| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Hewitt: I pay tribute to the excellent work that many NGOs do in developing countries. I was with Christian Aid when I visited Honduras.
We regularly meet NGOs, particularly in the trade justice network. We all meet them in our constituencies, but, along with my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment, I do so regularly on behalf of the Government. In Cancun, we had six meetings with the UK NGOs that were there.
Throughout our discussions before and during Cancun, we have tried to ensure that as far as possible we share an analysis of the potential gains for developing countries from a successful Doha round. On some issues, notably trade in services—as the hon. Gentleman and others will know full well—I simply do not accept the statements made by one or two NGOs, which we have sought repeatedly to rebut and disprove; but I am afraid that that is in the nature of those NGOs. We will continue to work with them, because the support and pressure from the Trade Justice Movement is entirely welcome. I wish that it were replicated in other parts of Europe and other parts of the developed world.
Denzil Davies (Llanelli): Is it not less than satisfactory for negotiations with 15 individual European Union member states to be headed and conducted by, in effect, a single European Union civil servant? Given that from next May there will be 25 member states, should we not
look at the arrangements again? Should not member states that wish to do so be able to conduct their own negotiations, headed by democratically elected Ministers accountable to democratically elected Parliaments?
Ms Hewitt: The European Union is, of course, a single trading community. There would be havoc if individual countries tried to secure different agreements on some of the highly technical matters with which we deal in the WTO. I shall not name any states in particular, but I think that my right hon. Friend can conclude for himself that such an arrangement might not be entirely helpful in the case of matters relating to agricultural subsidies.
Mr. David Curry (Skipton and Ripon): If we were really five or six hours away from an agreement on agriculture, the break-up of the talks is inexplicable. The Secretary of State was right to point to the danger of allowing bilateral trade agreements to take over from multilateral agreements. The principal protagonist in that is the United States, an example being the proposed all-Americas trade agreement. What influence can the United Kingdom exert on President Bush to emphasise the primacy of a rules-based multinational approach to trade? As we approach the expiry of the peace clause, is there not a danger of a spate of extremely angry and violent disputes in the WTO, which would make the situation worse?
Ms Hewitt: The right hon. Gentleman draws attention to an important issue: the expiry of the peace clause at the end of December. It is curious that no one mentioned the peace clause at Cancun. Following its expiry, all the trade-distorting agricultural arrangements could be subject to trade disputes in the WTO settlement procedure. That may prove to be the most powerful lever available to all of us who want the round to make progress, ensuring that everyone returns to the negotiating table and proceeds on the basis of the compromises that were beginning to emerge at Cancun.
Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central): Does my right hon. Friend accept that the genuinely intelligent and enlightened view that she has expressed today was not, unfortunately, reflected in the EU's negotiating position? She deserves no discredit for that—and the same applies to the position of the United States.
If we are to return to the Doha commitment that the rich world will listen properly to the developing world, will my right hon. Friend pledge to convey that message to our colleagues in the EU? Will she tell them that we must listen to the developing world, as we did not in the case of the Singapore issues and the negotiating mandate for Pascal Lamy in Cancun?
Ms Hewitt: Both the European Union and the United States played an important role in launching the Doha round nearly two years ago. My hon. Friend is right: if we are to make progress on this round, we must listen to the increasingly powerful voice of the developing countries. We must deliver on the promises that we
made at Doha—and that is precisely the message that I shall reinforce in all my discussions with European and other developed-world colleagues.
Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): The Secretary of State will be aware that many supporters of the Trade Justice Movement in the United Kingdom share her disappointment. However, I welcome her announcement that there has been movement in terms of aid going in to tackle the HIV pandemic. Bearing in mind the failure of others to implement the wiping out of debt that we have pursued, does she foresee any problems in implementing the decision on the AIDS pandemic? Will any countries resile from it?
Ms Hewitt: The agreement that we reached on intellectual property and access to medicines was in no way conditional on agreement at Cancun, so it stands and will now be implemented. Indeed, the general council of the WTO endorsed it before we arrived at Cancun. Of course, dealing with the issue of intellectual property is only part of the picture; we also have to ensure that Governments of developing countries can actually afford to buy the drugs, even when they are manufactured under compulsory licence. This Government have already committed more than £1.5 billion to support the strengthening of health care systems in developing countries, and we have pledged an additional $80 million to the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington): In negotiating these trade issues, will the Secretary of State pay attention to the particular concerns of the Caribbean and other small island states? A completely free market in sugar and bananas would clearly be good for some of the very poorest countries in the world, but it would be unfortunate if that benefit were achieved at the expense of the Caribbean, a region in which 1 million British citizens still have very close family ties.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Indeed, my noble Friend the Secretary of State for International Development spent a great deal of time at Cancun, and previously, talking to representatives of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries about the impact on them of trade liberalisation—in sugar, in particular. In the next month or so, we are expecting proposals from the European Commission on reform of the sugar regime, and the interests of the ACP countries is one issue that we will bear in mind as we seek to conclude reform of our wholly unjustified sugar subsidies. It surely makes no sense for the European Union to be putting so much subsidy into sugar that Finland is a major sugar beet producer. This has to stop.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): Does the Secretary of State accept that those of us who were in Cancun saw the huge steps that the European Union has taken to reform the common agricultural policy, and that we respected the way in which Commissioner Lamy put the case on our behalf? Does she also accept that the attitude of the United States on cotton and in terms of refusing to go back beyond the Farm Bill makes it very
difficult for the rest of the world to believe that the Bush Administration are really interested in multilateral trade agreement? Will she bring home to that Administration that until they stop subsidising a $3 billion crop of cotton with $4 billion of subsidy, it will be impossible to take their position seriously?
Ms Hewitt: I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman says about cotton. As I said earlier, US subsidies are having a devastating effect on some of the poorest African countries. Through direct discussions with our American colleagues and through the European Union, we will continue to call for the United States—and other developed countries—to match the steps on reform of agricultural subsidies that we are taking here in Europe.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): Although the news is depressing overall, it is not fair simply to say that the outcome was depressing; surely we must also consider the process. Will my right hon. Friend look at ways in which the WTO itself can be further reformed, so that developing countries can have more of a direct voice? If nothing else, they should be able to speak for themselves, rather than having others arrogating decisions on their behalf.
Ms Hewitt: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend's comments, and we will certainly look at how we can help to continue to improve WTO processes. As I said, they were better this time than at Doha or Seattle, and a number of developing country Governments welcomed that fact. We must also recognise that a very real change has taken place in terms of the strength with which developing countries speak for themselves inside the WTO. We in the United Kingdom have helped that process along through our capacity-building measures, which have been hugely important. We will continue to do that, and I hope that we do not hear again from parts of the anti-globalisation movement that the WTO is somehow trampling over the interests of developing countries, which in fact constitute the majority of WTO members and are increasingly powerful within it—a fact that all of us should welcome.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |