HC Deb 20 November 1957 vol 578 cc359-60
2. Mr. Zilliacus

asked the Minister of Defence, in view of the fact that the policy of the Government is now not to attempt defence of the whole country against nuclear attack but to concentrate on defending the Anglo-American nuclear bases stationed here, what steps he has taken to inform the nation of this restricted policy and on what occasions; and whether he will make a statement.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys)

This was stated in the Defence White Paper last April.

Mr. Zilliacus

Is it not a fact that the Minister of Defence, at Canberra on 20th August, declared that as it was impossible to defend this country against nuclear attack, the Government were going to concentrate on the defence of bases only and thanked the people of this country for the loyal way in which they had accepted this harsh necessity? Is not it true that on 26th June the Government admitted that the stationing of Anglo-American bases here would attract nuclear attack? What chance have the people of this country had to say what they think of the Government's policy of attracting nuclear attack and then abandoning the country without defence against nuclear attack?

Mr. Sandys

Hon. Members usually regard themselves as representatives of the people of this country. This policy was stated in the White Paper on Defence which was subsequently approved by the House.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker

In view of the Minister's many statements that there is no defence against nuclear attack on this country, can he say what the Foreign Secretary meant when he told the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee that the advent of nuclear weapons had brought the country a new security?

Mr. Sandys

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman confirms what I have said, that is to say, we have made this quite clear for quite a long time, and I hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) has taken note of that. As far as the rest of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks are concerned, it does not follow that, because one has no defence, the existence of a powerful deterrent on both sides does not perhaps constitute some measure of security.