§ 2.53 p.m.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy 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 to state what progress has been made in the talks on mutual and balanced force reductions.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, preliminary discussions on questions of procedure and participation have now been completed. A first plenary session of the talks was held on May 14. I will, with permission, place copies of the record of this meeting, and of the communiqué issued after it, in the Library of the House.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, will the noble Baroness take it from me that I am grateful that a copy of what has transpired is to be placed in the Library for the information of Members of your Lordships' House? However, may I ask her this question: In view of the length of time which has elapsed since this conference began operating, is not the term "progress" a misnomer; and what is our representative doing in order to push things on? Unless something fruitful happens, would it not be better to waste no further time and to put an end to this farce?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I hope it will not be considered a farce; but I would say that we hone it will be possible to complete the remaining business of what are exploratory talks within the next few weeks.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that during the last year or so the Soviet Union have been fairly heavily reinforcing their troops in Eastern Germany, and that in the same period the NATO Forces have, if anything, been slightly reduced? Are the Government therefore determined 1096 that at any conference considering a reduction of armaments we shall not in any case be put at any further disadvantage?
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, as indeed I did with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, when he spoke in the Defence debate, that it will not be easy to negotiate an agreement which does not in practice work to the military disadvantage of NATO. But we shall naturally not give way on something that we think is vital.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, but that in point of fact there is not the slightest prospect of anything worthwhile being produced, because that will happen only when the super-Powers,the U.S.S.R., the United States of America and presumably China, with possibly some contribution from Europe, if that is practicable—come together and decide on the subject of disarmament or a reduction of balanced forces? But it is no use this pettifogging conference taking place and, what is more, creating an impression in the public mind that something fruitful is going to happen while, in the meantime, our defensive measures are weakened.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I hope indeed that our defensive measures are not weakened; nor do I think that they are. But I would quite agree that it is very difficult to achieve our aim in these negotiations, which is to find some means of lowering the present level of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe while at the same time keeping security for us all. But it is worth a try.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, would the noble Baroness take into account that in October, 1954. a Conservative Prime Minister pledged this country to maintain four Divisions on the European landmass to the end of the century? Would she also bear in mind that in the 1958 White Paper the four Divisions became 77,000; that the 77,000 eventually became 60,000: that the 60,000 eventually became 55,000: and that, from the time that Sir Anthony Eden pledged the honour of the Conservative Party and persuaded the French 1097 to sign on the dotted line or to accept the consequences of German rearmament, we have never honoured that word, and that in fact we are quite incapable of maintaining an effective balanced force on the European landmass? What we have there is a very expensive, nonsensical, political charade.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, I cannot accept what is said by the noble Lord, but I think that perhaps I can comment on his remarks no better than by repeating the remarks made by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence when he said, during the Defence debate:
The suit is already an uncomfortably tight fit, and there are limits to the extent that we can cut away the cloth before it begins to split at the seams."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1 /3 /73, col. 761.]I would agree.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, the noble Baroness having delivered such a cryptic reply, would she just again check what my noble friend said about the promise of four Divisions and change her attitude in saying that she cannot accept? Because in fact my noble friend is entirely correct: we have never fulfilled the undertaking given by Sir Anthony Eden. No Government have.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords. I think that perhaps I should have said that I did accept the first part of the noble Lord's question. The last part, which now, I regret to say, as it was a little lengthy, I have unhappily forgotten, I do not accept.