§ Lord Davies of LeekMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why only 21 of the 250 suitably qualified British firms were allowed to bid for work on Tridents' ballistic missiles to be supplied by American companies for Britain's 1990 nuclear submarine fleet.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)My Lords, the situation is not as described by the noble Lord. Up to the end of September 1984, the last period for which we have data, 120 United Kingdom firms had been invited to bid, but only 42 responded. The total number of United Kingdom firms qualified to bid for work on the Trident II weapon system programme has now increased to about 300.
§ Lord Davies of LeekMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that authoritative groups of people think that we have come out of this with a bad deal. Sir Raymond Lygo—
§ Lord Davies of LeekMy Lords, is it not true that Sir Raymond Lego himself said that the work on the Trident has meant that we have come out of it with a bad deal; in other words, that it is not as good as it should be, and that, in order to help the unemployment situation, work should have been given to more firms in this country which are able to carry out the work? That is what I believe. I ask that supplementary question; but I shall stand corrected if I am wrong.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I think that there was some confusion in the minds of some people about the number of contracts which were available and the number which have been awarded. The number of 21, which appears in the Question tabled by the noble Lord, was the number of contracts so far awarded. That related to some months ago, and the number is now 54. I must say that I am disappointed that only 42 firms out of the 120 which have been invited to bid have in fact chosen to do so.
§ Lord Davies of LeekMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy Lords, can my noble friend say whether it is still true that 55 per cent. of the cost of the 1088 Trident operation, for both the boats and the Trident missiles, will be spent in this country and will therefore provide very valuable jobs? How many jobs, both direct and indirect, will be provided by this programme?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, my noble friend is quite right. The answers that I have given relate to the other 45 per cent. which is being acquired from the United States. It is the case that, so far as the Trident programme is concerned, 55 per cent. of the total United Kingdom acquisition will come from United Kingdom sources and at the peak of the programme it will employ some 32,000 people altogether.
§ Lord Boston of FavershamMy Lords, may we on this Bench say how nice it is to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor back among us and restored to health? Is it not the case that, when Trident was first announced. Her Majesty's Government expected that some 70 per cent. of the costs would be spent in this country and only 30 per cent. in the United States? Also, is it not the case that now, as announced last year in the Defence White Paper, it is down to only 55 per cent. in our favour, as has been said this afternoon, and 45 per cent. in the United States favour? Can the noble Lord the Minister say what is being done to redress this imbalance, if this regrettable project is to be continued?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I do not recall the 70 per cent. figure to which the noble Lord refers. If that figure ever existed, it was certainly a long time before I had anything to do with these matters. However, we certainly intend to proceed with the programme. I do not imagine for a moment that the percentage to which I have referred today is likely to change significantly.
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, is the noble Lord able to tell us the value of the bids that have so far been accepted?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, at 30th September, which is the last date for which I have figures, 37 contracts had been placed valued at 13.8 million dollars. Since then the award of a further 17 contracts to 15 additional companies has been reported, bringing the total awards to just over 31 million dollars in value.
§ Lord Boston of FavershamMy Lords, although the Minister may be acquitted as regards those figures and his own involvement, should not the Government have corrected the Financial Times when it published those figures in 1981?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, again, that was rather before my time. I should have to see exactly what it was that the Financial Times published before I sought to correct it.
§ Lord AveburyMy Lords, is the noble Lord able to say what will be the cost over the exchanges in pound terms if one dollar equals £1 over the lifetime of the contracts?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, all these questions relating to the parity of the pound and the dollar are purely hypothetical and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for not seeking to answer them. Following the seesaws of the past few days and weeks, if anyone can really anticipate what the pound-dollar ratio will be in, say, three or four years' time, he is cleverer than I am.
§ Lord IronsideMy Lords, will my noble friend say how many of the 42 bidders to which he referred were involved with the high technology classified work and how many were involved with the unclassified work? Will my noble friend not agree that in industry in this country we want to aim to get the maximum amount of the high technology classified contracts?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, it would certainly be good to have as much as we can of the high technology work to which my noble friend refers, but we must, I think, be careful not to duplicate high technology facilities in this country which already exist elsewhere because that might render nugatory some of the value of purchasing these systems from the United States.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is becoming increasingly apparent to more and more people that Trident is an expensive mistake, and that the Government should change their mind about this before they get themselves involved in a situation in which they cannot escape from a project which is of no value whatsoever and which is a profound waste of money which could be well spent elsewhere?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I am aware that that is the view of the noble Lord, but it is not mine.
§ Viscount MerseyMy Lords, is it still roughly the case that we are to build the boats and the warheads, and the Americans are to build just the missiles?
§ Lord TrefgarneYes, my Lords, my noble friend is right; we are building the submarines and the warheads and the United States are supplying the missiles and the fire control system.
Lord Paget of NorthamptonMy Lords, if the real object of this exercise, of which I fully approve, is to spend money in England, would we not be more harmlessly occupied in buying ourselves a "Chunnel"?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the noble Lord is mistaken. The object of this programme is not just to spend money in the United Kingdom, though we are spending a substantial sum of money in the United Kingdom; it is to provide ourselves with an effective deterrent well into the next century.
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, would it not be right to say from the figures that the noble Lord has given that the value of the bids so far accepted is less than 1 per cent. of what is to be the total expenditure in the United States?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, yes, the bids to which I have referred today are a comparatively small 1090 proportion of the money being spent in the United States, but then 55 per cent. of the whole project so far as we are concerned is being spent here.