§ 3.49 p.m.
§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to terminate the agreement with the Government of the United States of America for the siting of a Polaris submarine base in Great Britain.I have had no collaboration at all with the Minister of Defence and this Motion has not been inspired in any way by the right hon. Gentleman in the controversy which has been referred to in today's newspapers as a "dogfight". I abhor dogfights. I dissociate myself completely from the point of view of the Minister of Defence and the point of view of Mr. McNamara. My objections to the agreement which the Prime Minister introduced to this House on 1st November, 1960, are more fundamental.At that time, the reaction was immediate and the Scottish Trades Union Congress, which so often represents the democratic point of view of the people of Scotland, immediately reacted by organising a campaign against the establishment of the Polaris submarine base in Great Britain. It was followed by decision's to oppose the base from, I believe, all the great local authorities in that area, Glasgow Corporation, Greenock Corporation and the county councils adjacent to the area. These protests came from the people of Scotland and still represent their paint of view.
They have been reinforced by the decisions of more representative bodies of the people of this country, such as the Trades Union Congress and the Labour Party. We believe that this agreement was a bad agreement because it established the base almost adjacent to a big industrial area which was exposed to the dangers of nuclear war. It was placed, in the event of a nuclear war, right in the front line with no adequate defence, with no civil defence worth speaking about, and involving great dangers to the population of the west of Scotland and to the country generally.
It gave powers to the American Government to take control and to establish a miniature base in this country without this country having any real control over the activities of the Polaris submarines that were to go on their operations from the Holy Loch. Those of us 414 who have complained against this agreement knew that it was a bad agreement, but we did not realise how bad it was until this week. We now know, for we were told over the wireless yesterday, and it is reported in the Daily Mail of today, that there were secret understandings in this agreement by which, if we allowed the Americans to have the Holy Loch, they would allow us to have the Skybolt missile.
Why was that not disclosed to the House at the time? We have heard of the biblical story of the man who sacrificed his birthright for a mess of pottage, but we have sacrificed the interests, the safety and security of the people of this country for a missile which, we are now told, is non-existent. The Government now find that their whole defence policy is in complete muddle. They are acting quite inexplicably by demanding from the Americans that they should give us an expensive and dangerous weapon, which even the Americans say is not operational.
The Government may be able to explain to the people why we should be receiving Skybolt when it is not even a military asset. This largely is a controversy between the British Government and the American Government. We are told in the Daily Mail today that
The Government's bitterness over Skybolt can only have been increased by Mr. McNamara's tactics with Mr. Thorneycroft. His attitude confirmed suspicions that the United States Administration is now openly making decisions without consulting Britain.The Government know that, but when this agreement was introduced by the Prime Minister he told us that every possible consultation would take place.We are further told, in the Daily Mail:
The faith of Mr. Macmillan and his Ministers in Skybolt has been unquestioning. This has been confirmed time and time again in their public and private comments. It was promised to Mr. Macmillan by President Eisenhower in a gentlemen's agreement which gave the U.S. the Polaris submarine base on Holy Loch and other nuclear facilities here.We are entitled to have the fullest Parliamentary discussion about a commitment which this House did not realise. We are told in The Times today, by its Washington correspondent, that in the process of these negotiations Hound-dog, the other American stand-off bomb, is an inadequate weapon and that a Polaris submarine force is probably 415 impossibly expensive and not necessarily a substitute for a bomber.In the Daily Herald today we are told that when the Prime Minister goes to America at the end of this month a carrot will be dangled before the nose of Great Britain. [An HON. MEMBER: "Before the donkey."] Before the donkey. If Skybolt does not materialise, we are to be offered submarines, equipped with the Polaris missile, at a cost of £50 million to the British taxpayer. This is the carrot which is hung before the donkey. What we are afraid of is that the donkey will swallow it and the Prime Minister will come back, after discussing this agreement, with more commitments which will be more expensive and of less value to the people of this country.
What control have we under this agreement over the operations of these submarines? In the Guardian this week there has been a series of extremely interesting and informative articles entitled, "The First Great Nuclear Crisis", written by Mr. Hetherington, the editor. He tells us:
During the last three days from October 26th to October 28th the danger was at its greatest. Thanks to coolness and sanity on both sides, and to U Thant's mediation, the crisis was overcome. But, as now admitted in the White House, it was a near thing.In the middle of that crisis the American forces were alerted and the "Proteus" was alerted in the Holy Loch. The "Proteus" disappeared. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I quite agree about that, but we are concerned with the fact that the "Proteus" came back. I hope the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) will realise the dangers involved in that. He shakes his head, suggesting that there are no dangers, but it is obvious that in this crisis the American Government thought that the Holy Loch was too dangerous a place in which to keep expensive submarines.As we have no control over the submarines and we have no control over their activities, this weapon should not receive facilities in this country. This is the first lesson of this nuclear crisis. We are all very glad that the Russians had the sense to bring home their bombers and their nuclear missiles from Cuba; 416 and we wish that in taking them back to Russia they had lost them on the way.
According to the President of the United States, this action by Mr. Khrushchev was an act of supreme statesmanship in that the missiles were removed from the island base which was threatening the United States. We should, therefore, carry this argument a little further, to its logical conclusion, and say that the people of this country would be very glad indeed to see the American submarines go back to the United States so that they did not live in danger of being a target for missiles and bombers in the event of an attack.
I am not anti-American. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not anti-American to criticise American policy. Indeed, if it is anti-American to criticise American policy, then Lord Chandos and the Institute of Directors—and the Minister of Defence—are anti-American, for they have been criticising Mr. Dean Acheson. There would be a very great feeling of relief among the personnel of the "Proteus" ships and the submarines if the order were received for them to go back to the United States. If it were possible, I imagine that some of these unfortunate sailors—if they thought that it could be done and the question of nationality were not at stake—might even try to get out of this difficulty by becoming candidates at the by-election at Calve Valley or Rotherham.
I am sure that the wives and the relatives of these American sailors, some of Whom are no doubt reading the squalid and unsavoury reports of what is happening in Glasgow, would be delighted to know that American sailors were returning from this danger spot.
§ Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)That is the hon. Gentleman's opinion.
§ Mr. HughesThe hon. and learned Gentleman will have the opportunity to vote against the Bill if he wishes to do so.
§ Mr. James McInnes (Glasgow, Central)What are these squalid events in Glasgow?
§ Mr. HughesIf my hon. Friend had read the reports in the Glasgow Press he would know that I am referring to a case in which 59 American sailors were lined up outside a brothel in Glasgow 417 only recently. If he does not think that that is unsavoury, then there is not much relevance in his interruption.
I believe that in introducing this Motion I am expressing a sentiment which, in these days, is shared very much by the people of this country. Unfortunately, there is a great deal of anti-American feeling in this country, largely as a result of a recent cynical speech by Mr. Dean Acheson, who has been speaking contemptuously about this country. He says that we have lost an empire and have not yet found a rôle. Because he thinks that we have not a rôle, the American Administration will find a rôle for us—and that is to put us in the forefront of the nuclear danger without any of the safeguards which are afforded to the American public in the way of air raid shelters and similar protection.
There are many people in this country who are not content that we should just carry out the instructions and the mandate of Mr. Dean Acheson and the Americans for whom he speaks. We know the rôle which we are supposed to take—the rôle of supplying conscript cannon fodder while the Americans supply the H-bomb.
I believe that the introduction of my proposed Bill would enable the House, for the first time, to discuss the full implications of this agreement and would result in this country, far from being in greater danger, being in a far safer position than ever before.
We are asked: what about the Russians? In the City of Glasgow and the west of Scotland we do not think that the Russians, that Mr. Khrushohey and the Communists, are our greatest enemies. The greatest enemy of the people of Scotland at present is unemployment and the collapse of the whole social and industrial fabric as a result of the failure to plan ahead. The people of Scotland would have a great sense of relief if a Bill of this kind were submitted to the free discussion and deliberation which it deserves, and all the issues carefully explained and debated.
§ 3.56 p.m.
§ Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)I ask the House not to give leave to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) to introduce the Bill. The hon. 418 Member has used the occasion to whip up anti-American feeling, as he sometimes does. The effect of this country unilaterally denouncing the agreement which we have with the Americans by which they place a base at the Holy Loch, without any other arrangements being made at Ole time, would give clear notice that there are differences between the United Kingdom and the United States and would indicate that this country no longer desires to co-operate with the United States in an alliance.
It is true that at the moment discussions are taking place on what the weapon policy of the alliance should be. From time to time there is bound to be a technical and financial reappraisal, and in an alliance there are bound to be difficulties of control of the extraordinary weapons which we have to have today. But none of these discussions and these difficulties touches the fundamental unity of the alliance, which has been the cornerstone of the foreign policies of both Governments since the war.
Nor is it true that the efficacy and good sense of the alliance depends upon the efficiency of any particular weapon which may be used in the alliance. I have no doubt that our denunciation of this agreement would lead to the fragmentation of the West, and the prospect would be that the countries of the West, doubting the resolution of their allies and doubting their own power to resist the constant pressure of Communism, would make terms sooner or later, and perhaps sooner rather than later, with the Communist Powers—
§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)What is wrong with that?
§ Mr. KershawThe hon. Member has his sympathies, and most of us have others. These countries would sooner or later be engulfed in the Red flood. I would point out that if they sacrificed their liberties in this way they might not necessarily purchase their tranquillity, because it might mean that in the confusion of the break-up of the Western Alliance, some impulse of anger or despair would spark off a military action which in itself could lead to the nuclear holocaust that we wish to avoid.
419 A united alliance would be very much less likely to be attacked, first, because of its strength, and, secondly, because of its ability to make a graduated response to whatever aggression was offered. Because of its array of armament it would be unnecessary for it to resort at once to the nuclear stage, as would be necessary if only one nuclear bomb, for example, were available to it.
As we know—this is part of the discussions which are taking place between the United Kingdom and the United States today—the cost of these new weapons, and the difficulty of creating them, are so enormous that no one country can hope to arm itself with the full gamut of weapons. Therefore, only an alliance can afford the full range which lends the alliance the flexibility of response.
I therefore believe that an alliance, strong and armed at all points, is far less likely to provoke aggression, and if aggression occurs it is far more likely to be able to deal with it than are individual nations, which might be frightened into error or into some military action. I conclude, therefore, that the Holy Loch base, whilst it may not last for ever, nevertheless should never be terminated by unilateral declaration such as is proposed in the Bill.
I ask myself why the Bill deals only with the Polaris base. After all, we have bombers and we have missiles, in themselves more provocative because they are first-strike weapons. The Polaris base is not an interesting target for the Russians. The submarine is. The submarine is a second-strike weapon which of itself and by its nature should not be detected and, at the moment, so far as one knows, cannot be detected when it is on station. Not even a sudden impulse by the Russians to seek to strike out the submarines whilst they were at the Holy Loch would avail them, because we and they know that there are all the time at sea other submarines which would survive to take their revenge.
§ Therefore, not even while the submarines are at the Holy Loch is this a target worth the Russians' while. Further, we know that during the Cuban crisis not only the submarines, but also the "Proteus", sailed from the Holy Loch, and it is standing argument on its head to say that that makes it a more dangerous and not a less dangerous objective.
§ The second curious feature of the hon. Member's constant preoccupation with the Holy Loch is his assumption that his fellow Scots are in a constant sweat of anxiety about this base. I wonder whether Scotsmen really relish his description of them as being almost permanently in a blue funk. No one can think calmly of a nuclear exchange, but if it is a question—and it is the question—rather of keeping one's nerve and courage over a period of years in order to prevent a nuclear war breaking out at all, I know of no people better than the Scots who are more likely to last the course.
§ I suppose that the hon. Gentleman uses his arguments as pegs for his dislike of all weapons and all military arrangements. This is a frank attitude which the House respects in him, albeit the arguments are addressed, not by him perhaps but by others, very much more often to this country than they are to Communist countries. At all events, the Bill would receive the support not only of the pacifists, whose position one respects, but also of those with motives less pure and less noble who are not unwilling to see the West break up and a new order of things instituted, a new order of things in which there will be no room for pacifists, no room for democracy, and certainly no room for the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. I therefore ask the House not give the hon. Member leave to bring in the Bill.
§ Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
§ The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 177.
421| Division No. 17.] | AYES | [4.2 p.m. |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) |
| Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Carmichael, Neil | Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) |
| Bowler, Frank | Castle, Mrs. Barbara | Edelman, Maurice |
| Fernyhough, E. | Owen, Will | Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Parkin, B. T. | Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.) |
| Forman, J. C. | Pavitt, Laurence | Warbey, William |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Plummer, Sir Leslie | Watkins, Tudor |
| Greenwood, Anthony | Probert, Arthur | Yates, Victor (Ladywood) |
| Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) | Zilliacus, K. | |
| Hart, Mrs. Judith | Rankin, John | |
| Hill, J. (Midlothian) | Reid, William | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Upton, Marcus | Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E. | Mr. Emrys Hughes and |
| Mackie, John (Enfield, East) | Silverman, Julius (Aston) | Mr William Baxter. |
| NOES | ||
| Agnew, Sir Peter | Gilmour, Sir John | Orr, Capt. L. P. S. |
| Ash ton, Sir Hubert | Goodhart, Philip | Orr-Ewing, C. Ian |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Goodhew, Victor | Osborn, John (Hallam) |
| Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham) | Gower, Raymond | Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) |
| Barber, Anthony | Harris, Reader (Heston) | Page, John (Harrow, West) |
| Barlow, Sir John | Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) | Page, Graham (Crosby) |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Harvie Anderson, Miss | Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) |
| Bell, Ronald | Hastings, Stephen | Peel, John |
| Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) | Hay, John | Pllkington, Sir Richard |
| Berkeley, Humphry | Hiley, Joseph | Pitt, Dame Edith |
| Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Hirst, Geoffrey | Pott, Perclvall |
| Bidgood, John C. | Hocking, Philip N. | Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch |
| Biffen, John | Holland, Philip | Prior, J. M. L. |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Hollingworth, John | Proudfoot, Wilfred |
| Bingham, R. M. | Hornby, R. P. | Pym, Francis |
| Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel | Hornsby-Smlth, Rt. Hon. Dame P. | Rawlinson, Sir Peter |
| Bishop, F. P. | Hughes-Young, Michael | Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin |
| Black, Sir Cyril | Hutchison, Michael | Rees, Hugh |
| Bossom, Clive | Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) | Renton, Rt. Hon. David |
| Bourne-Arton, A. | Jennings, J. C. | Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld) |
| Box, Donald | Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) | Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard |
| Braine, Bernard | Johnson, Eric (Blackley) | Russell, Ronald |
| Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry | Jones, Arthur (Northants, S) | St. Clair, M. |
| Buck, Antony | Kerans, Cdr. J. S. | Scott-Hopkine, James |
| Bullard, Denys | Kirk, Peter | Sevmour, Leslle |
| Bullus, Wing Commander Eric | Kitson, Timothy | |
| Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) | Sharpies, Richard | |
| Carr, Compton (Barons Court) | Langford-Holt, Sir John | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Cary, Sir Robert | Leavey, J. A. | Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) |
| Channon, H. P. G. | Lindsay, Sir Martin | Smithers, Peter |
| Chataway, Christopher | Litchfield, Capt. John | Spearman, Sir Alexander |
| Chichester-Clark, R. | Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) | Stodart, J. A. |
| Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) | Longbottom, Charles | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm |
| Cleaver, Leonard | Longden, Gilbert | Studholme, Sir Henry |
| Cooke, Robert | Loveys, Walter H. | Summers, Sir Spencer |
| Cordeaux, Lt. -Col. J. K. | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Tapsell, Peter |
| Costain, A. P. | McArthur, Ian | Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) |
| Craddock, Sir Beresford | McLaren, Martin | Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) |
| Critchley, Julian | Maclean, SirFltzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs) | Temple, John M. |
| Cunningham, Knox | Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) | Thomas, Peter (Conway) |
| Curran, Charles | McMaster. Stanley R. | Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) | Tilney, John (Wavertree) |
| Dance, James | Macpherson, Rt. Hn. Niall (Dumfries) | Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon |
| Doughty, Charles | Maddan, Martin | Turner, Colin |
| Duncan, Sir James | Maginnis, John E. | Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | Maitland, Sir John | van Straubenzee, W. R. |
| Elllott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.) | Marshall, Douglas | Vane, W. M. F. |
| Emery, Peter | Mason, Roy | Vickers, Miss Joan |
| Errington, Sir Eric | Mathew, Robert (Honiton) | Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis |
| Farey-Jones, F. W. | Matthews, Gordon (Merlden) | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek |
| Fell, Anthony | Mawby, Ray | Webster, David |
| Finlay, Graeme | Wells, John (Maidstone) | |
| Fisher, Nigel | Maxwell-Hyalop, R. J. | Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.) |
| Fletcher, Eric | Mills, Stratton | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) |
| Fletcher-Cooke, Charles | Miscampbell, Norman | Wise, A. R. |
| Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) | Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) | Nabarro, Gerald | Woodhouse, C. M. |
| Gammans, Lady | Nicholls, Sir Harmar | Worsley, Marcus |
| Gardner, Edward | Nicholson, Sir Godfrey | |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central) | Oakehott, Sir Hendrle | Mr. Kershaw and Mr. Ridley. |