§ THE EARL OF SANDWICHMy 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 whether they will make a statement of policy on the United States' proposal for the creation within NATO of a mixed force of surface ships carrying Polaris missiles.]
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have 715 given a general welcome to the concept of a mixed-manned force. We have entered into no commitment to participate in it, although we are naturally in close touch with discussions on the subject.
§ THE EARL OF SANDWICHMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend for an assurance that the Nassau Agreement will be unaffected by any decision to give effect to the United States proposals; that is to say, that Britain will retain the independent nuclear deterrent of eight Polaris submarines and will contribute additionally to the multilateral force if in the end we have to contribute to it at all.
§ LORD CARRINGTONYes, my Lords, I can give that assurance. Any multilateral mixed-manned force would be in addition to our own deterrent.
§ VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEINMy Lords, may I ask the First Lord some questions on this matter? Does he not understand that the whole question of multilateral mixed-manned forces is utter and complete poppycock? I should like to ask some further questions. I spent ten years in the Western Defence Organisation; indeed, I began it in the days of Western Union. In those days our object was so to organise ourselves that we could fight effectively if attacked. Does the First Lord understand this? How can a ship fight effectively if a third of the crew is Portuguese, a third Belgian, and a third Danish? The thing just is not "on". You might as well man a ship with a party of politicians. We have three Parties in this House. In fact, we have four Parties, one Communist—he can be the comrade captain. The thing simply is not "on". I read in the newspapers—
§ VISCOUNT MONTGOMERY OF ALAMEINIf I may ask another question, I read in the paper that an Admiral is coming over from the United States to discuss this question. Will the First Lord inform the Admiral that the whole thing is first-class military nonsense?
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, with regard to my noble and gallant friend's second question, it has been decided at the request of the United 716 States that Admiral Ricketts, accompanied by a small naval team, will come over here next week, on June 4, to discuss the military aspects of this question. Of course, these talks in no way commit us to this project. With regard to the first supplementary of my noble and gallant friend, I should have thought that those were just the sort of things which would be discussed at these meetings, and I must confess that I should be very hard put to it to decide which I would rather do, serve in a multilateral mixed-manned ship, or on a ship manned by Members of your Lordships' House!
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, would it not be wise at once for the Government to decide at any rate one thing, that there is no real purpose in having merchant ships manned for missiles? It is an exceedingly dangerous thing to rely upon in any way. Would the First Lord not perhaps give us his own naval view as to what would happen with regard to a mixed-manning of actual nuclear submarines?
§ LORD CARRINGTONThe Royal Navy has been having conversations in Washington with the United States Navy on the project, and these talks which are going to take place next week are a continuation. I think it would be very much better not to say anything till we have finished these talks.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHIt will not be very long, I expect, before the Leader of the House will be agreeing to a day for a debate on Defence. I think that on this particular matter the Admiralty ought to be ready with the exact answers.
§ LORD AIREDALEMy Lords, if the gallant Admiral is arriving on June 4, will he be given an opportunity to visit the battlefield of Waterloo?