§ 2.49 p.m.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the decision of the United States Defence Department to add $88 million to the United States Navy's fiscal 1984 budget request in order to develop a new ballistic re-entry vehicle for the Trident 2 submarine-launched ballistic missile, with a higher nuclear warhead yield, affects their plans to purchase Trident 2 missiles from the United States; and if so how; and whether the proposed British warhead for Trident 2 missiles in the hands of the Royal Navy will be superior or inferior in performance and yield to the proposed new American warhead.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, the decision of the United States Department of Defence to seek funds for the development of a new ballistic re-entry vehicle for Trident with a higher yield warhead does not change the plans of Her Majesty's Government to purchase Trident 2 missiles. The British warhead for Trident is being designed to meet the United Kingdom deterrent requirements, and the question whether it is superior or inferior to any future United States warhead development does not arise.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, would the noble Lord accept that I am most grateful to him for a very clear answer in this case?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
§ Lord BishopstonMy Lords, will the Minister accept that, with the escalating costs of even bigger and better—if "better" is the right word to use—weapons, which can be far more devastating, the Trident 2, which the Government seem to be so keen on, will be out of date? In view of the fact that Trident 2 will cost about £10 billion, is he aware of the widespread fears on all sides that this amount of money for this nuclear potential may mean that we are not equipped adequately in the conventional role, and that, in the event of an emergency, we shall go nuclear before anything else?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I must say that that is the first time I have heard from the Labour Front Bench in either House a case being made that we should do more in the nuclear field over the next 15 to 20 years than the present Government are intending to do. But I believe that the present Government's plans are right. We are intending to maintain our independent nuclear deterrent which will be effective, while, at the same time, continuing to spend considerable sums upon our conventional forces.
§ Lord BishopstonMy Lords, may I make it clear to the Minister that I was not advocating a better weapon than the one which the Government propose. I was 1005 questioning even the decision of the Government to have the Trident, which, apart from other factors, has the enormous cost of £10 billion, and which may create other dangers with our conventional capability. I am certainly not justifying either.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, the answer to that is that it is a question of time-scale; that it is necessary to up-date our independent deterrent. This is what we believe Trident will do, and we think it will be an effective weapon for the 1990s.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, do the Government not realise that the case for Trident has in fact, evaporated? Will they not listen to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who described it as being of no bloody use?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, if the noble Lord thinks that the case for Trident has evaporated, why are the Russians so eager to count the British and the French independent deterrents in the bilateral arms talks which they are undertaking with the United States?
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, would my noble friend agree that the last estimate that the Government made in relation to Trident was £7,500 million, and not £10,000 million as stated by the noble Lord opposite? Further, would my noble friend remind the House that that is to be spread over a period of over 15 years and constitutes approximately 3 per cent. of our defence budget?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Trenchard for both of the points which he has made in that supplementary question.
§ Lord AveburyMy Lords, if the Government are so keen on excluding the British nuclear deterrent from the negotiations which are now going on in Geneva, would the noble Lord say whether there are any circumstances in which the United Kingdom might bring this force into the equation and agree to scrap it as part of a balanced force reduction on both sides?
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I think that the Government have on several occasions made their position clear on that point.
§ Lord Hill-NortonMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the six former Chiefs of the Defence Staff still living, apart from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, have all stated publicly and repeatedly that they warmly disagree with him?
§ Lord BelsteadBut, my Lords, the chiefs concerned are not the Government of this country, who have to look forward not only to the time of the period of office of this Government, but also to the periods of office of Governments to come. The Government have made it clear repeatedly, again and again, that we believe, along with the French Government, that it is necessary for the defence of Europe, and indeed of the free world, that we retain our independent nuclear deterrent.
§ Lord Hill-NortonMy Lords, I think that the noble Lord the Minister misunderstood my question. The point I was trying to make was that the views of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, which are so frequently prayed in aid by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, are disagreed with by all the other former Chiefs of the Defence Staff still alive.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord—far more grateful than I thought I was when he asked his question originally.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is not, in fact, customary for Ministers to ask questions of Opposition Back-Benchers? But since he has done so, I will tell him that the reason why the Soviet Union—
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, I was asked a question. Is the Minister aware that the reason why the Soviet Union obviously want to include all weapons systems in any negotiations is that these weapons systems are targeted upon them? Just as we want to include weapons which are targeted upon us, so, obviously, they want to include weapons systems which are targeted upon the Soviet Union.
§ Lord BelsteadMy Lords, the noble Lord's information about the real reasons of the Russians is ahead of mine.