§ 3. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether nuclear weapons were discussed at the meeting of the North Atlantic Council on 9 and 10 December which he attended.
§ Mr. PymYes. Nuclear arms control was a major subject of discussion at the North Atlantic Council, as I explained in the debate on 15 December.
§ Mr. AllaunWhat is wrong with Mr. Andropov's offer that Soviet missiles in Europe should not exceed those of Britain and France as at present deployed? Secondly, does today's refusal even to negotiate that offer mean that cruise missiles are bound to come and that the nuclear arms race will finally get out of control, or will it need a change of Government in Westminster to stop that?
§ Mr. PymThe understanding between the United States and the Soviet Union on the INF talks is that of parity between the United States and the Soviet Union. The hon. Gentleman referred to Mr. Andropov's speech yesterday, which is the first public statement of the Soviet Union's position. Full details of it are not yet available, but I have no doubt that they will be when negotiations resume in Geneva at the end of January. The difference between the Soviet Union and the West—between the Soviet Union and the United States—is in the equation and nature of the nuclear balance. It seems vital that the parties concerned agree upon the facts before they can make progress.
The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is "No". It is not certain or inevitable that the missiles will come to Europe at the end of the coming year. If arms control negotiations succeed, and if it is possible for the two sides to negotiate an arrangement that is verifiable and balanced, and if the armament is reduced on both sides even-handedly, we shall have to review the decisions that we took.
§ Mr. Cyril D. TownsendDoes my right hon. Friend agree that Mr. Andropov' proposals come close to inviting Britain to trade his apple for our orchard? Will he insist on the British Government rejecting all ideas of unilateral disarmament when Mr. Andropov himself has entirely ruled out such an absurd policy for his own country?
§ Mr. PymWe have always rejected the notion of unilateral disarmament precisely because it would throw away our defences and bring arms control no nearer. The only reason why the Russians are at the negotiating table is the decision that we took in NATO three years ago. That is why they are there discussing the possibilities of a reduction. My hon. Friend has referred to some of the obvious weaknesses in the plan that has been put forward. However, it is for the negotiators to come to their conclusions when the next round begins.
§ Mr. HealeyIs the Foreign Secretary aware that many of us welcomed his recognition that Mr. Andropov's proposals were a step forward? His readiness to negotiate on them is a welcome contrast to the complete rejection of the proposals by President Reagan, which many of us deeply deplore. As the right hon. Gentleman said on television last night that the West must examine Mr. Andropov's proposals as part of what he called the "overall balance of security", how can he refuse to take account of French and British nuclear forces as part of the overall 933 balance of security? Is he not aware that the planned Trident force, which he supports, would have the same destructive power as the entire Soviet SS20 force? Does he really expect the Soviet Union to ignore it? If he expects the Soviet Union to ignore our forces, why is he planning to spend £10,000 million on them with the aim of influencing Soviet policy?
Finally, may I tell him that the Opposition are sick and tired of the bargain basement Boadicea barging in yet again with an off-the-cuff dismissal of Mr. Adropov's proposals when she admitted yesterday that she had not even read the atm? Will he last—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. This is a very long question. There are certain constraints on occupants of the Front Benches, even at Christmas time.
§ Mr. HealeyIt may be a long question, Mr. Speaker, but it is extremely apposite. The reception that it has had has shown that it is meaningful to both sides of the House.
Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise it as his duty and his right to work for peace against a one-woman walking disaster area who attempts to sabotage all his initiatives?
§ Mr. PymI hope that the Christmas spirit descends on the right hon. Gentleman in the near future. I said to Mr. Brunson yesterday that if the suggestion that had been made by Mr. Andropov meant that in principle the Soviet Union was prepared to reduce SS20s, that would seem to be a small step in the right direction. As for my readiness to negotiate, I made it clear in last week's debate that the ideas that had been floated were only informal at this stage. Mr. Andropov spoke publicly of them yesterday. When negotiations recommence at the end of January, full details will be available. However, from what we know already there are shortcomings in the proposals. It is right to point them out. I have already said that we must examine them with the greatest care.
The right hon. Gentleman confused the issue and added to the confusion about the British system that he complained of last week. The Russian request to include, the British system is an attempt to divert attention from the real power imbalance which is at the heart of the problem. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the arrangement of the negotiations between the two superpowers is for land-based and not submarine-launched missiles.
§ Mr. PymSubmarine-launched missiles are excluded by both sides. It is no use the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) shouting about it. The other point is that the negotiations are about parity between the United States and the Soviet Union. In any case, our Polaris nuclear force is essentially strategic. For all those reasons, the British system is not part of the negotiations. The right hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.