| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1.--(1) The remaining proceedings in Committee shall be completed in two allotted days.
(2) At the sitting on the first allotted day, proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1--
(a) which may be selected and
(b) which would insert after '9' at line 13 of page 1 of the Bill words relating to paragraph 40 of Article 2 of the Treaty,
shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Seven o'clock.
(3) At the sitting on that day proceedings on any amendment to Clause 1--
(a) which may be selected, and
(b) which would insert at the end of line 13 of page 1 of the Bill words relating to Article 2(3)(b) of the Treaty,
shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Nine o'clock.
(4) At the sitting on the second allotted day, any remaining proceedings on Clauses 1 and 2 shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at half past Six o'clock.
(5) At that sitting, the remaining proceedings in Committee shall be brought to a conclusion, if not previously concluded, at Eight o'clock.
2. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill, the Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any Question and the House shall resolve itself into a Committee forthwith whether or not notice of an instruction to the Committee has been given; and Standing Order No. 66 (Committee of the whole House on bill) shall not apply.
3. On the conclusion of the proceedings in Committee the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question and, if he reports the Bill with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
4. The proceedings on Consideration and on Third Reading shall be completed on the second allotted day and shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.
5.--(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraphs 1 or 4, the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)--
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(2) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock--
(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion before that time; and
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion,
and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion; and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
6. No motion shall be made to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken.
7. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of proceedings on, the Bill shall be made on an allotted day except by a Minister of the Crown, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
8. The following business shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House and may be decided, though opposed, at any hour--
(a) proceedings under paragraph 5(1);
(b) proceedings to which paragraph 5(2) or (3) applies;
(c) proceedings under paragraph 10(1).
9. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to this Order.
10.--(1) The proceedings on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced.
(2) If at the sitting on an allotted day the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under paragraphs 1 or 4, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
11. No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise) and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
12. In this Order--
"allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day;
"the Treaty" means the Treaty signed at Amsterdam on 2nd October 1997 amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related Acts.
STANDING ORDERS (ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT)
Resolved,
That Standing Order No. 152A (Environmental Audit Committee) be amended in line 9 by leaving out the word 'fifteen' and inserting the word 'sixteen'.--[Jane Kennedy.]
17 Dec 1997 : Column 459
EU-Israel Association Agreement
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Jane Kennedy.]
11.38 pm
Dr. Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes, South-West): The trigger for this debate--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Lady is addressing the House. Will hon. Members please leave quietly?
Dr. Starkey: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The trigger for this debate is the revelation earlier this year that Israel was effectively fiddling the books and attempting to subvert the interim trade agreement with the European Union by passing off as "made in Israel" goods that have been manufactured elsewhere. Under the terms of the agreement, Israel has a quota for goods--including orange juice, which is allowed into the EU at zero tariff--and 70 per cent. of the normal tariff is charged on additional imports beyond the quota.
It emerged that Brazilian orange juice had been imported into Israel, relabelled as "made in Israel" and exported to the EU at zero tariff. The presumption is that Israel wished to maintain its quota for future use, while choosing to sell its orange juice more profitably elsewhere. Whatever the reason, that is clearly a deliberate defrauding of the EU. It would be helpful if the Minister could estimate the loss to the EU in duties forgone.
The EU had had suspicions that goods from Israel had been mislabelled and it therefore took a serious view of the latest infringement. Detailed investigations uncovered further abuses. Orange juice from illegal settlements in Gaza had been similarly mislabelled. On 8 November, the EU issued a warning. Part of it says:
Interestingly, today I have received an answer from the Treasury showing that further inquiries by Customs and Excise
In previous discussions in the House on the interim trade agreement with Israel, hon. Members have repeatedly raised concerns about similar false origination certificates relating to Israeli products--in particular, goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories
being passed off as Israeli goods. In 1989, the then Foreign Office Minister reassured my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), now Secretary of State for International Development, that there were no arrangements for produce originating from Israeli settlements in the occupied territories to enjoy preferential access to the British market.
In the Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, which examined the interim agreement in February 1997, the former Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) restated their concern about false description and again were reassured by the Minister. It is now clear that those suspicions were justified and that the reassurances have not been borne out.
On 28 November, in response to the latest dispute between the EU and Israel, the Israeli trade and industry minister, Natan Sharansky, admitted in the Israeli press that there had been past transgressions, but attempted in effect to buy off the EU by allowing it additional checks within Israel. That is the clearest possible evidence that the Israelis are playing fast and loose with the EU.
Perhaps I may digress slightly, as we need to understand the EU's purpose in negotiating association agreements. The association agreement with Israel is one of a series of Euro-Med agreements intended to strengthen economic links with the region. There is a similar agreement with the Palestinian National Authority. The interim agreement on trade and trade-related matters deals essentially with the trade provisions of a full association agreement, pending full ratification of that full agreement.
Access to European Union markets is a privilege given in return for Israel and the Palestinian National Authority participating positively in the middle east peace process. Again, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office made that clear in February 1997 when he said:
There have been numerous examples of breaches of article 1, which deals with human rights and democratic principles. There have been collective punishments of the Palestinian population in response to individual acts by Palestinians. There have been repeated land confiscations, denial of access to Jerusalem for most Palestinians, and a system of internal controls for Palestinians akin to the pass controls of apartheid in South Africa. Some people's Jerusalem ID has been cancelled so that they can no longer live in Jerusalem.
It is now clear that article 38 has also been regularly breached. In effect, Israel is pretending to participate in the peace process. It is blocking progress and failing to implement agreements already made, but it is preventing the outright collapse of discussions. At the same time, it is continuing to build illegal settlements in the occupied territories, often based on export-oriented agricultural enterprises, and using those settlements to cement its territorial expansion.
The other half of Israeli policy is to choke the growth of the nascent Palestinian economy through internal and external closures. Since the Oslo accords, there have effectively been closures on one day out of three. These closures are paralysing Palestinian trade and have led to the direct loss of at least 100,000 jobs. The United Nations special co-ordinator's office for the occupied territories has estimated that real wage levels in the area controlled by the Palestinian National Authority fell by about 20 per cent. in 1996 and that the real per capita gross national product had fallen by 38.8 per cent. since 1992.
When I was in the middle east in the summer, I saw and heard for myself the effect of that policy. In Gaza, for instance, tomatoes produced there were rotting during the closures because they could not be exported to the rest of the Palestinian National Authority controlled area. Meanwhile, people living in Ramallah were being forced to pay 70 times more than market rates to get hold of tomatoes.
In addition, the Israelis were operating punitive controls on goods from Gaza to Egypt on spurious security grounds. I say "spurious" because the goods were not transiting through Israel but were going direct from Gaza to Egypt. There were reports of boxes of carnations being pierced with check rods, supposedly to check whether there were weapons inside. Of course, that damaged the carnations and made them wholly unsaleable. While such punitive controls are operating, Palestinian goods supplied to Israeli marketing firms are strangely exempted from such treatment.
The economic agreement that the European Union has made with Israel, which should be bolstering peace, is undercutting it. By providing markets for products from illegal settlements, we and the rest of the European Union are positively encouraging the development and sustaining of those settlements--settlements that are sabotaging the peace process not only for the present Israeli Government but for future Israeli Governments. The Israelis are being allowed to enjoy the economic dividend without making any progress on peace. The current Israeli Government have retreated on progress, and the Palestinians are paying--in unemployment, in business bankruptcies and in land confiscations.
The further irony is that the European Union taxpayer is also paying the price, because donor aid from the European Union, which should be supporting economic development in the Palestinian National Authority area, is paying to offset the economic damage of the Israeli blockade on the Palestinian economy.
The Israelis' response to being found out defrauding the European Union has been to bluster and challenge the definition of the geographical area to which the agreement applies. On 10 December 1997, Ha'aretz said:
The UK position was reiterated, in March 1997, by Jeremy Hanley, then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in a letter to the former Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale. He wrote:
"The specific situation is aggravated by the fact that since the inquiry got under way, various elements have come to light which confirm a lack of effective administrative cooperation, as foreseen in the different preferential agreements signed between the Community and Israel, and in particular certain substantial errors in the application of those same agreements, to the extent that the validity of all preferential certificates issued by Israel, for all products, are put in doubt."
As a result, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has been carrying out investigations into the true origin of a wide range of Israeli exports to the United Kingdom--including, for example, textile waste and tele- communications equipment.
"relating to a range of manufactured goods have been suspended following undertakings given by Israel at a meeting with EC officials on 28 November".
I should like the Minister to clarify what those undertakings can possibly be, given Israel's misleading behaviour until now.
"Support for the middle east peace process is the cornerstone of United Kingdom and European Union policy in the region . . . Liberalisation of trade will contribute to prosperity and thus to regional stability . . . The EU's agreement with Israel and the PLO will help to increase prosperity in the region."--[Official Report, Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 19 February 1997; c. 4.]
In recognition of the linkage of trade preferences to progress in the middle east peace process, two specific articles--1 and 38--were included in the interim association. Article 1 obligates Israel and the European Union to respect human rights and democratic principles. Article 38 obliges Israel to refrain from representing products of its illegal settlements in the occupied territories as originating in Israel or, indeed, certifying Palestinian products exported by Israeli firms as products of Israel.
"Israel's representative to the European Union in Brussels, Ephraim Halevy, emphasised that . . . the subject of territoriality with respect to the rules of origin is a political question and that
17 Dec 1997 : Column 462Israel strongly objects to its inclusion in its discussions with the Union, 'because it's not the European Union who is going to determine the borders of Israel as an incidental by-product of economic discussions.'"
We must say that that is not acceptable. The European Union has made it clear throughout that the agreement applies only to the internationally recognised borders of Israel.
"The British Government's position on Jerusalem is well known, and is shared by all our EU partners . . . we do not recognise Israeli (de jure) sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem. It follows that goods produced in Jerusalem are not the produce of Israel . . . A similar logic would apply to goods produced in Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories".
The European Union simply cannot allow Israel unilaterally to reinterpret the terms of an agreement with the European Union. Moreover, that agreement is a privilege, not a right, and gives an advantage to Israel in return for co-operation in the peace process--a process which Israel seems to have no intention of delivering. If the European taxpayer is not to continue to be taken for a ride, the British Government and the European Union will have to take a firm stand.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |