§ Q7. Mr. Maudeasked the Prime Minister, how many Russian orders for British-built merchant ships have been placed since 1951; what proposals have been made by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in this period for barter deals involving British ships and Russian oil; what action on them was taken by Her Majesty's Government; and whether Her Majesty's Government placed a veto on any such order or proposal.
§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order. Would you be kind enough to look at this Question, Mr. Speaker? Would you not agree that it is a Question which obviously should have been put down to the Minister of Transport or the Secretary of State for Industry, Trade and Regional Development? Are you aware that I put down a Question addressed to the Prime Minister which related to representation made directly to the Prime Minister and that it was transferred to another Minister, whereas this Question, which obviously is intended for the Minister of Transport, is now to be answered by the Prime Minister? Is this action not completely arbitrary, and is the Prime Minister not treating hon. Members with contempt? [Interruption.] What is more, for the remainder of this Session I am not standing any nonsense from him.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am afraid, with respect, that not even the persuasiveness of the right hon. Gentleman would persuade me to make other pronouncements about the Chair's responsibility in relation to the transfer of Questions.
§ Mr. ShinwellIt is a stooge Question. That is what it is.
§ The Prime MinisterThe answer to the Question is: Since 1951, 24 merchant ships have been ordered from British shipyards for export to the Soviet Union. The Soviet Government have at no time made any proposition to Her Majesty's Government for the purchase of British ships in exchange for Soviet oil. Nevertheless, after widespread Press reports that the Soviet Union would contemplate such a deal, we stated publicly 273 in February, 1963, that we should consider any specific proposal on its merits. The Soviet Government did not pursue this offer but subsequently told us that it was not their policy to link the purchase of British ships with the provision of a quota for Soviet oil. There is, therefore, no question of Her Majesty's Government placing a veto on such a proposal.
§ Mr. MaudeAre we to understand from my right hon. Friend's Answer that, as usual, last week the Leader of the Opposition had his facts wrong again?
§ The Prime MinisterI did my best to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from making an intervention, but I was unsuccessful and his facts were wrong.
Mr. H. WilsonWill the Prime Minister now give the accurate facts to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and begin by first telling hon. Members for how many years these ships were on an embargo after the end of the fighting in Korea and state what representations the Government had from the Soviet Government about their inability to place a whole range of orders for ships in this country until 1959, and how many of those orders were placed in other countries? Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement made by the Soviet Deputy-Premier, now the President of the Soviet Union, about their inability to buy ships in this country in 1962 and their decision, therefore, to place orders in Denmark, Finland, Japan, Sweden and not in this country?
§ The Prime MinisterTo answer the last part of that Question first, the Russians always insisted that they would purchase from British shipyards only if our ships were competitive in price and delivery. As to the question about an embargo, the right hon. Gentleman went back a number of years. I thought that he supported the embargo. Indeed, he said to me the other day:
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reference to a strategic embargo, is he aware that we support him on that, too…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th May, 1964; Vol. 695, c. 218.]So he did support it at that time.
Mr. WilsonIf this is the right hon. Gentleman's idea of straight talk, I should 274 like to have some from him. Is he aware that by going back to 1951 I followed the Question? Is he aware that the embargo on merchant ships—[Interruption.]—these are not strategic; these are not naval vessels—was continued long after the ending of the fighting in Korea for which that embargo was imposed? Is he not aware that time and time again in this House we asked for the ending of the embargo on merchant ships, which Ministers opposite refused?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that the Cocom embargo is a matter for the N.A.T.O. allies, and we leave, in this matter—[Interruption.] If right hon. and hon. Members opposite really do not take any notice of the opinions of our allies—[Interruption.] I very much hope that they will make this plain to the N.A.T.O. alliance. But, at the present moment, we are dealing with the question whether or not there is a link between the purchase by the Russians of ships in this country and an oil deal—and there is not. The Russians will buy ships here if they are satisfied about our competitive prices.
Mr. WilsonSince the Question refers to the veto, will the Prime Minister now admit that from 1951—the date mentioned in the Question—to 1959, the Russians were not allowed by the Government to place any orders in this country in respect of any peaceful merchant ships which went at a speed beyond 12 knots? Will he not admit that?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. And I should take the representations of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the Question."]—much more seriously—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—if they had not—[Interruption.]
§ Sir J. EdenOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not possible in some way to enable my right hon. Friend to give the answer for which he has been asked—[Interruption.]—in the face of the jeers of the extreme left wing of the Labour Party?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am not concerned with the precise location from which the 275 noise comes, but there is too much noise. The Prime Minister must be allowed to answer.
§ The Prime MinisterIf the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to let me answer, I will answer. It has been known for years by the right hon. Gentleman and everyone else that the faster ships were on the Cocom embargo list. That has been common knowledge for years. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer the second part of his supplementary question, I would say that I would take the representations of hon. and right hon. Members opposite much more seriously if they had not turned down an order for ships which was in our pockets as far as Spanish frigates are concerned. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerA little less noise would be helpful to me. I think that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) was rising to a point of order?
Mr. H. WilsonYes, Mr. Speaker. Since the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has widened the question from Russia to Spain, would it be in order—[Interruption.] This is a point of order to Mr. Speaker. Since the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was allowed, Mr. Speaker, to widen the question from Russia to Spain, would I be allowed to put a supplementary question of similar width?
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that is a fair point, and I will allow the right hon. Gentleman to put one question, but I do not think that we should spend any more time on this.
Mr. WilsonThen could I ask the Prime Minister, since his geography is so elastic, whether he will explain to the House why, after all these protestations—[Interruption.]—and my geography can be elastic, too—why after all the protestations by both parties in the House about giving help to India when attacked by China, India's request for three "Leander" class frigates, put to the Government 18 months ago, has 276 still not been met? And how much employment does that represent?
§ The Prime MinisterI think the right hon. Gentleman might put that question down.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. It might be in the interests of the House itself not to make so much noise. Questions must be conducted in a less unseemly manner.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I heard the Prime Minister say words to the effect that he would desire that question to be put down. I have already—[Interruption.]—intimated that I think we should move on—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
§ Mr. ShinwellOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
§ Mr. F. M. BennettGo into reverse now.
§ Mr. ShinwellIs it not now obvious, Mr. Speaker, that if the Question had been answered by the Minister of Transport, to whom it should have been addressed, we should have avoided all this trouble?
§ Mr. SpeakerI am glad that even—
§ Mr. Biggs-Davisonrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) does not appreciate that I was seeking time, and silence, in which to answer a question already addressed to me, which is that the matter is not a question for me. Mr. Biggs-Davison.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonI wanted to ask, further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, [HON. MEMBERS: "Which one?"]—whether it is in order for the Leader of the Opposition to raise as a point of order his desire simply to ask another supplementary question.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) very properly suggested that the last answer had widened the field completely. I think that it is a fair point. Mr. Sandys—answers to Question 13, and others.