Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)
LORD DRAYSON,
MR DAVID
GOULD CB, MR
NICK BENNETT
AND REAR
ADMIRAL ANDREW
MATHEWS
21 NOVEMBER 2006
Q260 John Smith: But it says that
for the foreseeable future the country will retain the sovereign
capability. In all this discussion about the skills and the so-called
drumbeat, surely the only conclusion you can draw is that if you
do not replace a submarine-based Trident system then you will
not be able to maintain that continuity and that sovereignty.
Lord Drayson: You have to put
this in the context that the Defence Industrial Strategy identified
those areas of defence equipment that the defence need determined
we needed to have a sovereign capability to fulfil from this country.
To discriminate between those areas of defence equipment where
we had satisfied ourselves that we would be able satisfactorily
to procure those items of equipment outside the United Kingdom
and those pieces of equipment where we have judged that it is
not possible or not in the defence interest of the country to
procure them outside of the United Kingdom, we said that there
was a relatively short list, and we spelled them out in the Defence
Industrial Strategy, of those items of equipment which we do not
believe it is possible for us to procure outside the United Kingdom
and that is what we mean about sovereign capability. Therefore,
if one requires that equipment as the defence need, and it could
be for a particular piece of equipment that we decide we do not
have that defence need, in which case we do not have the need
for that sovereign capability. It is important for us to be very
clear the order in which this decision is taken. It underpins
the whole approach to our defence policy with industry.
Q261 Mr Jones: I accept that the
defence need comes first in any of these debates and that is one
of the refreshing things in the Defence Industrial Strategy. However,
there is also a crunch date coming there for industry in terms
of their investments, in terms of skills and knowing when to ramp
up and what long-term needs are. When is that crunch date for
industry then in terms of links to the defence need?
Lord Drayson: The crunch date
with regard to what?
Q262 Mr Jones: A date by when
decisions on the submarine capacity building, for example, in
this country need to be taken in terms of investment in skills.
There is no way you are going to have BAE Systems and others just
waiting for the next five years, just saying it might be next
year or it might be the year after when these decisions are taken.
When is that crunch date for that capability, because the alternative
is that they turn round and say they do not want to be in this
business, it is not worth their while being in it.
Lord Drayson: In terms of making
sure that if the decision is taken that we need to replace the
nuclear deterrent and if the decision is taken that that is submarine
based, then to ensure that we have the capability to deliver that
in time for when the existing submarine-based deterrent comes
to the end of its life, then we need to take a decision on that
next year.
Q263 Mr Hancock: At least three
of us in the room have a direct constituency interest in the outcome
of the naval base review. I am interested to know how much of
an issue the replacement of the deterrent is in reflecting how
that decision is going to be made, particularly considering the
suggestion that Devonport have an irreplaceable opportunity here
when it comes to their role in servicing these boats. I really
want to know whether the naval base review is being done on a
fair cost basis of what can be saved, what can be achieved and
the good of the Navy, or is it simply being done to facilitate
KBR and DML being able to service nuclear submarines in the future.
Lord Drayson: I can be very clear
on that. The naval base review is being carried out very clearly
to address what the needs are that the Royal Navy has going forward
from here in terms of the maintenance and upkeep of the fleet.
It is not about those industrial considerations that you are talking
about. It is what it is that we need in terms of the maintenance
of the fleet, to match that with those needs and to make sure
it is then done as efficiently as possible, consistent with having
an industry which can be healthy and can prosper to meet those
needs.
Q264 Linda Gilroy: I would just
follow on from that by asking whether there is some relationship
nevertheless between being able to drive out costs in both areas,
coming from the synergies that can be obtained by co-locating
certain activities.
Lord Drayson: I am sorry; I do
not really understand the question.
Q265 Linda Gilroy: I took from
your answer just now that you were saying that there is no relationship
between the two. Perhaps I could very simply ask whether there
is in fact a relationship because there are savings to be made
that can be achieved by co-locating activities on submarine work
next to naval support work.
Lord Drayson: You are absolutely
right that there is an inter-relationship in that we have existing
facilities around the country which are carrying out various parts
of the supply chain relating to submarines. Those facilities are
also connected in terms of where they are located on a naval base
and therefore there is an impact across the two. It is important
for us to be clear as to the purpose of the naval base review
which is a separate objective to the objective which we have in
terms of the maritime industrial strategy but, being smart about
joined-up government is important. The way in which we manage
those two is that we understand that inter-relationship and we
manage it effectively.
Q266 Willie Rennie: Although Rosyth
does not have a naval base I shall not turn down the opportunity
of asking a question. How radical are you prepared to be with
this naval base review?
Lord Drayson: Radical. It is absolutely
right for us to have a proper look at what the Navy needs, how
we can most efficiently provide that to the Navy and how we can
do that in a way which is, firstly, taking into account the needs
of our people in the Royal Navy in terms of where base porting
is, how the fleet operates, what it is that makes the Royal Navy
as effective a fighting force as it can be and how we can make
that as sustainable as possible and then how we can do it in a
way which allows us to develop modern facilities in which industry
is incentivised, because of the environment which we create, to
invest and to maintain into the future. What we want is something
which is for the long term, delivering absolutely what people
need within the Royal Navy to enable them to do their job properly
and, secondly, that is sustainable for industry so that industry
can make a healthy profit in working to supply these services
to us but consistent with providing real value for money in the
way in which it does it.
Q267 Willie Rennie: Could it involve
the closure of one of the Navy bases?
Lord Drayson: We need to look
at all of the options and it would not be right to pre-judge that
by saying anything is off the table. We are looking at all of
the options. You asked me directly and I did give a straight answer:
radical. That does include looking at the potential closure of
one of the Navy bases, but we have not made any decisions about
that as yet.
Q268 Chairman: Can we move on
to Aldermaston? It has been a recurring theme of the evidence
session this afternoon that in essence the decision has already
been taken. If you look at newspaper reports of the Prime Minister
talking to the Cabinet a couple of weeks ago about the strategic
nuclear deterrent, all the implications are that he has made his
own private decision even if there has been no formal government
decision. Is it not a bit unpersuasive to say that the Government
have just not made up their mind?
Lord Drayson: No. It is absolutely
right for me to set out the situation as it exists, which is that
we are now looking in detail at the options and no decision has
been taken at present. I can understand why people look at the
Aldermaston decision next year and I do believe that in some quarters
people have become confused about what the Aldermaston investment
is for. I can understand where the worry has come from and I shall
ask Nick to give some more detail on this. In essence it is very
important for us to understand that the investment in Aldermaston
is about ensuring that we make the proper investments in both
the infrastructure and the scientific capability of the country
to ensure that we fully understand, given the developments which
we know take place in terms of nuclear physics and the technology
which is available to us, that we invest in those tools as they
develop, for example computational power, to make sure that we
fully understand the existing nuclear deterrent, that we are doing
everything we properly need to do to characterise it, to ensure
that it is effective and to ensure that it is safe. The investments
in Aldermaston are into those facilities, the Orion laser project
is all about using laser technology to make sure that we fully
understand the hydrodynamics within the warhead because under
the treaty which we have signed we cannot carry out tests to ensure,
as the warheads age, that they are operating correctly. We therefore
have to do the physics, the computational analysis to ensure that
they are. The investment which we are making in Aldermaston, both
in terms of people and facilities, is addressing that issue.
Q269 Chairman: I wonder, when
Mr Bennett expands on that, whether he could possibly tell us
why this could not have waited until there was a formal decision
on the strategic nuclear deterrent, which seems to be any moment
now.
Mr Bennett: Because the investment
at Aldermaston is unrelated to decisions on a future strategic
deterrent. The work which is in place there is essential to maintain
the current deterrent. If we wish to maintain the Trident warhead
through until the mid 2020s then the work which is in place at
Aldermaston underpins that; it underpins that entirely. It does
not underpin currently a future deterrent.
Q270 Chairman: But it underpins
that, so far as I can remember, according to Dr John Reid when
he was Secretary of State, and it provides for the future level
of skills needed in order to keep our options open to renew the
nuclear deterrent.
Mr Bennett: Yes, that is quite
correct. The way in which we go about ensuring ourselves of the
surety and performance of the current stockpile is what we call
science-based surety. There is a programme, as the Minister has
said, which puts in place across a number of strands, hydrodynamics,
plasma physics, materials and high-powered computing, the means
of understanding the way in which the current warhead works. You
need all of that and if you were in the future to wish to develop
a new warhead, then you would need the skills that will produce
to allow you to do it; in essence the capabilities that Aldermaston
will be putting in place will allow us, should we ever wish to,
to develop a new warhead, but they are absolutely essential to
the maintenance of the current one. The two are actually indistinguishable.
Lord Drayson: The important point
is that the existing laser, for example, that we have been using
up to now to enable us to replicate the conditions to be able
to do this work to ensure the warhead, is 25 years' old. You can
imagine the way laser technology has moved in 25 years, therefore
we need to replace and update this laser. It is a very major investment
and whether or not we make a decision to replace the existing
deterrent, we have a responsibility to make sure that the existing
deterrent we have today is safe and is effective in the context
of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and therefore we have to make this
investment.
Q271 Chairman: So suddenly we
introduce a brand new Orion laser and you can understand how this
misunderstanding that a decision has already been taken might
arise, can you not?
Lord Drayson: In describing this
area in my introduction, I absolutely understand the concerns
people may have, which is why it is very important for us to explain
very clearly what this investment in Aldermaston is for.
Q272 Chairman: What do you think
the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant in that speech back in the
summer when he said we would retain the nuclear deterrent?
Lord Drayson: I think the Chancellor
was
Q273 Chairman: Was he repeating
manifesto policy?
Lord Drayson: It is the policy
of the Labour Party, on the basis of which we fought the last
general election in terms of the manifesto commitment.
Q274 Mr Havard: We had some evidence
this morning from Greenpeace and they say that upgrading Aldermaston
could lead to a resumption of nuclear testing by another route
using exotic technologies and its access to US expertise and facilities
to develop a new weapons-testing programme and that the purpose
of the current investment is in fact to develop a new weapons
programme. That is what they say you are doing at Aldermaston.
One of the things I asked about earlier is this idea of a virtual
arsenal, in other words you do not have the boat, you do not have
the missiles, you retain the capability to revitalise the nuclear
programme should you wish, some would say like the Japanese are
and they decided yesterday not to do that in response to North
Korea. I mention that now because it seems to me that what Mr
Bennett is saying is what I understand the position to be and
what was actually declared when you made the investment recently,
which was to say that you would keep not only questions of current
safety, but the minimum capability to design a successor, should
it be required, and keep all the options open. So in terms of
the skills there are at Aldermaston, there are all the skills
required to do all of these things along this continuum. Should
you wish to go to a position where Aldermaston, like Porton Down,
which does not produce aggressive weapons in terms, say, of biological
weapons, but is there to defend against them, should you wish
to use Aldermaston more for a defensive process or a verification
process and looking at those sorts of aspects, all of those skills
are there because you need the same skills to do that end as you
do to develop a new programme. Is my understanding right? So it
is truly a case that Aldermaston is almost, as you said at the
start, separate from the argument.
Lord Drayson: I think that is
right. We have a responsibility as a nation to make sure that
we are doing everything we need to do to ensure the safety and
effectiveness of the existing nuclear deterrent and that requires
an investment in Aldermaston in terms of skills and facilities
and for us to invest to upgrade those where we have the potential
to use developments in physics and computer science to do so.
That is the basis upon which that decision was taken, the reason
it was taken, but it is absolutely true to say that those skills
and that know-how does have relation to the capability within
this country in terms of the potential ability in the future should
it be required to design a new nuclear warhead. We have to take
that decision relating to the maintenance separately anyway.
Q275 Mr Hancock: I
agree entirely with that concept that you have to test the existing
warheads to be sure of their capability, their suitability and
their safety. You would have had to have planne about, when you
started to adjust the warheads in the late 1990s?d some time ago
to bring these current acquisitions into play and I should be
grateful if you could explain to me over what timeframe these
decisions were made to buy this new equipment that you should
have had, that you were thinking about, when you started to adjust
the warheads in the late 1990s?
Mr Bennett: The programme that
we put in place was started by the previous Chief Scientific Adviser
some three and a half to four years ago and that led to the establishment
of the current programme round about two years ago. Up until that
point we had been satisfied with the process that we had there,
but we were reaching a point where the majority of the facilities
at Aldermaston were over 50 years' old and we were entering a
regulatory regime where we were going to need either to refurbish
those or replace those or we would be unable to keep those going.
This is not something which came upon us suddenly: we had reached
the point where finally we had to do something about it otherwise
we would have found ourselves in a position where we would not
be able to maintain the current programme.
Q276 Mr Hancock: Are we talking
about the facility or the kit inside the facility? You said that
the facility was now 50 years' old, but that is the organisation
itself, is it not? We are talking about you having in place equipment
to test the existing missiles which are now currently on boats
at sea, the UK's deterrent. I am interested to know when the decisions
were taken, how it was agreed and how much it cost to finance
the upgrade of that to carry out that same process.
Mr Bennett: I am sorry, but I
am still not quite clear as to the exact question.
Mr Hancock: I want to know when and how
much it cost. When were the decisions made? We heard this morning
that a lot of the investment in Aldermaston was to re-establish
the buildings, that some of those needed a lot of ... and I entirely
accept that. I want to know about the specific equipment which
has been purchased or is in the process of being purchased. When
was that decision made?
Chairman: Are you talking about the laser?
Q277 Mr Hancock: The laser and
Mr Bennett: Europe's largest computer.
That was taken in 2005. That was when the programme was approved
by Ministers.
Q278 Mr Hancock: Was there a plan
before that?
Lord Drayson: Yes.
Mr Bennett: Yes, there was.
Q279 Mr Havard: It followed through
from the decisions made in 1998 as I understand it. That is what
I am trying to establish. Aldermaston is required to dismantle
things as well as build things. It is their role to keep things
safe in the interim. It has to do all of these things. Even if
you decided to junk the whole process tomorrow, you cannot take
it down to the dump, can you? You have to do something with it,
so you require these skills to do that. In a sense the institution
of Aldermaston might be capable of doing one and all of these
things and some might be more desirable than others but nevertheless
it has to be capable of doing them all and therefore is almost
coincidental, though related, to the decision about whether you
are going to continue and develop. Is that correct?
Lord Drayson: You have made a
very important point, which is that the need would still be there.
Even if a decision were taken to dismantle the nuclear deterrent
we have a responsibility to the country to do that safely and
we have to have the expertise and capability to do it. That capability
would depend upon Aldermaston and we have to make the investment
to ensure that the know-how and the capability are there and up
to scratch. That is why that investment is needed. Whatever decision
is taken about the replacement of the deterrent or not we do need
to have that capability at Aldermaston.
|