§ 6. Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had about proposals for changes in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence strategy.
§ Mr. HeseltineNone. The United Kingdom remains fully committed to NATO's strategy of flexible response and forward defence.
§ Mr. AtkinsonIs that not rather surprising, as both the United States and the Soviet Union now agree that a nuclear first strike would in no way pre-empt the retaliatory capability of the opposition? Therefore, why does Britain still hang on to the idea that we must retain a first strike strategy?
§ Mr. HeseltineI do not think that the hon. Gentleman is up to date. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been any assumption by any Government that we needed to have a first strike capability. What we need— and what all Governments have ensured that we have—is a deterrent capability; and that has kept the peace for nearly 40 years.
§ Mr. SternIn discussions with his counterparts in NATO, will my right hon. Friend stress the importance of individual countries in NATO, particularly Britain, retaining the capability to advance and improve the manufacture of essential items of defence equipment?
§ Mr. HeseltineI am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, because it enables me to stress the closeness of the political dialogue with my colleagues in Europe on this matter. We are all seeking to find a way of getting better value for money for our defence programmes. We perceive that co-operation is a route that we should follow, provided that no one expects any of us to sacrifice our immediate national interests.
§ Mr. DuffyIs the Secretary of State aware of the growing interest in improving conventional defence, arising out of concern over NATO's reliance on early first use of nuclear weapons in the event of conflict? Therefore, why does he not show more public awareness of the dramatic new possibilities that emerging technology is opening up for non-nuclear defence?
§ Mr. HeseltineThere is no way of showing our concern more than by the increase in real terms of nearly 25 per cent. in the defence budget under this Government, which has enabled us to afford the sorts of weapon systems to which the hon. Gentleman draws the attention of the House.
§ Mr. AdleyWould my hon. Friend care to speculate, in terms of jobs and security, on the appalling consequences of implementing Labour party policy, which appears to be in favour of canonising pacifist gipsies and dismantling NATO?
§ Mr. HeseltineMy last calculations, which were conducted in a pre-election climate, showed that to carry through the policies of the Labour manifesto would have eliminated the whole of the Royal Navy.
§ Mr. CartwrightWhat consideration is the Secretary of State giving to the possible use of emerging technology as a means of reducing NATO's dependence on battlefield nuclear systems?
§ Mr. HeseltineAll these matters are central to the discussions that we are having about the development of new weapon systems. In recent years we have always been faced with the need to introduce the latest technological advance into our weapon systems, and that position is not changing.
§ Mr. Denzil DaviesWill the Secretary of State tell us something about the air-land battle concept, which apparently now finds favour with United States forces? Has that been discussed in NATO? Is air-land battle totally dependent on conventional weapons, or is it part of a mix of conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons?
§ Mr. HeseltineAll these new concepts, whether the air-land battle or the other concepts associated with emerging technologies, are the subject of discussions within NATO, but it would be fair to say that they have not yet been adopted as NATO strategy.