§ 3.2 p.m.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper, in the hope of getting a more satisfactory Answer.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the statement by the French Foreign Affairs Minister, M. Jobert, that the presence of American forces in Europe is more the concern of the U.S.A. than that of France, accords with the British view of European defence.
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the Government have already emphasised the importance they attach to the maintenance of the Alliance, which provides the framework for Atlantic defence, including Western Europe. The presence of United States forces in Europe is an essential part of the common effort and of vital concern to us all.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, are we to understand from that reply that Her Majesty's Government reject emphatically the statement made by M. Jobert, the French Minister, and that the United States' military presence in Europe is of primary concern to the United Kingdom, if not to France?
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I understand that since making the remarks to which my noble friend refers, M. Jobert has reaffirmed the importance that France attaches to the North Atlantic Alliance. As to the second point raised by my noble friend, it is indisputably the case that this country looks on the United States as a firm friend, with whom relationships are extremely close and good; and that is the way we hope they will continue.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, if M. Jobert has changed his attitude and has now accorded his French allegiance to the Atlantic Alliance, will my noble friend ensure that Her Majesty's Government insist that instead of contracting out of NATO, France should return to NATO?
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, this country strongly believes in closer co-operation and, indeed, integration within NATO. It is for France, as a sovereign member of that organisation, to decide her future course. As to the United Kingdom Government's policy, I do not think that anybody can be in any way uncertain about that. We are friends and allies with France. We hope that gradually, as between friends, even greater co-operation and integration will become possible, in NATO and otherwise.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, in view of the fact that both France and ourselves are utterly dependent at the moment for our defence upon the American nuclear shield, does the noble Lord agree that it is a mistaken policy for us to ask the Americans to get out of Europe and, in particular, to remove their Polaris submarines from Holy Loch?
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I was not aware that any such suggestion had been made officially in this country. I entirely agree, and so do Her Majesty's Government, that the defence of Europe, and indeed the Atlantic area, depends very much on a close and effective relationship with the United States.
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, is it not a fact that Lord Shinwell's Question has taken out of context what M. Jobert said? I believe that earlier this month on French radio M. Jobert, having said, in effect; 'If you try to set the American troops against the dignity and self-respect of France."—and I quote:
I tell you the presence of American forces is not a matter of fundamental importance to us.Therefore, as the noble Lord said—
§ LORD MERRIVALEMy Lords, M. Jobert clarified his statement ten days ago.
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, M. Jobert has taken an early opportunity of clarifying what he meant when he made the remarks to which my noble friend referred. I am sure my noble friend, whom I have known for many years and for whom I have a deep respect, would not wish to take anything 520 out of context, even when spoken in French.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, my reference to M. Jobert's statement was obtained not from the French radio, or from any other radio, but from the submissions made to me from time to time—and no doubt these are made to other Members of your Lordships' House—from the French Embassy. They send this material to me. That is where I obtained the information. It is accurate.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, so far as the last part of the Question is concerned, regarding the future of European defence, am I to assume from the noble Lord's reply to earlier remarks that the Labour Party Manifesto is not an official document, and therefore what it contains about removing the Polaris bases is not now the view of the Government?
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I am sure the noble Baroness would not take too simplistic a view of Manifestos and Government policies, nor indeed tempt me into that field. The Manifesto is an honest, genuine statement of Labour Party aims. What the present Government are able to do, especially in present circumstances, must be a matter for continuing argument and decision. It must surely be a view fairly generally held outside the Labour Party that if we can move in a constructive way towards measures of disarmament this should be done. I hope that in no part of the House will there be too much argument about the rather difficult detail of the process of disarmament. I hope that we shall have the opportunity fairly soon to discuss this and related matters in this House. This Government will endeavour to achieve the maximum practical amount of disarmament. I am sure they will be generally supported in that objective.
§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIEMy Lords, may I clarify one point? Does the noble Lord mean unilateral disarmament? As I understood from his remarks, because of the political difficulties it might not now be possible to do everything outlined in the Labour Party Manifesto. Would he like the Polaris bases to be removed?
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, unilateral action in this field, apart from being impracticable, has never been officially part of the policy of this side of the House. If it is necessary to assure the noble Baroness on this point, I do it again.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, would my noble friend accept that the Labour Party Manifesto is a document which has been accepted by the movement at large; but it is not binding, and never has been binding, upon a Labour Government to carry it out? Nevertheless, its contents should never be watered down, because there are some of us who fought this Election—as we have fought many others—on that Manifesto, and we are determined, so far as we have any influence and any power, to see that it is carried out.
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I think this is a most fair statement of the position, and I am grateful to my noble friend.
§ LORD TREVELYANMy Lords, would the noble Lord accept the interpretation of this point which I think was given by the present Foreign Secretary during the course of the Election, that this statement should mean merely that we would not object if the Americans found it desirable to remove their Polaris base missiles from Holy Loch in return for some concessions to be made by the Soviet Union in the course of multilateral disarmament negotiations?
§ LORD GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, that is so. Of course before anything could be done in this field there would be the fullest consultation, including those mentioned by the noble Lord.
§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD)My Lords, may I suggest that your Lordships' House has had an opportunity to test the mettle of my noble friend in answering, in a maiden capacity, some difficult questions. I suggest that we leave this matter now because I have no doubt that there will be a better opportunity for examining the views of Her Majesty's Government, and I am sure the House will respond to the way in which my noble friend has dealt with these questions and will look forward with some anticipation to a most satisfactory answer to the questions that 522 may be put in debate. I therefore suggest that we now move to other business.