HC Deb 26 January 1982 vol 16 cc741-3
13. Mr. Cryer

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has now received on the Trident programme and the siting of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

9. Mr. Gwilym Roberts

asked the Secretary of State for Defence how many representations he has received in connection with the Trident programme and the plans to locate cruise missiles in the United Kingdom; and if he will list these representations in the Official Report.

Mr. Nott

Since taking up my present appointment I have received about 210 letters and seven petitions concerning the Trident missile programme and about 370 letters and nine petitions concerning cruise missiles. These came both from individuals and from representatives of various groups.

Mr. Cryer

Will the Secretary of State confirm that those representations are based, first, on the fact that Trident will be between 15 and 30 times more powerful than the current Polaris missile, making it an instance of further nuclear escalation, and, secondly, that the cost is soaring out of all control and is now approaching or exceeding the £11.25 million cost of Tornado? Will he confirm that the representations are also based on the fact that cruise missiles will be entirely under the control of the United States, with both keys in the hands of the United States? Does he agree that that, together with the fact that they cannot be verified, is a major cause of concern?

Mr. Nott

The representations cover a wide range of genuine concerns. They are not related to any specific issue. The hon. Gentleman does not yet know the cost of the possible option of a Trident 2 missile, but I can tell him that his figures are widely exaggerated and that the Tornado programme will be far more expensive than the Trident programme. With regard to cruise missiles, there is a long-standing arrangement, which has survived two or three Labour Governments and which we have not changed, covering the decision-making process with regard to the release of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths

With regard to the representations that my right hon. Friend has received, many of them from East Anglia, may I congratulate him and his colleagues in the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence on the way in which they have tackled this problem throughout the country? Now that they have won the intellectual argument in respect of nuclear weapons, will he go further and refute some of the nonsense now being talked about nerve gas at American bases in this country?

Mr. Nott

On the latter point, it is utterly untrue that the Americans intend to deploy chemical weapons forward, and the rumour has been denied by the American Department of Defence.

With regard to the debates about nuclear weapons, we still have much explaining to do and a long way to go, but I am encouraged by the evidence of such polls as we have seen that the broad mass of the British people and, so far as I can judge, a majority of subscribing members of the Labour Party, believe in the maintenance of an independent deterrent for this country, because they know that it is essential for the maintenance of peace. We shall continue to argue that peace depends on our retaining strong defences in this country, and I hope that we shall convince more and more people as we go along.

Mr. Frank Allaun

Did the Secretary of State see the recent interview with David Greenwood on "Panorama"? In the light of that interview and of the fact that we are likely to take the more advanced missile, will he give a firm assurance that, compared with the original Government estimate of £5 billion, the final estimate will not exceed £10 billion at current prices?

Mr. Nott

The hon. Gentleman will have to await the announcement of our decision. When we announce the decision, we shall give the figure. I saw the interview with Mr. Greenwood. Some of the figures presented in the programme were greatly exaggerated. The hon. Gentleman will have to await the Government's decision. When we announce the decision, we shall give the up-to-date figures.

Mr. Best

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the declaration of nuclear-free zones by certain local authorities, and the belief that the siting of cruise missiles makes this country in some way more vulnerable to attack, are based on a fundamental misapprehension that any future conflict would not be fought against industrial and population targets as well as military targets? Would not those people be better employed in informing the Soviet Politburo of their nuclear-free zones so that it may agree to them?

Mr. Nott

I agree with my hon. Friend. The declaration of such nuclear-free zones is a fatuous way to proceed. I cannot understand how anybody could imagine that the Soviet Union or any other nation would take the remotest notice of an area being declared a nuclear-free zone. With regard to the suggestion that Europe should be declared a nuclear-free zone, my hon. Friend will know that if the Soviets removed their SS20 and other missiles out of Europe they could hit exactly the same targets from the other side of the Urals. The whole concept therefore makes no sense and, indeed, will tend to encourage rather than to prevent war.

Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.