HC Deb 15 January 1980 vol 976 cc1413-5
5. Mr. Chapman

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the deployment by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation of new United States nuclear missiles in certain Western Europe countries.

16. Mr. Temple-Morris

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress being achieved towards a theatre nuclear deterrent.

Mr. Pym

I have nothing to add to the statement that I made to the House on 13 December.

Mr. Chapman

Lest discussion on this crucial issue becomes unnecessarily confused, can my right hon. Friend confirm that the result of the modernisation programme is to replace Pershing launchers by an equal number and to reduce the number of nuclear warheads in Europe? If so, will he accept that that policy of modernisation without proliferation is to be warmly welcomed?

Mr. Pym

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. We never intended this decision to cause the nuclear element of the Alliance's defence capability to increase. It was the modernisation of a capability of a certain propor- tion. It was not the purpose to increase that proportion.

Mr. Temple-Morris

Will my right hon. Friend accept that recent events in Afghanistan abundantly vindicate the strong line taken by Her Majesty's Government over theatre nuclear deterrents? Will he continue—with the support, at least, of the Conservative side of the House—to exert pressure on other members of NATO to accept bases?

Mr. Pym

I believe that those sentiments will be echoed much wider than merely on this side of the House. The events in Afghanistan during the recess have given the clearest possible expression of the kind of activity that certain countries—the Soviet Union, in this case—are prepared to undertake, given the possibility. This underlines the need for us to make sure all the time that we and our allies are capable, between us, of protecting ourselves.

Mr. Frank Allaun

Are not these missiles of a single key type with no British control? Do they not, therefore, put Britain directly in the retaliation firing line if a nuclear bomb is dropped, by design or accident, on a Russian city?

Mr. Pym

Unfortunately, nothing can alter the fact that Britain, in any case, is in the firing line, as we have been, I suppose, throughout our history and very much so since the Second World War. Nothing will alter that. On control, I explained to the House before Christmas that the arrangements are the same as those which were in force before, and as exist now in the case of a certain United States' weapon. I have nothing further to say about that.

Mr. Allan Roberts

Will the Secretary of State explain how he can justify the statement he and his hon. Friends make, namely—that our theatre nuclear weapons—our independent nuclear deterrent—exist to deter the Russians when the right hon. Gentleman claims that detente has been ended by the Russians due to their invasion of Afghanistan? Why did not nuclear weapons deter that invasion?

Mr. Pym

I do not think that I have said that detente has come to an end. That is what the hon. Gentleman says. But people have been made to look with a rather different eye upon the claims made by the Soviet Union about detente. Some people in the West have, perhaps, come to take a more realistic view of the attitude that exists in that country.

The deterrent exists. It has so far succeeded, I am glad to say, in preventing a war, at any rate on this side of the globe. Recent events cause us to take an even more realistic view of the care we have to show in protecting the nation's security.