§ 14. Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made any up-to-date assessment of the implications of the Trident programme for conventional defence spending.
§ Mr. StanleyMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence expects to be able to announce a revised costing for the Trident programme fairly soon. The Government's firm view is that, through the procurement of Trident, the United Kingdom can make an immeasurably greater contribution to deterrence and to the preservation of peace than by having conventional forces alone.
§ Mr. HughesCan the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is prepared to sacrifice conventional defence so that the Trident programme can go ahead unimpeded?
§ Mr. StanleyThere is no question of sacrificing conventional defence. My right hon. Friend has already made it clear that we have built up conventional defence expenditure to a vastly higher level than it was when we came to office in 1979. We must consider the totality of deterrence. Our firm view, which was shared by the Labour Government, which the hon. Gentleman presumably supported, is that a combination of nuclear and conventional deterrence is much better for the security interests of Britain and NATO than resting on conventional weapons only.
§ Mr. GreenwayDoes my right hon. Friend agree that conventional defence would be no defence without a nuclear deterrent? Does he further agree that the Trident programme will enable the twin arms of defence to go ahead together?
§ Mr. StanleyMy hon. Friend is entirely right. It is not possible to provide protection against nuclear blackmail through conventional weapons. He is also right in saying that nuclear and conventional defence represent the best combination for Britain. It has been accepted by successive Governments.
§ Mr. BoyesDoes the right hon. Gentleman agree that our forces are ill-equipped to carry out their major task, which is to defend Britain? Would not the cancellation of Trident, a proposal which is supported by the overwhelming majority of the British people, release cash to create jobs in British industry and to build the essential non-nuclear defence equipment that we need?
§ Mr. StanleyOur forces are substantially better equipped than they were when the Labour party was in office. I am glad to say that the British people have voted in election after election for the preservation of Britain's independent strategic nuclear deterrent.
§ Sir Antony BuckDoes my right hon. Friend agree that the reasons for our acquiring this new weapon are precisely the same as those which led the Labour party to update Polaris with Chevaline, without even informing the House of Commons of the decision?
§ Mr. StanleyMy hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. Many people will wonder why the Labour party wants to run away from the modernisation of Britain's independent deterrent in opposition when it did the same covertly when in office.
§ Mr. Denzil DaviesIs the Minister aware that the Secretary of State has made an important statement? The right hon. Gentleman said that there will not be a fundamental review but a cash review and that Trident is fundamental and sacrosanct. Does that mean that the cash review will fall entirely on Britain's conventional forces?
§ Mr. StanleyWe shall continue with the Trident programme.
§ Sir Geoffrey Johnson SmithIf the Government were so foolish as to cancel Trident, how many tank divisions would the money buy?
§ Mr. StanleyI shall not give my hon. Friend an answer off the top of my head, but I can tell him that any number of tank divisions would provide no protection against the nuclear blackmail posed by the massive weight of the Soviet Union's nuclear armoury.