Skip to main content

Defence

Volume 34: debated on Tuesday 14 December 1982

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

Main Battle Tank

1.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects his Department will complete its evaluation of the new Vickers Valiant main battle tank.

At the request of the company, and at its expense, proving trials of the Vickers Valiant main battle tank are being carried out at Ministry of Defence establishments. A further report is due to be given to the company shortly.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply, but why is the Ministry of Defence carrying out these trials? Is the Department satisfied, or not, with the performance of Valiant?

The trials are intended to assist Vickers with its overseas sales efforts. Details of the results of the trials are of course confidential to the Ministry of Defence and the company, but I am sure that Valiant will admirably fulfil requirements in many parts of the world.

Defence Expenditure (Nato)

2.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the proportion of defence expenditure in the last full year that was attributable to North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commitments.

More that 90 per cent. of our defence expenditure in 1981–82 was related to NATO commitments.

I appreciate that those are very substantial figures, but is it not clear that expenditure on NATO is a vital part of our defence and that those who advocate withdrawal are gambling on the fact that their freedoms, including those of protest, will be guaranteed by others than ourselves?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. More than 90 per cent. of total expenditure by NATO is made by our allies. Therefore, without NATO our defence would be very small.

While I agree that membership of NATO remains vital for Britain and, indeed, for the free world generally, will the Secretary of State agree that there is or ought to be a change in the whole attitude towards strategy and policy in NATO? Will he further agree that this change is visible and was visible in the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, and can be seen in Germany, Greenland and throughout Europe? It is that we must all work for a nuclear free NATO in Europe and ensure that cruise and Pershing are not deployed inside Europe?

No, I will not agree. Whatever political views their Governments may hold, all the countries in NATO agree that its present policies are the best that can be devised for our common defence and the maintenance of freedom. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the nuclear strategy, but it was NATO, not the Soviet Union, that proposed the zero option.

Is NATO prepared to accept the "No first use of nuclear weapons" concept put forward by the Soviet Union? Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that NATO's headquarters will not be moved to the United Kingdom, because such a move would imply the express acceptance of a nuclear war in Europe, which is unacceptable to our people?

No one has ever suggested moving NATO's headquarters to the United Kingdom. I think that the hon. Gentleman must have misread or misunderstood piece in The Guardian. The article in The Guardian to which he referred suggested that the United States European command headquarters might move to the United Kingdom, but that is not contemplated.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's strong advocacy of the renunciation of certain nuclear weapons means that the West's ability to obtain multilateral nuclear disarmament will be considerably hindered?

My hon. Friend is clearly correct. If the Soviet Union feels that it can achieve all its objectives through peace movements in the West it will see no reason to come forward with proposals to reduce its nuclear weapons. The other day I saw with great interest the Labour Party's political broadcast. It was one of the most disgraceful broadcasts that I have ever seen. It hardly mentioned that the Soviet Union has deployed nearly 1,000 warheads, which threaten us. The whole broadcast was devoted to the West's defences.

Later

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I inadvertently talked about a nuclear free NATO in Europe. Of course, that does not make sense. I meant a nuclear free Europe, and of course that applies both to NATO and the Warsaw Pact.

Competitive Tendering (Vessel Repairs)

3.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if competitive tendering remains the normal method for his Department for securing repair work contracts for merchant ships taken up from trade for the Falklands emergency.

Competitive tendering has not been the method employed by the Ministry of Defence for placing repair contracts for merchant ships taken up from trade for the Falklands emergency. The need to return ships quickly to their owners in order to minimise charter fees has precluded the use of competitive tendering procedures.

Is my hon. Friend aware that British Shipbuilders is using the profits from its Ministry of Defence contracts to subsidise its ship repairing activities and is thus unfairly undercutting free enterprise ship repairers, such as Jefferies Avonmouth Limited, in my constituency? What can my hon. Friend do to ensure that the private sector receives fairer treatment from the Ministry of Defence?

How British Shipbuilders uses its profits from Ministry of Defence contracts or others is primarily a matter for it, or for the Department of Industry. Of the 25 contracts that have been placed for merchant ships that have returned from the Falkland Islands, eight have gone to British Shipbuilders' yards and 17 to the private sector.

Does the Minister appreciate that there is great anger on the Tyne about the way in which the Government have placed contracts with private yards, for the repair of merchant vessels at the expense—according to the Minister's figures, in the ratio of 3:1—of the public yards?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that contracts have been allocated according to the best available capacity and in accordance with what we felt would be the best response to our needs. The hon. Gentleman has advocated repairs being carried out in certain yards on the Tyne and I think that he would accept that we have been able to accede to his request in some cases.

Falklands Campaign (Merchant Ships)

4.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list those merchant ships currently chartered or requisitioned by his Department for use in connection with the Falklands operations.

Twenty-seven ships are currently taken up for use in support of our forces on or around the Falkland Islands and four are being prepared for return to their owners. I shall publish the full list in the Official Report.

I believe that the "Uganda" was recently chartered or requisitioned by the Ministry of Defence. Is it the only merchant ship suitable for the purpose?

We had a requirement, which we put to the shipping industry. "Uganda" seemed best to fulfil the requirement in terms of price and availability, and we have signed a contract for that ship.

Will my hon. Friend turn his attention today to a project being discussed by his officials—the chartering of a merchant vessel in which to quarter Service personnel—and will he ensure that the fitting out of the vessel is undertaken in the United Kingdom and not, as happened recently with a similar charter, abroad?

We would like to give the work to British industry as long as it can meet the requirement and the delivery date. That is essential.

Following is the information:

The following ships are currently taken up for use in support of our forces on or around the Falkland Islands.

"Anco Charger""Yorkshireman"
"British Avon""St. Edmund"
"British Forth""Rangatira"
"British Tay""Baltic Ferry"
"British Trent""Lycaon"
"British Esk""Norland"
"British Tamar""Cunard Countess"
"Alvega""St. Helena"
"Fort Edmonton""Sandshire"
"G A Walker""St. Brandon"
"Scottish Eagle""Stena Inspector"
"Hans Maersk""Stena Sea Spread"
"Fort Toronto""Safe Dominia"
"Salvageman"

A further four are being prepared for return to their owners.

Falklands Campaign (Casualties)

5.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the forces sent to the Falklands were killed in action; and how this compares with previous military engagements.

Slightly under 1 per cent. of the forces sent to the Falklands were killed in action. It is not possible to make valid comparisons with previous military engagements.

How does the Ministry of Defence justify paying the widows of some privates less than it is paying the widows of others, according to where and when their husbands were killed, and that the Ministry pays nothing to the widows of Service men who were killed in the First or Second World War? Will the Minister re-examine the whole question of war widows' pensions?

The right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there have been substantial improvements over the years. As he well knows, the problem with retrospection is simply that of cost.

Would there not have been considerably greater loss of life had the decision not been taken to send a task force of sufficient strength to deal with the problem? Is it not a fact that the efforts of civilians and members of the forces to equip the force and get it under way in fewer than four days represent a remarkable achievement?

Yes, Sir. Of course, the first part of my hon. Friend's question is hypothetical. However, I think that all commanders were mindful of the need to keep casualties to the absolute minimum.

Will the Minister say how many of our forces were killed by Exocets and whether the components in them were supplied by British companies?

Is it not a matter of shame, which echoes round the world, that the Government of Argentina have failed to accept responsibility for their dead and have made no arrangements for their burial? Has my hon. Friend news of any developments on that score?

I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. We are now making plans to ensure that the temporary interment of many of the Argentine dead can be dealt with on a more permanent basis. Unfortunately, we must take on that responsibility. I am making arrangements so that the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Brazilian embassy are consulted about the arrangements that we have in mind.

The Minister may be unable to tell the House how many firms supply parts for Exocet, but he should be able to tell us how many casualties there were as a result of Exocet. Will he be kind enough to do so?

Trident

6.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest available estimate of the final cost of Trident.

The estimate is £7,500 million, less several hundred million pounds as a result of the decision to process the missiles in the United States.

With what moral authority can Britain argue that developing countries should not have their own independent nuclear weapons when we persist with Trident? Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be in the interest of limiting proliferation to abandon Trident? Given the escalating cost of that ruinously expensive project, will he now agree that we may have another debate on this issue?

The subject has been debated in the House frequently, and probably more than almost any other military subject. No one has yet told me of a developing country with aspirations to acquire its own nuclear weapons that would follow our example if we were unilaterally to give up our nuclear weapons. The cost of Trident must be seen in perspective. Its through-life cost will be the equivalent of 12p per week per person in this country.

Would the Minister personally be willing to accept the moral responsibility of pressing the button that would unleash these nuclear weapons and inevitably incinerate untold millions of innocent people?

I do not expect to have to be in the position to take that decision, but it is essential for the Russians to believe that we might be prepared to press the button in the event of Soviet aggression. That is the best way of preventing war, which is our objective.

What percentage of the cost of Trident will be spent in this country? Will my hon. Friend ensure that his Department makes every effort possible to ensure that the maximum amount of expenditure takes place in this country and not the United States of America?

I can give my hon. Friend that last assurance. Our latest estimate is that 55 per cent. of the cost of Trident will be spent in this country. In addition, British firms will be entitled to compete for the subcontracting work on the Trident missile. Four hundred British firms have been briefed and sent the necessary information by the Americans.

Will the Minister stop trying to play down the cost of Trident, to the extent that he has in the past, by costing it in terms of chocolate bars? Will he admit that the cost of this immensely destructive weapon will amount to at least 20 per cent. of the defence equipment budget in its peak years? In so doing, it will prevent the replacement of ageing ships and aircraft which this Government will bequeath to the next.

It is an immensely destructive weapon. That is the whole point of it. If the Soviet Union knows that if it commits acts of aggression it will be hit by a Trident missile, it is unlikely to commit acts of aggression. I hope that the hon. Lady will one day manage to grasp that point. Her figure for the percentage of the defence equipment budget is not correct.

Supersonic Fighter Aircraft

7.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to rectify the shortage of supersonic fighter aircraft available for the air defence of the United Kingdom.

12.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what total expenditure has been committed by Her Majesty's Government since May 1979 on new naval vessels which they have ordered; and how many vessels this represents.

15.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he is yet in a position to place new orders for naval vessels on the Vosper Thornycroft yards of British Shipbuilders.

I am today publishing a White Paper on the Falklands campaign and, if I catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, I shall shortly be making a statement on this and on new equipment orders.

If the hon. Members concerned care to wait until the statement has been made, I shall see that they are called then to put supplementary questions.

Military Commitment (Nato)

8.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government have any plans to increase their military commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation; and if he will make a statement.

In accordance with NATO's target, we are committed to a real increase of 3 per cent. in defence spending until 1985–86. This will enable us to continue to modernise our forces and maintain our defence capability.

Bearing in mind that NATO is a defence alliance, is my right hon. Friend aware of the rumours that the Soviet Union is spending at least £6 million on organisations such as the CND which seek to undermine NATO? Will he seek to improve the quality and resources of the NATO information services?

The Soviet Union does not seek to hide the fact that it is encouraging and financing peace movements in the West. It acknowledges that the peace movements are working in favour of its policies. The NATO information service needs more resources, but it is for the member Governments of NATO to be in the vanguard in explaining that NATO is a successful peace movement.

Does the Secretary of State agree that defence expenditure next year, taking into account the 3 per cent. NATO commitment that he has mentioned, the cost of the Falklands operation, and excluding any cost that may appear in the statement he will make today, will be at least 5½ per cent. of the country's GNP, which is returning to the days of east of Suez? Does he agree that that is a completely intolerable and unacceptable burden on public expenditure?

That is a rare intervention by the right hon. Gentleman. He complains normally that we are not doing enough. He wants either to keep all the dockyards open or to have more ships. Most of his criticisms are that we are doing insufficient. He criticises us now for spending too much. I acknowledge that his party's programme would cut defence spending by about £3 billion per annum and cause chaos for employment throughout the country.

In view of the crucial importance of NATO to the survival of our freedom, including the freedom to write articles in the press, and in the light of the extremely interesting, well-written and illuminating article by the Leader of the Opposition in The Times today, will my right hon. Friend seek to have the Labour Party's attitude towards NATO clarified?

May I try to clarify the Labour Party's attitude towards NATO, as it is a little obscure to most of us?

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that remark. It is of course impossible to clarify the Labour Party's attitude on the point during Question Time.

In view of the Secretary of State's previous answers about NATO and reports in the press about United States headquarters, why did the Government describe as fundamentally untrue—in the language of Watergate—a report which later turned out to be fundamentally true? Is his Department continuing the policy of misinformation that it conducted during the Falklands campaign?

I am not responsible for articles that appear in The Guardian. The main thrust of The Guardian article, as I read it, was that it was the intention of the United States Government to remove its command headquarters from Stuttgart to this country. That is not the United States Government's intention. The United States Government are arranging to have a stand-by headquarters organised in the United Kingdom to perform certain functions in the event of war. That is entirely different. I should have thought that those were prudent and sensible precautions for them to take.

Later

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Defence said clearly that in his opinion the British peace movement and the CND were part-funded by the Soviet Union. As many Labour Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, are members of CND and active participants—[Interruption.]

Many Labour Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, are active participants in the British peace movement. The Secretary of State has implied that we are in receipt of money from the Soviet Union in order to put our point of view. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will rule that such issues, expressed in the way that the Secretary of State did, are completely out of order and should be withdrawn. I hope that both he and the Prime Minister will make a categoric statement to the House to the effect that in no way do they imply that Labour Members are receiving money from the Soviet Union—[Interruption.]

Order. The hon. Gentleman has brought forward a political argument between the two sides of the House, on which I cannot rule.

Agile Combat Aircraft

9.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on his discussions with industry on the experimental programme for the agile combat aircraft.

13.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will raise in his discussions with industry on the agile combat aircraft the possible total manufacture and the employment implications.

A programme definition study is nearing completion, and negotiations are in progress with a view to placing an early contract with British Aerospace for the demonstration in an aircraft of the technology applicable to a variety of possible future advanced agility aircraft. The agile combat aircraft is a private venture project. We believe the experimental aircraft programme will help clarify the prospects for this and other options.

Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of the experimental aircraft programme both in terms of its strategic value and the industrial base support that it represents? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the financial arrangements that have been made with the consortium are the same, or confirm those that have been made privately to the industry by the Secretary of State?

I reassure my hon. Friend that at the Ministry we are fully seized of the importance of the project. I did not fully understand the second part of my hon. Friend's question. I am not inviting you, Mr. Speaker to ask him to repeat it, but perhaps he might care to communicate with me separately.

Will the Minister say that should the ACA project go ahead, a large part of the production will be within the United Kingdom and not in America or some part of Europe?

Should the production, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, go ahead, I imagine that the production will be with the British Aerospace industry. It will enable that industry to make a major contribution to the British defence effort, which is something that the hon. Gentleman is not always noted for supporting.

What funds are being made available by my hon. Friend's Department to Rolls-Royce for further development of the RB199 engine, which is required not just for the ACA but for the air defence variant of the Tornado? Does my hon. Friend feel that the development of that engine will be completed in time for the ACA to take maximum advantage of market opportunities?

Rolls-Royce is now working on the Mk 104 version of the RB 199 engine, which is intended for the ADV version of the Tornado. That variant will certainly be available within the time scale in question.

Does the Minister think that it would be helpful if the new fighter aircraft programme could go ahead on a bipartisan basis, and that it would contribute to that bipartisan policy if the Labour Party gave a commitment not to cancel it?

I am sure that such a commitment would always be welcome, but I hope that the possibility that the hon. Gentleman has in mind does not arise.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman of one thing. He will not be in office when the final decisions are taken. In regard to what the hon. Gentleman said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne), may I say that we believe in a realistic defence policy and not one that is based on Massada without the benefits of a diaspora. Will the hon. Gentleman say what time scale he envisages for this venture?

If we can come back from the top of various mountains in the Sinai desert, the advance experimental aircraft programme is envisaged to take between three and five years.

Royal Navy Dockyards

10.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for organisation and control of the Royal Navy dockyards involved in the reduction in the number of yards.

These matters continue to be the subject of internal study. We are at present in consultation with the trade unions on the initial results of this work. Meanwhile, our own consideration of certain aspects of the organisation for the management of ship repair and maintenance matters is continuing.

Does the Secretary of State agree that one consideration is the removal of "Dreadnought" from Chatham to Rosyth? Will he give an assurance about safety in relation to that type of decision and also an assurance that the decision is based on safety, not on political considerations?

I can give the hon. Gentleman a complete assurance that the future of "Dreadnought" and the decision that we take about her will be based entirely on grounds of safety.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the interests of the remaining dockyards and fleet maintenance bases, it is essential that they have sufficient resources in terms of locally autonomous management and manpower to provide an efficient and cost-effective backup to the Fleet?

Yes. I agree with that. My hon. Friend will be glad to know that we are issuing a consultative paper today, which should now be in the hands of the trade unions. This sets out our ideas about the future of Portsmouth dockyard. It is now clear that we snail need additional support at Portsmouth. We are therefore issuing this consultative document to the unions.

Subject to the satisfactory outcome of talks and agreement on flexible working practice, we now envisage 2,800 civilians being employed at Portsmouth naval base—I emphasise the words "naval base"—for essential repair and maintenance tasks, including the updating of weapon systems. There will still be some redundancies at Portsmouth, but what I have stated amounts to a substantial increase of about 1,500, subject to agreement on useful working practices, representing an increase from 1,300 to 2,800 in the naval base at Portsmouth.

As it was the obvious intention of the Secretary of State to concentrate full repair facilities overall for surface and underwater vessels at Devonport, will he take account of the fact that "Swiftsure" has been at Devonport for three years and is not yet completed? In view of the necessity for keeping SSNs operational, will he reconsider the situation at Chatham, which can provide those facilities?

As my hon. Friend knows, I accept that Chatham has undertaken a valuable task over the years. I am afraid that we cannot give any reprieve to Chatham. It must close in accordance with our previously announced plan. "Swiftsure" is the first of a new class of submarine. The refitting is proceeding in parallel with the development of a new refitting complex at Devonport. One has to consider the effects of the 1981 civil servants' dispute. The management at Devonport has a learning curve, just as Chatham had a learning curve when it started to undertake that work.

As the Ministry of Defence was saying in 1981 that it would keep Chatham open, what new factor has occurred between 1981 and 1982 that means it has now to close?

There has been a substantial change in the manner in which we are planning to look after and support naval ships. We have ended the practice of mid-life modernisation. Devonport had already been expanded to deal with further SSN refits. The pattern of working at all the dockyards has changed. There is nothing to be gained from continuing to have more support for naval vessels than is necessary for the front line.

Cruise Missiles

11.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the installation of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom.

Preparations are on schedule for the deployment of cruise missiles at Greenham Common by the end of 1983.

Will the Minister accept that the courageous women—[Interruption]—whos are blockading Greenham Common have my support and the support of millions of people throughout the United Kingdom? Does he not understand that cruise missiles will endanger these islands because there is no Government right of veto over their use? Is he aware that they represent an escalation of the nuclear arms race? Is he further aware that while he wrings his hands and talks about multilateral disarmament, he is participating in the ever-growing arms race? When will he listen to the voice of the people, which says "No" to cruise missiles?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, by declaring his support for these women, proposes to help or to hinder them. I do not question the sincerity of the women, but I do question their judgment and their knowledge. What they are doing is more likely to hinder the prospects of peace than to help them, and also to hinder the prospects of multilateral disarmament rather than to help them. In regard to escalation, the Soviet Union already has installed 333 SS20s, intermediate land-based missiles, which are capable of reaching the whole of Europe. On the Western side, we have none of an equivalent kind.

Will the Government take every opportunity to make clear to our friends in the United States and elsewhere that the consequences of an occasional well-organised and well-publicised demonstration by a few thousand people is greatly outweighed by the continuing support of the majority of men and women in this country for collective security as the best guarantee of continuing peace?

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is clear, I believe, to our friends in the United States. It is important that we should continue to explain the facts to the people of this country in view of the issuing of inaccurate information by the CND, which I can, if necessary, document. The United States agrees with us in putting high priority on the zero option, which, if adopted by the Soviet Union, would make unnecessary the adoption of any cruise missiles and would mean the abolition of the SS20s.

Does not the Minister realise that he does not help his case when he is patronising and condescending—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."]—about what happened at Greenham Common and the faith and dedication of the women who went there? The women believe that they are helping their families and their children. The Government have never sought the consent of the people for the installation of cruise missiles. It is time that the Government took public opinion into account.

The cruise missile was debated in this House in January 1980. There have been opportunities to debate it frequently since that time. I was not questioning the good faith of the women who protested at Greenham Common. I was simply questioning their judgment and the likely effects of their action.

Can my hon. Friend confirm to my constituents in Molesworth that if the Soviet Union were prepared to reduce the SS20s it already has in place there might be no imperative to introduce cruise and Pershing missiles under the present plan? In those circumstances, are not the silly, sincere and misguided women at Greenham Common and Molesworth damaging a genuine chance of multilateral disarmament?

I agree with my hon. Friend about the consequences if the zero option were to be adopted by the Soviet Union. I hope that the Soviet Union will adopt it. I commend to the Opposition the brief words of Mr. Andropov, the new leader of the Soviet Union:

"Let no one expect of us unilateral disarmament. We are not naive people. We do not demand unilateral disarmament by the West."

The Minister of State was quoted in The Guardian today as having said—[Interruption.] I am quoting the Minister of State, who was quoted by The Guardian.

What about Peter Jenkins' article in The Guardian about the Trots in the CND?

As I was saying, the Minister of State was quoted in The Guardian as saying that the women of Greenham Common were undermining Britain's ability to negotiate with the Soviet Union. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question".] The question that I am asking is, when was the last occasion on which the United Kingdom was in the negotiating chamber with the Soviet Union, talking about nuclear weapons?

We are currently in the negotiating chamber talking to the Soviet Union about nuclear weapons.

Nuclear Weapons (Accidental Release)

14.

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what reciprocal procedures exist between the United Kingdom and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation member States and countries bordering the organisation by which the accidental release of a nuclear weapon is notified.

The United States, the United Kingdom and France all have bilateral agreements with the Soviet Union concerning reciprocal procedures for the notification of accidental release of a nuclear weapon. I shall arrange to have these listed with their full titles in the Official Report.

As the Soviet agency Novosti has said that if a Euro-missile is accidentally fired at the Soviet Union after 1983 it will take instantaneous retaliatory action, what would happen if an SS20 were accidentally fired, today or at any time up to the point of the arrival of those Euro-missiles?

The Novosti press, assiduously followed by the Labour Party, in its party political broadcast—[Interruption]—was wrong in showing that the time required for a missile fired from Western Europe to reach the Soviet Union would be six minutes. With regard to the accidental firing of a missile, elaborate procedures have been agreed between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom, between the Soviet Union and the United States, and between the Soviet Union and France, involving the use of the hot line.

Does not the possibility of the accidental release of such a missile underline the point that the women of Greenham Common are seeking to make, that it is undesirable for us to have more of these missiles deployed here as that must increase the danger of such a possibility? Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that there are real dangers here, which these women are fighting against, and will he not smear them, either as naive or Soviet puppets?

I am not trying to smear the women who demonstrated. I simply point out what would be the likely consequences of their action. With regard to accidental release, I have nothing to add to what was said. There are very effective arrangements between the countries concerned, which are regularly tested.

Following are the agreements:

  • (a) US-USSR—the "Memorandum of Understanding between the United States of America and Union of Soviet Socialist Republic Regarding the Establishment of a Direct Communications Link" (Hotline Agreement)—1963
  • —the "Agreement on Measures to Reduce the Risk of Outbreak of Nuclear War between the United States of America and Union of Soviet Socialist Republic" (Accidents Measures Agreement)—1971
  • (b) UK-USSR—the "British-Soviet Agreement on the Establishment of a Direct Communications Line" (British-Soviet Hotline Agreement)—1967
  • —the "Agreement on the Prevention of Accidental Nuclear War" (Cmnd. 7072) —1977
  • (c) France-USSR—the "Franco-Soviet Agreement on the Establishment of a Direct Communications Line" (France-Soviet Hotline Agreement)—1966
  • —the "Franco-Soviet Nuclear Accidents Agreement"—1976.
  • Defence Ministers (Meeting)

    16.

    asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his most recent meetings with other Defence Ministers in Brussels.

    Along with other NATO Defence Ministers I attended meetings of the Defence Planning Committee, the Nuclear Planning Group and the Eurogroup in Brussels between 29 November and 2 December. We had valuable discussions on a wide range of subjects, and the full text of the three communiqués has been placed in the Library.

    What did the Minister say regarding the Soviet offer a fortnight earlier to halve its medium-range missiles? Will the Secretary of State press for negotiations on this rather than support Washington's rejection, or does he wish to encourage further events at Greenham Common?

    As the Soviet Union has over 900 independently targeted warheads installed, and NATO has no equivalent weapons in place, an offer by the Soviet Union to remove half still threatens us in the West. The offer that it has made cannot be acceptable to NATO. However, this may be a move in the right direction and if we can get the Soviet Union to understand our fears about its deployments, we shall be making progress. That is what we are trying to achieve by the zero option, which would mean no deployments at all.