§ 2.55 p.m.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the new West German longterm economic agreement with the Soviet Union involving large-scale industrial co-operation in several advanced technological fields signals a Community decision to ignore President Carter's appeal to restrict exports to the Soviet Union beyond 197 the presently agreed COCOM lists; and whether it was one of the initiatives "designed to promote a solution to the Afghan crisis" through "the withdrawal of Soviet troops" agreed at the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Venice last month.
§ Lord TREFGARNENo, my Lords, on both counts.
Lord CHELWOODMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Foreign Secretary's call yesterday for "increased co-ordination of effort in the West", and for "a better follow-through to consultation that at present takes place in too many forums", is very welcome? While it may be argued that the West is not in disarray, have we not recently given a rather good imitation of it? Does that not mean that many people will now ask: Where do we go from here, and who is going to take the long overdue initiative to improve political co-operation among the democracies?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, my noble friend has raised an important point. I wonder whether I may deal with it rather more carefully than perhaps would normally be the case at Question Time. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary was saying that political co-operation among the Nine has increased in recent months but that we need nevertheless to look very carefully at the co-ordination of the West's efforts in the world, especially in the light of what has happened in Afghanistan, and of how consultations should proceed in the Alliance. These are matters which we shall be pursuing with our friends. Consultation already happens very frequently; the need is to make it more effective. That requires patience and private discussion. Our purpose will be to consider how the resources of the West and its friends and of others who value independence and oppose Soviet imperialism can be mobilised to promote economic development and political stability and thus reduce the likelihood of further crises like the one in Afghanistan.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, has the Minister not failed—
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, has the Minister not failed to recognise the importance and significance of Lord Chelwood's Question? Does he not appreciate that what has taken place recently is unilateral action on the part of several members of the Nine countries? If this continues, as in the case of France—now in the case of Germany and possibly the case of the United States and in the case of the United Kingdom—is not the term "unity" a travesty of the situation? There is no unity whatever. What has happened in the case of Germany is not only unilateral action in the political sense but a rebuke to the United States of America.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord is right in that assertion. The difference of emphasis which some of our colleagues put on these matters is very natural, having regard to the difference in our circumstances; and the correct position is as my noble friend described it yesterday.
§ Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLSMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that whether or not he thinks the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is right, on the evidence of the past few months many people think that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is right? The unilateral action is there for all to see, and the dangers of that are obvious particularly if it leads to a point where, while Europe may be in step with one another, they are out of step with the United States of America.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, if my noble friend is referring to the recent visit by Chancellor Schmidt to Moscow—and he tells me that he is—there is something to be said for keeping open the lines of communication in a crisis, and the Soviet leaders on this occasion were at least confronted with some of the "home truths" about the position in Afghanistan.
§ Lord BLYTONMy Lords, is the Minister aware that there is a great deal of hypocrisy about this Question? After you have flayed the Olympic players going to Moscow, you are still trading with Russia; you have not withdrawn your ambassador. It seems to everyone that you are playing two games: one against the Olympic players, and another by still 199 maintaining trade. You cannot do both. That is why it is hypocrisy.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I do not think the noble Lord is right in what he says. As I have said earlier, while in this matter there is some difference of emphasis between ourselves and our colleagues in the Nine, we are in general united.
§ Lord TAYLOR of GRYFEMy Lords, in view of the political initiatives that have been taken by the French and German Governments, would the noble Lord give an assurance to this House and also to British industry, which is engaged in trading with the USSR, that they are in no way disadvantaged in the present circumstances in credit terms or by political constraints following the initiatives of our allies?—whereas we seem to observe all the regulations and agreements which have been reached within the allied group.
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, the Government continue to support trade which is of real benefit to us, but there should be no unreciprocated benefits for the Soviet Union and that is why we have not renewed the Anglo-Soviet credit agreement of 1975, which offered exceptionally preferential interest rates to the Soviet Union and why we are participating with our partners in discussions in COCOM, referred to in the Question.
§ Lord TAYLOR of GRYFEMy Lords, may I ask, since we in fact began negotiations on revised credit terms, whether credit terms that will be agreed by Great Britain will be observed by all others who offer credit terms within the alliance?
§ Lord TREFGARNEMy Lords, I cannot, of course, speak for other Governments, but we certainly hope there will be a consensus in these matters.