Trident (Hansard, 24 October 1989)

§ 1. Mr. William Powell
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends altering the Trident programme.

§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King)
No. The planned in-service date for Trident remains the mid- 1990s, as originally announced in 1982.

§ Mr. Powell
Has my right hon. Friend been able to identify anything so far in the changes sweeping Europe that would justify a reduction in the current Trident programme? In particular, has he been able to identify anything that would in any way justify this country abandoning the fourth Trident ship?

§ Mr. King
Although we welcome and shall play our full part in the conventional force reduction talks in Vienna, in support of the NATO position, and although we want substantial reductions in nuclear weapons, there can be no question of abandoning our deterrent before we are certain that there is no threat to this country.

§ Mr. Menzies Campbell
How does the Secretary of State justify the fourfold increase in warheads which the Trident system represents over the existing Polaris system? Polaris is an effective deterrent in present circumstances with its existing warheads. Why is it necessary to have a substantial escalation in firepower to the extent that the D5 system necessarily involves?

§ Mr. King
It is a sobering thought that even with the increase which I accept Trident represents over the existing Polaris system, it will still represent a smaller percentage in relation to the number of Soviet warheads and the threat posed by the Soviet Union than Polaris did at the time of its introduction. Although I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment that there is no need for it, it is our judgment that Trident—and the number of warheads proposed in Trident—is the minimum necessary to maintain a credible deterrent against the increasing sophistication of the Soviet defences.

§ Sir Antony Buck
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reasons for our updating our nuclear capability are precisely the same as those that caused the former Labour Administration to update our nuclear capability? They did it behind the scenes, but we do it openly.

§ Mr. King
I hope that it would be common ground and manifestly obvious that if there is to be a nuclear deterrent, it must be a credible deterrent. It would be the most outrageous waste to have a deterrent that was not credible or competent for the job.

Mr. O'Neill
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Trident project is still up to date and within budget? Will he also explain to the House what the ambassador in Washington was doing when he seemed to be lobbying the Senate and Congress to secure extra funding, if the story in last week's Jane's Defence Weekly is true?

§ Mr. King
I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. He can read the story in the congressional record as well, which may be even better than Jane's Defence Weekly. I have made representations, as has our ambassador in Washington, to ensure that the American authorities and Congress understand and appreciate the importance to us of the continuing Trident programme. We are confident that with the necessary funds, subject to internal matters in the United States and Congress, the programme will go forward satisfactorily.
I can confirm my earlier answer: we are still on schedule for an in-service date of the mid-1990s. I believe, although I do not have the final figures, that the next figures are likely to show a continuing fall in the cost of the programme.

§ Mr. Allason
Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to follow the correspondence on Trident in The Times which has been conducted between various members of the Opposition in the other place? Will he confirm, and once and for all scotch suggestions to the contrary, that the Trident navigational system is entirely independent and will not require any dependence on American satellites or guidance systems?

§ Mr. King
I am afraid that I missed the correspondence, but I can confirm the statement in the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. There has been a suggestion, which was deployed in the defence debate, that somehow Trident will not be independent and will not be under British control. I confirm that it will be independent.