§ Q2. Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Foreign Secretary at Brussels on 11th February with regard to defence represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir.
§ Mr. RidleyIs the Prime Minister aware that the Foreign Secretary talked of the need for equality of control of nuclear weapons among non-nuclear Powers who would participate in the proposed Atlantic Nuclear Force? Does not the Prime Minister agree that to give Germany a finger on the safety catch alone will not meet her just requirements for defence? Does equality of control mean that the right hon. Gentleman intends to give Germany a greater say in this matter?
§ The Prime MinisterThis has been fully explained. If, however, the hon. Gentleman would like a more up-to-date statement, I should be happy to send him a copy of the speech I made at the opening of the N.A.T.O. Conference today.
I should be surprised if any hon. Member on either side felt it necessary to go beyond what has been proposed. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he thinks that Germany has a just right to more control or more power of initiating nuclear explosions. I am sure that the whole House would be against that. So, I am sure, would Germany.
§ Mr. SoamesIt is now six months since the Prime Minister put forward his proposition for an Atlantic Nuclear Force. Since then both he and his colleagues have made a number of speeches on it, including the right hon. Gentleman's speech today. When does he intend to begin substantive discussions on the proposal? Does he intend to move forward?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is disappointed with the progress. I have made it clear that I do not think that we shall get a final conclusion this side of the German elections. That is a realistic view. Discussions have taken place bilaterally between us and other countries and discussions are going on now in working groups. We have not, in fact, been very long over this. We reached agreement within the Government in a month. The last Government never reached agreement on the mixed-manned force after two years.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeCan the Prime Minister give us a little elucidation of this proposal and of the speech made 260 by the Foreign Secretary? Are we to take it, for instance, that, in an Atlantic Nuclear Force, a non-nuclear Power would be able to veto the use of American nuclear weapons?
§ The Prime MinisterIt has been made clear all along that, while there would be a common sharing of control in respect to the N.A.T.O. nuclear weapons in the A.N.F., of course no other Power has the power to nullify or veto the use of American nuclear weapons not operating under N.A.T.O. control. That has never been proposed. Our proposals provide for consultation about the use of N.A.T.O. nuclear weapons in any part of the world which, up to now, we have not had.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeWhat does this phrase "equal control" mean? Are the Germans to be able to veto the use of American nuclear weapons? They cannot do so, of course, under the N.A.T.O. Alliance. Will they be able to do so in the Atlantic Nuclear Force and, if not, what is the difference between this and the existing arrangements?
§ The Prime MinisterI made this clear, and I thought that it was made very clear in our debates last December. We shall have to agree with the Atlantic Nuclear Force on the arrangements for the use of the veto, but our proposal is that any nation would have a finger on the safety catch and the right of veto in the matter of firing the A.N.F. vehicle.
§ Mr. GrimondIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who share his desire that there should be no spread of nuclear weapons are rather concerned about the situation beyond the N.A.T.O. area and where we appear to be maintaining our own independent nuclear weapons? What proposals does he have for dealing with the situation outside the N.A.T.O. area?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is nice to find the right hon. Gentleman agreeing with us about something. We have made it plain that we take the first priority in dealing with the urgent problems of the Atlantic Alliance, because of the situation which had been reached because of the proposals for the M.L.F. In regard to the situation in the Indian Ocean and in Asia; we have said—and discussions on this are ready to proceed—that we 261 would like to have discussions about providing common safeguards from nuclear Powers to non-nuclear Powers in that area to provide in that area also a deterrent to the spread of nuclear weapons and to provide a guarantee that other countries in that area will not become nuclear.
§ Sir T. BeamishDoes the right hon. Gentleman recollect when in opposition describing mixed manning as a tired device which would have no part in Labour Party policy? Would he mind telling the House why he has now so radically changed his views that this particular tired device is one of the central themes of his policy?
§ The Prime MinisterAs a matter of fact, I referred in the same quotation to what the naval aide, Herr von Hassel, himself a former submarine commander, had said—"Mixed-manned submarine? Thanks, I'd rather swim". We are still opposed to the mixed manning of Polaris or other A.N.F. submarines, or to the mixed-manned surface fleet which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was so keen to sell to the rest of the Cabinet last year. We are still opposed to the mixed manning of these ships.