HC Deb 17 June 1980 vol 986 cc1318-20
4. Mr. Cryer

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the siting of 160 cruise missiles in the United Kingdom.

7. Mr. Roy Hughes

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the manufacture and deployment of cruise missiles.

Mr. Pym

I have received some 860 letters and a small number of petitions about cruise missiles.

Mr. Cryer

Do those representations include expressions of concern about the massive amount of money being spent—about £10 million—while the Government are starving the education services? Is the Secretary of State aware that the school meals service is disintegrating and the textbooks position gets worse week by week? Is the cruise missile not a disgraceful waste of expenditure, particularly bearing in mind that £10 million is only the direct cost, and that there is an additional cost of a very large road works programme associated with this mad programme?

Mr. Pym

Very few of the representations that I have received related to cost. In any case, it is rather a bad point because the great majority of the cost is being provided by the United States.

Mr. Hughes

Is the Minister aware of the official policy of the Labour Party in this matter, as decided through proper constitutional channels? Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the right hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Rodgers) to continue to serve as the Labour Party's official spokesman? Would it not be more honourable for him to retire to the Back Benches and put his point of view from There? Or should he join Mr. Roy Jen kins——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Minister is not responsible for Opposition appointments.

Mr. Churchill

Will my right hon. Friend explain to the patriots below the Gangway opposite the fallacy of the unilateral disarmament theory? Will he point out to them that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would never have been bombed had the Japanese had nuclear weapons, and that Afghanistan would almost certainly not have been subjected to Soviet invasion today had it possessed effective modern weapons?

Mr. Pym

I take the opportunity of pointing that out from time to time. At least we share an objective on both sides of the House that if it were possible to persuade the other side to reduce its arms and thus achieve multilateral arms reductions, that would be a great advantage. However, it is very dangerous to do that in a one-sided manner. We are working for mutual, balanced, verifiable arms reductions.

Mr. Gummer

Does my right hon. Friend accept, as these weapons are possibly coming to my constituency, rather than to Keighley, that the people of East Anglia would put freedom before anything else? Does he further accept that there is no kind of education or school meals which matter if we are living in chains?

Mr. Pym

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We all admire the calm good sense with which the people of East Anglia have accepted nuclear weapons in their vicinity for the past 20 years or more. There is no doubt that unless we provide adequate defence forces, with our Allies, our way of life and our freedom are at risk. This Government, like all their predecessors, are dedicated to preserving our freedom.