HC Deb 26 March 1985 vol 76 cc199-200
4. Mr. Sedgemore

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals for a European anti-ballistic missile system.

12. Ms. Clare Short

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on proposals for a European anti-ballistic missile system.

Mr. Butler

No such proposals have been made or received by the British Government.

Mr. Sedgemore

If it is true that Britain and Germany have been saved during the past 40 years by the concept of mutually-assured destruction, why is there a need for Europe to back research into costly and speculative star wars mania?

Mr. Butler

The main objective of the strategic defence initiative is to enhance deterrence. Deterrence has kept the peace in Europe for the past 40 years.

Ms. Short

Will the Minister confirm that the United States of America is attempting to persuade Europe to participate in star wars, that in Germany in particular they regard the American proposal for star wars as wholly undermining the strategy of mutually-assured destruction, and that the proposal is destabilising and likely to escalate the arms race?

Mr. Butler

I read reports of what Chancellor Kohl said last week and I do not think that the hon. Lady understands the German position. Participation in research is the only activity which is contemplated. We have made it clear that we wish to participate in that research. The details of that have yet to be worked out.

Mr. Cartwright

Does the Minister agree that any successful development of anti-ballistic missile defences in Europe would not be proof against cruise-type missiles or nuclear weapons delivered by shorter range and battlefield systems? In those circumstances, would not the development of star wars technology leave Europe more, rather than less, vulnerable to nuclear attack?

Mr. Butler

If the interpretation of ballistic missiles is missiles which leave the atmosphere, the hon. Gentleman is right. But, of course, if we can produce a completely effective defence system against such missiles, we shall reduce the risk to Western countries.

Mr. Denzil Davies

The Minister should try to answer the excellent questions put by my hon. Friends. President Reagan's speech has turned the entire Western nuclear strategy on its head, and the Government realise that very well. Does the Minister accept that the Opposition approve of much of the Foreign Secretary's speech a few weeks ago, and that we deplore the expatriate neurosis shown by Richard Perle when he came to London to address some loony Right meeting? Will the Minister say clearly that he deplores the Perle speech and the American initiative in these matters?

Mr. Butler

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman accepts what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said. All of my right hon. and learned Friend's speech rested on the now, I hope, well known four points of Camp David. I noticed a moment ago that the right hon. Gentleman disagreed when I said that the strategic defence initiative had as its main objective the enhancement of deterrence. I am happy to repeat the third point agreed at Camp David, which was that the overall aim is to enhance, not to undercut, deterrence.

Mr. Wilkinson

Is not the SDI intended, if it proves successful, to provide a global defence against ballistic missile attack? Is it not true that a space-based, orbital defence system would be able to intercept ballistic missiles in the boost, and in the ballistic and trajectory phase, and that that would enhance deterrence by reducing the risk of pre-emptive attack, including attack against Europe, especially by strategic systems and by intermediate range ballistic missiles?

Mr. Butler

My hon. Friend's interpretation of the concept of the SDI is right. We all recognise that these are still early days, and that research must be carried out. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary was investigating the various strategic implications of the new proposal.