§ 10. Mr. Leightonasked the Secretary of State for Defence how long a warning of missile attack the United Kingdom would receive from the early warning system.
§ Mr. BlakerAs my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House told the House on 21 January 1980—[Vol. 977, c. 80–1.]—assuming a completely surprise attack, which I consider unlikely, and depending on the place of launch, warning time could, in the worst case, be a matter of minutes.
§ Mr. LeightonIs it not clear from that reply that the Government's cosmetic pretence of civil defence lacks all credibility, as a recent conference of the British Medical Association emphasised? Is it not true that if six large hydrogen bombs were exploded down the backbone of the country, this island would become a devastated uninhabitable radioactive ruin? In those circumstances, is not the Government's pretence of civil defence nothing more that a cruel hoax?
§ Mr. BlakerI do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about civil defence, and, as he knows, that question is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. As for the military purposes of an early warning system, it is an integral part of our policy of deterrence, which relies both on having the ability to retaliate to a degree that would inflict unacceptable damage on any potential aggressor and on having sufficient warning time to identify the source of attack and to take appropriate steps.
§ Mr. Arthur LewisWith or without the nuclear deterrent or the Armed Forces, can the Minister really say that we have any defence when, as he told me last week, we spend £170,000 a year to guard Buckingham Palace, yet three people could get in there without any trouble? What are we doing? We cannot defend Buckingham Palace.
§ Mr. BlakerNo doubt, the hon. Gentleman will raise that most interesting matter on an appropriate occasion.