Trident (Hansard, 19 November 1991)

§ 4. Mr. Corbyn
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected date of commissioning of the first Trident nuclear submarine and the expected date of completion of the programme; and if he will make a statement.

§ 6. Mr. John Marshall
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress with the Trident programme.

§ Mr. Alan Clark
The overall Trident programme continues to progress to time and within budget towards an in-service date of the mid-1990s. It is not our practice to make public the precise dates of submarine construction or related programmes.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Will the Minister confirm that the total cost of the Trident programme is likely to be over £23 billion, that it is a monstrous waste of money, that to hold nuclear weapons is immoral and that in the interests of world peace he should cancel the programme and provide useful work for the highly skilled people who have manufactured those awful weapons of mass destruction?

§ Mr. Clark
I am sure that it is perfectly possible for the hon. Gentleman to make a trip to Barrow-in-Furness and explain to the work force there what useful work is available for them. I welcome what he said. He articulates a view which is widely shared on the Opposition Benches, although the Labour party finds it seemly to repress it at 129 present. Certainly, it does no harm to ventilate that view in this place. I always welcome hearing it when it is delivered so lucidly from the mouth of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I would correct the hon. Gentleman on one point of fact. The cost of the system is already £1£8 billion less than the original estimate announced in the House in 1982.

§ Mr. John Marshall
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his commitment to the Trident programme. Does he believe that it would be safe in the hands of Members of Parliament who continually carp and criticise? Would it be safe in the hands of a party two thirds of whose members are committed to one-sided nuclear disarmament?

§ Mr. Clark
This question is best answered by the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North, who courageously and clearly articulated the views of, I suspect, more than half the Members on the Opposition Benches.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
Why did the Minister's Department authorise Admiral Sir Julian Oswald to give information to the press on the specific question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), when Ministers continually refuse to answer that question in the House? Is not it reasonable that the House of Commons should be given the same information as is made available to the press in briefings? Does the Minister accept that it is entirely unsatisfactory to continue stonewalling on those questions while answering them in the press?

§ Mr. Clark
The boat will be launched early next year, but I must maintain the position that I and my predecessors have always maintained—that we do not disclose any further details in the House.

§ Mr. Franks
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have only one policy on Trident—to build the fourth boat and complete the programme? That is unlike the Opposition, who have at least three conflicting policies—one for the Front Bench, a second for Back-Bench CND Members and, most disgraceful of all, a third for the electorate in Barrow.

§ Mr. Clark
That is absolutely right. I confirm what my hon. Friend says. We are interested in receiving a report of what took place when the Leader of the Oppositon went to Barrow and had a chat with the work force. He gave them several assurances, with which, apparently, they were satisfied, but the right hon. Gentleman will not give details of the assurances. That is certainly a subject on which the House would welcome further enlightenment.

§ Mr. Boyes
Will the Minister now acknowledge that Labour party policy is to deploy the Trident system? When will the Government place an order for the fourth Trident boat and how much money have the Government already spent on it? Does he realise that his policy of drip-feeding the yard with funding for the fourth boat is unnecessarily extending the lives of the Polaris boats and jeopardising the employment of thousands of workers at Barrow, simply to safeguard the seat of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks)?

§ Mr. Clark
I did not entirely follow the hon. Gentleman's question. In so far as I did understand it, I welcome his commitment of the Labour party to the 130 Trident programme. I understood him to reproach us for being slow in commissioning the fourth vessel. If so, that is an instructive and important addition to the Labour party's nuclear policy and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminds me, is a fourth arm in such a policy.