§ 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, in view of the conflict in evidence on the respective military strengths of East and West, they would propose to the United Nations Security Council the appointment of a commission of unaligned experts to reach conclusions for the benefit of the START and Vienna negotiations and the United Nations Committee on Disarmament.
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, it is for the parties concerned to resolve any differences. In the START talks this means the United States and the Soviet Union. As far as the MBFR negotiations are concerned, the NATO allies have repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to discuss force strengths co-operatively with the other parties. It is up to the East to show a similar willingness.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, is the Minister aware that when I went on a peace mission to Moscow we had to listen for one hour to a Minister in the Kremlin trying to prove that Soviet forces were not greater than the American forces, and I retorted that we would have heard exactly the same in reverse if we had gone to the Pentagon? Does this not illustrate the problem that, while there is this difference of opinion about the strength of forces, negotiations for arms reductions are bound to be prejudiced? Would not an uncommitted examination he useful to resolve this problem?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, after answering a Question of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, on Thursday, how could I possibly forget that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, went to Moscow recently on a peace mission? All proposals for neutralising blockages should be examined carefully and on their merits, but I am afraid I am bound to say that I see this as a well-intentioned idea but a non-starter. It is very difficult to see how a group could be assembled which was both genuinely independent and sufficiently experienced to resolve an inevitably complex matter. Furthermore, it is difficult to see that the Eastern bloc would be any more willing to co-operate in a constructive manner with some sort of independent arbitrator. The bugbear, as I and my noble friends have said on numerous occasions, is verification. We are perfectly open on this side of the Urals as to what is going on, but would that the Eastern bloc were the same!
§ Lord AveburyMy Lords, would the Minster agree that, so far as land-based warfare in Europe is concerned, the balance has shifted decisively in favour of defence with the advent of light and accurate infantry borne anti-tank weapons? Does this not mean that arguments about the exact strength of forces on either side of the Iron Curtain have become irrelevant and that we should settle down to negotiations to dismantle the theatre nuclear weapons on either side, because so far as the West is concerned they are unnecessary to repel an attack by the Warsaw Pact?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleNo, my Lords, I do not think these things are irrelevant at all. What I would say, however, is that the more the numbers of conventional forces are in balance the less likelihood and the less need there would be for nuclear forces.
§ Lord Jenkins of PutneyMy Lords, as the noble Lord has mentioned the Question I put to him the other day, may I respectfully ask him if he has not misunderstood the purport of my noble friend's Question? He is not suggesting that the function of negotiation on policy should be usurped. The proposal, as I understand it, is that a factual attempt should be made to establish what are the real nuclear strengths on both sides. Is the noble Lord not aware that my noble friend has pointed out that each side is saying that the other side is stronger, and he is suggesting an attempt to establish the facts? Would the noble Lord not agree that this is a good idea?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleNo, my Lords, I do not think I misunderstood the supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. What I was saying is that this is not the right way to go about resolving the difficulty.
§ Lord DerwentMy Lords, what is an "unaligned expert"? Is it somebody suffering from a disability?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I am not quite sure, but I note that Cuba is currently at the head of the non-aligned nations.
§ Lord Cledwyn of PenrhosMy Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to be rather more precise in his replies to the questions put to him? Is he aware that the average man is dismayed and confused by what is said about the various disarmament conferences that are taking place—Vienna, Geneva, the United Nations initiative? All these are taking place. Will the noble Lord recall that his noble friend Lord Trenchard—I think it was last December—said that the Geneva talks had got off to a good start? What the man in the street wants to know is whether they are likely to get off to a good finish. Will the noble Lord be good enough to say whether verification is the only problem? While the House realises that there is a limit to what Her Majesty's Government can do, and that the matter is primarily one between the great powers, nevertheless on several occasions it has been said from the Front Bench opposite that we do have an influence in the matter. Will the noble Lord be good enough to ensure that Her Majesty's Government now exercise their influence to ensure at least that there is more clarity in the situation than exists at present?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I am sorry if I have caused confusion to the man in the street, or indeed to noble Lords; it certainly was not my intention so to do. There are, of course, three main negotiations going on: one is the START talks which are about nuclear forces; another is the MBFR talks which are specifically about non-nuclear forces; and the third is the INF, so-called, which is a NATO allies nuclear talk.
What I was trying to say was that START and MBFR, the two negotiations asked about in the Question on the Order Paper, were only appropriate to the parties involved: in other words, for START, the United States and Soviet Russia, and for MBFR the NATO allies and the Warsaw Pact countries.
§ Lord MolloyMy Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the quintessential of the submission in the original Question of my noble friend Lord Brockway is probably the most vital issue facing mankind and is too great an issue to depend on even the most erudite civil servant's brief or on fifth rate jokes? Does the noble Lord also agree that if there is one nation in the United Nations Security Council that could command support because of its experience and loyalty to that organisation, it is the United Kingdom? No proposal whatever regarding the future of mankind should be ruled out, as the noble Lord ruled out this proposal, as a non-starter. Will the noble Lord reconsider that and also seriously consider the points that I have submitted?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I do not think that the United Kindom could be possibly involved in this discussion - this committee of experts - simply because by the very nature of our geographical position and our nuclear forces we are an involved party. I apologise for using the expression, "non-starter", which may or may not he a parliamentary expression, but none the less it is a symptom of what I feel in this instance.
§ Lord Elwyn-JonesMy Lords, is there not something to be said for probing the possibility that a committee of - non-aligned is unattractive - non-committed experts could be invited to consider this matter? There is total conflict on each side of the fence on this issue. It would be an interesting probe to see the good faith of one side or the other if this idea was launched to see what the response would be?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, I fully agree with the noble and learned Lord, but the great problem is to find these experts who are non-aligned. If they could be agreed by both sides as being non-aligned experts we would be a great deal further forward, I agree.
§ Lord DenhamMy Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has been trying to rise for some time. I think I should draw the attention of the House to the fact that the clock is running six minutes early and that we have been 10 minutes on this Question. Perhaps after the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has asked his question and my noble friend has answered it we can go on to the next Question.
§ Lord BrockwayMy Lords, in his original reply the Minister referred to the difficulty of finding nonaligned experts. Does he remember that, on the instruction of the United Nations General Assembly, the Secretary-General found 12 scientific experts to discuss the question of nuclear weapons, headed by a scientist from Sweden? Could not that example be followed?
§ Lord SkelmersdaleMy Lords, yes, it could well be, but, as I have sought to say throughout, these nonaligned experts must be acceptable to both sides.