§ 3. Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Lord Privy Seal what representations have been received from foreign Governments concerning the proposed rapid deployment force; and whether he will make a statement.
§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd)There have been no formal representations. We are of course in frequent touch with our friends and allies on these matters.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonFollowing the Prime Minister's excellent statement in Washington, are not the Royal Marine commando forces admirably suited to this purpose? While we would not wish to force any military assistance upon any other Power, is it not necessary, when the Soviet Union occupies Afghanistan, Aden and other vital points, and has fleets in nearly every ocean of the world, that we should at least have a comparable maritime counter force?
§ Mr. HurdMy right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence dealt at some length at Question Time yesterday with the forces that we have or might have available, including the Spearhead battalion. The concept outlined by the Prime Minister in Washington is really 272 very simple. We are conscious, as are several of our allies, of the Soviet threat outside the NATO area. We have certain resources available. It seems sensible to work together to make those resources effective.
§ Mr. WellbelovedWill the Minister urgently consult our NATO allies to ascertain their views on that rather strange declaration yesterday by the Secretary of State for Defence, namely, that NATO-assigned forces would be made available to a rapid deployment force for use outside the NATO area?
§ Mr. HurdThe hon. Gentleman put that question to my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend dealt with it then. I have nothing to add to what he said.
§ Mr. Michael McNair-WilsonWill my hon. Friend agree that as a precursor to the effectiveness of a rapid deployment force, treaties of mutual assistance or defence might be entered into with those countries that might be considered to be under threat from the Soviet Union?
§ Mr. HurdWith regard to the Gulf States, which my hon. Friend perhaps has in mind, we take the view that their security is primarily a matter for themselves. We are in very close touch with them and they know that if they require assistance, we—and no doubt our friends, but certainly we ourselves—would be glad to give it. That is clearly understood and I do not think that it needs underwriting by formal treaty.
§ Mr. MoyleIf the hon. Gentleman believes that defence is best left to the countries in the area, why was it that the Prime Minister made her announcement that there would be a rapid deployment force and that it could be used in the Gulf before there was any question of consultation with our allies? What did the Government say to Mr. Hammadi of Iraq last week when he argued against the establishment of the force?
§ Mr. HurdThe right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. We are not talking about permanently stationing British forces in the Gulf, or of a new formal treaty relationship: This is absolutely understood in the Gulf. One or two newspapers in the Gulf took it up the wrong way but there is no misunderstanding, either with the Iraq Government or with the other Governments of the Gulf, with all of whom we have recently been in touch.