Asked by
of Partick
To ask His Majesty's Government how many decommissioned
nuclear-powered submarines there are in Scotland; and how many
years it will take to safely dismantle them.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence () (Lab)
My Lords, there are seven decommissioned and defueled nuclear
power submarines in Rosyth Royal Dockyard, Scotland. “Swiftsure”,
the first vessel being disposed of, is being used as a
demonstrator to refine the dismantling process under the Ministry
of Defence's submarine dismantling project. Learning from
“Swiftsure” will provide more certainty about the schedule for
dismantling the remaining decommissioned Royal Navy submarines.
The full dismantling of “Swiftsure” is due to be complete in
2026, achieving the commitment given to the Public Accounts
Committee in 2019.
of Partick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his Answer. My Question happily
coincided with information that was released last week, but there
remains real concern that not one of these submarines has yet
been dismantled. Bearing in mind that one Dreadnought submarine
in Rosyth has been out of service since 1980, it will take
decades to dismantle the boats remaining in both Scotland and
Devonport. Can the Minister say whether there has been any
progress in finding a site for the radioactive waste disposal
facility which will be essential to progressing this work?
(Lab)
On all the things that my noble friend mentions there is progress
and ongoing discussions, including the waste disposal site, but
we are trying to speed up the submarine dismantling programme.
Seven submarines at Rosyth are decommissioned. All have been
defueled. “Swiftsure” is now in dry dock. That will be fully
dismantled by the end of 2026. There are 15 such submarines at
Devonport. Four of those have been defueled. However, my noble
friend is quite right; we need to speed up the process and we are
certainly looking at every way in which we can do that.
(Con)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the time taken to dismantle
the retired submarines. How long will it take to get the new
ones?
(Lab)
The noble Lord is right to ask about dismantling. As I said to my
noble friend, we are seeking to speed up that process. On the new
submarines, if he is referring to the Astute class submarines,
seven were ordered, six are already in the water and one is now
under construction in Barrow. If he means the successor to the
Vanguard class, we expect the first to be in service in the early
2030s. We are making considerable progress, and I hope that
answers his question.
of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness's follow-up question pointed out,
there is an accumulation of nuclear submarines that have been
decommissioned but are still in Rosyth or Devonport. Are His
Majesty's Government sure that they are safe? Can the Minister
commit to ensuring that freedom of information requests are
responded to? Apparently, the MoD has not been responding to
safety questions.
(Lab)
On freedom of information requests, if the noble Baroness has any
examples that she would like me to look into, she only has to ask
and I will certainly do so. Freedom of information requests
should be responded to within the timeframe laid down, so I will
look at that. As I said, we are looking to accelerate the
dismantling programme. I am confident that the processes that we
are seeking to put in place will speed that up and that they are
safe.
Lord (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, mentioned the disposal
of nuclear material as and when it is eventually removed from the
submarines. Can the Minister confirm, perhaps by letter, whether
the establishment of a new disposal site—which has been debated
for many years and is still no nearer, as far I can tell—will
require primary legislation to be enacted? If not, how would the
planning process be developed for the future disposal of that
nuclear material?
(Lab)
I may need to write to the noble Lord. I usually like to be able
to respond directly to questions, but I do not want to get the
planning process wrong or give the wrong answer on whether
primary or secondary legislation is needed. I will respond to him
with a letter to make sure that I am accurate and will place a
copy in the Library so that it is available to all noble
Lords.
(Con)
My Lords, on 20 May 2021, the Conservative Government published
an update on the submarine dismantling project, stating that 90%
of the decommissioned submarine materials could be recycled. Is
the Minister in a position to confirm that his Government are
committed to retaining that target? On the experience of
decommissioning HMS “Swiftsure”, which is very well advanced, can
he also indicate whether there is any proposal to secure an
engineering impact assessment to understand how the process for
future submarines might be expedited?
(Lab)
I pay tribute to the work that the noble Baroness did to try to
speed up some of these processes. She asked two very pertinent
questions. For “Swiftsure”, we retained the 90% recycling target.
She will know that once a decommissioned submarine such as
“Swiftsure” is defueled, there is an initial phase that takes the
nuclear material out. Then there is an intermediate phase, which
is followed by dry-docking—which is where “Swiftsure” is—for the
rest of the submarine to be recycled. We expect 90% of that to be
recycled. The whole point of “Swiftsure” is that it acts as a
demonstrator project so that we can learn from how that was
done—what worked and what perhaps could have been improved—and
then apply that to all the other submarines that have been
decommissioned.
(PC)
Does the Minister recall the late, great Sir John Houghton, who
identified the dangers of global warming several decades ago? As
an eminent scientist, he identified the potential to generate
electricity by reworking some of the nuclear waste that comes
from not only submarines but other parts of the Armed Forces. Are
the Government investigating that aspect?
(Lab)
No, we are not investigating that for nuclear submarines. The MoD
takes climate change very seriously, and I have recently signed
off a submission about fuel and its better economic use with
respect to climate change. Right across the MoD, climate change
is taken seriously, but on the noble Lord's specific question
about decommissioning nuclear submarines, there is no intention
to use them, for example, to go into the grid.
(Con)
My Lords, are the older submarines more difficult to recycle than
the Swiftsure class?
(Lab)
We will understand that more fully once we have finished the
demonstrator project with HMS “Swiftsure”.
(LD)
My Lords, the Minister says—it is not his fault—that the new
nuclear submarines will not be delivered for another six years,
yet the current length of patrols for the Astute class is getting
longer. The crews have to cope with long periods of being away
from their families and their homes. There is also stress around
the recruitment of those crews. How do we square the circle over
the next five or six years when, because of the maintenance of
the current fleet, the length of patrols is likely to get even
longer?
(Lab)
Let me just say to the noble Lord that everything that happens is
now my responsibility. If I gave the impression that it was not
my responsibility, that certainly was not my intention. I will
not evade responsibility for anything.
On the noble Lord's question, I am not going to go into the
operations of our submarine fleet in great detail on the Floor of
this House, for obvious reasons. However, the noble Lord makes a
point, as he has done here previously, about the welfare of
submariners—indeed, the welfare of all our Armed Forces. That is
something we take very seriously. We are looking to do all we can
to support them and ensure that they are supported in the way
they should be. In a few months' time, or a year's time, perhaps
the noble Lord can ask the same question, and we will see whether
we have made the progress we should have done; that will be my
responsibility.
of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, with no disrespect to the important Question asked by
my noble friend Lady Bryan, should we not be even more worried
about Russian nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed submarines in the
Atlantic and elsewhere? Can the Minister give us a complete
assurance that we have all the capability to keep an eye on them
to make sure that our danger is minimised?
(Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He refers to our
continuous at-sea deterrent. Under every Government, that
continuous at-sea deterrent has been maintained. It is a crucial
part of our defence of our democracy, of our freedom and against
Russian aggression. That policy has been the same whatever the
colour of the Government. The previous Government dealt with that
and wanted to modernise the deterrent. We will carry on with
that. It is an important part of our deterrent posture. Our
adversaries should know that, 24 hours a day, seven days a week
and 365 days a year, our at-sea deterrent will continue for as
long as is necessary.
(Con)
The Minister said that the MoD is not considering how it could
use the material from decommissioned nuclear submarines for
generation. Can he say whether that is for technical reasons—that
is, limitations of technology—or for other reasons?
(Lab)
I suspect that it is for safety reasons and that it is not the
best way of using that material. I am not a nuclear physicist nor
an expert on nuclear material, but I suspect that it will be
something to do with it being too expensive, not safe or simply
not appropriate to do it in that way. Obviously, all that will
have been considered and decisions made as a consequence.
