HL Deb 27 April 1987 vol 486 cc1230-2

2.42 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 how, as American Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger and others have confirmed that the 1983 Nuclear Planning Group Conference at Montebello did approve specific proposals to enhance INF and short-range nuclear weapons, British Ministers justify their statements that this is not so.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has already made clear in another place, NATO agreed at the Montebello meeting of the Nuclear Planning Group in 1983 to both a major reduction in the number of its theatre nuclear weapons in Europe and the need for possible improvements to ensure the effectiveness of the remaining stockpile. This was clearly set out in the communiqué issued at the time. Since then the Supreme Allied Commander has put forward his proposals for these improvements. These are being pursued with the individual nations concerned but no decisions affecting the modernisation of the theatre nuclear weapons in service with British forces have yet been made.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, has the noble Lord forgotten that on 26th March 1985, and several times subsequently, he said—and I quote him— no specific proposals of any sort had been made to alliance ministers at Montebello"? Is he also aware that the Prime Minister's Statement in another place recently is the first time that the Government have admitted to what took place at Montebello? The Prime Minister made that Statement because Mr. Caspar Weinberger had blown the gaff to Congress. Is it not the case therefore, in spite of what the Minister said, that the Government have been consistently misleading Members of both Houses for nearly two years?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, neither I nor any of my ministerial colleagues has for a moment been misleading anybody. The noble Lord referred to certain correspondence which took place in March 1985 when I in my then capacity wrote to the honourable Gentlemen Mr. Wareing, the Member of Parliament for Liverpool. The position I described to him then was accurate and remains accurate to the extent of course that events have moved on.

Lord Irving of Dartford

My Lords, is the Minister aware that we welcome the Montebello decision and the subsequent withdrawal of warheads from Europe? Can he say whether, at the recent meeting, new systems were on the agenda and whether the participants discussed or referred to a new decision? Will he take this opportunity to express the Government's commitment to a further reduction in short-range nuclear weapons?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, we were very much in favour of the proposals agreed at Montebello which were described in the communiqué issued at that time. As I said in my original Answer, certain proposals have since been brought forward by the Supreme Allied Commander, addressed, of course, to individual nations. In so far as those proposals affect the United Kingdom, we are considering them very carefully and will reach our decisions in due course.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, is it not the case that all these matters may happily be put behind us as soon as we and the Western European nations have made up our minds what to do about the Soviet-American proposal for the elimination of intermediate and shorter range nuclear weapons? Does that not depend solely on the ability of our governments to come to grips with the fact that all these things hang together, and also the fact that we must consider conventional disarmament and chemical disarmament at the same time? It is not a very complicated proposition.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, that sounds a rather comprehensive supplementary question, if I may say so. Naturally, we shall be supporting any measure of disarmament that is both balanced and verifiable.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, perhaps I may return to the reality that Mr. Caspar Weinberger said quite recently to Congress that, following agreement at Montebello, neutron weapons had been deployed; that is to say, he mentioned enhanced weapons and gave the actual numbers of those weapons. That was the substitution of a non-neutron weapon by a neutron weapon. In these circumstances, I repeat once more, is it not the case that the Minister has inadvertently or otherwise been misleading Members of both Houses?

Lord Trefgarne

No, my Lords, it is not the case that I or any of my colleagues have inadvertently or otherwise misled noble Lords or Members of the other place. The agreement reached at Montebello was an agreement in principle. The detailed proposals were brought forward subsequently by the Supreme Allied Commander and it is those that we are now considering.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil

My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that it is because the noble Lord asking the Question goes astray so often that he is tempted to use the explanation that he has been misled?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, that is a point of view my noble friend is entitled to hold and an opinon I am sometimes tempted to follow.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the Minister aware that if either he or his noble friend are prepared to point out specific occasions on which I have gone astray, I shall be glad to correct them?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I fear that Question Time would not be long enough.