HC Deb 15 July 1980 vol 988 cc1212-4
5. Mr. James Lamond

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will meet the Defence Minister of the Soviet Union to discuss the possibility of suspending the decision to allow cruise missiles to be sited in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Pym

The United States, with the support of its allies, has repeatedly offered to negotiate with the Soviet Union on the limitation of long-range theatre nuclear systems on both sides. I welcome the signs—such as they are—that the Soviet Union may be prepared to reconsider its earlier refusal to enter such negotiations. However, despite these signs the Soviet Union continues to deploy new and sophisticated theatre nuclear weapons at an increasing rate, thus widening even further the imbalance in its favour. There can be no question of unilaterally suspending the NATO decision on cruise missiles as this would remove any incentive for the Soviet Union to negotiate seriously.

Mr. Lamond

Has not the Secretary of State changed his ground a little since the last time we exchanged expressions about these matters because he said then that the Soviet Union had not moved? Has not the Soviet Union moved its position several times in response to requests for talks? Therefore, were not the talks which Chancellor Schmidt had in Moscow fruitful? Should we not be trying our utmost to follow his example, instead of boycotting the Olympic Games?

Mr. Pym

Frankly, we shall have to wait to see what proposals, if any, the Soviet Union makes. I welcome the signs, such as they are, but they have yet to be tested. I have indicated the Government's positive attitude on the important issue of arms control, and the action taken by the United States.

Mr. Onslow

Does my right hon. Friend accept that most people in the House, and in the country generally, regard his attitude and the attitude of the official Opposition spokesmen on this matter as being much more likely to secure a balanced reduction in nuclear weapons than the obsession with unilaterial nuclear disarmament which we see among Opposition Members below the Gangway?

Mr. Pym

I agree with the remarks of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Frank Allaun

Does not the Secretary of State recognise the MX missile, the Tornado and the commitment to 3 per cent. per annum up to 1985? Surely this is not a one-sided issue.

Mr. Pym

No, it is not. Our 3 per cent. is matched by something like 4 per cent.—perhaps more—on the other side. They have been sustaining a programme of new weapon production for many years in all sectors on the other side of the Iron Curtain, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It has never been, and is not, any part of our strategy to seek to match the Soviet Union weapon for weapon. What we and our allies require is a defensive capability that is adequate to deter.

Forward to