HC Deb 11 March 1986 vol 93 cc798-800
11. Mr. Ashdown

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the performance to date of the Trident D5 guidance system.

Mr. Norman Lamont

Yes, Sir.

Mr. Ashdown

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, in order to achieve the planned accuracy, the Trident D5 warhead will require in-flight mid-course correction from an American satellite? Will the British Trident warhead require a similar facility? What steps has the hon. Gentleman taken to ensure that we shall have independence of operation?

Mr. Lamont

The guidance sub-system in the missile is of United States' design and supply. What the hon. Gentleman has just said, and what he said in his article in The Guardian, which I read carefully, is not correct. All the facilities with respect to information for targeting and to guidance, which are essential to the effective operation of the Trident force, are under our operational control.

Mr. Adley

Is my hon. Friend aware that it was reported that Secretary Weinberger was mystified by the defence policy of the so-called alliance in so far as it relates to Trident? Will my hon. Friend therefore explain to Mr. Weinberger that the reason why the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) trots around after the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) contradicting him is that on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays the alliance's policies follow the Liberal party, on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays they follow the SDP, and on Sunday the defence policy of the alliance is closed?

Mr. Lamont

I note what my hon. Friend said, Today's allegation by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) which is a new twist to the alliance's allegation about Trident, is totally incorrect.

Mr. Carter-Jones

What is the accuracy of the guidance system for cruise and Trident?

Mr. Lamont

Obviously that is not a matter on which I can comment publicly.

12. Mr. Yeo

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

Mr. Younger

The Trident programme has been re-costed as part of the annual long-term costing of the defence programme. By convention, that costing assumes exchange rates prevailing last June, which for the dollar gives a rate of £1 equalling $1.28. On that basis, the revised estimate for Trident is £9,869 million at average 1985–86 prices, an increase of £584 million over last year's estimate. Of this increase, £324 million reflects a lower exchange rate than was assumed last year. The remaining increase of £260 million, or only 2.8 per cent., reflects inflation offest by real cost reductions arising from better definition as the programme progresses. Costs, therefore, are firmly under control and I am glad to say that the programme remains on time for an in-service date of the mid-1990s.

I am making available to the Public Accounts and Defence Committees a more detailed report on the state of the project as a whole; a copy of this report is also being placed in the Library.

Mr. Yeo

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that detailed answer. Although the rise in the pound against the dollar since the date quoted will further reduce the cost of Trident, is he aware that many people remain concerned about the way in which expenditure on Trident may curtail spending on other important defence programmes?

Mr. Younger

I appreciate what my hon. Friend said. As he has indicated, the calculation of costing has been done deliberately by me on exactly the same basis on which, by convention, it is done every year, that is, basing the dollar at the rate it was in June of the previous year. On the weight of the Trident programme as a whole, I can confirm that this leaves it still as averaging only 3 per cent. of the defence programme, or about 6 per cent. of the equipment programme. That is well within our means for such an important system to our defence.

Dr. Owen

Does the Secretary of State not accept that last year when the costing was given it was the Government's intention to keep level funding in the defence budget, but now the increased cost of Trident has to be borne on a defence budget that is being cut by 7 per cent. over the next three years in real terms? Can he really go on claiming that he can support the conventional defence effort that is currently planned?

Mr. Younger

Very much so, particularly as the right hon. Gentleman may notice in the publication that I am putting in the Library that the rate of inflation in the Trident programme this year is very much lower than that of the defence programme as a whole, because of the offset of other savings that we have made. In that way, it is well within what we can afford.

Mr. Marlow

As totally conventional defence, however much it costs, would not in the last resort be able to deter a nuclear power bent on the conquest of the United Kingdom, is not Trident cheap at the price and jolly good value?

Mr. Younger

My hon. Friend is right. There is no other way at a comparable price that we can so secure peace for the future.

Mr. Denzil Davies

Is it not the case that the increased cost of Trident announced today is bound to come out of the budget for conventional defence spending, since, with the conventional defence budget static or falling in real terms and the cost of Trident increasing, there is no other place from which the expenditure on Trident can come? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the American end of the cost is almost totally out of the control of the British Government, because it is dependent on the exchange rate and on the cost charged by American armaments manufacturers?

Mr. Younger

As the right hon. Gentleman will notice, I have deliberately kept the calculation on costing within the normal convention of the exchange rate, which is not, as it happens, altogether favourable to the case I wish to put. I hope he will regard that as fair. On the balance of the programme, the key factor is that the total weight of Trident in the defence budget is very small; for instance, smaller than the Tornado programme. As it secures our safety and defence for the future, I should have thought that most people would regard it as an extremely good bargain.

Mr. Wigley

Does the Secretary of State not accept that to spend money on nuclear weapons to this extent has the effect of squeezing conventional forces out of meaningful existence in many roles? Would it not be much better for Britain to have meaningful conventional defence rather than to go on with the nuclear pretence?

Mr. Younger

With respect, the hon. Gentleman has lost touch with reality. We are looking at a defence budget which is already well over 20 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1979 when the Government took office. To talk about that sort of effect on the conventional forces is unrealistic. If any attempt were made to produce a comparable effect for our defences by conventional means only, it would cost vastly more than the Trident programme.