§ Q2. Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether a proposal has now been made by Mr. Khrushchev for a meeting at an early date between the Heads of Governments of the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
§ Q4. Mr. Ellis Smithasked the Prime Minister what steps he proposes to take to implement fully the policy outlined in his message to Mr. Khrushchev that Heads of Government should accept personal responsibility for directing the disarmament negotiations; and if he will propose that the McCloy-Zorin agreement on disarmament principles should form the basis for the personal direction of the negotiations and the holding of a summit conference in London at an early date.
§ The Prime MinisterMr. Khrushchev has not proposed that there should be a three-Power Summit Meeting. President Kennedy and I have suggested that the Foreign Ministers of the three Powers should meet in advance of the Eighteen-Power Conference. We are awaiting Mr Khrushchev's reply. As regards the Eighteen-Power Conference, I shall concern myself personally with the strategy of the negotiations and with any new proposals for disarmament which are put forward. The statement of principles agreed between Mr. McCloy and Mr. Zorin was welcomed by the United Nations in its Resolution of 20th December, 1961, endorsing the establishment of the Eighteen-Power Committee. This Resolution recommended that the Committee's negotiations should be on the basis of the principles set out in the agreement between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I hope that this recommendation will be fulfilled.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs not this matter becoming rather complicated? Would not the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if Mr. Khrushchev should modify his proposals about the Eighteen-Power Conference and suggest a conference of the Heads of State of the United States, United Kingdom, France and Russia, he would see that the United Kingdom placed no obstacle in the way? Would he also take note of the fact that it has been reported that General de Gaulle has now suggested that if such a conference is held, he, too, would like to be consulted?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. The correspondence is a little complicated because there are so many people writing letters to each other. I think that it would be better not to have letters cross again but to wait until Mr. Khrushchev replies to the letter which I sent to him and to a similar letter which President Kennedy sent to him only two or three days ago.
§ Mr. Ellis SmithI appreciate the Prime Minister's informative reply. Does he not agree that there are now greater prospects of a limited settlement than there have been for many years? If he does, should not he and President Kennedy take more of an initiative than they have done in showing more good will towards these prospects?
§ The Prime MinisterI am not usually accused of being lacking in optimism. In recent years I have tried to show that I think that these meetings can be made valuable, and I have not lost my hope that they will be. But I still think that, in this rather complicated state of the correspondence, it would be better to wait and see whether we can sort it out.
§ Mr. G. BrownIs the Prime Minister now able to answer the question which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition put to him last week and which he did not then answer? My right hon. Friend asked him whether his difficulty in accepting Mr. Khrushchev's proposals was concerned with whether there should be eighteen Heads of Government or whether that would be too many. Will he now say whether the difficulty is connected with either of those and, if so, which?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the right hon. Gentleman read my letter to Mr. Khrushchev, I think that he would understand what the position of the British Government was.