HC Deb 05 March 1958 vol 583 cc1164-6
40. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will specify the various disarmament proposals, nuclear and conventional, which have been accepted in principle by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the four Western Powers and those on which no agreement has yet been reached in principle.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey)

The differences of principle between the Soviet Union and the Western Powers relate to the entire nature of a partial disarmament agreement and to most of the elements to be included in it. In fact, I am not aware that the Soviet Government have ever admitted that there is agreement, in principle on any disarmament measure at all. Nevertheless, the Western Governments considered that in last year's negotiations they had achieved common ground with the Soviet Union on certain matters that could be included in a disarmament plan if general agreement were reached. As the list of these matters and of the points which remain disagreed is rather long, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Henderson

Would not the Minister agree that agreement was reached in principle on proposals for safeguards against surprise attack? May I also ask him whether it is correct, as stated in The Times today, that a proposal was made for a meeting of the Security Council to discuss the disarmament deadlock? Are Her Majesty's Government in favour of such a meeting?

Mr. Harvey

With regard to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point, that is the issue in regard to which the nearest point of agreement has been reached, although not agreement in principle. On the second point, although it would not be correct to say that any definite decision with regard to a meeting of the Security Council has been made, the discussions are going on and we are very hopeful that measures can be taken to resolve this deadlock.

Mr. J. Eden

Is it a fact that a large part of the delay in reaching further agreement on the matter of disarmament has been chiefly due to the obstructiveness of Soviet delegates in the past? Would not my hon. Friend emphasise the point that Her Majesty's Government have taken every opportunity to try to accept any reasonable proposals put before them, and that there is no possible hope of reaching any agreement on disarmament unless the Soviet delegates are prepared to do something more constructive than just talk about peace?

Mr. Harold Davies

And Mr. Dulles.

Mr. Harvey

I think there is a great deal in what my hon. Friend has said. The important thing is that we should work towards the future to achieve this very desirable result.

Mr. A. Henderson

Is not it fair to say that the Soviet Union has, in fact, put forward a large number of proposals with a view to securing a disarmament agreement?

Mr. Harvey

That is perfectly correct, and is the subject of a Question by the right hon. and learned Gentleman which is to be answered next week. At the same time, a great many of these proposals amount to the same thing, and over a long period there was no change whatever in their attitude.

Following is the list: The list of matters on which the Western Governments considered that common ground was achieved in last year's negotiations is as follows:
  1. (i) The principle that any suspension of nuclear tests should be subject to international inspection; the Soviet Union has, however, refused to discuss just what this inspection would involve and how it could be carried out.
  2. (ii) The principle of aerial and ground inspection as a means of protection against surprise attack; but there is no agreement on the areas to be inspected and again the Soviet Union has refused to discuss inspection arrangements in detail.
  3. (iii) The figures to which the armed forces of the major powers could be limited, in successive stages.
  4. (iv) The principle, that, in a first-stage agreement, the participating states should draw up lists of conventional arms to be put into internationally supervised depots. However, Mr. Bulganin has now proposed that measures of conventional disarmament should not be discussed at the "Summit talks" but deferred till later.
 There is no agreement of principle on the following Western proposals:
  1. (a) for the cut-off in production of fissile material for nuclear weapons;
  2. (b) for reduction of existing military stocks of fissile material after the cut-off;
  3. (c) for a study of control over the use of outer space;
  4. (d) for an undertaking that nuclear weapons should be used only in self-defence;
  5. (e) for exchange of information on military expenditure;
  6. (f) for international inspection and control generally.
 Likewise, there is no agreement on Soviet proposals for an absolute ban on the use of nuclear weapons; for the elimination of nuclear weapons altogether; for a percentage cut in military budgets; for the elimination of foreign military bases; for reduction of the forces of the four major Powers stationed in Germany and in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Pact areas; and for measures to stop propaganda for war. Details of all the disarmament proposals mentioned will be found in the report on last year's proceedings of the Disarmament Sub-Committee, Command 333.