Polaris and Trident: Comparative Cost (Hansard, 18 March 1981)

§ Lord Gridley
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Trenchard)
My Lords, as I made clear in the debate in the House on 25th February, we have studied this option carefully, but to run on Polaris would be very costly. We would need to buy extra missiles with new motors and with the Chevaline modification. If they were to last into the next century, they could well cost us more than Trident missiles. New Polaris submarines would be unlikely to be cheaper than Trident submarines. The alternative of continually refitting the old submarines would, from our experience, be impracticable into the next century and would run the real risk of our being unable to maintain the continuous deterrent patrol. In short, it would be a dubious economic proposition for a force which would be likely to be ineffective in the longer-term.

§ Lord Gridley
My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask whether it is not clear that the running on of Polaris at least into the 1980s would be cheaper than the purchase of Trident?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, if the retention of Polaris had been an effective alternative to Trident, then it is true to say, as my noble friend indicated, that in the 'eighties it would have been cheaper. However, to look at the 'nineties, United States production of Polaris will almost certainly have ceased by then. The missiles would then become a more expensive option than Trident. The United States stocks of missiles are older than ours. Motors and other parts would need renewing, but production lines would have closed. Submarines are the major part of the expense and the Navy's experience has led to conventional submarines being scrapped after 25 years for sound economic reasons. It looks as though the same will hold for nuclear submarines. The force as a whole will be 20 years old in 1990. New Polaris boats, with all their missile-related equipment, would show little, if any, difference in cost compared with Trident boats, so by the end of the century even, the costs would not be dissimilar. By then, as Government have made clear before, the Polaris could well be too vulnerable and too ineffective in penetration to continue its role.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Minister whether he has observed the tendency in certain quarters to place what some of us regard as undue emphasis on increased cost, instead of having regard for the obvious need for security? Will he express an opinion on that point?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, the Government completely agree with the noble Lord's sentiment.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, if the Government agree, is it not about time that we made it quite clear to those who believe in adequate defence that it is bound to cost a lot of money, but that even if it does, it is essential that we should have proper regard for security?

§ Viscount Trenchard
We entirely agree, my Lords. Cost cannot, of course, be left out of these questions. Money and resources are not unlimited.

§ Lord Hooson
My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the immense amount of money spent on the independent deterrent detracts from our effective defence on a conventional basis, which this country sorely needs?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, that question has previously been asked and answered in this House, and in a sense is a separate question. However, as I said earlier, we are continuing to spend a not dissimilar amount on maintaining our strategic deterrent. It is a small part of the defence expenditure as a whole. We regard it as an integral and essential part.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that it has been the experience of all navies in the past that submarines are vessels with a comparatively short economic working life, and that therefore the repair and continual maintenance of antiquated submarines is almost never a useful activity?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I have previously spoken on the Navy's experience and our assessment of how long the existing boats could be maintained.