HC Deb 11 November 1959 vol 613 cc390-3
19. Mr. Shin well

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent United Kingdom representatives in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation agreed to the proposal to provide West Germany with atomic tactical weapons and guided missiles.

Mr. Profumo

As my right hon. and learned Friend explained in his reply to the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) on 2nd December, 1958, this was a decision of the North Atlantic Council at ministerial level, in which my right hon. and learned Friend of course participated without reserve.

Mr. Shin well

Is this action wise? Does the hon. Gentleman understand that if this process continues, apart from Soviet Russia, Western Germany will be the strongest military nation in Europe and armed precisely with those weapons which it was originally intended Western Germany should never possess? What has caused this change of front and this partiality to Western Germany all of a sudden?

Mr. Profumo

There is no partiality to Western Germany. As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will know, the German authorities will not have control over the warheads. But we do not consider that in an alliance it is wise or indeed feasible to discriminate against soldiers because of their nationality.

Mr. Shinwell

Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that I am not to be taken in with all this—

Mr. Speaker

Order. A multiplicity of supplementary questions from one individual hon. Member makes it difficult for me.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I to understand that if I wish to elucidate further information on this very important topic I am to be prevented from doing so? Is that to be your decision?

Mr. Speaker

No, but I hope that the ordinary practice of the Chair may be, so far as is possible and convenient, to call for supplementary questions from one side of the House and the other in succession.

Mr. Osborne

Since this is likely to be the thorniest problem the Ministers will face at the Summit Conference, would it not be wise if there were no further developments until a Summit Conference has been reached?

Mr. Profumo

We have been associated in this decision with our N.A.T.O. allies and I think we must stand by it. I believe that the House would wish us to do so.

Mr. Bevan

It is not merely a matter of association with our N.A.T.O. allies, but what action did the British representa- tives take at Ministerial level. Did they propose it or support it, or are we to be told that they yielded to the argument on the other side? In the second place, what is the use of telling the House of Commons that we do not discriminate among allies when, in fact, the answer of the hon. Gentleman shows discrimination—he said himself that the warheads would not be in the possession of Western Germany? Is not that a discrimination in itself?

Mr. Profumo

In reply to the first part of that supplementary question, I said that we have participated in this without reserve.

Mr. Bevan

What does that mean?

Mr. Profumo

It means exactly what it says. Regarding the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, discrimination is not really there, because they are not in possession of warheads so long as there are no hostilities.

Mr. Bevan

May I ask the hon. Member please to be frank in his replies? We do not know what he means by "participating without reserve". Did we agree with the proposals, did we make proposals, or did we acquiesce in proposals? Secondly, is not there discrimination already, and why not discriminate earlier by not providing nuclear tactical weapons at all?

Mr. Profumo

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister explained this in considerable detail on 9th April. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look up that explanation.

Mr. Bevan

Really.

Mr. Paget

The hon. Gentleman seems to have given us a new process about this alliance, that is, participation with or without reserve. Can he tell us the difference between the two?

Mr. Profumo

If the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks it more legal for me to say "participating", then participating it shall be. I hope I have explained to the House that we are in agreement with the decision which was taken at Ministerial level.

Mr. Bevan

Then why did not the hon. Gentleman say so?

Mr. Fernyhough

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when there is to be a stop to this process? First, it was 12 divisions, and now it is a question of a navy, an air force and tactical weapons. When is a stop coming?

Mr. Profumo

I have given an answer to the Question on the Order Paper. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask any specific question, perhaps he will put it on the Order Paper.

20. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why permission to build missiles has been given to West Germany by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council.

Mr. Profumo

The Western European Union—not the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation—has permitted German manufacture of certain missiles for antiaircraft defence, because they are strictly defensive, and their manufacture does not contravene the spirit of the revised Brussels Treaty. It is in the interest of the North Atlantic Alliance that the industrial capacity of the Federal Republic of Germany should be harnessed to the joint armaments efforts of the Allies.

Mr. Allaun

Is not this the thin end of the wedge? If that kind of missile is now being permitted, how long will it be before other kinds of missiles are permitted? Is it not true that there is a proposal for the removal of the restrictions on warships of over 3.000 tons and submarines of over 350 tons?

Mr. Profumo

That question is entirely hypothetical, and I am not prepared to answer it.

Mr. Shinwell

If Western Germany, through the Western European Union, is now to have permission to build missiles, are they to provide their own warheads, or are these missiles to be without warheads? If Germany is not to provide the warheads for these missiles which they are to be permitted to build, who is to provide the warheads?

Mr. Profumo

The weapons to which I referred in the answer to the Question are not nuclear weapons.

Mr. Kershaw

Is it not a fact that the participation of Western Germany in Western defence is absolutely necessary to Western defence, and is it not desirable that this belated courageous sniping against Germany from hon. Members opposite should now cease?

Back to
Forward to