§ Q2. Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister what recent consultations he has had with President Nixon about Great Britain's worldwide nuclear defence role.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to what I told the House following my recent meeting with President Nixon, in reply to Questions on 29th January and 3rd February.—[Vol. 794, c. 1713–19; Vol. 795, c. 209–14.]
§ Mr. BlakerWill the Prime Minister accept my congratulations on maintaining a nuclear capability outside the N.A.T.O. area?
§ The Prime MinisterThe situation outside the N.A.T.O. area has not changed in any way, and this has been made clear in successive defence debates and White Papers.
§ Mr. RidsdaleDoes not the Prime Minister think that these complex, technical defence matters would be far better dealt with by a Select Committee on Defence? What is the Prime Minister's view on a Select Committee on Defence, since he refuses to answer Questions in the House about it?
§ The Prime MinisterI think it would raise many difficulties. We have discussed this many times in the House and, 1046 as the hon. Gentleman knows, the whole question of the future of Select Committees is at present being considered by the Government. More than once in this Parliament we have suggested that on all matters of defence, without holding back any matters of top secrecy, we were prepared to share the defence secrets with the Opposition Front Bench, so that these matters could be looked at on a more bipartisan basis. The hon. Gentleman will realise the difficulties of doing this by a Select Committee.
§ Mr. Hugh JenkinsIs not it sad to hear my right hon. Friend say that our nuclear position in the world has not changed? Did not he undertake to change it and will he now proceed to do so?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. My hon. Friend can feel reassured about this. So far as Polaris was concerned and the Nassau Agreement, under our predecessors and under us, that has been committed to N.A.T.O.; it remains in N.A.T.O.; nothing has changed.
§ Mr. HeathUnder whose control is the nuclear deterrent outside the N.A.T.O. area? Is it under the British Government and, if so, is it independent? Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Defence that the nuclear deterrent under N.A.T.O. is still under British independent control in case of dire national emergency? The Prime Minister has constantly said that I had half quoted the Secretary of State for Defence. What he said was that it was under our control, but he could not conceive the present Government using it. Is not it correct that that does not in any way reduce the control of any other Government, or indeed of the present Government?
§ The Prime MinisterWhat my right hon. Friend said—and I am glad that he has now been fully quoted—is quite correct. I have always agreed with what my right hon. Friend has said—[HON. MEMBERS: " Oh."]—when the whole of the statement is quoted. As I have said, Polaris is assigned to N.A.T.O. Other British forces—it would not be right to say in every detail where they all are—with a nuclear capability form part of our capability to operate worldwide. This 1047 has been the position throughout. The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to speculate any more than my predecessor did about the circumstances in which they might be deployed.
§ Mr. HeathWill the Prime Minister confirm that it is under the British Government's control and command and is independent?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman will know that what we are talking about here is aircraft. The aircraft are being phased out as far as their nuclear capability is concerned.
§ Mr. ThorpeRecalling that before 1964 it was the Prime Minister's view that our nuclear weapons were neither independent nor a genuine deterrent, are we now to believe that he has changed his view on both matters and, if so, on what grounds?
§ The Prime MinisterI referred to our independent capability on Polaris which was neither independent nor under our unique control. I gave the House the reason for saying that in December, 1964. There was, as we all said at that time—I remember saying it in Opposition—a limited life for bombers with nuclear weapons. We said in Opposition that we did not propose to abolish them but would let them die out naturally, and that is the policy.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeIs it not the position that the whole nuclear armoury that we own is under our own control, and that, although the submarines are allocated to N.A.T.O. for the purpose of N.A.T.O. targeting, they can be withdrawn in a state of dire national need, and that there is no change between the Nassau Agreement in that respect and the present position?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman has missed some of the exchanges on that. [HON. MEMBERS: " Answer."] The answer to that question is—[HON. MEMBERS: " Yes."]—the direct answer to that question was given in a debate in December, 1964, when I said they would only be withdrawn if N.A.T.O. were to collapse and in no other circumstances.