House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Nov 1996 (pt 10)

Mr. Mark Robinson (Somerton and Frome): I welcome the emphasis that my right hon. and learned Friend places on the expansion of world trade. We hear much--particularly from Labour Members--about the need to deal with the problem of world poverty. Is it not true that expanding world trade is the right way of dealing with that problem, as is proved by the success of countries such as Malaysia?

Mr. Rifkind: That is absolutely right. It is no coincidence that those countries that have embraced the principles of free trade have enjoyed the greatest increase in prosperity and, therefore, have been able to deal with their domestic poverty problems. If we apply globally the principles that have proved so successful at a national level, we shall achieve the common objective of eliminating fundamental poverty.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): By his panache, the Foreign Secretary has made a rather bland, thin statement sound exciting. However, we remain a little puzzled as to his motives. All states and groups, such as the European Union, the United States or ourselves, can subscribe to grand declarations about free trade. However, when we examine the record of the European Union in relation to South Africa--the British Government have a good record in that area--or that of the United States in relation to Cuba, we see a rather different picture. For example, what are the Government doing to impress upon the United States the absurdity of its embargo on and blockade of Cuba?

Mr. Rifkind: We have unreservedly condemned the United States' action with regard to the Helms-Burton legislation and the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980, which is on the statute book, protects British companies.

There is a great global debate to be won. Everyone pays lip service to the principle of free trade, but not everyone believes in it. For example, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) immediately qualified his commitment to free trade by saying that fair trade was needed also. When people talk about the need for fair trade as well as free trade, we can be certain that it means that they do not believe in the former and that they are trying to preserve protectionism. That debate is resolved on Conservative Benches, but the hon. Gentleman could assist us by converting his Front-Bench spokesmen so that they stop trying to be all things to all people.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): May I focus my right hon. and learned Friend's attention on the practical and immediate aspects of British trade policy rather than the grandiloquent and the futuristic? My right hon. and learned Friend intends to use the European Union as the model. Can we therefore take it that the Government will bring about at an early specified date enlargement of the EU to include not only central

11 Nov 1996 : Column 35

European countries but countries such as the Baltic states, which deserve to join? Can we take it also that the Government will seek to prevent European policies that militate against free trade, such as the common agricultural policy and the creation of a single European currency within a tightly integrated, centralised and bureaucratic western Europe, which is the exact antithesis of a model for free trade?

Mr. Rifkind: We look forward to the day when the Baltic states join the European Union, as my hon. Friend has recommended. I see the EU as a model with regard to the single market and the elimination of barriers within the EU, but I most certainly do not see it as a model to be followed on the basis of its existing trading relationships with central and eastern European countries and countries of the developing world. In that respect, substantial changes are required of a kind to which the White Paper draws attention.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow): In the context of trade within the European Union over the next 20 years, does the Foreign Secretary expect the European Court of Justice to play a judicial role in the resolution of trade disputes among member states? If that European supreme court is to perform that sort of role, it will surely require more resources.

Mr. Rifkind: I do not think that it will. I think that the court's proper role is to adjudicate on disputes involving the treaty. It plays a valuable role with regard to the enforcement of the single market, and that I very much welcome. There are other areas of its activities where we have put forward recommendations for change, which I commend to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): While welcoming the spirit and tone of the White Paper, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he is aware of the fairly recent acquisition by Bass, near Lichfield, of Holiday Inns in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand? Does he agree that its choice in acquiring the firm was probably the result of not only the good business sense of so doing but the fact that there is a common corporate law in the countries involved, a

11 Nov 1996 : Column 36

common economic cycle and a common language? There is also the fact that the gross domestic products of all the other countries far exceed those of the countries of the European Union.

Mr. Rifkind: Whenever countries produce the right conditions to attract investment, it is no surprise that they secure that investment.

Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): May I welcome the Foreign Secretary's positive language about the International Labour Organisation, which is in some contrast to the position 18 months ago when the Prime Minister and the then Secretary of State for Employment, who is now the Secretary of State for Defence, wanted us to withdraw from the organisation? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the Government now support the ILO and will abide by its conventions and rulings?

As for child labour, does the Foreign Secretary realise that by so boastfully breaking faith with what the United States wants--which is, if not regulation linked to trade, at least discussion of child labour--he will encourage the US to take unilateral action, which whether on Cuba or on the general system of preferences countries is not the right way forward? Britain should be standing with its allies and insisting that child labour should at least be discussed in the context of the World Trade Organisation.

Mr. Rifkind: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening carefully, he would have heard me say that if issues of labour standards were to be raised, the International Labour Organisation would be the proper forum and not the World Trade Organisation. That is the Government's view. If there is an ILO, it is appropriate to use it for the purpose that we are discussing, and not the WTO, which has a different remit.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge): Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if it were fair and accurate to describe the Indonesian Government as a murderous regime, the Labour Government would not have signed the Hawk trainer contract with them in 1978?

Mr. Rifkind: Not only is that true, but we have had the shadow spokesman on defence saying that a Labour Government would continue to sell arms to Indonesia. That, too, should be borne in mind.

11 Nov 1996 : Column 37

Orders of the Day

Education Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I must tell the House that between the hours of 7 pm and 9 pm speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.