§ The Prime MinisterWith permission, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to answer Question Q7.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and I visited Bonn from 14th to 16th February for talks with the Federal German Chancellor and Foreign Minister. As in the other capitals we have already visited, our discussions covered a range of questions arising in the context of eventual British membership of the European Economic Community. They included such matters as our attitude to the Treaty of Rome, problems arising from the Community's agricultural policy and its policies on freedom of capital movements, and other general economic and financial questions.
We are most grateful to the German Ministers for the friendly and constructive spirit in which they approached these discussions, which enable us to explore with them in some depth the main problems which would need to be faced in any eventual negotiations. Our discussions confirmed the identity of view demonstrated by prompt and friendly reaction of the German Government to my statement of 10th November.
§ Mr. WallI thank the Prime Minister for his courtesy in informing me that he would answer this Question after Question Time. Did he receive an assurance from the German Government that they would back our entry into the Common Market even if this arouses a certain amount of difficulty with France? I also want to ask about the question of offset costs. Will the Germans continue 801 to honour the present agreement, which, I understand, ends in April, and were there any discussions about what will happen after that?
§ The Prime MinisterOn the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, all our talks fully justified our feelings about the Germans' attitude as expressed in their public statements welcoming our initiative. As to what they may say in conversations with Heads of Government of other countries of the Six, this must be a matter for those holding these conversations. It is not for me to speculate about them in public.
On the question of offset costs, our visit was principally about the Common Market, but we took the advantage of one or two short private meetings to discuss matters of more bilateral interest. We understand their difficulties about offset costs and they understand ours. This is being dealt with by tripartite machinery, as the House knows. We felt that it was best left there.
§ Mr. Emrys HughesAs many people in this country argue that entry to the Common Market is a solution of our economic troubles, did the Prime Minister make any inquiries as to why there were 650,000 unemployed in Germany and why it is also in budgetary difficulties?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, I did not make any such inquiries during my visit. I would not take the view—and I do not know whether many people do—that entering the Common Market provides a solution of our economic difficulties. They will be solved, inside or outside the Common Market, only by our own efforts and policies. I gave strong reasons in the debate, as have other right hon. and hon. Members. why entry on the right conditions would help us to make those efforts more effective. But we shall not solve any problems just by being in or just by staying out.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamDid the Prime Minister give the same information to the authorities in Bonn yesterday that his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade was giving to his own party here?
§ The Prime MinisterAs the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, 1 have only just returned from Bonn. I was not 802 present at the meeting last night. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman was; he seems to know all about it.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamIn spirit.
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. and learned Gentleman may have been there in spirit. It is a very strange spirit for us to have at a Labour Party meeting. Nevertheless, 1 have read Press reports. I shall inform myself better on this question. But I have been trained, from painful experience over long years, not always to believe every word of what I read in the Press—even accounts of private meetings.
§ Mr. ParkDid the Prime Minister make it clear in his discussions that we have no intention of pandering to West German demands for the possession of or a share in the control of nuclear weapons? Did he make it clear that Her Majesty's Government will continue to use every effort to secure the early signature of a non-proliferation treaty?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend can rest assured that I received no such demands, and I am not aware of any demands on the part of the West German Government to that effect. Therefore, in that respect, there was nothing to pander to. With regard to the nonproliferation treaty, certainly in every meeting—it was true last week, it is true this week—we have continued to urge the necessity and urgency of a quick signature of such a treaty on which so much progress has recently been made.
§ Mr. HeathDid the Prime Minister explain to the Federal Government what the Foreign Secretary meant when he told a Press conference that the Anglo-Soviet communiqué implied recognition, in a way, of the Oder-Neisse line?
§ The Prime MinisterThe extraordinary thing is that the Federal German Chancellor seemed much less interested in this question than the right hon. Gentleman. He did not, in fact, raise it with me. My right hon. Friend, in discussions with the Foreign Minister, dealt with the situation. I should have been prepared to do so. But the German Government know perfectly well that nothing has changed in our policy on any of these matters.
§ Mr. HeathWould the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the Foreign Secretary meant by this sentence?
§ The Prime MinisterI was present at this Press conference. I was in no doubt about what he meant. My right hon. Friend went on to say that the reference in the communiqué to countries—this was the basis of the question—was a question of definition of countries, and we regard Germany, all of Germany, as a country. This is our position, and my right hon. Friend made this very clear.
As we have always said, and as the right hon. Gentleman said, the question of the definition of frontiers is for the ultimate peace conference. What my right hon. Friend was urging, and continues to urge, is the. need for and the creation of the conditions so that we can get quickly to that conference when these things will be in order.
§ Mr. HeathThe Prime Minister has told the House what the Foreign Secretary said, which was reported in the Press. The Foreign Secretary was then asked:
Yes, but does that statement imply recognition of the Oder-Neisse line?",to which he replied:Yes, in a way.What did he mean?
§ Mr. George BrownThe right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong.
§ The Prime MinisterAs I say, I was there, and as it was not possible to ask the right hon. Gentleman, I should be happy to send him a verbatim transcript unless, as I suspect, he has already got one. If he will read the one he has got, or may have, he will find that he has reversed the questions and answers. As I have explained clearly, my right hon. Friend said that in answer to the previous question which was not very clearly formulated and then went on with the detailed explanation. It was in that order.
§ Mr. Frank AllaunTripartite talks or not, did not the Prime Minister refer to the flat refusal of the German Finance Minister to cover our offset costs? In view of the terrible effect that this is having in Britain, with the deflationary measures and the 600,000 unemployed, surely this is a matter worthy of more important discussion?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend can be quite content that the German Government are in no doubt whatever about our position on this. They were in no doubt before we went, and they are in no doubt now.
§ Mr. James DavidsonCan the Prime Minister inform the House whether there was any discussion of the possible establishment of a reserve currency?
§ The Prime MinisterA European reserve currency—no, there was no discussion.
§ Mr. HooleyWas my right hon. Friend able to discuss with the Federal Government the question of trade and other financial dealings between West Germany and Rhodesia?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir, it was not necessary on this occasion. There have, of course, been continuing contacts between ourselves and Germany on this matter, and Germany is taking action. I had better not go further into the question of the remaining difficulties.
§ Captain W. ElliotIs the Prime Minister aware that after his discussions in the various capitals about the Common Market he has given the House extraordinarily little information? There may be good reasons for this, but is the Prime Minister aware that when the talks are completed it will not be enough to come to the House and say that the conditions are such that we cannot apply or that they are such that we can? What is his intention for the future? Will he issue a detailed White Paper of all the discussions so that we can judge for ourselves?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not know in what part of the world the hon. and gallant Member has been travelling, because after each of the visits I have made a short statement and after the third visit, which was the halfway stage, I made a much longer statement and answered a large number of questions, including the exact one put by the hon. and gallant Member.
§ Mr. BrooksWould not my right hon. Friend accept that, whatever interpretation might be placed upon the recent statement by the Foreign Secretary, this would be an opportune moment to clarify to the West German Government that the British Government do not regard 805 as a condition of entry to the European Economic Community any argument in favour of a revision of the Oder-Neisse frontier?
§ The Prime MinisterI have said that this matter was not discussed in my talks during the past week with the Chancellor. Of course, this is a separate question. It is an important question. It has nothing at all to do with the question of the conditions on which Britain should, if we can, adhere to the Common Market. There were some bilateral questions which had nothing to do with it which we found time to discuss, but this was not one of them.
§ Mr. DraysonFurther to the Prime Minister's reference to a peace conference, would he not agree that before this can take place there must be a meeting of the signatories of the Potsdam Agreement to settle the outstanding aspects of that agreement which have not yet been fulfilled?
§ The Prime MinisterI think that the hon. Member misunderstood me. There is a reference in the Anglo-Soviet communiqué to a peace conference and the word "countries" comes in that reference. The particular question to which my right hon. Friend was replying was another reference to countries at the foot of page 1 of that communiqué. It did not relate to a peace conference.
Since the hon. Member has referred to the question of a peace conference, may I say that we have stressed in the communiqué the need for adequate preparation. We did not say that it means a meeting between two blocs.
§ Mr. Alfred MorrisFrom his experience of the talks so far, having visited four European capitals, can my right hon. Friend say whether he is encouraged to feel that any negotiations with the Six may be worthwhile?
§ The Prime MinisterThis will be a matter for us to consider when we have completed the six visits. After that, we shall have to consider the position and what our next step should be. As I say, no decision at all has yet been taken on the definitive question. It will not be taken until the six visits are over. As soon as we have a decision to com- 806 municate, of course it will be made in the House.
§ Mr. JenningsIn his recent visits to Europe, how far has the Prime Minister discussed the political and constitutional consequences of our signing the Treaty of Rome, and with what results?
§ The Prime MinisterIf the hon. Member is referring to the internal constitutional questions——
§ Mr. JenningsI mean for ourselves.
§ The Prime Minister—for this country——
§ Mr. JenningsYes.
§ The Prime Minister—and not the question of constitutional matters within Europe, this has not been discussed at all on our visits; but my right hon. Friend and I referred to this question in some detail in the debate on the Common Market last November.
§ Mr. RankinAs a result of his visit, is my right hon. Friend optimistic that if in time an application comes to be made to enter the Common Market, Germany will support it?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is too early to express a general view importing optimism, pessimism or anything else, but I am in no doubt whatever from the talks which we have had this week that the German Government have fully supported and amplified to us in our private discussions the very strong promise of support for our entry which they made publicly within a few hours of our own statement on 10th November.
§ Mr. KirkHas the Prime Minister seen the almost unanimous Press reports from Bonn suggesting, rather depressingly, that the German Government are advising delay? While accepting the right hon. Gentleman's wariness about Press reports generally, may I ask whether he would care to comment on this?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. I was not at the receiving end of any advice of delay. I have read the Press reports. I have found them, as the hon. Gentleman has said, more depressing than were the actual talks. There has been a great deal of speculation in the Press about the 807 anxiety in Germany concerning nonproliferation as though that might affect the question of entry. I assure him that it is not in any way connected, either intrinsically or in the mind of the German Government, with the question of entry. Indeed, any anxieties which they may have about freedom to develop the peaceful use of atomic energy could be assuaged by the much greater cooperation which we could offer if we were members of Euratom or any successor body to it.
§ Mr. MendelsonWith reference to the treaty of nuclear non-proliferation, to the preparation of which several members of Her Majesty's Government have made such a considerable contribution, has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to a recent lecture by Professor Greve, the official representative of the West German Government in the N.A.T.O. Council, opposing the treaty and pointing to the dangers from the German point of view in supporting it? That is an official point of view. What is my right hon. Friend's comment on that?
§ The Prime MinisterI certainly found time on this occasion to discuss this question. We stated our position and our interpretation of the respective points on this in, as it happens, exactly the same words as we used a week earlier in our discussions with Mr. Kosygin. Our own position on this is absolutely clear. As I have said, the German Government have some anxieties, not on the question of military use, but on the danger that civil atomic energy development might be affected. We have, I think, gone a considerable way to reassure them on this, but we have plans for further technical talks, so that some of their anxieties can be wholly disposed of.
§ Mr. BlakerIf, as the Prime Minister has said, the Federal German Chancellor showed no interest whatever in the views of the Foreign Secretary on the Oder-Neisse line, is not that an interesting pointer to the lack of importance which the world attaches to the Foreign Secretary.
§ The Prime MinisterThat question is about up to the level of the average question that we have had from the hon. Member ever since he came into this 808 House. The real answer, I think, is that the Federal German Chancellor was not going to be driven into a great Press tizzy about this because he knew the policy of Her Majesty's Government as stated repeatedly by my right hon. Friend and myself.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We must proceed.