§ The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson)The Government have been considering the future of the project for developing the long-range ballistic missile Blue Streak and have been in touch with the Australian Government about it, in view of their interest in the joint project and the operation of the Woomera range.
The technique of controlling ballistic missiles has rapidly advanced. The vulnerability of missiles launched from static sites, and the practicability of launching missiles of considerable range from mobile platforms, has now been established. In the light of our military advice to this effect, and of the importance of reinforcing the effectiveness of the deterrent, we have concluded and the Australian Government have fully accepted that we ought not to continue to develop, as a military weapon, a missile that can be launched only from a fixed site.
Today, our strategic nuclear force is an effective and significant contribution to the deterrent power of the free world. The Government do not intend to give up this independent contribution, and, therefore, some other vehicle will in due course be needed in place of Blue Streak to carry British-manufactured nuclear warheads. The need for this is not immediately urgent, since the effectiveness of the V-bomber force as the vehicle for these warheads will remain unimpaired for several years to come, nor is it possible at the moment to say with certainty which of several possibilities or combinations of them would be technically the most suitable. On present information, there appears much 1266 to be said for prolonging the effectiveness of the V-bombers by buying supplies of the airborne ballistic missile Skybolt which is being developed in the United States. Her Majesty's Government understand that the United States Government will be favourably disposed to the purchase by the United Kingdom at the appropriate time of supplies of this vehicle.
The Government will now consider with the firms and other interests concerned, as a matter of urgency, whether the Blue Streak programme could be adapted for the development of a launcher for space satellites. A further statement will be made to the House as soon as possible.
This decision, of course, does not mean that the work at Woomera will be ended. On the contrary, there are many other projects for which the range is needed. We therefore expect that for some years to come, at least, there will be a substantial programme of work for that range.
§ Mr. G. BrownIn so far as this announces the end of Blue Streak as a military programme, the Opposition, who have been pressing this steadily for three years, can only welcome it and welcome the belated decision by the Government to end it. The House will, I hope, forgive me if I ask several questions, for this is a grave and important statement.
This brings to a head a most incredible chapter of obstinacy and of determination to go on with something long after all kinds of people everywhere were clear in their minds that it was wrong. I am bound, therefore, to ask the Minister whether he will tell us the amount of money which has been invested in this missile which has never come even to any kind of fruition. Am I right in thinking that £100 million would be a very conservative estimate?
It is not only money which has been wasted, but also a vast amount of time and immense resources. I feel bound to ask the Government to consider the immediate establishment of some form of inquiry. We understand, of course, that it would not be able to meet in public or anything like that, and that it would have to be a carefully appointed body, but it seems to us that an inquiry into how this came to continue for so long, and how one or two men were able, 1267 by determination and obstinacy, to keep this going, is owed to the House and to the country. I ask whether the Minister will do that.
May I ask two questions about the future? The right hon. Gentleman asserts in his statement that the Government are determined to maintain the independent deterrent, but a decision which has turned out to be wrong is now replaced by a decision to take no decision. Is the Minister assuring the House that he can make good that assertion in view of the fact that he intends to take no decision about the successor vehicle to the V-bomber and that the only vehicle which he mentioned, Skybolt, is one which does not yet exist and that nobody can know at this stage whether it ever will? Is the Minister prepared to assure the House, and to stand by the assurance in later years, that he can guarantee that there will not be a period when there is no effective independent deterrent because nothing exists to carry it at that time?
It seems to me that he should answer those questions and, in particular, should give us the assurance that this will be deeply inquired into, otherwise the House and the country must be left with an overwhelming impression of Ministerial and official incompetence and of a determination to hide it at the end of it all.
§ Mr. WatkinsonThe right hon. Gentleman asked a lot of questions, and I will endeavour to answer them. The first question was about cost. The cost of this project to date is about £65 million. The cost of completing it would be between £500 and £600 million. In other words, the project has been stopped when something like only one-sixth of the expense has been incurred.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We have a lot to do, and these exchanges do not seem to improve the acoustics.
§ Mr. WatkinsonI am only anxious that the House should have the facts. They are in no way discreditable to the Government. None of the £65 million expenditure will be wasted if it is 1268 decided to go ahead with Blue Streak as a launcher for a space satellite, and I have said that that is now under examination. It could not be examined before, because it needs detailed discussion with the firms and all the interested parties.
As to the much broader issue of how we maintain the independent deterrent, as we are so determined to do, that was fully discussed in the defence debate, and I will add only that the V-bombers are a valid contribution to the deterrent until beyond the mid-1960s. Blue Streak would not have been available, either, until beyond the mid-1960s. The present view that Skybolt may be our best immediate decision would certainly fit in with that time scale; in other words, it would be available just as soon as Blue Streak would have been available.
I do not rule out further decisions at a later stage on other types of missile, and with a combination of these, including Skybolt, as far as I can see at the moment there would be no greater deterrent gap than there would have been in the combination of the V-bombers followed by Blue Streak.
§ Mr. G. BrownIf the last remark is true, it is an additional condemnation of those who embarked on this project. May I take the Minister back to my pressure for an inquiry? A sum of £65 million, even if that is all that it has cost, is a large sum. One has to see what is being brought into the costings here—how much of the sum spent on Spadeadam which would not have been required and how much allowed for Woomera which otherwise would not have been required—before deciding on a figure. Even if £65 million is the total sum—and I doubt that—it is no insignificant sum of money, and a very much greater fuss was made by hon. Members opposite about projects embarked on by a Labour Government where the total involved was never even half this amount.
May I, therefore, press on the Minister that the country has the right to know the circumstances in which this was continued long after the position was apparent? May I press on him that those circumstances should be probed and that we should be shown how it happened and assured about the future? After all, it was clear to many hon. 1269 Members a long time ago that this was wrong. I press the Minister to consider the matter and to say that he will at least consider setting up an appropriate body of inquiry.
§ Mr. WatkinsonI cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's views. Everybody has a right to make guesses about any particular weapon. As my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Aviation said in the defence debate of last year, the decision then—which was a perfectly right military decision—was that, because there was no better mobile alternative, work should go forward with this missile.
§ Mr. WatkinsonWhen we came to the debate—
§ Mr. CallaghanWhere is he?
§ Mr. WatkinsonIf the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) cannot contain himself, perhaps he will at least kindly let me answer the questions if he wants to hear the answers.
§ Mr. CallaghanI was commenting that it is a little unfair that the Minister of Defence should have to face all this music, and I was wondering where the Minister of Aviation is and when he is going to resign.
§ Mr. WatkinsonAs always, the hon. Member has it wrong. I welcome this decision. I welcome the opportunity of telling the House about it. I only hope that the House will listen to what I have to say, because, as the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said, it is of considerable importance.
In the defence debate last year the balance just came down on the side of going on with the project, because at that time there was no suitable mobile alternative which had been proved. In the debate this year I was very careful to say that we had this question under examination and that I would report any decision to the House as soon as it was made. That is what I am now doing. It has been made on the best of technical and military advice. It is a right decision this year, as it would have been a wrong decision last year. If we are to keep the peace for an occasional expenditure of £60 million-odd, it is very cheap.
§ Mr. BirchIs my right hon. Friend aware that for many years the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) was an enthusiastic supporter of Blue Streak? Will my right hon. Friend please give the assurance that, if Blue Streak is to be used as a vehicle for space research, before that decision is finally taken as good a costing as it is possible to make will be set before the House so that we can have a chance of deciding whether we think it is worth the price or not?
§ Mr. WatkinsonMy right hon. Friend is perfectly correct. This is one of the issues which would have to be most carefully examined before a final decision was made. It was not possible to make it at this stage because of the very fact he has raised, that we cannot make accurate costings until we have had these examinations with the firms and interests involved.
§ Mr. ChetwyndAs the original decision to go ahead with Blue Streak was made on the best military and technical advice, and as the decision to end it was made on the best military and technical advice, who are these advisers and what kind of advice are they giving? Is it not clear that we stand no better chance of getting a more successful weapon from these people in future than we have in the past? In view of the fantastic loss of money, have we not lost three years' development in this field?
§ Mr. WatkinsonThe hon. Member should pay more attention to defence debates. He would then realise that in the last three years the entire strategic concept in regard to missiles has completely changed.
§ Mr. van StraubenzeeWill my right hon. Friend give very special consideration to the anxiety which the decision which he has just announced will cause to the very large number of skilled men employed on the project? Will he give special consideration to the large numbers who moved deliberately to Bracknell New Town on the strength of a Government assurance that this was a new project which would not be cancelled? Will he consult very urgently with his appropriate colleagues to provide alternative orders for those who have acted on the strength of a Government assurance?
§ Mr. WatkinsonI do not accept my ban. Friend's remarks about pledges, because I am not aware of them. As to the employment position, that is why I wished to make this announcement at the earliest possible moment, and I have done so. Fortunately, scientific manpower is in very short supply and I do not think there will be great difficulties about employment.
§ Mr. GrimondMay I warmly congratulate the Minister on his splendid rejection of his predecessor's policy? May I ask whether he does not feel that some inquiry into this waste of £65 million of public money is justified? If the Ministry of Defence has only just discovered the vulnerability of missiles launched from static sites, it is far behind what most people discovered a long time ago. Surely some inquiry is justified. Will the right hon. Gentleman give up the pretence that at this late date Blue Streak has some particular value as a launcher of space satellites and also give up this preposterous policy of an independent British deterrent?
§ Mr. WatkinsonThe hon. Member had better study defence matters a little more carefully.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. One at a time, please.
§ Mr. WatkinsonWhat I mean is this. The hon. Member has said—and it is a perfectly proper point to make—that this decision could have been made, and the right hon. Member for Belper said it should have been made, twelve months ago. Decisions on this matter are inevitably very difficult to take and are delicately poised. On them depends the peace of the world.
I make no apology for trying to study this carefully before coming to what I quite accept is a major decision. Therefore, what I mean by my answer is that these matters of defence must be studied very carefully, particularly in a rapidly changing strategic situation, and that before one comes to a decision one must be quite certain that it plays its part in trying to keep the peace. This present decision does that by maintaining the validity of the deterrent in a world in which the missile concept has 1272 shifted from a static concept to a mobile one, but only in comparatively recent months.
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes HallettIs it not a fact that even those who criticise Blue Streak have recognised that this is by no means the first great project which has been abandoned and is unlikely to be the last and that, as in the case of the Brabazon aircraft, the Princess flying boats and the Swift fighter, the knowledge and experience gained in this research need not be wasted? Could my right hon. Friend give an assurance that nothing will be done which will lose this country's present leading position in missile development?
§ Mr. WatkinsonThe answer—and I apologise that I did not answer the previous supplementary question about space—is a very important one. The Americans have invested and are investing an immense sum of money in space research, both for its military and scientific and industrial value. At the moment we can only get into space by the American offer to launch British satellites under their terms. Therefore, Blue Streak, which, in conjunction with Black Knight, is a possible space launching vehicle—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, at least the Black Knight rocket has a record of firings which is practically 100 per cent. perfect. This combination might give us experience of space which might be of the utmost military and scientific value. If we do this, then very little of the present money spent on research and development and the present production will be wasted.
§ Mr. HaleWould the Minister tell us what was the original estimate of the cost of Blue Streak, when he became aware that he was contemplating a sum of over £500 million of public money, when he informed the House for the first time that the development of Blue Streak would be likely to cost more than £500 million and—in view of his observation that, after all, the loss of £65 million is not much—will he call the attention of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance to the views of the Government on the expendtiure of public money in other fields? Will he bear in mind that what the Ministry wants at the moment is not a deterrent, but a detergent?
§ Mr. WatkinsonThe general cost of the full development of the weapon, the sum I have quoted of between £500 million and £600 million, has been known for a considerable period. It is the inevitable cost, and anyone could judge it by the cost of comparable American weapons. As to whether £65 million is the right point or not at which to stop, all I say is that the £65 million spent on the project will not be wasted if it is decided to use it as a space launching vehicle. In addition, even if it were not, a large proportion of that money puts us into missile technology which will be most valuable for any further development that we decide to carry out.
§ Mr. Farey-JonesWould my right hon. Friend bear in mind that to properly informed—and, I repeat, properly informed—Members of the House this will be regarded as a calamitous decision? Would my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that this is not a question of financial expenditure, but is a question of Commonwealth participation in scientific progress in the next one hundred years compared with which £65 million is a bagatelle?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the result of this decision is to put British scientific progress in the exploration of outer space in pawn to the United States for the next twenty-five to fifty years? Will he also bear in mind that this not only affects this island, but a vital part of the Commonwealth? Will he give a guarantee, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that this will not exclude British insular participation in the scientific exploration of outer space.
§ Mr. WatkinsonI have just answered the last half of my hon. Friend's supplementary by saying that an immediate investigation is going on now into the possibilities of space research based on this missile. I am very glad that my hon. Friend spoke about cost, because I want to make it quite plain that this decision was not taken on the grounds of cost or trying to save a large sum of money, but on the best military and technical advice at present available to me.
§ Mr. SpeakerWould hon. Members be good enough to clear the Bar?
§ Mr. GaitskellOn a point of order. Are we debarred from continuing the questioning of the Minister on this very vital issue? Can we not continue to do so until we choose to allow the representative of the other place to enter?
§ Mr. SpeakerHon. Members are not debarred. I myself made an error, because my view was a little obscured and I thought that matters had progressed further than, in fact, they had. However, we shall be interrupted in the process.
§ Mr. GaitskellIn that case, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that his replies to our supplementary questions strike this side of the House as being deplorably complacent, that to us at least the waste of £65 million is a very serious matter, and that the case for an inquiry into this whole matter appears to us to be overwhelming? Will he at least give us some reason why such an inquiry should not take place? Failing any satisfaction from the Minister of Defence, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he will find time for a very early debate on this matter?
§ Mr. WatkinsonThat is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman has to decide for himself. What I have done is what I pledged myself to do in the defence debate—to bring major defence decisions of this nature to the House as quickly as possible and to endeavour to explain the reasons lying behind them. I have done that. In my view, that is not a complacent attitude. It is trying to tell the House the facts, if hon. Members are willing to listen to them.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the Minister aware, however, that whatever his personal position may be in this matter the Government as a whole cannot escape responsibility for the earlier decisions? May I again press upon him our demand for an inquiry?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. G. BrownIf the Minister does not feel able to go further, will the Leader of the House answer the point about giving time for a debate in which the House may itself discuss the desirability of having an inquiry?
§ Mr. WatkinsonI am perfectly willing to answer, but I thought that we would be interrupted by another matter. All that I would say at the moment is that I am quite prepared to go on answering questions which you, Mr. Speaker, will allow and which disclose the full facts. I have said that the further progress of this missile has to be examined in the context of space research, and, therefore, no inquiry is necessary.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.