Examination of Witnesses (Questions 132
- 139)
THURSDAY 11 NOVEMBER 1999
RT HON
MICHAEL MEACHER,
MP, MR DARRYL
BROWN AND
MR CHARLES
BRIDGE
Chairman
132. Good morning,
Minister and officials. Welcome to the officials again. I think
you are flanked by the same officials as Mr Caborn was flanked
by when he came to the Committee, which is interesting. Is there
anything you would like to add in this rather developing situation
to the joint memorandum which we received from the Department?
(Mr Meacher) No, I do not think so. Obviously
this is a preparatory situation. I think it is pretty comprehensive.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed. I will
ask Mr Blizzard to start our questioning.
Mr Blizzard
133. Good morning, Minister. From what we have
heard so far there is a widespread view that the big problem with
the WTO—and this is particularly relevant as we reach the
Millennium Round—is that trade liberalisation and increased
flows of international investment are being pursued as goals in
themselves rather than as part of a balanced package of measures
to achieve policy objectives on sustainable development. Do you
think that is going to happen at Seattle? Is this Government going
to go along with that?
(Mr Meacher) We are going to do our very best to avoid
that. We are unequivocally in favour of trade liberalisation,
but we do not take the view that trade liberalisation is inherently
in conflict with environmental protection. It is the manner in
which the interface is designed which I think means that they
can both be mutually supportive. Clearly governments have a right
and a duty to regulate for all environmental improvement provided
it is done in a manner which does not discriminate against foreign
imports and foreign investors as compared to national ones. I
think domestic environmental regulation obviously should not be
used to block foreign imports, but, equally, environmental regulation
should not be cast aside when we are looking at ways in which
we could open up foreign markets and foreign investment. It is
very important that the two should be taken together and that
will certainly be the message of the UK and, I am sure, of the
EU.
134. It has been said that what we should be
looking for is better trade rather than simply freer trade. Would
you agree with that? Is that actually possible within the WTO
mandate?
(Mr Meacher) I think that is a false dichotomy and
for the reasons I have given I think we can see an expansion of
trade, the liberalisation of trade. We want a rules-based framework
for trade and investment, but I repeat, there is no reason why
that should be incompatible with environmental improvement. The
key issue from the environmental point of view I think we are
concerned with in this round is trying to resolve this fraught
issue of the interface between the multi-lateral environmental
agreements and the WTO system. An attempt was made to resolve
this with the committee on trade and environment at Singapore
in 1996 but it failed. I think this comprehensive round with the
opportunity for crosscutting deals provided there is a measure
of flexibility is the best way of resolving this. There is no
inherent contradiction in our view.
135. We have been given quite a lot of evidence,
particularly from NGOs, that there is a problem. If we look at
the empirical evidence, trade liberalisation has in the past encouraged
the unsustainable use of natural resources, for example over-fishing,
over-logging, agricultural intensification and mono-culture. That
seems to be the lesson of the past. What confidence can we have
that it will not be continued in the future?
(Mr Meacher) That is what has happened in the past.
Indeed, if we can get agreement about this interface between protection
of the environment and trade we can prevent some of these excesses
of the past. We certainly regard the issues of agriculture and
fisheries as key to this. There is no doubt that there are perverse
and excessive subsidies operating in those fields which lead to
extremely damaging results. I think one of the ways in which we
can get support particularly from the developing countries who
are going to be major players in this round in the way that they
were not in the Uruguay Round is to ensure that agriculture and
fishery subsidies are part of the deal, that they will not be
used for the damaging effects which they were in the past. I think
that is one of the central linkages if this round is going to
be a success.
136. Do you think that the first thing that
should be done in this round of negotiations is a stocktaking
exercise in order to achieve that successful interface? One of
the criticisms has been that we have not evaluated properly the
last round before moving on to this. Clearly things are moving
forward. Should we not build into the first stage of the round
a stocktaking process so that we can learn something from the
past which you have said we need to learn in order to set ourselves
up for the future?
(Mr Meacher) I am aware of that point. I myself do
not believe that we can stop the clock. There is this meeting
taking place at Seattle, a ministerial meeting which is going
to resolve whether or not there should be a new round. I think
the pressure for initiating a negotiating round is now very strong.
I accept that part of those negotiations will certainly involve
trying to take note of lessons that arise from the Uruguay Round.
I do suspect that some of the NGOs in their opposition to a new
round are really motivated by a hostility to trade which, I think
wrongly, they see in principle as contradictory to environmental
improvement. As I say, if we can get this interface much better
established I think most of that hostility will die away. There
are good grounds for proceeding to a new round, precisely the
ones I have given. Agriculture, fisheries and textiles are areas
where the subsidies are not only trade distorting but they are
also environmentally damaging and, as I say, we can secure a win-win
situation here.
137. I think it is true that some organisations
do want to stop the round. The idea that has come forward is could
we not build this stocktaking into the round at an early stage
of the whole process. Would you support that view?
(Mr Meacher) That is what I think is much more realistic.
I do not think that there is a consensus that we should stop the
clock for six months or a year and survey where we have been.
After all, there are international conferences, international
meetings, exchanges taking place all the time. It is not as though
there has not been some stocktaking after the last round. I suspect
this is motivated other than by the ostensible reason.
Chairman
138. You say you do not want to stop the clock,
but the point the NGOs made about that is "What clock?"
Trade liberalisation will carry on under various auspices. What
is this clock whose time you have to meet?
(Mr Meacher) The clock is the need for further trade
liberalisation, the realisation that there are subsidies which
are really quite perverse, which have led to severe over-fishing,
to agricultural over-production on a huge scale.
139. But the Uruguay Round itself has not been
fully completed.
(Mr Meacher) That is true. I would again expect that
some of those elements may well get encapsulated within this new
round. As long as there is benefit to be gained there seems to
me every reason to proceed.
| 
