Defence Policy: Labour Party's Statement (Hansard, 14 April 1986)

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

§ The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, we believe that the defence policy proposed in the publication referred to by the noble Lord would jeopardise the peace and security which Europe has enjoyed for over 40 years. We therefore profoundly disagree with it.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am sorry to hear of his profound disagreement? I had hoped that he would say that the Prime Minister's intervention to prevent American aircraft flying from bases in this country—which we understand has taken place recently in connection with the American presence off the Libyan coast—was an indication that the Government were moving in our direction.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, the Question on the Order Paper refers to a document issued by the Labour Party; and I do not think that his supplementary question arises from that.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Some clarification is clearly necessary. The document to which I refer says that the next Labour Government will refuse cruise and US nuclear bases in the United Kingdom. Is it not relevant to draw attention to the Prime Minister's decision to forbid the flying of American aircraft from bases in this country, which suggests that, at long last, the Government are realising that the presence of American aircraft in this country can be a danger rather than a defence?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, again, I do not think that that arises from the Question that I have answered.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, does not the rather naïve document to which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, seeks to draw attention confirm the recently expressed view of Mr. Denis Healey that the leadership of the Labour Party is lacking in practical experience?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that, I believe is self-evident. However, there are a number of contradictory features in the document to which I have referred.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, will the noble Lord agree, first, that no government who are loyal to NATO would dream of withdrawing without the agreement of their allies or co-operation with the NATO deterrent? Secondly, will he also agree that NATO's defence capacity is unbalanced, and that priority should now be given to strengthening its conventional forces?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the document which is the subject of the Question contains a number of contradictions which I have no doubt will become apparent to noble Lords opposite if they ever again come into power.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, will the noble Lord accept that it is part of Labour's defence policy to cancel the Trident programme? Will the noble Lord tell the House the current cost of the Trident programme; and how much it has escalated since it was conceived?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, again, that question goes very wide of the Question on the Order Paper. We made an announcement very recently about the current projected cost of Trident.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, with regard to the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in considering the publication referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, will the Government also take note of another publication—namely, the Italian newspaper La Stampa of 5th April? I know that that will not be very popular on this side of the House. In that publication, it is recorded that the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Mr. Denis Healey, has referred to the Labour Party's 413 defence policy as a problem. He goes on to say that he hopes to put it in order before the next general election. Is it not therefore somewhat hypothetical to be discussing the Labour Party's defence policy?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it may be worth mentioning that the right honourable gentleman to whom the noble Lord refers is, I think, the only member of the present Shadow Cabinet who has held high office in a defence department.

§ Viscount Trenchard
My Lords, will my noble friend be able to give us any rough estimate of what the Government feel would be the necessary cost, not only to the British defence budget but to all allies' defence budgets in NATO if we were to move to a situation where we could hold with conventional arms any assault from the East for more than a matter of days—in fact, indefinitely—bearing in mind that their firepower in terms of tanks, aircraft and the like is about two to one or more at the present time?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I think that the Labour Party is wrong if it imagines that it can replace nuclear deterrents with conventional deterrents at the same level of deterrence at the same cost. My noble friend is right to point out that that is not remotely possible. That presents us with some difficulty because the Labour Party apparently thinks that it will fund all the other improvements that it plans at the expense of the defence budget. As it is forecasting a total of something like £24,000 million of extra expenditure, there will be some difficulty for it.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, will my noble friend agree that, while this document would no doubt be an excellent subject for a debate, it is scarcely a matter for Questions, especially as so many of us do not know whether it is going to be discussed?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I agree that the document is wide-ranging, and it would take me a long time to recite all its shortcomings.

§ The Earl of Lauderdale
My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that there has been an important new contribution to the debate this afternoon in that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has recognised that there is an effective British Government veto on the use of American bombers from British bases?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, that is a matter which we have discussed on a number of occasions.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Russian leaders have agreed that if there is a policy as contained in our document for the phasing out of Polaris, they will be prepared to negotiate one for one with that phasing out? Is not that a practical means, arising out of the Labour Party's defence policy, for nuclear disarmament in Europe?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I have no doubt that the Soviet Union would greatly appreciate the phasing out of the British independent nuclear deterrent, because it would contribute to its security, but not to ours.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, does not the Minister agree that anything which might contribute to the prevention of a thermonuclear war should not be just sarcastically dismissed, because it could well be something worthy of examination, and that the alternative is pretty dreadful? Moreover, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, said, it was the Labour Party that first created NATO and that has given it massive support when it has been in government. Anything that comes from Her Majesty's Opposition or from any other political party in this country is something with which, under the rules of democracy, you do not have to agree, but perhaps on such an important issue you may be prepared to examine it.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, it is the case that ever since the Second World War the Labour Party has supported the maintenance of an independent British nuclear deterrent, and that is why its present stance is so curious.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I should like to acquaint the noble Lord with the point that the document was signed on behalf of the parliamentary Labour Party by our defence spokesman in the other Chamber, Mr. Denzil Davies, and that that parliamentary Labour Party will, I hope, long include Mr. Denis Healey, who is in a position to speak for himself on all occasions.

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I return to the point which I made earlier that Mr. Healey is by far and away the most experienced in these matters.