§ Q1. Mr. Newensasked the Prime Minister what steps have been taken by Her Majesty's Government during the last three months to seek to resolve the war in Vietnam.
§ 09. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on British policy towards the situation in Vietnam.
§ Q11. Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will state his present plans to assist in bringing to an end the hostilities in Vietnam.
§ The Prime Minister (Mr Harold Wilson)I have nothing to add to the Answer which my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State gave on 26th October to Questions by my hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).
§ Mr. NewensDoes the Prime Minister recognise the great damage which is being done to the cause of the West by recent developments in Vietnam, in particular the bombing of a friendly village by the Americans and now the repudiation of the Government of South Vietnam by even the Catholic community there? 870 Will he, therefore, consider a fresh approach to the Americans to suspend the bombing and also enter into direct negotiations with all parties, including representatives of the National Liberation Front?
§ The Prime MinisterThe basis on which we would consider a fresh approach to all concerned in this fighting was set out in the communiqué of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, and those words still stand. They were further set out—I may just mention this in passing—in the statement approved by the Labour Party Conference this year.
§ Mr. MartenDoes the right hon. Gentleman recall the speech at Blackpool of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions in which he said that he had some reservations about the Foreign Secretary's policy towards Vietnam? Can we have an assurance from the Prime Minister, in view of Government collective responsibility, that he investigated these differences? Can he tell the House what they are?
§ The Prime MinisterI am satisfied that the situation is now one of perfect amity and unity between my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. HughesIn view of the persistent refusal of the nations directly concerned in this war in Vietnam and their backers outside Vietnam, is it impossible to devise a means of settling this dispute by conference and by the rule of law, other than by the violence which is taking place there?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that all of us recognised in the summer that the exaggerated hopes that some people had of victory in Vietnam could not be finally resolved until the end of the monsoon season, which has now just about occurred. We are prepared to do anything in our power—we are in constant touch with the Soviet Government, for example—to bring the parties together around the conference table. So far, at any rate, we have had no sign of response from one of the essential sides of this dispute.
§ Mr. BlakerCan the Prime Minister say whether he is aware of any change in the preconditions laid down by 871 the North Vietnamese authorities for negotiations?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I am not certain that there has been any change. There have been two reports by leading North Vietnamese spokesmen, although both were subsequently repudiated. We are probing all the time and trying by every means open to us to see whether there is any sign of give on that side.
§ Mr. Michael FootDespite his other preoccupations, has the Prime Minister had the opportunity of studying proposals recently made by Senator Fulbright for cessation of the American bombing as a possible contribution to trying to get a settlement? Would he recognise that there is apparently a new situation and a possibility in Vietnam and would he consider giving British support to the Senator's proposal in this respect?
§ The Prime MinisterI have certainly studied this and the position as I understand it is that the United States Government has said that it would be prepared to consider any cessation of this kind only if there were some sign of response being made to it. On the previous occasion there was no response, which is why the Commonwealth Prime Ministers linked the two aspects of the problem together.
§ Q2. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister what reply he sent to the letter he received from the Chairman of the Labour Committee of the Committee for Nuclear Disarmament, Mr. Walter Wolfgang, urging Her Majesty's Government to dissociate itself from United States activities in Vietnam.
§ The Prime MinisterI have no record of the receipt of this letter. My usual reply to a letter of this kind, however, would have restated the Government's policy on the lines I have explained to the House on a number of occasions.
§ Mr. MartenI have a copy of the letter which was sent to the Prime Minister and I will let him have it. If he had received it, would he have dealt with the request by America to put British troops into Vietnam? If so, why was that said to the Labour Party Conference and not to the House of Commons?
§ The Prime MinisterIn fact it was said to this House of Commons. I am sorry that my letter was misdirected to 872 the hon. Gentleman, but knowing his obsession with this subject I am hardly surprised. So far as the troops are concerned, I have made the position quite clear more than once, in this House and at the Labour Party Conference.