HL Deb 06 October 1981 vol 424 cc5-7

2.52 p.m.

Lord Orr-Ewing

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in the interest of saving time and money they will negotiate with the Dutch Government to build their design of conventional submarine.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard)

My Lords, I must say no to my noble friend. I am satisfied that the Type 2400 submarine design currently being developed by British Shipbuilders will meet the Royal Navy's operational and programme requirements at a reasonable cost.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that limited reply. Will he answer the point about the timing? Can we be assured that there will be no delays because, on the principle of "not invented here", we desire to design our own conventional submarines, rather than make use of other designs? Will he bear in mind that while we were occupied in building our nuclear submarines, both for Polaris and the hunter-killers, the Dutch, realising that they had limited supplies of money, were very busy perfecting a cheaper, effective, and efficient conventional submarine? Can my noble friend assure us that either the naval staff or the staff at Bath are not over-designing, thus making our ships of all types, in particular submarines, desperately expensive and very difficult to operate?

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, good progress has been made in the designing of the Type 2400, and I am therefore relatively satisfied that we shall meet the operational requirements on time, as well as within the cost estimates. In regard to my noble friend's second supplementary question—are we over-designing?—I would say that he will know, as will many other Members of the House, that this is a constant question which my predecessors, of both parties, have examined and which we are also examining as best we can, in an endeavour to try to ensure that wherever possible our specifications are similar to the kind of boat—not only submarine—which we can sell in international markets.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, can the noble Viscount give an assurance that there will not be built abroad for the Royal Navy submarines which might be built at home, as a result of the Government's proceeding with the Trident project?

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, to a degree that is a separate question. At the present time we have no intention of commissioning submarines abroad, but I should not like that statement to be taken as meaning that we are not prepared to consider collaboration with other nautical powers within the Alliance, including Holland, in relation to shipbuilding programmes in the future; we would, and we do, from time to time.

Lord Paget of Northampton

My Lords, will the noble Viscount recognise that, for a major power, conventional submarines are obsolescent, if they are not already obsolete? Would we not save more time and more money by making use of what we have, and not building any more?

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord; neither does our Service or any other expert adviser agree with him. The Soviet Union are building modern conventional submarines, and we see a continuing use for these, in particular in shallow waters. They have very considerable attributes, including extreme quietness. They are not regarded by military advisers in this country or in other countries as being obsolete.