§ Q2. Mr. Stonehouseasked the Prime Minister if he will invite the Prime Ministers of the European Free Trade Association countries to meet him to discuss the European Free Trade Association countries' relation with the Common Market and to clarify the pledges made to the European Free Trade Association and to strengthen Great Britain's position in negotiations with the Six.
§ The Prime MinisterI do not think this is necessary. We are in close and continuous touch with our European Free Trade Association partners. A Ministerial meeting was held in Oslo on 22nd October, when all members reaffirmed their adherence to the London communiqué of June, 1961.
§ Mr. StonehouseIs the Prime Minister aware of the great concern now being expressed that our pledges to our partners in the Association are being devalued to a mere consultation? Surely they go further than that. Does the Prime Minister now accept that it would be impossible for Britain to go into the Common Market till the broad position of our partners, including Sweden, is in fact clearly established?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is a question of whether there should be a further meeting. There was a Ministerial meeting only a few weeks ago. There is almost daily consultation, and the position is absolutely clear, and I do not think it would add anything if I tried to change the words of the agreed communiqué.
§ Mr. GaitskellIf it is absolutely clear, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would explain to the House whether he understands the pledge that we have given to the other E.F.T.A. countries to mean that we shall not sign, or, indeed, initial, an agreement covering our entry into the E.E.C. unless and until the other members of E.F.T.A. have had their interests considered and their interests are properly safeguarded.
§ The Prime MinisterThat is perhaps a broad interpretation of the facts, but I do not think I can add to—nor, indeed, do I think it would be right to detract from or to add to—the words of the agreed communiqué only a few weeks ago.
§ Mr. GaitskellDoes the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that it is precisely the lack of clarity in the position which concerns some of us? The question is whether we are going to sign the Treaty of Rome—or, if he likes to take another question, is it that he is going to introduce legislation here, after signing the Treaty of Rome, before the E.F.T.A. countries' interests have been considered?
§ The Prime MinisterWhat I am asked to do is to alter the words of a communiqué, or to interpret it, and I am not prepared, without notice, to do that. This is absolutely clear. It is accepted by the Ministerial meeting. The question is whether we shall have another Ministerial meeting. No doubt there will be one. There was one only two or three weeks ago. There is no doubt on this matter whatsoever.
§ Mr. GaitskellIs it not perfectly obvious that there is considerable doubt, which the Prime Minister completely refuses to dispel? Is it not highly desirable that there should be another meeting of the E.F.T.A. countries in order to clear up the point about exactly how Her Majesty's Government interpret their pledge?
§ The Prime MinisterNo, Sir. The doubt is created by the cloud of doubt which the right hon. Gentleman puts over the matter. All the E.F.T.A. countries were perfectly satisfied and are satisfied. They have informed me, and I know quite well, that they are satisfied. No doubt there will be another Ministerial meeting. Meanwhile, there are the daily consultations.