---

2.10 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): My reason for rising is that I am an evergreen Back Bencher. Perhaps more than most, therefore, I appreciate the work done by the Serjeant at Arms. My contribution to this short debate is a simple expression of thanks to Peter Jennings for the outstanding service that he has rendered to the House and to Back Benchers over the years that he has been with us.

I wish to thank him especially for the invariable courtesy and friendship with which he has undertaken his work. That was outlined in a simple way by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). We shall miss him, and we wish him and his wife a very happy retirement.

2.11 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): I confess that I did not attend the same school as the retiring Serjeant at Arms, but in my time in the House I have probably booked as many Rooms as any other hon. Member, and for a greater variety of organisations than most would care to remember. I wish to put on record my thanks to the Serjeant at Arms and his staff, who have always treated hon. Members and visiting members of the public with unfailing help and courtesy.

On one occasion, Amnesty International asked me to book a Room. When that filled up with 30 people, a different Room was booked, which filled up with 60 people, and so a third was booked, which filled up with 90 people. The transitions were seamless. Very rapidly, the whole building was taken over by human rights campaigners, but there was no problem at all because the Serjeant at Arms Department was so helpful. It is fitting, therefore, for hon. Members to express thanks for the work done on our behalf.

I mean no criticism of the retiring Serjeant at Arms at all, but I hope that the next incumbent will receive two instructions from the House. The first would be that space should be found in the House for a nursery, which could replace the rifle range or some other facility. The second would be that no staff of the Serjeant at Arms Department will be privatised or sent out to contract. I hope that the House will insist that all employees will be retained on proper terms and conditions, as they all should be.

I end by thanking the Serjeant at Arms very much for all his help and courtesy over the years.

2.13 pm

Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North): I, too, wish to put on record my personal thanks to Mr. Jennings. During his time in the House, he will have seen many women Members of Parliament arrive. The way in which he has dealt with our applications for improved facilities such as the Family Room is greatly appreciated. On behalf

9 Dec 1999 : Column 1021

of many Back Benchers, I should like to express my thanks to him for all the work that he has done for this place.

Madam Speaker: The House is very grateful for those tributes.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House expresses its appreciation of Peter Nevile Wake Jennings Esq, CVO for his 47 years distinguished public service, including four years as Serjeant at Arms, and extends to him its best wishes for his retirement.

9 Dec 1999 : Column 1022

World Trade Organisation

[Relevant documents: Second Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, on World Trade and Sustainable Development: an Agenda for the Seattle Summit (HC 45); Sixteenth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session1998-99, on Multilateral Environmental Agreements (HC 307-I).]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Clelland.]

Madam Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State, I have to inform Back Benchers that speeches must be limited to 15 minutes.

2.14 pm

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I welcome this timely opportunity to report to the House on the conclusions of the Seattle World Trade Organisation negotiations, and also to debate the way to carry forward the need for trade liberalisation in the 21st century.

However, before I do that, I wish to thank the three right hon. Friends who, with me, made up the United Kingdom delegation to the ministerial conference. They are my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Development, the Minister for Trade and the Minister for the Environment.

Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): Does not the Secretary of State agree that the four Ministers in the United Kingdom delegation, however well intentioned they may have been, were effectively observers, as the true negotiating power was in the hands of the European Commissioner? How long can that dismal state of affairs be allowed to endure?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman has revealed his ignorance in record-breaking time. I am conscious of the fact that Back Benchers want to take part in the debate. I want them to do so, which is why there is a time limit on speeches and why I shall cut my initial remarks fairly short. Interventions such as that from the hon. Gentleman do not help very much, as they do not follow the plot at all.

Mr. Swayne: Answer the question.

Mr. Byers: I will. As members of the General Affairs Council, we played a part in determining the European Union position. More significantly, as members of the Commonwealth, we had many bilateral meetings with Commonwealth countries. We were instrumental in putting in place a broad agreement on trade and labour relations. We also discussed with other countries--especially the least developed--what we could do in terms of opening access to the European market. The non-governmental organisations in attendance at Seattle welcomed the role that our delegation played, as did those of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who also attended the negotiations.

I want also to thank the non-ministerial members ofthe delegation--Donald Anderson, representing the Confederation of British Industry; Rodney Bickerstaffe,

9 Dec 1999 : Column 1023

representing the Trades Union Congress; and Hilary Colby, representing the voluntary and charitable organisations. Our inclusive approach to the people who formed the delegation broke new ground.

I also want to thank the officials of the various Government Departments who attended the talks. In often difficult and demanding circumstances, they provided necessary support to Ministers and others.

I shall say something about the importance of trade to the United Kingdom, and then go through the events in Seattle and describe how matters can be moved forward.

We should never underestimate the importance of trade to our country. More than a quarter of our gross domestic product stems from exports, and more than half from trade. We are the world's fifth largest exporter of goods, and the second largest exporter of services. Our share of world exports of goods is about 5 per cent. The UK has the highest ratio of inward and outward investment to GDP of any leading economy.

The UK is the second largest recipient of inward investment after the United States, and we are the second largest outward investor after the United States. In short, therefore, trade is vital to the UK's continuing prosperity. We need to secure that for the future, but we also need to create the same opportunities for the rest of the world.

That is why we are disappointed that the terms for a new round of trade negotiations were not agreed in Seattle. Along with most other WTO members, we had hoped to launch a comprehensive and broad-based round of negotiations. That approach reflects our belief that such a round is the best means of delivering substantial trade liberalisation consistent with sustainable development. Such a package would also promote continuing growth in the global economy, helping to offset protectionist tendencies where they exist--as, regrettably, they do.

Dr. Lynne Jones (Birmingham, Selly Oak): The United Kingdom, rightly, has developed a good reputation for taking a progressive stance in these matters. However, with hindsight, was it right to go for a comprehensive round of new negotiations? Would it not have been better to concentrate on making the existing rules more effective, specifically by assisting developing countries by withdrawing tariffs against their exports?

Mr. Byers: I agree absolutely that it would have been a great prize if the UK initiative to remove all tariff barriers placed on goods had been agreed. However, that initiative is part not of a narrow agenda but of a broad-based approach. The narrow agenda would have been limited to agriculture and services, and there would have been nothing at all for developing countries or the least developed countries. We wanted a comprehensive round--a development round--for the purposes to which my hon. Friend referred. A narrow round would not have delivered the benefits that we wanted to bring to those developing countries. We needed a broad-based and comprehensive round of trade negotiations, and we bitterly regretted being unable to conclude that at the end of the Seattle negotiations.

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park): The Secretary of State says that he wanted a broad round in which to

9 Dec 1999 : Column 1024

discuss development. Was he not disturbed that so many developing countries were not present at the talks? I understand that 30 were unable to send delegations, and that many more had very scanty representation. If this was a development round, should we not have paid more attention to that issue?

---