§ 2.37 p.m.
§ LORD KERSHAWMy Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government (1) whether the Press reports of a speech made in Paris on the 24th day of May, 1954, by Field-Marshal the Viscount Montgomery accurately represent the views of Her Majesty's Government on the possible or probable use of atomic weapons in the event of war; and (2) whether Her Majesty's Government will use their influence to restrain responsible military leaders from making statements on policy which are calculated to bedevil the efforts now being made for international understanding.]
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY)My Lords, from the Press reports, it appears that Field Marshal Lord Montgomery's statement on May 24 was not in conflict with the views expressed by Her Majesty's Government in paragraph 13 of the Statement on Defence, 1954.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEIs the noble and gallant Lord aware that, when I asked a similar question about the hydrogen bomb, the noble Marquess the Leader of the House two days later said that it was not in the national interest that any statement should be made?
§ LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYIf the noble Viscount had attentively read the Statement on Defence, he would have seen what Her Majesty's Government's policy was in that respect.
§ EARL JOWITTMy Lords, I take it that this is the position. I remember Macaulay saying, when referring to John Hampden:
The essence of war is violence, and moderation in war is imbecility.In spite of that fact, this question of the circumstances in which we should use these weapons is essentially a political matter. I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord will agree with that, and I am sure that the noble and gallant Field Marshal would agree with that. It is obviously within the power of the U.N.O. Council, of which we are a member, to give instructions, as they think wise, as to what shall be said by the military leaders about these matters.
§ LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYI will read the paragraph in question and if noble Lords are still in any doubt perhaps a further Question might be put down. The relevant passage is:
If by some miscalculation in Communist policy or by deliberate design a global war were to be forced on us, it must be assumed that atomic weapons would be employed by both sides. In this event, it seems likely that such a war would begin with a period of intense atomic attacks lasting a relatively short time but inflicting great damage and destruction.
§ LORD KERSHAWDoes the noble and gallant Lord contend that the statement he has just read out is entirely analogous with the statement made by the noble and gallant Field Marshal?
§ LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYI will repeat what I said in my reply. I said that I did not think that Lord Montgomery's statement on May 24 was in conflict with the views expressed in the White Paper.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThe noble and gallant Lord must be aware that we 1187 have tried very hard to get the Government in this House to declare their policy on the hydrogen bomb. We were told that it was considered unwise, for reasons of State, to make a declaration. How, then, can it be that two eminent soldiers, within two days or a few days of one another, declare that in case of war we are going all out with this new weapon?
§ LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYI do not think that that is an exact reproduction of what either soldier said. In any case, it is a question for Her Majesty's Government to consider. The hydrogen bomb does not appear in this context.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATENo, but the hydrogen bomb is the latest development of the atomic weapon. I should like to ask the noble and gallant Lord this question. Is this statement by the assistant head of N.A.T.O. made with the consent of the N.A.T.O. Council, or which is the body that controls utterances by serving officers under N.A.T.O.?
§ LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYResponsible officers must take the responsibility for their own statements. The question of who controls the statements of those officers depends on the circumstances of the time.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEBut does the noble and gallant Lord really mean that any serving officer under N.A.T.O. is at liberty to make a declaration on policy without consulting the political heads of the Organisation?
§ LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYI could not answer that question without notice because it does not arise out of this Question.
§ 2.41 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what rules govern statements on Government policy by officers on the Active List.]
§ LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYMy Lords, the rules governing statements on Government policy by officers on the Active List are laid down in the Queen's Regulations for each of the three Services.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEWould the noble and gallant Lord inform us what the rules are?
§ LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYI will, if he wishes, write to the noble Viscount and give him the relevant paragraphs in Queen's Regulations.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEAs I have taken the trouble to put the Question on the Order Paper, I think it is not too much to ask for an Answer to be given now. Should I not be correct in saying that officers on the Active List are not permitted to make statements on policy?
§ LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEYI would refer the noble Viscount to Queen's Regulations, and if he has a further Question, perhaps he will put it down.