HC Deb 06 March 1990 vol 168 cc715-7
5. Mr. Mullin

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the defence implications of the unification of Germany.

7. Mr. Wilson

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the defence implications of the unification of Germany.

Mr. Tom King

We strongly support the Federal German Government's expressed wish that a unified Germany should be a member of the NATO Alliance. Consultations on the security implications of unification will continue within NATO and between the four powers and the two Germanys.

Mr. Mullin

Whence comes the threat requiring us to insist that a united Germany be incorporated in NATO—from Albania?

Mr. King

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has read the important new statement on his party's defence policy, which is accompanied by the statement that The Labour leadership is anxious to avoid supporters being stampeded into demands for deep cuts in defence". That is the policy of the Labour spokesmen—they have decided that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Conservative Members are right. We shall move forward, carefully analysing the options that exist and then decide sensibly, in the light of a more certain forecast, what the opportunities should be.

Mr. Wilson

Is it a matter of satisfaction or of concern to the Government that when the people of East Germany go to the polls in democratic elections in 12 days' time they will do so with short-range nuclear weapons from the West still pointing at them? Is not there a case now for some imagination and leadership in the Government's approach, instead of their being seen, led only by the Prime Minister, as the people who are clinging desperately to the last vestiges of the cold war?

Mr. King

The NATO defensive strategy of flexible response and of forward defence has been a key element in assuring the strength of the West and it will probably see the total collapse of the Warsaw pact. The worst thing that we could do would be to dismantle our defences and strategies at the very moment when the future is unclear.

Sir Jim Spicer

Does my right hon. Friend agree that whatever may happen in terms of the unification of Germany, the one thing that our armed forces will require in the future is versatility? Is that versatility better provided by the helicopter or the tank?

Mr. King

The other thing that our armed forces need is consistency of support, and on that issue no one could suggest that my hon. Friend has been guilty of any deviation from a clear policy of support for a proper provision of helicopters.

Sir John Stokes

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the economic implications of the unification of Germany are rather more important than the defence ones? Should not British business men be more worried than British generals?

Mr. King

That question goes a little wider than my immediate subject here today, but the implications are substantial. We welcome the unification of Germany—self-determination is a fundamental principle of NATO, for which it has stood for 40 years—but it obviously raises issues that must be addressed. Unification is more likely to be successful and harmonious if we have addressed those issues properly and sensibly.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

Does the Secretary of State accept that a unified Germany and membership of NATO is much more likely to bring stability to central Europe than if a unified Germany adopted a position of neutralism? Having regard to the implications for British forces in Germany, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that any review such as that which is under consideration will take account of the relationship not only of forces in Europe but of United Kingdom forces generally? In particular, will he have regard to the possibilities of specialisation and the enhanced role that the Royal Navy might be able to play in a settlement in a few years' time?

Mr. King

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman said in the opening part of his question. There are few supporters anywhere for the idea of a neutral Germany. Whether in the East or the West, people perceive the real danger that that could produce. We stand strongly for Germany being in NATO. The location of troops in East Germany is obviously an issue, but the location of Germany in NATO is important. Germany is a crucial country to the NATO Alliance and that is why its presence there is important. The hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go into individual service aspects of our review of options for change.

Sir Peter Emery

In view of my right hon. Friend's answer to the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) on question No. 3, and the relationship that Germany must have to that, in the review that is being carried forward will he press the Americans to set a level for the troop requirements in Europe in conjunction with General Galvin and ourselves, as it is essential that we should be able to give a lead to the rest of NATO on what we believe is necessary for the proper defence of Europe even after the conventional force reduction treaties?

Mr. King

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is exactly right. Consultation in NATO is vital and General Galvin, with his military responsibilities, clearly has an important part to play in that. We must consider any changes in clear consultation with all the members of NATO to ensure that effective security is maintained, and the Americans are an extremely important partner in that.

Mr. O'Neill

What aspects of flexible response does the Secretary of State consider are still applicable in central Europe, and in which countries does he propose to extend a programme of forward defence, given that after Sunday of next week Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Poland will have some semblance of democratic government? Does he anticipate having blitzkriegs in those countries and using short-range and medium-range nuclear weapons on them?

Mr. King

That is a pretty savage attack by an hon. Member on the NATO defence strategy to which I understood that he and his colleagues were supposed to subscribe. It is NATO defence policy to support flexible response and forward defence, and any changes that we make in that policy will be made only after consultation with all our allies in NATO. If the document that I have here is the sum total of the new Labour defence strategy—there is only one paragraph that is not a criticism of the Government and contains a new policy—it is wrong anyway because it talks about consultations with the Netherlands, Belgium and Britain, but there are many more countries in NATO, and if the Labour party proposes not to consult them it will be changing its policy once again.