§ Lord Mayhew asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ How far the Warsaw Pact leads NATO in the number of its short-range nuclear and conventional missiles; what proportion of NATO's 4,600 short-range nuclear warheads would be affected by the elimination of these missiles; and whether they will support negotiations for reducing the numbers of these weapons.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (Baroness Hooper)My Lords, neither NATO nor the Warsaw Pact reveals the number of its short-range missiles or associated warheads. Since the Soviet Union claims to have 1,608 short-range missile launchers, while NATO has only 88, the Warsaw Pact probably also has a significant advantage in missiles. We cannot say what proportion of the stockpile would be affected by their elimination.
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, if those short-range nuclear missiles were negotiated away, NATO would still have thousands of short-range nuclear warheads in other forms. As the Warsaw Pact has that huge lead in short-range nuclear missiles, is it surprising that every other NATO government wishes to negotiate upon them? Why are the Government holding back?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, I think that the noble Lord goes a little far in saying that every other NATO country wishes to negotiate. There are two main areas where we believe that we have a case to argue. The first is modification. The noble Lord is well aware that the alliance has agreed that, for the foreseeable future, there is no alternative to a strategy of deterrence based on an effective mix of nuclear and conventional forces which will be kept up to date where necessary. The other area is the possibility of seeking agreement on equal ceilings.
§ Baroness Ewart-BiggsMy Lords, in view of the fact that, for 40 years now, the West Germans have been staunch supporters of NATO, and in view of their concern about the short-range weapons on their soil, would it not be very much in the interests of NATO to give sympathetic consideration to their views at next week's summit? Will the noble Baroness press her right honourable friend the Prime Minister to do that very thing?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, we are in close touch with our allies on this matter. The purpose is of course to reach an agreement acceptable to all 498 members of the alliance. We feel sure that the United Kingdom view will be adequately reflected in the conclusions reached at next week's NATO summit.
§ Lord MayhewMy Lords, will the noble Baroness bear in mind the fact that the British Government are not being asked by their allies to scrap the short-range nuclear missiles, but simply to negotiate upon their reduction? They are not even being asked to agree to the reduction unless there is substantial progress first in conventional disarmament. To divide NATO on that point is very hard to understand.
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, as I said, our intention in attending the NATO summit next week is to reach an agreement that is acceptable to all members of the alliance.
§ Lord Irving of DartfordMy Lords, if the Warsaw Pact has superiority in short-range weapons, would it not be to NATO's advantage to offer options in terms of the creation of asymmetrical numbers on either side rather than appear to be trailing behind Mr. Gorbachev all the time?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, the suggestion on the table is that the Soviet Union should reduce the number of its nuclear weapons in Europe unilaterally to NATO levels. So far, it has undertaken to cut only 24 out of 1,608 short-range missile systems. As I said, the NATO capability is 88. So it is a minimal reduction which we believe is not worthy of serious consideration.
§ Lord Irving of DartfordMy Lords, even if the Soviet Union has not gone as far as we should like, is it not to lose the initiative if we do not propose something beyond what it is proposing and test its sincerity in this matter?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, NATO has already reduced its stockpile of nuclear warheads in Europe by 35 per cent. since 1979. The implementation of the INF treaty will result in further reductions and modernisation of NATO's nuclear weapons will allow still further cuts in the stockpile. So I should not like to agree at all that we are trailing behind.
§ Lord Orr-EwingMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that it seems surprising for the Opposition not to make the suggestion that the Soviets should lower the numbers so that the ratio, which at best is 12:1 against NATO, should be more level? Surely we cannot afford to give one single short-range missile away, more particularly since the Soviets have in the last two or three years modernised all their short-range missiles while ours are out of date and rather short-range with a long procedure time which makes them non-effective. Is it not essential that the gesture now comes in real facts of reduction—not just 24 out of 1,600, but a substantial reduction—if the Soviets want to bring about a balance?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, my noble friend makes an important point in relation to the modernisation of the Soviet capability. I agree that 499 arms control negotiations make sense only when the prospective parties share a common goal.
§ Baroness BlatchMy Lords, is it not true that, had a Labour Government been in office for the last 10 years and not a Conservative Government, this country would by now be almost defenceless? Is it not further true that the likelihood of the Russians reducing anything is minimal?
§ Baroness HooperMy Lords, my noble friend may be quite right.
§ Viscount MerseyMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that, if we did as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, suggests we would become rather too reliant on nuclear shells fired from 155-millimetre howitzers which are placed very far forward, perhaps only 14 kilometres behind the front line? They are what are called "use or lose weapons". That would make the situation more dangerous both for NATO and the Warsaw Pact.
§ Baroness HooperYes, my Lords. Operationally, it makes sense to have the most flexible survival systems. It is to that end that we are pursuing our negotiations.