HL Deb 06 July 1984 vol 454 cc515-6

11.13 a.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

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 whether, since the United States Government has failed to confirm the Prime Minister's claim that she possesses a veto over the firing of cruise missiles based in this country, they will reconsider their refusal on 25th June to produce the evidence to show that the claim is recognised by those whose duty it would be to fire the missiles.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave the noble Lord on 25th June.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is it not completely unsatisfactory that the Prime Minister's statement of a veto over the firing of cruise missiles has been met with a resounding silence on the other side of the Atlantic, and that we therefore have the position of an unsubstantiated claim by the Prime Minister to possess a veto which the Americans will not confirm that she possesses? The people of this country are entitled to a better deal than that. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister ought to ask the Americans for a Royal Air Force finger on that trigger?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I have dealt with this matter in response to Questions from the noble Lord on a number of occasions. So, indeed, has my noble friend the Lord President, who spoke in the defence debate on 14th June last—and I would refer the noble Lord to what my noble friend said on that occasion. If the noble Lord wants further information, I would draw his attention to paragraph 210 of the defence White Paper of 1983, which went into great detail.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the statements of both Governments on this subject have shown a notable lack of candour? Would it not be better if the Government plainly acknowledge that political and constitutional difficulties make it impossible for the President to acknowledge a veto on the firing of these weapons?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, as I have said on a number of occasions, the arrangements have been re-affirmed by this Government as being entirely satisfactory. They are the same arrangements as those which were regarded as satisfactory by the Government of which the noble Lord was a member.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that, although the arrangements are the same, the conditions are very different? When those arrangements were originally made no cruise missiles were based in this country under American control. Therefore, are not the Government relying on a 1952 arrangement, since re-affirmed, which is totally inapplicable to present circumstances? Is the noble Lord aware that, until he answers more frankly on this question, I shall continue to press him on it?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I agree that circumstances have changed since the early 1950s, when these arrangements were first made. That is why the arrangements have been re-examined on frequent occasions since then, and have continued to be satisfactory.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, when my noble friend Lord Mayhew was a member of the Government, not only were there no cruise missiles in this country but there were no American missiles in this country at all?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I certainly agree that circumstances have changed even since the time when the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, was a distinguished member of that Administration; but, as I said just now to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that is why the arrangements—or it is one of the reasons, at least—are reviewed at frequent intervals.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

Nonsense, my Lords!