North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

HC Deb 13 January 1976 vol 903 cc179-82

1. Mr. Marten

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to attend a NATO meeting.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Roy Mason)

I expect to attend the meeting of NATO's Nuclear Planning Group to be held in Hamburg on 21st and 22nd January.

Mr. Marten

On the assumption that Iceland's threat about NATO will be discussed at that meeting, will the Minister explain what would be the effect if Iceland withdrew from NATO? May we assume that our policy in the cod war has the full support of our partners in the Common Market, particularly as Mr. Tindemans is advocating that we should have a common foreign policy and all speak with one voice?

Mr. Mason

On Mr. Tindemans report, and especially his idea of a European defence community, my advice to the House would be to counsel caution, especially as some of our NATO allies are not members of the Community. That sort of idea may be very difficult to get off the ground. I am sorry that the hon. Member raised the question of Iceland as part of his supplementary question, because there is a specific Question on this matter later on the Order Paper.

Mr. Blaker

In view of the fact that the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Admiral Sir Peter Hill-Norton, has criticised the fact that NATO's line of responsibility ends at the Tropic of Cancer, will the Secretary of State, when he next meets his NATO colleagues, propose that a study should be commissioned into NATO's response south of that line and in the Indian Ocean, bearing in mind the increased Soviet naval activity in those areas?

Mr. Mason

I shall not propose that. If the hon. Member had examined these matters more closely he would know from past replies to that sort of question that the NATO military authorities, as distinct from individual nations, have commissioned a study of naval operations south of South Africa.

5. Mr. David Steel

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what was the level of expenditure by the Ministry of Defence in the last financial year on NATO defence obligations; and what proportion of this was spent on naval commitments to NATO.

Mr. Mason

Defence estimates for 1975–76 amounted to £4,548 million, of which about 5 per cent, is devoted to Service pensions and less than 5 per cent, to residual non-NATO tasks. The Royal Navy accounts for some 25 per cent, of the defence budget.

Mr. Steel

Is the Secretary of State able to confirm that in recent years there has been a considerable build-up of Soviet naval power in the Arctic Ocean, based on Murmansk and the Baltic Sea? Will he give an assurance that we shall continue to make an adequate contribution to the NATO defence on the Northern flank?

Mr. Mason

As to the naval contribution to the NATO Alliance, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that 75 per cent, of the naval activity in the Eastern Atlantic is provided by the Royal Navy. He will have noticed in recent times the maintenance of the through-deck cruiser programme. We have been able to get the Maritime Harrier programme. We have, therefore, maintained the quality of the Royal Navy. That should give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.

7. Mr. Blaker

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his latest meeting with the other Defence Ministers of NATO.

Mr. Mason

I refer the hon. Member to the communiques issued after the Eurogroup meeting on 8th December and the Defence Planning Committee meeting on 9th and 10th December, which were both held in Brussels. Copies have been placed in the Library.

Mr. Blaker

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in the second of those communiques the Ministers reaffirmed the importance that they attached to the principle that NATO forces should not be reduced except in the context of a mutual and balanced force reduction agreement with the East? Will he confirm that nothing was said in that communique about a distinction between teeth and tail, and that those words commit not only himself but the whole Government?

Mr. Mason

Yes, that I accept, but it is possible to pare defence expenditure still more without affecting our NATO commitment and without cutting back on the combat capability of any of our three Services.

Mr. Amery

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree—this is a major point that has arisen in two or three Questions this afternoon—that just as the reductions the Government have proposed will take effect over a certain number of years, so any proposals they make for rearmament and the strengthening of our defences will involve no immediate increase in public expenditure but will take effect and bring in a bill only in two or three years' time? Does not the situation that confronts us in the North, in the Mediterranean—in the Lebanon—in Angola and on the central front suggest that we should be increasing our expenditure rather than reducing it?

Mr. Mason

I hope the right hon. Gentleman recognises that we are now a middle-ranking Western European Power and not the imperialist nation that he dreams of. We cannot fight the wars of the world, nor can we go into major conflict on our own. What he has in mind is a dream world.