§ 85. Mr. Critchleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose the Government have tabled plans for the extension of the multilateral force to weapons such as the TSR 2, the TFX and the Pershing missile, before it has agreed in principle that the multilateral force itself should be constituted.
§ Mr. ThorneycroftOur ideas for the mixed-manned, joint ownership, and multilateral control of land-based nuclear weapon systems have been put forward for consideration in parallel with the American proposal for a sea-borne force. When we agreed to enter into discussion of the American proposal we did so on the understanding that it would be examined in all its aspects and possible variations. Among the many questions which must be answered are whether an M.L.F. is necessary and, if so, what form it should take. Our initiative is intended as a constructive contribution to the discussions and to help in finding the right answers to those and other questions. We have suggested that the Paris Working Group should consider the adoption by an M.L.F. of the weapon systems to which my hon. Friend refers, which exist or are planned, and which meet a military requirement. This has obvious manpower and financial advantages which the280W countries in the Paris Working Group will no doubt want to take into account before making up their minds on an M.L.F. By advancing their own ideas for consideration Her Majesty's Government are in no way committed to joining an M.L.F. in whatever form it might be established.