§ 2.50 p.m.
§ Lord ChalfontMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, perhaps I may apologise for an error that has crept into the wording. The reference should be to "theater" missile defence and not to "tactical" missile defence.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any plans for the Royal Navy to join the Maritime Theater Missile Defense Forum.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)My Lords, although the United Kingdom Government have not previously been formally represented at this forum, we are considering carefully whether to send representation in the future. A decision is expected shortly.
§ Lord ChalfontMy Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging Answer. I welcome him to one of the "hot seats" on the Government Front Bench and wish him great success in the future. Does he agree that as the Royal Navy might in the future be engaged in expeditionary force operations, it is important for it to exchange information with the other navies of the world on the future of missile technology?
§ Lord BachMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind comments. Knowing his vast experience in this field, I am doubly grateful and I thank him. I agree with the thinking behind the Question. It is right that we should seek to monitor 354 developments in the field of maritime theatre ballistic missiles. If we decide in the near future to be represented on this important forum, that will be exactly the intention.
§ Lord RoperMy Lords, we on these Benches share the pleasure of seeing the Minister in his new role. Irrespective of the diversity of views on strategic ballistic missile defence, will he accept that there is a wide commonality of approach to the question of the missile defence of our ships; and that, therefore, we too welcome the fact that the Government are considering taking part in the forum. Will the Minister further accept that, if we are to acquire this kind of capacity, it makes a great deal more sense and will save resources if it is acquired on a shared basis?
§ Lord BachMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind comments. He makes exactly the right distinction. We are not talking today, but we may be tomorrow, about what has been described as "national missile defence"—now known as "missile defence". Here we are talking about something quite different and I am grateful for his support in this field.
§ Lord BurnhamMy Lords, on behalf of these Benches, perhaps I, too, may welcome the noble Lord to what was described by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, as a "hot seat"—and one that has been made temporarily hotter by the mistake in the wording of the Question. As I understand it, this forum contains a number of countries outside NATO of all types. Therefore, is it not particularly important that the United Kingdom should take part in the work of the forum to enable greater co-operation to be achieved between the various nations?
§ Lord BachMy Lords, again—I am not tiring of saying this—I am most grateful to the noble Lord. He has been particularly kind to me during the first few weeks that I have been in this job. When the cards in the Conservative Party eventually fall to the ground, so to speak, I hope that the noble Lord will be in the same position as he is now—
§ Lord BachI am afraid that I cannot help but agree with exactly what the noble Lord said. We are talking about a body that reaches beyond NATO. Therefore, it is most important for us to know what is going on within it.