HC Deb 24 July 1984 vol 64 cc807-9
3. Mr. Skinner

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the projected annual running costs of Trident.

7. Mr. Dixon

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what are the projected annual running costs of Trident.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine)

The running costs of the Trident force must be to some extent speculative at this time, but as a percentage of the defence budget it is unlikely to be significantly different from the present cost of Polaris; that is, some 1.5 per cent. each year.

Mr. Skinner

Is it not a fact that the cost of Trident increases by about £25 million for every 1 cent fall of the pound against the dollar? As the Government have admitted that they have no control over the way in which the dollar reacts in the world economy, why are they prepared to write a blank cheque for nuclear missiles to provide Americans with jobs, but are not prepared to write a blank cheque to sustain Britain's coal reserves?

Mr. Heseltine

The answer, briefly, is that the Government believe that it is necessary for the United Kingdom to have an ultimate deterrent. Short of facing the Soviet Union with the hon. Gentleman, I can think of no other more effective ultimate deterrent.

Mr. Dixon

Does the Secretary of State agree that Trident is a complete waste of money? Had Trident been in service two years ago during the Falklands dispute, it would not have deterred Galtieri, but it would have made it impossible to send a task force to the south Atlantic. The money to be spent on Trident will be at the expense of the surface fleet. Will the Government change their mind and cancel this useless project?

Mr. Heseltine

No, the Government will not change their mind. We expect the spending on the conventional navy to be higher in each year of this decade than it was when the Government were first elected.

Sir Peter Blaker

Is it not essential that the Government should carry through their plan to acquire Trident for two reasons: first, that we cannot be sure that Polaris will be effective in penetrating hostile defences of the sort that are likely to be deployed in the mid 1990s; and, secondly, that there is no alternative to Trident which will be effective and cost less money?

Mr. Heseltine

My right hon. Friend is, of course, perfectly correct. The one question on which the Labour party does not agree is the scale of the threat posed by the Soviet Union.

Mr. Johnston

Does not the possession of Trident assume its unilateral use without the agreement of the United States? If it does not mean that, why have Trident?

Mr. Heseltine

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that it is a totally independent British system. The whole purpose of the possession of such a system is deterrence, not use.

Mrs. McCurley

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Trident programme is on time and will not be affected by internal wranglings at British Shipbuilders?

Mr. Heseltine

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. I had noted comments of the kind that might have prompted her question. I believe that we shall carry through the Trident programme as we have planned.

Mr. James Lamond

When contemplating spending thousands of millions of pounds on Trident, even if the money is spent over several years, does not the Secretary of State's conscience bother him when he looks at the television programmes about the starving children in the Third world?

Mr. Heseltine

My conscience would bother me a great deal more if I looked at the threat of the Soviet Union and did not ensure that this country was adequatedly defended.

Mr. Moate

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the running costs of the present strategic nuclear force are under 0.1 per cent. of our gross national product? Is that not a remarkably low price to pay for the preservation of peace? Will not exactly the same arguments apply to Trident?

Mr. Heseltine

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I had not seen that statistic. I am sure that it is soundly based. I believe the House realises that the running costs of Trident are likely to be broadly equivalent to the costs that were appropriate to the running of Polaris. As the Labour Government ran Polaris for such a significant time and and in secret modernised it with the Chevaline process, I had assumed that, on this issue at least, we would be able to find commmon accord with the Labour Party.

Mr. Madden

Why is the Secretary of State so coy about the costs of Trident? Does he agree that, if the Trident programme were abandoned, the National Health Service could meet the real needs of the people, we could have houses for those who are in need of housing and give decent pensions to the people?

Mr. Heseltine

We would have a Government who would sell out the country's basic interests for each cheap promise that the Labour party is capable of designing.

Mr. Cartwright

Is the Secretary of State saying that the comments by a former chairman of Vickers—that there is difficulty in finding the sort of skilled staff needed for the Trident programme and that the dismissal of a former managing director of Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness is a disaster for the Trident programme—are incorrect? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is possible to bring in the Trident programme on the time scale that was originally suggested?

Mr. Heseltine

Of course, I have seen the comments to which the hon. Gentleman referred. He will be aware that the responsibility for the management of that yard must lie with British Shipbuilders. It is for British Shipbuilders to answer the detailed questions and to be sure that it has the management necessary to carry out the decisions.

Mr. Denzil Davies

Is the Secretary of State aware that we understand why he is frightened to put a figure on the running costs of Trident.? Will he confirm that the running and support costs of Polaris come to about £600 million per year? Will he also confirm that it is reasonable to infer that the costs for Trident will certainly not be less than £600 million?

Mr. Heseltine

If I had to confirm the figures in which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to believe and upon which he presumably bases his totally indefensible defence policies, I might feel some concern; but, as the right hon. Gentleman's figures are much closer to 300 per cent. of the actual costs, they show how wildly inaccurate he is.