HC Deb 23 May 1963 vol 678 cc776-86

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Rees.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I wish to call attention to the proposals for the new Polaris submarine base in the west of Scotland, contained in the statement made by the then Civil Lord of the Admiralty on 24th April. That statement was very brief and contained references to the expenditure of a considerable sum of money. It was the swansong of the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing) as Civil Lord, after six and a half years in that office; but it was a very expensive one.

The hon. Gentleman spoke for about five minutes, at the rate of £5 million a minute. Now he has departed to take up, I understand, the chairmanship of two business concerns which are subsidiaries of American companies, and is thus continuing in business what he did so faithfully at the Admiralty.

I asked him a lot of questions during his term at the Admiralty and usually received an answer. He owes me a debt of gratitude because originally this Adjournment would have taken place at 3.30 a.m. following an intricate Scottish debate in which my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) were greatly interested. But I saved him those hours of suffering by postponing it. That was the only occasion, I think, that he mentioned me in his prayers.

Now we have a new Civil Lord, whom we welcome, but with a certain amount of sympathy. The job is not one for which there must be a rush among members of the Government. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman felt when he entered his office for the first time. I suppose as he went through the ante-room and looked at the desk on which, I understand, there is a bronze plate saying, Here Mr. Vassall worked for six years", he was looked upon with considerable suspicion by the gentleman whose duty it is to look after security. They must have said, "What is this problem? Is this new occupant of the office a security risk?" I hope that the hon. Gentleman satisfied those gentlemen and that there is nothing dark in his past. I hope that he has not been studying Karl Marx, or the works of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) on any occasion, or anything else to make them think that he has any subtle indirect connection with the Communist Party.

I should like him to give us some more details than were given in the statement about the new base in Scotland. The Polaris base has been the subject of considerable controversy ever since the Americans were established at Holy Loch. We understood that there was considerable co-operation between the Admiralty and the Americans. The Loch has become busier and busier and the base has become one of the busiest outposts in the west of Scotland. We were told that it was not a base but a depot, and that it was not a danger to the west of Scotland because the real base was in America.

Now we are to have a real base and two posts at which there are two different lots of submarines, one American, operating from Holy Loch, and the other British, operating from Arrochar, not far away. We are told that the American submarines are going into action and that Holy Loch will be busier and busier because the submarines are to go to the Mediterranean where there is not a country which is prepared to take them. It appears that we are the only people who are enthusiastic about having American Polaris submarines operating from our territory.

When the American Polaris submarines arrived, we were told of their tremendous destructive power. We were told that one could carry enough missiles to destroy at least a dozen cities of the U.S.S.R. As time goes on and before the British base is ready, presumably there will be 40 of these American submarines patrolling the seas with tremendous destructive power in the event of a nuclear war.

Why do we want another lot of destructive power? Why are we going to this considerable expenditure in addition to the American Polaris base? If we are working in co-operation with the Americans, is there any justification for what is called the development of the independent deterrent? I do not believe that there is any such justification. I believe that this sudden decision by the Prime Minister will involve us in the expenditure of a very large sum of public money. It was badly thought out and we are now beginning to have the first instalment of the Bill which is to be about £25 million.

When the Prime Minister comes to Scotland, he talks about his connection with the Highlands. I would not be averse to a cairn memorial for the Prime Minister, but when it comes to a base costing £25 million, I think that we are entitled to draw the line. Overlooking the sea at Oban there is a building called McCaig's Folly. I believe that the new base near Arrochar will ultimately be known as "Macmillan's Folly".

What are the Admiralty to do about the labour for this base? We were told in the statement that the base would involve a great deal of constructional work. The Ministry of Public Building and Works is to put its squads into operation and they are to undertake public works amounting to a large sum of money. That is about the cost of 12,000 houses, and we need more houses in Scotland.

Whichever way one looks at this, it is a diversion of constructional activity from the things we really need in Scotland—houses, schools, hospitals, and the factories that we need to put our Scottish economy on a sound foundation. The Minister may shake his head, but I cannot see any other possibility. The men concerned on the project will be making something of concrete and stone, and at present we need all forms of labour—manual, skilled and administrative—in order to combat Scotland's social problems. We need far more money to be spent on the things to which I have referred than on this so-called independent nuclear deterrent.

When the statement was made in the House hon. Members opposite said, "Oh, yes, this means work for Scotland." That is the bait. There is a serious unemployment problem at present, and the Government expect us to jump and wave our hands with delight at anything offered in which work is part of the programme. We appreciate that any kind of work is acceptable to the unemployed rather than that they should have no income at all. Even if it were proposed to take a lump out of Ben Lomond and put it in the Loch, that would be work; but from the point of view of a real building-up of our economy, we might as well put a bit of Ben Lomond in the Loch as spend this money on the base.

The Clyde area has a serious problem causing a great deal of unemployment at present. During the last fortnight we have seen in the newspapers notices about ships which could have been built in the Clyde being built in Japan. Also, ships built in the Clyde have been taken away to be overhauled and refitted in Holland. Other orders which might have gone to the Clyde have gone to Sweden.

It is true that a great deal of naval building is going on in the Clyde. But this other activity is devoted to something which cannot contribute to a really fundamental solution of the Scottish shipbuilding problem. At the same time, our competitors are building ships and are able to modernise their shipyards. While the project gives Admiralty work, it is only short-term work and the skills which are going into the Polaris submarine base and these other activities will ultimately and inevitably lead to an unemployment problem in Scotland which will leave the shipbuilding industry derelict. It will create a tremendous unemployment problem in four or five years' time. Consequently, I hope that the Minister will not say "The project brings some kind of work to Scotland and so is justified".

There are other questions I want to ask. We are told that the work on the project requires so much security that the American system of positive vetting is to be applied to the workers likely to be employed. What is this likely to lead to on Clydeside? There we have a healthy tradition of trade unionism. It is likely that some of those who may want jobs on the project have at some time or other been militant shop stewards or even connected with the Communist Party. Then they will be positively vetted according to some American security plan.

This project will lead to a considerable amount of industrial trouble. It will not be a good scheme for absorbing unemployment and will not help us to build up the kind of industry that we need. It will present a tremendous problem to the west of Scotland. In the event of nuclear war it will make that part of Scotland the most dangerous place to live in in the world. If nuclear war were to start, and rockets and hydrogen bombs were dropped, inevitably it would be wiped out.

That is a reality, because in war a base means a bomb. Just as we bombed German submarine bases in the last war, inevitably, if the Russians see the possibility of these nuclear submarines going around the coast of Russia and being in a position to destroy Moscow or Leningrad or other Russian cities, the Russian megaton bombs will descend on the places from which those submarines come.

It is nonsense to talk about this being a defensive operation. It is part of a political improvisation by the Prime Minister in a moment of difficulty with his defence programme. It is a shortsighted development, and we are moving towards something which, from the point of view of expenditure, may prove to be the bottomless pit.

10.16 p.m.

The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. John Hay)

The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Hughes), in his customary inimitable style, opened by congratulating me on my new office with a somewhat backhanded compliment. He suggested that those who are concerned with security in the Admiralty might look at me rather askance when T came in and wonder whether I was a security risk. Whatever look they may have given me, I wonder what look they would give the hon. Member if he took up the same post.

His views on the general question of nuclear disarmament are well known, and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not traverse all the ground that he covered tonight. I look forward to doing so on another occasion. I want to say something about the Polaris programme, because this Adjournment debate gives me an opportunity which has not so far been given in this House to do so.

First, I remind the House what a major effort this programme represents. Few people realise—and until I got to grips with it I did not realise—how big these nuclear submarines will be. The boats which carry the Polaris weapon are nearly twice as big as any other British submarine ever built. Indeed, they are bigger than many pre-war cruisers, and will displace over 7,000 tons. Even if they were surface vessels they would represent a sizeable shipbuilding commitment.

There has been much ill-considered and even alarmist criticism of the Polaris programme, much of which has stemmed from a lack of appreciation and—dare I say it—a refusal to acknowledge the basic facts relating to the value of this system as a deterrent to possible aggression. The nuclear submarine is not—as some defence commentators, from the depths of their armchairs, have assured us—just an improved submarine. It is the first true submarine. It is a vessel which is completely unfettered by the need to surface for very long periods of time, and whose underwater endurance is virtually unlimited. From time to time the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) and the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) have said that the system is obsolescent. This is twaddle. The nuclear submarine, with its speed, operating depth and freedom to evade, has an ability to remain undetected which is unmatched by any system yet devised by man. No antisubmarine break-through can be foreseen, and we expect Polaris submarines to remain virtually invulnerable for many years to come.

From time to time there have been knowing references to the possible development of anti-missile missiles. Let me assure the House that the problems of anti-missile defence are immensely greater that those of the attacker, and they can be aggravated by the use of decoys. Even if a proportion of the Polaris missiles should be destroyed, an enemy would be unable to rely on avoiding an unacceptable level of damage to his own territory. I fully realise that this applies to the entire concept of deterrence by means of long-range missiles with nuclear warheads. But Polaris submarines have the added and unique advantage of being able to launch their missiles from variable positions which are quite unknown to the enemy. It is not the case, as was suggested by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, that in the event of a war against the Soviet Union our Polaris submarines would be operating only off the Russian coast. The whole wide world would be their ground, because Polaris submarines operate invisible to the eye and invisible to radar beneath the sea which covers three-quarters of the earth's surface. They combine the advantages of land-based ballistic missiles with the flexibility of air launched missiles and they have the disadvantages of neither.

Mr. Archie Manuel (South Ayshire)

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that this is the ultimate deterrent?

Mr. Hay

No, Sir, I am not. Because I think it unlikely in the history of mankind, until such time as we are able to achieve a lasting peace, that anyone will find the ultimate deterrent But I would say, and I believe this to be true, that with this weapon we are coming very close indeed to the ultimate deterrent.

In considering the best way to provide support for the Polaris force we had to place emphasis on the operational requirements and then, given this, on economy. The House will be aware that the basic operational requirements are that the base should be near deep water; that navigational access shall be easy; that is shall be accessible by land and sea for logistic purposes; and that its associated armament depot shall be no more than a short distance away by sea.

We had to take into account other important factors, such as the distance from the refitting base and the provision of amenities and recreational facilities for the submarine crews when they return to harbour after their long submerged patrols. Of all possible sites—and we were at great pains to consider the claims of all locations including island sites—

Mr. Manuel

Ireland?

Mr. Hay

No, island sites—not Ireland.

We finally came to the conclusion that Faslane not only offered the greatest operational advantages, but also met the many other important requirements which I have mentioned.

I have already said that while the operational requirements must be met, we are also concerned to get an economic solution. For example, there is no doubt that we would get the maximum operational flexibility by using a depot ship as the base for the Polaris force, just as the Americans are doing at Holy Loch, and we considered this. But it would not be economic. A depot ship would still require the backing of the armament depot and would also need some limited but essential shore support. We are satisfied that we can get all the operational flexibility we need for operation in the N.A.T.O. theatre from the shore base at Faslane at the least expense in terms of both money and naval manpower.

The House will perhaps be interested to know that our provisional estimates of the cost of the Polaris programme—the hon. Member spoke of money—indicate that the annual cost of a force of four boats and all their support including refuelling costs and based on a spread of the capital cost over 20 years, is likely to be about 3 per cent. of the annual defence budget. I suggest to the House that this is not a heavy bill for running a deterrent force—

Mr. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

It is £60 million.

Mr. Hay

—particularly one which will be flexible, invisible and virtually invulnerable. In fact it is an exception to the rule that the best must invariably be the most expensive. The submarine is, and always has been, an extremely economical weapon. In terms of manpower we reckon to need about 400 civilians, including 200 locally recruited, to run the base and the armament depot. There will be around 1,700 officers and ratings stationed at the base to man the boats on a two-crew basis, which of course we must have to get maximum operational time at sea.

As to the base itself, the periodical refits of the boats, as has already been announced, will be carried out at Rosyth, where the nuclear hunter-killer submarines will also refit. There will be, of course, also a certain amount of maintenance work which will have to be carried out on the Polaris submarines during the turn-round time at Faslane between patrols. The operating schedule for the Polaris submarines is a tight one, and the operating base will in consequence be largely self-contained for maintenance purposes, but Rosyth is near enough to give overland support to the base if this should be necessary at any time.

The missiles themselves will be maintained and stored in the armament depot at Coulport; they will not be in the submarine during refit and docking periods at Rosyth and will not be handled either there or at the operating base. Although British crews will be highly trained and will have had practical missile firing experience in their own submarines before proceeding on patrol, these live firings will not take place in the confined waters round the United Kingdom. The launching system will be tested on occasion in exercise areas at sea, but this will be using inert test vehicles.

I do not propose to cover some of the other points which the hon. Member asked about because I feel that they go somewhat wider than the actual subject of the debate, but at one stage in his speech he went into the question of whether we were wasting resources by proposing the construction of this base. Apart from the building of the submarines, almost the whole of the Polaris programme is to be carried out in Scotland. Construction of the operating base at Faslane to meet the needs of the Polaris submarines and building the armament depot at Coulport will together be one of the largest capital schemes in Scotland for some years. They will cost between £12 million and £15 million for construction work alone and can be reckoned to provide, at the peak, employment for 1,000 workmen.

It will not be the case that the men who will be called upon to carry out this construction will automatically be lost to other forms of construction particularly of housing, schools or hospitals or other important pieces of social equipment in that area of Scotland because, I am advised, much of the construction will be of a technical nature and of a civil engineering character rather than a building character. We do not expect, therefore, to use quite the same sort of labour as is used, for example, on house or school building. Moreover, it has to be borne in mind that there have been complaints for some time about the level of unemployment in south-western Scotland. I think, therefore, that this particular injection of activity and money which we are making in this area would not altogether come amiss.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

Some of us tell our constituents that, given a choice between building and servicing Polaris and being unemployed, we would rather see them unemployed.

Mr. Hay

I am sure that that remark, which perhaps the hon. Member may come to regret—

Mr. Dalyell

I have said it in my constituency.

Mr. Hay

—will be taken note of in the proper quarters. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will wish to make sure that it is widely disseminated. This is not a case of our trying to undertake an activity which is contrary to the best interests of this country. As I tried to show in the opening remarks I made to the House this evening, this is intended to give this country a means of defence, one of the most powerful means of defence that is known to man at present, and certainly the most powerful this country has ever employed or ever possessed. That, I should have thought, taking things by and large, was not an activity which should be rejected and despised by the people of this country, whether in Scotland or elsewhere.

Of course, if the world were perfect we should be only too glad to devote our resources to more productive things, but it does not lie only with us to decide the world in which we live. We can do our best, but we cannot always succeed. I believe that this programme is a major contribution to the peace of the world, and I hope we shall continue to have the support of the House as a whole for this undertaking

Question put and agreed to.

Adourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Eleven o'clock.