HC Deb 23 May 1978 vol 950 cc1318-22
10. Mr. Watkinson

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he remains satisfied with the progress so far as it affects British defence policy, of the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction talks in Vienna.

Mr. Mulley

Far from being satisfied, as I told the House in the recent defence debate on 13th March, I cannot conceal my disappointment at the lack of progress".—[Official Report, 13th March 1978; Vol. 946, c. 46.] However, events in the fourteenth round, which ended on 19th April, including the new proposals tabled by the West, give grounds for hope that we can overcome the impasse in the talks.

Mr. Watkinson

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a large measure of the blame for the lack of progress in these talks must attach to the Soviet Union? However, did he notice that in the recent Schmidt-Brezhnev talks, Mr. Brezhnev did indicate a slight movement in favour of force reduction in the central front area? Will he seek to build upon that initiative and do all he can to inject some urgency into these vital talks?

Mr. Mulley

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance and the desire for urgency. I noted also the communique from the Schmidt and Brezhnev talks and I hope that that can be followed up on the Soviet side. A great deal of the delay has arisen through the difficulty of getting from the Warsaw Pact countries the necessary data on which any agreement must be based. As is widely understood, there is a disparity because the Warsaw Pact forces are substantially greater in numbers than our own.

Mr. Wall

Does the Secretary of State agree that there has been no progress in Vienna? Will he do everything he can to checkmate the Russian design to prevent the cruise missile being deployed in Europe, as this weapon is essential to the future of NATO?

Mr. Mulley

Discussions about the cruise misile do not arise in the Vienna talks. On that matter I cannot assist the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Norman Atkinson

Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's policy to achieve balanced force reductions and parity between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries? Will he explain how it is possible to move towards parity if there is no understanding about the respective forces mobilised in either NATO or the Warsaw Pact countries? Does he still think it feasible that we can negotiate on the basis of demanding from the Soviet Union a reduction of 250,000 troops, as against a reduction of 100,000 from NATO?

Mr. Mulley

It is the Government's desire and policy to achieve balanced force reductions. However, before we can do that agreement is needed by both sides. Agreement is also needed on the numbers involved. On the NATO side, not only are the figures freely published; people can go and count them for themselves. The Warsaw Pact does not give the information the same publicity. In the negotiations it has not been possible so far to reach agreement on common figures on which further steps could be taken before we reach a balance.

Mr. Hooson

Does not the attitude of the Soviet Union to date suggest that it is not keen on achieving arms reduction in Europe? Does not the Soviet Union's attitude towards the particularly strong tank forces on the eastern border of Western Europe indicate that the Soviet Union has no intention to negotiate on that matter?

Mr. Mulley

It could be fairly inferred that if the Soviet Union wants progress it is hastening rather slowly. My hon. Friend's point in raising the question was whether we can infer—I think that it is too soon—from Mr. Brezhnev's remarks in Western Germany that a new political initiative will be forthcoming. We shall have to wait and see.

Mr. Flannery

Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that it is not conducive to detente and disarmament for the Chief of the Defence Staff to go careering round the world describing the Soviet Union as the enemy, apparently with the full backing of the Conservative Party in this country, which means that it is a very important statement? Will he, therefore, state to the world that we do not regard the Soviet Union as the enemy and that we want peace with all nations?

Mr. Mulley

I should correct my hon. Friend. To the best of my knowledge, the Chief of the Defence Staff has not careered round the world making these observations. He made one indiscreet and inaccurate remark on one occasion. The fact that the Conservative Party behaves as it does, is, I am happy to say, not my responsibility. I only hope that the British people will note the Conservative Party's antics in the House and will record their verdict when the time comes, so that the Conservative Party stays on the Opposition side of the House.

Sir Ian Gilmour

Talking about party antics, does the Secretary of State not agree that it is well known throughout the West how many Soviet troops are facing us on the Western Front? Does he agree that it is odd that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who is the treasurer of the Labour Party, should support the Soviet position?

Mr. Norman Atkinson

On a point of order. Will you, Mr. Speaker, call upon the right hon. Gentleman to substantiate the comment that he just made?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I could not hear the last remark of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson). I know that the hon. Gentleman was protesting, but I could not hear him for the noise. I trust that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) was not making a personal charge.

Sir I. Gilmour

I asked a straightforward question. I asked whether the Secretary of State could explain why the treasurer of the Labour Party—the Secretary of State had been talking about party antics—was supporting the Soviet position in the MBFR talks.

Mr. Atkinson

I wonder whether you could help the House, Mr. Speaker, in demanding that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) should substantiate a statement such as that. In the questions that I have put to my right hon. Friend, I have said nothing, implicit or otherwise, from which the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham could deduce my support for the Soviet Union against the interests of this country.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Tottenham has made his position perfectly clear. I deprecate personal attacks.

Mr. Mulley

The fact that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour) made the attack on my hon. Friend in the guise of a question to me in no way excuses the attack. My hon. Friend is in no way supporting the interests of the Soviet Union against this country. The dragging in of the fact that my hon. Friend is treasurer of the Labour Party will be deprecated by everyone in the House.

Sir I. Gilmour

The Minister talked about party antics. I was explaining to the Secretary of State that the West knows perfectly well how many Soviet troops there are in Eastern Europe. The treasurer of the Labour Party pretended that that was not known and that it was a matter of doubt. That is the Soviet position. It is not the West's position.

Mr. Speaker

Before we move to the next Question, may I say that I am assuming that there is no reflection at all on the hon. Member for Tottenham.