HC Deb 16 May 1962 vol 659 cc1303-12
1. Mr. Driberg

asked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the recent conference of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Ministers at Athens; and if, in view of official statements issued in connection with this conference, he will reaffirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, agreed with the United States Government, that no United States aircraft based in Great Britain can be used without the joint decision of the two Governments.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson)

As to the first part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) and to the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) on Wednesday, 9th May.

Nothing that took place at the Athens meeting alters the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government that the use in an emergency of bases in this country by United States aircraft is a matter for joint decision by the two Governments.

Mr. Driberg

I welcome that reassurance, or restatement of an assurance given by the Prime Minister and other Ministers, but is there not some inconsistency between it and the recent statement that the President of the United States of America has the exclusive ultimate discretion on the use of any nuclear weapons anywhere?

Mr. Watkinson

To be honest, I am not quite sure to what statement of the President the hon. Gentleman is referring. I can only stand on the known facts which I have set out in my Answer. As to the broader issue, of course, the President of the United States has the ultimate decision over all American nuclear weapons, but I think that he is also pledged to consultation as far as it is possible in the time available.

Mr. Driberg

But is this "consultation as far as it is possible" the same thing as a joint decision by the two Governments?

Mr. Watkinson

I thought that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the broad issue of nuclear weapons as a whole. If he is referring to the special question of the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government, certainly this is a matter for joint decision.

3. Mr. Wigg

asked the Minister of Defence if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of the proposals tabled by the United States Government at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation meeting in Athens, together with the text of the final communiqué issued by the conference.

Mr. Watkinson

I will arrange for the text of the communiqué to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In so far as proposals made by other N.A.T.O. countries are concerned, it would not be proper for me to go beyond the terms of the communiqué.

Mr. Wigg

Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to make available in some form to Members of Parliament and the public generally the admirable statement issued from the White House on 30th April, on the eve of the Athens conference, which set out in detail the policy of the American Government which was pursued at the conference and was quite clearly the view accepted by the Athens conference?

Mr. Watkinson

I will consider that and, if it is proper, perhaps I can put it in the Library. May I say further—on this, I think, I am entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, although I had not quite realised it last week—that we were all, I think, in great difficulty because I had not realised what a poor coverage had been given to the communiqué in the British Press. I imagine that most Members of the House had not the communiqué before them at Question Time last Wednesday.

Mr. Wigg

I understand the practical difficulties of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but does it not look as though his public relations people work at full speed on some occasions and they go into low gear on others, and that this difference between high and low gear rather depends on the political convenience of the Government rather than on considerations of defence?

Mr. Watkinson

The simple answer is that it is not the duty of my Department to put out N.A.T.O. communiqués.

Following is the information:

TEXT OF N.A.T.O. COMMUNIQUÉ ISSUED 6TH MAY, 1962

Following is the text of the final communiqué issued on 6th May, 1962, on the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Meeting:— The regular Spring Ministerial Session of the N.A.T.O. Council was held in Athens from 4th-6th May, 1962. The meeting was attended by the Foreign Ministers of member countries as well as by the Defence Ministers, who had met separately on 3rd May. In their review of the international situation, Ministers discussed disarmament, and the problem of Germany and Berlin. In addition, various statements were made by Ministers on matters of particular concern to their countries. In reviewing developments at the Geneva Conference, the Council reaffirmed that general and complete disarmament under effective international control is the best means of ensuring lasting peace and security throughout the world. They noted with satisfaction the position taken by the Western Powers in Geneva in order to achieve this goal, and emphasised the importance and urgency of reaching agreement. The Council examined the Berlin question in the light of the basic commitments of N.A.T.O. in this regard. They took note of the most recent developments in the situation, including the fact that exploratory talks were taking place with the Soviet Union. They took the opportunity to reaffirm their attachment to the principles set forth in their Declaration of 16th December, 1958, on Berlin. The Council noted the progress which has been made in the direction of closer co-operation between member countries in the development of the Alliance's defence policy. In this respect Ministers welcomed the confirmation by the United States that it will continue to make available for the Alliance the nuclear weapons necessary for N.A.T.O. defence, concerting with its allies on basic plans and arrangements in regard to these weapons. In addition, both the United Kingdom and the United States Governments have given firm assurances that their strategic forces will continue to provide defence against threats to the Alliance beyond the capability of N.A.T.O.-committed forces to deal with. So that all member states may play their full part in consultation on nuclear defence policy, it has been decided to set up special procedures which will enable all members of the Alliance to exchange information concerning the rôle of nuclear weapons in N.A.T.O. defence. The purpose of N.A.T.O. is defence, and it must be clear that in case of attack it will defend its members by all necessary means. The Council has reviewed the action that would be necessary on the part of member countries, collectively and individually, in the various circumstances in which the Alliance might be compelled to have recourse to its nuclear defences. The Council noted the progress made during the last twelve months in the defence effort of the Alliance and, in particular, the quantitative and qualitative improvements brought about in the N.A.T.O. assigned or earmarked forces of member countries. Ministers noted with satisfaction the United States commitment of Polaris submarines to N.A.T.O. The Council is convinced that, if the Alliance is to meet the full range of threats to its security, the balance between the conventional and nuclear forces must be the subject of continuous examination. The contribution of member countries towards balanced forces for N.A.T.O. defence during the coming years is to be examined within the framework of the Triennial Review procedure which is already under way. The Council expects to consider a report on this question at its next meeting in December. At their separate meeting on 3rd May, the Defence Ministers discussed and approved a report from the Armaments Committee which reviewed progress made since their meeting in April, 1960 in sharing the burden of research, development and production of military equipment, and made a number of recommendations for improving this co-operation. While there had been certain initial difficulties, Ministers agreed that the programme of co-operative projects launched at that time had made a successful start. Further efforts should now be made to build on this foundation. To obtain speedier results from this co-operation Ministers decided to set up a high-level group to examine the existing machinery, and to make recommendations to the Ministerial Meeting in December, 1962 for any improvements necessary to achieve agreement on future military requirements and a better co-ordination of the resources of the Alliance. Meanwhile, special efforts would be made to take final decisions on projects ripe for joint development. The Council reviewed the development of political consultation within the Alliance. It noted the steady and encouraging progress made over the past twelve months in deepening and extending the process of consultation. The Council had before it a detailed analysis of the work of the Alliance in scientific and technical co-operation. They discussed the proposals for fostering international scientific co-operation put forward by a group of eminent scientists appointed by the Secretary General. Ministers requested the Council in Permanent Session to consider these proposals further with a view to making recommendations to member governments. Ministers noted that the Council in Permanent Session had discussed a report by the International Staff on Communist bloc activities in the economic field in less developed countries. It was clear from this report that by far the largest proportion of the aid received by these countries continued to be that contributed by the economically most advanced countries of the Free World, and that the aid extended by the Communist bloc was not only substantially smaller than the assistance contributed by the Free World, but was also closely tied to political purposes. Ministers noted with satisfaction the efforts the Free World is making to help developing countries to raise their standards of living while fully respecting their national independence and freedom, and emphasised the importance of continuing and intensifying these efforts. Ministers gave special attention to the economic development requirements of Greece and Turkey. Bearing in mind the contribution of Greece and Turkey to the defence of the Alliance and their continuing efforts to accelerate their economic development in order to improve the living conditions for their peoples, Ministers recognised the need for external assistance to these two countries. With a view to achieving the common objectives in this matter, they agreed that member Governments in a position to assist Greece and Turkey should examine urgently the manner of establishing, in an appropriate forum, possibly with other countries and appropriate international organisations, consortia to co-ordinate the mobilisation of resources needed to ensure the economic development of Greece and Turkey at a satisfactory rate. The Ministers also agreed to establish a Study Group to consider further the special defence problems of Greece. The next Ministerial Meeting of the North Atlantic Council is scheduled to be held in Paris in December, 1962.
4. Mr. Wigg

asked the Minister of Defence if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the information which he gave to the special conference of defence correspondents, which he called so that he could outline the military aspects of the Athens North Atlantic Treaty Organisation conference, which met at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, 9th May, 1962, in Conference Room E, Second Floor, at the Ministry of Defence, and which was convened under the authority of Ministry of Defence letter, PRO/L(62)202, dated 8th May, 1962.

Mr. Watkinson

I am glad to arrange for a summary of the main points of my statement to the Press of 9th May to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I also propose to circulate the letter referred to in the hon. Gentleman's Question which makes it quite plain that any briefing of the Press was postponed until after I had answered Questions in the House of Commons last Wednesday. I think that when hon. Members have had time to study the summary, they will find that I said nothing that has not already been made available to the House.

Mr. Wigg

Will the Minister give an account Ito the House of how it comes about that on the day before Questions are answered in the House his Department circulates to the Press a statement that he proposes, after his answers to Questions, to hold a Press conference to discuss the military aspects and then, when he comes to the House, he does not himself discuss the military aspects at all but gives, as it was, just a collection of words which mean little or nothing? How does it come about that in his Press conference at five o'clock he tells the Press that B.A.O.R. is to increase its strength to 55,000 in the short run and is to go up to 64,000 later, and that the figure of 75,000 is mentioned? Why does not the Minister tell the House when this proposal is to be carried out, how much it will cost and how the Government propose to get over the exchange difficulties which they have been making an awful lot of during the past few months?

Mr. Watkinson

The hon. Gentleman is making quite unjustified allegations about what happened at a Press conference at which he was not present. I am issuing a very full summary of what I said. I do not depart from what I said in my original Answer. If the hon. Gentleman has the courtesy to study it and to study what I said both last Wednesday and in recent defence debates and what I have said in recent answers to Questions, he will find that I did not go beyond that in any way.

Mr. G. Brown

Will the Minister confirm that he did at the Press conference indicate to the Press that the strength of B.A.O.R. was to be raised from 51,000 to 55,000? Will he confirm that he did not say that in the House? Further, will he confirm that that very issue was a central argument between us in the last defence debate? If he confirms those three facts, does he not think that he treated the House badly that day by not telling it what he proposed to go and tell the Press at five o'clock?

Mr. Watkinson

The first answer to the right hon. Gentleman will be given if I read a short piece of the summary. I shall not trouble the House with the whole of it. The purpose of the conference was not to provide any new information but to try to deal with widespread misunderstandings in the Press that the N.A.T.O. conference was divided, that there had been divisions of view and that it was an unsuccessful conference. It is definitely my duty to try to put matters right if I think that there is a misconception. That, and nothing else, was the purpose of holding the conference.

As to B.A.O.R., I stated what our treaty obligation was—which is well known to the House—and, when I was asked a question about when B.A.O.R. might be expected to reach its treaty figure, I said that I was not ready to give any target date at this stage.

Mr. Wigg

Surely, the right hon. Gentleman realises that anyone who has studied the papers appreciates that the Athens conference was a successful conference and that the American view which was set out on 30th April prevailed. But is it not a fact that Her Majesty's Government have now brought themselves into line with American policy, but they have not told the House and the country how they will do it?

Mr. Watkinson

No, that is quite wrong. If the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to read what I said in the debate on the Queen's Speech on 1st November last year, he will see that I then said quite plainly that we supported General Norstad's new defence plan for the central front of Europe. It was as long ago as that that I made perfectly plain that we were in line with the Alliance on this particular matter.

Following is the information:

SUMMARY OF THE MAIN POINTS MADE AT A PRESS CONFERENCE HELD BY THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE ON 9TH MAY, 1962

1. The Minister of Defence opened by saying that before the N.A.T.O. meeting in Athens, he had discussed N.A.T.O. defence policy and strategy over a long period with General Norstad and recently with the U.S. Secretary of Defense. He had found that there was a substantial measure of agreement between them including the role of conventional forces.

2. The Minister drew attention to his speech on the Address on 1st November last, in which he had supported General Norstad's new Emergency Defence Plan, which was now being examined in N.A.T.O. The new strategy would take a considerable time to implement. He had no reason to believe that at this stage it called for a greater British force contribution to N.A.T.O. than was already required under the Brussels Treaty. Our obligation under this Treaty was to provide 55,000 men in B.A.O.R. which would mean an increase over present strength of about 4,000 men. At this figure, the 7 brigade groups would be reasonably up to strength and, in addition, adequate reserves were being built up in the United Kingdom.

3. On the communiqué issued after the Athens meeting, the Minister drew particular attention to the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Committee, which he hoped would prove useful in bringing the non-nuclear members of N.A.T.O. more closely into the formulation of N.A.T.O. defence policy. He also referred to the Triennial Review which would enable N.A.T.O. to review the contributions of member countries with the aim of achieving the right balance between conventional and nuclear forces. He welcomed the American offer to commit Polaris submarines to N.A.T.O.

4. In reply to questions:

  1. (a) on the cost of the implementation of any new N.A.T.O. strategy, the Minister made it plain that this was a very long-term operation and no early results could be expected. He refused to answer questions on the additional cost of the new strategy but said that if the Defence Budget continue to absorb about 7 per cent. of the G.N.P., this should provide something like £100 million extra a year for general defence spending.
  2. (b) on when B.A.O.R. might be expected to reach its Treaty figure of 55,000, the Minister said he was not ready to give any target date at this stage.
  3. (c) on a new N.A.T.O. M.R.B.M. force, the Minister said that Britain put the maintenance of the strategic deterrent and the re-equipment of conventional and nuclear 1311 forces before this project. The Minister also mentioned the importance of joint development and production of armaments for N.A.T.O.

From: COLONEL L. G. LOHAN, M.B.E., T.D., DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC RELATIONS

Ministry of Defence,

Storey's Gate,

S.W.1.

PRO/L(62)202

8th May, 1962.

On the 4th May I sent you and your Editor a short Press release about Mr. Watkinson's return from Athens where he had been attending the N.A.T.O. Ministerial Council Meeting. I said he would arrive at 5 p.m. on Sunday, 6th May; but, as so often happens, at the last moment the arrival of his aircraft was put forward one hour. Although I asked P.A. to put this on the tapes, I know a number of Defence Correspondents were not informed and arrived too late to see the Minister.

The Minister has a Parliamentary Question to answer about the Ministerial Council meeting tomorrow, Wednesday, and this restricts any briefing I might be able to give; however, the Minister has agreed to hold a Press conference at 5 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon, 9th May, in Conference Room 'E', Second Floor, at the Ministry of Defence. He will then outline the military aspects of the Council meeting and answer questions about them.

I apologise for the inconvenience you may have been caused last Sunday and hope the arrangements we have made will make up for it. I look forward to seeing you and, since the conference is fairly late, I shall be glad to make telephones available if you want to file in a hurry.

16. Mr. Mason

asked the Minister of Defence what steps were taken by Her Majesty's Government to bring about closer co-operation between North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member countries referred to in paragraph 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council communiqué published in Athens on 6th May, 1962.

17. Mr. Paget

asked the Minister of Defence what will be the effect upon existing arrangements for deployment, custody and potential use of nuclear weapons within Supreme Headquarters, Allied Powers in Europe, of the measures relating to nuclear policy and nuclear weapons referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council communiqué published in Athens on 6th May, 1962.

Mr. Watkinson

As I said in the House last week, Ministers agreed at Athens to establish forthwith a special Committee, comprising all members of the Alliance, for the exchange of informa- tion about the nuclear defences of N.A.T.O. This was largely the result of a British initiative which, I hope, will led to a better understanding in N.A.T.O. of the problems of nuclear defence. I have no reason to believe that the setting up of this Committee or the assurances given by the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government will lead to any immediate changes in the deployment, custody or plans for the use of nuclear weapons in S.H.A.P.E.

Mr. Mason

Could the right hon. Gentleman then explain briefly and clearly what is the escalator of weapons usage of the conventional and nuclear weapons at present adopted by N.A.T.O.? Secondly, in view of the fact that there are three independent nuclear Powers and that the rest of them are clamouring to obtain possession of nuclear weapons, how long does he think that this position can obtain?

Mr. Watkinson

I am not going to disclose to the House the rules under which the Alliance will decide on the use of either nuclear or conventional weapons. Such a statement would certainly not be conducive to maintaining the strength of the deterrent.

Mr. Mulley

I think everyone will agree that the Minister would be grossly wrong to disclose such rules, but can he at least assure the House that such rules exist?

Mr. Watkinson

It is to look at all these rules and procedures that the Nuclear Committee has been set up.