HC Deb 24 June 1981 vol 7 cc238-9
9. Mr. Flannery

asked the Lord Privy Seal if he has any plans to discuss detente with the Soviet Foreign Minister.

Sir Ian Gilmour

We are ready to discuss the international situation with Soviet leaders whenever we think it would be useful.

Mr. Flannery

Does the Minister accept that that is an evasive reply to my question? Does he agree that no subject in the world is more important than detente, which means peace for the whole of mankind? Will the right hon. Gentleman avoid using political prejudice or bias as an excuse for not speaking to the Soviet Foreign Minister? Will he also note that sabre rattling, be it from the British Prime Minister or the American President, is not helpful? Therefore, will he use his good offices to ensure that the Government fully represent the wishes of the British people by discussing detente with the Soviet Foreign Minister, in the interests of peace for all?

Sir Ian Gilmour

We are never evasive in these matters and we certainly do not believe in rattling sabres. Detente is important if it is genuine, and it has been the Government's objective to ensure that detente is reciprocal and mutual rather than one-sided. That policy is supported by the vast majority of British people.

Mr. Squire

Does my right hon. Friend accept that the story of the last 20 or more years shows that, despite the Soviet Union's well-advertised proposals on detente and disarmament, just about every proposal has broken down because Russia has refused to allow adequate inspection and verification.

Sir Ian Gilmour

My hon. Friend is right to suggest that an arms control proposal is worth nothing unless it is fully verifiable. I entirely agree with him.

Mr. Healey

Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), does the right hon. Gentleman agree that SALT I and SALT II included quite adequate provisions for inspection and verification? Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the disturbing evidence given yesterday to the American Congress by the newly nominated head of the arms control and disarmament agency, Mr. Gene Rostow, in which he said that the United States of America should entirely abandon the SALT negotiations? He made it clear that he had not the slightest idea what to put in their place and that he would not have any idea for at least nine months. In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman told the House during our last foreign affairs debate, does he not agree that, if the American Government took that line, it would destroy the very assumption on which the decision to deploy cruise missiles in Europe was taken, 18 months ago?

Sir Ian Gilmour

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is a bit too early to draw drastic conclusions from what was said yesterday in Congress. Indeed, we have not yet done so. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the American Government have agreed to talks with the Russians about theatre nuclear forces in Europe. That is an important first step. Mr. Haig will be meeting Mr. Gromyko in September. It is too early to go beyond that.

Mr. Healey

Does not the right hon. Gentleman recall that, during our last foreign affairs debate, he told the House that the decision of the NATO countries to modernise their theatre nuclear forces depended on the assumption that SALT II would be ratified? If the whole SALT process is to be abandoned, we must take it that that decision can no longer be considered operative.

Sir Ian Gilmour

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I did not say "depended". I said that it was "taken in the context". The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that at that stage—before the invasion of Afghanistan—everyone thought that SALT II would be ratified by the Senate. Obviously, we should have preferred it if SALT II had been ratified and if Afghanistan had not been invaded. However, that was not the case. I do not agree that the decision about theatre nuclear forces is made obsolete or nugatory by what happened to the SALT negotiations. That decision is necessary for Europe and I should have expected the right hon. Gentleman to agree with that.

Mr. Chapman

As detente clearly means different things to different countries, does not my right hon. Friend agree that the USSR could take a useful and constructive first step towards our meaning of that word by joining in an agreement to combat international terrorism? Has any progress been made on that subject at the reconvened Madrid conference?

Sir Ian Gilmour

Progress has been slow. My hon. Friend will appreciate that such an international agreement would be difficult. However, there is considerable co-operation among many Western Governments, and that is welcome. My hon. Friend will also be aware that terrorism comes from many quarters.