HC Deb 16 April 1956 vol 551 cc683-93

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

43. Mr. A. HENDERSON.—To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the publication of their disarmament proposals by the United States and Soviet Governments, he will make a statement on the proposals contained in the latest Anglo-French plan.

44. Mr. FLETCHER-COOKE.—To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now make a statement on the work of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee.

49. Mr. WARBEY.—To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what objections he has to the latest Soviet disarmament proposals.

At the end of Questions—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd

Her Majesty's Government, together with the French Government, have taken several initiatives with regard to disarmament during the past two years. The first was the Anglo-French plan of June, 1954. That was eventually accepted as a basis for discussion by the Soviet Government in September, 1954. A further initiative was taken last month at the current meetings of the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee, when a revised Anglo-French plan was put forward. Both these Anglo-French plans were drawn up in such a way as to try to meet the points of difficulty which had been raised in the innumerable discussions on disarmament within the United Nations. I am circulating the text of the revised Anglo-French plan in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The United States Government have also made various new proposals, the most important being the outline of a scheme for a first phase of disarmament which Mr. Stassen introduced in the Sub-Committee on 3rd April. This proposal was based on President Eisenhower's letter of 1st March to Marshal Bulganin which, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 13th March, had the general support of Her Majesty's Government.

The Soviet Union, for their part, have also made a number of proposals culminating in those put forward by Mr. Gromyko on 27th March. Her Majesty's Government recognise that the Soviet Government, in their latest plan, have accepted some aspects of the Anglo-French proposals. They have agreed that the control organisation should be formed and established in the countries in which it will have to function, before the processes of disarmament begin. That is a point to which we have throughout attached the highest importance. Secondly, the Soviet Union have now defined the objects which they consider should be subject to that control.

There are still, however, important differences. The views of the Soviet Government and the French and British Governments differ with regard to the powers to be given to the control organisation. Under the Soviet plan the agents of the control organisation have only the right to make recommendations. Before a Government in breach of the treaty can even be called upon to stop the breaches there must be a decision of the Security Council, a decision, of course, which would be subject to a veto.

We, on the other hand, continue to believe that there must be some provision written into the treaty giving the agents of the control organisation certain rights of enforcement. The effective functioning of control must not be hamstrung by the veto. With regard to the methods of exercising control, the Soviet Union's attitude with regard to aerial survey is rather negative. This is an important matter because without aerial inspection control cannot be effective, particularly where there are huge tracts of territory to be inspected.

Next, we believe that progress in actual disarmament must be conditional upon the effective functioning of the control organisation. We believe that our method of proceeding by stages is more likely to produce results. The Soviet plan provides for the automatic carrying out of the process of disarmament whether or not the control organisation is functioning effectively.

Thirdly, the new Soviet proposals do not deal at all with nuclear disarmament. We are all aware of the difficulties of controlling any form of nuclear disarmament, but we believe that a disarmament agreement should provide for a measure of nuclear disarmament at some stage. I know that my friend M. Jules Moch feels strongly on this point. When hon. Members read the Anglo-French plan, they will see how we have dealt with it; and it is a matter upon which we must have further discussions with the Soviet Union.

A further matter of difference to which some public attention has been drawn is the levels of conventional forces. The difference between the United States and the Soviet Union positions is not so great as has been suggested. The United States view is that the level at the end of the first phase of disarmament should be 2½ million each for the Soviet Union and the United States. The position of the Soviet Union is that the level should be 1½ million at the end of the whole process of conventional disarmament. There is obviously room for further negotiation there.

Finally—and a matter of considerable importance—there is the relationship between the process of disarmament and the settlement of outstanding political problems which are causing international tension. We have always maintained that a disarmament agreement would of itself help to reduce tension But, at the same time, it is not realistic to expect a comprehensive disarmament plan to be carried through all its stages before outstanding political issues have been settled. The two processes should continue pari pasu. That does not, however, mean that we cannot begin to carry out, even in the present state of the world, the first part of an agreed plan.

To sum up, I think that these discussions are resulting in some progress on a number of points. There are still substantial differences. Her Majesty's Government will continue to do their best to overcome them.

Mr. Henderson

Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman clarify two points? First, in the proposal in the Anglo-French plan for fixing a level of conventional armaments. No figures are mentioned. Do Her Majesty's Government favour the proposal of the Soviet Union that these armaments should be fixed at 1½ million, with lower levels for other countries, or do they support the proposal of the United States Government that they should be fixed at 2½ million with lower levels for other countries? Secondly, would Her Majesty's Government give most careful consideration to the proposal of the Soviet Union that all hydrogen bomb tests should cease? Would they not agree in principle, and say that the date on which such a ban should come into operation should be discussed?

Mr. Lloyd

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not comparing like with like. As I indicated, the American figure is a figure at the end of the first phase of disarmament. The Russian figure is at the end of the whole process. Our view is that we should not magnify that difference. I repeat that it is not comparing like with like. I do not despair of further negotiation ironing out a difference that is more apparent than real. On the question of the limitation or control of nuclear tests, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman studies the Anglo-French plan he will see how we have dealt with that.

Mr. Fletcher-Cooke

Would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the public are getting rather muddled and bored with the long discussions on the question of disarmament, perhaps because it is so large? Could he not put out in popular form a pamphlet explaining the stage we have got to in this matter, so that the public could see what the facts were and what the position in regard to agreement and disagreement was? At present, they are most muddled and bored.

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend may be quite right about people becoming muddled and bored. In the last four and half years I have had some part in these negotiations, so that that may very well be cause and effect. But on the whole this is a vital matter for the peace of the world, and in spite of the muddling and boredom I think there has been a narrowing of the gap between the various parties. I certainly do not despair of it being possible for us to hammer out an agreed solution, in spite of all the difficulties.

Mr. Gaitskell

The Foreign Secretary has quite properly drawn attention to differences between the Russian proposals and the Anglo-French proposals; but is it not a fact that there is a wide measure of agreement between all three sets of proposals? Could the Foreign Secretary say how it is now intended to proceed in these discussions? Would it not be possible, at least, to register the fact that there was agreement over a certain field, that there were other matters on which disagreements were slight, leaving perhaps only relatively few on which major disagreements were existing?

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman also bear this in mind, that now that the Soviet Government have come round to what I understand our point of view was, namely, that we could proceed with disarmament of conventional weapons even if there were difficulties on the nuclear side, it would be extremely regrettable if we were to give the impression now that we would change in the opposite direction?

Mr. Lloyd

I certainly agree that to create any such impression would be regrettable. Her Majesty's Government and our Allies, I am quite certain, have not the slightest intention of allowing any such thing to happen. I believe that, subject to agreement on control, there is a better chance than ever before of making some progress. But what we have to remember is that if there is not agreement on effective control, any agreement is really a "phoney" agreement. There has to be an adequate system of control, and that is why I rather emphasised the difference of opinion between us on these matters.

We certainly do not wish to delay. The Sub-Committee is still meeting. It shortly has to prepare a Report for the Disarmament Commission. I hope that will emphasise the points of agreement, always remembering how dangerous it is not to bring out differences of opinion with regard to the control organ.

Mr. Gaitskell

Is the Sub-Committee not intending to try to reach any further measure of agreement before reporting to the Disarmament Commission?

Mr. Lloyd

I very much hope that they may be able to reach agreement. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that there was a private meeting of the Sub-Committee, I believe, last Thursday. I still hope it may be possible for agreement to be reached, though I think these things must not be allowed to drag on interminably. After private meetings have been taking place for a certain time, it is perhaps better that the matter should be ventilated. However, I do not despair of agreement being reached even in these meetings.

Mr. Warbey

Will the Foreign Secretary clarify the Britsh Government's position with regard to the proposed level of armed forces? Does the Government still stand by the level laid down in the original Anglo-French plans, or have they abandoned them now that the Russians have accepted them?

Mr. Lloyd

The point I made before is that the American figure deals with the level at the end of the first phase. The Russian figure deals with the level at the end of the process. We have said in our latest plan that that is a matter for negotiation. We are seeking to procure an agreed solution between the other parties. There is nothing really very surprising about that.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the manufacturing and testing of thereto-nuclear weapons were to cease, there might at some stage be grave danger of a return to massive conventional warfare? Will the Disarmament Commission take account of that?

Mr. Lloyd

The two matters of nuclear disarmament and conventional disarmament have to be interwoven.

Mr. A. Henderson

In fairness to the Soviet Union, is it not a fact that they propose the cessation of nuclear tests as a beginning to nuclear disarmament? Is that not the position?

Mr. Lloyd

In their substantive proposals they make no reference to nuclear disarmament or nuclear tests at all. But there is in the Soviet proposals a subsidiary list of certain things which might be done, and that subsidiary list makes reference to nuclear weapons.

Mr. S. Silverman

Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain in what way an agreement to abandon for the present further nuclear tests could do any harm or work any prejudice whatever on this country's freedom of action at a future stage, if the agreement should catastrophically break down.

Mr. Lloyd

As I say, if the hon. Gentleman will look at our proposals, he will see how we deal with the question of nuclear tests.

Mr. Silverman

That is not an answer to my question.

Mr. Beswick

The Foreign Secretary seems to be striving very hard to extract points of difference, and one of those points he emphasises again, namely, the fact that the Soviet proposals suggest that in the event of a breach of agreement only recommendations can be made by the Control Commission. Could the Foreign Secretary say what other alternative this Government have to put forward other than recommendations? How are we to enforce the agreement, once made? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinking in terms of armed forces, or what?

Mr. Lloyd

This matter can be debated, of course; but I have told the hon. Gentleman repeatedly on previous occasions that we maintain, and have always maintained, that it must be part of a disarmament treaty that the agents of the control organ have the right to command a cessation of breaches.

Mr. Henderson

How?

Mr. Lloyd

By calling upon the person committing the breach to stop it. [An HON. MEMBER: "Through the United Nations organisation?"] No; it must be part of the treaty that the agents of the control organ have the right to do that. If they do so, and the person does not stop, he is in breach of the treaty. That is quite a different matter from three or four months' argument as to whether there has been a breach.

Mr. Wigg

Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not accept the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), does he appreciate that it is of paramount importance that public opinion in this country should be properly informed on this very difficult and complex question? Would he not therefore bring matters up to date by the publication of a White Paper?

Mr. Lloyd

I have not altogether rejected the suggestion of my hon. Friend; I certainly think that after this series of Sub-Committee meetings there must be another White Paper.

Following is the text of the revised Anglo-French plan:

FRANCE

UNITED KINGDOM

  1. WORKING DOCUMENT: PROPOSED SYNTHESIS
      2. cc690-1
    1. SECTION I 320 words
      2. c691
    2. SECTION II 130 words
      3. cc691-2
    3. SECTION III 166 words
      4. c692
    4. SECTION IV 68 words
      5. c692
    5. SECTION V 45 words
      6. cc692-3
    6. ANNEXE 261 words