§ Q3. Mr. Sandysasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement about the progress of his talks with other Governments regarding the entry of Great Brtain into the Common Market.
§ The Prime MinisterI have nothing to add to the replies I gave to Questions by hon. Members, following the visits of my right hon. Friend and myself to Rome, Paris and Brussels respectively, 1823 on the 19th January, the 26th January and the 2nd February, Sir.—[Vol. 739, c. 643; Vol. 739, c. 1765; Vol. 740, c. 769.]
§ Mr. SandysWill the Prime Minister, in his talks, make it clear that, as the public opinion polls show, he is speaking for the mass of the British people—[Interruption.]—and that those here who oppose Britain's entry into the Common Market are a small and declining minority? Can he say whether the Governments of the countries he has approached accept that a special arrangement will be required to meet the unique problem of New Zealand?
§ The Prime MinisterIn answer to the first part of that supplementary question, which the right hon. Gentleman extended beyond the Common Market, it is certainly the case that even this morning's public opinion poll confirms what he said. But it would be rather more considerate of him if he did not keep rubbing in this point to the Front Bench opposite.
With regard to public opinion on the Common Market, I think that the right hon. Gentleman correctly expressed the position. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The right hon. Gentleman perfectly represented what the public opinion polls have recorded about the Common Market.
The answer to the third part of his supplementary question is that, in our talks with the countries I have mentioned, they have fully understood the special problem of New Zealand, as I have previously reported.
§ Mr. AndersonWill my right hon. Friend be heartened not only by the public opinion polls but by the fact that, last weekend, the European Left, meeting in Paris, unanimously approved our entry?
§ The Prime MinisterIt is not for me to comment on internal political views expressed in other countries. There have been public opinion polls there but it is not for me to comment.
§ Lord BalnielIs the Prime Minister aware that there is very considerable resentment about the way in which our Ambassador in Paris is being criticised for his speech which, I understand, fully represented the view of Her Majesty's Government? Will the Prime Minister 1824 make it clear that the Ambassador fully enjoys his confidence?
§ The Prime MinisterI dealt with this question on Tuesday and have nothing to add to what I said then. Since then, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has also answered a Question and has stated that he was putting a copy of the full speech in the Library of the House so that right hon. and hon. Members will be able to judge for themselves the context in which the Ambassador was speaking—a context which the Foreign Secretary and I fully support. The House will be able to judge, perhaps at some risk to myself, whether I was right or not in saying that the Ambassador had been misreported in certain sections of the Press.
§ Mr. Michael FootHowever the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) may have phrased his supplementary question, will my right hon. Friend take into account that some of us do not care a fig for what the opinion polls say, on this subject or any other? Will he therefore send to our Ambassador in Paris and to all our other Ambassadors the information which he and the Foreign Secretary confirmed as recently as a few months ago—that the five conditions laid down by the Labour Party for entry into the Common Market still stand? Will he make sure that every British Ambassador in the world knows that?
§ The Prime MinisterI answered the question put to me, which was whether I was aware of the public opinion polls. The answer to that was, "Yes". My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) asks me whether I am aware that he does not care a fig for what the public opinion polls say. The answer to that is, "Yes, I am aware that he does not care a fig about them."
I have repeatedly explained in the House the position of the Government on the conditions of British entry and a decision has still to be taken by the Government. Nothing that was said by our Ambassador in Paris derogated from the duty falling on the Government [Interruption.] The Ambassador knows full well what was said in Paris about the conditions of entry and is au fait with the Government's position. He did not say that the Government have taken a decision. He spoke entirely within the 1825 context of the statement that I made to the House on 10th November.
§ Mr. HeathI am sure that the Prime Minister is right in the interpretation given to the House of the Ambassador's speech, which some of today's newspapers reported more fully than was the case previously. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he and the Government have complete confidence in the Ambassador?
§ The Prime MinisterYes, Sir. I have already said that. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has referred to what I failed to mention—that a fuller and less selective report of the speech appears in today's Press, but right hon. and hon. Members can judge for themselves from the fuller statement in the Library.
§ Q5. Sir T. Beamishasked the Prime Minister what information he has given to member Governments of the European Economic Community about the progress that he plans to make in this Parliament towards the long-term aim of his Government to nationalise the means of production, distribution and exchange; and what doubts have been expressed by members of the Community about the compatibility of such a doctrine with Great Britain's membership of the European Economic Community.
§ The Prime MinisterThe answers to the two parts of the Question are "None", and "None", Sir.
§ Sir T. BeamishDoes that reply mean that Clause Four of the Labour Party's Constitution has been secretly dropped or amended or does it mean that the Prime Minister has changed his views since he said in the House on 3rd August, 1961, that even his party's short-term policy for a Socialist economy
…cannot be implemented without substantial amendments…."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1657.]to the Treaty of Rome?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is about six years out of date in the first part of that supplementary question. I commend him to study the statement of the Labour Party National Executive on 16th March, 1960, dealing with Clause Four in full. I hope that he will study it, for he would benefit very much from doing so. I answered 1826 the second part of his supplementary question on Tuesday, when the same words were quoted to me.
§ Mr. HefferDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that this is a mischievous question in view of the fact that, only last year, the Italian Government nationalised the electricity industry and opened a publicly-owned steel works in Southern Italy and that 30 per cent. of insurance companies, particularly those dealing with car insurance, are nationalised in France?
§ The Prime MinisterI did not think the question mysterious. [HON. MEMBERS: "Mischievous."] I did not think it mischievous either. The hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Sir T. Beamish) put it forward for the most obvious reasons and I am sure that he will have noted what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). If not, he will have noted the statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, speaking from this Bench some years ago, which both the right hon. Gentleman and I have since repeated many times—that nothing in the Treaty of Rome inhibits a country from nationalisation.
§ Mr. KershawAs the Treaty of Rome, in its own way, is dedicated to the principle of private enterprise, how can that not be in conflict with Clause Four? If the right hon. Gentleman had to choose, which would he take, the Treaty of Rome or Clause Four?
§ The Prime MinisterThe hon. Gentleman is obviously limping a long way behind his hon. and gallant Friend. I would refer him to the statement of 16th March, 1960, and secondly I would suggest that he talks to the Commission about its interpretation of the Treaty of Rome. Thirdly, I must not try to arbitrate or mediate between the hon. Gentleman and his own Leader, who has correctly stated the position under the Treaty of Rome on this question.
§ Mr. John HyndWill the Prime Minister not agree that with the hoped-for injection of the British democratic element into the European Community, there is every reason to assume and to hope that the development of a political community in Europe will lead towards 1827 the acceptance of the policy of public ownership throughout the whole of the Community?
§ The Prime MinisterOne step at a time.
…I do not ask to seeThe distant scene; one step enough for me.
§ Mr. ThorpeIn view of the back-bench doubts which appear to have been expressed on both sides of the House about the Common Market, will the Prime Minister persist in this, and may we hope that he will achieve the same success in converting the back benches of both sides as the Liberal Party achieved in converting the Front Benches of both sides?
§ The Prime MinisterI was not sure that the Leader of the Liberal Party had entirely succeeded in converting all of the back benchers in the Liberal Party.