HC Deb 01 August 1975 vol 896 cc2432-40
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement about business to be taken in the Council of Ministers of the European Community. The Council will not meet during August. The monthly forecast for September was deposited yesterday. It is likely that Foreign Affairs, Finance, Agriculture and Environment Ministers will meet during October, but the dates have yet to be confirmed.

At present six meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for September. Foreign Ministers will meet on 15th and 16th; Finance and Budget Ministers on 22nd; Agriculture Ministers on 9th and 29th and 30th September, and Energy Ministers on a date not yet fixed.

At the Foreign Affairs Council, Ministers will have before them the 1976 scheme of generalised preferences. It is likely that they will have a preliminary discussion of the result of the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly which is to take place from 1st to 12th September. Ministers will also have before them progress reports on relations with Portugal and Iceland. There are likely to be discussions on the negotiations with Spain and with the Maghreb, on mandates for negotiations with Malta and the Mashraq and on matters arising out of the EEC-Greece Association Council which was held in Athens on 28th July.

In addition to their usual review of the economic situation in the Community, Finance Ministers will have before them proposals for Euratom loans, on joint Community borrowing and on the Community exchange rate system. Ministers at the Budget Council will consider the Communities' preliminary draft budget for 1976.

Agriculture Ministers on 9th September are expected to continue their discussions on the restructuring of the wine régime and on 29th-30th September on part of the basic sugar regulation dealing with imports from ACP countries.

Items that may be discussed at the Energy Council include guidelines of a policy for developing energy resources inside the Community and within a wider context of international co-operation, the financing of the energy policy and support for common projects in the hydrocarbons sector.

It is too early to say what the October Councils will consider, but I shall deposit in the House at the end of September a written forecast of business likely to be discussed in the Councils in October.

Mr. Tugendhat

Is the Minister aware that we received only a very short time ago notice that the statement was to be made? I gather that the fault almost certainly lies in Brussels rather than here, but I am sure the right hon. Gentleman understands that it is extremely inconvenient for the Opposition to receive notice of statements of this sort on a Friday morning and to have statements made on a Friday morning.

The Minister said that the Council of Ministers would have a report before it on the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly and that much of it would be devoted to commodity prices, the Prime Minister's Kingston initiative and so on. It is strange that the right hon. Gentleman should mention only the Seventh Session and not the preparations for reconvening the Paris conference between the oil producers and consumers now that the principle that other commodities should be covered has been accepted, and bearing in mind that we are coming to the time when crude oil prices may well be raised. All these matters should be considered together. Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Council of Ministers will be doing so?

I also note that the statement says nothing about Cyprus. There have been reports from Helsinki in the last day or two that the European Community envisages some kind of intervention in that dispute in a mediatory or other capacity. Under what head would that fall, and what is the machinery under which such a Community initiative could be established?

Finally, with reference to the guidelines on a policy to develop energy resources in the Community, relations between this country and the Community do not seem very good in that regard. In view of Mr. Simonet's strictures in the European Parliament and the attitude taken by the Secretary of State for Energy, what will be the position in that respect?

Mr. Hattersley

I am sorry that the Opposiion have been inconvenienced by the announcement of this statement today. We are always in difficulty over Community business statements. The House does not regard them as among the most important items in the daily, weekly or monthly agendas. I try to fit them in at a convenient time for the House. I know that sometimes the arrangement may be inconvenient to Opposition Members. However, I am glad to note that the short notice did not prevent the hon. Gentleman asking me a number of detailed questions.

On the Cyprus initiative, about which no doubt the hon. Gentleman has read something in the newspapers today and yesterday, if such an initiative is mounted—and my information from Helsinki is identical to the hon. Gentleman's—it will be put through the machinery of political co-operation in the EEC. That is not a formal Council procedure and is not the subject of today's statement. I have no doubt that when at Council meetings we consider the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations and commodity agreements, there will be a related discussion on energy matters and a consumer-producer conference relating to raw materials, but that is not a formal item on the agenda.

The hon. Gentleman misstates or misunderstands the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy towards a Community energy policy. My right hon. Friend is, of course, a member of the Government and understands, and accepts willingly, that we have a part to play in all Community policies. I have no doubt that he will forge worthwhile relationships with other members of the Community.

Mr. Thorpe

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are delighted to see all this Community activity taking place? Can he say when the Tindemans Report is expected to be received and how it will be discussed? Will there be an evaluation of the Helsinki conference of 35 nations which aims at committing itself to a freer exchange of people and information in Europe? It would be very strange to have a meeting of Ministers attended by Prime Ministers or Foreign Secretaries and for them not to discuss Helsinki.

Mr. Hattersley

Discussion of Helsinki is appropriate for the Community Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers, but if that is carried out in a Community setting rather than at an informal meeting at Helsinki it will be carried out through the political co-operation machinery. I anticipate that there will be such a meeting in the autumn in the capital of the country which has the presidency at the time. But that would not be a formal meeting of the EEC Council. It would not involve decisions amounting to secondary legislation in this country. It is not our practice to make announcements about when such meetings are to take place or about the subjects included in the agenda.

On the Tindemans Report, the position is that Mr. Tindemans said in London that he was more interested in producing a report which was acceptable and workmanlike and applicable to all nine members of the Community than in rushing conclusions and bringing out documents which were declarations of principle rather than blueprints for action. The main report will take longer than we originally anticipated, but if that is the situation the time spent will be worth while.

Mr. Spearing

Does my right hon. Friend agree that back-bench supporters of the Government are also affected by announcements made on Community business on a Friday and that we believe that next Monday might have been a more appropriate day for such a statement? Will he say a little more about the foreign affairs meeting on 15th and 16th September, with particular reference to the discussions on the general system of preferences? Will the Overseas Development Ministers be present also, since this is a matter which affects those Ministers as much as it affects Foreign Ministers?

Further to the questions asked about the Tindemans Report, may I remind my right hon. Friend that there is a Commission document about European union? Could he tell the House to whom the document will go? Will it go to the future summit or to a formal meeting of the Council?

Mr. Hattersley

I think that the Commission document will go as a contribution to the investigation being carried out by Mr. Tindemans. I hope my hon. Friend does not believe that a Commission document has any special status in that it might be more likely to be acceptable to the Nine than would any other document. The Commission document is a contribution to the general debate.

As for the Council of Ministers and discussion of the generalised scheme of preferences, there is no objection among the Council of Foreign Ministers to their colleagues in related departments joining them at meetings. This happens from time to time. If it is being suggested that the question of the GSP can be discussed only in the presence of Overseas Development Ministers, Her Majesty's Government would encourage such a move. A more appropriate procedure might be for Foreign Ministers to decide these matters at one stage and then for Ministers of Overseas Development and their colleagues to meet in their own special Council later.

Mr. Powell

I support the views which have been expressed about the House being given these statements on a Friday morning. This is not a time convenient to the House in general.

Will the reference on the agenda to Iceland at the Foreign Ministers' meeting include consideration of fishery matters in that context? If so, will the Minister give an assurance that it will in no way hold up the bilateral proceedings between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Iceland?

Mr. Hattersley

I can give that assurance to the right hon. Gentleman without qualification. The discussions on Iceland are basically on trade matters but, as the right hon. Gentleman anticipates, when we take part in those discussions we shall remember our fishing interests and the relationship which we have with Iceland because of that interest. But this matter will not hold up discussions in another place.

Mr. Atkinson

If under the heading of political co-operation a paper were to be submitted to the Council of Ministers under the heading of Cyprus, what would the Government's attitude be in view of their decision not to intervene in any of the current talks? In terms of the Council of Ministers coming to a decision about the future, will my right hon. Friend encourage or discourage any conclusion of that kind?

Mr. Hattersley

My hon. Friend is stretching the rules governing business statements almost to breaking point. Let me compound that process by saying that Her Majesty's Government's reaction to such a procedure would be the reaction which we have made in the last year—namely, a willingness to take part in initiatives or schemes that seem likely to bring a lasting, peaceful solution to the Cyprus problem but with the proviso that anything that results in precipitate action might do more harm than good.

Mr. Moate

I endorse what has been said about the inconvenience of having these Community business statements on Fridays. The Minister said that such statements might not be regarded as being among the most important items of Government business. That may be due to the fact that we are not given sufficient detail about forthcoming business or that Ministers are not likely to be taking any important decisions in future. Will the Minister confirm that during the long recess no major decisions are likely to be taken of an irrevocable nature without the House having an opportunity to discuss them, and also that no decision will be taken on any matter which is awaiting debate in the House following a recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee?

Mr. Hattersley

I assure the hon. Gentleman that during the recess the Government will abide by their promise concerning scrutiny procedures. As long as an immediate matter of detail affecting the national interest does not arise, we shall preserve the proper rights of this House which have been set down in the scrutiny procedure.

On the point about Community business statements being made on a Friday morning, I understand that there is a good case to be made for a regular day being allotted to such statements in the same way as we have a regular weekly day for announcing the business of the House. That would be convenient not only to the House but also to some Foreign Office Ministers.

Mr. Buchan

I echo the comments made about today's statement. Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is difficult as the House moves into recess to give a great number of details about the items that are likely to come before ministerial meetings?

Are not the arrangements on the subject of sugar not merely a matter of adjustment but a matter of examining the whole régime? Therefore, would not the time of Agriculture Ministers be better spent in discussing the changes in agricultural policy which are needed to pursue our anti-inflationary process? In regard to the Tindemans Report, is it satisfactory that there will be a debate in the Council of Ministers before the House of Commons has an opportunity to debate it?

Mr. Hattersley

I note my hon. Friend's last point. However, debates in this House are essentially matters for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

As regards the ACP sugar regulations, which will not occupy all the days of the Agriculture Council during the month of September, my hon. Friend can be absolutely assured that there is no change in policy. Indeed, the meeting in September is to implement the policy and to pass the regulations that make the 1.4 million tons agreement part of official Community policy instead of the simple declaration that the Government obtained during renegotiation.

Concerning today's statement, the Government are anxious to provide as many details as possible. I hope that in regard to this matter right hon. and hon. Members who complain that the details of today's statement are not perhaps as full as they ought to be have seen the written statement of business which is always deposited in the House 24 hours before the oral statement is made, and have discovered the great detail that appears there.

Mr. Farr

I am disappointed to hear the Minister, in giving details of the agenda for September, say that the Ministers of Agriculture will meet on 9th September apparently to discuss wine and sugar only. In view of what happened in the House yesterday and the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture, will the Minister of State pass on to his right hon. Friend the message that it is absolutely essential to include in the September agenda two items: first, that the beef arrangements for fat cattle will continue into 1976 and through 1976, and secondly that British egg producers will have a real chance of exporting surplus eggs to the EEC and that the barriers which have been erected against this trade, in particular by France, may be expunged?

Mr. Hattersley

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will take note of that.

If I might again refer to the details that are available, I should not like hon. Members in making comments about this to be under any illusion. A statement is deposited every month in the House, whether there is to be an oral statement or not. If hon. Members did not know about that I am sorry, but they ought to have known and they can always get the details from the deposited statement.

Mr. Molloy

Will my right hon. Friend note that those of us who are prepared to accept the principle that this House sits a five-day week—and sometimes nights as well—are concerned not so much with the day on which the statement is made as with the advance notice? Will he consider this so that we may have a reasonable exchange of views when statements of this character are made?

May I also ask my right hon. Friend about the words in his statement to the effect that the Community is considering intervention in the Cyprus affair? Will he enlarge on that a little and let the House know what information the Government have about such possible intervention and what opportunities are provided for the Government to comment on such a proposal?

Mr. Hattersley

I think, with respect to my hon. Friend, that I did not give that impression. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) gave the impression that the Community ought to be involving itself in the affair, and he asked me a hypothetical question about how we would react if it did. Perhaps unwisely, I gave a hypothetical answer to that hypothetical situation, but nothing I said, as opposed to what was said by my hon. Friend, implied that the Community was considering that.