HC Deb 11 November 1959 vol 613 cc378-80
7. Mr. Zilliacus

asked the Minister of Defence whether it was with his authority that Lieutenant-General Sir John Cowley, Controller of Munitions, said that to bring the nuclear deterrent into play meant committing suicide.

13. Mr. Lipton

asked the Minister of Defence whether he authorised the recent statement by the Controller of Munitions that using the nuclear deterrent meant suicide.

14. Mr. Rankin

asked the Minister of Defence whether he authorised the criticism by the Controller of Munitions of Great Britain's defence policy, as defined in the White Paper of 1958; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Watkinson

This officer's lecture was stated at the beginning to be an expression of his own personal views, put forward to promote discussion in the institution. As such, it was cleared by his own Service. It did not represent the official policy of Her Majesty's Government, and it contained a number of statements which I could not endorse.

Mr. Zilliacus

Does the Minister of Defence quarrel with the statement in that speech that the 1958 Defence White Paper policy of resorting to nuclear weapons first in the case of a conventional attack would mean suicide to this country? Does he disagree with that proposition? Is that still the Government's policy?

Mr. Watkinson

Again, the difficulty is that the hon. Member ought to read this very long and very interesting lecture. The first part of the sentence which he has quoted reads, "Unless we bring the nuclear deterrent into play we are bound to be beaten".

Mr. Lipton

Will the Minister take note of the fact that the nuclear obsessions of his predecessor have made quite a number of distinguished Service Chiefs almost mutinous? In those circumstances, will he give an assurance that he will not follow in the discredited footsteps of his predecessor, who is now being disowned to an ever-increasing extent by his own professional advisers?

Mr. Watkinson

If I may say so, the hon. Member only discredits himself by trying to bring to this very grave matter of peace or war rather slick political arguments which have very little relevance.

Mr. Rankin

According to the Manchester Guardian—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Guardian"]— Sir John Cowley was stating his personal opinions, but there is no doubt that as a serving officer his remarks must have been approved by the War Office. Is that true or is it not? Is it true that this speech may well mark the beginning of the end of Mr. Sandys' defence policy?

Mr. Watkinson

The hon. Member has not quite brought himself up to date on Parliamentary procedure. In reply to the first part of his supplementary question, if he will be kind enough to read my Answer, he will see that I replied to him. As to the second and more general issue, this officer said—and I again ask hon. Members to read the whole lecture, which is very long and very interesting—that he would be extremely disappointed if anybody agreed with him. At least he will not be disappointed in me.

Mr. Strachey

As one who took the precaution to attend the lecture and to listen to it very carefully, may I ask whether the Minister does not think it significant that this distinguished officer has reached the conclusion that precisely the policy embodied in paragraph 12 of the White Paper is no longer a deterrent because it is not credible even to him?

Mr. Watkinson

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Aviation, who was my predecessor, in my view took very brave decisions which did a great deal to maintain the peace of the world. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to answer that, and he will have the opportunity to do so when we have a defence debate. As to the other issue about this lecture as a whole, this officer very carefully put several sides to the various arguments, which obviously as a new Minister I wish to examine. I think that after only four weeks I should be extremely unwise to give the House at this stage the benefit of what study I have been able to make.

Mr. Mason

Irrespective of whether the Minister agrees with the contents of the lecture, does he not think this a dangerous practice? Does he not intend to take some steps to try to stamp out this frankness and these blatant remarks by officers of Her Majesty's Forces who are openly declaring opposition to the Government's defence policy?

Mr. Watkinson

I do not agree with the hon. Member in that. I think that the right drill—and I think that in the future it will be followed—is that statements or lectures Which bear on major defence policies of the Government must be cleared with me.