HL Deb 22 March 1983 vol 440 cc1002-3

2.44 p.m.

Lord Kennet

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what would be the cost to the United Kingdom of a small British double-key custodial force to ensure dual control of the United States cruise missiles which may have to be stationed in this country, analogous to the United States custodial force which ensured dual control of the Thor missiles which were stationed here around 1960.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)

My Lords, the United States custodial force for the Thor missiles which were stationed in this country was provided for the custody of the nuclear warheads which remained in full United States ownership. The cruise missiles force to be based in this country will be owned and operated entirely by the United States. Ownership of the warheads cannot, by international treaty and United States national law, be transferred to the United Kingdom. The question of a United Kingdom custodial force for the warhead does not therefore arise.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his Answer, but I wonder whether he could give us another answer which is more closely related to the Question: namely, the cost to the United Kingdom of a custodial force to give us a physical dual-key arrangement in connection with the United States missiles?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I cannot give an answer in cost terms to the question which the noble Lord asks because the noble Lord asked about a system analogous to the one which the Americans had when Thor was in use; and that was the Question to which my Answer was directed. However, if what the noble Lord means is: would the United Kingdom Government put a figure on the cost to the United Kingdom of providing the missile while the United States retained the warhead of cruise?, then the answer has been given in another place and it is: capital, £1 billion.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister, who I believe has said quite clearly that there is dual control and we need have no worries, or with the Defence Secretary's fairly recent remark that £1 billion would be concerned? If this is a joint effort, surely there is no justification for one ally to pay another ally this enormous amount of money. Will the noble Lord also agree that there is a growing amount of concern on all sides in both Houses of Parliament regarding the need for control jointly by both powers?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I absolutely acknowledge that there is concern on this most important subject. There is not a difference of view between my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on the existing system of joint decision, which has been in existence since the time of the Labour Government in the early 1950s. Both my right honourable friends, so far as that is concerned, have made it clear that they are satisfied that our arrangements are adequate and workable.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a growing number of people regard the cruise missile as increasing the threat of extinction rather than as being a means of defence? In the circumstances, would it not be better if it were not deployed at all?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, cruise is a second-strike weapon. That should give comfort to the people of Europe.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, do the Government regard joint decision as equivalent to dual control?

Lord Belstead

No, my Lords.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether the billion pounds is simply an estimate made by the British Government or whether it is an estimate agreed between the two Governments?

Lord Belstead

I am sorry, my Lords; would the noble Lord repeat the question?

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, is this billion pounds simply an estimate by the United Kingdom Government, or has it been agreed between the two Governments?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, in the House estimate made by the Ministry of Defence it is capital costs.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it is most desirable that in answering Questions in this House the Government should avoid the least suspicion of quibbling? Would he accept that the probable cost of the kind of dual-key arrangement which he knows quite well I am talking about might be somewhere between £100,000 and £200,000 a year?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, I most certainly do not accept that. I answered the noble Lord's Question originally, and I thought I answered it rather well.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, if I heard the noble Lord right, he said that the cruise missile was a second-strike weapon. Does that mean it could never be used on a first strike?

Lord Belstead

My Lords, no politician would ever use "never"; but the noble Lord knows the performance of cruise. Its performance is consonant with its being a second-strike weapon.