UNITED KINGDOM AND FRANCE (RELATIONS) (Hansard, 28 June 1966)

§ The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson)
While, as the House knows, there are differences of view between ourselves and the French Government on questions affecting the organisation of the Atlantic Alliance, it is our constant purpose to maintain the best possible relations with France. We look forward to the French Prime Minister's visit next week as a welcome opportunity for improving these relations on the wide range of interests which we have in common with France.

§ Mr. Heath
Is it not unfortunately a fact that the speech made by the Secretary of State for Defence, whose apology to the House yesterday the whole House accepted, has, unfortunately, damaged the relations between this country and France? Can the Prime Minister therefore confirm the reports in the Press today that an apology was sent by the Prime Minister to the French Government?

§ The Prime Minister
The position about the French Government is that, on my instructions, the French Embassy was informed yesterday morning that my right hon. Friend would be making that statement. I understand that my right hon. Friend himself telephoned the French Embassy so that this could be conveyed to the French Government.
I think that my right hon. Friend, having made a mistake in the way he expressed himself in this unprepared aside in a speech outside the House, did the right thing in coming straight to the House and explaining what he was trying to say and expressing his regret at the words he used and his disavowal of any intention to be discourteous.
If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to leave it there, I would ask him whether he recalls what he said three years ago, when he said: The high hopes of so many have thus been thwarted for political reasons at the will of one man. His right hon. Friend the then Foreign Secretary, after describing the action, said: That is not the way you ought to treat an ally and a friend. 1593 When asked whether General de Gaulle seemed to have deceived Britain, he went on to say: I think in this respect, one must be absolutely frank and say, 'Yes'. These were considered and deliberate Ministerial statements. None of them was the subject of any personal statement of qualification, withdrawal or expression of regret, [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member for Easington cannot hear me calling him to put a question. Mr. Shinwell.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Is my right hon. Friend not aware that any deterioration in Franco-British relations dates back to the period when the right hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) was negotiating on the Common Market?

§ The Prime Minister
There were some unfortunate things said on that occasion. I have a list of some more if the right hon. Gentleman wants to get up and ask for them.

§ Mr. Tapsell
After what the Prime Minister has said this afternoon, is he still expecting the visit of M. Pompidou to prove fruitful?

§ The Prime Minister
Very fruitful. It took a year or two, culminating in the talks with President de Gaulle in April last year, to undo the harm which was done in February, 1963, and I think that we will improve on that this time.

§ Sir Alec Douglas-Home
The right hon. Gentleman has sought to draw a parallel between something which I said during the time of the Brussels negotiations and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Defence. At the time of the negotiations, I think, we were entitled to say that the French Government at that time had misled us. That is a very different thing from saying that one does not trust a Head of State.

§ The Prime Minister
The word which the right hon. Gentleman used in the Answer to the Question was not "misled"; it was "deceived".

§ Mr. Michael Foot
In view of the injury which might be done to Anglo-French relations, which all of us might deplore, by these exchanges, does not my 1594 right hon. Friend think that it would be better if the leadership of the Opposition were officially taken over by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)?

§ The Prime Minister
I do not think that this is a matter for me, but I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will learn when and when not to use Private Notice Questions—

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ Mr. Heath
First of all, on a point of order, is it not a reflection on the Chair that the Prime Minister should challenge the use of a Private Notice Question on this point?

§ The Prime Minister
Further to that point of order. It was not a reflection on the Chair for accepting it, because, of course, it is the tradition that, if the Leader of the Opposition puts a Question, it is always accepted if it is in order. It was a reflection on the right hon. Gentleman's sense of tactics for twice having tried to use this and getting "clobbered" both times.

Hon. Members
Oh.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. It is important that the Chair remains outside the battle. For the record, I must make clear, in view of what the Prime Minister has said, that whilst the Leader of the Opposition has the right to put Questions without them appearing on the Order Paper, the Questions he puts must be in order, as with any other Questions put by hon. Members. And when the Leader of the Opposition submits a Private Notice Question to Mr. Speaker, it must conform to the rules of order, like Questions submitted by any other hon. Member.

§ Mr. Heath
Is the Prime Minister aware that there is nothing in what he quoted from my remarks which is a personal attack on a Head of State such as was made by the Secretary of State for Defence? Is he aware that I was giving the Prime Minister the opportunity of trying to improve relations with France —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—as I can justly claim that my own relations with President de Gaulle and the French Government are of the happiest? Will the right hon. Gentleman cease treating this as a light-hearted question and return 1595 to the serious matter of improving relations with the French Government? Instead of behaving like his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, will the right hon. Gentleman try to behave like a Prime Minister?

§ The Prime Minister
I would be more impressed with the right hon. Gentleman's statement of his motives and his appeal to treat it in this way if he did not always, when he was going to use one of these tactics, tell the Press in advance —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There were headlines in two Tory newspapers this morning and—[Interruption.]

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The Chair wants to hear the duellists. There are too many seconds about.

§ The Prime Minister
Two Tory newspapers this morning said that the right hon. Gentleman was going to use the personal statement made by my right hon. Friend yesterday for a political attack on the Government.

§ Mr. Hastings
Is it not a fact that the remarks alluded to by the Prime Minister were made at the end of a long, painstaking and, above all, honest attempt to negotiate our way into Europe and that there was a great difference between that and the gratuitous insults offered by the Secretary of State for Defence at a time when the present Government are protesting their intention to start such negotiations when they can?

§ The Prime Minister
This is, in my experience, the first time that a personal statement has not been accepted by the House in the spirit in which it was made. As for the earlier statement of February, 1963, it was made at the end of a painstaking and difficult series of negotiations. In that debate, after the right hon. Gentleman has spoken bitterly, but not in the sense of the words I have been quoting from other speeches, I said that I fully understood his disappointment and why he felt like that because, I said, I had once had a similar disappointment when negotiating with the Soviet Union.
I understood why he said that at the time, so I do understand these things. Nevertheless, if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want to make anything out of my right hon. Friend's statement last weekend—which was not a 1596 considered statement and which was in a different context—it is right to remind them of considered Ministerial statements which they made three years ago.

§ Mr. Edelman
In the course of comparisons between different attitudes towards President de Gaulle, will the House recall that the Leader of the Opposition gave a hospitable reception to M. Tixier-Vignancourt, who was an advocate of those who tried to assassinate President de Gaulle?

§ The Prime Minister
It is not for me to comment on the right hon. Gentleman's social life.

§ Mr. Hogg
Will not the right hon. Gentleman and the House now recall that it is not so long since French and British blood was shed in a common cause?

§ The Prime Minister
Yes, Sir. That is true, and not only that. Much more recently there have been many joint ventures started between the French and British Governments and many of them are of very great importance to us at the present time. That is why I deprecate the fact that when my right hon. Friend, having made a slip of the tongue, which can happen to anyone—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My right hon. Friend made it very plain yesterday, he explained it and withdrew it and was very frank. I deprecate that this should be used for party reasons to try to stir up bad relations.

§ Mr. Lipton
On a point of order. May I respectfully draw your attention, Mr. Speaker to the fact that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) wanted to ask a supplementary question a minute or two ago? Would you be good enough to provide him with the opportunity of doing so?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. This is the first time for a long time that we have had a bogus point of order. I hope that we will not have any more of them.

§ Mr. Heath
Is the Prime Minister aware that he and his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) are now indulging in the slander by innuendo which the right hon. Gentleman was decrying so strongly a few minutes ago, and that this is typical of the Prime Minister?

§ The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) referred to a decision by the right hon. Gentleman to entertain a particular Right-wing French politician. That, of course, was a matter within the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman. All that I said—and I made no innuendo —was that it was not for me to comment on it.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Mr. Grimond.

§ Mr. Grimond
On a point of order. If we have now reached the end of these questions, could you give the House some guidance, Mr. Speaker, on two points? First, when is it in order for a Minister to make a personal explanation in the House about a speech made outside the House and having no connection with the House? Secondly, that permission having been granted, and the statement clearly being undiscussable, under what circumstances is it within the rules of order to ask a Private Notice Question which inevitably leads to discussion, because this would seem to defeat the whole Ruling that personal statements made in the House of Commons are not subject to discussion?

§ Mr. Speaker
On the first point, no hon. or right hon. Member can make a personal statement to the House unless he has submitted it to the Speaker, and unless the Speaker has satisfied himself that it contains nothing controversial or political but is merely an attempt to correct some matter affecting a speech which may have been made either inside or outside the House.
On the second point, this is the difficulty which the House must face. It is the tradition of the House—one of its precious traditions—that when a personal statement is made it is heard in silence and it is heard and accepted without 1598 comment. No hon. or right hon. Member questions, I am certain, any hon. or right hon. Member's integrity, good faith or honour, once a personal statement has been made. However, certain issues of policy may arise around it and the difficulty would be that if one precluded any further comment at any future time on issues which arose out of a personal statement it might be possible for an hon. or right hon. Member, by making a personal statement, to put a ban on some very important matter which the House wanted to discuss. That is the position as I see it.