§ 3.25 p.m.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy 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 they are aware that the United States Government deny the Prime Minister's claim to possess a veto over the firing of American cruise missiles based in this country.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)My Lords, the position is as stated by my right honourble friend the Prime Minister:
no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister".—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/83; col. 435.]
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that on occasions the Prime Minister has seemed to go further than that and to assert the existence of a British veto? Is he not further aware that no American official has confirmed the existence of such a veto? Indeed, it has been specifically denied on a number of occasions by the Secretary of State's department, by, among others, Mr. Paul Volcker. Is it not the case that the Prime Minister went to the United States of America for the purpose of obtaining a twin-key arrangement, and failed to do so?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the answer to the last part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is, "No". As my right honourable friend has said, as I have said and as my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has said, the fact is
no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister".
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, would the Minister not agree that in the situation of a declaration of war, where, by decisions made in seconds, millions of lives on one side or the other may be lost, real discussion is impossible and the use of a veto is impossible? Is that not emphasised by the fact that at Greenham Common, where the cruise missiles are based, the supreme command is in American hands?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, your Lordships will recall that we had a debate on that matter some months ago, when I described the position there in some detail. The fact remains that none of the nuclear weapons referred to in this country can be fired without the agreement of the British Prime Minister. If that is not a veto, I do not know what is.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, the noble Lord would assist the House greatly if he could say what is the written authority for saying what he has just said. Is he aware that the House knows that he has repeated this on several occasions, and that so has his right honourable friend? Is it the case that he and she are both relying on the 1952 communiqué? If that is the document on which they are relying is he aware that that certainly does not give a firm right of veto?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the 1952 communiqué is certainly one of the documents that set out the facts in this matter, but, as the noble Lord will also recall, the circumstances of this arrangement are reviewed each time a United States President or a British Prime Minister comes into office. That has been done on each of those occasions since 1952. Incidentally, the matter was additionally reviewed at the time of the decision relating to the basing of cruise missiles in this country.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Lord for what he has just said, when he indicated that, as we know, this matter is reviewed by a new President and a new Prime Minister. But have any of the reviews since 1952 changed the situation in any way? Is it not the case that the authority remains the same, if it be an authority: that the wording of 1952 still remains without change? In that case, will he not agree that that does not provide a right of veto?
§ Lord TrefgarneOn the contrary, my Lords, I believe that the 1952 communique provides proper authority for the matter to which I have referred, which, as I have said, has in addition repeatedly been confirmed since then.
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, would it not clear matters up if the noble Lord were to quote from some official United States statement which is more recent than 1952 conceding that, in fact, these weapons cannot be fired without the British Prime Minister's consent?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I know that the American President confirmed that a year or so ago.
Lord MorrisMy Lords, does my noble friend seriously believe that an obligation to obtain agreement is precisely the same as a veto? If the person agreeing does not have the power to disagree, it can hardly be described as a veto.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister does have the power to disagree.
§ Lord KaldorMy Lords, have Her Majesty's Government given any consideration to the possibly unlikely eventuality that in a stress of excitement which might occur these weapons are fired off without waiting for explicit agreement of the British Prime Minister? What is to happen then?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the fertile imagination of noble Lords opposite sometimes leaves me somewhat breathless, but I can assure the noble Lord that the arrangements have been examined very carefully and that the effect of the arrangements and of the undertakings we have is as I described in my original Answer.
Lord Paget of NorthamptonMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the important question is not whether we think we have a veto, but whether the Russians think we have a veto, because if they do not think we have a veto and the matter is left void they will be 1015 tempted, as lies in their immediate capacity, to take out this threat to them on their own initiative? And that taking out is going to be very painful for us.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, that, if I may say so, strays rather far from the matter that we have been discussing. But the fact of the matter is that these weapons are of course part of our deterrent posture, and the whole purpose of them is to ensure that nobody seeks to take anybody else out.
§ Lord BeswickMy Lords, the noble Lord states with increasing confidence that we have the right of veto. Will he give us the American authority and the date of that authoritative statement on which he bases that confidence?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I have just given that answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, when I referred to the original communique and to the various re-examinations of that communique which have been made from time to time.
§ Lord BeswickMy Lords, the noble Lord is hedging. We are asking about a veto on the firing of cruise missiles. I am asking the noble Lord to give me the American authority, and the date on which that authority assured us that we have the right of veto?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, as I again said just now, this matter was reviewed at the time of the decision for the basing of these missiles in this country. The arrangements were found then to be satisfactory both to the United States and to the United Kingdom, and the effect of those understandings is as I have already said.
§ Lord BeswickMy Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to give me the date of that review?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, not without notice.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, may I perhaps conclude this matter by asking the noble Lord whether he is aware that, in the television interview to which he referred, the American President did not in fact confirm the right to veto. What he said was, "That constitutes", referring to the 1952 agreement, "a sort of veto, doesn't it?" He was subsequently told by his own officials that it did not constitute a veto.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I prefer to rely upon the words of the President.
§ Lord KaldorMy Lords, in the light of the noble Lord's reply—