HC Deb 26 April 1977 vol 930 cc1014-8
11. Mr. Michael Marshall

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet other NATO Defence Ministers.

12. Mr. Banks

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to have a meeting with NATO Defence Ministers.

17. Mr. Blaker

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet the NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. Mulley

I plan to attend the spring ministerial meetings in Brussels next month. The Euro group will meet on 16th May and the Defence Planning Commit tee on 17th and 18th May.

Mr. Marshall

What does the Secretary of State propose to do at those meetings to remove the feeling of total uncertainty in the minds of our partners, when one year's White Paper talks about irreducible minima for defence commitment's and we have changes every year? What will he do to reassure our NATO partners?

Mr. Mulley

The exaggerated feeling of uncertainty and lack of confidence is confined almost exclusively to the Opposition Benches. I do not find it in talks with my ministerial colleagues. We are one of the very few nations that publish a five-year forward inflation-proof de fence expenditure statement. The cuts we have announced have been on planned in creased expenditure, whereas most of the other NATO countries go on a year-to-year basis, and in many cases we do not even know—because we are not sure what is their inflation allowance—what their annual budgets amount to in real terms. Therefore, I tell Conservative Members that the widespread dismay we hear about at Question Time is largely confined to their own circles.

Mr. Cronin

Does my right hon. Friend agree that NATO forces are more than sufficient at present to deter aggression from the Warsaw Pact forces, and that in terms of proportion of gross domestic product our contribution to NATO is much higher than that of most of our allies?

Mr. Mulley

I think that on any of the normal standards of judgment that is right. It is also widely recognised in terms of the effective contribution of all-professional forces. It is not the case that we are thought by our allies not to be discharging the obligations we have undertaken.

Mr. Blaker

Is the Secretary of State aware of the recent statement by the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic that the defence plans of Britain and our NATO allies depend on having two and a half months' warning of attack? If that figure is anywhere near accurate, are not any defence cuts totally irresponsible?

Mr. Mulley

I do not think that that is a fair summary of what the Deputy SACLANT said. It was said in the con text of planning exercises for possible NATO operations outside the normal NATO area concerned with shipping routes. I have it from the highest military sources in NATO that the Alliance is now in better shape than it was three years ago.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright

When we keep talking about superiority over our so-called opponents, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it encourages them further to develop their fire power? Does he not agree that, in so far as we must maintain strength to make sure that a war does not break out, NATO, including the United States, with the Cruise missile, is at least five years in advance of Russian technology? Therefore, is it not time that we started talking more about a reduction of arms than about increasing them?

Mr. Mulley

Reductions in arms depend on the successful outcome of multi lateral international negotiations, such as the force reduction talks in Vienna, or bilateral talks between the United States and the Soviet Union in SALT rather than any unilateral decision. But I agree with my hon. Friend that NATO's posture is wholly that of deterrence and that the deterrent depends on all three elements—conventional, theatre-nuclear and strategic-nuclear weapons.

Sir John Hall

Does the right hon. Gentleman disagree with the recently-published report of the United States Senate committee of inquiry that, first, NATO's southern wing is a shambles, secondly that the Warsaw Pact Powers can mobilise for an attack within a few days and that the NATO forces are in no position to resist them, and thirdly that stocks of essential war materials, including armoured vehicles and ammunition, are deplorably low?

Mr. Mulley

I have great respect for the two Senators who produced the report. Perhaps their language was a little dramatic. I am satisfied that NATO's basic posture—namely, to make any aggression a reckless gamble on the part of potential enemies—still exists and that the priority must be to strengthen the Alliance's conventional capability, which is what we are aiming to do with our defence expenditure.

Mr. Frank Allaun

Has the Secretary of State proposed to other NATO Ministers that they should follow the example of France and America, which have an arrangement with the Kremlin for immediate communication should a nuclear weapon be despatched by accident?

Mr. Mulley

It is important to consider these possibilities, but whether my hon. Friend would go so far as to suggest that we should follow the French example and increase defence expenditure, particularly in the nuclear category, I am not at all sure.

Sir Ian Gilmour

Will the Secretary of State clarify his view of the communiqués issued after NATO meetings? Does he agree that by his behaviour today and since the last NATO meeting he appears to think that the communiqués are a lot of waffle to which he need pay no attention? Does he believe that neither he nor the Government are bound by NATO communiqués?

Mr. Mulley

Neither I nor the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) would regard a communiqué as the equivalent of a binding document, but naturally one wishes to carry out the consensus of NATO meetings. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? We are talking about communiqués, and I draw his attention to the fact that the Defence Planning Committee—

Mr. Tebbit

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is Question Time an occasion when hon. Members ask questions of Ministers, or is it a time for Ministers to ask other people questions?

Mr. Speaker

That is a fair point of order. I hope that we shall not continue this, or people will be asking me questions.

Mr. Mulley

I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I shall not ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman but merely inform the House that a Defence Planning Committee communiqué—the same as in December—said that the then Ministers undertook to concentrate their current efforts on the improvements recommended, taking account of the need recognised at their December meeting to allocate more resources for modernisation and re-equipment of the NATO forces". That was in June 1973, in the same year as the then Conservative Administration cut defence expenditure three times—and by a bigger amount in that one year than this Government have done during two years.