HC Deb 21 July 1981 vol 9 cc154-5
9. Mr. Marlow

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Trident project.

Mr. Nott

The Trident project is proceeding according to plan. Orders for long-lead material have already been placed in the United States; planning proposals have been put to local authorities for a support base in Scotland; and a decision on the design of the Trident submarine will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Marlow

How does my right hon. Friend compare the deterrent effect of an independent British nuclear arm with conventional forces, and how does he compare the cost?

Mr. Nott

I do not think that there is any doubt that, from a cost-effective point of view, Trident has an immeasurably greater deterrent effect than spending an equivalent amount on conventional forces.

Mr. Stoddart

But is not the Government's preoccupation with Trident leading to their wilful neglect of our real defences, particularly of the Royal Navy, as well as making this country open to and the first target of any nuclear war?

Mr. Nott

This Government are no more preoccupied with Trident than the previous Government were preoccupied with Polaris and the modernisation of Polaris with Chevaline. We have had an independent strategic nuclear deterrent under all parties for many years, and there is no change in policy in continuing with it.

Mr. Archie Hamilton

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the worries about the cost of Trident and the pressures that it will bring to bear on other parts of our defence expenditure, and, consequently, how essential it is that it keeps within its original cost budget?

Mr. Nott

Of course, I am aware that various people have expressed concern about the impact of Trident on the equipment programme. But, as I have already said, in terms of its capacity to prevent war and maintain peace, I cannot think of any other form of expenditure that conceivably could be as effective as Trident.

Mr. John

If other projects, notably Chevaline, have, to quote the Secretary of State's graphic economic phrase, "gone bananas", what steps does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take to prevent this system from doing the same?

When will the right hon. Gentleman announce which type of Trident missile this country will acquire? Will it be mark 1 or mark 2? The size of boat that we build will depend on that decision.

Mr. Nott

I made a comment on the cost of Chevaline, which escalated from the original estimates primarily, I believe, under the Labour Government. In the past three years, the estimate has remained roughly the same at £1 billion. I made that comment in an attempt to explain that that was an argument for buying a known and proven system—Trident—rather than attempting on our own to embark on highly advanced technological weapon systems such as Chevaline.