HL Deb 16 April 1980 vol 408 cc275-8

2.48 p.m.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds the European Community has cancelled a top-level meeting between representatives of the EEC and COMECON to formalise their relations as negotiating bodies on trade and economic co-operation.

The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard)

My Lords, the Community has told the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance that in view of the limited progress made during the last round of talks at working level, in Geneva in early March, the time is not yet right for a further top-level meeting.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. May I ask him whether or not planned economic arrangements between the two coordinated authorities would be more effective than the EEC proposal that separate negotiations should take place with the nations in the Communist sphere? Will not this inevitably lead to COME-CON negotiating separately with West European countries, thus increasing their division? Is not this decision a repudiation of the Helsinki agreement whose main provision was for joint economic co-operation?

Viscount TRENCHARD

My Lords, to take the noble Lord's last point first, I do not think that the decision is a repudiation of Helsinki. Indeed, the Community has tabled a new draft and is positive in its desire to help East European countries' relations with the Community in trade affairs. To turn to the first point raised in the supplementary of the noble Lord, it is a problem of the competence and practice of the two bodies and of individual countries. At the present time individual trade negotiations are carried out on some matters by individual countries, particularly in relation to the East European States. The competence of the Community particularly to negotiate for all the EEC countries is of a different order from that of the CMEA. These are detailed and complicated matters, but it is felt that a further meeting is necessary at official level before the top-level meeting, if the top-level meeting is to be successful.

Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS

My Lords, may I put this point to the Minister: From what he said in his first Answer and, indeed, followed up in his answer to the supplementary, can we take it that there will continue to be official contacts between the two bodies, aimed largely at getting, so far as possible, a similarity of structure on both sides, leading to composite negotiation on the lines he described? And while these official negotiations go forward, can he confirm that the meeting of ministerial principals is postponed rather than indefinitely abandoned?

Viscount TRENCHARD

My Lords, contacts are continuing, and we have offered a further meeting at official level. Certainly in this sense one should think in terms of a postponement, not a cancellation. In regard to the noble Lord's point about working towards a similarity in structure between the two organisations, I do not think that is necessarily the aim of these talks, or that it is necessarily desirable. The two organisations are different. They probably suit their own purposes very well.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, can the Minister say whether the present arrangements for discussions on environmental pollution will be maintained, and whether it will be possible to review the extension of joint activities which are so important for both sides?

Viscount TRENCHARD

My Lords, I think that is a detailed matter that could come under this heading or under other headings. I will let my noble friend know of the noble Lord's request that these matters should continue to be discussed.

Lord HANKEY

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government have any philosophical doubts about the desirability of our starting to deal officially with COMECON? Is not the COMECON organisation rather considerably under Soviet control, by means of which the Soviets are able to co-ordinate the economic policies of the whole of Eastern Europe? And is it really in our interest to lend authority to an organisation which has that effect in Eastern Europe, particularly at the present time, when the Russians ought to be in the doghouse?

Viscount TRENCHARD

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord added the words "at the present time". If the Soviet Union would do as the world requests it to do in relation to Afghanistan, we could be back to square one, where encouraging trade between East and West generally is important.

However, I think it is important to say that while the Afghanistan situation has certainly not helped in this, or in any other, area in terms of East-West relations, the CMEA is, as I understand it, a moderately loose association of Eastern countries, including all those as well as the Soviet Union; and helping those countries to make economic and trade contacts with the Community or Community Members, as appropriate, remains an aim of the Government.

The Earl of ONSLOW

My Lords, can the noble Viscount assure us that if trade between the EEC and COMECON is increased it will not by-pass American trade restraints with the Soviet Union as a result of Afghanistan; in other words, it will not be used as a "filler up" of an otherwise voided situation?

Viscount TRENCHARD

My Lords, there is certainly no chance of this agreement (which is not an agreement at the present time) being used in the manner suggested by my noble friend.