HC Deb 27 February 1969 vol 778 cc1923-30

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Q8. Mr. DALYELL

To ask the Prime Minister what replies he has received from President Nixon to his representations on the subject of the marine sciences and development of the ocean environment.

Q9. Mr. FRANK ALLAUN

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with President Nixon.

Q10. Mr. MARTEN

To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his talks with President Nixon.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)

With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. Q8, Q9 and Q10 together.

My discussions with President Nixon covered a broad range of issues, including not only the problems of immediate concern to our two countries both at home and abroad, but also wider world issues.

The object of the visit was not to propose new initiatives or to draw up new agreements. The achievement of the talks has, however, been to establish a close relationship as the basis for the fullest consultation between our two Governments.

I shall be placing in the Library the texts of the speeches made on the occasion of the President's arrival and departure.

Mr. Dalyell

On the limited issue of marine sciences and development, are not there two issues which deserve consideration at President and Prime Minister level: first, the placing of nuclear weapons, such as nuclear silos, on the North Atlantic ridge, about which the Prime Minister gave a very satisfactory Answer on Tuesday; and, secondly, the whole question of international machinery for the development of the seabed?

The Prime Minister

On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the position of both Governments is exactly as I stated it on Tuesday.

On the question of international machinery for developing the seabed, we have made it clear in the United Nations—and my hon. Friend will have also seen the communiqué of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference—that, in our view, there is an area of the seabed lying beyond the limitation of national jurisdiction where a national régime is not possible. It is our view—and we are concerting discussions to this end—that an international régime governing the exploration and exploitation of that area is the right answer.

Mr. Allaun

Would the Prime Minister say something about his discussions on plans for an East-West peace summit and arms limitation, since these plans would raise the hopes of all mankind for its own survival?

The Prime Minister

We discussed this essential point. We both believe that the strengthening of N.A.T.O., the need for which has been underlined by recent events, must lead to an easement of tension between East and West, whether by multilateral or by a series of bilateral talks with them.

On disarmament, we discussed very fully the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which both Governments have made significant contributions. This is probably the most urgent matter in that sphere.

The third point which arises from my hon. Friend's question is the desire of the United States, with appropriate safeguards, to discuss with the Soviet Government the question of nuclear weapons control, anti-ballistic systems, and the rest.

Mr. Marten

Did the Prime Minister discuss with the President the French proposition for a wide European free trade area, which would probably be more acceptable to the British people than the Common Market and, incidentally, while we are on that, what are the Prime Minister's views about that proposition?

The Prime Minister

I have answered a number of questions about that. No, Sir, we did not have any serious discussion on the question of the French statement which the House debated the other day. It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that our application to join the Common Market should remain in, and that means having a Common Market to join, not dismantling it first.

Mr. James Griffiths

May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, during his talks with President Nixon, he had an opportunity to discuss the situation in Nigeria, particularly in view of the fact that a number of U.S. Congressmen have returned recently from Nigeria and were urging America to intervene to stop the war?

The Prime Minister

We had a brief discussion on Nigeria, but we have been in continuous touch with the President of the United States about this tragic war over a period of time.

I am certain that, if the President of the United States felt that a mediatory intervention by America would help to bring the war to an end, he would be ready to take the initiative, as we would, as the Commonwealth Prime Ministers would, or anyone who could influence the two sides. This tragic situation is not such that mediation of that kind would be likely to secure early results. This is also the view of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, with whom we have both been in touch.

Mr. Turton

In view of the report that President Nixon has invited the West German Government to bilateral monetary talks, and of the inter-dependence of sterling and dollars in the international monetary system, has the Prime Minister received a similar invitation?

The Prime Minister. We had a constructive, brief discussion on the international monetary situation. Both Governments axe in complete agreement. I can best summarise the agreement in terms of the recent statement made to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that we should continue to work bilaterally and through existing institutions for special drawing rights for what improvements can be achieved in the international monetary sphere.

It is certainly the intention—and this was arranged before the President's visit—that my right hon. Friend will be meeting at an appropriate time the Secretary for the Treasury in the United States. The same kind of bilateral meetings will, as I understand, take place between Germany and the United States, but within the general confines of the monetary policy which I have outlined.

Mr. Boston

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent statement by President Nixon about encouraging freer trade is very welcome? Will he say whether the President spelt out any specific proposals and what plans he has to follow them up?

The Prime Minister

I agree with my hon. Friend in welcoming what the President said about free trade. We all recognise the great difficulties he faces here, against the strong pressure of protectionism in the United States, and applaud his courage in making this statement at this time.

So far as the next steps on free trade are concerned, the first thing is to get full implementation of the forward steps that were agreed in the Kennedy Round under the auspices of G.A.T.T. They have not, for example, been given effect to in the United States legislature. We had better get this in the bag and firmly operating before there is talk of further initiatives for a Nixon Round or a second round of tariff reducing talks under G.A.T.T.

Mr. Hooson

Did the Prime Minister discuss with the President the strategic and military importance of the seabed as a possible base for missiles, and the urgent necessity for an international treaty to prevent this happening?

The Prime Minister

No, Sir, not in those terms. It was not possible to discuss everything that we would like to have discussed. The President was aware of the interest on this matter shown by the House as a result of the Questions on Tuesday. The answer I gave to my hon. Friend about missiles, and so on—expressing our support for the American initiatives to the 18-nation Disarmament Committee—represented the views of both Governments.

Mr. Barnes

Will the Prime Minister say what was said by official Government sources to the B.B.C. which made them feel it was necessary to make the statement they made about Mr. Dimbleby's reporting? Will not he agree that, if anything was said to make them feel that it was necessary, this perhaps shows an over-sensitivity which is not necessary?

The Prime Minister

Yes, Sir. I heard a number of sedentary remarks from the benches opposite. Now perhaps the House would like to hear the facts.

The approaches made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to the B.B.C. in the light of these broadcasts were limited to two specific points. One was in view of the reports in the Press, that he had used words highly derogatory of defamatory, or apparently defamatory, of two public servants, not Ministers—it is nothing to do with Governments—two public servants who could not defend themselves.

A request was made for the script so that those words could be examined and any necessary action taken. That request was made through the normal channels of the B.B.C. simply to get the script so that it could be studied.

There was a further matter on which there was a mis-statement of fact and I will say what that is in a moment. Knowing the possibility was that this would be repeated and perhaps broadcast to America, the B.B.C. was given the true facts of the situation so that it could get the facts right on the second occasion.

There was no complaint; there was no protest. The words which the right hon. Gentleman shouted from a sedentary position did not form the subject of any comment between No. 10 or any Government Department and the B.B.C.

With regard to the mis-statement of fact, there was a suggestion that I was unhappy about the President meeting Mr. Macmillan, of all things. In view of the fact that I had taken the initiative in asking the President to meet Conservative Leaders—unlike the veto on my meeting President Kennedy by the then Conservative Prime Minister—it was thought right that the facts should be stated and the B.B.C. left to make its own arrangements for any correction. We did not ask for an apology; it came on the initiative of the B.B.C. which had itself read the words.

Mr. Shinwell

On a point of order Will you, Mr. Speaker, tell the House how far this discussion can range, or is this is a private row in which we can all join?

Mr. Speaker

It seems to me that all are joining in.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

If I may move away from the question of the Prime Minister's amour propre to something more important, may I ask him to tell the House whether he discussed the reunification of Germany with President Nixon, and, if so, whether he can tell the House what conclusions were reached?

The Prime Minister

Since the hon Gentleman's question included the few words that he uttered before he moved away, if he heard my previous answer he would know that my concern with the B.B.C. had nothing to do with anybody's amour propre, but with the proper defence of two civil servants whose professional integrity had been impugned. Any other Government would have asked for the text in order to study it. It was not a question of amour propre, but correcting—[Interruption.]

Mr. Faulds

They do not know anything about amour—they have never had it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. These noisy exchanges do not do Parliament any good.

The Prime Minister

It was not a matter of the feelings of any individual, but to seek to make a correction of the appalling statement that Labour Ministers had behaved to the Conservatives as Conservative Ministers had behaved to Labour leaders when they were in office. That was properly corrected in relation to Mr. Macmillan.

As for the reunification of Germany, we discussed all aspects of the German problem, but that is a matter of permanent and standing agreement between the two Governments and, to that extent, therefore, it was not necessary to repeat it in our discussions.

Mr. Michael Foot

Returning to the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) on the subject of Nigeria, bearing in mind that many of us believe that the Government have been right to seek to maintain as best they can their powers of representation with the Government in Nigeria, did my right hon. Friend discuss with President Nixon the possibility of making extremely urgent representations on the latest news that has come from Biafra about increasing evidence of indiscriminate bombing?

We know that Her Majesty's Government are bitterly opposed to this, but cannot this country, together with the United States, make urgent representations to the Government in Lagos on this as a matter of extreme importance?

The Prime Minister

On all these questions, the American Government and ourselves, together and separately, have put on all possible pressure against atrocities of any kind, whether done deliberately, about which we have strongly warned all concerned, or whether done as a result of the kind of warfare which is going on there. I have seen the newspaper reports referred to by my hon. Friend, and they must be taken very seriously.

We are making what inquiries we can, but international observers are not in Biafra to go and study on the ground what may have happened as a result of air raids. If we were to find that it was as the result of deliberate policy—and I do not for one moment believe that—if anything could be done to avoid accidental incidents of the kind reported, we would do everything in our power to bring it home to the persons responsible.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Mr. Heath. Business Question.

Mr. Winnick

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance? I thought that it was the custom, if an hon. Member had a Question on the Order Paper which was answered with other Questions, or even if it had not been answered but was related to an earlier Question, for Mr. Speaker to allow that hon. Member to put a supplementary Question.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman will remember that I have already ruled on late Questions. The Prime Minister answered three Questions. Obviously, I bore in mind the name of the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), who had a late Question down but I did not choose it.