HC Deb 21 July 1981 vol 9 cc158-9
14. Mr. McNally

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied that the decision in favour of Trident will not reduce the research and development resources of the United Kingdom's defence-related aerospace industry.

Mr. Nott

Trident is the most cost-effective weapon available for the modernisation of our strategic nuclear deterrent; and 70 per cent. of its cost will be spent in the United Kingdom. I believe that the United Kingdom aerospace industry will have been encouraged by the wide range of improvements in aircraft and associated systems now proposed as a result of my recent review of the defence programme.

Mr. McNally

Is the Secretary of State aware that he has not answered the question and that he certainly will not have removed the fears of the workers in the aerospace industry that, yet again, defence procurement in the United Kingdom—in contrast to the United States—instead of advancing our research and development, is transferring resources to American industry? Will not that have a devastating effect on the British aerospace industry in the 1980s and 1990s?

Mr. Nott

That simply is not true. If the Labour Party came to power and cancelled the Trident system, there would be over £4 billion less work for British industry. In fact, in the aerospace industry, most of the plans that were already in train were confirmed, and therefore a great deal of extra business will flow into that industry, as indeed a great deal of extra business for British industry and workers will result from the Trident programme.

Mr. Onslow

Can my right hon. Friend then tell the House how many jobs in defence-related industries—whether in Trident, or defence sales, or any of the other areas that Labour Members are so keen to attack—are located in the constituencies of Labour Members who are committed to unilateral disarmament?

Mr. Nott

I do not believe that it would be possible to achieve the defence savings that the Labour Party suggests that it would try to make. I think it would be impossible to achieve such savings within the time scale that Labour Members suggest. But if they were to cut the defence programme in any way the effect on jobs in every constituency would be devastating

Mr. Stephen Ross

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that his commitment to Trident will not affect his consideration of the replacement of the Sea King helicopter?

Mr. Nott

The two matters are entirely separate.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Will my right hon. Friend confirm, however, that there has been no cutback in the research and development expenditure for British Aerospace defence-related projects? I am sure that he is aware that we must keep very much in advance with research and development if we are to provide the equipment which we require, which is so valuable as exports and which, as my right hon. Friend rightly said, provides jobs.

Mr. Nott

I cannot make a general statement of that kind. I would say that we are probably spending too great a proportion of our budget on research and development. We certainly spend much more on it than do most of our NATO allies, and there is a limit to what we can do in that direction. We are therefore reviewing our R and D effort in general.