HL Deb 04 December 1986 vol 482 cc933-5

3.19 p.m.

Lord Mayhew

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 what modifications of the Trident project they would propose to make in the event of deep cuts in United States and Soviet strategic weapons.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, as I made clear to your Lordships yesterday, the United Kingdom deterrent with Trident will remain a tiny percentage of the strategic arsenals of the United States and the USSR. As is well known to your Lordships, we have made it clear that if US and Soviet strategic arsenals were to be very substantially reduced and if no significant change had occurred in Soviet defensive capabilities, we should review our position and consider how best we could contribute to arms control in the light of the reduced threat.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, are we to understand by that that if the Russians and the Americans agree to halve their strategic conventional forces, we shall not increase our forces by 200 per cent. or 300 per cent?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, we heard figures yesterday about how we will increase the size of Trident. I think the noble Lord, Lord Irving, said we were planning an increase of 800 per cent. If I remember rightly, the noble Lord inadvertently gave some other incorrect figures yesterday. That was another of them. The true ratio is 2½:1, not 8:1.

Lord Thorneycroft

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it might be a good thing for the Alliance to agree about keeping Trident before it starts hawking it around as a bargaining counter? Does he also agree that if we are to enter into dicussions of this kind, to do so through Questions and Answers in the House of Lords is probably the very worst way of getting a good result?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I had understood from the various utterances of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and others that the policy of the Alliance was to allow the deterrent to rust away. So what will happen then to the negotiations, I am not sure.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, is it not true that the French have a bigger nuclear deterrent force than we have? Is it not also true that present plans for our nuclear deterrent depend on having one operational ballistic missile nuclear submarine at sea? Is it not rather difficult, even in the eyes of the SDP, to have half an operational submarine at sea?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, it is of course essential to the effectiveness of the deterrent that at least one boat is at sea at all times. We have made it clear that we may not necessarily use the maximum warhead capability which is involved in Trident.

Lord Irving of Dartford

My Lords, during the Prime Minister's talks with President Reagan, did the President agree that even if the United States no longer intended to deploy Trident, Britain would be able to have Trident nonetheless? Is it true that the Ministry of Defence is investigating the possibility of deploying a nationally produced launcher for Britain's nuclear deterrent?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the United States does intend to deploy Trident. The noble Lord's Question does not therefore arise.

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that when he says that Trident is only an escalation of two-and-a-half times, he is in fact equating the Polaris warhead, which is not independently targetable, with the Trident warhead, which is? Even on that very questionable basis, can we assume that if the Russians and the Americans halve their strategic nuclear forces, we shall not increase ours by more than 200 per cent.?

Finally, may I ask him a second question—

Noble Lords

A third question!

Lord Mayhew

My Lords, a third question, if I can remember it. When the noble Lord concedes, as he has, that the Government are not going to develop Trident to its full capacity, does this not vindicate those critics who complained that the original Trident programme was much too expensive and much too big for Britain's needs?

Lord Trefgarne

No, my Lords, it does no such thing. I said that we may or may not deploy the full capability of Trident when the time comes. That will depend upon the threat as we then assess it. I think that is the clear answer to the noble Lord.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister says that he is going to deploy a weapon which he pretends may be used although it never will be used. As it will never be of any use, would it not be better—rather than bothering to arm the weapon—to carry on with some kind of pretence? The noble Lord could then save the money and use it for some more useful purpose.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I endeavoured to explain yesterday that for a deterrent to be effective and to deter we have to have both the capability and the will to use it.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it would be of enormous value to the peace of the world if the United States and the Soviet Union could come to an agreement to cut strategic weapons and perhaps eliminate bilateral weapons; and should not our Government be co-operating with them to bring that about? Secondly, has he foreseen the possibility that after the next election there will be a majority in the House of Commons against Trident? Is it not a vast waste of money to be spending these enormous sums on its production?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I do not believe for one moment—any more, I think, than the noble Lord—that there will be a majority in the House of Commons for the cancellation of Trident after the next election. As for the proposition that the total elimination of nuclear weapons now would somehow make the world a safer place, I must beg to differ with the noble Lord. I think that that would make conventional war much more likely.