Trident (Hansard, 30 November 1992)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne)
My Lords, the recent Oxburgh report on United Kingdom nuclear weapon safety states that the Trident II Strategic Weapon System has, safety levels that are comparable to and in some ways higher than those of Polaris".

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer, but is he aware that Professor Oxburgh's rather reassuring conclusions have been challenged scientifically on both sides of the Atlantic, and that the second BASIC report (from the British-American Security Council) suggests that Professor Oxburgh has not examined the matter with sufficient care? As I understand it, he has not, for example, examined the possibility of a road accident involving Trident which, since Trident is carried by road, is a factor that should be looked into because the consequences of such an accident might well be almost beyond description.

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, will know as well as I do that the BASIC report is not an authoritative report and that the other reports which have been produced in this field, particularly the Drell report, make it perfectly clear that in all respects Trident is at least as safe as Polaris was and, in some respects, safer. With reference to road transport, the noble Lord will also be aware that particular attention has been paid to this subject of late. I am happy to assure the noble Lord that we are entirely satisfied about the safety of road transport for Trident.

§ Lord Judd
My Lords, does the noble Viscount recall that he told the House on 16th November that a comprehensive test ban treaty would not affect the safety of the Trident system? Bearing that in mind, will the noble Viscount now take this opportunity to revise his description of the new US testing legislation as, unfortunate and misguided"—[Official Report, 16/11/92; col. 447.], especially as the President elect supports it? Will he now endorse the resumption of talks aimed at banning all nuclear tests world wide by 1996?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, pays so much attention to what I say in your Lordships' House. I was also much gratified to hear that in another place an attempt was made to quote me from Hansard from the very same exchange, which was slapped down at the time. I have 1170 nothing more to add to or to detract from what I said. The present American Government are perfectly clear in their understanding of the ban on future testing. I assure the noble Lord and your Lordships that the overwhelming reason for continuing selective testing is one of safety, and that safety would benefit greatly if we were able to continue our testing programme, which is something we intend to do until 1996.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is it not precisely the question of safety that we are discussing in this Question? Is the noble Viscount further aware that it is quite wrong to describe the BASIC report as "not authoritative"? Certainly it is not a government report but the membership of the research committee, which gave the evidence upon which the BASIC second report is based, is extremely authoritative and the noble Viscount should not question it. Perhaps I may suggest to him that Professor Oxburgh and his group should take a look at the second BASIC report and see what conclusions they reach.

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that we always take matters of nuclear safety with the utmost seriousness. We read all reports which address themselves to this subject and we take them most seriously. All that I can say to your Lordships—and to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, in particular—is that we are at present satisfied about the safety conditions governing the Trident missile system. That satisfaction is, of course, always tempered by keeping the matter under close and serious review.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, following the reply which the noble Viscount gave to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, can he say what the Government will do in 1996 when we can no longer test in the United States? Will they rely on non-nuclear tests; will they test somewhere else, such as Australia; or, at long last, will they sign a comprehensive test ban treaty?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who I think was present during the fairly recent exchanges which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will remember that we are perfectly clear that the future safety of nuclear weapons in this country would be greatly aided by an extension of the nuclear testing programme beyond 1996. However, as I think I made clear at the time to the noble Lord, this certainly does not impede the existing safety of the nuclear systems of the Trident system. We are concerned purely with the safety of future weapons systems. Although alternative technologies exist, at present they are not adequate substitutes for testing, but we shall certainly want to look further at them.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, I hope that the Minister clearly understands that the Question that has been put to him today comes from a Member of this House who is opposed to any deterrent of any kind and that he does not speak for anybody on this side of the House except himself.

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I am greatly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, and I am 1171 well aware that his history as a former Chief Whip of the Labour Party in another place makes him a far greater expert than I on the opinions of the people who were formerly under his charge.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I can assure the noble Viscount that I do not speak on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Mellish.

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, we are all well aware not only that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is more than able to speak for himself but certainly that the noble Lord, Lord Mellish, is as well.

§ Lord Ashley of Stoke
My Lords, will the noble Viscount bear in mind that in all of these discussions we should never ever forget the nuclear test veterans who were seriously damaged by the very early nuclear tests? They are still waiting for adequate, proper and fair compensation.

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I think that your Lordships will agree that that question is outside the scope of the Question on the Order Paper. However, I refer the noble Lord, if it would be of some help, to the debate raised by his noble friend Lord Parry on this very subject. I hope that he will take the time to read my reply to that debate.