§ 2.37 p.m.
§ 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 whether they will appoint a Minister for Disarmament.
§ The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE, (Lord Goronwy- Roberts)My Lords, disarmament is an essential part of our foreign policy which must be conducted as a whole by my right honourable friend. I have special responsibility for arms control and disarmament questions.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, in view of the fact that there are now weapons which could destroy all mankind, would not the Minister agree that disarmament is of the greatest precedence in world affairs? Would he not also agree that my proposal has now become a practical, realistic proposal, with the Committee at Geneva reconstructed and extended to report to the United Nations next year? Would not a Minister, whose first aim was disarmament, prove the sincerity of Her Majesty's Government in this matter and give hope to the millions who desire peace in the world?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the sincerity of the desire of this Government, and I beg leave to say of any other British Government, howsoever composed, to achieve as soon as possible general and complete disarmament under effective control is not, I think, in question. I do not think it is in question outside this country, from my experience of disarmament meetings and the response which I get when in those gatherings I put forward British policy. As to my noble 1243 friend's point that a Minister exclusively devoting his attention to disarmament questions would be preferable to one who, as has been our practice for some time now, deals with disarmament but in relation to other foreign policy questions, this is debatable. It has been the conclusion of successive Governments since, I think, 1967 that arms control and disarmament questions are best and most effectively studied and promoted in relation to two other considerations; namely, détente and deterrence. My own experience, extending over some years now, is that the present system is the best for this country, and I cannot at once recall any comparable country that organises its disarmament work, ministerially, on the lines that my noble friend has suggested.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, would the Minister agree that one of the most important contributions that can be made by the United Kingdom and her allies is agreements between arms suppliers to cut down the flow of arms into the Third World? Would the Minister not further agree, in view of what has just happened in Iran, that it would be not only morally and ethically desirable for us to cut down this flow but also economically wise for us not to become dependent on it as a nation?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I can certainly reassure the noble Lord and the House on this question. We are constantly trying to promote the objects that he has in view in regard to lessening the demand for arms from the Third World. It is not at all just a question of arms producers thrusting arms on Third World countries. Too often, I regret to say, it is that Third World countries demand these arms. Indeed, I believe that the increase in Third World armaments over the past seven or eight years has been 60 per cent. and, indeed, as a whole, that group spends more money on armaments than it receives totally in aid. But the noble Lord's point is valid and we are pursuing it at every possible opportunity. As to the position in Iran, the noble Lord will understand that we are in discussion, or are attempting to get into discussion, with the new Government on this and other questions. We have recognised the new 1244 Government, and we hope that we can achieve a useful and fruitful relationship with it on this and other questions.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that while most of us—probably every one of us—recognise the genuine convictions of my noble friend Lord Brockway, a previous Labour Government not so long ago appointed a Minister for Disarmament? He was a Member of your Lordships' House, though I do not see him present at the moment and I hope he will not mind my making reference to him. No politician should mind being mentioned: in fact the more he is mentioned the more popular he becomes! But is my noble friend aware that, despite the genuine efforts of that Minister, which were supplemented by activities at the United Nations and the efforts of the Soviet Union, in the way of détente—whatever that may mean—we still want to sell armaments to China and to any other country that wants them, and we regret that we sold so many to Iran? What about those armaments we sold to Iran? Are we going to be paid for them? Is it not about time that we indulged in a little less hypocrisy and humbug about this? Is it not about time we recognised that the world, as it is today and with the tension that exists, requires a deterrent, and that the most effective deterrent is to be strong?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSYes, my Lords, strength can rest in properly verified measures of global disarmament. Disarmament is well worth pursuing for every kind of reason, but with it must go verification. That, I think, is the essence of our policy and what must be the policy of this country.
As to what my noble friend also said, indeed we did have a Minister definitively for disarmament for two or three years after 1964, and my noble friend Lord Chalfont rendered distinguished service in that capacity. He moved on to other duties at that point. An appraisal was made of how best to promote disarmament questions, with the result that for the last 10 years we have found that this is the best way to do it: that is, to link disarmament with defence and détente.
My noble friend referred to China. Of course we are prepared to trade with the 1245 Peoples' Republic of China, but not exclusively in arms. There is some suggestion that we might supply defensive arms to them but only as a part, and not the predominant part, of a very large package, largely civil, of goods and services which that country may prefer to get from this country.
§ Lord DUNCAN-SANDYSMy Lords, does the Minister agree that, having regard to the deplorable state of military weakness of Britain, we are hardly in a position to do very much to negotiate disarmament with other countries?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I reject the noble Lord's premise and therefore the conclusion. I know he reads German but, if he did not, I could give him a translation of my right honourable friend's article in reply to certain strictures in Der Spiegel, published in Germany, where the facts and figures show that this country is devoting a larger proportion of its wealth to defence and armaments than probably any other comparable member in the Alliance. This does not betoken a weakness or an unwillingness to take part in collective defence by this country, and it is time that these facts and figures were more widely known, not only in Europe but in this country.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, has not experience shown that, so far as the export of arms to the Third World is concerned, the most effective weapon of disarmament has constantly been to supply them with sophisticated weapons that they are incapable of using? But if it be true that, so far as we are concerned, we are spending more money than other people, how can a Minister for Disarmament really improve on our present impotence?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, the noble Lord raises two questions. The first is a matter of opinion, and the second is one that he should put down as a separate Question for a considered Answer.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERMy Lords, reverting to the Minister's reply to my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys, is not the relative comparison as to the percentage of national product devoted 1246 to defence not with our allies but with the Soviet Union, which every year increases its armaments to a formidable degree? In the light of that, does not the Minister think that we have carried unilateral disarmament dangerously far?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, one could conclude from that, that if we have done that then certain of our friends and allies in the Alliance have gone even further than we have.
§ Lord BOYD-CARPENTERMy Lords, that makes it worse!
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, in that case it is time that due weight was given to that consideration before we constantly "knock" this country for its performance, which in my view, in regard to questions of security and other subjects, compares very favourably with that of most of our friends and allies.
§ Baroness ELLESMy Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the article in Der Speigel. Could he perhaps make this article available in the Library—and perhaps not in percentage terms but in real terms of what is spent on defence as between members of NATO?
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, it can be made available in whatever terms the noble Baroness wishes; but on whatever terms it is given the message is the same: this country is doing better than many of us are prepared to accept that it is doing. It will give me very great pleasure to make this excellent article available in both languages—in German and in English, and possibly in Welsh as well. It is an article written by a great and patriotic Foreign Secretary who speaks for Britain in this article, as he always does.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us appreciate his own activity in connection with this issue, and in particular his speech at the Special Assembly of the United Nations? Would he not agree, however, that there are three functions which a Minister for Disarmament could fulfil? The first would be by constant contact in the discussions at Geneva and by his presence there on many occasions; the second 1247 would be by association with those Governments which signed the British proposals for disarmament; and the third would be by leading public opinion as to the necessity for disarmament.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I agree unreservedly with my noble friend about the three objectives for any Minister concerned with arms control and disarmament, and I am most grateful to him for what he said at the beginning of his supplementary question. I have had the privilege of doing my best in these gatherings, with some little success from time to time, always keeping in mind the relationship of disarmament to security and detente. There is no disarmament without security. This is not to controvert the idealism of my noble friend. It is a practical as well as an idealistic matter.