§ 15. Mr. Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the siting of cruise missiles since his recent statement.
§ Mr. PymSince my statement on 17 June, I have received about 75 letters and a small number of petitions about the basing of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom, of which some 10 have referred specifically to the particular sites chosen.
§ Mr. StoddartIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that the siting of these weapons in the United Kingdom affects areas much wider than the bases themselves? Is he also aware that many people believe that these are essentially offensive weapons which invite a pre-emptive strike and that they are, therefore, very dangerous indeed? Will he show rather more alacrity in getting to grips with the offer made by the Russians to discuss theatre nuclear weapons without preconditions?
§ Mr. PymI readily accept that the implication of the decision on basing goes outside the confines of the constituency or immediate neighbourhood where the bases are located. I have already taken a number of opportunities to explain the reasons for that decision, and I shall take further opportunities next week and no doubt subsequently. On the important subject of arms control, as I think I indicated in earlier answers, I believe that we have taken a much more positive line—and our United States allies have taken very positive steps in 1223 this area—which have not yet begun to be matched by anything which has happened on the Soviet Union side. It may be that there will be a change of attitude, but that remains to be seen.
§ Mr. KershawIf we decline to update our defences, will it be more or less likely that the Russians will agree to some measure of disarmament?
§ Mr. PymI do not have the slightest doubt that the decision to go ahead with the cruise missiles and Pershing Its will likely prove to be a cause of bringing the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. From that point of view alone, it is entirely right that we should adhere to the decision that we took.
§ Mr. Robert C. BrownIs not the siting of the cruise missiles an irrelevance? Is it not a fact that cruise missiles make this country neither more nor less a nuclear target than it has been for the last 30 years? Does not that make it all the more important for the Government to tackle seriously the question of getting down to negotiations in the three years which lie ahead?
§ Mr. PymI agree with the hon. Gentleman's earlier comment. Of course, the basic decision is one of great moment for people in the immediate neighbourhood and the area around, but from the point of view of the United Kingdom generally, I agree with what he has said. With regard to the other matters, as I have said already, we are doing our best.