---

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Is it not typical of this Tory Government that, after 17 years in power and having wrecked the British economy, they now turn their attention to solving the world's problems? I only hope that the world does not get the same treatment as Britain has had, with 4 million people out of work, the public sector coal industry almost destroyed, the shipbuilding and steel industries down the pan, our manufacturing base reduced by 40 per cent., a trade deficit of £13 billion, a public sector borrowing requirement of £27 billion, and the country up to its neck in debt of £320 billion. And the Government tell the world that it can have a basinful of that? They will need Murdoch with his 2020 global vision to sell that crap.

Mr. Rifkind: I prefer, on these economic matters, the verdict of the International Monetary Fund, which described the condition of the British economy as "enviable".

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his robust and welcome statement gives a ringing endorsement to two matters: first, to the case for enlargement of the European Union at the earliest possible date; and, secondly, to the case against the cheese-paring economies of his own Department?

Mr. Rifkind: I assure my hon. Friend that my attitude to cheese-paring economies is at least as robust as his. We look forward to developing our assistance to exports and trade. There has been a remarkable change over the past 20 years: one in three of our diplomats overseas now assists British exporters and British industry. That would have been inconceivable even 20 years ago, which shows how our diplomatic effort is combining with our industrial and economic effort in the national interest.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): I welcome the global vision as distinct from the purely Eurocentric vision that so many people have pursued in recent years. We should remind ourselves that at least half our trade and 80 per cent. of our investment take place in markets other than those of the European Union.

But are not the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the President of the Board of Trade practising a certain amount of self-deception in the White Paper that they have just announced? They presented it as if the Government had something beyond aspirations to offer, but is it not the case that we long ago abandoned to the European Commission and the European Community the power to do anything to promote our own trade by reducing or raising tariffs, which are the principal direct instruments of influencing trade? Is it not the case that the Government can do virtually nothing to pursue those aspirations, without the prior permission of the European Community and Sir Leon Brittan?

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong. He implies that the European Union makes trade policy

11 Nov 1996 : Column 32

through the workings of the Commission; it does not. When, for example, we were determining a mandate for the negotiations between the European Union and the United States, Sir Leon Brittan had to approach the member Governments and ask them to agree a mandate. There was a great debate between the free traders and the protectionists. I am happy to say that the United Kingdom not only led the free trade case, but won. The mandate that Sir Leon is now negotiating, and which he is happy to negotiate, therefore owes its genesis to Britain and the other member states which successfully argued the free trade case and thereby determined EU policy.

Sir Wyn Roberts (Conwy): My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that the value of United Kingdom exports has increased by 82 per cent. since 1987, and that the value of European Union exports has increased by a similar percentage. He will also be aware, however, that the value of the exports of other OECD countries has increased by 110 per cent. What can we do in Britain to equate to the performance of those other OECD countries?

Mr. Rifkind: My right hon. Friend draws attention to an important challenge for the United Kingdom Over the years since the end of the second world war, Britain's trade as a proportion of total world trade consistently declined until the present Government came into office. Then, in the early 1980s, it stabilised and has remained stable. We have not yet been able to reverse the trend and take an increasing share of world trade. We have stopped the rot, but we have not yet reversed it. That is a crucial challenge for the next few years.

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): What vision is there for the future of developing nations that are dependent on import substitution?

Mr. Rifkind: Developing countries, like other nations, must identify their natural areas of strength with regard to their own products. They must be given facilitated access to the markets of the developed world, as the White Paper argues. In that way, just as we have found in Europe and other parts of the world, they can achieve the same prosperity. There is no obvious reason why a country such as Thailand or Singapore should be prosperous, whereas other countries in Asia are not. The fact that some are successful and some are not is explained by the policies that they have pursued.

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's repeated emphasis on opportunities for Britain in Latin America. Can we look forward to further emphasis being put, through our trade missions in those countries, on developing their already outstanding record? When my right hon. and learned Friend considers the transatlantic trading community, will he remember Latin America and be a champion for the Mercosur trading market in the councils of the European Union?

Mr. Rifkind: Mercosur, which is a very successful customs union, is a further example of how regional trading groups can provide the building blocks towards a system of global free trade. The United Kingdom, at diplomatic level and through the Department of Trade and

11 Nov 1996 : Column 33

Industry, is giving added emphasis to the potential of Latin America. We will host a major conference on Latin American-British trade early next year, which will give an added impetus to our efforts.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby): The Foreign Secretary cannot get away with the answer that he gave to the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel). Successive Tory Foreign Secretaries have said that it is the aim of British foreign policy to promote good government. How does that square with the continual sale of arms to murderous dictatorships such as those in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia?

Mr. Rifkind: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's description of those Governments. We believe that Governments are entitled to protect themselves from external aggression and, on that basis, we provide arms to certain countries. It is an entirely just and appropriate approach and, so far as I am aware, it is what the Labour party claims that it would do.

Mr. David Shaw (Dover): My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware that many of my constituents owe their jobs to free trade and to the success of the Government's policies. Will he assure the House that the White Paper is designed to ensure that our free trade policies do not result in the importation of unemployment and the sorts of problems that exist in Europe? Our policies must avert such difficulties.

Mr. Rifkind: Britain is perhaps better placed than almost any other country to address the challenges of global free trade. Because the Government have removed existing artificial barriers to wealth promotion in the United Kingdom by reforming the trade unions, removing state subsidies and increasing competitiveness, British companies are more able to face the global challenge than those of almost any other European country. We can take great pride in that achievement.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): This is not a White Paper, but a blue paper. That is very appropriate, given the fact that it is largely a meaningless puff for the Conservative party. We can always identify the serious White Papers because those that are harbingers of legislation do not carry mug shots of Ministers on their front pages. This White Paper contains mug shots of two Ministers.

I have now examined the document, which contains a little about environmental protection. What about protecting the world's scarce resources and endangered species? For example, will the proposals affect the American ban on Mexican tuna that is not dolphin friendly? Will the world's rain forests be protected? What is the future of the ban on the ivory trade? Will those matters be discussed in Singapore? Will the British Government raise them at the conference?

Mr. Rifkind: As to issues of public health or other aspects of public policy, the hon. Gentleman can take great comfort in the fact that proper protection for endangered species will continue and that we shall persist in preventing trade in harmful products. Global free trade refers to the vast majority of goods and services to which those considerations do not apply. When there are special

11 Nov 1996 : Column 34

justifications that relate not to trade but to public health, environmental or other matters, they will continue to be taken into account.

---