§ Lord BeswickMy 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 will give an indication of the circumstances, referred to by Lord Trefgarne in answer to Lord Beswick (Official Report, 17th December 1984, col. 429), in which the United Kingdom would be prepared to use the Trident nuclear missiles independently of her NATO allies.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne)My Lords, to discuss in advance when Trident might or might not be used would be tantamount to suggesting to our adversaries the circumstances in which they could attack us with impunity. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I decline to do that: Neither our nuclear, nor any other, weapons will of course ever be used save in response to an attack.
§ Lord BeswickMy Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, and more for its courtesy than for its content, may I say that I sympathise with him in being in the difficult position of having to put forward a credible scenario in what is a quite impossible situation? However, may I ask the noble Lord, since he contradicted me so firmly on the 17th December, whether, if it ever came to an exclusive bilateral exchange of nuclear weapons, there would be a sufficient pause to enable our American allies to withdraw from their United Kingdom bases to escape destruction? Also may we take it that we already have an agreement with the German Government which will enable our forces in Germany to operate from that territory in the event of this independent war which the noble Lord is suggesting?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the whole thrust of our policy is designed to avoid the kind of scenario which the noble Lord describes. The question is therefore hypothetical.
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is the Government's intention to assign the Trident fleet to NATO, as is done with the Polaris fleet?
§ Lord TrefgarneYes, my Lords; on the same basis as the Polaris fleet is assigned.
§ Lord BeswickMy Lords, the more we consider the possibility of the independent use of this weapon, does it not become apparent that the thing is absolute nonsense?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the whole purpose of our independent nuclear deterrent is to add to the deterrent posture of the Western Alliance, and that it has succeeded in doing for more than 40 years.
§ Viscount TrenchardMy Lords, would my noble friend agree that perhaps the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is in not viewing this matter from the perception of a potential aggressor in 1995 or later—perhaps because he is not an aggressive man and is a good democrat? But would my noble friend agree that if one does look at it from the viewpoint of a potential aggressor, it must be obvious to such an aggressor that his only hope of taking over another part of the world—which might be his intention—would be if nuclear weapons were not used? Finally, does my noble friend agree that if it is clear that on that long-far-off day preferably more than one democratic defender is prepared to defend freedom with whatever weapons are necessary, the tragic situation will never arise?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I can assure my noble friend and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that we have the political will to respond in whatever way appears appropriate at the time. The Argentinians made a mistake about that in 1982.
§ Lord Boston of FavershamMy Lords, the Minister has been careful to say that there are circumstances in which he could envisage our nuclear weapons being used independently. Can he say whether he envisages circumstances in which they would be used independently?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, as I made clear in my original Answer, I decline to speculate upon circumstances of which I cannot yet be aware.
§ Lord BeswickBut, my Lords, if the noble Lord is now shifting his ground and saying that the purpose of Trident is to add to the total NATO deterrent, does he not accept that the two main contestants in this equation—the Soviet Union and the United States—already have enough nuclear weapons to wipe out all of us and that there really is no necessity to add this extravagant item, Trident?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, the noble Lord and I may understand that the NATO deterrent is indivisible, but what is important is to ensure that the Soviet Union understands that; and that is the principal purpose of our independent deterrent.
§ Lord Boston of FavershamMy Lords, will the Minister accept that in my question I was not asking him to specify circumstances in which these weapons might be used, and that I recognise the point he made in that connection? I was simply asking him to say whether there were circumstances in which they would be used independently.
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I am certain there are.
§ Lord KennetMy Lords, are the Government aware that while on these Benches we believe that Trident is absolutely the wrong nuclear weapons system for 1443 Britain to have, we nevertheless consider that the noble Lord's description of Britain's purpose in having one and the present policy of the Government in keeping it assigned to NATO—the same as the last three Labour Governments—is correct?
§ Lord TrefgarneMy Lords, I am partially reassured by the question which the noble Lord puts to me; but if he thinks that there is some alternative to replacing the Polaris force, I have to say that I think he is mistaken in that view.