HL Deb 31 January 1980 vol 404 cc1024-41

4.14 p.m.

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Multilateral Trade Negotiations) Order 1980, which was laid before the House on 15th January, be approved.

My Lords, this is a long and complex order. I did consider whether I should simply speak for a very few moments because of the extremely technical nature of it, but I came to the conclusion, reluctantly I must say, that it was my duty to explain this matter fairly fully, and I fear, therefore, that I shall have to detain your Lordships for rather longer than usual on a routine matter of this nature.

This order, made under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972, constitutes an important step in the implementation of the agreements reached in the Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. The Tokyo Round is the latest in a series of post-war negotiations, under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, commonly known as the GATT, aimed at reducing barriers to international commerce. Unlike previous rounds, however, the Tokyo Round negotiators placed major emphasis on reaching agreements about non-tariff barriers to trade, as well as securing a further reduction in tariff levels. The resulting package of agreements, taken together, constitute the first general revision of the principles governing the conduct of international trade since the GATT came into force 30 years ago.

An outcome along these lines seemed by no means assured when the negotiations began. They started as long ago as 1973, with a declaration by Ministers from participating countries meeting at Tokyo. But it was not until Congress had passed the necessary enabling powers for the United States Government to negotiate, and until a new President had been inaugurated in January 1977, that it was possible to make decisive progress. Most aspects of the negotiations were brought to a conclusion when the negotiators from the main developed participants signed an understanding last April. Subsequently, in July, the detailed results of the tariff negotiations were set out in a tariff protocol.

This Government have published a White Paper (Cmnd. 7724) on the outcome of the negotiations, and the matter is being considered in detail by our Select Committee on the European Communities. I am conscious, however, that the outcome has not until now been debated on the Floor of your Lordships' House. I would like, therefore, to take this opportunity of saying something about the issues involved in general terms, before turning to specific consideration of the agreements which are the subject of the order.

The negotiations did not take place at an easy time for pursuing the Tokyo Round's objectives of trade liberalisation. The start of the negotiations was followed almost immediately by the oil crisis of 1973, and by the unsettled economic conditions that have been with us in recent years. In such circumstances it was to be expected that there would be pressure from those who see protectionist measures as a way in which to increase employment. This approach has, however, been rejected by the leaders of the main Western countries at successive summit meetings. Within the United Kingdom, the leaders of all the main parties have continued to support the preservation of the open system of international trade; and both the present Government and their predecessors have endorsed the outcome of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations.

The importance for the United Kingdom of a successful outcome lies partly in the consequences which might have flowed from a failure. An inability by the developed countries to agree would not, of course, have led immediately to any sharp increase in barriers against imports. But it would inevitably have shaken confidence in the commitment of the developed countries to maintain open arrangements for international trade. An increased tendency for each country to pay greater heed to the protectionist pressures within its borders would have been the natural consequence.

We in the United Kingdom export some 30 per cent. of our gross domestic product, compared with only 20 per cent. 15 years ago. As a country heavily dependent upon international trade, we would have been badly placed to cope with a general increase in protectionist measures which could have occurred. Quite apart from the international implications, the general use of import restrictions is not a path we would wish to tread on domestic grounds. We do not believe that the removal of the stimulus of overseas competition offers a way to improve our industrial performance. The fact that the consumer has a choice, and is prepared to use it if British goods do not provide what he wants, when he wants, at a price he is prepared to pay, is the best spur that British industry has to improve its competitiveness and productivity.

The agreements which have been negotiated in the Tokyo Round should provide the benefits which protectionist developments would deny us. This positive outcome will help to maintain business confidence in the continued expansion of world trade in the medium term. It should provide greater opportunities for competitive United Kingdom firms to improve their sales, through increasing their exports, while resisting competition from imports. At the same time, the general up-dating of GATT principles will provide a more secure framework for resolving difficult issues about the conduct of international trade which will arise in the 1980s, as in the past.

The negotiations were concluded last summer, and the focus then turned to the implementation of the results of the negotiations. The crucial United States implementing legislation was quickly passed into law, in July last year. On 20th November, the EEC Foreign Affairs Council accepted a proposal by the Commission—which had been examined by the Westminster Scrutiny Committees in the usual way—that it should agree to conclude the agreements on behalf of the Community. The Government supported this decision; indeed we would have preferred it to have been taken earlier. Following the Council's decision, the Community was able to join with the other main industrialised participants in signing the negotiated agreements.

Signature took place in Geneva on 17th December—that is, shortly before the bulk of the agreements came into force on 1st January 1980. Countries which—like ourselves—had not completed their Parliamentary procedures, signed the agreements subject to their subsequent approval through their various constitutional processes. The bulk of the implementing action for Member States of the Community is being undertaken through Community legislation; for example, new regulations on counter-vailing and antidumping, new customs valuation regulations, the new Community tariff for 1980, and so on. The drafts of all these, and the Government explanations of them, are being brought before the Scrutiny Committees in the usual way; and the necessary action has been completed on the agreements which came into force at the beginning of this year.

Within the United Kingdom, an order is necessary, so that the MTN agreements shall have full effect in United Kingdom law. Last year there was only a short time in which to try to do this, between the approval of the negotiated agreements by the Foreign Affairs Council and the end of the year. A draft order similar to the present one was approved on 10th December by the other place, but the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was unable to complete its consideration of the order in time for it to be approved by your Lordships in 1979. So the Government withdrew the draft 1979 order, and have instead brought forward the present one. I am glad to say that the 1980 draft order was cleared by the Joint Committee on 23rd January. If your Lordships approve the present draft order, no practical difficulties should result from the short delay.

I turn now to the order itself. Three agreements in the package are not proposed for specification in the order. The supplementary tariff protocol and the two agreements relating specifically to the agricultural sector do not need to be specified, either because they have been signed by the Community alone and not by the United Kingdom, or because they are not of such a nature that they could have direct effect. All the other agreements negotiated in the Tokyo Round have been specified for the reasons explained in the Explanatory Memorandum. In general, these reasons are that the agreements have been signed by both the Community and the United Kingdom, and they contain provisions which we judge might be held to have direct effect. The nine agreements concerned are all covered in one order as they are closely related and all have been negotiated as one package.

The various agreements specified have been described in detail in the Government's White Paper on the Tokyo Round which was published in October, and their texts have been published as Command papers. Today I shall only touch briefly on each agreement and shall concentrate on their effects in the United Kingdom.

The tariff negotiations, while not necessarily the most important part of the package, were among the most difficult to conclude. No firm likes to see the tariffs protecting its home market being reduced. Each party to the negotiations naturally tailored its cuts to the circumstances of its own industry, so the cuts are balanced overall but not necessarily product by product. Nevertheless, I believe that the Community's tariff cuts are being implemented in an acceptable way for United Kingdom industry.

The EEC's Common External Tariff on manufactured goods is being reduced in annual stages between 1980 and 1987 from an average level of 9.8 per cent. to 7.5 per cent.; that is an average reduction of about 0.3 percentage points a year. Additional assurances have been provided to the textile and paper sectors, which were particularly concerned about the prospects of increased competition from imports, and the Community has reserved its right to stop the tariff-cutting process after five years if the economic circumstances of the time require this. The reciprocal tariff cuts of other participants in the negotiations will yield worthwhile export opportunities for a range of industries—in particular, for our producers of chemicals, ceramics, wool textiles, and various types of engineering products.

I now turn to the various non-tariff agreements covered by the order. The Customs Valuation Agreement and its Protocol lay down detailed rules for the valuation of imports for duty purposes. Valuation is normally to be based on the price paid or payable for goods. Certain alternative methods are specified—in order of precedence—for use in circumstances where this criterion cannot be applied. The agreement will require some changes in our Customs valuation methods which will result in small decreases in duty paid in some cases, though in most cases the duty paid will remain the same as at present. Our exporters will gain a greater predictability and fairness in the valuation applied to their products—and hence in the duty paid—in some foreign markets.

The Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties elaborates the existing GATT rules on the imposition of countervailing duties against subsidised imports. As a result of the agreement, the Community has made some changes in its regulations on the imposition of such duties designed to make them more precise; these changes will not impede the Community's ability to take action in defence of its industry. Signatories are also committed to certain general principles about seeking to avoid subsidies causing adverse effects for the trade of other countries. Under the agreement we have gained the acceptance of all participants—including for the first time the United States—of the GATT material injury criterion, under which countervailing duties can only be imposed if the subsidised imports can be shown to be causing material injury to a domestic industry as a result of the subsidy.

The existing GATT Anti-Dumping Code which dates from 1968, has been updated to bring its provisions into line with those of the Subsidies and Countervailing Duties Agreement. The Community will continue to be able to take the necessary action to protect British industry from dumped goods.

The Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures is designed to ensure that the ways in which import licensing schemes are administered do not cause unnecessary difficulties for traders. It will require no change in United Kingdom practice. The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade is concerned to alleviate the difficulties which exporters can face from product standards and certification systems in force in the importing country. Under it, an authority establishing a new or revised standard is encouraged to adopt an international standard where this is appropriate, and to follow certain notification procedures before laying down a national standard when no suitable international one exists. The agreement also provides for improved information for exporters on existing standards, and improved access to certification schemes. The British Standards Institute, and other bodies concerned with standards in the United Kingdom, are encouraged to follow these practices, while our exporters should benefit from similar practices in other countries participating in the agreement.

An agreement has also been reached on the liberalisation of government purchasing, other than the defence purchasing of warlike stores. After the agreement comes into force in 1981 the procedures under which tenders are invited must be made public, and most contracts over £100,000 must be advertised in advance in specified journals. These and other provisions are designed to ensure that the purchasing authorities within the agreement's scope do not discriminate in their award of contracts. Many of the procedures to be established by this agreement are similar to those contained in the EEC Supplies Directive 77/62 which came into effect in July 1978. As a result, it is expected that the existing departmental arrangements under the supplies directive will be able to continue on much the same basis as before.

Finally, the order that is before your Lordships covers the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft. The agreement provides for duty free trade in aircraft, aero engines and some aerospace equipment between signatory countries. It also lays down certain general principles relating to such matters as government support for projects, and the purchasing of aircraft by airlines. The elimination of tariffs has not affected the Community's tariff on large aircraft, which was already suspended at zero; while the general principles are designed to help establish a modus vivendi with the United States who are of major importance both as producers and purchasers of civil aircraft.

I hope your Lordships will be able to see from this explanation, and from the detailed documents which have been provided for this debate, that none of the obligations which the United Kingdom will be assuming under the Tokyo Round Agreements are unduly onerous. The main agreements each provide for a Committee of Signatories to oversee the operation of the agreement concerned, and ensure that its provisions are complied with. I believe that we and the Community have sufficient influence to use this machinery effectively, so as to make sure that the agreements are implemented in a balanced way between ourselves and other participants.

Before concluding, I should like to say a brief word about the safeguards issue which is still outstanding in the negotiations. While the Government were committed to a successful outcome to the negotiations for a Safeguards Agreement, it did not prove possible to reach agreement within the timescale of the rest of the negotiations. Discussions on a Safeguards Code are, however, to continue within the GATT. The working party which will undertake these discussions is required to report back by the end of June 1980. While we regret the delay, we welcome the general willingness among participating countries to seek an agreed resolution of the difficult issues involved.

Apart from the outstanding issue on safeguards, the main aspects of the Tokyo Round Negotiations have been brought to a successful conclusion, and a conclusion broader in scope than at one time seemed likely. I have explained to your Lordships the Government's reasons for supporting the Tokyo Round package, to help maintain the open trading system and provide improved opportunities for competitive United Kingdom firms. In keeping with the bipartisan support the Tokyo Round has enjoyed, the Government have joined with other Member States in supporting the conclusion of the agreements by the Community, and the adoption of implementing instruments at Community level. The approval of the draft order before us is a further important step in the implementation of the agreements in the United Kingdom; and on this basis I commend the order to your Lordships.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)

4.34 p.m.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I am sure the House will wish to support the Minister in his Motion, that we should approve this order. The order represents a package of extremely useful liberalising moves in the direction of freer and more open trade and, as a major exporting country, we clearly have a marked interest in any movement in that direction. The order itself of course, as the noble Lord has explained to us, declares the various agreements which he has described so clearly and competently to be Community treaties. We are well familiar with the procedures and the justifications for what we are doing today in regard to these agreements. We are in fact implementing our own European Communities Act 1972, are we not, in regard to Section 2, wlich provides for the implementation of just such treaties as those we have been discussing.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out in a fairly general way the principles lying behind the negotiations which have been going on for a long time. It is a fact that there is movement towards liberalising of trade. There is always the concern of national Governments, outside and inside the Community, to retain a margin of protective provision for themselves in exigencies relating to ailing or vital industries, and we have quite a few of our own.

This brings me to one of the most important of these agreements; that relating to subsidies and countervailing duties, on which the Minister has spent some time, and I do not apologise for repeating one or two of the points that he made. This agreement of course does not impose a new practice on us as a country or, so far as I know, on other Member States of the Community. We have been doing this for some time. But it does define more precisely the practices which are enjoined upon us—for example, through the illustrative list of export subsidies.

I think I am right—and glad to be right on this point—that the United Kingdom export assistance schemes are not affected. The ECGD and other means we have of properly and legitimately promoting exports survive. No doubt when the Minister replies to the discussion he will confirm that. I cannot find the reference in this excellent explanatory memorandum, but I am pretty sure it is there and that it makes that point. It might well be repeated on the record for the business community to be doubly reassured on that point. One is glad to see the United States coming in on these hopeful and encouraging moves, particularly this one.

The Minister also referred to the agreement on technical barriers to trade arising from the adoption of standard codes and systems of certification. We are all very well aware that these disguised prohibitions have become a form of art in some quarters in the Community and elsewhere. I think they are very much less resorted to in this country than in some other countries.

Lord BRUCE of DON INGTON

Hear, hear!

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

I was hoping not to make too strong a point of that or to arouse too much applause about it, but, as a former rapporteur of the Budgetary Committee in Strasbourg, my noble friend of course knows his way in and out of these matters very well. This places us in a very good position. We have less need to watch this matter and introduce new provisions than perhaps some of our competitors. To that extent we shall be the gainers by the increased virtue of our competitors compared with the less necessary adventition of virtue in our case.

This agreement places no great constraint on the initiative of Member States—certainly not on us—for instance, in protecting standards of health, environmental standards and standards of safety. It encourages (I do not think it does more than that) the adoption of international standards and notification, but substantially leaves it to the national Governments, so long as they reach the required minimum, to take the initiative.

How far this particular agreement will help British exporters I have already hinted, and I think I am right, but I would ask a specific question. There have been complaints by more than one industry in this country who have great interest in exports that disguised prohibitions and restrictions in some countries have defeated their own legitimate export efforts. For example, the car industry has encountered certain difficulties of this kind in the Far East, in Japan. I do not make too acute a point of this, but how far does the Minister think that this agreement as it stands—it is in many ways rather tentative—will help, for instance, the car industry to penetrate certain export markets which have to some extent been protected by the imposition of somewhat arbitrary standards, for example, as regards the testing of cars? He may not be able to answer a specific point like that immediately, and I shall have no complaint if he cannot; I have been in that position so often on the other side of the House. The main thing, is to get the information in one way or another.

Then the Minister mentioned the important agreement on anti-dumping. I do not want to detain the House, but I feel inclined to quote what the Explanatory Memorandum says about the anti-dumping agreement: The Department of Trade will continue to maintain its own anti-dumping unit to give advice and assistance to firms preparing complaints to put before the Commission. I quote that in support of the plea that whatever else the present Government feel should be cut in their crusade to reduce public expenditure, this particular unit, which has been and will certainly be of great assistance to our firms and which will continue to have complaints, should be maintained in strength. We are all familiar with firms which believe, though they may not he quite sure, that there is a dumping practice going on, and it is helpful to them to be able to go to the fountainhead of knowledge and experience which is found most expertly in the Department of Trade. The quotation continues: The negotiation of the new Agreement does not of itself affect the ability of Member States to take appropriate measures in regard to products covered by the ECSC Treaty and its subordinate legislation to protect national interests. That is specific enough and it suits everybody. One hopes of course that, when it comes to the protection of national interests, everybody will exercise a certain restraint—I am all for the Minister's view that we should not be tempted to forge ahead to a protective system; that would be counter-productive to a country like ours—and that everybody concerned, certainly in the Community, will keep pace in this effort to protect national interests, necessary and reasonable as that is from time to time. For instance, there are aspects of agriculture, the basic industry, which need to be protected from time to time. There are ways of doing that and certainly there is an extent to which agriculture should be protected, especially within an economic community such as that to which we belong. We hope that the long-standing dispute about the export of lamb from this country to France will be related to the well-meant and well-phrased protective phrases about national interests.

The next agreement the Minister mentioned was that on trade in civil aircraft, and this will certainly help our aerospace industry's exports, especially to the United States—perhaps the Minister would care to confirm that. At a time when there is anxiety about trade in avionics generally, it would be encouraging to know that our aerospace products may be helped by this agreement, especially in the very important market across the Atlantic.

The Minister mentioned the import licensing procedures agreement, and here again I think we stand to gain as our own practice is, I believe, above suspicion. We do not use licensing procedures—the phrasing of application forms—so as to stultify or delay proper business, and the British practice may serve as something of an example to others. In any case, a we are already doing this very substantially, we should gain, because others, through this agreement, will be induced to reach the same standard of practice.

I have nothing to add to what the Minister said about the tariff protocol, except to say that it is a very acceptable agreement to reduce industrial tariffs by nearly one-third in eight annual instalments between now and 1987. That will certainly help our exports, although it may present problems for some of our firms which depend entirely or mainly on the home market, because it clearly it works both ways and competition from outside may give them times of anxiety. However, the phasing of this over eight years should, we hope, give such firms time to readjust and fit themselves for these new challenges.

The Minister referred to the agreement on technical barriers to trade, and we have dealt with that. The only other matter I would mention is the agreement on Government procurement. This is a truly liberalising measure and is greatly to be welcomed. It provides for real publicity to be given to contracts when they are announced, and this is certainly a move forward. The changes in Customs valuation were described, and those will involve us in certain changes. I do not know whether administratively it will cost us much in manpower and money to effect these adjustments. They are fractional in statistical terms; some valuations will go down but most will stay as they are, if I heard the Minister rightly. Whether this involves us in new administrative outlay, I do not know.

Generally speaking, I am sure the House will wish to approve this order as one which, after some years of negotiation, has got the best out of GATT and almost the best out of the Community, and has secured very nearly the best possible result for the United Kingdom.

4.50 p.m.

Lord BANKS

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his very thorough explanation of the purpose of the order, As he made clear, it implements, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, nine of the agreements concluded in the Tokyo Round of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Some 99 nations took part in those negotiations, and we on these Benches welcome the fact that at last we have reached this final stage. As the noble Lord said, the negotiations began six years ago. They have passed through various vicissitudes and have been subject to much delay, but it is encouraging to have an agreement liberalising trade concluded at a time when there is so much talk of a relapse into protectionism in the face of a worldwide recession.

The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, spoke about the United Kingdom having a marked interest in any move towards the liberalisation of trade, and I think that he is right. As we have heard, the main developed countries are to reduce their tariffs by rather less than a third. Of course they have certain reservations in what are called the sensitive areas—areas such as textiles and steel. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said. it is a considerable achievement to have reached that level of reduction. For example, the proportion of Common Market exports facing a tariff higher than 20 per cent. in the United States has been reduced from 4.5 per cent. to less than 1 per cent. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, pointed out that the agricultural arrangements are not covered by this particular order, but they are part of the general package of agreements, nine of which are covered by the order. Agriculture proved a sticking point, as always. The White Paper tells us that the tariff concessions on agricultural production were not as large as the Government would have wished and that the outcome for Australia and New Zealand has fallen well short of the hopes of those countries. We must regret that, but, even so, the White Paper says that British consumers will benefit from the agricultural arrangements.

Most of the agreements deal with non-tariff barriers to trade, and these barriers are to be reduced and regulated. The rules dealing with such matters as subsidies, countervailing duties and the general conduct of trade have been considerably tightened, and GATT has been updated to provide a framework for the 1980s. One must hope that it will be a framework which will limit and contain the trend towards protectionism—a trend which, if it were allowed to grow, would destroy more jobs than it would save.

The developing countries have been critical of certain aspects of the Tokyo Round. Concessions have been made to their point of view. The noble Lords, Lord Goronwy-Roberts and Lord Trefgame, have spoken about the question of safeguards, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, made it clear that negotiations over safeguards are continuing, but final agreement on that is not yet reached. The industrialised countries have wanted selective safeguards and this has been what most of the argument has been about, but as they have been able to discriminate against all the exporters of a particular product, they want to have the power to discriminate against a particular exporter of a particular product, and that is being resisted by the developing countries. I wonder whether the Community are still taking the line that they want selective safeguards. Is that still the line which is being supported by the Community and by the Government?

Further, are these continuing negotiations also covering the question of the withdrawal of privileges from countries as they become industrialised, compelling those countries, when a certain state of development is reached, to give the reciprocity that, quite rightly, they are not required to give in their present state of underdevelopment? Is that still an issue that is under discussion?

In conclusion, I should like to make three points. First, I should like to remind the House that this is an area in which the EEC acts as one unit, and we on these Benches look forward to seeing that practice extended into other spheres in the future. Secondly, I should again like to welcome the substantial reduction in tariffs and to express the hope that the areas where the EEC is applying restriction—the crisis areas—will remain the exceptions. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, make it very apparent that the Government will set their face against the introduction of any general system of import controls. Finally, we on these Benches would hope that the recently concluded negotiations will be followed, by the end of the 1980s at the latest, by the commencement of another similar round.

4.56 p.m.

Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH

My Lords, may I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord upon the very lucid statement he has given us, and I am sure he will appreciate that with an item so complicated we shall require to spend a great deal of time in studying it line by line. I should like to ask a very general question. I understand that some 99 countries were concerned in these negotiations. Can the noble Lord tell us whether any significant exporter, or group of exporting countries, is not party to the agreement and will therefore not be hound by it, but will be free to pursue its own methods? Further, can he tell us in general terms whether the agreement, while it provides for the reduction of tariffs, gives any leeway on what is of great concern to many of the industrial nations; namely, the complete lack of reciprocity, where the developing countries have a very free entry into the industrial nations and have complete embargoes on many items going into their countries? Is there any provision against the complete embargo, as opposed to the reduction of tariffs?

The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIR-MAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness White)

My Lords, I have no wish to enter in any substantive way into the debate, but I wish to present to your Lordships the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who had hoped to be able to take part. I do so because he is the chairman of the Sub-Committee of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities which deals with treaties and trade. The noble Lord's Sub-Committee has done much work in the area covered by the order that is before us, and I am sure we all regret that he is indisposed and so has not been able to take part. I should also like to take this opportunity to pay a public tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who, with great public spirit, has for some time now taken the place of the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, who, as we know, has been gravely ill, and has given the most dedicated work to this area of European activity.

4.58 p.m.

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, I am obliged to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken this afternoon. I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been raised. I fear that I am not in a position to deal with all of them, but those that escape my attention now will be dealt with most promptly as soon as I have an opportunity to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, put a number of points to me, one of which related to civil aircraft. The agreement will certainly open up the large United States aerospace market to duty-free entry for United Kingdom producers of aircraft, aero-engines and aerospace equipment. The Community is to give commitments in return which are not out of line with normal United Kingdom practice, and the agreement contains useful procedures for assisting in the settlement of disputes over matters to do with aircraft trade. The view of the aerospace industry is that the advantages of the agreement outweigh the concessions, and that is a judgment with which we most definitely agree.

The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, also referred to the question of technical standards relating to, for example, vehicles going into Japan. It is true that there have been some difficulties in this direction in the past. The new agreement will not, I fear, have a revolutionary effect overnight, but it should considerably limit the elaboration of new technical barriers deliberately designed to obstruct trade, and will be of very considerable value to the Community, who will be vigilant to ensure that it does just that. It will particularly provide a forum for disputes about unnecessarily restrictive existing standards, and over a period should help to improve matters there.

I was asked, too, I think, about ECGD cover, and other export-promoting schemes that we operate. I can confirm that the United Kingdom's schemes, including the ECGD, will not need to be altered on account of the Subsidies and Countervailing Duties Agreement. This is on record in paragraph 36 of the White Paper which we published on the outcome of the negotiations.

I was also asked about French lamb. I am not sure whether I was asked by the noble Lord, but it is a subject which is bound to come up on an occasion like this. I am afraid the answer is that these agreements do not affect the problem, and certainly do not offer any solution to it. GATT generally, and these particular agreements under GATT, apply to trade with third countries—that is to say, those outside the Community. Trade within the Community is of course regulated by the Treaty of Rome. Our quarrel with France is that they are in breach of their obligations under the Treaty of Rome, not under the GATT agreements.

I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, who asked me about reciprocity. She was of course referring particularly to the question of textiles. She and I have discussed textiles across the Floor of your Lordships' House on a number of occasions, and I do not really think there is very much I can add to what I have said previously. But I shall certainly look carefully at what the noble Baroness has said, and will write to her if there is anything further I can add. One noble Lord—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Banks—referred to Australia, and to the disappointment felt there. Australia is the only major developed country which has not so far signed any of the agreements. However, it is expected that Australia will sign some of them shortly. Developing countries, by and large, have not yet signed many of the agreements, but we hope that they will be able to do so before too long.

My Lords, I think I have covered all the important points that were put to me. I will, as I promised, study the record of what has been said and will write to any noble Lord whose point has not been properly dealt with; but, meanwhile, I ask your Lordships to agree to this Motion.

Lord GORON WY-ROBERTS

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he of course realises, does he not, that I was in no way suggesting that the movement of Welsh lamb to France is covered by this package order? But it is surely right to remind our friends and allies across the Channel that when a package like this—in this case, in relation to third countries—rests so much on implementation generally by the Community, so that practice should be borne in mind on their own hearth and with their own nearest and dearest.

Lord TREFGARNE

I absolutely agree, my Lords. I cannot hide from your Lordships that the problems over French lamb are very serious, and we hope they will be soon resolved; but they do not precisely fall under the terms of this order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.