Foreign Affairs Council (Hansard, 28 November 1985)

§ The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe)
With permission, I will make a statement on the Foreign Affairs Council held in Brussels on 25 to 26 November at which I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade represented the United Kingdom.
The Council agreed a mandate for negotiations with Mediterranean partners on the adaptation of their cooperation and association agreements to take account of Spanish and Portuguese accession. This covers measures designed to ensure that traditional trade flows from Mediterranean partners are not adversely affected. Agreement was also reached on a mandate for negotiations with Cyprus on a customs union.
The Commission reported to the Council on its recent visit to Tokyo for discussions with the Japanese Government on the Community's trade relations with Japan.
The Council also discussed the Community's trade relations with the United States, including the renegotiation of the 1982 carbon steel export restraint arrangement. The United Kingdom reserved its position on the proposed arrangement to allow time to consider the information the Commission had received from the United States about access to the United States market for semi-finished products.
The Council discussed the Commission's proposals for the 1986 generalised scheme of preferences.
The Council discussed arrangements for the forthcoming European Council in Luxembourg on 2 and 3 December, and adopted reports on European union and People's Europe which will be noted by the European Council without discussion.
A further session of the intergovernmental conference on the future development of the EEC was held at the same time, at which there was discussion of ways to accelerate progress towards our key objectives on the internal market.
Ministers also considered how to update the treaty to take account of the Community's role in technology and the environment. A meeting with representatives of the European Parliament was devoted to considering ways in which the Parliament might be able to express its views more fully before decisions are taken by the Council.

§ Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)
I suppose that we should be grateful that we are getting this report at all, but there is so little in it that I do not know what we have to be grateful for. However, next Monday the Prime Minister will attend the European Council, the EC Heads of Government summit, where the main item will be not citrus fruits in the Mediterranean area, trade with Japan or the generalised scheme of preferences but the proposed changes to the treaty of Rome.
Seldom has a European summit considered matters of greater importance or of more significance for the future, yet precisely what have we been told by the Foreign Secretary about the proposals that will be discussed at the summit or about the British position? The answer is: much less than we could have read in today's newspapers and those accounts are just as grey and confused, and almost as uninformative as the Foreign Secretary's statement. 1025 What we heard from the Foreign Secretary was a series of platitudes with no substance and no detail. The House is still in the dark on those issues.
What will be the Government's stand on the essential issue at the summit of the virtual abolition of the national veto on European Community decisions? Are we prepared to settle for a veto on only the trivia of the European Community? Will we give the veto away with reckless generosity when hundreds of issues ranging from drugs to safety standards need to be discussed? Why are we being told nothing about it this afternoon?
Where do the Government stand on increased powers for the European Parliament, which figures so largely in the original ideas for the intergovernmental conference? Will we really be pressing for more power for the unelected European Commission rather than for the Council of elected ministers representing Governments? What is the Government's position on the new treaty on political co-operation? We have not heard a word about that. If such a treaty is adopted and a secretariat is set up, and we hear that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are enthusiasts of it, what will happen at the United Nations when the issue of the Falkland Islands arises and we find ourselves isolated by our European Community partners, yet again, in the block-headed and intransigent attitude that we continue to take in that world forum?
Is the Daily Express right in its speculation that a deal was done between Chancellor Kohl and the Prime Minister? Was there a deal to get together to veto the proposals? Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House precisely what the Government's attitude will be? Most important, why is there nothing from the Foreign Secretay or any other Minister about the deliberations on the European Community budget, which overhangs every other issue that is before the Community? yesterday, ministers, including a Minister from our Government, agreed to £800 million being cut from the European Parliament's proposed budget. Why are our Government again in the ignominious position of being in the last ditch of slashing the social and regional funds? They are the two European funds which might make a difference to the 15 million jobless people in the Community.
At the same time, the Government leave the extravagance of agricultural spending totally unscathed. Since those social and regional funds are now frozen, but the books still do not balance and the European Parliament is still discontented, how is the next crisis to be resolved? If it is ever resolved will it again make the poorest and the most deprived nations with the highest unemployment pay for the profligacy of farm spending within the Community?
We have heard a completely unacceptable statement from the Foreign Secretary telling the House, yet again, nothing about the British Government's position on crucial and central constitutional issues for Britain. We must hope that under examination we hear more than we know now.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having sustained the excitement that he generated when I did not make a statement so that it greets the statement that I have made today.
There will be an answer from my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Treasury setting out the details of what took place at the Budget Council.

§ Mr. George Robertson
When?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
It will be given this afternoon.
I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity on the points that he raised about the Council, with which I was dealing, or on the alleged deals with Chancellor Kohl, even when they are reported in the Daily Express. The substance of what is taking place is that the political co-operation topics will be under consideration at Luxembourg. They are being actively considered largely on the basis of proposals put forward by the United Kingdom for the Milan summit.
On the subject of the existing arrangements, we have never argued that the treaty of Rome is immutable or should remain forever unchanged. We have said that it is for our partners to put forward proposals, which may or may not be justified. The conclusion will depend on whether they are likely to carry forward our objectives, above all the improvement of the internal market. The considerations for the Parliament are on the basis that I mentioned in my statement, to see whether it is possible for the European Parliament proposals to be taken more fully into acount while leaving the decision-making power with the European Council. There are no significant proposals for changes in the powers of the Commission. With regard to the veto, there has been virtually no discussion of the Luxembourg compromise at any of the recent meetings, and there are no proposals for changes.

§ Sir Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend be able to press on with the work of political co-operation, which is a desirable objective? If achieved, it might serve to prevent the ill-considered actions of some of our allies, which was demonstrated at the United Nations yesterday on the Argentine proposals.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Improved arrangements for political co-operation in the Community should enable us to achieve common positions on political matters more frequently, but one must not deceive oneself in respect of the Falkland Islands, because the United States, for example, has voted against us for three consecutive years on that, and by no means all of our Commonwealth partners have taken the same view. That does not mean that our position is wrong—[Interruption.]—despite the encouragement that I am getting from Opposition Members. Our position reflects consistently the needs that the House would regard as important—first to seek improvements in our relations with the Government of Argentina, but secondly to do so on the basis that we uphold our commitment to the people of the Falkland Islands.

§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)
The Foreign Secretary referred to the intergovernmental conference. Does he agree that it will be impossible to improve the establishment of the internal market unless we improve decision making, which means a diminution of the veto? Secondly, will the Government reconsider their opposition to expanding the European Parliament's role, which was highlighted yesterday in the Budget Council, when Britain was isolated in the vote?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Gentleman must choose his arguments a little more consistently. I am not sure that the role of the Parliament in relation to the size of the budget as it has manifested itself so far is one of the strongest arguments for enlarging the powers of the Parliament. With regard to those powers, it is important 1027 to see whether there are ways that give an assurance that its views are taken as fully into account as possible without impeding the decision-taking capacity of the Community. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, if we are to make progress towards the internal market as fast as we should like, it makes perfectly good sense to consider improvements in that decision-making machinery, including the possible scope for majority voting.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on one of the best statements on Europe that we have had for a very long time, but with regard to the People's Europe proposals, do the Government favour the plan for a European national anthem or a European flag? Can he say when he thinks those things should be sung or waved? Did he give the Council the reason why Her Majesty's Government changed their practice and did not vote against the proposal to give an extra subsidy to provide cheap, top quality beef to the Soviet Union at 15p a pound when they have always voted against such proposals in the past?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
My hon. Friend's final point must be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He will have the opportunity to ask him about that later. The one point about my hon. Friend's intervention that alarms me is the enthusiasm with which he welcomed my statement. I can assure him that there are no proposals for either anthems or flags before the intergovernmental conference.

§ Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, Central and Royton)
In the talks that the Foreign Secretary had about trade and so on with the United States and other countries, did he have a moment over his aperitif or even over his brandy and cigars to bring up the question of the multi-fibre arrangement, because jobs in my constituency and elsewhere are dependent on a strong MFA being negotiated? Many hundreds of thousands of jobs depend on that. Employers and trade unions are up in arms because they believe that British civil servants are taking the lead in making sure that a liberal MFA is negotiated.

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I have to confess that I was not smoking a cigar and I drank no brandy, and even over the modest aperitif, the topic suggested by the hon. Gentleman did not arise for discussion. However, it is an important matter and the Community is considering what attitudes should be adopted towards the MFA in the wider context of the GATT arrangements. As always, it will have to try to achieve a position that balances the interest expressed so inconsistently by both sides of the House in a sensible protection for our own textile industry, together with a liberal opportunity for the textile industries in the Third world. The problem remains to be solved.

§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me about a matter that I raised with him last week, when he said that he had no recollection about possible negotiations affecting article 236 of the Treaty of Rome? I refer to proposed increases in the powers of the European Parliament vis-à-vis the Council, the Commission and the Parliament which could enhance the powers of the Parliament at the expense of Westminster. Will my right hon. and learned Friend also assure me that the possible southern blocking minority, 1028 with the accession of Portugal and Spain, will not result in an increase in the common agricultural policy, and an increase in the budgetary payments for this country?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, one of the arguments advanced is that all the proposals made so far for enlarging the power of the Parliament do not involve the transfer of democratic power from any national Parliament to the European Parliament. That is an important argument, which must be looked at carefully. Our concern is to see that the powers of the European institutions are adjusted to enable them to work effectively and continue to take decisions in a sensible fashion. With regard to the CAP, unfortunately, it must be acknowledged that arrangements for the support of agriculture in virtually every democratic country in the world involve a constant battle with rising costs in an endeavour to meet the technologically expanding production. I do not believe that that task will become any more or less difficult as the result of the accession of Spain and Portugal.

§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)
Do we take it that at the meeting of the Foreign Ministers, what is happening in South Arfica was not touched on? Certainly the Foreign Secretary did not report on that and I would not have expected him to take the initiative of raising it at a Foreign Ministers' meeting. Is it not appropriate that the Foreign Ministers of the EEC should consider the issue at their meetings, bearing in mind the heavy economic investment by EEC countries in South Africa? Even on the issue of Mr. Nelson Mandela, will not the Foreign Ministers take the opportunity of making it clear that he should be immediately released from prison without any conditions?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The Foreign Ministers' meeting during the past few days was not in the context of political co-operation. They were meeting on the agenda set out on the Foreign Affairs Council together with the important agenda before the intergovernmental conference. Therefore, it would not have been appropriate to deal with the matter. It was not on the agenda. However, the position of the Community has been stated many times, making it clear that we look for the unconditional and early release of Mr. Nelson Mandela as an important contribution to the prospect of stability in southern Africa, so there was no need to repeat it yet again this week.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire)
In the context of proposals to increase the role of the European Parliament in Community decision making, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree with many members of the European Parliament who have taken the view for some time that that Parliament already has at its disposal more than adequate powers to exercise its influence on Community decision making? Has my right hon. and learned Friend considered the possibility that, because of its political nature and make-up, the European Parliament tends to be somewhat unstable and volatile, and lacks continuity in the thrust of its decision making? Does he agree that if its role were enhanced we could be in a worse position in terms of Community decision taking than at present? Have those thoughts gone through my right hon. and learned Friend's mind. Will that affect our position in the outcome of the intergovernmental conference?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I do not suppose that any parliamentary institution in the world could claim that it 1029 was always free from instability and volatility. It is right to take account of the special nature of the European Parliament, composed as it will be of representatives of 12 nation states which are sometimes drawn by their attachment to their own country as much as by their attachment to the varying political groups that make it up because it is a young Parliament. Therefore, it is also important to make sure that any change in the treaty does not inhibit the effective working of the Community. Even so, it has been a subject of legitimate study whether one can look at the arrangements for the Parliament and its influence without impeding the work of the Community.

§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the European Parliament has repeatedly voted for increases in the regional and social funds and that the Council of Ministers has repeatedly put a red line through its proposals? Would not it be a good idea to give the European Parliament more power, particularly if its budget proposals were at the expense of agriculture? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that if politicians are elected to a Parliament to do a job of work, they cannot be urged to run and be hobbled at the same time?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I do not think that I can accept the description in the last part of the hon. Lady's question, although I know that she has considerable experience of the working of that institution. The difficulty with that Parliament, as with all others, is that it has to operate within a framework of budgetary discipline and one cannot give it an unbridled licence to increase expenditure on the regional fund without requiring it to have regard to the wider needs of budget discipline as a whole.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)
Did the Council discuss what has recently been graphically described by the Leader of the House as the imperial diktat of Strasbourg and Brussels—that there should be erected at every external port of the EC a massive sign in however many languages saying, "Welcome to the European Community"? If it was discussed did my right hon. and learned Friend tell the Commission that he thought that it was a daft idea and did he reinforce the policy of Her Majesty's Government that we believe in a Europe of nation states rather than a European nation?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
I fear that that proposal, which has attracted my hon. Friend's enthusiastic attention, has not been discussed in my presence at any of the European gatherings.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)
The Foreign Secretary mentioned that discussions took place on increasing trade with Cyprus. How is that trade with Cyprus to be increased and did the Ministers discuss the continuing and appalling division of Cyprus and the presence of Turkish troops in the northern part of Cyprus? Is it appropriate for countries within the EC to trade, possibly illegally, with the Turkish federated state of northern Cyprus, and what steps do the Ministers propose to take to hasten Cypriot unification?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and our attitude towards trade with Cyprus has been directed towards ensuring that the benefits of EC arrangements are applied equally to both communities. Article 5 of the co-operation agreement states that the rules governing trade between the Community and Cyprus shall not give rise to discrimination between nationals of Cyprus.

§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend expand a little on a subject not mentioned in his statement but discussed at the Council—the protected steel order with America which is slightly in the air?

§ Sir Geoffrey Howe
In the context of the arrangement that I described, the United States proposed to impose unilateral quotas for Community semi-finished steel of 600,000 tonnes for 1986, including 200,000 tonnes reserved for supplies from the British Steel corporation to the Tuscaloosa steel company. There will be scope for additional exports under short supply provisions. The United States has also shown willingness to examine a case from companies concerned for increased access for BSC supplies to Tuscaloosa for 1987 and beyond. We shall decide whether to lift our reserve when we have had a chance to consider the implications of the latest information received.