§ 10. Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he remains satisfied that Trident costs can be contained within the billion figure already given and that the system can be delivered on time.
§ Mr. NottAs I said in the House on 3 March, last summer we put the cost of the Trident system at some £4½ billion to £5 billion. Closer estimating depends on studies still in progress and decisions not yet taken, for example, on the preceise size and characteristics of the submarine.
Subject to these final decisions, I have no reason to doubt that the system can be delivered on time.
§ Mr. RossWill the Secretary of State confirm that reports from the United States now suggest that costs are likely to rise by at least 10 per cent. and that the Americans themselves are in difficulty with their Trident programme and have not decided whether to go for a C4 or a D5? When shall we have definite statements on the type of Trident submarine that we intend to build and on when the updating of the estimates will take place?
§ Mr. NottThe problems affecting the United States nuclear submarine building programme are different from the situation here. Decisions are pending in the United States about the future missile system that might be used, but they are not directly relevant to us. As our memorandum said, we are planning to go forward with a Trident I missile system. We are, of course, interested in achieving the maximum commonality with the United States, and we are considering these matters as we go along.
§ Mr. ChurchillAs it will be at least 10 years before the British Trident system is deployed, is it not a matter of extreme concern that the British long-range theatre nuclear capability, which contributes 50 per cent. of NATO's capability in Europe, should be allowed to wither on the vine? Will my right hon. Friend seriously consider the matter once again?
§ Mr. NottBecause we consider the matter to be so serious we are fully supporting the deployment of cruise 144 missiles in this country. The Vulcan force might represent a large proportion of the long-range theatre strike force at present but I fear that beside the SS20 and the Backfire bomber, the equivalent Soviet systems, our systems are in the grossest need of modernisation. That is why we must go ahead with the cruise missile programme as soon as possible.
§ Mr. NewensIs the Minister saying that the increased costs suggested in the United States will have no effect on the cost of Trident in Britain? If he is not saying that, how does he expect any increased costs in Britain to be accommodated? Will not the percentage expenditure devoted to nuclear weapons have to rise considerably above the figure postulated?