HC Deb 29 July 1953 vol 518 cc1287-90
47. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the armistice in Korea, he will now propose that the meeting of Heads of States of the Four Powers, as originally suggested, should take place irrespective of the outcome of the proposed Foreign Ministers' Conference on Germany and Austria.

Mr. R. A. Butler

A proposal has been put forward, after careful consideration, which represents the agreed views of the three Western Governments. This proposal in no way excludes a meeting of Heads of Governments and I think we had better now await the Soviet Government's reply, which will, we hope, enable contact to be made. As regards Korea, I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that provision is made in the armistice agreement for a political conference.

Mr. Henderson

Is the Chancellor aware of the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal on Monday, in which he stated that the decision as to whether we should go on with the informal high level talks depended upon the successful outcome of the Foreign Ministers' Conference in September? I am asking the Chancellor whether he will give an assurance to the House that, even though the Foreign Ministers' conference is unsuccessful, he will insist on proposing that the informal four-Power talks as proposed by the Prime Minister should be held?

Mr. Butler

I cannot really carry this matter any further. We have first to receive the reply of the Soviet Government. Then I trust we shall be able to discuss matters as arranged by the three Western Governments. In any case the possibility of a high level four-Power meeting as desired by the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in no way excluded if it proves possible or feasible.

Mr. Henderson

Then this does not depend upon a successful outcome of the conference in September?

Mr. Butler

I said we had better take one step at a time. No one can foresee how the international situation will develop, and it will be dealt with with flexibility and imagination.

Mr. S. Silverman

Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are as prepared in this matter to take a line as they are in the matter referred to just now, and could he tell us in that case what that line is? Does he realise that these matters are far too serious to play a kind of political "What's my line?" parlour game, to be followed some day by the game "Why?", and that his whole performance is altogether——

Hon. Members

Speech.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is now expanding his supplementary question into a speech. I wish he would ask his question to see if he can get an answer.

Mr. Silverman

I was in the middle of the last sentence anyway, Mr. Speaker, namely, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that his whole performance is altogether too tragically reminiscent of the similar stone-walling performance which he used to offer us when he played the same part at the time of the Spanish Civil War, when he betrayed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order, Order.

Mr. Silverman

—altogether too tragically reminiscent—[HON. MEMBERS; "Speech"]—of the kind of policy in international affairs which the Government of the late Neville Chamberlain, of which he was a member, pursued.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not possible to hear the question without interruptions from the opposite side of the House?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is in a better position to hear than I am, but I would ask the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) to recollect that in putting a supplementary question it is not proper to expand it into a long speech.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

I cannot hear.

Mr. Silverman

I was endeavouring to make it reasonably short, but it is extremely difficult to ask a short compact question on a highly complex and difficult and important matter if one has to do it against constant interruptions from some Members on the other side of the House who wish to prevent me from putting any question at all. I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer my question, if he will, and tell us, because we should like to know from the Government, what line they propose to pursue. We can understand—[HON. MEMBERS; "Speech"]. I am not going to be put off by hon. Members opposite. We can recognise that he cannot foretell the result of the Conference, and we are not asking him what the result will be, but we do ask him to let us know what is the policy which, in the name of Great Britain, the United Kingdom Government intend to put forward to the Conference when it meets and not keep us in ignorance until the whole thing is over?

Mr. Butler

I find it somewhat difficult to remember——

Mr. Silverman

And I found it somewhat difficult to put it.

Mr. Butler

—what the hon. Member's question was.

Mr. Manuel

Whose fault was that?

Mr. Butler

All I will say about it is that it is far too serious and important a matter to indulge in the sort of abuse in which the hon. Member indulged, or to drag in the purely political arguments which many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are bringing in. What I shall say quite simply is this, bearing in mind the desire of the House to hear what is intended, that we have achieved absolute unity of aim and policy on behalf of the three Western Governments supported by the Governments of the N.A.T.O. countries and by the Government of Western Germany. I am proud to present such a policy to this House.

Mr. Silverman

Tell us what it is.

Mr. Butler

We have sent an invitation to the Soviet Government and we are now awaiting a reply. In any case, the possibility of a high level conference is not excluded, and it is one the British Government would welcome.

Later—

Mr. S. Silverman

I desire to ask your leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Government to inform the House of the policy it intends to pursue at the important international conferences to be held while the House is in Recess.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member begs leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal of the Government to inform the House of the policy it intends to pursue at the important international conferences to be held while the House is in Recess. I need say nothing about the merits of the Motion, because the House has an opportunity immediately before it of discussing the matter on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill. It would be quite wrong and contrary to the practice of the House to accept such a Motion when an opportunity immediately exists for that purpose.

Mr. Silverman

May I ask, for the enlightenment of the House, whether you mean the defence debate which is to take place now as being such an opportunity. Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

I have nothing to do with the subjects which are discussed. The Question which will soon be before the House is "That the Consolidated Fund Bill be now read a Second time." That is the Question as far as I am concerned.