HC Deb 17 March 1981 vol 1 cc183-4
2. Mr. Flannery

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the total cost of the Trident programme.

Mr. Nott

The figure is about £5 billion.

Mr. Flannery

Even if one accepts the theory of nuclear deterrence, does the Minister not agree that the number of deterrents in the United States and the Soviet Union is now horrendous and massive and would blow mankind sky high if anything went wrong? Does he agree that any shade or nuance of meaning from this country is as nothing compared with those deterrents? The Minister says "£5 billion", so casually and almost monosyllabically. Could not that amount of money, put back into our economy, do a great deal to regenerate British industry and put many thousands of our people back to work? Would not that be better than spending it so uselessly on this so-called deterrent, basically to maintain a friendly relationship between us and the United States?

Mr. Nott

I doubt whether the shipyard workers in Barrow, who will be receiving a large proportion of that money in extra shipbuilding orders, would share the hon. Gentleman's view. Of the £5 billion, 70 per cent. will be spent with British industry; it will help to increase jobs and will go back into the British economy. As for the deterrent aspect, although, I agree, the scale of growth of nuclear strategic weapons is horrendous, our independent deterrent will make a significant contribution to the deterring of any aggressor because it involves a second area of decision-making. The hon. Gentleman must know all the arguments for that: I outlined them at some length in the recent debate on Trident.

Mr. Farr

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is very encouraging that 70 per cent. of the total cost of Trident will be spent in United Kingdom firms? Can he confirm that over 80 per cent. of the electronics of Trident will be backed by United Kingdom businesses?

Mr. Nott

Yes, I can confirm that 70 per cent, will be spent in this country. Without reference, I cannot tell my hon. Friend the precise percentage that will be spent on electronics in the United Kingdom but I will check that and write to him.

Mr. John

The Secretary of State's talk of extra jobs is a little disingenuous. If the report in The Guardian this morning is right, and the Government have refused to reopen Cammell Laird, does that mean that the Barrow shipyards will build Trident submarines at the cost of the interruption of the long programme of the hunter-killer submarine? Does he agree that that is an opportunity-cost interruption to the defence effort of this country which makes nonsense of spending £5 billion on a marginal addition to the so-called deterrent at the expense of interrupting our other defence commitments?

Mr. Nott

The future shipbuilding programme for SSNs—the non-ballistic nuclear submarines—over the 10-year period that we are talking about has not yet been decided, so the hon. Gentleman is in no position to make that judgment. As for expenditure, every Labour Government since the war have considered it desirable, if not essential, that we should have an independent strategic nuclear deterrent. If the Labour Party has changed its mind at this juncture, one must ask why, when the threat is increasing year by year.