MIXED-MANNED NUCLEAR FORCE (Hansard, 28 November 1963)

Q3. Mr. Storehouse
asked the Prime Minister what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding participation in the United States' plan for a mixed-manned nuclear force; whether it is proposed that such participation should be on political or military grounds; and which Minister will be responsible for the detailed negotiations on this matter.

§ The Prime Minister
The policy of Her Majesty's Government was made clear in the statement issued from Downing Street on 1st October. I will, with permission, circulate the text in the OFFICIAL REPORT. We have agreed to take part in an objective examination of the project in all its aspects and possible variations, but we are not committed to participate in a mixed-manned force. Discussions have begun in Paris and Washington the British representatives in these discussions receive instructions from the Ministers responsible for the various aspects of the matter, principally my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Defence.

§ Mr. Stonehouse
What is the point of entering into these negotiations unless the principle is accepted? Would it not be better for all concerned if the Prime Minister would say that we cannot accept this mixed-manned force because it is foolish on the defence arguments and subject to grave objections on political grounds? Would it not be best to be clear and decisive on this?

§ The Prime Minister
I would put it the other way round. I think there may be very strong reasons politically, but not so strong reasons militarily. That is exactly what we want to examine to see whether in all the circumstances of the N.A.T.O. alliance such a mixed-manned force is desirable or not.

§ Mr. Longden
Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the main reason for our lukewarm reception of this proposal is not because it is mixed-manned, but because a ship is a very vulnerable form of missile carrier and that, if this well-intentioned proposal for preventing proliferation is not adopted, Her Majesty's Government will father an alternative?

§ The Prime Minister
I think the purpose of the Paris talks in partciular is to examine this proposal and any variant of it.

§ Mr. Gordon Walker
As the matter has been before the Government for a long time, cannot the Prime Minister tell us whether he is in favour of a multilateral force or against it? He must know by now.

§ The Prime Minister
No. I like to examine the facts before making a decision.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Does the Prime Minister seriously suggest that there has been no preliminary examination of this proposal for a mixed-manned force? Is he not aware that the matter was discussed in this House before he arrived here and that it has disclosed considerable uncertainty on the part of the Government themselves? Is not that uncertainty causing a great deal of confusion in N.A.T.O.? Is he also aware that there is no military advantage whatever in this proposal and that the political advantages are very ambiguous?

§ The Prime Minister
Our advice is that certainly it is militarily practicable to have such a force. Not only our Government but all the allies in N.A.T.O. wanted to examine this proposal which the American Government have made. [HON. MEMBERS: "They have."] No they have not yet examined this proposal in detail, nor has there been any examination of possible variants of this proposal. If N.A.T.O. is to be armed with missiles when the bombers go out of production, it is possible that some other variant of this proposal might make sense and might be adopted by the Alliance.

Mr. H. Wilson
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that some weeks ago, before he became Premier, after a series of inconclusive Cabinet meetings there was clear evidence in the Press of briefing by the Foreign Office and the 471 Ministry of Defence in a contrary sense to one another? Does he not agree that this practice, which may have been familiar in past years in Washington, is absolutely unheard of in this country? [Interruption.] There is no argument about this. Will he not agree in deploring such practices and issuing instructions that Ministers who may be in disagreement in advance of a Cabinet decision must not use the vehicle of the public Press for carrying on their argument in public?

§ The Prime Minister
I should have to look back on the records of all Governments before I could say that the practice in our Government was any different from any other. Of course the Departments do not brief the Press in opposition to each other.