NATO Nuclear Planning Group (Hansard, 24 October 1989)

§ 8. Ms. Ruddock
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the NATO nuclear planning group last met; and what items were on the agenda.

§ 11. Mr. Heffer
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the NATO nuclear planning group last met; and what items were on the agenda.

§ Mr. Tom King
The NATO nuclear planning group is meeting today and tomorrow in Portugal. I have postponed my attendance so that I could answer Questions in the House today. My hon. Friend the Minister of Stale for the Armed Forces is attending today, and I shall join the meeting immediately after Question Time. The group will discuss a range of matters concerning nuclear issues.

§ Ms. Ruddock
When the Secretary of State gets to the nuclear planning group meeting does he intend to agree to the return of cruise missiles to Britain on American aircraft? Does he not support the follow-on to the Lance missile, which recycles cruise missile warheads and brings them back to Europe? Is he not, on behalf of the Tory Government, acting as a bulwark for rearmament in Europe, which the rest of western Europe does not want?

§ Mr. King
I cannot accept that. I have made it clear that we have given strong support to disarmament. The lesson—which I believe profoundly, but on which I know that the hon. Lady and I will never agree—is that because we have held a strong position we have been able to achieve greater stability and peace in Europe. We intend to maintain the policy which has proved such a success.

§ Mr. Heffer
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm o r deny reports in The Times and The Guardian yesterday which suggested that the air cruise missile will be brought back to Britain by the United States? Will he confirm or deny that the Government have agreed that this should happen? Are the Government not being deceitful to the people through their actions? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that people thought that the cruise missile was going for all time and it is an absolute disgrace that the Government should follow this policy?

§ Mr. King
There is no question of reintroducing cruise missiles of the type that the hon. Gentleman mentions. He is talking about discussions that have taken place separately on a weapon that is known as the tactical air-to-surface missile, and also a French equivalent. We have made it clear publicly that we are looking at both as possible alternatives in our modernisation programme to replace the existing free-fall bomb. To try to describe that as the reintroduction of land-based cruise missiles is a total distortion. There is no truth in it whatsoever.

§ Mr. Brazier
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the gap between nuclear weapons in the East and in the West continues to widen? Would it not be very strange if the Government were to become more worried about the possibility of extra weapons in the West than about actual weapons coming into service in the East?

§ Mr. King
I fear that those people who have been proved to have lost the argument about the importance of maintaining strong and credible defences continue to put 659 their old argument, which proved so disastrous and achieved no disarmament whatever. We are proud of what is happening and we shall play our full part in it.

§ Mr. Cyril D. Townsend
Does my right hon. Friend agree that both the United States and Britain are well advised to seek to modernise their weapons systems, particularly their nuclear weapons systems and at the same time to try to respond to the changed mood in Moscow towards genuine disarmament at all levels? Would not the real mistake be to seek to substitute one for the other?

§ Mr. King
My hon. Friend is correct. Everybody knows that the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact have been pursuing their modernisation programme. They respect, and I have no doubt that President Gorbachev respects, the fact that we intend to ensure the security of our people, our country and NATO, in the same way as he seeks to secure his.

§ Mr. Sean Hughes
If the Secretary of State is asked, how will he explain that the British Government clearly believe that our sea-based nuclear missiles are an insufficient deterrent because we insist on the maintenance of land-based nuclear weapons whether or not we have conventional parity?

§ Mr. Tom King
I think that the hon. Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) is aware that the principle of flexible response has been the NATO strategy for a considerable time, rather than dependence on a single strategic nuclear deterrent. He will also be aware that that strategy was reaffirmed at the recent NATO summit.

§ Mr. Ian Taylor
At the NATO nuclear planning group meeting will my right hon. Friend remind some of our allies that it would be unwise to anticipate the further successful outcome of talks in Vienna and elsewhere on weapons reductions by further reducing their own defence commitment? It is especially important to remind those allies who already spend less than 3 per cent. of GDP on defence.

§ Mr. King
It is very important at this time, when there is the opportunity for sensible disarmament built on confidence on both sides, that there is no unilateral disarmament which might destabilise the NATO position. Therefore it is extremely important that NATO holds together. It will be difficult for SACEUR—the Supreme Allied Commander Europe—and NATO command to give advice on exactly how the reductions are to be made and how equality of equipment, which one of my hon. Friends has already mentioned, will be achieved. A number of difficult decisions must be reached, which will be made all the more difficult if some countries anticipate what their share should be.