NUCLEAR ALERTS (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) (Hansard, 9 June 1980)

§ Mr. Speaker
Mr. Dalyell.

§ Mr. Dalyell
My question was accepted for answer by the Lord Privy Seal, but I assume that the Secretary of State for Defence is now to answer.

§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Francis Pym)
On Tuesday 3 June and Friday 6 June a technical problem in a computer that is part of the North American Air Defence Command caused a strategic alert. In both instances the error was detected very rapidly by the normal exhaustive checking and verification procedures. The United States authorities are, of course, investigating these incidents, and we are in consultation with them.

§ Mr. Dalyell
In those three minutes on Friday and in the crucial minutes of the alert on Tuesday, what action did the American strategic forces based in Britain take, and when and how were the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary informed?

§ Mr. Pym
The answer to the first question is "None, Sir." There was an alert in the United States because the alert system is automatic when the system shows up an alarm, but that was checked by the verification procedures and found to be false and therefore the forces concerned were stood down. This alert is, of course, an entirely defensive procedure. It carries with it no other implication than that the forces are automatically alerted. No action took place so far as United States or any other forces in this country were concerned.
In the statement issued by the Pentagon after the first incident it was explained that it had not been necessary to inform Secretary Brown or other Cabinet officials until after the event, because it was discovered so quickly.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
Is it not a fact that this is one of a very wide and diverse range of early warning detection devices and that it is a cause of some satisfaction that so wide and sophisticated is this range that no single one could cause the dangers to which the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has alerted us? Many of us have large numbers of American forces in our constituencies. In this country at least, is not all early warning information shared between the United States and the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Pym
That is so. There was no input from any of the ballistic missile early warning systems. The error was in a computer.

§ Mr. Newens
If there were a breakdown in a computer at a time of high tension and if an attack were presumed to be possible, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there would be a real danger that decisions would be taken that might lead to war through accident? Is there not a case for action being taken to make us more secure and safe than we clearly are in these circumstances?

§ Mr. Pym
On the contrary. No one instrument is allowed in any circumstances to be responsible for alerting the forces. There is a cross-check procedure, which I think is effective, and it certainly worked rapidly in this instance. I do not think that there is the slightest danger—nor ought anybody to suggest it—of, as it were, triggering off some kind of war by mistake, because the alert procedure is defensive. The fact that the United States forces were immediately alerted gives reassurance that they are permanently able, on a defensive basis, to take off if necessary. Because this is a complex procedure and it is crosschecked, the hon. Gentleman's fears are not well-founded. I think that we should be reassured that there is a procedure that will prevent a mistake of this kind.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is a private notice question, not a statement. However, I will call two more hon. Members from either side.

§ Mr. Tapsell
Were press reports accurate in claiming that a faulty computer was indicating that rockets were likely to land on the United States within three minutes—if that was the nature of the faulty advice being given by the computer? Is my right hon. Friend able to reassure public opinion in this country that exhaustive inquiries and checks are possible in that situation?

§ Mr. Pym
I can indeed give that reassurance. I shall be informed when the investigations are completed. However, nothing indicated that anything was on its way to the United States. The fault was 29 in the computer. Nothing was shown on any of the radar systems. That is why it was indicated very quickly that it was a mistake. I think that that is a matter of reassurance.

§ Mr. Frank Allaun
Does not all this mean that British cities could be wiped out if cruise missiles were launched from our territory in error, on United States command? Is the Secretary of State aware that on the previous occasion it was not just the computer that was at fault? American bombers were launched to the point of no return—the so-called fail-safe line—before it was found to be a mistake and they were recalled. Is it not clear that the bombers seen on Russian radar screens were real bombers and, therefore, that an American mistake could lead to a Russian mistake and the whole of us going up in flames?

§ Mr. Pym
No, Sir. That is a grotesque picture. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the alert system does nothing more than put appropriate forces in a suitable condition to respond, if necessary. It is necessary to appreciate that it implies no authority to do anything other than to take off from the ground. I also point out that if, as no doubt happens from time to time, there are mistakes in computers on the other side of the Iron Curtain, none of us knows about them.

§ Mr. Gummer
Is it not greatly to the credit of the West that we live in a free society and know when mistakes have occurred? Is it not further greatly to the credit of the system that we now know that when a mistake occurs it is quickly rectified, even though minutes matter at this time?

§ Mr. Pym
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. Obviously, this is an important matter and it is entirely right that the whole of it should be fully investigated. That process is already in hand.

§ Mr. Maclennan
Does the Secretary of State agree that his somewhat bland answers this afternoon do not fully satisfy the need to explain to the British public precisely what happened and that whereas one episode of this kind may be comprehensible, twice looks like carelessness? Will he take this opportunity of placing in the Library a full statement of exactly what he understands to have happened, 30 because in the course of answering a private notice question he may not find that possible?

§ Mr. Pym
As I explained in my original answer, the United States is carrying out investigations and we are in consultation with it. The full details are not yet available. Whereas we have a strong interest in this issue, as have all our allies, the responsibility on this occasion is that of the United States Administration. We are in full consultation with the United States on exactly the basis that the hon. Gentleman would wish. We are involved in the fullest consultation and discovery of what went wrong.

§ Mr. Rodgers
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that these events have caused deep concern among many who are strong supporters of NATO and accept the inevitable need for nuclear weapons, short of world-wide multilateral disarmament. I hope that he will take especially seriously the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about giving full details and a full explanation of what happened, and that he will make representations to that effect.
As for American nuclear weapons situated in Britain, is it the fact that here, as in the United States, an initial warning is based upon one computer and that the same sort of error could arise even if it were corrected at a later stage? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that if it ever came to the use of such bases in the United Kingdom in the circumstances that we have had described today, it would be a matter of joint decision between the United States and Her Majesty's Government?

§ Mr. Pym
Yes, I can confirm the right hon. Gentleman's last supposition, which relates to the situation when a threat exists. I can assure him that I share his concern. Naturally, everyone is concerned that such a mistake should have happened. That concern is shared by the United States authorities. I do not think that anything that I have said indicates that I take other than a most serious view of the matter, as, I am sure, does the whole House. I shall consider what more could or should be said when more details are known. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, computers are linked on both sides of the Atlantic. 31 There is no one instrument that is responsible for the whole alert system.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I have received three applications under Standing Order No. 9. Two of the applications relate to Northern Ireland and the third relates to the topic of the private notice question.

§ Mr. Cryer
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is one that transcends all others. Can we not extend the time for questions on the private notice question? It is a highly important topic. I am sure that there are many in the House who feel that the Secretary of State for Defence is being unbelievably smug about the most important issue for mankind, namely, whether it survives. If Parliament is to have any importance we should spend more than about eight minutes on questions on such an issue.

§ Mr. Speaker
I allowed six questions arising from the private notice question. A private notice question is different from a statement. I must retain the distinction between the two.