HC Deb 09 March 1976 vol 907 cc230-3
6. Mr. Townsend

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the programming of British and French Polaris submarines is now suitably co-ordinated.

Mr. Mason

The French do not possess Polaris submarines. There are no plans for co-ordination of British and French nuclear weapons systems.

Mr. Townsend

Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State told the House within the past year that there was a lack of co-ordination between the French and British nuclear forces, what has the right hon. Gentleman done during that period to achieve better co-ordination? Does he agree that better co-ordination would be in the interests of France and Britain?

Mr. Mason

The French are not members of the military structure of NATO and we could not, therefore, consider any nuclear co-ordination alliance with them on that basis. If overtures were made to me, I should give a very cold response. I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman's other question.

Mr. Townsend

I asked the right hon. Gentleman what he had done about it.

Mr. Mason

On the military side there is no possibility of a nuclear alliance with the French, but on the procurement of defence equipment for the Alliance as a whole, particularly for the Western European nations of the Alliance, the hon. Gentleman will have noticed that during my chairmanship of Eurogroup I managed to establish the independent programme group, which brought in the French for the first time since they broke away from the military structure.

11. Mr. MacFarquhar

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of financial commitment proposed for the improvement of Polaris.

14. Mr. Newens

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Polaris.

15. Mr. Cryer

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Polaris fleet to become obsolete.

Mr. Mason

As was stated in the 1975 Defence White Paper, we intend to maintain the effectiveness of the Polaris force. This force can remain operational for many years yet. It is not the practice to disclose financial details concerning the research and development programme necessary to support our nuclear forces, but the overall cost represents only a small fraction of the defence budget.

Mr. MacFarquhar

Is it not true that my right hon. Friend is spending hundreds of millions of pounds on marginal improvements in the accuracy of the Polaris warhead? If he has that money within the defence budget for the Polaris programme, would it not be better spent on making the engines of the Polaris submarines more silent?

Mr. Mason

I do not agree with my hon. Friend's figures, derived, no doubt, from a speculative piece in the Press. We are spending only just over 1 per cent. of the defence budget on maintaining the Polaris fleet and only a small fraction of it on maintaining the effectiveness of the missiles. That is a small price to pay to ward off nuclear blackmail.

Mr. Adley

We support the Secretary of State's attitude, in contradistinction to the questions he is about to be asked by his hon. Friends below the Gangway with their tiny Russian minds.

Mr. Cryer

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the scrapping of Polaris would be an admirable response to the appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations last August for countries to make a unilateral response and to impose a unilateral restraint on arms expenditure? Does he not agree that the scrapping of Polaris would be in conformity with Labour Party policy?

Mr. Mason

No, it would not be. The manifesto states that we would move toward getting rid of the American Polaris bases in Britain only after we had had some success in multilateral negotiations. The SALT talks and the MBFR talks are proceeding. Tactical nuclear weaponry would be dealt with in those. If we achieved some success in this type of multilateral talks we might consider whether Polaris ought to be removed.

Mr. Amery

Is the Secretary of State aware that Government circles in France have let it be known that they expect the French strategic nuclear capability to be greater than ours soon after 1980? Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we will do everything necessary to maintain our capability at least at a level similar to theirs?

Mr. Mason

The right hon. Gentleman must know that our strategic deterrent is committed to NATO while that of the French is not. Secondly, although the French may have built five boats compared with our four, their missiles do not have the same range and therefore it will be many years before the French strategic nuclear deterrent is able to match the effectiveness of the British.

Mr. Newens

May we take it from my right hon. Friend's earlier replies that he is denying reports that about £400 million is to be spent on research into and development of nuclear warheads? Are there any plans to miniaturise or MIRV the warheads if further nuclear tests are required for this purpose?

Mr. Mason

I tell my hon. Friend until I am red in the face that there is no intention of a new generation of strategic weapons, no intention of MIRV-ing, and no intention of purchasing Poseidon. I am not responsible for speculative reports in the Press, and I would not dream of giving figures in the House about research and development of our weapons technology which could be of use to our enemies.