US Strategic Defence Initiative (Hansard, 24 October 1984)

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

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, we are in close and continuous contact, through bilateral and other channels, with the United States Administration as research proceeds in the context of their Strategic Defence Initiative. The precise substance of these exchanges must, as usual, remain confidential.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, in view of the fact that of all the many statements which have come out of Washington over the last 18 months, only one has remained unchanged in that time, can the Government give the House any indication of when they may be prepared to make a statement about this matter? The statement to which I refer was the original statement of the President himself, 18 months ago, which he repeated on television in his debate with Mr. Mondale two days ago. That statement referred to the maximum form of the Strategic Defence Initiative, which would be bound to have extremely severe effects one way or another on Western Europe. Is it not the case that such an initiative would require missiles for the boost stage intercept of Soviet ICBMs to be stationed in Western Europe? Do the Government face that with equanimity and, if not, can they tell us what they are doing to avert it?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it is too early for the Government to be able to reach a conclusion on this matter. We are carefully studying the situation. As the noble Lord will be well aware and as he has already indicated, the implications are far reaching. Indeed, the United States' programme is a long-term one and is limited to research. Decisions on whether or not to deploy defences against ballistic missiles are several years away.

Lord Gladwyne
My Lords, am I right in thinking that the Government do not accept the conception of the "Air Land Battle"?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, that is another matter, but speaking from memory, I recall that that is something which the United States has advanced outside the context of NATO.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Government are discussing this matter with the United States' Administration at the present time? In view of the admittedly serious implication of the initiative if it is carried out, can he give an indication as to whether any estimate has been made of its cost and what long-term effect that might have on America's commitment to NATO? Finally, what effect would it have on the future of the antiballistic missile treaty of 1972?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, so far as contacts go, they are continuing on an almost regular basis. A number of communications in both directions have taken place. With regard to cost, I am afraid that it is too early to make an estimate of what would be the cost, but I am certain that it would be very substantial. So far as the implications for the ABM treaty are concerned, neither side has signalled any intention of breaking the ABM treaty. The Government have 203 repeatedly made clear that we regard the ABM treaty as an important element in preserving international peace and security, requiring no amendment at present.

§ Lord Carver
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether the Government when they come to try to express some opinion on this subject, will take note of the views expressed publicly by Professor Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's College, London, who is perhaps one of the greatest experts in this country on this subject?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, we shall certainly want to take notice of all the important views that have been expressed on these matters, including the ones referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, as well as indeed those of the noble and gallant Lord himself.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is it not time for the Government to make some representations to the United States' Government that their actions in these matters appear to be taken without full consultation? Since we are likely to be either the beneficiaries or sufferers from such actions, would it not be right that they should consult us more fully before making these changes in their policies?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it is really not the case that the United States' Government have proceeded without consultation in this matter. As I said in the main reply, consultations are now continuing most fruitfully.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, while the Minister is obviously right to distinguish research from procurement, does he really imagine that once 28 billion dollars have been spent on research, any American President, whoever he is, will be able to face down the military industrial complex when they demand continuity of employment and the purchase of the weapons which would have been developed through the research?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, there is no question of taking any decisions about procurement in this matter at this time. Indeed, the kind of sums of money which have so far been spent on ABM defence are nowhere near the sort of figures to which the noble Lord has referred.

§ Lord Kennet
My Lords, is it not the case that 28 billion dollars is scheduled to be spent on research by the United States' Administration over the next four to six years?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, there is no question of arriving at a conclusion on these matters overnight, any more than there is of spending overnight the kind of sums of money to which the noble Lord has referred.