§ 3.44 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, I should like, with the permission of your Lordships' House. to repeat a Statement which is now being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. This is the text of the Statement:
" With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a Statement on how the Government sees the arrangements for Parliamentary consideration of the question of British accession to the European Communities.
" It may be helpful if I begin by setting out the stages which must be completed before we can become a member of the Communities. We have first to resolve the major issues outstanding in the negotiations. Second, Parliament should be invited to take a decision of principle on whether the arrangements so negotiated are satisfactory and whether we should proceed to join the Communities. If that be agreed, we have, third, to resolve the remaining issues in the negotiations. Fourth. a treaty of accession has to be prepared and signed. Fifth, legislation to give effect to that treaty has to be drafted, considered by Parliament and enacted. Finally, we and the other parties to the treaty have to deposit instruments of ratification of the treaty.
708 "As to the first of these stages, we hope that it will be possible to resolve the major issues outstanding in the negotiations by the end of this month. As soon as possible thereafter the Government will publish a White Paper setting out in detail the arrangements that have been agreed and the Government's conclusions on whether they constitute a satisfactory basis for joining the Communities.
" The timing of subsequent stages depends upon striking a balance between a number of conflicting considerations. On the one hand, uncertainty will persist until Parliament has taken its decision. We owe it to our partners in the negotiations, to our fellow-applicants for membership, whose decisions will to some extent depend on ours, and to ourselves, to resolve this uncertainty as soon as we can. Moreover, the marketing and investment planning of British industry, and future planning in many other sectors of our national life, are vitally dependent on the decision. It is right that all concerned should know as soon as possible where they stand.
" On the other hand, the Government has always acknowledged the need for the whole question to be fully considered and discussed by Parliament and by the public before Parliament is asked to take the decision of principle on it. Although it is true that the main arguments for and against our joining the Communities have been before the public since the first application for membership ten years ago, it is right that we should take time to consider them in the light of the outcome of my right honourable and learned friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's negotiations in Brussels and Luxembourg.
" In the light of these considerations, the timetable which the Government proposes is as follows.
" The House will be invited to debate the White Paper before it rises for the Summer Recess. The detailed arrangements for this debate will be discussed through the usual channels. The Government envisages that it should be an expository and exploratory debate, on a Motion which does not invite the House to take the decision of principle at the end of this 709 debate, though we must of course reserve our freedom of action in the event of any substantive amendment to such a Motion.
" Then, when Parliament meets again after the Recess, there will be a second debate, at the conclusion of which the House will be asked to decide in principle whether Britain should join the European Communities.
" In the meantime, our delegation in Brussels will continue to negotiate on such issues as still remain outstanding. The aim will be to carry forward these negotiations and work on drafting a treaty of accession so that, if Parliament decides in the autumn that Britain should join the Communities, the treaty of accession can be signed by the end of this year.
" This would allow the whole of 1972 to complete what would require to be done before our accession. In Parliamentary terms, this would mean that Parliament would be invited to consider and to pass the consequential legislation, which would be substantial, by the end of the Session 1971-72. Thereafter, the instrument of ratification of the treaty of accession would be deposited, in time for our accession to the Communities to be effective from January 1, 1973."
My Lords, that concludes my right honourable friend's Statement. I should perhaps add that it would be our intention here to propose broadly similar arrangements for discussing this subject in your Lordships' House as are being proposed for another place. The precise timing of such arrangements and the details could well, I suggest, be followed up through the usual channels.
§ 3.48 p.m.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Earl for repeating not only a Statement but a Statement which seems, to me at any rate, to be very clear. I am quite sure that the Government are right and have listened to wise advice. No doubt this wise advice came from within the Government as well as outside, judging from the reports in the Press, not to rush a decision. Whether we are for entry into the Common Market or against, depending on the terms, I am sure this is a matter 710. of such momentous importance that it is right that it should be given the fullest consideration. I should therefore like to ask the noble Earl, while again expressing satisfaction that he suggests we should discuss this matter through the usual channels, where he thinks he is going to find time for the debate before we rise for the Summer Recess. Perhaps he will find a way of achieving this. I ask this question for the serious reason that I am quite sure that there should be sufficient time to allow all noble Lords who desire to speak in the debate to do so. This House classically is good at expressing individual opinons and giving counsel, and I suspect that we shall need quite a long time for this debate. Therefore, I hope that it will not be a matter of squeezing it in, as sometimes inevitably happens, in too short a space. It would be helpful if the noble Earl could express whether or not he is in agreement with that sort of approach. I will make no further comments now, because clearly the time to debate the terms is when we come to the debates proposed by the Government.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, I appreciate that this is a compromise solution and that it has to be one, but I can only express regret that it has not been found possible to have a decision taken in principle before we go into Recess. It is Parliament that has to make the decision, and if we are fully apprised of the situation at the end of June I should have thought that Parliament would be well enough informed to make the decision in principle by the end of July. Having said that, and appreciating the difficulties, we shall reluctantly have to accept the proposed timetable.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I am grateful for the reception of this Statement which has been accorded by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Opposition here. In reply, I will confine myself to saying that I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said about the need for finding them. I also agree, in view of the inevitably rather crowded programme —and we always have this problem in your Lordships' House towards the end of the summer, and perhaps for one reason or another we have it rather more acutely than usual this summer—that we 711 must take steps to find the time. Whatever view we take of the subject, this is a matter of vital importance to the future of our country. All I can do is to assure noble Lords that I recognise the need to find adequate time, and I can give an unqualified assurance that adequate time will be found before the Summer Recess.
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, may I first express my gratitude to the noble Earl for repeating the Statement? I have not a copy of the Statement before me but it seemed that there was one caveat, and I should like to have it clarified. We gather that this debate is for exploration and exposition, but somewhere in the Statement it said—if I took it down correctly—" though we must reserve freedom of action ". By that statement are the Government reserving a freedom of action to make a decision?
Lastly, while thanking the noble Earl for saying that we shall find the time, we need to have a debate without hurling ugly epithets at one another because there may be differences of opinion. I sincerely hope that we shall have at least two days to discuss this matter, if not three.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, answering first the second point put to me by the noble Lord.. Lord Davies of Leek, the amount of time will depend, of course, on the number of noble Lords who wish to speak; but quite clearly we should not wish to squeeze in this debate. In my view, it would be quite wrong to do so, and all I can say at this stage—and, of course, it is rather hypothetical, because we do not know how many noble Lords will wish to speak is that adequate time will be found without a squeeze. I attach great importance to this, as indeed to the fact that the debate should be conducted in the way that is appropriate and customary in your Lordships' House, and I have absolutely no doubt that such will be the case.
On the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, perhaps I should just repeat that part of the Statement in order that it may be, quite clear, although I think it is self-explanatory:
The Government envisages that it should be an expository and exploratory debate, on a Motion which does not invite the House to take the decision of principle at the end of this debate, though we must of course reserve our 712 freedom of action in the event of any substantive amendment to such a Motion.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he realises that there are others who are private Members in your Lordships' House who would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in regretting that no substantive decision has been made on a matter which is of great political importance—far greater political importance than economic importance—and the political issues of which have been well-known to Parliament for many years past? May I also express the hope that perhaps circumstances may arise between now and the end of July which will enable the Government to change their attitude to this.
May I ask, secondly, whether my noble friend, no doubt after much consultation through the usual channels, will consider that this is the one—if not perhaps the most important—occasion during this Parliamentary era when there should be a free vote in your Lordships' House?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I will take note of what my noble friend has said, but on the question of the Government's decision, to which they have come regarding the arrangements proposed, all I can say is that there was a difficult balance of considerations to be taken into account, but I can assure my noble friend that these various considerations have been very carefully weighed.
§ LORD ROYLEMy Lords, I am quite sure that it is my fault, but it is not quite clear to me exactly when the second and more decisive debate will take place. The noble Earl said that it would be after the Recess: does that mean in the overlap of this Session or after the opening of Parliament for a new Session?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I envisage that our expository and exploratory debate will take place towards the end of the next month or very early the following month—if in fact we are still here then. That would be the approximate timing, and the timing for the further debate would be in the autumn. I would rather assume that it would be in October, but I would not wish to be committed to any specific timing at this stage.
§ LORD ROYLEMy Lords, does that mean that it might be in October, before the opening of Parliament?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I said that I would not wish to be committed to a specific time at this stage.
§ LORD BURNTWOODMy Lords, without wishing to extend the scope of the present exchanges, may I ask whether, within the terms of the present negotiations, it is possible for representations to be made to the Commission or to the negotiators on the subject of industrial directives which may at present be in process of being tabled by the Commission, so that the interests of this country, which would be highly prejudiced should such directives go forward at this point in time, would be protected in some way by our tabling information which could in fact guide the Commission? I realise that this is a very wide question, and one does not wish in any way to call into question the good faith of the Commission and the people it represents, but at the same time one knows that important directives are in process of being tabled which possibly might justifiably be stayed for a little while until the position has become settled.
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I do not feel that it would be right for me to go too deeply into the substance of the negotiations in discussing what is, after all, a procedural statement. All I would say is that the consideration which the noble Lord has adducd is one which is in the mind of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. I would prefer to leave it at that at this stage and perhaps we could refer to the matter later.
§ LORD AUCKLANDMy Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Statement will give great pleasure to many of us who, while hoping that we still will enter the European Community, recognise the considerable needs of the Commonwealth? Is he further aware that the country at large (and particularly the Commonwealth) will welcome these flexible negotiations and the fact that there will be no undue rush?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I can detect some slight difference of opinion between my noble friend who has just spoken and my noble friend Lord Alport. All I would say is that I think it becomes 714 me to tread warily this afternoon, like Agag, and say once again that there was a balance of considerations here.
§ LORD COLYTONMy Lords, while personally strongly supporting our adherence to the E.E.C. on proper terms, may I ask my noble friend a question which possibly lies a little outside the Statement on the programme which he has made? Can he say whether our partners in the European Free Trade Area are being regularly consulted in these matters and to what extent the EFTA Treaty, which I presume is still binding upon us, can be reconciled with our joining the Community? May I ask that this point, which is a rather important point because in a way it affects our honour in relation to other countries in EFTA, will not be lost sight of?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I can give the noble Lord straight away the assurance which he has asked me to give. Our EFTA partners are being very closely consulted by us at all stages in these negotiations. As my noble friend knows, some of the other applicants are also members of EFTA, and my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, after the last meeting at Luxembourg, flew to a meeting of EFTA in Iceland. There is the very closest consultation between us and our EFTA partners.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, can we gather from the noble Earl's Statement that the French President has given his approval or expressed his agreement to the timetable that the noble Earl has announced?
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether, before the treaty of accession is signed, we shall have a guarantee, a definite assurance and guarantee, that the Governments with which we sign the treaty of accession are viable? Will he take note of the difficulty experienced in Italy at the present time, and it may be in the foreseeable future, of creating a stable Government?
EARL JELLICOEMy Lords, I will take note of the noble Lord's attitude, which, as usual, has a trace of mischievousness about it.