(14 years, 4 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
Given that Trident is costing us perhaps £1 billion or£2 billion every year, and an estimated £96 billion over its entire lifetime, does the Minister agree that we should listen to the military figures who are increasingly saying that it is not necessary and counting it as something to be considered in the comprehensive spending review?
Dr Fox
Ultimately, it is up to the Government to decide what the policy should be. There is a wide range of advice, military and otherwise. The House came to the conclusion that it did in 2007 on the basis that we believed that that was a cost-effective way for this country to go forward with a nuclear deterrent. We know that abroad there are a number of countries trying to develop nuclear weapons. We do not know what will happen between now and 2015—the time scale for the Trident replacement programme—and we cannot play fast and loose with Britain’s defences.
[Official Report, 5 July 2010, Vol. 513, c. 3.]
Letter of correction from Dr Liam Fox:
An error has been identified in the oral answer given to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on 5 July 2010.
The correct answer should have been:
Dr Fox
Ultimately, it is up to the Government to decide what the policy should be. There is a wide range of advice, military and otherwise. The House came to the conclusion that it did in 2007 on the basis that we believed that that was a cost-effective way for this country to go forward with a nuclear deterrent. We know that abroad there are a number of countries trying to develop nuclear weapons. We do not know what will happen between now and 2050—the time scale for the Trident replacement programme—and we cannot play fast and loose with Britain's defences.