HC Deb 15 January 1980 vol 976 cc1417-9
8. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his intentions regarding the Trident, its approximate cost and date of construction.

Mr. Pym

We are still examining the options for replacing the current Polaris force when it reaches the end of its useful life in the 1990s.

Mr. Allaun

I do not consider that a very adequate answer. However, if the British Government proceed with Trident, does this not destroy our flexibility in future nuclear negotiations? Does it not damage the prospects regarding SALT, on which our future depends?

Mr. Pym

I am bound to say that I think that SALT is pretty damaged as things stand today. That has to be recognised. Of course, there are considerations of this kind, whichever option is chosen. A number of articles about the Trident system are pure speculation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, no decision has yet been reached.

Mr. Douglas

Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to indicating in the forthcoming defence White Paper the total cost of the Trident system, plus five nuclear submarines, over the life of the assets, so that we know how much it would cost the nation, both in capital terms and—particularly in relation to my constituency—in terms of the number of men who might be employed and the wages paid to them over the life of the system?

Mr. Pym

No, but of course cost is highly relevant in our consideration of any possible system. Estimating costs is therefore an important part in the consideration of options that are in hand.

Mr. Rodgers

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government were examining options and he has told us previously that he expects a decision to be made this year. As he will appreciate, many complicated issues are at stake. Will he consider making available to the House a great deal more information than has normally been made available? As he knows, it is often easier to learn about our defence policy in Washington than in the House. Notwithstanding security considerations, we would greatly benefit from an informed debate.

Mr. Pym

I am sensitive to requests for the widest possible amount of information, but it is a mistake to imply that all that one learns in Washington about defence or anything else is necessarily a contribution to truth or knowledge. That is no criticism, but it is so. Because the matter is so complicated and the material is so sensitive in relation to national security it is necessary for any Government to treat the issue with the utmost care. As I have said before, it is my desire at the appropriate stage, and perhaps at several stages, to make available to the House as much information as possible.