§ 19. Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new initiatives he is taking towards the holding of an East-West Security Conference; and if, in the light of the current situation as regards Berlin, he will not insist on prior settlement of that issue as a pre-condition.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThis question will be discussed at the forthcoming Ministerial Meeting of N.A.T.O. in Lisbon. Hitherto the view of our Allies, fully shared by Her Majesty's Government, has been that questions of European security cannot be dissociated from the Berlin problem.
§ Mr. AllaunWhile we all want to see some progress over Berlin, is it not wrong to make the settlement of the Berlin problem a pre-condition? Is this not being put forward as yet another obstacle to holding the conference when all sides seem to want such a conference? Why cannot we get on with it?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe answer to that question is that if we cannot make progress on what ought to be a comparatively simple matter—that is, arranging civilised conditions of entry to the city of Berlin with the Soviet Union—there is not much point in setting up new machinery for wider consultations. We 876 are trying very hard to get a Berlin settlement. The sooner that is done the sooner we can get on to further measures of conciliation.
§ Mr. Geoffrey FinsbergWould my right hon. Friend not agree that because Berlin is a potential powder keg it is essential that these two things should go hand in hand?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeYes, Sir. We must not be rigid in this matter. I am certain that agreement on Berlin would open the door to other negotiating positions with the Soviet Union. The sooner we get on with the Berlin settlement the better.
§ Mr. HealeyWhile the whole House will share the Foreign Secretary's view that there should be a settlement on Berlin as soon as possible, may I ask him whether he would not accept that when N.A.T.O. first made its proposals in 1968 for mutual and balanced force reductions negotiated with the Warsaw Pact it did not settle on Berlin as a condition but this condition was set, in my view quite rightly, when the much wider question of a European Security Conference was raised by the Soviet Union? Is it not the case that in the last few days both Mr. Brehznev in the Soviet Union and Mr. Rogers in the United States have indicated a desire to hold an early conference on mutual and balanced force reductions without any pre-conditions regarding the holding of a European conference? Is he aware that Mr. Brehznev has recently stopped talking about a European Security Conference and talks simply about a European conference? Would the Foreign Secretary undertake on behalf of the Government to support any move inside the Western Alliance to move rapidly to negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions quite separately, if necessary, from a general conference on Berlin as well?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeYes, but reductions must be mutual and balanced. I cannot see any reason, as there is a Disarmament Committee permanently sitting in Geneva, in active session—although it does not move much—why this question cannot be taken there.
§ Mr. Healeyrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Member will be brief, I hope.
§ Mr. HealeyI will be brief. With respect, the right hon. Gentleman's Government has until now taken the view that the question of mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe should be discussed between the two alliances and not at the Geneva meeting. Is he not aware that Mr. Rogers yesterday made a statement indicating that the American Government were prepared to proceed immediately to discussions on mutual and balanced force reductions provided that the Soviet Union said that it was sincerely interested in doing so?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeWe will at any time be willing to do that but I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that this question of disarmament can be discussed at Geneva, along with wider questions. If any special machinery is necessary we are certainly willing to consider it.