HL Deb 13 April 1981 vol 419 cc755-60
Lord Brockway

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government how the United Kingdom voted on the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly authorising the Secretary-General to carry out a study of the organisation and financing of a world disarmament campaign and to place it on the agenda of the next session; and what was the result of the vote.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, the United Kingdom, along with most other Western countries, abstained on this resolution. The result of the vote in plenary was 128 votes in favour, with 17 abstentions.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, can the Minister say why the United Kingdom abstained, when he himself has said that the Government are in favour of the proposals for world disarmament? Does he appreciate that the object of a world disarmament campaign is multilateral disarmament, as proposed by the United Nations Special Assembly in 1978? Is it not logical and justifiable for the United Nations, which has endorsed those proposals, to seek to establish a campaign to advocate them?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the proposal which was considered was of course a proposal for a study. It was not a proposal which of itself would necessarily have led to further effective steps of multilateral disarmament. However, I can say that the Secretary-General's Advisory Board on Disarmament Studies, from where the proposal came, was not indeed unanimous upon the value of it, although of course there is much public interest in disarmament and informed discussion is promoted by both Governments and non-governmental organisations, not least in the United Kingdom. We concluded eventually that an abstention was justified.

Lord Goronwy-Roberts

But, my Lords, surely the Minister will confirm, especially in view of the repeated attempts of the Swedish Government, for instance, through SIPRI and other organisations to instigate such a study—and, like the Minister, I emphasise the word "study"—that a vote in favour of a study would have had a very marked effect upon public opinion, and indeed on opinion in the United Nations?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, we concluded that the limited resources available to the United Nations, in terms not only of money, but of the facilities of the Secretariat and other things were not best deployed in the moving forward of the study. However, as I said in my earlier reply, despite our abstention, the study will in fact go forward.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, while recognising the service which the United Nations Centre for Disarmament provides, is there not now a case for the setting up of an expanded information department of the United Nations to distribute information such as, for example, that contained in its own report of experts, which says that there has now been made a bomb 4,000 times more destructive than the bomb which fell on Hiroshima, and that there exist enough explosives to fall on every man, woman and child on earth? Do not those facts need to be known?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am highly suspicious of Government organisations designed principally to disseminate information. I prefer the free press that we have, which can disseminate whatever information appears to it to be the most relevant. However, in that context I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—as I think he knows—that the Government distribute a document called the Arms Control Newsletter, and I believe that the noble Lord is on the mailing list.

Lord Orr-Ewing

My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that United Nations' papers are circulated in Afghanistan, Poland, and Helsinki?—in view of the ruins of the peace treaty which currently exists, and which are still being debated at Madrid.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am afraid that the distribution of United Nations' documents is not within my gift, but I certainly agree that a freer dissemination of information in some of the countries to which my noble friend has referred would be most advantageous.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, though, as your Lordships' House knows, I frequently oppose my noble friend Lord Brockway on the subject of defence in general, I see no objection whatever to the United Nations, which is presumably a peace-promoting organisation, undertaking an extensive study of world disarmament propaganda? There is no objection at all to that. There can be no harm in undertaking a project of that kind, and I cannot understand why there should be any opposition to it.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, we are not opposed in principle to the United Nations studying these matters. What we think is important, though, is that the United Nations should establish an order of priorities in these matters having regard to the fact that their resources and facilities are limited. We thought that on this occasion there were matters of greater importance to which it was more immediately necessary for the United Nations to turn its attention.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, would the noble Lord accept, first, that this is a matter of multilateral world disarmament; and, secondly, that this is a matter of the highest priority in any reasonable person's thinking, and that it requires some allocation of resources and funds on the part of the United Nations to study this problem, which is worrying the whole of mankind?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the United Nations is of course well involved in the question of multilateral disarmament negotiations. There already are a number of fora in which such negotiations take place. As I have said on many previous occasions from this Box, it is sometimes disappointing that more progress has not been made. There is the conference at Geneva; there are the multilateral balanced force reduction negotiations, as they are called, which go on in Vienna; and there are various other meetings which take place from time to time in New York. We are not without fora; what we are so far without are concrete results.

Lord Goronwy-Roberts

My Lords, will the Minister pay particular attention to what my noble friend Lord Shinwell has said, with the very great experience and authority that there is behind it; namely, that, among other things, a study of this kind will smoke out those countries which make lavish disarmament proposals simply as a smoke screen for something else?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, if that were to be achieved I would be very much in favour of it, but I suspect that the best way to smoke out those who make lavish proposals which have no conviction behind them is by bringing them to the conference table in genuine negotiation.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, arising from the intervention of my noble friend Lord Shinwell, which I so much welcomed, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that many of us understand that it is quite logical to be asking for more defence while at the same time being in favour of multilateral world disarmament? And is not the latter now quite a practical proposal made by the United Nations Special Assembly, being discussed by the Geneva Committee, which is to make a report to the renewed United Nations Assembly in June next year? Is it not now a realistic proposal which the Government should support?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am not quite sure which proposal the noble Lord is referring to, but if he is referring to the proposal which is contained in his Question then, as I said earlier, the motion to carry that study forward was carried, and therefore presumably the study will in fact go forward. But on the noble Lord's earlier assertion that continued maintenance of military vigilance is not consistent with talks on multilateral disarmament, I must simply say that I disagree with the noble Lord.

Lord Hale

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that of all the lamentable statements from the Government Front Bench to which I have listened for 40 years, from all Governments—disastrous and appalling statements—I think the last two, in the last few minutes, are really the worst and the most disastrous? We are turning our back on freedom of speech, on freedom of information—

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)

My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord would be kind enough to put his observations in the form of a question it would be more suitable.

Lord Hale

Of course, my Lords, I accept the invitation. What I am saying is that in my view and, I believe, in the hearts of the majority of the Members of this House, this is a disastrous turnabout.

Several noble Lords: Question!

Lord Hale

My Lords, it seems to swell—

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, he knows as well as any of us that it is customary to put one's observations in the form of a question. The noble Lord continues to make a statement, which is contrary to the practice of the House.

Lord Hale

My Lords, as the noble Lord clearly understands what I am saying, will he answer it?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the noble Lord began his observations by saying that what he had heard today was the worst statement he had ever heard from the Government Dispatch Box in 40 years. I have been at this Dispatch Box for a much less period of time than that, and I have heard a lot worse, too.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I think with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, he has put three supplementary questions and we have now gone on for 11 minutes; and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has the next Question, too. If he would agree, I think it might be suitable if we moved to the next Question.

2.48 p.m.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose that all meetings of the ad hoc working groups of the United Nations Committee on Disarmament at Geneva shall be held in public and all documents and records made available to the press and to non-governmental organisations.

The Earl of Avon

No, my Lords. It has been the practice in the committee to make a distinction between plenary and informal or working group meetings. The aim is to permit a freer exchange of views in private sessions. The Government think that this is right.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the public are almost unaware of what is happening at the meetings of the Geneva Committee, appointed to implement the recommendations of the United Nations Assembly in 1978? Is it not the fact that they are now considering, first, an underground test ban treaty; second, international conventions on chemical and radiological weapons; and, third, a comprehensive disarmament treaty as proposed by the United Nations? Have not the people the right to know what is happening, and have not the nongovernmental organisations which participated in the 1978 Assembly the right to have documents upon these subjects?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the Government accept the need for informed public debate on arms control and disarmament issues. To meet the demand for regular information the Government publish a quarterly disarmament newsletter, which describes developments in the international negotiations and is distributed free of charge to non-governmental organisations. Obviously, some selection needs to be made about what is published. It would be prohibitively expensive to publish everything that was said, even if this were thought desirable.

Lord Campbell of Croy

My Lords, as someone who, over 30 years ago, was for three years dealing with disarmament at the United Nations at New York, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that there are occasions when progress in negotiation with the Soviets is much more likely when it is carried out away from the glare of publicity?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I agree with him.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, although speaking for myself and probably for many other Members of this House, I would not yield a single inch of opinion in the matter of national security and the need for creating an effective military organisation? Nevertheless, as one desiring to be well informed on the subject, I see no reason why, apart from certain matters involving security, we ought not to be better informed on this subject.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. The United Kingdom is in favour of maintaining the closed nature of working group sessions, not because we are in any way attempting to keep our views secret but because this is the most efficient way of negotiation. However, there are many other fora, including plenary meetings of the Committee of Disarmament, where national positions are publicly stated.

Lord Goronwy-Roberts

My Lords, while appreciating the difficulties and the possible disadvantages of making public from time to time the workings of technical sub-committees, would not the spirit of the Question of my noble friend Lord Brockway be implemented if Her Majesty's Government and like-minded Governments who are members of the Disarmament Commission in New York were to consider gathering together the results of all the meetings in Vienna and in Geneva and publishing them through the agency of the com- mission? I do not expect the noble Earl to make a definitive reply to that suggestion at the moment. I merely ask him to consider with his honourable and right honourable friends the possibility of using the commission in the sense that my noble friend Lord Shin well suggested.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's point and will make sure that it is considered. As to Lord Brockway's Question, which dealt with the ad hoc working groups of the United Nations Committee, as the noble Lord is well aware there is a great distinction between plenary discussions which are open and the informal or working group meetings which must be private.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, is it not the case whenever world disarmament is suggested that the Government insist on verification? Is it not the case that the Soviet Union has now accepted verification in principle? Furthermore, is not the need for greater information made necessary by the fact that agreement has been largely reached at Geneva on a proposal that if a complaint is made, then on-the-spot United Nations inspection shall take place and if a Government refuse it they will be assumed to have breached the convention? Is this not a way out of this great difficulty?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I would enjoy a debate with the noble Lord on this subject but it is Question Time and we are at this moment a long way from the ad hoc working groups when we are talking about verification.

Back to