HC Deb 12 December 1957 vol 579 cc1433-7
Mr. G. Brown

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Defence whether he will make a statement on his negotiations with the United States Secretary of Defence.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys)

I was very glad of the opportunity of making the acquaintance of the new United States Secretary of Defence, Mr. McElroy, and of having a general discussion with him of defence problems of common concern throughout the world. We had a most frank and valuable exchange of views on a number of defence questions. No negotiations took place.

Mr. Brown

The communiqué issued by the Ministry of Defence, when the discussions closed, told us that the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. McElroy discussed measures to give effect to the principle of interdependence and reviewed further the progress of the plans for supplying to Britain United States intermediate range ballistic missiles.

In view of the misunderstanding and complications over the stationing here of bombers, because the decision seems not to have been made very clear at the time, does not the Minister think that he ought to give us a great deal more information about the terms he is discussing with the Americans about the stationing here of what is only another method of delivering exactly the same weapon?

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us how far he has gone, as the communiqué says, along the road of agreeing to a base for stationing these missiles here, and at what stage will he lay before us the terms which are to govern their use, so that we do not have the same problem over them as over the H-bombers?

Mr. Sandys

I still repeat that no negotiation took place at this meeting. The right hon. Member raised two points: one was the question of closer co-operation and the other the question of American rockets. On the first, I can inform the House—it is not a question of negotiation—that we reviewed the progress of the studies which are being made by our experts, the experts of the two Governments, of measures to give effect to the policy of closer co-operation which was initiated in the recent Washington talks by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister.

On the second point, we also reviewed the progress of the negotiation of formal arrangements for implementing the agreement in principle reached in Bermuda last spring for the supply to Britain of American intermediate range ballistic missiles, and we were glad to note that the negotiations were reaching a favourable and satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. Brown

May I press the right hon. Gentleman still further? Several times he has taken exception to the word "negotiations". He has used the words "agreement", "reviewed the progress" being made towards a conclusion and "reviewed the progress" arising out of the Prime Minister's agreement. In his last sentence, he used the word "negotiations". Is he trying to tell us that this was not a case in which he and his opposite number were sitting down to come to an arrangement and an agreement? If so, does that not involve negotiation, about, which we should be told? Or is it that the American was telling him what the Americans proposed to do? I should be reluctant to draw that conclusion, but if the right hon. Gentleman insists that there were no negotiations it is difficult to see what other conclusion he is asking us to draw.

Mr. Sandys

I do not think the right hon. Member perhaps heard correctly what I said. His Question asked whether I would make a statement on negotiations with the United States Secretary of Defence. I said in my reply that no negotiations had taken place. I am talking of two matters, one, the question of closer co-operation, and the other the question of the supply of American rockets to Britain. The question of principle had already been decided first at the Bermuda Conference, so far as the rockets were concerned, and, secondly, at the Washington talks, so far as closer co-operation or integration was concerned.

In the course of one day's discussions Mr. McElroy and I had a very wide field to cover. We had not time—and it would have been absurd if we had tried—to carry on negotiations on these questions. What we did was to receive reports on the progress of the negotiations which were taking place between the experts, officials and officers of the two countries, and, so far as the rocket agreement was concerned, as I have already explained, we noted that they were making favourable progress and that it was to be hoped that they would be concluded very shortly.

Mr. Shinwell

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that he has used a lot of words, but not told us very much. Never mind about negotiations. In these conversations between himself and Mr. McElroy, was the matter of concessions of a reciprocal character discussed?

Mr. Sandys

Concessions on what?

Mr. Shinwell

We want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us. Certain advances were made to the right hon. Gentleman by the United States Secretary of Defence. Did the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of Defence whether he would promote more effective co-operation in the nuclear sphere, about which there has been a great deal of discussion? Could we not have a little more information without impinging on security?

Mr. Sandys

While negotiations of any kind are going on—[Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies opposite to laugh, but I made it quite clear that negotiations are going on. What I was asked about was the negotiations which took place between me and Mr. McElroy. None took place. During a period in which negotiations are going on, it is unusual for the Government to divulge a great deal of detail. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) paid me the compliment of saying that I had used quite a lot of words without giving away very much information. I thank him for it.

Mr. Brown

May I again ask the Minister to look at the terms of his own communiqué issued by his own Ministry and reported in The Times on Tuesday? The Times stated that during the three days, Mr. McElroy and Mr. Sandys … discussed measures to give effect to the principle of interdependence … It then went on to refer to the missiles. Is the Minister really insisting that when the Ministry of Defence said that he was discussing the measures to give effect to the agreement he and Mr. McElroy were not engaged in negotiations? Why does he now deny that any negotiations took place when, on Tuesday, the Ministry assured us that he and Mr. McElroy had spent three days discussing the measures to give effect to the agreement? What is the Minister seeking not to tell us? What is he trying to hide?

Mr. Sandys

I know the text of the communiqué. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at HANSARD tomorrow he will see that I have already said, in reply to an earlier supplementary question, that we reviewed the progress of the talks which had been taking place between the experts of both Governments about measures to give effect to the policy of closer co-operation initiated in the recent Washington talks. Of course we did. There is no mystery about this. All I can say is that it would be an extremely inefficient way of conducting affairs if, when the United States Secretary of Defence was here for a very short time, passing through London, and we had a large number of subjects to discuss, we attempted to negotiate—negotiate; I am not talking about discussions—agreements about these matters. These matters are extremely involved. We have had two teams—[Interruption.] I am giving information to the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) and the right hon. Member for Easington, for both of them asked for information. We have had two teams of experts, one at the official level and the other at the scientific level, which have been discussing matters in very great detail with the Americans for a week at a time.

Mr. C. Pannell

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Does not the Minister's answer come under the heading of tedious repetition?

Mr. Speaker

No, I do not think so. If I may say so with respect, I do not think the House will get very much more out of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sandys

All I would say—in conclusion, I hope, Mr. Speaker—is that, if the same question is repeated, hon. Members must expect something like the same answer.