Nuclear Missiles: Policy (Hansard, 17 May 1993)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Cranborne)
My Lords, we are considering a range of possible options for our long-term sub-strategic nuclear capability after the eventual withdrawal from service of the WE177 free-fall bomb. An announcement will be made at the appropriate time.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, does the noble Viscount not agree that at a time when we are cutting the defence budget and our infantry regiments, it makes no sense to spend huge sums of money on the new nuclear missile system? Its purpose is not clear and can probably be carried out much more cheaply and better by a Trident submarine.

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I say that I suffer from a distinct sense of déjà vu. The noble Lord and I have exchanged similar views at several intervals over the course of the past 12 months. I ask the noble Lord to restrain his impatience a little longer. We are considerably nearer reaching a decision on this important matter than we were when he first raised the question. I assure him that the point he makes has played an important part in the consideration of the decision that we have to take.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that the reason I have repeated the Question is a stubborn belief that sooner or later he is bound to come up with a better answer?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I am flattered by the kind suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that I am capable of coming up with a good answer. However, I am sure he will agree that the decision we reach will be a rational and sensible one. We have not yet taken that decision. I shall be among the first to be able to lay before your Lordships the answer to the question that he poses. We are not yet in a position to do so.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that this is one of the few occasions when I hope that he will come up with one of those negative answers he is so good at giving.

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, flattery from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is something that I always 1528 examine with slightly mixed feelings. However, I hope that, as always, my attitude towards the defence of the realm will be positive rather than negative.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm that it is the Government's view that the WE177 will not be effective after the end of the century? If that is the case, can he outline the strategic justification for the type of missile to which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, refers? In case it has escaped the attention of the noble Viscount, the Cold War has ended. Therefore, in order for the noble Viscount to provide a rational and sensible answer, is it not the time to conduct a complete strategic defence review of what we need?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is, I am sure, as aware as I am of the rationale for the possession of a sub-strategic nuclear capability. There is no point in possessing such capability unless it carries conviction. There is no point in spending money on a capability that does not carry that conviction. I asked this of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and now I ask the noble Lord, Lord Williams: will he contain his impatience for a little longer? I hope that I shall be able to satisfy both noble Lords that our decision is rational and sensible when the time comes to announce it.

§ Lord Holme of Cheltenham
My Lords, in arriving at the decision shortly to be announced, will the Government ensure that they take into account Section 2 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to which we are a signatory? Does he accept that a "rational and sensible" decision would take that fully into account?

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Holme, knows as well as I that we are registered under the non-proliferation treaty as a nuclear power. Any decision under this head will take full account of that.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, instead of advancing ponderous arguments about secrecy and waiting to see what comes, is there any good reason why the Minister cannot relate, for the benefit of the House, the arguments between Trident and the expensive alternative?

Viscount Cranborne
I am sure that all noble Lords would agree that any presentation of a recommendation by a Minister of Her Majesty's Government to your Lordships' House should be well considered. It is the process of that consideration which is causing your Lordships some impatience. Nevertheless, I hope that the justification for the recommendation that I shall make in due course will be rational. One of the reasons it will be rational is that we have taken a sensible amount of time to come to our conclusions, which we shall defend to your Lordships in due course.

§ Lord Williams of Elvel
My Lords, will the noble Viscount undertake that, when the decision is finally announced, it will be the result of a defence review? In that way, whatever the Government decide, we will know exactly what they are trying to do.

Viscount Cranborne
My Lords, I have the feeling—it may be unjustified—that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, is entering into the beginning of a circular argument which will not take us any further. The question of whether or not we have a defence review is immaterial. However, it is sensible to ask a question in regard to whether or not we should have a sub-strategic capability. Both I and Her Majesty's Government believe that it has a rational justification. The question is how it should be achieved. That is under consideration, as I have already said to your Lordships and to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, a number of times. I am glad to be able to say that we are reaching the moment when I shall be able to announce the recommendation. Your Lordships' reactions will be of considerable interest both to me and to Her Majesty's Government.