HL Deb 12 March 1985 vol 461 cc116-7

2.46 p.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 cruise missiles based in the United Kingdom and under American control form part of the United States of America's Airland Battle plan.

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

My Lords, I fear that I am unable to add to the Answer I gave the noble Lord on 27th April 1984, in which I said that the answer to his Question was, No. The basing of cruise missiles in this country stems from NATO's twin-track decision of December 1979.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Airland Battle concept is an offensive, all-purpose attack idea including nuclear, conventional and chemical weapons; that it has no part in NATO doctrine; and that it has no relationship to the original notion of strategic nuclear deterrence? Bearing that in mind, is the noble Lord quite sure that the American suggestion that the cruise weapons on our soil would be used under these circumstances is entirely wrong?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the United States Army field manual, which sets out the Airland Battle, states quite clearly that the fundamental mission of the United States Army is to deter war. That is clearly also NATO's objective. As to the question of using nuclear weapons, there can be no question, as I have told your Lordships on a number of occasions, of the cruise missiles in this country being used except with the consent of the British Prime Minister.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, would it not be wise to give ourselves 24 hours to digest the latest news from Russia concerning the change in the leadership that has apparently taken place there? Should we not dispense for the moment—at any rate for 24 hours—with any question that might interfere with the forthcoming negotiations at Geneva?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, certainly I would not wish to say anything which caused any difficulty for the negotiators in Geneva, but I fear that it may take longer than 24 hours to determine what new policies, if any, the new Soviet leader intends to follow.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister care to describe to the House the essential features of the Airland Battle plan? Would he care to tell the House whether it forms part of a strategy that is capable of being implemented? If so, under what circumstances would the Airland Battle plan be implemented? Would the Minister care to tell the House also to what extent Her Majesty's Government have discussed this matter within the forum of Europe; whether there is such a thing as a European veto; and the extent to which the Government are concerned to ensure that full consultation with our European allies in relation to this matter will take place?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the Airland Battle concept is a national United States concept and does not, therefore, form part of NATO policy. In any event, United States forces are constrained within the Airland Battle concept to follow NATO policies where they apply. The Airland Battle concept is a wide-ranging concept. It includes, for instance, provisions for jungle warfare, which can hardly find a use on Salisbury Plain.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

Want to bet, my Lords?

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is it not the case that all noble Lords will support the noble Lord on our side of the House who hopes that the change of Government in the USSR will lead to good results at Geneva? Possibly following the example set opposite I could, with your Lordships' permission, leave the matter at that and hope that we shall be able to celebrate an improved relationship before very long.