HC Deb 03 August 1961 vol 645 cc1715-86

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. C. Pannell

I wonder whether we shall have that sort of medieval ceremony in the European Common Market. I find this interruption rather difficult. Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, after he had been speaking for four hours on the question of legislation about the Plimsoll line, said, "Having made those prefatory remarks…" However, I give this comfort to the House, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) sitting restlessly in front of me, that I am not far from the end of my speech.

I only want to say this. Many people in this debate have called down through collective memory many various phases of the history of our country. We have had, for instance, fascinating glimpses of the beginning of the Lord Privy Seal's office, the ventures of the king of Spain— I rather think—and I hope that hon. Gentlemen who are opposed to me will not think this taking too gloomy a view —that our children and our children's children, looking back at this time—say, in a hundred years from now—will probably put down the period between the First and the Second Elizabeth as that of our colonial aberration, a period in which we grew up, we spawned our kind over all the five continents, and fertilised the world with money, and brought in the English century, the nineteenth century, and gave the world the picture of the first great industrial revolution, and then, having allowed our Commonwealth to come to adult status as a body of self-governing nations, we came back to where we started—in Europe.

I would remind the House of some words which Aneurin Bevan gave to the House when he said that whenever one of our Colonial Territories came to self-governing status hon. Gentlemen opposite set up a wail as though we had lost something, instead of recognising the fact that another nation had come to adulthood. He also said that as those countries learned their lessons, quite apart from us, and got a status equal to our own, we would cease to be in a sort of superior position as a great imperial Power, and we, the British people, "must learn to be great in other ways."

That is where we start from here. We are not naturally the overlords of the world. We are a great people, an inventive people, a people who have given much to the world, and we still have much to give. Though, of course, the speeches from our Front Bench must naturally be critical of the Government, because we on this side are the Opposition, and must tend to emphasise the points of difference between us and the Government, I should like the Government and other people who believe in the Common Market to know that there is a tremendous fund of good will on this side of the House for the Common Market. There are a great many people who, having thought hard and long about it, have come to the conclusion that it is the next great step in our island history. It is not a matter of presiding over the break-up of the Commonwealth. It is the ushering in of a new sense of national greatness.

In conclusion, I say to the Government that although, of course, we press the Amendment, speaking for myself and, I believe, for the majority of my col-leagues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—I have not strung out the points of difference in this matter but I am prepared to emphasise them if necessary—there is, I think, a great fund of good will. We sincerely hope that these talks will succeed and that the Ministers will be able to bring back to us a settlement which we can find honourable and can accept with self-respect; and that this Chamber and Parliament itself, as leaders and representatives and not delegates of the people of England, will find this a thing which suits their purpose and gives them a new dynamic in the second half of the twentieth century.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan (Halifax)

This is one of the most interesting debates in which it has been my good fortune to take part. May I for once refer a lot to the arguments which hon. Members from both sides of the House have put forward yesterday and today. If it will not embarrass him, I should like to start by congratulating the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) both on his robust commonsense and for the very definite line which he has taken. This was in marked contrast to the Leader of the Opposition, and to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who dealt mostly with the hypothetical and maintained, as did Rikki-Tikki-Tavi in Kipling's story, the mongoose's natural posture of defence: alert and balanced, ready to leap in any direction.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

He stated the mind of the party.

Mr. Macmillan

I should like to congratulate, although I cannot agree with him, my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), on his most sincere and impressive speech. He quoted various statements which Commonwealth leaders had made. Although statements to the contrary effect were produced by the hon. Member for Leeds, West, I think it perhaps natural that at this juncture the Commonwealth should express anxiety and difference: indeed, it is not unhelpful at the start of negotiations. But the Government have given assurances and so far as I can see the pledges which my right hon. Friend was demanding have already been given. Perhaps his demands are natural; so clearly did he disbelieve the previous denial by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal that he felt bound to renew the charge today that we were being bribed into the Common Market by an I.M.F. loan. If my right hon. Friend did not believe that denial, it is perhaps natural that he should not believe in the present intentions of the Government, especially under the existing leadership. But I would remind him that it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) who first talked about leading Britain into a United States of Europe. It is perhaps natural, therefore, that he should require assurances on his own terms whether or not these may prejudice the chances of negotiations.

I think that in this debate there has been a great deal of confusion of thought as to premises. Perhaps this confusion is pardonable, because it is visible in the Six. Indeed, there is conflict within the Common Market. But I think it quite inexcusable on the part of anyone to make the assumption that we are going into a federal union. The recent declaration at Bonn, which has been quoted more than once today, made quite clear that in demanding that the United Kingdom should accept the political implications, the Six made plain that these implications did not include federalism. These bogies are raised in order to chill our flesh, and I think they are real only on the assumption that we are to sign the Treaty as it stands, whether or not we get what we want in the negotiations. They are, therefore, believable only by those who have no faith whatever in the word of this Government.

People also make the mistake of interpreting the Rome Treaty on the most severe federal lines, which would indeed worry many of the signatories to it. I would remind the House that these distorted views could lead to great dangers and that those who seek to defend an illusionary empire may succeed in damaging the real Commonwealth. It is necessary not only to maintain the right to act but the power to do so. My right hon. Friend referred to the freedom of this country to choose its fate. I am worried lest we lose the ability to do so.

I think that in some moods we are all reluctant to face the dangers and difficulties of the modern world. But it is no good trying to compensate for that by building up a defence, made passionate by nostalgia, for a world which for better or worse no longer exists. My noble friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) referred to Napoleon. Perhaps it was the mounting resemblance of de Gaulle to that historic figure which inspired my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) to don the mantle of Burke or Disraeli and dazzle us with his forensic skill in a speech which excited the admiration of the whole House. It was a truly magnificent oratorical performance.

My right hon. and learned Friend and his friends are making certain proposals on the assumption that there will be no trade war at all if we do not go into the Common Market; on the contrary, that E.F.T.A., or something like it, will continue and that the Commonwealth will reverse its present policy. My right hon. and learned Friend warned us that this might require some very tough negotiation with the Commonwealth as well as over the G.A.T.T. I think that his assumption requires a change in the Commonwealth attitude, and would bring about a more inward looking position both in it and in the United Kingdom, and make what might be certain regrettable changes here inevitable. It would involve a possible unilateral lowering of tariffs and denunciation of the G.A.T.T.

My right hon. and learned Friend is not so logical as my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South, who is against free trade wherever it may rear its ugly head. He is not against free trade. He is in favour of association with the Common Market under Article 238. I do not want to repeat all the arguments regarding the merits of the different articles, but perhaps I can sum up the position of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends by saying that they are quite content to take up a large block of shares in this enterprise but insist on refusing the seat on the board that goes with it.

The dilemma of the Left is much more real, if I may for a moment intercede in that side of the House, I think that hon. Members may be confused between internationalism, which is general but vague, and the sort of supra-nationalism which is possibly implied in the Rome Treaty, which is quite precise and very limited. That is why I think—though this may sound odd coming from this side of the House—that one may reassure hon. Gentlemen opposite that Britain's entry into the Common Market will not be something which would make socialism difficult or impossible in this country.

Indeed, I would rather argue that association under Article 237 is a defence against federalism. Yesterday we heard a certain amount about the dangers of monolithic great Powers and of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth being forced into one bloc or another Personally, I would have thought that there is less of a danger of intimidation by these monolithic Powers, less of a danger of a necessity to build a United States of Europe, if we go into a Europe which accepts integration as an alternative because, so far as I can see, the only other choice is either the sort of monolithic position which we all deplore, or straight inaction leading, as it can only do, to the balkanisation of Europe and weakness.

I think, too, there is no question if we keep to the terms set out in the Government's Motion that we shall carry the E.F.T.A. countries with us. In fact, I think the United Kingdom's association with the Common Market will make it easier for the more limited form of association which neutrality may impose on some of its members. I hope, too, that it will enable the Common Market to become outward looking. Just so far as it does not reject forms of association for Austria, Switzerland and Sweden it may not reject them for some of those countries now behind the Iron Curtain, I should deplore the possibility of our association leading to a reduction in legitimate trade with Russia and the Iron Curtain countries.

A great deal has been said about sovereignty. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton referred to the power of decision which was vested in the Commission. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertford referred to the provisions of the Commission as being mandatory. He quoted the phrase that the Commission speaks wtih independence and that a proposal made by it is an autonomous political act. That may be the hope of those who drafted it, but it is not the fact. So far, whatever may be the theory, only Governments have the power to act. I think the quotation put forward by the hon. Member for Ash-field (Mr. Warbey) indicated that. Since it is Heads of State that instruct the Commission to make their association statutory, that is a sovereign act. As the Lord Privy Seal pointed out, that statutory condition can be obtained only by unanimous vote, a vote on which the United Kingdom would have a veto if before that stage we were a member of the Common Market.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

My hon. Friend referred to my reference to the proposal by the Commission for an autonomous political act. Does he not appreciate that that is taken from the Third General Report of the activities of the Community and is, therefore, an official statement of how this has been found to work out in practice? Does that not invest it with a particular significance for a country signing for adherence?

Mr. Warbey

I happened to open the Rome Treaty at page 89 of the English text and read in Article 90, paragraph 3: The Commission shall ensure the application of the provisions of this Article and shall, where necessary, issue appropriate directives or decisions to Member States.

Mr. Macmillan

None of that alters the point I was trying to make. It merely emphasises that in the words of the Rome Treaty and in the ideas of the Commission, a thought, a proposal, is an act. It is not an act as I mean it. Their sort of "act" can be carried into effect only by the Governments of the Member States concerned. No one else has the power or the authority to do so. If hon. and right hon. Members who have objected will bear with me a little longer they will see that, whatever the juridical position, the practical position requires unanimity. The Coal and Steel High Authority was quite powerless, when faced with the situation of over-production, to impose for the benefit of smaller countries solutions which would be damaging to France and Germany.

On a common foreign policy, for example, there is no joint policy over a matter of common concern to the countries of the Six such as what we might call the liberation of their former colonies. As a matter of fact, there is the reverse, the somewhat sorry spectacle of some of these nations hoping to benefit from the failures of others. Again, the Council of Ministers is European when it suits each member's interest; the interest of the Community is, in practice, very much the first to go. All this is not very dissimilar to the methods of N.A.T.O. and Western European Union. The Assembly passes resolutions. So, I know full well, does the Assembly of Western European Union and of the Council of Europe, but so far as I know no one has ever yet acted upon them.

The position of civil servants is slightly different, for there is a difference in principle, but it is a difference in kind rather than one in degree. Just as the Governments are the only people who can act, so still this international bureaucracy is under governmental control because it is the home governments which have to appoint its members. It is perfectly logical to turn one's back, as some hon. and right hon. Friends do, on many of these derogations of sovereignty, including the G.A.T.T., but not, I am happy to say, on some of the others, N.A.T.O. and so on.

I do not want to go into that argument, which has already been over-laboured, but I make one point about it. The Commonwealth is not in the narrow sense a political alliance. It is something much more than that if it means anything at all—as I believe it does—and the Common Market is something much less. To me, the Commonwealth and United Kingdom interests are much more likely to be threatened by the Atlantic Alliance than the European alliance, although both are essential to our security.

A great deal has been said about United States interference. The right hon. Member for Huyton mentioned it and the right hon. Member for Basset-law (Mr. Bellenger) brought in the question of the new Commonwealth. For those of us interested in the possibilities of the United Kingdom taking independent action, as I am sure some of my hon. and right hon. Friends who object to this Motion are, I should say that it was not European countries which have voted against it or abstained at the United Nations, nor even entirely the new Commonwealth, but some members of the old Dominions too. [HON. MEMBERS: "Suez?"] I do not think the example of Suez is necessarily an inept one to address to my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton and my noble friend the Member for Dorset, South.

It has been said that democracy depends upon national sovereignty. I quite agree. That is a principle that has been stated as underlying the confederation, if one may call it that, which is proposed in Europe. We have a great deal to offer Europe and we have a great deal to gain from Europe. We have already gained much.

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that we should look at history. It is true that we have not gained from Europe our legal system, our constitution, our monarchy, our common law, our Parliamentary democracy, but we have gained a great deal of the old Empire. South-West Africa, The Cameroons, the Cape Province, Tanganyika, Trinidad, Jamaica, Ceylon, Malta and Gibraltar all came as a result of our leading position in Europe. Even Nova Scotia and eventually upper and lower Canada became British only as a result of the Treaty of Utrecht. What we have gained through our leadership in the European alliance for the Empire we could lose for the Commonwealth by failure even to consider that leadership now, and the loss would be not only to the United Kingdom but to Europe and to the free world.

I hope that our European friends will remember this and will be willing to meet the needs of the Commonwealth. I warn them, as I have warned them before, of the consequences of asking too much. I warn them of the difficulty which we may have of maintaining our financial commitments, and may I hope, in parenthesis, that those which we cannot maintain are only financial. I have warned them of the effect that it may have on the developments of the African countries, to which we have unfortunately given an out-dated sense of nineteenth century nationalism.

If the Commonwealth has a great contribution to make and must ask much of Europe in return, so the Commonwealth must be prepared to help, too. Our capacity to be of use to both depends upon their willingness to accept each other. The economic objections which the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition made were more than answered by his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), to whose speech I must pay my customary tribute. There is a great case to be made for the fact that our exchange position will be made easier. One cannot help but believe that capital for the development of the Commonwealth would be more readily found if the United Kingdom were a member of the Common Market. I agree with the hon. Member for Stechford that a Commonwealth Customs Union is impossible. I would go further than that and say that it is undesirable. It is imposing a limitation on Commonwealth development which we have no right to impose.

The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in an interjection yesterday, quite rightly, if I may say so, pointed out the difference between associations which do not seek to interfere with our own economic planning and one which would necessarily entail limitations on freedom of action in the domestic field. But that is precisely the sort of limitation which I fear staying out of the Common Market might cause us to impose on the Commonwealth, because I do not see how we in this country can alone continue to take the ever-expanding Commonwealth production unless we have expanding markets to which we sell the finished products, including an increasing proportion of such goods that are made from the extra raw materials which we import.

We all agree with those who say that the Common Market by itself will not solve any difficulty; nor will it limit our freedom of action here any more than it is limited already by the hard facts of the situation. But it will make, I hope, the protection of the inefficient more difficult. I hope that it will show up the results of incompetence more quickly. I do not believe that it will damage either capitalist organisation or Socialist planning unless the methods of either are in reality totally inadequate to the situation, the experience and evidence of France and Germany show all this quite clearly.

There have been questions about social matters, but these have already been adequately answered. May I say a word, in her absence, about the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee). She pointed out that unemployed labour in South Italy had not reached North Italy; but still suggested that it would be rapidly imported into the United Kingdom. The dangers of isolationism are far greater than that sort of thing. Our social security, our planning and the whole of our economy are far more likely to be damaged through stagnation than by the sort of association which we contemplate in integration according to the terms of the Motion.

We have heard about the economies of scale. My right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) made that point in a debate earlier this month. I think that the almost Byzantine complexity and irrelevance of our whole economic system can be more readily adapted to the needs of the modern world inside than outside the Common Market.

I want to ask the Government some questions. The President of the Board of Trade last night referred to the initial extra strain on the balance of payments of any increased imports entering this country under lower tariffs, and the right hon. Member for Huyton pointed out, quite correctly, that at least in the short run we are likely to import much more extra than the extra we export. I agree with him. But I too hope that the long-term advantage will more than balance the short-term difficulty. So I ask whether we are not in danger of using our International Monetary Fund resources, not to deal with the situation properly, but to hide the true difficulties which we are in from ourselves and from the world. It seems to me that if we are using this sum, which I gather is to be half in cash and half in standby resources, to add to our debt without paying off the money which we have already borrowed from the International Banks, we are merely obscuring the issue even further.

With this extra call, we can still defeat the speculator, even if our gold reserves decline; and that decline will show more clearly than in any other way our present true situation.

Nevertheless, I agree that we have to accept the competition which the Common Market will bring, but I remind the House that in the view of many hon. Members on both sides of the House we shall have to accept that competition whether we are in the Common Market or not. I, too, share the wish that our economic position were stronger. But perhaps some good may come out of this evil. It has led to warnings that we may not be able to maintain our payment commitments under N.A.T.O. arrangements, Western European Union and the Brussels Treaty. Perhaps without our economic difficulties Europe would not have heeded those warnings and would have thought that we could carry on as before. With these warnings and the difficulties which we have had over aid, there should be no doubt whatever that, whatever happens as a result of these negotiations, we shall not return to the status quo, to the situation as it now is.

I hope that this debate has shown both Europe and the Commonwealth that British commitments in both of them depend on the capacity of the United Kingdom to play a proper rôle in both. I also hope that it has assured the timorous people at home that as a great and powerful country we are still able to meet this challenge, and that our dual roles are complementary and not competitive. Of course it is not necessary for the United Kingdom to join the Common Market in the sense that the ability to swim is necessary to avoid drowning. The United Kingdom, the Commonwealth and Europe will not collapse if these negotiations fail, but I fear that failure will turn the modern world for all concerned into a struggle which will seem all the more dreary by comparison with the great opportunities which success would bring.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell (Easington)

For some considerable time, hon. Members opposite have enjoyed the spectacle of divisions on this side of the House, and I hope that I may be excused for expressing some pleasure at the emergence of some differences—I put it no higher than that—on the benches opposite. While congratulating his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir D. Walker-Smith) on a brilliant speech, a sentiment with which I agree, the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) condemned him for not offering concrete proposals. The hon. Member for Halifax does not seem to have noticed that that is precisely the condemnation which some of us, at any rate, make of the Government.

In the course of the Lord Privy Seal's speech, I ventured to ask him a simple question, quite relevant to his speech. It was whether he would state precisely the conditions upon which negotiations were to proceed. His reply was astonishing. He said that it was not in the public interest to disclose the Government's intentions. What does that mean? It means that either the Government have no clear idea of what they intend to propose in the course of consultations or negotiations with the representatives of the Common Market, or that they are asking the House for a blank cheque.

In all the circumstances, the absence of all the relevant facts and particularly the apparent misunderstanding and undoubted confusion about the right interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, I should have thought that we were justified in asking the Government to be much more precise. Like ourselves, apparently, the Government are in the dark.

Almost every speaker who has preceded me has declared that this is a momentous issue and that this subject of the possible association of the United Kingdom with the European Economic Community is vital to our interests and might have far-reaching consequences. I agree. But be it noted that the Govern- ment are to have consultations with the European Free Trade Association, as is inevitable, with representatives of the Commonwealth Governments and, no doubt, with the representatives of other countries, perhaps the United States of America—who can tell?—and with the House of Commons, but when the negotiations have been completed, perhaps not satisfactorily, there are to be no consultations whatever with the electors of this country.

The electors are not to be allowed to express an opinion about whether the Government's policy is right and desirable in their interests. There is no question, even when the negotiations are concluded, whether satisfactorily or not, of asking the electors to state whether they accept the Government's decision. In other words, there is to be no General Election.

In conversations here and elsewhere I have heard that the suggestion that there might be a request for a popular mandate before the Government come to a definite conclusion is out of the question. After all, it is said, a referendum is impossible and is not our custom. It is argued that in a General Election it is impossible to present one single issue to the electors.

I am not so sure about that. I recall that in 1906 I attended meetings addressed by the late Bonar Law, when he was a candidate in what is now called the Gorbals division of Glasgow. All Bonar Law talked about at every one of those meetings was the question of whether the country was prepared to accept the policy of tariff reform. There was no other issue.

There have been elections much more recently when the Conservatives made certain that one subject would be debated and placed before the electors, namely, whether there should be any further measures of nationalisation. No doubt many other subjects, not quite so important, but of interest to the electors, would arise, but it is quite possible to present a vital issue, and I cannot see any reason why the Government should not give the House an assurance that, at the conclusion of negotiations and after the various consultations, the electors will be consulted.

I warn the Government that if by any mischance they decide to associate themselves with the European Economic Community without consulting the electors, and without extracting a popular mandate, they might find themselves embroiled in considerable difficulties. I am convinced that it is hardly likely that the Government would return to the House, at any rate not with the numbers now behind them on their back benches. I do not believe that the electors are prepared to stand it.

I now turn to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). As we expect from him, it was a cogent and closely reasoned speech, full of sound argument. I did not find, as apparently some other hon. Members believed, that he was sitting on the fence. Indeed, he demolished the Government's economic case for association with the European Economic Community. No other hon. Member during the debate has made such a devastating criticism of the Government's proposals.

Unfortunately, to my profound disappointment, he ended his speech by wishing the Government well. At one stage, I fully expected that he would turn to these back benches and say that in spite of the decision of the Labour Party the other night to place on the Order Paper an Amendment, not altogether innocuous but not very forthcoming, he would advise us to vote against the Government's Motion. Unfortunately, he did not proceed in that direction—and for a moment just now I thought my right hon. Friend was about to offer an opinion on what I was saying—

Mr. H. Wilson

Certainly—and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he will understand and agree that when I had listed fourteen or fifteen essential conditions to be secured in the negotiations, and having pointed out how very difficult it would be to get them, in view of statements made from Europe and the United States, the least I could do was to wish the Government well.

Mr. Shinwell

I must confess that, in the circumstances, my right hon. Friend is much more generous than I am inclined to be. I only wish that I could emulate him in the presentation of arguments so cogent and devastating, but I am not an economist, and have to rely on such advice as I receive from time to time from those who are better informed.

I ask the Government, I ask my hon. Friends, and I ask hon. Members opposite: why all this fuss and bother? Why is it necessary to associate with the European Economic Community? What has brought this about? What is the cause of it all? Is it associated with our economic decline? Is it because of gloom and despondency in Government circles? Is it because, as the Prime Minister said, it would be a tragedy if we did not associate with the E.E.C.? Is it because some hon. Members and some right hon. Members opposite have declared that if we fail to join E.E.C.—as, indeed, the hon. Member for Halifax has just declaimed, it would be a disaster?

Mr. Maurice Macmillan

No. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I specifically said that it would not be a disaster, but would make things very much harder.

Mr. Shinwell

The hon. Member should have it out with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, because the Prime Minister said—and, if I am challenged, I will read from the OFFICIAL REPORT—

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman. The Prime Minister said: I have always said frankly to the House that t think that the failure of these negotiations would be a tragedy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1492.] If I may say so, that seems to be a very different thing from failing to join the E.E.C.

Mr. Shinwell

I can only say that it is a distinction with no difference at all. If the Government proceed with the negotiations and discover that there are difficulties and obstacles in the way of association and have to report back to us, that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, would be a tragedy. One could use a stronger word, but "tragedy" will do for me. Indeed, that is the opinion expressed over and over again by those who have in this debate supported our entry into the Common Market

Before I deal with the facts, I should like to point out that there appears to be some difference of opinion in Government circles. Lord Hailsham, a Cabinet Minister, speaking in the economic debate in another place the other day, used these words: …I refuse to believe that Britain is standing in the second place of the world's economy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 27th July, 1961; Vol. 233, c. 1095.] What does that mean? Does that portend a disaster, a tragedy; that we are on the verge of bankruptcy? The noble Lord spoke in optimistic terms, in terms, indeed, of glorification of our economic standing.

Nor is his Lordship alone. The Economic Secretary, speaking in the debate on our economic situation on 26th July, used remarkable language in this context. I should like to quote him, because these are very important declarations. The hon. Gentleman said: We have in the United Kingdom all the basic requisites for a thriving export trade on which a thriving economy must depend. Last year, the amount of net investment was almost twice as high as it was ten years ago, and this year it is expected to be up by another 7 per cent…The prospect before the United Kingdom is not, as the Opposition would have us believe, one of gloom and despondency. The outlook for the growth of world trade is good. Expanding markets for our exports are there to be exploited. Already, nearly two-fifths of the output of our manufacturing industry is sold abroad. If we had been able to devote only 1½ per cent. more of our national output to the balance of payments last year, our deficit of £344 million on current account would have been practically eliminated and another 1 per cent. would have given us a surplus of more than £200 million. Then he used these words: Those are the measures of the challenge which faces us. We are chided for having stated the obvious and undoubted fact that 'we have never had it so good'. All I would say to hon. Members is that, with a frank understanding of the difficulties which face us and a determination to overcome them, there is no reason why we should not keep it that way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th July, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 562.] These are very interesting pronouncements, and indicate that in the opinion of some members, at any rate, of the Government, our economic position is not unsound; that we are not on the verge of bankruptcy; that we can hold our own, and that, with a push, a vigorous struggle and a bit of discipline, and, in particular, some effective planning and proper organisation—inspired, perhaps, by the Government themselves— we can get on the rails again, and that we do not require to associate ourselves directly, completely and exclusively with the countries of the Six.

Only a moment or two ago I said that I was not an economist, and that I had to rely on the presentation of arguments coming from other sources. One of the arguments adduced in this debate and previous discussions on the Common Market is that unless we join the E.E.C. our export trade will diminish still further. The converse of that argument is that if we do join the Common Market our exports will increase, so I have to look for authority in that respect.

Here, perhaps, I may be allowed to digress by saying that the past few months I have received a mass of material on the subject of the Common Market, much of it unsolicited. It includes a great many letters from Conservatives all over the country who, apparently, think that I am a better Conservative than some hon. Members opposite—which is not exactly true.

Among the papers sent to me was one entitled Common Market Broad Sheet published by an organisation calling itself the "Common Market Campaign". Who pays for this, I do not know, but I notice that Lord Gladwyn is the head and front, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) is the deputy-chairman and that the honorary treasurer is my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond)—a remarkable combination.

When some of us are accused of encouraging hon. Members opposite to take a certain line, even when we speak to them in the corridors of the House or in the Smoking Room or in the Dining Room—although some of us cannot afford to go into the Dining Room—we are called collaborators. But here we have the most effective collaboration ever known. I have read this document with great interest on the subject of exports. It states: The only way out, now as then, lies in an increase of our exports. I entirely agree with that. It continues: Unless we can sell a great deal more to the outside world, we shall live in an atmosphere of restrictions and recriminations for the rest of our lives…the…Common Market will not guarantee an increase in British exports. I urge hon. Members to note who says that. It is Lord Plowden, the Government's greatest economic expert, and Sir Geoffrey Crowther, formerly the editor of the Economist, who is now in the City of London. These people should know all about it, but, apparently, they do not believe that associating with the Common Market will lead to an increase in our exports.

I now turn to the question which transscends all others: the political issue. In the course of the short debate on the Common Market some weeks ago, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I ventured to say that everyone who understands the needs of the times recognises that we cannot isolate ourselves from Europe. We are, of course, a part of Europe. Nor can we reject some form of economic co-operation, mutual trade, bilateral arrangements and the rest of it. I have been associated with Governments and I understand the need for solving the economic and trade problems that beset this and other countries. But it is a horse of another colour when. in addition to mutual trading arrangements, we are asked to abandon what is called our sovereignty, about which term there has been a considerable amount of controversy.

I am not a lawyer and I am not, therefore, in a position to define this term accurately and to the satisfaction of hon. Members. But I understand that it means a measure of independence. I appreciate that that does not mean complete independence, for no country or individual can have that. We are all members one of another. I understand sovereignty in this sense, that we are not going to tie ourselves hand and foot to the six Governments of Europe exclusively, because that is precisely what it means.

If I understand the language of the Prime Minister's speech yesterday aright, that is what it contains, because the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the need for creating this unity in Europe economically and, eventually, politically, to resist what he called Communist expansion. I am not a Communist. I never have been and I have never associated myself with them. I have always fought them on behalf of the Labour Party. But, on the other hand, I do not want to see a division in Europe. I do not believe that that would be a contribution to the economic prosperity of any of our countries. Nor do I believe that it is a useful contribution to the promotion of peace and disarmament. I believe that I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne ask what am I going to do about it. Let me remind him and hon. Members of what the Prime Minister has said—I will not weary the House with his actual words. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was not the intention of the Government to accept anything in the nature of federalism. There has been a good deal of controversy about this. Some hon. Members have said that the Government do not intend to shackle us politically to the Governments of the Six, that we shall abandon some sovereignty, but not to that extent. Other hon. Members are prepared to go the whole way.

Sometimes I think that it is not always a good thing that hon. Members should attend conferences under the auspices of German organisations at Konigswinter. I sometimes think that some people are rather susceptible to the blandishments of speakers who attend those conferences.

I have with me a document that is associated with the European Economic Community. It includes references to this question of a political integration. It states that a Community summit conference was due to be held on 19th May and that it was postponed, and continues: The Foreign Ministers of the Six Community countries, meeting in Bonn early in May, decided that the committee of experts set up by the Community Summit on February 10 to make concrete proposals by May 19, for strengthening political unity among the Six, will continue its work. The Parliamentary Committee therefore proposed organic links between the new political structure and the Community Executives, which it recommended should take part in all debates on subjects concerning them, and also between it and the European Parliament. It adds: Looking further into the future—since nobody believed that political co-operation could be more than a starting point—the Committee envisaged the strengthening of the Community system, the merger of the three Community Executives, reinforcement of the European Parliament through direct elections and a widening of its powers… and the final sentence states: …and, finally, a European Government. That is the intention. That is their object and that is what they are saying and hon. Members can talk until they are black in the face about the Rome Treaty and there being no provision for federation, but there is no doubt that from the declarations made by some of the most influential people—M. Spaak, Professor Hallstein and others who have indicated that that is a definite intention and that once we accept the economic provisions of the Rome Treaty—and it looks as though this Government might —they are on the way towards complete political integration.

I wonder what this place will be like during the course of the next ten years. There will not be 630 hon. Members. There will be no need for more than 150 or so. It will be like—

Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

A council.

Mr. Shinwell

—I was about to say a parish council, with authority of some kind delegated to it by the European Parliament and dictated to by a European Government. To that we are being led.

Is Britain facing such an economic disaster that we cannot rise above it? I do not believe a word of it. I agree that there are difficulties facing us now, yet little is said about the fact that the present Government is responsible. Is it a world problem? That is what they used to say about the Labour Party, when there was unemployment. It was the philosophy of the Labour Party, we were told. This Government have no philosophy or any policy.

Some say that it would be a tragedy if we did not go into the Common Market. Others say that it would mean disaster if we did not associate ourselves economically and even politically with Europe. All we get from the Government is some talk about reducing Surtax, increasing Purchase Tax, borrowing from the International Monetary Fund, exhorting manufacturers to export more, without any incentives of any sort or kind. That is what we get from the Government. If that is all they can do, I fear for this country. We may associate ourselves with the Common Market and at the end of the day discover that we are a cipher in the hands of the de Gaulles, the Spaaks and the President Kennedys. We shall not have the right to call our soul or our body our own.

7.51 p.m.

Sir Anthony Hurd (Newbury)

The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has worked himself into a high state of indignation about the possibility of complete political integration, suggesting that we shall be a mere cog in the European machine. I wonder whether he really listened yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who made a magnificent speech and covered that possibility fully.

I am not an enthusiastic Common Marketeer. My lifelong interest has been in British agriculture and farming in the Commonwealth. Perhaps that has made me rather suspicious of European politicians and their designs. But those of us who have this instinct cannot ignore the erosion of the cold war that Communism is waging in Europe and throughout the free world. How can that be met? Can we meet it effectively by trying to build upon unity in Europe as well as with the United States and, of course, with the Commonwealth? I have come to the conclusion that we must try to make that effort, that it is worth while and our duty.

I want to say a word particularly about one industry to which the Prime Minister devoted a lot of attention yesterday, and that is our agriculture and agriculture in the Commonwealth. We were told an hour or two ago, from the benches opposite, that only four seats in the House of Commons were decided by a majority of agriculturists. That may or may not be true. I do not think it matters. But I am sure that agriculture is a vitally important and fundamental industry to us, as, indeed, it is to the Commonwealth.

I want to underline what the Prime Minister said yesterday. I think that we are all agreed about the objective. He said: Our objective is to have a prosperous, stable and efficient agricultural industry, organised to provide a good life for those who live and work in the countryside."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1487.] So far our price support system, backed by production grants, has worked well for producers and consumers in this country. The policy was begun in a time of food shortage. Today, we are running into a time of food surpluses. It could be continued, even if those food surpluses were to press still more heavily on the United Kingdom market, the great food market of the world, if the Exchequer were prepared to meet unlimited calls for deficiency payments to home producers, or if the Board of Trade were prepared to be really tough and rigid in excluding dumped supplies of produce unloaded here. We could take that line. But will we? Can we? Is it practicable for us to say that that will be our policy in future—the United Kingdom alone? I doubt it.

This is the great open food market of the world—the biggest buyer of food in the world. Can we, as a great trading nation, say that we are going to shut out supplies offered to us? It might be that we should be strong enough to do that, but we have not shown much sign of it. We have lately had a lot of trouble with dumped Russian barley. That may have some significance as an example of erosion by Russian policy in the economic field.

Now we should see whether we can make a better deal for British agriculture and the agriculture of the Commonwealth by seeking terms of entry to the Common Market in Europe. Put simply, can we find more effective protection inside the Common Market, ringed round with safety measures for agricultural communities that are at best no more efficient than we are?

I think that we need, in these negotiations, to be quite clear about the safeguards. Here, I must differ from my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), because it seems to me that in his Amendment he is agreeing to the Government Motion and saying, "Go ahead and negotiate. See what terms you get, but we do not trust you Ministers to bring back terms that we can approve." Surely, if we believe that the approach is worth making, we must trust Ministers to go out and get the best possible terms not only for us in this island, but for the Commonwealth and our E.F.T.A. partners. Then the House of Commons will decide. That is the only way to proceed in this business, and I shall have no doubt about supporting the Government tonight.

In this matter of agriculture, which so vitally affects a large section of the community here as well as in the Commonwealth, European countries employ a variety of protective devices to suit their own kinds of agriculture and their own standards. The declared purpose of the European Economic Community policy, in broad terms, is very much the same as ours. It is true that our own farming organisations, the English National Farmers' Union and the National Union of Agricultural Workers, have both, at the first look, said, "We do not want to have anything to do with the Common Market".

I am glad to see that since Ministerial statements have been made in this House the N.F.U. has said: British farmers and growers will be ready to examine all suggestions for a reconciliation of policies. I am sure that that is the only sensible and constructive line to take. Eventually, it may be that the tariffs which the E.E.C. countries have and the production grants and possibly the price supports which we largely use can be combined into an effective policy. Meanwhile, as the Prime Minister said, we shall continue with the price supports and deficiency payments which are written into the Agriculture Acts of 1947 and 1957.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I agree that the members of the Six use both tariffs and other means of control, but I hope that my hon. Friend will also remember that they use minimum price machinery, which is particularly important for horticulture.

Sir A. Hurd

I was coming to that point.

Today, we have in our country an agriculture which is a model for the rest of Europe. We had been able to earn a comparatively high standard of living, and that goes for our farm workers, too. Our output per man is almost the highest in Europe, and our net output of food as compared with pre-war days has increased by as much as 72 per cent.—a great record.

We have something to offer Europe in this, and I think that we might combine our policies with theirs to our mutual advantage. If we have the right conditions for our agriculture and fair competition, particularly having regard to labour earnings and costs of production, I shall not fear for the future of British agriculture.

We shall need an annual review of the net income and prospects of our industry to make sure that we are not dragged down in the process of making a common agricultural policy for Europe. That would be no more good for Europe than it would be for us. It will be, I think, at least eight or ten years before some of the European countries can attain our standard of living for their rural communities. We must not go beyond the transitional period until it is clear that farming costs, including labour earnings, throughout Europe allow fair competition in a really common market.

I regard as most important that we should, during the transition period, devise and use effective machinery for the control of imports which threaten price stability in the United Kingdom. This is necessary in the interests of our farmers and farm workers and even more in the interests of the Exchequer here and of our Commonwealth partners. Our Commonwealth partners, particularly New Zealand and Australia, depend on steady prices here for their main products. We owe that to them while we are feeling our way into a Common Market in Europe.

If we are to carry the Commonwealth with us, we must not agree to take even the first steps towards the Common Market unless we reserve powers to maintain a steady market here, with, of course, full preferences to Commonwealth countries over any other overseas supplier. We want that written into any ultimate deal which we can do with the E.E.C. countries. We must make quite plain that this is how the operation should work as we see it, and, if it is not going to work in that way, we can go no further with it.

We must be quite determined to maintain a fully productive agriculture here. I do not say that merely as one representing an agricultural constituency. I suppose that all our constituencies change in time, and mine is not wholly agricultural today. I believe that to be a vital consideration for our country. In negotiations we must bear in mind particularly the crops which ensure that the land is kept in good trim and good heart. This means that we must look to the grain crops, potatoes, sugar beet and the main field vegetable crops, and also to the products of grass, that is, lamb, beef and milk.

That is a wide range, but in all of it we are very nearly competitive with European production on a fair pegging in terms of labour costs, fuel oil and the other essential costs going into modern food production. If we could get on to a common level of price and costs of production with a common level of labour standards, which means a considerable rise for most agricultural communities in Europe, I should not fear their competition.

Horticulture in the Common Market will cause some headaches, not only for us who are farthest away from the sun of the Mediterranean. We have an efficient though small horticulture industry, but I think that we shall, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) suggested, have to use the kind of import control measures which the Northern European countries use today to protect their horticulture industries. I see no reason why we should not be able to compete with Holland in the growing of tomatoes if we have the same labour costs and the same fuel costs. If we cannot compete, that will be too bad for our glasshouse industry here; but I believe that we can, once we get on to a common level of costs, and, as I say, a comparable standard of living which, for most of Europe, will be a good deal higher than it is today.

We in the United Kingdom must not relax our health standards either for animals or for crops. We have established high standards here. All our herds are attested now; we do not have foot-and-mouth disease; we are dealing with swine fever, and so on. We must not jeopardise what we have attained, and what Europe needs to attain, by allowing free entry to farm products from countries which have not as clean a bill of health as we have.

I regard those as essential safeguards for British agriculture as we enter talks with the European Economic Community. If we can reach agreement on satisfactory terms to protect our agriculture and, with it, the temperate products of Commonwealth agriculture, well and good. We shall see how we get on before we commit ourselves to a real Common Market with a free exchange of produce all round.

I add this final word. If the countries of Europe want us to join them, it will be for what we are and for what we can contribute not only in expanding trade, but in leadership and unity of political purpose in Europe. We shall be of little value to them or to the rest of the free world if we lose our identity in Europe. The Prime Minister said this in better words yesterday, and I believe it to be true. I feel sure that Ministers will not return to the House with proposals that justify the fears expressed this evening by the right hon. Member for Easington. They have enough political gumption to know that the House and the country would not stand for it. We should he offering nothing of value to Europe or to the free world if we accepted that line of approach.

My hope is that, out of the decision we are to take tonight, there will come opportunities for Britain to build a bridge between the E.E.C. and the Common wealth. If our conditions for entering the E.E.C. are rejected, the world will not come to an end for us. We shall find our way with the Commonwealth, hut, somehow, I feel that both Europe and the Commonwealth will want us.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Holt (Bolton, West)

Time is marching on and there are still several hon. Members who wish to speak. I shall try to make my remarks as brief as possible and not to duplicate arguments that we have already considered. The hon. Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) will, I hope, excuse me if I do not follow him in agricultural matters. They were discussed at great length in our debate on agriculture about a month ago. Although the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is not here, I believe that some of those who think like him are, and I wish to take up one or two points which the right hon. Gentleman made.

Given the views he holds, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to vote against the Government tonight. In my judgment, everyone who takes his view should do the same. Those who think in that way really have no part to play in the Europe of the Six, which may become the Seven or the Eight. They will be going into the Community with ideas completely opposed to those which inspire the Six. The right hon. Gentleman asked for certain assurances from the Lord Privy Seal. I do not know whether Ministers will choose to reply directly on those points, but I am quite sure that they could not possibly give such assurances and, at the same time, bring negotiations with the Six to a successful conclusion, except in regard to the one point which the right hon. Gentleman made about not destroying the political concepts of the Commonwealth.

It would be utterly dishonest to give an assurance that never will we enter a federal Europe and that there will be no change in agricultural policy and to say that we are entering into negotiations with the Six in good faith. One could not help feeling that throughout the right hon. Gentleman's speech and that of many other hon. Members what they were complaining of was that they objected to exchanging the sovereignty which they consider we have lost to the President of the United States for a loss of sovereignty to Europe. There is a sort of anti-Americanism running through their speeches. They have a kind of mystic attachment to the Imperial Preference, this great red herring which has so distorted much Commonwealth trade over the last generation.

One was also left with the feeling that it was quite hopeless to argue with the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members and to put the European case. The right hon. Gentleman was obviously completely out of tune with the feelings, fears and aspirations of Europeans, in marked contrast to the excellent speech of the Lord Privy Seal. It is a long time, if ever in the ten years that I have been a Member of this House, since I have been in such unanimity with a speech made from the Dispatch Box opposite. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has imparted the confidence which he gave me in his ability to handle negotiations with the Six to the members of the Six. His speech augurs well for those negotiations.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister used language which made sense, and he gave some substantial reasons for our going into the E.E.C. Why in the world did not a British Prime Minister make that speech many years ago? It was clear from his speech that the right hon. Gentleman did not consider that any of the circumstances relating to our going into the Common Market had altered in the last few years but that there had merely been, as it were, developments—for instance, the very existence of the E.E.C. and its extraordinary success.

I agreed with the beginning of the speech of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Maurice Macmillan) and with a great deal of what he said later. In the middle of it, however, he seemed to play down the work, enthusiasm and interest of the Assembly of the Six and of the Council of Ministers. It is only fair to say that the setting up of the Six was considered a near miracle by many people. The distance which they have already travelled compared with any similar political adventure in the last 100 years must also be considered a miracle on any count. It was a tremendous act of faith on the part of a number of nations who were put into difficult straits during and after the war.

It is terrible that one should hold the view obviously held by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) who described the Six as a group of nations who had lost faith in themselves, who were down and out and, therefore, wished to get together in one community. As I say, what they did was a wonderful act of faith, and it is something greatly to their credit and not something to be scornfully derided.

There was one point in the Prime Minister's speech to which I wish to draw attention. It concerns the question of federalism or confederalism, or neither. The Prime Minister said The alternative concept, the only practical concept, would be a confederation…"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1491.] The Leader of the Opposition also appeared to attack the idea that we could ever have anything to do with federalism. He was extremely vehement about it, but, if one reads in HANSARD what he said, he indicated that that question must be left open. With that I entirely agree. Whatever form politically Europe finally develops into, this is something about which we must keep an open mind. We do not know how quickly it may develop, but we should be quite wrong to enter these negotiations with prejudged ideas that on no account will we ever have anything to do with federalism.

I am not arguing for federalism. All I am saying is that if we go in the spirit which, for instance, M. Spaak indicated the other day when he said, "Is Britain sincere?", we must be ready to help to develop the Six which may become larger in ways which the circumstances of the time require. On no account should we prejudge this issue.

I now wish to say a word or two about the Commonwealth. I wish to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether the Government are still negotiating on the basis of what he said at the Western European Union Assembly in February, which was repeated in the House on 17th May, when he said: …we could then consider a system based on a common or harmonised tariff on raw materials and manufactured goods imported from countries other than the Six, the Seven or the Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th May, 1961; Vol. 640, c. 1392.] That clearly meant that the common tariff was to be outside Commonwealth trade coming into the United Kingdom. Is that still the position? This would be a great alteration in the Treaty of Rome. As I understand it, to comply with the Treaty of Rome, unless the Commonwealth countries were to become members, either under Article 237 or Article 238—and most of them I assume are not—they would be outside the common tariff. If the E.F.T.A. countries joined they certainly would be within it. I have been assuming recently that the Commonwealth, with the exception possibly of some of the African territories, would be outside the common tariff.

The way in which the Government and, presumably, the Six hope to get over the anti-preference that this would result in is by re-negotiating some of the levels of the common tariff, which would particularly affect Commonwealth trade. For instance, it has been suggested that they would be willing that the duty on tea should be nothing and that the duty on perhaps Canadian aluminium and newsprint should be nothing. If the Lord Privy Seal can clear up this point, or can invite his right hon. Friend the Minister of Commonwealth Relations to do so when he winds up, I shall be greatly obliged. I think it is an important point, and one which would clear up a great deal of misunderstanding about the possible scope which the Government will have in the negotiations.

The other point that I should like to make about the Commonwealth is that it seems to me that some of those who have been describing the dangers to the Commonwealth at one moment say what a wonderful thing the Commonwealth is, what a great power and influence it is in the world, a great power for peace, linking people of different colours and different interests in Africa, Asia and the like. They say it is one of the things that we must keep in being, because it is one of the ways in which we can get between the two blocs of East and West, and so on. Then, at the same time, it is suggested that this wonderful Commonwealth is suddenly to be undermined because we decide to remove a 10 per cent. preference on the trade of some member, or even put a tariff on Australian wheat.

If that is really what is suggested, those who say that cannot have it both ways. The Commonwealth must be in a rickety state. If that is so why do we go on with it if, simply in the process of some mammoth negotiations, we could destroy it by some tariffs being put up against some Commonwealth goods. The point about negotiations regarding the Commonwealth is that we want to see that, by and large, When these negotiations are finished, Commonwealth trade with Europe, including the United Kingdom, has the possibility of being at least as great as it was before, and, if possible, greater. Do not let us start examining the matter in detail and say, "We have given away this and that; how terrible; the whole Commonwealth will fall to pieces." I do not think it makes sense.

There is much else that I should like to say, but I will close by referring to the Liberal Party's addendum to the Government Motion on the Order Paper. I do not propose to elaborate it, because we have said quite a lot about it in the past, but I think that this is a terribly important matter for this country and for hon. Members of this House. Let there be no doubt about it. If we sign the Rome Treaty in the way in which I think eventually we shall have to do, there will be a serious diminution of sovereignty of this House and of the powers of Members of Parliament here directly to influence affairs, which will impinge an their own constituents. I do not see how any Member of Parliament can go back to his constituency and say on this Thursday night, "I am sorry, I have no views; I did not know whether I should go into this Lobby or that."

It may be that on other matters it is perfectly reasonable for an official Opposition to take up the position that it is not responsible for Government action, but I feel that this matter is so important for Europe and for our position in Europe that if we are to go in, those who vote for going in should know pretty clearly in their own minds that they are in sympathy with what the Six are trying to do. Those who oppose it do not like that kind of idea at all and will have nothing to do with it. They are perfectly within their rights, and I am sure that they would be quite wrong if they did not carry their views into the Division Lobby.

It is well-known that the Liberal Party is in favour of going into the Common Market. We do not think that there will be half the difficulties in making the necessary arrangements which many people think there will be, but it would be a tragedy if these negotiations are drawn out for a long time. I think that most of the problems can be settled quite quickly. We have been out for too long. I hope that the negotiations are carried through speedily, and that soon we shall be members of the European Economic Community.

8.26 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston (Westbury)

I believe that the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) belongs to a party which says, "Sign the Treaty of Rome and talk afterwards." Bearing that in mind, when at the opening of his remarks he said after the speech of my night hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal that he thought he would conduct the negotiations in the way in which the hon. Gentleman wanted them conducted, that filled me with more misgivings than I had already.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

May I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Leader of the Liberal Party six weeks ago asked the Prime Minister to apply for membership under Article 237—not to sign the Treaty of Rome, but to apply for membership. He was told that it was quite impossible. That is our approach.

Sir R. Grimston

That intervention does not seem to be particularly relevant to what I am saying.

This debate has been one of the most sustained and momentous which I remember in this House for many a long year. One thing we should realise is that in our vote tonight we are not being asked to take a decision on going into the Common Market or about the conditions that we should accept. What we are being asked to do is to set the whole process in motion.

I have been long enough in politics and in this House to know that once we start off the momentum is such that we are very likely to find ourselves being taken far further than we originally intended unless we lay down fairly stringent conditions at the beginning. It is a well-known technique—the softening-up process. The House is told, "You have not got to agree to it now; you just say 'Let us have talks'." That goes on for a bit, and a little later on the Government say, "This has turned out rather differently to what we thought; it is a very serious matter." A three-line Whip is put on and they go still further.

Quite frankly, it is my fear that something of this sort is happening now on this question which makes me take up my present attitude.

What troubles me is that these talks may gather such momentum that they may take us much further than many of us would wish to go, and that if that happens we shall be faced, possibly, with bringing down the Government, which is a position we need not have got into if only we had made a stand now.

During this debate, we have heard a good deal about sovereignty. I shall be brief because other hon. Members wish to speak, but I must remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said about this in 1959. He said: …we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal, political federation in Europe, including ourselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1382.] The hon. Member for Bolton, West has given his opinion, which is completely on all fours with that. Neither have I heard during this debate anything to gainsay that in ten, twenty or thirty years time that may be what happens. If it happens, it is quite inconsistent with our being the focal point of the Commonwealth.

The process of the change from Empire to Commonwealth is still going on. There are some who think that we are on the threshold of the disintegration of the Commonwealth. We have seen what has happened with South Africa and there have been remarks by certain Commonwealth Prime Ministers behind the Iron Curtain. I do not take that view. I cherish the hope that this unique association of nations, embracing every race in the world and the greatest diversification of geography that one can imagine, will increase and progress and become a greater influence in the world.

We should not, however, forget that its cohesion is based to some extent on mystique, on sentiment, on the memory of two great wars, when the Commonwealth rallied to us, and on such examples as the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) quoted this afternoon when New Zealand, at any expense, came to our help shortly after the war. It is a terrible thing if all that is to be forgotten and we are simply to pursue a link with Europe because we think that it will be better for our economy.

Apart from the sentiment and the mystique, the Commonwealth is, and can be, held together also by economics. If it is to be damaged by economic and political arrangements with Europe, it is a course that I cannot follow, particularly since, it seems to me, no great effort has yet been made to get to grips with reorganising the Ottawa Agreements or attempting to revise G.A.T.T. We are entering these negotiations having made no attempt to revise G.A.T.T. or to revise the Ottawa Agreements. We may well damage the links with the Commonwealth to an extent which may be quite disastrous.

The addendum to the Motion which some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have put on the Order Paper asks that the proposals which are brought back to the House following the negotiations shall contain no proposals involving a material derogation of British sovereignty or an implied undertaking to proceed to political union or federation or which are in any other way inconsistent with the continuance by the United Kingdom of its traditional rôle in the Commonwealth". Let us turn that the other way round. Suppose that the Government brought back proposals for a material derogation of British sovereignty with implied undertakings to proceed to political union—which, judging from what has been said in this debate, must be the case if we sign the Treaty of Rome—or which otherwise are inconsistent with the continuance of the United Kingdom in its traditional rôle. Would the House accept that? I hope not. The position that we who have tabled the addendum take is that this is the time when that should be made clear, both to the country and, in fairness, to the Six.

If the Government can tell us that were it not for the procedural difficulty they would accept our addendum—and from what has been said in the speeches, I think that they could—I should feel happier. But I must say this quite definitely, as far as I am concerned, unless I can get that assurance I cannot support the Government in the Lobby tonight. I come back to where I started, because I believe that, although, as I say, we are only voting so to speak tonight to start negotiations, we are setting the whole process in train, and I believe that this is the moment when we should say both to the world and to ourselves, so far will we go and no farther. If we do not do that, I fear great misunderstandings in the future and great damage to the Commonwealth.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

The speech of the hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), to whom we have just listened, gives further evidence of what, I believe, must be the case, that the Government must be extremely dissatisfied by the course of this debate. I think that the majority of the speeches on both sides of the House have been against them.

The most effective speech for the Government was that of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell), but even he is not going to vote for the Government. Hon. Members on the other side have delivered speeches such as have not been heard from the Conservative back benches in debates in this House since the overthrow of the Chamberlain Government, in 1940. Therefore, I would have thought that anyone listening to the debate—of course, I am prejudiced in this sense—would have thought that the weight of the argument has been against the Government—particularly when we heard, for example, the powerful speech delivered against the Government's Motion by the President of the Board of Trade last night.

Certainly, the speech which the President of the Board of Trade delivered was a very different one from the speech of the Lord Privy Seal, however mollifying and persuasive he may have been today. The face which the Government present to Europe is that of the Lord Privy Seal the face which they present to the Commonwealth is in some respects that of the President of the Board of Trade. But I can understand why they did not send him abroad as one of their missionaries. If they had sent him as one of the missionaries most of the members of the Commonwealth would have said, "If this is your case, that you feel we can perfectly well stay out of the Common Market, what are you here for?"

Therefore, there is a conflict in the way the Government have presented the case to the House. I think that the Government have been wise in one respect. The Lord Privy Seal himself said at the beginning of his speech, and other spokesmen for the Government, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) yesterday, and others who have spoken, have, many of them, not put the most weight on the merits of our entry or non-entry into the Common Market, but have fallen back on the protection of saying, "We are not asking you to vote for that now. All we are asking you to vote for is whether we should enter into negotiations at all." In some respects, the Opposition have accepted the same point of view.

In my opinion, that is a profound misconception about the meaning of this debate. The real decision as to whether this country is to go into the Common Market will be made tonight. It will not be made some months hence. I say that for this reason. I will try to explain why I think that.

Suppose the Government go into these negotiations and find that they can secure no concessions whatever. I imagine that even this Government will come back to us and say, "We cannot go ahead with the proposition." So the House of Commons will not come into the matter at all. It will be turned down.

But suppose that what happens is what the Lord Privy Seal hopes, as he described perfectly honestly to the House today, that the Government, after a series of bargains and compromises, get some arrangement and reach the end of the negotiations and come back to the House and propose that we should ratify it, as the Government admit in their Motion, or say that we must accept it even before ratification, it will be difficult for the House to reject the arrangement.

It will be very difficult, indeed. In effect the House of Commons will be confronted with a fait accompli. All the arguments used by the most passionate supporters of our going into the Common Market, who say that we shall suffer great difficulties and dangers—that it will be a tragedy, as the 'Prime Minister said, if it does not go through—will be multiplied tenfold when we are presented with the final result of the negotiations.

Therefore, I say that whatever views hon. Members may take on one side or the other about this matter it is misleading to suggest that the vote tonight is merely on the question whether we should start distant discussions, or even early discussions. The decision that will be taken by the House tonight is really on whether we want and intend to enter the Common Market or not.

The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made a powerful speech in putting his case—a different case from mine—against entering the Common Market. After such a speech, and holding the views that he does, he was quite right in saying that he could not possibly vote for the Government on that basis. People have talked about being pushed or driven into Europe by President Kennedy or somebody else. What would be much more undignified would be if we were "whipped" into Europe.

I should like to consider some of the statements made in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), in his speech today. The Leader of the Opposition produced a whole series of demands for protections and reservations and qualifications that should be made in the Treaty of Rome and the negotiations that are to take place. Very powerful demands they were, too.

The Leader of the Opposition not only made demands about E.F.T.A., about the Commonweatlh and about British agriculture, but he made demands about the movement of capital, he made demands about the investment fund; he made demands about the social fund; he made demands about the voting processes; he made demands about indirect taxation; he made demands about all this series of matters; and he reiterated the demands made in other quarters to have absolute protection for E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) insisted upon this point and demanded that, equally, we should have protection for the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A.

Mr. G. Brown

I have not spoken in the debate.

Mr. M. Foot

I mean at Question Time. My right hon. Friend has asked that the Government should provide similar protections.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton today added some further demands and reservations which should be required. People may argue whether it is right or not, but he considered that there would have to be substantial changes in the Treaty of Rome if we were to be able to carry through our own Socialist programme if we had a Labour Goverment here. Moreover, he went ahead and listed some of the enormous breaches there would have to be in the common external tariff of the Common Market if it was to be acceptable to the Labour Party.

I am in favour of all these demands, but if we add them all up, these protections, these qualifications and modifications of the Common Market system, there is little left at all of the Common Market conception. My right hon. Friends seem to be saying that we would be in favour of entering the Common Market as long as the adjustments are so great that there is no real Common Market left at all.

One of my hon. Friends said that he wanted to see our country playing in the European first league. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton and the Leader of the Opposition seem to be saying, "Yes, we wish to enter the West European football league as long as we can have full consultations with the M.C.C. so that the rules of the game are so altered that it resembles cricket." My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton says afterwards, incontrovertibly, that we would be in a better position to face the game if we were doing better in the Tests, and if the once so confident captain had not been bowled round his legs for a duck so recently.

If the situation is that the Opposition are prepared to agree to enter into the Common Market only if the whole of this long list of amendments and qualifications are accepted, I cannot understand how they take the further step and say, "Yes, although we know of these perils and dangers and all that they may do to our capital account, we are prepared to trust the present Administration to conduct these highly perilous negotiations."

Do they say that? They wish them well. That is the meaning of their apparent decision not to vote against the main proposal. It is all the more remarkable, moreover, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton dropped the hint that he thought that the Prime Minister had made up his mind about it already—to go in, anyhow. How can he have confidence in voting for a Government that he distrusts to such a degree to carry out negotiations which he believes will be so dangerous?

All the arguments have been gone over. I wish only to insist that I do not believe the Lord Privy Seal answered at all the arguments about sovereignty and about the political implications that have been debated. I do not agree with what has been said by hon. Members who oppose the Government on this matter about sovereignty. I am in favour of international organisations. But we are perfectly entitled to ask whether the international organisation is a proper one. The Holy Alliance was an international organisation, but it was not a good one. Hitler's New Order was an international organisation of some form or another.

I can understand some of my hon. Friends being very enthusiastic about ideas of federalism. It is a perfectly reputable thing. But it should be remembered that even in the case of the most worthy forms of federation or confederation there has always been an argument between the powers of the federation and the protection of democratic rights of the individual bodies joining it. This was the classical argument between Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson in the United States of America. I believe, as was admitted candidly by the spokesman of the Liberal Party—no one will accuse him of not having read the Treaty of Rome—that it will mean a great diminution of the power and authority of this Parliament and the House of Commons. Surely we should only agree to that if the case for doing it is overwhelming, and, certainly, it has not been presented as overwhelming in this debate. That is the reason why some of us, not all of us, put down a much stronger Amendment criticising the Government's action than any of the others.

The Prime Minister said that there is an east wind blowing and that we must get under the same cloak. Of course, this is the paramount reason why the move was started in Europe towards the Common Market, and I believe that that is the paramount reason why the Prime Minister is so eager to get into it now. We have great fears. Some of the fears were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) and others. Even before we have got into the Common Market, the attempt by the Government to do so has injured our independent political influence.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper, speaking in the foreign affairs debate, were pleading with the Government the other night, quite rightly, I think, to resuscitate the proposals for disengagement in Europe, for areas where there should be arms control and that we should try to get areas of controlled disarmament, and the rest, under the Rapacki Plan. What a hope to ask the Government to press for this kind of plan when the Government are trying to get Dr. Adenauer to reduce the terms to get into the Common Market. How does the Labour Party think that the British Government can speak out on questions like Bizerta when we have to have General de Gaulle's good will as well?

So, even before we get into the Common Market, our policies are injured. Indeed, the greatest issue of our time is not whether we are to have trading relations, important though they are, and not even the survival of the Commonwealth, vital as that is. The most important issue of our time is not whether we can seek reconciliation between Germany and France, though we welcome it when it happens. It is whether there may be reconciliation between East and West. Upon that the lives of all of us depend.

I remember that in 1959—I think that he was quite right to do so—the Prime Minister went to Moscow about a crisis over Berlin. The reason was, he said, that the Berlin crisis was too dangerous to be allowed to drift. Does he think that the Berlin situation is more dangerous or less dangerous today? But today, because of the distraction and obsession of the Government with the Common Market, they are failing to give any leadership on even greater issues which will decide whether there will be a world at all.

I say, therefore, in conclusion, that although the primary responsibility in this matter rests with the Government, it also rests on us all. I believe profoundly that our votes tonight will decide whether this project goes ahead. I do not think that it sufficient for a great party like the Labour Party to say on such an issue, "Although we shall state our views clearly and state our reservations, we shall not vote one way or the other on whether we shall have trust and belief in this Government's capacity to carry out such a dangerous enterprise." I do not believe that to be sufficient.

Indeed, I think that the posture of the Leader of the Opposition in the debate yesterday was a kind of variation on the famous words once used by Martin Luther, and which are now being quoted in a great play in London. What my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition seemed to be saying was, "Here I stand, but if need be I can do otherwise. I must abstain, so help me God, Amen." That, I believe, is not sufficient for a great party. It is not a sufficient comment try a great party on a great issue, particularly when I believe that this is the last chance which hon. Members of this House will have to discharge their full responsibility in this historic matter.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

I shall be referring to most of the things that were said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) during my speech. Some of them—even for my hon. Friend—were a distortion of the position which we have adopted. I was struck by the number of times he said that he agreed with what has been said in this debate. The only conclusion I can come to is that he agrees with everything said but that he disagrees with the logical corollary of what we have said. When he described us as playing soccer and getting mixed up with the M.C.C.. I felt that the real trouble was that he was playing rugby and could not therefore understand the rules of either game.

Everyone who has listened to the debate will agree that this is one of the few occasions when a debate which everyone thought in advance would be a good one, has in fact turned out to be just exactly that. We have been debating a vital subject, but we have not, of course, been debating it on the vital day. That vital day has yet to come, and it will come when a number of other things have happened in between. That does not make the subject any less vital, but let us get clear what is the time-scale.

It is inevitable that the difficulties and problems should be emphasised from this side of the House and the necessary warnings sounded all through the debate. Because it has fallen to the lot of hon. Members on this side of the House—and properly so, I do not complain about it—to sound these alarms, it may have appeared to some people as if we were overstating them and almost stating them in isolation. That is a difficulty which we cannot avoid, because clearly such warnings must come from hon. Members on these benches when hon. Members opposite adopt the position which they have adopted.

There are many people, both inside this House and outside, who feel deeply on all these problems, and are uncertain about the line they should take. In what I have to say I must inevitably repeat some of the warnings and, because of that, I should like to start by repeating what has already been said by my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson). We wish the negotiations well. We are not hoping for failure. Indeed, if a treaty could be brought back which met our reasonable demands, we would welcome participation in a Europe which would then be outward-looking and in a position to be a bridge with the East and to enable aid from the older industrial countries to the new emergent countries to be given on a much larger scale than it is at the moment.

But wishing the negotiators well is quite a different thing from having any confidence in them to do the job well. There has been such a vast change of heart, not on interpretation, not on conclusion—that can happen to any of us over a few years in this House as I well know—but such a vast change in their declaration of what the basic facts are, that one cannot at this stage feel very much confidence in them being any more accurate today than they were a few years ago. It does not even seem that they are really agreed as to what the E.E.C. is. The Prime Minister, speaking yesterday, said: I must remind the House that the E.E.C. is an economic community, not a defence alliance or a foreign policy community. It is an economic community."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd Aug., 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1490]. That is not what Ministers were saying a short time ago. For example, only a short while ago—this has been quoted, but I refer to it again—the President of the Board of Trade was saying: Finally, we must recognise that the aim of the main proponents of the Community is political integration… But he went on to say: The whole idea of the Six, the Coal and Steel Community and Euratom is a movement towards political integration."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th February, 1959; Vol. 599, c. 1382.] That is a fine aspiration, but we must recognise that for us to sign the Treaty of Rome would be to accept as the ultimate goal political federation in Europe, including ourselves. This is a fundamental change, but the right hon. Gentleman still sits there. He still speaks in this debate. He spoke last night. He wound up with words which implied that he still thought this, yet the Prime Minister says the whole thing is completely and unutterably different from what he says it is. We cannot have a lot of confidence in negotiators who are not agreed at the beginning about what they are negotiating on.

We are entitled to ask the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations tonight to set out clearly and to tell us clearly what he, speaking for the Government solemnly and responsibly at the end of this debate, believes the political commitments and the political intentions of the Community really are. I shall speak for myself. I have long believed that the political commitments are far less than they are often assumed to be. I think the federalists, some of whom have been quoted today, in their speeches overstate what the position in the Treaty is, but the fact that I think that does not really deal with the position. We ought to know on what basis the Government are negotiating.

I wish to say one thing which I think has not been said. The House ought to bear in mind that if we, Denmark and Norway join, there will be a very substantial change in the composition of the European Economic Community. I say to many of my hon. Friends that it is interesting that so many of our Socialist friends—indeed, all our Socialist friends in Europe—clearly want us in. I think that one of the reasons why they want us in is the change there would be in the composition of the Community when we all three went in. Another reason is that it would be a very much better guarantee of the kind of economic and social policy followed by the Community than the policy followed at the moment.

Having said that, it is nonsense, I believe, to pretend as the Prime Minister did yesterday, that there are no political elements in the Community. He said that it is not a foreign policy alliance. Look at the communiqué which was published from Bad Godesburg a week or two ago, when the Six had a meeting. Think of the regular Foreign Ministers' meetings, the proposals which they are making for Heads of State regularly to meet, and the proposals which they discussed with the Italians for majority voting on foreign policy. Clearly the Prime Minister went very much too far in saying that there are no political commitments.

When I was in Europe with the Leader of the Opposition this week-end I discussed this subject with people of some authority in the Community. One of the most powerful men in the movement—and I am fairly sure that I am quoting him exactly—said, "If you are coming in believing that this is no more than an economic arrangement, we would much rather that you did not come in." While the case for federalism may be over-stated, we say to the Prime Minister, "You are under-playing it enormously in pretending, as you did the other day, that it has no political overtones. If you go in under this impression you will not get the negotiations right from the beginning, and we ought to warn you at the start."

Equally, we must get clear the economic consequences. They may be heavier, they may be less, than has been suggested, but we must get them clear, and they do not come out clearly from what the Ministers have told us. Let us see what the Prime Minister said yesterday: It is, of course, argued, and with deep sincerity, that by associating more closely with Europe in this new economic grouping we should injure the strength of the Commonwealth. If I thought this, I would not, of course, recommend this Motion to the House. A little later he said: I ask myself the question: how can we best serve the Commonwealth? By standing aside from the movement for European unity, or by playing our full part in its development? A little later he said: It would, therefore, be wrong in my view to regard our Commonwealth and our European interests as conflicting. Basically, they must be complementary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1484–85.] What he then said does not agree with what he said when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he spoke in the House on 26th November, 1956. If he likes I can read all of it, but it does not seem necessary. He set out his conclusions about what going into the Community would mean for Commonwealth trade, and what it meant to the Commonwealth if we entered into a customs union in respect of tariffs, and he ended by saying: So this objection, even if there were no other, would be quite fatal to any proposal that the United Kingdom should seek to take part in a European common market by joining a Customs union."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th November, 1956; Vol. 561, col. 37.] That is the exact opposite of what he said in the House yesterday. Of course, anyone can change his mind—many of us do—but a change of mind on what the facts are and what is the basis must surely cast a great deal of doubt upon one's capacity to carry out the negotiation.

I think that I carry the House with me in asking the Minister tonight to make plain which of the two judgments is to be regarded as the Prime Minister's judgment, because they cannot both stand. We have to know what they deduce as a consequence of going into a customs union if we are to be able to judge. I have a feeling—that is why I emphasise it—that Ministers are working on the basis that there are some things which it is convenient sometimes to forget. This is a very bad basis for an issue as violent as this.

Unless we get this clear, it follows that the Europeans—I should not use that word, for we are all Europeans—the Six must know why we are coming in, and if they are faced with a kind of dual presentation they may be apt to think that we are going in for a quite different reason, and the leader in The Times this morning gives them another very convenient reason.

That is why those of us who see a case for negotiating to find out what the costs and consequences would be, perhaps feeling more keenly about it than others, cannot proffer our support to the Government. That is why we cannot accept the Motion. One cannot support—that is much too active a state—men who are not themselves clear about what they are negotiating about.

I want now to refer to our economic weakness. Let us be quite clear that this economic weakness is very much a matter for which the Government are responsible, and it is this economic weakness which some people believe to be the real reason for the change of mind and heart by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and it is something for which they are responsible. If this argument is deployed from this side of the House, there will be a tendency among hon. Members opposite to suggest that we are running the country down by talking of all sort of things which it would be better for others not to know, but there is no reason for not telling the Six what they already know.

During my visit to Europe to discuss these matters this weekend, I was left in no doubt when I asked whether we were regarded as coming in as a liability or as an asset. I was told by one of the most powerful men that we were not only a liability now, but that we would be for a couple of years and that one of the things which they would kindly do for us would be to help us for a couple of years while we got on our feet. I reacted as I have on previous occasions and I did the job for the Government, although why the devil I should is another matter.

But the point is that they understand it and regard us as a liability and it is vital that Ministers should not indulge in encouraging them to believe that that is the real reason. If there was any doubt, the Chancellor of the Exchequer removed it in his "Little Budget" speech, and the leader in The Times this morning, which I commend to hon. Members opposite and specially to Ministers, spells it out.

The Times leader examines the published losses of reserves in the first six months of the year and then refers—the first time I have seen it in print—to the extent to which we were supported by the central banks' agreement to look after sterling under what is called the Basle arrangement, pointing out that by the end of June our reserves were down to the tune of probably £450 million. It goes on cuttingly to say that it was only when the European central banks had reached the limit of the aid which they were prepared to extend to us that we set about doing certain other things. The problem in negotiating now is that there are powerful people in Europe who believe that it was only when the European central banks came to an end of the aid which they were prepared to give us that the Government developed a change of heart.

This is a tremendous weakness in the Government's negotiating position. I am not pleased about it. [Laughter.] Not at all. I understand this country and I am proud of it. I am not pleased with it, but the Government had better understand that this is the cross under which they have to negotiate and this is the rod which they have made for their own backs.

If we want to make a success of these negotiations—[HON. MEMBERS: "Do you?"]—I said that very firmly at the beginning—we have to make the Six see us as an asset-bearing partner and not as somebody just putting in his overdraft, and Ministers have the responsibility for that, and not us.

I should like to make something else clear. The economic case against going in has been very heavily deployed in the last two days, as it always is outside. One cannot ignore it; it does exist. But at the end of the debate I am left with the feeling that the economic consequences of staying out are much less firmly and vigorously deployed—and there are great economic consequences from staying out.

One of the things that any trade union official has to bear in mind is that British industry is tending to go into the Common Market, whatever we do about it here, and if we were to allow that to happen it would be the worst of all situations—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)


Mr. Brown

Because if British manufacturers, who ought to be putting new British investment into modernising and developing their factories here, do it over there, inside the tariff wall, it will be very difficult for me to maintain jobs for my men over here. It is as simple as that.

There are certain economic questions that have not been answered by any of the three Ministers who have yet spoken, and I honestly think that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations should give the answer. Does he think that under the Treaty as it stands we shall have—or will he get it renegotiated to provide that we have—control over movements of capital from this country at any time of difficulty?

Will we have, under the Treaty as it stands, or does he think that he can arrange that we shall have, the ability to maintain the necessary internal machinery for planning our economy at times of difficulty? Can he tell us what the transitional period will be, and will he be quite firm about the voting position of ourselves and the Scandinavian countries, if they come in, to make sure that we can always avoid a two-thirds majority against us? These are vital questions for Britain, I would have thought, whether under a Labour or a Conservative Government, and it is one of the worrying features of this debate that no Minister has known the answer to these questions.

The third leg of our Amendment refers to our commitments to E.F.T.A. and to the position of the Commonwealth. As far as I can gather, we have solemn obligations to our E.F.T.A. partners. This seems to be common ground, but what is not common ground is the curious reluctance there has been on the part of Ministers to tell us the terms of the obligation that we have accepted towards our E.F.T.A. partners.

Evidence of this exists and there is no reason why people should not know it, yet Ministers are curiously reluctant to say so. The President of the Board of Trade last night made a reference to this, and he was then put under some pressure by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton and myself in an effort to get this clear. At the end, he had not got it clear. This is the arrogance of a Minister who thinks he knows, does not tell anybody, and then simply tosses away inquiries by saying that it is clear to everyone else.

Let us assume that I am as stupid as all that, and that he is as clever as all that. Would the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations—who may be in one or the other class, I do pot know which—make plain to me now what obligations we have entered into? I think that I am right in believing that we have given to each E.F.T.A. country, severally, an undertaking that we will not join the Common Market until each of them agrees that its legitimate interests have been protected. If we have given that undertaking, which is what I understand, we have, of course, given a veto to each member of E.F.T.A.

If we have not given that undertaking, my understanding is wrong and should be cleared up, but I want to be clear as to what the undertaking is, and I think that the House should be clear, because there then arises this other question: if we have given that undertaking to each member of the Seven, do we intend to give the same undertaking to each member of the Commonwealth? If we do, how much of a veto are we now raising? We are now, if we do the same, giving a veto to a wide range of countries inside the Commonwealth. But if we are not going to give it to the Commonwealth —and perhaps this is why the Government burke at a complete commitment to a Prime Ministers' conference—as we have given it to E.F.T.A., how are we proposing to explain it to the Commonwealth?

This may be a difficulty, but it is one that should be faced. The communiqués that came out after the meetings of what one hon. Member called "the three doves" but I shall call "the three old pigeons" who went around the Cornmonwealth countries clearly showed to anyone who read them that all we had done was to postpone a lot of issues to be settled later.

We should not engage in the Commonwealth in the same kind of double talk that we have, regrettably, indulged in in Europe in the past—since The Hague Conference and since. We should therefore be told just what is the commitment in Europe, Whether we are giving the same in the Commonwealth and, if not, what is the explanation.

I have listened to much of the debate and have been impressed by a great deal of it. But one of the most fanciful, out of date and old fashioned attitudes appears to have come largely from the benches below the Gangway opposite concerning the kind of economic community the Commonwealth is ever likely to be. There has been a description of the possibilities of Commonwealth trade which I would not have though, could be believed in by any one who really thought about the kind of countries which make up the Commonwealth.

I do not suppose that those hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept that statement from me; if they will not, I urge them to consult some of the Prime Ministers. I urge them to realise that we must stop thinking any longer of the Commonwealth as being comprised of all white Dominions, sentimental attachments and all that sort of thing. It is a much bigger community than that. I urge them to consult Mr. Nehru, for example, about his vision of how trade will develop in the future for India. They will not get the sort of picture of a developing Commonwealth community as was presented by those hon. Gentlemen opposite.

There has been a good deal of wishful thinking of what they would like to see happen but what cannot happen. This is one of the reasons why we are debating this matter and why, as a result of our considering the Common Market, it is no longer so simple a matter. That is why we must face the complications that are involved. In and with Europe and in and with the Commonwealth, there has been on the part of this Government a great deal of double talk which is going to bounce back on them in the near future. That is why I say to the Prime Minister—directly, as is my fashion—that in the third leg of the Opposition's Amendment we cannot accept what the Prime Minister invites us to do following his assurances on this subject. We cannot accept them because there has been too much double talk in the past which still remains to be cleared up.

That is why we put so much emphasis in our Amendment, on a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. It is why we feel that we must bind the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministers not merely to saying that they will not object to a Commonwealth Conference if, at a suit- able stage, it seems to be a good thing to have one. We must bind them to having a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at the appropriate time in order to find out whether the Government's proposals—the outcome of their negotiations—are "generally agreeable", to use the traditional phrase of that conference.

I urge hon. Members to take the view that the Opposition Amendment is the only responsible basis on which negotiations can proceed. It is the only way in which we can produce an atmosphere of confidence between us and all our partners of the Six in Europe, outside the Six and in the Commonwealth.

We shall press the Amendment and trust to be supported on it by all of those who, while accepting that the negotiations are clearly going to happen, want to create the right atmosphere and climate for them to happen. Let me make it clear that if we are defeated on our Amendment, the Government then act on their authority, on their responsibility, in the light of the warnings and the criticisms which we have put to them today. We shall then watch most closely the proceedings that follow, ready for the momentous day when the decision has to be made in the light of facts that at present we have not got, in the light of facts which only then will become apparent.

I repeat, we hope that the negotiations will be successful. We have in all the reasons that I have deployed, and in the many more which have been deployed during the debate, many grounds for wondering whether they will or can be successful, but we hope that they will be. We hope to see a result which will meet the proper concern of people in all parts of this House and in the country as a whole. We hope that the result will be something directed to an acceptable economic social policy for us and for our partners.

But this I must say. There really must be no more double talk—[Laughter.] The difficulty in this House is that hon. Members are very good until about 9 o'clock, after which they rather go off colour. [Laughter.] This sort of thing happens regularly. We are quite used to it. I must tell hon. Members opposite that any interruptions will come out of the Minister's time.

There must be no more double talk of the kind which we have had, of which I have quoted examples from the Prime Minister, from the President of the Board of Trade and from the Minister of Aviation, because if there is, the end of this road, as was said this afternoon, will be that we shall find ourselves reviled by everybody. We shall find ourselves not only perfidious Albion in Europe but we shall be reviled by the Commonwealth and by our E.F.T.A. partners as well.

I close with one other warning, which is really important. I close with a reference which the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) made this afternoon and which moved me very deeply and, I think, everybody else who heard it. He referred to some words of the Prime Minister when he made his statement on Monday. When I talk about the necessity for being careful of how we present ourselves, this is the outstanding example of what I mean. The Prime Minister said in answer to the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke): … if it fails"— "it" being the negotiations— then I think that we ought to be quite clear ourselves, and perhaps the countries with which we are to negotiate ought to be quite clear, that quite a lot of things will happen and quite major changes may have to be made in the foreign policy and the commitments of Great Britain."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July 1961; Vol. 645, c. 937.] Whatever else we do, let us not threaten the Western Alliance, on the one side, against these negotiations, on the other. If we do—and that clearly was what the Prime Minister had in mind—the end will be either that we shall be asked to sacrifice the Western Alliance for the outcome of this business, whatever the terms are, or we shall be asked to sacrifice this for the Western Alliance. That is an improper proposal to put before the House, and it is a very dangerous suggestion to put before Europe. I beg Ministers, as they enter these negotiations, to do so in a spirit very different from that.

9.25 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. Duncan Sandys)

Notwithstanding the speech to which we have just listened from the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), I believe that this debate will rank among the great occasions in the history of Parliament. We have been discussing one of the really big issues of modern times. The reason I said what I did about the right hon. Gentleman's speech was—

Mr. G. Brown

The right hon. Gentleman need not bother. It was in character.

Mr. Sandys

Not at all. I thought that it was unnecessary for the right hon. Gentleman to refer, over and over again, to "double talk". I listened carefully to his speech. He said that he wished us well, but he said that he could not support us. If that is not double talk, I do not know what is.

As was to be expected, the divisions of opinion have cut right across the loyalties of parties, and some very strange alliances have emerged. Almost everyone who spoke did so with a sense of strong conviction one way or another. I say "almost", because the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, in what I shall describe as a notable balancing act, ably stated the case on both sides.

It was natural that the House should concentrate on the basic issue, whether or not Britain should join the European Economic Community. But, of course, the question which we have to decide tonight is more limited, namely, whether we should or should not enter into negotiations. If by doing nothing we could play for safety, there might be something to be said for it, but I say to the House that, even if we wanted to, there is no way of escaping a decision.

If after so much discussion and consultation we now shrank from the step of opening negotiations, that would amount to a decision to stay out of Europe which it would be very difficult later to reverse. It would, I submit, be a much more momentous and irrevocable step than the one which we are asking the House to take tonight.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and others expressed the fear that if Britain joins the Common Market she will lose her separate identity. I should like very much to face this issue. In particular, it is feared that our political sovereignty would become merged in some kind of European super State and that, in consequence, we should cease to be able to formulate an independent foreign policy, or to make an independent contribution to the political thinking of the Commonwealth.

There is no political responsibility which is more fundamental than the responsibility for national defence. Yet, by joining N.A.T.O. and transferring a large part of our Armed Forces to an integrated international command we have in practice—let us recognise it—greatly limited our freedom to decide for ourselves the ultimate issue, the most important of all, of peace or war. Other Commonwealth Governments are members of military alliances, but, as far as I know, it has never been suggested that Canada's membership of N.A.T.O. or Australia's membership of S.E.A.T.O. are in any way inconsistent with their membership of the Commonwealth. I therefore cannot see that our participation in the political co-operation which is envisaged within the European Economic Community need disturb in any way the existing system of Commonwealth consultation or reduce the value and scope of our contribution to it.

In this connection, I should like to say a word or two about the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). Although it was not called, I believe that it reflects the anxieties which are felt by a number of hon. Members on this issue. I propose—and I hope that it will be helpful—to give a clear and unequivocal answer to the three points raised in the Amendment. I imagine that great thought was given to the drafting of the Amendment and I believe that it summarises very clearly some of the anxieties felt by my right hon. and hon. Friends.

First, the Government have no thought —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This is an important issue. The Government have no intention of bringing before the House proposals which would involve any derogation of British sovereignty outside the sphere specifically covered by the Treaty of Rome. [Laughter.] It is all 'very well for hon. Members to laugh. What that means is that the derogation of sovereignty does not extend beyond the economic and social sphere set out in the text of the Treaty, which all hon. Members know.

Mr. H. Wilson

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very serious point, which is of importance to the whole House. Is he now saying, therefore, that in the negotiations the Government will make it clear to those with whom they negotiate in Europe that we do not accept, now or at any other time, a federal commitment if we sign the Treaty of Rome?

Mr. Sandys

If the right hon. Gentleman had not interrupted, he would have seen that I was dealing with the Amendment. I shall be quite unequivocal. I am dealing with the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman had read my right hon. Friend's Amendment he would know that that point is dealt with, and I shall deal with it now. [Interruption.] I will deal with the right hon. Gentleman in due time, tonight.

Secondly, we shall not—this is the point which the right hon. Gentleman interrupted me about, and if he had waited he would have heard—in the course of the negotiations give any undertaking—I am using the words of my right hon. Friend's Amendment—implied or otherwise, which would commit Britain to join a European political federation, and, I must add, nor, I am sure, shall we be asked to do so.

Mr. Warbey


Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Sandys

Thirdly, we have no thought of considering any proposals which would prevent Britain from continuing to play her full part in the affairs of the Commonwealth and the world. In view of these clear assurances on all three points in their Amendment, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be able to support the Government Motion tonight.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

My right hon. Friend says that there would be no derogation of British sovereignty outside the scope of the Treaty of Rome. He will appreciate that there is material derogation of sovereignty in the articles of the Treaty of Rome itself. Will he say, first, whether he will negotiate with a view to limiting this derogation so that there is, in fact, no material derogation of British sovereignty? Will he say, secondly, whether the Government will go into the negotiations expressly saying that they do not envisage any ultimate political union or federation? Thirdly, it will help us a great deal if my right hon. Friend will answer this question. Would he be content, if it were procedurally possible, in effect though not in form, to add this addendum to the Motion as a guide for the future conduct of the Government?

Mr. Sandys

I think that the House will accept that I have given a clear unequivocal and categorical assurance on all three points raised in my right hon. Friend's Amendment.

I believe that everyone recognises the advantages which a large internal market offers to the efficient modern manufacturer. My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) expressed doubts whether British industry will be able to hold its own in competition with its Continental rivals. I have more faith in the skill, energy and inventive powers of our people.

An Hon. Member

Why not have sufficient faith not to go into it?

Mr. Sandys

Whatever view one takes it is no good imagining that by staying out of the Common Market we can escape competition from European industry.

Our exports are already meeting keen competition from Europe, not only on the Continent but in third markets all over the world, including the Commonwealth. This will become more intense when the Common Market develops its potential. If by staying out of the Common Market we deny ourselves the advantages which our rivals will enjoy we shall merely be putting British industry in the position of having to compete with them on unequal terms.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) made an interesting and valuable contribution to our debate, primarily on agriculture. He highlighted the main issue, namely, whether we shall be able to achieve in negotiation with the Six arrangements for our home agriculture which would enable it to sustain its efficiency and prosperity. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it clear that any decision to join the European Economic Community must depend upon satisfactory arrangements being made to ensure the continued well-being of British agriculture. That is a firm pledge to the British farmer.

It is fortunate that we are not faced with any hard and fast European policy for agriculture. The common agricultural policy of the Community is still in the process of being worked out by the Six. That in itself is a strong argument for starting negotiations with the Community now, while its own policy is still fluid. If we delay until it is firmly settled, it will obviously be much more difficult to secure the special arrangements which we need.

In considering methods of protecting British farmers and Commonwealth producers—this is a point of importance—we must remember that their interests are, as often as not, in direct conflict with one another. Our farmers want Government help to maintain the highest level of domestic production. Commonwealth producers want exactly the opposite. From the point of view of Commonwealth countries which grow temperate foodstuffs, the level of agricultural production in Europe is even more important than the level of tariffs and quotas, about which so much has been said in this debate. What matters most to them is that Europe should not artificially stimulate high-cost food production to an inordinate level at the expense of imports from overseas.

Like ourselves, the Six have important manufacturing industries engaged in world-wide trade, and they know that to sell their goods to the great primary producing countries they must be prepared to buy their produce in return. It is therefore in their interest—and this I believe is reassuring—as much as in ours, to try to strike a reasonable balance.

The right hon. Member for Belper asked about the assurances which have been given to E.F.T.A. and to the Commonwealth and the question of the veto. I should like to give him a considered answer. The positions of E.F.T.A. and of the Commonwealth are, of course, not the same—I think it is important to recognise that—for this reason. The E.F.T.A. countries will be negotiating terms far their own entry into the European Community. The Commonwealth countries, on the other hand, will not be applying for membership of the Community. The special arrangements to protect their interests will form part of the agreement between Britain and the Six if this can be concluded.

The E.F.T.A. countries have agreed among themselves to maintain the Association in being till satisfactory arrangements have been worked out in negotiations to meet their legitimate interests, and in order to enable them to participate in the Common Market as from the same date, in regard to the Commonwealth Governments, we have assured them that we will seek to negotiate satisfactory arrangements to protect their essential interests.

Everyone is agreed—and this is my answer to the right hon. Gentleman—that the decision whether or not Britain joins the European Economic Community is a decision which Britain alone can take. None of our partners, either in the Commonwealth or in E.F.T.A., will, I am sure, claim a right of veto. We have undertaken to keep in the closest touch with the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. Governments throughout the negotiations. In both cases we shall fully consult them before reaching any decision.

Again, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I would say that if the Commonwealth Prime Ministers wish to have a meeting for this purpose when the negotiations have reached a certain point, we shall be very ready indeed to arrange one. I can give that assurance.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Wembley, South (Mr. Russell) and other hon. Members urged that as an alternative to joining the Common Market we should seek to expand our trade with the Commonwealth. They suggested that Commonwealth preferences should be increased for this purpose and that G.A.T.T. should be revised to make this possible.

It is, I think, quite inconceivable that we could get a change in G.A.T.T. for this purpose. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why? "] I think that everybody who knows anything about the workings of G A.T.T. will agree with me.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke

Get out of it.

Mr. Sandys

That is quite another matter, but that is not what is being proposed. Even if that were possible —this is the point I wish to make—the Commonwealth Governments would almost unanimously reject the idea, and that is a fact which we have just got to recognise.

But, quite apart from that, it would not, of course, offer us the advantages which we would obtain from a customs union. If we join the Common Market our manufacturers will be able to offer their goods over a wide area without any tariffs on any item; in other words, exactly as they sell them at home today in the British market. It is this fact that gives the opportunities of specialisation, large-scale production, and all the economies of scale that an industrial society like ours needs in order to be fully efficient. If the Commonwealth—believe me, nobody is more attached to the Commonwealth than I am—is to afford us these advantages, it can only be by means of a Commonwealth customs union or a free trade area.

The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said we should have proposed this to the Commonwealth Governments. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is so out of touch with economic realities. In any case he was largely answered by his right hon. Friend the Member for Belper in his speech tonight. Nothing would suit us better than Lord Beaverbrook's great concept of Empire Free Trade. Of course it would suit us in every way. The trouble is that it would not suit anybody else at all.

The right hon. Member for Huyton said he hoped that we would not be asked to make a choice between Europe and the Commonwealth. As many hon. Members who worked with me after the war know well, I am deeply attached to the cause of European unity. In fact I was the founder and first chairman of the international European Movement which brought the Strasbourg Assembly into being. At the same time I am half a New Zealander, and I am as proud of the old British Empire, and as devoted to the new Commonwealth, as any hon. Member in this House. It would therefore be particularly painful for me to have to choose between the Commonwealth and Europe. But I believe that my European friends will not misunderstand me if I say that if I were forced to make this cruel choice I would unquestionably choose the Commonwealth.

Happily, we are not confronted with this dilemma. Europe fully recognises the importance of the Commonwealth. M. Spaak, speaking recently in the Belgian Parliament, said: No European can wish to see the dissolution of the Commonwealth. A solution must be found which will allow Britain to join the Common Market, and which will at the same time safeguard the Commonwealth. Mr. Menzies, who has been quoted in various ways, also has rejected the suggestion that if Britain joined the Common Market this would break up the Commonwealth. He added, however—I shall be quite frank with the House—that in his opinion it would in due course bring about a change in the Commonwealth relationship.

That may be true, but what kind of change? I believe that the biggest change would be not in the relationship between Britain and the Commonwealth, but in the relationship between the Commonwealth and Europe. There is absolutely no reason why we cannot draw closer to Europe without drawing away from the Commonwealth.

What I believe will happen is that, through Britain, the Commonwealth and Europe will be drawn closer to one another, and that would be unquestionably to the advantage of both.

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) who, judging from his speech tonight, seems to have changed his mind, expressed this idea very well some years ago in a pamphlet entitled "Keep Left". He wrote these words, and I cannot express it better: The true defence of the Commonwealth as an association of free peoples depends on the unification of Europe which cannot be achieved if Britain stands aside.

Mr. M. Foot


Hon. Members

Give way.

Mr. Foot

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has not misquoted it, but that proposal was not a unification of half Europe but the unification of the whole of Europe. This is the unification of half Europe.

Mr. Sandys

Nobody would be happier than I to see the unification of the whole of Europe.

Of all organisations the Commonwealth is one which should least be afraid of change. Its ability to adapt itself to new conditions in a changing world is the whole secret of its success. The Commonwealth is itself the child of change. We should not assume that if we stay out of Europe, Britain's relationship with the Commonwealth would necessarily remain just as it is today.

If, through depriving ourselves of the benefits of the Common Market, we are outstripped commercially by our European competitors throughout the world, does anyone imagine that our position in the Commonwealth or our position in the world, or the position of the Commonwealth in the world would remain unaffected? A leading New Zealand newspaper summed it up in these very simple words: A lesser Britain would mean a lesser Commonwealth. Several hon. Members have argued that in view of the anxieties of the Commonwealth we ought not to take the step of opening negotiations. It is quite true that a number of Commonwealth Governments have expressed their concern in differing degrees. At the same time, they have made absolutely clear that the decision is one which Britain alone can take. Mr. Diefenbaker specifically endorsed this view in a statement last Monday. He added that the British Government's decision was not inconsistent with the Commonwealth relationship. If we alone are to bear the responsibility, and it is right that we should, then, after carefully weighing the advice of our friends, we must have the courage to act in accordance with our considered judgment.

It was my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) who, in 1946, with his unique personal prestige, called upon Europe to unite. From that moment, European unity ceased to be just a dream and was accepted by practical men as a realisable objective. That will, I believe, rank among my right hon. Friend's very great contributions to history. But let us not conceal from ourselves the fact that Europe has been very sad that Britain has hesitated so long to follow her own lead. If, after satisfactory negotiations, we join the European Community, I am confident that we shall never regret it.

As the most highly industrialised country in a trading association larger than the United States a new horizon for economic expansion would open up before us. As a member of the inner councils of Europe, we should be able to make our own distinctive contribution to the political thinking of a group of nations, comprising about 250 million of the most skilled, educated, and experienced people in the world. If, as we believe, this relationship with Europe adds to Britain's economic strength and political influence, this must, in turn, add to the strength and influence of the whole Commonwealth.

The House tonight is being asked to authorise the Government to open negotiations, subject to the undertaking that no commitment will be entered into without the consent of this House. The right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Huyton and for Belper have wished the negotiations well. If they really mean that, how then can they, at the same time, deny us their support? The Opposition Amendment, by casting doubt on Britain's sincerity, is bound to weaken our hands in the negotiations. It is bound to make it more difficult to secure those very safeguards to which we all attach so much importance. I trust that all who genuinely care about these things will vote solidly against the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 209.

Division No. 264.] AYES [10.0 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Channon, H. P. G. Freeth, Denzil
Aitken, W. T. Chataway, Christopher Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Chichester-Clark, R. Gammans, Lady
Allason, James Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston George, J. C. (Pollok)
Amery, Bt. Hon. Julian Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Gibson-Watt, David
Arbuthnot, John Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Glover, Sir Douglas
Ashton, Sir Hubert Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth,W.) Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Atkins, Humphrey Cleaver, Leonard Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Balniel, Lord Cole, Norman Godber, J. B.
Barber, Anthony Cooke, Robert Goodhart, Philip
Barter, John Cooper, A. E. Goodhew, Victor
Batsford, Brian Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Gough, Frederick
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Gower, Raymond
Bell, Ronald Cordle, John Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Corfield, F. V. Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Costain, A. P. Green, Alan
Berkeley, Humphry Coulson, J. M. Gresham Cooke, R.
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Critchley, Julian Grimond, J.
Bidgood, John C- Crowder, F. P. Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Bingham, R. M. Cunningham, Knox Gurden, Harold
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Curran, Charles Hall, John (Wycombe)
Bishop, F. P. Currie, G. B. H. Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Black, Sir Cyril Dalkeith, Earl of Hare, Rt. Hon. John
Bossom, Clive Dance, James Harris, Reader (Heston)
Bourne-Arton, A. Davies,Rt-Hn,Clement(Montgomery) Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Box, Donald Deedes, W. F. Harvie Anderson, Miss
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John de Ferranti, Basil Hastings, Stephen
Boyle, Sir Edward Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M. Hay, John
Braine, Bernard Doughty, Charles Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Brewls, John Drayson, G. B. Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter du Cann, Edward Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Duncan, Sir James Hendry, Forbes
Brooman-White, R. Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Eden, John Hiley, Joseph
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Bryan, Paul Elliott, R. W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.) Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Buck, Antony Emery, Peter Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Bullard, Denys Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Hobson, John
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. Hocking, Philip N.
Butcher, Sir Herbert Finlay, Graeme Holt, Arthur
Butler, Rt.Hn.R. A. (Saffron Walden) Fisher, Nigel Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Hornby, R. P.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Foster, John Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Cary Sir Robert Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Hughes-Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Hughes-Young, Michael Mills, Stratton Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Hum, Sir Anthony Montgomery, Fergus Smithers, Peter
Hutchison, Michael Clark Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr) Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Iremonger, T. L. Morgan, William Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Morrison, John Spearman, Sir Alexander
Jackson, John Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Speir, Rupert
James, David Nabarro, Gerald St. Clair, M.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Neave, Airey Stanley, Hon. Richard
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Nicholls, Sir Harmar Stevens, Geoffrey
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Noble, Michael Stodart, J. A.
Joseph, Sir Keith Nugent, Sir Richard Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Kaberry, Sir Donald Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Storey, Sir Samuel
Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Studholme, Sir Henry
Kerr, Sir Hamilton Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Kershaw, Anthony Osborn, John (Hallam) Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Kimball, Marcus Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Talbot, John E
Kirk, Peter Page, John (Harrow, West) Tapsell, Peter
Kitson, Timothy Page, Graham (Crosby) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Lagden, Godfrey Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Lambton, Viscount Partridge, E. Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Teeling, William
Langford-Hott, J. Peel, John Temple, John M.
Leather, E. H. C. Peyton, John Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Leavey, J. A. Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Leburn, Gilmour Pike, Miss Mervyn Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Pilkington, Sir Richard Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Pitman, Sir James Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Lilley, F. J. P. Pitt, Miss Edith Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Lindsay, Martin Pott, Percivall Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Linstead, Sir Hugh Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Thorpe, Jeremy
Litchfield, Capt. John Price, David (Eastleigh) Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield) Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.) Turner, Colin
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Prior, J. M. L. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Longden, Gilbert Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho van Staubenzee, W. R.
Loveys, Walter H. Profumo, Rt. Hon. John Vane, W. M. F.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Proudfoot, Wilfred Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Pym, Francis Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Quennell, Miss J. M. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
MacArthur, Ian Ramsden, James Walder, David
McLaren, Martin Rawlinson, Peter Wall, Patrick
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Ward, Dame Irene
Maclean,Sir Fitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.) Rees, Hugh Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
McLean, Neil (Inverness) Rees-Davies, W. R. Webster, David
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Renton, David Wells, John (Maidstone)
McMaster, Stanley R. Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Whitelaw, William
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley) Ridsdale, Julian Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Rippon, Geoffrey
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Maddan, Martin Robson Brown, Sir William Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Maginnis, John E. Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Maitland, Sir John Roots, William Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard Woodhouse, C. M.
Markham, Major Sir Frank Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey) Woodnutt, Mark
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan Woolam, John
Marten, Neil Scott-Hopkins, James Worsley, Marcus
Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Seymour, Leslie Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Sharples, Richard
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald Shaw, M. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mawby, Ray Shepherd, William Mr. E. Wakefield and
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn Colonel Sir H. Harrison.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Skeet, T. H. H
Abse, Leo Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Dodds, Norman
Ainsley, William Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Donnelly, Desmond
Albu, Austen Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Driberg, Tom
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Callaghan, James Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Chapman, Donald Edelman, Maurice
Awbery, Stan Chetwynd, George Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Bacon, Miss Alice Cliffe, Michael Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Baird, John Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Cronin, John Evans, Albert
Bence, Cyril Crosland, Anthony Finch, Harold
Benson, Sir George Cullen, Mrs. Alice Fitch, Alan
Blackburn, F. Darling, George Fletcher, Eric
Blyton, William Davies, G Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Boardman, H. Davies, Harold (Leek) Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics. S.W.) Davies, Ifor (Cower) Forman, J. C.
Bowles, Frank Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Boyden, James Deer, George Galpern, Sir Myer
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Delargy, Hugh George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)
Brockway, A. Fenner Dempsey, James Ginsburg, David
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Diamond, John Gooch, E. G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Ross, William
Gourlay, Harry Lipton, Marcus Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Greenwood, Anthony Loughlin, Charles Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Grey, Charles Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) McCann, John Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) MacColl, James Skeffington, Arthur
Gunter, Ray McInnes, James Slater, Mrs, Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) McKay, John (Wallsend) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Hall, Rt. Hn, Glenvil (Coins Valley) McLeavy, Frank Small, William
Hamilton, William (West Fife) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Sorensen, R. W.
Hart, Mrs. Judith Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Hayman, F. H. Manuel, A. C. Steele, Thomas
Healey, Denis Mapp, Charles Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis) Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A. Stonehouse, John
Herbison, Miss Margaret Marsh, Richard Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Hewitson, Capt. M. Mason, Roy Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Mayhew, Christopher Swain, Thomas
Hilton, A. V. Mellish, R. J. Swingler, Stephen
Holman, Percy Mendelson, J. J. Sylvester, George
Houghton Douglas Milne, Edward E. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) Mitchison, G. R. Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Monslow, Walter Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Hoy, James H. Moody, A. S. Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Morris, John Thornton, Ernest
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Moyle, Arthur Tomney, Frank
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Mulley, Frederick Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Hunter, A. E. Neal, Harold Wainwright, Edwin
Hynd, H. (Accrington) Oliver, C. H. Warbey, William
Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Oram, A. E. Weitzman, David
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Oswald, Thomas Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Owen, Will White, Mrs. Eirene
Janner, Sir Barnett Paget, R. T. Whitlock, William
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) Wigg, George
Jeger, George Pargiter, G. A. Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.
Jenkins, Boy (Stechford) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Wilkins, W. A.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Peart, Frederick Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield) Pentland, Norman Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Plummer, Sir Leslie Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Popplewell, Ernest Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Prentice, R. E. Wills, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Probert, Arthur Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Kelley, Richard Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Winter-bottom, R, E.
Kenyon, Clifford Randall, Harry Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Rankin, John Woof, Robert
King, Dr. Horace Redhead, E. C. Wyatt, Woodrow
Lawson, George Reynolds, G. W. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Ledger, Ron Rhodes, H. Zilliacus, K.
Lee, Frederick (Newton) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Roberts, Coronwy (Caernarvon) TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Lever, Harold (Cheetham) Robertson, John (Paisley) Mr. J. Taylor and
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.) Mr. G. H. R. Rogers

Main Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 313, Noes 5.

Division No. 265.] AYES [10.14 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Box, Donald Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Aitken, W, T. Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Cleaver, Leonard
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Boyle, Sir Edward Cole, Norman
Allason, James Braine, Bernard Cooke, Robert
Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian Brewis, John Cooper, A. E.
Arbuthnot, John Bromley-Davenport,Lt. -Col. Sir Walter Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Ashton, Sir Hubert Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Atkins, Humphrey Brooman-White, R. Cordle, John
Balniel, Lord Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Corfield, F. V.
Barber, Anthony Browne, Percy (Torrington) Costain, A. P.
Barter, John Bryan, Paul Coulson, J. M.
Batsford, Brian Buck, Antony Critchley, Julian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Bullard, Denys Crowder, F. P.
Bell, Ronald Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Cunningham, Knox
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Butcher, Sir Herbert Curran, Charles
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden) Currie, G. B. H.
Berkeley, Humphry Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Dalkeith, Earl of
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Dance, James
Bidgood, John C. Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)
Bingham, R. M. Cary, Sir Robert d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Channon, H. P. G. Deedes, W. F.
Bishop, F. P. Chataway, Christopher de Ferranti, Basil
Black, Sir Cyril Chichester-Clark, R. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Bossom, Clive Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston Doughty, Charles
Bourne-Arton, A. Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Drayson, G. B.
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) du Cann, Edward
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Langford-Holt, J. Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Eden, John Leather, E. H. C. Rees, Hugh
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Leavey, J. A. Renton, David
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.) Leburn, Gilmour Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Emery, Peter Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Ridsdale, Julian
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Rippon, Geoffrey
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. Lilley, F. J. P. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Finlay, Graeme Lindsay, Martin Robson Brown, Sir William
Fisher, Nigel Linstead, Sir Hugh Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Litchfield, Capt. John Roots, William
Foster, John Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nc'dfield) Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Longden, Gilbert Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Freeth, Denzil Loveys, Walter H, Scott-Hopkins, James
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby Seymour, Leslie
Gammans, Lady Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Sharples, Richard
George, J. C. (Pollok) Mac Arthur, Ian Shaw, M.
Gibson-Watt, David McLaren, Martin Shepherd, William
Glover, Sir Douglas Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.) Skeet, T. H. H.
Glyn, sir Richard (Dorset, N.) McLean, Neil (Inverness) Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd A Chiswick)
Godber, J. B. Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Smithers, Peter
Goodhart, Philip McMaster, Stanley R, Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Goodhew, Victor Macmillan,Rt. Hn.Harold(Bromley) Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Gough, Frederick Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax) Spearman, Sir Alexander
Gower, Raymond
Grant, Rt. Hon. William Macpherson, Nlail (Dumfries) Speir, Rupert
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. Maddan, Martin Stanley. Hon. Richard
Green, Alan Maginnis, John E. Stevens, Geoffrey
Gresham Cooke, R. Maitland, Sir John Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Stodart, J. A.
Gurden, Harold Markham, Major Sir Frank Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Maloolm
Hall, John (Wycombe) Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest Storey, Sir Samuel
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Marten, Neil Studholme, Sir Henry
Hare, Rt. Hon. John Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Harris, Reader (Heston) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Sumner, Donald (Orpington)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald St. Clair, M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Mawby, Ray Talbot, John E.
Harvie Anderson, Mitt Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Tapsell, Peter
Hastings, Stephen Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Hay, John Mills, Stratton Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Montgomery, Fergus Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr) Teeling, William
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James Morgan, William Temple, John M.
Hendry Forbes Morrison, John Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Hiley, Joseph Nabarro, Gerald Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Neave, Airey Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Nicholls, Sir Harmar Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Hobson, John Noble, Michael Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Hocking, Philip N. Nugent, Sir Richard Thorpe, Jeremy
Holt, Arthur Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Tiley, Arthur (Bradford. W.)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Turner, Colin
Hornby, R. P. Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Tweedsmuir, Lady
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia Osborne, John (Hailam) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Vane, W. M. F.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Page, John (Harrow, West) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Hughes-Young, Michael Page, Graham (Crosby) Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Hurd, Sir Anthony Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Partridge, E. Walder, David
Iremonger, T. L. Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Wad, Patrick
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Pees, John Ward, Dame Irene
Jackson, John Peyton, John Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
James, David Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Webster, David
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Pike, Miss Mervyn Wells, John (Maidstone)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pilkington, Sir Richard Whitelaw, William
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Pitman, Sir James Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Pitt. Miss Edith Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Joseph, Sir Keith Pott, Percivall Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Kaberry, Sir Ronald Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Price, David (Eastleigh) Wood. Rt. Hon. Richard
Kerr, Sir Hamilton Prior, J. M. L. Woodhouse, C. M.
Kershaw, Anthony Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho Woodnutt, Mark
Kimball, Marcus Profumo, Rt. Hon. John Woollam, John
Kirk, Peter Proudfoot, Wilfred Worsley, Marcus
Kitson, Timothy Pym, Francis Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Lagden, Godfrey Quennell, Miss J. M.
Lambton, Viscount Ramsden, James TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Lancaster, Col. C. G. Rawlinson, Peter Mr. E. Wakefield and
Colonel Sir H. Harrison
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fell, Anthony Zilliacus, K. Mr. S. Silverman and Mr. Baxter.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Resolved, That this House supports the decision of Her Majesty's Government to make formal application under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome in order to initiate negotiations to see if satisfactory arrangements can be made to meet the special interests of the United Kingdom, of the Commonwealth and of the Euro- pean Free Trade Association; and further accepts the undertaking of Her Majesty's Government that no agreement affecting these special interests or involving British sovereignty will be entered into until it has been approved by this House after full consultation with other Commonwealth countries, by whatever procedure they may generally agree.