HC Deb 02 May 1962 vol 658 cc992-5
3. Mr. Shinwell

asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in the course of his negotiations on the political aspects of Her Majesty's Government's association with the European Economic Community.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath)

The six member Governments of the European Economic Community held a further meeting in Paris on 17th April to discuss texts for a political treaty. At the meeting of Western European Union in London on 10th April I stated that we expect to be consulted before any text becomes final and I suggested to them that it might now be useful for us to join them in discussing the political structure of an enlarged European Community.

Mr. Shinwell

Have the right hon. Gentleman and the Government generally made up their minds about this political association? Does the right hon. Gentleman's reply indicate a loss of sovereignty by this House of Commons and the other place? Does that nebulous Answer indicate that, in addition to selling the Commonwealth down the river, the Government are selling Parliament down the river?

Mr. Heath

The Answer is far from nebulous. It is quite explicit about what has been happening, which is the question that the right hon. Gentleman asked me. It is necessary to distinguish between the negotiations in Brussels, which are concerned with the Treaty of Rome, and the separate discussions which the members of the Community have been having about constructing a new treaty concerned with the political affairs of Europe as a whole. It was to the latter that I addressed my remarks to the Western European Union, which were quite explicit about it.

Mr. H. Wilson

Recognising that there are two sets of negotiations and that two separate treaties will be required, does not the Lord Privy Seal recall that the Prime Minister last year, when announcing the Government's decision, said that this was a purely economic negotiation? In view of that, will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House why in his speech to the Western European Union he said, in effect, that the economic association would be meaningless without political union?

Mr. Heath

The Prime Minister said quite clearly—I said it myself in the same debate; indeed, I said it in the first debate on the matter in the House on 17th May of last year—that the Treaty of Rome is an economic treaty. I pointed out also that it has political implications. [Interruption.] This has never been disguised from the House or the country. Indeed, after the declaration at Bonn in July this was also mentioned in the debate in the House. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister discussed the possible developments in Europe of confederation and federation and explained Her Majesty's Government's views about them.

Mr. Turton

Has my right hon. Friend had a reply to his request? If not, does he anticipate one?

Mr. Heath

The Ministers of the European Economic Community have not met again since 17th April. Therefore, there has not been the opportunity for them to deal with it. It was a suggestion that I made. It was not a request. I have no doubt at all that the suggestion will be acknowledged and answered.

Mr. Shinwell

As the political implications and the negotiations associated with those implications may have very grave repercussions on this assembly and the sovereignty of this Parliament, may we have an assurance from the Lord Privy Seal here and now that he will make frequent progress reports to the House so that we can express our opinions on the subject?

Mr. Heath

The Government are bound by the Resolution of the House of Commons of 3rd August, which dealt fully with sovereignty. The undertaking was given in that Resolution. I am always delighted to give information fully to the House on every possible occasion, but sometimes there appears to be too much for the House to assimilate.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke

Will my right hon. Friend clear up one uncertainty to which his answers have given rise now? Is he drawing a distinction between Western European Union and the Fouchet Commission? Are we to take it that what he has suggested to Western European Union is passed on simultaneously to members of the Fouchet Commission?

Mr. Heath

The Fouchet Commission, which has now become the Cattani Commission as a result of the change of chairmanship, is formed of members of the European Economic Community. We are not a member of the Community. Therefore, we are not a member of the Cattani Commission. I took the opportunity of the Western European Union meeting, in which the six governments are represented in addition to ourselves, to express our views about the European political developments.

Mr. Pentland

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us feel that a very important consideration involved in our acceptance of the Rome Treaty would be the constitutional changes Which would be necessary in British law and machinery of government if we accepted? Therefore, would the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, before the negotiations which are taking place on our entry into the Common Market are finalised, he will come forward and explain to the House exactly what these constitutional changes will mean to the country and to the Commonwealth?

Mr. Heath

Yes. We are bound to do that by the Resolution of the House of Commons of last August. Of course, we shall take the opportunity of fully explaining all the implications of any steps which we are proposing.

Mr. H. Wilson

Is not the Lord Privy Seal aware that the Resolution carried by the House on a Division related purely to negotiations for economic association under the Treaty of Rome, with such derogations of sovereignty as are required by the Treaty of Rome? That was all that it carried. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House when he or any other Minister came to the House for a mandate to embark on political negotiations which, as he has said, is an entirely separate matter leading to a separate treaty? At what stage has he or any other Minister reported to the House that this was their policy? When has he sought a Resolution of the House of Commons to empower him to undertake those negotiations?

Mr. Heath

It was made perfectly plain in the debates in the House of Commons in August that these developments were taking place. Again on 17th May I explained the political discussions which were taking place amongst the Ministers of the Six and the political consultation which was developing. Therefore, it was necessary for us to consider entering into those negotiations. That has always been made quite clear from the beginning. As these matters proceed I am only too happy to report them to the House.