asked the Prime Minister whether the erratum issued to the Government's White Paper at page 15, paragraph 2, of Document 16 of 3rd June now represents the considered view of His Majesty's Government as to putting forward any British alternative to the Schuman Plan.

As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said yesterday, the sentence to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was omitted, as a result of an editorial mistake, from the White Paper. It was, of course, included in the communiqué which had already been issued by the Government, and the complete document, therefore, represented and still represents the considered view of His Majesty's Government.

I am much obliged. May I ask the Prime Minister if he will recall that in his statement in the House on Tuesday, as well as in his reply to the hon. Baronet the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), he made it plain that the Government did not propose to put forward any proposals at the present time, whereas the White Paper 10 days' earlier certainly held out hopes that something of that kind is intended? Can the right hon. Gentleman at all elucidate that position, so that we may know what is in the Government's mind?

I do not think there is any real inconsistency. The argument was that it would be a mistake for us to put forward, so to speak, rival proposals at the present time, but that, on the other hand, we were setting to work to work out some kind of scheme so that in case the time came to put it forward we should be ready with proposals if they were required.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not now consider it desirable, if we have plans, to put them out soon, especially in view of the fact that it seems that the Dutch Government are putting forward their plan? Also, may I say that the statement put out on Tuesday, or on Monday night, by the Socialist Party has, without doubt, caused very considerable consternation as to where we do stand among many of our friends in all parts of the world?

The Government's view is that it definitely would not be a help but a hindrance to put forward rival proposals before we have had an elucidation of the proposals that are being put forward by the French Government. After all, it is their initiative. We do not in any way want to cut across their initiative.

Oh!

In that case, can the right hon. Gentleman say why this declaration by the Socialist Party was so extraordinarily timed for that particular moment?

It was, as a matter of fact, not timed for that particular moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "A leak."] A decision was taken to publish a statement of policy. It was left to be published, and it happened to be published on that day—I think through having gone to the printer at a certain time. I think it was unfortunate myself. I should like to make it perfectly plain that it was not in fact a matter for that day. It was a matter of routine publication.

Would not the Prime Minister agree that it is quite inaccurate to refer, as is done in many of these questions, to the Schuman Plan, when, in fact there is no Schuman Plan but simply a series of vague and ill-defined thoughts about the future of Europe? Would it not be an act of the gravest discourtesy to the French Government for us to publish proposals without having first of all seen in some detail exactly what it is the French Government have in mind?

In view of the very great weight of the criticism being levelled against this country both in Europe and in the United States, does not the Prime Minister think that it would be advisable to issue a comprehensive statement of Government policy, if only to clarify the issue as to whether this country is being governed by His Majesty's Government or by the Executive of the Labour Party?

Answer.

I do not know if the hon. Member was in his place the day before yesterday, but I made it perfectly plain what the Government policy was, and the difference between Government policy and a statement in a party document.

The right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind, will he not, that it is one of the leading Ministers of the Crown who introduced this statement? In fact, I understand that he is one who we are told goes in second wicket down. How then can the Government say they have no responsibility for the statement?

The right hon. Gentleman is himself, I believe, a member of the Opposition who goes in second wicket down, but he makes statements of party policy; and I have no doubt that when he was a Minister he made statements on party policy, but that when he made a statement on party policy it was never taken as a statement of Government policy.

Oh!

Will the Prime Minister say how the Government plans, when they are finished, are to be brought to fruition and are to be brought into play in Europe, if his policy is to stand coyly at the brink waiting to be asked by some unknown person whether he will join in? Otherwise what is the use of his making a plan, if he is without any means of bringing it into the European arena?

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman also did not follow what was said in the House, when it was pointed out that there is liaison between this Government and the Governments at the meeting. It is obvious that until there have been discussions and the thing develops, it will be impossible to say when it will be useful to intervene.

In spite of the muddle the Government have got into, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that many people in this country would entirely disapprove of proposals that made the British Isles subordinate to European industry?

Is my right hon. Friend aware that his first answer to the Private Notice Question will be welcomed by many who wrongly understood from the earlier statement that we should not work out proposals? Could he say, when these proposals are worked out, whether they will be communicated to the French Government if, at any stage, the French Government ask for that to be done?

I think it is very difficult to follow out these hypothetical matters. The point is, as has been said, and as, I should have thought, has been quite clearly expressed—though I will say it again—that we do not think it would be useful at the present moment to set out rival proposals to those set out by the French Government. On the other hand, we wish well to the Plan. We ourselves shall work out proposals, and if at a certain time it seems useful that these should be brought forward they will be brought forward. That is the point.

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether he or the Foreign Secretary knew the Labour Party document was to be published on the day when it was published?

Answer.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to say, is he not in fact a member of the National Executive of the Labour Party? If so, can he have had no knowledge of this document before it was published?

Answer.

On a point of order. Is there any Minister of the Crown who is responsible in this House for answering for the policy of an outside group of persons?

Will the right hon. Gentleman give an answer to this simpler question? Had he, in fact, read the statement of the Executive?

On a point of order. I did venture to raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with you. May I have an answer?

I did not hear the question raised as a point of order. There was such a noise going on at the time that I did not hear the opening of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Then may I put it again, Sir? Has it not always been the established custom of the House that Ministers of the Crown are responsible for answering questions from Members on matters for which they exercise depart- mental authority, and is it in order to ask them questions about these other matters?

It is always rather difficult to draw the line, but of course Ministers are responsible to this House for their actions and for their policies.

Further to that point of order. Has it not always been the custom and, properly, the right of this House to inquire of Prime Ministers whether statements made by bodies of which they are members, together with other Ministers, represent Government policy or not?

I think the answer to that is: "Never."

Was there not a Question down to the Prime Minister today about just such a statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland?

That is a Minister, not a body. I said "Never by a body."

The Prime Minister will recall that he informed the House that he regretted the publication of this document on that particular date. Can he not tell us whether he had in fact read the document?

Answer.

Will the Prime Minister not consider for broader interests even than those of this House, if it be the fact that the Prime Minister deprecates the timing of this document and does not take responsibility for it, and has not even read it, whether it would not be for the advantage of everybody to know that neither he nor the Foreign Secretary approves of it?

On a point of order. May I have your ruling, Sir, on whether we are now discussing what arises out of the proposed Schuman Plan or the Labour Party pamphlet, which is our business on this side of the House and, in my opinion, no business of the other side?

These are all public documents, and therefore public notice can be taken of them.

Does not the Prime Minister think that it might solve the whole of this question if a little time were given for the Opposition to read this pamphlet, when they would discover that none of these questions arise?

Author.

rose—

I think we had now better get on with the Business Question.