Polaris and Trident Programme (Hansard, 15 February 1982)

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

§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard)
My Lords, the total cost of the programme for payment to the United States Government and industry is expected to be of the order of £300 million. The major part of the expenditure will be in US dollars. The purpose of equipping Polaris with new motors is to ensure that the weapon system remains effective until the Polaris force is replaced by Trident. The Government believe that Trident remains the best and most cost-effective option to ensure that the United Kingdom retains an independent strategic nuclear capability well into the twenty-first century. We have therefore no intention of cancelling the Trident programme.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, has the noble Viscount noted the opposition to Trident expressed this weekend by the former Navy Minister Mr. Speed, and his preference for one of the cheaper alternative systems? Will the Government not recognise that to press ahead with Trident to completion will require over the years much wider support in Parliament and in the country than it is likely to get?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, we would all like a cheaper alternative system. Having taken part in, and heard about, the search for an alternative system which would be an effective independent deterrent into the next century, I can only tell the noble Lord that I do not believe that one has yet been suggested, whether by Mr. Speed or by anyone else. So far as the popular support for Britain's independent deterrent is concerned, I would hate to return to the question we discussed last week, but on that subject even the questions as asked in the opinion polls show very clearly that the majority of the public are in favour of the maintenance of an independent deterrent. I believe any Government faced with the facts with which this Government are faced would come to the same conclusion as we have.

§ Lord Peart
My Lords, will the noble Viscount indicate when we shall have the White Paper? I would 358 have thought that that would be a suitable time to have a debate on this issue in depth.

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion. I think the probability is that the Government's decision on which form of Trident—which is under review at the moment—will probably be announced before the White Paper is published, and it will then be for the House to consider whether it wants to debate that question rather than the White Paper.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, can the noble Viscount mention one single fact which has been presented to the Government which makes it appropriate for this country to have an independent nuclear deterrent when richer members of the NATO alliance such as Germany do not find it appropriate to do so?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, this question has been debated many times in this House. The noble Lord may have been present. In summary, I would merely say that the maintenance of Britain's independent deterrent is welcomed by all members of the alliance and is regarded as an extra and important deterrent to any possible Russian aggression, which might take place under the misapprehension that the United States could be decoupled from Europe.

§ Lord Mottistone
My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that it would be most irresponsible for the Trident project to be abandoned at this point in time?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I entirely agree with that. I believe it is a most important and effective part of the total deterrence against aggression.

§ Lord Gladwyn
My Lords, will the Trident project be equally welcomed by all the members of the alliance when it becomes painfully clear that it can be proceeded with only at the expense of all our conventional armaments in this country?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, the noble Lord makes an error. It obviously can be proceeded with not at the cost of all our conventional weapons. The noble Lord also knows that the percentage of our defence budget estimated for our deterrent over a long period of time is of the order of 3 per cent. To that extent it is a competitor with other means of defence.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that, not only in this country where a recent poll showed that a majority of our people are against the Trident, but all through Western Europe and the world, there is a movement now arising against the use of nuclear weapons altogether?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I think all of us are against weapons, war, and particularly nuclear weapons. The question, as the noble Lord knows well, is the practical way forward in the world in which we live where aggression is clearly a constant danger.

§ Lord Shinwell
My Lords, is there anything wrong in being independent about something? We are tied 359 up to the Common Market hand and foot; we are tied up with the United States rates of interest. We almost seem like becoming a colony of the United States. Why not be independent about something?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, where there is an advantage in being independent (and we do rely on the alliance today in many areas) where we have the means and the know-how—and we know about submarines and about the manufacture of important parts of these terrible weapons—I agree entirely with the noble Lord that, in those areas, we should stay independent.

§ Lord Duncan-Sandys
My Lords, is it not a fact that the abandonment of Trident would totally undermine the credibility of Britain's nuclear deterrent? Is it not also a fact that the development of our first nuclear weapon was initiated by the party opposite?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, my noble friend's memory on the latter point will undoubtedly be better than mine. But certainly Governments of both parties when in power and when faced with the problem have maintained our independent deterrent. I think that sometimes the House underestimates the sometimes terrifying speed of technological change and the rate of obsolescence, and therefore is inclined to believe that there is another easy alternative. There is not. As regards the first part of my noble friend's question, the answer is that Trident is absolutely essential for the independent deterrent certainly in this century and probably into the next century.

§ Lord Beswick
My Lords, can the noble Viscount also say with equal certainty that we are being practical if we reduce the rate of re-equipment of our conventional aircraft? And can he say that we are being practical when we cut down the training of pilots for those aircraft?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, the only way to reply to the noble Lord in a short answer is to repeat that we are talking about 3 per cent. of our defence budget, and our defence budget has been increased by this Administration and we have to consider what the defence budget should be in all circumstances. We regard this as being one of the best value parts of the deterrent. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has posed the question, "Which do you think the Russians would rather see us have: a few extra tanks"—and I quantify that as a division and a half with supporting weapons in this area—" or a maintenance of the independent deterrent?" I believe that to ask the question provides the answer.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, the noble Viscount has in this House frequently referred to the cost of Trident as being 3 per cent. of defence expenditure, but has he worked out in round terms what that cost is and, if so, may we know the total?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, in answering this question I shall go no further than to say what the Government have stated over and over again; namely, that over the period into the 1990s, before Trident 360 comes into service, we are estimating an expenditure of the order of 3 per cent.—

Noble Lords
Of what?

§ Viscount Trenchard
Of the defence budget over that period. And I have pointed out that it is substantially less than the total cost of the Tornado weapon system.

§ Lord Leatherland
My Lords, will the noble Viscount bear in mind—

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young)
My Lords, we have now spent nine minutes on this first Question and I think it is the wish of the House that we should move on to the next Question.