HC Deb 19 April 1961 vol 638 cc1172-5
Mr. Warbey

On a point of order. May I ask whether the Lord Privy Seal is to make a statement on the question of Laos, since the Foreign Secretary has just made an important statement in another place, in which he has communicated to their Lordships the latest British proposals on Laos, including the fixing of the date for the cease-fire—

Mr. Speaker

Order. There must be some limit to this process, because at present. I do not see why this is a point of order. Therefore, I ought not to let the hon. Gentleman state these facts here. I think that is right. What is the point of order?

Mr. Warbey

May I, then, seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, about how this House can preserve its rights as the democratic assembly of Parliament, which should be entitled to receive the first statement on important matters of Government policy? When such statements are made in another place, a similar statement should be made simultaneously in this House.

Mr. Speaker

The difficulty is that the Chair is not here to give guidance in that sense, to make abstract pronouncements. It has the task of ruling on matters of order when they arise. I cannot regard any of this as constituting a point of order.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the desirable custom of the House, to which you are entitled to pay regard, that when the Government make an important statement, on an important matter that is causing general anxiety, they make it simultaneously in both Houses? Why should not that custom be applied in this case, especially as the Foreign Secretary sits in another place?

Mr. Speaker

I do not challenge what the hon. Member is saying, but I do not think that it is a point of order for the Chair. However, I see movement on the Government Front Bench. Mr. Heath.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath)

Perhaps I can help you and the House, Mr. Speaker. The explanation is that there was on the Order Paper a Question No. 55, by the right hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson) which, I was assuming, would be reached. I was proposing to answer it, but it was not reached. I am quite prepared to answer it now.

[Mr. A. Henderson: To ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will make a further statement on the situation in Laos and Vietnam and on the discussions with the Soviet Government on the British proposals.]

Mr. Gaitskell

In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, Mr. Speaker, is it not possible for him to answer the Question, as he has offered to do so?

Mr. Speaker

I am instructing myself in the matter. I believe it to be wholly impossible and quite improper, but I hope that he will answer the Question.

Mr. Heath

May I, then, make myself both possible and proper by turning to the statement, Mr. Speaker.

In Laos, the Pathet Lao/Kong Lae forces continue to retain the military initiative and have made some local advances. They seem, however, to have made no real effort to mount a major offensive, although the threat remains that they may do so.

On 16th April, the Soviet Government replied to the United Kingdom proposals on Laos. Much of the Soviet Government's reply is acceptable, but it is not clear whether they agree to our request for an immediate cease-fire to precede the international conference.

Her Majesty's Ambassador in Moscow has been instructed to seek final agreement on this, and to suggest that the appeal for an immediate cease-fire be issued tomorrow, 20th April, that the International Commission be convened at the same time to verify it, and that the Conference should meet on 5th May.

These negotiations do not, of course, affect the question of Vietnam. As the House will know, President Diem secured a clear mandate with a further term of five years at the election held on 9th April. During the period of the election campaign there were many clashes between the Army and Communist guerillas, and the security situation remains serious.

Mr. Gaitskell

We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for volunteering to answer the Question. We are glad to hear that the British Government have made specific proposals on an appeal for a cease-fire and, I understand, the simultaneous summoning of the International Commission. As far as that goes, it is certainly helpful.

May I ask whether, in view of the fact that there appears to be no serious fighting going on, he will bear in mind the importance of the Commission returning to the scene as soon as possible and of not delaying unduly or haggling over a particular date for the summoning of the conference?

Mr. Heath

The directions issued to the Commission after it reconvenes in Delhi depend on the agreement of the two co-Chairmen, but it would be our wish that it should go to the scene as soon as possible in order to verify the cease-fire. As I have said, it is being put to Mr. Gromyko today that the conference should meet on 5th May.

Mr. Warbey

Does that mean that, when the appeal for a cease-fire is issued, assuming that there is agreement on it, invitations will simultaneously be issued to other countries who are to be invited to attend the conference on 5th May? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the ceasefire includes the cessation of military aid to both sides—from the Soviet side to the forces supporting Prince Souvanna Phouma and from the American side to the forces supporting Prince Boun Loum?

Mr. Heath

Invitations will be sent out at the same time for the conference to be held on 5th May. As I have pointed out, in our opinion the conference depends on the cease-fire having become effective by that time. We hope that the cease-fire will be as wide as possible.

Mr. S. Silverman

Will the right hon. Gentleman satisfy the House that further progress in this matter will not in any way be embarrassed by the recent and present events in Cuba? Has he any statement to make on that subject?

Mr. Heath

I have no statement to make on that subject today.

Mr. Brockway

The right hon. Gentleman said that he hoped that the ceasefire would be as complete as possible. Will he say specifically whether the invitations will be given both to Russia and to America to stop supplying military equipment in Laos?

Mr. Heath

We want both sides, on the appeal for the cease-fire, to meet and agree about the terms of the cease-fire and to implement it at once.