Trident: Costs (Hansard, 12 February 1985)

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Lord Trefgarne
No, my Lords. The Select Committee on Defence of another place and the Public Accounts Committee already have the power to examine the Trident programme, including its costs, and both have done so recently.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that not surprising Answer? Is he aware that if there had been a specialist committee it would probably have revealed, as people in all parties now agree, that the Trident programme could be the most appalling waste of public money in this century; that it would cause a grave hindrance to the development of British conventional forces, and that it could in the end prove to be a dent in the NATO defence? Will he therefore consider his Answer and go back to the Secretary of State and ask whether this should at least be looked at?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord takes that view. Needless to say, I profoundly disagree with him.

§ Lord Boston of Faversham
My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that it is time that a more accurate figure was given for the cost of Trident, and that Her Majesty's Government should no longer go on stating the cost as though the exchange rate of the pound was still 1.38 dollars? Is it not the case that a growing body of opinion, including expert and service opinion, hopes that this project will be cancelled because of the way that it is preventing us from making a much more effective conventional contribution?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is mistaken in imagining that this will have some dramatic effect upon our conventional capability, because the cost in comparative terms is apparently fairly small. As I ventured to indicate the other day when we discussed this matter, all we could actually acquire for this sum of money is, for example, a very small number of armoured divisions which, in comparison with the preponderance which already exists on the central front, would hardly make any difference.

§ Lord Tordoff
My Lords, is it not true that in a static defence budget going into the future the increasing cost of Trident is bound to have a restricting effect on conventional weapons?

§ Lord Trefgarne
No, my Lords, I do not think that is true at all. It is not necessarily the case that the cost of Trident is going to increase, as the noble Lord suggests. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, asked me for an accurate prediction of the cost. If the noble Lord can give me a precise indication of what the exchange rate will be in five or six years' time, I shall be happy to do that.

§ Lord Boston of Faversham
My Lords, that will not do, if I may say so to the noble Lord. Is it not the case that a very simple arithmetical calculation could be made immediately by bearing in mind that the exchange rate is no longer 1.38 dollars to the pound but is, at the moment, approximately 1.10 to the pound?

§ Lord Trefgarne
Yes, my Lords. But the bulk of the expenditure is not being met at the moment. The bulk of the expenditure will not be met for some years yet. If the noble Lord can tell me what the exchange rate will be at that time, I shall be happy to do the arithmetic for him.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, does the noble Lord recall statements in this House and elsewhere that Trident would not take more than 3 per cent. of the defence budget over a procurement period of 15 years? How does this square with the recent statement that it would take 3 per cent. of the defence budget over a procurement period of 20 years? Is he not aware that this is, for practical purposes, an increase in the percentage of the defence budget taken by Trident?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord is mistaken. We have never said that the procurement period for Trident—certainly not Trident II—was 15 years, although we at one time 107 indicated that that would be the procurement period for Trident I. We are now embarked upon Trident II, as the noble Lord will be aware, and we have always maintained that the procurement period for that system would be about 18 years.

§ Lord Molloy
But, my Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that over the past four years the cost of Trident has almost doubled, and that we are very far away from the peak period? Is he further aware that the Moscow criterion (as that yardstick is so called) is now completely ruled out by everybody who has a great interest and knowledge in the defence of this nation, because Polaris will do exactly the same thing? Is the noble Lord aware that there are two real dangers in continuing this programme? That is why a committee should be set up to examine it: it could damage the British economy and it could dent the NATO shield. Is that not a serious situation?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord made a number of mistakes in that supplementary question. First, it is not the case that Polaris will continue to be an effective weapon system into the distant future. By the mid-1990s or thereabouts, the effectiveness of Polaris will be declining sharply, particularly because the submarines on which they are carried will be wearing out. In any event, it is not the case either that the cost of the Trident II programme has materially increased over the period that the noble Lord suggests. In real terms it has not increased; on the contrary, it has rather declined.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we understand that he must support the Government's current position on this matter; but how long does he think it will take the Government on this occasion to come over to the view—which I think they will eventually—that the Opposition's opinion about this matter is right?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, on the contrary, I anticipate converting the noble Lord to my view.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, may the House just get this matter clear? Did the noble Lord say that the real cost of Trident estimated ahead has, over a certain period in the recent past, declined?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I was saying that a number of savings have been effected at various points in the development of the Trident system. If the noble Lord would like me to let him have details, I shall be happy to do that.