HC Deb 24 May 1988 vol 134 cc189-91
13. Mr. Fatchett

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about conventional arms levels.

16. Mr. John Evans

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts about conventional arms levels.

Mr. Younger

I have regular discussions with my NATO colleagues on conventional arms levels, both in terms of our approach to conventional arms control and the conventional defence improvements exercise.

Mr. Fatchett

Does the Secretary of State for Defence accept in principle that any reduction in conventional arms should be on the basis of reciprocity. In other words, those weapons in which the West has superiority should be bargained against those weapons in which the Soviets have superiority. Is the Minister prepared to accept that principle?

Mr. Younger

Not exactly. The objective in conventional arms reductions is to work down the considerable imbalance which exists. We are clear that, for that purpose, asymmetrical reductions will be necessary.

Mr. Denzil Davies

Will the Secretary of State for Defence tell the House whether NATO has now agreed upon its negotiating position in respect of the conventional arms stability talks? Can he say, in particular, whether it has been agreed by both the British Government and NATO that ground-based attack aircraft will be included in those negotiations? If they are not, it will make a mockery of the talks.

Mr. Younger

In the negotiations we have made it plain that the proposed talks are to be about conventional armed forces, including all conventional forces and equipment based on land, regardless of what other capability they may have. We have explicitly stated that nuclear and chemical weapons, together with naval forces, are excluded. There is no need to single out for inclusion any one type of conventional armament solely because it has the additional capability to deliver nuclear or chemical weapons.

Mr. Sayeed

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be perfectly possible for the Soviet Union to offer to withdraw Warsaw pact forces, but not the equipment, which would make little actual difference to the Soviets' fighting capability on the central front?

Mr. Younger

I agree. We believe that the conventional imbalance can be redressed through a set of measures including reductions, limitations, redeployment provisions and related measures, as well as the establishment of equal ceilings. That outcome will require highly asymmetrical reductions by the East and will entail, for example, the elimination from Europe of tens of thousands of Warsaw pact weapons relevant to surprise attack—among them, tanks and artillery pieces.

Mr. Baldry

Does my right hon. Friend recall that before the last general election the Labour party was exhorting us to strengthen our conventional weapons? Now it seems to be suggesting that we should weaken our conventional weapons. The only inference to be drawn from that is that the Labour party is interested, not in the defence of Britain, but in her disarmament?

Mr. Younger

As my hon. Friend points out, many strange things were said by the Labour party before the last election, and the ones that he has mentioned are certainly among them. I think, however, that even those are not as strange as the doctrine that we should have out-of-date weapons, to which the Labour party seems now to attach itself.