§ 9. Mr. Roy HughesTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next intends to meet his United States counterpart and what issues he plans to discuss.
§ Mr. YoungerI met Mr. Cheney at the meeting of NATO's defence planning committee last week and I hope to meet him again in the near future to discuss a wide range of matters of mutual interest.
§ Mr. HughesWill the Secretary of State consider telling Mr. Cheney that we welcome the force reduction proposals recently made by President Bush and now call for urgent talks with the Soviet Union about nuclear reductions in Europe? Meanwhile, will Her Majesty's Government consider abandoning their nuclear modernisation proposals and get down to serious and meaningful negotiations?
§ Mr. YoungerIt would be extremely foolish to do that, although I realise that that is the established policy of the Labour party. I welcome warmly President Bush's initiative, which has made it clear that we in the West wish to see a reduction in the level of armaments. We have made it quite clear—with the support of every single one of our NATO allies, including all those that have Socialist Governments—that we believe that, for the foreseeable future, nuclear deterrence will remain our defence. For that reason, we do not think that it would be sensible to start negotiations for the reduction of nuclear weapon systems until the complete implementation of any reductions under the CFE.
§ Mr. DickensDoes my right hon. Friend agree with me that the arms control talks that are now taking place are possible only because the West is able to speak from a position of military strength and that it is most important, 692 in this violent and troublesome world, to keep our defences intact, to maintain them, to update them and to keep close to our NATO allies?
§ Mr. YoungerI totally agree with my hon. Friend. If anyone does not agree, I should have thought that it would have been completely clear to him that this policy has stood us in good stead in recent years and has also been instrumental in bringing the Warsaw pact to the negotiating table. As a result, we see the prospect of a substantial reduction in the level of armaments. That is proof to me that NATO policy has worked dramatically well.
§ Mr. WallaceCan the Secretary of State confirm that at the meeting last week to which he referred a decision was taken to reaffirm the 3 per cent. per annum real increase in NATO defence spending? Did the Secretary of State and Mr. Cheney suggest the extent to which they expect the respective countries to reach that target, and was any consideraton given to how that would be consistent with NATO's arms control objectives?
§ Mr. YoungerThere was a short debate on the subject at last week's meeting. As the hon. Gentleman has correctly said, there was unanimous agreement that the 3 per cent. should be kept as a target. It has never been a target that every nation has reached, but most nations have reached it at one time or another. For that reason, it has been a vey good yardstick with which to judge various members' performances within the Alliance. We think that it is valuable to keep it for the future.