Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-268)
TUESDAY 8 APRIL 2003
MR JOHN
HILARY AND
MR PETER
HARDSTAFF
260. Yes, in health; and the Philippines, in
nursing?
(Mr Hilary) Indeed, the Philippines in nursing, although
there are signs actually that the major drain of Filipina nurses
to developed countries has begun to have a negative effect.
261. Just to go back, you put up a strong case
to argue against GATS, on the whole, and really it relates to,
if not GATS, what other international structures do we look to,
and I take your distinction between investment structures, but
what kind of regulatory framework, if you like, for the whole?
And if actually you were to win your case and GATS was dropped,
Mode 4 goes with it, what would you replace it with?
(Mr Hilary) If I could just respond, particularly
in relation to the regulation of Mode 4, and, as we were touching
on health, stick within that sector, you may be aware that there
is a joint project of the WHO, the International Organisation
for Migration, the International Council of Nursing, a lot of
different organisations, including the ILO, to try to develop
a binding code which will ensure that there is not the wholesale
poaching of developing country staff. So, in terms of regulation,
there are international, global moves to ensure that this is not
something which will harm developing countries.
262. But you would see that separate from GATS,
you would pull Mode 4 out of GATS and do it through the ILO, is
what you are saying really?
(Mr Hilary) No. What we are saying is, that is the
forum, this international body is the forum for working to regulate
that flow of personnel; let us be clear that that flow of personnel
is happening absolutely independently of GATS, and so, in a sense,
there is nothing which is actually being lost in that respect.
We would still push for developed countries to open up greater
possibilities for mobility of labour, but ensuring that these
types of sensitive, basic service industries are excluded from
that general push.
263. So, if I can be clear then, you would want
to separate out the questions, the issues around Mode 4, from
the general argument on GATS?
(Mr Hilary) The increased mobility of labour is something
which certainly we do support. We do not see that necessarily
it has a particular place within GATS, inasmuch as also it can
be negotiated and the systems can be improved outside GATS.
John Barrett
264. You mentioned on a few occasions about
countries buckling to pressure in negotiations, and you had mentioned
also, I think it was, anecdotal evidence from Bangladesh, again,
that excessive pressure had been put on countries to make decisions
that were not in their own interests. But is it not the case that,
just to be devil's advocate, the countries which have lost out
in negotiations will say, "We were put under undue pressure,"
or is there any hard evidence that you can give us to show that
this did happen, and that countries actually made decisions which
were not in their interest? And have you hard evidence again that
people did not have the capacity to negotiate in their own interests?
(Mr Hardstaff) On the issue of pressure and signing
up to things that you did not mean to, I think that, at the moment,
the most obvious examples would be other WTO agreements, like
trade-related investment measures, (TRIPS), signing up to the
agreement on agriculture, where developing countries thought that
this was a framework where they were going to get benefits, and
over time they have not seen them. So the whole raft of so-called
implementation issues at the WTO is a case in point, about signing
up to agreements and then wanting to review or change those agreements
because you do not feel that they were beneficial. In terms of
pressure, most of the evidence, if not all of it, is anecdotal,
like the quote from the Bangladeshi ambassador I gave earlier.
This quote refers in the context of the current negotiations,
to the kind of pressure that developing countries can come under.
So the evidence on pressure in the current talks is largely anecdotal.
However, when you look at the status of previous agreements and
the desire to change them, then I think that is a clear indication
that countries signed up to something—perhaps under pressure—that
was not in their interests.
(Mr Hilary) Can I just address the issue of capacity,
which was the other question you raised. One interesting story
from the meeting we had with developing country representatives
in Jakarta last year: the Ministry of Health officials from Jakarta,
from the Indonesian Ministry of Health, said very proudly that
they had not committed any of their health services to GATS, and
I pointed out, in the chart which we had in our report to that
meeting, that, in fact, the Indonesian Government had committed
its health insurance industry. And the representative from the
Indonesian Ministry of Health was horrified, immediately got on
the `phone to the Ministry of Finance and said, "How on earth
did you do this?" and the Ministry of Finance said, "What's
it to you? We deal with insurance, you just deal with health."
And it shows (that was ten years ago, when they were making their
initial commitments under GATS, at the original time) that there
was absolutely no co-ordination at all with the sectors' representatives
which had been most affected. That is a story which has played
out across almost all of the countries which made commitments
ten years ago, some of which now are saying, "We'd like to
take them back," but are being told, in the Council for Trade
in Services, "Forget it; this is a one-way street, you can't
go back. Once you've committed to GATS, that's it."
Alistair Burt
265. As you are aware, the WTO negotiations
are all-embracing, everything has to be included and a big final
deal has to be come to; that is because there is a whole series
of trade-offs and balances. In your view, are developing countries
better off or worse off if the whole thing fails and just does
not happen at all?
(Mr Hardstaff) I think, from our perspective, the
issue of the so-called single undertaking is a critical one. There
is, I think, an extremely valid criticism of piling all the issues
together, so that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
266. But that is how it is?
(Mr Hardstaff) That is how it is, because the European
Union and some other WTO members pushed for it to be; that does
not have to be necessarily how trade negotiations are done.
267. But it is how it is for this current round?
(Mr Hardstaff) That is how it is for this current
round.
268. My question is, if it all breaks down,
because of the objections and one part cannot fit together with
another, are developing countries better off or worse off if this
just fails, if Doha fails?
(Mr Hardstaff) I think, if the negotiations collapse
then, from our perspective, developing countries will be better
off, because we hope there would be then a period of reflection,
review, and reform. We believe that the issues that developing
countries have raised and that civil society has raised concerning
problems with existing agreements, and with the negotiating processes,
need to be dealt with as a matter of priority. And what we have
seen, from the current negotiating process, the single undertaking,
is that those issues tend to get sidelined whilst the industrialised
world is pushing its expansive agenda; the most obvious will be
the decision at Cancún on new issues and the trade-off
that is being set up between agriculture and some degree of CAP
reform and agreeing to a whole swathe of new WTO agreements. So,
I think, from our perspective, we would see it as potentially
positive, if there is a shock to the system and if there is then
a process of reflection and reform.
Alistair Burt: And what incentive would
there be then for it all to start again; and, in the meantime,
how much damage would be done?
Chairman: I think that is a comment,
a rhetorical comment; and I am keen that we should try to discipline
ourselves to finish these sessions by 11.30 when the House starts
to sit. I think we have all had a good opportunity to go round
these issues, and thank you for your contribution, which has been
extremely helpful. Thank you very much.
|
