HC Deb 13 November 1968 vol 773 cc383-9
13. Mr. Ridsdale

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he has taken to strengthen United Kingdom defences following the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia.

14. Mr. Wingfield Digby

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for reinforcing the British Fleet in the Mediterranean, in view of the considerable increase in the strength of the Russian Navy there.

31. Mr. Gordon Campbell

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the reductions in the Armed Forces proposed in the last Defence White Paper, in view of events in Eastern Europe in August.

34. Mr. Wall

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's strategic planning as a result of the Czechoslovakian crisis.

49. Mr. Cronin

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what modifications will be made in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's plans as a result of the recent invasion of Czechoslovakia.

55. Mr. Frank Allaun

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy regarding the British contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and regarding British defence forces, following recent events in Eastern Europe.

59. Dame Joan Vickers

asked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent it is planned that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation naval forces will be strengthened in the near future; and what discussions he has had with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries concerning this matter.

Mr. Healey

Following the improvements in our N.A.T.O. contributions which we announced in May and July of this year, we have been reviewing our present and planned defence resources to see whether we can further improve our contribution to the collective defence effort of N.A.T.O. as a whole. As the House knows, N.A.T.O. Foreign and Defence Ministers are meeting in Brussels tomorrow and Friday to discuss the European situation following the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

The House will not expect me to anticipate the outcome of this meeting. I will arrange to tell the House by written Answer of any increase in United Kingdom defence contribution.

Hon. Members will have noted that there are several questions about N.A.T.O. on the Order Paper for answer by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on Monday next, 18th November, and these will no doubt also provide an opportunity for the meeting to be discussed.

Mr. Ridsdale

Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he has drawn the attention of our allies to the importance of the security of the flanks of N.A.T.O.? What conversations has he had in order to secure our oil supplies so that the cost may be shared and not borne by us alone?

Mr. Healey

The hon. Member can be assured that I have drawn it to the attention of our allies. He will recall that both in the May and in the July improvements in our contributions, we paid special attention to our capability for action on the flanks, both in the commitment of 3 Division and 38 Group, as well as in improvements in the Ace Mobile Force and improvements in the Mediterranean.

Mr. Digby

Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the new circumstances, both in the Mediterranean and elsewhere, it will be necessary for all N.A.T.O. Powers to make a contribution and that we must be seen to make our contribution?

Mr. Healey

Yes. Certainly I have well in mind the encouragement which Britain's example of improvements has given to some of our allies in this respect. I hope that we shall be able to give similar encouragement tomorrow.

Mr. Campbell

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has not answered my Question, No. 31, which was not related to N.A.T.O.? As both the Prime Minister and he himself months ago stated that we were reducing our Armed Forces to an extent which was taking serious risks, should not the Government very seriously reconsider the position outside Europe?

Mr. Healey

I believe that most people on both sides of the House think that the events in Czechoslovakia confirmed the Government's wisdom in deciding to concentrate Britain's defence effort in Europe.

Mr. Wall

Is it not a fact that the events in Czechoslovakia and certain other security defects have shaken confidence in N.A.T.O.'s intelligence system? Is it not a fact that the additional contribution which the British Government are making in the Mediterranean would not affect the Czechoslovakian position? Should we not consider redeploying the armoured brigade and helicopters in Germany?

Mr. Healey

The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both points. The intelligence system of the allies worked extremely well during the whole Czechoslovakian crisis. That is agreed by all our allies. With respect, I think that the allied Governments may know more than does the hon. Member about what information in fact was circulated.

On the second question, we made it perfectly clear that the commitment of 3 Division, the Parachute Brigade and S.A.S. Regiment was for use by SACEUR wherever he decided—in the central zone just as much as on the flanks, if be should wish to operate there.

Mr. Cronin

Is there not a case for saying that the military and politicial significance of the Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia has been exaggerated? In view of the United States' coming reappraisal of its rôle in N.A.T.O. and its tendency to negotiate directly with the Soviet Government, is there not a danger that European interests in N.A.T.O. may be neglected in the future? Is it not desirable that we should establish some collective European view on what is happening in N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Healey

My hon. Friend will be aware that I am meeting some European members of N.A.T.O. tonight in Brussels to discuss certain European implications of the Czech crisis. Unfortunately the French Defence Minister is unable to be present tonight. I do not agree with my hon. Friend that the importance of the Soviet action has been exaggerated. In some respects it may have been misinterpreted by some commentators. It would be a great mistake not to take note of the fact that the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia indicates the possibility of further upheavals in Eastern Europe which might well present an even more direct threat to N.A.T.O. than did the last invasion. That is a fact which the Ministers meeting in Brussels tomorrow will have very much in mind.

Mr. Allaun

Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we had had four times our present ground forces and eight times our N.A.T.O. expenditure, we still could not have deflected the invaders of Czechoslovakia by a hair's breadth? Will he reject this panic campaign by the hawks?

Mr. Healey

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that the security which we have enjoyed in Western Europe in recent years is due to the fact that we are members of an alliance—an alliance whose leader does not reserve the right to intervene by force to maintain a political situation of which he approves, as Mr. Brezhnev indicated that it was the policy of the Soviet Government to do. I hope that my hon. Friend will draw the implications of the Czech crisis and recognise that he is indeed lucky to be a member of a country which is not liable to that type of intervention.

Sir G. Nabarro

I will buy the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) a single ticket to Moscow.

Mr. Allaun

On a point of order. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you heard the remark of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro). I was quoting what was said by a Cabinet Minister speaking at Hyde Park. I ask that the hon. Member should withdraw that remark and that the Minister should reconsider the reply which he made to me.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I did not hear the remark to which the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) referred.

Mr. Winnick

Further to that point of order. The remark which was addressed to my hon. Friend was quite clearly heard and it quite clearly was, "Go back to Moscow".

Sir G. Nabarro indicated dissent.

Mr. Winnick

Should not that remark be withdrawn?

Mr. Speaker

Order. Asperities in debate are not unknown to the House.

Dame Joan Vickers

May I ask my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied with the N.A.T.O. naval organisation? Is there any likelihood of France coming in? In view of the fact that at W.E.U. there were two observers from Norway and Denmark, is there any chance of N.A.T.O. discussions with countries outside N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Healey

On the naval contribution, the hon. Lady will be aware that we have made two improvements in our naval contribution in the Mediterranean, in the statements which I made in May and in July. She may also be aware that at this moment there are 22 British naval vessels and 46 maritime aircraft participating in a N.A.T.O. naval exercise in the Mediterranean.

Mr. Shinwell

While not necessarily decrying the need for retaining the N.A.T.O. alliance, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he recalls that in the three previous White Papers on defence he explicitly stated that there is no evidence that the Soviet Union has aggressive designs on the West? [HON. MEMBERS: "He was wrong."] In those circumstances, is there any need—unless he knows of a special reason—why we should increase our defence expenditure in N.A.T.O.?

Mr. Healey

I have always made it clear that the reason why we believe that the Russians have no aggressive intentions against the West is that the strength and solidarity of N.A.T.O. would pose such risks to the Soviet Union if it changed its intentions as would be totally unacceptable. What I believe the Czech crisis has demonstrated is that Russia's inability to disengage peacefully from her colonial position in Eastern Europe may present threats to peace in the future even more serious than that last August. In those circumstances, it makes very good sense for the N.A.T.O. countries to ensure that those deficiencies which still exist in their organisation are made good.

Mr. Maudling

Reference has been made to the oil supplies of the N.A.T.O. countries. As most of these come from the Middle East, would the Minister say how the routes over which those supplies move will be defended in the 1970s?

Mr. Healey

It has never been the Government's intention, and certainly was not the intention of the last Government, to defend the whole of the oil route around the Cape of South Africa. The fact is that access to the oil depends on a very large number of factors, many of which are far more political and economic than they are military. Hon. Members opposite should have learned some lessons from their attempt to protect our oil interests in the Middle East by force in 1956.

23. Sir T. Beamish

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the increase in Russian military strength in Europe since the occupation of Czechoslovakia; and what plans he has for increasing the British contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and to improve the plans for the re-enforcement of the British Army of the Rhine in an emergency.

Mr. Healey

There have been substantial withdrawals of Warsaw Pact ground and air forces since the ratification of the Soviet/Czechoslovak Treaty on 18th October. The situation, however, is still fluid and it will be some time before a final assessment is possible. As regards the second part of the question I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to a similar question earlier today. As regards the last part of the question I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to await the forthcoming statement on the review of the Army Reserves.

Sir T. Beamish

Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect the Home Secretary's view earlier in the year that the Cuba crisis blew up very quickly and it was possible to form a judgment, but that other crises will take longer to develop? In view of the speed and strength of the Soviet move against Czechoslovakia, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he agrees with that ridiculous assumption?

Mr. Healey

The possibility of Soviet military intervention into Czechoslovakia has been apparent to the West since February this year. The physical possibility has been apparent since July. In a situation like this, of course, when troops are actually assembled on a frontier and have a dry run for intervention, it is possible that the final decision to intervene may be taken without any notice at all, and we have always recognised that, in such circumstances, that would always be the case.

Mr. Heffer

Would my right hon. Friend not also agree that the invasion of Czechoslovakia has demonstrated very clearly that the Russians could no longer depend upon the peoples of the various countries in Eastern Europe and that this in itself creates an entirely new situation? Does this not mean that the time has come for this Government to get back to the principles laid down by Hugh Gaitskell and get cracking on a conference leading to a security pact for Europe?

Mr. Healey

My hon. Friend must recognise the fact that the Soviet leaders have asserted on two occasions recently—Mr. Brezhnev did it in Warsaw yesterday, I think—that the Soviet Government reserve the right to intervene with military force to prevent a change in what they call "the Socialist system" in a country which they call "already Socialist." I think that my hon. Friend will agree that in the case of Czechoslovakia the intervention was against the wishes of the Czechoslovak Communist Party, and I am afraid that one of the lessons of the Czech invasion which one must accept is the fact that the presence of Soviet forces in Europe is directed as much to the maintenance of Soviet colonial control over those countries as to posing a threat to the West. That being the case, the chance of the Russians being prepared at this moment to negotiate reciprocal reductions by agreement with the West is very much less than we would all hope.