HL Deb 20 July 1971 vol 322 cc844-6

2.52 p.m.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

[The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government why the recent White Paper contains no details of what measures are within the power of the United Kingdom to preserve peace in Europe or provide a deterrent against attack by an enemy.]

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)

My Lords, defence has at no stage been an issue in the negotiations for enlargement of the European Economic Community. Moreover, there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome about defence, and membership of the European Economic Community carries no defence obligations. For these reasons, the White Paper did not discuss the preservation of peace and deterrents against enemy attack.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that Answer, which I regard as completely unsatisfactory. Is he conscious of the fact that the White Paper refers to the capability of the E.E.C., when united, to promote peace—both prosperity and peace, but peace, in particular—and speaks of unity? Is the noble Earl aware that NATO, upon which, apart from American forces, we depend in Europe, has not the support of the French forces, and that without the aid of the United States and the addition of the French forces it is impossible for NATO to provide an effective deterrent against aggression? Therefore, how can we exclude the subject of defence when we seek to promote peace and at the same time provide a deterrent?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, we shall be discussing the White Paper in a three-day debate in your Lordships' House next week. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will excuse me if I give him only a capsule answer at this moment. What I should like to make clear is that the support for the North Atlantic Alliance is, and remains, and will continue to remain, the first priority of our defence policy. But neither membership of the European Economic Community, nor the greater defence co-operation among the European members of the Alliance, which I think will be encouraged by adherence to the E.E.C., would in any way interfere with or detract from our membership of the North Atlantic Alliance.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether his Answer does not contain more optimism and faith than fact? Is he aware that, after about 50 years of Parliamentary life, I am so staggered by that lack of understanding in his reply that I am quite incapable of putting a supplementary question?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am not altogether surprised that the noble Lord, with all his experience, is incapable of putting a supplementary question to my answer to his supplementary question, for this simple reason: that it is my profound belief that for most of this century a disunited Europe has been, within all our experience, one of the primary threats to world peace. I believe that a more united Europe is one of our best guarantees for peace in our lifetime.

LORD BLYTON

My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the White Paper says of our payments with regard to Euratom that we are going to give all the"know-how"of nuclear energy, which can be the prelude to giving the nuclear deterrent to those on the Continent?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, is giving a slight preview of some of the things he may be saying next week. I suggest that this is another question, and I repeat that we shall have three days in which to explore these matters next week.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether there has been, or whether there is to be, any additional clause to the Treaty of Rome dealing with defence against an attack by an enemy?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, there has not been and, so far as I know, there will not be. The answer is categorically, No.

LORD CHALFONT

My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that although we have much sympathy with his desire to leave the substance of this Question until the debate that is due to take place next week, the enlargement of the Common Market cannot be divorced from questions of political integration, and that those in their turn cannot be divorced from questions of the defence of Europe? Can the noble Earl give us an assurance, in the light of the concern that obviously exists about this matter—the whole question of nuclear deterrents in Europe and its implications, some of them very dangerous indeed, especially in the sphere of anything like an independent nuclear deterrent—that Her Majesty's Government will bear this very much in mind in the next round of discussions and negotiations that will lead to our final entry into Europe and the steps towards its political integration?

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, I entirely agree with him that all these matters are interlinked. But I should like to make it quite clear—as I think those who have been speaking for Her Majesty's Government have already made clear—that the French Government have put no proposals to Her Majesty's Government about Anglo-French arrangements, let alone Anglo-French nuclear arrangements, in the context of these negotiations; nor have Her Majesty's Government put any proposals to the French Government. But, having said that, I would agree that of course these matters are interlinked, as the noble Lord suggested in his first supplementary question.