DISARMAMENT

HC Deb 14 May 1956 vol 552 cc1628-31

14. Mr. Swingler

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what political considerations, other than the settlement of the future of Germany, prevent his agreement to a disarmament plan involving a level of less than 750,000 men under arms for the United Kingdom.

Mr. Nutting

None, Sir. The debatable question is how far a disarmament plan can be carried out without any political settlements.

Mr. Swingler

Does that mean, as the Minister of State implied last week, that the determining factor in agreeing to such an interim disarmament plan is the level of troops which enables the United States to continue to station forces in Europe? Is that the determining factor, or is it the conclusion of a political settlement?

Mr. Nutting

What I said last week and what I say again now is that nothing prevents us from concluding a disarmament agreement at any time. The question at issue is how far that disarmament can be carried out, and how far the reduction of forces under it can be carried, without a political settlement.

Mr. Beswick

Can the Minister explain how a political settlement will be facilitated by an increased number of troops facing each other over the border?

Mr. Nutting

If the hon. Member had listened to my statement last week he would have heard that we are ready to carry out some measures of disarmament by international agreement prior to a political settlement. What we cannot do is to break up the defence structures, such as N.A.T.O., which form the shield of this country and the free world until such issues as Germany and Europe have been resolved.

Mr. Warbey

Has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the great advantage for the Western Powers which would accrue from the reduction of the forces of the Soviet Union and China to 1½million men each, or less?

Mr. Nutting

Of course I have taken all those factors into account, and I have also taken into account that quite a lot would result from a reduction to 2.5 million.

Mr. Robens

Would the adoption of the suggestion by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) affect the question of disarmament and the number of troops in the various sectors?

Mr. Nutting

I do not know which suggestion the right hon. Gentleman means. The right hon. Member in question has made a number of suggestions.

19. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to give an estimate of the numbers by which the forces of each of the five great Powers would be reduced if the forces of the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of China were immediately reduced to 2,500,000 and the forces of France and Great Britain were reduced to 750,000; and whether he will propose to the United States and French Governments that such reduction should be carried out unilaterally.

Mr. Nutting

If we include paramilitary forces in the cases of Russia and China (but not militia) and colonial forces in the case of the United Kingdom, the reply to the first half of the Question is, according to our estimates: about 400,000 for the United States of America; about 120,000 for China; about 86,000 for the United Kingdom; about 1,500,000 for the Soviet Union; assuming of course that they have carried out the reduction of 640,000 announced last year. I am unable to give the figures in respect of France. As regards the second part of the Question, Unilateral disarmament can only be taken unilaterally.

Mr. Henderson

Would not such reductions, limited as they are, at least show that the three Governments were genuinely desirous of starting the process of disarmament, and might they not well help to break the present disarmament deadlock? Will not the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give serious consideration to the proposal contained in the Question?

Mr. Nutting

I always give serious consideration to anything the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggests to me, but as to the first part of this particular Question, I would inform him that we have said at the Disarmament Conference that we are ready to go down to these figures, prior to the making of any political settlement, as a first step to disarmament. That is a completely new position, and one which we took up in order to meet the Soviet Union. But the problem we have to face in connection with a disarmament agreement is not so much a question of willingness or unwillingness to disarm, but willingness or unwillingness to accept the necessary control machinery.

Mr. Peyton

Does not my right hon. Friend realise that he has the very broad support of this country—and certainly of hon. Members on this side of the House—in resisting the suggestions coming from hon. Members opposite that we should engage in unilateral disarmament without first getting some gesture of good faith from the Soviet Union and her satellites?

25. Mr. Emrys Hughes

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the White Paper on disarmament policy is to be published.

Mr. Nutting

The White Paper will, I hope, be published on the day the House reassembles after the Whitsun Recess.

Mr. Hughes

Why is the publication of this document to be delayed until after the Whitsun Recess? Will the right hon. Gentleman see that incorporated in it is a statement by Her Majesty's Government on the speech by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill)?

Mr. Nutting

The speech of the right hon. Member for Woodford was not made in the Sub-Committee and, therefore, will not figure in the White Paper. As for the delay, it has taken some time to produce a consecutive and reasonably readable account of the Sub-Committee's proceedings, but there has been no intentional delay in any way.

Mr. Beswick

Can we take it that there will be published as soon as possible the verbatim record of the recent discussions at Lancaster House?

Mr. Nutting

As to the verbatim record, that is another reason why the White Paper has been slightly delayed. It would be an extremely expensive matter to publish the verbatim record as a White Paper. Therefore, I would hope that the House would be content to have the verbatim record made available in the Library and that a consecutive account of the Sub-Committee's proceedings should appear in the White Paper.