HL Deb 14 November 1983 vol 444 cc1074-80

3.56 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I hope that you will forgive me if I intervene again to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place about cruise missile deliveries. The Statement is as follows:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about preparation for the operational deployment of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom.

"On 31st October, this House reaffirmed by a majority of 144 its support for the NATO 1979 twin track decision on intermediate range nuclear forces, its backing for the West's efforts to achieve a balanced and verifiable agreement at the Geneva negotiations, and confirmed that in the absence of agreement on the zero option, cruise missiles must be operationally deployed in the United Kingdom at the end of 1983.

"In the course of that debate, I indicated that the initial supporting equipment for the first flight of cruise missiles had been arriving at RAF Greenham Common for some time, that further equipment, including the transporter-erector-launchers, would be arriving shortly, and that I would make a further Statement when the missiles arrived in this country. In honouring that commitment, I should inform the House that, earlier today, the first cruise missiles were delivered by air to RAF Greenham Common.

"The delivery of the missiles is wholly consistent with the Alliance decision to achieve an initial operational capability by the end of 1983 in the absence of agreement on the zero option. Much work remains to be done, including the final assembly and testing of equipments and personnel training, before the missiles are operational.

"I wish to emphasise that these continuing preparations for operational deployment do not in any way lessen NATO's commitment to negotiations or reduce the desire of the Alliance to reach agreement on arms control with the Soviet Union. The NATO deployment is planned to be completed over a five-year period; it can be halted, modified or revised at any time if results in Geneva warrant it.

"But the fact remains that since the 1979 decision the Soviet Union has almost trebled—from 126 to 360—the number of SS.20 missiles it has deployed. Even since the debate on 31st October we assess that another nine missiles are operationally deployed, compared with the figures I gave the House on that occasion.

"In contrast. I would remind the House that last month NATO Defence Ministers agreed to the most radical reduction in the number of nuclear warheads deployed in Europe that has ever taken place. The effect of this decision will be to reduce the number of NATO nuclear warheads in Europe to their lowest level in 20 years, even if full deployment of Pershing II and cruise missiles takes place. The number of these warheads will be reduced by one third from their December 1979 level, and the number of warheads for shorter-range systems will be reduced by one half.

"The Government hope that the Soviet Union will now respond positively to the radical proposals put forward by NATO for arms control. That is our foremost hope. But let me make it clear that this Government will remain resolute in their commitment to take those steps which are essential for the defence of this country and our allies."

My Lords, that is the Statement.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for reading this very important Statement to the House. We are grateful also to the Secretary of State. I understand that he has travelled some distance in order to come to Parliament to make this Statement at rather short notice. Perhaps the Minister would comment on that. In view of the fact that the Secretary of State is keeping his promise to inform Parliament of the deployment of missiles, does this not suggest that he had very little knowledge of when the missiles were actually coming to this country? If that is so, then surely the state of consultation between the United States and ourselves is something which could be vastly improved? Does the Minister not agree that, even when a Minister is acting possibly as a type of messenger from the United States, he should have good notice before he delivers such messages to Parliament?

As the missiles are mobile, will Parliament be informed of any proposals to move them to other sites throughout Britain? Will the Minister say what those sites are? Is he aware that over 90 per cent. of people of all parties want dual control? Will he heed such overwhelming views even at this late stage? The Minister says that the preparations for operational deployment do not in any way lessen NATO's commitment to negotiation. Does he really expect the Soviets to continue negotiations when such action is already being taken by Her Majesty's Government in consultation with the United States well before the end of the year which we understood was the deadline if the Geneva talks failed? While reductions of warheads are welcomed, is it not the fact that the nuclear capability will be all the greater in view of the very advanced technical superiority of the weapons with which we are now concerned?

In the light of the Korean airliner incident, to which reference was made in Question Time today, can the Minister say what safeguards there are as regards adequate consultation between allies and between NATO and the Soviets? Finally, the House will be looking forward to tomorrow when we may debate these matters so vital to our future in greater detail.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords. I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. Is he aware that his Statement quotes as a reason for deployment the failure of the Soviet Union to accept the zero option? But was this not the original demand of the United States when the negotiations began two years ago? Is that not proof that any changing of the offer by the United States since has been purely cosmetic? Can the noble Lord give any precedent in international negotiations for a country stating its requirements and its first negotiating position, and negotiating or pretending to negotiate for two years, then restating the original demand at the end of the negotiations?

Is the Minister aware that many of those who, unlike the Labour Party, supported the twin-track decision, deplore the passive acceptance by the British Government of this hard-line American negotiating position? Now that the Soviet Union has scaled down to 140 the number of SS20s which it would deploy against Europe, is the Minister aware that the gap between the two sides, in terms of warheads, is less than 3 per cent. of the total warhead stockpile of the two sides? Will the Government therefore now inform the United States that before actual deployment takes place they will be looking for a decisive shift in the American negotiating position at Geneva and also that they will, in any case, under no circumstances support the deployment without agreement that Britain shall share the physical control of the missiles?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their response. The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, asked me first of all about consultation. I can assure the noble Lord that the British Government have been in the closest consultation with the United States over all the matters referred to in the Statement, and the type of insinuation that was contained in the noble Lord's supplementary question was quite without foundation. As for the question of training deployments, these have yet to be decided upon in detail. I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance that each and every one will be notified to your Lordships or to the other place beforehand, but the plans, as I say, are presently in formulation.

The question of dual control or dual key is a matter which your Lordships will be debating tomorrow evening, and I hope therefore that your Lordships will forgive me if I am not dragged into that discussion at this time. The question of arms control negotiation was raised by both the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. Your Lordships may have temporarily forgotten quite what proposals the West has been making in recent months in these particular areas. In the INF talks, for example, the West, in the form of the United States, made the zero option proposal which would of course eliminate the whole of this class of nuclear weapon. That offer is still on the table but, if that is too radical for the Soviet Union, then we are certainly prepared to agree a genuine balance at as low a level as the Soviet Union will accept. Indeed, President Reagan recently announced further flexibility in the United States' negotiating position specifically geared to take account of expressed Soviet concerns. There have been other Western proposals in some of the other disarmament fora recently, generally all with an equally dismal response from the Soviet Union.

The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, also referred to the balance of nuclear forces in Europe and he said that he thought that the balance was about 3 per cent. or so. But the noble Lord seems to have forgotten, if I may say so, that we are now facing some 360 SS20 missiles, as was said in the Statement, while we on the Western side have none of these intermediate range weapons at all. That is the cause of the present deployment.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while it is the policy of the Labour Party that cruise missiles should not come here at all, it would, since they are apparently arriving, be appropriate for us to concentrate on the question of operational deployment? In those circumstances will he bear in mind, before he comes to consider this question—and I gather that it will he some time before the question is finally decided—the view expressed in national opinion polls by the British people, including apparently 96 per cent. of Conservative Party voters, that physical operational control at the point of delivery should rest in British hands or at least in shared hands? In those circumstances, is the noble Minister in a position to give us a particular assurance on this point, recognising the strength of opinion, on an all-party basis, on this question?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I certainly recognise that there is more than one view about the point that the noble Lord is making to me. The Government have made their position very clear on this matter and I have no doubt that the noble Lord will make his position equally clear when we come to discuss this matter tomorrow evening.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that from both Front Benches opposite there has been no request, no demand and no coercion as regards the USSR to make any gesture at all in reducing the threat from 360 three-headed SS20s which have been deployed over the last five years? Is it not sad that in this House we have reached a state of affairs which one would doubt existed in the Liberal/SDP Alliance? Will we not get a more robust attitude from David Owen in another place and not have this abject surrender, which means that all efforts must be made by this country and by their NATO allies to reduce our armaments, rather than putting the pressure on the USSR, where the pressure should be put?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Of course it is the policy of this Government to pursue multilateral balanced and verifiable disarmament proposals, and that is what is happening in the various fora.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, the noble Lord talks about the dismal responses of the Soviet Union. Would he not agree that there have been endeavours (as we understand from the reading of what one might describe as "the more responsible press") by the Soviet Union to try to get together to talk about these matters? Will he bear that in mind? We cannot, on the one hand, as we have heard a moment ago, ignore the massive advantage that the Soviet Union has in nuclear weapons, in tanks and all types of weapons—they have this massive advantage and they are being recalcitrant. On the other hand, many of us think that they want to talk about it. If they were being really logical, they would start now before the Americans and the United Kingdom can catch up. So let us be sensible in trying to initiate talks with them.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, as I have said, we are having talks with the Soviet Union in the various disarmament fora that are presently in being. There are the INF talks, the START talks, and the MBFR talks in Vienna concerned with conventional weapons; there are the general disarmament talks taking place in Geneva, which at the present time are particularly concerned with chemical weapons. The United Kingdom is playing an important role in the forthcoming conference on disarmament in Europe. Therefore, talks are going on. We are now looking for a positive response from the USSR.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, will the Government and noble Lords opposite accept that the Alliance is, indeed, most anxious and insistent for Soviet reductions in intermediate range missiles, but that the Alliance has also noticed that the Soviet Union has offered to make such reductions and that the United States has also offered to make reductions in its deployments? Will the Government not agree that the time to discuss the operational deployment of the cruise missiles is not yet, but when we know the final position of the two sides at the Geneva negotiations, which is not yet known and may not be known for weeks? Will the Government also note that we here agree with what the noble Lord has just said, that the time to discuss dual key is tomorrow night? In the meantime can the noble Lord the Minister of State comment on a recent report in an American magazine—a normally reliable one—to the effect that there exists a joint Anglo-American operational plan to lay down the conditions under which both British and United States troops at Greenham Common would open fire upon people who might approach the perimeter fence? I hope it is as obvious to the Government as it is to me that this cannot possibly be true. Can the Government please set the mind of the House at rest on that?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I have not seen the report to which the noble Lord refers, and I know of no such plan.

Lord Gladwyn

My Lords, I know that this is a hypothetical question, but let us suppose that the negotiations on intermediate weapons continue in Geneva—and we all hope that they will—and let us suppose that during these negotiations the Russians come forward with a further offer (apparently they have already offered to reduce their weapons to 130 or 140) to reduce them to, say, 100. In order to facilitate these negotiations, would the Government contemplate halting the importation of cruise missiles, reserving their right, however, to resume the importation if, after all, the negotiations fail?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the West will certainly be willing to consider any proposals put forward by the Soviets at the INF talks at Geneva which could lead to a settlement on this matter. However, the difficulty which faces us at the present time is that the Soviets have an overwhelming superiority in this type of weapon. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, they have 360 rockets, which, as my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing reminded us, each have three warheads, while at the same time we have absolutely none of these land-based intermediate range weapons. So any proposal which the Soviets may make by way of a reduction in the numbers which they are prepared to contemplate will have to be considered by us in that context.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, in view of the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, which allege that Members on these Benches are not anxious that the Soviets should also proceed towards disarmament, may I ask whether the Minister recalls that I asked him whether he expects the Soviet Union to continue negotiations when the Government have taken the action that they have? The promise earlier in the year was that if the talks fail after Christmas, then deployment will take place. Apparently talks are still taking place, and deployment is proceeding. That surely will torpedo the possibility of success of these important talks, which are vital to both sides.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I very much hope that the Soviets will not withdraw from the present talks in the light of today's events or of any other news. After all, the United States has remained at the table in Geneva despite the continued deployment of SS20s by the Soviet Union throughout that time.

Lord Beswick

My Lords, the noble Lord talks about the overwhelming superiority of the Soviet forces. Will the noble Lord tell us what is the difference to a recipient whether he is hit by a land-launched or a sea-launched missile?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I agree that if you are sitting underneath it the difference is not very great, if any. But the distinction is the question of deployment. These SS20 missiles are a wholly new element in the nuclear equation, and that is why we had to make the response that we did.

Lord Diamond

My Lords, in order that there should be an accurate record in Hansard—and I do not wish to appear niggling—could the noble Lord confirm what he originally said in repeating the Statement, or perhaps he could revise it? I have reason to believe that in another place his right honourable friend said that the NATO deployment can be "halted, modified or reversed". The noble Lord the Minister said that it could be "revised". There is a considerable difference between "reversed" and "revised", and I wonder whether he would be good enough to confirm which is the correct version?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for asking that question. If I said "revised" I was mistaken; the correct words are, of course, "halted, modified or reversed".

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, is there no chance of the United Kingdom being represented at these talks instead of being represented by the United States, allies though they may be, in view of the fact that the Labour Party has sent its former leader, Mr. Foot, and also Mr. Healey and Mr. Callaghan to the Soviet Union to talk on these matters? We are often told that if we have these weapons, we have a right to put our legs under the table, but in this case Britain is not represented.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, it is indeed the case that we are not represented at the INF talks; but then, of course, we were not the progenitor of these weapons so it would not he appropriate.