HC Deb 16 May 1962 vol 659 cc1313-6
5. Mr. Shinwell

asked the Minister of Defence what pledge he has given to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding the level of United Kingdom conventional forces for Germany.

14. Mr. Cronin

asked the Minister of Defence what changes he intends to make in the British Army of the Rhine as a result of decisions reached by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation meeting in Athens recently.

Mr. Watkinson

Britain's present commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is to maintain seven brigade groups in B.A.O.R. I have no plans for changes in these force levels at present.

Mr. Shinwell

Are we to understand that that is a definite declaration on the part of Her Majesty's Government that we are not going to increase our conventional forces in Germany, and, if statements are made in the United States or elsewhere to a contrary effect, will they be denied by the Minister?

Mr. Watkinson

I should be glad to put this as clearly as I can to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, our commitment to N.A.T.O. is seven brigade groups. That is spelt out by Western European Union in our treaty obligation as 55,000 men, as I am sure he knows. What I have said today is that that is our treaty commitment and our commitment to N.A.T.O. I wish—I have said this time and again in the House—to fulfil that commitment as soon as we reasonably can. Beyond that, I am not prepared to go.

Mr. Cronin

Will the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House that in weapons and training much greater emphasis will be placed upon conventional weapons in B.A.O.R.?

Mr. Watkinson

I agree with this, too. I think that B.A.O.R. and, if I may say this without appearing to criticise the Alliance, all the regular forces in N.A.T.O., badly need re-equipment with better conventional armaments. This is one of the reasons why we put forward our proposal for much more rapid progress in the N.A.T.O. armaments committee.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

While entirely agreeing with these commitments, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether it will be possible for any of the battalions in these seven brigade groups to be used as part of the strategic reserve?

Mr. Watkinson

There is, of course, a general waiver in the W.E.U. Treaty—which, again, I mentioned in my speech in the defence debate—which allows us to take troops away from the N.A.T.O. area if we are facing a severe crisis elsewhere. In fact, we took some aircraft away from Germany at the time of the Kuwait crisis, although we took no ground forces. That has always been a clearly understood part of our treaty obligation and, therefore, the answer to my hon. Friend's Question is: yes, we really can do this if we are in great difficulties elsewhere.

Mr. Paget

Is not our treaty obligation under the Brussels Treaty to provide four divisions or brigades, or 80,000 men? Does not the figure of 55,000 arise from an acceptance by our N.A.T.O. partners of what was, in effect, a fait accompli which they really had no option but to accept? Are we now to understand that the figure is going to breach at least that minimum—that is, from 51,000 up to 55,000—and if that be so, where is the right hon. Gentleman finding the troops?

Mr. Watkinson

I thought that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was talking about 75,000. Perhaps I should explain what I have explained many times before; the original commitment to W.E.U. was, I think, 75,000 men; that is, four divisions or 75,000 men. There is a second waiver to the Treaty in addition to the one I mentioned in my previous reply. This says that if a country asks for a reduction in its Treaty commitment, and SACEUR agrees that this is something which he can tolerate and agree to, then SACEUR goes to W.E.U. and says "I agree to this." It was on that basis that we brought down our forces from four divisions, or 75,000 men, to three divisions, or 55,000 men. That was done perfectly correctly and honourably and implies no breach of the Treaty.

Sir J. Maitland

Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he has not entered into any commitments which will in any way reduce our effectiveness in the area of Aden and Singapore, where we hold a very important position?

Mr. Watkinson

I have not entered into any commitment at all. The commitment which rests on us is the treaty obligation we have under the W.E.U. Treaty. I have entered into no other commitments and have no intention of doing so.

Mr. Shinwell

On his return from Athens did not the right hon. Gentleman make a statement, which has been publicised, to the effect that before we increase our conventional forces in Germany he will expect some of the other allied countries to increase their forces? Suppose they increase their forces, are we going to enter into a further commitment with conventional forces?

Mr. Watkinson

I am glad to answer that, too. I do not think I gave an answer in the terms used by the right hon. Gentleman. I said—and these are the facts—that the contribution to the build-up in forces, particularly on the N.A.T.O. central front, rests very heavily, for example, on the Germans, who have a commitment for twelve divisions to defend their own country. I hope that they will soon reach that figure, but that implies no extra commitment by Britain.