HC Deb 15 February 1951 vol 484 cc610-3
21 Mr. Julian Amery

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why His Majesty's Government's representatives at the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Conference at Torquay were instructed to support Article 29, sub-paragraph one, of the agreement which states that the contracting parties undertake to observe to the fullest extent of their executive authority certain provisions of the Havana Charter pending its acceptance, seeing that this course nullifies the pledge already given that Parliament will have a full opportunity of debating the Havana Charter before commitments are accepted by His Majesty's Government in relation thereto;

(2) whether he will arrange for the proposals contained in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, as set out in Command Paper No. 8048, to be debated by Parliament before being put into operation by His Majesty's Government;

(3) whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to ratify the Havana Charter.

32 and 33. Mr. Russell

asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) when the provisional consolidated text of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will be submitted to Parliament for approval;

(2) if he will put forward a proposal that membership of the Executive Committee of the Interim Commission of the International Trade Organisation should be chosen from countries which are contracting parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. H. Wilson

I apologise for the length of the answer. As regards Question No. 21, there was no discussion of Article XXIX of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade at the recent session of the contracting parties to the Agreement at Torquay, and no instructions on this matter were, therefore, required by or given to the United Kingdom Delegation. But the fact that Article XXIX of the Agreement requires Governments' parties thereto to observe the general principles embodied in the I.T.O. Charter was clearly stated during the debate on the Geneva Tariff Agreement on 29th January, 1948, when approval was given to the provisional application of the Agreement by the United Kingdom. I cannot, therefore, accept the suggestion that His Majesty's Government have not kept their pledges to Parliament.

As regards Questions Nos. 22, 23 and 32, I would refer the hon. Members to the reply which I gave on 8th February to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson).

As regards Question No. 33, since there is no prospect in view of the establishment of the proposed international trade organisation, it is unlikely that there will be any important tasks for the Interim Commission to perform, and I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by seeking to alter the membership of its Executive Committee. Fifteen of the 20 countries represented on this Committee are, in fact, parties to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. Amery

While welcoming the assurance given by the President the other day that the House would be consulted before the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was ratified by the Government, may I ask if he can also assure the House that, pending ratification, he will not commit this country to any long-term provisional arrangements, which might be of indefinite duration, without first consulting the House?

Mr. Wilson

There will be no further commitment in this respect without further consultation with the House. As I think the hon. Gentleman knows, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is at present subject to provisional application from which we could withdraw on giving 60 days' notice.

Mr. Russell

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two questions? First, in view of the fact that only one country has ratified the Havana Charter, why is it that an attempt is being made to bring in about two-thirds of the Havana Charter by the back door through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade? Second, if the Interim Commission of the proposed international trade organisation is not needed, why is it in existence at all; why not abolish it?

Mr. Wilson

With regard to the first question, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was adopted as an instrument on its own merits by the House in January, 1948. If there were to be any question of ratifying it, or adhering to it on any other than a provisional basis, we should, of course, first debate it, and all the clauses that are in it, in the House. With regard to the second supplementary question, it was only a few days ago that I announced on behalf of His Majesty's Government that there would now be no question of our recommending the I.T.O. Charter to Parliament. It was only a few days before that that the United States Administration decided they were not pursuing it. Therefore, we have still to consider the position of the Interim Commission.

Mr. Boothby

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time has come to put a stop to all this nonsense? It costs a lot of money and has done no good to anybody.

Mr. Wilson

I do not think I can accept what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

From what the right hon. Gentleman has said, is the House entitled to draw the conclusion that, without further reference to Parliament, nothing will be done at Torquay which could not be repudiated in 60 days' time.

Mr. Wilson

So far as the application of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is concerned, that is the position. Indeed, there is now nothing left to be done at Torquay on the General Agreement because those discussions concluded before Christmas. Tariff negotiations are a separate matter. Anything affecting the United Kingdom tariff would obviously require the assent of the House.

Lord Dunglass

Under what procedure of Parliament will these tariff arrange- ments be put before the House? Will the right hon. Gentleman recommend to the Lord President of the Council that we must have a full debate on these matters, which have a grave effect on the horticultural industry in particular?

Mr. Wilson

I am sure that my right hon. Friend will bear in mind the suggestion made by the noble Lord.

30. Mr. Braine

asked the President of the Board of Trade what concessions in respect of existing preferences have been made by representatives of the United Kingdom at the Torquay Conference on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

Mr. H. Wilson

I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) on 30th January.

Mr. Braine

That is not good enough. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that fears were expressed in the Colonies, notably by the federation of primary producers of British Gambia and British Guiana as long ago as October of last year, that concessions would be made at Torquay, and does he not consider that the Government have an obligation to the Colonies to make their position quite clear in the matter?

Mr. Wilson

It is an established practice in foreign negotiations that while negotiations are taking place there should be no disclosure of what offers are being made. That procedure was followed faithfully in the Anglo-American tariff negotiations before the war, and I see no reason to change it now.