Neutron Bomb

HC Deb 15 July 1980 vol 988 cc1216-9

11. Mr. Flannery

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether there have been any discussions, in the context of the NATO Alliance, or bilaterally, with the French Defence Minister concerning the recent development by France of the neutron bomb.

12. Mr. Ioan Evans

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if, within the context of NATO defence, he proposes to have any discussions with the French Defence Minister regarding proposals to produce the neutron bomb.

Mr. Pym

There have not been any discussions bilaterally or within NATO of the French policy towards the development of enhanced radiation—reduced blast nuclear warheads nor are any such discussions planned.

Mr. Flannery

Does the Secretary of State realise that this so-called tactical weapon is designed to destroy human beings and leave buildings intact? It is almost the ultimate in Tory materialism. Will the Secretary of State assure us that under no circumstances will he consider the manufacture or use of this weapon? It has no part to play in deterring war. Does he agree that it would merely represent a statement that we would prosecute war to the detriment of mankind and the preservation of buildings?

Mr. Pym

I think that the hon. Gentleman's description of the nature of this weapon would also apply to the chemical warfare capability possessed by the Soviet Union. That is something that worries us a great deal. The purpose of the weapon, clearly, is to enhance the French deterrent capability. We have no plans at present to engage in the manufacture of weapons of that kind.

Mr. Ioan Evans

Will the Secretary of State consider talking to the French so as to stop them from manufacturing this weapon? The weapon uses enriched radiation and we know that people are still suffering from the effects of the bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This weapon will produce genetic and cancerous effects on the people who come into contact with it. Will the Secretary of State take steps to prevent this madness in the world?

Mr. Pym

I have no plans to engage in the sort of consultation that the hon. Gentleman invites me to have. However, I am quite certain that the thought behind the possibility referred to is to increase deterrence. That is what it is about. There are unattractive weapons on the other side of the Iron Curtain but we do not hear so many complaints about them. Those weapons have characteristics which are as unattractive—if not more unattractive—as the characteristics referred to in the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Amery

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are strong military arguments in favour of the production and deployment of the so-called neutron bomb? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that his Department is giving the fullest consideration to the question whether this would improve our strength? In view of the costs would he also assure us that he will not altogether reject, within the limits of other international agreements, possible co-operation with France in this matter?

Mr. Pym

It would be possible to make out a military case for this weapon on the lines suggested by my right hon. Friend. But I have to tell him that at the moment that possibility is not under consideration by me.

Mr. Allan Roberts

Is the Secretary of State aware that one of the most disturbing aspects of his answer is that he has not had discussions with French politicians about the neutron bomb, particularly in view of the fact that French military leaders co-operate at every level with British and NATO military leaders as though France was a member of NATO? The fact that France has withdrawn politically from NATO has not halted military co-operation. For the Secretary of State to say—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Question Time is for asking questions, not for making an argument. If the hon. Member asks his question briefly, everyone will be happy.

Mr. Roberts

Is it not right that we should debate with French political leaders in issues that military leaders are discussing and debating? Or does it mean that military leaders and not political leaders are running NATO?

Mr. Pym

The hon. Gentleman knows that France has a special position in relation to NATO. The point of this weapon, and the possibility of France producing it—thought I understand that no decision has yet been reached—is to increase France's deterrent capability.

France has no aggressive intention of its own, as everyone knows very well. It is contemplating—as all of us within NATO are contemplating—how best to increase our deterrent capability. That is the reason for the thoughts which it is giving to this matter. It may be that I shall have some discussion with the French at some point, but I have no plans at present to do so.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the introduction of the Challenger to our tank defence system, may I ask him, in the light of our appalling follow-up ability in the event of a conventional war—which limits us to a very short period of conventional defence—to review his position with regard to the neutron bomb and to go ahead and develop it?

Mr. Pym

I note what my hon. Friend says. As I have indicated, I am not doing that at present, but I take note of his point of view.

Mr. Donald Stewart

Is not the position of the French on this matter somewhat similar to their attitude in the Common Market—that they expect to be defended but are not prepared to defend anyone else?

Mr. Pym

I think that is less than fair to the French, who make a substantial effort in regard to defence—[HON. MEMBERS: "On their own."] Well, on their own, but also in alliance with their neighbours. There is close contact between France and her neighbours, and certainly between France and the United Kingdom and France and the Federal Republic. She makes a major effort in regard to the Navy, Army and Air Force, as well as in the nuclear sphere, and it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the significance of the French contribution.