HC Deb 23 February 1988 vol 128 cc139-41
11. Mr. Anthony Coombs

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his West German counterpart; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Younger

I last met Dr. Woerner on 20 January, when we discussed matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Coombs

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is both his view and that of Chancellor Kohl, as set out in a speech in Munich on 2 February, that, until further progress has been made on the reduction in conventional forces and the elimination of chemical weapons, the denuclearisation of Europe is not an option? Will he also confirm that, in the meantime, the upgrading and modernisation of nuclear and short-term weapons, which have not been included in the INF agreement, are vital to European security?

Mr. Younger

I understand that, as my hon. Friend says, those are roughly the views of Chancellor Kohl and of the West German Government. Certainly, all the NATO allies are agreed that our weapons systems must be kept up to date.

Mr. Conway

When my right hon. Friend met his counterpart, did he have an opportunity to express the value that we attach to the kindness and hospitality of the West German people when our troops are on exercises in West Germany fulfilling their NATO function? Will there be more exchanges of home-based forces, particularly territorial forces, with the British Army of the Rhine, to take part in mutual exercises?

Mr. Younger

Dr. Woerner and I have discussed these matters on many occasions. I have no doubt that he and the German Government are extremely grateful for the presence of British forces in Germany. We are grateful for the training facilities with which they are able to help us.

Mr. McFall

When the right hon. Gentleman meets his West German counterpart, will he discuss with him the incident at Faslane on HMS Resolution on 26 January in my constituency, which was described by the Ministry of Defence as a minor electrical malfunction? The Ministry of Defence did not give a sufficiently robust rebuttal of what happened, so my constituents—

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is difficult to relate this to the question.

Mr. McFall

It is related because of the interest of the European Community in the incident. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I cannot hear whether the question is relevant or not.

Mr. McFall

Many European reporters contacted me about the matter.

Will the Secretary of State ensure that if there is no substance to the reports, the Ministry of Defence will deny them robustly and communicate that to the local community so that unfounded fears can be laid to rest?

Mr. Younger

I do not think that it will be necessary for me to raise this with Dr. Woerner, because I would only have to tell him that there was a small electrical malfunction. At no point was there any danger to anyone on board or in the neighbourhood. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be glad to retail that in full detail to his constituents, who have nothing to fear.

Mr. Jack

Did my right hon. Friend discuss the European fighter aircraft with Dr. Woerner? If so, what did he say?

Mr. Younger

Yes, my hon. Friend has guessed correctly. We discussed the European fighter aircraft and Dr. Woerner expressed himself and his Government as being determined to press on with it and—I agreed with him about this—to try to reduce its price. I am glad to say that good progress has been made and I hope that the partners will be able to get together before long to agree the next stage.

Mr. Denzil Davies

The Secretary of State has still not given the House a rational explanation of why the Government are so opposed to parallel talks on conventional arms reductions and battlefield nuclear weapons. As we have constantly been told that NATO must have battlefield weapons because of the large concentrations of Soviet armour, and as conventional talks will be about reducing those, why not have parallel talks on battlefield nuclear weapons, especially as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact have some superiority in nuclear artillery and a large superiority in short-range nuclear missiles?

Mr. Younger

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has made my point for me. If what he said meant anything, it meant that it would be infinitely wiser to go for conventional reductions first to establish whether the tank concentrations that he talked about can be reduced.

Mr. Brazier

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, were there to be significant reductions in conventional Soviet forces, and were they to be pulled back behind the Urals, because of the much greater reinforcement distances across the Atlantic for American reinforcements there would still be the potential for an imbalance to reassert itself quickly? That is why it will always be essential that we have battlefield nuclear weapons.

Mr. Younger

My hon. Friend is right. The whole reinforcement capability will have to be taken into account in the conventional talks. The House should be in no doubt, and should not forget, that we are having this discussion in the context of the first major progress in arms reduction, which was a product of the policy that the Government have been following.