HC Deb 06 February 1957 vol 564 cc445-51

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

61. Mr. SHINWELL

TO ask the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on his discussions with the United States and Canadian Governments on defence matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Sandys

I will, with permission, Sir, answer Question No. 61.

The main purpose of my visit to Washington last week was to have a thorough exchange of views with the United States defence authorities on a wide range of military matters. Similarly, my two day visit to Ottawa gave me an opportunity of discussing a number of problems of common concern in the military and international fields with the Prime Minister of Canada, the Minister of Defence and the Canadian Chiefs of Staff.

My discussions in Washington with Mr. Charles Wilson, the United States Secretary of Defence, showed that there is full accord between our two Governments on the broad objectives of the defence policy to be pursued. In particular, we reaffirmed the importance of N.A.T.O. and other regional alliances as a vital means of safeguarding peace and stability.

We reviewed the arrangements previously made for collaboration between the United States and Britain in military research and development, with particular reference to guided rockets. It was agreed that both countries had derived considerable benefit from this co-operation and we decided to extend still further our joint work. We discussed a possible scheme for the adoption by Britain of certain American weapons and this is now being examined by the two Governments and their Service staffs.

I explained to the United States Government that, for economic as well as military reasons, we were reviewing the shape and size of our forces and that Her Majesty's Government had decided that a substantial reduction in the demands of defence upon manpower, materials and money must be effected. Although no country welcomes a reduction in the military effort of its allies, I found in Washington a sympathetic understanding of the circumstances which make it necessary for us to lighten our defence burden.

In this connection, it is fully recognised that financial and economic stability is an essential foundation of military strength—

Mr. Harold Davies

Some of us have been saying that for years. The right hon. Gentleman has just discovered it.

Mr. Sandys

—and that due account must be taken of this in considering what contribution each nation can reasonably be expected to make to the common defence effort.

Throughout my meetings with Mr. Wilson and the American defence authorities, as well as in my talks with Mr. Dulles, I found a warm desire, which is fully shared by Her Majesty's Government, to see an immediate resumption of the special and intimate relationship which has so long existed between Britain and the United States, and which is so vitally important for the peace of the world.

Mr. Shinwell

While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on his efforts to establish more friendly relations between the United States and our country—and long may they continue, in the interests of the free world—may I, nevertheless, ask him two short questions, appreciating that the major issues involved will emerge in the course of our forthcoming defence debates?

First, as regards any concession we made to the United States authorities in the sphere of military equipment and operations, were we in any way inhibited so far as our European commitment is concerned in the reduction and withdrawal of any of our forces from the West? Secondly, what is the nature of any concession we made to the United States Government in return for their offer to co-operate in research and development on guided missiles?

Mr. Sandys

While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his friendly remarks at the beginning of his supplementary question, I assure him that no concession was made at all. What we discussed was fruitful avenues of co-operation, and I believe that we found them.

Mr. G. Brown

In general, what the Minister had to say seemed very much the sort of thing that we on these benches were urging a year ago. I recognised one of the paragraphs of his Answer as being word for word my own, I think. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] To that extent, I welcome it. May I, however, ask two short questions?

Any value that the general principle has depends, of course, upon the specific proposals for carrying it out. Can the Minister say when we are likely, either in the Defence White Paper or in any other form, to know what his conclusions are in order to turn general principles into actual events? Secondly, in his discussions about taking over American weapons, has he made, or is he considering making, arrangements to ensure that we do not lose current contact with the developing know-how?

Mr. Sandys

So far as cribbing the right hon. Gentleman's thoughts are concerned, I apologise if that is so, but I have certainly not seen the text to which he referred. I hope that it will be possible to announce the Government's broad conclusions as soon as possible, but I am not going into anything more precise than that today. I am at the moment studying the whole matter very intensively and I would not like to try to work to a precise timetable.

On the question of research and development, the arrangements that we have made with the United States will increase rather than reduce our know-how, our knowledge and experience in this field. British and American scientists have been working very closely in this matter and, as a result of our talks in Washington and the arrangements which we made, I think that that close collaboration will be made more intimate still.

Mr. Brown

The Minister says that he cannot tie himself to an exact timetable, and I can understand that. On the other hand, the White Paper is already almost overdue. Does this mean that we are not to have the usual White Paper on Defence this month?

Mr. Sandys

There may be some delay in the publication of the White Paper. If there is, I hope that the House will forgive me.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Does my right hon. Friend realise that public opinion is very largely formed by the widespread speculations in the Press and the assumptions that have been made in the Press of the objects of his visit to Washington and the results therefrom? Will he take an opportunity, as soon as possible of being absolutely frank with Parliament as to what he has done and what he has achieved?

Mr. Sandys

I have endeavoured to be as frank as I can within the limits of security. It is not easy to talk absolutely frankly and freely about these things. Rockets, the size of forces, and so on, are not matters that one can bandy around very freely, but I think that I have given the House the broad purport of the discussions that we had and the broad nature of the conclusions reached.

Mr. Usborne

While recognising and admitting that N.A.T.O., being an essential part of the balance-of-power mechanism, ought to have the most modern and most destructive weapons, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman realises that there are a great many people who would be extremely unhappy if this island were to become a massive rocket-launching site?

Mr. Sandys

I think that everybody agrees that this island must be defended. The only question is whether we are to have effective or ineffective weapons to defend it.

Sir J. Hutchison

While welcoming my right hon. Friend's words that the United States also recognises the importance of N.A.T.O. and of other regional pacts, may I ask whether he will bear in mind the anxiety of our member partners in the Western European Union lest we should come to binding agreements, either on commitments in Europe or on the parcelling out of the research and manufacture of guided missiles, without consultation with them in which they can play a part and have a right to a voice?

Mr. Sandys

I have our relations with our partners in the Western European Union very much in mind and I have already received a request for consultations, which I very much welcome, from some of the other member States of the Western European Union.

Mr. E. Fletcher

Would the Minister tell us whether it is correct, as stated in the Press, or not, that America is to supply us with the fullest information and delivery of both inter-continental guided ballistic missiles and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, and, also, whether any conditions have been attached as to the circumstances in which such missiles will be used from American bases in this country?

Mr. Sandys

I do not think that I want to go into that point because, as I explained in my Answer, a tentative proposal for the adoption by Great Britain of certain American weapons was discussed in Washington and is now being further examined by the two Governments. Until firm conclusions are reached, I think that it would be premature for me to make any statement of greater detail upon that to the House.

Air Commodore Harvey

While he was in Washington, did my right hon. Friend discuss the question of widening the spheres of influence of N.A.T.O. and, if so, with what effect?

Mr. Sandys

That did not come within the scope of my talks in Washington.

Mr. Gaitskell

While welcoming the right hon. Gentleman's frank statement on Anglo-American relations and the implied rebuke to so many of his hon. Friends, may I ask how far he discussed with either Mr. Wilson or Mr. Dulles the reduction of our commitments in Europe and elsewhere, and whether these discussions are to be carried further in any other discussions between members of the Government and members of the United States Administration?

Mr. Sandys

I hope very much that while I hold this office I can, as far as possible, conduct affairs in a non-party spirit. There will be controversy, naturally, but I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have tried to introduce a party-political slant to his supplementary question.

Naturally, I took the opportunity to tell the United States Government in general terms the sort of ideas that we have in mind about the future shape and size of our contribution to N.A.T.O.

Advance warning was already given in general terms to the North Atlantic Treaty Council in December. I shall have an opportunity of discussing this further with the Supreme Commander, who is coming to this country on Monday, and I hope, also, that, shortly after that, an opportunity will arise to discuss it at a meeting with other members of the Western European Union. The right hon. Gentleman can be assured that there will be the fullest possible consultation with all countries and parties concerned before a final conclusion is announced.

Mr. Gaitskell

In view of the right hon. Gentleman's professed desire for a greater degree of unity in these matters, is he proposing to ask his hon. Friends to withdraw the Motion on the Order Paper which severely criticises the United States?

[That this House congratulates the Foreign Secretary on his efforts to secure international control of the Suez Canal, and deplores both the Resolution of the General Assembly calling for immediate and unconditional withdrawal of British and French troops from Egypt, and the attitude of the United States of America which is gravely endangering the Atlantic alliance.]

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mr. J. Griffiths

In view of the Minister's visit to Washington, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will take steps to have this Motion removed from the Order Paper?

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is to be a debate on this matter next week.