| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
2.51 pm
Mrs. Angela Browning (Tiverton and Honiton): It has been a joy to observe the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on his journey along the road to Damascus. Many of us will remember his comments and those of many of his hon. Friends during the previous Parliament, when the Conservatives spoke about competition, free markets and global trade. I genuinely welcome much of what he said this afternoon. I recognise much of the closing part of his speech; it came from the well written speech that he gave recently to Japanese business men--the right hon. Gentleman is nodding. I did not agree with everything in that earlier speech, but I share his view on globalisation, which he has repeated this afternoon.
The Secretary of State told us of his disappointment that the talks had broken down. We share that disappointment, but we regret that it took him four days to come to the Dispatch Box. A fortnight ago, he will remember sending a letter--also signed by three of his hon. Friends--to all hon. Members, to brief them on the forthcoming WTO talks. The letter concluded:
Before me at the Dispatch Box, I am using, as an impromptu lectern, a bundle of papers, detailing about 15,600 tariffs that apply to this country alone--the integrated tariff of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Corbyn:
Read them all out.
Mrs. Browning:
I promise the House that I shall not read them out this afternoon, but if, during this Parliament, the Secretary of State agrees that his objective of removing tariff barriers is realistic, I will be only too pleased to read out the reduced bundle that will result.
Mr. Corbyn:
I am pleased to see that the hon. Lady has all 15,600 tariffs in front of her. I realise that there is not time for her to read them all out this afternoon. Could she give us a summary of those to which she objects? There are three hours left for the debate.
Mrs. Browning:
The hon. Gentleman is most kind. The papers are available to all Members from the Stationery Office--other people have to pay £197 per bundle.
However much we talk about the need for liberalisation, tariff reductions and free trade, we confront a huge task--not just in the UK, but in the EU and in America--in achieving those targets. We need to get rid of all the tariffs, because they hamper free trade. The Secretary of State is committed to removing them and the Conservatives will support him. That is our objective in today's debate.
Mr. Bennett:
Will the hon. Lady assure us that none of the restrictions in her bundle of papers are supported by individuals or firms in her constituency? Has there been any lobbying to keep restrictions?
Mrs. Browning:
I have not read every line of each sheet of paper. Both sides of the paper are covered with small-point print. My constituents--like those of all hon. Members--realise that the prosperity of our country and of all those who live and work here will be enhanced by the removal of such tariffs. There seems to be some common ground in the House on that objective.
I encourage the Minister and his colleagues on the Treasury Bench to consider how we might achieve that objective, because the collapse of the Seattle talks was a blow. The Secretary of State spelled out the importance of international and global trade to the UK and to the EU. I am aware that, in the context of the WTO talks, the EU Commissioner spoke for all member states.
There are however some examples of stupid taxes--I am sure that others could be found in bundles similar to the one I have before me. Because of the EU tariff wall, there is a tax of 8.9 per cent. on chocolate from outside the EU, and a 9.7 per cent. tariff on biscuits. As I pointed out, the EU alone has 15,600 tariff duties, but they are also imposed in other states. The United States, which is often regarded as a free trade economy, applies a 25 per cent. tax on ceramics sold from the midlands in this country to the US hotel industry. That is a classic example of the way in which a single tariff affects an important
UK industry. Such tariffs affect our exports to the US. There is a huge opportunity for the EU and the US to take a lead in showing how to remove those unnecessary taxes.
Mr. Jim Murphy (Eastwood):
I listened with interest to the points made by the hon. Lady about the 15,600 double-sided, small-point tariffs that she is using as a prop. Will she inform the House of how many of those 15,600 tariffs were agreed during the 18 years of Conservative Government? How many of them did she and the Conservative Government object to?
Mrs. Browning:
I do not know. This collection has been built up over generations. I just want to see them disappear. It makes sense to get rid of all of them. I am not talking about which tariff was applied where and by whom. We all know that trade will enhance the prosperity of our nation and of nations throughout the world, if we get rid of restrictions.
We need to concentrate on the WTO talks, because the Secretary of State has a prime responsibility, on behalf of the UK Government, to ensure that our nation plays its part in restoring the WTO talks so that we can make progress.
We started out some months ago with high hopes. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food issued consultation documents. The European Parliament produced a document. We had papers from the United States Government. That suggested that things were on course--that there was sufficient commonality of purpose to adopt the agenda that the Secretary of State has described and to progress with talks. Obviously, we must now have another think about that.
Today the right hon. Gentleman has frankly described some of his proposals for taking the matter forward, but taking the matter forward must be our primary intention.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that the WTO talks and the talks from which they originate have been subject to criticism. I agree with him. There is now an opportunity to change the way in which the structure of the WTO functions, to make progress possible.
In the list of suggestions that the Secretary of State read out, his suggestion that there be some form of Parliament rang the loudest warning bells in my mind. We would want to see full details of that. I doubt that the creation of another body without democratic accountability will liberalise trade. We want there to be democratic accountability. Indeed, we are uneasy about the way in which the United Kingdom is represented, through the European Union, in the talks. Later I shall discuss what happened in Seattle--the role of the European Union and the way in which events unfolded. I hope that then the Secretary of State will reassure us that he will speak to Commissioner Lamy and others to ensure that our progress is not held up because of differences of opinion in the European Union, or because the views of the British Government as to what is in the British interest are not reflected.
The principles of multilateral trading are designed to help trade to flow as freely as possible. They should incorporate non-discrimination--one country should not offer another country more favoured terms of access to its markets than it does others. Tariff barriers should be removed and trading conditions should be predictable.
Most WTO members' tariffs are bound at ceiling rates, above which they cannot usually be increased, and almost all developed country tariffs are bound at their actual rates. The introduction of quotas or other measures intended to restrict imports is not usually permitted. We need to consider how we can abolish tariffs rather than gerrymander the way in which tariffs and ceilings are imposed.
The Secretary of State used the word transparency. The WTO should undertake to ensure that its trade rules are clear, transparent and public, so that all new rules, as they emerge, are subject to proper scrutiny by all interested parties. Judging by what the Secretary of State has said, I hope that he would actively promote such steps.
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham):
While the hon. Lady discusses tariff removal, is she aware that by far the largest bulk of that paper on her desk consists of two items--the tariff structure of the standard international trade classification, items 65 and 80 to 84, which are textiles and clothing? Is she saying--with commendable bravery--that the Conservative party is committed to the prompt and total removal of all tariffs and quotas on textile and garment items?
Mrs. Browning:
We would like to see them phased out, but that will be part of future negotiations. At the moment, there are not even any negotiations to participate in. There is unfinished business from the Uruguay round, and the textiles issue is part of the unfinished business from a previous trade round which the Secretary of State must tackle.
"Stephen will be making a full statement to the House immediately on our return from Seattle."
As there will be many more talks on this subject, in this country and abroad, I hope that the Secretary of State will include the House of Commons in the way forward. We share much common ground, because we all want the talks to proceed as quickly as possible, but with a realistic
agenda that enables us to achieve solid progress for global free trade. Conservative policy is that all tariff barriers should be removed by 2020.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |