§ 2.35 p.m.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why, despite fundamental changes and developments both national and international during the past year in the field of defence, they now find it unnecessary to continue the practice followed by successive Governments since 1947 of publishing a general statement setting out their defence policy.]
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)My Lords, the defence policy of Her Majesty's Government remains broadly as set out in the Statement on Defence 1962—namely, the maintenance of a proper balance between the strategic nuclear deterrent and well-equipped, mobile, flexible conventional forces. The Statement on Defence 1963 gives a very 2 full and clear picture of the way in which this policy is being carried out.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, I am much obliged to the First Lord of the Admiralty for such an amazing reply, for any one of the Members of your Lordships' House who have kept in touch with the defence situation over the last twelve months must be aware of the enormous changes which have taken place and the number of matters upon which the Government have been defeated in their purposes, and we have had no clear statement yet of what the policy is going to be as a consequence. Surely this House and the other House ought to have a White Paper to be able to study the question.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I do not think that I could agree with the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition that fundamental changes have taken place. I take it that he is referring to the Nassau Agreement. Well, there was a White Paper published on the Nassau Agreement, so everything is known about that, and, in any event, all the Nassau Agreement did was to substitute one means of delivering the strategic deterrent for another.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, all I have to say about that is that you were banking on Skybolt, in spite of all the warnings that were made, and you did not get it. You have had to have a new policy since, but what it is nobody really knows. That is not the only incident 3 during the last twelve months in a good many of these matters affecting the policy for 1962–63. We ought, without question—otherwise you are treating Parliament with contempt—to have the White Paper that we require.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I really do think that the noble Earl is wrong about this. I do not see why he should expect the Government to write a strategic essay every year, because it happens to be February. There has been no fundamental change in the Government's policy since 1962, when it was very clearly set out for the next five years.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHThen I suppose we must feel that the Evening Standard was probably right when it suggested that £9 million per word of 205 words in the opening statement by the Ministry of Defence is reckoned by the Government to be sufficient.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, does the First Lord really think it unreasonable to ask the Government to issue a statement every year, when he says there is no fundamental change? Why have they done so for so many years in the past? There have occasionally been years during the period of the Conservative Government when there have been no major changes. Why this sudden decision this year? And would the noble Lord not agree that a decision that the principal responsibility for the strategic deterrent should be carried by the Navy is a major change in defence policy?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, of course that was very clearly set out in the White Paper which was published after the Nassau Agreement. I do not think the noble Lord can have any complaint about that. But I should have thought that what was important was that, if there is a fundamental change in the defence policy, the Government should state what it is and state it clearly in a White Paper. This year there is not and we have not stated it.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, could the noble Lord help us? He has a Motion down on the Order Paper which will seek the approval of this House to 4 the Statement on Defence. What are we being asked to approve? Is it the few sentences at the beginning of that document, or would it be all the matters that are arising within the Services?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, the House is going to be asked to approve the continuing defence policy of the Government and the way it is being carried out.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHI can only hope you will not have as many failures as you have had in the last twelve months.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, there are two points that I am not quite clear about, and perhaps the noble Lord will clarify them, as they are not clarified in the Defence White Paper. The first point is this. Are we still in agreement that we should have a multilateral force in NATO so far as the deterrents are concerned? The other point is as regards the assignment of our NATO bomber force. What exactly does "assignment" mean? Are we going to relinquish all control? That again is a matter which should be clarified.
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, that seems to be an admirable matter to discuss in the Defence debate a fortnight from now.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHWhere is the text for it?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, could I ask the noble Lord whether we may expect a Defence White Paper next year?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, I think if there is a fundamental change in defence policy the noble Lord will get one.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHHear, hear! We have already had a fundamental change.