| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.18 pm
Mr. Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute): I wish to assure the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) that I am not going to make a "Buy me" speech. Indeed, it will soon become apparent that it is a "Don't buy me" speech.
There is an old saying, "Where there's muck, there's brass", and that is as true in the defence industry as in any other. It is important to remember, however, that
defence procurement involves paying companies to dispose of old equipment as well as buying new equipment. In days gone by, decommissioning old equipment was often done very simply. It was often a case of simply going out to sea and tossing the old ammunition over the side. Certainly, when Holy Loch was dredged after it had been used by the American and British navies, there was plenty of evidence of the "out of sight, out of mind" policy. Fortunately we take much better care of the environment nowadays.Some of the most dangerous material that we must decommission is in our decommissioned nuclear submarines, and I want to talk about the options for disposal of that material. The MOD currently has 27 nuclear submarines, 16 still in service and 11 out of service. The 11 are currently lying afloat, some at Devonport and some at Rosyth. Although they are safe in their current state, by 2012 more submarines will have been decommissioned and the current storage space will be inadequate. There is a possibility of more berthing space at Devonport that would allow the current storage afloat to continue until 2037, but it would nevertheless be sensible to try to find safe methods of breaking up the submarines and storing the radioactive and toxic waste inside the reactor components.
When the submarines were originally conceived, the Government of the day planned to dispose of them on the "out of sight, out of mind" principle—to sail them out into the Atlantic and scuttle them. Luckily, international environmental conventions prevent that from happening now.
Mr. Bruce George: And the Defence Committee!
Mr. Reid: I am sure that, even without the international conventions, the House would not approve of such methods nowadays.
Before the first nuclear submarines were decommissioned, the MOD had adopted the policy of temporary storage at Devonport and Rosyth, anticipating final disposal of the radioactive waste in an underground deep waste repository. That, however, is now expected not to become available until 2050.
The prospect of running out of berths at Devonport and Rosyth has led to the ISOLUS project. The acronym stands for "intermediate storage of laid-up submarines". Lancaster university is currently conducting a consultation exercise. Like others, I congratulate Lord Bach on the way in which he is fulfilling his brief. He has certainly kept me informed of the progress of the project as it affects my constituency.
There are two main disposal options. The first stage of either would involve removing the reactor components from the submarines intact, because that is where the dangerous material is stored. The rest of the submarine would obviously be safe, as the crew would have been living there. Once the reactor components had been removed, the first option would be to store them intact for about 60 years, until the radioactive waste inside had decayed. The advantage of that would be the absence of any risk in the opening of the reactor components; the disadvantage would be the fact that each component is about the size of two double-decker buses, and would therefore take up a good deal of space. The other option would involve opening the component, removing the radioactive waste inside and packaging it in a secure container.
Four companies have advanced proposals for the consultation, but two of them, Devonport Management Limited and Babcock, clearly have their own commercial interests in mind. They want to get rid of the old submarines in the yards at Devonport and Rosyth. They were happy to take them, with their nuclear material, while there was money to be made from refitting, but as soon as no more was to be made and the submarines had become an embarrassment, they wanted to be rid of them. Babcock made clear in its submission that although it would be possible to store the reactor components or the packaged waste at Rosyth, it does not want that to be done because of public concern locally, and because it wants to develop the yard commercially. It has therefore come up with two proposed sites for storing the packaged radioactive waste—Sellafield and Coulport, which is on the east side of Loch Long. This is where the "Don't buy me" part of my argument comes in, as the people in villages on the west side of Loch Long in my constituency—Ardentinny, Strone, Blairmore and Lochgoilhead at the head of Loch Goil—are extremely concerned about the proposal. I do not understand why Coulport has been identified as a location. A small amount of radioactive waste may already be stored there, as it is a naval armaments base, but the proposal to store the radioactive waste from 27 nuclear submarines is far in excess of that quantity. We should not be storing bulk radioactive waste at new sites. Sellafield already stores large amounts of radioactive waste, including most of the defence industry's radioactive waste, so it would be a much better option.
There are three sensible solutions. First, we could continue with afloat storage at Rosyth or Devonport. Secondly, we could break up the submarines, but store their nuclear components intact on-site and, thirdly, we could break up the reactor components and transport the packaged intermediate-level radioactive waste to Sellafield, where the majority of similar waste generated in the UK is managed. That approach would also have the benefit of consolidating all the MOD radioactive waste in one location, rather than two locations at Coulport and the original Sellafield site. To adapt an old metaphor, let us put all our rotten apples in one barrel. Those are the options that should be considered, and the option of a new storage facility at Coulport should be rejected.
5.26 pm
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok): It gives me great pleasure to rise again this week in support of the Government. I fully intend to vote with them on any vote that is called tonight and, indeed, shall do so for the rest of the week.
As secretary of the all-party group on shipbuilding and ship repair, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the future of the British shipbuilding industry has been safeguarded as a result of orders placed by the Labour Government, giving workers in the shipyards the security of employment that they did not have for a long time. That achievement should not go unnoticed. However, I want to raise a number of issues, and if the Under-Secretary cannot respond today, I hope that he can write to me.
First, on the aircraft carrier, I should like further reassurance that any changes will be capability rather than cost-driven. I accept completely the point about a possible downsizing of the carrier weight, but I want reassurance that any downsizing would maintain capability and that 48 planes, and not any fewer, will be flown from the carrier. The Minister of State said that delivery for 2012 and 2015 is still the aim, which I greatly welcome. I hope that the Under-Secretary can give me similar reassurance on the Type 45 order, because it has been suggested that the planned order for 12 ships may well be reduced to 10. I hope that the Government can give me a clear assurance that that is not the case and that the intention remains to order 12 destroyers.
I would also like clarification of the MARS—mobile adjustment ramp system—contract. There is an option to specify a civil order, rather than a military one, so that the system can be built overseas, but I hope that the Government ignore that option. Many Members have expressed their views on the issue of foreign defence procurement, the opportunities to buy from other countries and their unwillingness to buy from us. If a Member has spoken on a subject, I do not necessarily refrain from speaking about it myself but time pressures do not allow that today. I hope that the Minister accepts that if the MARS order were placed with British yards, there would be spill-over economies in the aircraft carrier contract. I hope that there would be sensible procurement policy that looked at the loading of work in the yards on the Type 45s, the aircraft carriers and the MARS contract, in order to allow throughputs of work and sharing of overheads, which would lead to economies being made on all those orders.
On shipbuilders' relief, the Ministry of Defence does not have direct responsibility for that, but it is connected with naval exports. I want to clarify whether the MOD has been speaking to Customs and Excise and the Treasury in support of maintaining shipbuilders' relief for military export orders. It seems that most of our international competitors provide considerable subsidies to their shipyards to supply third markets. If not matching them, we should at least be offering some support and assistance. There is a danger that we will disadvantage our yards. If they can win defence export orders, they will once again be able to share the overheads on the contracts with the MOD, thereby possibly reducing the expense to the taxpayer.
In the circumstances, the final point I wish to make arises from a note that I received from the Hansard writers, who said that the microphone was not on when I intervened on Mr. Wilkinson earlier. For the avoidance of doubt, I was—
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |