HL Deb 17 December 1962 vol 245 cc898-905

3.43 p.m.

THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)

My Lords, with permission, I should like to make a statement on the recent talks which my right honourable friend, the Minister of Defence, had with Mr. McNamara in London on December 11.

The principal subject discussed was, as your Lordships know, the future of the Skybolt missile. We have, of course, known from the outset of our association with the United States Government on this weapon that it constituted a formidable development problem. We knew of various difficulties that had arisen, and of the steps that were being taken to surmount them. Such difficulties, of course, were not unexpected, nor are they unusual even in simpler missiles.

However, when the Minister of Defence visited the United States in September of this year the situation was that, while the increase in costs was causing concern, he was assured that American plans assumed delivery of Skybolt. It was not until the beginning of November that Mr. McNamara, while assuring the Minister of Defence that no decision would be taken without the fullest consultation, informed him that the future of the weapon was in question. This consultation was carried a further stage last week, and will be continued between the Prime Minister and President Kennedy in the Bahamas.

From the point of view of the United States, the weapon is proving more expensive than originally estimated; secondly, it looks as though it will be late and possibly not as efficient and reliable as had at first been hoped; and, thirdly, alternative weapon systems available to the United States Government have proved relatively more successful.

The Minister of Defence has stressed throughout his talks with Mr. McNamara the serious consequences for the United Kingdom of a cancellation of this project, and I can assure your Lordships that the United States Government can be in no doubt on that aspect of the matter. The discussions have naturally included the possibility that the United States Government might provide us with alternatives to Skybolt of which the most important is Polaris, but I would stress that no decisions either on Skybolt or on possible alternatives to it have been taken.

Since discussions between our two Governments have not been completed, I am sure that your Lordships will accept that I cannot say any more at the present time. Indeed, as the Prime Minister said last week, it would not be in the interests of the country to do so.

Apart from Skybolt, the Minister of Defence's meeting with Mr. McNamara gave them an opportunity for informal and confidential discussion of a number of matters of joint concern to the two Governments.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, we have to thank the noble Lord, the First Lord of the Admiralty, for reading to us in this House the statement which has been made by the Minister of Defence in another place. I cannot help feeling that practically all sections of your Lordships' House will be exceedingly disturbed by the statement which has been made. Speaking first of all from the point of view of my Party, it is an extraordinary reflection of events of months and months ago when one of my colleagues, Mr. George Brown, came back from America and reported that there were very grave doubts as to whether this weapon would be likely to materialise. He was told by the then Minister of Defence that he was speaking with complete irresponsibility, as if there were no such likelihood of cancellation taking place at all. I think, therefore, looking back upon that side of the incidents which have occurred that Mr. Brown must have been completely justified in bringing to the notice of the House, and indirectly perhaps to the notice of the Government, that his report was a possibility which it was very important to consider at once.

Now we are told in this statement today that the possibility of increased costs and the like were causing concern in September when the present Minister of Defence went over to the United States, but he evidently understood at that time that there was no question of the continuation of the project of Skybolt not being within the plans of the Americans. We gathered, too, from the statement that Her Majesty's Government had no idea of a possible change until the beginning of November. This is an extraordinary position. I feel like saying a lot more, but I do not want to make the position too difficult for the representatives of this country who are going to discuss the whole circumstances of the possible future dangers to our country in the talks which are to take place in the Bahamas, at which I gather we are to be represented by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of Defence. The country at large must be feeling the weight of the burden upon those representatives. According to discussions on defence we have had in your Lordships' House in the last three or four years, this present position looks like a disaster to the plans of the Government, which will have to be completely recast, anyway, if this situation goes on.

When the First Lord of the Admiralty was reading his statement I noticed in it a paragraph which referred to a possible alternative. I know that of course he was only repeating what the Minister of Defence said with regard to Polaris. Well, it would be one thing for Polaris to be available to the United States Navy, but to give it as an alternative to a nuclear deterrent for this country, to be used within reasonable terms, would call for a great deal of consideration.

I do not propose to press the First Lord of the Admiralty on the state of the Navy to-day, but I do not know of any naval vessel existing or building at the moment which would be capable of carrying such a missile as Polaris; nor have I ever heard anything to the effect that the Polaris missile could be used, in terms of transport and delivery, other than by submarine. At any rate, if you tried to use it I should think it would be one of the most vulnerable missiles that would exist in those circumstances. I greatly hope that something better may come out of the discussions with President Kennedy in the Bahamas. But, apart from what I have said about the terms here, I must say that I do not think that the United States of America has treated this country in quite the manner in which we ought to have been treated.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has raised a number of points and he will not expect me to comment on them all at this stage; but there will be ample opportunity to discuss these things later. I would only draw his attention to part of one sentence in the statement which I read—namely, that: no decisions either on Skybolt or on possible alternatives to it have been taken". I think it would really be better if we waited until after the Bahamas meeting before taking the matter any further.

LORD REA

My Lords, I do not want to prolong this discussion, but I should like from these Benches to thank the First Lord of the Admiralty for his statement. For the Record, I think it is an original statement and not a repeated statement on something, being delivered in another place. In view of his request that we should not press him, I do not propose to ask him any questions, but it seems to me that the country will be, one might say, scandalised at the state of affairs which has come to this point. The statement itself says that the weapon which we are going cap in hand to try to get is, from the point of view of the United States, too expensive, late, inefficient, not reliable; and then it says that no other weapons systems have proved any more successful. We are really rather in a bad jam here. But there is one ray of light from the political Party point of view: that my Party and, I believe, the Panty of the noble Viscount on my left have advocated that we should not have a British nuclear deterrent. That is one unhappy way out of that thing. But I suggest that Her Majesty's Government might find out more about the opinion of the actual people of this country as to their attitude towards the possession of an independent nuclear weapon.

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, I think perhaps I ought to put right, for the Record, that this is in fact a repeat of the statement being made by my right honourable friend the Minister of Defence in another place. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal party has got the Labour Party's defence policy right—I am not in a position to correct him on that—but I must say that I find it difficult to understand why the noble Lord, who I understand is a unilateral nuclear disarmer, seems to be upset when things seem to be going wrong with the Government, whose policy is exactly opposite.

LORD HENDERSON

My Lords, may I ask a question of the Minister? It has been said that, if Skybolt cannot be brought forward for use by the British Strategic Bomber Force, it would be disastrous. That, I understand, is the case because Polaris is a matter for the Admiralty and not for the Air Force. Would the noble Lord tell me what would be the position of the Strategic Bomber Force of the United States if there were no Skybolt?

LORD CARRINGTON

I think that the position of the United States Strategic Air Force would be exactly the same as that of the Royal Air Force.

LORD HENDERSON

So the effect would be that both the Strategic Bomber Forces would be scrapped?

LORD CARRINGTON

Not necessarily. Both of them have got interim weapons in the shape of Hounddog and Blue Steel.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, while not wishing to press the First Lord at the present stage, could I just ask him two questions, because obviously this is a most grave position and our defence policy has really crumpled around us; it has caused great disturbance throughout the country. My first question is this: While no decision is yet come to as regards Sky-bolt or any alternative, could we have an assurance that any future nuclear deterrent decision will be based purely and absolutely on the efficiency of the weapon and not on any political consideration, national or international? The second question, which is really addressed to the Leader of the House, is this: Will the House have to wait until the publication of the Defence White Paper, which may be well into next year, before we have an opportunity to debate this extremely grave position?

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, with regard to the first question which my noble friend asks me, I think it is obviously the policy of Her Majesty's Government to get the best deterrent weapons available. With regard to his second question, I think that depends a little on what happens at the meetings in the Bahamas, but I know that my noble friend the Leader of the House will do everything possible to facilitate an earlier debate if necessary.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, may I ask the First Lord what evidence he has that my noble friend is a unilateral nuclear disarmer? I have none. Is the noble Lord aware that the Liberal policy is not for unilateral nuclear disarmament at all? It believes in retaining the effective and credible nuclear deterrent—namely, the one in the hands of the United States—so long as Soviet Russia also has one. Is this statement not evidence that our so-called nuclear deterrent is entirely dependent upon the United States, and is not an independent nuclear deterrent at all?

LORD CARRINGTON

No, that is not true. With regard to the noble Lord's first observation, I should have thought it true to say that, if this Government divested themselves on their own of their nuclear deterrent, that was unilateral nuclear disarmament.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, may I point out to the noble Lord that this Government are supposed to be a member of NATO, which consists of fifteen nations, and that most of those nations have not got any nuclear independent weapons and yet they are not unilateral disarmers?

LORD CARRINGTON

My Lords, I do not understand how you can disarm if you have not got the weapon originally.

LORD OGMORE

You can believe in it. We do not believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament and we do not regard ourselves as unilateral nuclear disarmers while the Western world has the benefit of the United States' deterrent.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that one of the most disturbing features of this matter is that this country is a member of NATO, with the United States, and there is what we have liked to believe to be a special relationship? Would the noble Lord not agree that the disturbing feature is that this news has come as an obvious shock, perhaps without any prior knowledge, to the Government, and therefore we are faced with this position which should never have occurred among allies? If there had been difficulties, we as a country should have known of those difficulties, have been aware of them and been able to adjust our policies accordingly. My own view is that the most disturbing feature of this matter is the suddenness with which the Government have been confronted with this news.

LORD CARRINGTON

I do not think so. If the noble Lord opposite reads the statement I have made he will see that we have been kept informed of these various difficulties about Skybolt.

LORD SHEPHERD

In September?

LORD CARRINGTON

It was before September. I think he realises that these are complicated weapons and some have been cancelled four times before they reach service.

LORD SHEPHERD

Yet you base your whole defence policy on this one weapon.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am obliged to the Leader of the House for suggesting that, if necessary, he will give facilities to the House for the earliest possible discussion when we know what has been occurring at the conference. We shall have to see what the dates are, and whether it is possible not to have to wait too long for this debate. In the meantime I will only pass this last comment. In regard to the way in which this has been sprung upon us, as a nation, anyway, never mind how much notice the Government think they have had of steps on the way, and the putting of our eggs in one basket in the event of a war, if this is how we are likely to be treated, it fills me with gloom.