§ Q5. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will invite President de Gaulle to make an official visit to London.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Ques stion by my hon. Friend the Member for 215 Lancaster (Mr. Henig) on 27th February.—[Vol. 778, c. 346.]
§ Mr. MartenAs this is, I think, the first opportunity that the Prime Minister has had at the Dispatch Box to explain his talks with the German Chancellor about General de Gaulle's proposals, does not the right hon. Gentleman welcome this opportunity to explain, which I am afraid the Foreign Secretary entirely failed to do, why it was that these proposals were disclosed to Dr. Kiesinger before clearance with the French?
§ The Prime MinisterThis was very carefully explained by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in a statement which led to about 40 to 45 minutes of questions thereafter, and was then fully debated by the House. The House reached a pretty definite conclusion about it.
§ Mr. HefferReverting to the original Question, would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a sensible proposition to invite the General to this country? Is it not agreed that it is important to heal the breach between France and Britain? Should not we discuss the General's ideas in depth, and not lightly brush them aside?
§ The Prime MinisterEven before the issue blew up with, as my right hon. Friend said, the disclosures in Figaro and France Soir, the French Government had been told of our great willingness to enter into talks with the President following the discussion with Her Majesty's Ambassador, and this has been repeated since.
§ Q8. Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Prime Minister whether he will meet the President of France to discuss the recent misunderstanding between France and the United Kingdom.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. and learned Member to my reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) earlier today.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamAs it was the Prime Minister who talked to Dr. Kiesinger, would it not be better if he used his personal diplomacy with President de Gaulle to put the matter right?
§ The Prime MinisterAs I said earlier, my right hon. Friend explained all the 216 facts to the House. The matter was fully debated, and was the subject of a great deal of questioning, more than can be done at Question Time, and the House reached a conclusion on it. I cannot remember how the hon. and learned Gentleman voted.
§ Mr. WinnickWill my right hon. Friend consider discussing with the President of France, and perhaps the Russians as well, the question of arms supplies to both sides in the Nigerian civil war? Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is mounting public anxiety over reports of the bombing of civilians in Biafra?
§ The Prime MinisterI answered that last Thursday in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). We would be very happy at any time to have discussions with the French Government, and in the particular case with the Soviet Government, or any other Government, on this and the other questions raised by hon. Members.
§ Mr. TurtonWill the right hon. Gentleman try to put the position right by sending an apology to the French President for leaking information to the Germans?
§ The Prime MinisterThere is nothing to apologise about in this matter. As was explained by my right hon. Friend, and as the House accepted by a very large majority last week, the position is that if, meeting the Head of the German Government on that occasion, I had withheld this information which concerned our common purpose, and the common purpose of all concerned is the unity of Europe, it would have been extremely discreditable.
§ Mr. HeathOne of the differences between the two countries is the question of the future meetings of the Western European Union. Do the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister hold the view, which seems to be widely shared, that the Council can meet without all members being present, but cannot reach decisions without all members being present? If that is so, surely the approval of the budget requires all the members of the Council to be present? Until this matter is sorted out with France, how can the 217 W.E.U. get its budget? What does the Prime Minister intend to do about this?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree that there is some difference between the freedom to meet, which we have always asserted, and the question of decisions, but I do not accept in full, nor does by right hon. Friend, the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman has put upon the W.E.U. Treaty. It has been the desire of both parties in this House to make a reality of W.E.U. We all regret that this is being frustrated at present. I hope that, as a result of discussions with others in Europe, as well as ourselves, we can resume the normal working of W.E.U.
§ Mr. HenigIs it true that, when my right hon. Friend discussed this matter with Dr. Kiesinger, the latter advised him to talk to President de Gaulle? If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to meet President de Gaulle, what proposals have the Government for improving Anglo-French relations?
§ The Prime MinisterThe first part of that question, the statement attributed to Herr Kiesinger, is not correct. The second part is, similarly, based on a misapprehension because my hon. Friend heard me say a moment or two ago that, before the leak in Figaro and France Soir and again since, Her Majesty's Government have made clear their very warm willingness to have talks with the French Government at any level.
§ Mr. HeathMay I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on this, because it is very important? Is he saying specifically that his view is that the Western European Union budget can be approved without the French Government being present?
§ The Prime MinisterI would want notice of the question about the budget, which is at the moment a hypothetical question, since there is no reason to think that the French Government are going to frustrate the working of W.E.U. by not helping in the budget. But, on all the interpretations in relation to W.E.U. which have been the subject of controversy, the line taken by my right hon. Friend is that which we are legally advised is the right interpretation, and it has been fully supported by five of the six members in Europe.
§ Sir W. Bromley-DavenportIn the event of President de Gaulle visiting this country to iron out these difficulties, will the Prime Minister give us a solemn undertaking—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—wait for this one—that he will not "upstage" the President and hog the centre of the television cameras, as he did on the arrival of President Nixon?
§ The Prime MinisterI will do my best in this matter. I will certainly undertake that I will not take either the President of France or the President of the United States in an open car in a tour of the London marginal seats a month before the General Election, nor will I have a party political broadcast with such a President, as was done in 1959, exactly a month before the election.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamOn a point of Order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I will raise the matter again.
§ Mr. BagierOn a point of order. I have noticed that, in the last few months, the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham) has given notice many times about his intention to raise matters on the Adjournment. Are you, Mr. Speaker, unfairly discriminating against him in his demands? I want passionately to hear from him.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is not unknown for hon. Members who declare their intention of seeking to raise a matter on the Adjournment to fail to seek to do so. This declaration has become one of the means of protesting against the nature of an Answer which hon. Members do not like.
§ Sir Knox CunninghamFurther to that point of order. It will not have escaped your notice, Mr. Speaker, that I did not say that I would raise the matter on the Adjournment, I will certainly raise the matter again.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the hon. and learned Gentleman said that, then he was out of order.