HL Deb 16 July 1979 vol 401 cc1131-4

2.46 p.m.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the policy Statement on Nuclear Defence Systems announced on 21st December 1962 and amplified by the Statement of 1st October 1963, by which Polaris submarines and elements of the United States strategic forces are targeted jointly in accordance with a NATO plan, is still in operation.

The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal)

My Lords, I can confirm that the arrangements for the assignment and targetting of our Polaris force, and elements of the United States' strategic forces, remain in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Statement on Nuclear Defence Systems of 21st December 1962 and subsequent Statements, such as that of 1st October 1963.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the Polaris force, whether it is owned by this country or by the United States, is in an advanced stage of obsolescence? We have four, not more than one of which is at sea. They are not independently targetted. They have a very limited range. The United States has 10, which are now assigned to secondary roles, and are being phased out with the emergence of Trident. As we are now five generations behind the United States, is there any useful purpose, except the political one, in claiming that we have an independent nuclear force?

Lord STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, I would not accept the noble Lord's statement that they are in an advanced stage of obsolescence. It is recognised that they will have to be replaced in the 1990s.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, how does the noble Lord manage to make that statement—I am sure he believes it—when the United States are phasing theirs out as fast as they can? They have 10 Polaris, and, as I say, all assigned to secondary roles, 27 Poseidons armed with C3, all of which are multiple independently targetted, which Polaris is not, plus Tridents armed with C4. They also have the U.S.S. "Ohio" coming into operation next year, with one generation being developed beyond that.

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, I would not contest with the noble Lord that the United States' nuclear forces are more modern and no doubt more dangerous than our own. But I would still like to point out to the noble Lord that I think it would be exceedingly unpleasant to be on the receiving end of our Polaris.

Lord GLADWYN

My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government have turned down the possible employment of cruise missiles as substitutes for the renewal of our Polaris force in 10 years' time?

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, it has not been turned down.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the question just addressed to him about the cruise missile is completely irrelevant? The issue is whether some weapon we have in our possession is comparable to weapons possessed by one of our allies. Is he aware that the answer he has given might have been understood if it had come from the previous Government? But as it is coming from a Government that have believed in building up a realistic defence, why does he not accept that the Polaris missiles are completely outmoded? The Americans have produced something very advanced, which proves conclusively that the reference to the Polaris being completely outmoded is absolutely accurate. Why not be realistic about it? Would it not be far better to admit that, with weapons which are no longer of any value, we are weak instead of pretending that we are strong?

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, the noble Lord has raised a fair number of questions which we have dealt with to some extent during the defence debates. I would say this, that we believe that our Polaris force, as modernised, remains a weapon capable of inflicting damage on a potential adversary, and they would not lightly put themselves in a position where that could happen.

Lord SHINWELL

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what he is talking about is 1962? This happens to be 1979. Many years have passed and certain weapons have now become obsolete. Why do we not admit it?

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, I have nothing to add to my previous reply; I can only repeat it.

Lord WIGG

My Lords, the noble Lord said "the Polaris force, as modernised". However, once we modernise it we go into a different generation. We either take on the Poseidon, which is itself becoming out of date, or we take on the Trident at tremendous cost. Which is it? We should not claim an independence which, in fact, we do not have.

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, I shall get into some difficulties if I try to elaborate on exactly what is meant by modernising the Polaris missile. I can only repeat that the Government are satisfied that the Polaris missile will remain a deterrent into the 1990s, and we shall then have to look at what is to replace it.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, however modernised, these forces would be insignificant compared with those of the Soviet Union and the United States of America, and would have no effect at all if war occurred? Would they not be an invitation to an enemy to bomb the people of this country?

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

No, my Lords, that is the philo- sophical question about which we have argued many times in this House. We do not aim in any way to measure up to the capabilities of either the Soviet Union or the United States. However, we believe that the independent nuclear deterrent possessed by this country is sufficient to deter, and will continue to be so until the 1990s.

Lord ORR-EWING

My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that there are many other people in this country who believe that it is very important that we should retain this deterrent? We would not wish France to be the only country in Western Europe operating a nuclear deterrent. We are sharing the burden with her and, if NATO is involved, of course, with the United States. In the meantime, it is no comfort for the Russians to say, "We are being bombarded by 16 atomic weapons which are slightly obsolescent". In that case obsolescence is of no importance as long as the range is adequate—which it is—from the launching areas which we have within our operational sphere.

Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend.