| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Browning: My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) was present. I am sure that he will address the House and give his own views.
Mr. Corbyn: I was trying to help the hon. Lady.
Mrs. Browning: I am not giving the hon. Gentleman the credit.
Mrs. Browning: I shall not give way.
The Secretary of State has quoted a speech that he made to Japanese business men but, given the speech that he delivered at Seattle, one does not get the impression that he was aware, while he was there, of the need for him to
take such a leading role in bringing forward changes. I have with me a copy of his speech, in which he addresses fellow trade Ministers and the director-general.
In that rather short speech there was no attempt to retrieve the situation or make an input into the talks. Instead, the speech contained a lot of platitudes and some rather waffly language--certainly nothing as firm as the speech from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted this afternoon. For example, he asked:
There are a lot of platitudes:
Ms Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent, North):
In view of the platitudes that are supposed to have come from the Government--on which the hon. Lady is totally wrong--I am curious to know what the previous Conservative Government did to remove the tariffs on ceramics supplied from the United Kingdom to hotels everywhere.
Mrs. Browning:
I do not recall any of the rounds in which the previous Conservative Government were engaged resulting in the Secretary of State coming to the House to wring his hands and tell us that everything had fallen apart in disarray, that something had to be done, but perhaps not for another year, and that there was no immediate solution to the problems. That is not leadership; nor is it Government.
Mr. Gordon Prentice:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Browning:
I am just answering the question. I raised the matter because at Seattle there were two main players with whom we would have expected our Secretary of State, representing the Government whom he represents, to have had much more influence.
The Government claim to be influential in the European Union, which was a key negotiator. The rhetoric of the Labour party, especially in opposition, was to the effect that when there were difficult negotiations, and when there were difficulties with the European Union, it had a third way. Labour Members claimed that they would use their skills far more effectively than the previous Conservative Government had. And yet in one week we see our eurobond market about to disappear, our art market about to disappear and our beef industry in
disarray--because the Government were unable to negotiate with their European partners, with whom they have always claimed to have a technique superior to that of the previous, Conservative Government.
Each day, week and year that passes, it becomes more obvious that the only things that the Labour Government succeed at as far as the European Union is concerned are matters where their third way--new Labour socialism--is in total accord with the new way socialism of many of the member states in Europe. They just roll over and agree with them when they have issues of new socialism--democratic socialism--to deal with. [Laughter.] I did not want to say just socialism, because I know that when anyone says that word, a frisson descends on the Labour Benches. I was struggling to get the new terminology right. However, Labour Members know what I mean--it is the third way. However, that is the way of failure. The third way of negotiating any matter involving the European Union has been, by definition and as a matter of record, a great failure.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire):
May I remind my hon. Friend of an example of what she describes? The Prime Minister said proudly:
Mrs. Browning:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us the complete text of the Prime Minister's words.
The success of Commissioner Lamy is important to the United Kingdom. He represents us. What he said and did at Seattle was far more significant than the platitudes in the Secretary of State's contribution. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to ensure--especially as things have now fallen apart--that the European Union uses its influence to help restore the World Trade Organisation talks and to enable us to make progress.
Mr. Gordon Prentice:
The hon. Lady scoffed at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he talked about the need to create a new parliament in the WTO. She must recognise, however, that it is difficult for the WTO to make progress. It can easily become deadlocked simply because each of its 135 countries has a veto.
Mrs. Browning:
Indeed, but we have heard that--for various reasons including the number of countries involved--what was expected to be the start of something is now in such disarray that we are unable to see a realistic timetable for finding solutions to the problems that impede progress. We shall expect the Government to provide such a timetable when they have had a little more time to reflect and have negotiated not just with the European Union, but with the Americans, whose role I shall consider shortly.
The Secretary of State was quite honest in saying that some initial preparations might not have been carried out in the lead-up to the talks and that that fact had contributed to their failure. However, it is extraordinary
that even during the talks there was a row among the members of the EU. That is just not acceptable. The Government claim to have influence and the superb negotiating skills that avoid rows and conflict with our European partners. They claim that they have the solutions to negotiations, agreements and conciliations within the EU.
In Seattle, we hear that there was a row in the EU over biotechnology. The Commissioner proposed a working group, despite opposition from 12 of the 15 member states. The proposal was sent to other countries, such as the Japanese and the Swiss, without UK Ministers and others seeing it. Earlier, the EU had opposed including biotechnology in the WTO remit. It said that it should be dealt with by the United Nations.
Why were such problems not sorted out before the representatives of the EU went to the talks? We understand that France felt so annoyed that it felt stitched up and threatened to walk out of the talks altogether. That may have influenced its attitude later in the week to other matters. It appears that lack of preparation and lack of communication in a matter in which we could have expected better of the Government have resulted in many unnecessary problems, thereby compounding the failure and the shambles of the talks that the Secretary of State attended.
I wish to refer to one policy area that will be on the agenda when the talks can be resumed. I hope that the Secretary of State will reflect on it when he and his colleagues make representations to the European Union.I am referring to agriculture. We noticed that the Government were reluctant to be strong in their negotiations with Europe about the reform of the common agricultural policy. The Agenda 2000 proposals that came out of earlier talks were watered down, particularly by the Prime Minister when he intervened on the matter. However, the objective of putting agriculture on the global agenda must be compatible with the EU's internal policies for reform of the common agricultural policy. That is essential. It is not acceptable to have one set of objectives internally, with restrictions and support through subsidies, but then to express the wish to get rid of more tariffs on a global basis.
What the Government say and what they do are incompatible. They say one thing, but they do another. Nowhere is that more evident than in the stance that they have taken in the EU on reform of the common agricultural policy and in the literature that sets out their objectives for agricultural reform on the global stage.
The Secretary of State and Labour Members have referred to other matters that have become entwined at the heart of the WTO agenda. They include environmental issues, as well as others dealing with child labour and costs. They are legitimate subjects for debate not only in the Chamber, but elsewhere. Such issues must be considered.
The Minister used a phrase that reflected a common- sense approach. He said that such matters should be dealt with in parallel, and I agree. When we criticise the fact that the talks have become enmeshed, one of the problems is that legitimate subjects have become bound up with the conditions for WTO progress. I would support the Secretary of State if issues such as child labour and the environment were to be developed outside the WTO,
but in parallel with it. That would provide a read-across, but discussion of such issues would not inhibit progress on the reduction and removal of tariffs.
If the EU had the opportunity to make preparations to sort out problems before the talks began, so too might we have expected the Government to use their influence with the President of the United States and the representatives of the Democrats. The role of the Americans in the Seattle talks was significant for many reasons. I do not want to discuss the detail of the policing operation; I have no first-hand knowledge of that, but it sounded horrendous.
Does the Secretary of State think it appropriate that the person who chaired the meeting was the key negotiator for the United States of America? That is not common sense, and such problems could have been resolved before the talks began. As with the EU, we have heard from the Prime Minister about the special relationship and influence that he has with the President of the United States. If the Government have influence, surely they could have used it to sort that problem out. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us exactly what action he will take in the EU and with the Americans to make sure that problems are sorted out before the talks resume.
I recognise that it is not always easy to second-guess what might happen. I see that the Minister for Trade is grateful for that, but some problems are glaringly obvious. Progress on this matter can be made now; we should not wait for another year. It is incumbent on our Government, who represent us at the talks, not just to leave matters to the EU negotiator and to circumstances outside their control, but to play a leading role.
I must tell the Secretary of State that we will support the Government if they have common-sense policies that will enable us to reduce the bundle of tariffs and help countries around the world, including developing countries, to remove the impediments on them so that they can play a full role in the global marketplace, which the Secretary of State has described very well. That progress will take place only if he makes it his personal responsibility to drive the matter forward.
Conservative Members will not find it acceptable if, after the debate, things are allowed to slip. The Secretary of State should give us a commitment in writing, perhaps in a White Paper, very soon, stating his proposals for action and his timetable, so that we have some hope.
Aside from the big issues of the talks, which have global importance, the Secretary of State will be aware that British companies are caught in the crossfire of unresolved business, particularly between the EU and the USA. I refer to certain categories of companies, of which I shall give examples rather than reading out a comprehensive list. The businesses affected are involved in the production of toiletries, handbags, folding decorative cartons, lithographs, bed linen and lead acid batteries. That is a diverse group, and a few more types of business are affected, but the list gives a flavour of the cross-section of British companies who, today, are having to make difficult decisions.
We have heard from many of those businesses. I raised their problems with the Minister for Trade in the European Scrutiny Committee a couple of weeks ago. They are caught in the banana war and in the hormone-treated beef war between the EU and the USA. Companies are relocating and laying off staff, and until those trade disputes are sorted out and read across into
the progress of the WTO talks, they will continue to inflict real damage on British industry and British jobs. I hope that those companies will be given hope that they will not have to wait at least a year until the WTO talks can be resumed, and that the Secretary of State will make it his personal business to make progress.
"Can the WTO modernise and reform itself so that it can gain increased credibility and win the support of people and their governments? Can it stop being seen as a servant of multinationals and instead assert itself as a body which will protect and defend the interests of all its members?"
In that speech, delivered by the Secretary of State on behalf of the United Kingdom Government, he seemed to have more questions than answers.
"We must not lose sight of the opportunities that have flowed from the new age of globalisation. We have benefited from the integration of the international economy. A shared commitment to open trade and commerce has been a driving force for growth."
That is not what we would have expected from a Secretary of State in a world negotiation when things were falling apart around him and when he was in a key position to make a much more substantive contribution--perhaps the type of contribution that he has made in the House this afternoon, with real suggestions about what could be done, instead of platitudes.
"we are delighted with the decision to lift the beef ban . . . That has come about because of the hard work of Ministers here"--
that may be true--
"and also because the Government have a constructive . . . attitude to Europe. That is why we got the beef ban lifted, and it is another example of new Labour working."--[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 402.]
Does my hon. Friend recall that?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |