Nato's Nuclear Capability (Hansard, 4 May 1988)

§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, at their meeting in Brussels on 27th and 28th April, Nuclear Planning Group Ministers reviewed and revalidated the framework established at Montebello and reaffirmed their support for national efforts to meet requirements stemming from the Montebello decision. The process of keeping the alliance's forces up to date and properly structured is a continuous one and the United Kingdom will continue to play its full part in this.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister two questions. First, is he aware that there is considerable concern that despite the INF treaty, which we all hope will be the prelude to further arms negotiations, control and reductions, this policy may very well increase the nuclear warheads and nuclear capacity in Europe? Secondly, is it the case, as appears to have been elicited in another place on the basis of research done by Mr. Dan Plesch, that the British Government have already—in fact some time ago—started to renovate their present nuclear weapons?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, so far as concerns the INF treaty, I can assure the noble Lord that there is no question of trying to circumvent it. Indeed, the alliance warmly supports the agreement and we hope for early ratification. We have certainly not taken any decisions about the modernisation of our own systems.

§ Lord Irving of Dartford
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the proposals that are envisaged to remove United States ground-launched missiles from this country and to replace them with air-launched missiles in other parts of Europe would indeed be widely construed as contrary to the spirit of the whole INF treaty?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I can only repeat that there is no question of our seeking to circumvent the INF treaty. It is perhaps worth noting that since 1979 the number of allied warheads in Europe has decreased from a figure of around 7,000 in that year to around 4,600 now.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, is the Minister aware that some noble Lords on this side of the House happen to think that the nuclear capability of NATO was a good reason why Mr. Gorbachev came to the negotiating table and produced the agreement of which we have been speaking? Is he further aware that some of us would take a very dim view of Britain taking unilateral action on reducing armaments without absolute agreement with every single one of our allies?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is quite right to say that alliance decisions on nuclear disarmament must be multilateral decisions within the alliance. We must move step by step in a balanced and verifiable way.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, does the Minister agree that although it may not be the Government's intention to circumvent the INF treaty, that is the practical effect of the decisions about weapons that they are taking? There is, for example, the effect of taking cruise missiles from the ground at Greenham and putting them on planes. The effect is the same. Moreover, not only the West but also the Soviet Union are taking this action. One has a treaty such as the INF treaty, but would it not be better to have treaties which provide against the substitution of other weapons? Why was that not done more effectively, and is it too late to try to get agreement on something on those lines?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, no decisions have been taken to substitute anything for anything else, so the question of circumvention, as the noble Lord suggests, does not arise. However, let me underline again that there is no question of this Government or indeed any other government within the Western alliance who are party to this agreement seeking to undermine it. We wholly support it and look forward to early ratification.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, following the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, regarding the fact that all our allies should be informed, is the Minister aware that one of our allies happens to be the United States of America and that its President and Mr. Gorbachev have raised a hope that perhaps all the world will depend on? is full cognisance taken of that hope of Reagan and Gorbachev in full discussions, bearing in mind that the utmost detailed examination must be undertaken and great caution exercised at all times? Nevertheless, does he agree that this hope of Gorbachev and Reagan should not be ignored?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, of course it is the case that the United Kingdom was not strictly a party to the INF agreement. However, we are concerned with it because some of the facilities were based in this country. I can assure the noble Lord that the British Government were certainly kept fully informed during the United States negotiations in connection with that agreement and indeed we are still being kept fully informed by the United States in connection 570 with its current discussions with the Soviet Union over a wider START agreement, as it is called.

§ Lord Rea
My Lords, can the Minister say whether the decision of NATO to improve its nuclear capacity was in answer to Soviet modernisation of its nuclear arms, and, if so, what is the evidence for that suggestion? Alternatively, was that decision, as another noble Lord has suggested, intended from a position of strength to encourage the Warsaw Pact to come up with a new proposal for a balanced reduction of conventional weapons or short and medium-range nuclear weapons? If so, would it not be cheaper and considerably safer for our side to make new proposals at Geneva for such balanced reductions without going to the expense of modernising our weapons, as is proposed?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the original twin-track decision, as it was called, taken in 1979, was made under what was then the new threat of the deployment of the SS.20 systems. The allies took a decision at that time to respond to that threat by the deployment of the intermediate range systems, as the noble Lord will be aware, and at the same time they addressed vigorously the question of a control agreement for those systems. That policy has proved to be overwhelmingly successful in that for the first time we have an agreement between the superpowers to eliminate a whole class of nuclear weapons and to make a significant reduction in the number of warheads, to which I referred earlier. I believe that the way forward is by such measures of arms control and I hope that your Lordships agree with me.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the Government may very well not be attempting deliberately to circumvent the INF treaty, but can the Minister say whether he has read (or if not whether he will read) the work of Dr. Paul Rogers of Bradford University; namely, his guide to nuclear weapons? I know that he cannot confirm directly any figures this afternoon but will he write to me about the figures which are given; that is to say, that if the INF deal is ratified, 464 United States ground-launched cruise missiles will be removed from Europe but at the same time the United States Navy will acquire 758 similar sea-launched missiles and the United States Air Force has already deployed about 1,700 air-launched missiles?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I can only tell the noble Lord again that there is no question of the allies seeking to undermine or circumvent the intermediate range weapons agreement that was made recently. It now only remains for that agreement to be ratified by the United States Senate. It was an agreement on land-based intermediate range systems and it will be scrupulously observed by this side.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, will the noble Lord write to me as I asked!

Noble Lords
No, no!