Defence Policy (Hansard, 12 December 1991)

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, the Government have undertaken a detailed analysis of the implications for British defence policy as a result of recent changes in the international security environment, in full consultation with our NATO allies. The reduced threat allows us to meet the United Kingdom's defence commitments with lower levels of forces. We keep our plans under continual review.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. The discussions at Maastricht seem to indicate that European and Western defence issues are not yet fully resolved either as to their logistics or strategy. Does the Minister agree that, when those matters are resolved and we know what role NATO and the Western European Union will play in these affairs, it would be a good idea to review our own defence policy to see whether it fits into that scenario and therefore give our defence policy the strategic coherence which it seems to lack at the moment?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, as I said in my Answer to the original Question, that we keep our plans under continual review. The agreement at Maastricht is a good outcome for the alliance and for us. The Maastricht agreement will provide the right framework for European security in the 1990s. Indeed that framework reflects the approach that we set out with our Italian colleagues in our joint paper in October. We made it clear throughout the negotiations that any new arrangements had to be compatible with NATO.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is one to understand from the reply of the noble Earl that in the Government's view the defence agreement at Maastricht need lead to no change in the size, structure or deployment of British forces?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, what happened at Maastricht is being considered very carefully at the moment. As I have already said, the agreement at Maastricht is regarded as a good outcome for this country and the alliance, with NATO still in supremacy.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that there is a widespread feeling that what was appropriate when there were two superpowers can hardly be appropriate now that there is only one? Does the noble Earl agree that the Government's current practice of reviewing defence policy is taking place in insufficient depth or over a large enough area in view of the profound changes which have taken place in the international situation?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, it is because of the very profound changes that have taken place in the past few years that we have taken an extremely profound and intense look at our defence requirements across the world, in Northern Ireland and in this country.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, it is not a question of the past few years, weeks or days. Is the noble Earl aware that the Soviet Union has apparently broken up and that we now have several separate republics, all with their own separate armed forces? Is it the case that NATO defence Ministers are meeting in Brussels today to determine the validity of the Soviet Union's acceptance of the CFE and START treaties? If that acceptance is invalid, can the Minister say what the Government will do?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, it is correct that the Ministers are meeting today. The break-up of the Soviet Union creates an extremely serious position. As I have made clear in your Lordships' House before, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised this matter on his visit to Moscow immediately after the failed coup. We have repeatedly emphasised to Soviet authorities that they must ensure nuclear security by making whatever arrangements are necessary with the republics where the weapons are based. The Minsk declaration of 8th December gave an assurance of maintained unified control. We have no evidence of any lapse of that control. There is no evidence that any of the republics would be able to make use of any nuclear weapon in defiance of the central authorities.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Earl, but will he answer my question about the CFE treaty? We are dealing not only with nuclear forces but also with conventional forces of the republics.

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, everything, including the CFE treaty, is constantly under review.

§ Lord Cheshire
My Lords, in all these reviews, are the Government taking into account the new threat that I mentioned in my first two speeches? I refer not to the military threat but to the fact that the breakdown of the Soviet Union is making available to third party nations the possibility of nuclear devices and military expertise. Is the noble Earl aware that, although they need not be used for a military attack, they could be brought in by some other means? For instance, they may be used by a suicide group on a civilian airliner. It seems that an entirely new type of threat faces us. Can the noble Earl tell the House whether that is being taken into account?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, it would be an irresponsible government that did not take every such consideration into very careful account indeed.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, will the noble Earl assure the House that he will keep under continuous review the number of times that the Government are forced to use the anodyne term "continuous review"?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I should have thought that it was a rather sensible phrase to use at all times.

§ Lord Chalfont
My Lords, at the risk of unduly prolonging this exchange, can the noble Earl say whether he really means that the Government are convinced of the ability at the centre of the Soviet Union to control all nuclear weapons or is he merely talking about strategic systems? Does the noble Earl agree that it surely must be clear that sub-strategic and tactical nuclear systems can very easily be handled, transferred and indeed fired by almost any military commander?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lord, I take very serious note of what the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, has said on the matter. We have left the relevant republics in no 870 doubt that if they wish to secede they must accede to the non-proliferation treaty as non-nuclear weapon states as soon as possible.

§ Lord Annan
My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that in our defence policy it is our intelligence services which need reinforcement rather than conventional or nuclear weapons?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, the intelligence service is an extremely important part of the whole makeup of successful security.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while the fabric of the alliance is of supreme importance, the restructuring of the WEU entails a restructuring of the Atlantic alliance in order to allow the WEU to operate efficiently and not, for example, a doubling up of the staff, in NATO and the WEU?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, it is important that the WEU should deal with defence issues and that it should be independent. The separate WEU declaration agreed at Maastricht underlines that very independence.