Foreign Affairs Council (Hansard, 24 July 1985)

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the Foreign Affairs Council held in Brussels on 22 and 23 July, at which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and I represented the United Kingdom.
The Council discussed the arrangements for the intergovernmental conference called by the Milan European Council. A copy of its conclusions on that subject has been placed in the Library of the House. The conference will take place at the level of Foreign Ministers. The first meeting will be in Luxembourg on 9 September. The Political Committee has been asked to draw up, by 15 October, a draft treaty on political cooperation on the basis of our own and the Franco-German proposals. Proposals for treaty amendment will be looked at in a group which will meet at official level to prepare work for Foreign Ministers to consider.
Agreement was reached on two directives providing for freedom of establishment for pharmacists and mutual recognition of their qualifications.
The Council agreed a Community position on the future of the multi-fibre arrangement for the GATT textiles committee meeting on 23 July.
The Commission reported to the Council on the negotiations between the Community and the United States on steel products not covered by the 1982 carbon steel arrangement and on the current trade dispute between the Community and the United States on citrus and pasta. The Council held a first discussion on the Commission's proposals to increase the Community's tariff on video tape recorders and reduce the tariff on semiconductors, and approved the eighth annual report on co-operation with the EFTA countries.
The Council agreed a negotiating mandate for an EC-Central America co-operation agreement. It also reviewed progress in EC-Gulf Co-operation Council relations.
The Council agreed arrangements for approving proposals brought forward under the Mediterranean financial protocols. It also agreed the terms to be applied to Spain's use of pre-accession aid to reduce excess fishing capacity.
The Council formally adopted the reference framework for 1986 in accordance with the Council's conclusions of December 1984 on controlling Community expenditure. That fixes the maximum level of permitted expenditure to finance Community policies in 1986. Following a meeting with the European Parliament, the Council also adopted the agreed regulation implementing integrated Mediterranean programmes.
Meeting in political co-operation, the Foreign Ministers discussed the recent resurgence of terrorism and hijacking. They agreed to put urgent work in hand for joint action by the Ten to combat that problem. They also issued statements on Afghanistan and to make clear their concern at recent developments in South Africa. Texts of those statements have been placed in the Library of the House.

§ Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)
First, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. I must say that it is rather oddly balanced. In a statement that covers three 1062 pages, there are three lines on the proposals for the establishment of pharmacists and only three words on the historic tragedy of South Africa.
On the detail of the statement, I congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the dogged pragmatism with which he once again swept up the debris caused by the eruption of Krakatoa Kate in Milan. I hope that the prospects for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference—on which the Prime Minister has made, as he pointed out, totally contradictory statements within a space of a few hours—will be more successful than the lamentable proceedings in Milan.
On the mandate for negotiating a central American cooperation agreement, do the Government propose to join the French and other European Governments in providing troops to monitor a possible agreement on Nicaragua that is now being sought by the Contadora group?
On co-operation on terrorism, have the Government finally agreed to return to Italy persons convicted of terrorism in Italy who are now living freely in Pimlico?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer two or three questions on South Africa? Why did he oppose the proposal by his colleagues to make the Community code of conduct for companies in South Africa mandatory, especially as the British company BTR grossly violated that agreement in recent months? Why did he oppose an immediate end to the declaration of the emergency that has turned South Africa into a stone trooper state? How can he reconcile the absolute and unconditional opposition to economic sanctions against South Africa that he expressed in the House this afternoon and in his speech last night with his formal undertaking on Monday to consider sanctions if South Africa did not make progress in a reasonable period of time?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I always accept congratulations from the right hon. Gentleman with a very high degree of reservation. I am glad that he welcomed the work now being put in hand for the intergovernmental conference that will commence at the beginning of September.
On central America, the Contadora group meeting has only recently come to an end and there was no consideration of the particular proposal that he mentioned at the meeting between Foreign Ministers.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the extradition of possible terrorist suspects to other countries——

§ Mr. Healey
They have been convicted of terrorist crimes.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
This matter would have to be considered by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in the light of applications in accordance with whatever extradition treaties might exist.
On South Africa, the suggestion that there was a proposal to make the European Community code on industrial companies mandatory was not discussed. between us on Monday. That code is under review in the Community to see in what way and to what extent it may or may not need to be reviewed.
My colleagues all agreed with the conclusion set out in the communiqué, that the state of emergency should be brought to an end, but all agreed that it would not be suitable or sensible to include any particular epithet about the immediacy with which that should be done.
Our position on sanctions is as I have stated it several times in the House this afternoon.

§ Mr. David Howell (Guildford)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify the Government's broad approach to new treaty-making in relation to the intergovernmental conference to take place in September? Is it the Government's broad aim to go for a new treaty on political co-operation of the kind, for instance, that the Dutch Government are now proposing, or merely to propose the reorganisation of procedures to improve political cooperation? Is it the Government's broad belief that the treaty of Rome requires amendment, in particular the common agricultural policy clauses in the treaty, or is it still the view of the Government that that area does not need amendment at this time?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The answer to the first point raised by my right hon. Friend is that it has been our view—the view that we put forward at Milan—that political co-operation has been an area of considerable success for the Community. For that reason we put forward at Milan proposals for a binding agreement on political cooperation between the member states of the Community. Those proposals, alongside the Franco-German proposal, are now being considered with a view to securing agreement on that point, which is distinct from the treaty of Rome.
The answer to my right hon. Friend's question about the treaty of Rome is that we put forward proposals at Milan for achieving the reforms necessary in the working of the Community which would not have needed any treaty amendment. We remain to be convinced that treaty amendment is necessary. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we shall be going to the conference ready to consider what is put before us so as to reach conclusions best likely to help the effective working of the Community.

§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)
I, too, congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the positive approach that he has adopted towards the intergovernmental conference in Luxembourg, which compares favourably with the obstructive attitude that the Government first adopted towards the conference being held at all. Like the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman for an assurance that he will give priority to ensuring that the decision-making process of the Community is improved, even if that requires treaty amendment, and that he will not stand on any sort of nationalistic dignity as, sadly, he is urged to do by occupants of the Opposition Front Bench?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
While I welcome the general encouragement offered by the hon. Gentleman, I cannot accept his contrast between our attitude at Milan and our attitude at the meeting earlier this week. Our objective throughout is to achieve effective changes in the decision-making procedures of the Community because we believe that it is an essential British interest for the Community to be able to function more effectively and for the United Kingdom to be in the mainstream of developments to that end. When we come to consider whether treaty changes are necessary, we shall approach that with those objectives in mind. We have taken the view that the case for such changes has not been made out. We believe that the proposals that we put forward would have enabled us to 1064 make progress quickly and effectively at Milan. That remains our objective and that is the way in which we shall consider the matter.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)
As there was a widespread welcome from hon. Members on this side of the House for the Prime Minister's vote against the conference, will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether it really is the position now that the Government have an open mind on treaty amendments and on the question of a draft European union proposal, and whether they might be willing to surrender unanimity on the vital article 100, which deals with directives affecting every industry and every job in Britain?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend is right to say that article 100 covers a wide range of matters, and I believe that every member state in the Community would have substantial reservations about applying changes in that respect on anything like a universal basis. Similarly, every member state in the Community recognises the reality of the provisions which enable account to be taken of vital national interests.
A decision has been taken to hold the intergovernmental conference. It therefore makes sense, if we are to promote the interests of this country, for us to take a positive and constructive part in that conference. It remains our view that the changes we wanted could have been achieved without treaty amendment, but we must consider now exactly what is put forward, recognising the need to achieve agreed conclusions at the end of it——

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
Why is my right hon. and learned Friend being obstinate about this?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I beg my hon. Friend to contain his anxious interest in the subject for a moment longer. We must not shrink from the objective set out in the treaty of Rome to achieve ever closer union between the peoples of Europe——

§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)
Ah.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
—a goal that was laid down as long ago as 1946 by Winston Churchill.

§ Mr. Eric Deakins (Walthamstow)
If political cooperation works so well in the EC, why is a binding agreement necessary? However, if there is to be a binding agreement, why should it take the form of a draft treaty, with the whole panoply of subsequent legislation in member countries, rather than of an intergovernmental arrangement which could then become a Community treaty by virtue of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
We put forward a proposal for an agreement between the member states on the subject of political co-operation because we thought it sensible to set out more clearly and effectively the arrangements for consultation with a view to more effective political cooperation. The practice thus far has worked well and we considered it important to make the commitment more effective along the lines that we suggested. That would take the form of an agreement between the member states of the Community — an international agreement, a treaty, as it were—but a separate agreement distinct from that contained in the treaty of Rome.

§ Sir Anthony Meyer (Clwyd, North-West)
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that through his skill and imperturbability he has won the compliments of the House, in particular of the overwhelming majority of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and that he therefore has complete freedom of manoeuvre —[Interruption.]—to negotiate such agreements as in his judgment will be to the long-term advantage of this country in the European Community?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute, endorsed by the enthusiastic applause of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), and I understand his view of the way in which we should approach the matter. We shall seek to reach conclusions which will promote the interests of this country which are entirely compatible with advancing the interest of the European Community as a whole.

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)
Is the Foreign Secretary at all perturbed by the situation which has arisen following the German veto of proposals to deal with the European grain surpluses? Have there been any further discussions in the Council about the situation, and what is the British Government's position on the issue?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The future of grain prices was considered not by the Foreign Affairs Council but by the Agricultural Council——

§ Mr. Home Robertson
What about the veto?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
—and the way in which the German Government conducted their case in relation to cereals prices served as a clear demonstration of the reality in the Community that account must be taken of each country's vital national interests. We need to find a way of doing that which will enable us to advance and not retard the general process of effective co-operation in the Community.

§ Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells)
The House must be glad that the 1986 framework for Community expenditure has now been settled, even though we know that it can subsequently be increased by majority vote of the Council of Ministers. What will the total be for 1986? Can my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that it represents no greater increase than is allowed in domestic public expenditure? Does he agree that the strictures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on public expenditure are as valid in Europe as they are at home?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I have no doubt that the case for ensuring that finance determines expenditure and not vice versa, which I uttered in my first Budget speech and which President Delors uttered in one of his early contributions to the proceedings of the Community, is equaly important in both places. I am glad to say that the Commission's 1986 budget proposals for agriculture show an increase of only 2.5 per cent., excluding enlargements, within the guidelines required by budget discipline.

§ Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)
I assume that there was no discussion on international famine, but the statement on South Africa was less than robust. Is it not a fact that it contained no reference to that country's recent outrageous invasion of Botswana?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I think that I am right in saying that every Community country had already made announcements about the Botswana incident. Certainly the 1066 United Kingdom had done so. We condemned the invasion of a Commonwealth country as being without justification, and we did so plainly. I think that every other Community member state took the same view. The international famine was not discussed as it was discussed by aid Ministers a week or so ago.

§ Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South)
Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that some of us are rather puzzled by the growing gap that seems to be opening up between the Foreign Office and No. 10 Downing street? Does he recall that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister denounced the intergovernmental conference as unnecessary? However, we seem now to be approaching it with an open mind on every subject with almost unseemly enthusiasm. Secondly, does my right hon. and learned Friend recall that on 2 July my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked her colleagues in the House not to use the phrase "European union" as it was so confusing, yet we are hearing an endorsement of it this afternoon? Surely we should get our own act together before we go to the European conference.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend must retain a sense of perspective about these matters. Both the Prime Minister and I went to Milan with the clear view that we could make the necessary changes without proceeding to the further step of an intergovernmental conference. We thought that the changes necessary to promote progress in the Community, which is of great importance, could there have been made. The majority of our partners took the opposite view and an intergovernmental conference is now to take place. The progress that needs to be achieved is still just as necessary and that is why we want to attend the conference to achieve that progress. For that reason, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 2 July that we must go to the conference and consider what is put before us.
I did not use the phrase "European union" in an earlier reply. I reminded the House that the treaty of Rome itself commits us to ever closer union between the peoples of Europe. If Europe is to achieve effective exploitation of its technological resources and success in reducing unemployment within the Community, we need to achieve closer co-operation on a range of matters throughout the Community. Those who do not recognise that deceive themselves about Britain's future.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
When the Foreign Affairs Council discussed central America, did it take the opportunity to condemn the American trade embargo on Nicaragua and to review the existing aid and trade agreements between Europe and central America especially Nicaragua, to ensure that the effect of the United States trade embargo can be minimised by increasing trade with Europe, especially medical products and important technical components that are needed for many of Nicaragua's industries?
Finally, did the Ministers take time to condemn President Reagan's statement that Nicaragua is a haven for terrorists? That assertion has been proved to be completely wrong by every journalist and every informed observer who has been in Managua recently.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The Foreign Affairs Council did not consider every aspect which appeals to the hon. Gentleman's prejudices.

§ Mr. Corbyn
Just answer the question.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
We concluded a negotiating mandate for agreement with the nine countries of central America, covering economic, commercial and development co-operation. The Council has taken account frequently of the views of countries engaged in the Contadora process, to the effect that a number of countries in central America, including Nicaragua, need to cease the process of contributing to the destabilisation of their neighbours.

§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)
Did my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with our Community partners in the broader context Britain's possible entry of the European monetary system? Does he share with me the grave disappointment of many Members of this place that such little progress has been made to build on the Venice declaration? Does he accept that the historical tragedy, so-called, in South Africa pales into insignificance when we consider what could happen in the middle east?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
It is important for the countries of the Community to continue to contribute as closely together as they can to the advancement of the peace process in the middle east. One of the important features of the Venice declaration is that it has helped to condition a largely common approach to what is necessarily a step-by-step process.
We already belong to the European monetary system. Our attitude towards participation in the exchange rate mechanism remains that we shall do so when the time is right.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
What was the net effect of the Council's proposals on the supply of pharmacists in the United Kingdom? Perhaps the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary will tell him that Lothian Members have been greatly upset by the closure of the distinguished department of pharmacy at the Heriot-Watt university. We have been lectured by Sir Peter Swynnerton-Dyer to the effect that it had to be done because, among other things, there was a surplus of pharmacists.
Secondly, the Secretary of State for Scotland is well aware of the interests of Hewlett Packard and Nippon Electric in semiconductors. What has been said to the French and Germans about the way in which they cut corners on the COCOM arrangements while we remain pristine pure, greatly to the disadvantage of British industry? Were the COCOM arrangements discussed? If not, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman read the report of the debate on exports to China which took place last week, in which some Conservative Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther) and I had a good deal to say about the matter?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
For the second time this afternoon, the hon. Gentleman has made a lengthy intervention. I shall try to benefit from studying the various topics to which he has drawn my attention.
The effect of the directive is to extend employment opportunities both ways by including the right of establishment of pharmacists throughout the Community, which I think is a sensible response to the hon. Gentleman's first question.
It is proposed that the tariff level on semiconductors should be reduced. These items constitute a product and 1068 an industrial component and a reduced tariff is likely to contribute to increased industrial competitiveness in the United Kingdom.

Several Hon. Members
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
I shall call the hon. Members who have been rising in their places, provided that they are brief.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend can respond to a scenario——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Not a scenario; that worries me.

§ Mr. Marlow
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider a brief scenario, Mr. Speaker. If there were to be a treaty amendment which would allow directives to be put through without unanimity, and if my right hon. and learned Friend were against a certain directive which he had to bring before the House to enact in British law, what would he do in those circumstances?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My answer to that scenario is that I am not obliged to answer hypothetical questions.

§ Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)
My right hon. and learned Friend has said that the EEC institutions might cure unemployment in the United Kingdom. If it is possible for Governments to do that, why cannot the Government reduce unemployment?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
We in Europe spend as much on civil research in high technology industries per head as that which is spent in Japan and the United States. We are able to exploit that investment a great deal less effectively than those countries. That is because there is insufficient openness and unity in the European market for the products of high technology industries.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
More public expenditure? Are we all Socialists now?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am talking in neither case about public expenditure, which is another obsession of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). Our net civil expenditure per head on civil research—public and private—is as high as it is in Japan and the United States, but we get less for it. We shall not be able to exploit our investment effectively until we achieve greater unity in the European Community.

§ Mr. Eric Forth >(Mid-Worcestershire)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the agenda for the intergovernmental conference has been finalised and that there will be no late additions to it? What voting procedures will be used at the conference? How will the conference's recommendations be determined? What criteria will my right hon. and learned Friend use to judge the extent to which the House will support the Government's attitude at that conference? Will he give an undertaking that he will make a statement in the House before giving any irrevocable commitment at that conference?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
A number of proposals for the conference have already been put forward. We are awaiting concrete proposals from partners as a basis for discussion, and we shall then consider how we should respond. The conference, which is constituted under article 236, has to reach conclusions by common accord. In order to put those conclusions into effect, endorsement 1069 by the Parliament of every member state of the European Community must be given. The House will have ample opportunities to consider these matters. We shall be bound by the same entirely proper constraints as other members. I shall bear in mind, when considering how we will react to a particular proposal, the enthusiastic support that my hon. Friend always gives me for any sensible proposal.

§ Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)
Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that many of his colleagues would agree with this morning's Daily Telegraph leader which says that the EEC Foreign Ministers have given the "wrong response" to the situation in South Africa? Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the article was accurate in quoting him as having had "misgivings" about the statement? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that he did not go along with all the recommendations of the Foreign Ministers?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I think that my hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that the statement, which resulted from consideration by the representatives of the 10 member states seeking to achieve agreement, represents something to which each of the Ministers present at the meeting had contributed. The statement was agreed by all the Ministers present. The statement is important, in that it represents a common view on the position in South Africa. It is important for the statement to be part of the foundation of Britain's approach to the problem.

§ Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)
rose——

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Did the hon. Member rise when I said that I would call the four hon. Members who were standing?

§ Mr. Adley
I was provoked into rising. I was sitting here quietly.

§ Mr. Speaker
Go on, then.

§ Mr. Adley
Following the question by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), will my right hon. and learned Friend take the time during the recess to read the Adjournment debate in 1975 about COCOM and sales of Harrier aircraft to China? I support what the hon. 1070 Member for Linlithgow said about this. It is about time that Britain and Europe put their interests first rather than continually following the lines set by the United States Government who do precisely what they think is in the interests of their manufacturers.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the proceedings will soon draw to a close, as I am anxious that my holiday reading should not be completely overloaded.

§ Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that his Government's policy remains the policy that was unanimously adopted by the House on 28 June 1985 and that it will remain our policy throughout the intergovernmental conference in October? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have an open mind on the Dooge committee's recommendations on co-decision making between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament? What will be the outcome of that openness? What proposals will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take to Luxembourg to reduce effectively the preponderance of Community expenditure on agriculture and do something about distributing the Community's assets to bring about the economic regeneration of Europe?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive insight into the fact that the Community's assets can be used for the constructive regeneration of Europe. I welcome his acknowledgment of the importance of curtailing the percentage spent on agriculture. As I said in an earlier answer, that is one of the measures achieved by the framework and guidelines that have been laid down so far.
On many occasions we have put forward the argument —it has been supported by many of our partners—that co-decision making could easily be a prescription for no decision making. Any increase in the powers of the European Parliament would require a change in the treaty and would have to be endorsed by each national Parliament. For that reason, we have been arguing that Parliament could play a more positive role within its existing powers. We think that that is the approach best able to command the support of all member states.