HC Deb 11 February 1959 vol 599 cc1173-5
30. Mr. S. Silverman

asked the Minister of Defence whether it is still the Government's policy that, in the event of war, defence activities against enemy air attack must be confined to the protection of military airfields and air bases.

Mr. Sandys

The practical limitations of air defence, as explained in the Defence White Paper of 1957, still remain valid.

Mr. Silverman

Does that reply mean, if I may press the right hon. Gentleman to put it into specific terms which the people of this country can understand, that in the event of nuclear war there would be no possibility whatever of defending the civil population of this country? If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman explain what is the purpose of this complicated and expensive accumulation of horror weapons, and will he advise the Prime Minister to change the name of his Department from Defence to the Department of Potential Retaliation?

Mr. Sandys

It was made clear in the White Paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers that although our defences could no doubt deal with a very high proportion of any enemy bomber aircraft attacking this country—probably a higher proportion than during the last war—nonetheless, with the tremendous explosive power of modern weapons, if even a few were to get through it would be sufficient to create widespread devastation. Therefore, we could not honestly say to the people of this country that in the present state of scientific knowledge there is any effective means of defending the country as a whole.

Mr. Zilliacus

With reference to reliance on the United States to supply this deficiency, is it not a fact that recent developments in Soviet inter-continental ballistic missiles have made the United States population as vulnerable as our own, and that in the circumstances the consensus of military opinion is that the United States would not use strategic nuclear weapons on behalf of any other country in view of what would happen to it in return, so that the whole basis of the Government's strategy has collapsed?

Mr. Sandys

The hon. Gentleman should have been awake when Question No. 11 was called.

Mr. G. Brown

In view of the suggestion that the fighters and missile defences being stationed around the deterrent bases leaves the civilian population completely uncovered, would not the Minister like to consider whether it is not a fact that any interception, either by fighter planes or missiles, no matter where they start from, is bound to be some way off from these islands if it is to be effective, and therefore will be protecting the civilian population as well as the bases around which they are sited? Is that not so?

Mr. Sandys

It is inevitable that, in defending an area, one defends something more than the bases.