HC Deb 15 February 1962 vol 653 cc1514-6
Q11. Mrs. Butler

asked the Prime Minister what reply he has sent to the letter from Mr. Khrushchev suggesting a meeting of the Heads of Government to start off disarmament negotiations.

Q12. Mr. Warbey

asked the Prime Minister what reply he has made to Mr. Khrushchev's proposal that the disarmament discussions should be inaugurated by an eighteen-nation Summit meeting.

Q13. Mr. A. Henderson

asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement on the recent official proposal by Mr. Khrushchev to Her Majesty's Government that there should be an eighteen-Power Summit conference prior to the meeting of Foreign Ministers at the Disarmament Conference on 14th March.

The Prime Minister

I sent a reply yesterday, which has been published. A copy is also available in the Library.

Mrs. Butler

In view of the Prime Minister's reply that he would be willing to intervene personally at any stage if that could be of positive value towards achieving successful results, is it not clear that acceptance of the suggestion for a meeting of Heads of Government at the beginning would produce results of positive value in terms of good will and creating the right atmosphere for negotiation? With so much at stake, would not a good deal be gained by agreeing with the adversary quickly while there is yet time?

The Prime Minister

There is, of course, yet time, but I think that, having made the reply, which we published since Mr. Krushchev's reply was published so that there is no discourtesy—it was agreed that they should be published—it would be courteous to await the answer to it.

Mr. Warbey

Would not the Prime Minister agree that the main positions on both sides on disarmament problems are already well known and that if we are to achieve the break-through towards agreement which the whole world wants to see, it can be achieved only by those who are in the position to make executive decisions, namely, the Heads of Government? Would it not be far better that this break-through should be achieved at the beginning of the conference than wait until it is in danger of collapse?

The Prime Minister

Those, of course, are matters for consideration. The reply which I sent, rather similar to that sent by President Kennedy, was an attempt to combine, if we can, the practical measures which would lead to the quickest practical results with the general feeling that meetings of this kind can be of broad value.

Mr. Henderson

In the event of the three Foreign Ministers meeting before 14th March and making progress, would the Prime Minister consider personally attending the first plenary session of the eighteen-Power conference without prejudice to a subsequent Summit meeting?

The Prime Minister

I should like to consider that and, naturally, to receive Mr. Krushchev's reply to me and to the President and to consult about what is the best course for the purpose we all have in mind.

Mr. Gaitskell

Will not the Prime Minister agree that the success of these forthcoming disarmament negotiations is of quite exceptional importance in the present situation? Would he say whether the difficulty which President Kennedy and himself have had in accepting Mr. Khrushchev's proposal relates to the fact that the Heads of Government should meet or that there should be eighteen of them, or is the objection that there are too many of them? In other words, is it an objection to Heads of Government as such or the number involved?

Is the Prime Minister aware that there seems to be some danger of our getting into the position we were in a year or two ago when the attitude of the West to a so-called Summit Conference was that it was a coping stone to all that went before it and the attitude of Mr. Khrushchev, later adopted by the Prime Minister, was that its purpose was to break the ice? Is there not something to be said for the second point of view?

The Prime Minister

All these things are in our minds and I am in close consultation with the President on this matter.