§ 3. Mr. Millanasked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on the further proposals put forward by Her Majesty's Government at Geneva on the question of a nuclear test-ban treaty.
§ 17. Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Lord Privy Seal what proposals have recently been put forward by Her Majesty's Government's representative at Geneva on the subject of a proposed international nuclear test-ban treaty; what counter proposals have been put forward by the other nations represented there; and what have been the results.
§ 30. Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Lord Privy Seal, in view of the announcement of the eight neutral nations at Geneva that they were not putting forward any compromise proposals, what steps Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take to end the present deadlock at the Nuclear Test Ban Conference.
§ Mr. GodberThe most recent proposals by the Western Powers were those contained in the Memorandum of Position which was tabled jointly by the United Kingdom and United States delegations to the Geneva Conference on 1st April this year. Copies of this document have been placed in the Library of the House. No counter-proposals have been put forward. In an effort to break the deadlock the British and American Ambassadors in Moscow handed Mr. Khrushchev on 24th April a letter jointly addressed to him by President Kennedy and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. MillanIs not the stumbling block the quota of inspections between our seven inspections and the Russian's proposed three? Would the Minister confirm that if the Russians were willing to accept the other points put out in the Memorandum of Position, we should not be rigid about requiring seven annual inspections?
§ Mr. GodberThe quota is one of the aspects. There is the other question of what exactly would comprise an inspection. It is no good talking about the number of inspections until we know how effective an inspection would be. The Memorandum has been submitted by our Ambassadors and I think the best thing would be to await the outcome.
§ Mr. HughesDoes the Minister realise that a treaty of the kind which is indicated in my Question is of the utmost importance to humanity and that the failure to achieve such a treaty is an abdication of Britain's status as one of the leading nations of the world and indicates shocking and devastating failure on the part of the Government?
§ Mr. GodberI find that question a little puzzling. I should have thought that the achievement of a treaty was certainly not a unilateral matter. Britain is very anxious to conclude a treaty, and that is why I am spending a great deal of my time in Geneva discussing this very matter. But we cannot do it all from one side. We must have co-operation from the other side.
§ Mr. HendersonIs it not a fact that the neutral delegations at the Conference prepared a set-up of compromise proposals on the problem of on-site inspections and that they have not gone any further with it because of pressure, 689 according to reports, from the United States and Soviet Governments? Is this not rather an extraordinary way of running a conference at which neutral Governments representing the rest of the United Nations are present?
§ Mr. GodberIt is not for me to say what led up to the neutrals not submitting their proposal. They decided among themselves not to submit it. I would make clear that the most useful consultations that take place at this Conference are those behind the scenes which are going on the whole time between neutrals and between different sides. I should be reluctant to say or do anything which would impinge on that. I think that these continued private consultations, whatever the outcome in particular instances, are of benefit to the conference.
§ 13. Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Lord Privy Seal whether compromise proposals on the United States and Soviet disarmament plans are now being considered by the 17-Power Disarmament Conference in Gevena.
§ 26. Mr. Prenticeasked the Lord Privy Seal what steps are currently being taken by the United Kingdom representatives at the Disarmament Conference in Geneva to promote discussion on compromise proposals designed to bridge the gap between the United States and Soviet disarmament plans.
§ Mr. GodberDiscussion on general and complete disarmament continues to centre on major aspects of both the Soviet and Western Plans. In the course of this, certain compromise suggestions arose from both sides, but none has yet succeeded in bridging the main points of difficulty. The United Kingdom's policy remains to seek areas of common agreement in which progress might be possible. One of the greatest difficulties, however, is in getting the Soviet delegation to participate in detailed discussion either of their own or of Western proposals. They appear to prefer to keep the discussion to generalities.
§ Mr. HendersonCan the Minister say whether any initiative has been taken to secure the preparation of a compromise plan based on the American and Soviet plan, as, for example, the United Nations Secretary-General being invited 690 to prepare such a plan, and would not the Minister agree that unless initiative of this nature is taken these discussions are likely to be interminable?
§ Mr. GodberI agree that the discussions are going on a very long time and that we are not making the progress I would wish. I would say that I believe that our present form of discussions, slow though it is, is necessary in order to elucidate the full points. In relation to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, I understand that he said at a Press conference on 11th April that he did not intend at present to enter into discussions with the countries engaged in the disarmament talks, but that if at some stage he felt that his initiative could be useful he would not hesitate to use it.
§ Mr. PrenticeWhat sort of effort is being made in Whitehall to study these proposals in detail with a view to some independent British initiative? How many people are engaged? May I make it clear that I and most of my hon. Friends are not against Western unity in these things, but it seems that we have been automatically following the American line in these discussions. We have been doing so to too great an extent. We should like to see some evidence of a real attempt by Britain to take the initiative and put forward proposals.
§ Mr. GodberI take the point. As to the numbers engaged, it is not the practice to state the numbers of individuals operating in these matters, but we have a strong team dealing with the matter. As regards the fact that we appear to be following along with the Americans, I remind the hon. Gentleman that we participated in the formulation of this United States plan. We played our part in it, both in that and in the American approach to the agreed principles which preceded it. We have played a full part in that. If we at any time felt that a separate British initiative was right, we should not hesitate to take it. At the moment the correct thing is to continue with the evaluation of the plans which are on the table.
§ Mr. P. Noel-BakerDoes the hon. Gentleman recall that the Foreign Secretary said in his opening statement to the Committee that we should not stick inflexibly by the Western Plan but 691 should be ready to make adjustments and compromises when required? Does not the hon. Gentleman think that after fifteen months such attempts are now required?
§ Mr. GodberYes. We have put forward various suggestions and amendments to the plan. We and the Americans jointly have done so from time to time. I am sorry that we have not made more progress than we have, but it is not entirely due to Western intransigence, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware.
§ Mr. Noel-BakerPerhaps the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to give us a White Paper setting out what changes, suggestions and compromises have been proposed on the one hand by the Russians and on the other hand by us.
§ Mr. GodberI would be glad to consider that. I point out one obvious important compromise proposal which the West put forward, namely, in relation to zonal inspection. This was a very big step forward which I am sorry was not taken up.