House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Mar 1999 (pt 10)

Mr. Byers: I shall be pleased to pass on the hon. Gentleman's views to the American ambassador--and I am grateful for the fact that, when I speak to the ambassador this afternoon, I shall be able to speak on behalf of hon. Members on both sides of the House in adopting the robust approach that I intend to adopt.

Mr. Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne, Central): I welcome what my right hon. Friend has said, the style with which he has said it and the action that he has taken. Does he accept, however, that there is a certain ironic contrast between the subject matter of his statement and that of the earlier statement? This is a very poor moment for the United States to declare war on British biscuits and pullovers. Does he further accept that this constitutes a dangerous lurch towards the crudest kind of protectionism, at a time when world markets are extremely fragile? Will he ensure that representations are made at the highest levels with the aim of reversing this crazy action, and will he assure the House that he will not lend his name or his hand to any equally crude reprisals that may occur in the European Union?

Mr. Byers: The European Union will obviously need to consider its response to the measures announced by the United States yesterday. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that it would be retrograde for us to impose sanctions as a response. The fact is that--particularly as the world economy is slowing--we need free trade and commerce. Protectionism anywhere is a threat to prosperity everywhere. We have a great tradition as a trading nation, and we need to ensure, through our efforts in the World Trade Organisation, that we can maintain that position.

Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): I associate myself entirely with what has been said by hon. Members whose constituencies will be deeply affected by the cuts. I think that all who, like me, were born in Scotland are immensely proud of the cashmere industry, and proud to wear cashmere.

4 Mar 1999 : Column 1228

I commend the negotiations conducted by Sir Leon Brittan, who has been zigzagging across the world in his attempts to prevent a trade war. It is in that connection that I want to question the Secretary of State, for a broader issue is at stake--an issue that goes beyond bananas and cashmere. The United States appears, by stealth, to be leaving behind its policy of free trade, and turning increasingly to protectionism. We have seen that especially in the context of bananas: it is dollar bananas versus Commonwealth bananas, Chiquita versus Geest. The economies of the Windward islands and other Commonwealth areas--and, indeed, those of European areas, such as the Canary islands--are being forgotten.

I wonder whether the Secretary of State can help us in another respect. Can he prevent a trade war from arising over Hushkit aircraft? That will be the next development. We are talking about noisy reconditioned aircraft that should be prevented from flying into the United Kingdom from 2002--

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is a long way from bananas.

Miss McIntosh: May I leave the Secretary of State with a final thought? If we do not beat the United States on bananas, we shall have to take hormone-produced beef, which consumers in this country simply do not want.

Mr. Byers: A range of issues are relevant to the difficulties that we will face if this issue escalates into a wider trade dispute. As was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins), it is important for us not to allow that to happen. Sanity must return to the situation. The steps taken by the United States yesterday were really for internal political consumption, rather than implying that the US was a player in a world organisation such as the WTO. That makes these developments particularly regrettable.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours (Workington): Will my right hon. Friend remind the American ambassador that there is a specific interest that the United States should take fully into account in deciding what to do? I refer to the whole question of regional political instability, which the US will provoke in an area that is very near its frontiers. He might well also remind the Americans of their policy on and concerns about Cuba, and the fact that they had to invade Grenada for reasons--in their interpretation--of instability. If they carry on with their policy, they might provoke such ferocity and instability that they find themselves having to intervene again. They are on a very silly course.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend makes some important points. I will ensure that the strength of feeling that he has expressed is relayed to the American ambassador this afternoon.

Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): Any breach of free trade with the world's largest economy must be deplored. Has the Secretary of State considered the fact that, if this country had joined the North American Free Trade Agreement, there would have been mechanisms through which to resolve the dispute some time ago?

4 Mar 1999 : Column 1229

Mr. Byers: I have to admit that I have been concentrating more on trying to resolve the current issue and on the pressing problems that are affecting the cashmere industry, but I note the hon. Gentleman's point and I might give it some consideration, although perhaps not for too long.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): I welcome my right hon. Friend's response to the point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) about the plight of Caribbean banana producers. Can he be a bit more specific about what can be done to help banana producers in the eastern Caribbean, who face an immediate loss of orders, serious unemployment problems and the resulting collapse and implosion of their economies? I understand the point about arbitration, but any delay will be disastrous for the many small, hard-working farmers in those islands.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raises significant points. The Government are already taking steps. The banana recovery plan is in place and offering help. There are opportunities to diversify from the banana industry, so that alternative forms of employment are provided for those communities. Therefore, we do not intend to walk away from our responsibilities to those countries. We will do all that we can to discharge our responsibilities to them.

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley): I am a great supporter of the United States, but even I think that it has gone off beam with its decision. I welcome the support that the Government are giving to the cashmere industry. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give an equal commitment and support to Caribbean banana producers because, if they lose out, their economies will be totally devastated and we will have to give them an enormous amount of aid. Trade is far better than aid.

I am a bit perplexed because I thought that the Prime Minister was a great pal of the President of the United States. I cannot understand why he has not picked up the telephone, called Bill and asked him what support he can give to the cashmere industry in Scotland. After all, the Prime Minister was the human defence shield for the President when he had difficulties. Now that the cashmere industry in our country has difficulties, is it not about time that the Prime Minister started calling in a few favours? When will he pick up the telephone and say, "Dear Bill, give us your support"?

Mr. Byers: I am not party to the conversations that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister may or may not have had with President Clinton, but I do know that right is on our side. It should be a question not of calling in political favours, but of the United States abiding by agreed international procedures. That is the issue at stake. As a result of the action that it announced yesterday, it is failing to do that. That is unacceptable. It needs to comply with those procedures. That is what we need to ensure happens. We need the weight of international opinion to be brought to bear on the United States so that it recognises that, yesterday, it made a bad mistake. There is time to get it right and to change its approach.

4 Mar 1999 : Column 1230

Business of the House

1.34 pm

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire): Will the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office be good enough to give us the business of the House for next week?

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The business will be as follows:

Monday 8 March--Consideration of a Lords Message which may be received to the Road Traffic (NHS Charges) Bill.

As this is International Women's Day, there will be a debate entitled "Delivering for Women" on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Subject to the progress of negotiations, it is proposed that we should debate the Implementation Bodies (Northern Ireland) Order.

Tuesday 9 March--My right hon Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget statement.

Wednesday 10 March--Until 2 o'clock, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Continuation of the Budget debate.

Thursday 11 March--Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 12 March--Private Members' Bills.

The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:

Monday 15 March--Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 16 March--Remaining stages of the House of Lords Bill.