HC Deb 27 June 1978 vol 952 cc1201-5
10. Mr. Temple-Morris

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

14. Mr. Frank Allaun

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

16. Mr. John Evans

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends next to meet his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation colleagues.

Mr. Mulley

I shall next meet my NATO colleagues collectively at the ministerial meeting of the defence planning committee towards the end of this year.

Mr. Temple-Morris

Will the Secretary of State at least discuss with them the possibility—I appreciate the difficulties—of France rejoining NATO because of the absolute necessity of having a clear command structure in times of emergency, not to mention the obvious difficulty of a successful resolution of the Vienna talks without France being in NATO?

Mr. Mulley

I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman on this point. Of course, it will not be my colleagues in the defence planning committee who will be mainly concerned. It is France herself which does not attend. While I would welcome the return of France to full participation in the Alliance, I think it is good to know that co-operation, as far as it is possible, outside the integrated arrangements is good. I have no doubt that, should difficulties arise, we could count on the support of our French allies.

Mr. Allaun

Will the Secretary of State urge the acceptance of the new Warsaw Pact proposal for force reductions in central Europe, whereby for the first time the Warsaw Pact would make a greater reduction than NATO? Is not this an opportunity for ending the four-year impasse—this minuet—whereby one side advances or retreats as the other side advances?

Mr. Mulley

I would agree with my hon. Friend that the Warsaw Pact response, which was delivered quite recently, is extremely significant. It is not a case of a minuet. It is really the first time that it has made a significant response There are problems about the data. Clearly, one cannot discuss detailed reductions without knowing the base. Like the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), who talks about percentages without a base, one cannot do that kind of arithmetic. Therefore, it is important to clarify the data. This is under way and I know that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is responsible for these negotiations, is, like myself, most anxious that there should be a positive response. For that reason, I would not want to wait until the next meeting of the NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. Evans

Is my right hon. Friend aware that Commissioner Davignon has welcomed, on behalf of the EEC Commission, a recent report of the European Assembly which calls for the establishment of an EEC arms procurement agency? When the Secretary of State next meets his NATO colleagues, will he put this suggestion before them and ascertain whether they would welcome or resent such a development?

Mr. Mulley

I have seen the proposals of Commissioner Davignon but I am not sure that they represent the best way of trying to get standardisation and inter-operability in Europe. For the moment, I am persuaded that the independent European Programme Group is a better approach to this problem, not least because it includes all the European members of the Alliance. Certainly I shall sound out my colleagues informally and let my hon. Friend know if I receive any positive response.

Mr. Buck

Does not the Secretary of State agree that the geographical guidelines of NATO no longer make sense? Will he see about a renegotiation of these when he next meets his colleagues in NATO?

Mr. Mulley

I am not sure that I agree that the geographical guidelines make no sense. In view of the substantial long-term defence programme that NATO has undertaken following the Summit, it would not be wise for me at this juncture to bring up the problem of redefining the boundaries of the Alliance. However, I understand and share the concern of the hon. and learned Member that there are problems outside the strict NATO geographical limits.

Mr. Hooson

Does the Secretary of State feel sufficiently encouraged by the significant response of the Russians on the limitation of armies on the central front to suggest to his colleagues in NATO that they should seek a limitation on naval forces, particularly on submarines, in order to see what kind of response the Soviets give?

Mr. Mulley

Since it has taken rather a long time to achieve anything in Vienna—some five years—I would hesitate, until we make significant agreed progress in central Europe, to start another set of such discussions. Naturally, however, I am anxious for multilateral arms control agreements in any areas of conflict.

Mr. Clemitson

Was my right hon. Friend saying earlier, in effect, that the fact that our gross domestic product is lower than that of a number of our NATO allies justifies our having to make a higher proportional contribution to NATO? Is that not the equivalent of saying that the lower a person's income, the higher the proportion of it that he should have to pay in income tax? That is patently absurd.

Mr. Mulley

I hope that my hon. Friend knows me well enough to know that I would not suggest such a proposition as he is trying to attribute to me. It is not easy to adjust one's defence expenditure on an annual basis, according to how the total figures work out, at the same time as the NATO European countries are increasing their defence expenditure. In fact, we have already moved from 5.1 per cent. to 4.9 per cent. of our gross domestic product, and this year it will be 4.75 per cent. We are moving down to the NATO European average, while our NATO European allies are moving up as a result of the additional expenditure that they have undertaken.

Mr. Churchill

Bearing in mind SACEUR's request to the NATO allies for increased readiness, how can the Secretary of State explain to his NATO colleagues, when he next meets them, that he has given instructions for more than 10 per cent. of Britain's Chieftain tank forces on the Rhine to be placed in mothballs? When will the manpower situation be such as to allow them to be put into normal operation again?

Mr. Mulley

I think it is unlikely that they will raise this matter. They are aware of the very substantial contribution that we make through the Rhine Army. I believe that that problem is in hand and will not exist when the next NATO ministerial meeting takes place. While I do not complain that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues raise the shortcomings in our Armed Forces—it is right that they should do so—I would like them to say something positive from time to time about the excellent job our forces are doing.