HC Deb 13 February 1979 vol 962 cc937-9
3. Mr. Blaker

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the other NATO Defence Ministers.

Mr. Mulley

At the last ministerial meeting of the defence planning committee in December.

Mr. Blaker

What consultation has taken place between member countries of NATO about the proposed SALT II agreement? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the present draft allows the Western Alliance to take appropriate steps to deal with the increasing Soviet nuclear threat to Western Europe?

Mr. Mulley

There has, throughout the SALT negotiations, been full consultation between the United States and our NATO allies. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the agreement is not yet finalised, but from the trend I am quite satisfied that there should be no inhibitions in the SALT II treaty of the kind that he fears.

Mr. Clemitson

As, according to the Defence White Paper, we are to increase defence spending over the next four years by 3.4 per cent., which is higher than the average for all public spending, may we take it that the other member States of NATO will be increasing their defence spending by a far greater proportion than our own in order to achieve parity of commitment?

Mr. Mulley

My hon. Friend's point is one that I have made in the NATO ministerial discussions. The position, as I think he knows, is that we are committed to increase our defence expenditure by 3 per cent. in real terms in the forthcoming financial year, and again in 1980–81. The position thereafter has to be considered in the light of economic and other considerations. The amount of additional expenditure of NATO members varies. Some are spending more than 3 per cent. and others will have some difficulty in meeting that target next year.

16. Mr. Temple-Morris

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the next North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers' meeting will be held.

Mr. Mulley

I shall be meeting some of my colleagues at the nuclear planning group in the spring of this year and will meet my colleagues collectively at the ministerial meeting of the defence planning committee later in the spring.

Mr. Temple-Morris

In view of what has happened in Iran and is happening to CENTO, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it at least advisable that he discuss with his NATO colleagues the future of the geographical boundaries of NATO? Will he undertake to raise that matter with them?

Mr. Mulley

There will clearly be some discussion of developments since the previous meeting. I cannot give any assurance that that will lead to a reconsideration of the NATO boundaries which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have been in force for the past 30 years.

Mr. Goodhart

At the next NATO meeting will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer allegations by the German Ministry of Defence that delays of up to 15 months have been caused in the Tornado multi-combat aircraft production schedules by the failure of Rolls-Royce to produce engines on time, thus adding tens of millions of pounds to the cost of the contract?

Mr. Mulley

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he is putting an unreasonable amount of responsibility on to Rolls-Royce. It is a joint development. It is most unlikely to be brought up at the NATO meeting. The German Government, along with the Italians, are jointly responsible and fully participate in all decisions on the Tornado programme. They know the situation only too well.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the contiguity of Turkey to the North Atlantic has never been entirely clear? Doubtless that is what the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) had in mind.

Mr. Mulley

For many years Turkey has been a member of the Alliance. I see no reason why it should not remain so.