H
conduct of industrial policy during the past year. We have reported aids given under Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972. Article 222 of the Treaty of Rome specifically permits nationalisation; and Government parti- cipation in the equity of a firm does not in itself raise problems under the treaty. The Commission has accepted that in urgent cases we shall provide aid without first giving it an opportunity to comment. In such rescue cases a solution might be that when we prepare a plan to restore the firm con- cerned to viability we should discuss it with the Commission within the following six months. This would not be an onerous requirement.
The Commission has not yet commented on the Industry Bill. The pro- posals for the National Enterprise Board and for Planning Agreements have much in common with arrangements in other member States. They are in no way incompatible with the treaty, provided that the Government's powers are not exercised so as to damage the competitive position of undertakings in other member States-a principle which we accept, as we have in the case of regional policy.
I should add that, as regards State aids, we had just as stringent an injunction on us as members of EFTA, and non-market EFTA countries which have agreements with the EEC have accepted obligations just like the EEC obligations without having any part in EEC decisions in these fields.
I believe that this meets our objective. Steel is more difficult, partly for inherent reasons, partly because of action taken by the previous Government when they repealed Section 15 of the Iron and Steel Act.
I am satisfied that potential problems over prices can be resolved by close contact between the Government and the Steel Board, and possible difficulties about mergers are also capable of a solution.
There is nothing in the Treaties of Rome or Paris or in practices or policies under the treaties which precludes us from extending nationalisation of the present private sector-even total nationalisation of the industry.
On the control of private investment there were, until the repeal of Section 15, powers under legislation passed by this House to prevent invest- ment by non-British non-Community country steelmasters-and the much publicised minimill proposal at Newport could have been dealt with if Section 15 was still in force. It is not against the treaty in any way to use it.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary gave notice at the Council of Ministers on 3rd March that it might be necessary to ask for treaty revision if there is no other way of solving this problem. If, as part of the control of the economy, the Government-any Govern- ment have to hold back the level of new investment in the public steel sector, it is unacceptable that the private sector should be free to expand where it wants and by as much as it wants, thus adding to the inflationary pressure on resources, quite apart from the location and regional problems, for example, in areas where steel men have been made redundant by tech- nological change.
Since it is well known that other member countries have met with those and similar problems and have found administrative means of dealing with them without asking for an amendment of the treaty, I told the other Heads
7