§ Q6. Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for discussing future co-ordination of British and French nuclear defences with the President of France.
§ Q11. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Prime Minister what plans he has for discussing future co-ordination of British and French nuclear defences with the President of France.
§ The Prime MinisterNone, Sir.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneWould my right hon. Friend be prepared to agree with the proposition that if one day Western 236 Europe is to be endowed with a nuclear capacity which is not ultimately dependent on the willingness of the United States to commit suicide on our behalf, such a capacity must be built on a basis of Anglo-French co-operation, possibly, in the words of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, "complementary to N.A.T.O."?
§ The Prime MinisterIf one is dealing with the precise situation which my hon. Friend is outlining, then, of course, because of the non-proliferation treaty, what he says is correct.
§ Mr. AllaunFrom an exactly opposite point of view, would not disclosure of British nuclear secrets to France breach the non-proliferation pact? Might they not also pass via France to West Germany, which would end our hopes of an East-West détente in Europe?
§ The Prime MinisterThe second part of that question is a matter for the French Government to state, and my experience has always been that they are absolutely dogmatic that none of their nuclear information is passed to the West German Government. So far as we are concerned, then, it was also publicly stated at the time of the non-proliferation treaty that for Powers which are already nuclear to exchange information in the way that the United States Administration, for example, and we ourselves do, is not in breach of the treaty.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonCan we at least have Anglo-French co-ordinated targetting in addition to national targetting and N.A.T.O. targetting? Would that not be a good start?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is one particular aspect of a possible development of this kind. As I said in my main Answer to these two Questions, I have no plans for discussing this with the French Government at the moment.
§ Mr. HealeyBut since the Prime Minister has reaffirmed, in something pubblished since the General Election, his view that there should be Anglo-French co-operation in the nuclear field, can he say why the Foreign Secretary yesterday suggested that he is waiting for a French proposal to this effect? Second, will he completely disavow the statement yesterday by the Foreign Secretary that there 237 might be co-operation between Britain and France in this field outside N.A.T.O. but parallel with N.A.T.O.?
§ The Prime MinisterI put forward this proposal, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, as long ago as the spring of 1965 in a lecture at Oxford, and I have developed it since then, as he pointed out, as recently as in the Godkin Lecture, which was published, in this country at any rate, this month. This is a matter of long-term possibility. When I first made the proposal, the French were members of N.A.T.O. and when I repeated it, I hoped that it would be a means of bringing them back into N.A.T.O. There is obviously a difference of view about this between leaders in France and leaders in this country.
§ Mr. HealeyThe right hon. Gentleman reaffirmed, did he not, last week—since the General Election and with France out of N.A.T.O.—that that was still part of the Government's policy? Can he explain precisely what he means by it? Will he reject, as I asked him to do in my earlier supplementary question, the suggestion of the Foreign Secretary yesterday that there might be Anglo-French nuclear co-operation in the military field outside N.A.T.O. but parallel to it?
§ The Prime Minister"Complementary" to it. There are already arrangements between the French Government and N.A.T.O. on forces, as the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well—
§ Mr. HealeyNot nuclear.
§ The Prime MinisterNot in a nuclear field, no, I agree, but in other fields, as the right hon. Gentleman knows from his former experience. I see no reason why the Government should inhibit themselves by saying that they cannot discuss with the French Government any question of future arrangements, whether inside or outside N.A.T.O., but my hope remains that they could be done within N.A.T.O.
§ Mr. PagetThe hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said that the credibility of our nuclear defence depended on American willingness to commit suicide on our behalf. Would not the credibility of an Anglo-French nuclear capacity depend upon our willingness to commit suicide on our own behalf?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. and learned Gentleman must be responsible for his own analysis of that situation.
§ Mr. HealeyI think that the House will recognise that this is a matter of the gravest concern, not only to the British people but to the whole of our alliance. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that, before making any proposals for co-operation with France separate from the existing N.A.T.O. machinery, he will first discuss those proposals with our loyal N.A.T.O. allies in the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O.?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course, any discussions of this kind must also be carried on at the same time with our friends in N.A.T.O.—[Interruption.] Necessarily at the same time, at any rate. But our N.A.T.O. allies are well aware of the views which I have expressed on a number of occasions, and when I was leader of the Opposition I discussed this policy with them.