Grenada

HC Deb 25 October 1983 vol 47 cc143-53 3.30 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe)

I reported to the House yesterday about the disturbing developments in Grenada and outlined the steps which Her Majesty's Government were taking to protect our own citizens, and to keep in close touch with our Commonwealth partners in the region and others concerned. Since then events have moved rapidly and I owe the House a further report.

Yesterday evening the United States Government told us that they were giving serious consideration to a formal request from the Organisation of East Caribbean States requesting United States participation in a military intervention in Grenada. We put to them a number of factors which we thought should be carefully weighed before a decision was taken to intervene. Early this morning they informed us of their conclusion that, for the United States and for those Caribbean states which had proposed it, intervention was the right course to pursue. They assured us of their concern that the lives of British citizens should be safeguarded. The American community in Grenada is five times larger than the British community and more exposed. President Reagan has explained that he had received reports that a large number of them were seeking to escape the island.

We understand that troops from the United States, Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Kitts, St. Lucia and St. Vincent landed on the island early this morning. No British troops are involved and HMS Antrim, which is standing off Grenada, has been ordered to stay clear of the area of operations.

It is too soon to know how the operation has fared or what the long-term consequences will be. The House will follow these events with great concern. We must all hope that the outcome will be to establish peace and democratic government for the people of Grenada, with the least possible loss of life.

Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)

The Foreign Secretary has made a serious and disturbing statement which contrasts oddly with the statement that he made to the House only 24 hours ago. Yesterday, he rightly told us: Grenada is an independent country. Our concern and what we are prepared to do about it must be determined by that fact." —[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 33, c. 28.] The military regime in Grenada is repulsive to all hon. Members, and has seized power in a bloody coup, but, as I reminded the House yesterday, there are many other such Governments who seized power by similar methods, especially in that part of the world.

President Reagan made it clear this morning that he was invited on Sunday by a number of Caribbean Commonwealth countries to join them in invading the island and in his statement, which was reported in the BBC news at one o'clock, he placed little importance on the risk to American citizens on the island. He described the purpose of the invasion as threefold. First, it was to protect innocent lives—I wonder how many lives have already been lost, and how many of those lives were those of British citizens. The second purpose was to forestall further chaos, and the third to restore law and order.

None of those objectives justifies the invasion of an independent state, particularly when, as the Foreign Secretary told us yesterday, the lives of foreign citizens on Grenada were not in imminent danger. The noble Baroness Young told the other place yesterday that the Grenada Government were putting no difficulties in the way of those who wished to leave the island. I must ask the Foreign Secretary some questions about what has happened.

What steps is HMS Antrim taking now to protect British citizens, as the latest news report suggests that fighting is continuing? Secondly, what has been the role of the Governor-General, representing Her Majesty the Queen, in this affair? It is a serious matter, I hope that the House will agree, when a Commonwealth country subject to the Queen is invaded by a foreign state, and the British Government are informed of the intention to invade at the very moment when the invasion is taking place, and their protestations are brushed aside.

The Foreign Secretary has some questions to answer about what he told us yesterday. It appears that a number of Commonwealth Governments invited President Reagan to intervene as long ago as Sunday, although many Commonwealth Caribbean Governments did not, including Trinidad, the Bahamas and Belize, all of which refused to participate in the conspiracy. Were the Commonwealth Governments who took part in the invasion and invited the United States troops to intervene the Governments with which the Foreign Secretary told us yesterday he was closely in touch? The decision was apparently taken in Trinidad by the Commonwealth Governments concerned as long ago as Saturday. Were Her Majesty' Government informed of what was going on? The Grenada Government knew yesterday because they reported the happenings in the Trinidad discussions in detail on radio and their report was published in this morning's Daily Telegraph. Did those Governments invite Her Majesty's Government to join in the invasion and, if so, what reply did Her Majesty's Government give?

Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary told us that there was no reason to think that American military intervention was likely, and that he knew of no American intention to invade. That is an extraordinary statement by a representative of a Government who pride themselves on being America's most loyal ally. Were Her Majesty's Government informed in advance that this request had been made by the United States Government? Was a similar request made of Her Majesty's Government? If so, when, and what response was given?

It is clear from what the Foreign Secretary has told us that Her Majesty's Government have, on this occasion, been deceived by their American allies and by some of their Commonwealth partners. Many of us will think twice about the credence to give joint decision on other matters. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will think carefully about the line that he has been taking on other matters in the light of what has happened on an island where British forces were known to be offshore.

The American decision has already split the Commonwealth states in the Caribbean. It represents an unpardonable humiliation of an ally. I must ask the Foreign Secretary, indeed the Prime Minister, to protest directly in the clearest possible terms.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

rose——

Hon. Members

Resign.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am sure that the House wishes to hear the Foreign Secretary.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) began by asking what were the steps now being taken by HMS Antrim. As I explained to the House, in view of the onset of the operations, which are still taking place, HMS Antrim is standing off Grenada under clear orders to stay clear of operations. It is clear that she can take no part in a rescue operation while the military action is taking place.

The role of the Governor-General has been a somewhat remarkable one for a number of years, since the revolution that led to the installation of the Government of the late Mr. Bishop. As that Government have been displaced, the Governor-General has not been able to play any part in the affairs of the island, which take place on the footing of a political and military revolutionary committee. I cannot tell the House of the present location of the Governor-General. The Commonwealth Governments——

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

What does the Foreign Secretary know?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The right hon. Member for Leeds, East asked me about the Commonwealth Governments. A number of different reports emerged from those Governments during the weekend. A series of discussions took place—first, between members of the Organisation of East Caribbean States, and then at a meeting of the Caribbean Commonwealth Organisation which is the largest grouping of Commonwealth countries represented in the Caribbean. There were reports that some members of the smaller group were seeking military support in Grenada during the weekend. At the end of the weekend, the larger group embracing all the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean had concluded that it could not recommend in favour of military action. Instead, it adopted a series of political and economic measures, which were announced at the end of Sunday, including the expulsion of Grenada from the organisation. No formal invitation was extended at that stage to the United Kingdom Government to offer military assistance.

During the entire weekend we kept closely in touch with the United States Government about their intentions. We made known to them our anxieties about various matters that we felt should be taken into account. Those matters were once again drawn to their attention yesterday evening. As I have told the House, the news that we received of the United States Government's intentions came in the early part of yesterday evening. Had I had any further information at that stage, I would have told the House yesterday.

The judgments that can be reached on this matter are bound to differ according to the circumstances in which they are viewed. For example, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East pointed out, different views have been taken by different Commonwealth Governments in the Caribbean. Some of them support the action, and others do not. It will certainly be recognised that the circumstances in which this matter has arisen are different from those to which the right hon. Gentleman referred at the end of his question.

Mr. Healey

The Foreign Secretary has not answered the two most important questions that I put to him. President Reagan told the world this morning that he was approached by a number of Commonwealth Governments on Sunday. Were the British Government aware of that approach, or was it concealed from them by both their American ally and their Commonwealth partners in the Caribbean?

I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his statement this afternoon gives the impression of pitiable impotence by a British Foreign Secretary.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I reject absolutely the right hon. Gentleman's last remark. As I have already told the House, the Organisation of East Caribbean States was forming views during the course of Sunday which were subsequently considered at the Caribbean Commonwealth Organisation. We knew that those views were under consideration. The Caribbean Commonwealth Organisation favoured recommending economic and political action.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the reasons given by President Reagan for the action. He made it clear that his decisive action was taken for three reasons. First and foremost among those was the overriding importance to protect innocent lives, including up to 1,000 Americans, whose safety was of paramount concern.

Mr. Healey

The Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State yesterday made it absolutely clear that innocent foreign lives on the island were not at risk and that the Grenada Government had given assurances that those who wished to leave would be free to do so. It must appear to any reasonable person that the excuse given by the United States Government was dishonest—I am afraid that I must use that word. It was a conspiracy by a number of Governments to invade an independent member of the British Commonwealth, for which no excuse can be given. I am glad to say that the Foreign Secretary has offered none.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The House must know that there is room for two views on this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, we formed the judgment yesterday that circumstances did not justify intervention by the United Kingdom Government to save United Kingdom citizens. As I pointed out in my statement, the American community in Grenada is five times larger than the British community. President Reagan has taken a view about American citizens that is different from the view that we have taken about our citizens.

Dr. David Owen (Plymouth, Devonport)

The Foreign Secretary has not gone even as far as the Prime Minister did. She spoke of considerable doubts about initiating action. Surely the House should now be told what steps were taken by the Government to make clear those considerable doubts to the United States Administration. Did the Foreign Secretary speak to his counterpart, Secretary of State George Shultz, or did the Prime Minister speak to President Reagan? Those are the two minimum requests that must be made by the House. If they did not make a direct approach, why not?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I repeat that we were keeping in close touch, through our embassy—[Interruption.] Let the House listen to the story. We were keeping in close touch with the attitudes and intentions of the American Government throughout the weekend. The conclusion of the consideration given by the National Security Council during the weekend was that the position was one of extreme caution. The United States explained that their vessels were in the area to protect the safety of their citizens.

During the course of yesterday we conveyed to the American Government our appreciation of the factors that should be taken into account against the prospect of military intervention. When the American Government were in touch with us during yesterday evening, we again drew attention to the factors that pointed in that direction. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to President Reagan during the evening.

Mr. Peter Tapsell (East Lindsey)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, for the reasons that I briefly summarised in my question to him yesterday, American intervention was inevitable and desirable? Does he agree that those countries in the Caribbean most completely wedded to democracy will be strong supporters of the action that has been taken?

Is it not time that those who are for ever blathering on about the dangers posed by Soviet imperialism should, for once, support the United States in defending our freedom?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend put forward some of those arguments yesterday. No doubt they will be taken into account by those who are convinced of the rightness of the action taken. Other Commonwealth states in the Caribbean may take a different view.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

I have a simple question to ask. Do the Foreign Secretary and the Government disagree with the decisions and actions of the United States Government in invading Grenada?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The decisions taken by the United States Government were taken by them as a result of their considerations——

Mr. Rowlands

What does the Foreign Secretary think?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The President explained that those considerations took account of the factors affecting the safety of American citizens.—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is an important matter.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South)

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are people in all parts of the House who will believe that this is no way for the Americans to treat their closest ally?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I understand and take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)

What advice did the Prime Minister give to President Reagan yesterday? Did she advise the nation of this? Will the Foreign Secretary comment on the statement made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that there were no circumstances that would justify the invasion of an independent state? Does the Foreign Secretary agree with that?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

That is a factor that must be taken into account. One of the reasons why a country is entitled to take action in connection with an independent state is the protection of its citizens. That is the first and foremost reason. In addition, the other states in the Organisation of East Caribbean States—Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Kitts, St. Lucia and St. Vincent—believed themselves to be acting in accordance with the treaty established by the organisation. Jamaica and Barbados are not members of the OECS.

Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion)

Having regard to the attitude of so many Commonwealth countries in the area, would it not have been more consonant with the responsibilities and dignity of the British Government if we had taken the initiative in inviting the Americans to do what they have just done?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My right hon. Friend would no doubt be able to conclude from his premise that we ought to have done so, but we did not take that view.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

Does the Foreign Secretary recall that there was a different reaction in Havana and Moscow to recent events when the Prime Minister of Grenada was assassinated? Does not that illustrate the strategic importance of the area? Does not the fact that there was grave suspicion that the Americans would use any excuse to invade Grenada militate against the action that they are taking? Have not the Government agreed that? Was this part of their representations?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

There is no reason for the suspicion that the hon. Gentleman asserted. Our representations drew attention to those factors that ought to have been considered before coming to such a decision.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

Whilst the Foreign Office might have believed that it was not wise to have military intervention to safeguard the lives of Western nationals, given that that intervention took place, would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would have been in the interests of British subjects if British service men had been alongside our American friends? Surely local democracies are the best judges of what is in their security interests.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

Local democracies, as my hon. Friend points out, are entitled to form their own views about what affects their security interests. I cannot accept that the correct way of protecting British lives in such an operation by another country's forces is for the British forces to join in.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

Does the Foreign Secretary admit that yesterday he conceded what is manifest, that Grenada is an independent state? The United States, of its own volition, has invaded this state to "protect" its citizens while we, with citizens living there, have a ship standing off. Are we to take it that the United States values its citizens more than we do?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

Certainly not. Yesterday I told the House that the reason for the presence of HMS Antrim in the area was that it should be in a position to take action for the safety of our citizens if the conditions should worsen and make that necessary. We did not believe that that had arisen. The United States has taken a different view which justifies the United States and the other countries to which I have referred in taking action in an independent state. We did not think that that was the correct action in the case of our citizens.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Opposition views would sound better if they openly recognised that the Government had the opportunity to send forces to join those that went to Grenada but chose not to? If the Opposition agree with that, they should say so.

Secondly, would it not come better from all quarters of the House if we were to recognise today, as we recognised yesterday and in 1979, that the people of Grenada have not, during the past four years, had a chance to decide for themselves what kind of Government they should have?

Thirdly, would it not be more positive, at least today while we are still waiting for more information, to try to encourage the Government to encourage all the Caribbean Governments and the United States to ensure that as soon as possible the people of Grenada get the chance to choose their Government and do not have the Government chosen by 40 people who take power?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the fact that since 1979 the people of Grenada have not had a democratic system of government. The Government have been totalitarian since that time. He is also right to draw attention to the importance of restoring democracy as quickly as possible.

I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the reason given by the President of the United States for its action, which is to assist in the restoration of democracy in the island of Grenada.

Mr. Ioan Evans (Cynon Valley)

Is not the Foreign Secretary guilty of double standards? When the leader of the democratically elected Government of Chile was assassinated and a military dictatorship took over, nothing was done. After the Russians went into Afghanistan the Government complained constantly about Afghanistan's independence. Here we have an independent Commonwealth state with the Queen as Head of Government and the Government have not protested about the invasion of an independent territory.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

It is correct that for a number of years we have not sought to take action about the pattern of government in this independent territory. However, the decision now taken by the United States, whatever the hon. Gentleman may think about it, is supported by a number of independent democratic Commonwealth countries. I remind the House that the decision is supported by Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Kitts, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. They are entitled to take that view, and the United States can do the same.

Mr. Richard Hickmet (Glanford and Scunthorpe)

Does the Foreign Secretary describe the American action as an intervention or an invasion? How long does he imagine that the United States forces will remain in Grenada, and which in his opinion is more important— self-determination or territorial integrity?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The nature of the action being taken by the United States and the other countries is as described and is well known to the House now—to take action for the safety of American citizens there. I cannot tell the House how long that action will take. If I had been able to do so, I would have done so. Plainly the House will wish it to lead as soon as possible to the establishment of democratic institutions within Grenada.

Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith)

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that President Reagan is taking a leaf out of the Government's actions when they invaded Argentina's islands—the Falkland Islands? Is it not evident that this example will be followed elsewhere if the Foreign Secretary is as ineffectual as he has clearly been today? Will he come out now and clearly condemn the American invasion of Grenada?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. Gentleman is wrong to make any comparison between the action taken by this country last year in the South Atlantic and the action now being taken. The Americans have given their reasons for having taken this decisive action. They are supported by the eight countries that are acting with them.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it abundantly clear that he does not espouse the proposition that, because a Government whom we do not like in a country with which we have had some connections in the past and perhaps still have changes in an unacceptable way, Her Majesty's Government see it as their right and duty to invade that country or support those who invade it? Is he aware that some of us are concerned? Is it not true that President Reagan's main concern is about the spread of what he sees as Cuban and indeed Soviet expansionism in the region? While that is understandable, if it becomes a dangerous obsession there is a danger that it will suck the Americans and indeed all of us into conflicts whose end we cannot possibly foresee when they begin?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I entirely agree that a change of Government is not in itself sufficient reason to justify invasion by one country of another. As I have already said, one reason given by the United States for its action was that it would assist in the restoration of democracy, another was that it would forestall further disorder, and the most important was the overriding importance that it attaches to the protection of innocent lives.

Mr. David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

The Foreign Secretary did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston): What was the purpose and outcome of the telephone call between the Prime Minister and the President?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

It sought to draw attention to the facts that we had already brought to the attention of the American Government during the preceding hours, which would point to a different conclusion from that finally reached.

Sir Kenneth Lewis (Stamford and Spalding)

What is the position of British subjects who are already on the island? Are they under American protection, and what representations have we made on their behalf?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

We made representations to President Reagan that care should be taken of the safety of British subjects there. As I told the House in my statement, we received assurances that their rights would be respected. While fighting continues, however, I cannot give a precise report about the position of individual citizens.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East)

Does not the Foreign Secretary think that it is time that he and the Prime Minister reconsidered their attitude of underwriting American policies across the world, particularly when that Government is conducted by a bunch of ignorant business men led by a President who is a dangerous cretin — [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. It seems from the interruptions that the hon. Member might need my protection.

Mr. Faulds

I am most grateful, Sir. Does not the Foreign Secretary understand that in his role in this matter, as in others, he is beginning to appear as a pathetic bleater?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The hon. Gentleman, who is himself a distinguished actor, is in no position to criticise the Administration of the United States. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We have a full day ahead of us with other statements to be made. Such interruptions will only prolong it.

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The point made by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) that we are to be denounced for underwriting United States Government policy is quite different from the point made by others that we are to be criticised for taking a different view from them. The Government form their opinion on each question on its merits.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us, although not all, who served on the Foreign Affairs Committee and who visited that part of the world and made a study of this matter will support both objectives of the American action —the safeguarding of citizens, and the prevention of Grenada from being turned into an aircraft carrier for Cuban Mig 27s which could strike at Venezuela? Is he also aware that when I asked him yesterday whether the Government could have offered HMS Antrim to the Americans to assist in the protection of both British and American citizens, I had reason to believe that the action by the United States was likely to take place?

Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it his business shortly to set out for the House, either by way of a written statement or in a more elaborate statement, the exact series of events that surrounded this matter so that the House is fully aware of all the information that was available to the Foreign Office and what led my right hon. and learned Friend to make that statement, and so that we can form a more objective judgment when the passions of bruised pride and phoney sentiment have subsided?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I set out to the House yesterday and today the factors that influenced the Government in coming to the conclusions that we reached at each stage of the proceedings.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Does the Foreign Secretary recall that he was alerted to the dangers yesterday not once, not twice, but on three occasions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and by myself? What do the Government intend to do to restore their credibility and to minimise the damage being done by the American action?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

Both before and after the exchange in the House yesterday our views about what should be happening in this matter were being clearly represented to the United States.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to reassure the House by saying categorically that at no stage have we been misled by the American Government, and nor have the American Government been less than frank with Her Majesty's Government?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

We have been kept in touch by the Americans about their intentions as they saw them at each stage of the proceedings, and I told the House when we first heard that they were giving serious consideration to the requested intervention of the sort that eventually led to their action.

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan)

Will the Foreign Secretary stop vacillating and answer the simple question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)? Do the Government approve, or disapprove, of the American action in Grenada?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

As I said when the question was first answered, the American action in Grenada is a result of their decision — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] — applying their judgment of the circumstances as they saw them, on the basis of their judgment of, first and foremost, the danger to their citizens. I told the House yesterday about the consideration that we had given to the same question as it affected the safety of our citizens, and about the conclusion that we reached yesterday.

Mr. John Townend (Bridlington)

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the intervention by the Americans and our Commonwealth allies is successful and results in a return to freedom and democracy, it will have been justified?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

As I said at the end of my statement, we must all hope that the outcome of the action will be to establish peace and democratic government in Grenada.

Several Hon. Members

rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. Hon. Members know that there are two other statements. I propose to call three more hon. Members and then the Front Bench spokesmen.

Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)

Is it not clear that the Foreign Secretary has come to the Chamber quite unbriefed and without adequate knowledge with which to answer this straight question? Do the Government agree, or disagree, with the American attack on a sovereign country? Will the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister tell us if they now are enunciating the serious theory within the international arena that, where a great country decides that another sovereign country does not have the democracy which it thinks that country ought to have, it has the right to attack that country to enforce that type of democracy? Is that acceptable to our Government, or are we accepting our role as an obvious satellite of the United States?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I am not enunciating that theory as a basis for action of that type, nor is that theory set out by the United States as the basis for its actions.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)

Perhaps I missed this point in the shambles of what is left of British foreign policy, but was the Grenadian Head of State consulted before the invasion? Has the Grenadian Head of State been advised and consulted since because, unlike the Governor-General, we know the whereabouts of the Head of State?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

I have told the House that I am not able to give information about the present position of the Governor-General.

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North)

If the Foreign Secretary says that the British nationals there were not in danger, what is the difference between them and the Americans? Will he stop wringing his hands like Uriah Heep and condemn in the Chamber this American folly?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

As I have told the House several times, the difference between our group of citizens and the American one is that the American group is five times more numerous than ours. It contains people who are more visible within the community, and the President of the United States had received reports, as he told the nation today, that a large number of them were seeking to escape from the island. We had received no such reports in respect of our citizens.

Mr. Healey

I should like to start with a tribute to the Foreign Secretary. Nobody, on the basis of his performance this afternoon, could accuse him of megaphone diplomacy. I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the British people will not relish the spectacle of their Prime Minister allowing President Reagan to walk all over her for a second time. Is this just an example of the resolute approach mark II, and will it form the whole of Her Majesty's Government's policy during their second term of office?

Sir Geoffrey Howe

The subject does not deserve jibes of that quality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign".] The action being discussed is not the action of this Government. The views of the Government on this matter were made plain yesterday.

Mr. Healey

Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that at the appropriate time I shall seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10.