HC Deb 12 June 1968 vol 766 cc214-7
12. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the reason for the revised North Atlantic Treaty Organisation strategy requiring 20,000 additional British troops and the amphibious force; what is the extra cost; and why this step has been taken in view of Her Majesty's Government's policy of securing the mutual reduction of forces in Europe.

Mr. Reynolds

The purpose of our additional contribution is to fill gaps which have existed for some time in N.A.T.O. force plans. In so doing we help to ensure that, if the process of mutual force reductions should commence, N.A.T.O. will start from a position more stably balanced than existed before. As the additional United Kingdom Forces now formally committeed already exist, the extra cost is very little indeed.

Mr. Allaun

If the Minister genuinely wants mutual reduction of forces, is it not an odd way of going about it to move in the opposite direction? If, as the Government have several times stated, Russia offers no threat in present circumstances, what on earth is the purpose of augmenting B.A.O.R. and N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Reynolds

The fact that the threat in Central Europe and in Europe as a whole has declined over the years is largely due to the effectiveness of N.A.T.O. troops in that area. As to mutual reductions, we brought home a brigade from Germany in the last few months.

18. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation he had with the other six members of the Western European Union before deciding on the increased British contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Reynolds

None, Sir.

Mr. Allaun

Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members are deeply disturbed by the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence in Brussels on 10th May that this new contribution would help our entering the Common market? Is this trying to buy our way in by soldiers, sailors and armaments?

Mr. Reynolds

I am not responsible for the Common Market. I can only say that the statement my right hon. Friend made in Brussels and which I made in answer to a Question in the House on 10th May flows logically from the White Paper earlier this year, which announced that we should be concentrating our facilities and forces in Europe.

Sir C. Osborne

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the N.A.T.O. policy will go on for ever? What conditions must obtain in Europe before that policy can be changed?

Mr. Reynolds

The policy changes in response to circumstances all the time. It is to a large extent because of changes over the past year or two that the need has arisen for the additional forces which we have now assigned, but they remain stationed in this country.

Mr. Luard

Is it not a fact that any increase in the commitment of conventional forces to N.A.T.O. is likely to contribute to a reduction in the dependence of N.A.T.O. on nuclear forces? Should not this be welcome to every hon. Member, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)?

Mr. Reynolds

That is exactly the change of concept of two or three years ago that I was thinking of when I made my answer to a supplementary question asked by an hon. Member opposite a few moments ago. N.A.T.O. is trying wherever possible to give a longer period of grace before having to resort to nuclear weapons. Often this means an emphasis in some parts of the N.A.T.O. area on increased conventional forces.

25. Mr. John Fraser

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the commitment of additional United Kingdom forces to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the defence of Greece.

Mr. Reynolds

Our commitment is to the integrated military organisation of the Alliance and not specifically for the defence of a particular member nation.

Mr. Fraser

Is my right hon. Friend aware that a great welcome has been given by the Greek Foreign Minister to this, which he interprets as a N.A.T.O. commitment to the defence of Greece? Will my right hon. Friend recognise that Greece's membership of N.A.T.O. is totally alien to the concept of freedom contained in the Treaty and confirm that not one penny or drachma will be spent on the defence of the Greek military dictatorship?

Mr. Reynolds

Our obligations to Greece have not changed recently. They remain exactly the same as the obligations which we expect other members of the organisation to accept towards us.