HC Deb 08 July 1965 vol 715 cc1814-25

Mr. Maudling (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the visit to Hanoi of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

As the House will be aware, the reply from the North Vietnamese authorities to the proposal that the Commonwealth Mission should visit Hanoi did not appear, in our view, to amount to a flat refusal. We, and other members of the Mission have, therefore, been endeavouring, through all the channels open to us, to clarify the position and to make clear to the authorities at Hanoi the purpose for which the Mission was established.

In the course of one of these discussions the possibility came up of my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) visiting Hanoi, and after consultation with him I felt it right, in order not to lose any opportunity of advancing this vitally important matter, that he should go.

I hope that when he is there he will be able to remove certain doubts which appear to have arisen there as to the purpose of the Mission and thus advance the day when this very serious crisis in Vietnam can be brought for negotiation to the conference table.

Mr. Maudling

This is a strange situation, and one about which we must be clear. Is the hon. Gentleman in Hanoi as a representative of the Government, or is he not? I ask that because the North Vietnamese journalist who apparently provided the visa said that he does not represent the British Government. If the hon. Gentleman does represent the Government, why was not the House told? What is the extent of his instructions? Is he clear that he cannot depart in any way from the policy announced in this House by the Foreign Secretary, and was there discussion beforehand with the Commonwealth and with our American allies?

The Prime Minister

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be pushed too far by the competitive spur under which he is labouring into getting to the point where he is not even prepared to welcome any initiative, however unusual it may be, to get those concerned round the conference table.

The right hon. Gentleman asked in what capacity my hon. Friend was in Hanoi. I must make this quite clear, though I should have thought that it did not need to be clarified. In this Government, at any rate, a member of the Government is always a member of it, and my hon. Friend is in Hanoi because he is a member of the Government. This should now be quite plain to the right hon. Gentleman.

It will be the purpose of my hon. Friend's visit—he has been there before and I think that he is highly respected—to make plain what is the purpose of the Commonwealth Mission, and to get a dialogue started, because the problem is that this tragedy in Vietnam arises from the fact that we have no diplomatic representation between East and West in these areas. Of course this is unusual. Of course one would have preferred to have been able to deal directly through diplomatic channels, but the plain fact is that one cannot do so, and we were not going to leave the matter there.

Mr. Maudling

The situation is far too serious for the sort of cheap crack that the right hon. Gentleman made. Will the Prime Minister be good enough to answer my other two questions, which are serious ones? First, has the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) any authority to depart from the policy of Her Majesty's Government as announced to this House by the Foreign Secretary? Secondly, what discussions took place beforehand with the Commonwealth and with our American allies?

The Prime Minister

No member of the Government has any authority to depart from the position taken by Her Majesty's Government on the question of Vietnam. I should have thought that it was unnecessary to ask that question. But the right hon. Gentleman must recognise—I wish that he would show some awareness of the gravity of the problem in Vietnam—that the Commonwealth, acting collectively, has taken an initiative which depends upon acceptance of the Mission by the countries which are parties to the fighting in Vietnam. So far, we have not had acceptance. I never pretended that it would be easy. We must take every means of getting it.

Of course, we have kept our colleagues on the Mission informed about this particular action, and we have informed all other interested parties.

Mr. A. Henderson

I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's statement. Will he remind the House that there are precedents going back over the last 40 years for Ministers of the British Government undertaking missions similar to the one undertaken by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary? I refer, in particular, to the Runciman mission which was sent by the Conservative Government before the last war.

Secondly, may we take it that, if the opportunity presents itself, my hon. Friend tie Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be willing to have talks with the political leaders of the Vietcong?

The Prime Minister

I do not accept that the Runciman precedent is relevant here, because—I think that I am right in this; the right hon. Gentleman can probably tell me—Lord Runciman, who went to Prague, was not, in fact, a member of the Government. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is a member of the Government.

The purpose of his visit—he is welcome in Hanoi; I think that he has already arrived there—is to have discussions. He knows fully and in every detail the position about both the Commonwealth Mission and the views of all of us on the dangerous situation in Vietnam. I am very happy to leave it in his hands now, and I hope that whatever he is able to do will in some way at least—I do not underrate the difficulties—help to advance the cause of peace there.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home

Will the Prime Minister answer quite clearly whether the United States Government were consulted? He will recognise the great dangers here of any tendency towards appeasement in this matter. Were the United States Government consulted before his hon. Friend left?

The Prime Minister

Should there be any question of my wanting lessons in appeasement, I know who to go to. [Interruption.]

Sir Ian Orr-Ewing

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In the Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, specific attention was drawn to the fact that, in replying to questions, Ministers have assumed the practice of making personal insults. Is not this undesirable from the point of view of the House of Commons and the dignity of the Prime Minister's office?

Mr. Speaker

I cannot exactly quote Erskine May off the cuff, but the proposition is that a Minister, in answering a question, should direct the answer to what is asked for in the question; and the rest of the sentence is something like, "but a certain amount of licence is allowed to Ministers".

I do not think that it is possible to state the matter more precisely than it is stated in the relevant passage; but I urge that, if we confine ourselves strictly to the subject matter, we shall make better progress.

Mr. Manuel

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I distinctly heard, as did many of my hon. Friends, the right hon. Member for West Flint (Mr. Birch) say to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, "Swine".

Mr. Speaker

I have been in trouble about this before in trying to rule on something which I did not myself hear, and versions vary. I suggest that we get on.

The Prime Minister

If I may now reply to the question, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. William Hamilton

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think a precedent was set by you yourself when, although you had not heard words alleged to have been said, you asked the hon. Member accused of uttering them whether he had, in fact, uttered them. Will you now ask the hon. Member whether or not he uttered the word and, if he did, will he be asked to withdraw it?

Mr. Speaker

I thought that the House probably did not want to bother. It was obvious that the Prime Minister was not bothering. As to the previous occasion, that was my warning. I had so many versions in the end of what was supposed to have been said that I did not know what it was. I do not wish to repeat that. If the House desires me to pursue the matter. I shall ask the hon. Member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Order. Will the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) be good enough to tell me what was said?

Mr. Birch

I said quite a number of things, Mr. Speaker. I do not think that I actually used the word "swine".

Hon. Members

He did.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I was told that it was the hon. Member for Westmorland—

Hon. Members

West Flint—

Mr. Jopling

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I accept the proposition that what I heard had gone too far north. Will the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) be good enough to tell me whether he accepts that he said something?

Mr. Birch

rose—

Mr. Jopling

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that I was referred to by the hon. Member opposite—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was. I think that I heard it wrong—something which began with the syllable "West". Let us get on. Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell me just this: did he or did he not say "swine" with reference to the Prime Minister?

Mr. Birch

rose—

The Prime Minister

Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The issue we are discussing, the situation in Vietnam, is far more important than anything that the right hon. Gentleman may have said. I am sure that it would help you, Mr. Speaker, and the whole House if we could begin to adopt rules under which it will be clear that insults from certain hon. Members are compliments.

Hon. Members

Oh.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I wish to take the House into my confidence. It does itself no good at all by spending time, on either side of the House, exchanging insults. It is not what we come here for. I entirely accept, and I am sure the House does, what the Prime Minister says, namely, that it is a very serious matter which we are discussing, and least of all is it desirable that it be interrupted by other matters.

The position is that, if I am challenged as to whether or not an unparliamentary expression has been uttered and pressed, I must inquire, find out, and rule about it. Rather than interrupt, I should like to be relieved of that duty. But at present I am asking the right hon. Member for Flint, West to be good enough to tell me, aye or no, whether he used the word.

Mr. Birch

I said a number of things, Mr. Speaker. I do not remember using the word "swine". If I did, I certainly withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker

Let us, with that assistance, proceed. I beg the House to be more reasonable.

The Prime Minister

The Leader of the Opposition asked whether the Government had consulted the United States about the mission of my hon. Friend. The position is that the United States and all other interested parties have been informed of my hon. Friend's mission. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman—because I know that he does not want to give the impression that, for example, the United States would be against this mission—will agree that President Johnson has repeatedly stated his desire for negotiations.

I believe that the mission of my hon. Friend, which may or may not be productive, is designed to help to secure the desire of, I am sure, all parties before too long to get round the conference table. That is why we felt it right to inform the Americans of this mission and not—I am not sure whether this was what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting—to consult them in the sense of asking their permission.

Mr. Maudling

If so many people were informed, why was this House not informed? Why did we have to learn from the newspapers, and why will the people of Hanoi receive the Joint Parliamentary Secretary when they will not receive either the Prime Minister or the former Foreign Secretary?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman had better go to Hanoi and find out the answer to that question. I do not know it. As to telling the House—I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman has taken this attitude—he surely does not suggest that when it is necessary to consult other Governments on particular courses of action, one tells the House of Commons before consulting one's partners, allies and those concerned. The Leader of the Opposition never did. He was always consulting other Governments, and rightly, and then made a statement to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

In this affair, there were good reasons why no statement should be made until my hon. Friend got to Hanoi. I was very worried that it might leak out in some way. In the event it did, but my hon. Friend is already in Hanoi. So that the right hon. Gentleman can take relief from that.

Mr. Grimond

Was this an official invitation from the Administration in Hanoi? If so, did it specify the hon. Member who has gone, or was he suggested by Her Majesty's Government? As, as far as we know, the Parliamentary Secretary has no diplomatic connection with the country's foreign affairs, why was he selected?

Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he not only informed, but consulted, the Commonwealth Peace Mission, which, we are assured, is still in being, and whether it approved of this mission?

The Prime Minister

I have already told the House that my colleagues who were appointed by the Commonwealth Conference to constitute the Peace Mission have been informed. There has been discussion. I said in my original Answer that more than one member of the Peace Mission was making, by agreement of all of us, such contacts as we could with Hanoi, and at least one of my other colleagues is engaged, by methods appropriate to the circumstances of his Government, in helping in this same way.

I am more concerned to see that this Mission is successful than to go too much at this moment into the history of how it all happened. I am more concerned to get results than to gratify the curiosity of the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

As the Leader of the Liberal Party will know, because there are no direct diplomatic relations between Britain and North Vietnam, we cannot use normal methods. There are in this country one or two North Vietnamese in a private capacity who have their own link with their Government. My hon. Friend was having discussions with them on the question of the Peace Mission in general and in the course of it it emerged that a visit by him would not be unwelcome. It was in these circumstances that, when it was reported to me, I felt it right that he should go.

That is what happened and I am glad that my hon. Friend is there, as, I hope, the whole House is, although there are one or two who do not seem to be very keen on the idea. My hon. Friend goes with the full knowledge of the position of Her Majesty's Government and the Peace Mission in respect of the methods needed to end the fighting in Vietnam.

Mr. David Griffiths

Everyone on this side of the House will rejoice in the wisdom of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I am disturbed and alarmed at some of the excuses that right hon. and hon. Members opposite are rendering. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Is my right hon. Friend aware that it was my good fortune to be chosen with my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) on behalf of the first mission that went to the South-East Asian Continent? [Interruption.] May I say, for the benefit of those on the benches opposite who are making the noise and of some, possibly, who may be against my hon. Friend's visit and some who are more enlightened, that my hon. Friend was a very welcome guest? The Foreign Secretary at that time, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), will accept and appreciate the good will that was extended by my hon. Friend who was on that mission. I wish my hon. Friend well and I am perfectly satisfied that he has gone.

The Prime Minister

I was not aware of the particular mission to which my hon. Friend has referred. The whole House will recognise that it is because of the entirely unusual but dangerous circumstances that we have to use rather unusual and informal contacts in this matter and to pursue lines that would not be normal. I am, however, sure that the House will agree that it is better to use these contacts, however informal and unusual, than not to make the contact at all.

Sir R. Thompson

Is the Prime Minister aware it is because we are seized of the deadly earnestness and urgency of the situation that we doubt the propriety of sending this particular hon. Member? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Does the Prime Minister not realise that after the fiasco of the Gordon Walker mission we should not pile absurdity Secretary from the Ministry of Pensions upon insult by sending a Parliamentary and National Insurance?

The Prime Minister

That is one of the most extraordinary remarks I have heard, even from among hon. Members opposite. If he accepts, as we at any rate do, the vital urgency of this matter, for more reasons than simply the danger of escalation to world war, he will, I hope, agree that any step open to us to get talks opened up should be taken.

Of course, we were disappointed that the North Vietnamese authorities did not receive Mr. Gordon Walker when this was proposed. There was a lot of glee on the part of some hon. Members that he was not received. We were more concerned to get results. We do not mind these rebuffs. We are more concerned to get results than to bother about amour propre, prestige or any of those matters. The pernickety attitude of some right hon. Members opposite on this question is extremely surprising.

I do not say that my hon. Friend will succeed. I say that he has as fair a chance as anybody else of succeeding. I believe that he was the right man to go on that journey, and that is why he has gone.

Mr. Shinwell

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we on this side at least, and, I think, some hon. Members on the other side, are less concerned about the pettifogging criticism that we have heard this afternoon than we are about bringing this tragic affair to an end?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has been customary for many years for successive Governments, in particular Conservative Governments, frequently to take action without consulting the House, including during periods of recess, when important decisions were reached without the House being informed?

The Prime Minister

I would have intended to make a statement as soon as I could on the arrival of my hon. Friend there and not until then. He has, I understand, arrived. It is a fact that something occurred in the Press this morning, but only this morning. I would have been making a statement this afternoon, which would have been the first opportunity to do so.

Sir D. Renton

Is the Prime Minister aware that we have a Foreign Secretary who has already proved his worth? Will the right hon. Gentleman say what part the Foreign Secretary is being enabled to play in all this?

The Prime Minister

I am glad to get the tribute from the right hon. and learned Gentleman to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. My right hon. Friend and I have worked completely together on this matter since the proposition was first put to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. My right hon. Friend has a heavy and important responsibility, not only as Foreign Secretary, but as co-chairman of the Geneva Conference. What all of us are trying to do is to get into a position where he and his opposite number, Mr. Gromyko, can then take over and call the Geneva Conference. This is the whole purpose of the operation.

It just happens that because, in the talks with Mr. Gromyko, no progress could be made, progress had to be made at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. It just happened that because of the difficulties of receiving the Mission we had to take any steps open to us to get the Mission received, or to find other means towards getting them round a conference table. My right hon. Friend will again be playing the fullest possible part when he is able to work with the Soviet Foreign Minister in calling that conference.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

We cannot debate this matter on supplementary questions.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. May I put the right of back-bench Members occasionally to be called to ask a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me. He will know the difficulties. We took a long time on this owing to certain interruptions. I have to distribute my favours as best and fairly as may be. I wish that I could call everybody or representatives of everybody, but I must have regard to the progress of business.

Mr. Hale

May I, on a further point of order, put a second point, Sir? An hon. Gentleman opposite—I use the word in its academic sense—was permitted to make a reflection upon my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), the authentic voice in this House of some of the sufferers in this war, a man of great courage. If an hon. Member opposite is called and permitted to make a reflection at a time when my hon. Friend is being sent as our envoy, surely it is right to call from this side someone who has known my hon. Friend for a quarter of a century, who loves him, who respects him, who trusts him, and who thinks that no one better could have been sent?

Mr. Speaker

The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point of order must be "No." I have to indicate that I regret that I cannot call as many Members as want to be called on these occasions, because the House would hold me most certainly to blame did I not reluctantly bring these matters to an end from time to time.