HC Deb 10 May 1967 vol 746 cc1554-656

6.14 p.m.

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

Sir G. de Freitas

I am very glad indeed that I had the chance of hearing that Royal Assent had been given to the Royal Assent Act, because I have had the uncanny fortune of being on my feet and making a speech several times recently when we have been summoned to hear the Royal Assent given. The odds against this happening to one Member so often must be fantastic. However, it cannot happen again.

I will try to come back to the point I was making. The point I was making —I think it was; it is very difficult to be interrupted in midstream—was that in 1951 when I first went to the Council of Europe, like most of the members of our delegation, I did not believe that the day of the sovereign nation State of 50 million people was over. I thought such a country had a large role in the world, and today, 16 years later, we find that after all a great change has taken place. Many of the countries of that size in Europe were defeated and overrun during the war. We were not. We were on the victorious side, whereas the other big countries were defeated. I believe that is one of the reasons—as it is also one of the problems—why we appeared to be more nationalistic, and less willing to surrender our sovereignty than other countries. I believe that one of the problems today is that though France was defeated during the war General de Gaulle was not defeated, and General de Gaulle still feels, as we felt in 1951, that the rôle of the 50 million nation State is relevant in the world. This is one of the problems we have to face.

We have talked in this debate about going into Europe or not going into Europe, and that disguises the fact that we are already deeply involved in Europe. Let me give two examples. I have been talking a good deal of the Council of Europe and I will take two illustrations from it. First, this country has accepted more of the Council of Europe's international agreements and conventions than any of the 18 countries except three, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark. We are deeply in Europe. Secondly, more than 170 members of this House and of the other place have served at Strasbourg. We are deeply in Europe and we are European.

I see here hon. Friends of mine and hon. Members opposite who have been on the delegation to Strasbourg, and I am sure that they have had the same experience as I have felt in looking at that semicircle of 150 members of the Assembly drawn from 18 countries of Europe and sitting there, not by nation or by party, but in alphabetical order of their surnames. It is impossible to tell what their nationalities were— except, possibly, 5 per cent., one could say, came from one part of Europe and possibly 5 per cent. from another. We are sitting among our fellow Europeans.

I see this Motion we are going to vote on tonight as a step, the next step, in getting further involved in Europe.

My earliest memory is of a German bomb falling on London in the First World War. I see the last two wars as European civil wars, and they have convinced me of the stupidity of the European nation State.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

Civil wars between States?

Sir G. de Freitas

Civil wars, yes. Wars of one part of Europe against another: yes, I mean civil wars in Europe.

When I returned to the House from Africa a few years ago, what distressed me was to find that some of the great nations of Europe had become reinfected with nationalism. What an appalling example that was to set the new countries, African countries particularly, where we have been preaching to them not to go back to tribalism.

In Europe we are fortunate in having a long and a rich civilisation; we are blessed materially and spiritually; we have great advantages and we have great opportunities. One of these opportunities is to set an example to these new countries in international co-operation and of living together in peace. In years to come, when we are all gone, perhaps only two or three of us remembered, this day, I am convinced, will be seen as not only a great day in the history of Britain, but also as a great day in the history of Europe, and perhaps also as a great day in the history of the world.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his very interesting speech, because I think that there must be something like 80 Members whose names are still on the list of those who wish to speak in the debate, and, therefore, to let others in, I want to be as brief as possible.

I wonder how many hon. and right hon. Members in this House have had the experience—I am sure some of them have—of going to church and reflecting that those not already strong in the Christian faith, after listening to the sermon, ran a very considerable danger of emerging from the church with no faith at all. I am moved to that reflection by speeches I have been listening to during the three days of this debate, particularly the speeches from the Front Bench on the Government side.

With the sole exception of the speech which we heard today from the Foreign Secretary, in the course of which he made it clear that he is a dedicated European, the major speeches, excellent and detailed though they were, seemed in logic to be more against entry than for it. The Minister of Agriculture's speech last night has been referred to already both by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shin-well). That was a first-class example of what I mean.

In the few moments left last night, I was moved to intervene to suggest to the Minister that we should see him going into the Lobby against the Motion. In the interval between the beginning of my speech and its continuation now, I have had time for more mature reflection, and I am sure that my reaction last night was born instinctively from the sombre picture which the Minister painted about the effect of entry on our agriculture and horticulture, to which he made a passing reference, and on the cost of living and our balance of payments.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

Far from making any reference to horticulture, the Minister skated over it, dismissing it in a sentence and neglecting it entirely, as he has done throughout.

Mr. Hall

Perhaps I did not express myself very well. I said that the Minister made a passing reference to horticulture, and I think that that is a fair way of putting it.

His sombre picture created in me the reaction that, after all this, surely he would be voting against the Motion. However, on mature reflection, I am sure that his feet will lead him into the Lobby on the Government side tonight, although I should not like to say where his spirit will be.

It has been said, and I have no doubt that it will be said many more times before we vote, that the House is about to take one of the most fateful decisions that it has taken for centuries. I have heard it said that this is the most fateful event since 1066. However, it must be remembered that, on that occasion, Harold was killed and the French won. I hope that we do not see history repeating itself, although we must be aware that the French hostility to which the right hon. Member for Kettering has referred might kill both the application and the political reputation of the Prime Minister.

I do not quite agree that the decision which we are expected to take tonight is the most important one that we shall have to take for many years. There is a long road to travel between the time that we make application to enter and the time that we actually enter, and much may happen in the intervening period to influence our final decision about entry. It is that final decision which may prove to be the most important in the history of our country. When, if ever, the House is required to take that final decision—I hope that I am right in assuming that the House will be able to take a final decision and that the vote tonight is not irrevocable—I trust that it will not be found necessary to whip us through the Lobbies in support of the Government's policy.

We all know what a three-line Whip is, and we know that, when any hon. Member has strong conscientious objections to a policy, it is understood that he ignores the three-line Whip, as I am certain that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House will ignore it tonight. However, that is not understood outside the House to anything like the same degree, and it would be much more impressive if the Government's decision tonight was backed by a free vote and not a pressed one. Putting a three-line Whip on in these circumstances, particularly on this side of the House, debases its value.

In view of the Whip which exists on both sides, it is clear that nothing said in the debate will change the Government's decision to apply. I must make it clear that I welcome the conversion of the Prime Minister, as others have before me. It is said that there is more joy in Brussels over one sinner that repenteth than over many other people, and I am glad that the Prime Minister has been converted in such a remarkable way.

Despite some reservations which I shall express later, I am particularly impressed that the Prime Minister, in a speech lasting an hour and 25 minutes, should have deployed the most telling arguments against entry, only to come down at the end in favour of going in. That is a triumph of faith, hope and, on our side, charity. It is a remarkable feat, and he must be congratulated on having apparently inspired all his colleagues in the Government with that same faith.

It is said that the possible advantages of entering are not quantifiable. That is a word which has been used quite a lot during the debate, and I promise that that is the first and last time that I shall use it. The arguments for the long-term benefits are based upon imponderables, but that it the stuff of which faith is made, and it is on faith that the Government have decided to make application. It is faith triumphing over fact. It has made it possible for honour to be satised, and that is why no member of the Government has found it necessary to resign. Whatever doubts I may have about the reasoning behind the policy, I am impressed by this act of faith.

I was particularly impressed by the way in which members of the Government accepted the figure of £100 million which the Prime Minister plucked out of the air as being the annual cost to the country of entering the Community. In a fairly long passage considering the possible cost implications but without prior arithmetic, that figure emerged suddenly as, at the same time, did the figure of a 3 per cent. growth rate with which it was associated. If ever there was an act of faith, it was to say that we shall have an annual growth rate of 3 per cent, from which the cost of entering can be met. Apparently that is accepted by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, despite the reasoned arguments in The Times which gave estimated figures of something between £500 and £800 million as the possible cost of entry. In passing, one might have thought that the article could have been written by the President of the Board of Trade before his conversion, but we know that it was not, although it was very much along his line of thought.

During the debate, neither the Prime Minister nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer challenged the figures in The Times, except to say that they did not accept them. In my present state of half faith, I am almost prepared to accept that attitude of mind.

I was impressed, too, by the way in which the House has been hypnotised into sitting through a debate of two and a half days without any real attempt to get down to a discussion of the lesser issues which can best be dealt with after entry. There has been only a passing reference to those issues, and that was in answer to an intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The topic was passed off on the grounds that we must not allow our application to be cluttered up by detail. That is probably quite right, but the House ought at least to know what are some of the lesser issues which it is thought that we shall have to negotiate when we get in. I am the last person to say that we should attempt to impose conditions when making application, but at least we in this House should have the information which we want.

Despite all this impressive evidence of faith, which must put men of little faith To shame, I confess that I am uneasy about two matters. One is the timing of the application. The other is the feeling that the nation as a whole does not really understand the implications of entry.

I have not been one of those urging the Prime Minister to maintain the momentum of negotiation. I have always believed that the economy must be strong before we apply. I do not share the view that it is strong. I doubt whether he shares it. I fancy that he hopes that entry will achieve for Britain what, as the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) said, Governments have failed to achieve—economic growth and viability.

I think that it is still thought, as it was thought when we were in office that if we fail to find the solution to revitalising the economy and getting the rate of growth that we want, perhaps entry into the Common Market will do for us what we have failed to do for ourselves. I think that there is something of this thought' behind the Prime Minister's conversion to a European attitude.

If the timing is wrong, as I believe it is, we run into certain dangers. First, we are negotiating from weakness. Secondly, there is the greater danger of refusal, if only because it might be argued that going into Europe with a weakened economy might damage the Community itself and that our economic ills might be infectious. Thirdly, we run the danger of encouraging at home a "marking time, waiting for the Community" mentality—in other words, waiting for entry to solve some of the problems of industry.

We also run the danger that, if the application is accepted and our economy is not strong, as I believe that it is not, industry will not be properly poised to take the shock of entry. Finally—although perhaps a minor point—we run the risk of prejudicing the success of the Kennedy Round negotiations in Geneva, because it may be argued, as indeed the Canadians are arguing, that the Community countries, seeing the possibility of E.F.T.A. countries coming in with them and creating a much larger market, may drag their feet and oppose a general reduction in tariffs. All these are dangers if we do not get the timing of the application right.

I have always made my position clear. I believe that the economic advantages of going in are marginal, if they exist at all. I have sometimes wondered whether they might not carry with them some dangers of which we are not fully aware. For example, we shall be geographically on the perimeter of the Common Market area and there may be a tendency for the large organisations of this country to shift their centre of operations more into the centre of the Community. It may also be that new investment, especially from elsewhere, like the United States, will be tempted into the geographical centre. I do not know, but these are possible dangers.

I have never been impressed by the economic advantages. What has always attracted me are the political considerations. I can see a strong case politically in the long run for entering Europe and that is why I have always, until recently at any rate, tended to favour entry and have supported the moves made to get this country involved in Europe.

That is why I listened with great interest to the Foreign Secretary's speech. I thought that it was attractively delivered but it was disappointing because the right hon. Gentleman gave up a good deal of time to discussing economic and technological considerations which had already been covered by previous speakers and he did not concentrate sufficiently on the real political considerations. What was probably more important than what he said was what he did not say, particularly about defence. I am certain that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would have wanted to probe further what lay behind the assertions concerning European defence. Nevertheless, it was an attractive speech and because I myself am attracted to the political considerations of entering Europe it did something to quieten some of my doubts about the wisdom of entry.

Having said that, I still think that we and the country must weigh very carefully the cost of entry, and there should be no doubt in anyone's mind, here or outside, what that cost is likely to be. It is wrong for the Government to say that they have a mandate for this. Whatever may have been in the Tory manifesto—and we went into this fully—in the Labour manifesto, to my recollection, there was only a very short paragraph about the subject and if any voters voted for the Labour Party on the strength of that paragraph they are now being faced with entry under conditions never envisaged by that paragraph.

But I doubt very much whether many voters were influenced one way or another by the question of the Common Market at the election. I doubt whether it was a live election issue. Except under special circumstances, the electors do not vote on such matters but on matters of domestic detail, which they understand. There was really no mandate for any party to go into the Market on whatever terms.

Between now and the point when our application may be accepted, I suggest that it is the duty of the Government and all of us to ensure that the people are fully and frankly informed of the implications of entry and that, in the meantime—and this is a warning to myself more, perhaps, than to anyone else—we must avoid turning this into an emotional issue, which it is tending to become.

People are tending to take up attitudes on both sides and dig themselves in. On either side, this is a bad thing. What we should do is judge the issue on its merits as the facts emerge during the negotiations between now and the time when we may enter. Our overriding concern must be the well-being of the country, of the Commonwealth and of E.F.T.A. for whom we have a moral responsibility. Our final decision when it has to be made should be made in the full knowledge and understanding of all the facts and implications of those facts and with the support of an informed general public.

We do not now have that full knowledge and full understanding of the implications. We must wait for them to emerge and, when the time comes, I hope that we shall be able to vote freely with a full knowledge of the issues that lie before us and knowing what we are doing.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

I agree with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) that this is an occasion when the House might well have had a free vote. It is important, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the reasons, that on this occasion we should have had a free expression of opinion. As he said, the issue did not appear generally during the election. It may have been raised in some parts of the country but in my fight in Govan the Common Market was not mentioned by me nor was it raised with me by any elector, and in such a situation the House should be permitted to exercise its discretion.

We are faced with a very simple fact—the question of what we should do in relation to the Common Market. Either we decide to reject it or we decide to enter or to agree to enter. My mind on that issue is perfectly clear. I am in favour of entering the Common Market. We are living in a world which is changing quickly over very wide areas.

For nearly 200 years we have been part of a growing Commonwealth. That Commonwealth has paid us, over a substantial period, a tribute amounting to almost £200 million every year. With that £200 million there came the £40 million of earnings from our coal exports. In the Chancellor's hands at the beginning of every financial year there was this huge sum of money. This has now more or less disappeared. The Chancellor is being forced to adopt many devices to try to overcome that deficiency. That change has taken place, and with it there has gone a change in the composition of the Commonwealth and in trading relationships between ourselves and the Commonwealth.

I want briefly to look a little more closely at the changes which have been taking place in that relationship. The figures which I propose to use are the result of the researches of our own excellent Library Research Department. We have been hearing a good deal in the Press—some reports have not been quite fair—about the change in our import and export figures in relation to Australia. I propose to consider Australia, Canada and New Zealand, because they have figured most largely in the debate. Many of our colonies are looking more for aid than trade with us on a basis that would be remunerative.

Imports by Australia from us in 1966 show an arresting fall as compared with the 1950 figure. In 1950 the figure was 39.7 per cent., and last year it had declined to 25.8 per cent. That does not mean that the value of those imports have declined; indeed, they have risen from £209 million in 1950 to £758 million last year. But in 1966 we were not earning the same proportion of this expanding trade as we were in 1950.

While imports by Australia fell proportionately, the Japanese figure rose from £7 million in 1950 to £280 million last year. This is a significant indication of what is happening on the import side.

Mr. Brian Parkyn (Bedford)

Can my hon. Friend tell us to what extent the increase in trade between Australia and Japan was affected by our application to join the Common Market in 1961?

Mr. Rankin

I cannot answer such a question. I am merely quoting the figures presented to me.

I now want to consider the export figures. Our exports to Australia have declined from 38. per cent. to 17.6 per cent. while those of Japan have risen from 3. 9 per cent. to 17.8 per cent. Although the figures are not so arresting, the same tendency is taking place in our trading relationships with New Zealand. Our imports from New Zealand have declined from 60.1 per cent. of total trade in 1950 to 38 per cent. last year, and our exports to New Zealand from 66.4 per cent. in 1950 to 44.7 per cent. last year.

In Canada, trade with the United States has been expanding rapidly while ours has been increasing only feebly. The import figure rose from £404 million to £645 million, whereas the United States figure increased from £2,152 million to £7,000 million. Our exports rose from £469 million to £1,131 million, and United States exports from £2,000 million to £6,000 million. These figures represent a trend which is bound to give us serious thought.

With the decline in the group to which we have now been attached for so long the natural impulse is to look around for another group. The world in which we live today is composed largely of groups —the Chinese group, the Russian group and the American group. Most hon. Members would agree that whatever sympathy we have with groups in the Far East, to join them would not be a tenable proposition. Many of us would resent falling more closely into the hands of the American group. Consequently, the European group is the natural group for us, economically and politically.

We are entering a group whose status, economically and politically, is close to ours. We have already signified that closeness by accepting the idea of a tunnel between this country and Europe. If this development takes place the natural question that any Member representing a division in a small country like Scotland will ask is: how will this affect the country to which I belong and the division which I represent? Every Scots Member knows that unemployment in Scotland, while we are still outside the Community, has been rising and has reached 83,000, which it has rarely reached before. This is serious. An important industry in my constituency is faced with the threat of closure. There is maldistribution of population. Two distinct parts of the country, the Highlands and the Lowlands, lack people and 4 million are concentrated in the middle belt, which is an unhealthy distribution.

It will not recover its health until the Highlands and Lowlands are treated more equitably in terms of industry and population. Everyone wants a new attitude towards the Highlands. Direct Government intervention is proposed by introducing industry to that part of Scotland. We ask whether the present tendency will be accelerated or retarded by our entry to the Common Market. That is why I want an assurance from the Government Front Bench that accession will not result in continued underdistribution of employment and industry in the Highlands and Lowlands.

We have heard today of a possible understanding with the French about a new approach to aviation development and that an airbus is now being considered, and also that an agreement is possible between the two Defence Ministries over the swing-wing aircraft. I should not like to think that these decisions are not based only on defence or technological considerations; but are partly political, to help our application. If they become accepted policy, with technological expansions between Britain and the Common Market, I hope that they will go forward on their merits and not as political aids to our entry.

Many others wish to speak. So, having stated the position in regard to my country's industry and development, and the case for the development of aviation, I am glad that both sides have listened agreeably to the first Scotsman called in the debate.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison (Edinburgh, South)

When our application for entry to the Common Market goes in tomorrow, as I believe it will, signed by the Prime Minister, I hope he realises that, thereafter, events will be out of his control. He has cleverly stage-managed his party to the point of applying, but he will write the script no longer from that point.

The answer we get depends on what people on the Continent are thinking and saying. They will be looking after the interests of the E.E.C. first, and of their own countries and Britain second. Control will pass from Westminster, and that will be the pattern for the future. If the Government are set on joining, we must be clear that heavy concessions will be necessary and that the more keen the Government are, the greater they will be. It is clear that the five Gaitskell conditions are already no longer valid—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—it is quite clear. The London Declaration of 1961, regarding our E.F.T.A. partners, has been thrown overboard.

The Prime Minister's statement on 2nd May was full of vague phrases and let-outs and did not give me confidence. We were told of lesser issues which could be decided after we had joined. This is laughable. Who would join first and try to negotiate when outnumbered? I want to know what the lesser issues are. We were promised a great debate and information. I have tried by Questions to get information, but nothing happens. The debate has not got off the ground, but is one of the Prime Minister's non-starters. If the case is so good, why can we not have information and a free vote?

I am opposed to our entry of the E.E.C. on many grounds, but mainly on two. The first is economic. It is admitted that the cost of living per family of four will rise by 25s. per week. It may well be more—the butchers think so. What has not been calculated is the effect on wage and salary claims and consequently on the price of goods and on exports. Surely Government Departments could make calculations. If not, surely it is unwise to go forward.

There will be many effects on pensioners and those near the pension level, who will have to be helped. What will be the price of that? Do the people in the country realise the extent to which they will be hit? I am glad to say that my constituents in South Edinburgh know.

I am also deeply worried about Scotland. Perhaps a Treasury Minister will tell the House what are the views of the Scotch Whisky Association about our entry. I know them, but I should like to hear them expressed from the Government Front Bench. Our steel industry is bound to suffer because of the increased cost of fuel in Scotland; and our coal industry, with the competition from the Community, which allows in American coal, will suffer equally.

It is clear that if we enter the E.E.C. there will be a loss of sovereignty. Considering the terms of the Treaty of Rome, this will undoubtedly occur. Commonwealth preferences will have to go. I never thought that I would live to see the day when it was advocated that these preferences should be abandoned, least of all by the Conservative Party.

Any trading arrangements which we wish to make, whether with countries of the East or others, will be subject to the agreement and approval of Brussels. Because of voting arrangements, if we join the E.E.C. Britain may have to take action which is against our best interests, and we certainly will not be free agents. A lot of internal affairs will be interfered with, like the social services, transport and the movement of labour and capital. Even our legal system will have to be altered by this House because of decisions made in Brussels. Is that what hon. Members and the country really want? I say "No", and for that reason I shall be in the "No" Lobby tonight.

It has been put about that it may be a good thing for us to join the E.E.C. because it will enable us to get out of the stagnation which at present exists. I believe that we can solve our own problems in our own country, and I suggest that the stagnation which exists is due to the faulty tax policies and lack of incentives of the present Government.

In all these matters I am guided by two principles; first, that I will not support policies which cause Her Majesty's subjects overseas and in the Commonwealth to be treated worse economically than foreigners, and, secondly, that I will not see a lessening of the sovereignty of Britain or of Parliament. Nor was I elected for this purpose. For the future, I prefer to turn to the great British nations overseas and to America rather than to Europe.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. S. C. Silkin (Dulwich)

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) will forgive me if I do not follow them into the Scottish countryside. Although my constituency contains the highlands of Sydenham and the foggy lowlands of Dulwich Village, their problems are very different from those of Scotland.

If the present Government lives in history, it will be because they have eschewed short-term expedients, have declined to accept transitory and ephemeral popularity and, instead, have kept their eye firmly fixed on the distant goal. To me, that is part of the ethic of the Socialism in which I believe.

Some of my hon. Friends have spoken about their Socialism. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has come to a conclusion different from mine because he believes that what he regards as Socialist measures will not be possible if we enter the E.E.C. I disagree with his facts, but I accept the sincerity of his views. I would not be so arrogant as to believe that my brand of Socialism is the only one, even if it happens to be the best one.

On this question of the distant goal, we have the enthusiastic support of countless European Socialists inside and outside the E.E.C. who want us to join the Community. Countless people inside and outside the E.E.C. who are not Socialists also support us. They want us in because they believe, I suggest rightly, that our entry will give the Community a new dimension and that it will become a much broader and more outward-looking Community than it is today. They, too, believe that some of the criticisms which my hon. Friends have made of the Community as it exists today will be capable of being cured in the future—even more so if, as I hope, together with us there go in other countries such as the Scandinavian nations, with their tradition of democracy like ours, to strengthen and broaden the democratic idea enshrined in the Community.

Many hon. Members have dilated largely on the price that will have to be paid. It is right and proper that this should be considered. The Leader of the Opposition remarked on the price and he included in it something which I could not include; the idea of some sort of defence agreement. I could not help wondering, when I heard him speak about the negotiations on the last occasion and congratulating the Government on having taken up those negotiations where they left off, what part defence played in the negotiations on the last occasion; or whether the subject came in only at the last minute when the then Conservative Government signed the Nassau Agreement.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) spoke, as he was entitled to do, at length about the price we would have to pay. When considering the price, it is no use looking merely at that price without considering what one is buying. If one is buying a house, one must consider whether it is a mansion or a cottage, in addition to what it contains. It was only towards the end of my hon. Friend's speech that he came even to mention one or more of the matters for which we are likely to pay the price—when he spoke about economic independence, a subject to which I shall return.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale seemed to suggest that the figures we had been given by the Prime Minister and all the calculations that had been made by the Government painted an optimistic and rosy picture. He may be right, and he is entitled to his view. However, in my submission, the true picture was made brilliantly clear by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last night. When the Cabinet, in those days in Whitehall and at Chequers, was examining the figures and all the pros and cons, there was certainly no lack of people with acute minds and without a great enthusiasm for entering the Community to make sure that the figures that ultimately emerged were not too rosy and optimistic.

We heard my right hon. Friend repeat the very figures that the Prime Minister had given. Can one really say, in the light of that, that it is likely that those figures present too rosy a picture? Is it likely that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture would have accepted those figures, and would have supported the Government, as he has supported the Government, in this application for admission to the Community—because he accepts Cabinet responsibility just as all his colleagues in the Cabinet have accepted that responsibility in supporting the application—if those figures had been unduly rosy and unduly optimistic?

Then we had my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). He made, if I may respectfully say so, a most attractive and persuasive speech Indeed, if I can make half as persuasive a speech when I am twice his age it will be a miracle. But it is, perhaps, a little too much to hope that with persuasiveness one will also have consistency. I noticed that one half of my right hon. Friend's speech was devoted to telling us that the man whom we shall have to placate will be General de Gaulle. He asked, "What are we to offer him to placate him? The others do not matter—they are all on our side. It is the General who is the obstacle—what are we to offer him?" He spent the other half of his speech saying that if we go in we shall have to become part of a supranational community—the very thing of which General de Gaulle is the sole opponent in the Common Market as it exists now——

Mr. Raphael Tuck (Watford)

He will not last for ever.

Mr. Silkin

I will not comment on that. My hon. Friend has a greater gift of prophecy than I have.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

It is a reasonable estimate.

Mr. Silkin

As I say, these are the question of price that one has to consider. I do not dispute that one has to consider them, and it is right and fair that we should know what the price will be as far as we can estimate it. But it is not the price that is the only consideration. Another consideration is what we are to pay for. This emerged from the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, but it is something to which very few hon. Members in this debate have given great attention.

It seems to me that there are two vital questions with which the enlargement of the Community is designed to deal. First, there is the question of economic independence mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale. We can see today the creeping control of trans-Atlantic capital spreading its tentacles not only over our industry but over the industry of the Community as well. There is nothing that can be done to stop it as long as we do not have a market within Europe which can compete with the market of the United States of America. I am not anti-American—that is the last thing of which I would be accused on this side of the House—but my pro-Americanism does not extend to the belief that it is right and proper that American capital should gradually take control of this country's industries. I can see the possibility of the great European market wresting that control from American capital and enabling us within Europe itself to make use of the great technological gifts that we in this country have—because we have often led the world and are still leading the world in technology—in a way which will make it unnecessary and impossible for this process of creeping control from across the Atlantic to continue.

Secondly, there is the great political problem of a divided Europe, and here I want to ask my hon. Friends who are opposed to the idea of a widening of the European Community the following questions. Will they agree with me that Germany will never accept a permanently divided Germany? Will they agree with me that the Soviet Union will never accept a united Germany except in the context of a united Europe? If they agree with me on both of those matters, how can we ever solve the European problem—of which the German problem is the root and the key, and the possible source of future conflict—unless we can achieve a united Europe? And how can we achieve a united Europe without this country being part of it?

I agree that even if we go into the Community, even if the Scandinavians go into the Community, we may still not solve this problem, but I am quite certain that we can never solve the problem unless we go into it. We shall never solve it unless the Community is expanded and, having expanded, eventually stretches out towards the Eastern European countries at present behind the Iron Curtain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said so forcibly.

If this is right, one is entitled to ask what the alternatives are to British and Scandinavian entry into the Community. How else are these two problems to be solved? How are we to get our economic independence? My hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale said, "Let us expand our trade with E.F.T.A., let us strengthen our ties with E.F.T.A. and increase our trade with the Commonwealth." Hon. Members opposite have said, "Let us have an Atlantic Free Trade Area," but I did not notice my hon. Friend make that suggestion. Indeed, the whole idea of British economic independence of America is hardly likely to be facilitated by that step.

But, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has said, the whole purpose of the creation of E.F.T.A. was as a step towards the enlargement of the European Economic Community. It is the countries of E.F.T.A. which are pushing us in today. If we do not go in, many of them probably will: they will certainly go in if we do. They want us in. To believe that we can conceivably use E.F.T.A. as an alternative to the larger market of the Community is nothing more than a pipe-dream.

We talk of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth countries, one after another, are seeking association with the Community. Again, the idea that we could use the Commonwealth as an alternative in order to provide the larger market we need is nothing but a pipe-dream.

I therefore conceive of no other real alternative method of securing those two great objectives. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that if we do not get into the Common Market it will not be the end of the world. There are alternative courses, but they are very much a second best and certainly Will not achieve the ends I want to see achieved.

When we come to the way in which e should apply to be made part of the Community, this I must say. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on the first day of this debate spent a little to me criticising what he called the "unconditionalists" and sought, as I thought, to tar with the brush of unconditionalism some of my hon. Friends who have strong and very passionate views on the subject. I do not know any unconditionalists on this side of the House. I do not know whether there are any opposite or not. I am not concerned about them, but I am concerned about this side of the House. But, having said that, I am bound 1o say that the European Community exists on a basis of trust. Every partnership which is successful exists on that basis.

It is no use our applying to go in or hoping to go in unless we also have the trust which will enable us to play our part as partners in the Community. I want us to make an application in the way suggested by my right hon. Friend when he spoke this afternoon. I want us to negotiate after that application has been made, but I hope that in those negotiations before we actually enter the Community we shall be satisfied with those assurances which one partner would expect from other partners on a basis of trust and that we shall not demand the amount of detailed linkages and tyings up which one would demand if one were contracting with someone at arm's length.

If our future partners in the Community give us an assurance that they recognise our need for transitional arrangements, that they recognise the need of our Commonwealth for a proper way of solving their problems, and if they explain this in sufficiently explicit terms, it would be utterly wrong, indeed it would be unproductive, for us to try to tie them down in advance of our entry to the small change and minutiæ of the details. I hope that when my right hon. Friend goes into these negotiations he will go into them in that way. And if we do go into the Community, we must likewise go in on a basis of trust. It will be useless for us to go to Brussels and seek to make our way into the Community if we do it any way that suggests that those making the application are less than sincere in their belief that to do so is to the great historic advantage not only of this country but of Europe as a whole.

7.22 p.m.

Sir Beresford Craddock (Spelthorne)

In his interesting and sincere speech, the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) made reference to two very powerful speeches we have heard in this debate. One was by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and the other by the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell). The hon. and learned Member will recall that both his hon. Friend and his right hon. Friend made certain references to converts and conversion. I am quite satisfied that what I shall say—and I am sorry about this—will certainly not convert the hon. and learned Member, nor I am sure will it convert the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary, or even the Leader of my party.

On Monday evening my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) reminded us, when he had the privilege of catching your eye, Mr. Speaker, rather late in the evening, that even after that short period of debate practically everything had been said for and against going into the Common Market and he asked what more was there to say? After two and a half or almost three days debate I find myself in that position also. So what I propose to do is to put on record the reasons why I cannot support the Government in the Lobby tonight and that if a Division is called I shall certainly go into the Lobby with my hon. and right hon. Friends who have tabled the Amendment.

Although I signed the Amendment I am not against, and never have been against, political and economic co-operation with Europe. On the contrary, one recognises the possible values both of political and economic co-operation. What I have always been against, and still am against—nothing I have heard in this debate has convinced me otherwise—is that this country should become a signatory of the Treaty of Rome. I propose to explain briefly why I still maintain that position.

Yesterday afternoon my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition reminded us of the history of the development of the movement towards co-operation within Europe. He reminded us that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in the early' fifties when he was President of the Board of Trade, made great efforts to form a system of economic co-operation in Europe, a system which was designed to embrace not only the countries which we now refer to as the Six but also those countries we call E.F.T.A., the members of the Commonwealth and any other nations which would agree to join a free trade area. I supported that proposal with enthusiasm and wholeheartedly. It was a matter of regret to me, as it was to many, that that system so strongly advocated by my right hon. Friend did not prevail.

So we arrived at the two systems, the Economic Community resulting from the Treaty of Rome and the system which we call E.F.T.A. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was trying to negotiate in 1962–63 to get this country into the Economic Community I am sure, whatever our views, we all agreed that he displayed tremendous patience and tenacity in his efforts. At that time I had been out of business and industry for some years. Having forsaken commercial life to earn what I thought would be a reasonable living in the law, I got out of touch a little with the commercial aspects of the country. I naturally tried to get as much information as possible about the economic benefits which might accrue to this country if we became members of the Community.

I discussed the possibilities. It is obvious that with an enlarged market we would undoubtedly expect economic benefits in the way of trade and so on. I wanted to get more information about what industry thought of the magnitude of the benefits which would accrue to this country. So I discussed this with many good friends in industry whom I had known for years, some in charge of large organisations and some in charge of organisations which were not so large. At that time, in 1962–63, the overwhelming opinion of those with whom I discussed the issue was that without doubt the benefits would be very substantial.

Not unnaturally, I have discussed this question again with these people since the question of our joining the E.E.C. has become a burning issues during the last few months. I find that these same people are now not nearly so certain about the great economic benefits as they were some years ago. The best I have been able to get from them is the expression, "We think on balance that our trade and industry will benefit".

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke (Twickenham)

My hon. Friend will agree that 90 per cent. of industrialists have expressed, through the C.B.I., the opinion that there will be a benefit.

Hon. Members


Sir B. Craddock

I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). That is not the view which has been expressed to me by quite important industrialists. I am glad that my hon. Friend interrupted me, because we all know that he has very great interests in the motor manufacturing industry. My hon. Friend has reminded me that I must mention a report issued recently by the Motor Manufacturers Association. I have not read the whole report, but a fairly full account of it was given in the business section of The Times recently. The report shows that our motor manufacturers expect that, if we enter the Community, there will during the first few years be an annual loss of £17 million sterling. I cannot argue about that. I take that figure.

Mr. Webster

Will my hon. Friend tell me the loss to the motor industry this year?

Sir B. Craddock

I am not in touch. For that information I refer my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham.

A very interesting article appeared in the February, 1967, issue of the journal, Export. It is known that this is the journal of the Institute of Exports. This article makes quite remarkable reading. It casts grave doubts on the economic benefits which may accure to this country from our joining the E.E.C.

There are many other aspects of the problem, major and lesser. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) is not in his place. I listened to his speech with great interest. I know that he is keenly interested in our shipbuilding industry, particularly the Scottish sector of it. Only the other day the House agreed to a Measure designed to give substantial assistance to our shipbuilding industry. Article 92(3,c) of the Treaty makes a very important reference to the European shipbuilding industry. I want the Government Front Bench to answer an admittedly slightly hypothetical but nevertheless important question. There is talk of lesser issues; but if we were to get into the Community by the end of this year, or even in the early spring of 1968, what would happen to the scheme of helping our shipbuilding industry as a result of the operation of Article 92(3,c)?

As to agriculture, it is now an admittted fact that the cost of many items of food will rise steeply. In reply to a supplementary question on his statement last week, the Prime Minister said that he was not going to bother about the lower type of groceries. The Prime Minister knows, as we all do, that some of the lower types of groceries are very important to millions of housewives.

Mr. Roy Roebuck

H.P. Sauce.

Sir B. Craddock

I am much obliged. It is attractive to want to believe that, if we accepted the agricultural system of the Community, it would mean the abolition of subsidies under our own system and that the money saved thereby—about £250 million—would be used to bring down taxation. We all recognise that this would be impossible, because if a saving was achieved in that way, the money saved would, of necessity, have to be spent on shielding pensioners and other sections of the Community from the effects of the steep rise in the cost of many foodstuffs of which the Government have rightly, openly and honestly warned us.

Again on agriculture, there is the difficult question of the balance of payments. The Prime Minister said on Monday, first, that what would be involved on agriculture would be about £175–250; million on our balance of payments but went on to mention the figure of £100 million. I tried to interrupt the Prime Minister, but his was a long speech and he. did not give way. I wanted to ascertain whether the £100 million was in addition to the, say, £200 million, making a minimum of £300 million on our balance of payments.

With the best will in the world, I cannot see how we shall get over the difficult problem of the balance of payments, which has been a thorn in the flesh of our economy for years, by entering the Community and adopting a system which may well increase these difficulties to the extent of at least £200–£300 million. I have always believed that one of the surest ways of overcoming this difficulty is by an increase in production and an increase in the volume of sales of the goods we produce. After all, we may manufacture all we want to manufacture, but, if we cannot sell the goods in the world markets, what is the use?

Why is production today so stagnant? In my view, one of the main reasons is the heavy burden of taxation on both individuals and companies. Until we get this burden down, encouraging men and women in industry to earn and to keep more of their earnings, and encouraging businesses by lower taxation to make good profits, we shall never, or not for a very long time, master this difficult problem.

Now, the legal system. In spite of what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), I am sure that certain changes in our law will have to be made if we go into the Community. But I shall not dwell on that question because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who is a recognised expert on this branch of the matter, hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and I shall leave that aspect of the matter to be dealt with by him.

What about the political aspects of entry? As I see it, there are two issues here, one very broad and one much narrower. It has often been argued—the point was repeated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) on Monday afternoon—that if we had been in the Community, or if there had been an E.E.C. years ago, we might have avoided the appalling catastrophies of two world wars. This may well be so. I concede the possibility. But, equally, it could be said that if, prior to 1914, this country had developed—[Interruption..] I shall not stop. I seldom speak in debates in the House now, with so much work upstairs to do, and I wish to take full advantage of the opportunity now.

I was dealing with the argument that, if we had had the Community earlier, we might have avoided two world wars. Of course we might. But one might as well say that, if the work of our nuclear physicists in the years before 1914 had been carried on to the development of nuclear weapons, this might have prevented two world wars. With respect, I do not think much of that argument.

My real opposition to entering the E.E.C.—let me be frank about it—is that I am not prepared to accept a system under which a group of Ministers and civil servants sitting in Brussels will make laws which we, if we are members, must accept without question in Westminster. That is not an encroachment on our sovereignty which I am prepared to accept. It is argued that, whenever we sign a treaty, we give up a certain amount of sovereignty. This is true, but, under most of the treaties which we have entered into—N.A.T.O. is an example—we can give up the treaty on giving one year's notice. But it appears from Article 240 that the Treaty of Rome is one to which we should be bound, if not in perpetuity, at least for a very long time. Whatever may be said, once we are members, we shall have to accept the decisions come to by the Commission and by the Ministers. This is not a position which I could accept.

I find certain aspects of the present approach to the Community rather astonishing. First, what is the position of .E.F.T.A. countries? I have always understood that it was a firm condition for this country's entry into the Community that we should do so only if the member countries of E.F.T.A., if they wished, went in at the same time as we did. What is the position now? The communiqué issued after the recent E.F.T.A. conference is difficult to understand, and I should like to be told what is to happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) asked yesterday what the position regarding E.F.T.A. would be between now and the ultimate time if we ever go into the Community.

Finally, like my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), I am surprised that the Prime Minister, with all his experience and shrewdness, should choose this moment to try to get into the Common Market. He told us on Monday that his view is that our position is strong. I do not believe it. Again, I refer to the leading article in the business section of The Times on Monday, which cast grave doubts on our position in relation to sterling balances and other aspects, even at this time. It is the essence of prudence to try to negotiate from strength, not from weakness. I am very surprised that the Prime Minister has chosen this moment to try to enter the Community.

Finally, I am certain—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not wish to appear discourteous, but there are many hon. Members waiting to take part.

Sir B. Craddock

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker, and, with great respect, I acknowledge your injunction. I conclude in this way. For all the reasons I have given, I shall be happy to go into the Lobby against the Government tonight.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson (Penistone)

For unavoidable reasons, I suppose, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary cannot be with us at this moment, but I should have preferred that at least one senior member of the Cabinet, perhaps the one who is to reply to the debate or the one who opened it today, would be here to listen to the discussion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I urge the Treasury Bench to make the feeling which has just been shown known in the usual way to my right hon. Friends in the Cabinet so that several, or at least one, may be present with us in the very near future. It is an affront to the House in a debate of this importance, when every Member has to accept his own responsibility, that members of the Cabinet are absent most of the time.

In his opening speech today, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary was concerned particularly with economic matters and disappointed many right hon. and hon. Members by not saying more about foreign affairs and defence. There has been a marked reluctance on the part of the Foreign Secretary to give the House a detailed outline of how the matter looks from the point of view of the Foreign Office and of the Ministry of Defence. However, as my right hon. Friend spent so much time on economic matters, I shall follow him, beginning with a review of some of the points which he made.

At one stage, after he had been interrupted from the back benches, my right hon. Friend read parts of the Treaty of Rome to the House. That was a courteous thing to do; it is always good to be reminded of the homework one has already done, and we were grateful for it. Then, having read a passage from the Treaty of Rome, my right hon. Friend, with a triumphant air, turning to his own back benches, expressed his conclusion that he would do all the serious negotiating after our application had been accepted. What does the reality of that assurance look like?

I should like to quote from a statement made two days ago by Dr. Kiesinger, Chancellor of West Germany. It was only because I did not want to interrupt my right hon. Friend too often that I did not rise to put this statement on the record while he was speaking. I regret all the more that he is not now here to deal with this matter.

The Chancellor of the West German Government was quoted in The Guardian of Tuesday, 9th May, as follows: The West German Chancellor, Dr. Kiesinger, said here tonight that Britain's entry to the Common Market would only be possible if she adhered not only to the text of the Rome Treaty but also to everything that had been created so far or was still planned. What are the negotiations to be about after we are inside the Common Market if that is the view of one of the principals who is to face us once we are inside?

I take this opportunity to make one thing clear. Although I agreed with many of the things which he said during his brilliant speech, I profoundly disagreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington on one issue. He seemed to concentrate on France and General de Gaulle as the only possible difficult negotiating partner, or difficult nation, once our application had been accepted, or before. I pray in aid the view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

In the first debate which we had in the House after the negotiations con- ducted by the Leader of the Opposition had broken down and when the then Conservative Government were giving an outline of the negotiations which made it appear as though the President of France had been the only serious obstacle, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), who is now Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, said that we did not accept this mythology about the breakdown of the negotiations which the Conservative Government had created in making France the only responsible party. I agreed with my right hon. Friend. The statement by the Chancellor of West Germany two days ago is evidence that it is true today as it was then that there are several of our negotiating partners who do not believe that serious negotiations are possible. This is the crux of the debate.

Sir D. Glover

Several? Who are they?

Mr. Mendelson

Dr. Kiesinger, as well as President de Gaulle. It may be argued that the others among the Six are important and I never want to be discourteous to anybody, but surely the point of view of the Chancellor of West Germany and the French Government between them represents a powerful section of the Six.

Moreover, it has always been the honest opinion, which I respect, of Lord Gladwyn, for instance, or the right hon. Gentleman who until recently led the Liberal Party and who has now been replaced, to the regret of many people of whom I am one, and whom I have always admired and whose straightforwardness I have always admired, that there is no serious negotiation in which to engage and that what Britain has to do is to accept the situation as it is.

What alarms me and some of my right hon. and hon. Friends is that we are now being told in very uncertain language that there is to be some negotiation before entry but that many of the serious negotiations will take place after entry. The view which I have just quoted and which was prominently expressed at the time is, to quote Dr. Kiesinger, that we must accept not only the Treaty of Rome, but everything created so far or planned.

That is why I am not prepared tonight to sign the blank cheque which is contained in the Motion. Tonight is the occasion when those who hold my view are under a serious obligation to make our views clear. If we sign the blank cheque, we shall have no reserve position in future on which to fall back when, as I fear, in the course of the negotiations the Government agree with Lord Gladwyn and the others and say that if we want to go in, we have to accept everything as it is.

I turn to what I hoped would be the main business of the speech of my right hon. Friend—foreign affairs and defence. In the same speech Dr. Kiesinger had something else interesting to say. I quote: He said that not only were economic problems at stake but that the final aim of a common foreign policy within the E.E.C. We have heard very little about this. There has been a good deal of discussion from the back benches, but there has been no real information about a common foreign policy from those members of the Cabinet who have spoken so far.

What was meant by Dr. Kiesinger's statement on foreign policy? I remember being present at several Press conferences in Bonn when for three short periods I represented one of our weekly journals there. The Press conferences were taken by Dr. Adenauer, the late Chancellor. He always made it clear, both at the Press conferences and privately later, that he was not the least interested in Britain's entry into the Common Market unless we were binding ourselves to a common foreign policy to which we would then be obliged strictly to adhere. I am glad to have the approval of hon. Members on both sides of the House for that statement.

In our debates in this House when Dr. Adenauer was in office I used to say that I did not believe that this was merely the personal attitude of one man. I was convinced that future Governments in Bonn would take the same view. Dr. Kiesinger's statement of only two days ago is proof conclusive that that is so.

Dr. Gray

Is my hon. Friend saying that France and the other Common Market countries are pursuing the same foreign policy?

Mr. Mendelson

We ought not to waste time on propaganda questions at this stage. [Laughter.]

Dr. Gray

I am absolutely serious.

Mr. Mendelson

I shall deal with it in half a second in the scheme of my remarks, and I think that my hon. Friend will be satisfied that I have dealt with it.

This demand for a joint foreign policy to which Britain would strictly adhere means that all the problems which are now dividing the Eastern and Western countries and in which we now have a view which is active upon international affairs would be subject to joint decisions by a committee of Foreign Ministers.

It does not matter whether at present a given French Government disagrees with a given German Government about particular immediate issues. What matters is that, as the Prime Minister has said, economic matters may be important, but what is now determining him to ask for entry are the political matters. It means that these will become the dominant theme of the Community after Britain is inside, and it will mean a radical difference which the House must appreciate before it signs the blank cheque.

I turn to the problem of defence, because foreign and defence policy are obviously closely linked. I beg my right hon. Friends to take note of this point. We must have some answer from the First Secretary who, although he is now preoccupied with economic affairs, is no stranger to foreign affairs, and we must have an answer before the debate is concluded.

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made the most important statement of the debate so far when he spoke yesterday. There has been a marked reluctance by members of the Government who have spoken so far to give a detailed reply to it.

It would be downright irresponsible, and I am choosing my words carefully, if the Government were not to answer these questions and then ask the House of Commons for permission to apply for entry into the Common Market. The important question that the Leader of the Opposition raised was contained in two statements. First of all, he said, on his own initiative—before the Prime Minister asked him to go a little further on the theme—that defence would be a major issue in the negotiations.

It is no use my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saying on Monday from the Front Bench that he was convinced that the issue of defence, and particularly nuclear defence, must be left where it is now. This afternoon I invited my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to say a little more about this. I asked him whether during the negotiations the Government would be prepared as the price of entry to agree to a joint nuclear Western command within E.E.C. I received no answer from my right hon. Friend. I say that the House is entitled to an explicit answer to this question before we vote tonight.

Secondly, also on this matter of defence, on the invitation, perhaps through the provocation, of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition went a little further. I was glad that the Prime Minister did provoke the Leader of the Opposition to go a little further on this matter. He then said that he believed, this was his formulation, that the proper solution which we should accept, presumably during the negotiations, would be that the nuclear forces of France and the United Kingdom should be joined together and held in trust for the Six.

This was a very puzzling formulation, at any rate to me. I have heard of sums of money being held in trust for orphans; I have heard of capital being held in trust for an association of poor scholars, but I have never yet heard the formulation that a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons should be held in trust for someone else. The Government ought to have pressed—I hope that they will do so tonight—the Leader of the Opposition to say a little more about this. This was a very important statement of new policy, made for the first time in this House by the Leader of the alternative Government. There is a serious obligation on the Leader of the Opposition to come clean and tell the House what this new policy is.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

Why does the hon. Member find it so difficult to understand my right hon. Friend? Does not the Soviet Union hold nuclear weapons in trust for the Warsaw Pact?

Mr. Mendelson

I have great respect for the hon. Member and for his independence of spirit, but as I am modest enough never to claim to interpret the policy of my leader, I think that he will be well advised not to try to interpret the policy of his leader. We must ask the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bexley (Mr. Heath) to explain his policy which he has arrived at with the advice of the Shadow Cabinet. The hon. Gentleman is not a Member of the Shadow Cabinet. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the same subject when giving the Godkin lectures in the United States the other day. That is not the House of Commons. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is in HANSARD."] It is no good the right hon. Gentleman producing documents there. This is the place where he has to explain himself.

There is great danger in this, and that is why I attach importance to this statement. There is great danger in such a new policy. It is the kind of policy which will now be quoted in the negotiations, and it will be said that the Opposition are committed to this policy and the Government will have to have an attitude towards it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) says, all that we have so far had has been a very limited reaction. When I invited my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to say more about this he refused. What we need is a far more categorical explanation of the Government's attitude, because this also involves the aspirations of another Member of the Six.

It involves the aspirations of very powerful Members of the Cabinet of the Government of Bonn. Here I link this particular problem of a Western nuclear command force with the non-proliferation treaty. There was another startling statement which the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday afternoon to which again an answer has to be forthcoming from the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman looked at my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and at my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and asked: was it not clear, and did my right hon. Friends deny, that the non-proliferation treaty had been so designed that it left the way open for a Western European E.E.C. nuclear command?

That was startling news to me and to most of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I had never heard it before. Here is this most important treaty, on which so many Members of our Government have laboured; here is a treaty to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Chalfont and my right hon. Friend the First Secretary who is now on the Treasury Bench, have made profound contributions over a matter of two years. The United States Government have also worked hard on it, together with Mr. Kosygin and Mr. Gromyko.

I have always thought, in my uninstructed way, that this was a treaty designed to prevent the spreading of nuclear weapons. Now we are told, on the authority of the Leader of the Opposition, that this is not so, and that the treaty has been redesigned and so arranged as to leave room for a new and additional nuclear command within E.E.C. This is something which the Prime Minister has always denied, except yesterday afternoon. [Interruption.] If an hon. Member wishes to intervene, I will gladly give way.

Mr. Webster

Without quoting any lectures given outside this country, may I quote what was said in HANSARD: I have said, in relation to nuclear defence, that, with the French force de frappe and the British deterrent, it should be possible for these two aspects of nuclear weapons to be held in trust for Europe. This, in my belief, would not end non-proliferation in any way. In fact, I understand that the non-proliferation has been designed to enable a United Europe to have its own nuclear force."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th May, 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1299.]

Mr. Mendelson

That is what I said. I do not want to be unkind, but the hon. Gentleman is wasting the time of the House. That is precisely what I said. They are the same words. My instinct not to give way was right in the first place.

To return to the subject, which is a very important one, we now hear for the first time, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that this treaty is designed to leave room for a Western European additional nuclear command. This is very startling and dangerous news, because if there is anything designed to wreck any hope of agreement on the non-proliferation treaty this is it.

My last point concerns the attitude of my hon. and right hon. Friends tonight. I would seriously suggest to very many of them who have worked very hard for many years to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons that they must think very carefully and very long before approving the Motion. They may well be supporting a policy of taking the first step to allow not only the creation of a new nuclear command but the introduction later on of the Federal Republic of Germany as an active participant in this new nuclear command.

It is the declared policy of some of the most powerful members of the West German Cabinet to have a more active part for the Federal Republic in the control and possible use of nuclear weapons. They do not want a national nuclear establishment in West Germany. That would be a false accusation. They know that they cannot have that, but what Herr Strauss is aiming at is the active participation of the Federal Republic in a nuclear command in E.E.C.

What Herr Strauss has always aimed at is now becoming a practical possibility through political negotiation. Can anyone envisage that after we join E.E.C and agree to Dr. Kiesinger's proposal for a Committee of Foreign Ministers making foreign policy for all of us, and when we have a joint nuclear command only between France and Britain, Germany after four or five years, through Herr Strauss and other Members of the West German Cabinet, will not point out that they are making a major contribution to the Community and are an equal partner? They will ask how long are the others to discriminate against them, to deny them an equal share in the control of nuclear arms?

These are the real issues facing the House tonight. It is a matter of great regret that we have not had a great deal of detailed information from the Government on these important matters.

My right hon. Friends must understand that I am not speaking in personal bitterness. Practically everyone on the Government Front Bench has been a personal friend for many years. I do not believe that any bitterness should be introduced into our ranks over this matter. But I must ask them to realise that when hon. Members on this side of the House follow their own decision, having looked at all the serious factors involved, they are under an obligation to accept and respect our attitude as we respect the attitude of other hon. Members.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I hope that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) will forgive me if I do not follow him into the labyrinth of European possibilities and imponderables. The great majority of hon. Members who have spoken have referred to imponderables, doubts and difficulties. I wish to speak briefly on one narrow specific point—what our Prime Minister would condemn as the "minor groceries". Yet this is an aspect of our agricultural policy which affects perhaps the most prosperous section of agriculture, namely, horticulture.

The value of horticultural production in this country every year is about £185 million. Yet the Minister of Agriculture, in his most incompetent and cavalier speech last night, brushed horticulture aside in one short phrase. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, in his very able speech, gave the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt when he said that he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had said something about horticulture. But I believe that the Prime Minister, in his long-winded speech, did not even mention the topic.

It may be surprising to hon. Members that this topic should appear to us in Kent to be so important. Our farmers and growers are some of the most skilful in the country. They are blending the ancient skills and traditions of our land with the new technology. Our glasshouse industry has gone from strength to str2ngth in recent years. That industry and the top fruit industry will be gravely threatened if we enter Europe. The one sop of the Minister of Agriculture to the consumer was to say that tomatoes and apples might be a bit cheaper. That might be very nice for the housewife, who faces price rises for beef, butter, cereals, and so on, but it is a very hard outlook for the grower. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member to snigger, but perhaps there are no growers in Lewisham.

Horticulturists are a successful and vital part of agricultural production. If they are to be helped by the Government, the first requiremnt is that the key to progress which is found within the Common Market countries, namely, co-operation and modern marketing techniques, should be fostered. The Prime Minister, in his cut-back measures of 20th July last, saw fit to relegate the Covent Garden replacement scheme to the same bracket as municipal baths and other local government extravagances.

Horticulturists want an early assurance that the Government, whatever the outcome of these negotiations, will help horticulture to stand on its own feet. The general agriculturist will benefit considerably if we enter the Common Market. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) made a highly emotional speech with very little content of reality. The truth is that the great bulk of agriculturists will do very well if we enter the Common Market. Indeed, certain sections of horticulture—for instance, the field vegetable section—will prosper. But the two narrower sections, particularly the top fruit section, clearly will suffer.

I therefore ask the Government for a categorical assurance that they will take early steps within the framework of what we can do in this country to improve the co-operative methods and the marketing system and to assist growers to modernise; and the steps which are already being taken in European countries towards grading should be extended in this country. If these measures should fail, and if the Government should be unwilling to meet their direct obligation to help our industry to stand on its feet, I hope that they will take heed of the very wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) this afternoon.

The essential ultimate requirement is a proper golden handshake for the handful of growers who undoubtedly will be hit. If hon. Members who represent industrial constituencies see great benefits accruing to our industrial concerns, the least that they can do is to ensure that the Government give a proper golden handshake to our growers. I repeat the phrase "golden handshake", because we do not want the rusty iron handshake which has been offered certain hill farmers in the extremely indifferent Agriculture Bill which received the Royal Assent today.

Mr. Stan Newens (Epping)

I agree with certain of the hon. Gentleman's points about the need for provisions enabling home horticulture to adjust itself, but would not he agree that a great deal has been done by the Labour Government to improve conditions in horticulture? Speaking as a Member who represents part of the Lea Valley, I should have thought that that was self-evident, and it is only right that the hon. Gentleman should pay tribute to what the Government have done already.

Mr. Wells

Naturally I respect the hon. Gentleman's constituency viewpoint, but I must remind him of the time before he became a Member of the House, when the Horticulture Improvement Scheme was launched by my noble Friend Lord Blakenham, who was then Minister of Agriculture, and followed through by Mr. Christopher Soames. The present Minister of Agriculture has only tinkered and fiddled with the schemes brought forward by Conservative Administrations. We have had no new Measure. The one considerable benefit which the Labour Government have conferred on horticulturists is to include fork-lift trucks in the schedules of items which qualify for assistance. I do not deny the usefulness of that, but let us stick to the point.

The massive investment in equipment lying behind our hard fruit industry—in cold stores, and so on—amounts to a very large sum. This investment is scattered throughout the fruit-growing areas. The constituency of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) has much fixed equipment in it. He will be aware of the traditional pattern of the glasshouse industry, centred round a great city, which is going out generation by generation as the glass becomes derelict. This has always been the pattern.

Far from assisting British horticulture, the Labour Government through the Act of the Patronage Secretary's father—the Town and Country Planning Act brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—put the first nail in the coffin of the progress of the glasshouse industry. The second nail was the revived Town and Country Planning Act, and the last one is the Land Commission Act which will make this natural process even harder.

Let us, however, stick to the main issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to say "Hear, hear". I have been keeping plainly to the "minor groceries", unlike other hon. Members who have searched their consciences and given their biographies. The Labour Government have nothing whatever to boast about in their conduct with the horticulture industry. I hope that we may have a considerable change of heart in the next few hours and that we may have some sort of reassuring statement from the Government Front Bench.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu (Edmonton)

My hon. Friends will not be surprised if I say that I welcome the firm decision, undoubtedly supported by the whole Cabinet, that Britain should become a member of the European Economic Community.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in a typical speech, said that those who opposed entering did so without reservation and that those who supported our entering did it with reservation. That is not very surprising. Great changes are always much more easy to oppose than to accept. To accept a great change involves full consideration of what it involves, while to oppose it could be completely negative.

I agree with my right hon. Friend, however, in one thing, which has been said by almost every hon. Member who has spoken: that the issues in this case are basically political. In my first speech in the House in favour of our entry, which was in July, 1960, I recognised that the Community was a combination for political purposes. Whatever the subject of the speeches which have been made during this debate, there is no doubt that behind them, whether they be for or against, stood political conviction and therefore, of course, a fair degree of emotion. That is understandable and justified. Nevertheless, I believe that there are great economic advantages for us in the future, especially the advantages, to which frequent reference has been made, of modern technology and industrial scale to which, I think, I was almost the first hon. Member in the House to refer many years ago. There are, however, I admit, very great short-term difficulties. I have never believed, nor do I believe, that any supporter of our entry believed that entry was in any way a solution for our current economic problems.

There are some economists—or perhaps I should say econometricians—who seem to me to take an unnecessarily gloomy view. There was, for example, what I can only describe as the arrogant article in The Times Business News on Monday, 1st May. I say "arrogant" because, from my experience, no one can forecast economic developments four or five years ahead with any degree of accuracy. That, we can assume, is the sort of minimum transitional period.

The writer of the article assumed the most unfavourable factors and he also assumed that the Government would take no steps to correct them. The argument was built up by a relentless use of statistics in a sort of house-that-Jack-built manner; for instance, the effect of food price changes on wages and costs and their relation to the elasticity of demand at the end of the transitional period. On that I can only say that, apart from the speculative nature of most of the figures, the whole argument would fall to the ground if to compensate for the higher costs— which are equivalent, after all, to an upward revaluation of the £—an equivalent degree of devaluation were to take place.

The writer of the article, with a strange emotionalism in one presuming scientific objectivity, asked whether the Government would march with glad hearts into a cold-blooded devaluation". No doubt they would not. There are, however, alternative methods—for instance, a step-by-step devaluation by small annual amounts parallel to the transitional period. I realise the difficulties of this. It might involve, for instance, rather higher rates of interest than would otherwise be necessary. I suggest, however, that these alternatives are worth considering.

The other main argument of the writer, quite unsupported by any real evidence, was that the use of the London capital market would lead to a great outflow of capital. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have dealt with this matter at length, but I see no reason why, if the problem of the outflow of portfolio investment to third countries via Europe can be dealt with, the expertise of the London capital market should not on balance be to our advantage.

On the economic problems created by our entering the Community, I am by no means complacent, but I am not complacent about our economic situation in any event. Neither am I pessimistic, however.

No one can doubt—it is difficult to avoid clichés in this matter—that we face the greatest political decision which the country has faced for at least the last 300 years.

I believe—and here I shall be considerably controversial—that the imperial era which was a very short part of that period, on balance, has been a handicap to our national development. I doubt whether we have received from it any economic advantage for nearly a century. It has inhibited us from facing necessary economic change, and we now find it extremely expensive to liquidate.

The ideas which were prevalent at the beginning of the century, and which still find their echoes among right hon. and hon. Members, the older ones especially, on the benches opposite, for a strong imperial connection have been shown to be dreams which reached their fulfilment, I regret to say, in that mausoleum of imperialism, New Delhi.

The Ottawa Agreements, which followed the Balfour Declaration after the Imperial Conference of 1926, were based on an outmoded conception that we, the industrial country, could exchange our industrial products for the commodities of the former Colonial Territories, and the, at that time, independent members of the Commonwealth. I say in passing that some hon. Members have greatly exaggerated the effects of the loss of preferences taking into account the whole of our export trade.

In recent years, many had hoped that an alternative would be found in a growing, free collaboration between the increasing number of independent Commonwealth States. Alas, however, that dream also is fading because of our obvious inability to provide for their defence and, as it now appears, even the capital for their industry, their eagerness to build up their own industries behind strong tariff barriers in competition with our own and, even more so, their willingness to take military and political decisions even against our interests or the interests of each other. The Commonwealth ties are, I believe, loosening fast.

To those who refer with justifiable emotion to our kith and kin, I would only point out that there are more of our kith and kin outside the Commonwealth than there are inside it—[Interruption.]— in the United States of America, for example. On the other hand, in the Commonwealth our kith and kin are now a very small minority. On the other hand, our history shows that we are most affected by what happens in Europe, where all our major wars have started. In recent years the combination of nationalism and technology has combined to make those wars ever more horrifying.

Professor E. H. Carr, in a brilliant little book written just at the end of the war and entitled, "Nationalism and After", pointed out that the economic impetus to the growing nationalism of European States was to some extent controlled in the nineteenth century by the illusion that economic and political systems were separate—that was in the age of laissez faire, and also, of course, of great poverty. He also pointed out the fact that the world economy was at that time managed from one centre, the City of London.

When the great majority of the populations of the European countries began to acquire, as they did in the last century and more and more during this, political influence, and to demand higher living standards, their Governments were forced to pay more attention to their national economies, and this led to economic nationalism which soon developed into political nationalism. The breakdown of these national economies between the wars led to the rise of the demagogues and the horrors of the 'thirties and 'forties.

These facts, I believe, were recognised by the founders of the Community, and they saw that the only way to get rid of the dangers of nationalism in Europe was to develop an expanding economy not restricted by national boundaries. I also believe that the stability of Western Europe must inevitably contribute to the stability of all Europe as a whole.

Mind you, the idea of a federation of European States is not new in our party.

In 1927 Ernest Bevin succeeded in getting a resolution passed by the Trades Union Congress in favour of the creation of a united states of Europe, and in 1945, when he was Foreign Secretary, he said that he did not regret that, in the regional discussions which were then taking place, the idea was being revived.

Unfortunately, with few exceptions we were so overcome by the scale of our own problems, and perhaps with our own virtues in solving them, that we threw away the chance of the leadership of Europe at that time, and in spite of the speeches of Winston Churchill and of the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) at Strasbourg, the party opposite when it came to power was inhibited, no doubt by its imperial past, for many years in taking the step. We on our side feared the economic instability of a Europe organised on capitalist lines. We had, I am afraid, little confidence in the effectiveness of our Socialist colleagues or any understanding of the degree to which the Government of any political party, under the influence of Socialist ideas and thinking and Keynsian ideas and thinking, would run their economies with the idea of maintaining full employment and certainly the success with which they have done so—[Interruption.] They succeeded in doing it, and will continue to succeed in doing it, to an outstanding extent compared with any previous era.

Now most of us on both sides, probably, are more modest—certainly those with experience—in our claims for the unique virtues of our own economic policies, and there is no doubt that the gap which existed between the policies of the E.E.C. countries and ourselves appears much less than it did. Moreover, it cannot be denied that most of them—all of them—have as many of the symbols of Social Democracy as we have ourselves.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)


Mr. Albu

I do not know whether we claim we have all we would desire in the way of the policies of social democracy, but I believe that those countries have as much of social policies as we have, of economic development and full employment, and are like us in their general attitudes. I do not believe, if we try to measure the extent of their social democracy, we can say there is much difference between us.

Mr. Hooley rose——

Mr. Albu

Well, that is my view. It is no good examining dogma. What we want to examine are conditions of life of the people, because that is what Socialism stands for. [Interruption.] I would tell my hon. Friend that the standard of living in West Germany is higher than in this country at the present time. I agree they have a degree of unemployment roughly comparable with our own, but I believe also that it will be found that they will be able to cure it faster because they have very much greater reserves than we have at the present time.

To conclude, I hope that we are not too late. I hope also that now we have a chance to make up for what—with hindsight I admit—now seem to me the wasted years. In recent times our people seem to have lost their sense of direction, and that is why I am convinced the majority—the younger, perhaps—but the majority certainly—will welcome the opportunity of the challenge to help build up a peaceful, progressive, and generous Europe.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull)

I count myself lucky at this late hour in the debate to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat in the Chamber through the three days of debate, and I realise that there are other hon. Members who wish to speak after me, so I shall endeavour to express my gratitude by being as brief as I can.

If I may take up where the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) left off, I share with him the view that there is a future for this country in union with Europe and that the European ideal is the greatest one that has come out of the post-war world. I speak as a convinced European, as one who, from the end of the war, believed that, if we were to have a continuous peace and developing prosperity in Europe, we should have a united Europe.

I do not pretend to pierce the veil of the future or to be able to say whether we shall have a Europe des patries or a federal Europe. What I hope we shall be doing in the request which will be presented to the Commission in Brussels tomorrow is taking the first step to uniting our destinies with those of Europe, by which I mean not only those countries which now constitute the European Economic Community, but all those which, in the course of time, will unite their destinies with theirs and with ours.

One cannot have listened to the whole debate without being impressed by the sincerity which has obviously motivated speakers on both sides of the House and on both sides of the Motion—for and against. I was happy to listen to the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) a few minutes ago. Despite political differences which are as old as our acquaintance, we have a friendship which dates back 30 years. I found myself in almost complete agreement with him. I did not share his views or those of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about a Socialist Europe. He spoke of that dream. I should have described it as a nightmare. What I look forward to is a united Europe.

I shall not go over the economic reasons why I believe that we should unite our destinies with Europe. That has been done by numerous hon. Members in the course of the debate. Suffice to say that it seems to me that, in a modern world, one needs a great market to develop the great industries which must compete in that world in terms of research, in complexity and in world markets. To build up those great industries, one must have the resources of such a great community as exists in the United States and in Russia and as I believe we shall have in Europe when we are united in the European Economic Community.

As for the political reasons why I believe that we should go in, first, we have for centuries endeavoured to preserve a balance of power in Europe against those who have sought to unite Europe by conquest. In the present case, Europe is not being united by conquest but by agreement. If we find ourselves outside it and willingly remain outside, inevitably we shall remain isolated off the coast of Europe.

I agree that there are other possibilities. There is the possibility of an Atlantic Community. However, if we go into Europe, we go in as one amongst equals and as one of the great States of Europe. If we go into an Atlantic Community, can it be as anything other than the 51st State of the United States of America?

I do not speak as an anti-American, because I have the greatest respect for the United States. I approve of what the Americans are doing in South-East Asia to preserve that area from Communism—[Interruption.] I know that that will not meet with approval on the benches opposite below the Gangway. I make the point to show that I am not speaking as an anti-American, but as a European.

The point was well made—and I am glad to see him here—by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) that we shall go in with our heads held high. We have much to contribute in Europe, and the Seven, or the Seven-plus, will not be the same as the Six because it will be enriched by what we shall take in. We have our political maturity and experience of democracy, our technological and industrial greatness, our financial strength, expertise and achievement. We take all of this into the Europe of tomorrow if we go into it.

This is the complete answer to those who are afraid of what has been called the bureaucracy of Brussels, the High Commission. It is said that laws will be made for us without our having a voice in them. That is nonsense. Sometimes I think that the bureaucrats of Brussels, along with the gnomes of Zurich and the bankers of the City form the demonology of some hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. We should go in and take part in what is being done. We shall have a member on the Council and a representative on the Commission. We shall be represented in the Assembly and we shall have our judge on the court. What those institutions do for Europe they will do with our participation.

I was surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Sir B. Craddock) taking this view about the bureaucracy of Brussels and was equally surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) subscribe to the view that our laws would be overturned, that we would no longer have our common law of England. It simply is not true. The laws made by the European Community will be laws on restrictive practices and commercial matters and other matters of that kind. They will not affect our criminal law, our common law, our law of civil liberties or our law of inheritance. Those things will remain our birthright.

This point was so well made by the Lord Chancellor in another place earlier this week, and by my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) in this debate that I am surprised to hear such doctrines still being propagated. The Lord Chancellor quoted some observations made by Lord Dilhorne in another place when speaking about the Common Market on 2nd August, 1962, in col. 420 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. I shall not quote it, but it was true then and remains true today.

Mr. J. T. Price (Westhoughton)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So that I might not create the impression that I am making comments when seated, I rise to point out that it is not in order— is it?—for an hon. Member to quote here proceedings in another place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

The hon. and learned Member for Solihull (Mr. Grieve) made it perfectly clear that he was not proposing to quote from another place.

Mr. Grieve

I was about to say that it was said in another place that the changes in the law resulting from accession to the Community would not affect the ordinary man or woman in this country, who simply would not realise the changes resulting in the laws dealing with commerce and restrictive practices.

Another issue is that of sovereignty. It is said that this Parliament would no longer be sovereign. That is not true either. One abdicates a degree of sovereignty every time one makes a treaty. It is a function of sovereignty to abdicate sovereignty. It is a result of freedom to make contracts and contracts limit the freedom of the individual. We limit our sovereignty when we subscribe to U.N.O., G.A.T.T., N.A.T.O. and S.E.A.T.O. We shall limit our sovereignty in subscribing to the Treaty of Rome, and I believe that we shall be right in so doing. But we do not thereby abdicate all our sovereignty.

I have made my speech as briefly and as fast as I can. Finally, I want to repeat the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) in his speech the night before last. Let us be positive in our approach to Europe. I believe that what, more than anything else, has made difficulties for us has been a doubt in the minds of our European friends—and I really mean that; we have many friends in the countries of the Economic Community— whether we were really in earnest and were really Europeans. Let us, therefore, be positive in our approach to Europe and, above all—I plead with the House— let us be positive in our approach to France. I have always believed that in a strong Franco-British friendship, understanding, alliance and unity lies the key to the future peace and prosperity of Europe.

I am convinced, as I believe many others are, that one of our difficulties in the past has been that France has been regarded as an obstacle to be overcome rather than an ally and friend to be persuaded and won over. It is as friends to be won over that we should approach them now—as we should approach the other countries of the European Economic Community.

With that in mind I want to say something about the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. The French have a nuclear arm of their own. There is no question of proliferation in their developing it. They have it already, and nothing that anyone says or does will prevent their developing it. Should not we, therefore, at least consider the question of pooling our resources with theirs—not only our civil nuclear resources but our military nuclear resources?

One hon. Member opposite this evening asked, "What does it mean to hold in trust?" I would have thought that that had a quite justifiably and understandably clear meaning. Nobody in this House would wish to see the Germans developing a nuclear deterrent of their own. It would be intolerable for our relations with Russia if such a thing were to happen. Why not, therefore, develop- our nuclear capacity along with the French, as trustees for the whole European Community of which I hope and trust we are shortly to become members?

8.48 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maxwell (Buckingham)

There can be no doubt that the Government will receive a massive majority for its application, which will be lodged tomorrow. The only problem faced both by the House and by the country is what to do to ensure the success of our application. I respect and recognise the sincerity of some of my hon. and right hon. Friends who oppose this application, but I cannot for the life of me understand how men with 20 or 30 years' service to the Labour Party and this House can undermine the Government's position in respect of the application to join the Community, in the way that has been done, for instance, by my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) in alliance with the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)——

Mr. Manuel

Did you tell him?

Mrs. Renée Short (Wolverhampton, North-East)

What is he supposed to do if he thinks it is wrong?

Mr. Maxwell

My right hon. Friend the Member for Easington can well look after himself——

Mr. Manuel

Had you the decency to tell him?

Mr. Maxwell

Everyone knows that, in this debate, the die has been cast. No one can make any difference except if he wanted to help or underline the Government's application.

In a few days', the President of France will hold his usual Press conference and will be able to crow that he has taught the insular race on this island a lesson. He told us a few years ago to go back and to reapply when we were ready to accept both the spirit and the letter of the Treaty of Rome. We have come back and have admitted that our policies towards the E.E.C. and in Europe since the end of the war have been wrong. By applying for the second time and in a simple form, and undertaking to sign the Treaty as it stands, subject to the necessary safeguards—[An HON. MEMBER: "What are they?"]—we are indeed making a considerable change.

I am afraid that many people in Europe are convinced that a great majority of people in these islands are anti-European——

Mrs. Renée Short

They are right, too.

Mr. Maxwell

I fear that many in the European newspapers, radio stations and television network will be reporting comments like that. I should like to tell the House and Europe that the people of Great Britain are not anti-European and that this application is sincere and very important. When millions of people in Europe feel in their hearts that they want Britain to come in, I should like to confirm to them that their instinct is right and that there cannot be a united Europe without Great Britain.

I should like to tell the House a personal story. It is well known that I, unlike the majority of hon. Members, did not have the good fortune to be born in these islands. Unlike most hon. Members, I made some effort to get here and, furthermore, I made a choice. I had the opportunity in 1940, after the collapse of France, of emigrating to the United States, but, instead, I chose to emigrate to the United Kingdom. What made me do that?

First, the fact that Great Britain stood alone. Although I was born in a country which was dismembered by Hitler because of the errors committed by the party opposite at Munich—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—I nevertheless joined in the defence of these islands. I landed here with a rifle in my hands——

Sir Edward Brown (Bath)

We went out with rifles, as well.

Mr. Maxwell

—I did not come here as a refugee.

I chose to live here, not only because Britain stood alone against Hitler, but because the people were prepared to sacrifice their everything and stood behind Winston Churchill in 1940, because this is a country which stands for fair play and in which political parties may have their differences but nevertheless talk to each other. There are no fisticuffs in this Chamber. There is, by and large, no corruption in British politics. We have considerable experience in world affairs and a considerable contribution to make in science, education and finance. In many of the things Great Britain does, we tend to act pragmatically; for example, we often take the side of the underdog.

For all these reasons Europeans rightly feel that we have a contribution to make to uniting Europe. That is why I want the people of Europe to know that the speech which represents Great Britain is that made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary this afternoon and not the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington. I urge hon. Members who wish to undermine these negotiations and who would like to see them fail to say what alternative they offer the youth of Britain. Our Empire has gone and the Commonwealth is disintegrating fast. What are we to offer in their place?

An opportunity to play a vital role in uniting this great Continent of Europe is a goal and challenge which we need as a nation. Just to argue about the price of tomatoes or to say that we want to know about nuclear defence treaties—[HON. MEMBERS: "We do."]—is not enough. In any event, the Treaty of Rome contains no provision for discussions to be held on nuclear matters. What is the use of pressing the Prime Minister on this issue? He is bound to have months of being pressed by my hon. Friends in a troublesome and muddlesome way and, on this defence issue, he will have to tell them that it is not a subject which is being discussed. It cannot be discussed because provision for such discussion is not contained in the Treaty of Rome.

Now that Great Britain is genuinely prepared to take this decisive step to join the Community, what excites Europe is the fact that this decision has been taken by a Labour Government who represent the British workers—[Interruption.]—and who most certainly represent the organised workers in the trade union movement in these islands. That makes this decision really mean something.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) reminded the House, when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in Opposition on the last occasion they did nothing about this. Great Britain was invited to play a full part at the meeting at Messina; that was where the Treaty of Rome was written. At that time hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office, but they would not even send an observer. They withdrew. I am glad to have them in the Lobby voting with the Government on this issue. It is a national issue and any hon. Member who is prepared to shilly shally or dilly dally on little matters—[Interruption.]—will have to answer for that action in years to come.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Wavertree)

Would the hon. Gentleman remember what his hon. Friends failed to do over the Schuman Plan when they were in power?

Mr. Maxwell

That is quite right. The hon. Member is perfectly right. The Labour Party is as guilty as the Tory Party over this issue. But when hon. Members laugh about this matter, I would remind them that Europe is on the verge of being united——

Mrs. Renée Short


Mr. Maxwell

Which country has it in its power to let us in or keep us out? It is France——

Mrs. Short

My hon. Friend's knowledge of geography seems to be absolutely lamentable. He keeps repeating that Europe is on the verge of being united, but since the war Europe has been divided into three blocs.

Mr. Maxwell

I am well aware——

Mrs. Short

How is it united, then?

Mr. Maxwell

Europe is on the verge of being united. An example of the failure of Great Britain's policies towards Europe is the fact that we are having to make a second application. We are having to accept a Treaty which we could have helped to frame. But we did not allow ourselves in because we believed, foolishly, that we still had the resources to play the great Power game. We have learned that we have not.

Our chronic balance of payments position, our lack of economic growth, the way the United States has let us down— for instance, at Suez—has merely convinced this country and this Government that if Britain is to have any chance at all of playing a role in world affairs, and if we are to give our people something really to look forward to, it can be done only jointly with our friends and allies in Europe.

Britain's entry into the European Economic Community should bring to an end once and for all the bloody rivalry amongst the European nation States that has caused blood letting in two succeeding generations and has led to the economic and political decline of this Continent. I would remind the House that many people in Europe believe, and I share the belief, that had Britain got involved in Europe earlier we would undoubtedly have prevented the last war, and might even have prevented the First World War.

Of the continental Powers, only France, under de Gaulle, has regained her vitality and confidence. Italy is too weak; Germany too unsure and guilt ridden. Britain's entry into the Common Market should usher in a new era of growth, stability and security for the nearly 200 million people of this great and ancient Continent of Europe. Let us resolve to take part in this noble venture with a will, and the determination to make a real contribution to freeing this Continent to manage its own affairs, to contribute to our own prosperity, to help raise the standard of living of the less well off people, and to play a leading rôle in the preservation of peace in the world.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. David Webster (Weston-super-Mare)

Like the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell), I want us to enter Europe. Listening to the hon. Gentleman's peroration and his description of the countries which are prominent members of the European Community, I could not understand why he should want us to enter, because he seemed to have a very poor opinion of each of them.

I hope that the Government—and I wish them success in their negotiations—have spent some time not only preparing the ground by visits to the capitals but also preparing a staff of negotiators with detailed knowledge and experience of the Common Market countries. They will not just be dealing with major questions. Although I agree that it is probably right to stick to the major issues, it is the minor questions, the groceries, with which we as constituency Members will be concerned. The details of the negotiations must be prepared very thoroughly, and I hope that this will be done with the greatest care.

The Prime Minister is some one who can say that we are going to join the Common Market and that there will be no cause for failure on our part, but if there is cause for failure it will be his responsibility because I am not satisfied that he has prepared the ground or the diplomatic staffs with the detailed knowledge required for hard negotiations on many of the details.

A great deal has been said about agriculture and there is little I can add on the subject at this stage. It is expected that the price of food might increase by 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. It is essential that we should negotiate an interim period of approximately five years. That would mean that the increase in the cost of food could go up 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. a year over those years. As everyone knows, it has gone up far more than that in the last three years. It is essential to protect our contribution to the Guidance and Guarantee Fund. One of the things which has been brought out is that the guidance fund is limited in extent. I hope that it will be possible after 1970 to increase that fund, because that is something which will produce the potential for new methods in agriculture.

I do not think many of my hon. Friends or hon. Members opposite who disagree deeply with our entry have accepted the possibility that we might for once—this is very rare under this Government— actually have a reduction in taxes. We on this side of the House must insist that such a reduction of taxes shall be passed on to those who will suffer because of the increase in food prices, and passed on to the sector most in need.

Mr. John Hall

I am not sure how my hon. Friend thinks that we shall get a reduction in taxes when we remember that the burden of taxation is higher in the Common Market countries than in ours.

Mr. Webster

The agriculture support system is different. That is how there could be such a reduction. There is a great risk of the contribution to the Guidance and Guarantee Fund being anything from £150 million to £230 million, but it would be a bad negotiator who settled for less than £100 million or £120 million contribution to that fund. For that reason we should wish our negotiators to be very thoroughly attuned to attitudes and thinking of the people in the European Commission.

There has been much talk about technology. This country, which has only a limited amount of raw materials, is dependent on skills. Hon. Members on both sides represent those skills in this House. We have been suffering from a brain drain not only through the loss of ability to pay people who are skilled engineers but through the loss of the capacity and loss of potential. There is a real dramatic scope for those industries in Britain and Europe. Despite the efforts of President de Gaulle, the brain drain is common to the French. It is common to the Germans and to every country in Europe. We see a crisis in at least one of the Communities which we are seeking to join. Euratom for the last 12 months has been unable to agree on a common budget. Much of the technological advance which we seek is to a great extent dependent on this. Projects at Winfrith stand at risk because of this. I hope that our entry will bring about negotiating skills for an agreement in this respect.

There are also the aircraft industry and the computer industry. The right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) spoke about institutions in Strasbourg and in this country. At that moment Black Rod came into this House. I gathered that it was for the last time. That is a procedure which, as he knows, does not happen in the European Parliaments.

If Britain goes into the Common Market, we in the House must insist that we contribute to the development of institutions in the Common Market so that the fears of the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) are allayed. We should have a European Parliament directly elected which can bring a European Commission to book. This is absolutely essential. At present, there is no control over a European Commission if it becomes excessive in its powers. There are various procedures, but they are seldom evoked. The British genius for democracy is greatly needed in developing the institutions which would be commen to all of us.

Those in the country and in the House who oppose our entry will, I think, agree that for the last fifty or sixty years there has been an increasing spirit of malaise about this country. We have withdrawn from our Empire. We have withdrawn from our influence as a great naval power. When a country withdraws in that way, with whatever dignity, with whatever self-respect, and whatever institutions it attempts to bequeath to the countries it leaves behind and for which it has done its best, the operation is, at best, not an inspiriting performance. It is difficult and hard for all to bear.

Here for this country, on the threshold of Europe, there is another opportunity, another challenge. Those hon. Members who oppose our entry have eloquently put forward the challenge. I believe that this country and this House would rise to this challenge, make the great new partnership successful, and assist European countries in their own development.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Terence Boston (Faversham)

I hope in the course of a very brief speech to make two passing references to the points which the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) has made, particularly with regard to technology and horticulture.

At the outset it would probably be as well for me to declare an interest. This is an extraordinary debate in which to declare an interest, but such are the demands of the House that it is perhaps as well that I do so. In fact, upstairs at a Parliamentary Labour Party meeting I made a confession during the debate on the Common Market; but, through one of those curious aberrations,this happened to be one of the statements which was not leaked out in the course of the reports which appeared.

The declaration of interest which I feel compelled to make in this debate— I apologise to those of my hon. Friends who have heard me say this for repeating it—is that my wife is Australian, my maternal grandfather was Italian, and one of my maternal great-grandmothers was French. I am, therefore, in the position of being one-quarter Italian and one-eight French. I leave it to European computer development to work out exactly what my children will be. I have long felt that, if Britain joined the Common Market, in my case this would really mean the Common Market would be joining me.

I have felt for a long time that the ideal solution undoubtedly is to join the Common Market, provided that arrangements can be made to avoid letting down our friends and dishonouring the commitments which we have entered into. I am among those who have supported the concept of a wider Europe. I believe, together with many of my hon. Friends, that any decision to join should be linked with some clear commitment here.

Clearly, Britain's aim must be for closer links with Europe as a whole. There is undoubtedly a danger that the present European Economic Community could become increasingly inward-looking. I believe that Britain could make the E.E.C. more outward-looking as a body. Britain has a vital role to play in forging closer contacts, particularly with the Eastern European nations. In one body connected with the British Council, I have had something to do in the past eight or nine months with relations with Eastern European countries.

Considerable progress has been made in the past two years in improving relations between East and West, and I do not accept that membership of the European Economic Community would necessarily make these links harder to secure. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday, it is notable that France under de Gaulle has made considerable strides in building up trade and other contacts with Eastern European countries, including some of the smaller countries, notably Rumania. Whether inside or outside, Britain must give greater momentum to these developments for closer links with Eastern European countries. From inside, we could help such developments, a point to which I shall return in a moment.

Insufficient attention has been paid in this debate, I feel, to what should happen if we do not succeed in our application—if we make one—to join the E.E.C. Last time, what damaged Britain's prestige more than anything else was not so much that there was humiliation felt because Britain did not get in but that, when the negotiations finally came to an end, the then Government seemed to be floundering, without a thought about where to go next. It may have been a factor contributing to our failure to get in last time that the alternatives were not sufficiently explained and dealt with during the negotiations. We had, and have, no sufficient fall-back position. This was the mistake last time. Now, we must be ready with a prepared programme if we do not succeed in our application, if made. Nothing could be worse than a sense of let-down if we fail to get in and have not prepared for that possibility.

I should like to hear much more from the Government about the courses of action which they would propose to take in that event. There are two great advantages in putting forward the alternatives at this stage. First, there is the advantage of avoiding any sense of letdown. Second—here I disagree profoundly with the view which the Leader of the Opposition put yesterday—it would help our negotiating position if those with whom we shall be negotiating have a clear and precise indication of the alternatives which we consider to be open to us. After all, we are supposed not to be crawling into Europe. If the alternatives are explained sufficiently beforehand, this will be an added advantage in our negotiating position.

Whatever happens, whether we go in or not, we must be ready to maintain the momentum of developing links with Europe. If things go well with our application, this will, obviously, create a momentum of its own. If they do not— I am not one of those who would regard that as an unmitigated disaster—we must be ready to continue in top gear with a prepared series of alternative steps. In that event, the first steps to be taken, one assumes, would be a round of top-level talks with the East European countries—I hope that this will take place in any case—and with the Commonwealth countries as well, while maintaining our close contacts with the E.F.T.A. countries. Undoubtedly, these plans ought to be prepared in advance, and, as I say, such preparation would help our negotiating position.

Several hon. Members have said that we should show enthusiasm in making our application. If we put forward the alternatives open to us in the event of our not getting in, this of itself will show our determination to get in. It will be a measure of enthusiasm, and will be a help in our negotiating position.

There are a number of specific moves which ought to be made in connection with this, moves not of some vague wider European concept, but tangible proposals for developing trade and other exchanges with East European and other countries. Much has been said about the need to develop the technological community which the hon. Member for Western-super-Mare mentioned in his speech, something which has been developed in a very tangible and specific way. There is also the need for a clearing house for scientific and technical information. These are specific tangible propositions which would provide an alternative series of proposals which could be followed if we fail in any application which might be made.

We cannot contemplate going through these convulsions once every five years. I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), but I agree with him that it would be wrong to go through this upheaval once every five years, and it ought to be stated categorically now that this is a one-and-for-all exercise. Every time we engage upon any series of negotiations to enter the E.E.C. this obviously arouses both hopes and fears at home and abroad among our E.F.T.A. and Commonwealth partners. Although I am broadly in favour of entering the E.E.C. at this stage, I believe that we should state quite clearly that this application, if one is made as a result of tonight's Division, should be a once-and-for-all exercise and that if it fails we should then be prepared to go ahead with a clearly stated set of alternatives.

I have kept on fairly general points without going into some of the detailed balance sheet arguments. Obviously, coming from a partly agricultural constituency, I should like to mention some of the difficulties affecting agriculture and particularly affecting horticulture. But the important things which should be borne in mind in any application are that we should be ready to go ahead in top gear with an alternative in the event of failing to enter, and, secondly, that we should make it clear to our E.F.T.A. and Commonwealth partners that, if we fail this time, we do not intend to apply again.

9.23 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hertfordshire, East)

I started my speech on Mr. Macmillan's Motion under Article 237 of the Treaty of Rome six years ago by expressing my sense of privilege that I was taking part in so momentous a debate. I feel that I cannot improve on that for a start to this speech in 1967, but I cannot offer any guarantee that in the rest of my speech I shall necessarily maintain that agreeably uncontroversial standard. Then as now some of my right hon. and hon. Friends felt constrained to put down an Amendment to the Motion, and I now commend our Amendment to the House.

In 1961, the economic side was stressed the more strongly, and it was necessary in those days to bring out the fact that there were great political and constitutional implications. Today, that is taken for granted. Indeed, the Government have said that their main purpose derives from the political aspect. It was said by the Prime Minister and confirmed today by the Foreign Secretary. Never-theless, it is still, of course, necessary to strike an economic balance sheet.

Economics after all, are a very important part of politics, and politicians who forget that soon have it brought home to them. I want to start by saying a word or two on the economic aspect. When one strikes an economic balance sheet, there are items on both sides, as there are in all but the very simplest transactions of life. Surely the salient feature here is that, whereas the economic advantages tend to be speculative and contingent, the economic disadvantages are certain and inescapable.

Let me try to make that proposition good. There are two main economic advantages claimed by advocates of entry. First there is the avoidance for our exports of the common external tariff of the Six, and secondly the claimed advantages of the so-called economies of scale—the technological and other advances which are expected to accrue from a large market. The first of those advantages is factual. It is the only certain economic advantage of joining the Community. It is priced at £75 million a year.

On the other side of the balance sheet, the list of economic disadvantages is long and chilly. The increase in the cost of living we are told, will be 3 per cent. to ½ per cent., with its inevitable consequence of an increase in our production costs. and therefore in our export costs, with this difference, that the disadvantage will not be confined to the Community, but will handicap our export endeavours in all the markets of the world.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Monmouth) rose——

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is for the right hon. and learned Gentleman who is in possession of the Floor of the House to decide whether to give way.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

The hon. Gentleman has been long enough in the House to know that I always like to give way. I am not being guilty of any discourtesy, but at this stage of the debate we are on a timetable, and I have an argument to make. I hope that he will forgive me.

The list is: loss of Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. preferences, £130 million a year; increased costs of our imports, £150 million a year; payments on the compulsory agricultural levy, up to £250 million a year; adverse movement of capital, £100 million a year. The Times has obligingly done the arithmetic for us. It is £630 million a year to gain £75 million a year.

Gamblers who plunge rashly on being told that there is easy money to be made are called suckers. What then, is the right term to attach to a Government who plunge rashly when they know that they are to be involved in a certain loss—a certain loss not even compensated by the so-called economies of scale, because the economy, we are told, will then be so deflated that we shall not be able to put them into operation?

When we last debated this matter in this House in November of last year I said, of the economic aspect, that at best it was non proven. In the light of the figures, and the knowledge that we now have, like Clive in Westminster Hall, I stand astonished at my own moderation. These are the calculations put forward for us by The Times, and they have not been gainsaid or rejected by the Treasury.

These are matters of trade. If they were to be refuted, who more authoritative, one would think, than the President of the Board of Trade, a man of known integrity, ability and experience? But we have not heard him in this debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] My hon. Friends say, "Where is he?". He has visited us from time to time at the far and less visible end of the Treasury Bench a transient and embarrassed phantom, scarcely even accorded the traditional privilege of the small boy—to be seen and not heard. Anyway, he certainly has not been heard. I put this question to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, were he here and would forgive so simple a canine metaphor, why has the President of the Board of Trade been muzzled?

Mr. Speaker

Order. I am not objecting to the poetry, but I must now put a procedural Motion.

It being half-past Nine o'clock the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on the Order of the Day relating to European Communities may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of one and a half hours after half-past Nine o'clock, though opposed.

Question again proposed, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

To what doghouse has the President of the Board of Trade been sent? Perhaps the Prime Minister will find that licensing is a two-way traffic. There may be those with the courage and integrity to hand back their licence if they do not agree with what is done.

Mark the strange turn of events; mark the curious paradox with which we are faced. The Times concludes its gloomy but convincing analysis with these words: Parliament must decide whether the economic cost is worth the political benefit. What strange words are these? Up to a short time ago, the advocates of entry were telling us that it was the political cost which was to be justified by the economic benefit, so strong was it. Now that argument is turned on its head, and we are invited to reach the same conclusion as to entry on precisely opposite reasoning.

It is not only the arguments which are not the same. The proponents are not the same. The commanding general is leading his troops in the opposite direction. In this debate we have heard a lot about conversion. I make no general criticism of political conversion. That is partly what we are in politics for—to convert other people to our way of thinking. Genuine conversion and frank avowal of error should never be reprobated. It should be respected and applauded.

The Prime Minister's conversion is notable; and, with the generosity so characteristic of him, he is determined not to keep it to himself. He is going to extend it to all his right hon. and hon. Friends. There was once a Roman Emperor, an early convert to Christianity, who had his troops baptised in battalions. That is the Prime Minister's technique: whipped into the water, a compulsory and collective immersion, zealots and sceptics alike.

We have heard several comparisons in the debate. The right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) made a comparison with the Road to Damascus. There are some ingredients which seem to be in parallel. The suddenness of the occasion is a close parallel. I am not so sure about the next one. St. Paul's conversion was wholly unconditional. After what the Foreign Secretary said, perhaps that also applies to the Prime Minister's. Then, of course, St. Paul's conversion was characterised by a shining sincerity. I hope that that also applies in the present case. After all, there is no harm in hoping.

I read another comparison in a newspaper which struck me as being nearer—Peel's abandonment of Protection in 1846. The House may echo the sad query of a contemporary newspaper in 1846 in regard to Peel. The error of the right hon. Gentleman", said the newspaper, is perfectly inexplicable. The arguments in support of the Protection which he has so frequently and so eloquently used would have convinced us … even had we not other irre-sistable evidence … It ended with the sad query: … how does it happen that they have not convinced himself? I also commend to the House what Disraeli said on Peel's conversion as being applicable here, too: Do not then because you see a great personage giving up his opinions—do not cheer him on, do not give so ready a reward to tergiversation. Of course, it is not easy to see what caused his conversion.

It is fair to say that the Foreign Secretary had no need of conversion— he is an old Common Market man—and it would be nice to think that it was his cool, detached, analytical logic, his careful and patient ratiocination which had at last brought conviction to the rest of his right hon. Friends. It does not, however, fit in with the character given to the Foreign Secretary by his right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) and his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).

The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale likened the Foreign Secretary in his itinerant journeys to Sancho Panza. I, perhaps, having a kindlier nature than the hon. Member, have discovered a rôle equally useful, but more dignified, in the Foreign Secretary's relationship with the Prime Minister. As heir apparent, he stands in the same relationship as James Duke of York to Charles II: "They won't kill me, George, to make you king."

Just as there is nothing in the economic factors to justify this conversion, there is nothing either in the political or the constitutional. If there were political and constitutional objections in 1961, and, indeed, in March, 1966, they are still there today.

It has been said that I am making the same objections to the Treaty of Rome now as I was making six years ago. It is said by way of criticism. Consistency on matters of principle used to be a political virtue. Of course, principle now, as we know, is démodé, vieux jeu. It is pragmatism that is the rage, le dernier cri. I believe, however, that principles are still a good guide in politics, and not to be blown hither and thither by every passing puff of political fashion. If I am making the same points about the Treaty of Rome now, it is because it is the same Treaty of Rome, unamended and binding in perpetuity.

I have two short but, I hope, sufficient propositions on this aspect of the impact of the Treaty of Rome. I have always accepted that there is no express commitment to political federation or the wider aspects of defence and international relations in the Treaty of Rome; but it does not follow that we can disregard those matters.

Suppose that in time, in five, ten or fifteen years—a short time in the life of a nation—the Six decide to go forward to full political federation, and we have signed the Treaty of Rome meanwhile. Would not our arrangements be so inextricably intertwined with theirs that we would have to go along with them whether we wanted it or not?

The first of my propositions is this. As we know, if we sign the Treaty, Britain will at once have to approximate her laws, over a wide range, to those of the Community. There is no dispute about this. The only dispute is as to how significant it would be. The Prime Minister, and the Lord Chancellor in another place, sought to mitigate it by producing a little list of laws which would not be affected—the criminal law, the law of divorce, and so on. But most citizens do not spend their time in the criminal courts or the divorce courts. They are commercial people. And even then the list was inexact. One of the matters excluded was town and country planning; but the system of industrial development certificates would have to go, and this is at the root of planning for industrial use——

Mr. Anderson


Sir D. Walker-Smith

Somebody says "Nonsense", but perhaps the hon. Member would be good enough to look up Section 38 of the Town and Country Planning Act, and he will see how close the connection is; and, perhaps, then pass it on to the Prime Minister, and the Lord Chancellor, too.

The matters which are covered—taxation and tariffs, transport and agriculture, the movement of workers and of capital, social services, and the distribution of industry are the heart and substance of our economic and social life.

Then for the future—my second proposition—Article 189 of the Treaty has been referred to. It says that, for the achievement of their aims, The Council and Commission shall issue regulations and directives and that the regulations shall be binding in every respect and directly applicable in each Member State. That means that Parliament here would not be able to reject or vary the regulations. The collective laws of the Community would bind the individual British citizen, and Parliament and the courts alike would be powerless to intervene.

These are what are called lesser issues —or, perhaps, not even issues at all. How can such things be? How can the sovereignty of Parliament and the rule of law be lesser issues? And what are the scales which can give such short weight as that? I say these are great issues—the long unfolding of our common law, and the evolution of our Parliamentary system, cradled here in Westminster, and copied, adapted and emulated to the far corners of the earth, the envy of the bond and the model of the free. These are great issues, and they are to be weighed in the scales of principle.

The House will recall what Burke said in regard to Ship Money: Twenty shillings would not have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune. But the payment of half twenty shillings, on the principle on which it was demanded, would have made him a slave. May I conclude by saying a word about my vote tonight and the reasons for it? It will not be a mere anti vote. The newspapers, for ease of reference, tend to label me and those who think like me as anti-Marketeers. That is, of course, a considerable over-simplification. I am not hostile to the Community. Far from it. At the very outset of this controversy, on 2nd August, 1961, I testified in this House to my respect for the Community, for the nations which comprise it, and for the gentlemen who administer its affairs; and I abide by that today. I further claim to be as good a European as the advocates of entry.

To be a good European, one does not have to be exclusively European. That is what we are now told we must be. We are told that we must loosen our Commonwealth and Atlantic ties, that we must turn our backs on the outside world, that we must become not only exclusively European but exclusively Western European to the prejudice, if need be, of our partners in E.F.T.A. I am too good a European to acquiesce in any breach of faith with them. We are told that we must do these things in order to induce General de Gaulle to raise the portcullis and let us in.

I find that something of a paradox. Consider the dates. The Treaty of Rome was signed in March, 1957. The General came to power in France in May, 1958. Supposing that those dates had been reversed. Does anyone think that France, under his leadership, would have signed the Treaty of Rome in its present unamended form and accepted all its supranational rigidities and its invasions of sovereignty?

Now we are told that the General is the arbiter of this matter; and I must say that it saddens me somewhat to hear people conjecture, with bated breath and resigned expressions, whether or not the General will let us in, and how great a renunciation he will demand of us to do so. I do not think that Britain's fate and fortune should be at the decision of any man, however illustrious. In saying that, certainly I mean no disrespect to the General. He is a great man, a great leader and a great patriot. I do not think that I can add that he is a great democrat, because I understand that he takes a somewhat robustly Cromwellian view of Parliamentary institutions.

The House will recall the familiar lines: Upon what meat does this our Caesar feed, That he is grown so great? and, … he doth bestride the narrow world. Like a Colossus; and we petty men Walk under his huge legs, and peep about". I will not conclude the quotation, because I believe that it is not apt either now or at any time. There will never be a dishonourable grave for Britain, whether in the Common Market or outside.

I believe that Britain still has a lively and useful part to play on the world stage. It will not be the same role precisely as we have played in the past, because it is a changing world, and certainly I accept that. It is not because this application has in it vast change and great risk that I shall say "No" tonight. Britain has always accepted risk and weathered change; and we must accept change and the need for adaptability if we are to go on playing our part in the fast-moving modern world in which we live, with all its hopes and its hazards, its perils and its problems.

I am not inward looking nor backward looking. I am concerned with Britain's global contribution in the future in a changing world. I believe that this contribution can best and most effectively be made with the minimum of regional restriction and institutional inhibition.

Given those circumstances, I believe that there is still a great world rôle for Britain to play as the advocate and exemplar of all the great causes, for which Britain has traditionally stood— for justice, for peace, for freedom, for tolerance and fair dealing between man and man, and as an interpreter and emollient influence in a troubled and turbulent world. That is a rôle to which I believe Britain can and should still aspire. Believing this, it is in no negative spirit but in that profound conviction that I shall cast my vote tonight.

9.50 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short (Wolverhampton, North-East)

I am very pleased that three days of patience have been rewarded, but I am sorry that the only woman to speak in this debate should be left to the end. I promised you, Mr. Speaker, to sit down at five minutes to ten. So I have only five minutes.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) has put very effectively the economic cost of Britain's entry into the Common Market, which is one of the main reasons why I oppose it. I always have done so, because I can see quite clearly that the burdens of Britain's entry, as burdens always are, will be put on the shoulders of those least able to bear them. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on Monday that certain consumer goods are likely to be reduced in price. We have been told that apples and tomatoes would come down in price. That is marvellous. That is the basic fodder—is it not?—for large families, for pensioners and for people with less than £12 a week.

The fact is that the basic commodities that these families need are bread, dairy products, butter and meat—which some of them are already able to afford only infrequently—and that these will become prohibitive in price. My right hon. Friend also said all would be well if we could achieve a 3 per cent. growth in our national product. But, pace the National Plan, we have not been able to achieve an increase in our national product so that the only way in which we can finance the balance of payments deficit is by deflation of something like 10 per cent. or by increasing the level of unemployment to 4 per cent. That is what The Times told us in the article quoted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. This is good enough reason for me as a Socialist to be opposed.

But my main reason for opposing British entry is on political grounds. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) gave us a geography lesson, and in his interpretation Europe is divided into three blocs. I do not believe that our going into one bloc will give us more independence to do what we ought to be doing, and I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) that we should try to go into the Common Market first. We should first be doing what he suggested—that is, to try and bring the three blocs together.

This is one of the main reasons for my disappointment with the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, in which he showed no cognisance of these problems and their solution in bringing together the E.E.C., E.F.T.A. and Comecon. Together, all these countries have a greater gross national product than the United States, and that is the main economic problem of the world.

If my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary were to use their enormous talents, the skill they possess, the influence they have in the world and the expertise they have obtained in their journeys around Europe to do precisely that, it would bring enormous benefit to our people, because here is a really expanding market.

The market of the Six is not an expanding market any more. It is slowing down. West Germany has the same number of unemployed as we have. Its productive capacity has fallen. [Interruption.] The market of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, on the contrary, is a growing market where our consumer goods and our engineering products could find a ready sale. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Lady has sat here three days trying to make this speech and has a right to be heard.

Mrs. Short

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The "gentlemen's party" is not very polite tonight.

It is in this direction that I believe the salvation for our people lies and not in going into this restrictive group which cements the divisions of Europe. Our destiny lies in seeking to create the united Europe and the united world that I believe all of us want to see.

I say to my right hon. Friend that a great deal of the solution to our problem lies in our own endeavours. For heaven's sake, let us take the brakes oft the British economy and make our approaches in those markets where we know there is a rising standard of living and a demand for the things that we can produce.

Mr. William Baxter (West Stirlingshire)

On a point of order. Last night, Mr. Speaker, in your absence I asked Mr. Deputy Speaker whether a decision in favour of our entry into Europe would be in accordance with the Act of Union, as it stipulates quite clearly that there are several exclusions with which this Parliament has no power to interfere. Have you had an opportunity of discussing with the legal advisers of the House the question whether or not a decision of this Parliament on this question is in accordance with the Act of Union?

Mr. Speaker

As the hon. Member will be aware, I read the point that he made last night. It is not a point of order for me. I hope that it will be taken up in the reply.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling (Barnet)

I am glad that you said "in the reply". Mr. Speaker. This has been a debate of remarkable quality, fully measuring up to the immense significance of the issues that we have been discussing. Many points of view have been expressed, in every case with frankness, clarity and conciseness. In the course of this three days' debate, we have run over the whole range of the arguments. It is now right for us as a House to take this solemn decision. It is my responsibility, on behalf of the Opposition, to sum up the reasons why we shall support the Government Motion this evening in the Lobby.

I am sorry to have a difference with my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). I well understand the anxieties which underlie their Amendment. We all well understand them. The Government still have a responsibility to try to dispel or mitigate some of these anxieties. They have not done so so far.

I want to take up a point with which I hope the Minister will deal—the question of the minor issues, or groceries. What are they? Sincere questions have been asked by hon. Members on both sides of the House again and again. What are these minor issues which are to be relegated for decision after entry into the Community? I hope that the Minister will answer this question fully, because it is of immense importance.

I must oppose my right hon. Friends and recommend to my other right hon. and hon. Friends that they should oppose them, for the overwhelming reason that the effect of the Amendment would be to register the opposition of this House to the Government's initiative—to register disapproval—and this we cannot do. The Conservative Party has constantly expressed, at and between elections, its belief that it is right for Britain to make a further effort to join the Community. For that reason, I am afraid that with great regret I must recommend my hon. Friends to reject the Amendment.

I have been concerned with the problems of the European Economic Community for more than 10 years. I have always been convinced that it is in the interests of this country and the whole of Western Europe to have a single Western European economic system.

This debate has been called historic. It is historic in the sense that it is important and in the sense of unity between both sides of the House to such a remarkable degree—but it is not new. It is part of a continuing process that has gone on for many years. We attempted, in the Free Trade Area negotiations in 1957 and 1958, to achieve an objective of this character. The right hon. Member the Leader of the Liberal Party quoted something that I said about not having dreamed of trying to enter the Common Market in the late 1950s. This was because we then had the possibility of a free trade area which would have avoided many of the difficulties of joining the Common Market and—this is often forgotten now—which was explicitly accepted before the Treaty of Rome was even signed by all the other European countries, including the heads of Government of Germany and France.

We were therefore in 1957–58 trying to achieve a free trade area. If we had done so, it would have made a better basis for the future of Europe than we see at present. The attempt failed, as we know. The veto was imposed. Then there came my right hon. Friend's attempt to see if we could find a means of entering the European Community. What is now happening is a continuation of that process.

The Foreign Secretary this afternoon tried to draw a distinction which I do not follow. I can see no distinction between a conditional application to join and an application to join on the basis of conditions to be agreed in negotiations. He made it: clear—I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends noticed this—that if the conditions were not right the Government would not be prepared, in those regrettable circumstances, to recommend to this country final agreement to entry of the Community.

It is therefore right for us now, as we have done through the debate, to weigh the issues pro and con, both economic and political. Although it is balanced, the decision comes down definitely and decisively on the side of applying to join the Community.

There are both long-term and short-term considerations, and I believe that far too much attention has been paid in the debate to the short-term considerations. We are discussing a decision which holds good not for five years but for fifty years and more. We are discussing the whole economic future organisation of Europe and probably of the Western world—the whole political future, in many ways— and, important though the short-term considerations are, it is the long-term future which matters, and this must be what we concentrate on.

The great disadvantage is that the short-term factors, which are, on the whole, adverse economically, are far more easy to quantify than the long-term advantages. One can add up, after a fashion, the short-term difficulties, but it is hard to put any figure on the long-term advantages.

In an extraordinarily powerful speech, the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) talked about guesswork. I do not think that it is guesswork. I think that it is judgment and faith which we need in this matter. We have to make a decision about what, in the long term, will be the interests of this country. This is a matter just as much of faith and of judgment as it is of guesswork.

While we weigh in the balance in this debate, as we are doing, whether it is right for this country to go in and to apply or not to apply, once having made our decision, let us pursue it with enthusiasm and determination all the way through. It is no good being halfhearted. It is right to be dispassionate and to reject sentiment about the past and about the future, and there is danger of both. The judgment having been reached dispassionately, it must be followed with all the enthusiasm which we can manage.

My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) said that this is a challenge. Let us regard it as a challenge. Having made our decision, let us accept the challenge and obtain from meeting it all the benefits for our people and those of Western Europe which can be involved in a historic move forward of this character.

I look first at the economic considerations. In the short term, of course, there are difficulties. Prices, particularly of food, will rise, as we know. Against that, one must offset, first, the falls in prices of other commodities and, second, a substantial reduction in Government expenditure as a result of the reduction in subsidies. Both these factors can well mitigate the effect of the rise in the food prices on the cost of living.

Second, British agriculture will have to face great changes—they might better be called distortions: shifts from one form of production to another—but, in total, I have no doubt that our highly efficient modern agriculture will benefit from participation in a wide community with a rapidly growing consumer power, a community in which the political power of the farmers in terms of numbers is probably much greater even than it is in this country.

It is hard to assess the immediate effect of joining on the balance of payments. We gain access to an enormous market and we gain access on a basis of preference against our main external industrial competitors, the United States and Japan. This will be an enormous gain, particularly to our engineering, electrical and modern developing technological industries.

We lose preferences in E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth, and little has been said about our Commonwealth preferences. Indeed, I say frankly that not enough has been said on this issue, remembering that they are valuable still and because we must recognise what we are losing by giving them up. We face competition in our own markets from Europe. In many cases, such as chemicals, we will have to have tariff protection against third countries lower under the common tariff than we enjoy under our own one at the moment.

Little has also been said on the question of invisibles. This is something which gives us an enormous part of our export income, and from invisibles and the skill and ability of the City of London, the banks, insurance companies and commodity markets, this country will reap a rich harvest in a wide European market. This is a big factor concerning entry which has so far been virtually ignored.

Then the question of capital movement. I agree that there are dangers in free capital movement, but we should not assume that all the risks are on one side. The City of London has the most highly developed capital market outside the United States—way ahead of any capital market on the Continent of Western Europe. Our ability to mobilise savings, not only here but from European countries as well, will be of great importance.

Added to that is the almost certain development of greater United States investment in the United Kingdom as a result of our joining the E.E.C. I am sure that we could look forward, if we are confident and capable enough, to a substantial gain on the balance of payments on the capital side of the account.

We must, then, consider the agricultural levies. It is logical to say that, in a complete economic union, levies on imports should fall into the same fund, whatever the port of entry, as it were. But complete economic union is a long way ahead, and at the present time the effect of the regulations unamended would throw a heavy burden on the British balance of payments. The Prime Minister rightly made this point, and I am glad to know that it is one matter on which he will be keeping a close eye during the negotiations.

I can sum up on the short-term issue by saying that the factors are adverse and that we will probably lose on the balance of payments. The Prime Minister calculated that there would be a £100 million a year shift to export or import saving on an accumulative basis. This is a formidable figure, and I am inclined to think that it may be an underestimate. A shift of £100 million from domestic consumption to exports may easily mean more than £100 million off domestic demand. On top of this, we have the other problems which are involved in the need to expand our economy while maintaining a healthy balance of payments position. To do all this as well is a very formidable task indeed. I hope that the Government are not underestimating it and that they realise that the House is entitled tonight to hear more about how the Government hope to catch up on this problem, remembering that it will be a practical, early, and growing one.

These are the short-term factors as I see them, and, as I have said, I believe that they are outweighed by the long-term advantages. I am convinced that we will come to this conclusion if we look at the basic economic problem of this country, which is to increase our productivity, and if we compare our performance with that of our main industrial competitors, particularly the United States, which has three main advantages—first, a larger market; secondly, far greater research and development and, thirdly, different attitudes in industry on the part of management and unions. These three things can be dealt with by our joining the E.E.C.

The size of the market is too obvious to need stressing. The availability of long runs of production obviously brings down costs enormously. Recent figures we have seen about the chemical industry show clearly how the very efficient plants in this country cannot compete in terms of cost with the American plants of equal efficiency. This is because the Americans have so much bigger a market. That is a very important factor, indeed.

A second factor is the development of technology—not merely producing the bright new ideas that our own scientists do produce but turning them into the construction of hardware to be produced on the factory floor. Development problems, problems of technology, must always yield more easily to those who have greater numbers to apply to them. If the Americans can put eight engineers on to a problem and we can put only one, the Americans are likely to solve it better and more quickly than we shall. We cannot get this large technological basis for industrial development unless we have a market of adequate scale on which to found it.

As to the attitude of industry, both Management and unions, we can increase our productivity greatly without any additional capital equipment simply by working better and with more modern applications. I fear that it is harder to get Englishmen to change their methods of work than it is to get them to work longer hours. If we join a wider economic area, the effect will be large revivification of management and unions in their attitude to responsibility, innovation and progress in British industry. These are the three major economic arguments for joining the Community.

There are, of course, matters on the other side. A small country can exist and prosper alongside big countries, as is the case with the Swiss chemical industry or the Swiss machine tool industry, or the Swedish aircraft industry and the Swedish motor industry. It is quite possible to be small and efficient. One must not over-exaggerate the arguments about scale.

Secondly, to get the full benefit of the advantages that scale can bring one wants not merely the suppression of tariffs but such things as a common company law, a common taxation basis, a common commercial law—all the things that exist in economic union and are essential for the creation of the major international companies which will have to be formed if we are to get the benefits of modern technology on the maximum scale.

I therefore conclude, basically, that we need the room to expand our industry and, above all, we need the room to expand our technologically based industry. If we look at the pattern of our trade, it is quite clear that more and more we are concentrating on more highly specialised development projects, and this demands a market of adequate scale. That is the first reason why I believe that, in the long-term, it must be right to try to join the European Economic Community.

The second reason is the negative one. Suppose we stay outside, suppose we are excluded, we shall be facing across the Channel a competitor with an industrial base on the scale of the United States but with levels of wages and salaries more akin to our own than to the American. This would be a formidable competitor, not only in Europe but throughout the rest of the world, including those areas like E.F.T.A. and the Commonwealth where we still continue to enjoy a preferential position. Those are the two fundamental economic arguments: we need the large markets, and to be excluded would present us with a competitor on a formidable scale.

It has, of course, been stressed on many occasions that there are alternatives. I agree that there are alternatives. I am not sure that we need necessarily chase after new ideas, but I would not dismiss the idea of a North Atlantic Free Trade Area quite as quickly as did the Foreign Secretary this afternoon. But why do we need alternatives'? I believe that if we fail to get in we can still prosper and grow on the existing trade patterns, but we shall not prosper and grow, and Europe will not prosper and grow, on the scale that could be achieved if we were in the Community. This is the fundamental point. It is not ruin outside and prosperity inside, since we work together in both cases, but far greater success inside than could be obtained outside.

The difficulties which have stood in the way of our membership of the Community are, of course, well known. I do not believe they need be in any way decisive. I am quite convinced that experience has shown that any difficulty that can exist can be solved given good will all round and a mutual determination by all countries concerned to solve, those problems.

Agriculture used to be a stumbling block in 1957–58, and it was difficult in the early 'sixties. It is not the same difficulty now with the ready acceptance, rightly I believe, by the Government of the Common Agriculture Policy. The Commonwealth used to be put forward as a great difficulty, and there are difficulties which exist, but it is now apparent to all Commonwealth countries that basically their interest is in a strong British economy, a strong consuming country and a capital-providing country. Given proper attention to such problems as New Zealand butter and the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, it must be in the Commonwealth's long-term interest and, therefore, for the strength and health of the Commonwealth that we should be inside the Community rather than outside.

The other argument which is sometimes advanced against our membership is that we are not true Europeans. I find this a difficult argument to understand. I do not quite know what it means. We are by history, by tradition, by everything in our nation, Europeans. If it means that we do not wish to participate in a narrow inward-looking Europe that is true, but that is not my conception of what is meant by being European. I want to be a member of a European Community which is fundamentally outward-looking, West and East alike.

The question of our special relationship with the United States often comes up, and I should like to say a word or two about this. I believe that we in this country have a special relationship with the United States, but properly understood this relationship would bring to the Common Market not an element of disruption but an element of greater strength. There are permanent and transient features in our American-British relationship.

The permanent features are in custom, history, kinship, friendship—all human relationships which spring from something which is permanent. There are the less-permanent features which are strategic and defence which are affected by particular circumstances. But in the long-term our relationship with America is of a special human character. To bring this into the Community would be of tremendous value. I am certain that to see a new division arising between North America and Western Europe would be of great danger to all of us. To see a return by the United States to isolation would be for the United States to cut herself off from the culture and political experience and contacts of Europe, and that would be bad for her; indeed, to see the possibility of the United States and the Soviet Union coming to a deal over our heads in Europe, as they might well be tempted to do if we cut ourselves off, would be disastrous for us. I ask the Government to concentrate on this.

The Prime Minister in his first speech, emphasised—I think I am right in my recollection—that his concept of a united Europe including Britain was one which should contribute to greater strength of the Atlantic Alliance and of the Atlantic Community. That is of tremendous importance. There is a real danger that in the years ahead if there were to be created a rather inward-looking Europe and if all our forces were withdrawn from east of Suez the Americans might say, "The Europeans are now the isolationists. We will turn our backs on Europe, look across the Pacific and with Australia and New Zealand we shall concentrate our objectives there and ignore Europe." I hope very much that in our dealings in these negotiations we shall have constantly in mind the need for maintaining the unity of the Western world.

Another difficulty raised about our membership is the position of sterling. As the Chancellor explained cogently, this is not a real difficulty. We can deal with balance of payments problems within the parameters of the Treaty of Rome as well as outside. As for the position of sterling as a reserve currency, this in a sense is a red herring. People sometimes talk as if having a reserve currency is a privilege. It is not, it is a burden. We have a reserve currency because other people hold our currency and this means we owe money. This is a fact which I sometimes point out to Continentals who say that they would like to have a reserve currency. I think that we would welcome that. Both the United States and Britain would welcome the emergence of other reserve currencies to supplement the dollar and sterling.

Indeed, in the proposals I put before the I.M.F. meeting in 1962, we were suggesting bringing in other strong currencies and imprinting on them the stamp of the I.M.F., in order to create new reserve currencies to help fulfil this function.

There is a deep misunderstanding here which must be dispelled. We are not clinging jealously to some special privilege in having a reserve currency. We are proud of sterling as an international medium of exchange. We are determined to maintain our obligations to those to whom we owe money. Subject to that, the sooner methods can be devised—on a world-wide basis—not on a European one—of supplementing the two reserve currencies the better we shall be pleased. Therefore, I do not see any possible difficulty to our joining the Community arising from the special position of sterling as a reserve currency.

These are the main economic problems that seem to exist before us. I come briefly, in the few minutes remaining to me, to the political problems. Where do we stand with E.F.T.A.? Will the Minister in replying please be absolutely clear as to where we stand with our colleagues on E.F.T.A., because we do not wish in any way to jeopardise our obligations to them?

As to the Commonwealth, we have heard about New Zealand butter and about sugar. What about the arrangement my right hon. Friend worked out with such patience and success in Brussels dealing with die problems, for example, of India, and the problems of cereals from Canada and Australia? Where do the Government stand on them?

I turn finally to the question of foreign policy. It is argued mat this is mainly a political rather than an economic issue. I accept the arguments. There can be few higher aspirations for us than to play our part in avoiding, first of all, further or future conflicts within Western Europe and to play our part in me political and diplomatic development of Europe and in our relations with Eastern Europe. Also, I see it as a noble aspiration for Britain to try to ensure that her voice is made as loud, as clear and as effective as possible within Europe in the councils of the world. It might be said to be a choice, perhaps, between having a partial say in a very large voice and having complete control over our own voice. But in the modern world, to have complete control over one's own foreign policy and one's own foreign dispositions is asking more than history will grant now to any independent nation.

I am sure that we must look at this decision with eyes that are clear and in no way starry, either about the past or about the future. We must not think too much in terms of black and white. These issues are far too subtle for that.

The progress of the Community, constantly bringing changes, means that a static picture is bound to be misleading. The terms of the Treaty of Rome are modified, for example, by practice, as in the case of migration. The facts of economic life together will mean far more economic decisions being taken in common than are specifically provided for within the Treaty of Rome. We shall finish up, if we enter, with a common currency, a common reserve system, and common policies on the pressure of demand, because there cannot be a free movement of goods, labour and capital unless we work on this basis. This is not part of the Treaty of Rome. It is part of the sheer logic of economic co-operation.

Then, on the political side, it is true that there is nothing in the Treaty about political unity. But, as the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) pointed out—he referred to an article written by M. Spaak—political unity underlies this great concept of economic unity.

On the other hand the question is asked: how can there be a single voice speaking for Europe, unless there is a common foreign policy? This is a good argument in logic but a bad one in practice. It is a good example of having too much black and white, because the way these things will develop is far more pragmatic than that, if I may use a word which is a little overworked in this debate, perhaps. This is where our political skill will mainly be deployed. If we try to argue between theoretical federation or the theory of the Europe des états, we would not cope with the real problems, which are the problems coming up every day in economics and in politics.

The way in which the voice of Europe will get stronger is by European countries working together, understanding one another better, and coming to common policies; not by being forced to do so, but because they want to do so.

Those are the reasons why I believe, as I have for some time now, that it is right for us to apply to join the Common Market. There are dangers. There are the short-term economic problems, I agree. One cannot be certain what will develop in the future. There are great political problems and changes to be faced among all the nations of the Western world, and there is the need to maintain the cohesion of the Western world in a highly dangerous international situation. All these are dangers. We cannot embark on a course like this without facing dangers.

We have to weigh the short-term disadvantages which we can see clearly with the long-term advantages which we can see if we have an eye to look for them and determination to realise them. As I said at the beginning, I believe that we should weigh this decision carefully and calmly, and then, having taken our decision, enter upon our course with all the enthusiasm and determination which this nation can muster.

10.25 p.m.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart)

At the outset of this impressive debate, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made very clear the difficulties and problems which this country will face in the approach to the European Economic Community and the difficulties which will confront her in the opening years of membership of the Community. Each one of my right hon. Friends who has spoken from this Box has done the same in his own field.

I am sure that it was right to state the difficulties plainly. It was right, in the first instance, from the point of view of our own countrymen. It ought not to be said at the end of this debate that the Government have made any attempt to minimise the real and serious problems which face us, and, in view of the speeches which have been made, I am sure that that charge could not now be levied. It was right, also, to make the difficulties clear for the purpose of the negotiations themselves. Those with whom we are to negotiate should not be left in any doubt that the matters which we shall raise are by no means trivialities. They are matters vital to this country. It is important to stress this plainly so that no one need suppose that, when we raise them, we are in any sense making unnecessary difficulties. We want there to be, on both sides of the negotiations, a correct appreciation of the size of the problems, neither maximising nor minimising them. It was right, therefore, during this debate, to make clear the size of the problems with which we are faced.

During the debate itself, each hon. Member who has spoken, as, I suppose, was natural, has developed, according to his particular experience, constituency concerns and personal knowledge, this or that problem. Altogether, it is a tough thicket of difficulties through which we have to make our way. But, while it is entirely right that this should be made clear in the debate, we must not—here I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling)— make the mistake of taking too short-term a view of what is involved. If we see without illusions the tough thicket of difficulties, we must also have sufficient vision to see what opportunities lie beyond once we have carved our way through that thicket, and we must have the prudence to see what dangers lie in wait for us if this effort either is not made or is unsuccessful.

The difficulties to which reference has been made in the debate are partly economic and partly political. I take, first, the range of economic difficulties. These are partly concerned with the joint effect on our economy of changes in the cost of living, the balance of payments, and capital movements.

Many estimates have been made and quoted during the debate of what they are. When trying to assess the validity of these estimates, we should notice that there are the following considerations which we should bear in mind. The first is a very obvious one, but it has certainly been obscured in the presentation in some organs of the Press, that, for example, the changes in the cost of living do not occur all at once and overnight. This was made very clear in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture when he stressed—[Interruption.]—I expected that reaction and I will now invite hon. Members opposite to consider what they really wanted in this respect. Did they want the Government to come to the debate and minimise the serious problems which face us in this respect? Do they think that my right hon. Friend was wrong to present as clearly and as plainly as possible what those difficulties are? Do they think that he was wrong to say that, because of that, a long transitional period would be necessary?

Those questions they have not answered. The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) agreed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture that the House ought not to tie his hands by an exact statement of what the transitional period would be, and any responsible person knows that. I was present at the end of the debate last night and nearly all the back benchers of the party opposite were baying at the Minister to name an exact period, and the right hon. Member for Grantham, who today says that it would be wrong to tie the Minister's hands, offered not one word of rebuke or discouragement at the time to those of his hon. Friends who were doing so.

In a true assessment of the economic difficulties, we have not only to take into account the fact that there will be——

Sir John Rodgers (Sevenoaks)

I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman that he should not be so party political.

Mr. Stewart

I have listened to about three-quarters of the debate during the three days which it has lasted. I think hat I am entitled to reply and I think hat hon. Members who have spoken are entitled to hear what I now have to say in reply. The hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) tells me not to be party political; he might have made that remark to his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham.

A true assessment of the size of the economic difficulties means that not only must we take into account the fact that there is a transitional period, but also that we ought not to make at the outset the assumption that we shall have no success in any negotiations about the levies, about the use of the Fund, or about any other adjustments which may be made. It is a significant fact that some of the estimates of our difficulties are made on the assumption that we shall secure no success in negotiations in any of these matters. It is not a legitimate way to conduct the argument to assume that if we go in, everything will be unfavourable to us in the course of the negotiations, but that if we stay out, all the surrounding circumstances will be favourable.

For instance, it has been asked whether, if we do not attempt to go in, or if we fail, E.F.TA. will remain for us still to belong to. I hope so, but it would be quite wrong to talk as though that were a fixed and certain fact. If we are to take a gloomy view of what we achieve or do not achieve in the negotiations, we have to take a similarly cautious view of what threatening things might happen to us if we do not make the attempt, or if we do not get in.

We should also notice, in assessing the size of the economic burden, that a large amount of money now spent on agricultural support costs will not be needed for that purpose. We shall, at least, not have to pay twice over, in the Community's way and in our own. In the attempt to assess the whole net effect of the immediate economic burden, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor gave the cumulative figure of £100 million, climbing over a period of five years, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) referred.

I quite accept his point that we must not treat this as if it were a light achievment, but it is right to set it in proportion. This is about one third of 1 per cent. of the gross national product. I accept that this is not money that falls into only one flat. Neither is it something so enormous that we ought to support this argument by saying that it is something beyond the powers of this country to achieve.

The mention of it brings us to the point that very much turns in this argument on what we may expect in the way of increased powers of growth in this country. It is to that in a few minutes which I shall turn. Before doing so, I should like to make this last remark on the question of the undoubted immediate difficulties. It has now been stated in all quarters of the House that the necessary measures, fiscal or through the social services, must be taken to see that these burdens are not left casually to lie where they fall, some of them hitting people who can least afford to be hit. It was made quite clear by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the television interview that it would be necessary to deal with this problem through pensions and social services. A similar statement was made, I was glad to notice, by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), when he spoke of the need to help those who might be hardest hit.

Other speakers, particularly those representing agricultural interests, have in some cases asked for particular compensation for particular people. The House will be with me when I say that it would be quite unreasonable to try to spell out at this stage of the proceedings the exact machinery with which one deals with that problem. I am sure that I am right and I am sure that the House will agree when I say that we must start from the general principle that if any particular group is bearing a particular share of the immediate burden, the community should come to its rescue, and such difficulties as there are should be fairly spread, just as, we trust, the later benefits will be spread throughout the community.

Mr. Manuel

This is a very important point. I take it that when my right hon. Friend mentions the lower income groups, he is including in this, we hope, the lower wage earners who, because they are wholly employed under the National Insurance Acts today, cannot get any assistance?

Mr. Stewart

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt with that point on television. [Interruption.] The point that my hon. Friend makes is a right and entirely legitimate one, and it falls within the compass of what I have said, that wherever one finds a particular group which can say that the action of Britain in going into the Community has struck it particularly hard, the community must go to its rescue. Clearly as essential is the fact that the growth of the economy during those years should be sufficient to justify the attempt to make it possible, not merely to counteract the immediate burden, but to bring to this country a great many advantages. There are very solid reasons for believing this to be so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) pointed out, I think rightly, that he, some time ago, was the first to emphasise in this House the great and increasing importance of economies of scale in industry. That is a point which I need not labour now. It has been made by many hon. Members. The only point which I wish to make in addition is that not only is it of great importance now, for example, in the chemical, plastics, elec- tronics, motor car and computer industries, but that it is a factor which will be of growing importance to our economy in the years to come.

That will mean that if we do not get into the Common Market, as the years go by the difficulties which we shall face in trying to sell in world markets in competition with industries that can reap the economies of scale will grow over the years. This is an additional reason why we cannot, in trying to strike the balance sheet, tot up the burdens and difficulties, on the one hand, and then assume that if we do not go in, everything will proceed smoothly. We must accept from the nature of industrial development that if we do not go in the struggle to provide our people with a proper standard of life will be conducted in increasingly difficult circumstances.

We should notice, too, that one of the problems which we face in this country, in a number of industries, is this. Is it possible to have firms of the size where they can really reap the greatest advantages without their being so near a monopoly as to threaten the interests of the consumer? That can happen if the total market with which one is dealing is the market only of this country, or of this country and E.F.T.A. It is far less likely to happen when the whole market with which we are dealing is to the 300 million people.

We should notice also that one effect of entry into the Community will be to give what our industry particularly needs at the present time: a special impetus towards the export field. This is undoubtedly, in coping with our present difficulties, one of the things for which we have particularly to look. We know in many instances the technical things that need to be done in industry to increase productivity. What we want is a sufficient motive and drive to get those things done particularly in the export and in the import-saving field. One of the things which entry into the Community can bring to us is this impetus towards exports.

These advantages, although they are very real, will not drop into anyone's lap. The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) warned the Government against seeking easy money. I was much amused by his speech. He spoke to us of the problems of the convert. As one who has known him for many years, even when he was a Liberal, I understood how he felt about converts. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that the Government must not look for easy money, we are all fully aware of that. The door to these advantages is opened if we go into the Community. They are not achieved without very considerable effort.

That effort will mean the application in industry of the whole range of industrial discoveries which we now find being made in private industry, in the National Economic Development Council. The right hon. Member for Barnet asked me what steps the Government would take to ensure that we could reap those advantages. If he studies the con-elusions of last autumn's National Productivity Conference, he will see the view of industry itself on the lines of policy that should be pursued in particular industries and firms. These have to be pursued with greater vigour.

We have also got greatly to increase the opportunities for training of skilled labour in this country; we have to encourage forms of payment of wages which give direct encouragement to productivity and the more efficient employment of labour; we have to press ahead with our regional policies to see that we do not leave in many parts of the country unemployed labour and resources.

The anxieties that have been expressed on economic matters have not only been about these immediate economic burdens. A number of my hon. Friends have expressed doubts about the position of the development areas, and I want to say something therefore about regional policy in this connection. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot), who particularly raised this point, that it is perfectly true that, at the present time, if we deny an Industrial Development Certificate to someone who wants to go to the South-East or the Midlands, he will probably have to go to one of the development areas in this country, whereas, if one pictures us in the Community, he could, at least in theory, go somewhere on the Continent. It is no good denying that that is so.

But it would be a gross exaggeration to imagine that this could or would happen in the great majority of cases. If one looks at the kind of firms and the kind of enterprises for which applications are made, it is clear that, in the great majority of cases, their interests would not at all be served by a move of this kind and we must remember also that there are many other instruments of regional policy.

There is the Government's policy of dispersal of organisations under their own control; there are the differential rates of investment grants; there are the building of advance factories and the steady improvement of the transport and other infrastructure of the regions—although I would say there that one of the things to which special attention will have to be given if we enter will be the improvement of communications between the development areas and the ports of the South and East coasts. That is one of the things to which the Government will have to give their attention.

But there would be nothing in the Treaty of Rome or in the practices of the Community to prevent us, for example, from going ahead with the policy of regional employment premiums which the country is now discussing. There was some question also——

Mr. Speaker

Order. Every hon. Member has been listened to up to the moment. I hope that the conversations will cease.

Mr. Stewart

There is also the question of how far policies involving planning and public ownership could be continued in the Community. If one looks not only at the wording of the Treaty of Rome but at the actual practice of the Community, both the individual countries in it and the planning activities of the Community collectively, it is clear that there is nothing that we do or want to do now that we should be inhibited from doing if we were in membership.

The question was asked, "Granted you can plan, that you can have such public ownership as you wish, what about the ends with which this is concerned?" There again, if one looks both at the wording of the Treaty and at the practice of the Community countries, we see that increasingly they are regarding the ends of economic policy as not only the individual standard of life but social welfare and that they are doing this in some cases to an extent that leaves us behind. I do not believe therefore that the anxieties expressed on economic policy go anywhere near making the case against entry into the Community. But I share the views which have been expressed in many quarters that a very great part of this argument is an argument about future political development.

Some have asked, "What are our obligations towards E.F.T.A.?". I should make it clear to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and to my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale that it is not right to say that we waived a pledge to E.F.T.A. The E.F.T.A. countries accept as fully as we do that the London Declaration is no longer appropriate to the position today. That was fully and equally understood between us. The nature of the obligation we now have is to keep them fully informed during the negotiations, to have regard— although not to the wrecking of our own chances—to their opinion while we are negotiating and, as is stated in the Communiqué, to make sure that if one or more E.F.T.A. countries enter and others are still on their way in we do not take action, such as the immediate dismantling of tariffs, which would distort the pattern of trade among the E.F.T.A. countries. This is a reasonable and negotiable undertaking.

But some of the political anxieties go futher than this. There have been anxieties about the political structure of Europe. Are we letting ourselves into some kind of federal prison? We should notice that the political institutions of Europe have still to be worked out. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition gave us one piece of good advice. Speaking of last time he said that it was a mistake on our part to try to negotiate and settle matters for the future which had not already been settled in the E.E.C. That is good advice, and of wide application.

We ought not to approach—and we need not approach—these negotiations in the belief that we have to adopt a particular position, either about future political institutions in Europe, or defence, or monetary matters. I was a little surprised at the right hon. Member forgetting his good advice by trying to plant on us a recipe for defence that, as far as one could understand it, seemed to be dangerous and ill-considered.

There were also anxieties about what part Europe will play in the world and what part the individual countries of Western Europe will play in the whole community of Europe itself. Every Member can have his own hopes or, perhaps, his own nightmares about this. Some axe concerned about the possibly undue predominance of one Power or another. But one thing common to all the imagined futures of Europe that people adopt if we do not make this attempt is that whatever happens it will be settled more and more without us and over our heads.

I understand the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) about defence, but if the countries of Western Europe and the United States were to act in the manner that he feared they might—I do not share that fear, but if he were right it would be something to be concerned about—our absence from the European Economic Community would not make it less likely, if it is likely at all. There would be increasing danger that on one issue after another things would be settled without us and over our heads. In all the imaginary pictures of the future of Europe there would be one common feature, or lack of feature—the absence of the United Kingdom.

Another reason that moves people politically is a sheer emotional reason— and a quite legitimate one, at that. I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) that we all have something of an Ancient Briton in us, and if the time comes when his statue is placed side by side with that of Queen Boadicea in her chariot on Westminster Bridge there will be many who will be with him in spirit.

The mistake we make is to suppose that these strong and passionate feelings are peculiar to the British. We must accept this fact. May not a Frenchman feel pride in the great achievements of his country throughout the centuries? May not a Belgian feel pride in his country's emergence through centuries of slavery to its present independent and free institutions? Yet none of these has felt that this was incompatible with membership of a Community designed to give a fuller and richer life to Europe as a whole.

Other political anxieties concern East-West trade and the part Europe can play towards the developing countries. Here again, my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale and the hon. Lady the Member for Watford were concerned——

Mr. Raphael Tuck

Not me.

Mr. Stewart

I meant to say my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short).

Mr. Raphael Tuck

On a point of order. I am not a lady.

Mr. Speaker


Mr. Stewart

I apologise to my hon. Friend.

One thing which hon. Members who are concerned over this point will notice is that it is not only this country which is concerned about the possibility of increasing trade with Eastern Europe. There is great and growing interest in all the countries of the Community; and here again there are no grounds for supposing that the separation of this country from the Community will help the process of trade between Eastern and Western Europe. That trade will proceed, as trade with the Commonwealth will proceed, and as the possibility of giving aid to the

underdeveloped countries will proceed, in proportion as Western Europe, including ourselves, moves forward towards higher productivity and to a higher standard of life.

I mentioned the developing countries and the problem of aid. The Community has greater total wealth and greater resources for that than we have. But we have great knowledge and skill in the application of aid. In this sphere of aid, as in technology, what is needed is a marriage of our skill and knowledge with the increasing wealth that would be available in the development of the Community. All these things—increasing East-West trade, the possibility of an increasing rapprochement with the East and more generous aid to the underdeveloped countries—are among the things which can be achieved in a greater Europe.

Will Europe have the vision to do these things? I believe it can and I believe that that would be more sure if we were in than if we were out, for what does the very derivation of the word, the very name, Europe mean? It means "wide prospect, broad vision". That is Europe's name and may that be Europe's destiny.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question: —

The House divided: Ayes, 487, Noes, 26.

Division No. 337.] AYES [11.0 p.m.
Abse, Leo Bidwell, Sydney Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)
Albu, Austen Bitten, John Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Bishop, E. S. Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Blaker, Peter Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Alldritt, Walter Blenkinsop, Arthur Campbell, Gordon
Allen, Scholefield Body, Richard Cant, R. B.
Anderson, Donald Bossom, Sir Cllve Carlisle, Mark
Archer, Peter Boston, Terence Carmichael, Neil
Armstrong, Ernest Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Ashley, Jack Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert Carter-Jones, Lewis
Astor, John Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Cary, Sir Robert
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Boyden, James Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward Channon, H. P. G.
Awdry, Daniel Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Chapman, Donald
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Bradley, Tom Chichester-Clark, R.
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Braine, Bernard Clark, Henry
Baker, W. H. K. Bray, Dr. Jeremy Clegg, Walter
Balniel, Lord Brewis, John Coe, Denis
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Brinton, Sir Tatton Coleman, Donald
Barnes, Michael Bromley-Davenport,Lt, -Col. Sir Walter Conlan, Bernard
Barnett, Joel Brooks, Edwin Cooke, Robert
Batsford, Brian Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J. Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Cordle, John
Bence, Cyrill Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Corfield, F. V.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Costain, A. P.
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Bruce-Gardyne, J. Crawley, Aidan
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Bryan, Paul Crawshaw, Richard
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm) Buchan, Norman Cronin, John
Berry, Hn. Anthony Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Langford-Holt, Sir John
Crouch, David Gresham Cooke, R. Lawson, George
Crowder, F. P. Grieve, Percy Ledger, Ron
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Dalkeith, Earl of Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Dalyell, Tam Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Dance, James Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Gurden, Harold Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Lipton, Marcus
Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.) Hall, John (Wycombe) Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh) Lomas, Kenneth
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Longden, Gilbert
Davies, Ifor (Cower) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Loughlin, Charles
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hamling, William Loveys, W. H.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Hannan, William Luard, Evan
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Harper, Joseph Lubbock, Eric
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Delargy, Hugh Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Dell, Edmund Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Dempsey, James Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) MacArthur, Ian
Dewar, Donald Hart, Mrs. Judith McBride, Neil
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere McCann, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield Harvie Anderson, Miss MacColl, James
Dobson, Ray Haseldine, Norman MacDermot, Niall
Doig, Peter Hastings, Stephen McGuire, Michael
Donnelly, Desmond Hattersley, Roy McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Doughty, Charles Hawkins, Paul Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Hay, John Mackie, John
Drayson, G. B. Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Mackintosh, John P.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Maclennan, Robert
Dunn, James A. Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain
Dunnett, Jack Heffer, Eric S. Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Henig, Stanley McNamara, J. Kevin
Edelman, Maurice Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret MacPherson, Malcolm
Eden, Sir John Heseltine, Michael Maddan, Martin
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Higgins, Terence L. Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hlley, Joseph Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Hill, J. E. B. Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hilton, W. S. Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Hirst, Geoffrey Mapp, Charles
Emery, Peter Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John Marquand, David
Ermals, David Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ensor, David Holland, Philip Mason, Roy
Errington, Sir Eric Hooson, Emlyn Maude, Angus
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Hordern, Peter Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mawby, Ray
Eyre, Reginald Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) Maxwell, Robert
Faulds, Andrew Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Fernyhough, E. Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Finch, Harold Howie, W. Mayhew, Christopher
Fisher, Nigel Hoy, James Mellish, Robert
Fitch, Alan (Wlgan) Huckfield, L. Millan, Bruce
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Floud, Bernard Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Hunt, John Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Ford, Ben Hunter, Adam Miscampbell, Norman
Forrester, John Iremonger, T. L. Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Fortescue, Tim Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Foster, Sir John Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Monro, Hector
Fowler, Gerry Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) Montgomery, Fergus
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Janner, Sir Barnett Moonman, Eric
Fraser, John (Norwood) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Morris, John (Aberavon)
Freeson, Reginald Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Gardner, Tony Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Moyle, Roland
Gibson-Watt, David Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Murray, Albert
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Murton, Oscar
Ginsburg, David Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Glover, Sir Douglas Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West) Neave, Airey
Glyn, Sir Richard Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Newens, Stan
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Judd, Frank Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Goodhart, Philip Kershaw, Anthony Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Goodhew, Victor Kimball, Marcus Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip(Derby, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Nott, John
Gourlay, Harry Kirk, Peter Oakes, Gordon
Gower, Raymond Kitson, Timothy Ogden, Eric
Grant, Anthony Knight, Mrs. Jill O'Malley, Brian
Grant-Ferris, R. Lambton, Viscount Onslow, Cranley
Oram, Albert E. Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian Rodgers, William (Stockton) Vickers, Dame Joan
Osborn, John (Hallam) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Rose, Paul Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Oswald, Thomas Ross, Rt. Hn. William Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Padley, Walter Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Page, Graham (Crosby) Royle, Anthony Wall, Patrick
Page, John (Harrow, W.) St. John-Stevas, Norman Wallace, George
Palmer, Arthur Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. Walters, Dennis
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Scott, Nicholas Ward, Dame Irene
Pardoe, John Sharples, Richard Watkins, David (Consett)
Parker, John (Dagenham) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Weatherill, Bernard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Sheldon, Robert Webster, David
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Shore, Peter (Stepney) Weitzman, David
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tync) Wellbeloved, James
Peel, John Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Pentland, Norman Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Percival, Ian Sinclair, Sir George Whitaker, Ben
Peyton, John Skeffington, Arthur White, Mrs. Eirene
pike, Miss Mervyn Slater, Joseph Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Pink, R. Bonner Small, William Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Smith, John Wilkins, W. A.
Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. Snow, Julian Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Spriggs, Leslie Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Price, David (Eastleigh) Stainton, Keith Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Price, William (Rugby) Steel, David (Roxburgh) Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
prior, J. M. L. Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Pym, Francis Stodart, Anthony Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Quennell, Miss J. M. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Stonehouse, John Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Randall, Harry Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Rankin, John Summers, Sir Spencer Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Winnick, David
Rees, Merlyn Swingler, Stephen Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Rees-Davies, W. R. Tapsell, Peter Winterbottom, R, E.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Taverne, Dick Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Reynolds, G. W, Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Rhodes, Geoffrey Temple, John M. Woodnutt, Mark
Richard, Ivor Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Worsley, Marcus
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.) Wright, Esmond
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George Wyatt, Woodrow
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Thornton, Ernest Wylie, N. R.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy Younger, Hn, George
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) Tilney, John
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as) Tinn, James TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, B.) Tomney, Frank Mr. Charles Grey and
Robson Brown, Sir William van Straubenzee, W. R. Mr. William Whitlock
Baxter, William Forrest, George Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Bell, Ronald Harris, Reader (Heston) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Black, Sir Cyril Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Russell, Sir Ronald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Kaberry, Sir Donald Teeling, Sir William
Bullus, Sir Eric Kerby, Capt. Henry Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Burden, F. A. McAdden, Sir Stephen Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)
Cunningham, Sir Knox McMaster, Stanley TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Currie, G. B. H, Maginnis, John E. Mr. Michael Clark Hutchisor and
Farr, John Marten, Neil Mr. Edward M. Taylor.

Main Question put:

The House divided: Ayes, 488, Noes, 62.

Division No. 338.] AYES [11.15 p.m.
Abse, Leo Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Albu, Austen Bagier, Gordon A. T. Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Baker, W. H. K. Berry, Hn. Anthony
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Balniel, Lord Bidwell, Sydney
Alldritt, Walter Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Biffen, John
Allen, Scholefield Barnes, Michael Biggs-Davison, John
Anderson, Donald Barnett, Joel Bishop, E. S.
Archer, Peter Batsford, Brian Blaker, Peter
Armstrong, Ernest Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ashley, Jack Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J. Body, Richard
Astor, John Bence, Cyril Bossom, Sir Clive
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n) Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Boston, Terence
Awdry, Daniel Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Bowden, Rt. Hn, Herbert Dunnett, Jack Heffer, Eric S.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Henig, Stanley
Boyden, James Edelman, Maurice Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Etdward Eden, Sir John Heseltine, Michael
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly) Higgins, Terence L.
Bradley, Tom Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Hiley, Joseph
Braine, Bernard Edwards, William (Merioneth) Hill, J. E. B.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hilton, W. S.
Brewis, John Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Hirst, Geoffrey
Brinton, Sir Tatton Emery, Peter Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter Ennals, David Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Brooks, Edwin Ensor, David Holland, Philip
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Errington, Sir Eric Hooson, Emlyn
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.) Hordern, Peter
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper) Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Eyre, Reginald Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury) Faulds, Andrew Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Fernyhough, E. Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Bryan, Paul Finch, Harold Howie, W.
Buchan, Norman Fisher, Nigel Hoy, James
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Fitch, Alan (Wlgan) Huckfield, L,
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Buck, Antony (Colchester) Floud, Bernard Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) Hunt, John
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Ford, Ben Hunter, Advn
Campbell, Gordon Forrester, John Iremonger, T. L.
Cant, R. B. Fortescue, Tim Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Carlisle, Mark Foster, Sir John Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Carmichael, Nell Fowler, Gerry Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Janner, Sir Barnett
Cary, sir Robert Fraser, John (Norwood) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Castle Rt. Hn. Barbara Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Channon, H. P. G. Freeson, Reginald Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Chapman, Donald Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Chichester-Clark, R. Gardner, Tony Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Clark, Henry Gibson-Watt, David Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Clegg, Walter Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Coe, Denis Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Coleman, Donald Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Conlan, Bernard Ginsburg, David Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Cooke, Robert Glover, Sir Douglas Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill Glyn, Sir Richard Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Judd, Frank
Cordle, John Goodhart, Philip Kershaw, Anthony
Corfield, F. V. Goodhew, Victor Kimball, Marcus
Costain, A. P. Cordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Crawley, Aidan Gourlay, Harry Kirk, Peter
Crawshaw, Richard Gower, Raymond Kitson, Timothy
Cronin, John Grant, Anthony Knight, Mrs. Jill
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Grant-Ferris, R. Lambton, Viscount
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony Langford-Holt, Sir John
Crouch, David Gresham Cooke, R. Lawson, George
Crowder, F. P. Grieve, Percy Ledger, Ron
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Dalkeith, Earl of Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly) Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Dalyell, Tarn Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Dance, James Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J. Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Gurden, Harold Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington) Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Lipton, Marcus
Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire,W.) Hall, John (Wycombe) Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh) Lomas, Kenneth
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Longden, Gilbert
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Loughlin, Charles
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hamling, William Loveys, W. H.
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Hannan, William Luard, Evan
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Harper, Joseph Lubbock, Eric
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Delargy, Hugh Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Dell, Edmund Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Dempsey, James Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) MacArthur, Ian
Dewar, Donald Hart, Mrs. Judith McBride, Neil
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere McCann, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield Harvie Anderson, Miss MacColl, James
Dobson, Ray Haseldine, Norman MacDermot, Niall
Doig, Peter Hastings, Stephen McGuire, Michael
Donnelly, Desmond Hattersley, Roy McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Doughty, Charles Hawkins, Paul Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Hay, John Mackie, John
Drayson, G. B. Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel Mackintosh, John P.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Maclennan, Robert
Dunn, James A. Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Peel, John Summers, Sir Spencer
McNamara, J. Kevin Pentland, Norman Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
MacPherson, Malcolm Percival, Ian Swingler, Stephen
Maddan, Martin Peyton, John Tapsell, Peter
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Pike, Miss Mervyn Taverne, Dick
Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Pink, R. Bonner Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Mallalieu, J. P. w. (Huddersfield, E.) Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E. Temple, John M.
Mapp, Charles Price, Christopher (Perry Barr) Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Marquand, David Price, David (Eastleigh) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Price, William (Rugby) Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Mason, Roy Prior, J. M. L. Thornton, Ernest
Maude, Angus Pursey, Cmdr. Harry Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Pym, Francis Tilney, John
Mawby, Ray Quennell, Miss J. M. Tinn, James
Maxwell, Robert Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Tomney, Frank
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Randall, Harry van Straubenzee, W. R.
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Rankin, John Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Mayhew, Christopher Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Vickers, Dame Joan
Mellish, Robert Rees, Merlyn Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Millan, Bruce Rees-Davies, W. R. Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Miller, Dr. M. S. Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Mills, Peter (Torrington) Reynolds, G. W. Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Rhodes, Geoffrey Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Miscampbell, Norman Richard, Ivor Wall, Patrick
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Wallace, George
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) Ridsdale, Julian Walters, Dennis
Monro, Hector Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Ward, Dame Irene
Montgomery, Fergus Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) Watkins, David (Consett)
Moonman, Eric Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.) Weatherill, Bernard
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as) Webster, David
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.) Weitzman, David
Morris, John (Aberavon) Robson Brown, Sir William Wellbeloved, James
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Rodgers, William (Stockton) Weds, William (Walsall, N.)
Moyle, Roland Rogers, George (Kensington, N.) Whitaker, Ben
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Rose, Paul White, Mrs. Eirene
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Ross, Rt. Hn. William Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Murray, Albert Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Wigg, Rt. Hn. George
Murton, Oscar Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.) Wilkins, W. A.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald Royle, Anthony Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Neave, Airey St. John-Stevas, Norman Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Newens, Stan Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Scott, Nicholas Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Sharples, Richard Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Nott, John Sheldon, Robert Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)
Oakes, Gordon Shore, Peter (Stepney) Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Ogden, Eric 8hort, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
O'Malley, Brian Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Onslow, Cranley Sllkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Oram, Albert E. Sinclair, Sir George winnick, David
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian Skeffington, Arthur Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Osborn, John (Hallam) Slater, Joseph Winterbottom, R. E.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Small, William Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Oswald, Thomas Smith, John Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn) Snow, Julian Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Padley, Walter Spriggs, Leslie Woodnutt, Mark
Page, Graham (Crosby) Stainton, Keith Worsley, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Steel, David (Roxburgh) Wright, Esmond
Palmer, Arthur Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.) Wyatt, Woodrow
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael Wylie, N. R.
Pardoe, John Stodart, Anthony Younger, Hn. Ceorge
Parker, John (Dagenham) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Stonehouse, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. Mr. Charles Grey and
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Mr. William Whitlock.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Driberg, Tom Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham) Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) Kaberry, Sir Donald
Baiter, William Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen) Kenyon, Clifford
Bell, Ronald Farr, John Kerby, Capt. Henry
Black, Sir Cyril Forrest, George Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)
Booth, Albert Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Harris, Reader (Heston) Lee, John (Reading)
Bullus, Sir Eric Hobden, Dennis ((Brighton, K'town) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Burden, F. A. Hooley, Frank McAdden, Sir Stephen
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne) Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)
Cunningham, Sir Knox Hutchison, Michael Clark McMaster, Stanley
Currie, G. B. H. Jackson, peter M. (High Peak) MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.) Maginnis, John E.
Dickens, James Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Manuel, Archie
Marten, Neil Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mendelson, J. J. Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) Varley, Eric G.
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Russell, Sir Ronald Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Molloy, William Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E. Yates, Victor
Neal, Harold Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar Swain, Thomas TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Norwood, Christopher Taylor,EdwardM.(G'gow,Cathcart) Mr. Michael Foot and
Orme, Stanley Teeling, Sir William Mr. Ian Mikardo.
That this House approves the statement contained in the Command Paper, Membership of the European Communities (Command Paper No. 3269).