§ Q3. Mr. Croninasked the Prime Minister whether it was with his authority that an article written by Sir Solly Zuckerman, chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence, concerning the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, the disproportionate civilian devastation involved, their tactical uncontrollability and the present erroneous military theories as to their use, was submitted for publication in the January, 1962, edition of Foreign Affairs; and if he will consult the Heads of the appropriate Governments to obtain a full inquiry as to the future use of these weapons by North Atlantic Treaty Organisation forces and the extent to which they should be at the disposal of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commanders.
§ The Prime MinisterThis article was published with the authority of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence and, incidentally, also with General Norstad's approval. As the Author's Note makes clear, it was based on a speech made at a symposium on "Science and Warfare in the 1970s" held at Supreme Allied Headquarters in Europe in May, 1961, and attended by senior N.A.T.O. commanders and representatives of N.A.T.O. Governments.
As to consulting Heads of Government, no special initiative on the part of Her Majesty's Government is necessary as exchanges of view take place continuously through normal N.A.T.O. channels. The subject is an extremely complex and difficult one. It is not possible to summarise the contents of the article in the simple terms used in the hon. Member's Question.
§ Mr. CroninWhile it is obvious that anyone who reads the article can form his own conclusions, will the Prime Minister switch off the record of the Government being in full agreement with the article as printed? Is he aware of the rather irresponsible manner in which certain N.A.T.O. commanders talk of using these weapons of depopulation for 402 comparatively minor military purposes? Do not the Government carry a very heavy responsibility in this matter?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is not a question of the Government approving or disapproving the conclusions of this article. It was a contribution on a very difficult subject by a very distinguished scientist and I think that it was of value that it should be made.
I am not aware of the statements which the hon. Member mentions, but Her Majesty's Government have their responsibilities which they intend to carry out.
§ Mr. G. Brownlf, as we understand, the Minister of Defence authorised his own Chief Scientific Adviser to issue an article of this kind on highly current defence issues, are we to assume that he did so because he agreed with the article? Does it not seem difficult to believe that he did so because he disagreed with it? If he did, are we to assume that the next White Paper, which is due next month, will be written on this basis? Thirdly, does the Prime Minister think that Ministers who have been following policies wholly incompatible with this article can now be expected to produce policies dependent upon it?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is not necessary either to disagree or agree. This is a very complicated subject. The article was a contribution made at a discussion among highly placed officers, and we thought it right that it should take place and it is of value that the article should have been published.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanDoes not the Prime Minister realise that it is of the utmost importance to know whether at the end of the day the Government accept or do not accept the conclusions of their own Chief Scientific Adviser? Does not he further realise that in the event that they do accept it this might have a most fundamental bearing on the defence policies of both Front Benches?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that this article, or this contribution to the debate, was a useful and valuable one. All these matters are continually being discussed. Military opinion is changing. I think that the most important thing is to try to avoid the situation in which war of any kind takes place.
§ Mr. GaitskellWhile agreeing with the Prime Minister that this is an extremely interesting and valuable article, is he really telling us that the Chief Scientific Adviser to the Ministry of Defence is completely free to put his own views in print and publish them even though they violently disagree with those of the Government? Can we have the situation in which a person in this position expresses in public views which differ from those of the Government? Cannot we assume perhaps rather that the Government, appreciating this, authorised the publication of this article because they have changed their mind and agree with it?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. They authorised the article because they thought it a valuable contribution to the discussion of these military questions. It is impossible to deal with the whole of this subject by question and answer, and perhaps it would be best dealt with in the defence debate.