§ Q4. Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to discuss French nuclear tests with President Pompidou.
§ Q5. Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to discuss the EEC Common Agricultural Policy with President Pompidou.
§ Q10. Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister if he will itemise the subjects for discussion between President Pompidou and himself.
§ Q11. Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his official talks with President Pompidou.
§ Q15. Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if, when he meets President Pompidou, he will discuss the matter of Anglo-French consultation on the siting 1700 of airports, in view of the agreement within the EEC on the importance of regional policy, and the effect which new airports in the two countries will have on such policy.
§ Q19. Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister what subjects he hopes to discuss in his forthcoming meeting with President Pompidou.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on Tuesday 15th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Adley) and others.—[Vol. 856, c. 1235–8.]
§ Mrs. ShortWhen the Prime Minister was asked on Tuesday whether his refusal to discuss the matter of the nuclear tests with M. Pompidou was tied in at all with the report by Chapman Pincher that there were likely to be British nuclear tests in the near future, the right hon. Gentleman said that there were no immediate proposals to do so. Will he say how immediate is "immediate", in his vocabulary? Does it mean next month, in six months, or some time after the French tests? If the Prime Minister is willing to meet the protests of our kith and kin in Australia and New Zealand to the extent of changing proposed legislation on another matter, why is he not willing to do so on this important matter, where they protest against the contamination of their atmosphere?
§ The Prime MinisterI said that this Government, like others, are under an obligation to keep our nuclear weapons up to date. We shall ensure that that is done. I repeat that we have no immediate plans to carry out tests. If we have to carry out tests for the purpose that I have described, they will be carried out underground. This has been accepted under the partial test ban treaty that was negotiated by the Conservative Government in 1963. As for the Australian and New Zealand Governments, they have now instituted a case in the International Court.
Mr. Brian HarrisonIn view of our direct responsibility for the peoples of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, and the Condominium of the New Hebrides which we have with the French, and our associations with Fiji, New Zealand, and Australia, will not my right hon. Friend 1701 think again about publicly coming out and condemning these tests?
§ The Prime MinisterBecause of our responsibilities to the dependencies we have always monitored the tests from Pitcairn Island. We have not found evidence that any have been damaging to those for whom we are responsible.
§ Mr. MolloyBearing in mind that recent public opinion polls have revealed that the major concern of ordinary British people is with the ever-increasing cost of living, which is causing grave frustration and annoyance, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the common agricultural policy has added to this? Can he say what reforms he will put to President Pompidou in an endeavour to reduce our ever-increasing cost of living?
§ The Prime MinisterIt was an important development when the Ministers of Agriculture agreed to the Commission's proposal that there should now be a complete review of the common agricultural policy. In working towards that, the British Minister—my right hon. Friend the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—played an influential part. I believe that we should now allow this review to take place.
§ Mr. Jeffrey ArcherMy right hon. Friend will have read the Hudson Institute Report suggesting that the growth rate of the French over the next decade will be far greater than that of the British. Surely, yesterday's export figures prove that this may not be the case. Can my right hon. Friend say what percentage of those figures represented exports to EEC countries?
§ The Prime MinisterI never have accepted entirely the figures put forward in the Hudson Report, and I do not accept that the French GNP necessarily will be twice that of Britain in 1980. As for the figures for the distribution of the increase in exports, speaking from memory, exports to the Community over the past four months, since we became a member, have increased by 28 per cent. or 29 per cent. over a year before, compared with our average increase of 23 per cent.
§ Mr. StonehouseIn the forthcoming talks, will the Prime Minister press for wholehearted and genuine support by 1702 the French to Anglo-French aircraft projects like the Jaguar rather than pushing their own products, especially with Arab States, as they seem to be doing at present?
§ The Prime MinisterI have no reason to complain about the joint partnership carrying out the Jaguar project. It is quite natural that French manufacturers, like our own, press their own aircraft products as hard as possible in all the world's export markets. We do the same, and I should be disappointed if our manufacturers did not.
§ Mr. DalyellIf the Prime Minister is so sure that his evidence is that there will be no damage, why not make an offer to President Pompidou to have the tests off Broadstairs?
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think that the facilities are available.
§ Mr. Biggs-DavisonDoes not this difficulty arise from the absence of a full exchange of information and co-operation in the Western Alliance? Therefore, whether it is within the context of the Community or that of the new Atlantic arrangements which have been adumbrated, is not the whole future of the nuclear defence of Western Europe a proper matter to be discussed with President Pompidou?
§ The Prime MinisterI have never said that it was not a proper matter for us to discuss. I said that President Pompidou had indicated that he did not think the time was ripe to discuss it.
§ Mr. Harold WilsonWill the Prime Minister make it clear to President Pompidou that in no circumstances will Her Majesty's Government agree to the proposals which are being discussed in Brussels now on the initiative of Mr. Borschette, the Commissioner for Competition, which would have the effect of removing from large parts of Britain facilities for regional development created and carried out by successive Governments? Press reports this morning of what the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appears to have said are very disturbing. Will the Prime Minister make it clear to President Pompidou that we shall have none of it?
§ The Prime MinisterI saw the report about what my right hon. Friend the 1703 Chancellor of the Duchy was supposed to have said on this matter. There is no truth in it whatever. On the right hon. Gentleman's question about the peripheral areas, these matters are still under discussion and we do not visualise that Community rules will lessen the incentives that we can offer under the Industry Act.
§ Mr. WilsonMr. Borschette's proposals would greatly reduce the facilities both for intermediate areas and for some development areas, including the disappearance from the development area schedule of assistance for substantial parts of the country. With regard to what the Chancellor of the Duchy is supposed to have said—he may have been misreported—will the Prime Minister arrange for the Chancellor of the Duchy or, under the rules that we follow, someone other than the right hon. Gentleman, to report to us on what he said and how far he went on this occasion?
§ The Prime MinisterI understand that there is to be a statement next Wednesday.
§ Sir Gilbert LongdenOn a slightly less important, but none the less quite important matter, will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity of making it clear to President Pompidou that we know our onions and intend to stick to them?
§ The Prime MinisterI will endeavour to carry out my hon. Friend's request, though I may not put it quite in that way.
§ Mr. ThorpeReverting to the proposed French nuclear tests, is the Prime Minister aware that those for whom we are responsible, who may contract leukaemia as a result of the fall-out from these tests, will not find the fact that Her Majesty's Government had monitored them a cause for cure, admiration or gratitude?
§ The Prime MinisterI should think that the right hon. Gentleman would have thought it right that we should find out what the facts are.
§ Mr. DalyellBut the right hon. Gentleman said that he knew them.
§ The Prime MinisterIf we monitor the tests with the best scientific equipment that we have and find that there is 1704 nothing deleterious in them for those territories for which we are concerned, I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should set out deliberately to misrepresent the position.
§ Mr. Michael FootHas not the right hon. Gentleman, when speaking about these tests previously, indicated to the House of Commons that he had the information that they would not cause any danger? How is it that he is now telling us that we will know the results only when they have been monitored?
§ The Prime MinisterI have always clearly stated—I believe it was the situation under the Labour Government—that when there were tests in other parts of the world we monitored them, and those have been our conclusions.
§ Mr. HastingsDoes my right hon. Friend agree that in view of the inability or refusal of the European Powers and our partners and allies to furnish the numbers of men necessary for our defence in Western Europe, the nuclear armoury becomes all the more important?
§ The Prime MinisterI accept that nuclear weapons are important and that the American nuclear deterrent is vital to the defence of Europe. At the same time, we have been working in the Euro-group to endeavour to persuade our partners in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to make a more substantial contribution to remaining forces and weapons.