| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There would not be a cigarette paper, or anything less noxious than that, between us on the point.
I said that we had an obligation not to worsen the situation, and that we should instead do all we could to improve the plight of the poor. I want to develop this theme. I said that although that was our obligation, it was not, sadly, reflected in public policy on an international scale at present.
The reality is that the plight of the poor is not a misfortune. It is in very substantial measure an injustice. That trade injustice from which the developing world suffers is not the result of bad weather, defective infrastructure or a natural disaster. Indeed, I go so far as to say that it is not an accident at all. It is the knowing, deliberate and calculated policy of the most powerful Governments on earth. Trade discrimination on a grotesque scale is substantially to blame for the poverty of people in the developing world. It is shameful and shameless, and we have a responsibility to address it.
I think that I am right in saying that there are three principal components of the problem. First, there is a mismatch between aid policy and trade policy. In 2002 the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development gave $58 billion to the poorest countries in development assistance. But there was a chronic contradiction between aid policy and trade policy.
That leads me to the second point, which is that simultaneously the developed world, the rich countries, the most prosperous on earth, were stinging the developing countries to the tune of approximately $100 billion in trade barriers.
The third feature of the equation is the impact of massive, wholly disproportionate, trade-distorting domestic agricultural subsidies. Those subsidies are on a scale of $300 billion. That is the extent of it—a sum of money that exceeds the entire national income of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa. The contradiction between aid policy and trade policy; the impact of tariff and non-tariff barriers; the impact of export subsidies and domestic protection; the effect of tariff peaks on the one hand and tariff escalation on the other—in real measure deliberately targeted on the products and capacity of the poorest people on the planet: all that is truly devastating for those whose condition we wish to improve.
Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): My hon. Friend is making a powerful and passionate speech against a gross injustice. I entirely agree that there is a great moral blight on the west and on the European Union for its agricultural policies and protectionism. What advice does my hon. Friend have for the new Secretary of State on how he can get some action out of this lame, weak and feeble Government, who will not stand up to the EU and demand justice for the poor of the world by demanding abolition of the disgraceful policy of agricultural protectionism, which disfigures us all?
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and the short answer is that I want the Secretary of State to put on record this afternoon—I am hopeful that he will—exactly how he intends to advance the process of trade liberalisation.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab) rose—
Mr. Bercow: I have referred to the overall components of the problem, but it is worthy of a brief illustration. If
we examine what is happening to cotton, for example, we can see the damage inflicted by the incredibly selfish and destructive trade policies of one of the most powerful—if not the most powerful—nations on earth. I am talking about the impact of US trade policy on west and central African cotton-dependent economies. The truth of the matter is that Benin and Burkina Faso depend on cotton for 40 per cent., and Mali and Chad for 30 per cent., of their export earnings. Those countries are efficient and cost-effective producers of cotton; they need it; it is crucial to their chances of survival and development.The United States is one of the highest-cost, least efficient and most trade-distorting producers of cotton to be found anywhere in the world. Frankly, it is a damnable indictment—I use the expression advisedly—of the US Government that they currently spend more than $3 billion a year subsidising inefficient cotton manufacture. That costs the developing world about $250 million a year and throws people out of work. The US is spending and subsidising its own inefficient cotton production, and feather-bedding 10 rather large US corporations with three times the country's budget contribution to the whole of Africa. That is the scale of what is happening.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Con): May I bring my hon. Friend back to Europe? We are, of course, a member of the EU and have a crucial responsibility in Europe. Is it not disgraceful that European protectionism damages the developing world so dramatically?
Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is right. He will be aware, and the rest of the House should be reminded, that in 2002 the EU spent $113 billion on domestic agricultural protection. That is wrong; it inflicts harm; and I regret it.
My hon. Friend has helpfully brought me on to my second example—dairy policy. It is a serious problem. Currently, the EU subsidises every cow to the tune of about $2.40, when there are 2 billion people in the world who live—or exist—on less than $2 a day. Britain spends approximately £4 billion on the common agricultural policy, while many countries—Kenya, India, the Dominican Republic and many others besides—have had their domestic markets, their prospects of advance and their capacity to improve their condition enormously undermined through the selfish application of that policy over a long period. It has been hugely damaging.
I am conscious—if I do not make the point, others will remind me—that there is a CAP reform package, aspects of which are welcome. However, the Secretary of State, many right hon. and hon. Members and I would agree that there is still a great deal to do and much further to go. It is not surprising that there is a pervasive cynicism about the likely efficacy of the reform package, for the simple reason that one does not need to look into the crystal ball when one can read the book. We have been there before; there have been earlier reform packages; we have seen changes made. There have been prospective alterations in, and even reductions of, the trade-distorting support, but they have not always worked.
The reality is that, in its operation over a lengthy period, the CAP has clobbered the consumer. It has clobbered the taxpayer and the small-scale farmer. It has also clobbered businesses that are dependent on agricultural products. Above all, and most central to our debate today, it has clobbered the developing world, which deserves a better deal, a chance to compete and grow, a chance to raise its expectations and to improve living standards. It should have a realistic prospect that public policy will not stop it from doing so. That is the seriousness of the issue that we are debating.
Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): I am listening to my hon. Friend's speech with great interest. Before he makes further progress, does he agree that, although he is an Atlanticist by instinct—as am I—the US bears a particular responsibility on this one issue and that it must make some concessions with its Farm Bill if the rest of the world is to make progress?
Mr. Bercow: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He and I have been Atlanticists together since we stood against each other for the chairmanship of the Federation of Conservative Students in April 1986. He was a fan of the US then and he is now. I was a fan of the US then and I am now, but that does not stop me criticising the US Government when what they do is wrong. We must address the question of what can be done to improve the prospects of destitute people by way of trade reform.
Mr. Bercow: I shall give way for the last time—and I mean it.
Huw Irranca-Davies: I am grateful. To return to the hon. Gentleman's previous discussion about clarity—I applaud his reasonable approach in the debate and agree with many of his points—he expressed a commitment towards many of the Government's measures, but many people would want to know whether that commitment extends to protecting or enhancing the aid budget. I agree that there must be a multi-faceted approach—there has to be, and trade liberalisation is part of it—but the international aid budget is paramount.
Mr. Bercow: The aid budget is extremely important, so the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I would say in response, however, that I have given the most explicit statement of the current thinking of the Conservative party and I quoted my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe in the process. As far as I am aware, the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is not a doctor. If he were, and if he were in the habit of offering his prescription before he had conducted his diagnosis, he would not be a very effective practitioner. It seems reasonable to study the budget, to examine what is and is not working well, to assess what measures are most effective at bilateral level and least effective at multilateral level, to reach a conclusion, to produce a policy, to outline it to the
House, to put it to the country and to await the verdict. That is the eminently reasonable position that the Conservative and Unionist party has taken—
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |