§ 10. Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United Kingdom will have a physical veto on the use of any United States nuclear weapons stationed, planned to be stationed or projected to be stationed on United Kingdom soil.
§ Mr. BlakerIn the case of the United States forces already based in the United Kingdom, it has been made clear to the House many times that the use in an emergency of the bases concerned would be a matter for joint decision between the Governments of the United Kingdom and the United States, in the light of the circumstances at the time. Those arrangements have been regarded as entirely satisfactory by successive Governments. They will also apply to the ground-launched cruise missile force to be based here starting in 1983.
§ Mr. MarlowI am afraid that my hon. Friend has not properly understood the question that I tabled. I want to know whether we in this country have a physical control over whether those missiles are used. Is my hon. Friend aware that if we do not have that control—if we do not have a finger on the trigger—future Soviet perceptions might result in the annihilation of the United Kingdom?
§ Mr. BlakerI think that my hon. Friend is talking about a finger on the safety catch, not on the trigger. If he 413 is asking whether the two-key system applies to the missiles, it does not. That was our decision, taken in the interests of saving costs.
§ Mr. CryerIs it not true that the formula that Ministers keep trotting out was agreed between Attlee and Truman in 1951? Nuclear weapons were not envisaged under the agreement. Is it not also true that, because there is no physical veto by the United Kingdom Government, the United States could use a cruise missile in a demonstration nuclear explosion, as was explained by the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe, General Haig?
§ Mr. BlakerThe hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the arrangements for a joint decision were first agreed between Mr. Attlee and Mr. Truman. They were reconfirmed by Mr. Churchill and Mr. Truman, and they have been regarded as satisfactory by every Government since then.
§ Mr. WilkinsonDoes my hon. Friend agree that the cruise missiles, like the B47s, the B52s, and the F111s, are the symbol of the indissoluble bond between the free peoples of North America and ourselves, and are evidence of the determination of our ally, the United States, to put our joint security at a high level of priority?
§ Mr. BlakerMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would only add that it is proposed to install cruise and Pershing missiles in other countries in Europe as well as in the United Kingdom, at the request of the Europeans.
§ Mr. SnapeWhy does not the Minister answer the supplementary question put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? Is it not a fact that what is concerning millions of people in Western Europe at present is the contradictions in United States policy, as enunciated by President Reagan, General Haig and Mr. Caspar Weinberger? Is the Minister aware that the people of Western Europe do not share the Government's complacency about these matters?
§ Mr. BlakerI am not at all complacent about these matters. The arrangements have been regarded as satisfactory by successive Governments. President Reagan's remarks were entirely consistent with the NATO strategy of flexible response, which aims to deter Soviet aggression by making it clear that NATO has a credible response to any attack, whatever its level. That is where the relevance of cruise missiles comes in.