Nuclear Weapons (Hansard, 7 February 1989)

§ 1. Mr. John Evans
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the defence budget has been devoted to nuclear weapons in each of the last five years.

§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger)
The estimated percentage share of the defence budget devoted to strategic nuclear weapons in each of the past five years is, in 1984–85 2.3 per cent., in 1985–86 2.8 per cent., in 1986–87 3.6 per cent., in 1987–88 4.7 per cent., in 1988–89 5.6 per cent.

§ Mr. Evans
As Britain's defence budget has been reduced over the past three years from what it was originally projected to be, and as the nuclear element will be substantially increased if the Prime Minister's obsession with modernising tactical nuclear weapons is successful, will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that he will protect and defend the conventional weapons element of his budget in the future?

§ Mr. Younger
Yes, I can give that categorical assurance. The matter should be seen in perspective. The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that this year's defence budget, excluding nuclear strategic forces, is £¾ 784 billion higher in real terms than the whole of the 1978–79 defence budget, even including the Polaris programme. An enormously greater amount is being spent on conventional forces than there ever was before 1979.

§ Sir Nicholas Bonsor
I am sure that my right hen. Friend will join me in welcoming Mr. Gorbachev's efforts to reduce the Soviet Union's defence capacity, but when thinking of this country's future need for nuclear defence will he bear strongly in mind the fact that some smaller countries will have a nuclear capability—especially Israel and South Africa, both of which probably have that capacity already—and others such as Libya will, unfortunately, probably develop it? Does he agree that whatever happens between the two superpowers it is unlikely that this country Bill be able to do without an element of nuclear deterrence in the foreseeable future?

§ Mr. Younger
I certainly share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the improvements in the Soviet position and the reductions in Soviet weapon systems that have been announced. We shall be watching carefully to be sure that they actually happen. I also agree that, while seeking further reductions by every means that we can, it is still essential to keep up our strength in nuclear and conventional forces until the Soviet forces decrease to roughly the same level as our own.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours
In relation to the production of weapons-grade plutonium, will the Secretary of State make it clear that the decision by British Nuclear Fuels last week to announce a feasibility study into the construction of an advanced gas-cooled reactor or pressurised water reactor at Sellafield is in no way dependent on a contribution from the Ministry of Defence, that the only contracts that would go to BNFU for weapons-grade plutonium would be extending existing contracts from the facility already in place and that it is a misrepresentation by journalists to say that the plant will be built to fulfil Britain's nuclear weapons requirements?

§ Mr. Younger
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the announcement by BNFL last week has nothing to do with me. He will have to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy as the announcement has no connection with the defence programme as such.