§ 27. Mr. Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress being made in connection with the talks now proceeding in Moscow on matters pertaining to the arrangements for a future Summit Conference.
§ 34. Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what stage has been reached in the discussions between the British ambassador at Moscow and the Soviet Government relating to the Summit Conference.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydSo far, Mr. Gromyko has had one talk with each of the three Western ambassadors. He is at present unwilling to see them together. We are discussing with the United States and French Governments how best to deal with this.
§ Mr. LewisWhile it may seem rather ridiculous on the part of the Soviet Government to adopt the attitude of seeing each one individually, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what objections there really are to Her Majesty's Government agreeing to that step? If Press reports are true that the Soviet Government said that they will see the ambassadors of the three Western Powers together if they agree to the ambassadors of Czechoslovakia and Poland being in with them, cannot we agree to that suggestion?
§ Mr. LloydThat suggestion has not been put to us. I should have thought it was obvious that it was unsatisfactory, time-wasting and likely to lead to misunderstanding and confusion to see each of the three ambassadors separately.
§ Mr. BevanDid not Great Britain and the United States suggest to the Soviet Union that the preparatory talks should take place through normal diplomatic channels, and is not this a normal diplomatic channel? Is not it rather an abnormal diplomatic channel for three Governments to concert together beforehand and then meet the representative of the fourth Government? What is proposed is the normal diplomatic procedure. What objection has the right hon. and learned Gentleman to it? If it is the case that the Soviet Government wish to be accompanied in any subsequent discussion by ambassadors belonging to 948 other countries, what conceivable objection could we have to that procedure?
§ Mr. LloydI am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman endorse so firmly the position of the Soviet Government in this matter. The last Summit Conference took place between the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and France, and I should have thought that a very reasonable way to start the preparations for the next Summit Conference, without prejudice as to its exact constitution, would be for those four States to meet together to discuss arrangements.
§ Mr. BevanWhat objection can there be to any hon. Member supporting a view which is put forward by the Soviet Union if he thinks that the Soviet Union is right? We are not dealing at the moment with the Summit Conference; we are dealing with preparatory talks. Is not it a fact that the Soviet Union invited the Western Powers to a Summit Conference? Is it not also a fact that we responded by saying that we thought that the Summit Conference should first be prepared in the normal diplomatic way? Is not this the normal diplomatic way? What conceivable objection can the right hon. and learned Gentleman have to it—unless he wants to have an advantage that the Soviet Union itself does not possess?
§ Mr. LloydI was not objecting to the right hon. Gentleman's agreeing with the Soviet Union; I was only expressing my surprise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I should have thought that if we really wanted to get a worth-while series of summit talks going as speedily as possible we ought to do it with the four Governments discussing these preparations together.
§ Mr. LiptonIs the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if we progress at this rate, before the Summit Conference takes place we might find ourselves at war with Monaco? Seriously, will not he accept this proposition, rather than get bogged down with a lot of sticky diplomatic preliminaries? It would be much better for the Prime Minister to spend two or three days in Moscow with Mr. Khrushchev in order to clear the decks and so ensure that the Summit Conference is held within our lifetime.
§ Mr. LloydI think that much the best way to avoid getting bogged down with diplomatic preliminaries is for this meeting to take place as quickly as possible on a four-Power basis.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-DavenportShould any hon. Member be surprised when fellow-travellers agree with the Soviet Union?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am sorry that this matter has degenerated into a personal dispute. I think that the information which the House wants could be elicited without making injurious reflections upon other hon. Members. If the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) meant anything injurious by his reference to the right hon. Gentleman, he ought to withdraw it.
§ Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-DavenportI was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. BevanOn a point of order. It is my duty, and the duty of all hon. Members, to defend the reputation of any hon. Member in this House, on whatever side he may sit. Would not it be the most honourable course for the hon. and gallant Member to indicate the person to whom he was referring?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We cannot spend more time on this.
§ Mr. BevanFurther to that point of order. It is surely a highly offensive remark to state that any Member of this House is a fellow-traveller. With all respect, Sir, you yourself have said that it is an injurious remark. Cannot you bring the hyenas on the other side to order?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have frequently expressed the opinion that injurious epithets are often applied to a number of people—members of opposite parties, and so on—and it is only when they become particularised that I am called upon to interfere. The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford has said that he did not refer 950 to the right hon. Gentleman. We do not know whom he meant. We must take his remark as one of the general recriminations which, unfortunately, are inseparable from party warfare.
§ Mr. BeswickAre we to take it that this is simply part of the usual Conservative tactic of impugning the patriotism of its opponents when it has a bad case?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter for me. Hon. Members can form their own opinions.
§ Mr. LewisFurther to that point of order. Did I understand you aright, Mr. Speaker, when you said that the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) was an injurious one, and if made against the right hon. Gentleman should have been withdrawn? In view of the fact that only two hon. Members and one right hon. Member rose on this side of the House, may I assume that the injurious remark was made against my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) or myself? If that is the case, may I ask you to ask the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his remark as far as I am concerned?
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is no necessity for the hon. Member to identify himself as the object of the remark. I would ask the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) to ask Question No. 28, so that we can get on.
§ Mr. LewisI am sorry, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I would point out that this House has a reputation, whereby Mr. Speaker protects all hon. Members on both sides of the House. A moment ago you said that a remark that was made against a right hon. Gentleman was injurious and should be withdrawn. The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford made it only with regard to three possible Members who rose to their feet. If it should have been withdrawn against the right hon. Gentleman——
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member is arguing against my Ruling. There were a number of hon. Members in the House who cheered the remarks about the point at issue—the question whether the ambassadors should meet separately or together. The hon. Member need not make himself the target for these remarks. I protect hon. Members when they are personally 951 attacked, but there has been no attack in this case beyond the ordinary course of party warfare. We need not be too thin-skinned about it. Mr. Lewis. Question No. 28.
§ Mr. LewisI am not too thin—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—too thin-skinned. May I repeat that? As anyone can see, I am not too thin, neither am I too thin-skinned. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not worried about what an hon. Member or a right hon. Member may or may not say. What I am worried about is that right hon. Gentlemen would appear to get special treatment with regard to the withdrawal of a remark, as against ordinary hon. Members. It is from that point of view that I feel the hon. and gallant Member ought to withdraw the remark.
§ Mr. SpeakerWe must get on. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) took the remark as referring to himself. That is why, when the subject was still possibly identifiable, I intervened. But the hon. and gallant Member has made it quite clear that he was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have no idea to whom he was referring. I must ask the hon. Member to ask Question No. 28, or I shall call the next Question.
§ 29. Mr. Zilliacusasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will insist, in the preparatory negotiations, that the agenda of the Summit Conference must be considered with the obligations of the Charter, notably Article 2, paragraph 7, forbidding interference in the internal affairs of members of the United Nations, and Article 103, which declares that treaty obligations which conflict with those of the Charter are not binding on members of the United Nations.
§ Mr. Selwyn LloydIn these preparatory negotiations we shall certainly have regard to the provisions of the United Nations Charter.
§ Mr. ZilliacusI am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Will he make it clear that this means that any attempt at interfering in the internal affairs of certain Eastern States under the Yalta Agreement would 952 be contrary to Articles 2 and 103 of the Charter?
§ Mr. LloydI have nothing to add to my original Answer, except to record my pleasure at the support of the hon. Gentleman for Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter.