§ Mr. Nott
The figure of £6,000 million is not authoritative, nor is it true. I have given the figure. The current estimate is £5,000 million Clearly, £5,000 million spent on Trident is £5,000 million less to spend on something else. That is a statement of the obvious. We have to consider the most effective way to spend that sum in the preservation of peace. That, as I hope to state in the debate, is the argument for Trident.
§ Mr. Latham
What proportion of the work on Trident will be done by British workers, and what will be the cost in the next two years?
§ Mr. Nott
Approximately three-quarters of the work will be done here. The submarines will be built in Barrow and the warheads will be made here. I cannot give an estimate of likely expenditure on Trident over the next two years. We are never prepared to break down expenditure year by year in that way.
§ Mr. Ioan Evans
If the £5 billion is not to be extra expenditure but to come from existing expenditure, will it come entirely from the Navy's expenditure?
§ Mr. Jessel
Is my right hon. Friend aware that £5,000 million over 15 years with a population of more than 50 million works out at less than 2p per head per day? Is not that a very modest price to keep our people safe and free?