HC Deb 20 March 1963 vol 674 cc378-81
30. Mr. Healey

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the official visit to London of Mr. Livingston Merchant.

32. Mr. Rankin

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the outcome of his meeting with Mr. Livingston Merchant, President Kennedy's representative, on the multilateral or multinational North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear forces.

34. Sir J. Maitland

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the recent talks in London which Her Majesty's Government have had with Mr. Livingston Merchant.

35. Mr. Wall

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement about his discussions with the United States authorities on the proposed Polaris surface ship contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Heath

These talks were, of course, confidential and I have no statement to add to the communiqué issued after the meetings. We were very glad to have this opportunity of detailed discussions with Mr. Merchant and the members of his mission.

Mr. Healey

Will the right hon. Gentleman please be a little less coy about the expenditure which is likely to be incurred by Her Majesty's Government in accepting, at least in principle, Mr. Merchant's proposals for a multilateral surface force under N.A.T.O.? The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that £200 million, which is the figure that I gave yesterday, bears no relation to the actual cost. Could he say what, in fact, is a rough order of expenditure in which this country will be involved if this multilateral force ever comes into existence?

Mr. Heath

I am not prepared to give detailed figures to the House at this stage.

Mr. Healey

I do not want detailed figures.

Mr. Heath

We have now been given the broad outline of the American proposals. We say that we are studying these proposals and that we are considering how we can best assist.

Mr. Rankin

Is it not the case that the Bahamas Agreement only speaks about a multilateral nuclear force on which the President and the Prime Minister agreed? Does not the expression "multinational" only derive from Article 6 of the Agreement? Is it not now clear that these two ideas are in conflict? How did the two signatories come to an agreement on a treaty which contains two ideas that are in conflict?

Mr. Heath

These ideas are in no way in conflict. The multinational force flows from paragraph 6 of the communiqué and is obviously the first stage because the force is already available. It will become the first stage of a N.A.T.O. nuclear force. The multilateral force flows from paragraph 8 of the communiqué and will come later.

Sir J. Maitland

Does my right hon. Friend remember that once upon a time it used to be the custom for the Press to get their information on foreign affairs occasionally from things that happened in this House? Is it not pretty lowering to the dignity of this House to have to depend for information and rumour of what has happened entirely on the Press? Will my right hon. Friend take the House of Commons into his confidence and allow us to consult with him before any action is taken on this very important matter?

Mr. Heath

I am always anxious to give the House all the information which we have. But when one is discussing a matter which is of concern not only to this country but to all the members of the N.A.T.O. Alliance, and when it is based upon proposals which are put to us by the United States and which are not our own proposals, it would have been inappropriate for me to give all the details to the House while they are in this early stage.

Mr. Wall

Can my right hon. Friend say what is the view of Her Majesty's Government? Have we been approached to contribute to a surface fleet armed with Polaris and manned by men of various nations? If so, is it the view of the Government that we should contribute to this force as well as allocate Polaris submarines?

Mr. Heath

The view of Her Majesty's Government is that the American proposals for a multilateral force consisting of multimanned ships is one which deserves support. We have undertaken to examine what contributions we can make to this force.

Mr. Rankin

Financial?

Mr. Heath

In any form which is appropriate. So far we have not reached any conclusions about it.

Mr. Healey

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, as I am sure he is, that his right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence made a statement on this matter in conjunction with the Minister of Defence of Western Germany on Monday? I presume the Foreign Office at some stage informed the right hon. Gentleman of this statement and that Her Majesty's Government, according to this statement, have accepted the idea of contributing to a multilateral force?

Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up the equivocation which characterised his previous answers, by giving the House the answer to two questions? First, is it intended that the multinational force will be dropped when the multilateral force comes into being, or shall we be committed to both these types of force? Secondly, since the right hon. Gentleman seems to have an idea of the order of expenditure involved in a multilateral force, can he say, if it is not in the order of £200 million, what it is?

Mr. Heath

There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to be so objectionable in a supplementary question. I have said nothing which is in conflict with the communiqué issued yesterday after the talks between my right hon. Friend and the German Minister of Defence.

Secondly, the multinational force will naturally continue so long as it is a viable force. The multilateral force will be built up, and if N.A.T.O. can be strengthened by both of them, well and good. As the multinational force gradually becomes obsolescent, so it will cease to play its part.

Thirdly, so far as expenditure is concerned, I am not prepared to give any detailed estimates at the moment because Her Majesty's Government are still considering in what form they should make a contribution and what the contribution should be. What I remarked to the hon. Gentleman was that the very large figure he gave yesterday does not bear any resemblance to what we would be asked to do or what we are likely to be able to do.

Mr. P. Williams

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we have recently been discussing the Defence Estimates and the defence programme of the Government, can you say whether there is any way in which hon. Members on the back benches can raise the question of a change of Government policy which appears to conflict with the Statement on Defence, which contained nothing at all in any case?

Mr. Speaker

If the hon. Gentleman wants procedural advice I should be grateful if he would inquire afterwards so that we do not lose time for Questions.