Nuclear Attack: Emergency Arrangements (Hansard, 29 October 1981)

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, it would not be in the interests of national security for me to comment on matters of this nature, beyond saying that as part of our deterrent policy adequate emergency arrangements do of course exist.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that it is regrettable that apparently arrangements are being made for the continuation of some form of Government in the event of nuclear war 1119 but no provision whatsoever appears to be being made for the safety of the governed?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I would repeat again that the Government's policy is to prevent war, all war, and to do it through a policy of deterrence, but the credibility of deterrence depends on certain emergency arrangements. But I think it is quite wrong to suggest—and I believe that perhaps this is the purpose of the noble Lord's Question—that, because emergency arrangements are being made, this in any way suggests the Government's belief in the likelihood of a nuclear war. We are determined to prevent all war, and to do that we must have emergency arrangements.

§ Lord Beloff
My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that it would help discussion of the very serious problem of our defence and of multilateral disarmament if a deep shelter complex were provided for the leaders of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and if they were invited, for better safety, to occupy it forthwith?

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the Rand Institute of Strategic Studies in California reported that it would take 11 medium nuclear weapons so to destroy this country that it would be incapable of operating as a political unit? Does the noble Viscount agree with that estimate?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, without agreeing with any precise estimate, the absolute horror and severity of nuclear war is what makes us so determined to follow our policy of deterrence, and behind that to work for the mutual reduction of arms, about which I spoke in referring to Lord Mountbatten's views in the last Question.

§ Lord Brockway
My Lords, has the Minister read the background paper to the inquiry by the British Medical Association into the effects of nuclear war? Has he noted that it says that even in the deepest shelters the occupants would be choked and asphyxiated to death?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I am going to give the same answer. The whole point is not to have a war, but the belief of Her Majesty's Government is that if our will to keep the balance were to be weakened by certain movements which are currently advocating a unilateral rather than a multilateral move in relation to disarmament, war is more likely and not less likely.

§ Baroness Wootton of Abinger
My Lords, on a point of order, may I ask our noble Leader whether the House is dealing with replies to a Question about an inscription on a monument or whether it has engaged in a debate about nuclear war? If so, are we within Standing Orders?

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young)
My Lords, we are on the second Question that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has asked.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that, as between (according to estimates) 150,000 and a quarter of a million members, or supporters, of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament gathered in London on Sunday, it might be difficult to accommodate them, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggested, in the available shelter which the Government have provided, let alone the 50 million people who are apparently not to be provided for at all? Is he finally and further aware that the purpose of these questions is to make the public aware of the dangers of nuclear war and of the fact that the Government, while themselves preparing to use nuclear weapons, are making no provision whatsoever for the consequences of such use?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has now stated quite clearly that the Government—I think his words were, and I will have to check Hansard— are planning actually to take part in a nuclear war. I suggest that the whole intention of these questions is to try to produce extra fear of these nuclear weapons, and on the back of that to avoid our building up the necessary balance, which must be done as a prelude to disarmament, at the present time. The Government are in sympathy with the vast majority of those who attend CND or any other peace demonstration. They would only say, I think, that perhaps the efforts of the leaders of those movements might be more usefully applied to asking the Russians for permission for a march to Moscow to complain against the 250 modern, three war-headed, reloadable SS20 missiles which are now in position, targeted on Europe, can only be targeted on Europe and cannot reach America, and can reach the whole of Europe whether they are sited in Western Russia or east of the Urals.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, in view of what the noble Viscount has said, and claiming to be a believer in deterrence, does he believe in being deterred, and has he not described being deterred in pretty formidable terms?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, balance appears in this world, as it is, to be necessary and a necessary preliminary to making slow progress towards disarmament and arms control.

§ Baroness Wootton of Abinger
My Lords, I apologise that in my previous intervention I had not noticed that my noble friend had passed to his second Question, but I think my intervention is equally relevant here. The second Question relates to the safety provision that has been made for the Prime Minister and Cabinet at a particular place near Bath. May I ask whether the debate that is now going on is in order since it appears to be a debate on the merits of various forms of defence and not to relate to this particular Question?

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, I have answered the original Question, and said that we are not prepared to comment on this matter.