HC Deb 10 November 1981 vol 12 cc407-8
6. Sir William van Straubenzee

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what recent consultations he has had with the United States Administration regarding the siting of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Blaker

My right hon. Friend discussed this subject with the United States Secretary for Defence and other NATO Defence Ministers at Gleneagles on 20 and 21 October.

Sir William van Straubenzee

As a number of these missiles are likely to be sited in the county of Berkshire, part of which I represent, will my hon. Friend, without further consultation, inform the United States Administration that the vast majority of the people there, while warmly supporting constant diplomatic efforts to find ways to achieve multilateral disarmament, believe that the siting of these defensive weapons in their county strengthens the Government's hand in that resolve?

Mr. Blaker

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, and he is absoluely right. As my right hon. Friend said, we are vigorously dedicated to the support of multilateral as opposed to unilateral disarmament.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell

Does the Minister agree that if Britain and the West take unilateral decisions on the cruise missile there will be no incentive whatever for the Russians to reduce the number of SS20s?

Mr. Blaker

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and what he has said is becoming increasingly recognised in the country.

Mr. Stoddart

As these weapons are mobile, should not the views of the people of Berkshire perhaps be taken with a pinch of salt? [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Swindon?"] Swindon is far too near to Greenham Common for my liking. As the previous Secretary of State for Defence said, no one is safe in a nuclear attack, particularly if cruise missiles are sited in Britain, because, as they are mobile, they will make the whole of the United Kingdom a target.

Mr. Blaker

I would not dream of taking the opinions of the people of Berkshire with a pinch of salt. The hon. Gentleman's latter remarks are precisely the reason why our efforts are dedicated to preventing war. We are not, as some people allege, planning to fight and win a nuclear war, because we do not believe that there would be any winners. Even if we were to adopt the suggestions of the unilateral disarmers, the United Kingdom would still be a target in any future war because of its industrial and political importance as well as its geographical location.