§ 3. Mr. Roderickasked the Minister of State for Defence whether it is the Government's intention to maintain parity with the French Polaris Submarine Fleet.
§ Lord BalnielThe Government intend to maintain the effectiveness of our contribution to the Western strategic nuclear deterrent. I cannot answer for the intentions of the French Government.
§ Mr. RoderickDoes the Minister of State agree that it is as unlikely as it is undesirable in the interests of non-proliferation that the French Government should be able to acquire submarines with missiles unless receiving information from N.A.T.O. or the United States Government?
§ Lord BalnielAs I say, it is not for me to answer for the French Government regarding the development of their nuclear programme.
§ Mr. John MorrisIn July, the Minister could give me no assurance that the Government would not build a fifth Polaris submarine. He has now had some time to think about the matter. Can he give that assurance now?
§ Lord BalnielThe option to build a fifth Polaris submarine remains open to us and is under continuous review. No decision one way or the other has been taken.
§ 4. Mr. Lathamasked the Minister of State for Defence whether information regarding the development of Polaris missile warheads has been obtained from the United States of America under the Polaris sales agreement.
§ Lord BalnielNo, Sir. The Polaris sales agreement does not cover the provision by the United States of information about warheads.
§ Mr. LathamIs it correct that Polaris submarines are now equipped with multiple warheads? If so, can the Minister of State tell us when, where and how provision was made for this in the 764 Defence Estimates? Can he give an indication of the cost incurred, either as a sum or as a proportion of defence expenditure, and can he say when such multiple warheads are likely to become obsolete?
§ Lord BalnielI cannot give the technical information for which the hon. Gentleman asks. As to the number of warheads, there has been no change since the previous Administration.
§ 5. Mr. Lathamasked the Minister of State for Defence what stage has been reached in the development of the multiple independently-targetable re-entry vehicle warhead for Polaris missiles.
§ Lord BalnielMeasures required to maintain the effectiveness of the Polaris force as our contribution to the Western strategic nuclear deterrent are kept under constant review and will be introduced as and when they are necessary. It would not be in the public interest to disclose details of these measures.
§ Mr. LathamWhile I appreciate the last part of the Minister's answer, may I ask, does not he agree that as these ghastly weapons develop, if there is to be an intention, to put it euphemistically, as the hon. Gentleman does, to maintain Britain's contribution to the strategic rôle of N.A.T.O., it will be necessary to develop a multiple independently-targetable vehicle? Does he envisage that the British so-called independent deterrent will ultimately become dependent upon the United States for the supply of suitable warheads?
§ Lord BalnielThe main burden of the hon. Gentleman's question is whether the re-entry bodies are in any way targetable. I am not prepared to give that information, as I do not regard it as being in the public interest to do so.
§ Mr. George ThomsonCan the Minister give an assurance that the Government are closely following the S.A.L.T. talks on limitation of strategic armaments between the Soviet Union and the United States?
§ Lord BalnielYes, Sir. We are following them very closely and have been kept closely informed on the matter.