HC Deb 20 March 1979 vol 964 cc1285-8
4. Mr. Rifkind

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to be able to announce his decision as to a replacement for the United Kingdom nuclear deterrent after the present deterrent has ended its useful life.

13. Mr. George

Rodgers asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement defining the role of the United Kingdom independent nuclear weapon and indicating whether it is intended to retain this capacity.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley)

The United Kingdom's nuclear capability must be seen in the context of NATO's strategic and theatre nuclear forces, the central role of which is to deter aggression. This independent contribution also strengthens collective deterrence by providing a second centre of decision-making within NATO, thereby increasing the uncertainties faced by an aggressor.

The Government have made it clear to the House on numerous occasions that the Polaris submarines will continue to form an effective contribution to NATO's deterrent strategy into the 1990s. It is, therefore, premature to come to a decision at this stage as to a possible successor. If in due course it should be decided to proceed with a successor to the Polaris force, the time scale would depend upon the option chosen.

Mr. Rifkind

Does the Secretary of State accept that the useful life of Britain's nuclear deterrent is unlikely to be more than another 14 years? As it is likely that at least 13 years will be required to develop any successor system, is it not extraordinary that there was no mention of this subject in the defence White Paper? Are the Government deliberately trying to stifle debate on this subject because of the opposition they expect from their hon. Friends?

Mr. Mulley

On the contrary, the Government welcome discussion on this and on many other aspects of defence policy. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's timetable. The first question to decide is"whether ". I just recall the fact that the first Polaris submarine was on station within six years of the signing of the agreement.

Mr. Rodgers

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is growing and widespread opinion in this country that an independent nuclear deterrent in the possession of the United Kingdom is not only morally indefensible but absurdly expensive? Will he give an assurance that, in line with the Labour Party manifesto commitment, we intend to abandon this absurdity, which is simply a prestige symbol and is extremely hazardous to this nation?

Mr. Mulley

I think that my hon. Friend is wrong in saying that in the Labour Party manifesto there was any reference to our abandoning the existing Polaris force. On the contrary, we said that it would be maintained as an effective force. The question whether there should be a successor is, as I have said, one for the future.

Mr. Cormack

Will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance that he will wake up to the realities of the situation? Will he pledge the Government to ensuring that we shall have a replacement weapon? Reverting to the point made by his hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Rodgers), will he remember that it is not much more than 10 years since the Russians invaded Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Mulley

I do not see the immediate connection between the hon. Gentleman's first and last points. Obviously, the question is one for the future and not one for me to settle this afternoon.

Mr. Crawshaw

My right hon. Friend has been reminded of 1938. He will remember that that was a time when some of my colleagues' predecessors were shouting for arms against Germany and denying the country the means whereby they were obtained. Will he bear in mind that, while not going completely mad on the subject of atomic weapons, we must have suitable weapons, so that if we were left on our own we could provide a deterrent against aggressors?

Mr. Mulley

The Government's policy remains in full support of the NATO Alliance, in which its deterrent posture is based on a triad of conventional, theatre and strategic nuclear weapons.

Sir Ian Gilmour

In view of the sensible remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in his original answer about the value and importance of our strategic nuclear deterrent, what possible argument can there be for not saying that there should now be a replacement for Polaris? Why does not the Minister stand up to his anti-Western Friends below the Gangway?

Mr. Frank Allaun

Anti-war Friends.

Mr. Mulley

I think that the right hon. Gentleman looks under his bed every night for members of the Tribune group. The idea that there is a great argument on this side of the House is erroneous. There are, of course, arguments about priorities in defence, which is right and proper. Most of the arguments of a serious character conducted in this country come from within the Labour movement. The existing force will remain effective into the 1990s. Therefore, any option if it were to be taken now would be premature. I cannot foresee the course of events, though I hope very much that SALT II will be ratified and that it will be followed by further multilateral arms control arrangements. No one can foresee the situation some years from now.