Oral Answers to Questions

Christopher Pincher Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

11. 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend has conflated two different questions. The Trident alternatives review states categorically that Trident provides the best value and the best capability for the United Kingdom. As for the separate question of how many boats are needed, the Government are determined to maintain continuous-at-sea deterrence, and the best advice at present is that that will require four boats. The cost differential between three and four boats is about £1.7 billion in net present value terms, or about £50 million to £60 million a year over the life of the project.

[Christopher Pincher]

My right hon. Friend has already made a powerful case for Trident and for continuous-at-sea deterrence, but does he agree that other potential deterrents that have been mooted, such as an airborne deterrent, would also be expensive to implement? Moreover, an airborne deterrent would be prey to a pre-emptive strike—which means that it would be no deterrent at all—and would be considered objectionable by many people who do not want nuclear armed planes landing and taking off on their doorsteps.

[Mr Hammond]

Indeed. The nature of the United Kingdom, which is a relatively small and densely populated land mass, is one of the factors taken into account by the Trident alternatives review, and one of the reasons why the idea of land-based ballistic missiles was ruled out at an early stage. The review states clearly that all alternatives to Trident are less capable, higher-risk and more expensive. That strikes me as a pretty categorical conclusion.