§ Q1. Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister what conversations he had with President Johnson about the intentions of the United States in the event of an attack by an aggressor against the United Kingdom.
§ The Prime Minister (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)None, Sir.
Mr. Shin wellHas not the right hon. Gentleman frequently voiced suspicions about the possibility, in certain circumstances, of the United States defaulting on their agreement embodied in the North Atlantic Treaty? Would not this have been a suitable opportunity of ascertaining whether President Johnson stands by the provisions of the Treaty, which provide that in the event of an attack by an aggressor on the United Kingdom, the United States, along with all other N.A.T.O. countries, would come to the assistance of the United Kingdom? Does not this dispose of his argument, frequently adduced, that one of the reasons for retaining the independent nuclear deterrent is that we cannot depend on the United States?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. That is not one of the reasons. We have no doubt about the intentions of the United States—[Interruption.]—what we cannot guarantee is that the Communist Power will not mistakenly believe now, or at any other time, that it might be able to attack this country with impunity.
§ Mr. ShinwellWe should be quite clear about this matter. In the interests of our security, are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that, at any rate, for the next few years—for the foreseeable future—in the event of an attack on the United Kingdom by an aggressor we can no longer depend on assistance from the United States?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman must not draw that conclusion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—but the Government of a country—as, certainly, Mr. Gaitskell used to realise—has to have a defence policy, not for this year or next year but for 20 years ahead.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonWhile there is much mischief in this question—[Interruption]—is it not the case that the best guarantee—
§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Member entitled to refer to a question put in the form in which I presented it as indulging in mischief?
§ Mr. SpeakerIndulging in what?
§ Mr. ShinwellMischief.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that it is in order. It is a matter of opinion, I suppose. Let us progress. Mr. Biggs-Davison.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonIn spite of the mischief in this question, is it not the case that the best guarantee that no enemy would be deceived into thinking that the United States would abandon us is the retention of the independent nuclear capacity?
Mr. H. WilsonSince the right hon. Gentleman referred to my predecessor, he knows perfectly well that there has been no change in this party's defence policy—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, knows perfectly well that there has been no change in this party's defence policy since this policy was commended to the Blackpool Conference by my predecessor. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] And if the right hon. Gentleman wants to ride out on this one I challenge him to produce any evidence to the contrary, and not to make comparisons between what happened before the collapse of Blue Streak and after.
On the point put to the Prime Minister by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), did not the right hon. Gentleman himself say in a recent television programme that one of the difficulties, and one of the reasons for his policy, is that America was very late in coming into the war in 1914 and in 1939?
§ The Prime MinisterThere are many reasons for and against keeping the deterrent, which we can argue in debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If hon. Members will wait they will get the answer but they may not like it. There are many arguments for and against the nuclear deterrent, and the retention of it, which we can argue at other times in debate. I certainly said on television that twice in our history Britain had been left alone. We should remember that. I also said just now before the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) came in—and he came in rather late for the Question—that it was the Government's business not to make provision for the security of the nation for today or tomorrow, but for years ahead, and this we are doing.
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not want to interrupt any hunt, particularly, but I think that I must allow a question from somebody else, and I invite the House to remember that we really need to make progress.
§ Mr. GrimondDoes the Prime Minister really believe that the Russians have any doubt whatever what the reaction of America would be if they launched an attack on Europe?
§ The Prime MinisterI hope that the Russians have no doubt, but the Government are responsible in all circumstances for seeing to the security of the nation.