Trident (Hansard, 27 January 1987)

§ 4. Mr. Spencer
asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Trident programme.

§ 9. Mrs. Shields
asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated cost of the Trident missile system; and if he will make a statement.

§ Mr. Younger
The revised estimate for Trident at average 1986–87 prices is £9,265 million. In line with 170 established conventions adopted for the recosting of the defence programme, the estimate is based on the average exchange rate applicable in June 1986, namely, £1=$1.50. The United Kingdom share of the revised estimate is 62 per cent.—its highest recorded level. After allowing for the effects of inflation and exchange rate variations, this represents a real reduction in estimate over last year of some £546 million.
It is now assessed that on average the programme will provide some 7,500 direct and 6,000 indirect jobs over the procurement period, with the figures rising to 15,000 direct and 12,000 indirect in the peak years.
The Select Committee on Defence previously asked that when announcing the annual revised estimate I should report on the state of the project as a whole. I am pleased to report that the project remains on programme to enter service as planned in the mid-1990s. There has been no slippage in the in-service date since the decision to proceed with Trident II was announced in March 1982. I am, as last year, sending to the Chairmen of the Select Committee on Defence and of the Public Accounts Committee a more detailed report covering the points on which the Select Committee on Defence sought advice. I am also placing a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

§ Mr. Spencer
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if we accepted the advice of the Labour party and spent the money on conventional weapons rather than on Trident, all we would get is 1.1 armoured divisions, which would still leave the Soviets with a massive 2:1 superiority?

§ Mr. Younger
My hon. and learned Friend is correct. I am not sure whether it is 1.1 armoured divisions, or 1. In any case, it is wholly inconsistent with the theory that by producing such an extra division we would in any way outweigh the loss of the Trident deterrent, which is a vital part of our defence.

§ Mrs. Shields
In the event of possible cuts in ballistic missile stocks by the United States and the Soviet Union, do the Government plan to continue British escalation of the arms race in the face of superpower de-escalation?

§ Mr. Younger
We have always made it clear that if there were to be large reductions in ballistic missile systems we would regard it as right that we should be prepared to consider whether we could make a further contribution. I hope that the hon. Lady and her colleagues will be able to confirm that, having allegedly come to an agreement with the SDP on defence, the Liberal party has abandoned its links with the CND, because it would be a great reassurance if that could be made clear.

§ Mr. Bill Walker
Does not escalation depend on the number of missiles and warheads? Is not the Government's position that we have a minimum deterrent and will continue to retain it? Is that not what is happening. thereby giving us a flexibility that did not exist when we had to bring in Chevaline?

§ Mr. Younger
My hon. Friend is right. Our present deterrent, the Polaris system, is a minimum deterrent, and our proposed future deterrent, the Trident system, will also be a minimum deterrent, in the context of the defences that it will have to breach in the mid-1990s and onwards. Trident is still a minimum deterrent.

§ Mr. Douglas
Will the Secretary of State give the House an indication of the share of the naval procurement that 171 is engaged by Trident? Will he explain the impact of that on the conventional fleet and his intention or otherwise of ordering three frigates a year?

§ Mr. Younger
This has no direct effect on either of those points. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the expected cost of the Trident system over its life will average out at 3 per cent. of the defence budget, or 6 per cent. of the procurement budget. Even at its peak it will be only about 13 per cent. of the procurement budget in total. Today's announcement of lower costs for Trident makes that position even better.

§ Mr. Leigh
Would it be a fair summary to say that while the SDP and Liberal party are agreed in their opposition to Trident, the SDP believes in obsolete weapons and the Liberals do not know what their mind is? Was not what we saw yesterday less a launch of a successful defence policy and more a relaunch into political obscurity?

§ Mr. Younger
I am not sure how it is possible — although, no doubt we shall discover — to relaunch a non-policy. As an extra twist, the Liberal party has made it clear that it does not have the information to be able to decide what should replace the Trident system, but it seems to be equally certain, in spite of that lack of information, that whatever it is it is not Trident.

§ Mr. Denzil Davies
I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the reduction in cost, or most of it, is because, happily for him, at least temporarily, the exchange rate of the pound against the dollar is fairly favourable. Does he agree that he has no control over that, and of course exchange rates can go the other way? Does he agree that the cost of Trident, be it £9 billion or £10 billion at the end of the day, will be borne by our non-nuclear defence forces? That cost will be borne by the cost of equipment for the Army, Navy and Royal Air Force. What on earth is the point of spending money on what is called, chillingly, a weapon of the last resort when we will not have enough money to buy weapons of the first resort to prevent war in Europe becoming a nuclear war?

§ Mr. Younger
First of all, I am sorry if I did not make it clear earlier that the figure I have quoted of £546 million real saving on the programme is after taking account of the exchange rate variations. Therefore, that figure is a real reduction in the real cost of the Trident programme.
With regard to whether it is right to spend money on the programme, I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that there is no way in which the expenditure of an equivalent sum of money on conventional weapons could begin to replace the deterrent effect of the Trident system. That is the absolute justification for the expenditure on the programme. As regards the comparison that has been made, I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman is so keen to protect the rest of the budget by abolishing the Trident system, because the Tornado programme is a larger programme and I have not heard the right hon. Gentleman calling for that to be abandoned in order to save the budget.