HC Deb 13 November 1984 vol 67 cc523-4
6. Mr. Barron

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what were his latest discussions with the military committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Stanley

My right hon. Friend does not have direct discussions with NATO's military committee. However, he and his Alliance ministerial colleagues were last briefed by the chairman of the military committee during a ministerial session of NATO's defence planning committee in May this year

Mr. Barron

Has the Secretary of State had any involvement with our chief of staff and ambassador to NATO? Agreement has been reached in principle on the new policy of follow-on force attack, which is a policy of offensive attack and a rethinking of the treatment of the East in time of warfare. Many hon. Members believe that the policy of follow-on force attack should be debated in the House before it is agreed by the Secretary of State, because it has major implications for the likelihood of warfare in the world.

Mr. Stanley

The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the NATO concept of follow-on force attack. We support the concept, which is consistent with the long-standing NATO concern about the threat represented by Soviet and Warsaw pact second echelon forces. It would be wrong for us in our defensive posture not to take account of the threat represented by those forces.

Mr. Wilkinson

If NATO were to forgo the possibility of interdicting the battlefield, would it not leave itself vulnerable to the huge masses of men and material that could be brought forward on the interior lines of communications enjoyed by the Warsaw pact? Is not that possibility essential for the defence of the West?

Mr. Stanley

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.

Mr. Denzil Davies

Is it not a fact that at the next NATO meeting in December the airland battle, follow-on force attack, deep strike, or whatever phrase is used to describe it, will be confirmed? Does the Minister agree that many people are worried if that is the case, as it will mean that NATO will appear to be an aggressive rather than a defensive organisation? Would it not also mean that there could be rearmament in Europe and that nuclear weapons would be used even earlier under NATO strategy than is envisaged now?

Mr. Stanley

The right hon. Gentleman is wrong in every respect. There is no change in NATO's defensive posture. The concept of follow-on force attack is purely defensive. It is concerned with how we would deal with the significant threat of the follow-on force of the Warsaw pact after it had committed an act of aggression against NATO countries.

Forward to