CLOSED UNDER THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Wise to reduce as much as possible occasions on which Queen drives
H. Distasteful tht. Queen shd. have to associate publicly with a man like
CLOSED UNDER THE
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
Hail. Pol. disadvantages of cancellation outweigh those of going.
Agreed: inexpedient to cancel.
D.S. Greater Malaysia is best hope of containing Singapore – which, if it
became independent on its own, wd. prob. go Communist.
Looks now as if Tunku will come to London. Singapore favour talks.
We must welcome them, while preserving posn of peoples of
Borneo etc., whose wishes wd. need to be taken into a/c.
P.M. Agree – try to get Tunku to come for these talks.
H.W. There will be diffy in H/C. over Singapore base.
H. Avoid commitment to consult peoples of Borneo territories –
6. B.T.C. Hotels.
E.M. As in memo. Beeching is firm in this opinion:
i) physical diffy of splitting premises.
ii) £150.000 p.a. savings on common purchases & £100.000
iii) T.U.’s wd. prefer it – negotiating machinery.
iv) trust Beeching’s judgment.
I wd., however, include safeguards – separate organn, no power to create new separate hotel holdings, power to Minister to direct them to sell, provn for company to sell free-standing hotels.
M. Reasons are compelling for change of policy.
E.B. Ty. agree: reasons for over-riding B. are not strong enough.
R.A.B. Merits transcend Tory philosophy on this.
P.M. Wd like to be sure this doesn’t mean they will continue all the hotels,
good or bad. Some sites of bad hotels cd. be developed for
E.M. Minister will have power to give directions on this.
7. Council of Europe: Social Charter.
E.B. Can’t take Art. 12. But enough to ratify w’out that.
C.C. 56(61). 17th October, 1961.
1. Berlin. [Enter M.R.
H. de G.’s veto on mtg. of F.O. officials. My tel. to Rusk. U.S., tho’
shaken by Fr. attitude, are willing tht. I shd. say we think proving
talks shd. continue & that U.S. agree with that view.
Fear it means tht. de G. does not want negotiations.
President K. wants to bring French along & is delaying Thompson’s
return to Moscow.
Adenauer has accepted Prs. K’s message.
H.W. P.N. Ques. to-day: Opposn will attack on basis of lessons of Opern
Spearpoint: suggesting we rely too much on nuclear & tht. we
are out of line with N.A.T.O. strategy. Unreadiness of B.A.O.R.
I.M. Many P.N.Q.’s are being sought.
2. Common Market: Paris Meeting.
E.H. Re-action to my speech in Paris as good as cd. be expected.
The Six were taken aback by our explicit assurance to E.F.T.A. & by
complexity of C’wealth aspects.
Mtgs. – for early Nov. – officials & Ministers.
They will be long in reachg. agreemt. inter sc.
3. Queen’s Speech: Opening of Parliament. [Enter E.P.
P.M. Add any reference to capital gains tax?
S.Ll. Not quite certain we can do it in advance of Finance Bill. Unwise therefore to mention it. Mght. be able to announce in debate on Address.
P.M. Great moral advantage on wage pause.
Agreed: omit from Speech.
I.M. Weights & Measures. Don’t mention in Speech – but don’t drop it
now from p’mme. Give ourselves room for manoeuvre.
P.M. Also because may be a stormy session: don’t therefore promise too
much – to avoid charge of inability to carry out your promises.
I.M. Endless scope for diffy on this Bill if Oppn want to make trouble.
F.E. Important reform: we shall be criticised if we don’t go on with it, Oppn won’t crab it: helps shoppers.
R.A.B. Bound to be asked about it in Debate on Address.
H.B. Strong appeal to l.g. circles and consumers: hope we shall get it.
M.R. Room for this is Capital Gains doesn’t start at once.
But Party will prefer tht. Speech shd. give appearance tht.
p’mme is lighter.
Agreed: omit from Speech. [Exit E.P., E.H.
4. Army Man-Power.
H.W. As in memo. Combination of two proposals would see us thro’ 62/63.
Volunteer element in Reserve (from A.E.R. or T.A.) who wd.
come up in time of tension – wd. be a valuable start in reform of
P.M. Discussed by Def. Cttee. Recommend adherence to concept of regular
forces. Advise legn to give permissive power to retain N.S. men
for 6 months more & to call back specialists.
H. Commitments unlikely to be lessened in next 2 years. Assent to first
2 proposals. Doubt, however, wtr. 3rd proposal will ensure
adequate balance in forces throughout the world.
S.Ll. Dislike financial cost, but admit need for first two proposals.
D.S. 1957 plan has bn. upset mainly because we have bn. unable to make
the planned redn in B.A.O.R. If we have to keep 55.000 men
there indefinitely, we can’t do it on voluntary system.
H. Both we and U.S. want to reduce our forces in G; but it will have to
be considered wtr. we want G. army to dominate Eur.
R.A.B. First 2 proposals will help me, on civil emergency, by producing more
troops in U.K.
C.S. Army at 160.000 won’t be efficient peace-time force because gaps
in it. You need 180.000 on 1957 deployment. Will take 3 years
to reach that level. We accepted this “gap”. But problem has
bn. aggravated because commitments have not bn. reduced as
assumed. 84 units abroad now & 40 at home: as cpd. with
roughly 50/50 basis of 1957 plan. Will affect regular
recruitment in the end.
1st proposal will give us 180.000 until Oct. ’62; but will then fall
We must therefore decide we shall cut commitments to somethg. like
1957 order of battle plans or we must consider re-introducg. N.S.
P.M. I have bn. working on reduced commitments – partly for this reason
& partly for cost.
H.W. If we are to avoid being driven into N.S., by failure, we must show
determination to succeed in working with all regular forces –
incldg. redn of commitments.
Approved: first & second proposals.
H.W. Reservists. Simplest remedy wd. be to remove requirement of
Proclamation; but satisfied tht. this wd. be breach of faith to
reservists – who have always understood they wd. not be
re-called except for fighting. Ideally therefore need to re-shape
whole reserve. This wd. take so long tht. we propose the
voluntary experiment. You cd. get it into this Bill w’out adding
to controversy. On balance I favour incldg. it because it does not
leave whole burden on the N.S. men.
P.M. Berlin situation wd. warrant Proclamation. But this (in Aug.) wd. have
enhanced tension. Thought to be equivalent (modern) of
J.P. Welcome such a start on reforming reserves. But wrong to support
we shall get v. many volunteers for it.
H.W. We haven’t tested how many men wd. volunteer for period/tension.
Only an instalment. But wd. show we were making a start.
R.A.B. Essential to revise concept of emergency: existg. statutory
definition is not in accord with modern conditions.
P.T. Dangerous public position if v. few enrol.
J.H. Reservists don’t like re-joining & then hanging about – cf. our
experience over Suez.
Agreed: further study of 3rd proposal, includg. drafting,
& further discussion by Cabinet.
W.O. to be responsible for Bill. [Exit J.P.
5. Shipping; Cunard Liners.
E.M. Chairman Cunard doesn’t now wish to cancel, but to p’pone.
Seen him, with Mills. Made it clear tht. ques. of commercial
judgment are for him.
Cunard statement to be made on Thursday. I shall then have to make
a statement in H/C. Also to tell Chandos. Several tenders are
below £30 m. – so he can’t use that excuse.
P.M. New situation: must reserve Govt.’s freedom to consider it on merits.
Formula on this basis to be agreed between E.M., I.M.
and Ty. [Exit H.W., H.and S.Ll.
6. Teachers’ Salaries.
D.E. Teachers have decided to strike on 24/10 and demonstrate in Ldn.
Also to w’draw services of supervision in meal-breaks
from 1/11. L.a.’s have asked if payment to others (for meals)
wd. rank for grant. I said “no”. L.a.’s thus stiffened to make
agreement with teachers. Hold mtg. y’day with both sides,
l.a.’s said they wd. start negotns for new salaries – in mid 1962
to operate from spring of ’63. I didn’t guarantee that. N.U.T.
have decided to propose acceptance of £42 m., calling off strike.
But they want me to p’pone my legn – at least till after Xmas.
I have said I will introduce Bill on 31/10 unless they have given
way before then.
P.M. This seems v. satisfactory.
7. Euston Station.
E.M. H.A. Cttee decision. Announced July. No fuss until now.
Alleged it cd. be rolled elsewhere for £90.000. Raising a fund.
J.H. Has historical & aesthetic interest. Shd we stop others from raising
E.M. They have not raised £1.000.
H.B. No chance of their submitting viable scheme.
Agreed: stand firm.
C.C. 57(61). 19th October, 1961.
1. Teachers’ Salaries. [M.R., J.A. & Godber.
D.E. My only concession was to promise not to introduce legn before Xmas.
Their line: no objn in principle to my proposal (subject to discn)
so long as machinery for comparable wage negotiations is
applied to others. Not too bad.
J.M. Sc. teachers are strongly friendly and helpful. Talks starting to find out
underlying causes of malaise other than salaries & Burnham.
The are not in a hurry. Prs. delaying till they see what happens in
E. & Wales.
2. Aviation Industry.
P.T. Declared our policy recently & in detail. Annex A. para. 4. On basis
of that they have made costly & painful re-organisation. Cost estimated then at £20 m. p.a. – we were ready to pay that price
to have an aircraft industry. Presume we don’t go back on that.
But picture now is sharp run-down in [key-workers & design staff].
Total employment in industry is falling. Ty. figures are 5 mos.
out of date & include many who aren’t making aircraft. Factories
are closing – no. of illustrations. This is right: what we intended.
Larger run-down will follow when peak of old orders is past.
Worry, however, is uncontrolled run-down of [ ]. Must avoid
Immediate need = decisions on sufft. no. of projects to enable future to
be firmly planned. These needed w’in 3 wks.
I favour – a) Helicopters. Rotodyne: delay verging on scandal.
I cd. make a deal betwn. B.O.A.C. & Sabena to operate Vertals
with Br. engines. At cost of £½ m. over 5 yrs. this wd. pave way
for Rotodynes. Held up for 4 months. Also progress with
b) Trident D.H. 121. for export with Medway engine.
c) Beverley replacement. Prs. the Belfast.
d) Freedom to switch betwn. r and d. and developmt.,
so tht. while we wait for order decisions we can get
on with useful research.
This is minimum to enable us to appear to be followg. our policy.
Wd show that something is moving.
S.Ll. Glad this has come to Cab. Commd to a policy. Officials are at odds
over this. Ministers will have to decide. H.B. will handle it for
me. How does it fit with D.R.P.C.?
H.W. O.R. 351 Hastings/Beverley. This & similar projects shd. go thro’
D.R.P.C. – tho’ I will ensure no delay.
P.T. I accept that.
D.S. Services must be more ready for variations of requirements to enable
dual purpose aircraft to be produced – e.g. freighters &
J.A. Freighter possibility is Argosy (which we are using in R.A.F.) not
in Beverley replacement.
H.W. We shan’t be able to give firm decisions on numbers until defence
policy has bn. settled.
J.A. Air Miny view: we can’t afford r. & d. cost unless we make one
aircraft meet 2 or 3 roles. This wd. mean larger orders for
P.T. Avoid waiting for long-term decisions by concentrating now mainly
on civil (mostly) & shorter-term things.
H.B. Propose a mtg. with Ministers before we tell officials what plans
they are to bring forward.
Hail. We face difficult series of long-term problems. We must protect our
right to participate in technol. advanced industry. But we need
to obtain agreement of U.S. & Europe tht. we can have a share
in world market.
Also problem of priorities. Projects come up in isolation.
Nuclear ship: supersonic airliner etc. No machinery for settling
this sort of thing. Only Ty. scrutiny, limited to economic cost.
E.M. Yes: shipbldg. complain tht. aircraft industry get unfair share of
Govt. aid. Shipping interests support this.
H.B. I could help with this.
P.T. Wd be difficult to go back on announced policy re aircraft industry.
M. Comparison shd. be based on amounts to be spent on industries not
on relative merits of individual projects in each.
R.A.B. 1) Let H.B. examine the 4 specific projects in reln
to existg. inter-departmental machinery – mil. & civil.
2) Take up later (Ty.) the major ques. of scientific priorities.
D.E. I doubt if market is available for civil aircraft on scale we envisage.
U.S. bribe their way in. What card have we against this?
Shd B.E.A./B.O.A.C. continue to be separate? Latter can’t see
future – reluctance to share our C’wealth landing rights with e.g. K.L.M. Unless we do go into partnership with some other
lines we can’t get market for our civil aircraft.
D.S. We are in partnership e.g. with Quantas but it doesn’t prevent latter
from using U.S. aircraft.
C.C. 58(61). 26th October, 1961.
1. Foreign Affairs. [Enter M.R.
H. E. Berliners insisted on U.S. personnel showg. passes – wh. they
have never had. U.S. show of strength. Mtg. to-day. U.S. firm
because Gromyko agreed no change of practice while discns
proceed. Our practice is to show passes.
Tshombe sent 2 junior officials to Adoula. T. not v. f’coming:
but A. responsive because nervous of Gizenga. We are urging
T. therefore tht. this is a moment to do a deal – better terms likely.
King has agreed to Phonma as P.M., but won’t say so publicly until
all Govt. posts filled & announced.
d) Nuclear Tests.
U.N. have passed resoln of disapproval. Don’t yet know wtr. it was
30 or 50 megatons.
P.M. We shall have to state a posn on resumptn in Debate on Address.
Provisional view: no case for tests in atmosphere merely to out-do R.
If needed to m’tain balance of deterrent (esp. on anti-missile
weapon) we mght. have to do it. This is only tenable moral
Reserve right to make tests: but make foregoing negative point.
H.W. Hope U.S. can get ahead with what they need to do by underground
Hail. No need to hurry one, even for military reasons: lest it appear to be
for mere propaganda purpose.
2. Army Man-Power – Reserves.
J.P. New voluntary reserve w’in T.A. Liability: maximum of 6 months in
any year. As individuals – or prs. in sub-units.
Wd like authy to include provision for this in the new legislation.
P.M. Advantages a) 1st step twds. rationalisation of reserves as a whole.
b) insists long-term element in what wd. otherwise
seem to be stop-gap legislation.
H.B. Ty. will be asked to approve cost at v. short notice.
Permanent expre of £4 m. p.a. Will this be w’in ceiling of defence expre? Cdn’t accept it as permanent addition.
H.W. Hope to satisfy Ty. tht. it can be carried w’in existing total.
S.Ll. Need full detail be included in Bill?
H.W. A month in which to finalise it.
Approved in principle.
Details to be discussed with M/D., W.O., M/L. and Ty.
3. Methane Gas. [Enter R.W.
R.A.B. a) Algeria: money will be spent here on installns which cd. use
supplies from Nigeria if Algerian source dried up.
b) If this denied they wd. import butane – at least as costly in
f. exchange. To ban imports on all gases wd. be inconsistent
with policy on natd industries.
P.M. Butane wd. at least come from Br. companies.
Believe they will lose much money over this.
R.W. to break it to Ld. Robens.
Any need for Parliamentary statement?
R.W. Much interest. Want oral, to give room for explann. Will discuss
with Leader H/C.
4. Coal: Price Policy.
R.W. First: ques. of principle: shd. N.C.B. be free to vary differentials
in prices in various parts of country.
Second: if so, shd. increased costs be covered by genl. increases of
price or variable regional increases? Chairman is v. much
against general increases – reasons given. Main one: frustrates
attempts to increase efficiency.
H.B. Some action needed. Sc. Divn now losing more than total loss of
N.C.B. We are heading for subsidy – as for rlways. – and Party
wd. not accept that.
Increases in some areas wd. not breach any existing principle.
But 15/= p. ton. wd. be heavy blow in Scotland.
Can’t be in interests of economy to go on subsidising miners’
wages at £400 p. head p.a.
Policy on natd indies re prices announced as recently as April.
Quoted from White Paper.
As politician wd. not press for full 15/= from 1st Jan. Sensible time
to increase is summer.
Proposal for increase of 6/= in N.W. What about 6/= all round in the
But economic arguments support M/P. plan.
J.M. 69.000 to 64.000 drop in man-power in Sc. is planned.
New proposal wd. mean another 20.000 jobs wd. disappear
by 1965 – tho’ believed redundancy wd. be only 3.000 or so.
Industry. Increased cost for Colvilles wd. be £1.2 m. or £1 p.ton of
finished steel. Cement 4%. Domestic 12% - 1/= p. wk
Price differentials are mainly on quality. Coal-field differentials
are historic, but not directly related to costs. Wage structure
in national. This is therefore fundamental change in policy
followed by N.C.B. v. hard to reconcile with our D.I. policy.
Social investment – serious waste.
H.B. Eventual waste of it wd. be even greater, if sitn left to drift.
R.M. Shattering blow to D.I. effort in Scotland. Wd prob. reverse all our
progress on this.
M. A year ago £60 m. increase in coal prices authorised. In spite of this
loss of £1 m. overall is now expected.
Small island: wrong to base price on costs of individual coal-field.
Prefer to follow principle of level prices, subject to only small
I.M. Share this view.
Cab. decn to put new strip-mill in Scotland. Linked with that efforts
to draw other industries to S. All this wd. be stultified by
decision not recommended. And D.I. policy pursued for 20 yrs.
E.M. But failure to follow M/P. line wd. equally stultify recent W. Paper
on natd industries.
M. For rlways. we removed burden of old debt. We may have to do same
R.W. Nearly £100 m. accumulated deficit. Even if we wrote if off, there wd.
be similar problem in a few years – unless we adopted policy
H.W. x/ Wiser to close uneconomic pits, more rapidly.
R.W. Then imported coal – even from England it wd. be more expensive.
J.H. This discn causes me to change my view – into support of x/ as
alternative. We have persuaded Rootes to equip new factory
for coal. Press on with x/ and with getting new firms into areas
where pits are to close.
F.E. Support M/P. plan.
R.A.B. i) write off deficits ii)…………..
I myself see no way out w’out increased prices. But more phasing
shd. be made.
R.W. Agreement betwn. N.C.B. & Minister tht. he will consult on prices
& will not act inconsistently with Minister’s expd wish. But
since Wh. Paper Minister wd. have to make public statement
of his reasons in writing.
Hail. If Sc. is not affluent, wrong to allow them to cling to uneconomic
production of uneconomic coal.
J.B-C. This wd. prob. tip scales in favour if increasing assistance rates if
done this winter.
Ch.H. Better to accelerate p’mme for closing high-priced pits.
R.W. Present p’mme will reduce pits in Sc. to 55 by 1965. Diff. to
accelerate it. But only 4 m. of 17½ m. t. of coal in Scotl. is
produced at profit.
Imported Engl. coal wd. be £2 m. p.t. more.
D.E. Must subsidise Sc. in some way in order to prevent drift of labour
to E. But subsidising Sc. miners at £400 p.a. is silly way of
doing it. Better to subsidise if necessary new indies to wh. he
Action which is indefensible economically on one thing makes it
diff. to be sensible in any field.
P.M. Don’t believe you can run natd industry on same lines as private
There are differences already in prices between one area or another.
R.W. Realistic closing of pits cd. not go far enough to cure the financial
S.Ll. Solution: do a bit more of more things. Don’t try to do it all by
price – or so suddenly.
E.H. Why shd. Scots pay less for coal when it costs more to produce it
there? Support S.Ll.’s view tht. combination of methods is
P.T. 1) Consider posn of N.C.B., who want to compete where they can. If we
force him to general increase, he is hampered all across the board.
2) Don’t exaggerate effect of this on d.i. policy in Sc.
R.W. Genl. increase will drive people to oil in England but delay the
conversion to oil in Sc.
H. Cd there be some general & some local increase?
M. He can’t plead principle when he made a genl. increase last year?
P.M. Cd we work for package deal. a) accept differential prices for regions
b) increase Sc. coal by 5/= c) but the other 10/= by other means
& phase it out (?) d) special concession to those who can’t use
hydro-electric power or oil. [add increased pit closure.]
J.M. a) is not really reconcilable with national wage structure.
S.Ll. What view wd. T.U.C. take?
R.W. There is also N. West & anthracite problem.
Agreed: R.W. and H.B. to look at this again, with J.M.
& Mills in light of discussion.
J.M. Cd we include ascertaining T.U.C. view on breaking
down national wage structure.
[Exit R.W., P.T.
5. National Insurance: Family Allowances for Apprentices.
J.B-C. Economy proposal – wd. save over £1 m. – inevitably controversial.
T.U.’s wd. oppose this. But socially it is justifiable.
Suggn of taking power only wdn’t get us out of difficulty – for we shd.
have to disclose the figure in debate on the Bill. And to go down
by stages wd. involve much adm. diffy and Parly controversial on
Wd it be disincentive to apprenticeship? Only 8/= difference.
N.A. scale for child of this age is only 32/=.
J.H. Shortage of skilled labour. Campaign for more apprentices. This wd.
frustrate those efforts.
Is this socially justifiable. Income tax allowances are given for these
children. They are foregoing large wages to be apprentices.
H.B. Gap over apprenticeship is not enough openings offered by employers
not shortage of applicants.
How can we expect to get £100 m. savings if we reject this sort of
Figure of 87/6. – new factor introduced by Comms. not us – is not
E.M. B.T.C. have 8.000 apprentices & don’t think this wd. affect them.
Hail. Support J.H.
S.Ll. Our figure, if we fixed it, wd. be 40/=.
H.B. Nothing in I.T. point: this wd. bring them into line . £100 for I.T.
J.B-C. Same amount of row even if a higher figure were proposed.
Memo. approved. [Exit J.B-C.
6. Shipping: Nuclear Propulsion.
P.M. Announce in reply to P.Q. – written Answer.
S.Ll. Don’t let it be assumed tht. this commits us to prototype.
C.S. Para. 2. nuclear re-actor not propulsion. “No re-actor system
for marine purposes offers …….”
7. Wages Policy.
S.Ll. We are hanging on.
But to avoid Jan. 1. assumption as end of pause, we need some
J.H. Last of pre-announcement commitments are related to Jan. 1.
Now faced with awards w’out prior commitment: & propose
to relate these to April 2.
Euston Station: Doric Arch.
P.M. Have now received influential deputation. We shall be called
Hail. Bogus black Parthenon.
Earlier decision confirmed.
C.C. 59(61). 2nd November, 1961.
1. Parliament. [Enter M.R.
I.M. Business for next week.
2. Germany – Berlin.
H.M. Developing Allied discussions on contingencies – we have bn. led
along. U.S. have to be reminded continuously that with us
Parliament is sovereign, and all these plans must be subject to
Cab. decision at the time. This adds to H.’s difficulties.
H. (a) Immediate ques. of Friedrikstrasse crossing. Narrative in memo.
16 yrs. U.S. have not shown passes: Br. have shown if asked,
but v. rarely asked. U.S. having taken a stand on this, can’t
give way. Latest plan: Allies to require R. civilians similarly
to show passes on entering W. Berlin. U.S. willing to conform
with that solution. Best way out in present circs. (“Civilians”
for this purpose means or includes military personnel in
civilian clothes.) Also reduce no. of our points of entry into
W. Berlin to one – to conform with one crossing into E. Berlin.
Hail. Uneasy about U.S. re-actions on the spot – e.g. Clay.
K. Tel. 1147 from Berlin. Any hope of getting pressure on Clay? – via
M. You can assume (H: you can’t) tht. Clay keeps in close touch with
W’ton. (P.M. But Pentagon.)
H. Solution now in view emphasises 2 Berlins – but that is a fact.
(b) Corridors – air and land.
H. Clear directive worked out with Norstad re air corridors – on re-action
to any interference with civil aircraft in corridors.
Suppose plane shot at from ground, N. wants fighter escort to be free
to shoot at ground target outside built-up area w’out risk to
civilian life. Either i) authorise immediate retaliation or
ii) leave opportunity to warn R. and then mount such an attack
on any second occasion. Second wd. give scope for a political
H.W. Prefer (ii).
C.S. Won’t arise: for if civil aircraft is attacked by S.A.G.W. it will be
destroyed (sitting duck) & therefore can’t make a second trip.
H. Land corridor. N. wants re-action v. any block: force to remove it &
provoke R. to fire first – after which it wd. w’draw.
H.W. Cassel has worked out plan for a small force to do this.
H. May have to be larger than a company.
Agreed: subject to H.W. vetting that the plan is realistic and safe.
S.Ll. Shd be a small force, to avoid a situation in which loss of
H.W. Under Cassel’s control: can tell him to warn us before he acts.
(c) Economic Counter Measures.
H. Allies consider these will help to avert ultimate crisis - & tht. our
attitude in N.A.T.O. has bn. unhelpful. Mr K. himself favours
this as alternative to mil. re-action. Hence tel. in Annex B. In
N.A. Council y’day it emerged tht. many are nervous of total
embargo – Canada, in particular, reservg. this for pol. decision
at the time. Others taking similar view on lesser sanctions. We
are no longer alone: but U.S. still think we have brought this
S.Ll. Why can’t U.S. see tht. measures v. D.D.R. alone wd. be preferable,
at the earlier stages?
H. They still insist tht. all measures shd. be taken v. whole bloc.
Our repve in N.A. Council was asked y’day to circulate his
arguments for action v. D.D.R. & on this too we may bring
European Allies round to our view.
I.M. We are thinking of what will bite: they are thinking of a gesture.
V. different tests.
H. Real danger here is, not tht. we will get committed, but tht. U.S. will
conclude we are faint-hearted over the whole affair.
Shd we therefore try for a resolution in N.A. Council wh. will go some
way to satisfy U.S. while reserving decision for Govts.
P.M. Ty. & B/T. to advise F.O. which of these measures are tolerable, if
required as gestures. M/T. to send F.O. a note on shipping.
And use to U.S. D.E.’s argument tht. it wd. force neutrals to depart
from neutrality & choose wtr. they are to trade or not. They
will mostly choose to continue to trade.
F.O. shd. also consider what guidance to give on cultural etc. contacts
with R. – in the light of latest test explosions.
H. U.S./U.K. agreed there shd. be negotiations & also on substance of
our aims in such negotns.
Thompson probe – hampered because Fr. won’t be associated with it.
[Negotiation leading to concession is worse than none. Wait
until D.D.R. begin to interfere & then negotiate in hot blood.
This is Fr. attitude. We don’t share it, but can’t move them.]
Therefore, if Thompson seeks search for basis, he must do so on
behalf of U.K./U.S. alone. Diff. in these circs. to see how we
shall get negotn on substance going.
Ingredients of a settlement i) Niesser/Oder line ii) acceptce of
D.D.R. iii) No manuf. of nucl. weapons by Germany. iv) Some U.N. presence in Berlin. In return K. wd. guarantee access &
embody that in a Treaty deposited with U.N.
But latest speeches by K. & Grom. are not encouraging.
Time-table. New G. Govt. New Chancellor to go to W’ton & be told
what he must accept. Then pressure on France to accept that.
S.Ll. K. will want also i) admn tht. W. Berlin isn’t part of W. Germany &
prs ii) some assurance on espionage & propaganda from
H. But time is running out – for pol. deadlock in Bonn and intransigence
Hail. Fr. will blame us for any concession made. Shd we lose therefore by
going on w’out them.
H.W. We have broken Fr. intransigence before by demonstrating in N.A.T.O.
tht. they are in minority of one.
K. Thompson mght. get further if we cd. stop U.S. playing tin soldiers
in Berlin (Kutznetzar).
H. German Amb. W’ton has put fwd. formula which amounts to
de facto recognition of D.D.R. This wd. be crucial to K. Sole
Gromyko is showing interest in wider issues – Eur. security.
This is v. frightening to Fr. & G. - & on account of their
anxieties we have reverted to a narrow agenda (Berlin only).
Time-table. K. may want to see a new G. President.
P.M. What are long-term interests of U.K.? M’tenance of N.A.T.O. – viz.
European Alliance with U.S. involvement. K.’s objective is to
divide that: Hence de G.’s posn: any concession must weaken
attachment of G. to W. Europe: may even reveal to W. Germans
the failure of their basic hope for unity, for A. has built himself
on this – cling to U.S. & G. will be re-united. de G: if this must
happen, I will not be party to it: let odium fall elsewhere,
& preferably on (non-European) Anglo-Saxons. [We want to
get in to Europe.] Better, if concessions have to be made, to
make them when it really is plain tht. alternative is war. My own
belief is tht. at that stage we shd. be in weaker negotiating posn –
We have gained respite because pol. deadlock in Bonn. In 10 days or
so, we shall be under pressure here to negotiate: our own opinion
Best solution: G. themselves to take an initiative twds. concessions
which are inevitable. Wd avert growth of myth tht. Anglo-
Saxons sold them.
Next: Western initiative in agreement (our present plan).
Next best: U.S. initiative. Less involved with Europe. Also stronger.
They ought to do so. The have nil. to lose.
Anglo-U.S. initiative. Dangerous. Will clinch myth tht. Anglo-Saxons
are trying to destroy power of Europe. From that pt. of view Br.
initiative mght. be safer.
Failing all of these French policy will prevail by efflux of time.
H. M’while K. is increasing pressure on Finland & moving troops twds.
3. Nuclear Tests. [Enter E.P.
i) Effect of Russian Tests.
Ch.H. Asked to consider re-assurance to public on fall-out from recent
i) Statements made already by Ministers etc., have steadied
opinion. Public is reasonably re-assured. Mistake to
do more at present.
ii) Need, unobtrusively, to put over a simpler statement of
hazards & measures. Draft prepared – 600 words.
(Larger bomb at great height may be less dangerous
than small one lower.)
Prs. this cd. be released (written Answer) by
L. President. Wd then be followed up, unobtrusively,
by informn agencies.
Hail. Support this.
Had hoped all statements wd. be made by scientists – to ensure we
were seen to be objective. But they won’t make simple
statements – as only politicians can take responsibility for
discretion. Think now I shd. make statement – in H/L. in next
J.M. Hope this won’t be delayed. Confusion in Scotland – especially over
figures which are averaged.
P.M. Consider wtr. particular Regions shd. have dried milk.
Ch.H. If figure rises to danger point in particular area it will be issued in
that area. Unlikely tht. situation will be reached.
J.M. In subsequent announcements (factual) do utmost to avoid confusion
over “running averages”.
ii) Resumption of U.K. Tests.
P.M. Need to test war-head for Skybolt – improved Br. design.
Want to make this test in U.S. series of underground tests.
Need not announce at present. Can be justified as necessary to
make weapon more effective & safer.
4. Ghana. Queen’s Visit.
P.M. Heavy burden of responsibility on Govt.
All precautions taken. D.S personal enquiries. Assessment by
Security Services. Joint report: no great likelihood of incident.
Greatest risk: drives thro’ country in remote places.