§ 8. Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Defence what consideration was given at the recent meetings of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers to the desirability of West Germany being permitted to engage in the construction of submarines of up to 2,000 tons and naval vessels of up to 6,000 tons, and in the joint production of intermediate range missiles.
§ Mr. WatkinsonNone, Sir.
§ Mr. WarbeyWill the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not N.A.T.O. has approved in principle the German request for permission to construct naval vessels and other armaments, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, are beyond the limits imposed by the Brussels Treaty? Bearing in mind the warning given recently by the Prime Minister in Washington, when do the Government intend to call a halt to growing German military intentions?
§ Mr. WatkinsonDiscussions in the N.A.T.O. Council are confidential. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware that the matters which he raised are not primarily for N.A.T.O., but for W.E.U.
§ 9. Mr. Warbeyasked the Minister of Defence what decisions were taken at the recent meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers on the provision of extra-territorial bases, depôts, training and other facilities for the military forces of West Germany
§ Mr. WatkinsonNo decisions were taken about individual requirements, but it was agreed that the requirements of the Federal Republic or of any other member of the alliance, if sponsored by N.A.T.O., would be sympathetically considered by all N.A.T.O. countries.
§ Mr. WarbeyAs the West German Foreign Minister has said today that Germany requires bases, depôts and training facilities in countries in or near the N.A.T.O. area and as he has given fulsome praise to the present Spanish régime, does the right hon. Gentleman mean that N.A.T.O. and Her Majesty's Government have given the green light to German-Spanish military co-operation and, if so, why?
§ Mr. WatkinsonOn the general issue of what happened at the N.A.T.O. conference, I shall be answering that in answer to a later Question. I set out clearly in answer to a supplementary question from one of his hon. Friends the general attitude of Her Majesty's Government.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesCan the right hon. Gentleman explain the part of the communiqué of the N.A.T.O. Council which states that he offered the use of the base in South Uist to the German forces? At a time when a rocket can travel 8,000 miles and get within 1½ miles of its target, is he not putting this island with its innocent population in great danger without being able to defend it?
§ Mr. WatkinsonThe hon. Gentleman has incorrectly quoted the N.A.T.O. communiqué. I will give him the correct version in answer to a later Question.
§ Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Defence what plans for a war lasting 90 days were submitted during the discussions at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation by the West German Defence Minister or a representative on his behalf; and what were the counter proposals submitted by the British representative.
§ 11. Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Defence to what extent he discussed with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers at Paris the possibilities of the preliminary phase of another European war lasting 30 days.
§ 14. Mr. Zilliacusasked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of his re-affirmation of the nuclear deterrent strategy of the 1958 Defence White Paper and of the view that it is impossible to defend the people of this country against nuclear attack, the estimate made at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation conference of a period of 30 days for the duration of a war, was supposed to run after a British decision to initiate nuclear warfare.
§ Mr. WatkinsonThere was no conflict between British and German proposals and plans of other countries; nor were the discussions concerned with the duration of a future war. There is, however, the important question of priorities. The appropriate N.A.T.O. authorities 364 have been asked to re-examine the preparations for the early phase of a possible war, but this does not mean that it has been decided that a war would last for only a given number of days, nor necessarily that there is no requirement for preparations for subsequent phases.
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes not the right hon. Gentleman consider it somewhat incongruous that, when there is so much talk about disarmament, which I gather is supported by Her Majesty's Government and by the vast majority of people in this country, N.A.T.O. should be considering plans for a future war? If such plans are envisaged, would it not be appropriate to advise the House of Commons about them—in general, if not in detail?
§ Mr. WatkinsonAs the right hon. Gentleman knows as well as anyone in the House, the purpose of N.A.T.O. and the whole alliance is to try to stop a war starting which could engulf us all. That duty remains on N.A.T.O. until we can succeed with the disarmament negotiations, in which Her Majesty's Government played a leading part in initiating the present plans under discussion. Therefore, the purpose of N.A.T.O. is a peaceful purpose, because it is to try to stop a war starting. If it is necessary, in order to do that, to revise our plans occasionally and look at them again, in my view there is nothing wrong in that.
§ Mr. HughesIs the Minister aware that he is merely taking evasive action behind a smokescreen of words? Can he explain why two leading British papers which are widely read and very reputable, namely, The Times and the Guardian, stated that there was a discussion at this N.A.T.O. conference on whether the first phase of the next war would be 60 days or 30 days? As we have been told that a hydrogen bomb war could not last 24 hours, is not the Minister deluding and fooling the British public over the whole business of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation?
§ Mr. WatkinsonI have said that N.A.T.O. discussions are confidential, but I do not think that I should be causing any great breach if I told the hon. Gentleman that there was no discussion in the N.A.T.O. Council about 30 days or 90 days.
§ Mr. ZilliacusCan the right hon. Gentleman now reply to my Question, which was how long, in view of the Government's decision to resort to nuclear weapons first in case of a conventional major attack, he expects the people of this country to survive the result of a nuclear counter-attack? Does he really think that 30 days—or 30 hours for that matter—is a realistic figure?
§ Mr. WatkinsonAgain, the hon. Gentleman is trying to import quite hypothetical considerations into the one question that matters to this island, and that is: can we, by our defence policy, stop a disastrous war starting? I must say that questions such as those asked by the hon. Gentleman do not, in my view, help the cause of defence or disarmament.
§ Mr. SpeakerBrigadier Sir John Smyth.
§ Mr. ZilliacusOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Owing to the completely unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply—
§ Mr. SpeakerI had called another hon. Member before the hon. Gentleman rose to his point of order. I will receive it after that question has been dealt with.
§ Sir J. SmythIs my right hon. Friend aware that last night, on B.B.C. television, General Norstad repeated what he has said many times before. He said that the rôle of N.A.T.O. is as a shield to make a break in continuity, to give time for thought, and that that is the essential rôle of N.A.T.O., as my right hon. Friend has said—to prevent a war rather than to fight it?
§ Mr. WatkinsonI could not agree more with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). He has set out exactly the purpose of N.A.T.O., and the reason why we support it.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. ZilliacusOn a point of order—
§ Mr. SpeakerNow I am bound by the notice given.
§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. An hon. Member can indi- 366 cate that he wishes, because of the unsatisfactory Answer to his Question, to raise it on the Adjournment, but cannot do that on another hon. Member's Question.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is attractively ingenious, as usual, but I do not think that it is quite right, because the Questions were answered together, and the notice that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) gave to me related to the unsatisfactory Answer given to this batch of Questions that were answered together. I am afraid that I must treat it in that way.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanIn any case, Mr. Speaker, is my right hon. Friend's statement correct? Is it not within any Member's right to give such notice at any time, whether the Answer is to his Question or to that of any other hon. Member?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that that is quite right. Perhaps this is the moment when, without taking up time, I might ask the House to consider the question of giving notice, which occupies time at Question Time. I cannot help noticing that some notices are not followed up in any way, and it does have the effect, of course, of depriving other hon. Members for a time of what would otherwise be their opportunity of asking further questions.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a longstanding tradition in this House that if an hon. Member is dissatisfied with an Answer to a Question, the traditional way of stating his objection is by asking for an Adjournment debate, even if it is not followed up?
§ Mr. SpeakerI could not accept that, because the effect of giving the notice has a definite bearing on other hon. Members' rights.
§ 12. Mr. Fletcherasked the Minister of Defence what decisions were taken at the meeting of the North Atlantic Defence Ministers in Paris for the establishment of bases for strategic nuclear weapons in Germany.
§ Mr. WatkinsonNone, Sir.
§ Mr. FletcherWould the Minister, therefore, give an assurance that, while 367 supporting all the legitimate requirements of N.A.T.O., Her Majesty's Government will not support any proposal for the establishment of bases for strategic nuclear weapons in Germany?
§ Mr. WatkinsonThat is quite a different question, and the hon. Member had better put it down.
§ 16. Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallettasked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on the meeting, which he attended, of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers in Paris last week.
§ Mr. WatkinsonYes, Sir. As we expected, the Defence Ministers found it valuable to meet and exchange ideas about our common problems. Our meeting was most successful, and we hope that it will enable us to make better use of resources devoted to defence, to increase co-operation in research, development and production, and to secure an improvement in the logistic systems of allied forces.
Detailed studies on all these matters have been set on foot.
All N.A.T.O. Defence Ministers—I hope the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) will listen to the last part of this statement—expressed sympathy and understanding with the particular logistic and training problems of the German Federal Republic. I made it plain that if N.A.T.O. asks us to assist in meeting the requirements of Germany, or of any other N.A.T.O. country, we shall give these requests sympathetic consideration. It is clearly in the interest of Great Britain that German defences should be tightly interlocked with those of all members of the alliance, and this is the wish also of the democratic Government of the Federal Republic. Full agreement was reached on all the matters discussed, and I particularly welcomed the opportunity of personal talks with most of my colleagues. I hope that we shall have further meetings of this kind from time to time.
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes HallettI congratulate my right hon. Friend on his personal contribution to the success of this conference. Is not its outcome an effective reply to those Jeremiahs who have been forecasting the early demise of N.A.T.O.—[Interruption.]—and can my right hon. Friend tell us—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I must have the help of the House; otherwise, we cannot get on.
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes HallettCan my right hon. Friend tell us whether the problem of the common production of arms for Western European Union countries and by Western European countries was discussed and whether any progress was made in this difficult matter?
§ Mr. WatkinsonAs this has been mentioned in the Press, perhaps I should confirm that it was the unanimous view of all the Defence Ministers that a short list of projects, say twenty in number, on which we could all work together, might enable more rapid progress to be made.
§ Mr. WoodburnIf bases are developed in Uist and other parts of Scotland, will the Minister try to induce those concerned to bring some other industries with them which will be useful in peace time if these things are not necessary for war?
§ Mr. WatkinsonI suppose it may be that the other European countries which have offered facilities on an exchange basis to Germany have been attracted by the idea because, of course, the Germans have to pay for all the facilities.
§ Mr. G. BrownI listened as carefully as I could, but the Minister's Answer sounded to me like a wonderful collection of bromides. Did the meeting take any decisions? If so, what were they?
§ Mr. WatkinsonThe decisions taken will remain the confidential property of the meeting, as we agreed. The end-products will become available in various actions and decisions which will come out in the next month, as time goes by.
§ Mr. BrownHow do decisions come out, from the point of view of the House? Presumably, the decisions were taken in the name of Her Majesty's Government, in so far as we were parties to them, and, thereby, in the name of the House of Commons. Are we to wait for them to leak out? Does not the Minister propose at some stage to announce to the House what decisions Her Majesty's Government, in our name, are a party to?
§ Mr. WatkinsonI am not trying to be difficult about this. If the right hon. Gentleman will kindly look at what was, I admit, the rather long Answer I gave originally, he will see that I said quite clearly what studies have been put in hand for the appropriate N.A.T.O. authorities to carry through. I think it is quite clear from my Answer what those studies are. I admit that the end-products of them have yet to appear, but I think he will see that I have given the information in answer to the Question. If he is not satisfied, he can put down another Question, and I will try to answer it.
§ Mr. FletcherIs it not contrary to the basis on which the House approved the admission of Germany to N.A.T.O. that any part of the British Isles should be used for training German troops? Will the Minister assure us that no such decision will be taken without consulting and obtaining the approval of the House?
§ Mr. WatkinsonI have already said that, of course, if any major change in the arrangements were made, I should certainly inform the House. But I must make it quite plain that the House and the country have to choose; either they want a democratic Germany fully integrated as a loyal partner in the alliance or they do not. The Government do want it.