HL Deb 11 May 1983 vol 442 cc462-5

2.45 p.m.

Lord Gladwyn

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

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government why, if present arrangements for "joint decision" mean that there will be an effective potential British veto on the use, in war, of United States cruise missiles stationed in this country, the United States Government will only agree to confirm this fact by the installation of a dual key system of control if the United Kingdom agrees to purchase these weapons at prohibitive expense.

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, as has been made clear on many occasions, the arrangements for joint decision are perfectly satisfactory and do not require supplementing or confirmation by some other means. Furthermore all dual key control systems have been based on the ownership and operation of the weapons systems involved, apart from the warhead. Such ownership carries with it the appropriate costs.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, is it not nevertheless a fact that, in the absence, so far as the cruise missile is concerned, of any dual operational control, the Americans can always in the last resort—I repeat, in the last resort—retain the possibilty of discharging these missiles without formal British consent, and that this is in practice a possibility which they are reluctant to abandon? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether the denial of his noble colleague Lord Belstead on 3rd May last that cruise missiles were first strike weapons because, the NATO alliance … will never, strike first at another enemy" [Official Report. 3/5/83; col. 66.] means that there is no prospect of the Americans ever making first use of nuclear missiles, or bombs for that matter, deployed on British territory?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Belstead has said on many occasions, the use of weapon systems operating from United States bases in the United Kingdom is governed by the understanding on joint decision-making between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States summarised in the joint communiqué issued in January 1952, and this has been ratified every time there has been a change of President and a change of Prime Minister.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, is it not a fact that since 1952 the destructive power of these weapons has enormously increased and the time-scale within which decisions will have to be taken has considerably reduced? In the circumstances of the future—involving a two-minute or three-minute flight time, probably—is the noble Lord really satisfied that there can be the sort of political discussion and decision-making envisaged in 1952?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the situation remains as has been described. The agreement still exists. The agreement is satisfactory; and the noble Lord is incorrect when he talks about such a short flight time.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House why it was that in 1958 Mr. Macmillan thought the national interest required him to buy the Thor missiles in order to attain a dual key? Last week, in debate, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said he did not know. Have the Government now found out and reflected on it?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, that is in fact another question. However, as I understand it, the situation then was that we had to buy the missiles but we did not buy the warheads. The warheads may not be sold to us under both United States national law and international law.

Lord Glenamara

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us who are not unilateralists believe that the Government's position on this is becoming quite untenable, as his right honourable friend the Member for Down, South, made clear in another place this week? If the missiles are American owned and the bases from which they are going to be launched are British owned, surely that constitutes joint ownership and is therefore the basis for dual key arrangements? Missiles are no good without the bases. The bases are British, the missiles American. Is that not joint ownership?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the use of the missiles, either from actually on the bases or deployed, is a matter for joint decision under the arrangements which have been described to your Lordships on many occasions.

Lord Harmar-Nicholls

My Lords, with regard to the arrangements being untenable, is it not a fact that since 1952 every new Prime Minister, whatever party they have represented, has looked at it and has agreed the arrangement which stands today?

Lord Glenarthur

Yes, my Lords. I have said that before, and I am grateful to my noble friend for saying it again.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that no nuclear missile can be fired from French soil without a French finger on the trigger? Is he further aware that no missile can be fired from Australian, Spanish or Swiss soil because there is none? If the Government will not put us in the second category, is it not high time they at least put is in the first?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, this country has in many respects relied for many years on United States assistance and presence, both conventionally within Europe and with its nuclear forces. The question of what the French do and what might happen in Australia is something for which I cannot answer.

Lord Pagent of Northampton

My Lords, when the noble Lord looks at this problem, does it occur to him that the Russians think that these weapons are aimed at them by the Americans? When the Americans produce these absurd terms for granting a dual key, the Russians think the weapons are aimed by the Americans, who want an independent power to strike first. To produce a 20-year-old agreement—

Lord Denham

The noble Lord is not asking a question, my Lords.

Lord Paget of Northampton

—dating back to before the Russians had a weapon to use is so dishonest that it raises every suspicion and puts us in great danger.

Noble Lords

Order!

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, peace has been maintained through deterrence for over 30 years, and the facts speak for themselves.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the recent exchange it was said that the 1952 agreement referred to the Thor missile? This is rather different, so does the 1952 agreement still apply in the case of missiles which are not owned by us? Will the Minister tell us briefly where the Government stand in our relationship with the United States? At the Geneva talks we are not present but the United States is. In the case of our having cruise missiles on our soil, the fact that there is no dual key means that operational control is in the hands of the Americans. Are we satellites of the Americans or are we allies, especially in the use of weapons based on our own soil?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am slightly troubled about how many different ways there are of describing the arrangements which have been in existence since 1952. In the case of cruise missiles, cruise is a different form of the weapons that have been in existence here for many years. For example, the F-111s are under exactly the same arrangements, and they are subject, in use, to joint decision.

The Lord Bishop of Peterborough

My Lords, to the Minister's mind, would it not be a sensible thing, in order to diminish the number of unverified assumptions which will be bandied about in the next three weeks to bamboozle the voting public, for the Government to issue 25 or 30 words of plain straight English explaining exactly how the veto or the control of these missiles will work if it ever unfortunately has to be operated?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the Government have made clear on many, many occasions in your Lordships' House and elsewhere exactly how the 1952 agreement applies.

Viscount Trenchard

My Lords, will my noble friend agree that our peace and security depend on the NATO Alliance working in harmony, and that five countries are to provide sites for missiles of two kinds? Does he further agree that the worry about cruise missiles in the United Kingdom is more a theoretical than a practical one, hearing in mind that these missiles are in our country on bases guarded by our troops? They would have to be moved to sites for operation, escorted by our forces. Apart from the very thorough joint decision arrangement, will he agree that there is no possibility that these missiles could be used from our country against the will of our Prime Minister?

Lord Glenarthur

Yes, my Lords; and I am grateful to my noble friend. We welcome the presence of United States forces in this country as a visible symbol of their commitment to NATO's collective defence. It is inconceivable that a United States President would act against the wishes of the British Government in the use of these bases. Any reasonable approach to the defence of this country rests on the mutual trust and goodwill that exist between the members of the alliance; and the Government have no doubt whatever that the United States is fully committed to the collective defence of the West.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, are the Government not mistaken in saying that every Prime Minister since 1952 has been satisfied that the 1952 agreement on joint control is sufficient, in view of the fact that Mr. Macmillan, when Prime Minister, spent many millions of pounds on buying Thor missiles in order to have a physical dual key as well as the 1952 agreement?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the Government are not mistaken.

Lord Glenamara

My Lords, in view of the noble Lord's reply to the right reverend Prelate, will he say, yes or no: have we a veto or have we not?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, the use of the weapons is subject to joint decision-making.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, would the Government be prepared, at some stage, to put this question to a vote in this House?