Renegotiation

HC Deb 06 November 1974 vol 880 cc1057-64

29. Mr. Blaker

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the progress of negotiations in the EEC.

30. Mr. George Gardiner

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement of the progress on the renegotiation of the terms of Great Britain's membership of the EEC.

31. Mr. Marten

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Common Market renegotiations.

33. Mr. Stanley

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with the renegotiation of terms of entry into the EEC.

Mr. Hattersley

I would refer the hon. Member to the report on the progress of renegotiation which my right hon. Friend made on 30th October in the course of his speech during the debate on the Address.

Mr. Blaker

Has the Minister's attention been drawn to recent statements by the Director-General of the FAO, by the group of international experts led by Lady Jackson, by Dr. Kissinger and by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to the effect that the world faces a lasting world food shortage? Does that not make it clear that it is probable that a situation will continue in which we are able to obtain our food supplies more cheaply inside the EEC than outside it?

Mr. Hattersley

It would be unfortunate if the statements to which the hon. Gentleman refers were simply interpreted and analysed in terms of the cost of food in Britain when, very largely, they were concerned with the poverty of the Third World and the prospects of famine there. However, as for the facts, let me confirm that while a year ago it was assessed that membership of the EEC might produce an increase in the retail price index of between 1 per cent. and 1½ per cent., it is now the judgment of the statisticians that our access to the EEC will marginally keep down the price of food in Britain.

Mr. Spearing

Is my hon. Friend aware that this afternoon Tate and Lyle announced that there will be no sugar in this country after February, and that there will be a likely shortfall next year of 1.7 million tons? Therefore, does not my hon. Friend consider that there is a very strong case for inserting 1.7 million tons, or thereabouts, as a figure for renegotiation of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, so that we can now fulfil the arrangement thrown away by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) in 1971?

Mr. Hattersley

I have been sceptical about the judgments of Tate and Lyle ever since 1950. I suspect that my hon. Friend shares that view. Concerning the figure for the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, I confirmed to him in the House on Monday, and I hope to confirm to him in another place tomorrow evening, that the Government are deeply committed to the 1.4 million tons formula and will continue to press for that in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. Gardiner

Is it still the policy of Her Majesty's Government to make a collective recommendation to the British people on the outcome of these negotiations?

Mr. Hattersley

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who normally follows the Prime Minister's activities with such care, does not realise that the Prime Minister answered a question on this subject yesterday, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Roy Hughes

Does the Minister appreciate that there is great concern about his recent statement that there is not to be a decision on British membership until October next year? Does he not agree that there is need to speed up this matter and not slow it down, because already the British people have suffered enough from the disruption of their food supplies and there is now an urgent need to enter into long-term agreements with the Commonwealth and other suppliers and to safeguard the food of the British people.

Mr. Hattersley

With great respect, I do not believe that anyone who reads HANSARD rather than the Daily Mail believes that there is any doubt about the answer that I gave—particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), who is, I understand, happy about the answer which I gave about the timetable. At the time of the General Election the Government promised—a promise which we shall keep—that the British people will be enabled to make a judgment on membership of the EEC within a year from the election, which takes us until October 1975. If a judgment is possible before that time, the Government are anxious to bring that decision forward. That is the final day, and not the earliest day. It is as simple as that.

Mr. Marten

If the results of the renegotiations are put to a referendum of the people, will the Government study most carefully the excellent precedent for a referendum set by the previous Conservative administration over Northern Ireland, of which the then Prime Minister said quite clearly that the position in Northern Ireland would not be changed without the consent of the people? Will the Minister also bear in mind the very wise words of the previous Conservative Prime Minister, that it would be wrong to belong to the Common Market without the full-hearted consent of the people? Does not "full-hearted consent" mean something more than "consent", and, therefore, may we assume that the Government would interpret that as at least a 66 per cent. vote in favour of membership?

Mr. Hattersley

I think that the Government are very anxious to fulfil the Leader of the Opposition's promise about full-hearted consent. We intend to do that on his behalf. Concerning the details of the referendum—if it is to be a referendum—there is nothing one can say which would give more detailed information until the final decisions on the form of consultation are taken. About that form my right hon. Friend said something in the debate on the Queen's Speech earlier this week, and I have nothing to add to that.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing

Will the Minister tell us anything at all about the renegotiation of the EEC common fisheries policy, particularly in so far as it relates to Scottish inshore fishermen, who will be sold down the European river on 1st January 1983 unless the Government can do something about it? Will he realise that the fishermen in my constituency and other constituencies are voting with their feet and leaving this industry, and that if many more do this whole communities will be at risk?

Mr. Hattersley

When last the hon. Lady asked me this question I reminded her that we had obtained a derogation from the common fisheries policy for the rest of this decade and into the 1980s. I am glad that she acknowledged that during her supplementary question. The future of the fishing industry in Scotland is determined jointly by our attitude towards the common fisheries arrangements in the EEC and the Law of the Sea Conference which was recently adjourned at Caracas. I give the hon. Lady the absolute assurance that the interests about which she speaks will be properly preserved by the Government negotiators in both those bodies.

Mrs. Ewing

The fishermen do not believe you.

Mrs. Renée Short

Is the Minister aware that the people should be fully informed of all the facts before the referendum takes place? What steps do the Government intend to take to make sure that the Press and the media give all the facts? What resources will be available to organisations which want to spread this information?

Mr. Hattersley

My hon. Friend ought not to assume that automatically it is to be a referendum which will be used to judge the views of the British people. The Prime Minister has said that that is the most probable outcome, but no announcement has been made about the definite character of the referendum. Irrespective of the form in which the views of the British people are judged, I share my hon. Friend's view absolutely that it is important to have some form of Representation of the People Bill which ensures that both sides of the argument are represented.

Mr. John Davies

In making the reaffirmation that the Minister has about 1.4 million tons in respect of Commonwealth Sugar Agreement sugar, will he tell the House whether he thinks that the suppliers in the Commonwealth are as strongly committed as are Her Majesty's Government, and, indeed, hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House, to the supply of that figure?

Mr. Hattersley

I think that the suppliers in the Commonwealth are committed to access into the European market as long as they can be assured of an adequate price in the European market. What would be crazy for the Government to attempt to do would be to sign an agreement with the Commonwealth which required them to sell sugar into the EEC or into Britain at so low a price that it would be deeply to their disadvantage to do so. That is why I negotiated at all the Councils of Ministers in an attempt to obtain access for 1.4 million tons, but access at a reasonable price, which is a fair price to the Commonwealth and a price which encourages the Commonwealth to continue to supply sugar to us.

34. Mr. Dennis Skinner

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the EEC renegotiations to be concluded.

35. Mr. Churchill

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement as to progress so far achieved towards the renegotiation of the terms of Great Britain's membership of the EEC.

Mr. Hattersley

As my right hon. Friend told the House on 30th October, it is our aim to conclude renegotiation by next spring.

Mr. Skinner

In view of what is happening around us, is it not high time that we as a Government, now that the rest of the Europeans—or some of them —are accepting the fact that we have good reasons for renegotiating, told them that the date is fixed as far as we are concerned, that that is the deadline, and that the objects must be achieved by that time?

Does my hon. Friend realise that we on the Government side have many things to do to get the matter put before the British people, to get our two-day Labour Party Conference organised so that it can draft the precise terms of the questions to be put before the British people, and to ensure that those powerful institutions that would like to take part in this campaign are excluded from taking part and using the money that they hope to use, which is what they did in the last election?

Mr. Hattersley

As to the implications of the final part of my hon. Friend's question, I share his view exactly that if a test is to be made of the British people's opinion it is important that it should be an honest test and that neither side should have undue advantage over the other. My hon. Friend and I do not disagree there.

As for the first part of my hon. Friend's question, he must understand that he, like my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and myself, is committed to the policy of the Labour Party. The Labour Party's policy as enshrined in its manifesto is to seek to obtain better terms within the EEC. Our policy is, equally, to put those terms, once obtained or not obtained, to the British people. Our duty within that policy is to obtain the best terms we can, so that the British people can make a fair and objective judgment. That is not a proceeding that can necessarily be rushed. If we were to add an arbitrary date to the end of these processes we should be breaking faith with the British people and with the Labour Party manifesto.

Mr. Churchill

It must be assumed that the Government are operating in good faith and renegotiating in good faith. Therefore, will the Minister give an undertaking that if the British Government's demands are met the Government will give their endorsement to the electorate?

Mr. Hattersley

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's assurance that he at least accepts our good faith. I shall take that in the spirit in which it was offered. This has been made absolutely clear by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Relations. We are negotiating in good faith. The implications of that are that if we obtain the terms for which we ask we expect that our view would be that British interests are best served by continued membership of the EEC.

Mr. William Hamilton

Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the official policy of the Labour Party to stay in Europe—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—yes, indeed—if we get the conditions which we are now trying to negotiate? In that circumstance, the recent public opinion poll confirms the rectitude of that position.

Will my hon. Friend, to satisfy the curiosity of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), ensure that he publishes and that the Press gives full publicity to the fact that certain of our foods are cheaper within the EEC? Will he specify the foods which are cheaper now, as a consequence of our being in the Market, than they would be if we were out?

Mr. Hattersley

I cannot take any responsibility for what appears in the Press about the alternatives. I can promise my hon. Friend that when the time comes and the renegotiation at the ministerial level is concluded the case we present to the British people must not only explain the advantages and disadvantages of membership but must also explain the advantages and disadvantages of the alternatives. That is our clear duty to the British people and to the House.

As for the opinion polls, I confess pleasure about the one I read about in the Sun and the Financial Times yester- day. However, all of us have grown slightly wary about assuming that opinion polls are right.

Mr. Wood

Does not the Minister of State agree that we have not only ourselves to consider in this matter, and that our whole relationship with what I will describe as the Protocol 22 countries must be affected by the continuing uncertainty of our own attitude? Therefore, the sooner the matter is decided the better, because either a referendum or a General Election would take some time to prepare.

Mr. Hattersley

I believe that the sooner this matter is concluded one way or the other the better. However, I hope that the Protocol 22 countries, acting as a united group, will decide where their best interests lie and will make progress towards securing those interests without waiting to discover the outcome of the renegotiations and of the test of the British people's opinion. The Protocol 22 countries should unite as a group and pursue their own interests with the maximum possible speed.