§ 4.2 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)My Lords, this may be an appropriate moment for me to reply to the Private Notice Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I shall do so in the words of Mr. Chataway in another place in answer to a similar Question asked there. They are as follows:
" We have been in close touch with the development of Community regional policy and thinking over a considerable period of time. As a result, we have no reason to believe that there is any conflict between our new regional measures and the obligations of membership of the Community 699 —a belief borne out by the fact that our new measures have been public knowledge for four months without attracting criticism from the Commission or any Member State. As I understand recent developments, the German Government have asked for information from the Commission about three aspects of our new policies: free depreciation for plant and machinery, depreciation allowance for industrial buildings and regional development grants. I further understand that the Commission has already told the German Government that the depreciation provisions in the Finance Bill are not regarded by them as regional measures, and are therefore irrelevant to Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome. The position on regional development grants turns on the discussions still to be held under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession. Again, we are quite confident that a perfectly satisfactory outcome will emerge from these discussions."
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, first of all confirm that Mr. Davies, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and Mr. Rippon, who has special responsibility for negotiations with the E.E.C., have given clear and categorical assurances to the House of Commons in regard to the Industry Bill? Can the noble Lord confirm that the request of the West German Government was made on July 11? From the noble Lord's Statement, Her Majesty's Government have obviously been in close touch with the West German Government, who clearly must have made some intimation to Her Majesty's Government before lodging their representations with the Commission. Can the noble Lord say why, then, during the Third Reading debate on such an historic piece of legislation, the Government remained silent while recognising that in the House of Commons there is a special interest about regional development and the need to bring industry, work and an improved standard of living to millions of our people who live in the depressed areas?
Will the noble Lord confirm the position under Articles 92 and 93: that if the Commission receive an application and it is accepted by them, then it would be binding on the country concerned ; and 700 that if the Commission were to come to a conclusion between now and our entry into the E.E.C. and were to find that the policies of Her Majesty's Government are in fact in contravention of the Treaty of Rome and the various Articles, this finding would be binding on this country and no Parliament or Government would have any recourse but would be forced to accept the decision of the Commission? Would the noble Lord accept that, even to those who passionately feel that it is right for Britain to enter the E.E.C., such a decision by the Commission in this matter would be in direct conflict with what is the national interest and that of those persons who now live in our depressed regions?
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, I think that we on these Benches would find the Statement of the Government to be at any rate moderately reassuring ; but I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said in the way of a request for further information on the subject. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would answer the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. However, may I ask this question for myself, simply because I do not know enough about this matter and should like to know. I gather that the position on regional development grants turns primarily on the discussion still to be held under Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession. Is it a fact, as I think somebody has told me recently, that in the Treaty of Accession a distinction is made in regard to regions between central areas and other areas, and that it remains still for any central areas in the United Kingdom to be defined? Therefore, perhaps the move of the German Government was a little premature, to say the least. I should be very grateful for information on that particular point.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, in answer to the first point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, this was an inquiry that was made by the German Government of which, I am told, there was no previous notification by the German Government. The first intimation that we had of it was yesterday. So that, I think, disposes of—
§ LORD SHEPHERDEven though it was made on the 11th?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am giving the noble Lord the information that I have. The request for information was presumably laid with the Commission. I do not know for certain whether the request for information was made in that way, but this is the information that I have. As to the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, it is the fact, of course, that regional policies are in the meantime governed by Article 154 of the Treaty of Accession, which makes the general principles concerning arrangements for regional aid applicable to new members as from July 1, 1973, at the latest, which I think is what the noble Lord suggested. It is also the case that central areas remain to be defined, and that this is a matter which will have to be discussed before finality is reached. We are committed under the Treaty of Accession to agreeing the boundaries of our central areas by this same date, July 1, 1973.
As to the more general question that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked, central areas are of course different from special areas, and the Treaty makes provision for special treatment in special areas. As to the general position, I would think it better for us to debate this when we come to debate the European Communities Bill. All I can say at the moment—and I should like to make this very clear—is that the Government have had in mind their obligations under the Treaty all the time during the preparation of the Industry Bill, and they are satisfied that provisions in the Industry Bill comply with the provisions of the Treaty. These are matters that will remain to be discussed, as I have indicated, and will affect all members of the European Economic Community.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, is the noble Lord quite unable to answer the specific question about what would be the position of this country if the Commission were to come to a decision prior to our entry into E.E.C.?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNAt the moment, the position is that information has been asked for. The Commission have seen the White Paper. It was shown to them and there were informal discussions upon it. The Commission have made no observations on that. The position at the moment is that an inquiry 702 has been made by the German Government and one cannot go further than that. We have our obligations under the Treaty of Accession but I cannot see how the matter can be in any way unsatisfactory. We are bound to go on with the legislation we require to assist our special areas and our development areas and it is in the general interests of the Community as a whole that there should be common rules governing them. We have all accepted that. We are quite satisfied that the rules we have made comply with the Treaty.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the noble Lord mentions the Treaty of Accession. Can he say whether there was any discussion in Brussels about the interpretation of Article 92 of the Treaty of Rome and about whether that ran counter to the provisions of the Industry Bill?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, there has been no discussion in Brussels on the Industry Bill. As I have said, the White Paper was shown to the Commission, its purport was explained to the Commission informally and they have made no observations upon it.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, would it not have been an elementary precaution, in view of the criticisms and complaints now being advanced, had Her Majesty's Government had discussions in Brussels about the possible interpretation of the Industry Bill before it was drafted?
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, before my noble friend answers that question, may I ask whether there have been criticisms and complaints from the German Government or whether this request for information by the German Government is a situation of which noble Lords opposite have made a quite unwarranted interpretation? Is it not simply a request for information and not a criticism of the action being proposed by Her Majesty's Government through the introduction of the Industry Bill?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I agree with my noble friend and I am obliged to him. This is simply a request for information. What is more, until we join the E.E.C. the Commission cannot insist on changes in our law. Obviously, once we join the E.E.C. we are subject to the Treaty of Rome.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, in view of the submission by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, that all that has happened so far is that there has been a request for information on the part of the West German Government ; in view of what has appeared in the Press (which in my judgment goes somewhat beyond what Lord Alport has suggested) ; and in view, in particular, of the debate in this House next week on the Second Reading of the E.E.C. Bill, is it not essential that before that debate begins these points should be clarified? May I ask a specific question? Are we to understand that if the West German Government not only asks for information but makes it quite clear that our legislation must be modified in order to become consistent with the specific Article of the Treaty, the Government will modify their legislation—for example, the Industry Bill—in order to satisfy the West German Government or the Commission?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNThe noble Lord is really coming right on to the European Community Bill. I think we ought to leave that for discussion and not anticipate the debate by dealing with points of that description. I have given an answer as to what is the present position. In the present position the Commission cannot change the law. When we come on to discussion of the European Community Bill we shall be able to see exactly what the position will be in the future.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, my two noble friends on the Front Bench and I all have different views, see different parts of the spectrum, in regard to the Common Market ; but I must admit that we are all united in our anxiety, in view of the assurance (which those who supported entry have believed and advocated) that there would be no constraint in regard to our regional policies. While acknowledging that this is a matter that we can debate, may I suggest that it would be helpful to have a full statement from the Government? The noble Lord has perhaps not had sufficient time. We know that he does practically every single job in this Government. Could we not have a full statement before we start the debate the week after next?—for it will be of no use to say it does not affect 704 us now if it is going to affect us the moment after we enter. We need some assurance on this matter and it may be that we shall have to seek to write some provision into the Bill.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I appreciate the point that has been made, but I do not see how I can go further. The position is surely quite clear. Her Majesty's Government have satisfied themselves so far as they can that the provisions of the Industry Bill are in accordance with the Treaty of Rome. At the same time, the Treaty rules require that our regional policies shall be brought into line by July 1, 1973. There is an interim committee that can discuss this issue before we actually join. All that I can say is that Her Majesty's Government have every confidence that what they are doing now with the Industry Bill is in accordance with the Treaty of Rome.
§ LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINEMy Lords, could it be that the German inquiry is not totally unconnected with the forthcoming German elections?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am afraid I cannot answer for internal German politics ; but I take note of what has been said.
§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEKMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the entire House is grateful for his courteous reply but that nevertheless some of us feel that we should press him further? Could he not acquiesce in the last request of my noble friend from the Front Benches that a proper statement be placed before the House before we have a full debate? Does it not appear that the Government and Britain seem to have lost their will for independence? In the days when I studied philosophy this was known as Occam's Razor. We have reached the pitch when things not known to exist should not, unless absolutely necessary, be postulated as existing. Consequently, I think that we should have a White Paper put before the House when the Government have had a fair chance of ascertaining the exact position.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I take note of the request of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for a statement. I will ask my right honourable friend to consider whether this is appropriate. All 705 I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is that we all appreciate the vital importance to this country of our regional policy. This Government will fight very hard to make certain that we have an appropriate regional policy for this country.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, is it not a fact that in the event of a serious difference of opinion, which I do not think very probable, between ourselves and the Commission over the interpretation of the Treaty of Rome or the Treaty of Accession, such a divergence of view would go automatically to the Court, and that in the last analysis we shall have to accept its verdict?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNYes, my Lords, but also, of course, it can go to the Council of Ministers.
§ LORD BLYTONMy Lords, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that I am not surprised at the present position in which we find ourselves, because in the last Common Market debate I dwelt extensively on the effect on regional policy, and noble Lords opposite have now arrived there? I believe that under the rules of competition it is probable that Germany will take the Industry Bill to the Court, once we are in, and we shall have to conform to the decision.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNWell, my Lords, I do not think that really was a question, except that it asked me whether I should agree. I have no idea what the Germans propose to do. At the moment they have asked for information.
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, if it is correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says, that the Government are unaware of what the disquiet of the Germans amounts to, would it be possible to find out what is at the back of the German representations, and on the basis of that further information say whether a statement can be made?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, obviously I take note of the noble Lord's suggestion, and no doubt this will be dealt with through diplomatic channels.
§ LORD SEGALMy Lords, is it not a fact that France and Italy have been allowed to follow their own regional 706 policies? Can the noble Lord confirm that this request is simply a unilateral request from West Germany?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, so far as I know this is a unilateral request from West Germany. What I indicated before was that in order to arrive at a regional policy for the Communities, a good deal more discussion is required.
§ BARONESS GAITSKELLMy Lords, would the noble Lord agree that when a most distinguished pro-European like the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is anxious about this subject, we have some cause to worry?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, would say to that, but I thought that the questions he asked elicited from me information which he probably knew already but which could only assuage any anxiety he might have had.
§ LORD GLADWYNMy Lords, I certainly did not intend to express any anxiety. I said I thought that in all probability there would not be a dispute between ourselves and the Commission.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, may we have an assurance that before the debate on the E.E.C. Bill in your Lordships' House we shall be in possession of the White Paper which fully explains the whole of this incident and its possibilities? Further, may I ask whether this means that we, as a Sovereign State, are approaching the position where we shall have to ask the Germans what we are to be allowed to do?
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, replies, and since I may be held responsible for having started this discussion by asking a Private Notice Question, may I suggest, in the light of what the noble Lord has said and of his assurances, that, following the reply to my noble friend, we should proceed with the debate?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I think that we have covered this ground pretty extensively. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I did not say that there would be a White Paper ; and really, my Lords, if every time one country asks publicly for information about the policy of another country, or 707 in particular about this country—it frequently happens that one country asks about another—we were to have a White Paper, it would result in a most extraordinary volume of White Papers.