European Economic Community (Hansard, 24 January 1972)

§ 1. Mr. Marten
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the signing of the Treaty of Accession to the Treaty of Rome.

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon)
My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I signed the Treaty of Accession to the European Communities on 22nd January.

§ Mr. Marten
May I first express my profound disapproval of the action of the German-born lady who confused Covent Garden Market with the Common Market? Secondly, may I equally register the strongest possible protest—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. What is the supplementary question? It is taking a very long time.

§ Mr. Marten
I am asking my right hon. and learned Friend whether he will register the strongest possible protest at the action of the Brussels authorities who, one and a half hours before the ink-throwing incident, arrested a group of British people who were peacefully and properly protesting against the folly of Britain entering the Common Market. Will he protest to the Belgian authorities about this?

§ Mr. Rippon
I am sure the House will appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the unfortunate incident at the beginning of the proceedings. I am sure 940 it is well understood that no person interested in the Common Market as such was involved in that incident.
As to the second part of the supplementary question, I do not think it is for me to answer. The Belgian authorities were, of course, dealing with the matter according to domestic law.

§ Mr. Shore
Why is it that virtually every newspaper in the country appears to have had a copy of the Treaty of Accession but that there are still no copies available to hon. Members in this House? When will the right hon. and learned Gentleman put this right?

§ Mr. Rippon
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, throughout these negotiations there have been copies of documents which have appeared at Brussels while technically in the draft stage or even confidential. But certainly the treaty documents, which we shall publish in two parts, will be brought before the House as soon as possible. It is largely a matter of printing. Part 1 of the treaty documents—the main provisions—will be published tomorrow.

§ Mr. Jay
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that according to what purports to be the text of part of the accession treaty, published in The Times today, it is clear that any continuation of the special arrangements for New Zealand butter imports into this country would, after 1977, be subject to the unanimous agreement of the E.E.C. Council, thus giving a veto to every other member? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Marshall, the deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, has stated that this represents an alteration of the text to which he agreed? Is this another case where the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misled this House?

§ Mr. Rippon
The provisions in the treaty translate into the necessary legal form the substance of the agreement which we reached on 23rd June. As I explained to the House on 24th June, the important part of the New Zealand protocol is that the principle of continuity is built into the agreement, but everybody understood that questions of quotas and prices are naturally reviewed from time to time. I also made it clear to the House that, as for the future.
941 when the time came to consider the continuity of the arrangements There will have to be a general agreement between all the parties …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1971; Vol. 819, c. 1619.] I do not think there has been any doubt about that. The way things have gone will be to the advantage of New Zealand because this is an issue which any British Government would regard as vital.
There are three issues on which we have, as it were, put down markers in the negotiations—New Zealand, sugar and fish, on which we have said that transitional arrangements are not enough. I can only repeat the assurances we have given throughout to the New Zealand Government that we shall protect the interests of the New Zealand people.

§ 2. Dr. Gilbert
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those matters bearing on the United Kingdom's accession to the Treaty of Rome for which Her Majesty's Government still consider their position to be reserved.

§ Mr. Rippon
The negotiations with the European Communities have now been completed and the agreements reached recorded in the instruments relating to the United Kingdom's accession to the European Communities.

§ Dr. Gilbert
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the United Kingdom's position is reserved with respect to no matters whatever? For example, what about the common agricultural policy with reference to hops? If he is not saying that, are we to understand that the treaty can be amended if our requirements are to be safeguarded?

§ Mr. Rippon
It is rather difficult to give a short answer at Question Time to such questions as the important matter raised by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) a few moments ago. There are other matters—for example, hops—on which a draft regulation is being considered, on which we shall be consulted before anything happens. There are matters in relation to animal health, for instance, on which there are provisions for review. I think that the House would be wise to await publication of the documents, which will be brought before it as soon as possible. At that stage, we can debate all these 942 matters in whatever detail is necessary, at the proper time.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg
Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept the congratulations of most of us in the House upon the signature of the Treaty of Accession—[HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."]—of most sensible Members—but could he say whether he hopes to bring forward the necessary legislation in such a form that it will not waste the time of the House for weeks and months?

§ Mr. Rippon
I take note of what my hon. Friend says. It is not customary to comment on legislation before it is published.

§ Mr. Arthur Lewis
We know that hon. Members opposite always sign blank cheques. Why are these documents not available? Why is there a delay in printing? Why can the daily newspapers and everyone else, apparently, have them while we have from the Chancellor of the Duchy the lame excuse that printing is holding things up? Did he not know 12 months ago that these documents would have to be printed, or has he only at this last moment seen them himself?

§ Mr. Rippon
The hon. Gentleman will remember that only last Thursday we had a debate in which an explanation was given of the circumstances in which treaties are signed, of the interval which takes place between signature and ratification and of how the necessary documents are brought forward so that the House may consider them and the necessary legislation. It will be done all in due time and with plenty of opportunity for everyone to study all the details.

§ 7. Sir D. Walker-Smith
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library of the House a copy of the document generally known as the Luxembourg Agreement of January, 1966, or in the absence of such a copy summarise its content and effect for the information of the House.

§ Mr. Rippon
I have arranged for an informal translation of the text of the communiquê issued on 29th January, 1966, after a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Community, to be placed in the Library of the House.

§ Sir D. Walker-Smith
Does not the text make clear that there is, in fact, no agreement but, at best, only an agreement to disagree, or what the text calls a divergence of view? That being so, was not paragraph 29 of the White Paper inaccurate in its statement on a question where a Government considers that vital national interests are involved, it is established that the decision should be unanimous "? Surely nothing is established by the agreement to disagree.

§ Mr. Rippon
As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, it is sometimes called the "Luxembourg disagreement" as well as the Luxembourg Agreement. The communiquê, a copy of which was put in the Library, records the views of the six members of the European Economic Community on the manner of reaching decisions when very important issues are at stake. As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, when the Prime Minister saw President Pompidou this was one of the matters raised and established. But it is really a matter of practice. I dealt with this aspect at some length in the debate on the Consolidated Fund on 15th December.

§ Mr. Grimond
As there is a conflict of views about this agreement, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether, in Her Majesty's Government's view, it is part of the law or established custom of the Community; and second—either now or at some later more convenient stage—will he make clear the Government's view upon it? Are they in favour of the agreement or, if it is not part of the law and custom, do they want it to become so?

§ Mr. Rippon
If I may say so, I think that that is a fair way of putting it. It is part now of the established custom of the Community. As I have said often enough in the House, in practice the Community has never taken decisions against what a member of the Community regards as a vital national interest.

§ Mr. Shore
Having regard to the great importance which has in the past been attached to the Luxembourg Agreement, is the Chancellor of the Duchy saying that no reference is made to it in the Treaty of Accession, in its annexes or in the protocols? If that is so, is he saying that the doctrine of the veto, which he 944 has advanced to defend so many of the concessions he has made—the last resort position—has no basis at all in Community law or in the actual written text of the treaty which he signed?

§ Mr. Rippon
I made the position clear on 15th December. It is not part of the treaty. I quoted in extenso from what the present Leader of the Opposition had to say on these matters when a Labour Government were commending the British application to the House. One has to look in these days not only to the treaty but to the common law and practice which has grown up under the treaty. Until one accedes to the treaty, one cannot have the benefit of the practice.

§ 21. Mr. Arthur Lewis
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he now expects to sign the Treaty of Accession to the Rome Treaty; and whether he will seek to arrange for a delegation of Members of Parliament to be present to witness the signing.

§ Mr. Rippon
The Treaty of Accession to the European Communities was signed on 22nd January by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and myself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) attended the ceremony. An invitation for representatives of other hon. Members opposite to be present was declined.

§ Mr. Lewis
I read of the black ink used for signing this black document. May I congratulate my right hon. Friends upon declining the invitation? Why was it that all the invitations went to Privy Councillors, two of them not Members of this House, while no back bencher was invited? Is this the way the Government will work when they select the 39 Members to go to the so-called European Parliament? Will they choose back benchers as against Privy Councillors?

§ Mr. Rippon
The hon. Gentleman's interest in attending the European Parliament will be borne in mind.