§ Q7. Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Prime Minister on what day, and at what approximate time, he was officially informed of President Johnson's message to Mr. Ho Chi Minh calling for secret talks to end the Vietnam war.
§ The Prime MinisterAs I have said many times, exchanges between President Johnson and myself are confidential.
§ Mr. GriffithsAs the President's very important peace message was handed to Ho Chi Minh on the very day that the Soviet Prime Minister went to the Guildhall and made a violent attack on America, can the right hon. Gentleman say, first, whether he knew of President Johnson's message before this speech by the Russian Prime Minister, and if so, why he did not repudiate it? Secondly, if he did not know of this message, is he not pretending a closeness with Washington on the subject of Vietnam which he does not possess?
§ The Prime MinisterTo suggest that I could have been engaged in those discussions with Mr. Kosygin without being fully privy to the message which the President sent to Mr. Ho Chi Minh suggests that, in the hon. Gentleman's mind—[An HON. MEMBER: "Answer."]—I a m giving the answer, if the hon. Gentleman will wait for a moment—both President Johnson and I would be guilty of the most stupid activities in trying to end this Vietnamese war.
On the second part of the question, the hon. Gentleman last week wrote an article in The Times which was totally false, first, in saying what President Johnson' said to me during that week in "rich Texan language". He said nothing of the kind in Texan or any other language. What he said was quite the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman wrote in The Times. He further made a statement which was totally false about the American attitude to the initiatives which we took that week and the hon. Gentleman now has the duty—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—I have answered it—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and the hon. Gentleman, who last week, whether by design or not, sought to create trouble between Britain and America with that article, now has the duty of either substantiating his charge or withdrawing it.
§ Mr. GriffithsOn a point of order. The Prime Minister has produced an extremely thin-skinned comment on a matter entirely—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I am being addressed on a point of order.
§ Mr. GriffithsI said that the Prime Minister had made an extremely thin-skinned comment on a matter outside the question which I have raised. He has not answered the question which I put. What he has done, is make, as he frequently does, slurs on some other matter—[Interruption.] I should be much obliged if I could have your advice, Mr. Speaker. In what way is it possible for a private Member here, confronted with the Prime Minister's abuse of his personal position in making such an attack across the Floor of the House, which I am not in a position to—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will in time realise that, from time to time, thin-skinned answers are given by Ministers to questions. I have no power to correct a Minister's answer, unless it is out of order. Nothing has happened so far which is out of order.
§ The Prime MinisterFurther to that point of order. The last hon. Gentleman I would feel thin-skinned about is the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who, when claiming inside knowledge from the American administration—[HON. MEMBERS: "A point of order."] My point of order is this: arising out of the Ruling which you have just given, Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that I was trying to disagree, with great respect, with the suggestion which had come up that I was being thin-skinned. I hope that we are all thin-skinned about irresponsible attempts to stir up trouble between Britain and America.
§ Mr. Griffithsrose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong in thinking that Mr. Speaker was suggesting anything about the answer which was given. He has ruled that the answer was in order. The point of order which the Prime Minister has raised now is not a point of order but a point of argument.
§ Mr. BlakerDoes not the right hon. Gentleman realise that, if he is not aware of how accurate my hon. Friend's article was, he does not realise what is going on?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Supplementary questions should arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. GrimondWas the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the Question whether he knew of President Johnson's message to Ho Chi Minh simply "Yes"?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the right hon. Gentleman was not capable of deducing that from what I said, I will repeat that, as I have said on previous occasions, I kept in the fullest touch with the President—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is the answer?"] I kept in the fullest touch with the President and not only did I know every detail of the President's exchanges during that week—
§ The Prime MinisterNot only did I know every detail of it, but Mr. Kosygin was aware of the fact that what I was putting to him was, of course, with the full knowledge of the President of the United States.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsFurther to the point of order. It is quite clear that most of the words used by the Prime Minister bore no relation to the Question on the Paper. The Chair has ruled on many occasions when back benchers have asked supplementary questions unrelated to the Question that they should return to order. Is it not possible for the Chair to do the same with occupants of the Treasury Bench?
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is possible, but it is unusual. I have been a Member of Parliament for some time and I have known that Ministers have answered Questions on the Order Paper from time to time in their own way.