Draft Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation (Legal Capacities) Order 2004
First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Monday 13 December 2004
[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]
Draft Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation (Legal Capacities) Order 2004
4.30 pm
The Minister for Trade and Investment (Mr. Douglas Alexander): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation (Legal Capacities) Order 2004.
The draft order was laid before the House on 16 September, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum, which is now required for all statutory instruments made under the affirmative procedure. The order will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the agreement establishing the Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation as an intergovernmental organisation. The agreement was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom in 2002.
The Geneva-based AITIC was established in 1998 as a Swiss non-governmental organisation. It became an intergovernmental organisation in 2002 and provides valuable support to World Trade Organisation members with little or no representation in Geneva. AITIC's aim is to assist the least-developed, low and middle-income countries and economies in transition to benefit from the multilateral trading system and to participate more actively in the work of the WTO and other trade-related organisations.
Article 13 of the agreement establishing AITIC requires members to give the agency legal capacity, in particular the capacity to contract, acquire and dispose of immovable and movable property and to institute legal proceedings. The order will enable the UK to give effect to that provision. It will confer only legal capacity on AITIC; it will not result in any privileges or immunities in the UK for AITIC or its staff. UK ratification of the agreement will allow the Department for International Development to release the funds that it has allocated to support AITIC—£1 million over three years. It will also allow the UK to become a full member of the AITIC council of representatives and to play an active role in a worthwhile organisation.
I hope that this modest and non-controversial order has the full support of all members of the Committee.
4.32 pm
Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire) (Con): I welcome you to the Chair, Miss Begg; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I should like to begin by rectifying an omission on my part.
Column Number: 4
Twice on the Floor of the House, the Minister has expressed regret at the fact that we have not welcomed him to his new position. I would like to put that right here and now by assuring him that he is extremely welcome in his new position. We hope that he will be there for a long time—at least until the next general election.
Having welcomed the Minister and said what a pleasure it is to serve opposite him, I have only a few questions about the draft arrangement. First, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has called on the Government to help in the establishment of an advocacy fund to assist less-advantaged nations in their negotiations in the WTO. I think that that is a good idea. To what extent does AITIC help with advocacy for less-advantaged countries?
Secondly, to what extent does AITIC do things that other organisations do? In other words, to what extent is there duplication of the efforts that it makes? The AITIC website states:
''As a small, flexible, non-bureaucratic agency, AITIC reaches the parts that other trade-related organisations cannot reach.''
We would all like to be able to say that of ourselves, but what other bodies exist to help less-advantaged countries? What it is about AITIC that has attracted the Government's attention?
Thirdly, what take-up has there been of the services offered by AITIC?
Fourthly and finally, is there thought to be any conflict of interest in the Government of a rich country providing help for Governments of less-rich countries to negotiate and to brief themselves on issues regarding which they may be on opposing sides? I think that there is no conflict, but I wonder what thought the Government have given to that.
In general, the Opposition welcome this modest measure. We are most unlikely to divide the Committee, but that depends on what the Minister says in answer to my questions.
4.35 pm
Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD): First, let me pick up the point about conflict of interest made by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). I have just returned with the Trade and Industry Committee from a meeting at the World Trade Organisation last Tuesday, the message from which was that both sides stand to win if there is understanding in trade negotiations.
The essence of the case for the WTO is that it provides a rules-based trading system rather than a situation in which the powerful are able to trample over others in bilateral agreements; it also provides some redress if countries breach the rules. What the WTO strives to do is therefore desirable. The benefits of opening up trade between nations—underpinning peaceful co-operation, taking away conflict as a result of trade, and growing the economies of all the nations involved—are beginning to be recognised across this
Column Number: 5
country. Those are all important wins, especially if we can bring off another successful round with the Doha agreement.
The feedback from some of the ambassadors we met centred on the need to provide support to the countries that do not have resources. That is why I find the debate timely. The Government have a chance to support the achievement of that aim through AITIC, as well as other organisations.
If AITIC's website is accurate, none of the sponsoring members have so far ratified. If the draft order is passed, we will be the first to ratify. Has the Minister had any feedback on other countries coming on board? That will have implications for when our money is paid out. Presumably, the funds that we have earmarked will not be paid if we alone ratify, but will be paid if more countries do so—I think the number is three. An update on how that situation is developing would be most welcome.
I emphasise that the resources that the British at their disposal in negotiations in Geneva are impressive compared with what many countries have. If a country does not have the resources necessary to develop an understanding, there is a good chance that it will be tempted to say no to a deal, because no one signs up to anything that they do not understand. If we can inform the other side of the negotiations about what is in our mutual benefit, we both stand to win.
4.38 pm
Mr. Alexander: I thank the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire for his gracious words of welcome. I assure the Committee that I aspire to stay in post at least until the general election, but such things are not always in my hands.
I shall endeavour to answer the substantive points that the right hon. Gentleman raised, specifically on the issue of advocacy. AITIC provides tailored assistance to delegations to the WTO, but does not represent them directly. That deals with some of the concerns raised about a potential conflict of interest if the same rich countries found themselves, in effect, negotiating on both sides of the table because of their assistance to less developed countries.
Last week I was on a trade and political visit to Canada, where a point was put to me about some of the recent bilateral trade agreements. The example in the conversation was an agreement between the United States and Jordan, and the suggestion was made that there were Americans on both sides of the table. That powerfully backs the argument made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith) that the best insurance against the suggestion of impropriety is not just the integrity of the individuals concerned, but the fact that the WTO, by its very character, is a multilateral rules-based institution.
Column Number: 6
Where there is equal worth for each country's representative on the basis of a single vote, there is a powerful argument against trade negotiations being anything like as unbalanced as we saw in the months following Cancun. A large number of bilateral trade arrangements were undertaken then, but the relative power of the negotiating parties was far more unbalanced than we are able to achieve through the rules-based approach of the WTO.
As for duplication—another point raised by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire—AITIC's extensive network worldwide, its independence and its three-language operations are important assets on which we believe it should be able to capitalise effectively. The agreement requires it to work co-operatively with other organisations, so avoiding duplication of effort. Other organisations with which it will work closely are the WTO, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the Advisory Centre on WTO Law, the South Centre, the International Trade Centre, the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, and the Commonwealth Secretariat. There is increasing demand for the services that AITIC provides, which cannot be met by the existing staff. That is one of the reasons why the funding that I mentioned is vital.
With the forbearance of the Committee I shall read out the relatively short list of participating members of AITIC. They are: Algeria, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of Congo, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jordan, Madagascar, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Paraguay, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Togo, Tunisia, Vanuatu, Yemen and Zambia.
Finally, to respond to the point raised by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, the seven sponsoring countries are Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. All except Finland and the UK have now ratified the agreement. I am glad that we continue to make progress in that respect today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agency for International Trade Information and Co-operation (Legal Capacities) Order 2004.
Committee rose at eighteen minutes to Five o'clock.
