Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Wallace Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point of view. He has on other occasions raised the issue of entering into a contract for the submarines at an early stage. Our current way of managing our equipment programme is to enter into contracts with industry at the point at which projects are mature enough to enable us to secure the best possible value for money for the taxpayer. Entering into a contract at this stage, when the project is relatively immature, would not represent value for money.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

3. What conclusions he has drawn from the Trident alternatives review about alternatives to a UK nuclear deterrent based on Trident.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

9. What conclusions he has drawn from the Trident alternatives review about alternatives to a UK nuclear deterrent based on Trident.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

The review demonstrates that no alternative system is as capable as a Trident-based deterrent, or as cost-effective.

[Mr Wallace]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the dangers of the alternatives to Trident is that of mistaken identity? An intercontinental ballistic missile leaves a very distinct signature on launch, whereas the alternatives could be confused with conventional weapons, and hence trigger an escalation rather than a de-escalation of conflict.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Trident alternatives review makes clear that that is just one of the many drawbacks of a cruise-based system. The other primary drawbacks are the risk, the time scale for development, the likely cost, the lack of range, and the vulnerability of the weapons system.