§ Q2. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Great Britain's nuclear strategy.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 1st June to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling).
§ Mr. MartenIs it the Government's intention that the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, should be given greater control over the strategic nuclear weapons, including the Atlantic Nuclear Force? If so, is this not slightly edging towards a greater degree of proliferation, and does it have the consent of the West German Government?
§ The Prime MinisterOn this question, we always recognised that it was a particularly difficult one in our formulation of the allied nuclear force and when we debated this last December there was some exchange across the Floor of the House. I think that on balance the Leader of the Opposition supported the 1950 idea that SACEUR should have this responsibility. We gave our reasons against it. We have had consultations with our allies. We have thought again. There was a narrow margin. I think that on balance it is right that he should have this responsibility. This has nothing to do with poliferation because our A.N.F., unlike the M.L.F., has built-in safeguards against proliferation.
§ Mr, MendelsonHas my right hon. Friend given approval for the policy proposed by the American Secretary of State for Defence that there should be a group of four Powers, including West Germany, particularly concerned with the strategic planning of the use of nuclear weapons in N.A.T.O., and will he bear in mind that there is strong opposition, at least on these benches and in parts of the country, against West Germany being associated with direct or indirect planning of the use of nuclear arms?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have had a number of questions about how far our proposals for an allied Atlantic nuclear force are going. I think that the suggestion of Mr. McNamara is extremely helpful in carrying forward our discussions within N.A.T.O. of the examination of A.N.F. One thing which, I think, is now plain is that the M.L.F., which we opposed—all of us—is now not the front runner in these considerations but that the British proposal for an A.N.F. is the front runner in these proposals, and it is right that we should have discussions about it. Certainly, however, the way that we have formulated this means no German finger on the nuclear trigger. I hope that my hon. Friend will be glad of that fact.
§ Sir W. Bromley-DavenportTo preserve Cabinet unity, will the right hon. Gentleman give a firm undertaking that he will come to no final decision in this matter without prior consultation with, and the full approval of, his right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology?
§ The Prime MinisterI congratulate the hon. and gallant Member; he is coming on. The point which I should like him to realise is that our proposals for the Atlantic Nuclear Force, stemming as they do from our desire to stop the spread of nuclear weapons, have the support of a united Cabinet. The hon. and gallant 1951 Member may recall that the proposal for the M.L.F. led to a complete split in the Conservative Cabinet between the present Leader of the Opposition, who supported it and still supports it, and the then Secretary of State for Defence, who opposed it and still opposes it and carries on his argument with the right hon. Gentleman, even in Opposition, in a defence debate.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI hope that when he studies the situation, the right hon. Gentleman will realise the inaccuracies in the statement which he has just made. First, there was no split in this matter—[Interruption.]—I am at least in a position to know—but, secondly, any proposal put forward by the Americans for the M.L.F. always was accompanied by the assurance that an agreement would be attached to it, which would mean that nuclear weapons would not be proliferated.
§ The Prime MinisterI find it difficult in those circumstances to explain why the Foreign Office, under the right hon. Gentleman, was briefing the whole of the Press for the M.L.F. and that the Ministry of Defence was briefing the whole of the Press against the M.L.F. I also find it difficult to understand why, even in Opposition, the right hon. Gentleman should carry on this shadow Departmental battle, because in the last defence debate he came out in favour of the M.L.F. and his right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Thorneycroft) came out against the M.L.F. Our proposal was explained in great detail, as I have said—and it is a united Government policy—for the Atlantic Nuclear Force. But as far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, throughout this year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I am answering the point. Hon. Members opposite will get it whether they like it or not. Throughout last year, the right hon. Gentleman dodged every Question on M.L.F. and on this and all other issues we did not have the straight talk from him that he promised.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeWill the Prime Minister realise that when it comes to questions of dodging, I am prepared to be judged and to allow other people to judge that between us? Will he also recognise that I am trying to make what 1952 is really a limited point? As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman is claiming that the A.N.F. will not lead to a proliferation of nuclear weapons. I am asking him to recognise, which he has so far refused to do, that neither did the American proposal for an M.L.F. There was never any question of a German finger on the trigger in that.
§ The Prime MinisterFirst, as to the right hon. Gentleman's preamble, on this question he never gave a clear answer. On the A.N.F., we did give a clear answer in a very long speech by me. So let us have that straight. [Interruption.] I shall answer the question. I am answering the preamble first.
If the Leader of the Opposition really wants to put this to the test, I hope that he will now come clean with his right hon. Friend on a few issues on which he has entirely refused to give an answer—from incomes policy to Europe. [Interruption.] I know that hon. Members opposite do not like this.
As to the second point, all that the right hon. Gentleman has repeated twice—[Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite want an answer, perhaps they will listen. On the second point that the right hon. Gentleman has raised, all that he is still doing is tagging behind the American proposal on M.L.F. The right hon. Gentleman never put forward any proposal in the N.A.T.O. context to end proliferation of nuclear weapons. We have. That is the difference between us.