HC Deb 13 June 1951 vol 488 cc2296-8
46. Mr. Mott-Radclyffe

asked the Prime Minister why it was decided that no Minister of His Majesty's Government should participate in the deliberations of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe for the year 1951–52.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)

As the House is aware, the constitutional position in the Council of Europe is that the Assembly is a purely consultative body, on which representatives of the various member States speak and vote in a personal capacity without in any way committing the Governments of those States, or necessarily reflecting their views. Experience has shown that in an Assembly of this kind, private Members can more appropriately take part than Ministers who will naturally be assumed to be committing their Government to a particular course of action.

Mr. Mott-Radclyffe

Since France, Italy, Greece and Belgium all have Ministers on their delegations to Strasbourg, could the right hon. Gentleman explain whether the withdrawal of any member of His Majesty's Government from the British delegation indicates that he thinks the Council of Europe is no longer of such importance as to warrant his being there?

The Prime Minister

No, the reason is the reason which I have given. The constitutional position is very different in Continental countries.

Mr. Harold Macmillan

In view of the fact that out of these delegates there were altogether 15 Ministers from different countries, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it a pity that there should be no experienced senior members of Ministerial rank from the Labour Party? May I add how much we have missed the Minister of Local Government and Planning?

The Prime Minister

My right hon. Friend will be very grateful for that remark.

Mr. Churchill

Is it not a fact that this abstention of ministerial representation on the Consultative Committee is only another example of the steady attempt to vitiate the cause of a united Europe, unless it is a Socialist united Europe which has been pursued by the right hon. Gentleman during the whole of his tenure?

The Prime Minister

The right hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. The whole basis of representation is that individual members should speak in an individual capacity, and, as the right hon. Gentleman would find out if he was in office, there is an obvious difficulty in having Ministers there owing to the confusion as to whether what is spoken by a Minister is spoken as a member of the Government or in an individual capacity.

Mr. Churchill

If that difficulty has been faced and overcome by all the other Governments concerned, including some Governments which have Socialist majorities or large Socialist parties, why is it impossible for us to have a similar procedure?

The Prime Minister

As I have already mentioned, the constitutional position on the Continent is different from what it is in this country.

Mr. Edelman

Is it not the case that His Majesty's Ministers, unlike several leading Members of the Opposition, are unwilling to speak with one voice in Strasbourg and in a different voice in this country?

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Churchill

That may raise loud cheers from people who are hard up for cheer. May I ask the Prime Minister whether it does not remain a fact that we were the only one of these Governments who could not solve the problem of ministerial responsibility and representation of independent members upon this body? The position occurred in other countries besides this.

The Prime Minister rose

—

Mr. Speaker

We cannot debate the matter. Mr. Langford-Holt.