§ 36. Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress made at the diplomatic level in preparation for the proposed Summit Conference.
§ Commander NobleIn the Western Governments' Aide-Mémoire of 24th April it was proposed that, to save time and avoid inconvenience, Mr. Gromyko should talk to the three Western Ambassadors jointly instead of separately. The Soviet Government rejected this idea and offered us a choice of proceeding by separate meetings or else by joint meetings at which, in order that both sides should be represented equally, they proposed that the Polish and Czechoslovak Ambassadors should take part. They made it clear that they themselves preferred the first alternative. In consultation with our Allies, we decided to accept this proposition, and so informed the Soviet Government on 3rd May. I hope that it will now be possible to make progress.
§ Mr. HendersonWhat is the objection of the three Western Governments to conceding numerical parity to the Soviet Government? Surely, there is no question of principle involved.
§ Commander NobleAs I think I made clear in my Answer, Mr. Gromyko said that he would rather have separate meetings, and we therefore agreed.
§ Mr. BevanWhat is the basis of the objection to allowing the Russians to have Czechoslovakia and Poland there if the Russians desire it? The right hon. and gallant Gentleman should be aware that we on this side also think that we should have collective meetings; but why on earth object to having Czechoslovakia and Poland included?
§ Commander NobleThe right hon. Gentleman really cannot have it both ways. Last week he made a tremendous fuss because we would not accept separate meetings. Now we have said that we will accept separate meetings, he should be grateful.
§ Mr. BevanIs the Minister of State aware that he is entirely misrepresenting us? Is he not aware that we on this side expressed the view that the Russians were wrong in not having collective meetings? What we now want to know is why on earth there should be objection to the Czechs and Poles being present.
§ Commander NobleI think that the right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear last week—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Yes, I will answer the question. The right hon. Gentleman made it quite clear last week that, in his view, normal diplomatic meetings should be separate meetings——
§ Commander NobleYes, he did. If he consults HANSARD, he will see that that was the point of view he put forward to my right hon. and learned Friend. As I have said in my Answer, the Russians preferred this course, and we have accepted it.
§ Mr. BevanI have now asked twice: what is the objection on the part of this country and the Western Powers to meeting the representatives of Russia, Czechoslovakia and Poland together?
§ Commander NobleIt does not seem sensible to us, Mr. Speaker, that the question of the composition of any Foreign Ministers' meeting, or a summit meeting, should be decided by any formula or for reasons of prestige. I have said that the Russians proposed this as their first choice, and we have accepted it.
§ Mr. PeytonSurely the position is quite clear, which is that the Russians 841 are perfectly able and free to speak for themselves and the Poles and the Czechs, but that each of the Western countries must speak for itself. Does my right hon. and gallant Friend agree?
§ Mr. HendersonCan we take it from the Minister of State's Answer this afternoon that Her Majesty's Government have no objection in principle to according numerical parity to the Soviet Union?
§ Commander NobleWhat I have tried to make clear is that the Soviet Government preferred that choice. We have accepted it, and our note to the Soviet Government on 3rd May made it clear that our acceptance of the procedure of separate meetings with the ambassadors in Moscow was not in any way intended to prejudge the question of the composition of the Foreign Ministers' meeting, or of a summit meeting.