§ Q2. Mr. Watkinsonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his meeting in Brussels on 30th May with NATO Heads of Government.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle) on 10th June.
§ Mr. WatkinsonWas there any discussion at that meeting about mutual and balanced force reductions'? Does he agree that both East and West would be best served by cutting the enormous burden of defence expenditure? Will he say whether there has been a new initiative by the United States to cut the number of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe? In the light of progress at the Geneva security conference, does not this augur well for further talks on MBFR?
§ The Prime MinisterThe question of nuclear weapons is a matter for bilateral discussions, at SALT and elsewhere, between the Soviet Union and the United States. With regard to MBFR, I observed at that conference, as did others, that although considerable progress has been made in recent weeks in preparation for the CSCE and other matters causing anxiety, we were not satisfied with progress on MBFR. There have been improvements, and we are closer together—I put the matter no higher than that, because there is no final agreement—in the balance of CSCE in relation to voluntary notification of troop movements as a confidence-building measure. We at NATO all felt that there had been no corresponding progress on MBFR, which is highly desirable if we are to reduce tension and anxiety.
§ Mr. Michael McNair-WilsonWill the Prime Minister say what discussions took place about the Eurogroup and, in particular, about providing it with a secretariat? Is it his view that the European nations within NATO should now play a more concerted and positive role than hitherto?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. There was some discussion of this. We received a report from the meeting of the Defence 1666 Ministers which took place the previous week. All of us who are concerned still feel that the creation of the Eurogroup by my right hon. Friend the chancellor of the Exchequer some years ago was extremely valuable. That group provides additional guidance and inspiration to the work of NATO. All of us felt on this occasion that it was important not only to pursue the vigilance of the defence alliance and to make it more realistic, and if possible less costly, but also that it should be—as it has become in recent years, under successive United Kingdom Governments—an instrument much more for détente that it was in its first 20 years of existence.