HL Deb 11 February 1981 vol 417 cc200-1

2.48 p.m.

Lord Shinwell

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 what is the estimated cost of increasing the manpower of the Navy, Army and Air Force for combatant purposes in the event of further tension in international affairs as compared with the cost of increasing our nuclear capability, unilaterally or in conjunction with the United States or other NATO countries.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Trenchard)

My Lords, I am afraid that without details of the numbers of men, their roles and equipment and the additional nuclear capability which the noble Lord envisages, it is very difficult to answer the Question in specific terms. In order to deter the Russians from starting a war we need to possess a range of capabilities, from conventional forces the theatre nuclear weapons and ultimately to our strategic deterrent. Our aim is to provide balanced forces capable of meeting the threat at every level. I should like to stress that I regard the planned replacement of our Polaris force with the Trident system as a highly cost-effective way of maintaining deterrence. But I also agree with the noble Lord about the importance of our manpower resources, and we have increased the size of the regular armed forces by 20,000 and the volunteer reserves by 7,000 since we came into office.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that information. Would it not incline the Minister to agree that it disposes of the belief in certain quarters that conventional forces are likely to be less costly than forces based on nuclear provision and that, therefore, we should focus attention on what is regarded as less costly, when, in point of fact, the increase in manpower in the three services would prove to be far more costly than the provision of the Trident or any other missile that can be conceived of? Is it not time that we furnished more accurate information about the two kinds of military equipment and manpower that we require?

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord feels that we have not furnished that information. I think it comes clearly through the White Papers, which we have published and will publish again, and I think it came clearly through the Statement that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made on 20th January. For instance, we have made entirely clear—and here I thank the noble Lord for the points that he has made—that, over the period of its development and production, Trident is likely to cost us in capital costs some 3 per cent. only of our defence budget, and that is roughly in line with what Polaris has cost us in the past. Whereas if we were to make a major increase in our conventional forces, with all the equipment that they need—and we still would not equal Russian manpower on the western front—it would cost very much more.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for disposing of one myth which has been current in certain quarters. On the subject of further information—because I recognise it is impossible for the Minister to provide detailed and accurate information on every item—is he aware that, according to a report in the Daily Telegraph recently, there was an Anglo-American seminar which was attended by military experts from both sides and Ministers, and also, I understand, by some Members of your Lordships' House and some senior Members of Parliament? If they can be provided with strategic information, some of it of a secretive character, why cannot we in the House of Lords, and even Members in another place, also be furnished with such information? Why should it be confined to a certain number of people? My final question is: Had these people been vetted? It is very important that we should be informed on that point.

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, to deal with the last, and important, point first, we do not give highly secret information—I am still sufficient of a new boy not to have the classifications fully clear—to people who have not been vetted. On the general point of whether we can do better in providing both Houses of Parliament with more information, I will take the noble Lord's point. I already have it in mind to see whether we can do better in relation to this House. There will, of course, be opportunities for debates and I will do my best to ensure that the maximum information is available for those debates.