EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) ORDER 1975

HL Deb 17 March 1975 vol 358 cc589-94

6.58 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts) rose to move, That the Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1975, laid before the House on 26th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to make a brief statement of introduction and explanation, in order to clarify why today's Order under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act is necessary. The Act itself gives effect in the United Kingdom to all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions embodied in Community Treaties. But these Community rights and obligations do not apply and cannot be applied under the Act unless they arise under Community Treaties, as defined in Section 1 of the Act. Any agreements entered into by the United Kingdom after 22nd January 1972—the date of the Treaty of Accession—cannot be regarded as Community Treaties unless they are designated as such by means of the special procedure provided under Section 1(3) of the Act.

As I explained when introducing the last similar Order, in fact most designations relate not to EEC or Euratom treaties but to European Coal and Steel Community treaties dealing with ques- tions of commercial policy. This is because the control of commercial policy in relation to the ECSC remains with the member-States rather than with the Community institutions, as in the case of the EEC. When the member-States of the ECSC take measures of commercial policy in the ECSC context, they act not by decision of the Council but by separate multilateral treaty among themselves. These treaties are usually described as decisions of the representatives of the member-States of the ECSC meeting in Council. It is, therefore, usually necessary to designate a treaty of this kind to bring it within the European Communities Act definition of a Community Treaty while it is not necessary to designate the equivalent EEC instrument.

The draft of the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1975 was laid before Parliament on 26th February. Four treaties are listed in its Schedule, and a text of each is avail-able to the House either as a Command Paper or in the Official Journal of the European Communities. The first two relate to decisions of the representatives of the member-States of the ECSC, and the House will recall the characteristics of ECSC decisions to which I have already referred. Both are decisions taken annually relating to the supervision of imports of certain products originating in Austria and Sweden respectively.

The third treaty listed is an agreement in the form of an Exchange of Letters between the member-States of the EEC, on the one hand, and the Lebanese Republic, on the other hand. This also is an annual renewal, and relates to an agreement on Trade and Technical Co-operation. The last treaty on the Schedule is the European University Institute Convention, which the original six member-States signed in 19th April 1972, and which entered into force for them on 1st February 1975. The United Kingdom deposited its Instrument of Accession to this Convention on 24th February 1975, and it will take effect for us on the date on which the High Council of the University Institute determine the adaptations which will need to be made to the provisions of the Convention, to take account of the accession of the three new members. These adaptations in draft are shown at pages 28 to 30 of Cmnd. 5876.

Today's draft Order follows the precedent of the draft Order which I introduced to the House in 1974, and the earlier orders introduced in 1972–73. All the treaties listed in the Schedule to the Order are treaties entered into by the United Kingdom since 22nd January 1972, since Accession, and it is in the interests of the United Kingdom that they be established as Community Treaties. None in any way conflicts with our renegotiation objectives. I therefore beg to move.

Moved, That the Draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1975, laid before the House on 26th February, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)

7.5 p.m.

Earl COWLEY

My Lords, I think that the whole House must be extremely grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the contents of this Order in such detail and in his usual lucid fashion. This Order is, of course, very technical, but I still have a few questions on it to put to him and in relation to the Schedule. I gather that the exchange of letters as printed in the Official Journal of the European Communities extend the agree-ment between the Lebanon and the European Communities on trade and technical co-operation only until 1st July 1975. I would be grateful to the noble Lord if he could tell me what is to happen after that date. For example, is there to be a non-preferential trade agreement between the Community and the Lebanon, or is there to be another Order brought in to renew the agreement? Furthermore, the Exchange of Letters does not give any details as to what is involved in the agreement. Thus, I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could fill in a little more substance on this point. For example, what is the volume of trade involved and what exactly is meant by "technical co-operation"?

I am very glad to see that this country has acceded to the Convention setting up the European University Institution. Its aims as set out in Chapter 1, Article 2(1) of Cmnd. 5876 are very laudable and worth while. I do not want to appear to be too nitpicking, but what is exactly meant by "Europe"? Does it mean the EEC, or does it refer to Western Europe or Eastern Europe, and, for that matter, does it include part of Russia? I think that this is just one example of where sometimes the Community could tighten up on its own drafting.

Page 28 of the Command Paper refers to the draft decision to alter the Convention to take account of the accession to the Community by Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. Could the noble Lord say whether this is the approved and final text, or is it to be altered? Are the figures laid out in Article 1(1) and Article 1(2) the final figures, or are those figures in respect of weighted voting and financial contributions alterable? I know that it is very difficult for the noble Lord to give firm financial figures in relation to future Government expenditure—because they are influenced so much by inflation and other factors—but it would be helpful to the House if he could give some idea as to what 21.16 per cent. means in money terms, and what our contribution will be to the Institute as a body, apart from any contribution in grants to students who might attend it.

7.8 p.m.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, the noble Earl has asked, as usual, if I may say so without presumption, the right questions. I noticed he has not raised any question of the ECSC treaties involved, and, if I may say so, quite rightly; these are common form and do not raise any new questions. On the exchange of letters between the countries of the EEC and the Lebanon, I think the answer to his first question, as to what happens after we have renewed the annual Order, what happens after July 1975, is that we shall need to renew at least for another year. But the new preferential agreement will, when it is in force—and I can give no date for that tonight—make it unnecessary to designate the renewal. Designation is necessary only for the trade provisions, which will in any case be superseded at a future date by the 1972 Agreement. The new preferential Agreement of 1972, will, of course, concern only trade. The old Agreement will still need to be renewed annually to cover the technical co-operation aspects of it; this will be helpful in determining policy and practice in regard to technical co-operation.

Regarding the points the noble Earl raised about the content of the provisions of the Agreement, I will telescope the trade part of it by saying that the Republic of the Lebanon and the Community simply agree to give each other Most Favoured Nation treatment. One could go into this and discuss it at length, but I think that is the answer which the noble Earl seeks. On technical co-operation, this may cover sending experts, specialists and teaching staff to public bodies and to educational and research establishments in the Lebanon. It may cover technical training of Lebanese nationals in industrial and commercial undertakings in the member States of the Community, including this country, to develop Lebanese production capacity and to expand Lebanese exports. It is expected that the trade provisions of this Agreement will be superseded by a new preferential Agreement negotiated, as I said, in 1972. I am sorry I can give no indication of the date when this Agreement will be in force.

The second point which the noble Lord raised about the Exchange of Letters with the Lebanon related, I think, to the total turnover of trade. I am advised that for 1974 the figure was £88 million. I shall not attempt to engage in speculation—if that is the right word in this connection —on the outcome of trade in the next few years, especially as we all hope for more stable and assured conditions obtaining in that area, but on these figures for 1974 it is a substantial proposition. I believe that covers the' points raised by the noble Earl about the exchange of letters about the Lebanon. If I have missed his point in any way, perhaps the noble Earl will remind me. He came to what I regard as perhaps the most important of these four Orders in that it is more unique, if that is the right expression, than the other three—that relating to the accession of this country to the European University Institute. The noble Earl made a number of points which I will do my best to answer. He asked whether the draft decision of the High Council, which is attached to the Convention, has been agreed. The position is that it has been agreed and will be adopted in this form. He also asked about the figure of 21.16 per cent. which is given in one of the schedules as the contribution by this country to the operation of the Institute. He asked what that meant in cash terms. The provision in the Department's estimate for 1975–76 is £326,221. This detail is somewhat hopeful. I give it as I have been advised. Provision for the four following years should not exceed £500,000 at 1974 survey prices. As the noble Earl helpfully suggested, these are estimates and it may well be that they will have to be modified in the light of the situation.

In addition, the noble Earl asked what would be the cost of supporting United Kingdom students at this Institute, which is of course a postgraduate institution. I can answer him in this way. Provision has been made for £76,000 in 1976–77, the hope being that some students at least will be registered in October 1976. In the following year, 1977–78, there is pro-vision for £124,000 and in the year after that, 1978–79, for £145,000. These sums are at 1974 survey prices and are based on a notional support cost per student, all of them postgraduate, of £1,600 a year.

The noble Earl's final point was one with which I have personal, as well as ministerial, sympathy; that is, the question of drafting. I agree that Article 2(1) is rather loosely drafted in that the term "Europe" is pre-empted for this purpose. I am advised that initially the Institute will be confined to the nine member States of the EEC, but the annexe (which is page 26, Part IIc) provides for possible amendment to allow for other European countries to participate. In that context, the use of the words is perfectly clear so far as Europe extends geo-graphically. We can take it that "Europe", as quoted in the Article, means Europe of the Nine but the potential, and the possibility, of extending the attractions and services of this Institute to other countries in Europe exist, by decision of the Member States. Those are the points which the noble Earl raised and I hope that I have gone some way to satisfy his exceptional and admirable curiosity.

On Question, Motion agreed to.