HC Deb 27 March 1963 vol 674 cc1316-8
43. Mr. Biggs-Davison

asked the Minisster of Defence whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will take no part in any North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Polaris fleet which is of a multinational, multilateral, mixed-manned or other polyglot nature without further reference to Parliament; and what are the rights and obligations of personnel called on to serve in a ship not being one of Her Majesty's.

44. Captain Litchfield

asked the Minister of Defence what military reasons have led Her Majesty's Government to support proposals for a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral force consisting of multimanned ships; and what operational advantages multi-manned ships are expected to have over national-manned ships.

47. Mr. Healey

asked the Minister of Defence what percentage of the cost of the proposed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral force will be assumed by Her Majesty's Government.

48. Mr. Cronin

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the strategic purpose of the proposed North Atlantic Treaty Organisation multilateral force.

Mr. Thorneycroft

I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend, the Lord Privy Seal said yesterday about the proposed N.A.T.O. mixed-manned force, or to what he said on 20th March about consulting this House.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Did not my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal give some sort of token approval to a multi-manned scheme of this kind? Have not we got enough to do and enough to pay for without going into these extraordinary enterprises? Will my right hon. Friend straight away say that no member of Her Majesty's Forces will be expected to serve in any form of ship which is not under the command of an officer holding Her Majesty's Commission?

Mr. Thorneycroft

I would not wish to add to or subtract from what my right hon. Friend said, but I think that all he said was that this was an American proposal which was being examined by us and other European nations.

Captain Litchfield

Is my right hon. Friend aware that on 20th March the Lord Privy Seal said: 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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1963; Val. 674, c. 380.] Is it not abundantly clear that whatever may be said for this scheme politically, from the military point of view it is very unlikely to be effective? Does my right hon. Friend really think that this is the best way of disposing of our already insufficient naval manpower?

Mr. Thorneycroft

The question of what part we can play is rather a different one. I think that my right hon. Friend was referring to the proposal as being one suggestion of the way in which countries not otherwise equipped with nuclear weapons might participate.

Mr. Healey

Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Government are already committed to three separate strategic nuclear weapon systems other than the proposed multilateral N.A.T.O. deterrent? The right hon. Gentleman looks puzzled, but he told us in the defence debate that we are committed to the V-bombers, a Polaris submarine force, and the Strategic T.S.R.2 force. Can he give us an idea, at any rate, of how much money Her Majesty's Government are prepared to contribute to the proposal, which the Americans have said is likely to cost, in all, £1,800 million?

Mr. Thorneycroft

Certainly not until the military characteristics of the proposals have been examined.

Mr. Shinwell

In view of the confusion about this matter, and as it is one of vital importance to our defence organisation, and we are not able to debate the matter by way of Question and Answer, will the Minister confirm that no final decision will be taken about any of these schemes until Parliament has been consulted?

Mr. Thorneycroft

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the relations between the Executive and Parliament will be the same in this as in any other matter.

Mr. Warbey

In view of the fact that statements have been made by the Lord Privy Seal that the Government support the American proposal for a multilateral force, will the Minister say whether his defence experts could think up a nuclear deterrent which was more provocative and at the same time more vulnerable than a force of vessels disguised as merchant vessels loaded with Polaris missiles floating about in the Baltic Sea?

Mr. Thorneycroft

I realise that that is the hon. Member's own rather provocative comment on this proposal. As it is under examination he will not expect me to endorse it at this stage.

Mr. Paget

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for their safety, submarines require a particular level of mutual confidence amongst their crews and that this is the more so in these days of long submersion? Is he aware that I have discussed this matter with a number of distinguished submariners, both German and British, and that their united view is that they would rather swim?

Mr. Thorneycroft

That would certainly be a factor to be borne in mind.