United Kingdom Membership
31.
asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he will now seek to renegotiate the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Community.
No, Sir.
I rather thought that my right hon. Friend would give that answer, but time will prove a marvellous tutor. Can he bring to the attention of the House any industrialised country the currency of which has had a sudden and massive increase, boosted by the surging value of its raw materials and natural resources, and which, at the same time, had no control over its own trading policy? Could he say what happened to the industrial and manufacturing base of that country?
I am not sure that most people would entirely agree with my hon. Friend's diagnosis of the situation and, unless he is suggesting import controls, I am not certain of the relevance of his question. He must realise that import controls are not the policy of the Government side of the House and are the policy of only part of the Labour side.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us who strongly support our continued membership of the Community feel that the criticism that it receives is due more to what has not been done or attempted than to existing policies? Will he give an assurance that the Government will seek to give a lead in these matters by, for example, tackling employment policies, possibly through an increase in the size of the regional fund?
I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. There is a lot in that. He will be aware that as a result of the 30 May agreement the Community is committed to restructuring the budget, during which many of the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised will inevitably come up.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that when hon. Members use the word "renegotiate" in this sense it is a euphemism for "withdraw", though they are afraid to say so, particularly after the resounding support for our continued membership expressed at, for example, the Conservative Party conference? Is not the psychology of public opinion that, while people grumble about various detailed aspects of policy, which is natural, they nevertheless wish to remain in the EEC and to develop it institutionally through the strength of all the members?
I agree with my hon. Friend, though I do not think that it is fair to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is afraid to advocate withdrawal. Certainly, the contrast between the Conservative Party conference and the Labour Party conference on the question of Europe has been widely noted.
It will come as no surprise to the House that the Government have neither the will nor the wish to alter the unequal and shameful treaty of accession which a previous Conservative Government signed. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, there is in the unsatisfactory agreement reached on 30 May, a timetable for further discussions about the future of the CAP and the budget. Those are important matters and I wish to put a serious proposal to the Lord Privy Seal. On these vital matters will he circulate to hon. Members and to the country a Green Paper setting out what the Government wish to see changed in the budget and the CAP? They should not leave the whole thing to the initiative of the Commission in Brussels.
We understand that the right hon. Gentleman has to parade round the paddock on this matter, and he has done that fairly satisfactorily. He knows that he is wrong to say that the 30 May agreement was unsatisfactory. That comes extremely badly from someone who was in the previous Government, because they achieved nothing on this matter. Our agreement was a good one and the right hon. Gentleman is rightly envious of it.
I shall consider what the right lion. Gentleman said about a Green Paper, but I think that he will agree, on reflection, that that is not necessarily the best way of setting about negotiations. Whether or not we have a Green Paper, there will be no question of our leaving everything to the Commission or to any of the other people who figure in the right hon. Gentleman's demonology. Of course we shall be in contact with all our partners and with the Commission and we shall be discussing the matters in the House. I do not believe that the best way of achieving our negotiating ends would be to put them forward in a Green Paper.
Japan
32.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what progress has been made in developing a European Economic Community policy towards Japan.
The Foreign Affairs Council on 22 July took the view that Commission proposals for a common commercial policy required further study. The subject is on the agenda for the next Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 24 and 25 November.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread support, certainly in the motor industry in this country, for the views reported today to be held by Mr. Haferkamp, that there is a need at the meeting next month for the EEC to arrive at a common trade policy towards Japan, for fear that otherwise there will be individual national initiatives which could lead to an outbreak of protectionism?
I see my hon. Friend's point. If there were a satisfactory Community agreement it would have greater strength than member States acting individually could have. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that, in order to be acceptable to the United Kingdom, a common Community position on trade with Japan would have to safeguard our interests at least as effectively as do existing industry arrangements.
Is not the truth of the matter that the Lord Privy Seal does not have a satisfactory agreement at either industry or EEC level and that if an agreement is to be negotiated he will need new machinery which does not exist within the Community? Is not the reality that the Japanese are flooding our car market and that by the time the Government get round to doing something about it we shall not have a lorry or a car market left?
The hon. Lady is indulging in her customary exaggeration. It is not happening; so far the Japanese have abided by their agreements. There is not a satisfactory Community agreement at the moment. That was the whole point of the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove and Red-ditch (Mr. Miller). He was suggesting that there should be an agreement.
My right hon. Friend will be aware that our right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently circulated to all members of the National Economic Development Council a remarkable paper on Japan by our former ambassador there, Sir Michael Wilford. Since that paper would help to concentrate wonderfully the minds of those seeking to establish an effective European response to the Japanese challenge, will my right hon. Friend arrange for the paper to be given an even wider circulation?
I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.
Is it not a fact that the problems of the motor car industry and import penetration are not related solely to Japan, but also to our alleged Community partners? Should not the real purpose behind the question be not just to single out Japan, but to have a proper policy that will protect this country against exports from other countries?
I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It has nothing to do with the question, which is concerned with Japan.
Treaty Of Rome
33.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will now make proposals to amend the Treaty of Rome.
No, Sir.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is now widespread disenchantment with our membership of the EEC, and that the basic problem is related to the iron corset of the Treaty of Rome—in particular, some of us think, more from a political than an economic point of view? Is it not now clear that such a treaty, drawn up so many years ago, must be ready for fundamental change?
I do not agree that there is great disenchantment. One of the interesting things that happened after the goings-on at Blackpool was that people who had not previously been all that keen on membership suddenly realised how disastrous withdrawal would be. There may well be improvements that could and should be made to the Treaty, but I do not think that that is the fundamental question at present. The fundamental matter is to get on with the restructuring to which the Community was committed by the agreement of 30 May last year.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that the decision of the Labour Party at its conference to seek withdrawal from the EEC has caused great difficulty for the Conservatives in the European Parliament in forwarding British interests there? It is very difficult to convince our European partners of the essential levity of the Labour Party, which in opposition invariably preaches that it will withdraw and in government is forced to recognise the realities of the situation.
I agree with my hon. Friend, but in speaking to our partners in Europe I have found no great difficulty in convincing them about the levity of the Labour Party.
If the Government are opposed to import controls, why do they operate the common agricultural policy?
Because, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, we have protected our agriculture in one way or another for many years. That was done very successfully after the war by the Labour Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member and to whom he continually looks back. The CAP is just one other way of protecting our agriculture.
My right hon. Friend makes rather terse denials to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but surely he cannot maintain that the terms of our membership are set in concrete for all time. Reciprocal advantages and obligations evolve with the passage of time, do they not?
I think that the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend are absolutely impeccable.
Council Of Ministers
34.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement concerning meetings of the Council of the European Economic Community held since the end of July.
35.
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement concerning meetings of the Council of the European Economic Community held since the end of July.
I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) on 27 October.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Can he confirm that on 7 October the Council of Ministers agreed the pattern of supplementary measures that would be part of the British repayments? Will he also confirm that they will last for only three years, that only 70 per cent. of the expenditure will fall on the EEC, with 30 per cent. falling on Her Majesty's Government, and that these payments are primarily controlled by the Council of the EEC? When shall we have a list of the regional measures that the Government propose? How much additional United Kingdom expenditure will that involve?
I think that the hon. Gentleman will receive a list fairly soon after the measures have been submitted to the Commission. The hon. Gentleman was misleading when he talked about "only 70 per cent." Each project will be financed to the tune of only 70 per cent. by the Community, but the figures that I gave the House after the 30 May settlement still apply. There has been no question of reducing our budget refund by 30 per cent.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while the British Government have let the British textile industry bleed almost to death the Dutch Government in August and the French Government yesterday announced substantial packages of aid to their textile industries? Was any objection to these schemes taken in the Council of Ministers? If not, do the British Government intend to ensure that they secure similar schemes of assistance?
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this matter did not come up in the Council of Ministers, and that detailed questions on the textile industry should go to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.
As our net contribution to the EEC so far this financial year has been about £3 million a day, can my right hon. Friend explain a little more why he and his colleagues agreed to our receiving only 80 per cent. of what we were promised a short time ago?
I have already tried to explain, I thought clearly, in a written answer to my hon. Friend. The point is that we agreed that not less than 80 per cent. should be paid by the end of the financial year. The rest will be paid after that. There is no question of our agreeing to 80 per cent; it is simply that not less than 80 per cent. will be paid by the end of the financial year.
Would the right hon. Gentleman care to tell the House a little more about the initiatives that the Government pursued at the meetings in regard to looking after the interests of the British steel industry, both the public and private sector? How would the right hon. Gentleman describe the response to those initiatives?
There has been general unity of view between the British Government, the steel Commission and the steel unions. We have agreed that action under article 58 is desirable. The Germans have found this difficult, and there is to be another meeting of the Council tomorrow.
Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that a number of us on the Conservative Benches were opposed to entering the European Community, and that therefore it is right that today we should draw attention to such matters as the French cheating over the milk co-responsibility levy?
I do not know whether that is right. My hon. Friend is at liberty to ask what questions he likes, but, without further elaboration, which I do not wish to press my hon. Friend to give, I am not certain what he is asking about.
The Lord Privy Seal does not seem to have taken account of the point that is being made, that both the timing of the repayments and the amount of the budget refunds are of great importance. Presumably, on the timing, if we do not receive substantial repayments in this financial year that will make the cuts all the more severe than those so far announced.
How can the right hon. Gentleman give such a categorical commitment about the 80 per cent. repayment before the end of the financial year, when each project must be approved by the Commission and be subject to the possibility of challenge on the need, against a weighted majority vote in the Council of Ministers?It is because that is an agreement that was reached by the Council—a unanimous agreement—and I have no reason to believe that it will be broken. There is plenty of time for ample projects to be agreed and the moneys paid over before the end of the financial year. The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of how the Community works, will know that a negative qualified majority is not very difficult to achieve.
Community Policy
36.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet other European Economic Community Ministers to discuss future planning of the Community.
37.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when he expects to meet his European Economic Community counterparts to discuss the future development of the Community.
38.
asked the Lord Privy Seal when he plans to meet his European Economic Community counterparts to discuss the enlargement of the Community.
The next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council will be on 24 and 25 November, which my right hon. and noble Friend will attend. I hope to meet Community colleagues on that occasion. I expect also to attend the meeting on 16 December. The agendas for these meetings have not yet been agreed.
When the Minister goes to the meetings, can he cast off his blinkered attitude towards the Community and accept that there are some faults? Will he accept that many thousands of jobs are being lost in many manufacturing industries, at least in part because of cheap imports, paticularly in the textile industry? What sort of safeguards will the textile industry have against the accession of Portugal, which is currently the second largest low-cost importer into this country? Jobs are at stake. There are faults in the Community, but the right hon. Gentleman appears to go on completely oblivious of everything.
That is quite untrue. Of course there are faults in the Community. No serious person has ever denied that. The hon. Gentleman will know, or should know, that in the agreement bringing Greece into the Community there is a general safeguards clause. As I have told the House before, we shall ensure that a similar safeguards clause applies to Portugal.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the intention of the Government to press for a substantial increase in the regional and social funds at these meetings?
That is in general our ambition. Obviously, in any restructuring we must take account of the fact that the proportion of the budget fund that goes to agriculture is too much, particularly on the disposal of agricultural surpluses. My hon. Friend will be aware that there is a particular problem this year because of the prospect of the Community running out of own resources. There is, therefore, a limit to how much we can press in the direction he wishes.
Is it not the case that Her Majesty's Goverment have suggested that the regional fund and the social fund should be lower and that they would agree with price rises in the common agricultural fund? Does that not make nonsense of all the things that the right hon. Gentleman has said?
The hon. Lady is misinformed. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury pressed for an increase in the social and regional funds but when that was not possible, he rightly did not wish to hold up the adoption by the Council of the budget.