---

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman--the right hon. Gentleman; I apologise, but that is the only thing for which I shall apologise to him--has presented a farrago of nonsense in his response to my opening statement. He declined to remind the House that our share of world trade continued to fall under the previous Labour Government and began to stabilise only under the present Administration. He failed to point out that since 1981 our trade has increased faster than that of France or Germany and that our trade increase over the years has been higher per capita than that of either the United States or Japan.

The right hon. Gentleman made an extraordinary statement about free trade needing to be balanced by fair trade. Does he not know that that has been the slogan of the protectionist throughout the ages--it is exactly the kind of line used year after year by those who wish to pay lip service to free trade but who yearn to interfere, control and direct and thereby render a disservice to their countries?

The right hon. Gentleman makes pious remarks about the importance of good labour standards. Of course, we can all share a belief in good labour standards, but the proper place to raise such matters is in the International Labour Organisation. The World Trade Organisation is about trade. Labour standards can properly be raised, as the Government have often emphasised, in the ILO. That is the right and proper way to proceed.

The right hon. Gentleman complains about the content of the White Paper but he should remember that there is a difference between soundbite and strategy. I am not surprised that the Opposition spokesman should be concerned about soundbites, but this document provides a strategy for the nation--indeed, not only for this nation. It also makes a contribution to a historic world debate which will have a crucial effect on the prosperity of people throughout the world in the years to come. As this party and this Government intend to be presiding over the nation's affairs during those years, it is right that we should spell out the facts to the nation.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury (Hove): I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on their commitment to free trade. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that that commitment has created an enormous number of jobs in this country, especially because of the effective work of the joint export promotion directorate of the two Departments? I therefore especially welcome the idea that the two Departments will work together more closely on inward investment. Is it not the case that our national success in terms of exports and inward investment--a success that is so often belittled by the Opposition--is due to the great increase in the British economy's productivity and competitiveness since 1979?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the work that he did as the United Kingdom's Trade Minister. It is precisely because of the benefits that we have seen from joint action by the Department of

11 Nov 1996 : Column 26

Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office on export promotion that we have agreed that it would be sensible to have the same degree of co-ordination for the Invest in Britain Bureau; I believe that the same benefits will thereby flow.

Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): As the representative of the party of free trade, I cannot but welcome the publication of the report, which has so excited my hon. Friends.

I have two serious points for the Foreign Secretary. First, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have a good record in pressing in the international financial institutions for debt relief for the poorest countries, and the proposal in the White Paper to press the WTO proposal for tariff-free access for the less developed countries could be crucial; I hope that he will underline that in the European Union, because it could go some way towards mitigating the Government's disastrous record on overseas aid.

Secondly, there is one omission in the security section of the White Paper, concerning an area in which we could do with less free trade: the sale of conventional arms. The Foreign Secretary will know that there are already reports that British arms have been found in the current conflict in Zaire, and it is important for the Government to give higher priority to controlling conventional arms sales and not to give the impression, as they sometimes do, that our economy is so impoverished that we cannot afford to be choosy about the countries to which we sell arms. Will he give full support to strengthening the United Nations arms register?

Mr. Rifkind: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's initial comments, representing as he does the last vestiges of a once-liberal party that still refers to itself by that name but has abandoned its liberalism in many respects. I am pleased that he welcomes our free trade objectives. Arms sales are not subject to free trade but are under strict control in all countries, and nowhere more so than in the United Kingdom.

I also welcome the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the recommendation of Mr. Ruggiero of the World Trade Organisation; I agree that the European Union has an obligation to respond quickly and unequivocally to that proposal of tariff-free access for the exports of the least developed countries. A fundamental debate is continuing in the European Union between the traditional free traders and the traditional protectionists, most of whom are from the Mediterranean countries. I believe that the European Union should be more generous about access to western Europe and especially about the exports of the least developed countries; without that access, such countries will not be able to break out of the poor economic conditions that they currently experience.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, notwithstanding the carping comments of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), the statement is to be widely welcomed? Is not it clear that, although he said in the statement that regional trading groups held promise, they also hold great threats? Is not his initiative extremely well timed to ensure a more global approach to such problems, not only for our country,

11 Nov 1996 : Column 27

which depends uniquely on overseas trade in both goods and services, but for every country in the world, because everyone can benefit from greater world trade?

Mr. Rifkind: It is certainly true that regional trading groups such as the Association of South East Asian Nations, the European Union or those in the North American free trade agreement could act against the interests of global free trade by being restrictive; for the most part they have not done so, and I believe that the overall judgment on such groups should be positive.

One has only to ask whether, if NAFTA or the single market did not exist, we would be nearer to or further from the achievement of global free trade; I believe that we would be much further away, because the single market has shown that even the world's most sophisticated economies can sweep away trade barriers and tariff restrictions, thereby increasing prosperity. If the most sophisticated countries can do that, it should be possible for the international community as a whole. With that caveat, I believe that we can welcome such structures.

Mr. Denzil Davies (Llanelli): The Secretary of State will be aware that the People's Republic of China was one of the signatories to the Uruguay round and has therefore accepted all the arrangements and agreements that it contains. Why then is China not allowed to be a member of the World Trade Organisation? Is not it extraordinary that the world's largest market is not a member of the WTO?

Mr. Rifkind: We look forward to the day when China becomes a member of the World Trade Organisation. However, joining the WTO is not simply a matter of submitting an application form. A country has to be able to demonstrate that it can accept the disciplines and organisations of the WTO, or it will make no contribution to the objective of moving towards global free trade. When China has met those requirements, its admission will be welcome.

Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale): Does the White Paper recognise the immense commercial opportunities in the Commonwealth which were recently highlighted by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs? Does it also recognise that an essential catalyst for our successful international trade is to have well-staffed commercial sections in our embassies around the world as well as a highly effective World Service? Therefore, will he give the House an assurance that the current public expenditure round will not produce further short-sighted cuts in the establishment of our commercial sections around the world?

Mr. Rifkind: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend in regard to the importance of Commonwealth markets. Growth in the economy of a developing country does not represent a threat to our economy, but presents an opportunity for new export markets. With regard to the latter part of his question, I endorse the point that he made and I do not envisage any cuts in our overseas representation. I wish to expand our overseas representation and not reduce it as it benefits the United Kingdom. For example, a report by the National Audit

11 Nov 1996 : Column 28

Office in south-east Asia showed that for every £1 invested in our export promotion and assistance, we earn £80 in additional exports. That seems pretty good value for money.

---