
My Lords, this is not about Russia or any other country. We need to recognise that the replacement of our deterrent will come into service from 2024 and will stay in service until the late 2050s. It is very difficult for us to predict what the world will be like at that time, which is why we are committed to maintaining our deterrent and replacing the Vanguard submarines.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Mayhew of Twysden
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, is it the view of Her Majesty’s Government that Russia, in particular, still presents a risk sufficient to warrant our acquiring the defensive assets referred to in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, as a prudent insurance policy?
Subjects
Costs; Nuclear weapons; Procurement; Aircraft carriers; Trident
Date
9 July 2009
Reference
712 c761-2
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not recognise at all the characterisation that the noble Lord has just set out. On returning to the Ministry of Defence recently, I have been struck by the way in which it has been able to respond to the pressures of operations and by the success that our forces have achieved in Iraq, for example. We recognise the pressures that they are under, but we are supporting them and seeing progress in the way in which they are making their contribution to the international effort in Afghanistan. We obviously have to manage our finances adequately and we are committed to doing that, which is why we announced earlier this week the Strategic Defence Review.
My Lords, I am afraid that I do not recognise at all the characterisation that the noble Lord has just set out. On returning to the Ministry of Defence recently, I have been struck by the way in which it has been able to respond to the pressures of operations and by the success that our forces have achieved in Iraq, for example. We recognise the pressures that they are under, but we are supporting them and seeing progress in the way in which they are making their contribution to the international effort in Afghanistan. We obviously have to manage our finances adequately and we are committed to doing that, which is why we announced earlier this week the Strategic Defence Review.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Lee of Trafford
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, in the private sector, if one trades when one knows that one’s operation is insolvent, that is a criminal offence. At the present time, the Ministry of Defence, frankly, is bust. There is a yawning gap between resources and commitments. We have a belated defence review that should have come two or three years ago, as many of us were asking for. What are a Government who place a Secretary of State for Defence 21st out of 23 in the Cabinet’s pecking order going to do about the desperate financial situation of the MoD?
Subjects
Costs; Nuclear weapons; Procurement; Aircraft carriers; Trident
Date
9 July 2009
Reference
712 c760-1
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, this increase in costs is due to the decision that we took last year to put back the delivery date of the carriers. The project itself is not leading to increased costs; the primary cost increase caused by the delay is due to the inflationary effect on working capital because of the length of the project.
My Lords, this increase in costs is due to the decision that we took last year to put back the delivery date of the carriers. The project itself is not leading to increased costs; the primary cost increase caused by the delay is due to the inflationary effect on working capital because of the length of the project.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Asked by
Viscount Tenby
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, in the light of recent reports in the press about a £1 billion overrun on the two carriers, to which the Minister referred in his original Answer, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that this undesirable trend does not occur year on year?
Subjects
Costs; Nuclear weapons; Procurement; Aircraft carriers; Trident
Date
9 July 2009
Reference
712 c761
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I am not aware of those reports at all, so I cannot comment on them.
My Lords, I am not aware of those reports at all, so I cannot comment on them.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Ramsbotham
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, the very sad list that the Minister read out at the start of his Answer, on which I am sure the whole House expresses its condolences, draws attention yet again to the fact that the operations that we are conducting require people. The Minister has confirmed that the equipments mentioned in the Question are covered in the budget. Can he confirm or deny reports that three infantry battalions are likely to be cut from the budget, while these equipments are to be retained?
Subjects
Costs; Nuclear weapons; Procurement; Aircraft carriers; Trident
Date
9 July 2009
Reference
712 c761
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
I am happy to give that assurance, my Lords.
I am happy to give that assurance, my Lords.
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
(UK Independence Party)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, can the Minister repeat the assurance given to your Lordships’ House the last time that this subject was raised in Oral Questions, to the effect that the two new aircraft carriers will not be diluted into any European defence force?
Subjects
Costs; Nuclear weapons; Procurement; Aircraft carriers; Trident
Date
9 July 2009
Reference
712 c760
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of the timetables for and costs of replacing Trident nuclear weapons and commissioning new aircraft carriers.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their latest assessment of the timetables for and costs of replacing Trident nuclear weapons and commissioning new aircraft carriers.
Asked by
Lord Judd
(Labour)
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
9 July 2009
Answered on
9 July 2009
My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering our sincerest condolences to the family and friends of Lieutenant Colonel Rupert Thorneloe, Trooper Joshua Hammond, Private Robert Laws, Lance Corporal David Dennis, Lance Corporal Dane Elson, Captain Benjamin Babington-Browne and the soldier from the Light Dragoons killed in Helmand province on Tuesday 7 July. All were killed on operations this week in Afghanistan. We also offer our condolences to the family and friends of Flight Lieutenant Kenneth Thompson and Flight Lieutenant Nigel Morton, who were killed when their Tornado F3 crashed on Thursday 2 July in Scotland while on a routine training flight.
This Government are committed to the current nuclear deterrent and to the development of the replacement system, as set out in the 2006 White Paper. We estimate that this replacement will cost between £15 billion and £20 billion at 2006-07 prices and we expect the first successor submarine to enter service in 2024. As part of the 2008 equipment examination, we decided to delay the carriers by one to two years, recognising that this would add cost. Our latest, yet-to-be-approved, estimated cost is £4.6 billion. We expect the in-service dates to be towards the end of 2015 and 2018 respectively.
Subjects
Costs; Nuclear weapons; Procurement; Aircraft carriers; Trident
Date
9 July 2009
Reference
712 c759-60
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. I have reproduced below the text of my letter to the chairman of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. I have also placed a copy of the letter and annex...
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. I have reproduced below the text of my letter to the chairman of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee. I have also placed a copy of the letter and annex...
Member
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written statements
Subjects
Nuclear weapons; NATO; Defence Committee; Government responses; Nuclear submarines; Trident
Date
12 March 2007
Reference
690 c46-7WS
House
House of Lords
Lords debate on motion to take note of the White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent (Cm 6994). Agreed to on question.
Lords debate on motion to take note of the White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent (Cm 6994). Agreed to on question.
Lead member
Lord Drayson
Answering member
Lord Howell of Guildford
Department
Ministry of Defence; Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Type
Debates
Subjects
Costs; Arms control; International cooperation; Nuclear weapons; Nuclear fuels; Procurement; Proliferation; Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; Terrorism; USA; Trident submarines; Iran; Nuclear submarines; North Korea; Guided weapons; Trident; Cruise missiles
Date
24 January 2007
Reference
688 c1104-96
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent. The noble Lord said: My Lords, last month the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council made a Statement on the future of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent. On...
rose to move, That this House takes note of the White Paper The Future of the United Kingdom’s Nuclear Deterrent. The noble Lord said: My Lords, last month the noble Baroness the Lord President of the Council made a Statement on the future of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent. On...
Member
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Costs; Arms control; International cooperation; Nuclear weapons; Nuclear fuels; Procurement; Proliferation; Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; Terrorism; USA; Trident submarines; Iran; Nuclear submarines; North Korea; Guided weapons; Trident; Cruise missiles
Date
24 January 2007
Reference
688 c1104-9
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Lords debate on motion to call attention to the level of operational commitments on the armed forces and the issues of recruitment, retention and funding, including the procurement programme. Motion withdrawn.
Lords debate on motion to call attention to the level of operational commitments on the armed forces and the issues of recruitment, retention and funding, including the procurement programme. Motion withdrawn.
Lead member
Lord Inge
Answering member
Lord Drayson
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Debates
Subjects
Armed forces; Army; Deployment; Defence equipment; Armoured fighting vehicles; Finance; Iraq; Helicopters; Recruitment; Nuclear weapons; Peacekeeping operations; Procurement; Staff; Reserve forces; Research; USA; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Public relations; ISAF; Opium; Trident; Defence Procurement Agency; Job satisfaction
Date
29 June 2006
Reference
683 c1323-79
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
No, my Lords, I do not believe that that corresponds to a large level of incompetence. The noble Lord, Lord Garden, asked about the effect of the withdrawal of certain coalition partners’ forces, including the Italians and the Japanese. We are confident that the process of handover by states within the regions...
No, my Lords, I do not believe that that corresponds to a large level of incompetence. The noble Lord, Lord Garden, asked about the effect of the withdrawal of certain coalition partners’ forces, including the Italians and the Japanese. We are confident that the process of handover by states within the regions...
Member
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Armed forces; Army; Deployment; Defence equipment; Armoured fighting vehicles; Finance; Iraq; Helicopters; Recruitment; Nuclear weapons; Peacekeeping operations; Procurement; Staff; Reserve forces; Research; USA; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Public relations; ISAF; Opium; Trident; Defence Procurement Agency; Job satisfaction
Date
29 June 2006
Reference
683 c1375-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Yes, my Lords. The amount is £1 billion over three years. I want to rattle quite rapidly through some of the issues that have been raised about equipment, not least because it is my area of responsibility. I hope to give noble Lords detailed answers to the many questions that they have asked,...
Yes, my Lords. The amount is £1 billion over three years. I want to rattle quite rapidly through some of the issues that have been raised about equipment, not least because it is my area of responsibility. I hope to give noble Lords detailed answers to the many questions that they have asked,...
Member
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Armed forces; Army; Deployment; Defence equipment; Armoured fighting vehicles; Finance; Iraq; Helicopters; Recruitment; Nuclear weapons; Peacekeeping operations; Procurement; Staff; Reserve forces; Research; USA; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Public relations; ISAF; Opium; Trident; Defence Procurement Agency; Job satisfaction
Date
29 June 2006
Reference
683 c1376-9
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, for bringing these important issues to the House and for the even-handed and calm way in which he made his points, which he expressed with tremendous authority. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that he and other noble Lords...
My Lords, I thank the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, for bringing these important issues to the House and for the even-handed and calm way in which he made his points, which he expressed with tremendous authority. I welcome the opportunity to respond to the points that he and other noble Lords...
Member
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Armed forces; Army; Deployment; Defence equipment; Armoured fighting vehicles; Finance; Iraq; Helicopters; Recruitment; Nuclear weapons; Peacekeeping operations; Procurement; Staff; Reserve forces; Research; USA; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Public relations; ISAF; Opium; Trident; Defence Procurement Agency; Job satisfaction
Date
29 June 2006
Reference
683 c1372-5
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
What has been the cost of maintaining the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent between 1990 and 2005.
What has been the cost of maintaining the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent between 1990 and 2005.
Asked by
Baroness Tonge
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
5 December 2005
Since the Trident nuclear deterrent became operational in 1994 and 2004–05, annual expenditure for capital and running costs, including the costs for the Atomic Weapons Establishment, has ranged between three and four percent of the annual defence budget. Comparable information on the costs of the UK’s nuclear deterrent before 1994 is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate effort.
Subjects
Expenditure; Nuclear weapons; Trident
Date
5 December 2005
Reference
2353; 676 c87WA
House
House of Lords
What discussions have been held between the Ministry of Defence and United States officials during the past year about a successor system to Trident; and whether discussions on this subject have taken place with any companies in the United Kingdom or overseas.
What discussions have been held between the Ministry of Defence and United States officials during the past year about a successor system to Trident; and whether discussions on this subject have taken place with any companies in the United Kingdom or overseas.
Asked by
Lord Garden
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
12 October 2005
No decisions have yet been taken on any replacement for Trident. Information obviously needs to be gathered from a variety of sources to support these future decisions, but it is not our general practice to comment on the detail of any such discussions with other governments and industry.
Subjects
Nuclear weapons; Procurement; USA; Trident
Date
12 October 2005
Reference
1343; 674 c100WA
House
House of Lords