HC Deb 06 April 1960 vol 621 cc388-90
24. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will state the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the termination of foreign military bases as part of an agreement for general and comprehensive disarmament.

Mr. Profumo

A disarmament agreement should, in our view, be concerned with the progressive reduction of forces and armaments, not with their strategic deployment during the process of disarmament. But we certainly foresee that at some stage in the process of general disarmament foreign military bases will be automatically terminated.

Mr. Henderson

Has that point of view been made clear to the Russian delegation at, the ten-Power conference?

Mr. Profumo

I think that it goes without saying, because if one aims at reducing one's armed forces to a stage where they are capable only of ensuring internal order, naturally one has no need for foreign military bases.

Mr. Henderson

Does that mean that there will be no reduction in the number of foreign bases until the completion of general disarmament?

Mr. Profumo

I did not say that. I have answered the Question as carefully as I could. I hope that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman reads the Answer he will agree with it.

27. Mr. S. Silverman

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government's policy at Geneva of pressing for nuclear disarmament in advance of conventional disarmament has been considered in the light of Her Majesty's Government's policy that any substantial attack in Europe, even if confined to conventional weapons, would be met with defence and retaliation with nuclear arms.

30. Mr. Rankin

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will adopt the abolition of nuclear weapons as the first step in his policy of general disarmament.

Mr. Profumo

We have not been pressing and we do not intend to press for nuclear disarmament in advance of conventional disarmament. We want, as hon. Members can see from our proposals in the White Paper, to advance by stages towards both nuclear and conventional disarmament.

Mr. Silverman

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public is getting more and more puzzled about Her Majesty's Government's policy in these matters? Does he agree that there would be an essential contradiction between a policy of getting rid of nuclear arms first before proceeding with general disarmament and a policy of meeting an attack by conventional arms with nuclear weapons? If the Government are not in that dilemma, will the Minister take steps to make clear to the House and to the country exactly where the Government stand about these matters?

Mr. Profumo

If the hon. Member reads carefully the White Paper in question, I think he will see that there is no inconsistency between Her Majesty's Government's disarmament policy as expressed at Geneva in the Western disarmament plan and the Government's policy about a possible major attack on the West as expressed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence.

Mr. Rankin

If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to adopt the kind of suggestion that I have made in Question No. 30 but proposes to retain the nuclear weapon against a possible conventional attack, does he realise that this will spread the nuclear deterrent more widely? How can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with a policy of general disarmament?

Mr. Profumo

My trouble here is that the hon. Member and his hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) are putting forward proposals diametrically opposed to each other. Probably the best thing is for Her Majesty's Government to continue along the sound lines that we have adopted.