| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
EU Trade Preferences
6. Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): What proposals she has for reforming the EU's generalised system of trade preferences for developing countries. [138109]
The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The European Commission is reviewing the generalised system of preferences, which allows access to the European market for developing countries that do not have any other preferential trading arrangements. The UK has been one of the most active member states in pushing for improvements. We are pressing for reductions in the complexity of the system and to increase the level of market access--especially in the areas of agriculture and textiles.
Dr. Cable: Does the Secretary of State agree that the once idealistic system of trade preferences has been enormously devalued by the proliferating red tape and numerous exemptions given to protectionist interests in European agriculture and industry? Will she commit the British Government to a radical reform that will roll back
trade barriers for developing countries in general and provide unrestricted access for the world's 48 poorest countries?
Clare Short: I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman. The GSP is good but very complex, and there is evidence that many countries do not take up their preferences because it is so unclear that they have them. So, the system is clearly not working well. I agree also that there are protectionist instincts in some EU countries.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his fine book on globalisation, which I have read, that opening up trade in a way that enables countries to adapt will enlarge the world economy for us all, particularly the poorest countries.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire): Nobody would deny that opening up trade to the least developed countries is bound to be to their advantage, but may I take the right hon. Lady back to the issue of sugar? It is not right simply to say that because such countries have only 0.4 per cent. of world trade, the market should be opened to everybody. To pauperise some of the underdeveloped world in order to help another part will not achieve anything. Will she have another look at the Government's support for the inclusion of sugar in EBA--there should at least be a proper impact assessment and the ACP countries should be properly consulted.
Clare Short: I am shocked that although the Conservative party claims to be in favour of free trade, when it comes to a specific provision for the poorest countries in the world, it is suddenly against it. As I have said, I do not agree with Conservative Members. The historical record--[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) should listen instead of heckling. The ACP treaty--Lome--gave Africa privileged access to the European market, but the poorest countries did not take it up because they had other difficulties with their economies, such as the incidence of conflict and with transport. The arrangements will help them, but there will not be a massive take-up. In the meantime, because of the World Trade Organisation bringing down tariffs right through the international system, the countries that depend on preferential systems will adjust anyway. We will look to that adjustment and look to help them. The hon. Gentleman and his party should think again about questioning this help to the poorest countries in the world.
PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the first question to the Prime Minister, I wish to make a short statement. Questions to the Prime Minister should be brief. Long introductory statements cut down the time for proper scrutiny of Government. Questions should concern matters for which the Government are responsible. Those which relate to Opposition policies or to the activities of local authorities are inappropriate. I hope that brief questions will be followed by brief answers. Finally, I appeal to the House for much less noise. That will help me to keep the exchanges in better order.
The Prime Minister was asked--
Iraq
Q1. [138133]Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde): If, when he last met leaders of other NATO member states, matters relating to military operations and non-military sanctions against Iraq were discussed.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): We maintain regular contacts with allies over sanctions on Iraq.
Dr. Godman: While people everywhere regard Saddam Hussein and those around him as evil men--men who should face trial at an international criminal court in the future--does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that there is deep concern everywhere over the dreadful misery inflicted upon the Iraqi people by the sanctions regime? Has not the time come for the Government to agree to support the case for the suspension of sanctions, even though that might cause anger in Washington? Sanctions have to go, do they not?
The Prime Minister: The problem is that while Saddam continues to try and develop weapons of mass destruction, it would be a serious mistake to lift those sanctions. However, I should point out to my hon. Friend that of course we are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Iraq. Some $16 billion will be available to Iraq for food, medicine and infrastructure development this year alone, but I can tell my hon. Friend that in every month over the past six months, Saddam has imported more than 300 million cigarettes and 28,000 bottles of whisky. He could have spent the money on food and medicine for his people, but he chooses not to do so. That is why we will make sure that every possible bit of humanitarian relief gets through to the Iraqi people, but we cannot act in a way that would allow him to be a menace to that part of the world again.
Engagements
Q2. [138134]Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 November.
The Prime Minister: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have having further such meetings later today.
Mr. Winterton: The Prime Minister regularly refers, quite rightly, to the importance of law and order, and the importance of the defence of the realm. Is he not a little concerned that he might go down in history as the Prime Minister who destroyed the most effective police force in the world--the Royal Ulster Constabulary--and undermined the most successful defence alliance of all time--NATO?
The Prime Minister: No doubt we will discuss the European defence initiative later. NATO is fully in support of the European defence initiative--[Interruption.]. I know that that is an inconvenient fact to Opposition Members, but it is the truth. In respect of the RUC, we decided as part of the Good Friday agreement that we would have an
independent commission headed by a former chairman of the Conservative party who was also a former Northern Ireland Minister. The commission produced a series of proposals which are not designed to undermine the RUC, but are designed to make sure that we can attract people from all sectors of the community into the police force of Northern Ireland. That is manifestly, I believe, in the interests of all in Northern Ireland who want people, whether they are Catholic or Protestant, nationalist or Unionist, to join the police service of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw (Chatham and Aylesford): In welcoming the extra £1.8 million that the Government have given to the East and West Kent health authorities to help with winter pressures, may I tell my right hon. Friend that there is a bid to the Department of Health for an extra £750,000--at least--to assist with the care of the elderly over the winter? Is my right hon. Friend able to assure me that Health Ministers will examine the issue seriously so as to give confidence to elderly residents throughout Kent that services will be paid for and available?
The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are putting record additional resources into the national health service. Indeed, several hundred million pounds are going into the NHS and social services to deal with the winter crisis. As for my hon. Friend's constituency issue, I shall come back to him on his request. By contrast with the Conservatives, who would cut public spending on our main services, the Government are committed to getting in that investment.
Mr. William Hague (Richmond, Yorks): Does the Prime Minister agree with the person who said:
- The French and Germans want the Western European Union to be merged into the European Union. This would undermine NATO . . . ?
Mr. Hague: It is no good the right hon. Gentleman's pretending that what is on the table now is different from before. What he said was an ill-judged transplant operation. What he told The Guardian would undermine the US commitment to Europe. Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the comments of General Sir Peter de la Billiere, who commanded our forces in the Gulf war? He said that
- it is difficult to comprehend how we are to meet the increased commitments implied in these proposals . . . without seriously weakening our commitments to NATO.
The Prime Minister: Perhaps it would be as well to agree with the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Guthrie, who said:
- I've never heard anyone in authority in the chain of command in this country, whether they be ministers or servicemen, talk of a European army, navy or air force. There is an argument that a strong, more assertive Europe will undermine NATO. I think that wrong. A Europe that remains allied to the US simply because of its own weakness is of limited value.
Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister likes to say that there is no European army. Mr. Prodi of the European Commission said:
- I'm not joking when I call it a European Army.
- You could call it Mary-Ann, you could call it Margaret--a good name for an Army and an even better one for a Prime Minister--
Is it not clear that we are faced with a political project? The French Prime Minister said:
- If we manage to achieve this in the year 2000, we will have crossed a milestone to the creation of a united political Europe.
The Prime Minister: Interestingly, on Sunday the right hon. Gentleman was on the Dimbleby programme. When asked whether he would withdraw Britain's contribution to the force, he said:
- Well this of course depends on what happens at the time that we take Government.
Mr. Hague rose--[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.
Mr. Hague: The Prime Minister's whole life has been a bandwagon, from selling out to unilateralism in the 80s to selling out to federalism today. We have been doing our own research into quotations from the past. Just before the Prime Minister joined the Labour Front Bench, the magazine "Sanity", of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, said:
- Parliamentary Labour CND supports the removal of all nuclear weapons from British territory.
-
That was signed by M Beckett, AN Benn and ACL Blair. The Prime Minister has gone from sanity to vanity in one short career. Now, against the advice of the former commanders of the British Gulf war forces, the leader of the Falklands taskforce, the commander of the US fleet in the Mediterranean, the former Secretary-General of NATO, and the former Chief of the Defence Staff, we are getting the expertise of people whose military experience consists of waving placards at American air bases. Does the Prime Minister think that all those people are fundamentally dishonest?
- This process . . . does not involve the establishment of a European army.
The Tories are raising this because they have lost on the economy and on boom and bust, they have lost on public services, which they are committed to cutting, and they have lost on poverty, which they are committed to increasing. So they come back to the issue of Europe. We will support the true national interest, which is to be engaged and constructive in Europe, fighting for Britain's interest, but seeing our European partners as allies not opponents.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to call the Leader of the Opposition again. He must not be shouted down, as that brings the House into disrepute.
Mr. Hague: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Was not the real reason the Prime Minister did a U-turn by committing a quarter of our Army, a quarter of our Air Force and half the Navy to a European army revealed yesterday by the French Foreign Minister? He said:
- Tony Blair can't go as far as he would like because [of] public opinion in his country . . . on the euro, but on defence he saw he could move. He . . . changed the British position.
The Prime Minister: Again, on the facts, it is the case that there can be no use of British troops without specific British agreement to each and every mission. If the right hon. Gentleman is saying that UK troops should never fight alongside other troops or--as this is limited to peacekeeping and humanitarian missions--be engaged except with NATO, may I point out that, since 1990, there have been 23 separate military operations, of which 20 have not been under UK command, and 17 have been non-NATO. How can it be right that our troops can perform alongside those from Argentina, India, Pakistan, Nigeria right round the rest of the world, but not alongside French and German troops? That is absurd. We will carry
on having complete control over British forces wherever they are used. This is not against NATO. On the contrary, as has been pointed out by NATO itself, it helps to give us an extra option when NATO chooses not to be involved.
Mr. Hague: We simply agree with the former Labour Chancellor and Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Healey, who says:
- The alliance is a proven and effective tool for crisis management. Why replace it?
The Prime Minister: As usual, when it comes to the pre-prepared jibes, the right hon. Gentleman is fine, but when it comes to the argument, he does not have an argument as to why British troops should not be alongside others in this way. The argument was put best in this way:
- Our objective must be to strengthen the European pillar of the Alliance and improve European defence co-operation . . . If we wish to . . . ensure that our views continue to be given due weight by future US Administrations, the European Allies must find answers to some difficult questions: Are we able to take on a larger share of the responsibility for our defence? . . . The answers make it evident that such problems have to be tackled jointly.
Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): The Government have just received a dividend from Railtrack of £300,000 in respect of their 0.2 per cent. shareholding. Will my right hon. Friend use that money to increase the Government's equity stake in the company?
The Prime Minister: No, but with the private sector, we are making a record investment in our transport infrastructure, which it desperately needs. As the Treasury White Paper showed today, Britain is seriously under- investing in schools, hospitals, transport and the police. That is why we are proposing such a huge increase in capital investment in Britain. That is why it is so wrong for the Conservative party to be committed to cutting that vital investment for our public services.
Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Inverness, West): May I bring the Prime Minister back to an item of domestic policy, rather than wider European policy? Incidentally, it is quite ironic that the Leader of the Conservative party wants to speak about European policy on a day when it has become clear that he cannot even command his own MEPs, who are joining us.
With regard to the Government's education policy and the position in the schools, will the Prime Minister confirm the statement that has been put on the record by the Department for Education and Employment: that the ratio in our secondary schools between pupils and teachers is worse now than when he took office?
The Prime Minister: Yes, the ratio is 0.3 worse than it was in 1997. Those class sizes had been increasing for
about 10 years before that. We had to decide where our first priority was. As we said in our election manifesto, our first priority was to get money into primary schools and reduce infant classes. That is why the pupil:teacher ratio in primary schools has fallen. We are putting a substantial amount of extra investment into secondary schools, but it is less of a priority there than it has been in respect of primary schools.
Mr. Kennedy: I thank the Prime Minister for that straightforward reply. Does he agree that many within the education sector, as well as the parents themselves, concerned about their children, feel that there is a sense here of robbing Peter to pay Paul? Will he also acknowledge that, simply to return to the position that we were at in terms of class sizes and pupil:teacher ratios in 1997, an extra 9,000 teachers are urgently required for the education sector?
The Prime Minister: That is precisely why we have been increasing investment in teacher training. It is also why, earlier this week, the first rise in teacher recruitment for eight years happened and why we will be recruiting some 28,000 additional teachers this year. As for robbing Peter to pay Paul, that is simply not correct. There is a huge increase in overall investment in education. I remind the right hon. gentleman that he stood at the last election on a manifesto commitment to put an extra 1p on income tax to pay for education. The extra education spending that we are putting in is four times that amount.
Mr. Patrick Hall (Bedford): Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the noise or silence in this place, the issues that matter to the British people today and in future will be the economic stability and competence, the increasing job opportunities and the decent health and education opportunities delivered by the Government? Those are the issues that will matter, and not the hysterical diversionary antics of the barmy army that is the Conservative party today.
The Prime Minister: I agree with that one--those remarks were uncontroversial. However, the serious point made by my hon. Friend is that we have clear choices: between stability or a return to boom and bust, between investment in our public services or cuts under the Conservatives, and between action on poverty--such as the £200 winter allowance and free TV licences for over-75s--and the Conservative proposals to scrap those schemes, as well as the new deal and the working families tax credit. That is a difference not only of policy but of fundamental values and philosophy.
Q3. [138135]Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): At the last general election, the Prime Minister promised the people of Preston more police officers. Currently, one in 10 of Lancashire's officers are either sick or on light duties, and the officers promised via the crimefighting fund will merely replace those who are retiring. Will the Prime Minister explain to the people of Preston when they will get extra officers to meet the rising tide of violent crime in the town?
The Prime Minister: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman managed not to point out that crime has fallen in that particular police force area. He is, of course,
correct about police officer numbers, which is why we are putting in the extra money to recruit more police. Conservative proposals, however, would mean cutting that investment in police.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is not his party's policy. Let me quote remarks made by the shadow Treasury spokesman last Wednesday; he said that it was true that the Tories were not committed to Labour's spending plans. So we know that, if the Conservatives were elected, they would cut back on those plans.
I am surprised also that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention the Eurofighter project, on which thousands of jobs in Preston depend. [Interruption.] Yes; thousands of jobs depend on the project. Now the shadow defence spokesman is putting a question mark over it, no doubt because it contains the word "euro". I think that people in Preston will be interested in that as well.
Q4. [138136]Mr. Alan W. Williams (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr): Does my right hon. Friend agree that global warming is the biggest environmental challenge faced by the world, is difficult to tackle and has far-reaching consequences? Britain has a good record on the matter, as does the European Union, but the United States is finding it difficult at the Hague summit to commit itself to making genuine reductions in carbon emissions. What does my right hon. Friend have to say to the American delegation in The Hague?
The Prime Minister: I hope that we can agree in The Hague on the importance of keeping to the Kyoto targets on climate change. We have had enough experience, not only in this country, but around the world, of the need to take action on climate change. This country will be at the forefront of that. We will comfortably meet our targets by 2010 and many other countries will also do so. It is obviously essential that the United States, which has the largest economy in the world, should also be committed to taking action. I hope that we can secure agreement in the next few days. It is vital for the future of the world.
Q5. [138137]Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): Will the Prime Minister undertake today to veto the proposed treaty changes at Nice which would extend qualified majority voting to cover worker representation, including co-determination? If those changes become law, they will allow the imposition of worker directors on boards.
The Prime Minister: This may come as a shock to my hon. Friends, but the answer to that question is, yes, we would veto those proposals. We will be in a far stronger position because we will not be taking such an absurd line--ours is set out in Government policy. Because we are not vetoing every change, including those that are in our interest, we are, as ever--as a result of what we do--more likely to secure our objectives.
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East): Back to European defence. Now that the Americans have made their position clear--William Cohen, the United States Defence Secretary in October last year and, on Monday,
Madeleine Albright--is it not just a little arrogant and patronising of the Opposition to say that they know United States interests better than the United States does? Since all the European North Atlantic Treaty Organisation members that are not part of the EU--
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is asking about the Opposition's policy, but it is not for the Prime Minister to answer for that. Will he rephrase his question?
Mr. Anderson: Since all the European NATO members that are not part of the EU have pledged contributions to the force, what sort of political signal would be sent if, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, we withdrew? Would not a withdrawal be a sign of a new isolationism?
The Prime Minister: Of course it would be absolutely disastrous. If the Opposition went to the European summit and said that they would withdraw from European defence co-operation even if NATO and the United States were in favour of it--of course, they already have their proposal to block any enlargement of the European Union unless the rest of Europe agrees to a treaty change--the rest of Europe, to a single entity, would say that it would not accept that. That would alienate not merely all the people inside the European Union, but all the people waiting to come into the European Union.
Here are some quotes that we will not read in some of our best-known newspapers. This is one from the United States Deputy Secretary of State:
- We want to see a Europe that can act effectively through the Alliance or, if NATO is not engaged---
- or, if NATO is not engaged on its own. Period. End of debate.
- not grudgingly, not with resignation, but with wholehearted conviction.
The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and, yes, we are concerned about the proposal. I gather that there was a debate on it a short time ago. Of course, that is precisely why it is important that, if we wish to influence the proposals coming out of Europe, we are constructive, we are engaged in Europe and we have a leading role in Europe. So many different items come up, day on day on day, that it is important
that this country remain in a position from which it is capable of influencing the rest of Europe, which is precisely why I believe our policy is right.
Q7. [138139]Dr. Stephen Ladyman (South Thanet): Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are probably about 800 people with autistic spectrum disorders in his constituency, but that it is not possible to produce exact figures because no one collects them and there is no agreed mechanism for screening people with autistic disorders or for collating the figures? Will he put his support behind initiatives to collect such data, to agree an objective method of screening and assessing autistic people, and to apply it to children at an early age? Will he put the Government's resources behind supporting those children?
The Prime Minister: Autism is one of the least understood, but most frightening and difficult conditions, for families in particular, to contend with. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the importance of the issue. We are committed generally to more resources in this area and we also support strongly the work of a £350,000 research programme being undertaken by the British Medical Research Council. I shall certainly look at other ways in which we are contributing to that, and perhaps I could write to him about that.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): Will the Prime Minister, along with the Home Secretary, review the way in which the Criminal Cases Review Commission deals with its work? Is he concerned, like me, that it took some time for the commission to refer the case of Stephen Downing, who has been in prison for some 27 years, to the Court of Appeal? Will he also ensure that, when a review takes place, bail can be granted straight away?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving some notice of his question. If I may, I shall choose my words carefully in responding to him. I understand that Mr. Downing's case is complex. The commission was asked as part of its review to explore many lines of inquiry, which, I am told, it was at pains to investigate thoroughly. Early in the review, Mr. Downing's representatives told the commission that they wanted fresh and more detailed representations on his behalf. These were received in July 1999, and they are carrying on their review in the light of those representations. In the light of the hon. Gentleman's raising it with me, I will take a personal interest, in the sense of finding out exactly what the current position is in respect of the case, and I will contact him about it.
Q8. [138140]Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan): Having just arrived from the NATO parliamentary assembly meeting in Berlin, may I tell my right hon. Friend that a resolution was passed by NATO parliamentarians unanimously supporting the creation of a European rapid reaction force? Does he agree that the main reason why they did so is that such a force would enhance NATO's military capability--a capability that was dangerously undermined by the Conservative party when in government?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course the support of NATO parliamentarians
probably will not be reported in many quarters here, but it is true that they support the creation of that force, where, as I say, NATO as a whole is not engaged. One of the best examples, and one of the reasons why it is supported, was Bosnia between 1992 and 1995, where for years British and French troops struggled with others to try to maintain peace. America, and therefore NATO, did not wish to be involved, yet we did not have the proper European defence capability to engage in that mission successfully. It is precisely for that reason that, in a sensible and mature debate, it would be recognised that NATO remains the cornerstone of our security, but it is important, where NATO is not engaged, to have a European defence capability.
Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): This not an answer but a lecture.
The Prime Minister: I am sorry it is a lecture, but the hon. Lady needs one.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |