§ 8. Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the EEC for the most recent 12-month period; and how this compares with the figure for 1975.
§ 10. Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Trade what are the latest official figures for imports and exports to and from the Common Market countries as represented in csterling.
§ Mr. MeacherOur exports to the EEC in 1978 were £14,104 million and imports from the Community were £16,589 million, giving a crude trade deficit of £2,485 million, compared with one of £2,386 million in 1975.
§ Mr. KnoxWill the hon. Member confirm that since 1975 exports to EEC countries have increased by four times as much as exports to other countries? Does not this show how beneficial our membership of the Common Market is?
§ Mr. MeacherI cannot confirm the figures given by the hon. Member. How- 1010 ever, I can say that at the end of the first three-quarters of 1978 the visible trade deficit with the EEC was £2,162 million and that the visible surplus with the rest of the world was nearly £1,000 million.
§ Mr. SkinnerDoes my hon. Friend recall how the former Secretary of State told us that if we went into the Common Market Britain's trade would benefit and that we would be able to sell to this massive market? Will my hon. Friend now accept that the so-called industrial difficulties, which are of only a temporary nature, pale into insignificance compared with the permanent damage to Britain's industrial base as a result of these massive imports which themselves are resulting in large dole queues? Will my hon. Friend now support on behalf of the whole Treasury Bench the Common Market manifesto which we have just drawn up with the national executive committee stating that we shall pull out if we cannot reform not only this problem but some of the others inside the Common Market?
§ Mr. MeacherThe permanent effects at membership of the Common Market in trade terms cannot at this stage be established. The question depends ultimately on international specialisation in capital goods production. What is more, there can be no doubt that other economic factors, apart from the mutual reduction of tariff rates—namely, inflation rate differentials, exchange rate differentials and the differential impact of oil prices—are in the long run more important.
§ Mr. DykesWill the Minister be very careful answering these questions, bearing in mind that he himself wrote in an article in The Times just before it ceased publishing that there was no evidence that the deficit had increased in net terms as a result of our membership of the Community?
§ Mr. MeacherI am glad that the hon. Gentleman referred to that article, draws a completely false conclusion from it. I actually wrote in that article that export-import ratios over the period since we joined the Common Market showed a slower improvement in terms of our trade with the EEC than in terms of our trade with the rest of the world and in fact a slight worsening of the position compared with that before our entry.
§ Mr. StoddartDoes my hon. Friend agree that not only have we this huge deficit in trade but that we are paying a very much higher price for our food, that our contribution to the Common Market will be the highest by 1980, and that stupid regulations issued by the Common Market have just caused a serious lorry drivers' strike in this country? What good have we got out of the Common Market?
§ Mr. MeacherI accept what my hon. Friend said in his first two comments. His third comment is a rather more complex matter and one which goes beyond the sphere of trade.
§ Sir William ElliottDoes the Minister agree that our present trading position will not be helped by reports of Danish vehicles which have nothing to do with the present dispute having difficulty in crossing picket lines on Tyneside docks?
§ Mr. MeacherThis is another matter which will be discussed on a later question on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. CryerDoes my hon. Friend agree that our deficit with the EEC is massive and serious? Does not he accept that under section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act there is already legislation which we could utilise to reduce the deficit by ensuring decent standards for products flowing in from the EEC? Does not the Department of Trade accept that the only way that we can reform the position and improve our negotiating power within the EEC is by taking a stand and making it quite clear that unilateral withdrawal will be undertaken unless serious reforms are brought about?
§ Mr. MeacherThe Prime Minister and other Ministers have made clear the British position in respect of quite fundamental reforms under the Treaty of Rome. As for section 6 of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act, I am not sure what my hon. Friend is referring to, but I am not aware that it is impossible to implement that whilst we remain in the EEC.
§ Mr. Donald StewartDoes the Minister accept that, despite his EEC jargon replies, the general public in the United Kingdom are only too aware that none of the multi-benefits has appeared and that all the disabilities are coming to the 1012 forefront in increasing number? Is not the answer total reform or total withdrawal?
§ Mr. MeacherThe immediate answer is neither totally staying in nor totally withdrawing but making certain of fundamental changes, which is the Government's position. As regards the wider effects, of course, there is a balance between political and economic effects. I have tried to make clear that it is extremely difficult to find anything positive to say about the trade effects.