§ 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 response they have made to the document submitted to them by the World Disarmament Campaign containing proposals to the United Nations Disarmament Committee at Geneva for a treaty implementing in phased stages over six years the recommendations of the 1978 UN Special Assembly on Disarmament to be presented to the renewed assembly in June next year.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, the Government have studied the proposals of the World Disarmament Campaign submitted to the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva. In response, we drew attention to the proposals already submitted to the United Nations Secretary-General, giving United Kingdom views on the question of a comprehensive programme of disarmament.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, is the Minister aware that during the Defence debate, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, stated that the Government would give careful consideration to our proposals? Is the noble Lord aware that the United Nations Special Assembly on Disarmament last year recommended the ending of all nuclear weapons and phased progress to general disarmament? Do not our proposals achieve that in a practical way? Is he aware that we now have the support of a majority on the Geneva Committee? Will the United Kingdom change their attitude and give us support there?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, the only thing that I was not aware of in that long list of supplementaries was the fact that the proposals had the support of the majority of the Geneva Committee. However, the Government consider it unrealistic to seek to achieve the ultimate goals of general and complete disarmament of all nations through one treaty. Moreover, it would be impracticable to set time scales for such a treaty in advance like the six-year limit envisaged in the WDC proposal. The proposed treaty would be unnegotiable, we feel, in several respects. For example, it mentions that United Nations inspectors in each state would have unimpeded access to all establishments and records. I cannot see any prospect of the Soviet leadership negotiating such a provision.
§ Lord UnderhillMy Lords, is it not a fact that the Government share in the decision in the final document of the 1978 Special Assembly? Have not the Government also declared their support for the World Disarmament Campaign which is a multilateral campaign? What positive steps are the Government taking to try to work out something rather than just give airy answers?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I am sorry if your Lordships feel that I have given an airy answer. However, positive steps are being made and our ambassador to the Committee on Disarmament has written in the May edition of Arms Control and Disarmament which is currently available in your Lordships' Library.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, will the Government reconsider their position on this matter? Will they recall that the late Lord Louis Mountbatten described the old Roman precept,
If you desire peace, prepare for war",as being absolute nuclear nonsense? In the light of that, will the Government look again at their position in this matter?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, like all members of the United Nations, we have accepted general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control as the ultimate goal of arms control efforts. As the final document of the special session recognised, progress towards world disarmament will depend on the successful negotiation of a number of specific arms control measures.
§ Lord Stewart of FulhamMy Lords, the noble Lord said that the Soviet Government could not be expected to agree to inspection. While that may very well be true, may I ask when they were last asked?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I have no information on that particular point. However, we know that they refused even to allow international atomic agency safeguards on their civil nuclear programme.
§ Lord Ritchie of DundeeMy Lords, is the Minister aware that there are a significant number of young mothers in the country suffering painful anxiety about the future safety of their children under the threat of worldwide nuclear arms proliferation? Would he not agree that the highest priority for this or any Government is to seek to reduce this threat by the vigorous pursuit of disarmament measures such as the one under discussion?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I also have young children. At a time when the Soviet Union continues to build up its nuclear and conventional forces, unilateral disarmament, which I think probably is the point the noble Lord is getting at, would serve only to undermine our security and weaken NATO's ability to deter aggression. It would also remove the incentive for the Soviet Union to negotiate, and indeed it would add to our own difficulties. One cannot negotiate from a position of weakness.
§ Lord Ritchie of DundeeMy Lords, I was not advocating—
§ The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames)My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has got up in order to ask his last question.
§ Lord Ritchie of DundeeI apologise, my Lords.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, is the Minister aware of the massive feeling now on this subject? Is he aware that we are thinking in our meetings not in terms of hundreds but of thousands?—3,000 in Edinburgh, 5,000 in Plymouth and a crowded guildhall at Southampton. Is he aware that this is worldwide and, with unemployment, this problem of nuclear weapons is now becoming a dominant issue in people's minds?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, says this feeling is worldwide. So far as we know, I would have to correct him and to say that it is Westernwide. The authoritarian states do not have, or do not allow, pressure groups such as the noble Lord belongs to, and therefore I think we have a very one-sided view of all this.