§ Q2. Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his conversations with President Kennedy.
§ Q5. Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his talks with President Kennedy.
§ Q6 Mr. Swinglerasked the Prime Minister (1) how much time he spent at his Bahamas meetings with President Kennedy discussing proposals for the settlement of world problems and the reduction of tension; and what new proposals Her Majesty's Government will put forward as a result;
(2) to what extent in his discussions with President Kennedy he considered proposals for disengagement in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.
§ Q8. Mr. Benceasked the Prime Minister what representation he made to the President of the United States at his recent meeting, respecting the adverse effect on British shipbuilding and merchant shipping, of American navigation policies.
§ Q10. Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his conversations with President Kennedy.
§ Q11. Mr. W. Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister to what extent the agreement reached with President Kennedy, as described in the White Paper, Bahamas Meetings, Command Paper No. 1915 of December, 1962, ensure the continued existence of an independent nuclear deterrent in British control; and under what circumstances such a deterrent would be used.
§ Q12. Mr. Dribergasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his talks with the President of the United States; and if the data on which they based their review of the nuclear test treaty negotiations included an estimate of the number of new cases of genetic damage and of bone cancer and leukaemia likely to have been caused by the latest series of British, American, and Soviet tests.
§ Q16. Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister what proposals were made during his talks with President Kennedy in the Bahamas regarding the maintenance of the credibility of the British deterrent during the period between the obsolescence of the V-bomber force in or about 1965 and the coming into operational service of the Polaris submarine fleet in or about 1970.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer right hon. and hon. Members to the joint communiqué and statement issued after my talks with President Kennedy last month and subsequently published as a White Paper.
§ Mr. ShinwellDoes not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his agreement with President Kennedy has offended President de Gaulle and that now President de Gaulle has offended the right hon. Gentleman? Is he aware that the British public is also becoming very offended about what is happening? Is not it about time the Government stood on their own feet without regard to what is said by President Kennedy and President de Gaulle?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand that a debate has been arranged for 31st January. These questions are of great importance and some complexity, and I think that it would be more convenient for me to deal with them in the debate.
§ Mr. WyattWill the Prime Minister say whether we are committed irrevocably to the Polaris agreement, or whether we can get out of it, as it is going to cost £500 million and will strengthen neither ourselves nor the West?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not, of course, accept all these figures, and I think it would be better that they be debated, as we are to have a debate, on 31st January.
§ Mr. SwinglerLeaving aside the Skybolt and Polaris scandals, which we shall discuss separately, is the Prime Minister aware that the White Paper does not mention a single proposal which he put to the President, or agreed with President Kennedy, for the improvement of international relations? Can the right hon. Gentleman answer my Question, which is whether he did agree with the President about disarmament, a nuclear-free zone, or about Berlin, or about bringing China into the United Nations, or any such proposal at all? What effective move was made to improve international relations?
§ The Prime MinisterOn one matter which we discussed there has been an advance, and I am glad that it is so. That is on the question of nuclear tests, where a rather more hopeful situation has now developed.
§ Mr. BenceMay I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether my Question No. 8 was included in the list which the right hon. Gentleman is answering together?
§ Mr. SpeakerYes, Question No. 8, but not Question No. 9.
§ Mr. BenceDid the Prime Minister bring to the notice of President Kennedy that American policies, which are quite out of keeping with international practice, are having an adverse effect upon the shipbuilding and merchant shipping in this country? Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that the defence of British shipbuilding and our Merchant Marine is as important as any other part of the defence of Great Britain?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have, of course, discussed this on several occasions, and I hope that some advance has been made.
§ Mr. AllaunDo not these talks finally establish that, compared with the Big Two, Britain is no longer a great military Power and can achieve true greatness only by giving a lead for peace? If that is so, how can we discourage others from having nuclear arms when we insist on having Polaris and Blue Steel ourselves?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is those aspects both of a multilateral character and of N.A.T.O. policies which are, I think, valuable in that connection.
§ Mr. HamiltonIs it not the case that the White Paper hints at the possible use by Britain of our own independent nuclear deterrent in our own vital national interests? Can the Prime Minister, in a very short phrase, name one of those vital national interests on which we might use our own independent nuclear deterrent?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right of any sovereign country to use any of its arms must in the last resort rest with the Government of the day.
§ Mr. DribergWill the Prime Minister be good enough to answer the second part of my Question No. 12 which, in spite of his Answer today, was not included in the communiqué?
§ The Prime MinisterI did refer to these developments. Although we have often had hopes before, I am hopeful that perhaps on this occasion we may make some real advance to the solution of the problem of nuclear tests.
§ Mr. DribergWhile agreeing that now there is more hope, partly because of Mr. Khrushchev's latest concession on inspection, may I ask if the Prime Minister does not realise that this Question asks specifically about the data on which the review of these matters was based?
§ The Prime MinisterThere has been an immense volume of scientific research on these matters. I could not offhand give the details of it.
§ Mr. WarbeyIn regard to the gap in the credibility of the British deterrent, since this gap will start some time in the next two or three years and then for several years we shall have to depend on the decency of Mr. Khrushchev not to single us out for 35 attack, what is the point of trying to provide for it in eight or nine years' time?
§ The Prime MinisterThat question seems more for the future and can be more conveniently dealt with in debate.
Mr. H. WilsonWhile noting that there is to be a debate next week, may I ask the Prime Minister to take it from us that we regard the Command Paper to which he referred as profoundly unsatisfactory, and will make that clear in the debate? If the debate is to cover purely the defence aspect, may I ask whether he or one of his right hon. Friends intend to make an immediate statement on the disarmament issue, which is urgent and not unhopeful, on Berlin, and other questions which we hope he discussed with the President?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course, the form of debate is always discussed. Perhaps the right hon. Member will see when the Motion is on the Order Paper. We thought on this occasion it was the wish of the House that we should concentrate on the defence aspect.
Mr. WilsonWhile that is probably the wish of the entire House, will not the Prime Minister take an early opportunity of making a statement on his talks with the President on disarmament—all the more urgent in the light of the resumption of the talks and the statement by Mr. Khrushchev—and also on the position about Berlin?
§ The Prime MinisterI shall take that into account, but I think the right hon. Member will agree that it has rather been our experience that if we tried to widen the debate too much to cover whole fields of foreign policy and disarmament as well as defence the debate is apt to be less valuable than if it is concentrated on one major subject.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonTo what extent will the permanence of the Bahamas Agreement depend on what may be said in the House in the debate? Would my right hon. Friend consider perhaps talking to the French again before it is made final?
§ The Prime MinisterOf course, the carrying out of an agreement by any Government depends on the ability of that Government to have the support of the House of Commons.
§ Mr. SpeakerQuestion No. 9. Mr. Bence.
§ Mr. SpeakerI beg the pardon of hon. Members. I confused myself with that string of supplementaries. I ask the forgiveness of the House. Mr. Wyatt.