§ 8. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the meeting of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Foreign Ministers in Rome on 5 May, with special reference to the discussion of nuclear missiles.
§ Mr. BlakerThe NATO Foreign Ministers discussed a wide range of issues of concern to the Allies, including long-range theatre nuclear forces. While emphasising that in present circumstances the modernisation of NATO's long-range theatre nuclear forces remained more essential than ever, they welcomed the intention of the United States to hold negotiations with the Soviet Union on theatre nuclear forces arms control by the end of the year.
§ Mr. AllaunIs the Minister aware that Labour leaders of Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Britain, including Ministers and shadow Ministers, met recently and agreed to refuse the deployment of cruise missiles on their territories independently and unconditionally, and that there is growing support for this view? Does the Minister propose to ignore this opposition?
§ Mr. BlakerIf the hon. Gentleman is accurate in his description, I think that all those bodies, meeting together, took a very unwise decision. We have explained in the House on a number of occasions—no doubt the matter will be referred to again today—why we believe that we must modernise our theatre nuclear forces in Europe. The Soviet Union has been building up its own theatre nuclear forces at an enormous rate. At the same time, we have said, as the second part of our policy, that we wish to conduct negotiations for the limitation or possible reduction of those forces.
§ Mr. SproatWill my hon. Friend agree that it is truly remarkable that the Soviet Union is always willing to make endless propaganda about disarmament but is always extremely unwilling to do anything positive about it? Was it not clear from the NATO communiqué after the Rome meeting that what NATO wanted was a stable military balance, preferably at a reduced level of forces, and that the only thing that is stopping this is the continued build-up of Soviet forces?
§ Mr. BlakerI agree with my hon. Friend. What I also find remarkable is how Labour Members call for negotiations about the unilateral limitation or reduction of nuclear forces, forgetting what Aneurin Bevan said on 3 October 1957 on a resolution not to test, make or use nuclear weapons. He said:
If you carry this resolution you will send a British Foreign Secretary naked into the conference chamber.
§ Mr. HealeyThe Devil can certainly quote scripture to his own purpose. Will the Minister answer the following questions? Is it not the case that the Governments who agreed in December 1979 to deploy cruise and Pershing missiles in 1983 did so, as the Lord Privy Seal told us the other day, on the assumption that the SALT II treaty would be ratified and on condition that purposeful negotiations would start in the near future for a reduction in theatre nuclear forces on both sides? Will the hon. Gentleman support the German Chancellor's demand, which he made on this week's visit to Washington, that the negotiations that have been agreed to begin by the end of the year should be brought well forward, so that the peoples of Europe can judge the prospects?
§ Mr. BlakerThe American Government have made it clear that they support the continuation of the SALT process. Mr. Brezhnev has said something similar. As regards the timing of the negotiations between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on theatre nuclear forces, the communiqué from NATO Foreign Ministers stated that, as far as the United States of America was concerned, they would be initiated before the end of the year. It was also stated that Mr. Haig would have discussions on the exact arrangements in September, when he is to meet Mr. Gromyko.
§ Mr. HealeyWill the Minister answer the specific question that I asked—namely, will the Government support the request that the German Chancellor made during his visit to Washington to the effect that the negotiations should be brought well forward?
§ Mr. BlakerWe hope that the negotiations will take place as soon as possible. The position that NATO Ministers adopted the other day is perfectly reasonable.
§ Mr. Robert AtkinsIs it not true that NATO is a defensive alliance and that that cannot necessarily be said of the Warsaw Pact? Is it not also true that, until we took a decision to modernise theatre nuclear forces, the Russians were not prepared to discuss arms reductions?
§ Mr. BlakerNATO is certainly a defensive alliance. It has been repeatedly stated that the posture of the Soviet Union's armed forces and much of their training is offensive. I agree with the second part of my hon. Friend's question.