NUCLEAR EXERCISE (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) (Hansard, 12 June 1980)

§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Francis Pym)
No, Sir. It is a routine exercised announced a month ago, which involves United States-based strategic forces.

§ Mr. Rodgers
Despite the brief reply by the Secretary of State, does he appreciate that many who are loyal to the Alliance believe that in present circumstances it could be the wrong exercise, in the wrong place and at the wrong time? In reply to another private notice question on Monday the right hon. Gentleman said that American computers were coupled with computers in Britain. In those circumstances, will not the American exercise involve American forces in Britain? If so, will joint decisions be involved? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman explain how decoupling can occur?
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on whether, at a time when the world is poised in a state of great anxiety and when there are doubts about the authority of the American leadership, that exercise should take place, and whether it does not carry grave risks for us all?

§ Mr. Pym
On the contrary, it is extremely important that all the forces of all the members of the Alliance should be involved in training exercises. It is a routine exercise, and there have been many like it. It involves United States-based strategic forces. That is the position. It is entirely right that they should be involved. In the present uncertain state of the world, it is necessary for all military forces to be up to a full state of training.

§ Mr. Kershaw
Was not my right hon. Friend's reply rather short? Should he not have included a space in his reply for an expression of sympathy for the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) the Opposition spokesman on defence, who did not even know that the Labour 800 Party Left wing was to give a party political broadcast last night advocating the betraying of our responsibilities and the betraying of our allies?

§ Mr. Pym
I rather doubt that this is the moment to reflect upon a rather inaccurate, and certainly misleading broadcast.

§ Mr. Dalyell
In the Adjournment debate that I have been granted for tomorrow, on the issue of what went wrong on Tuesday 3 June and Friday 6 June, will the Secretary of State be in a position to give the explanation that he promised to the House on Monday, or is it too early to expect such an explanation?

§ Mr. Pym
I doubt whether I can give that explanation tomorrow. In any case, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the responsibility lies with the United States Administration and not this Administration.

§ Mr. Eldon Griffiths
As the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) linked the American and British deterrents, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the arrangements to modernise the British nuclear deterrent, for example by Operation Chevaline, were made by Labour Ministers? Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I visited California recently I was informed that Labour Ministers had initiated the discussions with a view to the development of cruise missiles in Britain? In those circumstances, is it not the most nauseating humbug for the Labour Party in opposition to seek to frighten people about the weapons that the Labour Party in office was seeking to bring in to Britain?

§ Mr. Pym
We must continue to hope that the agreement that has existed between the two Front Benches on major strategic matters involving the national interest will continue.

§ Mr. Hooley
Was there any ministerial consultation within NATO about the exercise? If so, what views were expressed by the United Kingdom?

§ Mr. Pym
As it is not a NATO exercise, the question does not arise. The exercise refers to United States strategic forces.

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall call three more hon. Members from each side.

§ Mr. Whitney
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the exercise is welcome evidence of the determination of the United States to maintain its defensive capability in a high state of alert? Does he further agree that that capability is important to the whole of the Western Alliance—contrary to the views expressed by the Labour Party during last night's broadcast, which practically tended towards unilateral disarmament?

§ Mr. Pym
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the exercise. However, I say again that there is nothing special about it : it is a routine exercise. It is one of an ordinary series and should be looked at in that light. It is important to know and to understand, and for it to be understood by any potential adversaries, that we are in a state of great readiness and preparedness.

§ Mr. Heffer
Will the Secretary of State explain why it is necessary for Britain, alone of all the NATO Powers apart from the United States of America, to have an independent nuclear capability when other NATO countries do not find that necessary?

§ Mr. Pym
I think that you, Mr. Speaker, might call me to order if I were to set out, as I have on a previous occasion, the arguments for the Government's belief that it is highly desirable for the United Kingdom to have its own nuclear capability. That is probably beyond the scope of the private notice question.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am obliged to the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Gummer
Does my right hon. Friend agree that my constituents, and others who are affected, should be reassured by the fact that regular routine exerises take place? Does he further agree that if they did not take place, the whole deterrent effect of the nuclear weapon would not exist? Is it not sad, therefore, that the exercise is not wholeheartedly supported by the Opposition?

§ Mr. Pym
I agree with my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. Cryer
Does not the Secretary of State think that it is highly inappropriate, after seven months in which there have been three computer errors leading to some stage towards a nuclear confrontation, that America should embark, yet again, on a nuclear tactical exercise? 802 Should not the right hon. Gentleman use his offices to tell the Americans that the world is looking not for more nuclear deployment but for a lower level of nuclear deployment and genuine negotiation with the Russians for multilateral disarmament to give us a secure nuclear-free future?

§ Mr. Pym
As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—and no one likes the mistake that occurred last week more than he does—an unremitting effort towards arms control is a major pillar of our defence policy. At least we share that with the Opposition Front Bench. It is misleading of the hon. Gentleman to try to pretend otherwise. While we receive no response from the Russians, it is necessary to maintain adequate defences. As long at that is necessary, it is equally necessary to train and exercise those forces. That is the purpose of the routine exercise.

§ Mr. Kilfedder
In view of current world tension and the recent computer mistake, is it not insensitive and unhelpful for good international relations for the United States to launch a major nuclear exercise? Or is it a Presidential ploy in election year? What are the Government doing to point out to the United States that this is the wrong time for that sort of exercise?

§ Mr. Pym
The whole thought behind that question is a suggestion that the exercise is in some way a special exercise. As I have already told the House, it is not a special exercise but a routine exercise. It is important that all elements of the forces are trained and that they exercise their capabilities. It is wrong to describe it as a nuclear exercise. It relates to strategic forces based in the United States. My only attitude towards that is one of wholehearted encouragement.

§ Mr. Speaker
Would the Leader of the Opposition object if I first called the last Back Bencher?

§ Mr. John Home Robertson
Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the United States has had more than enough nuclear exercises already this month? Will he indicate to President Carter that 803 he does not need to behave like a cowboy just because he faces a superannuated cowboy in the presidential election?

§ Mr. Pym
I think that the campaign—if I can call it that—which seems to have quite a lot of support among Labour Members, to misrepresent this exercise, is extraordinarily unhelpful to the national interest, the Alliance, and world peace.

Mr. Callaghan
On disarmament, if Chancellor Schmidt's visit to Moscow should produce an indication that the Soviet Union is ready to enter into negotiations to withdraw the SS20 missile in exchange for the abandoment of the deployment of cruise missiles, would the British Government be ready to support such an initiative?

§ Mr. Pym
That raises a major and important issue, which obviously goes widely beyond this question. I do not think that this is the moment to reflect upon that. However, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, attached to the NATO decision in December for this deployment was a positive arms control initiative, which has been rejected. It was not taken up, and so far there has been only a negative response from the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union changes its tune, that is a totally new situation, but even the fact that it has refused to negiotiate so far has in no way prevented us from continuing to sit round a table and discuss with the Soviet Union in Vienna and Geneva what the possibilities are, so far without any result. If there is a response, full consideration will naturally have to be given at that time to what our response ought to be.

§ Mr. Dalyell
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the necessarily curtailed nature of the Secretary of State's replies—because question and answer must necessarily be rather laconic—may T give notice that tomorrow you have given me an Adjournment debate so that we can return to these questions in more detail, which is surely more satisfactory?

§ Mr. Speaker
I did not grant the Adjournment debate for that purpose. The hon. Gentleman chose the subject.
Business Statement, Mr. Callaghan.

§ Mr. Mike Thomas
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I shall take points of order after business questions.

§ Mr. Thomas
It is related to this question, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Very well.

§ Mr. Thomas
I am grateful Mr. Speaker. Under successive Governments this House has established and financed through the Estimates and the Office of Manpower Economics a deliberately independent Review Body on Top Salaries. That body is chaired by Lord Boyle, and is currently looking at——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It does not sound to me as though this is related to the business for next week. No hon. Member should jump the queue with points of order until after business questions. I think that I know the hon. Gentleman's point of order, because he gave me notice of it.