HC Deb 29 April 1963 vol 676 cc711-5
37. Mr. Swingler

asked the Lord Privy Seal if it was with his authority that the British Ambassador in Bonn stated on 24th April that a Labour Government would not keep Great Britain out of the Common Market.

40. Mr. M. Foot

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the statement made by the British Ambassador in Bonn on 24th April, concerning future negotiations about the Common Market, was made with his authority.

41. Mr. Rankin

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the statement of Her Majesty's Ambassador to Bonn at his conference with the Press on 24th April last, to the effect that a Labour Government was unlikely to keep Britain out of the Common Market because it would be unprecedented for a new Government to reverse a major decision in this field of foreign policy taken by their predecessor, was made on the instructions of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

42. Mr. G. Thomas

asked the Lord Privy Seal why Her Majesty's Ambassador in Bonn was authorised by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to tell a Press conference on 24th April that a Labour Government would not keep Great Britain out of the European Economic Community, because there was no precedent for a new Government reversing a major decision in the field of foreign affairs taken by their predecessor.

44. Mrs. Hart

asked the Lord Privy Seal if it was with the authority of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that Her Majesty's Ambassador in Bonn made a public statement to the effect that, the present Government having made a major decision in the field of foreign policy in favour of entering the European Economic Community, it would be contrary to precedent for a Labour Government to reverse that decision.

Mr. Heath

Her Majesty's Ambassador at Bonn was answering questions at a luncheon given for him by the Foreign Press Association on 24th April. He made the point that a British Government does not default on international obligations assumed by their predecessor. This is in accordance with the Government's view of the customary constitutional position.

Mr. Swingler

Does the right hon. Gentleman then adhere to the view, which he recently gave to two French journalists, that a Labour Government coming into power after this Government would be completely bound by any commitments undertaken by the present Government? If that is the right hon. Gentleman's view, would he kindly instruct himself, Her Majesty's Government, as well as Her Majesty's Ambassador, on what policies and conditions on the Common Market would be put forward by a Labour Government?

Mr. Heath

I have always expressed both in public and in private the view that one British Government does not repudiate the treaty obligations of a previous British Government. That, I believe, is historically and constitutionally correct. I would not, therefore, like to suggest that any succeeding Labour Government would repudiate treaty undertakings.

Mr. M. Foot

Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that the British Ambassador in Bonn has sufficient difficulty in upholding his own policies without upholding the policies of his successors? Moreover, when the right hon. Gentleman says that British Governments never repudiate the undertakings of previous Governments, may I ask whether we have not had an example of it a few minutes ago? The present Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman is a member, repudiated the Tripartite Agreement agreed in 1950. Therefore, what is the use of the right hon. Gentleman saying all this? Would it not be better if he said that he had advised the Ambassador in Bonn to tell the people of Germany the views of the Labour Party about the Common Market and not to mislead them as he did the other day?

Mr. Heath

The hon. Gentleman says that the Tripartite Agreement was repudiated. He has no justification for saying that. It has never been retracted. As for Her Majesty's Ambassador in Bonn, he was dealing not with the policies of the party opposite, but with international treaty obligations.

Mr. Rankin

Is it not the case that the Government's Common Market policy was rejected at Brussels? Is it not also the case that that Common Market policy has never even come to a final decision either in this House or in the country? How, then, could it be called a major part of foreign policy?

Mr. Heath

This was not a question of dealing with a particular policy but with international obligations which have been undertaken by one Government.

Mr. H. Wilson

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those of us who have read the report and know Sir Frank Roberts can only assume that he has been very much misreported in this context? Is he further aware that in reports in this country the suggestion was made that the questions related to a state of affairs under which Her Majesty's present Government would be going into the Common Market before the election? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary said that there would be no further negotiations until the Government are changed, that is, not here but in France? If that is so, is not the whole thing rather a mare's nest? Would the right hon. Gentleman finally make clear to any Ambassadors who might be asked questions on these matters that the position of the Opposition remains exactly the same as is was last year and that we have laid down five conditions which would have to be fulfilled before there would be any question of a Labour Government going into the Common Market?

Mr. Heath

I fully understand that position. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will discuss with his four hon. Friends how they created the mare's nest.

Mr. Rankin

But has the right hon. Gentleman read my Question on the Order Paper in which it is recorded that the British Ambassador said that a Labour Government would not keep Great Britain out of the European Economic Community because there was no precedent for a new Government reversing a major decision in a foreign field? That is exactly what I implied in my Question—that a major decision has not been reached so far and, therefore, cannot be reversed.

Mr. Heath

Everybody agrees about that. The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) himself said that the Ambassador at Brussels had been misreported. He was dealing with international obligations undertaken in the form of a treaty. That is not the position in relation to the Community and, therefore, there is no dispute about it.

Mr. H. Wilson

Since it is clear that the difficulty has arisen from misreporting, and since a lot of people might take statements in responsible British newspapers as meaning something, would it not have been a good thing, in the week that has occurred since what I have always thought was misreporting took place, if the Government issued a statement making plain that the Ambassador had been misreported and is not in a position to speak on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition, still less misrepresent the position of Her Majesty's Govemment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Opposition."]—or Opposition, because both seem to have been done in this report? Would it not have saved a great deal of trouble and Parliamentary time if the Government had put the matter right or Sir Frank Roberts had been invited to put it right when he was clearly misreported?

Mr. Heath

Sir Frank was not attempting to represent the position of Her Majesty's Opposition. He was dealing with a purely constitutional point, and I do not think that anybody in the House disagrees with that constitutional point. I am sorry if any party should wish to repudiate treaties. If there has been any misunderstanding, it has been successfully cleared up now.