§ 1. Sir R. Russellasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what undertaking was given to the Australian Government in the negotiations with the Six to ask for a transitional period before applying the common external tariff against Australian primary produce in the event of Great Britain joining the European Economic Community.
§ 16. Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what further arrangements he proposes 2 to seek in relation to Australia in his negotiations with the European Economic Community.
§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home)There have been full consultations with all Commonwealth countries. No specific undertakings were given to Australia, but the Australian Government were told that Her Majesty's Government would do their best to secure the longest possible transitional arrangements for Commonwealth countries.
It has been agreed in the negotiations that the Community's Common External Tariff should be applied over a transitional period from 1973 to 1977. These provisions would apply to Australian primary produce covered by the Common External Tariff. In addition, Her Majesty's Government have secured from the Community the explicit recognition that they would take rapid action should there be a denger of serious disruption of trade during that period.
§ Sir R. RussellWould my right hon. Friend explain how a misunderstanding seems to have arisen between his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, Mr. Douglas Anthony, who seems to have gone away very sore about undertakings which he expected to get? Will my right hon. Friend use his great influence to restore normal relations with the Australian Government?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeYes, Sir. There was no intention whatever to mislead and, I think, no grounds for being misled, because, as I said, no promise was given. We have tried to get the longest possible transitional arrangement and we have succeeded in getting one for five years.
§ Mr. MartenDoes my right hon. Friend realise that many hon. Members are deeply disturbed about the attitude which the Australian Government have taken on this matter and that some of us who have been to Australia think that the Australians have some ground for it? Will my right hon. Friend personally given an assurance that he will look into this and try to rectify some of the obvious ill-feeling which has arisen?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI can assure my hon. Friend that I have looked into it. I will certainly try to rectify any misgivings which may have arisen.
§ Mr. HealeyHas the Foreign Secretary's attention been drawn to a letter by the Deputy High Commissioner of Australia in last Saturday's Economist suggesting that, if there were not a misunderstanding, there was a complete difference of opinion between the two Governments about what Her Majesty's Government's obligations had been in their undertaking on 22nd April and the way in which they had subsequently behaved?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI have seen that letter, of course. There were consultations with the Commonwealth High Commissioners after every meeting in Brussels, and on 22nd April it was of course known that we were to accept the Community's preference system. It is a matter of explaining to the Australian Government exactly what the pledges were. As I said earlier, I will try to contribute to that explanation.
§ Mr. HealeyIs it not extraordinary that long after the event it should be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to explain to the Australian Government what pledges had been given at a meeting on 22nd April and whether action they took a month later without subsequent consultations with the Australian Government was consistent with those pledges?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeNo, Sir. The reason one must explain is that there have been misunderstandings. I do not think that there was any ground for misunderstanding. On 22nd April it was clear that we were to accept the Community's preference system.
§ 3. Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guarantees he has obtained about the economic future of the European Free Trade Association countries who do not seek to enter the Common Market; and what bankable guarantees he was given about their ability to trade with Great Britain in the future, without any discrimination against them on the same terms as under the European Free Trade Association agreement.
§ 9. Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what safeguards have been secured in the European Economic Community negotiations against any re-erection of trade barriers between the United Kingdom and those European Free Trade Association states not applying for European Economic Community membership.
§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle)The nature of the relations between European Free Trade Association non-applicants and the Community is a matter for their respective governments, but we hope that the arrangements which they conclude will avoid the re-erection of trade barriers as a consequence of enlargement of the Community. Our obligations to our E.F.T.A. partners remain as stated in the E.F.T.A. Communiqué of 28th April, 1967, published in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 1st May, 1967.—[Vol. 746, c. 87–8.]
§ Mrs. ShortDoes not the hon. Gentleman see that, in my Question, I ask about bankable guarantees that trade barriers will not be erected between us and our E.F.T.A. partners? All that the hon. Gentleman has given is a repetition of the pious hopes contained in the White Paper, and they do not take us any further. Is he aware that there is growing pressure in Denmark and Norway against entry into the Market and that those Governments require considerable majorities in their Parliaments, to be followed 5 by referenda? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the latest news from Sweden is that the people of that country are becoming more and more disenchanted with the idea of association and that there is great concern about the effect of entry on our E.F.T.A. partners and about the effect on our own foreign trade?
§ Mr. RoyleI am always interested to hear any news that the hon. Lady has received. As I made clear in my original Answer, all members of E.F.T.A. are either negotiating for entry into the Community or holding discussions with the Community about their relations with it.
§ Mrs. ShortWe know that.
§ Mr. RoyleThe discussions with those who are not candidates for full membership have not gone very far. But, now that we have broken the back of our own negotiations, we hope that those of the non-candidates will make progress towards getting the type of arrangement that they all seek.
§ Mr. HayhoeCan my hon. Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will treat the E.F.T.A. countries rather better than did the previous Government who, without consultation, unilaterally imposed a surcharge damaging to their exports?
§ Mrs. ShortTell that to the Commonwealth.
§ 6. Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement on the progress of negotiations for British entry into the European Economic Community.
§ 19. Mr. St. John-Stevasasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress of negotiations for Great Britain to join the European Economic Community.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe results of the major issues resolved in the negotiations are set out in full in the White Paper laid before the House last week.
§ Mr. MoateCan my right hon. Friend say whether the remaining negotiations 6 will cover regional policies, and will he comment on reports that plans now being made in Brussels will compel a major change in our regional policies involving a return to investment grants and a reduction in certain areas to a maximum level of grant of 20 per cent.?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI can hardly comment on the latest proposal. It is a proposal which has been put forward by the Commission. I do not think that it has been received by the Council of Ministers, which will have to consider it and which may take any action on it, even sending it back to the Commission for review. It is too early to talk about that.
As an hon. Member representing a Scottish constituency, I must say that I am extremely interested in regional policies. Sometimes I think that the Community is more conscious of the importance of regional policies than we are and that from its policies a great deal of advantage might come to our regions.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasWill my right hon. Friend take note of the fact that the terms which have emerged from the negotiations have received a very different reception from leaders of Socialist Parties on the Continent from the tepid condemnation in that very sad broadcast of the Leader of the Opposition on Friday?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI think that I must leave out the Leader of the Opposition until I know a little more clearly what is his view. Certainly the regional policies have been welcomed by all the countries which benefit from them within the Community.
Mr. R. C. MitchellWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us the last time that a version of a White Paper was issued free through the Post Office? Will he make representations to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to allow a statement opposing entry to the Common Market also to be issued free through the Post Office?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeMy hon. Friend will be answering a Question on that point later.
§ Dame Irene WardWould my right hon. Friend like me to send to my hon. 7 Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who asked the original Question on regional development, a very interesting letter which I have had from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? Would it not be better, and eminently more satisfactory, to try to find out, before asking Questions of that kind, what our people have in mind?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI think that my hon. Friend was only seeking additional information.
§ Mr. HealeyAs a Scottish Member will the Foreign Secretary tell the House whether it is still the Government's intention to reach a decision on the Common Market fisheries policy before the House is finally asked to approve entry in November?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeAs the right hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. and learned Friend is talking about fishing policy in Brussels today. I hope that he will soon be able to make a statement.
17. Mr. W. H. K. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a further statement with regard to negotiations with the European Economic Community, in particular in regard to its fisheries policy.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI have nothing to add at present to my right hon. and learned Friend's statement on 24th June. Fisheries is one of the subjects being discussed at the Ministerial meeting today and, with permission, my right hon. and learned Friend will make a statement on this meeting later this week.—[Vol. 819, c. 1609–10.]
Mr. BakerMay I ask whether my right hon. Friend has seen the divergent Press reports today on this question, and may I suggest that, in order to prevent a great deal of anxiety within the fishing industry, the 1964 Fisheries Convention is reconvened as a basis for a settlement of this very difficult question?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeAs my hon. Friend knows, we have told the Community that its fishing scheme is not acceptable for an enlarged Community. I take note of what my hon. Friend said about the Fisheries Convention.
§ Mr. GrimondI welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the Community's present policy is not acceptable. Will he give an assurance that we shall accept no terms about fisheries which are less favourable than those offered to the Norwegians?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI think that we had better await the return of my right hon. and learned Friend to see what discussions have been going on in Brussels today. The right hon. Gentleman knows that our present fishing arrangements are not comparable with those of the Norwegians. In other words, we allow certain European countries to fish for certain types of fish between the six and 12-mile limits.
§ Mr. Bruce-GardyneDoes my right hon. Friend recall that on frequent occasions the Government have said that we must know where we stand with regard to the fisheries regulations before this House is asked to come to a decision on the matter? May we be assured that that remains the Government's policy?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThat would certainly be our ambition, but I think that we had better await the return of my right hon. and learned Friend in a couple of days, when he will be able to give us a fuller account of the discussions that have taken place.
§ 21. Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he is making for the widest possible public understanding of the White Paper on the European Economic Community negotiations.
§ Mr. Anthony RoyleI am sure that hon. Members will agree that the White Paper is already attracting the very considerable publicity the Government would wish it to receive.
§ Mr. LaneIs my hon. Friend aware that the issue of the short version of the White Paper will be very welcome indeed? In view of the gradual movement of public opinion in favour of British entry, will my hon. Friend confirm that he and his colleagues will take every opportunity during the next few weeks of putting the complete picture to the public, because many of us have found that constituents who previously were sceptical, when presented will all the arguments for and 9 against are quick to see the advantages of joining?
§ Mr. RoyleAll these matters will be discussed during the debate in the House next week. The shortened version of the White Paper is to be distributed in the same way as the Government's Fact Sheets on Britain and Europe, including being made available free of charge at Post Offices. It will be available from today.
§ Mr. John MendelsonDid the hon. Gentleman notice that on the day after the publication of the full White Paper The Guardian devoted to it two full pages of comment by Hella Pick and its economics correspondent, who dealt with it under two headings, one pointing out what the White Paper did not say and the other what it left out? Would it not be more advisable, before publishing even the shortened version, for the Government to publish a complete version, including some of the facts that are required before the debate starts?
§ Mr. RoyleThe hon. Gentleman will know that I am not responsible for what The Guardian prints. If he has any matters to raise that he feels are not covered in the White Paper he will no doubt be able to refer to them in the debate.
§ Mr. MontgomeryAs this is a vitally important decision that we must take, and in the interests of fairness, since the Government are allowing the free distribution of the simplified version of the White Paper in post offices, will they provide similar facilities to anti-Common Market people who want to put forward their point of view?
§ Mr. MayhewIs the Minister aware that depth surveys of public opinion show conclusively that the more a person knows about the Common Market the likelier he is to support our entry?
§ 22. Sir A. Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in which Community Institutions Her Majesty's Government will participate fully on the date of accession to the European Economic Community.
§ Mr. Anthony RoyleIn the negotiations it has been agreed that the United Kingdom should participate from the date of accession in the Institutions of the Communities with a position equal to that enjoyed by France, Germany and Italy. These Institutions axe the Council of Ministers, the Commission, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the European Court of Justice.
§ Sir A. MeyerIs this not a very satisfactory outcome? Does it not mean that from the moment of accession Britain will be able to influence policies and avert the adoption of policies which might otherwise be unhelpful to this country, even if she were outside the Community?
§ Mr. HefferDoes not the Minister agree that at the moment certain policies which the Commission is putting forward—for example, the regional policy—could badly affect areas like Merseyside? Does not he agree that it is not a question of some future date; could we not know now what is happening on these vital issues, which, if our people did know about them, they would certainly reject, in terms of regional policy?
§ Mr. RoyleAs my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, the question of regional policies arises from a proposal that is being put forward by the Commission in Brussels, and therefore no decision has been taken. The other questions that the hon. Member raises are all points that he can raise with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy on his return from Brussels.
§ Mr. HealeyCan the Minister explain why Her Majesty's Government have left out from their large White Paper the figure showing the effect on our balance of payments of the changes in tariffs caused by our entry into the Common Market—especially since the last Government gave an estimate of between £250 million and £300 million? As the hon. Gentleman knows, the present Government are said to have had the same figure in their White Paper but to have taken it out because of political pressure brought to bear by some members of the Cabinet?
§ Mr. RoyleTo do justice to the right hon. Gentleman, none of these questions is relevant to the original Question put to me. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember that the White Paper produced by his Government gave such a wide range of guesses that no one could possibly understand what was involved.
§ Mr. HealeyWith great respect—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We are to have a four-day debate on these matters. Mr. Healey.
§ Mr. HealeyOn a point of order. Is it not in the interests of an intelligent debate that the House should have as much information as possible as to the terms before the debate takes place, especially since the Minister has just made a statement contrary to the facts in respect of the effect of tariff changes? This was given within a bracket of £50 million by the last Government, and a similar figure was prepared for the present Government but suppressed.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Gentleman rose to a point of order. I have already called him to ask a supplementary question, after I have pointed out that we are to have a debate. Will the right hon. Gentleman ask his supplementary question?
§ Mr. HealeyThank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for misunderstanding your very kind advice to me. May I ask the Minister whether the bracket given by the last Government in their White Paper last year was not a wide one? The figure was given as between £250 million and £300 million. Is it not the case that a similar figure was prepared for inclusion in this White Paper but omitted as a result of the political fears of some members of the Cabinet?
§ Mr. RoyleThe right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not possible for me to reply to detailed questions at this stage. The matters which he has raised this afternoon can be referred to in the debate next week.
§ 25. Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Commonwealth Governments have expressed opposition to Great Britain's possible entry into the European Economic Community.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeNone, Sir. Whilst a very few Commonwealth countries have commented on details of the arrangements arrived at in the negotiations, none has suggested that these constituted grounds on which the United Kingdom should not join the Communites.
§ Mr. SpenceI thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but it would help us a lot if he were prepared to say whether he has had any unofficial expressions of opposition to the terms of our entry from any significant political group within the Commonwealth?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI cannot answer in respect of unofficial communications; I am concerned with official communications. I will try to get some information, but I do not think that it will help my hon. Friend very much.
§ Mr. MolloyIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that many people in this country and throughout the Commonwealth consider that these negotiations are a battle that Britain has lost and that the White Paper constitutes an approach by the Government suing for peace? Since grave apprehensions are held by people throughout the Commonwealth, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider having discussions with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to see whether there should not be a special conference of Commonwealth countries to discuss many things about which they are gravely apprehensive?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe hon. Gentleman is an artist at putting his own opinion in the mouths of millions of others.
§ 27. Mr. Redmondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of Australia's export earnings he estimates would be at risk as a result of British entry into the European Economic Community.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe value of Australian exports which could be affected by enlargement of the European Economic Community, on the basis of 1969–70 figures, is at most 7½ per cent. of her total export earnings.
§ Mr. RedmondI thank the Minister for that reply, but does not he agree that 13 the figures seem remarkably small? Would not many people be liable to ask what all the fuss is about? Cannot my right hon. Friend also tell the House what extra opportunities would be available to Australian exports as a result of our joining the Community?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe figures may be small, but to Australia they can be important. The butter and sugar exports are even smaller—about 1.1 per cent. I would have thought that with the increased size of the European Community and the comparatively low external tariff, Australia should have many opportunities for selling to this big market.
Mr. Bob BrownAssuming that we do not go into the European Economic Community, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we shall have to have a sharp look at the position in which Australia is exporting to us tariff-free while we have to overcome tariff barriers in our exports to Australia?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeAs the hon. Member hints, the erosion of preferences started with the Commonwealth countries who wanted to manufacture their own goods. Certainly we should have had to have regard in the future to all Commonwealth trading arrangements.
§ Mr. Selwyn GummerDoes not my right hon. Friend agree that there was surprisingly little complaint from Australia until recently, when they were nearing an election? Since on every occasion when Australia has wished to manufacture her own goods she has put on large tariffs against our exports, and has used factories in her own country and elsewhere, would it not be more reasonable to accept that both countries should do their best for each other by being as rich as possible?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeI agree with the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, but I could not agree with the assumption that he made at the beginning of it.
§ 38. Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from Commonwealth Governments 14 relating to the agreement on British entry into the European Economic Community reached at Luxembourg.
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeThe Australian Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade and Commerce has expressed concern about the effect of some of Australia's exports of the agreement reached; no other Commonwealth Government has made representations on this subject.
§ Mr. MayhewIs it not clear that the very last thing that the Commonwealth as a whole wants now is for Britain's entry to fail? Is the Minister aware that many of the complaints made about terms, allegedly on behalf of Commonwealth interests, are neither asked for nor wanted by the Commonwealth countries themselves?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeIt is true that many Commonwealth countries—in fact, all of them, I believe—recognise that, unless she increases her strength, Britain is not much use to them. Therefore, they do support our entry into the Market.
§ Mr. MartenWould my right hon. Friend not agree that, in regard to Australia, whatever the percentage of exports concerned—7 per cent. was mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond)—it is a human and social problem that we are talking about for these farmers and sugar growers?
§ Sir Alec Douglas-HomeYes, that is true. That is why the Chancellor of the Duchy went to such pains to get the Community's agreement that, should vital interests be affected, they would deal with them.