§ 2. Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he considers that the strategic value of installing cruise missiles on British and German soil is weakened by the French Government's refusal to grant similar facilities.
§ Mr. AtkinsonWill the Secretary of State tell the Prime Minister that when she meets President Reagan on 25 February she should point out that there is no longer a bipartisan approach in this country to nuclear weapons, and that, in view of the widespread opinion that exists in the Labour movement, once it is returned to power it will oppose the installation of cruise missiles in this country?
§ Mr. NottThe Prime Minister is already aware of the hon. Gentleman's views. It is a little more difficult to define the present Labour Party and its views. However, I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's opinion in that regard.
§ Mr. TrippierWill my right hon. Friend emphasise the deterrent effect of cruise missiles and the need to site them in Europe because of their limited range? Will he take this opportunity to counter the myth that, because these missiles are based on selected sites in this country there is an increased likelihood of those areas being attacked, when the truth is that in the event of a nuclear attack nowhere in the United Kingdom or in any NATO country would be safe?
§ Mr. NottMy hon. Friend is correct. The United Kingdom is bound to be a target—if I may use that expression—in any conventional or nuclear war. It is a major industrial and economic nation. It would be the base from which NATO was reinforced. In fact, the introduction of cruise missiles will spread nuclear weapons more evenly throughout Europe than happens at present.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunIf, as is becoming increasingly clear, the Norwegian, Danish, Dutch and Belgian Governments all refuse to have the missiles on their territory, will Britain do the same?
§ Mr. NottIt is not by any means clear that the Netherlands and Belgium will take that view. It was never intended that Norway and Denmark should be sites for cruise missiles. If Germany, Italy and Britain agree to site the missiles on our respective territories, that in itself will provide a very effective deterrent to comparable nuclear exchanges from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact countries.
§ Mr. WallWill my right hon. Friend confirm that the French already have medium-range ballistic missiles on the Plateau D'Albion submarine-launched ballistic missiles, the Pluton tactical nuclear weapon and the force de frappe, and therefore have more nuclear weapons than we have?
§ Mr. NottThe French have a significant nuclear capability. They were not consulted because they are not part of the NATO integrated military structure. There was nothing more to it than that.
§ Mr. SnapeIs not the time overdue for the Government to seek urgent disarmament talks with the Soviet Union and the United States, before the American-controlled weapons are installed on British soil? Have the Government such plans, and if not, why not?
§ Mr. NottThe Government are doing everything in their power to further arms limitation and control. The question relates to the cruise missile, and it is, therefore, worth noting that, until it was agreed with NATO that we should proceed with the modernisation of long-range theatre nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union refused to come to the negotiating table on arms limitation. Indeed, it was NATO's decision to go ahead with the modernisation programme that brought about the discussions in Geneva.