§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what final recommendations were made at the Helsinki meeting of Ambassadors regarding the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (C.S.C.E.); and what proposals have been made for a meeting of Foreign Ministers, the appointment of working committees, and the convening of a representative conference to consider their reports.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the preparatory talks for the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe ended in Helsinki on June 8 with agreement, subject to confirmation by participating Governments, on a final document containing the detailed agenda and terms of reference for the Conference. Arrangements have been made for this document to be placed in the Library.
The preparatory talks recommended that the first stage of the Conference should begin on July 3 in Helsinki. The various specialised Committees will meet during the second stage, which is to be held in Geneva. It is expected that there will be a third and final stage at Ministerial level when the Committees have completed their work. This would take place in Helsinki.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, and particularly for the promise to put the document in the Library, may I ask him whether it would not have been incredible a year ago that there should have been this great success in the conclusion of the 970 Helsinki meetings; and would not Her Majesty's Government now make this constructive idea for ending the conflict between East and West a prominent stage in all their foreign policy, and acclaim it as such?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that 12 months ago many people would have considered such an outcome unexpected. It is the result of great effort by all the countries concerned to reach the very type of agreement to which the noble Lord referred that this has been possible. Of course Her Majesty's Government are always concerned to lower the tensions between East and West. This has always been part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government and continues to be so.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask one practical question? Could the Minister confirm that at yesterday's conference of NATO Foreign Ministers in Copenhagen some difficulty arose regarding the date of the opening of the conference on Mutual Balanced Force Reductions and the effect of this upon the second stage of the Helsinki talks?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, of course there is a connection between the two conferences because they are so interrelated, but arrangements have been made, both for the Mutual Balanced Force Reduction Conference and the Conference on European Security and Co-operation to take place, and we have no reason to think that the timetable which has been suggested should not be adhered to.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, may I follow my noble friend's second supplementary question and ask whether the Government can confirm that there are four opinions within NATO about the relationship between the civilian security talks in Helsinki and the military force reduction talks (which in the opinion of some of us are far more important) in Vienna, and that they are as follows? First, France does not want the Mutual Balanced Force Reduction talks to take place at all; next, Britain wants them to take place but makes no stipulation about the linkage between them and the security talks; next, the great bulk of NATO members, including the United States of 971 America, insist that the second stage of the security talks should not begin before the commencement of the Vienna military talks; and, lastly, Canada maintains that the security talks themselves should not begin until we have an opening to the military force reduction talks in Vienna? If that is correct, why do we care less than everybody else about the beginning of the Mutual Balanced Force Reduction negotiations in Vienna?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has put in what one might describe as watertight packets the arguments which he considers have been held by various countries. I agree with him that there are very 'different views, and that is the reason why these Conferences have taken place and have taken so long to come to a conclusion. I would not agree with the noble Lord that we are less enthusiastic about either of these Conferences, or the outcome of them, than any of the other Governments. We wish to see them both succeed.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, are we, in common with the majority of the NATO countries, insisting on a date linkage between the two sets? Are we insisting, vis-â-vis the Russians, that there be a date linkage; that is to say, we are not ready to go too far into the Helsinki talks until we have a proper beginning on the Vienna talks? Are we among those who are insisting on that?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, clearly there is a connection between the two. but in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I have explained that there is already a provisional East/West timetable and we expect that timetable to be respected.
§ BARONESS GAITSKELLMy Lords, my noble friend Lord Kennet has put the case in an expert way quite brilliantly, but may I ask the noble Earl, for many of us who are ignorant and non-expert. what is the meaning of security and co-operation without disarmament? Surely disarmament should come first.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the two are very closely connected and that is the reason why it is necessary to have two different conferences: the latter one on mutual balanced force reduction is a 972 totally military one while the former has far wider terms of reference.
§ LORD WYNNE-JONESMy Lords, may we be told whether Her Majesty's Government always regard a decision of the NATO Council as being one to which they must adhere? Because it would seem as though we still wish to pursue an independent line, despite a decision of the Council as a whole.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I do not think that what the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, says is correct. We take part in NATO; we discuss in NATO—that is part of our obligation to it—and if NATO comes to a conclusion, as members of it we normally carry out that conclusion.
§ LORD KENNETMy Lords, when the noble Earl refers to a timetable for the force reduction talks and says that we intend that it should be adhered to, is he referring to the fact that the Soviet Union told the United States that they would probably be ready to begin in October this year and that the United States reported that fact to us and other NATO allies? Will he confirm that the Soviet Union have never said anything direct to us at all? And will he further confirm that the Soviet Union have not repeated that October date to the United States for some four months now?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I should not be able to confirm without notice the specific points to which the noble Lord. Lord Kennet, has referred when he said that the Soviet Union have not notified us at all. If the noble Lord wishes an answer to that I will certainly find out and let him know.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask the Minister, perhaps in conclusion, whether, while recognising that both these conferences interlink—disarmament depends on political views and political views depend on disarmament—Her Majesty's Government can give us the assurance that they will use their good offices to solve the problem of the opening of the Vienna Conference on October 1 as was originally proposed?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, it is certainly our intention to do all that we can to see that the timetable is adhered to.