§ 9. Mr. Warbeyasked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of President Kennedy's recent proposals for minimising the dangers arising from the confrontation of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers and the Warsaw Pact powers, Her Majesty's Government will now reconsider their policy with regard to the Rapacki Plan.
§ Mr. HeathHer Majesty's Government are ready to consider any proposal that will contribute to a lessening of international tension, but we do not believe that the Rapacki Plan would have this effect.
§ Mr. WarbeyDoes not the right hon. Gentleman regard his reply as in striking contrast with the one he has just made to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) on the question of a nuclear-free zone for Latin America? If a nuclear-free zone is right for Latin America, why is it not right for Europe? In the new and better atmosphere which we hope will follow the Cuban crisis, surely this is the time for the Government to take an intiative towards liberating at least Central Europe from the danger of these weapons?
§ Mr. HeathIt may be possible for a nuclear-free zone to be arranged among the countries of South America, but the situation is quite different from the situation in Europe, of which the hon. Member is speaking. The general arrangements for the defence of the N.A.T.O. area and the Warsaw Pact area bear no comparison with South America.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer to the original Question will cause great disappointment and that it is largely inconsistent with the concern at one time shown by Her Majesty's Government for the establishment of a zone of controlled disarmament in Central Europe? Is he aware that it was specifically mentioned in the Moscow communiqué of 1959 that the matter was then to be studied and that we have repeatedly pressed the Government on this since then but never had a further account of what was to be done? Will he look at the matter again? This is not just a matter of a nuclear-free zone but a question of controlled disarmament in Central Europe.
§ Mr. HeathI well recognise the concern the right hon. Gentleman has about this. It is a policy which he and many of his party have always supported. We also know the context in which the Moscow declaration was made. But, having carefully studied the plan, our view—again for reasons the right hon. Gentleman knows well, because we have explained them frequently in debate—is that this would not lead to a lessening of tension but might very well lead to an increase of tension.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer goes further in the negative direction on this issue than anything previously said by Her Majesty's Government? Hitherto we have been told, "Yes, we are having this studied", but now the right hon. Gentleman appears to be turning it down. Is this not most regrettable, particularly as this proposal has been submitted by the Polish Government to the Disarmament Sub-Committee?
§ Mr. HeathIt can be again studied in the Disarmament Sub-Committee, and we have no objection to it being studied in this way. What we have done is to set out our own views of how tension can be reduced and how we should work for a reduction of armaments, both nuclear and orthodox. That, we think, is the best means for a solution.