§ The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath)Mr. Speaker, with your permission and that of the House I wish to make a statement on the Brussels negotiations.
The House will recall that, at the meeting of Ministers in Brussels on 17th January, the French delegation requested that the negotiations should be suspended. The five other delegations of the European Economic Community, and the British delegation, opposed this. It was agreed that the discussion on this question would be continued at the next ministerial meeting, arranged on 28th January, first among the Six delegations and then in the full conference of the Seven.
The Six met at about 7.15 p.m. on 28th January and again at noon and in the early afternoon of 29th January. The Ministers of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands did all they could, during these meetings, to persuade the French delegation to agree on a basis for continuing the negotiations. As the House knows, their efforts were of no avail. I was, of course, kept fully informed throughout their discussions.
At about 4.30 yesterday afternoon, the full conference of the Seven met to consider the situation. I was accompanied at this meeting by my right hon. Friends the Commonwealth Secretary and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The Chairman of the conference, M. Fayat, opened the meeting by reading 942 a statement, of which the following is a translation:
Following the decision taken by the Seven Governments on 18th January last, the Six have resumed their discussions on the proposal of the French Delegation to break off the negotiations between the Member States of the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom. The Five other Delegations of the European Economic Community, and the British Delegation, opposed this proposal at the time it was made. In the discussions held by the Six yesterday and today, various compromise proposals have been examined. It has finally become apparent that the Belgian, the German, the Italian, the Luxembourg and the Netherlands Delegations agree to accept the following text.And this is a quotation of the text:The European Commission is requested to draw up, during the next three weeks, a report on the present state of the negotiations for accession between Great Britain and the Six states of the European Economic Community; in this report the Commission will set out the results already obtained and the questions still in suspense, and will give its opinion on the latter. This report will be transmitted to each of the Seven Delegations composing the Conference. The work of the Conference will be resumed not later than ten days after the submission of this report.That was the end of the text.The French Delegation has refused to accept this text because of a different view which they will explain in the course of this meeting.After hearing this statement, Ministers representing Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg then each spoke in turn. With the exception of the French Foreign Minister, each declared that it was his Government's wish to continue the negotiations and his Government's conviction that the outstanding problems could be resolved. Each one expressed deep regret at the situation which had arisen and anxiety as to its consequences.Professor Hallstein, the President of the Commission, also spoke. He said that the European Commission would seek to reduce to the minimum the harmful effects of these developments, both within the European Economic Community and in its relations with other countries.
M. Couve de Murville stated his Government's reasons for having proposed a suspension of the negotiations. He argued that they had made no progress since October; that Britain had not been able to accept the disciplines of the Rome Treaty, notably the common agricultural policy; and that the entry 943 of new members to a club which was not yet complete raised serious questions, notably for the founder members.
I then said that, had the Six countries been able to agree on the draft terms of reference for a report by the European Commission which had been proposed by the five delegations, we should have been able to accept them, because they would have shown that the negotiations were being resumed in good faith. I recalled the reasons for our application to enter into negotiations with the Community.
I completely repudiated the arguments advanced by the French delegation for advocating the suspension of the negotiations. I said that we would not turn our backs on the Continent because of these events, but would continue to work with all our friends in Europe for its future strength and unity
The Chairman of the conference then said that, in the circumstances, he was forced to record the fact, with great regret, that the member States of the European Economic Community were prevented from continuing the negotiations. He was convinced that this regret would be echoed throughout the world. M. Fayat then declared the meeting closed.
In my previous statements to the House after ministerial meetings, Mr. Speaker, I have confined myself to giving an account of the events which took place. Perhaps on this occasion I may be permitted a comment. What has happened is a bitter blow to all those who believe in true European unity, but it is not a mortal one. The events of the past few weeks have shown how many people throughout Europe want us to play a full part in its creation. The Governments of the five member States of the Community—whose peoples together number about 120 million—have clearly shown that they are among those who share with us a common view of the Europe we want to see. There is a foundation of friendship and good will for the future.
Mr. H. WilsonMay I, first, put this to the right hon. Gentleman—in a personal sense? Despite our very strong criticisms throughout of the position in which he has been placed through economic weakness and what we consider to be the economic mismanagement 944 which led to the negotiations, and our strong criticism, which we maintain and stand by, of the many unilateral concessions he has given, involving vital British and Commonwealth interests, nevertheless I am sure that I am speaking for the whole House in paying tribute to the right hon. Gentleman's industry and patience and not least to his restraint during these very difficult past days. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that now, turning to face the future, this should not be regarded as a disaster for the country, that we certainly do not so regard it; and that it may be of great advantage to the country if it is now regarded as bringing home clearly to everyone that the future of this country depends entirely on our own efforts and what we are prepared to do and if it brings home to the whole House that no British Minister must ever again be put in the position of waiting outside in the cold—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—is the right hon. Gentleman aware of this? I think he is—while others decide our fate?
Finally, may I put this to the right hon. Gentleman? It may be too serious a matter for hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand, but the right hon. Gentleman does understand it. Is he aware that throughout the past year, from this Bench, we have many times called for the preparation of alternative policies for such an eventuality? In considering these, which the Government are now forced to do, will he pay particular attention to the proposals that we put forward from this Bench on 8th November and 13th December?
Will he also take note that when we are able to debate this matter in the House, whenever that is arranged, we on this side, who have been working very hard on possible alternatives, will have a full range of policies to put forward to deal with the situation?
§ Mr. HeathI should like, first, to express my gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for the comments which he made about myself and the conduct of these negotiations and about the British delegation, even though I am unwilling to accept the context in which he made the comments.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's comments about a matter to which he and 945 his colleagues have so often referred, that of waiting outside in the negotiations, I have tried to explain before that this was a negotiation with a Community in which the Community always had to form a Community point of view. In these circumstances, we always accepted that it was right that before the negotiations with ourselves began, the Community should itself agree on its policy. There has been nothing in any way humiliating about that.
My right hon. Friends will, of course, announce any necessary measures about these matters in due course. When we went into these negotiations, the Government surveyed the whole field of policy and came to their conclusion that this was the right step to take.
We have followed the right hon. Gentleman's statements about future policies, and I would only say to him, as he has indicated that he hopes to have an opportunity to debate the matter more fully later, that I hope that in his attempt to, as he has said, open the country's eyes to realism, he will not put forward the solution that every problem which faces us can be solved only too easily by calling a conference, because that is so often what the right hon. Gentleman has suggested in the trade field, without having specific proposals about it.
These were specific negotiations with a specific purpose. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends must be quite clear of the context in which they are putting forward proposals in the debate.
§ Mr. G. Brownrose—
Mr. BrownThe unease of hon. Members opposite is clearly apparent.
Arising out of the Lord Privy Seal's statement, may I put this to the Prime Minister? The Lord Privy Seal's statement was inevitably largely an historical one. The situation that concerns the nation, whatever matters to hon. Gentlemen opposite, is where we go from here. It is for the Government, in the first place, to propose the steps that we should now take.
946 May I ask the Prime Minister whether he agrees with me that this is not a matter which can easily be dealt with by way of question and answer? Is he, therefore, willing to enter into negotiations with us to arrange for a debate on this issue, preferably to be opened by himself, some time next week?
§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan)I am sure that the whole House realises that there should and must be a debate. Perhaps the ordinary measures for arranging a debate could be entered into through the usual channels, which have, I think, always worked satisfactorily to meet the wishes of the House as a whole.
§ Sir D. Walker-SmithMay I respectfully associate myself with the tribute paid to my right hon. Friend for his patience, industry and high personal qualities in the long and laborious negotiations?
May I, while expressing my pleasure that Her Majesty's Government have not consented to join the Community on terms detrimental to our basic interests and position, ask that Her Majesty's Government should now seek out our Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. friends to discuss ways and means of promoting and expanding trade and make clear to them that Britain does so not in order to bring pressure on the Six, or while awaiting an invitation to further negotiations, but believing in her heart and being that this course is right in itself and full of great possibility for the enhanced well-being of our people and theirs?
§ Mr. HeathI thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his preliminary remarks, the more so as we have disagreed over matters of policy in these negotiations. Perhaps I should make one thing clear, that these negotiations have not ceased because what we have negotiated was unacceptable. The negotiations have been brought to an end for political reasons by one Government against the wish of five member Government's and the British Government and, indeed, against the advice of the European Economic Commission.
There is a meeting of the European Free Trade Association countries already arranged for 18th February, which will 947 give us an opportunity of having a full review of the existing situation. We have always said that our objective must be to increase the trade between the E.F.T.A. countries, with the reduction of tariffs between them.
We have been throughout the negotiations, and are now, in the fullest consultation with the Commonwealth countries about economic matters.
§ Mr. GrimondMay I congratulate the Lord Privy Seal on his conduct of the negotiations and commiserate with him on their ending? May I ask him whether he does not agree that it is a tragedy that the British Government were not, in fact, founder members and delayed their application so late?
May I also ask whether it is clear that the Government have rejected any proposals for any form of association with the Six, and whether next week, when the debate takes place, or whenever it does, we shall have from the Government some specific proposals for an increase in trade within E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth and with the G.A.T.T. countries generally?
§ Mr. HeathI do not think that one wishes at this particular time to discuss the origins of the movement in Europe, beginning with those of the Coal and Steel Community in 1950. In these negotiations we have made a genuine and earnest attempt to bring them to a conclusion.
With regard to the question of association, there has been no offer of any alternative arrangements in these negotiations by the Community as a whole, and, of course, it does not lie in the power of any particular country to make an offer of any arrangement of this kind.
As to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, perhaps we may now await the debate which is to be arranged.
§ Mr. FellIs my right hon. Friend aware that what the country demands now is leadership that will forget and which will stop chasing the will-of-the-wisp of the Treaty of Rome and, instead, concentrate on promoting British trade with all those countries in the world with whom we can promote it, that is, 948 with the Commonwealth, with our E.F.T.A. friends and with all those countries of Asia, Africa and South America upon whom the future of British expansion of trade depends.
It is a little surprising to hear that the Lord Privy Seal still feels that the negotiations are not quite at an end. Unless we can make a break now, and say that the negotiations are finished and that we are to concentrate on development with our friends, then it does not augur well for the future of this nation. Let us, for heaven's sake, forget the Treaty of Rome and get on with developing what we have.
§ Mr. HeathIt must always be the purpose of the people of this country to expand trade wherever they can, because we exist by being, fundamentally, a trading nation. I hope that my hon. Friend will not forget that one of the largest and wealthiest trading groups in the world today is the European Economic Community and that, therefore, it must be a major part of policy to increase trade with that Community.
§ Mr. ShinwellMay I ask the Lord Privy Seal, whose sincerity and integrity are unquestionable, whether he was surprised at the attitude adopted by the French delegation, whether he is aware that many months ago the French expressed their objection to British entry into the E.E.C. and that M. Pisani, the French Minister of Agriculture, is on record—I quote him accurately—as saying that for Britain to enter the Common Market would mean the complete abandonment of the British Commonwealth? That is the statement made by him many months ago. If the right hon. Gentleman would like me to supply him with the text, I will gladly do so. Therefore, I again ask him whether he was surprised at the French delegation's intransigence.
§ Mr. HeathI have explained to the House on previous occasions that the trading arrangements negotiated for the African and West Indian Commonwealth were themselves of a preferential nature and, in many cases, of a greater preferential nature than the existing Commonwealth arrangements.
As to the Asian Commonwealth, very detailed arrangements had already been 949 negotiated to safeguard the trade of those countries, which would not only have protected their trade in the United Kingdom but would have opened trade to them in the European Community as a whole.
As to the remaining part of the Commonwealth—Canada, Australia and New Zealand—for such part of their trade for which arrangements had been concluded, preferences were to have been phased out by 1970: we believe that the essential interests of the Commonwealth countries would have been maintained in these negotiations. We therefore disagreed with M. Pisani's statement.
When the right hon. Gentleman asks whether I was surprised by the action of the French delegation on 18th January, I must tell him that I was greatly surprised, particularly in view of the assurances which I had received in my discussions only a few days earlier in Paris and of the communiques issued after the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister both to Champs and to Rambouillet.
§ Mr. HastingsWill my right hon. Friend accept my sympathy and commiseration on the way that things have turned out? Will he also accept that there are those behind him who are no wit less determined now than we were before this happened that this country should be enabled to play its full and rightful part in a united Europe, and, further, that we are determined that this great enterprise shall not for long be delayed by the wilful ambition of one man? In any future arrangements which may now be made, will my right hon. Friend use his influence to ensure that nothing is done to make this aim more difficult?
§ Mr. HeathYes, Sir. I hope that in our discussions on economic and trade matters, to which, in the past, we have often devoted a great deal of time, the House will not overlook the grave political implications of the existing disunity in Europe.
§ Mr. J. HyndThe Minister will be well aware that there is more than one serious aspect of the situation. If it pleases General de Gaulle to treat 950 European unity as Tshombe treated Congo unity, that is the business of the Six. There are, however, two other features which affect this country in its relation to Europe, and these have been dealt with by my right hon. Friend.
The third and probably the most important aspect of all is the implication of this matter vis-a-vis the future of the Atlantic Alliance. Will the Government, therefore, give us an assurance that they are now entering into contact with our American allies to discuss the future of the Atlantic Alliance? In the event of an early debate on the matter, can we have an assurance that it will be at least a two-day debate because of the many implications of the situation?
§ Mr. HeathThe last matter is, of course, one for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who will, I am sure, have taken note of the point made by the hon. Member
I have no doubt that the question of the Atlantic Alliance will also be discussed during the debate which is about to begin today, and tomorrow.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I must take the House into my confidence. I realise intensely the great importance and interest of this matter, but I cannot help thinking that we would be better advised to await a debate. The House has much to do and I cannot help knowing how many important right hon. and hon. Members there are, on both sides of the House, who will not get in during the defence debate because there is not time.