To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reason for his decision to decommission HMS Warspite.

As my right hon. Friend announced to the House last year, we envisage a future submarine force of about 16 boats, around three quarters of which will be nuclear powered. As there were 17 nuclear submarines in the fleet on 25 July, a number of older boats, including HMS Warspite, are being decommissioned.

Have not the Government have already wasted £100 million in a refit for this submarine, despite the fact that they knew in their private reports of the likelihood of the need to decommission because of problems with its reactor? Will the Minister advise the House what will be the cost of decommissioning Warspite, and are there any other submarines of a similar type which in the next few years will have to be decommissioned because of problems with their nuclear reactors?

I cannot comment on the material state of nuclear submarines. However, I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that we are decommissioning the oldest submarines that we have, which seems to be a very sensible thing to do in terms of taking out those that are least capable.

While there may be a case for decommissioning this particular nuclear submarine, may I invite my hon. Friend to reconsider the wisdom of reducing the nuclear submarine fleet in the light of the uncertainties in the world at present and the fleet's undoubted flexibility?

Yes, I fully accept what my hon. Friend says about the flexibility of nuclear submarines. However, under "Options for Change" we have given serious consideration to the United Kingdom's requirements in the light of changed circumstances in Europe. In this context we believe that 12 nuclear submarines is about the right number.