Which body is best placed to
provide advice to businesses?
135. In general businesses which gave evidence to
us were satisfied with the service they received from commercial
sections and the CBBC. There were a few areas identified which
could be improved: for example, the China-Britain Business Council
notes that "concern has been expressed about the limited
resources devoted by the Posts to the promotion of the financial
services sector, particularly in Shanghai which is fast becoming
a leading financial centre."[337]
Tom Goldberg, the Managing Director of a construction company,
told us that:
"We are members of the
China-Britain Business Council and we have visited the consuls
and the embassies in the areas that we have operated. Generally
speaking, we have had good logistical back-up and good general
advice but not the kind of applied, specific expert advice that
would be really directly useful. It is the sort of advice you
can gain in a number of places and the people who are giving it
have always been enthusiastic and very willing to put themselves
out to try and give us that advice. For them to really tell us
how the construction industry operates in China has been beyond
their background and experience."[338]
As Mr Goldberg went on to acknowledge, it is too
much to hope that there should be specialist advice in every sector
in every marketthis would be beyond the legitimate expectations
of our business community. But nonetheless in pointing out that
there are a number of sources of general advice available, he
identifies a significant issue.
136. This raises more fundamental questions of whether
the current allocation of resources between the various business
promotion bodies is correct. The CBBC recommends in its evidence
to us that it should be given additional resources to open further
regional offices in the United Kingdom. It also recommends that
it should take over all trade promotion work in China, leaving
the diplomatic posts to "concentrate on trade policy, political
and economic work which is supportive of business"[339]
and suggests that there should be a merger between the CBBC and
the Invest in Britain Bureau's work in China. In view of BTI's
reduction in the CBBC's budget, BTI does not appear to share CBBC's
view that its role should be expanded. The Foreign Secretary also
did not welcome the suggestion that BTI should lose its trade
promotion role in China.[340]
137. The question of the potential overlap between
the various business promotion bodies may be addressed in a review
of the long-term trade and investment strategy for China which
is currently being undertaken by the BTI.[341]
They were also addressed in "A review of China trade promotion"
which was undertaken by Hugh Davies, then employed by the FCO,
in April 1998.[342]
The recommendations of this review which applied to the CBBCthat
there should be new Supervisory Board, under which there should
be a "hands-on committee of businessmen, broken down into
sector working parties"[343]were
not implemented, although there was a relaunch of the CBBC which
coincided with the Prime Minister's visit to China in October
1998. The review recorded mixed views of the CBBC's predecessor,
the China Britain Trade Group, noting on the one hand that many
companies saw it a providing a useful service to members, while
others saw it as having high fees and poor management in a number
of areas.[344]
We have not conducted a systematic review of users' opinions to
judge whether CBBC's relaunch has been successful. However, one
of CBBC's Vice Presidents, Stephen Perry, informed us that "despite
the relaunch of CBBC from the CBTG, and a series of other bureaucratic
measures, we are still confronted by a confusing morass of fragmented
initiatives and structures, spread over many of the same often
ill-defined areas of responsibility and competence, with loose
integration, no unified structure, and, in certain instances,
inadequate or unsuitable leadership and direction."[345]
138. At the very least it would appear that, as the
CBBC itself points out, that there is still some duplication in
the services provided to businesses. This must be particularly
the case in cities in China where there are both CBBC offices
and diplomatic posts: Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. There
are also official or unofficial British Chambers of Commerce in
these cities, creating further potential duplication. The Chambers
are not public bodies, and are not therefore subject to the Government's
control, although it is to be hoped that it is possible to co-ordinate
on the ground in practice. Stephen Perry recommends merging the
CBBC offices into the Chambers of Commerce where they are both
represented, with a leading role given to the Chambers.[346]
We are not in a position to evaluate these proposals, but can
see a certain logic to them. The Foreign Secretary told us that
"at the present time the DTI and the FCO are reviewing our
investment strategy on trade in China and I hope that will produce
some streamlining of the present arrangement. Both bodies [BTI
and the CBBC] have a role to play, both bodies have a contribution
to make."[347]
We recommend that the BTI's long term trade and investment
strategy for China take account of the potential overlaps between
the CBBC, the diplomatic posts' commercial work, and the Chambers
of Commerce in China, and should aim to eliminate duplication.
WTO membership
139. China's negotiations to join the GATT (application
made in 1986) and then the WTO (application made in 1992) have
been long and hard. This is not because the negotiations have
been subject to political conditionsthe Foreign Secretary
told us that "it is an accepted and very deeply embedded
convention that one does not import political judgments into WTO
decisions"[348]but
the idea of submitting large areas of China's economy to multilateral
regulation has required a shift in the Chinese official mind-set,
as well as substantive reforms in a number of areas. The bilateral
deals with the main trading groups have been concluded,[349]
but the negotiations with the WTO itself remain deadlocked, and
it now appears likely that China will not join the WTO this year,
as had previously been expected. Fears within China of the economic
impact of membership have brought about a cooling of enthusiasm
for membership. These fears are not baseless: for example, the
world price of wheat is less than $100 a tonne, while the Government
set price in China is over $175.[350]
However, there have been signs of recent progress. Following agreement
on procedures for judicial recourse for foreign companies and
rules on administering import tariff quotas, China's senior negotiator
was quoted on 10 November as saying that "Given the kind
of atmosphere and momentum we have generated, it's very likely
[that a deal would be concluded in December]."[351]
140. A number of areas remain to be agreed.[352]
Tony Sprake, Head of China and Hong Kong Department told us that
in the negotiations in the WTO "all the concessions which
are granted to one country are then extended across the board...There
are now problems essentially of definition. To take one example,
there is the question of retailing and distribution within China
and how this is defined."[353]
The situation is characteristic both of China's tough negotiating
tactics, and of the USA and EU's willingness to overlook China's
shortcomings in order to achieve political successes. The difficult
negotiations are therefore being left to the multilateral forum
which for most applicants are something of a formality.
141. When the negotiations are concluded, the WTO
is likely to offer substantial benefits to China, and to China's
trading partners such as the United Kingdom. The Foreign Secretary
told us that "the strategic foreign policy issue for us here
is we want to see China a member of the WTO but not at any price.
We want to see it a member of the WTO partly because in order
to achieve that membership it will have to face up to some of
these issues of financial and commercial transparency, it will
have to open up some of its markets, as it is now committed to
doing on the insurance market, and it will facilitate the kind
of increase in access to the outside economy through communication
technology."[354]
The most significant economic changes will be evident in areas
where China is furthest from the norms of market economies, such
as in the financial system. As the British Chamber of Commerce
in China notes, the WTO will be "important not just for its
terms of access for foreign goods but for its anticipated positive
effect on levels of consumer confidence."[355]
Hugh Davies told us that "the application of commercial laws
and transparency of those laws will definitely have to improve"
with entry into the WTO: there will also be "a monitoring
system set up by the WTOthe Americans have already said
that they will be doing that and I imagine the EU will also be
wanting to do itto ensure that the laws that are on the
statute book are fairly and transparently applied."[356]
It is likely that this monitoring system will become the focus
of much conflict. We recommend that the British Government
support a tough EU line on monitoring and enforcing Chinese compliance
with WTO obligations.
291 See para. 3. Back
292
Q309. Back
293
See para. 147. Back
294
Ev. 221, Appendix 29. Back
295
Ev. p. 221, Appendix 29. Back
296
Ev. p. 57. Back
297
Ev. p. 41. Back
298
Ev. p. 227, Appendix 31. Back
299
Foreign Affairs, September/October 1999. Back
300
Ev. p. 216, Appendix 28. Back
301
Ev. p. 220, Appendix 28. Back
302
Q74. Back
303
See para. 118. Back
304
Hu Angang, Employment and development: China's employment problem
and employment strategy, in World Economy and China, 1999. Back
305
The Economist, 8 April 2000. Back
306
World Development Report 2000/2001, p. 276. Available on www.worldbank.org. Back
307
Ev. p. 220, Appendix 29. Back
308
Ev. p. 172, Appendix 15. Back
309
Q87. Back
310
Ev. p. 11. Back
311
Q168. Back
312
Q173. Back
313
Ev. pp. 128-130. Back
314
See para.106. Back
315
Q89. Back
316
Ev. p. 11. Back
317
Q174. Back
318
Q35. Back
319
Ev. p. 101. Back
320
The Economist, September 30, 2000. Back
321
Ev. p. 11. Back
322
Q129. Back
323
See paras. 139ff. Back
324
Q87. Back
325
Q101. Back
326
Q154. Back
327
Ev. p. 76. Back
328
Ev. pp. 221-222, Appendix 29. Back
329
Q284. Back
330
Fifth Report, Session 1999-2000, Annual Reports of Foreign
and Commonwealth Office and British Trade International 2000,
HC 507. Back
331
Cm 4894, para. 25. Back
332
Ev. p. 132. Back
333
Ev. p. 200, Appendix 24. Back
334
Q286. Back
335
Ev. p. 38. Back
336
A review of China Trade Promotion, by Hugh Li Davies, FCO,
April 1998, p. 33, para 77. Available in the House of Commons
Library. Hereafter "Review." Back
337
Ev. p. 40. Back
338
Q139. Back
339
Ev. p. 41. Back
340
Q284. Back
341
Ev. p. 222, Appendix 29. Back
342
Review. Back
343
Review, para. 87. Back
344
Review, para. 76. Back
345
Ev. p. 67. Back
346
Ev. p. 67. Back
347
Q283. Back
348
Q287. Back
349
Although Mexico has yet to conclude a bilateral deal. The
Economist, 9 November 2000. Back
350
Washington Post Foreign Service, 24 September, 2000. Back
351
Financial Times, 10 November 2000. Back
352
At the time of writing: trade-related intellectual property rights,
industrial subsidies, agriculture, trading rights and commercial
services generally, use of anti-dumping/counterveiling duties,
technical barriers to trade and safeguard measures. Financial
Times, 10 November 2000. Back
353
Q287. Back
354
Q278. Back
355
Ev. p. 176, Appendix 15. Back
356
Q40. Back