House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Apr 1991

Mr. Speaker : Order. I had hoped to be able to call all hon. Members, but I think that I shall not now be able to do so. I shall call three more from each side and then we must move on as we have a busy day ahead of us and a prayer this evening which must end at 11.30 pm.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo (Bristol, South) : The Foreign Secretary must be aware that the British people are appalled that the so-called liberation of Kuwait has unfolded into the massive tragedy that we now see on our screens every evening. Compared to the vigour with which the Government pursued the liberation of Kuwait, their commitment to the refugees can only be described as relative inertia.

The right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, mentioned Iran. Many thousands of refugees are moving towards Iran and I have a constituent whose entire family are there. They have been turned away from the British embassy when trying to make contact with their relatives here in Britain. What undertakings can the Secretary of State give about arrangements that will be made in Iran not merely so that one visa may be granted but to allow refugees with families in Britain to contact them and to ensure that the proper relief structures are put in place there?

Mr. Hurd : I do not know why the hon. Lady talks about the "so- called" liberation of Kuwait. That demonstrates a cast of mind that somewhat clouds her judgment on the rest. I do not believe that what this country has been doing to get the relief effort going could conceivably be called inertia since we were first in the field and are perhaps pressing for the build-up of the international effort more energetically than anyone else.

If the hon. Lady will give me the details of the case that she mentioned I shall look into it. At present the embassy in Tehran does not issue visas.

Mr. David Atkinson (Bournemouth, East) : Notwithstanding the reply that my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), can he confirm that this uprising is only the latest in many by the Kurds in response to their demands for self-determination, which was promised to them by the great powers after the first world war, under the treaty of Se vres in 1920? As long as the rest of the world continues to ignore that demand for self-determination, there will always be such uprisings, which will be brutally put down. Will he ensure that that matter, along with self-determination for the Palestinians, is sought to be resolved in the wake of the outcome of the Gulf war?

Column 35

Mr. Hurd : The Kurdish leaders who came to see my right hon. Friend at No. 10 Downing street last week were clear that their demand was for autonomy within Iraq. That seems to me to be an entirely reasonable aim for them and one that we can certainly support.

Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : Why should the Kurds, the Shias or any other oppressed people trust western Governments, especially this Government and the Bush Administration, ever again? Clearly they were asked to rise up against a brutal dictator and, having put their trust in Governments--which I would not have done--perhaps bemused by the poetic phrases about the rights of small nations, they have been betrayed. Why are a million people on the borders of Turkey and Iran worth £20 million when a million people oppressed by the same Government in Kuwait were worth £3,000 million? That is the difference between the amount of aid to the Kurdish people and the money spent on the war in Kuwait.

Mr. Hurd : The hon. Member would have left Kuwait under Saddam Hussein's rule. I cannot think why that would have been of any advantage to the Kurds.

Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark) : My right hon. Friend has properly laid emphasis upon the importance of getting the Kurds back to their homes. Is not the key to that a guarantee that when they get there they will be able to live in safety? Is not the message coming through to my right hon. Friend from the House and from outside that the United Nations, which could send peacekeeping forces to do that, is being less than robust in attempting to do so?

Mr. Hurd : The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) also put that point to me, and I answered it in terms that I consider to be realistic. I followed carefully my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's words on television yesterday. I do not exclude the possibility of such an answer any more than he did, but I know that it would not succeed now.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South) : Does the Foreign Secretary recall that, during our debate on 21 January after hostilities had begun, I urged him to set up two working parties? The first would review the objectives and operations of the United Nations to take advantage of the new circumstances following the end of the cold war ; the second would examine the organisation of the relief and rehabilitation that would certainly be required when hostilities ended. The right hon. Gentleman may also recall that I sent a letter backing up what I had said with further suggestions, to which he gave what I would call a typically Foreign Office reply. What specific action did he take?

Mr. Hurd : The hon. Gentleman's first suggestion lies outside the terms of my statement. I have already answered his second point : the United Nations disaster relief organisation anticipated--and asked member states to anticipate, and contribute accordingly--a movement of refugees out of Iraq after the war, and we have contributed.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : If no direct action is taken against Saddam Hussein following what has happened to the Kurdish people, we can only conclude that no act is barbaric enough for the international community to intervene, provided that it is inflicted by a Government on their own peopole. Is not the logical

Column 36

conclusion of such thinking that the only crime committed by Hitler that justified intervention was his failure to restrict the slaughter of Jews to his own countrymen?

Although I understand the logic of the position that the Government have adopted, constituents whom I have met over the past two weeks have not understood it, and I for one am at a loss to explain it to them.

Mr. Hurd : I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is suggesting that his constituents who served in the Gulf should now be on duty in Baghdad, but that is the implication of what he has said. I rather agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes).

There is no doubt about the indignation that is felt about the suffering of the Kurds, or about the importance of mounting an effective operation--not just dropping food, but ensuring that relief is protected and that the Kurds will eventually be able to return to their homes. That, surely, is a realistic course on which the international community is agreed, as is shown by, in particular, resolutions 687 and 688.

If, however, that course were frustrated and did not succeed--as I have made clear in answer to several questions--a different position would arise, and the Security Council would have to address it. If my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) is suggesting that we should now put our troops into Baghdad and install a new ruler--or that we should have done so in the past, and should now be sustaining that new ruler--he is verging on what I, perhaps with a good many other people in this country, regard as unrealistic territory.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) : I have just returned from a five-day visit to Iran and Iraq. I have seen for myself the most abject misery-- misery that I had not believed possible. The scenes are indescribable. I saw a 60 km line of cars stuck on a hilltop, where they have been for more than 11 days waiting to cross the border to Iran. Those who have managed to cross the border, however, are still experiencing dreadful conditions. They are at the top of a mountain about the same height as Snowdon, in winter conditions--freezing at night and bitterly cold during the day--and without proper cover. The makeshift tents that they have constructed are made of the thinnest plastic, the kind in which clothes are returned from the cleaners. It is entirely impracticable as a protection from the weather. Mothers who have crossed the border to Iran are trying to shelter their children. A mother with a baby in her arms came up and asked me to take it to hospital : it was cold, blue and clearly going to die. I had to turn away because there were hundreds of others in the same condition. I saw the food deliveries. We have seen pictures of that on television. It is exactly like that. Desperate people are scrabbling for food. Again, that is on the Iranian side of the border. On the other side of the border, people have managed to bring in some supplies--those who are lucky enough to have some form of transport. Others have no means of transport. Barefoot, they have walked many long miles--taking over 10 days perhaps to walk to the border. Some of the women are wearing totally inadequate clothes. They look as though they have come straight out of their homes, without any protection. When I went there with a group of diplomats, including ambassadors, who had witnessed scenes of famine, flood and earthquake all over

Column 37

the world, they said that never before had they seen such scenes. The same is true of the aid workers whom I met there.

I saw no signs of British aid on the Iran side of the border. That aid may have gone to Turkey, but it certainly had not gone to Iran. I asked many reporters in the area, but they said the same--that there was no evidence of British aid. The only aeroplane that I saw on the airfield was a Russian aeroplane.

I raised the matter in the House before the Easter recess and asked what the Government proposed to do at that time about distributing humanitarian aid to the whole of Iraq. We have, as the Foreign Secretary knows, the statement of the United Nations team that has been into Iraq. The team described is as a catastrophe and set out the need for medicine, food and clothes.

The Red Crescent in Iran, with whose director I spoke early last week, has managed to cope so far with the enormous influx of refugees. The situation is obviously much worse in Iran--a point that I stressed to the Foreign Secretary--because 1 million people have already crossed the border and the estimate is that another 1 million people may be trying to get across the border. Iran, therefore, desperately needs help. The Red Crescent in Iran says that is has come to the end of its tether. It has had experience of dealing with earthquakes and the Iran-Iraq war. To some extent, they were prepared, in that they had camps close to the border and a certain number of tents. When the Red Crescent asked the Save the Children Fund for help-- a group of its representatives was present when I spoke to the director of the Red Crescent--it asked particularly for tents but it was told by the Save the Children Fund that it did not have in the United Kingdom a supply of tents in the numbers needed. What they need most of all are tents, clothing, powdered milk for the babies, food and teams of doctors and nurses.

I saw a French team of 150 doctors from Medecins Sans Frontieres, which is well known to everyone, and asked why such an organisation can get a group of doctors quickly into a disaster area while we, who have faced similar tragedies in many parts of the world, cannot. I met the French aid Minister who had been in the area for six days. He felt desperate about the situation and said that he was going back to report to President Mitterrand in Paris.

I urge the Government to give particular attention to the needs of Iran, which has coped very well so far, but it cannot do so any longer. The governor of west Azerbaijan, where the main bulk of the refugees are going, said that 80 per cent. of the refugees were in hospitals in his province and that 800 emergency surgical operations have been carried out on the refugees. Injured people are still to be found on both sides of the border.

On Saturday I travelled about 40 miles into Iraq. I heard the shelling coming from Sulaymaniyah, which at present is held by Iraqi troops. The shells were aimed at Kurdish fighters on the hillsides surrounding the town.

I spoke to the main Kurdish leader, Jalal Talabani, in his headquarters, hidden away in the hills. He said that, although he was grateful for any suggestions as to how the desperate situation in which Iraq finds itself might be solved, he could not understand why the international community, if it were prepared to offer safe havens within Kurdistan, could not make the whole of Iraqi Kurdistan a safe haven for the Kurds. That is a matter that will have to be addressed. Talabani said that he was not in favour of safe havens, as such areas would be surrounded by areas

Column 38

of hostility. He is in favour of a political solution that will enable the Kurdish people to live in peace in their own country. As the Foreign Secretary has said, what the Kurdish people want is autonomy within Iraq. That is the very least that the international community should aim to provide.

The situation is desperate, both for the Kurds and for the Shias. There are United Nations resolutions under which the international community could take action. I appeal to the Government to do everything in their power to deal with the situation, including the provision of aid on a vastly increased scale. I am not convinced that aid has been provided on anything like the necessary scale. Most of all, I appeal to the Foreign Secretary to aim for a political solution to the dreadful situation in which the Kurdish and Shi'ite people find themselves. Saddam Hussein is still killing, killing, killing, in Iraq. This is genocide, and it calls for an international response.

Mr. Hurd : The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has drawn on her memories of the immediate past. At the meeting that I had this morning, there were three or four other people, including Dr. Barrow of the Overseas Development Administration, who had recently returned--some of them last night--from various parts of the area, and whose vivid recollections bear out entirely what the hon. Lady has just said. The House will have found no hint of exaggeration in her description of what she witnessed.

It is certainly true that the help that we have been providing on an increasing scale has gone overwhelmingly to the Turkish side of the border. However--and I said this before the hon. Lady asked me to do so--it is clear that, in terms of size, the greater problem arises on the Iranian side. It may have been since the hon. Lady's departure that we flew the first supplies directly to Iran. We shall continue to provide supplies.

The problem is how to get them up to the area where they are needed. Just before coming to the House, I saw a telegram to the effect that the closest airport is too small to receive aeroplanes of the type needed to carry them. Indeed, some planes have had to be turned away and sent to Tehran, which is hundreds of kilometres away.

These are the problems with which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Mrs. Ogata, who is now in Iran, is wrestling. The focus of the international effort--without our ceasing to build up on the Turkish side-- will increasingly have to be Iran and the problems that the hon. Lady has described. She referred to people sitting miserable in cars--some of them dying. That reflects completely other comments that I heard this morning.

On the political side, I cannot sensibly add to what I have said already. The objective that the hon. Lady heard voiced by the Kurdish leader is the one that was explained to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he met similar Kurdish leaders in London last week. That must be the right objective, and it can be achieved only by steady steps. I repeat that the first steps must involve efforts to prevent people from dying on the tops of mountains ; the second must be to get people--immediately, if possible-- into Turkey and Iran ; the third must be to enable them to return to their homes. That will require not just the provision of aid but United Nations action that has not previously had to be taken in this form. I refer to the need to ensure that people may return home in safety and confidence.

Column 39

The Government will take seriously the points that have been made during these exchanges not least those raised by the hon. Lady.

Mr. Speaker : I shall ensure that hon. Members who were not called to put questions on this statement are given some priority when we next return to the subject.

Question Time

4.42 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that, by comparison with the subject that we have just been discussing, this is a very small point.

When the Minister for the Arts was answering questions today he made a remark which, on the face of it--though I am sure it was not intended-- could be misleading. On the subject of the London borough grant committee, he said that Labour and the Liberal Democrats had a majority. That is true, but the budget requires a two-thirds majority vote, and it is Conservative members who are blocking the resolution--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I cannot be responsible for adjudicating on the accuracy of answers that are given in the House. The hon. Gentleman must find another opportunity to raise this matter. It is not one for me.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,

That the draft Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Local Authorities (Members' Allowances) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 351) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the Local Authorities Etc. (Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 397) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the National Health Service Trusts (Consultation before Establishment) (Scotland) Regulations 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 358) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. That the National Health Service Training Authority (Abolition) Order 1991 (S.I., 1991, No. 327) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Chapman.]

EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES

Ordered,

That the Court of Auditors' Special Report No. 2/90, relating to management and control of export refunds, and European Community Documents Nos. 4549/91, relating to the development and future of the Common Agricultural Policy, and 5032/91 Add I to III, relating to the prices for agricultural products and related measures (1991-92), shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A.-- [Mr. Chapman.]

Column 40

Orders of the Day

Export and Investment Guarantees Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

4.44 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey) : Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not see how there can be anything further to be said about the matter. As I have said already, it has nothing to do with me. I do not know whether what the Minister said was right or wrong.

Mr. Hughes : It is a procedural point, Mr. Speaker. Such matters have often been raised with you. My understanding is that a point of order relating to questions may be taken immediately after Question Time.

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member knows that if something disorderly has occurred during Question Time, that is the point at which it should be raised. However, it is not disorderly to disagree with an answer.

New Clause 1

Developing countries

"The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that ECGD's services to developing countries are effected in coordination with the services offered by all other government departments or agencies involved in assisting developing countries or in assisting British firms to supply goods or services to developing countries.'.-- [Ms. Quin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms. Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause introduces into the debate on this legislation an element that was not really covered at the Committee stage. We are concerned about how the ECGD's services will fit into the overall trade and aid arrangements between the United Kingdom and developing countries. It has been pointed out to me that the equivalents of the ECGD in many developing countries are involved more closely in co-ordinating facilities for the promotion of trade and aid. A number of west European and other developed countries have state facilities to assist their industry to identify, and to develop involvement as technical partners in, sources of know-how and technology in projects in developing countries. Such projects often lead to opportunities for funding and for the supply of goods and services. There are such business development facilities in the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, France, Finland, Ireland, Austria and Switzerland, as well as Japan and the United States of America. Business concluded via this system is very much in the national interest of the countries concerned and we believe that a similar approach by the United Kingdom would be in our national interest.

It is unfortunate that the Bill, in its present form, does not contain a provision that would enable the Secretary of State to make arrangements to give such guarantees as appear to him to be in the national interest, even though the original Act--the Export Guarantees and Overseas Investment Act 1978--does contain such a provision. For two reasons, the provisions of our new clause would be

Column 41

very much in our national interest. They would certainly enable British industry to become involved at an early stage in business with developing countries. If British industry is not involved at an early stage, the way is open for other countries, and, because of their more co-ordinated structure, it is easier for them to become involved at an early stage.

Such an arrangement would be in the interests of developing countries, so the system proposed in new clause 1 would improve our aid and development efforts. It is important for Britain to avoid losing out in trade with developing countries. Similar considerations also apply to our trading relations with eastern Europe and the Soviet Union and to the use of ECGD in that context as we appear to be losing out to other countries because of our lacklustre approach. However, as new clause 1 is about developing countries, I shall resist the temptation to say too much about eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, although I believe that I have made an important point.

Using Indonesia as an example of a developing country, I shall quote part of an article which appeared in The Independent on Sunday on 31 March. It states :

"Her Majesty's Treasury moves in mysterious ways, as the Government of Indonesia will testify. In 1989"

our then Prime Minister

"was touring the Far East, vigorously waving the flag and helping British companies pick up business in Jakarta.

Because Indonesia is poor, the British Government lets it pay with low- interest loans called mixed credits, which are backed by the government export credit agency, ECGD.

An umbrella arrangement for such deals was due to expire on 30 November last year, so when two telecommunications contracts and one for railway refurbishment, worth £89 million between them, came close to signature, the Department of Trade, the exporters and the embassy in Jakarta put pressure on the Indonesian government to sign by the deadline.

It did, and then waited for the financing arrangements to be finalised-- which would normally take about 10 days. It is still waiting. The exporters and their bankers are furious, for they see this delay, linked to the introduction of a new premium system, not only as potentially damaging to business in a fast-growing market, but also as a sign that the Treasury is yet again throwing spanners into the works of ECGD."

That example bears out the worthwhile nature of new clause 1 which envisages a system in which such delays would not occur.

I wonder whether the Minister has seen the interesting proposals by Mr. Andrew Brzozowski of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. He suggests a one-stop bureau, a British industries overseas projects development bureau, which would achieve the co-ordination for which we are asking and ensure that ECGD services were brought into a network that would operate efficiently for British industries in developing countries. I refer in particular to part of the paper by Mr. Brzozowski where he points out that a number of countries have one-stop project promotions offices run by multilateral aid organisations with national Government funding. There are no similar one-stop facilities in the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and Mr. Brzozowski in particular, feel that the Government should consider such an approach. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response. Such a network would aim to bring together potential United Kingdom know-how and technical partners to joint ventures in developing countries. It would draw attention to the finances available, including grants, concessional finance, export

Column 42

credits and commercial funding, and would provide a vehicle for assisting the development of a total United Kingdom response to major projects.

The Minister may remember that in Committee we referred to the example of an exporter who was interested in establishing a telecommunications project in Kenya but was unable to get export credit assistance from the ECGD. The Minister subsequently sent me an unsatisfactory reply which did not give any hope that such facilities would be available to that exporter in future. If there were a co-ordinated system, as we are suggesting in new clause 1, the chance of that exporter getting ECGD assistance would be improved and he would be aware of other sources of assistance. For example, he would be referred automatically to the Commonwealth Development Corporation. I understand that that would not be the case at present.

Many of our major industries would be interested in the system proposed in new clause 1. For instance, companies in the Export Group for Construction Industries are involved in many large-scale projects in developing countries and are well aware of the value of ECGD services. They want those services to continue and to be efficiently and effectively organised in future.

Perhaps I should make it clear that, although I am anxious that we benefit from project and trade opportunities in developing countries, nothing that I have said so far undermines our comments and the amendments that we tabled in Committee. We expressed concern about the scale of military exports and sought to ensure that any project in developing countries should comply with environmental safeguards. However, we believe strongly that an effective co-ordinated system would be a good way of organising future projects in developing countries.

The Minister may say that the new clause goes rather wide of the Bill. That would be a fair comment, but we seek some reassurance on how the system will work in future. We know that there have been some moves to co-ordinate the export services of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office recently, but our aim, and Labour party policy, is to ensure that all export promotion interests, including the Government and other agencies working with developing countries, are properly co-ordinated. For that and all the other reasons I have given, we hope that new clause 1 will get a sympathetic response from the Government.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury) : I am certainly sympathetic to the objectives that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) set out. However, I fear that I will disappoint her by saying that, although I am sympathetic to her objectives, I cannot be as sympathetic to new clause 1. Perhaps she recognises that the legal and practical effects of new clause 1 are rather unclear. It is not at all clear to me or to any rational reader how it would attain its objectives. Another problem is that the hon. Lady's remarks seem to be based on an assumption that ECGD support is always helpful to a developing country.

In effect, ECGD support is another form of commercial loan. There is a real problem--although we wish that it did not exist--that when a country is unable to service its existing foreign debt, it does not seem helpful to add to its burden of indebtedness. Quite the opposite. The hon. Lady

Column 43

used Kenya as an example. That country has a problem servicing its existing debt burden. In those circumstances, it is more appropriate to give aid in another form.

Having said that, I assure the hon. Lady that we are conscious of the importance of co-ordinating the Whitehall machinery for aid and the activities of ECGD in respect of trade. Machinery exists for co-ordinating those activities with those of other Departments concerned with developing countries and third world development. We should not fall into the trap of confusing the role of the ECGD with that of the ODA. The ECGD's function is not to provide assistance to overseas countries, but to encourage British exports by providing services to industry here. We recognise that there is a need to co-ordinate ECGD's activities with those of the ODA and of the DTI and I assure the hon. Lady that machinery exists for that purpose. First, in respect of export projects assisted by the aid and trade provision, for which ECGD cover for the related commercial export credit is a normal pre-requisite, long-standing procedures exist which ensure that the interests of ECGD, the ODA and the DTI are effectively co-ordinated.

Secondly, in respect of commercial export credits supported by the project group--I think that I am right to say that the hon. Lady referred broadly to commercial export credits--further machinery exists to ensure that the views of all interested Departments, which could include the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Treasury, are brought to bear in assessing the national interest case for giving cover.

5 pm

The hon. Lady will appreciate that national interest can encompass a wide range of factors--employment, security and diplomatic and trade factors. However, it can also include the developmental benefits to which she referred. A formal Whitehall committee of officials exists to co-ordinate the views of different Departments.

I said that I was sympathetic to the objectives of new clause 1, but the machinery for which it asks already exists. We would not wish to confuse the role of the ECGD with that of the ODA and we do not believe that it is helpful to add to the burden of debt of a country that already suffers severely from excessive debt. I cannot ask the House to accept the new clause, I urge hon. Members to reject it.

Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central) : The Minister's answer is much less impressive than it should be, because he has merely outlined precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin). There is no co-ordination of the Government's activities. The Minister mentioned a range of Departments, all of which are dabbling and meddling in different respects with different functions and purposes. He said that it would be unkind and unfair to ask developing countries which already have a substantial burden of debt to incur even more. That is fine, but where does that leave an exporter who wishes to trade with Brazil, Mexico or Nigeria? My hon. Friend asks for systematic, publicly known and well co-ordinated arrangements to deal with precisely that issue.

My hon. Friend alluded to a key issue which concerns us all, which is that on the question of military exports,

Column 44

there is great confusion between the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Trade and Industry when it issues export licences, the ECGD and other Departments that might be involved. That is of great significance. We have heard a major statement in which co-ordination was one of the hidden themes which underpinned the discussion on that statement. The Minister merely said that a range of public and semi-public agencies such as the banks and others are engaged in this issue, but offered no assurance that they are co-ordinated, which is the purpose of the new clause.

Ms. Quin : The Minister said that he feared that his reply would disappoint me. I can at least say that he has been consistent, given his replies to the amendments that we tabled in Committee, where he was unwilling to accept the many excellent ideas that were suggested by my hon. Friends and I.

I am grateful for the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) because it reinforced the points that I made. Those points were made properly and related to the position of developing countries as well as to the need for British industry to be involved in those countries as much as possible.

I did not intend the new clause to increase the indebtedness or the debt burden of developing countries and I do not believe that it would do so. We merely sought to ensure that the ECGD is brought into an overall system of aid and trade assistance and that the machinery of government and the co- operation between the Government and other relevant agencies work smoothly and effectively. From the evidence that I have seen of the way in which many European countries do that, I believe that it is something we should at least consider in detail and decide whether we should alter the way in which we organise such matters. We believe that the interests of aid and those of British industry are not necessarily incompatible. Therefore, the two should work together as much as possible in pursuit of a variety of objectives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central referred to the debate on military exports and I referred to considerations of the environment, but those issues are not, in themselves, arguments against the co-ordinated system for which we ask. In many ways, they reinforce the request for such a system, because such considerations could be built into the system at an early stage. That would work in the long-term interests of us all.

I hope that the Minister will at least be prepared to examine closely the proposals to which I referred from the Commonwealth Development Corporation --which have been around for some time--and discuss with that organisation how the work of his Department on exports and on relations with developing countries could fit into its concerns. The new clause was devised not in a vacuum, but in response to difficulties that we know exist. Despite what the Minister said, we do not believe that the mechanisms exist to ensure that if an exporter does not receive ECGD cover for a project that he has in mind, he is automatically referred to other agencies which could assist him. There seem to be gaps in the system and exporters do not get the information that they would like. The information may not be available in sufficient quantity at a regional or local level. As the Minister knows, we raised in committee the

Column 45

question of the desirability of proper regionalised services linking ECGD and other export services and a later amendment refers to a regionalised network.

We are aware of the gaps in the system which affect exporters and which can therefore lose valuable orders for this country and discourage exporters from trying to use the service in the future. We do not want a system that deters exports, but one that favours exports and their expansion in the future. Therefore, we do not apologise for raising this issue. We are disappointed by the Minister's response, but we shall not press the new clause to a Division.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 2

Political risk reinsurance

( )-(1)--The Secretary of States may make arrangements for insuring any person providing insurance with a view to facilitating, directly or indirectly, supplies by persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom of goods or services to persons carrying on business outside the United Kingdom against risks of losses resulting directly or indirectly from war, expropriation, restrictions on remittances and other similar events.

(2) Arrangements under this section will be made and would last at least for three years from the date of coming into force of a scheme made under section 8 of this Act. After such a minimum period, the arrangements will be subject to an annual review.

(3) References in subsection (1) above to a person carrying on business in the United Kingdom and to the insured include any company controlled directly or indirectly by him.'.-- [Ms. Quin.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Next Section

Home Page