HC Deb 01 November 1979 vol 972 cc1581-606

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You may know that there has always been difficulty about the documentation of some of these documents. I draw your attention to the agreement that the Government of the day place in the Library a list of the documents to which hon. Members may wish to refer in the course of debates of this sort.

I think that you will have in your possession, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the letter dated 25 October from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which cites seven principal sets of documents relating to this debate. But it does not cite either of the documents mentioned in the schedule to the order, namely, the two treaties. In addition, you will have had your attention drawn to and will have in your possession another document of a parallel nature to those treaties and to which no reference is made in the document laid in the Library.

In view of these principal points, I submit that the documents have not been drawn to the attention of Members and that the Government have not fulfilled their duty in the matter. Due to the irregularity and the anomaly surrounding the treaties mentioned in the schedule and the alternative treaties which are available and printed, I ask that you exercise your discretion and accept a motion to adjourn the debate immediately the motion has been formally moved, to allow these matters to be fully and properly discussed before the merits of any treaties are debated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill)

I thank the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for his preamble. The matter was drawn to my attention as I entered the Chamber. I have examined the letter to which the hon. Member referred, and it is true that the fifth extension of the convention is not mentioned in it. However, the fifth extension is mentioned on the back of the draft statutory instrument, and I take the view that anyone wishing to take part in the debate and examining the draft statutory instrument would see that the fifth extension was necessary for the debate and would be able to obtain a copy. As I understand it, a copy is freely available in the Vote Office. I do not think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman has made a very strong point.

Mr. Spearing

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is true that the fifth extension of the convention is mentioned in the document. The schedule reads: 1. Protocol for the Fifth Extension of the Wheat Trade Convention and so on. However, when I asked the Vote Office for documents relating to this debate, the only document I was given was the single sheet of the order. The protocol for the fifth extension of the wheat trade convention mentioned in the schedule, embodied in two documents, is apparently within the Official Journal of the European Communities. The number is L.152, 20 June 1979, page 10. As far as I am aware, these documents are not in the Vote Office. They are in the bound volume of the Official Journal and are not generally available to Members.

There is a further matter relating to a Command Paper—Cmnd. 7593—which is not drawn to anybody's attention in the letter, in the Official Journal or in the schedule to the order.

In view of these two further factors, I submit, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that a debate on a motion to adjourn this debate would be in order, particularly since for a number of years there have been difficulties of this nature. Rather than delay the House with a long series of points of order, which I and my hon. Friends, in developing these factors, may feel compelled to put to you, it would surely be for the convenience of the House to have a debate on that matter—which is within your discretion—so that it can be thoroughly aired.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member would have a valid point if the papers were not available, but the Official Journal of the European Communities is reprinted in toto in Cmnd. 7593. The documents are, therefore, available for the debate.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have just informed the House correctly that the contents of the document, as cited in the schedule, are available as a Command Paper. That, of course, is the natural form in which a document to be brought to the attention of the House would be available. But we are confronted with the fact that it is precisely that Command Paper which is not referred to in any portion of the document before the House.

I am aware that there is a precedent, unfortunately, in section 77 of the Finance Act 1978, for legislation by this House by reference to a European Communities document. We are not here in that case, because we have a Command Paper which contains the requisite text. Unfortunately, however—and I support the submission made by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that this is a fatal flaw against the debate continuing—no reference has been made to the Command Paper, and until the statement made by yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, most hon. Members would have been unaware that there was a Command Paper containing what purports to be the text of a treaty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The papers are available, and the Library has a list of the documents which are necessary for reference in the debate, including the Official Journal. On the back of the draft statutory instrument, as I have already told the House, is a list of the other papers which may be required in the debate. They are also available. I do not think, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman has a strong point in regard to adjourning the debate. When debate has been adjourned in the past, it has been because papers have not been available. In this case the papers are available.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I also, in the course of the afternoon, inquired at the Vote Office in the Lobby for the papers which were relevant to the debate. I was handed this single sheet entitled " The European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (International Wheat Agreement) Order 1979 ", and nothing else. I inquired whether there were any other documents relevant to the debate and was told that none was available.

We are now informed that there is in existence, apparently, a Command Paper which is, in fact, the treaty which we are being asked to discuss. There was no reference to that in the Vote Office, and there is no reference to that Command Paper in the order which is before the House.

We are, after all, being asked this evening, in effect, to legislate. We are under this curious procedure when the House is asked to declare that a particular treaty is a treaty for the purpose of the European Communities Act 1972. We are giving validity in United Kingdom law to that treaty. Surely, it is a most anomalous position if the actual document—in the form of a Command Paper, as usually happens—is not available to the House. There was, indeed, no way of discovering that it existed until the debate commenced.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

Surely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if there are quite clear references to the Official Journal in the schedule to the order and the Official Journal is available in the precincts of the House, it is not necessary to put copies of that in the Vote Office. If it were necessary to put in the Vote Office copies of every document mentioned in every statutory instrument which comes before us, the Vote Office would be completely cluttered up with documents. If documents are referred to in the order, in an explanatory note, or in the schedule, surely it is for right hon. and hon. Members to search them out within the precincts of the House, whether they be in the Vote Office in the basement or in the place on the other side of the road where the Official Journal is kept.

Mr. Spearing

Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not sure whether you or the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) have grasped the original point that I sought to make. For that I must ask your forgiveness. The documents to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and to which you referred, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and which are named in the schedule, are part of the Official Journal. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have a photocopy of it, as I have. I suspect that we are the only two hon. Members to have it. But it is not mentioned in the letter dated 25 October from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, it is mentioned in the schedule to the order. All Governments have said that they would place in the Library letters informing hon. Members of the documents that are relevant to a debate.

Neither Command 7593, which is a mysterious parallel and which no one would know about, except by chance, nor any extract from, or reference to, the Official Journal is in the letter deposited in the Library by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

Those facts, the undertakings given by Governments of both parties in respect of documents and the presence of the other Command Paper, which is not mentioned anywhere, justify the House being given some clarification before we proceed. If the House as a whole learns that we have not been able to clarify the matter, there could be further problems and difficulties that could be resolved in an easier and more pleasant way this evening.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that a previous Speaker made a ruling about the availability of papers. The hon. Gentleman may have been in the House at the time. Mr. Speaker said: I have decided, therefore, to accept the recommendation of the House of Commons (Services) Committee that in future a Department should supply to the Library in advance a list of all those older papers which appear to it to be relevant to a forthcoming debate."—[Official Report, 21st February 1966; Vol. 725, c. 34] The list placed in the Libary is of the older papers, and the draft statutory instrument has on the back of it a note of the further papers that are required.

I do not know what was or was not said to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) when he went to the Vote Office, but presumably he looked at the statutory instrument and saw that the fifth extension was mentioned. He could have gone to the Library to obtain a copy of the Command Paper.

Mr. Spearing

It is not there.

Mr. Jay

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not able to go to the Library to obtain a copy of the Command Paper because its designation was not mentioned on the order that was given to me.

Mr. Spearing

Nor is it mentioned anywhere else.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

All the documents are available, and my strong feeling is that if all the documents are available the debate can surely proceed. If documents were not available, it would be unreasonable for the debate to proceed, but they are available and have been properly printed. I think that we should proceed with the debate. In view of the points of order that have been taken, I should make clear that the one and a half hours for the debate will start now.

10.8 p.m.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith)

I beg to move, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (International Wheat Agreement) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 25th July, be approved. The wheat trade convention and the food aid convention comprise the International Wheat Agreement which came into operation on 1 July 1971 for a period of three years. It has been extended periodically since then by protocols, the most recent extension expiring on 30 June 1979. Protocols extending both conventions for a fifth time for a further two years, to 30 June 1981, came into operation on 1 July 1979.

The main purpose of extending the conventions is to keep the machinery of the International Wheat Council and the food aid committee in being so that negotiations on new conventions can continue in those forums.

It might assist if I remind the House of the purpose of those two bodies. The objectives of the wheat trade convention are to further international co-operation in connection with world wheat problems, to promote the expansion of international trade in wheat and wheat flour, to contribute to the fullest extent possible to the stability of the international wheat market and to provide a framework for the negotiation of economic provisions in a new wheat trade convention. The objective of the food aid convention is to carry out a food aid programme, with the help of contributions, for the benefit of developing countries.

After a number of years of preliminary negotiations within the International Wheat Council in London, a negotiating conference was convened in Geneva under the auspices of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in February 1978. The aim of this conference was to conclude a new international grains arrangement, comprising a new wheat trade convention with substantive economic provisions, a new food aid convention with an objective of 10 million tonnes of aid annually and also a consultative arrangement on coarse grains trade.

Three sessions of the negotiating conference were held in Geneva in February and March 1978, November 1978 and January and February of this year. By the end of the third session in February this year, negotiations on coarse grains and food aid were nearing a conclusion. However, discussions on the economic provisions to be included in a new wheat trade convention ran into difficulties in three main areas. I should like to explain those to the House for the sake of clarification.

The first main area of difficulty related to the level of prices within which the market should stabilise. The second area of difficulty related to the volume of reserve stocks necessary or desirable to achieve stabilisation. The third area of difficulty was the extent to which the special provisions should be contained within the agreement in order to assist developing countries to hold stocks and thus participate fully in the new convention.

It became apparent that fundamental issues such as those I have explained could not be easily resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties. Accordingly, the chairman of the conference suspended the proceedings until such time as a basis for their resumption could be established.

I should stress that the United Kingdom's part in these negotiations—we participated in this with the European Economic Community—was to attempt to achieve a workable agreement which would make a real contribution to world food security through the stabilisation of wheat prices on the world market.

No agreement could be regarded as meeting these objectives unless it attracted significant support from a reasonable number of developing countries, since those countries account for about 50 per cent. of world trade in wheat. Equally, we believe that any new agreement must recognise the legitimate demands of efficient exporters to ensure that prices on the world market are sufficient to cover the cost of production, otherwise there can be no certainty that supplies will continue to be available to the market.

The European Economic Community attempted to tread a middle course between the opposing points of view—obviously, there was an element of balance to be struck here between importers and exporters—and has been instrumental in seeking to protect the interests of the smaller developing importers.

It is, perhaps, not surprising that the suspension of negotiations—I acknowledge this—has been widely deplored by other international organisations concerned with food security. Certainly it is apparent that failure to stabilise the wheat market must place developing importing countries at risk as to the availability of supplies at prices which they can afford.

I emphasise that we are, therefore, anxious to ensure that negotiations should continue as soon as there is a reasonable basis for further discussion.

Mr. Spearing

The Minister mentioned the protection of the interests of smaller importing countries. Can he tell us whether those countries are inside the EEC and, if they are, which they are? If they are outside the EEC, could he cite examples and aver that it is in the interests of the EEC to look after the interests of those countries that are outside its boundary?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Yes, it is in the interests of the EEC to look after them. These are countries outside the EEC. I hope that that is one of the points which that hon. Gentleman will acknowledge in this debate, because it demonstrates an outward-looking responsibility of the EEC.

In relation to that, I am very glad to say that the United Kingdom Government have been taking a lead. We have been endeavouring to strike the correct balance. There is this balance to be struck, because the EEC, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is not the major exporter on to the world market. Obviously we have interests in that. What we have tried to do is to strike a balance between the other major exporting countries, particularly the United States of America, and the importing developing countries, which are the smaller countries to which I referred.

Mr. Spearing

Which are they? Name them.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

Having said that, I should like to point out that recent developments on the world wheat market have not made the conclusion of negotiations any easier. If anything, things have become more difficult since the suspension of negotiations. In particular, as we know, prices on the world markets have firmed up, partly as a result of the increase in demand and partly in response to the difficulties faced by major exporters in handling and transport.

The situation is not critical, in that world wheat stocks are high and, statistically at least, there is no shortage. However, the current level of prices has increased exporters' expectations of future returns, and the various logistical difficulties that have been experienced this year, arising mainly in relation to weather, shipping and other such factors, have called into question the extent to which a reserve stock policy could be effective in stabilising prices as long as the majority of the stock is held, as it is at present, by the exporting countries.

In conclusion, I should confirm that the International Wheat Council is making every effort to attend to these outstanding issues, but in the meantime we have to make sure that the extension of the present agreement is not only the best that can be achieved but is in itself a contribution towards world food security because it provides for the continuing availability of food aid to those who need it and because it encourages Governments who are parties to the agreement to keep a careful eye on develpments in the wheat market.

For those reasons, I commend the order to the House.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang (Edinburgh, East)

The Minister of State has explained that the order is necessary so as to provide for an extension of the current agreement and, indeed, that without such an extension we would not be able to continue with the International Wheat Council and the food aid committee. I think that all hon. Members would want to pay tribute to these organisations, and I do not believe that anyone in the House would want to prevent the order going through and thus to prevent the continuation of their valuable work.

The Minister of State also referred to the breakdown in the talks which were aimed at providing for a new wheat agreement, a much more ambitious agreement, of course, which aimed at buffering the changes in world price by internationally co-ordinating reserve stocks. That is an objective to which most Opposition Members would subscribe, as, perhaps, would the Minister himself.

Of course, the European Commission handles the trade negotiations on our behalf and on behalf of other member Governments within the European Community. We can all comment on the reasons for the breakdown of the talks, but I would express the view that in this situation I do not think that the Community has been at fault—putting it at its lowest—as has been the situation perhaps, for example, in the international sugar negotiations, where the stance of the Community in relation to the International Sugar Agreement was nothing short of disreputable.

It is not my intention to take up the time of the House on this matter. I know that a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to particiate, as, I suspect, do some Conservative Members. Nothing that I say should be construed as indicating that we are against the order.

It was my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who provoked this debate. It is right that he should have the opportunity so to do. I am not saying that I agree that we should have had this debate on the Floor of the House, but I defend my hon. Friend's right to provoke the debate. I know that he wishes to develop some interests that he has in the general area of the Community's position in relation to world commodity agreements and so on. Therefore, we are happy to support the order.

10.21 p.m.

Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) when he said that the Common Market had behaved in a disreputable way over the International Sugar Agreement. It has been almost as disreputable over wheat. The hon. Gentleman must be well aware that the Common Market has largely been at fault in not enabling an agreement to be reached at Geneva under UNCTAD. Had that agreement been reached last February, we would not now be troubled with this order and the necessity to continue the International Wheat Council, which since 1971, when it was established, has achieved very little and, indeed, seeks to he no more than just a forum of discussion.

In a sense, this is a rather futile exercise. We are invited to approve an Order in Council which has been laid in accordance with section 1(3) of the European Communities Act. But the treaty with which we are concerned is a protocol. If one looks at article 6 of that protocol, one sees that the signatory Governments are required to lodge their instruments of ratification with the United States Government before 22 June 1979. We know that the signatory Government in regard to this country has lodged its ratification. But it has not been the United Kingdom Government.

If one looks at article 3 of the protocol, one finds that the word "government" in relation to this country means the EEC. Therefore, it is that institution that has asserted itself as the Government of this country—that is the very word used—for the purpose of the protocol. We also know that in accordance with article 1 of the protocol this convention has taken effect and continues until 30 June 1981. That remains a fact whatever action this House now seeks to take. If we all troop into the "No" Lobby tonight and vote against the order, it would not have the slightest effect, because an institution purporting to be the Government of this country has ratified the protocol, which is now valid in international law and cannot be invalidated.

I return to the reason why we are concerned with the order. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State explained, the Geneva talks under UNCTAD collapsed not so many months ago. We know the reasons why. My hon. Friend gave three, but the outstanding one was the failure to agree on the level of prices. That failure was due to the Common Market under the influence of France. It was not under our influence, because in so far as we expressed our opinion we negotiated on behalf of the developing countries that would import the wheat. I believe that the United Kingdom Government played a fair and notable part in those negotiations as one of the 40 countries at the conference.

The conflict was between the Common Market, under the influence of France, and the United States. This was a conflict between a high-cost producer and a low-cost producer. In any clash between a high-cost producer and a low-cost producer over how the world market is regulated, it is plain common sense that the fault lies with the high-cost producer. It was the behaviour of France and the Common Market at that UNCTAD conference of 40 countries that caused to talks to fail. The conference was summoned in February 1978 by the United Nations because of the desperate plight of so many importing countries of the Third world which needed wheat supplies from the principal donor countries willing to supply them.

Before that conference, 4 million tonnes was being made available to the Third world countries and the whole purpose of the talks was to jack it up to 10 million tonnes. That increase of 6 million tonnes would have been invaluable to the developing countries. Yet those talks crashed because of the utter selfishness of the high-cost producing countries within the EEC.

All the high hopes of the developing countries crashed dismally and there seems to be no prospect now of the conference being reconstituted. I do not think that my hon. Friend can offer any hope of its being reconstituted for some time. If there was hope, there would be no need to fall back on the talking shop of the International Wheat Council, which has not sought to do much in the years of its existence. With all due respect to those who serve on it, it has achieved nothing since its inception in 1971. It is simply an international quango.

I would not say the same about the food aid programme, which has achieved a great deal, and we all pay tribute to it. However, it has not done enough, and the whole purpose of the Geneva conference under UNCTAD was to liberalise the international market and give the developing countries access to a further 6 million tonnes of wheat.

We must now ask ourselves whether there is any chance of the convention succeeding. I do not think that it will achieve anything more than it has achieved since 1971. We should press other member States of the EEC to agree to a reconstitution of the UNCTAD conference, and we in the United Kingdom should take a lead in pressing for a more liberal attitude towards the developing countries and an agreement with the United States about the level of prices.

If that were achieved, there could be little doubt that the UNCTAD conference would succeed, and then there would be no further need for the International Wheat Council. We could dispense with it, as we have no happy memories of its achievement in its eight years of existence.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

May I first thank you for your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the outset of the debate. You read from the Speaker's statement of 1966, which referred to old documents and which technically debarred you from accepting an application to move the adjournment of the debate. However, I wish to draw to the attention of the House a point of substance in relation to documentation. I shall therefore first address myself to the procedural part of the order before turning to the wheat agreement itself.

As we all know, difficulties have arisen over the procedure for ratifying international treaties, some of which may have legislative effect in this country by means of a statuory instrument procedure designed to give effect to domestic legislation. I hope that the suggestions of the Procedure Committee, which was composed of hon. Members with various views on European matters, will rid us of that problem. The other day 20 hon. Members rose in the House to enable the debate to take place in this Chamber and not upstairs, and to ensure that hon. Members, the Leader of the House and everyone in government is aware of the effective nature of statutory instrument procedure in general and its particular application to definition of treaties orders.

The controversy surrounding the order in question is in two parts—the documents cited in the schedule and the nature of the explanatory note. The schedule names the international treaties and refers to protocols for the fifth extension, and so on of the Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L152, 20 June 1979, page 10, and the second page 13. Reference has been made to the copy which some hon. Members have obtained from the Library.

Coincidentally and fortuitously—and through the excellent service of Her Majesty's Stationery Office daily list or pink slip—and I cannot remember which—I discovered that there was a document called Cmnd. 7593, Miscellaneous, No. 16 (1979), which is in Her Majesty's treaty series. As far as I am aware, that is precisely the same document as that which is contained in the European Communities journal. However, in citing the treaties, the order cites the European Communities journal extract and does not cite Her Majesty's paper deposited in this House by command, which is a parliamentary paper.

Even if the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, cannot explain that extraordinary situation tonight, he should certainly draw it to the attention of the Lord President of the Council, who is responsible for orders, and of the Foreign Secretary. It appears that this House, for the first time, is being asked to give assent to a treaty the existence of which is purported to be solely within the journal of the European Communities. In doing that, I suggest, the order implies, suggests or condones that the institutions of the Community not only have the right to make the treaty by virtue of the European Communities Act—which I concede—but that they have the right and obligation to provide, print and supply the substantive copy of a treaty to which Her Majesty, Her Majesty's Government and the United Kingdom are party. That is a constitutional matter of which the House should take serious note. However, it goes further than that. As I have shown, that need not have been cited so. It could have added Cmnd. 7593 as a sort of dual reference, although I think that that would have been bad. Instead, it is silent about the treaty series paper that was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by command of Her Majesty in July 1979.

Through the lack of either notice of such a paper in the order or availability in the Vote Office or the Library, or, with respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, through lack of ability to debate adjournment, the Command Paper has not been brought to the attention of the House. I suggest that that is verging on a matter of privilege. It suggests that authority rests not with Her Britannic Majesty, who has the sole prerogative to make treaties with foreign Powers, but with the institutions of the European Community.

I have to adhere to the European Communities Act 1972 out of law but not conviction, but I feel that even those who agree with that measure will not agree with the suggested transfer of responsibility. I shall raise the issue again. I hope that the Government will account for this extraordinary situation that throws constitutional matters of great significance into the current arguments about the EEC.

I move on to the explanatory note. I do not know how many times I have patiently and carefully protested about the non-explanatory nature of so-called explanatory notes. I know that it is strictly not part of the order. However, it is meant to explain and it does nothing of the sort. It reads: This Order declares the 1979 Protocols for the Fifth Extension of the Wheat Trade Convention and the Food Aid Convention constituting the International Wheat Agreement 1971 (Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L152, 20th June 1979, pages 10–15) to be Community Treaties as defined in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The International Wheat Agreement 1971 is a Community Treaty by virtue of section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and this Order ensures that the Protocols which extend its validity will also be Community Treaties. I do not believe that anyone, however carefully and however many times he reads that, will understand what on earth it is all about.

This is not the first time that hon. Members have made these comments about explanatory notes. When we had a similar order before us last year the then Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the right hon Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), noticed a similar explanatory note so called. The Committee called for further particulars. I quote from the Thirteenth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments—Session 1977–78, House of Commons 16-xlvii. The fourth paragraph reads: the Committee draw the special attention of both Houses to the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 7) (International Wheat Agreement) Order 1978 on the ground that it requires elucidation, which does not appear from the draft Order itself or from the Explanatory Note printed with it. Such elucidation has, at the Committee's request, been provided in written evidence submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is printed as an appendix to this Report". Sure enough, as an appendix to the report there are at least three pages of fairly close print which set out in reasonable detail what it is all about. The Joint Committee of last year drew the attention of Her Majesty's Government, especially the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to this matter when it laid this year's order, which is a virtual repeat. Surely it should have been most careful to take account of what had gone before, mend its ways and expand the explanatory note. It would have had half a page in which to do so. But it did not.

It is not for want of trying. On 25 April 1977, this matter was raised with a Minister in the Labour Government by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who asked: Is my hon. Friend giving an assurance that in future the Government will publish some form of memorandum simultaneously with the order, giving the information for which we have asked? Is that definite? He was asking not even for a full explanatory memorandum but for an additional one, which I admit is second best. The then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), said: I am very sympathetic to the request that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South made, which has been voiced on both sides of the House. I hope that he will leave it to us to examine the best way in which that can be done."—[Official Report, 25 April 1977; Vol. 930; c. 989.] Of course, nothing was done. So, on 16 March 1979, I had an Adjournment debate, no less, on the whole matter relating to the way we designate treaties and ratify them. I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), then Lord President of the Council and therefore responsible for these orders. He dealt with my request as though it had been voiced for the first time in the House. Referring to me, he said: My hon. Friend asked me further about the explanatory memorandums and how much information they gave to the House and the country. I again acknowledge to him that I think that one of the difficulties the House has is the way we get the information. If he will give me the opportunity of sending him the details, I can indicate to him that we have sought to carry out our earlier undertakings. I should have thought that considerable improvement had been achieved, although I have no doubt that there is further progress to be made.—[Official Report, 16 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 1069.] Of course, no progress has been made.

I wonder how far polite requests can go, no doubt to different civil servants as they move round in progression, and to different Ministers, who speak with the same voice to the same briefs. Such requests are constantly presented by hon. Members, perfectly reasonably, so that they, let alone the public they represent, at least can understand these documents—and, after all, the public may be the subject of such legislation. Just how much further are we to go? Are we to get out guns and shoot people? Are we to seek to divide the House? What are we to do? I would seek the guidance of some hon. Members opposite, because it is not just a matter for one Government or the other; it just goes on and on and on. I for one have just about had enough, and I think that I had better take a leaf out of the book of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), who occasionally gets his way by doing what may appear to be unreasonable things in support of reasonable objectives.

New Members opposite who have had to wait here in case there is a vote might begin to learn. It is not just a matter of sides; it is Back Benchers versus the rest. If it is difficult for us in respect of those who are a few hundred yards up the road in Whitehall, this sort of situation brings general politicians and general bureaucracy into disrepute. It is a disease which has to be stopped, and we have got to stop it here.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, West)

I am here not to await the Whips' fancy but to hear a reasonable debate on a very important topic, and I think that the diatribe we have heard for the last half-hour has disillusioned most of us on this side of the House.

Mr. Spearing

I gave way because I was about to proceed to the substance of the matter, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman, being a new Member, will, unless ways are mended, be of my opinion within a few months or years. I hope that he will not be, because I hope that a new intake of Members will ensure that the Executive and those who serve them take more cognisance of what is said in the House and serve the general public in the way that they deserve, and not wrap things up in technical legal jargon which the public cannot be expected to understand.

I turn now to the substance of the matters before us. I accept that these are important matters. That is why we are having a debate on the Floor of the House and why 20 right hon. and hon. Members stood.

The International Wheat Agreement 1971, of which this is a renewal, is a disagreement, not an agreement. It has been dragging on because it has not been implemented. The objectives of the agreement, Cmnd 4953, are:

  1. "(a) To further international co-operation in connection with world wheat problems, recognising the relationship of the trade in wheat to the economic stability of markets for other agricultural products;
  2. (b) To promote the expansion of the international trade in wheat and wheat flour and to secure the freest possible flow of this trade in the interests of both exporting and importing members, and thus contribute to the development of countries, the economies of which depend on commercial sales of wheat".
Wheat and starving people are of great concern to all Members on both sides of the House.

I was disappointed with the Minister's opening speech. He was coy about some of the reasons for the agreement not having borne fruit. The order authorises a treaty to extend it for a further two years, so we shall not have another opportunity to debate it for two years, unless agreement is reached in the meantime.

The real reasons for the disagreement continuing are the policies of the CAP and of the European Economic Community as regards its international wheat regime and its effect on the world wheat market. Such is the growing volume of wheat produced in the EEC that there is a risk—I put it no higher than that; the Minister will do doubt tell me if I am wrong—that the United Kingdom will have a wheat surplus next year or the year after that. It may not be a wheat surplus of the grain that we require for bread making, but I suggest that we are perilously near to having our own wheat mountain.

The basis for that suggestion is a written answer which came to me on 24 October from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I asked how much had been spent on intervention buying of certain crops and what were the production subsidies for cereals used for starch manufacture. In 1978 the United Kingdom Intervention Board for Agricultural Production paid out £11 million buying up surplus cereals, some of which would have been wheat, for manufacture into starch. I think that it would come as a shock to most people to learn that such large sums were being spent buying up cereals grown in this country for manufacture into starch. Of course, that £11 million pales beside the £71 million spent by the board on milk support. The significance of those figures is seen in relation to world trade.

World production of wheat is about 400 million tonnes, of which 70 million tonnes enter world trade. Of those 70 million tonnes, the EEC produces about 10 million tonnes. Therefore, about one-seventh of world trade in wheat, give or take a small proportion, originates in the EEC.

We tend to think of the United States as the great food bin, but its wheat production is about the same as that of the EEC. Therefore, to some extent we are rivals in exporting cereals. The difference is that United States farmers produce that wheat—I understand that the Australians and Canadians are in a similar position—at a much lower cost than EEC produced wheat. This is for a variety of reasons of which climatic and natural factors are major contributors. The difference is made up in the export of this, approximately, 10 million tonnes of wheat by the EEC by a subsidy.

Export subsidies, and production grants, and what have you, for cereals as a whole in the draft budget for 1979 amount to about £1,000 million. That is a billion pounds, which, significantly enough, is the same sum as we are having to tip into the budget. That is the measure of it. Roughly the same amount of money as our contribution to the budget is being spent on export restitutions on cereals.

Granted it is not all wheat, but it is cereals produced in the EEC, including rice which is being dumped on the world market. If one adds subsidised sales and other agricultural aids we get a total of £1,173 million and the bulk of that goes on export refunds. This money goes, in a rather mysterious way, through the intervention agencies and they pay the difference, to exporters, between the EEC intervention price and the world market price.

Does the Minister regard these as commercial sales? I thought that commerce, in the general sense, was an "at cost" kind of production with a percentage for profit and a percentage for transport, brokerage and the rest of it. Quite clearly the words "commercial sale" can hardly be applied to EEC exports, although, as I have read, the International Wheat Agreement of 1971 is based on commercial sales of wheat.

I apologise to the Minister for my sedentary interruptions when he sought to reply to my query about who were the cereal importers whom the EEC was protecting. I elicited the fact that they were not members of the Community and I invited him to state the names of the countries concerned. Inadvertently he did not do so. I ask him to tell us the names of these countries and whether they are importing wheat at the world market price or whether they are getting it at a special cut rate from the EEC.

I take issue with the Minister on the claim that the EEC, by virtue of its participation in the International Wheat Agreement, has an outward-looking, responsible, attitude to what I call world citizenship. I put it to the House—particularly to hon. Members on the Government Benches—that it is the reverse and, though he may not realise it, the hon. Gentleman may have been indulging in the sort of Eurospeak which, as we get nearer to 1984, seems to become more strident.

I suggest to the Minister that the effect of the sale of this 10 million tonnes of subsidised EEC wheat is to depress the state of the world market. That not only causes the United States Government to have a "set-aside" programme for which, incidentally, they provide some public support, but the sale also threatens the existence of farmers in Australia and the Argentine and in other temperate countries well suited to producing grain and wheat. This situation not only puts land out of cultivation but possibly it puts good farmers out of business, not because they are inefficient, too greedy or have too high standards of living but because they have the disadvantage of competing with the massively subsided exports of EEC wheat.

There is a danger if the world reaches—as it soon may—one of the periodic five or six year crises for wheat when China and Russia have bad harvests and look for stocks to buy up. The stocks will not be there because the EEC wants lower world stocks than even the United States. That contrasts terribly with its intervention buying and storage policy. The EEC believes that there should be one rule for the EEC and another for the rest of the world. These productive lands should be the areas of wheat production through which the world, operating a policy equivalent to that of Joseph of Egypt, shows compassion to the rest of the world.

The Community's CAP export policy, to which the Government adhere—worse luck, although less than they did when they first took us into the Community—is not contributing to solving the world problem as it is claimed, but the reverse. Even if that is not so, the policy involves a risk. The Government should look more closely at the effects of wheat exports on the world.

I hope that the Government will think again about their support for the CAP. They should ensure that in subsequent Geneva meetings we reach genuine agreement. I hope that when we next discuss this matter we shall have better cheer not only for the House and our citizens but better cheer for a hungry world.

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)

I intervene to raise two matters mentioned by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). He said that the Command Papers were not referred to in the order. The order does not follow precedent in leaving them out. We have become used to referring to the Command Papers which contain the treaty and not having to chase along the tunnel under the road to the other building to look up the Official Journal.

Other orders of this type have referred to Command Papers. One would expect Cmnd. 4953, which contains the International Wheat Agreement of 1971, to be mentioned in this order together with the Command Paper containing the fifth extension.

Following the report by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in which an explanatory memorandum was requested, Departments have provided that Committee with an explanatory memorandum. I understood that the Government gave an assurance that the appropriate memorandum would be placed in the Vote Office before we debated the draft order. The purpose of such orders is to introduce a treaty into the law of this country. One cannot tell from reading the draft order what items of law are introduced. This was debated in the House and Members complained that they did not know which laws were introduced by such an order.

The assurance was given that the Government would state in a memorandum—although this is a matter for the courts to decide eventually—what items they thought were brought into our law by a definition of treaties order. It would certainly be of great help to right hon. and hon. Members to know the Government's view and to know the purpose of the order so far as our law is concerned.

I hope that the Minister will see that the debate is checked to discover if I am right in my recollection that such an assurance was given by the then Government. If I am wrong, I seek an assurance that an explanatory memorandum such as the extremely good one given to the Statutory Instruments Committee will be available in the Vote Office.

11 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

I wonder whether the Minister can allay some of the genuine anxieties aroused by the procedural difficulties we have encountered. Can he assure the House that, in future, when the substantive document to which one of these orders refers already exists both as a Command Paper and as an entry in the EEC journal, the order will give the reference to the relevant Command Paper instead of, or as well as, the reference to the EEC journal? I would have thought that this step should be possible. It would remove one of the difficulties that we have encountered tonight.

11.1 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

When the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) asks me for a simple assurance, I am immediately put on my guard to expect that it will be one of the most difficult assurances to give. While you have ruled, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the order is technically in order and properly presented, I have listened carefully to the points of order and to the remarks of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) elaborating them. I have also listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), whose knowledge of these matters probably exceeds that of any hon. Member in the House. I can assure hon. Members that there has been no intention, in the presentation of the order, to make matters more difficult. I ask them to be patient while I look into the points that have been raised. I have not found it easy, since I am dealing with the matter for the first time. I became more worried on entering the Chamber to find the hon. Member for Newham, South and certain of his hon. Friends waiting to raise these problems.

I do not believe that it is the intention of any Government to try to obscure these matters and make them more difficult. I would like to look at the points that have been raised. This is not the time for a snap answer. I know that this will be no consolation to the hon. Member for Newham, South, when nothing has changed following assurances from other Ministers and other Governments. But no purpose is served by clouding issues and making them more difficult for hon. Members to understand.

As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) indicated, this is an important matter. We want debates to take place in as sensible and useful an atmosphere as possible. I undertake, therefore, to examine those matters for which my Department is responsible and to draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House the more general aspects.

I turn briefly now to the specific points raised in the debate about the substance of the order. I am glad that the order has been welcomed generally, and particularly I was glad of the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. Although I accept some of the reservations voiced by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body), I believe that the food aid convention has been worthwhile. Although the wheat convention may not have lived up to the aspirations that some may have had for it, it has provided limited help in stabilising world wheat markets. In view of that we must welcome it, but only as a step towards a new arrangement under UNCTAD in the way that I described earlier.

Perhaps I may take up two points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston. The first concerns procedure. The Government under an order such as this are not the United Kingdom Government but the EEC. The EEC has deposited only a declaration of provisional application, and accession to the protocol will take place only once each member State has ratified in accordance with its own constitutional procedures. There is that protection for the constitutional point that my hon. Friend raised.

My hon. Friend's second point related to the substance of the order. This is important. My hon. Friend was being less than fair when he said that the EEC was at fault for the UNCTAD conference failing for the three reasons I described. The real reason for the failure of the third session of the conference was related much more to the gap between the major exporting countries, such as the United States, and the importing States. The former is seeking a price that it believes to be necessary to give a proper return to its producers. The latter are naturally hoping to secure wheat at the lowest possible price.

The main role of the EEC in these negotiations was not to try to encourage the high-price exporting countries but to try to bridge the gap between the two groups who are parties to the agreement. I believe that the EEC had a constructive role to play in those negotiations, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we and the EEC will do our best to work for the reconvening of that conference.

It is no use trying to reconvene, however, until some of the difficulties have been ironed out. There is no point in reconvening simply to talk. We want to do so to bring forward a new convention, and we shall be working towards that.

Mr. Spearing

Will the Minister now name some of the small importing States that he believes the EEC is helping?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith

I shall be delighted to do that, and I apologise for not having been able to do so earlier. I was referring to the smaller importing developing countries which have a deficit in wheat. Gambia and Senegal are examples of the countries I have in mind. There is a fairly long list of others in different parts of the world.

Perhaps I may deal now with the points of the hon. Member for Newham, South about the role of the EEC. He suggested that it played a somewhat destructive role in world cereal export markets. Frankly, he is being less than fair. The EEC could have the destructive and disruptive role that the hon. Member seemed to claim for it if it had a much greater influence on world markets.

I should like to put that point into perspective. It must be remembered that the Community does not have a surplus of grain as such but has a fluctuating export of soft wheat and barley that is very much dependent on the harvest and so on, and that it imports very large quantities of cereals, particularly of hard wheat. The hon. Gentleman went through some of the figures and indicated that the EEC share of the world cereal trade is relatively small. Indeed, in the current cereal year it is estimated that the wheat share will be about 7.5 million tonnes, accounting for roughly 10 per cent. of the total world trade. It is important to get those figures into perspective. More than half is accounted for by the export of flour to traditional markets—about 3 million tonnes grain equivalent—and by the Community's commitment to the food aid convention, amounting to about 1.3 million tonnes.

It is clear, therefore, that the amount of grain put on the world market by the EEC is relatively small in relation to the total figure. It take the hon. Gentleman's point that if even a small quantity is put on the world market in an irresponsible way, it can have a disproportionate effect, and that there can be manipulation on one sort or another.

Looking at the history of the EEC in recent years, we find that it has endeavoured to release grain to the world market in a responsible way, and as close as possible to the price level established at the time.

I think that I have answered most of the points made in the debate. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have taken part in it. I am particularly grateful for the welcome from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. I hope that the House will be assured on the specific points raised. I shall make sure that the procedural points are drawn to the attention of those who have the responsibility for considering them.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (International Wheat Agreement) Order 1979, which was laid before this House on 25 July, be approved.