§ Q3. Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 31 March.
§ The Prime MinisterThis morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
§ Mr. JannerWhen the Prime Minister met her ministerial colleagues today, did she have time to discuss with the Secretary of State for Employment his belated approval of the Commission for Racial Equality's code on ethnic monitoring, and in particular his decision that the implementation of the code will be delayed by one year? Does she not regard that as a disgraceful delay in view of the wicked levels of unemployment among the black and Asian communities in this country?
§ The Prime MinisterThe answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman is no. The code has now been published. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will know, it still gives rise to some controversy because there are 462 quite a number of things that are onerous for small business. He will also be aware that, as the law stands, the House has no right to amend that code, which does give rise to some difficulty. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment proposes to introduce legislation so that in future we can not only consider a code but amend it.
§ Mr. Roy JenkinsHas the Prime Minister had an opportunity to study President Reagan's latest aims control statement? Does she consider that this would be compatible with an agreement, on balance, along the lines discussed by Mr. Nitze and his Soviet opposite number in their much publicised walk a few months ago?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have welcomed President Reagan's proposal. It is that, as an interim agreement, there should be equal numbers of intermediate range missiles and that that intermediate number should be negotiated at the Geneva table, between Mr. Nitze and his opposite number. That is the right way to go about it and this is a welcome statement.
§ Mr. Beaumont-DarkDoes my right hon. Friend agree that over the past two years the British motor industry has built up a splendid name for good products and good productivity? Does she further agree that it is particularly depressinging that, because of a minor dispute, its credibility is now to be thrown into question? Will she appeal to both sides at BL Cowley and Ford Halewood not to destroy what has been so hard to build up and remind them that their jobs and those of other workers are placed in great jeopardy at times such as this?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend. All taxpayers in this country have poured money into British Layland to enable it to produce good products such as the Metro and the Maestro. Just at the moment when they are selling well, some of the workers of British Leyand go on strike. That is a tragedy for them, their products, their company and for their country. I hope that they will go back to work and keep their jobs.
§ Mr. FootI wish to ask the Prime Minister two questions on her apparently quite unqualified acceptance of President Reagan's interpretation of the zero option proposal. First, why does she think that it is right to exclude sea-based missiles but to include land-based or air-based missiles in the negotiations? Does she not agree that to include both would be a better way of proceeding with the negotiations? Secondly, will she take into account that one of the reasons why so many British people, including the women at Greenham Common, who are opposing it for that reason among others, are so bitterly opposed to the deployment of cruise missiles is that such deployment would make well-nigh impossible any future arms control agreement? What does the right hon. Lady have to say on that subject?
§ The Prime MinisterThis round is about land-based intermediate range nuclear missiles. There are arrangements for different classes of missiles to be dealt with separately. These are land-based—the SS20, cruise and Pershing. They are all land-based. It is right that they should be dealt with separately—
§ The Prime MinisterBecause there are other arrangements at Geneva for dealing with sea-based 463 missiles. I think it best that this is negotiated at Geneva. It is right that we try to deal with land-based intermediate range missiles. Zero is absolutely the best possible answer. Let us never forget that. The reason why it cannot be obtained is the Soviet Union. In the absence of being able to remove SS20s altogether, it is right that we should seek to deploy a smaller number. Provided the Soviet Union reduces the number of SS20s, fewer cruise and Pershings would need to be deployed. That is a reasonable arrangement. I hope that the negotiations at Geneva will succeed.
§ Mr. FootWill the right hon. Lady answer my second question? Does she agree that the deployment of cruise missiles—[Interruption.] It is all very well for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches to interrupt, but that was the NATO view in June 1979. NATO took the view then that the deployment of cruise missiles would make future arms control arrangements impossible. With regard to my first question, is the right hon. Lady saying that the possibility of including sea-based and other missiles is to be excluded from the Geneva negotiations? That is tantamount to saying that it is pretty well impossible to reach an agreement.
§ The Prime MinisterFirst, the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government of whom he was a member agreed to the modernisation of intermediate nuclear weapons. At that time weapons such as cruise and Pershing were discussed. They were in favour of modernisation. The decision in NATO was taken in December 1979 and was taken on the basis that there must 464 be balance and verification. The zero option was a special case of that balance. I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman complain about the actual deployment of SS20s. The SS20s are actually deployed. The Soviet tactic is to try to keep that deployment while we do not modernise our nuclear weapons. The only way to get the Soviets to the negotiating table is to say that if they will not take them down we shall deploy ours, but only as many as we need to—which depends on how many of theirs they take down.
§ Mr. FootWe shall debate these matters in the House soon and the right hon. Lady's answers make it all the more necessary that we should. First, it is absolutely untrue that the Opposition did not protest about the SS20s. We did protest and we did it in Moscow as well. We also understood, as anyone who tries to understand these matters must, that sea-based theatre weapons should be included in the discussions. It is most noticeable that the right hon. Lady did not even attempt to answer my question about how cruise missiles would make future arms control impossible. That was NATO's view in June 1979 and I dare say that it is still true.
§ The Prime MinisterThere are separate negotiations for strategic missiles. As the right hon. Gentleman should know, the President of the United States made proposals for substantial reductions in strategic missiles. The Russians have not come very far in agreeing to that at Geneva, either. Those proposals remain on the table. If the right hon. Gentleman is against deployment of the SS20s, why does he not protest and ask for them to be taken down?