BRITISH INDEPENDENT DETERRENT (Hansard, 26 June 1962)

Q5. Mr. H. Wilson
asked the Prime Minister what recent official communication he has received from the President of the United States of America concerning the maintenance of independent nuclear deterrents by members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the related question of measures to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to countries not at present in possession of them.

§ Q7. Mr. Shinwell
asked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from President Kennedy on the 955 subject of a British independent nuclear defence and the creation of a stronger conventional force in Europe.

§ Q9. Mr. Zilliacus
asked the Prime Minister, in view of the present United States Government policy with regard to the maintenance of national nuclear forces, what further discussions he has had with the President of the United States about the maintenance and use of British nuclear weapons within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

§ Q13. Mr. Rankin
asked the Prime Minister what modifications he has made in defence policy in so far as it affects possession of the independent nuclear deterrent by the United Kingdom as the result of representations which have been made by President Kennedy.

§ The Prime Minister
The British independent deterrent is the creation of successive British Governments of both parties. The British Government of the day is, of course, constitutionally free to determine upon the use of this power. Nevertheless, as a matter of practice, there has been joint planning between the British and American authorities against any future emergency. What may be the ultimate development of European defence is a matter for consideration in accordance with changing circumstances.

Mr. Wilson
Since we are told that, following some rather passionate diplomatic exchanges last week, the United States Government and the British Government are now agreed in condemning the idea of independent nuclear deterrents which are capable of operating independently, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would say whether it is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government to have an independent nuclear deterrent capable of operating independently and whether they think they have got one?

§ The Prime Minister
With regard to the second part of the question, I would not accept that as the outcome of these exchanges. It is for us to decide what we are to do, and we have to recognise, and I do recognise, that France is now a nuclear Power and is likely to remain one. There are, on the other hand, great problems which can be discussed as to the future. For the present we have this 956 independent deterrent, created, as I have said, after fifteen years' effort. There are very strong reasons for maintaining it, and we intend so to do.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Would the Prime Minister say whether, as a result of representations made from the United States and as a result of conversations between the United States Secretary of Defence and our own Minister of Defence, it is the intention to increase our conventional forces in the West and whether there is any intention, as a result of these representations, of revising the nuclear position so that instead of having a British independent deterrent we have a nuclear N.A.T.O. deterrent?

§ The Prime Minister
That is covered by the second part of the Answer. The ultimate future of what may be a European defence system must be adapted to changing circumstances. At the present time our position is well understood by our allies and accepted by them.

§ Mr. Zilliacus
Is not the present position that the British independent nuclear deterrent is fully integrated with the American defence forces?[Laughter.] I apologise for my taste in ties being blue though my opinions are red. May I ask the question again? Is not the present arrangement that British nuclear defence forces are fully integrated with the Americans and therefore, although theoretically independent, the understanding is that they are not to be used except as part of operations approved by the United States and commanded by the United States?

§ The Prime Minister
No, Sir, that is not so. The American nuclear forces in this country are, of course, governed by special agreement, negotiated I think by the Prime Minister of the last Labour Administration, by which they cannot be used without the permission of the British Prime Minister and the Government of the day. That is because their forces are located in this country. Our forces in this country, although in practice the targets are discussed and arranged between us, are completely under our control.

§ Mr. Rankin
Is the Prime Minister not aware that the Minister of Defence has repeatedly told us that the British bomber force is closely integrated into 957 the American nuclear force? In view of that, may I ask how it can be used independently? Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the determination of France to have the bomb was promoted by our decision to have an independent bomb?

§ The Prime Minister
With regard to the second part of that question, I do not think that is so. With regard to the first part, "integrated" is a very vague word. I do not know what is meant by that. What is decided is that the actual planning is, of course, a matter of practice agreed between us. The American forces in this country are under a special agreement. The sovereignty, the power of control, rests with Her Majesty's Ministers for the time being and the officers concerned would follow the instructions given to them by the Government of the day.

§ Mr. Eden
Is it not a fact that the United States of America fully recognises the value of the contribution that the British V-bomber force can make and is now making to the defence of the West, and is it not a fact also that, when equipped with Blue Steel and, subsequently, with Skybolt, a weapon to be purchased by Britain, it will be a wholly independent force under independent political control should the need arise?

§ The Prime Minister
It is, of course, a very strong and powerful force and is at present one of the main parts of the deterrent located in this part of the Western world. At the same time, these forces, although we with our allies make joint plans, are constitutionally under the sovereignty of the Government of the day. That is the point, and in that sense they are independent.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Is it not perfectly clear that Mr. McNamara made a very powerful attack upon independent use of nuclear weapons independent of the Western Alliance? Will the Prime Minister tell us exactly what the position is? If the British Government are free, as I understand he claims, to use the nuclear deterrent as they wish, how can this possibly be reconciled with Mr. McNamara's position?

§ The Prime Minister
I am not responsible for what Mr. McNamara may 958 have said. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the debate in 1960 he gave—summing up the point better than ever before, I thought—the very strong reasons why it was desirable that we should have and continue to have an independent deterrent.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Will the Prime Minister answer my question? Is not he aware that there is here a very important confusion which ought to be cleared up? What exactly is the position of the British Government? Are they free to use their nuclear weapons as they think without consultation or agreement with the United States? If that is the case, how can it be held to be consistent with Mr. McNamara's position?

§ The Prime Minister
As I explained, the British Government are free because the forces are located here, but the American Government are not free in respect of forces located here, under the Attlee agreement. There are then the American forces outside Europe. As a matter of practice, there is an understanding which I had with President Eisenhower and now have with President Kennedy that neither of us in any part of the world would think of using power of this kind without consultation with each other; but that does not take away the independent right of both the American and the British Government.

§ Mr. Grimond
Does not the Prime Minister think that one of the greatest dangers facing the world is the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and does not he find it extremely difficult to bring pressure on other countries to forgo arming themselves with nuclear weapons so long as we insist upon maintaining this so-called independent nuclear deterrent?

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman may be right in that. France is a nuclear Power and, I think, is likely to remain one, and the British Government quite understand the reasons for French Government policy. I should not have thought that if we suddenly said, "All right; we will destroy all our weapons", we should put ourselves in a much better arguing position.

§ Mr. Hastings
Will my right hon. Friend agree that it is in principle unwise to permit or encourage the concentration of ultimate military power, with 959 all that that connotes, in the hands of one member of the Alliance, and does not he think that the statement by Mr. McNamara accords somewhat strangely with professed American support for a strong independent Europe?

§ The Prime Minister
I think that it would be very unwise for me to comment on this statement. People make all sorts of statements. What I do say is that we have a perfectly clear understanding. The American Government respect our position and we understand and respect theirs.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
But are we to understand from the Prime Minister's reply to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) that the Government are indifferent to the danger of the spread of nuclear weapons? If not, how on earth can the Government take the line of saying that they must have the right independently to use the nuclear weapon and yet proceed to try to deny it to other people? If they do not try to deny it to other people, how are they to stop the spread?

§ The Prime Minister
This is what we are trying to do through the disarmament arrangements and through some much wider plan. I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the statement which he made. He said—and I think that there is something in it— The real case for our having our own independent nuclear weapons is fear of excessive dependence upon the United States … which might force upon us policies with which we did not agree, because we would be in such a weak position to argue."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st March. 1960; Vol. 618, c. 1136–7.]

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Is not the Prime Minister aware that that, of course, was part of a very elaborate argument in which both sides of the case were carefully examined? Will he, please, return to the question put to him from this side of the House? What does he propose to do to stop the spread of nuclear weapons within the N.A.T.O. Alliance? If he is prepared to agree that there must always be consultation with the United States Government before any possible use of nuclear weapons, will not he go further and say that, in fact, it is his desire that neither side should independently decide to use nuclear weapons without the consent of the other?

§ The Prime Minister
Of course, there are only the two Powers which have effective nuclear weapons at present. France will become a nuclear Power, but it is not yet so fully. That, of course, involves very difficult questions which we must all consider together. There is the ultimate purpose of abolishing all these weapons. We must not relinquish that. There is the other purpose, as the Alliance proceeds, of seeing that we make the best arrangements with each other. At the moment, as things stand, what I have stated to be the position of the British Government is, in fact, so and I think that there are powerful arguments against, prematurely at any rate, throwing away both this weapon and this arguing position.