HC Deb 04 August 1976 vol 916 cc1725-36
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley)

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about forthcoming business in the Council of Ministers of the European Community. The Council will not meet during August. The monthly forecast for September was deposited yesterday.

At present, four meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for September. Foreign Ministers will meet on 20th; Agriculture Ministers on 20th; Finance Ministers on 20th and Development Ministers on 22nd September.

At the Foreign Affairs Council, Ministers will continue their discussions of the Tindemans Reports on European Union and of fisheries matters, probably including mandates for fisheries agreements with Iceland and Norway. They will have further discussions on direct elections and attempt to secure agreement on the remaining outstanding problems. They are also likely to discuss passport union; relations with Iran and the CMEA; the signing of the additional Protocol to the Portuguese Free Trade Agreement and of the Financial Protocol; a draft mandate for the resumption of negotiations with Spain; the accession negotiations with Greece and recent developments in the CIEC; and, possibly, draft directives on public supply contracts and on the right of establishment and mutual recognition of qualifications of nurses.

Agriculture Ministers are likely to consider Commission proposals to restore market equilibrium in the milk sector; the Community import régime for beef; interim measures in the sheepmeat sector; revisions to the hop market régime; and possibly measures to alleviate the effects of the drought on agriculture.

At the Development Council, Ministers will consider the implementation of the resolution on the harmonisation and coordination of development co-operation policies within the Community; financial and technical aid by the Community to non-associated developing countries; relations between the European Communities and non-governmental organisations specialising in development cooperation and the follow-up to UNCTAD IV.

The agenda for the meeting of Finance Ministers has not yet been fixed.

Mr. Hurd

May I, with particular emphasis, thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement? We had no statement on EEC business last month and we protested. I hope that that was a temporary lapse in fulfilling a clear undertaking given by the former Leader of the House which we believe is of great importance.

May I ask the Minister of State to clear up what looks at first sight like a right old muddle about the meeting on direct elections which he is to attend on 20th September? According to the Written Answer which he gave to the House on Friday, the Government and the Community have abandoned the idea—which we always thought was most damaging to our strength in the Community—that Britain might send 81 nominated Members to serve as second-class Members in a Parliament which was otherwise directly elected. In his Written Answer the right hon. Gentleman told us that that possibility had now been excluded by the Government and the Community. This week there are Press reports from Bonn and Brussels that that is not the sense of what was agreed by the Council of Ministers last week. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us exactly what is the position?

Mr. Hattersley

On the regular nature of the business statement, the hon. Gentleman will have received a letter from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House which I am sure will more than satisfy his wish that a regular statement shall be made as often as suits the convenience of the House.

On direct elections, the position is clear. No decision was taken in July. What was then proposed, although the British Government could not subscribe to it, was that the document implementing direct elections should contain no date but a clause by which it was agreed that the eventual date for Community-wide elections would be decided by a unanimous resolution of the Council of Ministers. That can only mean that all elections are held when every Community member is ready to hold those elections and no elections are held until that date.

Sir G. de Freitas

The hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) referred to the Written Question I put down last Friday and the answer given by my right hon. Friend. Will my right hon. Friend make clear that he sees no difficulties whatsoever in signing the document relating to direct elections on 20th September?

Mr. Hattersley

The Government will be ready to approve the document on 20th September and if the presidency thinks that is the most appropriate occasion for signing it, we shall be ready. I cannot speak for the other countries in the Community, but I hope and believe that they will all sign on that day. I can speak only for ourselves, and we are prepared to sign on 20th September.

Mr. Russell Johnston

Will there be any discussion about the desirability of approximating, at least, the basis on which these elections will take place at the first round? Can the Minister also say something about the state of play on passport union?

Mr. Hattersley

I believe that it is the will of the House and the judgment of the Government—and of the Select Committee to which the hon. Gentleman has given evidence—that as much of the European election procedure as possible should be left for national decisions. Clearly some matters must be co-ordinated but where that is not essential, national decisions seem to be right. Clearly, one of those areas where national decisions should be taken is the method and form of direct elections.

We are considering a possible form of passport which would be common to all members of the Community but ours will remain a British passport, issued by the British passport authority, although common passports will look alike.

Mr. Henderson

Will there be a discussion at the Foreign Ministers meeting on the common fisheries policy? Will the Government take into account the extreme disquiet felt in the industry about limits and quotas and will he put forward a definite proposal that our fisheries officers should be entitled to be posted at EEC ports to check the quotas of fish landed? Is he aware that our fishermen have no faith in the present policing system?

Mr. Hattersley

No one can fail to be aware of the industry's anxiety about the wholly unsatisfactory state of the common fisheries policy. That anxiety is shared by the Government and I hope that it is reflected by what we do and say in Brussels. We shall continue to make strong representations about the new fishing regime which must be coordinated. I cannot promise that the matter will be discussed at the Council of Ministers, but much of the lobbying and preparatory work will go on in that month. We are conscious of the need to ensure that figures are properly policed and supervised. We are conscious that an agreement on paper that is not realised in the catches at the ports will be of little use to the industry. We understand that.

Mr. Jay

Is the Commission still proposing to impose a tax on margarines and other oils and fats as a contribution towards restoring the equilibrium in the milk market? What is the Government's attitude?

Mr. Hattersley

The Prime Minister made the Government's attitude clear last week. If the Commission continues to propose that, it will not become part of the agriculture policy of the Community.

Mr. John Davies

From reports of the last Foreign Ministers' meeting it seems that the Community has been given a common position to adopt at the next round of the Law of the Sea Conference on exclusive economic zones. Flowing from the European Council a unilateral decision on a 200-mile fishing zone has been decided. Will the Council proceed in September to the important matter of defining the internal Community considerations involved in the economic zone, because it relates not only to fishing but to many other serious matters which need to be regulated? How is it possible to reach a Community position regarding the Law of the Sea Conference without any understanding of the internal questions?

Mr. Hattersley

The right hon. Gentleman must be referring to seabed resources. In a statement after the last Council I made clear that there had been some discussions on the legal implications of the declaration to take up a common position at the Law of the Sea Conference. The Government are convinced that the form of the document which stipulated the Community's position safeguards our seabed resources.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

Is my right hon. Friend aware that most Labour hon. Members and others will be relieved to know that the Government are free to follow Labour Party policy in opposing direct elections? Long may that remain Government policy—

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Two hon. Members are trying to address the House at the same time. I think that the Minister's hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) had not concluded.

Mr. Hattersley

I was not sure that my hon. Friend had finished, but since he has, I can tell him that I am conscious of the decision taken by the national executive of the party. But I am also conscious that when the Government signed the Treaty of Accession they made a commitment on direct elections. I know that direct elections will be discussed at my own party's conference in October and it would be unwise to predict what the outcome of that will be.

Mr. Scott-Hopkins

Does the Minister not think that leaving the date open for direct elections is asking for difficulties in the future? Is it the Government's intention that direct elections should take place in May 1978 if that is possible? Is there any possibility of the Government producing a White Paper on their stand on the milk package to cover not only the levy but the other five items in the package proposed by the Commission, so that we can debate the issues when we return after the recess?

Mr. Hattersley

There is no doubt about the Government's intentions on direct elections. In the preamble to the instrument that we are prepared to endorse in September, all member countries are committed to use their best endeavours to hold direct elections in the spring of 1978, and that we shall do. But there may be limitations placed on our ability to fulfil that promise. We must not talk as if the Government have decided that they will be held then, because we have to present legislation to the House, which could accept or reject such a proposal.

On the hon. Gentleman's second question, it is a matter that the House should debate, and the Scrutiny Committee has recommended that there should be further debate after it has received more information on the market for milk in the Community. I am not sure that it is an appropriate subject for a White Paper but I am sure that there will be a debate. The Leader of the House is in the Chamber and he will take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Spearing

My right hon. Friend did not mention anything about the meeting of the Finance Ministers. Is he aware that the explanatory memorandum to the document on stamp duty on capital transfer tax shows that this country would stand to lose £100 million of revenue? Since it is unlikely that the Government will accept the proposal that comes from the Committee which met today, is it not appropriate to table a motion disapproving the directive rather than one which takes note of it?

Mr. Hattersley

That matter is not on the agenda for the Finance Ministers' meeting for the period to which I am referring.

Mr. Biffen

Is it expected that the Joint European Torus will be the subject of discussion at a meeting of the Council of Ministers in September and if so, which aspect of the Council will it be? Will it be the meeting of scientific Ministers?

Mr. Hattersley

I fear that that will not be discussed in September, although I think that it should be. The Council of Foreign Ministers has decided that, in one form or another, JET must go ahead, thereby giving a degree of security to those who are working on that and related projects at Culham. We need to come to a speedy conclusion about the best site for JET so that the team working at Culham has the security of knowing that the present site is to remain. We have no doubt that the best site is Culham.

Several Hon. Membersrose—

Mr. Speaker

In order that there should be no sense of frustration, I intend to call every hon. Member who is standing, because I have a very serious view of the rights of the House as the guardian of our national interests in connection with the EEC. I consider that I have a special responsibility in this regard. I should be very grateful if hon. Members would feel that they had a special responsibility to ask brief questions.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

As the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) prefaced his question with a reference to passport union, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that what is under immediate consideration for possible implementation is merely a uniform passport on a national basis and that this is a very different and much more modest concept than the wider concept normally called passport union, in respect of which there are still unresolved problems of travel, entry and residence within the Community?

Mr. Hattersley

I am glad to offer that piece of clarification of a less than precise earlier answer. Certainly, the concept of passport union, in that it may mean rights of entry between one country and another in the Community, is a long way away. What is on the agenda, and what we shall continue to discuss, is the simple point that I made earlier about having a passport the cover of which is similar, although not indentical, throughout the Community.

Mrs. Dunwoody

Is my right hon. Friend aware that as it is quite clear that the House wishes to discuss the whole restructuring of the milk sector, it would be wrong if any decision were taken by the Council of Agriculture Ministers dealing with one part of that subject? Will he please make sure that no decision is taken to give open-ended subsidies to the drought-stricken areas, which, much as we sympathise with their problems, would make the whole milk problem worse?

Mr. Hattersley

I note my hon. Friend's last point, although I do not pretend that I understand it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who reads theOfficial Report of these discussions, will no doubt take that point on board in preparation for his meeting.

I understand the need for a general debate in the House and for a general attitude to be struck about the milk situation, but there is an overwhelming need to do all we can as quickly as we can to prevent the constant production of surplus milk supply throughout the Community, and consequent nonsenses arising from that. If my right hon. Friend found an opportunity to strike a great blow against one of the surpluses next month, I think that the House would expect him to take that opportunity.

Mr. Marten

May I press the right hon. Gentleman a little further on the question of passports? Did I understand him to say that there would be a design on the cover which might or might not be the same for all Community countries but which implied that it was a Europassport of some sort? Will he make it absolutely plain that it will be purely optional for those who want it, and that any British person can continue to have a British passport—as I have now, and always hope to have—and will not have to have one of these cosmetic lobs of which the right hon. Gentleman is talking?

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Hattersley

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman strikes a patriotic chord with my hon. Friends below the Gangway. I can give him an even stronger assurance than that for which he asks. These matters are very much in the experimental and examination stage. I do not think that they are believed to be so important that we must make the decision with undue haste.

Mr. Dalyell

What problems are surfacing over Greek accession?

Mr. Hattersley

The problems that were always expected, that the discussions in preparation for Greek membership would have to be long and tough. The will to see Greece a member of the Community was clearly expressed at the meeting between Greece and the EEC a fortnight ago, but we are at the begining of a long and tough discussion. The Greeks and the EEC member nations are very conscious of that.

Mr. Moate

Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify his earlier answers about direct elections? Is it the Government's intention that there shall be no commitment to a uniform electoral system either for the first elections, if they take place, or for subsequent elections?

Mr. Hattersley

It is very clear, in all we have said and published on the subject, that the Community believes that where national decisions are possible they should be left to the national Parliaments and Governments. That is our view on these matters, including the form of election. Therefore, the Government have no proposals for harmonising the form of the elections in the Community.

Mr. Hooley

In the discussions as a follow-up to UNCTAD IV will the Government make a serious attempt to arrive at an agreed position on the issue of common fund debt repayments and the transfer of technology?

Mr. Hattersley

Common fund debt repayment and commodities are the issues which caused the real problems in Nairobi. If we are to make progress in this area there must be a shift in position on both sides of the argument. I very much hope that a common EEC position can be maintained, because there can be no progress without it. The British Government must weigh the advantages of moving towards a common position against the disadvantages of moving from a position that we believe to be right. We try to balance those factors.

Sir B. Rhys Williams

When the Finance Ministers meet in September, will the British Minister make clear that recent proposals for extending the snake currency system are unlikely to be fruitful? Bearing in mind that it is possible to run a multi-national currency system in a much more civilised way, will Britain make recommendations for a positive European currency peg?

Mr. Hattersley

I cannot pretend that we shall take the initiative that the hon. Gentleman suggests in September, but I can assure him that the snake will not even be considered then. The British Government made their views on the snake very clear even when that animal was fashionable. Now that it is almost extinct, I think that the Finance Ministers will choose not to discuss it.

Mr. Cryer

My right hon. Friend says that the Government are ready to sign a document on 20th September about direct elections. As the referendum contained no explicit or implicit approval for direct elections, as the NEC of the Labour Party voted 18–3 against direct elections, and as the annual democratically-organised conference of the Labour Party is to be held at the beginning of October, will he assure the House that the Government will not sign that document until the Labour Party has had a chance to express its view on the matter?

Mr. Hattersley

I clearly cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. I can assure him that the Government must fulfil their obligations to the electorate and to the position they adopted during the referendum campaign. [Interruption.] I remember very well the slogan over the platform at my party's conference, that the Labour Party would recommend and the people would decide. The people did decide. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not direct elections."] The decision they took and the many answers I gave in the House made it absolutely clear that direct elections were part of the package. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] I shall send my hon. Friend references to the answers I normally give to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) describing the necessity for direct elections.

What must also be borne in mind is a point on which I think he and I will agree, that the document we sign in September does not contain dates for direct elections. The dates will have to be determined at some future time, and it will be possible for us to take many factors into consideration when we eventually go to a meeting to decide when the first direct election will be held.

Mr. Watt

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the best way to achieve a market equilibrium in milk is to persuade his European colleagues to put more of their milk into the liquid sector—in other words, to persuade people to drink more? Does he realise that the milk producer in Britain will not be prepared to accept a levy on his production until his European counterparts accept a levy for publicity and advertising, which the British milk producer has had to do for the past 45 years?

Mr. Hattersley

I freely confess that I do not have the same information about milk production in this or any other country as the hon. Gentleman does, but I am sure that neither the milk producer nor the consumer throughout the Community will long continue to tolerate a system under which more milk is produced than is necessary and a great deal of it is destroyed in a wanton fashion. That is what we must end at the first opportunity.

Mr. Raphael Tuck

What is the Government's attitude to the fact that thousands of tons of home-produced food are being held back from the market in this country under EEC regulations, including beef, and that beef is being accumulated faster than it is being sold?

Mr. Hattersley

I have had the privilege of answering questions of attitude on that subject, very often from my hon. Friend. It is very clear that the Community's agricultural policy has to be reformed in such a way that the constant drive to overproduction and what some regard as the waste or surpluses has to be ended.

Mr. Leadbitter

Does my right hon. Friend recall that when he announced the last talks with the Council of Ministers I raised a question then about the conflicting claims of France, Germany, Italy and this country and our view that the siting of the JET project in connection with the research and development work in nuclear fusion should be at Culham? In view of the special interest of this country and my right hon. Friend's indication of his responsibility, would he tell the House whether this matter will be considered in the next round of discussions? If not, what progress has been made to bring some relief to this deadlock?

Mr. Hattersley

A month ago we agreed that the project must go on in some form, and that more funds should be provided. My hon. Friend and I are united in the belief that the project should be at Culham in the United Kingdom. It is unlikely to succeed anywhere else. I promise that the Government will go on pressing for that location as hard as we can.