§ 41. Mr. Healeyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his recent talks with President Kennedy.
§ 46. Mr. M. Footasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his official discussions with President Kennedy on the future of Berlin.
§ 47 and 48. Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister (1) what proposals he made in his discussions with President Kennedy about the West's policy in Berlin and the possibility of a limited arms zone in Germany;
(2) to what extent, in his discussions with President Kennedy, he considered the feasibility of a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe.
§ 51. Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent he discussed with President Kennedy the possibility of Berlin becoming a neutralised and open city with the security of its inhabitants guaranteed by the United Nations.
§ 54 and 55. Mr. S. Silvermanasked the Prime Minister (1) what agreement he reached in his recent conversation with President Kennedy concerning the normalisation of the present anomalous conditions in Berlin or concerning the stabilisation of the German-Polish frontier;
882 (2) what commitments he undertook during his recent conversation with President Kennedy concerning British participation or military intervention in East Germany; and in what circumstances these commitments will become operative.
§ 56. Mr. Harold Daviesasked the Prime Minister whether, in his recent talks with President Kennedy, he agreed to the nuclear rearmament of Germany.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to the communiqué which was issued after our talks yesterday. Of course, the British and United States Administrations are in constant touch on these matters as we are with our other Allies at various levels. I do not think it would be in the public interest for me to make a detailed statement on the specific points raised in these Questions.
§ Mr. HealeyWhile welcoming the fact that President Kennedy should have taken such personal pains to keep Her Majesty's Government so fully in touch with his recent conversations with foreign Heads of State, and particularly welcoming his insistence at the airport of the importance of Britain's rôle as a world Power and the importance of retaining Britain's existing links with Africa and Asia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I should have thought that hon. Members opposite might well themselves have approved of these views—may I ask the Prime Minister, in spite of what he has just said, three questions?
First, has President Kennedy given him any indication that General de Gaulle is now ready to make adjustments in the Rome Treaty to make it possible for Britain to join the Common Market? Secondly, did the Prime Minister make any further progress with President Kennedy towards getting the Peking Government seated in the United Nations? Thirdly, did he inform President Kennedy of the view held, I think, overwhelmingly among the British people that despite the inexcusable behaviour of the Soviet Government in the current negotiations at Geneva for a test ban, we would regard it as most undesirable that the United States Government should now resume nuclear tests?
§ The Prime MinisterIf I were to answer any of those questions, I should be doing exactly what I said I would 883 not do. The President wished to have a private conversation with me and it was agreed that it should be private. If I were to publish afterwards what we said to each other, it would not have been a private conversation.
§ Mr. M. FootCan the Prime Minister at least say, in view of the urgency of the matter, whether he had any opportunity of discussing the sensational reports which have appeared in the New York Herald-Tribune of projected moves against Berlin and whether he had a chance of expressing the British Government's strong objection to these proposals?
§ The Prime MinisterI really do not know what is said in the New York Herald-Tribune. I only know what I discussed with the President. Since this matter is mentioned in the communiqué, I will remind the hon. Member of what was said. We said:
The situation in regard to Germany was reviewed, and there was full agreement on the necessity of maintaining the rights and obligations of the Allied Governments in Berlin.
§ Mr. SwinglerWithout asking what the President said, are we not entitled in the House of Commons to know what the Prime Minister said? Is he not responsible to this House? May I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he put to Mr. Kennedy any proposal for reducing the war danger in Germany, such as a limited arms zone—a proposal which he himself has put forward previously—or any similar proposal for a zone of controlled disarmament?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. Discourteous as it would be of me to publish or to give an account of what President Kennedy said, it would be even more discourteous of me to give an account merely of what I said.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanWithout trespassing on the area of these private discussions—upon which, after all, the fate of mankind depends in the end—could the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea of his own views—whether he conveyed them to the President or not—about two questions? The first is whether he considers that the present state of Berlin can go on for ever, and, if not, what constructive proposals Her Majesty's Government 884 will make for the removal of that anomalous situation.
Secondly, with regard to Question No. 55, does the right hon. Gentleman consider it possible that there can ever be a feeling of stability or security in Europe while the frontier between Germany and Poland remains in dispute?
§ The Prime MinisterThose are all important questions, but I will not discuss them in connection with the Questions on the Order Paper—that is to say, my discussions with President Kennedy. The Head of the United States Government asked to have a private conversation with me. It was a very long and valuable conversation. It is proper that I should confine myself to the communiqué which was issued.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesDid the right hon. Gentleman congratulate Mr. Kennedy on his commonsense in meeting Mr. Khrushchev in a neutral country? Does the fact that Austria is a neutral country imply anything to anybody? Why should people be so afraid of neutralism?
§ The Prime MinisterAfter very long negotiations, lasting for many years, the Soviet Government finally agreed to the signing of the treaty which liberated Austria.
§ Mr. Harold DaviesWith regard to Question No. 57, irrespective of whether or not the right hon. Gentleman desires to reveal what he said to the President—and I am sure that the whole House is glad that these top statesmen have met over the last few days—will he at least do the House of Commons the courtesy of presenting in a White Paper the arguments for and against the Common Market, so that we can explore the issue in the House over a number of days, and ultimately face the nation so that the great debate can be fought out at the hustings?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is another matter. The Questions I have answered today were directed to what I said in discussion with President Kennedy. The hon. Member's Question is about terms which it may or may not be possible to arrange for joining the European Common Market. This issue is already widely debated in the Press and in the 885 country, and I hardly think that a statement in a White Paper would add anything at the moment. I understand the hon. Gentleman's interest—which we all share—in seeing that the points on both sides of the argument should be properly discussed and weighed.
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that I myself was guilty of causing some confusion. I called the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) to ask a supplementary on Question No. 56. I think that he asked one on Question No. 57, which was not one of those answered by the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. RankinOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Did the Prime Minister include Question No. 44 in his package reply or is he reserving it for Thursday?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. It was not included.
§ Mr. GaitskellWhile nobody expects the Prime Minister to reveal the detailed contents of his private discussion with President Kennedy, nevertheless would not he agree that it is profoundly unsatisfactory if they inhibit him, as they appear to do, from explaining to the House what the policy of Her Majesty's Government is?
In view of the fact that President Kennedy is, I understand, to make an important statement on his visits, either this afternoon or tomorrow, will not the Prime Minister reconsider his refusal to say a word to the House of Commons on these vitally important matters, such as the nuclear test negotiations and Berlin?
§ The Prime MinisterI think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that when Questions are put down to me, or to any of my right hon. Friends, we are always ready to answer them. But I do not want to answer these Questions in the context in which they have been put—that of a discussion which was, at President Kennedy's request, held privately without even any of the ordinary advisers being present.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make a statement on the Government's attitude to the situation in the nuclear test negotiations—which are at a very critical stage—at the earliest opportunity?
§ The Prime MinisterIf a question is put down on that subject, I will do my best to answer it.
§ Mr. S. SilvermanOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's reply to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about his willingness, if they are put down, to answer questions about matters which he does not wish to discuss in association with the conversations with President Kennedy, can it be made clear that if questions are put down to the right hon. Gentleman on this subject they will not be transferred to the Lord Privy Seal so that the Prime Minister avoids any obligation to answer at all?
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is everything but a point of order. The transfer of questions is not for me.