§ 4. Mr. Nelsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the impact of technological developments in submarine detection on the timing and nature of the replacement of Great Britain's nuclear strategic force.
§ Mr. PymThe vulnerability of different launch platforms to pre-emptive attack will be an important factor in determining the best option for an eventual successor to the Polaris force, but I can assure my hon. Friend that it is not a factor which will adversely affect the operational life of the present force.
§ Mr. NelsonDoes my right hon. Friend accept that recent advances in antisubmarine detection devices and weapon systems substantially diminish the basic advantage of the submarine as an undetectable launching device? In view of these advances, has my right hon. Friend arrived at any preliminary conclusion on whether any replacement for our nuclear deterrent should be airborne rather than submarine-based?
§ Mr. PymI have not yet arrived at a preliminary conclusion. It would be premature to do so. I assure my hon. Friend that we are well aware of the develop- 242 ments in anti-submarine technology. Equally, we are aware that our own capability in counter-anti-submarine measures remains very well advanced. We have every confidence in the security of our existing submarines.
§ Mr. DouglasWill the Secretary of State concede that, no matter how he looks to the future, the present situation in relation to our deterrent is serious and is made more serious by the continuance of the industrial dispute? Will he enjoin his colleagues in the Civil Service Department and the Department of Employment to get the dispute settled as quickly as possible?
§ Mr. PymI am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, because I share his desire to end this dispute as quickly as possible. Clearly, it is having some consequences upon our defence effort, and the sooner it is ended the more satisfied I shall be.