MINISTER OF LABOUR (SPEECH) (Hansard, 5 July 1962)

§ Q4. Mr. Fell
asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Labour at Long Melford on Saturday, 30th June, about the Commonwealth and the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

§ Q5. Mrs. Castle
asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Labour at Long Melford on 30th June on the problems of the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

§ Q6. Mr. Lipton
asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Labour at Long Melford on 30th June about the Common Market and the Commonwealth represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Q7. Mr. Hamilton
asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech made on 30th June by the Minister of Labour at Long Melford, Suffolk, about the Common Market and the Commonwealth represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

§ Q8. Mr. Wyatt
asked the Prime Minister whether the public speech of the Minister of Labour at Long Melford on 30th June about the Common Market and the Commonwealth represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Q10. Mr. Stone-house
asked the Prime 'Minister if the public speech of the Minister of Labour at Long Melford on Saturday, 30th June, regarding Commonwealth countries and the Common Market, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

§ The Prime Minister
These Questions were placed on the Order Paper before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour made his personal statement on Tuesday. I assume that, in the light of that statement, hon. Members would not wish to pursue the matter.

§ Mr. Fell
I must apologise to the Prime Minister for wishing to pursue the matter. I must ask the Prime Minister if he is not aware that a very large number of people in this country were deeply shocked by the fact that when the Minister of Labour had realised that his remarks had greatly offended large numbers of people, not only in this country but also in the Commonwealth, he did not take the step of resigning at once? [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh, shut up."] It so happens that in the short time I have been in this House—[An HON. MEMBER "Too long."] Is it not a fact that one of the things one has to learn is the highest possible regard this House puts upon the good behaviour and integrity of Members of this House, and particularly of Ministers, and that when Ministers fail they should resign and get out? It does not stop there. I am deeply disappointed. May I ask the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]

§ Mr. Gibson-Watt
On a point of order. This supplementary question, by my stopwatch, has gone on for 92 seconds. You yourself, Mr. Speaker, wish to see that supplementary questions go quickly, and so do some hon. Members on the back benches. This is the longest question I have heard.

§ Mr. Speaker
It is not the longest question I have heard, alas, but it is a very selfish pastime to ask long supplementary questions. I hope the hon. Member can conclude his question briefly.

§ Mr. Fell
Further to that point of order. May I say that I at least do not come here seeking the kind of applause which was accorded to a right hon. Friend on Monday? At least I come to praise the Commonwealth and not to bury it. May I complete my supplementary question? The rest of it is short. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I know that it will offend some hon. and right hon. Friends, but I worry about the 690 people of the nation, and not about hon. Friends.

§ Mr. Speaker
I should be obliged if the hon. Member could help me by concluding his question.

§ Mr. Fell
Yes, I shall do that. I am extremely sorry that I have been led off the track by an hon. Friend who happened to have a stopwatch with him. Has not the Prime Minister realised that he also has a serious responsibility in this matter? At the very least the Prime Minister was responsible to see that the Minister of Labour was in this House on Monday, if he was to make an apology at all, and to make the apology then. Further——

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member has reached the limit which I can allow him. Mrs. Castle.

§ Mr. Fell
On a point of order. I sincerely apologise to you if I have transgressed your feeling about the rules on supplementary questions. I have been here this afternoon and heard a number of long supplementary questions, and on other occasions there have been a number of long supplementary questions. I did not wish to ask a long supplementary question, but I was interrupted for a long time by a somewhat asinine point of order asked by an hon. Friend who is very close to the Front Bench. May I therefore in a very few words complete the question that I was about to ask?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have taken account of all the circumstances occurring in my presence and I thought that in the interests of other hon. Members I should not permit further time to be occupied by the hon. Member's question.

§ Mrs. Castle
Is the Prime Minister aware that in my Question I am not concerned with what the Minister of Labour intended to say, on which I accept his explanation, but with the Government's attitude to the words he did in fact use? In view of the damage that has been caused in the Commonwealth by this incident, could we this afternoon have the Prime Minister's personal and clear assurance that it is not the opinion of the Government that the Commonwealth members have been behaving unreasonably during these negotiations and that they are in fact perfectly 691 entitled to, and have, Her Majesty's Government's support in fighting for the preservation of Commonwealth interests?

§ The Prime Minister
In regard to the first supplementary question, I do not think I have anything to add. The House is accustomed to statements of this kind. I think my right hon. Friend's statement was clear and sincere and met with the general acceptance of the House.
In regard to the policy question, which is a more important matter, I think Her Majesty's Government's policy has been made clear over and over again. We intend to proceed with these negotiations, which within a comparatively short time must reach a conclusion. If we can reach a settlement which will enable us to become accessories to the Treaty of Rome while supporting all the proper interests and obligations that we have to the Commonwealth, to our E.F.T.A. partners and to British agriculture, then we shall do so. All this was clearly debated. Her Majesty's Government's policy was clearly set out by the Lord Privy Seal in a two days' debate. I think there is general acceptance that it would be wise to continue the negotiation, to see what results from it, and then to make our judgment.

§ Mr. Lipton
Would it not help to avoid similar misunderstandings in future if the Prime Minister were an announce the long-awaited and eagerly-expected Ministerial reshuffle which we know he is to announce in October, or thereabouts? Would it not be in the interests of the country and the Commonwealth if those Ministerial rearrangements were announced now?

§ The Prime Minister
I shall bear the hon. Member's application in mind.

Mr. Hamilton
Does the Prime Minister realise that there was a great deal of angry concern among hon. Members on this side of the House when immediately subsequent to the apology we observed a great deal of self-satisfied smirks being exchanged on the Treasury Bench? Can the Prime Minister tell the House what would have happened if a Labour Minister had made the same kind of stupid remark and he had been Leader of the Opposition? It would not have been passed off as the right hon. Gentleman 692 hopes it will be passed off this afternoon. Is he aware that the kind of off-the-cuff remark which the Minister of Labour made is very often what a Minister is thinking rather than the well prepared brief to which we are so much subject in this House?

§ The Prime Minister
In reply to those questions, I do not think I have anything to add to what I have said.

§ Mr. Wyatt
Does the Prime Minister realise that it makes a very refreshing change to have Ministers saying what they actually think? Is it not very unworthy of him to discourage this quite kindly, able Minister by making him apologise for something which is probably very sensible and, if it is not Government policy, jolly well ought to be?

§ The Prime Minister
The hon. Member has such a long tradition of indiscretions that I should be sorry to interfere with it.

§ Mr. Stonehouse
Notwithstanding some of the remarks made in the House this afternoon, is the Prime Minister aware that most of the House respects the courteous and sincere way in which the Minister withdrew his most unfortunate remarks? He also said in the course of his speech that the United Kingdom will reserve the right to make the decision as to whether we shall join the European Economic Community. Does this mean that the decision will be made effectively before the Prime Ministers' meeting in September?

§ The Prime Minister
No, Sir, of course not. My right hon. Friend was answering the suggestion that it would be for the Prime Ministers collectively, by a majority or some other method, to reach a decision. The responsibility must rest on Her Majesty's Government, supported or not supported by the House of Commons and Parliament. That is the only point on that particular issue.

§ Mr. Stonehouse
May I pursue that?

§ The Prime Minister
I should like to thank the hon. Member for that part of his statement which was so generous and fair.

§ Mr. Stonehouse
May I ask whether the actual decision will be made before the Commonwealth Prime Ministers have been consulted?

§ The Prime Minister
No, Sir. First, we do not yet know what will be the concluding picture which will result from the negotiations. We shall know that, perhaps, at the end of this month or the beginning of the next. We shall have to consider it and discuss it with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. In the light of the discussions we shall have the heavy responsibility of deciding in our owl minds what it is right to do, and we shall then recommend it to Parliament.