§ Q2. Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his visit to the United States of America.
§ Q3. Mr. Pardoeasked the Prime Minister what talks he has had with President Nixon concerning international agreement on the use of chemical and bacteriological weapons; and if, in the light of the talks, he will seek further international agreement on a ban on the use of lachrymatory gas.
§ Q8. Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on his recent visit to the United States of America and his talks with President Nixon.
§ Q12. Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether, during his visit to the United States of America, he has ascertained the policy of President Nixon on the retention of United States forces in Europe.
§ Q15. Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Prime Minister whether he will propose a European Security Conference between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Pact powers when he meets the United States President.
§ Q19. Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister to what extent the question of a European nuclear force was dealt with in his recent consultations with President Nixon.
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer to the report on my visit and my discussions with President Nixon which I gave the House last Thursday.
On the particular question of international agreement on the use of chemical and biological weapons, this was not mentioned in our discussions.—[Vol. 794. c. 1713–19.]
§ Mr. MartenIn the Prime Minister's speech in New York he is reported as saying that all over the industrial world 210 there is an increasing degree of industrial militancy on an international scale. Was he implying thereby that there was some international plan to disrupt the economies of the West—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—and if so, could the House be told about it, because it would be a very serious thing for this country?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. I was not implying that. I was saying that the phenomenon of strikes and wage demands common to all industrial countries has been a great deal worse in America than in this country. I would point out to right hon. and hon. Members opposite who put forward their own proposals for dealing with these by their own form of statutory control the failure of some of these controls in the United States, as shown by the fact that per thousand workers they have had four times as many man-days lost over the past 10 years as we have had, and a strike designed to be settled by the very type of statutory control envisaged by hon. Members opposite has now been going on with the General Electric Company for 12 weeks, involving the loss of more man-days in one strike than Britain had in the whole of 1969.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Pardoe.
§ Mr. PardoeQuestion Q3—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are on supplementary questions now. I will give the hon. Gentleman time to consider his supplementary.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasSince on arrival in Washington the Prime Minister imaginatively redefined the Anglo-American relationship in the terms of a common concern for the problems of the environment, what plans has he to contribute towards their solution, apart from his failure to ensure an adequate supply of smokeless fuel at home?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman's well-known concern for smokeless fuel will, I think, be the subject of a debate later today. As to the rest of his question, I would refer him to the statement which I made in the House just before Christmas in relation to the appointment of the new pollution unit, the Royal Commission on Pollution and other action taken by Her Majesty's Government.
§ Mr. Pardoe rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Question Q3 has been answered with Question Q2. The hon. Gentleman can put a supplementary question later.
§ Mr. ShinwellI am aware that my right hon. Friend dealt with the content of Question Q12 when he made a previous statement, so I will not ask him about that. But I should like to ask whether in his conversation with President Nixon any reference was made, in view of the President's present association with the Kremlin on certain matters, to the action of the Soviet Union in relation to minorities in that country, and also the attitude of the Polish Government towards minorities.
§ The Prime MinisterThis was not discussed. As my right hon. Friend and other hon. Members know, I have repeatedly taken up the question of certain minorities in the Soviet Union, when I have been talking direct to Mr. Kosygin, and earlier to Mr. Krushchev.
§ Mr. Hugh JenkinsMy right hon. Friend will be aware of the suggestion that other European countries have perhaps been more enthusiastic for a European security conference than Great Britain and the United States. Will he say whether he had any discussions on this point with the President of the United States, and whether either of them has become a little more enthusiastic for the European conference, as has been suggested was the case?
§ The Prime MinisterWe discussed this very fully. Her Majesty's Government's view is that, as I said in the communiqué at the end of Mr. Kosygin's visit in 1967, a conference would be useful if it is well prepared and covers all relevant questions affecting European security. It should not be a matter just for shouting slogans at one another. All the slogans are fairly familiar. It should deal with real questions. We do not feel that the present proposed agenda deals adequately with these matters. I stressed in Washington, as I have in this House, the need for us to make a positive response and not to be on the defensive about it, but to say that we will welcome this security conference provided it has an agenda dealing with all relevant aspects of European security.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Pardoe.
§ Mr. PardoeOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understood that you called me to ask a supplementary question on Question Q.3, but because of the noise I was unable to ask it.
§ Mr. SpeakerI called the hon. Gentleman twice. He can ask a supplementary question now.
§ Mr. PardoeAlthough he apparently did not discuss this on his visit to Washington, will the Prime Minister reaffirm the statement of the British Government of 1930 that in their view lachrymatory gases are included in the prohibition of poisonous gases?
§ The Prime MinisterI would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to a Written Question on this subject yesterday, dealing with the matter in relation to 1930 and the question of C.S. smoke, which has been newly discovered or invented—whatever is the right phrase—since 1930.
Mr. J. T. PriceIn view of what my right hon. Friend said about industrial disputes in the United States and elsewhere, including our own country, and the wish of most of us to see a greater measure of industrial sanity at home and abroad for the sake of world progress, would not it be a good idea, as a contribution to this desirable objective, that the Conservative Party should also have a cooling-off period?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not—thank God—have to reply for the Conservative Party.
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Blaker.
§ Sir W. Bromley-Davenport rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) must sit down.
§ Mr. BlakerThe Prime Minister will recall telling the House last Thursday, in answer to a Question from me, that all that was necessary by way of renegotiating the Nassau Agreement had been done between him and President Johnson in December, 1964. How does he explain that remark in view of the fact that on 3rd March, 1966, and other occasions after December, 1964, he was 213 stating that it was still his policy to renegotiate the agreement in the future?
§ The Prime MinisterWhat we have done is to commit the British nuclear deterrent unequivocally to N.A.T.O. That is now understood by the Americans. Whereas there was a need to renegotiate Nassau as long as the odd proposal for a mixed-manned fleet was going, the mixed-manned fleet has been finally torpedoed by us.
§ Sir W. Bromley-Davenport rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Heath.
§ Mr. HeathThe Prime Minister said in answer to supplementary questions after his statement on Thursday directly he returned from Washington that he had not discussed the question of American force levels in Europe other than the President's statement to the middle of 1971. The President has made it plain in his recent statements to Congress that while standing by the alliances and their treaty undertakings the Americans proposed to withdraw their force levels in various countries of the world, including Europe. Is it not necessary that the matter should be settled between North America and the European countries on a quietly reasoned basis rather than that there should be withdrawals later on which cause uncertainty in Europe? In this case should not the Government now take an initiative and ensure that the question of force levels is worked out between the United States and the European countries?
§ The Prime MinisterThe reason we did not go further into the matter beyond June, 1971, is that the President had nothing to say on this question. I think that it is known that the United States Government are reviewing all questions of force levels, including their decision to withdraw all ground combat forces in due course from the continent of Asia. The President has made that clear. But he had nothing to say on Europe beyond June, 1971, and therefore it would not have been productive to start dealing with hypothetical questions. Through 214 N.A.T.O. my two right hon. Friends who represent us there have been discussing force levels arising in the first instance from the Canadians' decision. We shall be happy to discuss all other matters when the United States is in a position to talk.
§ Mr. PagetIs my right hon. Friend aware that we have learnt with great satisfaction that the President has enlightened my right hon. Friend as to the lamentable failure of the kind of trade union reform which he proposed last summer? Could he persuade the Leader of the Opposition to visit President Nixon and receive a similar enlightenment?
§ The Prime MinisterIt was not the talks with the President that dealt with these questions but my discussion with many leading labour lawyers, trade unionists and representatives of management in New York. There was no discussion about the proposals made by Her Majesty's Government last summer dealing with the specific problem of wildcat strikers. There was a lot of discussion about the inadequacy of American law to deal with legislation to enforce the compulsory honouring of agreements entered into by both sides. The House will no doubt want to debate one day the failure of American practice on which I understand the policies of right hon. Gentlemen opposite are based.
§ Sir W. Bromley-DavenportWill the right hon. Gentleman get up from where he is now sitting and, with his hand on his heart, give his solemn word of honour—for what that is worth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that he will visit as many foreign countries as he possibly can and get as many foreign plenipotentiaries as possible to come to this country in order that he might obtain the maximum publicity before he is knocked as stiff as a mackerel by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition at the next General Election?