CONWAY (Hansard, 18 July 1974)

§ Q2. Mr. Wyn Roberts
asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the Conway constituency.

§ The Prime Minister
I visited the Conway constituency last Friday, Sir.

§ Mr. Roberts
In his speech at Bangor—which I gather was heard by an extraordinarily large number of policemen—the Prime Minister attacked my right hon. Friend for failing to support his renegotiations with the EEC. Is the Prime Minister not aware that the majority of Opposition Members have always been in favour of continuing negotiation within the EEC? Second, does the Prime Minister think that he will obtain new terms unless he agrees in advance to recommend them to the British people? If he is not prepared to recommend them, what is the purpose of the EEC countries negotiating with him? Does this not clearly show that the Government's position on the renegotiation issue is totally false?

§ The Prime Minister
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be glad to hear that my speech was listened to by a large number of his constituents, who will form a small part of the Labour 657 majority after the next election. Concerning the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, I am glad to hear that the Conservative Party—if he speaks with authority for it; he used to have some authority when he sat on the back benches on this side of the House—now supports the idea of renegotiation, which we have pressed. All that I asked at Bangor was that the Leader of the Opposition might consider answering the questions that we have put to him about the right of the British people to a vote. I wanted to ask the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]—the hon. Gentleman was quoting my speech—whether he supports the terms that we have put forward for renegotiation, and particularly the achievements of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture in clearing up the beef shambles which the previous Government left behind.

§ Mr. Kinnock
Is my right hon. Friend aware that in Bangor, as in the remainder of Wales, there are an extraordinary number of Socialist policemen? Does he share my curiosity about the fact that a shadow spokesman on Welsh affairs continues to be—and at any costs—a Euro-fanatic, when the overwhelming majority of the Welsh people continue to be resolutely against membership of the EEC and welcome the opportunity which my right hon. Friend and his Government will give them to express their verdict on that question?

§ The Prime Minister
In view of the Opposition's interest in police matters, may I say that the security arrangements were exactly those which were adoptedrightly—in the time of my predecessor? I am not aware of what the shadow spokesman on Welsh affairs may have said. I do not even know who he is; nor do the people of Wales; but I know that when the Conservatives had to man up a Welsh Office they had to do it mainly by the use of absentee landlords across the border.

§ Mr. Thorpe
Is the Prime Minister aware that I am not the shadow spokesman for Wales, either for my party or the Opposition? [Interruption.] Not yet. If the view is taken that I should be, I am highly flattered. I have two questions for the right hon. Gentleman. Now that he has reversed his view on the desirability of holding a referendum—which I am sure 658 he will agree was contrary to the view expressed at the 1970 General Election may we take it that it is now his view that this is a good method of testing people's views in constitutional issues such as the Common Market, Kilbrandon and electoral reform? As the Prime Minister is always logical in his conclusions, does he agree that if the British people are to have a free vote, so should the House of Commons and, in particular, the Parliamentary Labour Party?

§ The Prime Minister
I note the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he is not shadow spokesman for Wales. At the risk of upsetting his feelings, may I say that he is not a shadow spokesman for England, either? However, with regard to the question of the referendum, which I have dealt with many times, I would not have introduced into the House of Commons a measure which was unacceptable to the British people, as that measure clearly was—[Interruption.]—nor did I use the phrase "full-hearted consent" which was used by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. The terms of entry into Europe have never been accepted by the British people at any time. On the right hon. Gentleman's question about referenda on other subjects, I think that the House—and even the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party, on mature consideration—will realise that the constitutional issues raised in the matter of entry into Europe, which never had the full-hearted consent of the British people, are constitutional issues far transcending any other constitutional matters.

§ Mr. Rippon
Will the Prime Minister accept that we all welcome the way in which the Government as a whole are negotiating in good faith to keep Britain in the Community? Second, on the constitutional issue, will he confirm that any proposals that the Government may bring forward—we accept that this is a matter, as the Foreign Secretary says, on which we must wait for a referendum—would require legislation, which would have to be debated in the House?

§ The Prime Minister
I think that it is possible—I am not certain—that legislation would be required. But I Shall certainly consider this matter. [Interruption.] I believe that it would require legislation. We are concentrating at this 659 stage on the renegotiations, and, of course, legislation will be introduced by the Government should that be required—as it probably will. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his opening words about his approval of the way in which we are conducting the renegotiations. It means a great deal to us that he should have said that, because the difficulty of the renegotiations is enormously increased by the feebleness with which he accepted totally unacceptable terms himself.

§ Mr. Heath
Is the Prime Minister now telling the House and the country that he maintained until 1971 an agreement with myself, either as Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition, that to have a referendum in this country was entirely against our constitutional procedures, but that he then changed his mind in July 1971 without having bothered to inquire whether legislation would be required in this House, and since then he has been saying to the country that he will have a referendum and he does not even know whether it requires legislation? Is he suggesting for one moment that he alone will frame the question which will be put to the people of this country, should be ever have the chance of putting it? Surely such an attitude is absolutely astonishingly irresponsible.

§ The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. We never had an agreement. We never discussed the matter. [Interruption.] We never discussed the matter together, as the right hon. Gentleman will know. Concerning the statement made in 1970 by him and by me, I have already dealt with that this afternoon. But the right hon. Gentleman—he can deny it if he wishes; I shall give way to him—gave a pledge that he would not take Britain in without the full-hearted consent of the British people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am dealing with the question. The right hon. Gentleman negotiated terms totally unacceptable to us, and I am glad that his negotiator is now supporting us in changing those terms, as he has made clear. If a referendum requires legislation, that will certainly be put before the House.