HL Deb 05 May 1977 vol 382 cc1120-33

3.38 p.m.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1977, laid before the House on 3rd March, be approved. I think that it would be convenient if, with the leave of the House, I speak at the same time to the second Motion standing in my name, that concerning the European Communities (Definition Treaties) (No. 2) Order 1977. In moving approval, I will briefly describe the purpose of the draft orders and the Treaties which it is proposed be defined as Community Treaties in the order.

I have previously described to the House the purpose of this particular specification procedure but as it is somewhat complex the House may find it useful if I repeat it on this occasion. The European Communities Act gives effect in the United Kingdom to all rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions embodied in Community Treaties. But these rights and obligations do not apply and cannot he applied under the Act unless they arise under Community Treaties, as defined in Section 1 of the Act. With one exception which is not material here, 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 specified as such by means of the special procedure provided under Section 1 (3) of the Act. What we are today concerned with, therefore, is giving legal effect within the United Kingdom to these Treaties contained in the orders.

Your Lordships will be aware that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reported on the two orders and drew attention to the difficulty for Parliament in understanding this type of order from the limited information contained in the orders themselves. During the debate which was subsequently held on the orders in another place, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs gave an assurance that in future full explanatory memoranda will be provided to accompany orders laid before the House. The Government are at present considering how this can best be done.

The Committee also expressed concern, as your Lordships may know, as to their difficulties in knowing which provisions of the Treaties are directly applicable as law in Member States. The Government are considering what help they might be able to give Parliament in assessing the likely implications of specifying any particular Treaty. This point might be covered as far as possible in the explana tory memoranda to accompany future orders.

The first order which we are considering today contains five Treaties. Three of these Treaties relate to Community Agreements with Turkey. The original Agreements with Turkey were made before the United Kingdom entered the Community. An association Agreement was signed on 12th September 1963, which outlined the measures to be taken to complete a customs union in the 1990s, and envisaged that Turkey should become a Member of the Community (without setting any date). An additional Protocol to that Agreement was signed on 23rd March 1970, setting out steps to implement the second stage of the Association Agreement. The European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) aspects of relations between Turkey and the Six were covered in an Agreement signed in 1970.

The three Protocols which we are considering today take account of the enlargement of the Community and were signed in June 1973. The Government have since been keeping the situation under review, and are now satisfied that we can accept the obligations contained in the Protocols. We have therefore decided that it is time to ratify the Agreements. The other Member States have already ratified the Agreements although Turkey has not. An Interim Agreement was signed on 30th June 1973, under which the trade provisions of the EEC/Turkey Association Agreement and the additional Protocol thereto came into force for the new Member States.

The implementation of the other provisions of the Agreements has been the subject of considerable discussion between Turkey and the Community since the United Kingdom became a Member. Of particular interest to Members of this House may be the Agreement reached last December on measures to begin the implementation of the provisions relating to free movement of workers. In the current economic situation, it would be difficult to accommodate a new influx of Turkish migrant workers already in the Community Member States, and the Agreement which we have reached is that for some time to come we should concentrate on maintaining and improving the conditions of life and work of the existing Turkish migrant workers.

The Third treaty with Turkey which we are considering is the Supplementary Financial Agreement. Under this the United Kingdom will contribute 41 MUA (£18 million) to the money already committed by the Six to Turkey. The Government will make the contributions by direct payments to the European Investment Bank. The Bank will request payments only after it has approved projects put forward by the Turkish Government under the terms of the Agreement. I have devoted some time to the Turkey Agreements but they are, I think, the most important of the group. I will deal more briefly with the others.

The Financial Protocol with Malta provides for 26 MUA (£10 million) to be used for capital projects in the field of industrialisation and the modernisation of its agriculture, fisheries and tourist industries. The money is also to be used for technical co-operation both in the provision of expertise and the provision of training. Requests for funds will be handled in the same way as for Turkey. This Financial Protocol is one of a number of similar Protocols recently agreed between the Community and various Mediterranean countries. There is a fairly long list of them, as noble Lords will know.

The final Treaty in the first order is about the Community's relations with Canada. A Framework Agreement for economic co-operation between the EEC and Canada was signed on 6th July 1976 and came into force on 1st October last. Its main provisions were that each should accord to the other most favoured nation treatment in accordance with GATT, should assist each other to develop business opportunities between the two and should further mutual economic co-operation. This is the first Agreement establishing economic co-operation between the EEC and a developed country. As it was signed by the Council on behalf of the EEC and by the Commission on behalf of Euratom it is already a Community Treaty within the meaning of the European Communities Act. The Protocol with which we are concerned extends the provisions of the Framework Agreement to the European Coal and Steel Community sector. As individual Member States are signatories of the Protocol, unlike the principal Agreement, it requires designation under these procedures as a Community Treaty under Section 1(3).

I now come to the (No. 2) Order which is divided into two parts. Part I contains three Decisions of the Member States of the ECSC. The first offers tariff preferences for products originating in the overseas countries and territories associated with the Community. Noble Lords will recall it was agreed, on signature of the Lomé Convention, with the African, Caribbean and Pacific States that similar arrangements would be made in respect of the OCT; that is, overseas countries and territories.

The ECSC Agreements under which the Decisions were taken, setting up monitoring of imports of certain products originating in Austria and Sweden, were approved by the House in December 1972. The Agreements provided, interalia, for the progressive dismantling of tariffs on iron and steel products by the original Member States over a five-year period. Provision was made, however, for tariff protection to be reinforced by Member States if imports into the Community as a whole of sensitive alloy and high carbon steels reached prescribed annual limits. A Decision by Member States has set these limits each year. Member States are required by the two Decisions which we are considering to record imports of the specified products in 1977 and to inform the Commission of the amounts, so that, if necessary, reinforcing protection may be more effectively pursued.

Part II of the Schedule contains Protocols extending the Wheat Trade and Food Aid Conventions of 1971 for the third time. The Conventions together form the International Wheat Agreements 1971. The two previous extensions have also been designated through these procedures under Section 1(3). This one needs the same treatment. The objectives of the Wheat Trade Convention are to further international co-operation on wheat problems, to expand international trade and to contribute to the stability of the international market. To fulfil the last objective, the International Wheat Council has established a preparatory group to examine the elements on which a new Agreement might be based. The issues involved are complex, but progress should be made this year. The likely time-scale is that a negotiating conference, probably under United Nations auspices, will begin at the end of 1977 with a view to the new Agreement taking effect from 1st July 1978.

I now turn to the Food Aid Convention —again within the second order. This Government do not believe that food aid is by its nature superior to financial aid —I imagine that this idea is supported in every part of the House. Indeed. financial aid has greater flexibility and in this sense it is preferred to any other form of aid. But the existence of food stocks in some Member States means that food aid can generate an additional aid flow to developing countries. This additional aid can improve nutritional levels directly—there is no need to go through the interim process of converting cash into supplies—and, more generally, properly used food aid can assist in the overall development process of recipients and in improved food security. I imagine that sonic forms of agricultural produce which are in surplus and in storage, and available to be used as aid, may be used for the development of agriculture rather than for the feeding of the population. The British Government believe very strongly that food aid should, whenever possible, always be deployed in such a way as to generate this wider development.

While the negotiations on a new Wheat Trade Convention are being carried out, it is proposed that the Wheat Trade and Food Aid Conventions be extended for another two years. This is the third extension, which the order mentions. On the conclusion of these negotiations, the matter of recognition of the Food Aid Convention will then he considered. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) Order 1977, laid before the House on 3rd March, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.

3.54 p.m.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, I cannot be quite as brief as either I, or indeed the House, would like on these Statutory Instruments, because the plain fact is that what we have here is a pig in a poke, or at least two pokes containing a litter of no fewer than 10 pigs. These two Instruments are, in fact, very powerful engines of legislation, and what your Lordships are being asked to do in giving your assent to them is to take cognisance of the effects within the United Kingdom of the provisions of no fewer than 10 separate international treaties. Those treaties touch upon our relationships, principally financial relationships, with no fewer than 54 separate countries. Many of those provisions have a bearing not only upon the Government, but upon individual persons and organisations within the United Kingdom, and the effect of your Lordships' endorsement of these Instruments, since they have already been endorsed after a Division in another place, will be to establish that those provisions shall be enforceable at law in the courts of the United Kingdom. Your Lordships are, in fact, being invited to participate in legislation. Our decision will have the force of law.

Yet, in spite of the much fuller explanation which the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, gave than was given in another place—and I think that we should be indebted to him for the extent to which he prepared himself for this—many of us are considerably in the dark as to what the law, which results from our decision, will he as it affects individuals in the United Kingdom. Nothing that has been put before your Lordships prior to this debate has cast any light on that subject. Even that debate about this subject in another place—which would not, incidentally, have taken place on the Floor of the House had it not been for the vigilance of 20 honourable Members there—was little more than the shouts of angry men shut in a cellar and calling for candles, but getting only rather damp matches. We are not told what are the implications of these treaties in this respect. I take the noble Lord's point that they have to be enforceable at law in courts in this country, because the appeal from those courts is to courts of the Community and there should not be a disparity, or people will be driving off a bridge, as it were, of which only half has been built.

That is the purpose of the instruments, but what are the purposes of the treaties? The noble Lord has done his best in a very short compass to embrace a very large subject. We need to know their provisions and what specifically are those provisions which have to be enforceable at law in British courts, albeit noted, against British citizens, and which would not be so enforceable were these orders not to be approved. We are not told. We are not properly informed on the subject, and we cannot question the reasoning of the Government in including these orders, because they have not let us into the secret of what that reasoning is. In my view, it should be incumbent upon them to set out, in advance of such a debate as this, the specific effects or provisions of a treaty or protocol which they believe should be brought within the cognisance and jurisdiction of British courts, and which they seek, by submitting such an instrument for approval, to write de novo into the law of the land.

The noble Lord gave—and he purported to be echoing his right honourable friend at the other end of the Corridor—an undertaking that this would be seriously considered, and in comparing what he said with what was said by his right honourable friend he went a little further, and we should be grateful for that. This is a technicality which your Lordships should not let slip between your fingers, because you are anxious to hear a Statement.

The fact is that there should be a clear indication of which are the specific provisions to which the orders relate which have to be enforceable at law, and that indication should either be in the Statutory Instrument itself or, if that is not possible, as I believe, in the explanatory note which clearly states that it is not part of the Statutory Instrument. There are some who say that it would he too full even to put there, and in that case I would submit to the noble Lord that the proper thing to do is to cite with each treaty and protocol the Command Paper within which it is to be found, and that that should be published with that Command Paper, and, integral to it, the arguments and the specifications which I suggest we ought to have at our fingertips before we debate such a subject.

The noble Lord may argue that this recognition of the necessity of a Statutory Instrument may not occur to the Government until the Command Paper is already published, and in that case a separate appendix should be published, indexed to it and specifically cited in the Statutory Instrument. That would answer a great many of the difficulties that we find in the present presentation where, if I may just ask your Lordships to compare the explanatory note with paragraph 3 in each order, you will find that it is not an explanatory note, it is not particularly good recapitulation, it serves no function at all and may have the slight danger that it gives somebody in office the idea that he has performed a useful function in getting it published.

If I may now go on rather more swiftly over the ground that remains, I would say, first, that we should be indebted to the noble Lord for thus helping us to thread our way through the various complex literature which lies behind these treaties, which is the validation of European legislation. We need to let Parliament take cognisance of considerable decisions. The noble Lord mentioned capital sums in excess of £30 million, which are being endorsed by this little conversation that we are having this afternoon. I do not think that many of us are in a position to give a great judgment on the technical arguments behind them. There are, of course, much larger current expenditure figures implicit in the Lomé Convention and the second group in the order. He told us that the first of these had already received Parliamentary scrutiny. I was not at all clear whether this referred to the second two in the first group as well or to items 4 and 5 in the Schedule to the second order. I will be instructed by the noble Lord.

I ought also to ask the noble Lord to consider two further matters. The first is the sheer volume of material covered by these two thin pieces of paper. I regret having already continued for a length of time which is not recorded, but which must be about eight minutes, without getting to the contents. But in a debate that is expected to last 15 to 20 minutes and to be a formality we cannot take on board issues so great as this; they should be spread and taken one by one. If they take up more of the time of Parliament—and making laws does take up time—the Government have a remedy in their own hands: to make fewer laws in other directions.

Regarding the contents of these orders, there are a few specific points upon which your Lordships will wish to be enlightened. Can the noble Lord please tell us whether the proposals made by the European Commission in 1974 and 1975 for an increase in the volume of cereal aid provided by the Community, which followed the World Food Conference in 1974, have yet been approved by the Council? I do not think that the noble Lord told us whether Her Majesty's Government support or oppose those proposals. If Her Majesty's Government oppose the proposals, can the noble Lord tell us what alternative means they propose to enable us to honour our undertakings to the World Food Conference? Was the adjournment of last month's meeting of development Ministers, with no decision taken on this question, at our request or only with our concurrence, and when is it to be reconvened? The noble Lord may say that the question has no bearing on the Instrument, but we must have an opportunity to survey its impact.

My second question is: what will be the effects, under the second and third paragraphs of Part I of the Schedule to the second order, upon the importation of steel from Austria and Sweden? The noble Lord alluded to this, but what I am not aware of is the effect it may have on the prices of steel in the domestic market of this country and upon employment in our own steel industry. He may well answer "None", but I wish to hear the answer. My third question arises from financial protocol No. 4 in the Schedule to the first order: the agreement establishing association between the EEC and Malta. The noble Lord referred to the considerable sums in Turkey and the not so considerable sums in Malta and the procedures by which they would be handled. According to the answer given in another place, £10 million is to be used for capital projects in Malta. May I ask the noble Lord how much of the £10 million will originate from the British taxpayer? In fact, the noble Lord has given us the answer to that question but he has not told us, beyond the fact that the European Bank will release the money only when a request is made for it, whether there will be any monitoring of the application for that money. Can the noble Lord reassure us that this is not simply another Socialist Government in some difficulty being propped up at our expense?

Those are not the most important considerations. The most important consideration is that we should not be invited to participate in legislation without knowing what we are doing. If the noble Lord can give us an assurance on this point and answer the questions I have asked him, the House will be greatly and rightly obliged to him.

Lord GLADWYN

My Lords, I do not want to add anything, except that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. As I understand it, the point is whether or not these Instruments have been sifted by the Scrutiny Committee and, if they have, what was the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee. If it were that the Instrument concerned should be debated in Parliament, would it mean that it should be debated in this House? May I therefore ask thenoble Lord whether the Instrument has been debated in this House. Those are the questions to which we should like to have an answer.

4.5 p.m.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for what he has said. I agree with him that probably we need a radical revision of our procedures for considering legislation of this kind, because, after all, it is legislation. As the noble Lord has quite rightly reminded us, the procedure is to validate in the United Kingdom legislation which flows from our membership of the European Communities. I followed with close attention and, indeed, agreement, what the noble Lord had to say about the need in the future to provide, in the most appropriate form, an accompanying document or—if I may quote a phrase which was very usefully used in the debate in another place on this matter—possibly an included statement in a Command Paper.

There are other possible means of making available in good time to both Houses the information that is necessary for an effective and responsible consideration of these matters. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that they are substantial matters. In many cases they are financial matters. Certainly by implication they are substantial matters so far as the rights and obligations of the citizens of this country are concerned, since we are firmly members of the Community.

As to how to do it, the Government are, as I said, very carefully considering not whether to do it but how best to do it. One suggestion which was made by the noble Lord is particularly worthy of consideration. If I may speak personally for a moment, I rather like the idea that within the Command Paper there should be included in a handy way as an appendix, with its status properly explained, a statement that all this is tentative, not definitive. That, in my experience in both Houses, would possibly be the best way of dealing with it, but that is a matter for those who are considering how best to deal with it. I welcome the suggestion which the noble Lord has made.

As to including in such an accompanying document or in an included statement in a Command Paper the precise legal implications for the United Kingdom of what is designated through these procedures—the validation of the EEC legislation—I have certain reservations to make. These were expressed in another place and the noble Lord will be aware of them. It is very difficult indeed to be specific as to the provisions which will surface in a Member State as being applicable legislation. It is probably true that in all cases we shall not be absolutely certain until there has been a testing in the courts.

Lord ELTON

My Lords, none the less it would be proper to say that we are asking for the endorsement of this Treaty and its citation in the order because we believe that the following position may have to be enforced and would not otherwise be enforceable. This would enable people to follow in advance the argument of the Government and test it, thus saving the waste of time in Parliament itself.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I have no quarrel with the noble Lord on this point. I agree with him. It would be a great help if what was recognised to be, in status, a tentative, best possible statement of the position for the future were made in that form. I have repeated an undertaking—more strongly, I hope, this time—that both points which the noble Lord raised will be considered and dealt with in the best possible way.

Perhaps I may refer to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, before I deal with the practical points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The Joint Committee considered both orders and in relinquishing them, as it were, made the points which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has made as to the need for fuller information. May I now look at the three points which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, raised. I may miss one or two of them, in which case I shall make available to him in another way what information I have.

The noble Lord asked about the progress of the Food Aid Convention. Clearly the question of whether the Food Aid Convention should be renegotiated or even continued after 1978 is still open and remains to be discussed with our European partners. I do not think that I should go beyond that on this occasion. There are a number of other details about which at a later stage I may be able to be more informative. At this stage I would not wish to canvass the attitudes of other Member States, for instance. The negotiations are proceeding. On the question of the implementation of the annual ECSE decisions on indicative savings—which I think was the second point raised by the noble Lord, was it not?

Lord ELTON

My Lords, the noble Lord has expressed it with much more sophistication than I did, but it is.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, I should like to be able to agree with the noble Lord on that point. So far I am in agreement with him on almost everything. I will repeat that lovely phrase if he likes it so much: on the implementation of the annual ECSE decisions—and they are of course decisions equally valid with treaties, protocols and so on—on indicative savings resulting from the protocols to the European Community agreements with Austria and Sweden, these have no direct effect on United Kingdom domestic steel prices, or indeed employment. The decision specified in the order obliged Member States to monitor imports of special steels in 1977 and to keep the Commission informed. It is only if the ceilings are exceeded that it is likely or possible that any Member State—or the Commission itself—will request the reimposition of duties throughout the Community.

On the value of the contribution to assistance to Malta by the United Kingdom, the amount is £1 million sterling. I certainly do not think that the noble Lord's question as to whether this is a prop for a Socialist Government was worthy of the otherwise very high standard of his contribution this afternoon, as always. The nature of these projects is what should concern us and I agree very much with the noble Lord that when there is a transfer of money, and indeed of technological resources, and of food for consumption or for use in other ways, it is right to see what use is made of these transfers. The excellent debate which we had yesterday, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, touched on this matter, although of course we were discussing human rights. I think I indicated fairly fully in my opening speech the nature of the projects involved in the contribution to Malta. If the noble Lord, or anybody else, wants more details about what I will call the more Maltese element in the second order I shall be very glad to give more details.

On Question, Motion agreed to.