HC Deb 11 February 1965 vol 706 cc546-8
Q6. Mr. Ridsdale

asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the conversations he had with Mr. Rapacki in December.

The Prime Minister

I have nothing to add to the Answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs to my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey) on 23rd December last.

Mr. Ridsdale

Is the Prime Minister aware that several of his senior Ministers, and indeed the Secretary of State for Defence, have in the past spoken in favour of a nuclear-free zone in Europe as advocated by Mr. Rapacki? Does he think that such an idea is at present a practical possibility?

The Prime Minister

I hope that the whole House supports the idea of a nuclear-free zone not only in Central Europe but in other parts of the world. I think it important that Africa should be a nuclear-free zone. This would be a further contribution to any easement which will be achieved when we are able to get a non-proliferation agreement, but we have to proceed in agreement with our allies on this question and with others with whom we negotiate, and a relevant point is that in addition to the area in which nuclear missiles are at present found we must have some thought to the area at which nuclear missiles outside that area are pointed.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

With all respect to M. Rapacki and Poland, is it not the case that there are great dangers in any partial disengagement plan? Should not any plan for disengagement in Europe include the withdrawal of Soviet forces to the U.S.S.R.?

The Prime Minister

The hon. Gentleman is of course stressing some wide and long-term objective which I am sure the whole House would endorse. That does not mean that any lesser plan would be dangerous. Regarding proposals of this kind we have always made plain that there must be absolute equality on both sides of the dividing line so that there is no weakening or destruction of the balance of military power on each side. Certainly any plan of this kind could not be confined to Germany only. That would be quite unacceptable. It must also take account of the fact that at the present time Germany is at the receiving end—if that is the right phrase—is the target for a large number of missiles deployed not in the area covered by the Rapacki Plan, but further east.

Mr. Mendelson

While accepting that the acid test of any such agreement would be that it should not worsen the strategic position of either East or West and that no such agreement would be possible on any other basis, would my right hon. Friend consider actively pursuing discussions with the Soviet Gov- ernment and with other Governments concerned on the most recent model of the Rapacki Plan which has been improved and which is designed to take into consideration some of the points mentioned? Will he not be discouraged by the carping and negative criticism from hon. Members opposite who have always been opposed to these agreements?

Mr. Wilson

As my hon. Friend says, there are a number of plans. There are two versions of the Rapacki Plan. There was the very constructive plan proposed by the then Opposition, known as the Gaitskell Plan, and, of course, last year, there was the Gomulka Plan, which was merely a freeze on existing missile delivery systems, or warheads, to prevent the situation getting worse until one can start to get some reductions in missiles there. I think that it was right to say, however, as I have said, that negotiations of this kind must raise wider issues, issues of the future unification of Germany, for example, and also the issues covered by the existence of medium-range missiles outside the Rapacki Plan area.