§ Mr. NuttingWith permission, I will now give the answer to Question No. 30.
In my statement to the House about disarmament on 28th March, I said that despite the negative attitude which the Russians had taken up to date, the Western Delegations in the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee would continue to strive to narrow points of difference.
During the weeks that followed the Western Delegations tabled three important proposals. First we tabled a Paper on the aims of nuclear disarmament and the conversion of nuclear energy for peaceful uses. This was followed by a Paper elaborating on the principles of international control. And on 19th April the French representative and I tabled a proposal that the total prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons should begin after three-quarters of the reductions in conventional armaments and armed forces had been completed. This proposal was offered on condition that agreement could be reached on drastic reductions 271 in armed forces and conventional armaments of the five Great Powers and on a really effective system of international control. The Anglo-French Plan of June last year had provided that this final stage of nuclear disarmament should begin only after all the conventional reductions had been completed.
The new Anglo-French proposal was put forward in an attempt to meet the frequently expressed Soviet objections that the Western Powers were postponing nuclear disarmament until the very end of the disarmament scheme. Nevertheless, these proposals were severely criticised by the Soviet representative when we and our Allies put them forward.
For several weeks he maintained that they did not advance the work of the Sub-Committee and did not in any way meet the objections of the Soviet Government to the timing and phasing of the Anglo-French Plan or to the extensive powers and rights which the Western Delegations had insisted should be given to the international control organ.
However, on 10th May the Soviet representative announced that the Soviet Government had a new proposal to make. This proposal was published the same evening. As hon. Members will be aware, this Soviet proposal in fact adopts several of the key proposals which my Western colleagues and I had for many weeks been urging the Soviet Delegate to accept. In particular the Soviet Government have accepted our proposals that the levels to which the armed forces of the five Great Powers should be reduced, should be the following: for the United States, the U.S.S.R. and China, between one and one-and-a-half million each; and for Britain and France, 650,000 each. Conventional armaments and military budgets should be limited accordingly.
The Soviet Union also agreed to accept the Anglo-French proposals that nuclear weapons should be prohibited after three-quarters of the conventional reductions had taken place. The Soviet proposal incorporated too, for the first time, the Western idea of a single control organ, with expanding powers, operating throughout the disarmament programme. They also included a passage on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which 272 reflects the Western Powers' own paper on this subject.
There are, however, other questions on which the new Soviet proposals are still obscure. For example, it is not clear whether the powers which the Soviet Union proposes for the control organ are yet adequate to guarantee that all States will faithfully carry out the measures of disarmament. There are other points on which only further discussion will show whether we can reach complete agreement with the Soviet Union.
I would, however, like to say that Her Majesty's Government regard this change of attitude on the part of the Soviet Government as an important step forward in our discussions on disarmament. I am sure the House will agree that this new Soviet position represents an encouragement to the Western policy of patient and resolute negotiations.
The Sub-Committee has now temporarily adjourned while Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the other Western Powers represented on the Sub-Committee study the Soviet proposal in detail. The date of its resumption is under discussion in New York. At the same time, disarmament will no doubt be considered, along with other political questions, at the forthcoming Four-Power Talks. Her Majesty's Government will continue, at whatever level this vital question is considered, to do all in their power to bring about a comprehensive and effectively controlled disarmament agreement.
§ Mr. A. HendersonWould the Minister of State agree that these new proposals of the Soviet Government not only constitute an important step forward but considerably narrow the differences which existed last year during the meetings of the Sub-Committee? Will he make it quite clear that the Anglo-French Plan of last year is not an unchangeable plan and that it would be modified if necessary, as far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, if that would lead to an effective and comprehensive disarmament agreement? Is he aware of the statement made by Dr. Adenauer, the German Chancellor, yesterday, in which he obviously attaches the greatest importance to a world disarmament agreement being achieved even prior to the solution of some of the political problems which exist today?
§ Mr. NuttingI am certainly aware of Dr. Adenauer's important statement on this subject. As to the question of the Anglo-French Plan, the attitude of Her Majesty's Government is not one of rigidity, as I think has been shown by the efforts which we have made at conciliation, some, but not all, of which have been successful, in the Disarmament Sub-Committee. Finally, as I said in my statement, I consider that the Soviet change of heart and attitude represents an important and encouraging step forward.
§ Mr. Clement DaviesAs one realises there will of necessity be certain modifications, may I ask if the policy of the Government is the same as that declared by the then Minister of Defence, now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the debate in March, namely, that whatever agreement may be reached on other minor points, the international organ shall be an effective and real organ carrying out the agreements which have already been reached?
§ Mr. NuttingYes, Sir, we regard the control organ in the important light in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs regarded it in the speech to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred. This indeed is the nub of the whole question.
§ Mr. PagetCould the right hon. Gentleman say if these Russian proposals are conditional upon there being no German contribution to the defence of Europe, or whether they are independent of the question of a German contribution?
§ Mr. NuttingNo, Sir, they do not refer to the question of a German contribution to the defence of Western Europe. There are, however, other elements, political questions, which are dealt with in the Russian proposals but which do not, of course, fall within the terms of reference of the Disarmament Sub-Committee. No doubt those questions will be discussed at the forthcoming Four-Power Talks.