§ 4. Mr. Leightonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's policy for conventional defence in western Europe.
§ Mr. HeseltineNATO policy is to keep the peace by effective deterrence. To do that the Alliance needs to maintain sufficient forces, both conventional and nuclear, to convince a potential enemy that he could not hope to gain from an attack. The United Kingdom continues to make a substantial contribution to the conventional forces of NATO and thus to maintaining the credibility of the Alliance's strategy of flexible response and forward defence.
§ Mr. LeightonAs the Secretary of State has hinted, we spend a great deal of money on BAOR. If NATO is serious about a credible conventional defence, why does it not fortify the West German border? I was told recently by a group of German Members of Parliament that that is not done because they do not want a conventional war fought on their soil and would want to go nuclear at once.
§ Mr. HeseltineThat is another example of the newfound vision of the Opposition. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but it could be a "Maginot line" across the central front, or something like that. The idea that we do not take all steps that are appropriate to create a conventional strength on the central front makes no sense. In this direction we are broadly continuing the policies of the last Labour Government, which reinforces my view that there is little controversy between the parties on this issue.
§ Mr. Nicholas WintertonDoes my right hon. Friend agree that maritime surveillance and submarine detection are important parts of the conventional role of NATO? Will he therefore give consideration to his Department—or, if necessary, another Department—assisting in reopening the Nimrod line of British Aerospace? As a nation we need more Nimrods, and other countries outside NATO, such as those in Southern Africa, could well do 750 with these aircraft. That would be helpful to NATO. It would be of great benefit to it and would guard us against the encroachment of the Soviet Union throughout the world.
§ Mr. HeseltineThe decision about the Nimrod line must be a matter for the company's commercial judgment. I support my hon. Friend's general views in favour of the Government's decision on a maritime commitment of the Royal Navy. This matter was fully discussed in the House yesterday, and my only regret was the absence of virtually every Opposition right hon. and hon. Member.
§ Mr. CartwrightGiven the obvious pressures on the defence budget, how does the Secretary of State plan to improve conventional capability, since it involves a use of expensive new technologies, on top of meeting the cost of fortress Falklands and the Trident programme?
§ Mr. HeseltineThe cost of the Falklands policy was added to the Government's defence commitment. We have committed ourselves to a target of 3 per cent. of the NATO Alliance budget to 1985–86, and we have made provision within that target for the Trident programme.
§ Miss FookesHow do we propose to counter the Soviet Union's large store of chemical offensive weapons?
§ Mr. HeseltineThis is one of the most difficult questions facing the Governments of the NATO Alliance. It is the counter to the suggestion that, in some way, a one-sided gesture of disarmament by the West influences the Soviet Union. This country made a one-sided gesture of disarmament on chemical and biological weapons, and the Soviet Union's response was to increase its capability and train its troops in the use of those weapons.
§ Mr. Denzil DaviesIt is clear from the Secretary of State's answer that his mind is as closed and sterile on this issue as on the issue of cruise missiles. Does he realise that during the past few years substantial changes have taken place in the nuclear escalation and that NATO's policy of flexible response, as Mr. McNamara, Field Marshal Carver and others have recognised, is based on the philosophy and principle of using nuclear weapons first? Does he realise that the sooner NATO moves away from that policy the safer we will be?
§ Mr. HeseltineThe right hon. Gentleman should realise that I have not changed my mind, because the policies that I have supported have worked. The right hon. Gentleman's difficulty is that the policies that he supported worked, but he has changed his mind.