§ 2.50 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 what action has been taken to bring about negotiations between the NATO and Warsaw Pact Governments on the limitation of nuclear missiles on both sides.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, we and our allies support the continuation of the SALT process and approved in December a United States offer to negotiate with the Soviet Union within the SALT III framework limitations on land-based long-range theatre nuclear missiles. The Soviet Union has so far responded negatively to this offer.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask the Minister this: Recognising that the present breach of relations due to the invasion of Afganistan creates difficulty for negotiations, is it not a first necessity that there should be some negotiation about the limitation of nuclear arms in view of the danger of their escalation and their use? May I particularly ask the Government, will they be prepared when the opportunity recurs to support the French Government's proposal for a European disarmament conference to break the deadlock between the NATO powers and the Soviet Union?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, we are always ready to discuss meaningfully with the Soviet Union in conjunction with our allies, but it is perhaps worth while pointing out that present negotiations—the MBFR talks at Vienna for example—are virtually stalled and no significant progress has been made for some time. With regard to the SALT process, we hope that, despite the present hiatus, that will continue.
§ Lord GLADWYNMy Lords, is it not obvious that the Soviet action in Afghanistan has made ratification of the SALT II Treaty by the Senate virtually impossible? Therefore, is it not, unfortunately, also obvious that in default of 114 some evacuation of Afghanistan by Soviet troops there can be no question of limiting nuclear weapons on both sides but rather of hastening on NATO action in the direction of achievement of nuclear parity?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, as my noble friend Lord Strathcona said to your Lordships on 13th December, the Government consider that the NATO decision on the modernisation of the alliance's long-range theatre nuclear forces and the parallel arms control offer are highly satisfactory, all the more so, I would have thought, in view of recent events in Afghanistan.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, may I, in putting this question to the noble Lord, join with, I am sure, everyone in this House in welcoming back in our midst and into very active participation in the proceedings of the House my noble friend Lord Brockway. It would perhaps be a misplaced description of his intervention to describe it as typically aggressive, but we look forward to more of that kind of aggression in our discussions.
May I put this point to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord said in reply to my noble friend that the Russians had proved negative in response to certain proposals put to them in regard to missiles. He then said that the Vienna talks appeared to be stalled. Despite the evidence that for the moment at least the Vienna talks are stalled—and this is not the first time those talks in Vienna have been stalled—do I nevertheless take it that it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to persist with these MBFR talks in Vienna, and should it not therefore equally be their intention to persist in seeking parallel talks on missiles with the Soviet Union and its allies?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, we certainly hope that the Vienna talks can make some progress in the near future, but the noble Lord will know as well as I do the difficulties there have been at those talks and the problems we have encountered. My Lords, is it not the case that world security relies for its existence on the belief that the West can technically at least live at peace with the Soviet Union and its satellites? That belief, I submit, has been shaken to its foundations by 115 recent events in Afghanistan. While I am on my feet, may I join in the words of Lord Goronwy-Roberts at seeing Lord Brockway back in his place. It is a great pleasure.
§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTSMy Lords, I am sorry to intervene again, but I am sure the Minister will wish to reassure all sections of the House that it is not part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government to withdraw from either of the two sets of talks we have been discussing, despite our profound disapprobation of Soviet actions, especially in the last few weeks, and our continuing impatience with their unwillingness to talk realistically about mutual disarmament. I should like to be reassured that Britian will nevertheless continue to show every evidence of being ready to talk in Vienna and everywhere else where disarmament proves even faintly possible.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I am sure that is right.