HC Deb 10 November 1981 vol 12 cc410-2
9. Mr. Beith

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Trident missile project.

13. Mr. Stoddart

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

16. Mr. Newens

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if there has been any increase in the anticipated cost of Trident since the decision to go ahead with this missile system was taken; and if he will make a statement.

21. Mr. Hooley

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the cost of the Trident programme in the light of the decision to make use of a more advanced design of missile.

Mr. Nott

As I have already made clear to the House, we are still studying the final configuration of the United Kingdom Trident force. I shall announce our decisions, and their cost implications, in due course.

Mr. Beith

Which estimate will be nearer—the £5 billion given by the Secretary of State in July 1980 or the £8 billion forecast by the Liberals when we debated this subject? Does the right hon. Gentleman not see this massive diversion from conventional equipment for our Forces as being likely to lower the nuclear threshold and pose the danger of the suicide option of nuclear first use referred to by General Haig?

Mr. Nott

When I am ready to make a statement, the hon. Gentleman will have an answer to the first part of his question. The Trident force will represent approximately 3 per cent. of the total defence budget over the 15 years that we are planning to build it. I cannot believe that that represents a sharp, adverse impact on our conventional programme.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered.

Mr. Stoddart

Is it not a fact that various estimates, up to £8 billion, are now being predicted for the cost of this project? Is there no limit to its expense? If there is, will the Secretary of State tell us and also say why this project should not be subject to cash limits when projects of local authorities, health services, and other desirable enterprises are being held back by the Treasury?

Mr. Nott

There is a limit to its cost—

Mr. William Hamilton

What is it?

Mr. Nott

It is subject to cash limits in the same way as every other project. I cannot remember the third part of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Newens

Does not the fact that President Reagan has now decided to go ahead with the Trident II missile scheme mean that if we go ahead with our present insane policy Britain will also have to purchase Trident II? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether that is his view and, if so, how much that will add to the original estimate?

Mr. Nott

The reason why we are looking at the matter now is due to President Reagan's decision on D5. As I made clear when I appeared before the House of Commons Select Committee on Defence, the capital costs of D5 will be higher than those of C4. It is by no means certain that the through-life costs of the D5 system will be more than those of the C4. In due course, I shall be able to enlighten the hon. Gentleman.

The latest poll in The Observer, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman read with interest, showed that 56 per cent. of the Labour Party are in favour of the retention of an independent nuclear deterrent, and that 67 per cent. of the British people as a whole also favour it. I am sure that that will not encourage the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hooley

As unemployment in the United Kingdom climbs towards 4 million, and in the United States towards 10 million, does the Secretary of State seriously think that the public on either side of the Atlantic will tolerate this nuclear megalomania?

Mr. Nott

No one is tolerating any such thing. We are trying to maintain peace.

Mr. Hal Miller

Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the American decision to make Trident missiles available, and the cost at which they were made available, was dependent upon an undertaking on our part not to diminish our conventional forces, particularly our naval watch in the Atlantic? Will he therefore now tell us whether our American allies are satisfied that we are carrying out our part of the bargain and whether any reconsideration has been given to maintaining our anti-submarine carrier force and escort forces in the Atlantic?

Mr. Nott

The United States Administration are keen that we should modernise our independent strategic nuclear deterrent because they believe that its possession by us is an added guarantee for the maintenance of peace. With regard to cost, the additional resources that the Government have already agreed to put into defence—namely 3 per cent. extra in the next few years—more than absorbs the cost of Trident over the next few years. Therefore, with the increased defence spending that we have agreed, there is no reason for our conventional forces to be adversely affected thereby.

Mr. John

Does the Secretary of State accept, and will he confirm what is being widely reported that the British missiles will cost up to £5 million each more than their American counterparts?

Mr. Nott

I have never seen that report, and it sounds to me another bit of nonsense.

Mr. Trippier

As it has been calculated that the cost of Trident is approximately 2p per day per head of population, is not that an insurance worth paying? Does my right hon. Friend agree that even though some people may think that Trident is expensive, it is nowhere near as expensive as the war that it will help to prevent?

Mr. Nott

My hon Friend is entirely correct, although I am afraid that I cannot verify his arithmetical calculations.

Dr. Bray

Does the Secretary of State agree that the political likelihood of the cancellation of Trident before the programme is anywhere near completion in itself makes a strong case for a reconsideration of the programme?

Mr. Nott

I am confident that the Trident programme will be seen through to completion. It is the policy of this Government, and therefore it will go forward under us. If, by some grievous misfortune for the country, another party were to form the Government during the next 15 years, I have not the slightest doubt that, as in the past, that party when it gained that power would confirm the independent strategic nuclear deterrent, as the Labour Party has always done in the past.