Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Trident Nuclear Programme

Monday 20 November 2023 · 6 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Trident's renewal is estimated to cost 31 billion with an additional 10 billion for contingency.
  • The Minister expressed gratitude for cross-party support for the nuclear deterrent, highlighting a majority vote of 355 in favor of renewal.
  • The Labour party fully supports the nuclear deterrent for NATO allies, according to the Minister's confirmation.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Neale Hanvey
Defence
Context

The estimated costs of Trident's renewal are £31 billion with an additional £10 billion for contingency. There have been issues with containment and transportation of nuclear material, including a recent near-collision incident.

Question

I am concerned about the estimated costs of Trident's renewal standing at £31 billion with a further £10 billion earmarked for contingency. Containment of nuclear material is problematic and there was a near-collision incident recently. Our party's freedom of information request on WMD movement in Scotland was rebuffed. Can the Secretary of State explain the lack of transparency and justify keeping Trident, especially given its cost and danger?

Answer from James Cartlidge

I profoundly disagree about abandoning the deterrent. It would be reckless for the party opposing it, which also wants to withdraw from NATO in light of Russian aggression. We support the deterrent and will continue investing in it.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Details on WMD movement transparency and costs were not addressed

How: Profound Disagreement, Reference To Opposing Party'S Policy

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Neale Hanvey
Defence
Context

Both main parties in the House of Commons support retaining and renewing the nuclear deterrent. There was a significant majority vote in favour of this in 2016.

Question

Does the Minister share my relief that both main parties support retaining and renewing our nuclear deterrent? Did he also feel relieved when there was a massive majority of 355 votes for renewal, indicating how unrepresentative Scottish nationalist views are?

Answer from James Cartlidge

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for that remark and delighted that Labour agreed with us by nodding in response to our previous answer. We all agree that, particularly now, we need a deterrent against aggressive threats.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Julian Lewis Con New Forest East
Defence
Context

There are reports about a malfunctioning depth gauge on a Vanguard submarine at sea.

Question

Can I confirm again that Labour fully supports the nuclear deterrent for NATO allies? Can the Minister explain what steps he has taken to prevent incidents like a malfunctioning depth gauge on a Vanguard submarine from happening again?

Answer from James Cartlidge

I am delighted to confirm Labour's total support for the deterrent. On the specific incident, we do not comment on operational matters concerning our submarines.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Details of measures taken to prevent similar incidents were not provided

How: Refusal To Discuss Operational Details

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q4 Maria Eagle Lab Liverpool Garston
Defence Taxation Standards & Ethics
Context

The nuclear enterprise has an uncapped budget, and there are concerns about the impact on conventional MOD spending.

Question

I welcome the Secretary of State to their position. The nuclear enterprise has a vast budget that bleeds money from other areas like hospitals and schools. Given current financial constraints highlighted by recent media reports, what steps is his Department taking to ensure no further cuts to conventional forces or other sectors due to the Trident programme's costs?

Answer from James Cartlidge

The figure that matters is 80 million, representing the combined death toll from world wars. We have not had a third world war and it's not coincidental.

Not addressed: Details on budget-related measures to prevent cuts were completely avoided

How: Reference To Historical Context

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q5 Martin Docherty SNP
Defence
Context

There are concerns about the aging Vanguard fleet and potential contingencies during its transition.

Question

During the Vanguard transition, Whitehall made contingency plans in case of hull breakdowns. Can the Minister inform the House what discussions his Department is having regarding such contingencies for an almost 40-year-old Vanguard fleet?

Answer from James Cartlidge

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that we do not comment on this beyond saying we have had a continuous at-sea deterrent since 1969 and are proud of it.

Not addressed: Details on discussions about contingencies were completely avoided

How: Refusal To Discuss Operational Details

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q6 Martin Docherty SNP
Defence
Context

There are concerns about the aging Vanguard fleet and potential contingencies during its transition.

Question

During the Vanguard transition, Whitehall made contingency plans in case of hull breakdowns. Can the Minister inform the House what discussions his Department is having regarding such contingencies for an almost 40-year-old Vanguard fleet?

Answer from James Cartlidge

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that we do not comment on this beyond saying we have had a continuous at-sea deterrent since 1969 and are proud of it.

Not addressed: Details on discussions about contingencies were completely avoided

How: Refusal To Discuss Operational Details

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)