§ 11. Mr. Milneasked the President of the Board of Trade what discussions have taken place with Norway and other European Free Trade Association countries concerning Great Britain's decision to impose a 10 per cent. import duty on frozen fish fillets; and what other alternatives were considered before the decision to impose a tariff was made.
§ Mr. DellMy right hon. Friend described the discussions with Norway and other E.F.T.A. countries in the debate in the House on 2nd December. These discussions failed to reach agreement. In the absence of agreement, the 1959 arrangements envisage only reimposition of the duty on frozen fish fillets.—[Vol. 774, c. 1167-83.]
§ Mr. MilneIs my hon. Friend aware that there is some dissatisfaction at this Measure, introduced as it was, and there has been a general recession in the white fish industry? Does he agree that this was not necessarily the best way of dealing with that, and is he further aware that we have with Norway and the Scandinavian countries our best balance of payments relationships in Europe? Will he look at the matter again?
§ Mr. DellI am well aware of our excellent trading relations with all countries affected by the decision, and I hope that those trading relations continue to improve. However, we have rights under the 1959 arrangements, and it was these rights, and these rights only, which we exercised in a situation in which imports of frozen fish fillets were far beyond the agreed level.
§ Mr. R. W. ElliottWill the hon. Gentleman note that the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation made an enormous effort in the name of long-term North-East prosperity through the medium of a Norway Week recently, and this type of 401 imposition undermines a great deal of local work done in the name of good relations?
§ Mr. DellI am well aware of the importance of friendly relations and good trading relations with Norway. We wish to do everything we can to encourage them. But this country has rights under certain agreements, and, if those rights fall to be exercised as a result of a failure to reach agreement, a failure occurring before this imposition of duty was decided upon, then we must exercise our rights under the treaty.
§ 30. Mr. Martenasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on Anglo-Norwegian trading relations with particular reference to tariff on frozer; fish fillets.
§ Mr. DellSince the inception of E.F.T.A., trade has nearly doubled in each direction. My right hon. Friend explained our decision to restore the full most-favoured-nation duty of 10 per cent. on frozen fillets from E.F.T.A. in the House on 2nd December—[Vol. 774, c. 1167-33.] Frozen fish fillets account on average for less than 3 per cent. of our total imports from Norway.
§ Mr. MartenIn view of the growing dissatisfaction in Norway at the series of measures affecting trade which have been taken by the Government, would the hon. Gentleman explain—which his right hon. Friend did not do in the debate recently—why this duty was not applied on the excess amount over 24,000 tons rather than on the whole lot?
§ Mr. DellTo answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I repeat that we regard our trade with Norway as most important. Our imports from Norway this year have shown a notable increase.
To answer the second part, the hon. Gentleman made this suggestion in the debate. What we did we were entitled to do under the 1959 arrangements. What the hon. Gentleman has suggested we should do would take us outside those arrangements. In any case, the object of the exercise was to reduce imports of frozen fish fillets down to the level of 24,000 tons—but not below that figure—and the hon. Gentleman's suggestion 402 would have been irrelevant to that pur pose.
§ Mr. James JohnsonHon. Members who represent fishing ports will welcome the 10 per cent. import duty on frozen fish fillets. Is it not a fact that imports were approaching the 30,000 tons mark, which made this imposition necessary? Is it not also a fact that the Minister has been to Vienna, has had amicable discussions with our E.F.T.A. partners and that this whole matter can be settled peacefully next year when the agreement is considered after being in force for 10 years, from 1959?
§ Mr. DellI agree that there will be further discussions on this matter in E.F.T.A. circles in February or March of next year.