§ 6. Mr. Livseyasked the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been (a) committed and (b) spent to date on the Trident project.
§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger)To date, £2,400 million has been contractually committed on the Trident project, of which some £620 million has been spent.
§ Mr. LivseyCan the Minister say what effect the expenditure will have on our conventional forces, especially in terms of frigates and Challenger tanks, and the opportunity costs of that?
§ Mr. YoungerIf such a comparison is to be made, the effect of having no Trident deterrent in the mid-1990s onwards would be much more expensive in the vastly greater number of conventional arms that would be needed to replace it.
§ Mr. SquireHas my right hon. Friend ascertained whether the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Livsey), in asking that question, was speaking on behalf of the Liberal party leadership, the SDP alliance, or the Liberal party conference? Should we not be told the position?
§ Mr. YoungerI had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be able to enlighten us on what his leader thinks about the matter. The only thing that I have been able to ascertain so far is that he will not be able to make up his mind for some years yet. The House may feel that that makes Ethelred the Unready look positively constructive by comparison.
§ Mr. DouglasIn view of the considerable expenditure of which the Secretary of State has given notice to the House, will he indicate the unique nature of the Trident contract that has been placed with Vickers? Will he provide details of the background and say why it was necessary to have a contract whose cancellation would involve 125 per cent. of the official price? Additionally, will the Secretary of State assure my constituents, who are 900 extremely perturbed about the way in which the Ministry of Defence is going about the expansion of Rosyth naval base, that full disclosure will be made in terms of safety and other environmental aspects to the people in the locality of Limekilns regarding the proposed expenditure for Trident at Rosyth?
§ Mr. YoungerOn the hon. Gentleman's first point, there is a copy of the contract with the contract-break clause for HMS Vanguard in the Library of the House. The contract shows that, in the event of cancellation in the limited period before the second Trident boat is ordered, the MOD has agreed to meet properly incurred liabilities up to 125 per cent. of the sum payable for completing the contract. That sum would be paid only if the liabilities had been properly incurred.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I apprediate his constituents' concern about safety. Those concerns will be considered with the greatest care. I think that his constituents are really concerned whether the Labour party, in government, would cancel the Trident project and destroy most of their jobs.
§ Mr. LeighIf my right hon. Friend believed that not only should Trident not be replaced at any cost but that Britain should unilaterally disarm, if his right hon. Friend the leader of the party believed that Trident should not be replaced but that Polaris should be allowed to linger on as an increasingly decrepit and hopeless system, and if his deputy leader believed that Polaris should be replaced by cruise, would people not say that the Conservative party's defence policy was a shambles? is that not precisely the policy of the alliance? Does it not bear less resemblance to the real Alliance that protects our freedom and—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The question concerns the amount of money spent on Trident.
§ Mr. LeighDoes he agree that it bears a resemblance not to Ethelred the Unready, but more to the Mad Hatter's tea party?
§ Mr. YoungerMy hon. Friend is quite right to say that there is immense confusion as to the precise position of all members of all the Opposition parties. I think the House might agree that any party which goes before the public without a credible defence policy is doomed to disappointment.