§ Q3. Sir F. Bennettasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the visit of Ministers to the European Free Trade Association and on the progress being made towards the removal of the import surcharge.
§ The Prime MinisterSince the hon. Member's Question has been on the Order Paper for three months I am not certain which particular Ministerial visit to the European Free Trade Association he has in mind. If he is concerned with the visit of my right hon. Friends the First Secretary of State, the President of the 1953 Board of Trade and my noble Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs to Geneva in February, I would refer him to the communiqué issued after the meeting, a copy of which is in the Library. If, on the other hand, he is concerned with my visit to Vienna last month, I would refer him to the Answers I gave to Questions by the hon. Members for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) and Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) on 1st June.
§ Sir F. BennettIf I may be forgiven a short counter-preamble, may I say that the reason why—
§ Sir F. BennettMay I ask whether the Prime Minister realises that the only reason why the Question remained upon the Order Paper that long is because he has always found a very good reason for making his supplementary answers so long that it has not been reached earlier?
As regards the Question, I should like to ask the Prime Minister today—as nothing at all has happened in any event in the last three months, nothing has been lost to it—whether he would agree that the surcharge was originally imposed, in the words of himself and of his co-Ministers, in terms of a few months only. Would he like to say what he regards as the maximum limit of "a few months", as I know that he would value—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]—it is much better than the last one. As I know—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."]
§ Mr. SpeakerThe House wants to make progress with Questions. That means that both the Questions and the Answers will have to be considered as to length. Will the hon. Member bring his supplementary question to an end?
§ Sir F. BennettCertainly, Mr. Speaker. I should love to do so. As I know that the Prime Minister would value a reputation for integrity, would he care to say whether he does or does not accept one year as being the limit of the duration of the surcharge?
§ The Prime MinisterIf my answers are long, it is because the questions are long and because we have preambles to deal with. It might interest the hon. Member to know that in the period 1954 during which I have answered Questions at this Box compared with the same period last year, I have answered more Questions than my predecessor. [Interruption.] This was an exchange of preambular courtesies. It is right that I should refer to it.
The question about the surcharge has been fully answered a number of times. We shall take it off at the moment when it is safe to take it off. I hope that the hon. Member would not want us to do it before it was safe to take it off. I am not at this moment forecasting when it will be safe. All I can say is that when we imposed it, it had the support of the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), if not of the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath).
Mr. Gresham CookeAs the Government are so obviously optimistic about the balance of payments problem, as shown by the reduction in Bank Rate today, is not this the moment to take off the import surcharge altogether?
§ The Prime MinisterThe two questions cannot be related in that way. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making a statement about Bank Rate and he will probably deal with that sort of question. We are, of course, determined this year to get a really substantial reduction in the balance of payments deficit which we inherited last year. This means not only conventional action in relation to exports, in which direction the action which we have taken has had a marked effect, but it also means some restraint of imports. It also means pretty tough action in regard to Government military expenditure abroad and to the action that had to be taken on the capital account, which was taken by my right hon. Friend in his Budget. All these must be allowed to add up to a really significant reduction in our balance of payments deficit before we can consider whether it is safe to deal with the surcharge question.
§ Mr. HeathWill the Prime Minister agree that when he answered a supplementary question on this same conference last Tuesday, he said that during the negotiations in Brussels in which I was involved the trouble was—and I quote—that:
… at the time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st June, 1965; Vol. 713, c. 1514.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. Verbatim quotations are out of order in a question.
§ Mr. HeathI was doing it only for the sake of greater accuracy, Mr. Speaker. To paraphrase, the Prime Minister said that during those negotiations I gave no assurance that the interest of the E.F.T.A. neutrals would be looked after. Is the Prime Minister aware that we know what he was saying in Vienna on this point? Is he also aware that this country signed what was known as the London Agreement in July, 1961, before we entered into negotiations which safeguarded all the E.F.T.A. countries, including the neutrals, that this was confirmed at every E.F.T.A. meeting and that it was stated in full at every stage in the European negotiations? [HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Will the Prime Minister therefore stop casting doubt—[Interruption.] This is an important matter—
§ Mr. Michael FootOn a point of order. If a member of the Opposition Front Bench, however eminent, wishes to make a statement to the House on a general matter of his attitude to some past event, should he not ask your permission to do so, Mr. Speaker, instead of tacking it on to a Question?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe matter can be assisted if the Prime Minister can now answer as to his awareness at present. That, I think, is the inquisitorial matter so far.
§ Mr. FisherFurther to that point of order. Is it not fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that if criticisms are to come from the benches opposite to my right hon. Friend, we on his side are rather fed up that the Prime Minister's Questions are becoming Prime Minister's lectures?
§ Mr. SpeakerThe state of fed-upness of the hon. Member does not raise any point of order. Let us get on.
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman was correct in referring to the London Agreement of June, 1961, which we supported and, indeed, pressed him to announce.
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman is quite incorrect about that. 1956 If he knows what went on in Vienna, I can tell him what went on in London and his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) wanted to give that agreement and the right hon. Gentleman was resisting that agreement in London until the last possible moment. In order to answer his question; what we are concerned with—because June, 1961, was before the negotiations in Brussels—was that we would stick to that agreement. If the right hon. Gentleman will look up the text—I have not checked on this, because he gave me no notice that he had this prepared supplementary question, but my memory tends to be as good as his—he will find in successive debates on the Common Market, and I quote particularly the debates on 8th November, 1962, and 13th December, 1962, we were still demanding from him that he would honour that agreement and not go into the Common Market without satisfactory assurances for E.F.T.A. Week after week he refused to give that assurance, until the very end of the negotiations.
§ Sir F. BennettOn a point of order. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of that reply and the length of the Prime Minister's always interminable replies, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.
§ Mr. SpeakerIt is out of order when giving notice to make a speech. The hon. Member should adopt the ordinary practice.