---

Column 951

Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Primarolo, Dawn

Purchase, Ken

Quin, Ms Joyce

Radice, Giles

Randall, Stuart

Raynsford, Nick

Rendel, David

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Rogers, Allan

Rooker, Jeff

Rooney, Terry

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Ruddock, Joan

Sedgemore, Brian

Sheerman, Barry

Short, Clare

Simpson, Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Soley, Clive

Spellar, John

Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

Steinberg, Gerry

Stevenson, George

Stott, Roger

Strang, Dr. Gavin

Straw, Jack

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Timms, Stephen

---

Column 952

Tipping, Paddy

Turner, Dennis

Tyler, Paul

Vaz, Keith

Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

Walley, Joan

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Wareing, Robert N

Watson, Mike

Wicks, Malcolm

Wigley, Dafydd

---

Column 952

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Wilson, Brian

Winnick, David

Wray, Jimmy

Wright, Dr Tony

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Robert Ainsworth and Mr. Stephen Byers.

---

Column 952

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Council Tax Limitation (England) (Maximum Amounts) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

Economic Policies (European Community)

That this House takes note of the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 6th June 1995, relating to the Commission's Recommendation for the Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community; and agrees with the Government that the emphasis on permanently low inflation and sound public finances, combined with structural measures to tackle the problem of unemployment, is to be welcomed.-- [Dr. Liam Fox.] Question agreed to.

---

Column 953

Caribbean

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Dr. Liam Fox.]

7.14 pm

Sir Thomas Arnold (Hazel Grove): I am grateful for this opportunity to raise British policy towards the Caribbean. I shall focus on three issues this evening: first, the continuing problem of Cuba, not least in the light of legislation that is going through the United States Congress; secondly, Britain's constitutional relationship with the five dependent territories; and, thirdly, the difficulties that are clearly apparent with the export of bananas. Before I deal with each of those issues in detail, I wish to propose an over-arching theme to my hon. Friend the Under- Secretary. The Caribbean covers a wide area. With the exception of Cuba, the population of most of the countries is small. Those countries are fragile and often find themselves in difficulty. They clearly need a lot of help and guidance. There is an overriding need for stability in the region. Many of the issues are complex and that complexity often leads to complications of some kind, as my hon. Friend knows only too well. Stability in the modern world does not mean a quiet life, even in the Caribbean, and the image that most people have of the Caribbean is far removed from the reality with which local residents must deal on a day-to- day basis. Stability therefore means a lot of hard work for those engaged in framing, executing and implementing policy. I urge my hon. Friend to promote a policy aimed at stability because I have doubts about the present policy, particularly with regard to the dependent territories, with which I shall deal later in my speech.

I draw the House's attention once again to Cuba, particularly the legislation that is going through the American Congress, which I regard as a retrograde step. That legislation is, I understand, making steady progress, although we cannot be sure exactly what form it will take by the time it emerges, or what the attitude of the United States Administration will be in the event of the legislation passing through Congress.

Before I go further, I wish to draw the House's attention to the declaration that I made in the Register of Members' Interests and make it clear that my host in Havana was a leading British business man, Mr. Michael Ashcroft, who is a keen supporter of the Cuban reform programme and who is engaged in business in Cuba.

On the subject of British business men in Cuba, I was extremely pleased to learn that British-American Tobacco and its chairman, Sir Patrick Sheehy, are now heavily engaged in investment in the Cuban economy. On a matter of more long-standing activity in Cuba, I should like to say how grateful I am personally for all the help and advice that I have been given by Mr. Nicholas Freeman, who has supported his Cuban business through good and difficult times, and who is arguably this country's foremost importer of Cuban cigars.

It is vital that the United States, in particular, should show a greater understanding of some of the issues involved in Cuba. I am a keen supporter of the reform process, and support just as keenly doing everything possible to improve human rights in Cuba. However, I doubt whether those two goals will be furthered in any

---

Column 954

meaningful way by the legislation currently before the US Congress; on the contrary, that legislation is likely to make life much more difficult. For one thing, it appears to have little flexibility. It has no end date. Obviously, the provisions regarding expropriation and compensation can be regarded as a retrograde step because they open the basis of expropriation and compensation to much wider actions than have been envisaged historically.

I was very pleased that the European Commission, in the figure of Sir Leon Brittan, made strenuous representations to the United States Government at an early stage. On several occasions, Sir Leon drew attention to the difficulties that the legislation was likely to cause European Community countries. He said that he believed that the new legislation, if enacted and implemented, might lead to legal chaos by extending US jurisdiction to possible, and as yet unregistered, property claims by US citizens who have held Cuban citizenship at the moment of compensation.

Sir Leon said:

"I think that these collective provisions will interfere with European Union companies and individuals doing business in Cuba, to such an extent that a negative spill-over into the overall transatlantic relationship appears unavoidable. I also think that the approach taken in this legislation would not help a peaceful and orderly transition towards democracy in Cuba."

I agree with him about that.

I wish to draw the attention of the House to a statement issued by Mr. David Jessop, executive director of the Caribbean Council for Europe, in the US recently, in which he said:

"Attempts to prohibit the entry into the US of sugars, syrups and molasses from third countries unless it is certified that such products will not be imported from Cuba"

are to be deprecated. He said:

"The European Union and individual member states have already indicated that such measures violate international law, would be challenged under WTO rules and would lead to retaliation. In this and other contexts the bill runs counter to the US approach to free trade."

I strongly agree with Mr. Jessop about that. I hope that, even at this late stage, the United States Congress and then the United States Administration will reconsider before going ahead with that further tightening of the United States' embargo.

Cuba, with a population of 10 million, is such an important entity in Caribbean terms that instability in respect of Cuba only helps to promote a feeling of uncertainty and instability throughout the region. All of us, including the United States, should work towards a solution to the problem of Cuba. We know that it is a difficult one in terms of the United States. We know that it engenders very high, passionate feelings, not least in Florida and in Miami. However, far from intensifying difficulties, surely the sensible approach is to try to persuade the Cuban Government to speed up the process of reform, to do more in respect of human rights and gradually to bring about an improvement so that there can be greater confidence and then, using those confidence-building measures, to promote an understanding between the United States and Cuba, which could lead to the dismantling of the present legislation and the lifting of the embargo.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to say, in this short debate, what the Government are doing to further the representations that were made earlier

---

Column 955

by the European Commission and, I believe, by officials from the Department of Trade and Industry, especially in Washington this year.

Let me move on to discuss the position of the dependent territories. I am not an expert in the matters to which I shall refer, but I have followed developments in the dependent territories and I feel a certain unease. All is not well. I feel that so strongly that I urge my hon. Friend to consider carefully--and perhaps not give me an answer tonight--whether the time has come to set up a further inquiry to consider the relationship of our Government with the dependent territories, including the constitutional position and our attitude to the possibility of further political reform.

I have taken a long interest, in the House, in the position of dependent territories. Indeed, I instituted an Adjournment debate about the Falkland Islands and other dependent territories as long ago as 1982. Given the problems of the Caribbean, the five territories for which we are responsible require more understanding than they are receiving at present. One of the complaints is that the secretariat in Barbados has distanced the dependent territories even further from London. On this reading, the secretariat is too bureaucratic, cautious and slow. I do not know how much weight to give to that criticism, but I suspect that there is some truth in it. I hope that my hon. Friend will comment on that point this evening and perhaps reflect on it further in due course.

The Government's policy is to promote self-sufficiency, but that clearly carries with it some considerable costs for the local governments, chief ministers and others as well as for our Government. The administration costs of the dependent territories are not negligible. In answer to a recent parliamentary question, I was told that those costs were about £20 million per year. We must consider that cost carefully in terms of value for money and whether our relationships are exactly as we would wish.

There is a feeling that the governors should consult the chief ministers about reserve powers more often than they appear to do. The chief ministers are not saying that those reserve powers should not exist, or that they should not be used if circumstances warrant it; however, they would like to have more say in how some of those powers are exercised. If we are to be creative and forward-looking and try to establish sensible arrangements that will take us into the next century in respect of the territories, we should establish an inquiry to examine the situation.

I shall not say what form I think that inquiry should take; the Government can decide perfectly well whether it should be a royal commission or something less grand. Perhaps a more informal inquiry would be appropriate. After all, what is sensible in one dependent territory may not necessarily be sensible in another.

What is interesting about the dependent territories in the Caribbean is that there is no great demand for independence. Therefore, we have to find ways and means, short of independence, of meeting the legitimate aspirations of the islands to govern themselves while at the same time remaining under the protection of the Crown and all that that affords.

I mentioned earlier the need for stability while recognising the problems of the islands. I think that those problems can be summed up in one word-- jobs. The

---

Column 956

islands need jobs, jobs and more jobs. Although some of the larger investors, such as Cable and Wireless, should be welcomed and are important and significant, the overall employment picture remains difficult. Unless that problem is addressed, there will be no stability in the Caribbean.

The Caribbean continues to face real problems with illegal drugs. That should concern us greatly. I was certainly appalled to hear--I accept that it is only a rumour--that voices in the Treasury are suggesting that we should move the dependent territories towards independence on public expenditure grounds. I think that that would be a very unwise step, given what we know and what the Governments of the dependent territories, including the chief ministers, know about the difficulties that they face with regard to the importation of illegal drugs and the flow of those drugs through the territories. Banking in the dependent territories is something of a hotch-potch. Different arrangements are in place in different territories, although that is not a bad thing in itself. The whole business needs greater clarity. Time is passing, and although I understand the Government's desire to ensure that things are done properly and that there are no grounds for believing that money laundering, for example, is taking place, more work needs to be done as soon as possible. The time has come for us to make up our minds about the dependent territories and their form of government. What should their future status be? What relationship should they have with Whitehall? It is fair to say that Ministers have been repeating a certain mantra for some time, and fresh thinking is required because the problems to which I have referred will not go away. There is some uneasiness and a feeling that a new relationship needs to be developed.

That brings me to the difficult issue of the regime for bananas. I have had correspondence and briefing papers from the Caribbean Banana Exporters Association about the "banana crisis", saying:

"This is a time of great anxiety for the Caribbean--and particularly for those states whose economies are largely dependent on their banana exports to Europe. Their traditional market in the European Union--essentially in the United Kingdom--is under serious threat from political campaigns both in the USA and within the European Union. For some, notably the Windward Islands, this could mean the loss of almost 60 per cent. of all their export income." The association explains that Germany and some other member states, which hitherto had an unrestricted market, were opposed to the present system from the start and continues:

"More recently, at the behest of Chiquita, the world's leading banana trader, the USA launched proceedings against the European Union, threatening trade sanctions unless changes were made which would increase Chiquita's market share. This increase would in practice be at the expense of the Caribbean.

Last week the new European Commissioner for Agriculture, Dr. Fischler, on a visit to the USA, made the astonishing public statement that he personally did not like the EU banana regime and would be seeking a mandate from the Agriculture Council in July to negotiate changes to it with the USA. He mentioned in particular the need to review the quota and other mechanisms which currently protect Caribbean and other African Caribbean and Pacific imports." The issue is extremely serious and I hope that my hon. Friend will make it clear this evening that the Government strongly support Caribbean interests in this matter. There is still a potential blocking minority under the European

---

Column 957

Union voting system, so we can stand firm by the present arrangements. In essence, I hope that the Government will give every signal that they intend to stand firm, in particular to avoid damaging arbitrary increases in the quota or changes to the preferential licensing arrangements.

I referred to the fragility of some of the Caribbean economies and the problems in respect of bananas illustrate that only too well. There are those who say that the situation is potentially dangerous and that the current United States threat will promote instability, further uncertainty and difficulties all round.

I recognise that some issues go way beyond the present position and touch on the whole nature of the European Community post-Lome IV and the thinking on and relationship with the Caribbean region. Current thinking appears to favour specific regional agreements in which the Caribbean and central America will be treated in much the same way through advanced co-operation agreements. There are some difficulties with that approach. Above all, it is essential that whatever is decided should take account of the different sizes of the Caribbean economies.

France and Germany have already begun to consider post-Lome IV relations with the Caribbean. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could say what work is in hand with regard to Britain's interests in the matter and what line he is taking in Brussels. After all, future policy for the Caribbean will be decided, I suspect, as much in Brussels as it will be here and in other EC capitals. That is the nature of the relationship into which we have entered with our EU colleagues. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend will outline the manner in which he proposes to negotiate in the Community on these problems. The difficulties of the banana-producing countries are real and urgent, and solutions are necessary.

To conclude, let me go back to the beginning and say that a policy that produces stability, however paradoxical it may sound, will be an active policy. Implementation will require a good deal of thought and care, not least because of the complexity of the issues.

I recognise that the difficulties surrounding Cuba are formidable, but if we do not face up to them, and if Britain does not have a clear, coherent policy, that will only magnify some of the other problems in the region. We have already seen what the Cuban refugee problem can mean in the case of the dependent territory of the Cayman Islands. My hon. Friend may be able to say a word about developments in that regard. I understand that the situation is now much better; I would be grateful for my hon. Friend's confirmation of that. Above all, I should like to make it clear that I would like to see the Caribbean in an optimistic, settled frame of mind, with some of the problems to which I have referred this evening being attenuated by a mixture of wise policy and constructive, good government. The region needs help, for the reasons I have given. I know that the House and the Government want to do everything possible to bring that about.

7.36 pm

---