§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the visit which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have just paid to the Soviet Union.
I must express my gratitude to the House for its indulgence in allowing us to be away for a considerable number of days at a time when Parliament is sitting. Unfortunately, we shall have to seek the same indulgence when my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I make our proposed visits to Paris, Bonn and Washington for further discussions there. But I feel that these visits are essential.
The Soviet Government accepted my suggestion for a visit at comparatively short notice. Despite this, careful and well-planned arrangements were made for us to see something of the country and the people, and also for us to have long and private talks with the Soviet leaders. The hospitality we enjoyed was traditionally generous.
In the course of our stay in Moscow, and of our tour to Kiev, in the Ukraine, and to Leningrad, we were given a broad picture of their industrial and social activities, especially the work of reconstruction and development.
It is, however, about our discussions that the House will wish particularly to hear. At their conclusion we signed the communiqué which has been published. This covers both certain questions of Anglo-Soviet concern, and also wider international issues.
The House will have noted that we made modest but definite advance towards improving what are termed "cultural relations" between the two countries, together with an agreed procedure for 449 reviewing future progress in this matter. On the important question of trade, it was agreed that a mission, led by a United Kingdom Minister, should visit the Soviet Union in the near future to investigate in more detail the scope for increasing the volume of trade between our countries.
The wider questions we discussed concerned the problems of Berlin and Germany, disarmament, and nuclear tests. I made it clear before my visit that our purpose was not to negotiate. It was to try to seek a better understanding of our respective views on these grave issues, and the reasons underlying them.
This purpose was achieved. On some matters, such as the control of nuclear tests, some tentative ideas emerged in the course of our informal conversation with the Soviet leaders. Of course, these will need further consideration, since our two countries are not the only ones concerned.
But the main point is that on these wider problems we reached agreement that the great issues which separate East and West must be settled by negotiation. In my speech at the Kremlin reception, on the day before our departure, I described this as follows:
Negotiations based on knowledge gained in full discussion, and conducted with a sincere desire to reach fair agreements".This agreement is, I think, reflected in the latest Note to the Western Governments from the Soviet Government. The House will not expect me to comment on that Note at present, since it is clearly a matter for consultation between us and our Allies.I must refer to one specific subject which arose in the course of the talks—the possibility of a pact or declaration of non-aggression between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. I stated that we were willing to agree to a declaration on the following lines.
First, that in all matters of dispute, our two countries should act in the spirit and letter of the United Nations Charter. Secondly, that neither Government would seek unilaterally to prejudice the rights, obligations and vital interests of the other. Thirdly, on the basis of these principles, our two Governments should agree to settle disputes by negotiation and not by force. Such a declaration would in no way prejudice our firm resolution to stand by our existing defensive alliances.
450 In the time available, we were not able to agree on the terms of a declaration. These will be the subject of further discussion between our Governments.
As I have already mentioned, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I now propose to visit Paris and Bonn during the course of next week, and we are hoping to arrange a visit to Washington soon after that. I believe that these visits are also part of the essential preparation for wider talks.
We must not, of course, disguise from ourselves that, as the communiqué indicates, our talks with the Soviet leaders revealed wide differences between us. It is, nevertheless, a great gain that we have reached agreement on the principle that differences between nations should be resolved by negotiation.
I believe that, in the outcome, it will be seen that these preliminary discussions have played a valuable part, and that it was right for the United Kingdom Government to take this initiative.
§ Mr. GaitskellIn welcoming the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary back from their visit to Moscow, may I say that although the agreement reached with the Soviet Government is, of course, a limited one, this was, in my opinion, inevitable in the circumstances? As I ventured to say at one of the more difficult moments of the tour, I am sure that the personal contacts established are necessary and worth while to our relations with the Soviet Union.
Perhaps I may now ask two questions on the communiqué. First, can the Prime Minister throw a little more light on the progress that is said to have been made in the development of cultural exchanges? I think that he said that some new procedure had been laid down, but I have not been able to discover that dealt with in detail in the Press.
Secondly, since I regard the passage about the agreement between the two Governments on the possibility of an area of Central Europe in which both nuclear and conventional forces should be limited as one of the most significant passages in the communiqué, can the Prime Minister say whether he feels reasonably certain that that part of the communiqué is one that our Western Allies will also support?
451 Finally, I should like to add that although there are a number of important issues which will have to be debated in the House in the near future—such as the Agreements with Egypt and Cyprus—and although I hope that it will be possible for the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary to take part in those debates, nevertheless, from this side of the House, we would not wish to put anything in the way of an initiative towards peace on the part of the British Government.
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I think that we do give some account of how the agreement on cultural contacts might proceed from point to point. That should have been published. Perhaps it has not been published, but I shall see that the annex to the communiqué is laid as a White Paper.
Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I felt encouraged by the fact that I was allowed to make a broadcast of some considerable length, without any form of censorship or change, entirely on my own responsibility, and that it was listened to, I understand, quite widely in the Soviet Union. It is that kind of thing that we want to be able to do more and more.
On the second point that the right hon. Gentleman raised, he will know that the words are:
In this connection they agreed that further study could usefully be made of the possibilities of increasing security by some method of limitation of forces and weapons, both conventional and nuclear, in an agreed area of Europe, coupled with an appropriate system of inspection.We had a useful and, I think, constructive discussion, of course in private, on this matter. It is one of the matters which, in my view, should be further studied together with all the countries concerned. It is partly one of my purposes in my visits to take up that together with other questions.
§ Mr. A. HendersonMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman about the proposed joint declaration? Is it intended that this declaration is to be strictly bilateral, or is it intended to be open to signature by other Governments, such as the United States and French Governments?
§ The Prime MinisterSince our drafts were communicated to each other rather 452 late in the proceedings, we could not reach an actual agreement upon them. Perhaps it would be rather fairer to wait until these negotiations continue. I have the point of the right hon. and learned Gentleman in mind.
§ Mr. HealeyIn view of the Government's very welcome although belated agreement to study the possibility of an arms limitation zone in Europe, will the Prime Minister authorise the initiation of discussions with the Polish Government on Mr. Rapacki's proposals in this respect?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I do not think that I can accept what the hon. Gentleman has said. Surely the right thing that we have to do now is to try to get a negotiation going. That is what we must try to do; not to argue too much about the exact phrasing of it or the proposed formula for it, but to get it going. If—there are always "ifs"—this should mean the beginning of negotiations rather than unilateral decisions as to what is to be done, then I think that we have a hope of making substantial progress. It is on that that I think we should now concentrate.
§ Mr. ShinwellThe Prime Minister referred to the possibility of a Minister proceeding shortly to the Soviet Union for the purpose of considering the possibility of mutual trade. As this is a very important matter for the United Kingdom, as no doubt it will be also for the Soviet Union, can this be expedited?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. We had a discussion on trade problems generally and quite a good exposé of the difficulties and problems which arise on both sides. I made this suggestion and it was warmly accepted by Soviet leaders and we shall, therefore, act upon it as soon as arrangements can be made.
§ Mr. MayhewThe Prime Minister referred to limited progress in the cultural field, and the annex to the communiqué refers to the forthcoming visit to the Soviet Union of the Soviet Relations Committee. May we take it that arising out of the talks the budget of the Soviet Relations Committee will be increased?
§ The Prime MinisterI cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's Budget. I was careful to preserve our position that 453 we wanted details of these negotiations to be carried out through this Committee, upon which the hon. Gentleman plays an important part, and not on a Governmental basis in the first instance. I think that that will be acceptable because it is very important that this Committee, having been got going, should be allowed to go on with this work.
§ Mr. PitmanHas the Prime Minister raised, or will he consider raising, the question of starting negotiations for a world security authority, on however small a basis, which might take over some of the matters which are potentially dangerous and in dispute?
§ The Prime MinisterEverything is possible, but I think that the great thing at the moment is to try to make progress step by step.
§ Mr. PagetHas the right hon. Gentleman any reassuring news to bring us on the subject of Mr. Khrushchev's toothache?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. I understand that it made a rapid recovery.