HC Deb 22 May 1963 vol 678 cc436-40
41. Mr. Shinwell

asked the Lord Privy Seal what instructions have been given to the United Kingdom representative on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council of Ministers which is to consider the United States new proposals for the reorganisation of European defence.

43. Mr. Stonehouse

asked the Lord Privy Seal the present policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the participation of the German Federal Republic in a multilateral nuclear force of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Godber

These Questions presumably refer to the American proposal for the creation of a mixed-manned force of surface ships carrying the Polaris missile. We have given a general welcome to the concept of such a force. No decisions are expected at Ottawa on the proposals for the creation of this force. The Federal Government of Germany, like other members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, would, of course, be fully entitled to participate in any multilateral force which may be set up in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Shinwell

Does not that Answer indicate that the Government have changed their policy in regard to a European organisation for defence and that they have succumbed or are about to succumb to the blandishments of the United States? If that is the policy, it will be sternly resisted by many hon. Members and, I believe, by many people in this country. Can we have an assurance that before the Government definitely decide to accept the United States' proposal for a mixed force, the House of Commons will be consulted?

Mr. Godber

There is no change of policy at all. This is exactly in accord with the arrangements laid down in the Nassau communiqué. This is a development from it, proposed by the United States. As I have said, there are no commitments in regard to it. This is a matter which is subject to discussion at the present time and, of course, the House will be informed of any developments when they take place.

Mr. Stonehouse

Is the Minister of State not aware that a great deal of public feeling exists in this country against the West Germans having access to nuclear arms in any way? Will he bear this in mind? How does this affect the attempts that were being made at one stage for a nuclear-free zone in Europe?

Mr. Godher

If such a force were set up it would be a multilateral one and would be multilaterally controlled. It would not be a question of the Germans having sole possession of these weapons.

Sir J. Maitland

Does giving a welcome mean that we are committed to taking part in this operation if it comes about?

Mr. Godber

I said that we have given a welcome to the concept of such a force. Obviously, all the aspects of such a force must be discussed. This has not yet been brought to any question of finality. I have merely said that we have accepted it and have welcomed it in principle.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is considerable disquiet about the attitude of the Government towards this matter? Can he say whether, in his view, these proposals make any sense at all from the military point of view? Does he further realise that there are grave dangers in anything that tends to the spreading of nuclear weapons? May I repeat the request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well) that before any film decisions are taken we will have an opportunity of debating the matter in the House?

Mr. Godber

I suggest that questions on the military aspect should be put to the Minister of Defence. On the question of proliferation, in my view this would have exactly the reverse effect. It would tend to prevent proliferation into fresh national hands, and I think that that is a very important aspect of the whole problem.

Mr. Wall

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever the political advantages of this idea, it makes military nonsense, and will be very expensive?

Mr. Godber

I have just said that questions on the military side should be addressed to the Minister of Defence. I should prefer to confine myself to the political aspects which, for the reasons I have just given, I think are certainly very important.

Mr. Grimond

What do the Government mean by saying that they give a welcome to the concept? Does this mean that they give a welcome to the force, or not? Secondly, what do they mean by saying that this follows out the Nassau Agreement? Does this mean that we are prepared to give up the British independent deterrent in favour of some European multilateral deterrent, or not? Who is to control this force? Is it to be controlled by some European authority, or by the Americans?

Mr. Godber

I said that we gave a welcome to the concept— I should have thought that was plain English; that we have accepted the principle of the idea. It depends entirely on how the idea is worked out. As I have indicated, it has not been worked out. The whole question in relation to the Nassau Agreement is quite clear, in that we there committed our V-bomber force, or undertook to commit it, and to provide, subsequently, Polaris submarines. But there was also definite provision in Articles 8 and 9 of the Nassau communiqué for the provision of a multilateral force. This falls entirely within that concept, and it is for that reason I referred to the communiqué.

Mr. Grimond

Who is to control it?

Mr. Godber

I have indicated that if such a force is to be set up the question of control must be worked out in N.A.T.O. itself, but it has not yet been worked out.

Sir G. Nabarro

In any event, can the Nassau proposals now be tenable, as France has contracted out and refuses to have anything at all to do with a mixed force armed with Polaris missiles?

Mr. Godber

The Nassau proposals were Anglo-American proposals. It is quite clear that they are certainly tenable, and will remain so.

Mr. Healey

Is it not deplorable that Her Majesty's Government should have been prepared to welcome this proposal in principle without having a view on whether or not it is militarily practicable? Secondly, on the political question, is it not the case that under this proposal Western Germany will assume a nuclear role at least five years before she could have hoped to have done so by any other means? Is it not also the case that the West German Government have accepted the proposal only on the understanding that once such a force becomes operational, the unanimity rule will be superseded by some sort of majority rule for control?

Mr. Godber

On the question of accepting the principle without consideration of military effectiveness, I did not say that. I said that questions of military concern should be addressed to the Minister of Defence. With regard to control, it is not true that any definite decisions have been taken by the Germans or anyone else. This is an American proposal that has been put before N.A.T.O., and it is subject to consideration at the present time. No decisions have been taken in relation to it. I have expressed the general attitude of Her Majesty's Government to it, and I think that that is where the general position rests.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of a Government decision to have a debate on the subject, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.