EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY TREATY (Hansard, 19 March 1975)

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary informed the Council of Ministers on 3rd March that, if permanent British membership of the Community was confirmed in the Referendum, we intended to seek a solution to various problems relating to the steel industry. The major difficulty is the absence of control over private sector steel investment. The Prime Minister also referred to this question in Dublin on l0th-llth March. We do not know whether the changes which we require will mean amendment of the Treaty of Paris. It may be that a solution can be found within the scope of the Treaty.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, now that the Prime Minister has, 742 in his own words, found the European Community more flexible than he apparently thought it was a year ago, cannot this matter be dealt with by one of the administrative methods mentioned in his Statement yesterday? And will the noble Lord confirm that this is the only point of Treaty revision arising after the whole renegotiation exercise, and that its consideration has been postponed until after the Referendum?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, there may be ways of dealing with this matter other than changing the Treaty ; we shall see. It is not quite correct to say that this is the only outstanding issue. Within the steel sector, also, there are questions relating to prices and mergers, as the noble Lord knows. These are probably less difficult than the question of private sector investment. I think we have all noted what the Prime Minister said about the resiliency of the EEC, and no doubt he will note what the noble Lord has said today.

§ Lord LEE of NEWTON
My Lords, would my noble friend agree that in the 1967 Act we gave ourselves power to intervene if the private sector was going to duplicate development in the public sector, and that we gave ourselves power to anticipate that happening rather than simply to complain after it had been done? Is it the case that if we now have to wait for negotiations to take place on the question of the Treaty of Paris, the damage will have been done, perhaps by the creation of electric arcs in places where steel has never been produced before, and that we would be quite unable to stop duplicate development in the steel industry which would not do any good to either the public or private sector?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, I note what my noble friend has said. I do not think that any irreparable damage will have been done before we have negotiated the position as we want to see it, as I am confident we shall succeed in doing. It is perfectly true that with the repeal of Section 15 of the 1967 Act this country was left with no powers to control private sector investment, and we shall seek to rectify that situation in one way or another.

§ Lord WYNNE-JONES
My Lords, does my noble friend's last statement 743 mean that similar private investment might be undertaken within the coal industry?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, that is another question.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I was asking whether this is the only case of Treaty revision? I realise there are other matters still left over. Does the noble Lord recognise the value of the help of the Coal and Steel Community in relation to some of the painful effects in this country of necessary modernisation, which usually means less men employed; for example, in the last two years about £ 33 million in grants and about £100 million in loans to help with retraining and housing in these industries?

§ Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS
My Lords, there are, of course, pros and cons in all these matters. I do not dissent from what the noble Lord has said. What I am saying is that there will be discussions with our partners in the EEC on ways of putting right the situation created by the abrogation of Section 15 of the 1967 Act, and I have said that I am confident that these discussions will succeed.