§ Q9. Mr. M. Footasked the Prime Minister whether, at his forthcoming meeting with President Kennedy, he will seek a renewal of the President's pledges concerning consultation with the British Government about the use of nuclear weapons.
§ Q11 Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister (1) whether, during his forthcoming meeting with President Kennedy, he will propose a joint Anglo-American initiative in the United Nations to ensure that preparations for aggression or external subversion are excluded from all territories bordering the Caribbean area under a system of United Nations verification;
(2) if he is aware that the French proposals for co-operation with Germany in the development of an independent nuclear deterrent are in breach of the undertaking given by those countries to the United Kingdom in the revised Brussels Treaty; and if he will draw the attention of President de Gaulle to this in their forthcoming discussions.
§ The Prime MinisterWith permission, I will answer this Question and Questions Nos. Q11 and Q13 together.
I would refer hon. Members to the replies which I gave on 29th November to Questions about my forthcoming discussions with President de Gaulle and President Kennedy.
§ Mr. FootDoes the Prime Minister recall that a few days after the Cuba crisis he assured the House that he had an understanding with the United States President that he would be consulted at any time if there was any question of nuclear weapons being used? Can he say whether he was consulted during the crisis of Cuba week? Has the Prime Minister taken into account the statements made in the last few days, on the authority of such an eminent American journalist as Mr. Walter Lippman. 1500 suggesting that the President of the United States deliberately decided not to consult the British Government, not for the reasons given to the House by the Prime Minister, but for quite other reasons altogether?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I am glad of the opportunity of stating once again that the President of the United States has with me, and would have, I trust, with any of my successors, the same understanding as his predecessor President Eisenhower had with me. I should like to say categorically that he fulfilled that obligation with the closest co-operation at every point.
§ Mr. WarbeyMay I submit a point of order before putting a supplementary question to the Prime Minister? I understood him to say that he was dealing with Questions Nos. 9, 11 and 13. My Questions No. 11 and No. 13 deal with entirely different subjects. Question No. 11 is concerned with the Prime Minister's discussions with President Kennedy and Question No. 13 deals with his discussions with President de Gaulle. I am therefore not prepared to accept a single Answer to both those Questions.
§ Mr. SpeakerThat is not a point of order, I am afraid. I understand the point the hon. Member is making, but it is not a point of order because I have no power to direct the Answer of the Minister in any particular way nor the way in which he should make it. In regard to the words "with permission" by which these groupings are prefaced, my predecessors have ruled that they are a mere courtesy expression, which does not indicate that we have power to refuse.
§ Mr. WarbeyFurther to that point of order. I have already given notice to the Table that I should defer Question No. 13 to next week if it is not reached today. Therefore, I prefer that the Answer to Question No. 13 should be deferred until next week. Is the Prime Minister prepared to accept that?
§ Mr. SpeakerI have great sympathy with the hon. Member, but I am afraid that under our practice and previous Rulings of my predecessors it cannot be done if the Question is grouped with other Questions for answer.
§ Mr. WarbeyIn that case, may I appeal to the Prime Minister to answer only Question No. 11 and not Question No. 13?
§ The Prime MinisterI am quite prepared to do whatever the hon. Member wishes. I thought it would be convenient to group these Questions together, but if he prefers to put the Question down for next Tuesday, I shall be pleased to answer it then.
§ Mr. WarbeyI thank the Prime Minister for that because it saves me putting two supplementary questions to him now. I therefore now ask the Prime Minister, in reference to the suggestion about the Caribbean area, whether he will take account that while the United States is quite rightly asking for verification of the fact that there are no offensive weapons left in Cuba, the Cuban Government are equally entitled to be assured that there shall be verification that no offensive preparations for invasion are being made in Florida, Guatemala, Honduras or Puerto Rico? Would it not be reasonable to propose that an agreement on the pacification of this area with United Nations inspection and safeguards Should be put on a reciprocal basis?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I understand the diplomatic negotiations are still continuing with a view to bringing the Cuban affair to an end between the Governments concerned, I think it would be unwise for me to comment at this moment.
§ Mr. DribergIf the Prime Minister should meet the President before Question No. 15 is reached—I have already had to defer that Question three times—would he be good enough to raise with the President the particular point contained in that Question, which I believe to be a new one in our exchanges in this House?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt would be rather difficult to bring that within the rules of order.