HL Deb 30 January 1963 vol 246 cc329-42

3.35 p.m.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. With your Lordships' permission, I wish to repeat a statement which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal on the Brussels negotiations.

Your Lordships will recall that, at the meeting of Ministers in Brussels on January 17, the French Delegation requested that the negotiations should be suspended. The five other Delegations of the European Economic Community, and the British Delegation, opposed this. It was agreed that the discussion on this question would be continued at the next Ministerial meeting, on January 28, first among the Six Delegations and then in the full Conference of the Seven.

The Six met at about 7.15 p.m. on January 28 and again at noon and in the early afternoon of January 29. The Ministers of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands did all they could, during these meetings, to persuade the French Delegation to agree on a basis for continuing the negotiations. As your Lordships know, their efforts were of no avail. We were, of course, kept fully informed throughout their discussions.

At 4.30 yesterday afternoon, the full Conference of the Seven met to consider the situation. My right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal was accompanied at this meeting by my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary and by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Chairman of the Conference, Monsieur Fayat, opened the meeting by reading his statement, of which the following is a translation: Following the decision taken by the Seven Governments on the 13th January last, the Six have resumed their discussions on the proposal of the French Delegation to break off the negotiations between the Member States of the European Economic Community and the United Kingdom. The Five other Delegations of the European Economic Community, and the British Delegation, opposed this proposal at the time it was made. In the discussions held by the Six yesterday and to-day, various compromise proposals have been examined. It has finally become apparent that the Belgian, the German, the Italian, the Luxembourg and the Netherlands Delegations agree to accept the following text: 'The European Commission is requested to draw up, during the next three weeks, a report on the present state of the negotiations for accession between Great Britain and the Six States of the European Economic Community; in this report the Commission will set out the results already obtained and the questions still in suspense, and will give its opinion on the latter. This report will be transmitted to each of the Seven Delegations composing the Conference. The work of the Conference will be resumed not later than ten days after the submission of this report.' The French Delegation has refused to accept this text because of a different view, which they will explain in the course of this meeting. After this statement, Ministers representing Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy and Luxembourg then each spoke in turn. With the exception of the French Foreign Minister, each declared that it was his Government's wish to continue the negotiations and his Government's conviction that the outstanding problems could be resolved. Each one expressed deep regret at the situation which had arisen and anxiety as to its consequences. Professor Hallstein, the President of the Commission, also spoke. He said that the European Commission would seek to reduce to the minimum the harmful effects of these developments, both within the European Economic Community and in its relations with other countries.

Monsieur Couve de Murville stated his Government's reasons for having proposed a suspension of the negotiations. He argued that they had made no progress since October; that Britain had not been able to accept the disciplines of the Rome Treaty, notably the common agricultural policy; and that the entry of new members to a club which was not yet complete raised serious questions, notably for the founder Members.

My right honourable friend, the Lord Privy Seal said that, had the Six been able to agree on the draft terms of reference for a report by the European Commission which had been proposed by the five delegations, we should have been able to accept them, since they would have shown that the negotiations were being resumed in good faith. He recalled the reasons for our application to enter into negotiations with the Community. He completely repudiated the arguments advanced by the French Government for the suspension of the negotiations. He said that we would not turn our backs on the Continent because of these events, but would continue to work with all our friends in Europe for its future strength and unity.

The Chairman of the Conference then said that, in the circumstances, he was forced to record the fact, with great regret that the Member States of the European Economic Community were prevented from continuing the negotiations. He was convinced that this regret would be echoed throughout the world. Monsieur Fayat then declared the meeting closed.

My Lords, my right honourable friend goes on in his statement, using his own words:

"In my previous statements to the House after Ministerial Meetings, I have confined myself to giving an account of the events which took place. Perhaps on this occasion I may be permitted a word of comment. What has happened is a bitter blow to all those who believe in European unity; but it is not a mortal one. The events of the past few weeks have shown how many people throughout Europe want us to play a full part in its creation. The Governments of the five Member States of the Community—whose peoples together number some 120 million—are among those who share with us a common view of the Europe we want to see. There is a foundation of friendship and good will for the future."

3.45 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

My Lords, we are obliged to the Leader of the House for giving us the comments which have been submitted in another place by the Lord Privy Seal. There can be no doubt at all that the action taken by the French in this instance is a severe blow, not only to the British Government in their aims but also, apparently, from the statement just read out, with quotations from leading representatives of the remaining five Members, a great disappointment to many of them. On the other hand, I think the House must be generally disappointed that the totality of this statement excludes anything very much with regard to how Her Majesty's Government propose to face the situation.

I think this occasion is sufficiently important—and I hope the Leader of the House will agree—for us to say a few things specifically, even if it takes a litle time. The history of this, of course, is outstanding. For only a short period ago—that is, in 1959—the Conservative Government were apparently quite convinced that it would be a great mistake to try then to apply for admission to the European Economic Community, because of, among other things, the outstanding damage which might occur, on the one hand, to the relationships, economic and friendly, that we had with the Commonwealth, and, on the other hand, the great risks that would be involved for the agricultural community. Then later (the actual date I cannot specify) somebody must have persuaded Her Majesty's Government that it was essential (at that time most emphasis had been placed on the economic position of the country) in order to do something effective to rectify the effects that were recurring in our economy that we must make this application.

The House will remember the comments in debates in both Houses of Parliament at that time. What happened in the end was that there was a vote in Parliament favouring the Government's proposal to make application to enter the European Economic Community. But I must recall to your Lordships' memory that, among those who were agreeing on that basis were many who said that entry into the European Economic Community must be such as to accord with the specific pledges which had been given by the Government for the security of the relationships between us and the Commonwealth, to maintain the advantages to them and our friendship with them, and that there must be a proper protection for British agriculture. I mention only those two things. On that basis, even in the very critical, although divided, House in another place, the actual permission for application by Her Majesty's Government to the European Economic Community was given. I think it is absolutely essential that we keep these facts in mind.

Now we are faced with a fairly brief statement by the Government which makes it clear that in the negotiations, which have lasted since almost the first statement made by the Lord Privy Seal in Paris on October 10, 1961, they did not wish to propose any amendment to the Treaty of Rome; for nearly two and a quarter years (and many people think that this great country of ours has been held in suspense for longer periods than was ever necessary) we have never received such concessions as would be likely to satisfy the two main pledges of Her Majesty's Government originally. And now at this stage the negotiations are broken off by the action of France.

I do not wish this afternoon (perhaps in some Foreign Affairs debate I will) to speak at length on what the action of the French has been, although action by France in this sort of way is not new in this particular respect. But later, as the developments went on, the question of the political side of the application for entry became more fixed; and I recall the debate in the Conservative Conference at Llandudno, when the great majority of the delegates were sent away with an increasing confidence of the assured success of the negotiations which were continuing. There were many people in the Conservative Conference, it seemed to me (they were not, of course, representing all the Conference) who felt that they had reservations to make about the political aspects of entering into Europe on the kind of basis that was foreshadowed through the Rome Treaty.

Now here we are and we get the last thing in this statement to-day—I have not yet seen that latter part of the statement made by the noble Leader of the House; it was evidently a part of Mr. Heath's personal statement being made in another place. We see that the political intentions are certainly retained by the Government, but we do not know exactly upon what sort of terms they would wish to develop those political relationships in Europe for the future. But I am bound to say to the Foreign Secretary (and I am glad to see him here) that in the minds of many people, some of whom are in favour of the Common Market and some dead against it, the whole political situation is changed by the movement of President de Gaulle and Dr. Adenauer into a kind of two countries united in Europe, so that they may, if possible, dominate the policy in Europe. This brings a new factor into the various counters to be placed before us, looked at and assessed. This is a new situation compared with the time when the Houses of Parliament gave permission to the Government to enter into negotiations.

The only other thing I want to say—it may take a minute or two—is this. I am disappointed—and I expect that many others in the country are—that this winding-up by the Lord Privy Seal which has been given to us by the Leader of the House does not go far enough for this day. I look at the present breaking off of negotiations in this ruthless manner by France, they themselves having entered into this new agreement with Dr. Adenauer to change the balance of Europe; and I regard it as a challenge to our greatness here—and we are a great country—and it is about time that our Government took a step in the direction which will really appeal to the whole of the United Kingdom, and laid down a policy which can show that we are no more afraid of the future here than when France broke and we faced the world alone. That is the spirit in which we now have to tackle both the economic and the political issues that open up before us because of this contretemps which has occurred. I lay that specifically before the Government, and especially before the Foreign Secretary.

I do not think we shall gain at this time by heavy personal attacks, such as were made apparently earlier today and reported in the evening Press, by one of Her Majesty's Ministers. I am not suggesting that. But I think we should take urgent action in certain directions. I hinted at some of them last week. I think one of the first things we have to do is to reopen our consultations with the Commonwealth, and also that before we get into the real grips of a conference we should have equally effective and useful talks with E.F.T.A. There is much that can be done within the industrial, agricultural and other aspects of commerce and finance in the sphere of those three great organisations to make some immediate change from the terrible uncertainty which, apparently, our financiers and producers have had in this country for the last eighteen months. One could see the reaction on the Stock Exchange yesterday when, because this happened with regard to Europe, there was an immediate rise in the general stock prices, as if at last we were to be released from the insecurity of which Mr. Macmillan spoke only last week and its factor position in the building up of the recent unfortunate unemployment.

It is action now which must be taken. As my right honourable friend said in another place the other day, we have to go even wider than that. I think there is every indication in some of these speeches or notices which President Kennedy has made recently that they are in the middle of considering what other tariff concessions might have to be made to a number of countries. I think that what we want is a really well-considered world food policy, to do something with regard to the surpluses we get in our Western countries and democracies to come to the aid of the undeveloped countries, which can yet make great markets for all the nations concerned in return for what can be done in that direction. As soon as you have an understanding—I believe you can get it with the Commonwealth and E.F.T.A. on this matter—then you can go ahead with further negotiations in two directions: with the United States and perhaps with GATT. Mr. Diefenbaker of Canada has already spoken about his need to approach GATT as early as possible on some of the matters. You cannot get a wide extension of Imperial Preference very easily through GATT. It is a difficult organisation to get preferences through. But now is the time to consider and consult together to enable this country to face another challenge in a different kind of field, in a way, but yet of equal importance to our nationhood, our reputation and the whole economic future of our comrades.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, before I am asked, as I have no doubt I shall be asked, a series of supplementary questions—and, indeed, I welcome them, both from noble Lords on this side and on the other side—perhaps the House will forgive me if I make one or two rather simple comments on what the noble Viscount has said. In the first place, I do not think I have had the opportunity before of congratulating him on the appearance of his name in the recent Honours List, and we are all looking forward very much to welcoming him in his further ennobled capacity very shortly.

Secondly, I think we must all remember that this matter raises very wide issues indeed, and we must be careful not to use this statement as a means of debating the whole sphere. I believe we have a Foreign Affairs debate coming, and I think it is possible that there may be further Government statements, as the week goes on, on different aspects of the matter. It would be a pity if we were to examine now the whole of the world situation in this new light. I quite accept from the noble Viscount that it is the business and responsibility of the Government to give Parliament an indication of where they think we should go from here. I believe my right honourable friend was right to separate his statement from such a debate, and also to make it clear in the very cautious comment he made in his statement that this is not an occasion to express any feelings of resentment that some of us may quite naturally harbour at what has been done. I think we should keep very calm and cool on that front.

I would say this, if it would be to some extent an answer to the criticism made by the noble Viscount. I think it is quite clear that this country must now try to get together upon a reconsideration of its national attitude. I will not go into the details of the history which he recounted from his own point of view, but it was a subject upon which there were differences. There need be no such differences now. There will, of course, be Party differences about matters of national policy, but I think this is an occasion when we can really try to rally public opinion behind a sober policy of national and international action which will redound to the advantage and to the honour of this country. I do not think we could do that too quickly, but I think we should all think out our own position very carefully indeed.

I do not agree that in this matter this country stands alone. That was the only point of difference I had from what the noble Viscount said. It is France who stands alone. I will not say any more than that. The whole of the Five, the whole of the Seven, the United States and the British Commonwealth are on the other side of this particular barricade, and France is isolated. This is not a position we welcome. Moreover, I think we must say, and say quite frankly, that what concerns us in the Government, and what I imagine will concern the House, too, is less the future of this country, which we believe to be assured, than the future prospects of Europe in the Free World. This is the issue which has arisen for decision.

We do not believe in an inward-looking Europe. Apparently there is one man in Europe who does. We believe in an outward-looking Europe. It was to take part in that that we made our application, in good faith, and negotiated in good faith, for a long period of time. It is difficult to see how, if these political objections to our application were discovered, they needed to be discovered after one and a half years of negotiation. But our attitude is unchanged, and I hope we may look forward to threshing out afresh the issues which face this country. Of course, we must continue to consult on the basis of the new events, both with our Commonwealth partners and with our EFTA partners, with GATT, with the Americans and with others who are affected thereby—the Five in particular. These things will be done. I think the first and absolutely solid thing to do and to say is that we must first clarify our own minds about what we want to do and then consult all the other relevant people about our common objectives.

3.58 p.m.

LORD REA

My Lords, I will not attempt to detain your Lordships at all now, but I should like to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for his statement and also for taking all the points which I hoped to make when he got to his feet to answer the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition.

I think this is not an occasion for a debate on this subject. This is the first time on which we have been given the full, authoritative Government statement on what has happened, and we are most of us—nearly all of us, I think, with respect to my noble friend on the Left—very disappointed about what has happened. It seemed to me that the most important point the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, made was that it is in a sense France who stands alone. Of all those seven countries who were gathered together in Brussels discussing this matter, all but France were joined together. Your Lordships may have read in The Times newspaper a day or two ago a letter—written with what authority I do not know—from an Anglophile Frenchman, who pointed out that France itself is to a certain extent divided, and that division shows a strong feeling for Britain throughout that great country whom many of us still admire and love in spite of some mistakes which she may make.

VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN

My Lords, I must interrupt, if I may, for half a minute. I seldom feel deeply about political matters, but this is not an internal thing between Parties and, as the noble Lord opposite has said, we are together. This is a turning point in British history, and all I would ask (I have no concern with the Government to-day) is that we should not rush the Government. It was impossible for us to consult with others of the English-speaking world outside Brussels as to what we should do in the event of these negotiations to enter Europe breaking down because everybody knew that we were negotiating and discussing. But now we must surely give the Government a few days in which to think out the future destiny of this country, which stands at this moment on the brink of an entirely new era as to our economic and national future.

LORD GLADWYN

My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether the Government agree that the broad agreement which seemed about to emerge in Brussels recently is one best designed to further the long-term interests of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, Europe and the whole Western World? And will they perhaps seize any new opportunity that presents itself to achieve a solution on those lines?

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, while very much regretting this breakdown and the action of President de Gaulle, may I ask the Government whether they will take every action they can to see that no evil effects fall upon NATO, as NATO is the guardian of the Western World and without it we should not be discussing this matter to-day.

LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE

My Lords, may I ask the Government two questions? While not differing in any way from the noble Viscount, Lord Stuart of Findhorn, may I ask the Government when they are likely to be able to make a statement on the profound economic changes which are consequent upon the breakdown of these negotiations? The second question is: do the Government accept that they now have an opportunity, seizing this moment, of rekindling the fires of enthusiasm, of national unity and national purpose which have been damped down over the past months, or even the past year or two; that this country now has a chance to be united and to conquer all the difficulties, as I am quite sure we can if the Government give the leadership which we hope and expect?

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, as a very junior Member of your Lordships' House may I make one comment, and then ask a question? The first thing I should like to say is how delighted I am that the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has echoed the words of an excellent editorial which appeared in today's issue of The Times, to the effect that the country is facing a challenge to-day as it did twenty-three years ago. Then I should like to ask my noble Leader one question: whether Her Majesty's Government would consider approaching the Governments of Italy and Germany to ascertain their reaction to the proposal by the Benelux countries that discussions should continue, although they could not be implemented, in which case France might be placed in a position whereby in due course she might find that she would have to change her attitude?

I also wonder whether my noble Leader could be a little more explicit with regard to what I understand were the technical details as to why France would not agree to a consideration being made and a report being made by the Commission. I should like to end by saying—and I say this in all humility—that I feel it might be wise if we were to limit our criticisms of de Gaulle, because my feeling has been that the more criticism which is levelled towards de Gaulle the more it tends to make the French, who in many cases do not share his views, change their attitude to the extent of their getting more and more behind him—what is known in French as se serrer les coudes.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, may I say as one Back-bencher how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn. I am sure that the House as a whole thinks that it is right and fair that Her Majesty's Government should consider carefully what they are going to say to Parliament and the nation at this serious juncture in our affairs. I only ask my noble Leader whether he realises that some of us very much hope that that statement, when it is ready, will be made in a considered way by one of Her Majesty's Ministers to Parliament and will not be given in an excited interview at the airport.

4.8 p.m.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I think we all share the dislike of excited interviews at airports, particularly those who have been subjected to the pressure to give vent to them on every occasion when we leave or arrive in this country; so I think I can agree with that. I thank noble Lords for the various comments and questions they have put, and I will try to answer some of the points rather shortly. I was very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rea, for his intervention on behalf of the Liberal Party, and to my noble friend Lord Stuart of Findhorn for what I thought was a very timely reminder that, if we are right in thinking that this constitutes a very important occasion for reappraisal of ail our policies, we must think them out with great clarity. I fancy that the Opposition, as well as the Government, will wish for time; and I think the ordinary people of the country will want to consider in calm what the implications are.

I was not able to take down at speed Lord Gladwyn's question, but without committing myself to the form of words which he uttered, it certainly is the case that we did believe that the negotiations could have gone forward to a successful conclusion. That was also the view of the Five, and I think that emerges from my right honourable friend's statement.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

My Lords, if I may just interpolate for a moment, is it not a fact that Parliament has not had really detailed information as to what concessions have been made by this country so that they could be properly examined? The agricultural leaders, for example, would not dream of accepting the settlement so far made on behalf of agriculture.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

It is not for me to criticise, but I thought that we had too much detail and too little clarity. At all events, it is certainly the view of the Government that the negotiations could have gone forward to a successful conclusion. That was the view of the Five, and that was certainly the expressed view of my right honourable friend.

The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, raised the important question of the future of NATO. Obviously that must concern us and the Americans, and I am sure it will concern the Five. Equally obviously, we must see what we can do to keep the Alliance in effective being. I am not pretending for a moment that the action which has been taken by one member of the Community against ourselves makes it any easier for any of us. But I quite agree with the general objective of which the noble Lord has spoken. In answer to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, I cannot give a date for a statement on the economic changes. I was thinking there might be a statement this week on some part of it, but hardly the comprehensive statement he is looking for. I entirely share his view that whichever part of the House we may sit in we clearly must try to lead public opinion to a less unhappy frame of mind than it has been showing recently about many things. I have sometimes feared that cynicism might kill this country one day, and I think we could all play a part in leadership in preventing a decay in the national morale in that sense.

I would not have gone as far as the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, on the question of 1940. I do not think this is a bit like that. I think that is to over-dramatise it. I think our future is bright, our prospects are good. I have never had any fear for this country outside the Common Market or inside the Common Market. I think we need to show what I was saying, to throw off some of the atmosphere of cynicism which has covered public opinion lately. But I really do not feel that we are facing a 1940-like situation. I have much more confidence in the basic soundness of the situation, national and international, than that. I would therefore deprecate, to that extent, drawing these analogies with the more desperate moments of the last war against Hitler.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH

My Lords, I must say that I feel that my analogy was not in anyway cynical. But on aspects of the general problem I must say we have been told, again and again, by the Government and supporters of the Common Market that if we did not go in it would be a disaster.

VISCOUNT HAILSHAM

My Lords, I do not want to engage in controversy with the noble Viscount, because I certainly did not intend to say, and I do not think I did say, his intervention was cynical. What I was claiming, in answer to my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, was that we must get rid of cynicism—all of us. If I were to draw up an eleven in this House for cynicals to play against non-cynicals, the noble Viscount would probably captain the team of non-cynicals. So I do not make any kind of charge against him there. I cannot really say what the reactions of Italy and Germany would be to the Benelux suggestion. We have been in close touch with the Five and of course it is a question for those Governments. I equally cannot give any details of what the French said to the other Five as to why they would not agree to the other Five's statements. This was done in conclave from which we were excluded, and I can give only the information contained in my right honourable friend's statement. I entirely share the view of my noble friend that we should limit our criticisms of personalities in this case, if only because our own dignity and self-respect requires that we should remain extremely calm and restrained: indeed some people might have another and less honourable reason—that General de Gaulle rather likes them.