§ Q5. Mr. Wainwrightasked the Prime Minister what communication he has had recently with the President of the United States in relation to the proposed allied agreement to create a multilateral North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear force armed with Polaris missiles on surface ships; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Prime MinisterI am in frequent touch with the President of the United States, but it is not customary to reveal what passes in these confidential exchanges.
§ Mr. WainwrightDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think that there are sufficient missiles without having any more brought into operation in this country? Would he also explain to the House whether or not there would be any utility value in these ships in the event of some agreement coming into operation about the reduction of Polaris missiles?
§ The Prime MinisterAll these matters are under consideration by 1135 N.A.T.O. and all that we have done is to make our contribution, as was explained to the House, as part of the Nassau Agreement. We are considering with our allies any other plans which are now being discussed.
§ Mr. WarbeyOn a point of Order. Has not the Prime Minister in his supplementary answer given—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I desire to hear the point of order being submitted.
§ Mr. WarbeyHas not the Prime Minister in his supplementary answer given a partial answer to Questions No. 8 and No. 9, and should not he therefore now answer those Questions together with this one?
§ Mr. SpeakerThere is no point of substance whatsoever in that so far as I can see.
§ Sir C. OsborneMay I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that British manufacturers generally are getting a fair share of the orders that are going for N.A.T.O. equipment, not only on Polaris, but on other types of equipment which N.A.T.O. is using?
§ The Prime MinisterEvery country thinks that it ought to have more. I think that our manufacturers have done a wonderful job, and I am glad to see that our exports in this respect are continually growing.
§ Mr. HealeyIs the Prime Minister aware that many of us feel that the proposal for a multilateral force may commit the West German Government to a nuclear rôle at a time when political power in Germany is passing into the hands of those who do not wish Germany to have a nuclear rôle, and recognise the political danger? Will the right hon. Gentleman insist, at the next Ottawa meeting of N.A.T.O., that N.A.T.O. should return to the general lines of solving the problem of the control of nuclear weapons, as agreed at the Athens meeting of the N.A.T.O. Council last year?
§ The Prime MinisterI will bear the hon. Member's thoughts in mind. These are very difficult questions that we have 1136 to discuss in full. If I were to go into detail now I should be causing some grievance to hon. Members who have the next Questions on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. A. HendersonOn a point of order. May I draw your attention to the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we have had five Questions answered in 15 minutes. Would it not be courteous to other hon. Members if it were possible to compress our supplementary questions a little more?
§ Mr. SpeakerAs far as I am concerned, the shorter the supplementary question the better—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. RankinOn a point of order.
§ Mr. SpeakerWhat is happening now is that I am addressing the House, and not raising a point of order with myself. Sometimes, by reason of the interventions of the Front Benches on both sides of the House, and by leaders of the parties, Prime Minister's Questions are spun out into an exchange of compliments which the House does not always dislike.
§ Mr. A. HendersonMay I draw the attention of the Prime Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that a very important letter has been received from Mr. Khrushchev? Does not he think that it would be—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I can see no conceivable basis even for the right hon. Gentleman to urge that the Prime Minister be allowed to deal with that point at the moment.
§ Mr. WarbeyI desire to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. May I do so, Mr. Speaker?
§ Mr. SpeakerI cannot allow it.
§ Mr. RankinOn a point of order. Unless I heard wrongly there were references to some person called "Rankin". If I am the person designated, is not that out of order? Ought not the persons concerned to refer to me as "the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan?"
§ Mr. SpeakerI would not venture to guess what was the subject of interest at the moment.