§ 19. Mr. Shinwellasked the Minister of Defence what are the weapons now available to the United Kingdom included in the nuclear deterrent.
§ Mr. ThorneycroftThe V-bombers equipped with Blue Steel and free-falling bombs.
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes not the right hon. Gentleman agree that several of these nuclear deterrent weapons are likely to be outmoded in the course of a few years? As there is some speculation about the usefulness of the Polaris submarines, has he any proposals to make for the purpose of guaranteeing their adequate defence?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftThere is speculation about many things, but this is the nuclear deterrent today. It is an extremely effective one. It will remain effective, and it will be powerfully reinforced with the introduction of the Polaris submarine.
§ Mr ShinwellBut has not the right hon. Gentleman himself asserted that several of the existing nuclear weapons will be outmoded in the course of a few years? Undoubtedy there is speculation about the advantage of the Polaris submarine. Does the right hon. Gentleman's mind not torn in the direction of more conventional weapons?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftMy mind takes account of both nuclear and conventional weapons.
§ 24. Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Minister of Defence what steps he now intends to take to maintain an independent British nuclear deterrent between 1965 and 1970; and what the estimated cost of such measures will be.
§ 28. Mr. Prenticeasked the Minister of Defence what is the likely duration of the gap between the time when the Royal Air Force bombers cease to provide an effective deterrent and the time when the Polaris missile will be an operational part of United Kingdom forces; and if he will make a statement on Government defence policy during that gap.
§ Mr. ThorneycroftI would ask the hon. Members to await next week's debate.
§ Mr. HamiltonCan the Minister give us any idea in this instance of what the additional cost will be? Can he further say why we want this independent nuclear deterrent? Against whom do we expect to use it?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftWe have a deterrent to deter other people from threatening us.
§ Mr. PrenticeDoes the right hon. Gentleman agree that in their desperation the Government have resumed a policy which they abandoned when they 6rst decided to buy the Sky bolt missile, namely, to try to develop a British independent deterrent for the years between now and 1970? If the policy was unrealistic two or three years ago, why is it realistic now?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftAs far as I know, it has been realistic throughout.
Mr. H. WilsonIn view of the right hon. Gentleman's references to next week's debate and his previous failure to answer questions about costs, will he undertake that when the debate comes along he will give the House the fullest information about this in every detail—as full information as that which he gave the Tory back bench committee?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftI can give the right hon. Gentleman that categoric assurance even before the debate.
§ Sir G. NabarroIn response to the clamour from the benches opposite to 67 abandon the British nuclear deterrent, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that any reliance to a larger extent upon conventional forces would inevitably mean the reintroduction of conscription?
§ Mr. ThorneycroftA policy of greatly Increased conventional forces would mean a reintroduction of conscription. Indeed, there are some who urge this as an alternative. Our own policy is to have a balanced force of conventional and nuclear weapons.