Q3. Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Lord Privy Seal to the Ministerial Meeting of Western European Union on 10th April represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir.
Mr. WilsonDoes the right hon Gentleman recall that, when on 31st July he announced the decision to seek entry to the Community, he said that this was a purely economic and trading 684 negotiation and not a political or foreign policy negotiation? As the Lord Privy Seal has now said that in the Government's view it must be political as well as economic and that as members we would want to strengthen its political development, what is the Prime Minister doing to reconcile this quite clear contradiction between his own statement and that of the Lord Privy Seal? When will we get a full statement from the right hon. Gentleman about what the Government are after in the negotiations?
§ The Prime MinisterWhat I said is perfectly true. The Treaty of Rome deals with economic matters. At the same time, it is perfectly clear that there are political implications and that if present or future members of the Community are to work together we recognise and are ready to play our part in the political aspects as well as the economic, but they are not implicit in the Treaty of Rome itself.
Mr. WilsonObviously they are not implicit in the Treaty of Rome, but did not the right hon. Gentleman say on that occasion that the right place for political co-operation and unity in Europe was through W.E.U. and N.A.T.O.? Why is he now saying that the Lord Privy Seal is right to say that we must develop the political tie-up in the Community?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman will have observed that it was to W.E.U. that the Lord Privy Seal made this speech. It is perfectly simple. The Treaty of Rome deals with economic and social questions, but at the same time there is a movement for political co-operation among the members. Although we are not members of this body at present, it is interesting to us to know what that development would be. We would be ready to associate ourselves with it if the terms were those which were acceptable to us.
§ Sir H. Legge-BourkeWill the Prime Minister please clarify this one point? The Fouchet Committee, which I think we have now called the Cattani Committee, has been sitting for a long time while these negotiations have been going on on the economic front. Will 685 my right hon. Friend say whether it is now the view of the Government that we ought to be allowed to join in the discussions, if not vote, in the Cattani Committee, because it surely means that if we are to make any sense on this political front we must know what the European countries themselves are saying?
§ The Prime MinisterWe have, I think, to be careful of our status and to operate in a correct way. What we have not asked is to be admitted to this Commission, but we have indicated that we would be prepared to participate if we were invited to do so.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the Prime Minister aware that his attempt to reconcile what he said on 31st July with what the Lord Privy Seal said recently is singularly unconvincing? Does not he recall that he was speaking of the negotiations, that is to say, the series of negotiations which are now taking place, and that he referred to them as being purely economic and trade, and not political and foreign policy? How, in these circumstances, can he reconcile that with the statement of the Lord Privy Seal which clearly concerned political integration?
§ The Prime MinisterI was referring to the Brussels negotiations which are continuing, and which are confined entirely to economic questions and questions arising out of the Treaty of Rome. Parallel with that, this Fouchet Committee has come into being. We are quite prepared to discuss the political operation of these powers together. We do not claim to be admitted to the Commission, but we are ready to participate if we are invited.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs the Prime Minister aware that this introduces a completely new concept? Up to now, in the light of the statement made to the House of Commons last July, we had assumed that Her Majesty's Government would not be a party to political negotiations at this stage. While it may be true to say that the meeting was a W.E.U. meeting, it is clear that the Lord Privy Seal's statement was made to members of the Common Market. Can we have a clear statement, as my right hon. 686 Friend asked, as to what is Her Majesty's Government's attitude to further political integration in Europe?
§ The Prime Minister"Integration" is rather a doubtful word. We are ready to take part in political discussions which would add to the co-operation of the members in the Common Market, but this is a separate thing altogether from the negotiations going on in Brussels with regard to the economic and social questions of the Treaty of Rome. They are parallel to some extent but they are separate. One obviously will act on the other, and when the whole matter comes to be decided and put before the House, it will be for the House to decide whether the proposals put forward by the Government are acceptable or not.
§ Mr. GrimondAre we not suffering again from the failure of the Government to make up their mind whether they want to negotiate or not? May I ask the Prime Minister whether we have any guarantee that further political decisions about the future of Europe will not be taken until we are in fact represented at the negotiations?
§ The Prime MinisterThe guarantee we give is that we will put forward in this House the proposals we make when these discussions come to an end, and it will be for the House to decide.
Mr. WilsonIs the Prime Minister aware that his answers this morning have been profoundly unsatisfactory, and that there is a grave danger that we shall go into Europe with Europe thinking that we are committed to their idea of the political objective, and then in three or four years' time we shall be accused of bad faith when we make it clear that we cannot accept supra-national foreign policies? In those circumstances, as we are on the eve of the Easter Recess, will the right hon. Gentleman spend a little time during the Recess thinking this out and will he make a fresh statement when we come back?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman's error is in thinking that there is an agreed European view on this matter. There are different views, but if we are invited to take part we will be ready to express our view.