§ 14. Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Defence if it is his intention to authorise any new safety procedures on Polaris nuclear submarines following the recent court hearings when the Captain of HMS "Renown" was found to have hazarded his vessel.
§ 17. Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the standard operating procedures for the manoeuvring of nuclear submarines following the outcome of a recent court-martial at Rosyth.
§ Mr. JuddThe court martial found that the accident was due to negligence and not to any defects in the operating or safety procedures.
§ Mr. HughesDoes my hon. Friend agree that this was a serious incident because, by comparison, a nuclear accident would make Flixborough look trivial? Is the real answer not secret underground tests at Nevada but rather the removal of Polaris bases? Why cannot the Secretary of State accept the official Labour Party policy on this matter?
§ Mr. JuddThere was no risk to the public or to the crew. There was no damage to the nuclear reactor. The reference to Holy Loch in the Labour Party's manifesto means what it says. It makes no reference to a unilateral demand for the removal of the base but refers to such removal as a first step to be taken in the context of multilateral disarmament negotiations. As my right hon. Friend made clear, that remains the Government's position.
§ Rear-Admiral Morgan-GilesDoes the Minister realise that when any commanding officer or ex-commanding officer reads of somebody hitting the putty, he immediately thinks, "There but for the grace of God …"? Will the hon. Gentleman explain that there are good reasons for these large ships, after refit, carrying out trials in relatively shallow waters, that it is an extremely difficult job to avoid the bottom sometimes and that this was therefore a relatively trivial incident?
§ Mr. JuddI am sure that the whole House will be pleased that the grace of God has gone with the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and I am sure we also accept his observations about trials of this kind.
§ Mr. LeeDoes my hon. Friend agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles), and will he indicate just how great the potential hazard is? Does he not also agree that the accident could have been 201 much more serious and that a nuclear hazard could have been involved?
§ Mr. JuddI can only repeat what I said earlier: that there was no risk to the public or to the crew and no damage to the nuclear reactor.
§ Mr. YoungerIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Scotland as a whole are extremely pleased to have the Royal Navy stationed in West Scotland and hope that it will stay there a long time?
§ Mr. JuddI am always doubtful whether the hon. Gentleman can speak with authority for the people of Scotland, but I note what he says.
§ Mr. BaxterDoes not my hon. Friend agree that there should be a plebiscite in Scotland as to whether the people of Scotland agree with the view of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) with regard to the siting of Polaris submarines in Scotland? I have a different opinion from him on this matter, but I would like the question to be tested by a poll of the people of Scotland.
§ Mr. JuddOn the whole issue of government, and indeed on defence policy as part of government, the people of Scotland will have an opportunity to express their views in a General Election in due course.