HC Deb 22 June 1960 vol 625 cc394-406
7. Mr. Warbey

asked the Minister of Defence what will be the estimated cost of British participation in research in, and development of, the United States Skybolt missile; and what will be the cost of equipping British bombers with the missile.

9. Mr. Wall

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement about his recent visit to the United States of America.

10. Mr. de Freitas

asked the Minister of Defence if he will now describe in detail the arrangements he has made for the supply of United States-built Skybolts to the Royal Air Force.

13. Mr. W. Hamilton

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the details of the agreement with the Douglas Aircraft Corporation for the purchase of United States Skybolt ballistic missiles.

17. Mr. Shinwell

asked the Minister of Defence what is the nature of the agreement reached with the United States Government on the purchase of the Sky-bolt; what is the estimated cost; and when the weapons are likely to be delivered.

22. Mr. Grimond

asked the Minister of Defence how much Skybolt is going to cost.

23. Mr. Wyatt

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on the details of the agreement reached for the supply of Skybolt to the British forces.

25 and 26. Mr. G. Brown

asked the Minister of Defence (1) what arrangements and commitments he has made in connection with the United States Sky-bolt missile and the Polaris missile; and if he will make a statement;

(2) whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to the United States of America.

Mr. Watkinson

My recent visit to North America provided the occasion for a valuable exchange of views and information with my Canadian and American colleagues; I cannot speek too warmly of the great cordiality with which I was received, and of the complete frankness of our discussions. I was also able, following the Prime Minister's understanding with the President, to clear the way for the technical experts to get down to the details over Skybolt. The United States Secretary of Defence and I agreed that if the Skybolt missile is successfully developed, and is compatible with the Mk. 2 V-bombers, Her Majesty's Government will place an order with the United States Government for a number of missiles and their associated equipment. Discussions will start as soon as possible to settle the financial and technical arrangements for cooperation.

Skybolt is a new and very advanced weapon system, but if our forces are to be armed with up-to-date weapons, we must decide in favour of projects that are at a relatively early stage in their development. In the case of Skybolt, my belief in this means of maintaining the deterrent is much reinforced by what I saw during my visit and by the first technical assessment of the project by British experts. Another important consideration is that fact that the techniques necessary to develop Skybolt have already been proven in the course of the development of other missiles such as Snark, Hound Dog and Bold Orion.

As to the cost, the cost of the main development of Skybolt is being borne by the United States Government. The development costs which we shall have to bear with regard to modifying V-bombers and our share of the development of the missile will be relatively small. The warheads will be British made, and the cost of the actual missile cannot be firm until it is ready for production and a price negotiated.

Mr. Warbey

Can the right hon. Gentleman say what guarantee he can give that the money and research work put into it by this country will not be wasted through the eventual scrapping of this weapon, as, for example, the Bomarc missile has been scrapped? Would it not be far better if the Government were to give up this costly and vainglorious attempt to achieve peace through the H-bomb?

Mr. Watkinson

I shall not follow the hon. Member in the latter part of that supplementary question. His statement about Bomarc is, I understand from the Press, incorrect. We are in partnership with the Americans on this weapon and we shall be a party to all the decisions taken.

Mr. Wall

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on these arrangements for Skybolt, may I ask if he also studied development of Polaris while in America? Are we being kept fully informed about the development of this weapon, which many people believe may form the best means, as well as the most economical, of using the deterrent in future years?

Mr. Watkinson

Yes. The Polaris programme, thanks to the close and cordial relations between the United States and United Kingdom Navies, has had our naval personnel integrated in it almost from its inception. We have, therefore, been fully informed about it. I also took the opportunity while in America of having a full briefing on this weapon system, and I found it very interesting.

Mr. de Freitas

Since Skybolt is being developed and produced by the United States under United States control, both legally and physically, is it still described as part of the independent British nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Watkinson

The answer to that is that if the weapon is developed and we purchase it without strings, fit it with our own warheads and carry it in our own aircraft, then it is an independent deterrent.

Mr. Hamilton

Can the right hon. Gentleman be more specific about cost and say whether it was cost that put him on the side of Skybolt rather than of Polaris? Can he say how effective this weapon can be, in view of the fact that V-bombers and their bases are relatively static and that in four or five years' time they will be able to be pinpointed quite easily by Soviet missiles?

Mr. Watkinson

I do not accept the latter part of the hon. Member's supplementary question. The V-bombers are an extremely mobile form of carrier for a missile. The plans we would make for dispersal are such that no aggressor could ever be sure that some at least of these aircraft had not survived his aggression and would thus be able to retaliate.

Mr. Shinwell

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has made a very vague and nebulous statement? If he claims in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) that he has made a firm agreement with the United States, would he be good enough to put it in writing and include it in the OFFICIAL REPORT SO that we can know what it was? Does he realise that all these ifs and buts about Skybolt's development and cost, in particular whether it could be adapted to V-bombers, are very unsatisfactory? We do not know where we stand.

Mr. Watkinson

It is the right hon. Gentleman who says that there has been an agreement. I was careful to say that what I had done was to prepare the way for a technical understanding which would lead to our partnership in the production of this missile. As to the question of its fitting the V-bombers, it is quite certain that it was designed to fit Vulcan bombers as well as the B 52, so there is no question about that.

Mr. G. Brown

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, by the accident of time I happened to follow him around. Will he assure the House: (a) that there is no such thing as an existing missile called Skybolt; (b) that he has certainly made some tentative arrangements to be associated with some developments, some research work, which he hopes will lead to a missile called Skybolt; and (c) will he tell us how much he has committed Her Majesty's Government to contribute to those developments towards a missile which may never arrive?

Mr. Watkinson

I hope the right hon. Gentleman enjoyed his visit as much as I did. I do not know whether he followed me around to the Douglas Company at Los Angeles. If he did, he will realise as clearly as I do that his statement about the state of the Skybolt weapon system is not strictly correct. As to the second and important part of his question, there is no intention of committing the British Government to large expenditure on this missile until we see whether it is a viable and suitable weapon system or not, for the very reason I gave in my original Answer, that the American Government are bearing the total cost of research and development.

Mr. Brown

Two points arise. If I am wrong in saying that it does not exist—and the Minister says only that strictly speaking I am wrong—will he say at what stage the missile is? Is there such a thing? Secondly, when he says that we are not bearing large costs, will he say what costs we are bearing so that we can judge whether they are large or small?

Mr. Watkinson

If the right hon. Gentleman likes to put down a Question—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] The right hon. Gentleman has put down two Questions which ask me to make a full statement about my American visit. What I have said is that the British Government are committed only to small development costs.

Mr. Brown

How much?

Mr. Watkinson

I am not in a position to say how much until they have been properly costed. I would only be misleading the right hon. Gentleman and the House if I made a guess at it as this stage. These are all matters which have to be properly worked out and considered, and it would not be right to give the House the details until I am in a position to give them accurately.

Mr. Brown

I have put down Question No. 25, which reads: what arrangements and commitments he has made… The Minister began by assuring us that he had not made any commitments. He now says that he cannot tell us what commitments he made. He made commitments. He entered into arrangements. Why should the House and the British public be denied the knowledge? [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not forced to tell us."] The public should know that he is refusing to tell us. Let that be clear.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have a lot to get through. I hope we can avoid counter-statements and confine ourselves to questions.

Mr. Brown

May I not press the point? The Minister chose to say, first, that we had not entered into commitments for expenditure. Then he said that they were not large commitments. Now, when I ask how much he has entered into spending, he says that it is a small amount. When we ask how much is small, he says that he cannot tell us because he does not know. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I not—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should know by now that that never succeeds. May I ask the Minister, in pursuance of his duty to the House and the duty of the House to the country, to tell us what commitments he made? How much per year does he intend to spend on this missile which does not exist? What commitments did he make? He knows them and I know them. Now let him tell the House.

Mr. Watkinson

I think it is highly improbable that the right hon. Gentleman knows them. However, I want to clear his mind of confusion on defence matters as far as I can. He is confusing two issues. First, we are not making any contribution at the moment to any American spending on this missile. Let that be quite plain.

Secondly, we have, of course, to consider—I want to be as helpful as I can to the House—the money we shall have to spend on adapting the Vulcan bomber to carrying the missile, to adapting the computing and calculating equipment in the bomber to guide the missile. We shall have to consider the cost of making the British warhead for the missile. Those are costs which are under our control.

I am perfectly prepared as soon as possible to give the House as much information as I think I should in the public interest. They are matters which we now have to work out. The British experts I was able to take with me have now been able to get a much more precise idea of what we ourselves will have to do.

Mr. Wyatt

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of the Government's own advisers think that Skybolt is every bit as vulnerable as Blue Streak and that it is quite useless to proceed with it? Does he think his information on this point any better than it was on Blue Streak or on Blue Steel, which he said on 27th April was now being fitted when in fact it will not be ready for some time?

Mr. Watkinson

The hon. Gentleman got an answer about Blue Steel from my right hon. Friend, with which I entirely agree. The arguments between Blue Streak and Skybolt were fully dealt with in a long debate in the House. I have not altered my opinion that this is the best possible contribution we can make to the deterrent which is now available.

Mr. Grimond

Is it not extremely important that we should be quite clear about what the Minister has said? I understand that he has told the House that we have no guarantee that this weapon will be developed at all and no guarantee that it will be suitable for our bombers, if it is developed, and that we have no estimate of the cost. Can I now put the 64-dollar question? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to stake his reputation on the British Air Force ever being equipped with this weapon at all?

Mr. Watkinson

The hon. Gentleman is interpreting my words in a quite different sense. Many hundreds of millions of American dollars have already been spent in the development of this weapon, and, as I have said, the Americans are bearing the cost of development themselves. What we have now agreed in principle with the Americans is that we will go into partnership with them on this weapon because of the close links between our own Bomber Command and Strategic Air Command, which is determined to have this weapon and believes that it is only this weapon which can maintain its efficiency after about 1964–65. That, in my view, is not only a proper arrangement to make, but one which will be to the advantage of this country.

Mr. Strachey

Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, so far as the House can make out, what he has told us is that he has made an agreement to produce a weapon which does not exist at a cost which he cannot estimate?

Mr. Watkinson

I would not agree with that at all. What I would say is that I have been able to get a working arrangement of partnership with the Americans in what might be the most formidable deterrent yet invented by man.

Mr. Paget

There are three questions which I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman. Did he ask first for Polaris? Did the Americans tell him that he could not have Polaris and that it would be supplied only to N.A.T.O. and that it could he supplied only through N.A.T.O.? Was that because Polaris existed? Has this arrangement been made with the Americans simply because Skybolt does not exist, because it is not going to exist, and because the Americans have not the slightest intention in the world of giving us an independent deterrent?

Mr. Watkinson

The simple answer to all the hon. and learned Gentleman's question is "No."

Mr. S. Silverman

Would it be a fair summary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am trying to help. Would it be a fair summary of what the right hon. Gentleman has told the House to say that the result of his negotiations in the United States is that what he has really done is to buy a pig in a poke with a blank cheque?

Mr. Watkinson

Perhaps I may equally put my interpretation on what the hon. Member has said and say that his help ought perhaps to be addressed more to his own front bench than to me.

Mr. G. Brown

In view not only of the unsatisfactory but grossly misleading nature of the Minister's replies, may I make it plain—

Mr. Speaker

I am afraid there are various objections to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. I have more than once asked that hon. Members should adhere to the traditional formula when wishing to raise matters on the Adjournment.

Mr. Brown

I was aware of that. Mr. Speaker, but I was not giving personal notice that I would raise the matter on the Adjournment. I was saying that, arising out of this series of Questions and answers, in view not only of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's replies—in the ordinary limited term which one uses when giving notice that one will raise the matter on the Adjournment—but the grossly misleading nature of those replies—in terms of the House as a whole—we, the Opposition, will seek occasion to debate this issue.

Mr. Watkinson

I shall be delighted, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps at the same time we shall be able to debate the Opposition's defence policy.

Mr. Farey Jones

On a point of order. In view of the numerous questions asked by hon. Members opposite and the fact that I had a particularly important question to ask the Defence Minister, may I now be allowed to ask that question?

Mr. Speaker

No. I have called Question No. 8.

Later—

Mr. G. Brown

May I have an answer to Question No. 26?

Mr. Speaker

I understood that the Minister answered Question No. 26 in that numerous group of Questions with which we were troubled.

Mr. Brown

Question No. 26 has nothing to do with Skybolt. I thought I heard the Minister mention Question No. 26, but I thought it must have been a misnomer. The Minister discussed many other Questions other than Skybolt, and it was the other Questions which I was giving him a chance to answer.

Mr. Watkinson

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman did not hear the first part of my Answer in which I dealt with the matter.

11. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Minister of Defence to what extent, in deciding to buy Skybolt rockets for use from British-based aircraft, he took into account the resultant increased likelihood of the United Kingdom being destroyed by counter-attack whether they are used by design or accident.

Mr. Watkinson

The purpose of these weapons is to deter potential aggressors from resorting to war, and our possession of them will reduce the risk of war. The United Kingdom would not use these or any other weapons by accident.

Mr. Allaun

Is it not certain that if the Skybolt were ever used there would inevitably be immediate retaliation? If and when it is produced, would it not therefore be a suicide weapon?

Mr. Watkinson

The hon. Member's views and mine do not agree, but at least I am glad to hear that he accepts, as I do, that Skybolt is a very powerful weapon.

12. Mr. Swingler

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the destructive power of the Skybolt ballistic missile, and the purposes for which he proposes to purchase it.

Mr. Watkinson

Skybolt missiles with British nuclear warheads will be carried in Mk. II V-bombers as a strategic deterrent. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the destructive power of the warheads.

Mr. Swingler

Is the Minister aware of the cynicism of the answers he is giving on this matter? Does not he bear a serious responsibility for having for years deluded the British public that he was developing a British deliverable nuclear missile, and is he now trying to delude the public into believing that he is buying an American deliverable nuclear missile which does not even exist?

Mr. Watkinson

That is not what the hon. Member asked. He seemed to be worried about the destructive power of this missile.

16. Mr. Shinwell

asked the Minister of Defence whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has been consulted about the purchase of Skybolt; what communication has been made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council to Defence Ministers of other allied countries; and what arrangements have been made by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to equip other member countries with these weapons.

Mr. Watkinson

It would not have been appropriate to consult N.A.T.O. about the purchase of Skybolt. This weapon is being acquired for the equipment of Vulcans and possibly Victors. None of this type of V-bomber, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is assigned to N.A.T.O. As for the second and third parts of the Question, the proceedings of the North Atlantic Council are confidential.

Mr. Shinwell

Is not this what might be called unilateral action? Why do not we consult N.A.T.O. on matters of this sort? What is the use of talking about co-ordination unless we occasionally consult N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Watkinson

The answer is that some of the Valiant V-bombers are assigned to N.A.T.O., but they are not the bombers which will carry this missile. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate to consult N.A.T.O. about the purchase of this weapon.

21. Mr. Grimond

asked the Minister of Defence what parts of British industry and what research organisations, are to take part in the development of Skybolt.

Mr. Watkinson

The present intention is that Skybolt will be developed in the United States. British industry, assisted by Government research establishments, will undertake the modification of Mark II V-bombers and their missile equipment to enable them to carry Skybolt.

Mr. Grimond

Does that mean we shall have no say in the development of the actual programme and the question of whether it goes on or is stopped, but that we shall come into it only after the missile has been fully developed?

Mr. Watkinson

No, because as I said earlier it has been agreed that we do this together. Therefore, we shall be fully consulted about all policy decisions in the general progressing of the weapon.

27. Mr. Chetwynd

asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on the military future of the Vickers VC10 in relation to the use of Skybolt.

Mr. Watkinson

No decision has been taken to use the VC10 to carry Skybolt.

Mr. Chetwynd

In view of the limited range and the life of the V-bombers, which will end probably in 1965, is not it high time some arrangement was made if we are to have any use for these weapons at all?

Mr. Watkinson

I do not accept that the V-bombers have a limited life. The time scale we are considering with regard to the VC10 is the period from the mid-1960s until early in 1970, and the V-bombers are certainly capable of carrying out their task in that period.

Mr. Zilliacus

Is not part of the difficulty in this matter the fact that no one knows whether the next Administration will actually ratify the arrangements made by the present Administration in the United States? After the Presidential election, cannot the Administration legally change its mind about the whole or a part of any of these working arrangements?

Mr. Watkinson

There are always views about the degree to which one Administration can bind another. The American Strategic Air Command will remain, or at least I hope it will remain, and it is the American Strategic Air Command which wants this missile and is determined to have it, and we are in partnership with the Command in getting it.

Mr. Wyatt

Can the Minister say how long before 1965 the V-bombers will be equipped with Blue Steel, because he untruthfully told the House—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member must reframe his question or withdraw that allegation.

Mr. Wyatt

Will not the Minister say how long—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I am trying to reframe the question. Can the Minister say how long before 1965 the V-bombers will be fitted with Blue Steel, because he misled the House on 27th April by informing us that the Blue Steel bomb was now being fitted, when in fact it will not be ready for some time, and this was part of the argument used when we were going to drop Blue Streak?

Mr. Watkinson

Perhaps the Opposition will feel better when they have given birth to their new defence policy. This supplementary question has no relation to the Question on the Order Paper, but, as the hon. Gentleman has accused me of misleading the House, perhaps I may reply to him shortly. The answer is that I said in the defence debate that the Mark II V-bombers now coming into service were being fitted with Blue Steel flying bombs, and that is a true statement.