EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) ORDER 1972 (Hansard, 14 December 1972)

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE)
My Lords, I beg to move that the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1972 be approved. It is the first Order in Council to be introduced under the procedures established in Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act— 773 and I am sure noble Lords will remember those debates. This Order relates to five agreements which were concluded by the E.C.S.C. with Austria, Iceland, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland, and also to the additional agreement concerning the validity for Leichtenstein of the agreement with Switzerland. English texts of all these agreements were laid before the House on November 16.
They were all signed in Brussels on July 22, 1972. They enter into force on January 1, 1973, provided that all parties to them have notified completion of the necessary procedures by that date. Otherwise they will enter into force at a later date, not later than January 1, 1974. Their purpose is to provide for free trade in those coal, iron and steel products covered by the E.C.S.C. Treaty, between the countries of the enlarged Community and the EFTA non-candidates. Seen from our own point of view, they provide a means of safeguarding, and possibly even increasing, a valuable trade in coal and most iron and steel products, of which we exported some £21 million worth to the non-candidates in 1971.
These particular E.C.S.C. agreements are not formally subject to ratification, which is in any case a prerogative of the Crown rather than a matter for Parliament. The purpose of the present Order in Council is to secure, with Parliament's approval, the necessary changes in our law to take account of those treaties. In turn, the Crown will then be in a position to communicate the notification called for by the agreements.
Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act provides that treaties entered into by the United Kingdom after January 22, 1972, cannot be regarded as Community treaties as defined in the Act unless they are specified in an Order in Council. The draft of such Orders in Council must be approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. The E.C.S.C./EFTA non-candidate agreements of which Her Majesty's Government are a signatory are undoubtedly new treaties falling within the scope of the section I have described. The terms of Section 1(3) have been closely followed in tabling this draft Order in Council. I commend it to the House.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for her careful description of this Order and, as she says, there are echoes of debates not so long ago. As the noble Baroness has said, this is the first of the Orders to come from our accession to the Treaty of Rome. The Order itself has a deceptively innocuous title, but I think the noble Baroness will agree that it confirms that we accept quite significant obligations and commitments; and we accept them without, so far as I can see, any consultation or having played any part in the negotiations which led up to these agreements or treaties. Can the noble Baroness say what would be the position if we voted against the Order? If we are unable to vote against it, would the noble Baroness say what is the reason for having this procedure? I know that the noble Baroness referred to the Treaty and the undertakings that have been given that there must be approval from both Houses of Parliament. But is there any real meaning to these approvals if we do not have any option other than giving our assent?
I should like to ask the noble Baroness two further questions on the effect of these treaties. The first relates to the pricing policies of the steel industry. As I understand it, accession to the European Coal and Steel Community, and of course accession to these treaties, involves the harmonisation of pricing formule. How far is our present policy on freezing prices in the public sector consistent with these treaties or agreements? I should also like to ask: was our proposal to freeze the price of steel discussed with the co-signatories of these treaties and, if so, have they agreed to what we propose to do so far as our own steel industry is concerned? In addition, as I understand it, acceding to these treaties will mean that we do not engage in any governmental subvention to the coal or steel industries, which has the effect of distorting competition. We are shortly to get the Coal Industry Bill, and whether we say it is distorting, encouraging or subsidising the coal industry, we have to 775 agree that the Bill itself is a most imaginative measure which is going to have an enormous effect upon the British coal industry. It would seem that in one way or another it will put us in a very favourable position so far as competition is concerned. To that extent, on the face of it it would seem to be inconsistent with the obligations which we have accepted in the original treaties and in these consequential treaties. Again, I would ask the noble Baroness whether the effect and significance of this Coal Industry Bill have been discussed with our cosignatories, and whether what we are proposing to do is acceptable to them.

§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE
My Lords, three questions have been put by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, the first of which was what would happen if the House voted against this particular Order to-day. The Order has, of course, been approved in another place and if this House chose to vote against it no doubt it would be reintroduced in another place, though, as I understand it, it would have to be reintroduced in a slightly different form. If we approve the Order to-day it will come into force on January 1, 1973. However, there is still a year in which we could in fact wait to go through the necessary procedures, because some of the other parties have not yet done so either. But if we do pass this Order it will enable Her Majesty's Government to complete the necessary notification procedures by January 1, 1973.

§ LoRD BESWICK
My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me for interrupting, but in fact there were not three questions: there were certainly four. The second question was whether we were under an obligation to accept the Order. If that is so, what is the purpose of putting before us an Order which is unamendable and has to be accepted?

§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE
My Lords, an Order which is put in draft form before either House of Parliament is always capable of being voted against. I am sure the noble Lord will recall the lengthy debates that we had on this subject; and if he will look back to what is now the European Communities Act, and particularly 776 to the second half of Section 1(3), he will know that any agreement entered into by the United Kingdom after January 22, 1972, other than the pre-accession treaty, shall not be regarded as a treaty unless a draft is approved by both Houses of Parliament. That is the reason why we have this particular procedure.
The second main question put by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, was whether this particular method of having a pricing policy on steel would in any way conflict with the standstill, or the "freeze", as it is popularly known, in the public sector. I think the best thing I can do is to repeat what was said in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when this point was put to him. If I may quote his answer, he said this: The standstill will continue to apply to steel prices but I would expect United Kingdom steel producers to adopt the E.C.S.C. basing points price system as soon as the standstill ends. We have made clear to the European Commission our intention to do everything possible to conform with the requirements of the E.C.S.C. Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12/12/72; col. 105.] The noble Lord also asked me whether it was right that we should still continue to have what he described as a Government subvention which would come under the Coal Industry Bill now before Parliament. Once again, I would quote a reply given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in another place on December 11. He said (col. 37): These grants are allowed in the Community. All the Common Market countries give aid and grants to their coal industries, and they are in line with or more than we shall be paying under these proposals. I think I have dealt with the three or four questions which the noble Lord put to me.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down may I ask, in relation to the answer which she quoted as having been given in another place, whether she would not agree that the same colleague of hers undertook later to make a further statement within a measurable time? Are we going to have such a statement about the pricing policies of the steel industry?

§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE
My Lords, I cannot categorically answer that question at the 777 moment, but I will draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.

§ LORD BROCKWAY
My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness, first, whether the contents of these treaties will be discussed by the Select Committee which is being appointed to consider the relationship between the European Community and our Legislature here? I should like to mention a second point. As I understand it, when these treaties are proposed, they will be open to an Affirmative Resolution in the two Houses. If they are open to an Affirmative Resolution in the two Houses, what is the real liberty of Parliament here to reach decisions, if membership of the European Communities means that the treaties become effective despite a decision taken by a separate Parliament?

§ BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE
My Lords, so far as this particular Order which is now before the House is concerned, it has not of course been possible for it to come before a Select Committee. An invitation was given to Members of both Houses to join a Select Committee as far back as last February, but this has not yet been agreed to. These particular draft instruments could not be considered by a Select Committee, since one does not yet exist. However, I understand there is a possibility that there will in fact be Select Committees—but not a Joint Select Committee—of each House. They would then have the opportunity to consider all instruments in draft.
To turn to the second point, the noble Lord asked what the power of Parliament was in this particular case. He will know quite well that Orders in Council cannot be amended: they have to be either approved or rejected. This point was discussed when the European Communities Bill was before the House and it was accepted by both Houses.