EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY (Hansard, 24 January 1962)

§ 31. Mr. Stonehouse
asked the Lord Privy Seal if he will make a statement on his talks with the Canadian and United States Governments on Great Britain's application to join the Common Market.

§ Mr. Heath
I had two days of valuable talks in Ottawa on 3rd and 4th January. With permission, I will circulate the text of the communiqué issued afterwards in the OFFICIAL REPORT. In Washington I had a useful exchange of views with members of the United States Administration.

§ Mr. Stonehouse
Is it the case, as reported in The Times of 8th January, that the Minister told Mr. George Ball, the American Under-Secretary of State, that he was by no means certain that Britain will join the E.E.C., and did the Minister in his talks with Mr. Ball ask whether American tariffs would be reduced for United Kingdom exports to the 197 United States if Britain did not join E.E.C. or if that would be a condition?

§ Mr. Heath
The talks with the Canadian Government and members of the American administration were, of course, confidential. I did not have a discussion with Mr. Ball on 8th January. I made a public speech in New York, in which I said that we were trying to negotiate suitable arrangements and that until these were negotiated it was not possible for us to sign the Treaty of Rome.

§ Mr. Jay
Has the right hon. Gentleman yet realised that he would be much more likely to obtain terms acceptable to this country and the Commonwealth if he did not go round giving the impression that the whole thing was a foregone conclusion and that we had no bargaining strength at all?

§ Mr. Heath
Perhaps I may send the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the speech which I made in New York, when he will find that he is completely wrong in his idea of what I said.

§ Sir C. Osborne
Since the Canadian Government two years ago refused to reduce tariffs and, therefore, to encourage greater freedom of trade between this country and Canada, why should we allow the Canadians to have a veto as to what we should do in Europe?

§ Mr. Heath
No Commonwealth country is asking for a veto over the policies of the United Kingdom. We have given certain undertakings to the Commonwealth and to the House of Commons.

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
Is it the case, as stated in the Press, that if the United States were to make tariff reductions with the Common Market countries they would have to be extended to us under the most-favoured-nation terms?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is out of order because it is asking the Minister to confirm or deny a statement in the Press. Perhaps the noble Lord can frame it another way.

§ Viscount Hinchingbrooke
Do the Government expect that any tariff concessions made by America to the Common Market countries would be 198 extended to us under the most-favoured-nation terms even if we were not members of the Common Market?

§ Mr. Heath
That depends on the nature of the legislation, and that has not yet been made fully public. If the noble Lord studies the legislation, which I understand will be described in detail at the end of this month by the American Administration, he will be able to form a better judgment on it.

Mr. H. Wilson
Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the recent agreement signed between the American Government and the Common Market under the G.A.T.T. rules will require the most-favoured-nation application that the noble Lord has suggested? Having followed him to Washington at a respectful distance, I can confirm what he said in America. As to his visit to Ottawa, can he now say that the Canadian Government are quite happy about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in these negotiations and the methods that they are fallowing?

§ Mr. Heath
On the first point, the agreement signed between the United States and the E.E.C. is part of the wider negotiations under the Dillon round, and we also are putting forward certain proposals. With regard to the previous question by my noble Friend, I understood him to be referring to the forthcoming United States trade legislation which is to be put before Congress, and this has an even wider impact. When we study this in due course we shall see the relationship between this and the European Community and ourselves.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Can the right hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear that this means that the agreement that the United States has signed with the Common Market countries also in effect applies to us? That is to say, that some reduction in tariffs will be made reciprocal so far as we are concerned with the United States as will be made between the United States and the European countries.

§ Mr. Heath
I would not like to give a simple straightforward answer to that, because it depends on the offers that we ourselves put forward and which, I 199 understand, are in process of being confirmed in G.A.T.T. as a result of the part which is being dealt with by the United States Administration and the European Economic Community.
To revert to the second part of the supplementary question of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), about the attitude of the Canadian Government, in the communiqué they stress that there is great understanding between our two countries about the reasons why we have entered into negotiations and give the Canadian Government's views upon it. At a Press conference the Canadian Minister of Finance said that he had complete confidence that we would do our utmost to achieve the ends that the Canadian Government wanted. As to the last part of the supplementary question about the methods and machinery of consultation, concerning which the Canadian Government now express themselves satisfied, I should like to say how happy I am that they have been able to send officials permanently to Brussels to be in close contact with us.

Mr. H. Wilson
I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman is deliberately but he is unnecessarily confusing the House in answer to the Question. Is not the position quite clear, that, under the G.A.T.T., the agreement of the kind made last week, when it is ratified, will apply in respect of these commodities under the most-favoured-nation terms to all countries who trade with the United States on the one hand and with the Common Market countries on the other, and that as far as it is ratified that is already the position? Some of the doubts, worries and anxieties of the right hon. Gentleman obviously apply to agreements that may be and we hope will be concluded in the future when the American Government have powers under the new legislation, as we hope they will have. Will the right hon. Gentleman not confirm that anyone who has read G.A.T.T. will be able to give a perfectly clear answer to my right hon. Friend?

§ Mr. Heath
I think that is the position. I was concerned with the much wider negotiations in which other countries and ourselves are taking part and 200 in which we have obligations. This has nothing whatever to do with the negotiations with the Community in Brussels.