§ 1. Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to further the prospects of United Kingdom equipment purchases by the United States of America.
§ 11. Mr. Parrisasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his recent visit to the United States of America.
§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott)During my visit to the United States last week, I had useful discussions with the United States Secretary of Defence and also with the Secretary of State. I met a number of senators, and visited the headquarters at Norfolk, Virginia, of the Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic.
I found complete identity of view with Mr. Weinberger on the need for the Alliance to remain firm in the face of the military threat we face; and to meet the agreed NATO targets, securing from this expenditure the maximum operational capability. We also agreed that we must not reduce our effort to secure a lower level of armamenton both sides by continuing to try to secure agreement with Warsaw Pact countries on realistic and verifiable measures of arms control.
On defence equipment, Mr. Weinberger and I agreed that reciprocal trade in equipment between our two countries enhances the economic strength of both the United States and the United Kingdom, and that the United Kingdom had good equipment to offer. Mr. Weinberger confirmed that there were proposals before the United States Congress to fund both the AV8B and the JP233 programmes.
The briefing I received at SACLANT provided me with a vivid description—[Interruption.]—of the immense capability in the maritime sphere, as in others, that the United States commits to the Alliance. In this, and in all ways, I was heartened—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—by the resourcefulness and determination of the United States in its leading role in NATO.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I did not intervene when hon. Members were interrupting the Secretary of State, but it was a very long reply, although it was a reply to two questions.
§ Mr. CarlisleI thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that the United States should purchase more equipment from the United Kingdom in view of the large sums that we spend on United States equipment and the high quality of many of our products? It is especially important to urge sales now as they would support many jobs in the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. NottI entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We are doing our utmost to persuade the United States to buy more defence equipment from us. There is a considerable imbalance in their favour at present. As well as discussing with Mr. Weinberger the two items that I have mentioned, we talked about Searchwater, Sting Ray, Wavell, Giant Viper, Hawk and a host of other products. I hope that we shall be successful in selling more British products to the United States in future, which will enhance employment in the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. ParrisWas my right hon. Friend able to say that our final decision on Trident might await the final decision of the United States on offset?
§ Mr. NottWe are purchasing from the United States a ballistic missile system. I do not think that offset in the normal sense in which it is referred to is likely or relevant in that circumstance. We shall seek the maximum purchase of our equipment by the United States. The Trident missile system is something rather separate.
§ Mr. James LamondThe Secretary of State always talks about identity of interest and the need to expand expenditure on arms even further. Did he bear in mind the speeches made at the United Nations special session on disarmament by the Prime Minister and the Vice-President of the United States? If so, how does he square the suggestion that we need more and more arms with the speeches made at the United Nations? Must we accept that those speeches meant nothing at all?
§ Mr. NottWe follow what is said in the United Nations, but not all members of that important institution are on our side. I thought that it would save the time of the House if in my admittedly over-long answer to the first question I mentioned what had been discussed initially with Mr. Weinberger. I made a special point of emphasising that we discussed arms control in general. We agreed that it was necessary to secure agreement with Warsaw Pact countries on a lower level of armaments, on both sides, balanced with verifiable measures to control it. We both seek that.
§ Mr. BuckIs my right hon. Friend aware that the House welcomes his statement, especially what he said about the possibility of purchase of arms by the United States? When will he be able to tell us more about what will happen with Sting Ray? Having just returned from America, will he confirm that our relationship with the United States is very close and special and likely to continue so to be?
§ Mr. NottOur relationship with the United States could not be warmer. I had an excellent series of talks. We were congratulated widely in the United States on our 183 substantial contribution to NATO. Sting Ray was mentioned in our talks and we shall be following that up in future months.
§ Dr. David ClarkThere seems a great deal more discussion than action about equipment purchasing by the United States. Will the Minister confirm or deny that we have had notice of cancellation by the Americans of JP233? If that is correct, shall we continue to develop it on our own? If so, what will the extra cost be?
§ Mr. NottUnder the last United States Administration, Congress was unwilling to vote the funds for the JP233. The present Administration have put the matter back before Congress, and we believe that it is likely to go through this time. Our own decision on JP233 is closely related to the progress which it makes through the United States Congress. It would be much better if we both agreed to have the weapon than if we decided to go it alone.