Prime Minister
(Moscow Visit)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:——
Q6. Mr. Frank Allaun
asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions in Moscow.
Q7. Mr. Blaker
asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about his discussions with Soviet leaders during his recent visit to Moscow.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)
Yes, Sir.
I should like to take this earliest opportunity to tell the House about the visit which my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I paid to the Soviet Union from 13th to 17th February. It was a visit which followed much careful and patient work on both sides to ensure that it would be fruitful: and when I came to sign the Joint Statement with Mr. Brezhnev, we agreed that our meetings and the agreements which we had concluded laid firm foundations for a new start in the relations between our two countries.
During the course of the visit my right hon. Friend and I had meetings, collectively and seperately, with Mr. Brezhnev, Mr. Kosygin, Mr. Gromyko and other members of the Soviet leadership. Apart from the Joint Statement setting out the results of our meetings, I signed agreements with Mr. Brezhnev dealing with the international non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and consultations between our two countries. I also signed agreements with Mr. Kosygin, dealing with economic, scientific and technological co-operation, in health matters and medical research. Copies of all these agreements are being placed in the Library and will be published as a White Paper as soon as possible.
The House will realise from the nature of these agreements that our discussions covered both multilateral and bilateral questions. On the former there was, of course, no question of negotiation, since other parties are involved. Nevertheless, we had very useful conversations on major world issues and in particular about the steps necessary to bring the work of the [column 1112]Geneva Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to a stage which would justify the early holding of a Summit meeting.
I made clear that if we could now make rapid progress on the two or three outstanding issues at Geneva we should hope to see the conference convene later this year, if possible by the summer.
It would be my hope that a successful outcome for this conference would open up the possibility of making more progress in the Vienna Conference on the Mutual Reduction of Armaments and Armed Forces and associated measures in Central Europe, which we also discussed in Moscow.
The signature of the declaration on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is the first bilateral initiative of this kind and will, I trust, give a constructive lead to the Review Conference meeting in Geneva in May.
The House will have seen our joint call for a World Disarmament Conference.
As for bilateral issues we discussed, the Protocol on Consultations is designed to ensure that we build on this new chapter in the relations between our two countries, with a view to enlarging the area of agreement between Soviet views and our own, and to reducing the area of misunderstanding and suspicion.
On trade we identified a wide range of industrial and scientific prospects of mutual interest: and agreed not only to a substantial increase in our trade but also to a better balance in it. This, coupled with the new credit arrangements, involving £950 million for new contracts with British firms, provide the opportunity for our exporters which we have long been seeking. It should bring considerable opportunities for British industry, and additional job opportunities for British workers.
Neither the Soviet leadership nor my right hon. Friend and I concealed the issues on which we differ. The fact that we differ does not mean that we cannot work, each in our own way, towards common aims, bilaterally and within the world setting. This was a visit which concentrated on the areas where practical progress could be made, and, from my experience of negotiations with them over 28 years, I was encouraged by the [column 1113]extent to which we were dealing in real issues not platitudes.
Perhaps even more to the point, Mr. Brezhnev and I reiterated our joint determination to establish continuing working contracts to implement the agreements we reached in the fullest possible way. As a result I believe that the visit has marked, as we hoped it would, the opening of a new phase in our relations with the Soviet Union—a phase in which there is reason to hope that these relations will be safer, warmer and more constructive than we have enjoyed for a number of years.
Mr. Frank Allaun
Will the Prime Minister accept that this is a hopeful day for détente, a day on which, as Macaulay might has said, even the ranks of the cold warriors could scarce forbear to cheer?
Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on two points—first, on the prospects of more jobs for British workers and, secondly, on what progress was proposed towards nuclear disarmament in line with the non-proliferation treaty, for example, by ending underground tests, as this would go a long way towards preventing the danger of further countries joining the nuclear arms race.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the welcome that he has given to the agreement. He will be glad to know that the view he expressed is shared elsewhere. For example, in his broadcast at lunchtime Dr. Henry Kissinger gave a warm welcome to what had been achieved, as he did when he congratulated my right hon. Friend and myself last night on these matters.
It was a British initiative that we should seek to have a separate statement on nuclear disarmament. We have put forward certain ideas on tests. This will take a lot more exploration. It has always been a difficult matter. My hon. Friend will be aware of the progress referred to in the joint statement in relation to other aspects of the nuclear problem. We are concerned, for example, about trade in nuclear matters. We are concerned about the control and verification of peaceful nuclear explosions.
My hon. Friend will be glad to know—although this is not in the communiqué—[column 1114]that we have reached agreement on some degree of co-operation on peaceful nuclear energy because their reactor is one which, while different from ours, has many common components and much common ground with ours.
So far as pressure tubes and other matters are concerned, we hope to have a close relationship with the Russians to supply them with peaceful nuclear technology, and they will supply us with theirs. In this whole field considerable progress has been made.
Mr. Frank Allaun
What about jobs?
The Prime Minister
At the Kremlin lunch Mr. Brezhnev said he thought that what was likely to come out of this would be good for jobs for our people and for the Russian people, too. While the credit facilities are available only in respect of contracts on which progress is made, if anything like this amount of credit is taken up, as my hon. Friend will be capable of calculating, it means a substantial increase in employment for our people in peaceful trade.
Mr. Blaker
Will the Prime Minister confirm that he expects that most of the contracts within the credit of £950 million to which he referred will be met by private industry? If that is so, will he consult his right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider whether the best way of putting private industry into a position where it can seize this opportunity with vigour is a policy of browbeating, intimidation and high taxation?
The Prime Minister
Whatever the subject announced, some hon. Gentlemen would have gone off with that kind of intervention. I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman, because he does not seem to have checked for himself, that before I went to Moscow I met all the top brass and the big companies who for years have traded with the Soviet Union or who are now seeking contracts with them. They said they believed it was necessary to get a new political agreement with the Soviet Union. They are very keen to go ahead. The people concerned include some of the main paymasters of the Conservative Party, and I am surprised that members of the Conservative Party are not reflecting their pleasure in this matter. [column 1115]
Some of the people whom I met were talking of the possibility of agreements for the development, for example, of Soviet raw materials of interest to us where the foreign content of a single development can be between £200 million and £300 million. In that very lengthy meeting no one referred to any of the points which seem to obsess the mind of the hon. Member.
Mr. Wellbeloved
On the Prime Minister's talks about the European Conference on Security and Co-operation, will he say how the Soviet authorities responded to the view that the best way to establish lasting peace and friendship between our two countries is to adopt the Western position on the free flow of people, information and ideas between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
We made our position clear on this question and also on the confidence-engendering measures—for example, notification of troop movements—as well as on the outstanding problem on the question of the peaceful change of frontiers. The Soviet leaders fully understand our position. Progress has been made. Given further progress on these three issues—we discussed them with Dr. Kissinger last night and he had been discussing them with Mr. Gromyko in Geneva in the afternoon—I think we can achieve sufficient to delight my hon. Friend and to make the summit conference possible.
Mrs. Thatcher
May I put three points to Harold Wilsonthe Prime Minister? Is he aware that we welcome increasing contact and dialogue with the Soviet Union provided that it never lulls this House or the country into a sense of false security? I think that the Prime Minister will agree with that. I understand that the Prime Minister has agreed to the third stage of the European Conference on Security and Co-operation. Will he say whether he has any concessions in return on, for example, negotiations on easier movement of information across the Iron Curtain?
Thirdly, will the Prime Minister give more detail of the trading agreement, which looks to many of us as though he has brought back from Russia a pretty [column 1116]good agreement for Russia, bearing in mind that this country has to pay on the usual trading terms for the £400 million of imports annually from Russia? Can he therefore tell us the rate of interest on the new line of credit, what provision there is for depreciation and the period of repayment of each drawing of credit?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady and I thank her for her welcome for my statement. Of course, she is absolutely right that, having reached this considerable measure of agreement, we recognise, they recognise, and our allies and their allies recognise—it is in the communiqué—that there are deep differences of view on important world affairs as well as on our particular constitutional arrangements. However, nothing happened in these discussions or in the agreement that in any way meant any lulling or creation of false security. Some of us are quite old hands on these matters. We started from what had been a pretty cold and chill period in relations leading up to the last few months.
She said that I had agreed to the summit conference. She will be aware from what I said and from the communiqué that this was not unconditional. I said exactly what has been said by other Western leaders, including those of the United States. We are anxious to have as early as possible the summit conference, which has been talked about for five years or more, but only on the condition of sufficient progress being made on the outstanding issues being discussed in Geneva. We discussed these matters. I mentioned them this afternoon. We did not mention them in the communiqué because these are issues for multilateral discussion, and, like the Soviet Union, we have to talk to our allies. We talked to the United States Government last night.
I think that the right hon. Lady fell a little below her usual standards of fairness—[An Hon. Member: “You mean she asked a good question.” ]—and what I know is her desire always to put the most favourable construction on the Government's actions when she said that it was a good agreement for Russian trade. It was a good agreement for trade both ways, because the trade will be both ways. [column 1117]
On the question of the credit, she must be aware, I think, that the terms we have offered are comparable with those involved with other Western countries—for example, France. It has never been the practice of any Government to publish in this House the details of credit agreements. We do not propose to change the policy pursued by the previous Conservative Government for which the right hon. Member, as always, supports the full collective responsibility for everything that then happened.
The interest rate is comparable with that of other countries. Of course, she will recognise that while there may be doubts about why the Soviet Union needs credit, it is a fact of life. If we want this trade, there has to be credit. Every other Western country is trading with the Soviet Union on that basis. We have every vested interest in increasing the Soviet Union's production of copper, pulp, and other scarce materials, which will be of great advantage to our terms of trade.
Mr. Thorpe
Since any contracts will for the most part be with Soviet State trading agencies, and since the Soviet Union exports 50 million tons of oil a year, will the Prime Minister say why this line of credit should be required? Is it not somewhat ironic that we are borrowing what we can from the Shah of Persia and are then extending credit to the Soviet Union? Was there a renegotiation of COCOM in regard to the embargo on the sale of strategically important materials?
On the Anglo-Soviet round table conference which is scheduled, did the Prime Minister, following the time in which Mr. Solzhenitsyn was compelled to leave the Soviet Union and other distinguished people such as the Panovs and Rostropovich wished to leave, gain any indication of a likely relaxation of cultural life in the Soviet Union?
The Prime Minister
I think I have answered the point about credit. It may appear illogical that in their position as the world's biggest oil producer the Soviet Union should require credit. However if we want to trade with them—and we want this trade—it must involve credit according to their practices with every other country. [column 1118]
For the first time in my experience of dealing with the Russians, COCOM was not mentioned. The round table conference proposal by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is of great value. We have consulted Chatham House and they are asking one of their established organisations to work together to see whether we cannot get a higher flow of people from our two countries to meet for discussions on almost every subject. This is of great advantage and it will be welcome. Those who talk about opening up the Soviet Union, changing the attitudes of the Russians, and about the issue of personal freedom will be the first to welcome the proposal.
I forgot to reply to one point raised by the Leader of the Opposition. She referred to £400 million of imports from the Soviet Union. I have always regarded that figure with a certain degree of scepticism because it includes £180 million of diamonds which we largely re-export. There is an imbalance and the right hon. Lady will welcome that we are now working not only for more trade but for better balanced trade, and what we are doing will achieve that.
The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) raised the point about various Jewish and other Soviet citizens, including artists, writers and musicians. These matters are always discussed. I have found that after 17 or 18 years of dealing with specific cases it is better not to deal with these matters publicly but to use all the influence that one has. Quite a large number came out as a result of my representations over 18 years. It does not help for me to mention individual names, but I had a telegram from the Panovs thanking me for what I did in getting them out, and from Ruth Alessandrovich.
Mr. Michael Stewart
Did my right hon. Friend find that the fact that this country is a member of the European Community in any way hampered the development of good understanding with the Soviet Union?
The Prime Minister
The matter was discussed briefly in our talks. The Russians rather took exception to the fact that, as a result of no action of their tariffs were now being charged on goods supplied from the Soviet Union to Britain, [column 1119]because of the assimilation of our tariff rates in respect of countries outside the Common Market. So far one can say that a high proportion of Soviet imports into this country are tariff-free anyway. I was able to give Mr. Kosygin figures of items where the tariffs have been raised. In the small proportion there has been a fall in our imports, most have been unchanged, and in a bigger proportion there has been a continued increase. But I was able to explain to him the position Her Majesty's Government were taking up in relation to the renegotiations and the referendum.
Sir Frederic Bennett
The Prime Minister has said that he does not want to publish full details of the trade agreement, a matter which we understand. However, will he confirm that on the terms stated there can be no material benefit to our balance of payments under any circumstances in less than five years from now? Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman chooses to make remarks about overseas experience. He said that he has been to the Soviet Union 19 times. If by now he does not understand the Soviet Union's motivations, he is either more gullible—or some other worse word—than even I have thought.
The Prime Minister
There is no ministerial responsibility for what the hon. Gentleman thinks whatever it is he thinks with. Therefore, I cannot take responsibility for it.
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about the five years. There will be advantage to us within that period, although many of the so-called jumbo contracts—the £100 million, £200 million and £300 million contracts, which our industrialists and their employees are keen to secure—may well be spread in terms of shipments over a considerable period, and therefore in terms of credit as well. I am satisfied [column 1120]that the agreement is highly advantageous to Britain with regard to trade, payments and employment, as well as the broader issues.
I think that I have dealt with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Some of us have a great deal of experience. There are deep differences. We do not allow any of the trade advantage to the Russians or to us to interfere with basic issues of human relationships or of politics, our alliances and the rest. The Russians do not. We do not. We are both realistic. One day the hon. Gentleman will wake up and know what it is all about.
Several Hon. Members
rose——
Mr. Speaker
Order. These matters must be pursued in other ways.