Examination of Witness (Questions 300-303)
MR ALEX
SINGLETON
11 MAY 2006
Q300 David Howarth: I was going to
mention Suez. What was the basis of that political decision? If
it is working and access is being provided surely that is popular
and people will want it?
Mr Singleton: It think it becomes
ideological; political parties change, or there is a growing feeling
that a multi-national company is coming in and running things
and that is wrong. I am not necessarily a political scientist,
so I cannot really comment on what causes people to do that. Why
do people support Marxism? It is a strange thing, but people do.
Q301 David Howarth: What I am trying
to get at is that people must have perceived some failure in order
for political actors to think that it would be a popular thing
to get rid of them?
Mr Singleton: I am told that in
Bolivia a lot of people who protested against the private companies
did not have water supplied by those private companies; they were
people who were still receiving state-provided water. I guess
there was a certain feeling that they were being left behind or
they were not getting access to water. We are talking of only
a small percentage of people who were part of the contract to
be provided with water by the private sector. Therefore, if you
do not have blanket provision across the whole country you can
have problems.
Q302 Chairman: What is the view of
the Globalisation Institute of DFID's decision to drop conditionality
from aid? Do you think it will make any practical difference?
Mr Singleton: I am supportive.
I believe that conditionality is a weak instrument to persuade
governments to do good things. It causes a lot of resentment.
One has to work in partnership with developing countries rather
than try to force policies on them, even though they may be good
ones. I do not believe that a forced good policy will work well
in a country that does not want to do it. I support the move by
DFID to say, "We will support your water privatisation if
that is what you want to do. We think it is a good idea, but it
is up to you. We will not try to impose it on you." I believe
that that is the right approach.
Q303 Chairman: Would you extend that
approach to the removal of trade barriers? If the country did
not wish to give up a trade barrier would you support it in that?
Mr Singleton: I would say two
things. I think that developing countries damage their economies
by not removing trade barriers. The special and differential treatment
at the World Trade Organisation actually makes a mockery of the
whole idea of multilateral trade agreements, but principally I
believe that countries should liberalise unilaterally. Over the
past decade most of the world's liberalisation by countries like
China has been unilateral; and India has also been liberalising
unilaterally. I think that Europe should liberalise unilaterally.
When one looks at what has happened at the Doha Round, there has
been an obsessive requirement for developing countries also to
liberalise at the same time as Europe. That is damaging to Europe's
economy by holding back trade liberalisation in Europe, and we
are not getting anywhere. I believe that the debate very much
needs to move away from the requirement for other people to liberalise
in order for us to do it. I support a move away from Peter Mandelson
demanding liberalisation abroad. I think we should do it just
because it is good for us and other countries will follow if they
want to.
Chairman: Thank you very much for your
evidence this morning. It will be very useful in our deliberations.
| 
