§ 19. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consider supporting at the ten-nation disarmament commission the new proposals of the Canadian Government for the ending of nuclear tests.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydThe Canadian Government's opposition to further nuclear tests is well known to Her Majesty's Government but we have no knowledge of any new Canadian proposals in the sense implied in the Question.
§ Mr. AllaunI was referring to those made by the Prime Minister of Canada two or three weeks ago. In view of the 18 months' deadlock at Geneva and the innumerable series of evasions and objections both by East and West, does not the Foreign Secretary think that these new Canadian proposals, to stop all nuclear tests without becoming involved in a long series of qualifications, are sensible?
§ Mr. LloydI do not think the hon. Gentleman has got the point of view of the Canadian Government correctly In a statement I have read, the Minister of External Affairs said control was an important part and that stopping tests is important. That is exactly our position. We wish to have tests stopped, but we wish to have proper control. I do not accept that there has been 18 months of delay. Although the conference has proceeded slowly, it has made steady progress towards objectives which, I think, will meet our point of view and that of the Canadian Government.
§ 25. Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent agreement has been reached between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers on the disarmament proposals to be put before the ten-nation disarmament commission on 15th March.
§ 26. Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will 19 now make a statement on the disarmament proposals which Her Majesty's Government intends to put before the ten-nation disarmament commission on 15th March.
§ 34. Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what level the armed forces of the five permanent members of the Security Council are to be reduced in the first stage of the proposals to be submitted by Her Majesty's Government to the forthcoming disarmament conference.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydThese proposals are still under discussion between the Five Western members of the Ten-Power Committee (United States, France, Canada, Italy and the United Kingdom), and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is going to Paris tonight to continue these discussions.
§ Mr. SwinglerWhile thanking the Foreign Secretary for that reply, may I ask if he has seen the report in some of today's newspapers about the discussions in the American Senate criticising the lack of clarity and the confusion between departments about Western disarmament policy? Considering that there is only one week to go before proposals have to be prepared, may we be assured by the Foreign Secretary that some proposals will be put forward at any rate by the United Kingdom on 15th March, and that they will be comprehensive proposals for all-round disarmament?
§ Mr. LloydI think the hon. Member can be assured that proposals will be put forward. I have a very clear idea of the nature of the proposals I should like to see put forward, and the Minister of State, who goes to Paris tonight, is fully in my confidence in this matter.
§ Mr. RankinOn the specific point in regard to the level of armed forces, could the Foreign Secretary say just a further word? Is it not the case that we are aiming at a reduction to 489,000 by 1961, which represents a big decrease from the figure of 625,000 originally canvassed in these discussions? Could we not seek to secure among the other four members of the Security Council a proportionate reduction?
§ Mr. LloydPending the outcome of these discussions, it would be unwise for 20 me to get involved in consideration of a particular matter such as that. The hon. Member will, I know, draw consolation from the fact that we have declared our purpose of bringing down the armed forces of all countries to the level necessary for internal security purposes.
§ 27. Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what conclusions he has reached regarding the advisability of publication of the proceedings of the forthcoming conference on disarmament.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydAutomatic publication inevitably leads to propaganda speeches. It would not, therefore, in my provisional view help the Committee to a successful result if its full proceedings were made public day by day. I am inclined to prefer the procedure, adopted in the nuclear tests negotiations, of a brief daily communiqué. This is, however, a matter upon which we must have regard to the views of the other participants and it will, no doubt, be discussed as soon as the conference convenes.
§ Mr. WarbeyIs the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, from what work he has seen of the recent proceedings of the nuclear test conference, that this procedure leads to leakages with a much distorted version of what actually takes place? Would it not be far better to have full publication of all full meetings so that the people of the interested countries know what is being said and proposed in their names by their Governments in sufficient time to be able to intervene if necessary if things are not going on well?
§ Mr. LloydI fully admit that the present procedure adopted in the nuclear test conference is not perfect. There are disadvantages, but on the whole I think it is better than having a debate in public from day to day. I am not at all certain that all the interventions that we should get from various people, whom I will not now specify, would always be helpful.
§ Mr. P. Noel-BakerEven if the meeting is held in private, will there not be a great advantage in the rapid publication of the speeches as corrected by the delegates? Is there not great force in what my hon. Friend has said? With ten 21 delegations in the room—probably 80 people—there will be leaks and angled versions from many quarters, with inevitable misunderstandings and probably rancour.
§ Mr. LloydI think there is force in what the right hon. Gentleman said. It is, in many ways, a choice of evils. For example, the debates which take place in the United Nations in public which are fully reported—I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would say that they have really advanced the cause of agreement in these matters. We have to get some kind of procedure going which will be capable of being a negotiation, and that means an element of privacy. I think, therefore, that we had better stick to this idea in which a certain amount is said. There are, I am afraid, inevitable leakages, but it does admit still of there being negotiations. Whatever has leaked from the nuclear conference, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that there have been considerable periods when genuine negotiations have been going on.
§ Mr. P. Noel-BakerWhile everyone would admit that there must be private conversations, as there are conversations behind your Chair, Mr. Speaker, is it not also true that there are great advantages in the people knowing what their delegates are saying in their name? How can the full United Nations Commission be properly informed unless the records are published at regular intervals?
§ Mr. LloydI should like to consider carefully what the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. I think myself that contemporaneous or simultaneous publication would be a mistake, but that is different from what he is suggesting, that periodically there should be a resume or statement on what has been going on. I will look at that.
§ 35. Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs at what stage he proposes that the People's Republic of China shall be associated with the discussions on general disarmament under international control.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydThis is an important point, but it would be premature for me to make a public statement on the matter.
§ Mr. RankinWould not the right hon. and learned Gentleman go so far as to agree with me that we cannot expect China to accept the rules of the conference if we are not giving her admission to it, and that association would not serve the purpose that full admission would?
§ Mr. LloydI have said that the hon. Gentleman has put forward an important point which I think is very relevant to this discussion, but it would be premature to say anything more about it today.