| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I entirely agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has said.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is refreshing to see such unanimity between noble Lords opposite. We have already discussed the amendment extensively in Committee and on Report and I am very sorry that the noble Lord has not been persuaded, not least because of the strenuous efforts made by Mr Harpum, the Land Registry and the Bill team, as well as my meagre efforts on this issue. My powers of advocacy and theirs are not sufficiently great to persuade the noble Lord.
I regret to say that the Government have rather less sympathy with Mr X in the example than does the noble Lord. The aim of the Bill is to reduce the scope for deliberate land theft, which is what the noble Lord has described. The Government do not believe that it should be made easier than it is under the current law.
The Bill is a work of root and branch modernisation. The Government would not willingly pass up any opportunity to make the law simpler or more up to date, but we consider that the amendment would be unfair to beneficiaries who are not entitled to possession. The reasons are fully explained at cols. 1381-82 of Hansard of 30th October. I cannot usefully add anything to what I said last time, save to express regret that in my example I thought to say that the mother in that distressing situation was suffering from some disability. If she had not been, my example would have been impenetrable.
In the light of what I have said, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. I egged the pudding in my example and, with the greatest respect, I think that the noble Lord may be engaging in the same today.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am sorry that, even at the last gasp, I have been unable to persuade the Government to change their mind. I propose to ask the leave of the House to withdraw the amendment, not because I am in any way convinced that I was wrong, but for the reasons that I gave when speaking to the previous amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 20:
- Page 73, line 21, at end insert ", and
On Question, amendments agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Partnership Agreement between the Members of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States and the European Community and its Member States (The Cotonou Agreement)) Order 2001, which was laid before this house on 15th October 2001, be approved.
The European Community, as the world's largest multilateral grant provider, the world's largest single market and the main trading partner of most developing countries, can potentially make a huge contribution to eradicating global poverty. In the past, the EC has not fulfilled that potential, but the new Cotonou agreement between the European Union and the countries of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific—the ACP—is a landmark.
The EU's negotiating mandate for Cotonou was agreed during the British EU presidency in 1998. Negotiations with the ACP started in the same year and were concluded in 2000. Negotiations were hard, but the Government have been successful in ensuring that the Cotonou agreement is a good agreement for the ACP. The main points of the agreement are: an over-riding objective of poverty elimination; improved and simplified development assistance under the European Development Fund; good governance underpinning the new agreement and the possibility of taking action in cases of severe corruption; a new trade deal, which maximises ACP access to the EU market
The trade aspects are important because, in many cases, the impact of the EU's trade relations exceeds that of its development assistance. Under Cotonou, the ACP's current preferential arrangements will be maintained until 2008, after which new WTO-compatible arrangements will come into effect. These will be free trade agreements between groups of ACP countries and the EU. However, to allow ACP countries time to adjust, fully reciprocal free trade would not be expected until up to 20 years from now.
One of the Government's main concerns in the negotiations was those countries that will not be able to join free trade areas in 2008. Here the Government secured two important objectives. First, least developed countries will benefit from the commitment to allow duty free access for essentially all their products. This has now been implemented with the "Everything But Arms" decision this year. Secondly, there is a safety net for other developing countries, with the EU undertaking to do what it can to provide a new, WTO-compatible trading framework with benefits equivalent to Lomé.
While the improvements to the Community's development assistance under Cotonou are welcome, they need to be accompanied by substantial reform. The Commission has started to tackle many of the institutional weaknesses of the past. Since Cotonou was signed last year some important improvements have been made. The challenge now is to ensure that the reforms are fully implemented, while also continuing to press for wider positive change.
Together with the Commission reforms, Cotonou is an important step towards ensuring that the European Community can meet its potential contribution to the millennium development goals. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend give the House some estimate of the costs to the various Community secretariats that are bound at some stage to be involved in taking further legal advice, establishing a budget line and determining how the expenditure should be apportioned? It would be most helpful if we could be satisfied that all those precautions have been taken care of and that any transactions that arise from it are thoroughly transparent, not buried away in some obscure section of the European budget, which very few people read.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing the order before the House today. We on these Benches welcome the principle of extending the Lomé Convention to the Cotonou agreement and have no serious concerns about the content of the order. Much of its content is to be welcomed.
We are delighted, too, to hear the Minister acknowledge that a great deal of work still needs to be done to reform the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy. This is all the more important as we come to the legislation regarding the enlargement of the European Union. We have pressed for such work for a long time, and we hope that the Government will make greater efforts to speed up the necessary reforms.
We have one or two specific worries on which I wonder whether the Government could comment. I am pleased that the Minister applauded the incorporation in the agreement of anti-corruption measures given that, despite our repeated efforts on these Benches, the Government have consistently failed to incorporate such measures into the International Development Bill. Could the Minister comment on the inconsistency between the praise for Article 33(2), which states,
The decisions that the Doha World Trade Organisation meeting will take later this week will have profound implications for the well-being of the poorest people on earth. Trade is the engine of economic growth. Cotonou on its own is not enough. We need to reduce trade barriers. It is often said that both the European Union and the United States are the main stumbling blocks; the United States with their anti-dumping laws and the European Union with their environmental demands. Both are detrimental for the developing countries. Many even call it protectionism through the back door.
One of the main ways out of poverty, however, for these countries still remains—and I repeat it yet again—and that is to give the children a chance of better education.
As regards the effect of trading arrangements on the least developed countries—the Government's "Everything But Arms" initiative had advanced the timing of certain proposals—is the Minister aware that the proposals have caused enormous concern in relation to sugar, particularly in the least developed countries of the Caribbean? Many of the proposals which the Government intended to agree to could destroy the economies of several Caribbean islands.
I do not want my comments to be interpreted as an overall criticism of this worthwhile agreement. The very important work of my noble friend Lady Chalker of Wallasey on Lomé some 10 years ago, needs to be updated, especially as one-third of our aid to these areas is through the European Union.
There has been a great deal of cross-party agreement on the need to improve relations between the European Union and the ACP countries. We hope that the work will continue. As long as our concerns for the reforms of the CAP and the CFP are taken into
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we also support this order and welcome the focus of Cotonou on the alleviation and elimination of poverty. A great many of the issues which have been raise by Cotonou will be directly affected by what takes place at Doha. One area which is causing some degree of concern has been mentioned in the press. It is that developing countries believe that they are being excluded from some of the decision making that is taking place. They believe that the developing countries are forming a club which will further the position of the developed world rather than that of the developing countries.
I have one question concerning the order. Have the Government looked closely at how to develop one of the issues raised by Cotonou, which is the non-state sectors, and have the Government thought about how NGOs, for example, can be included in future negotiations?
(b) in paragraph (a), at the end there is inserted ", except that no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2001 in respect of such orders"."
Page 77, line 33, at end insert ", and
(b) in paragraph (a), at the end there is inserted ", except that no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2001 in respect of such orders"."
Page 78, line 39, at end insert ", and
(b) in paragraph (a), at the end there is inserted ", except that no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2001 in respect of such orders"."
Page 79, line 11, at end insert ", and
(b) in paragraph (a), at the end there is inserted ", except that no notice may be entered in the register of title under the Land Registration Act 2001 in respect of such orders"."
4.35 p.m.
"The Parties shall work together in the fight against bribery and corruption in all their societies",
and the Government's consistent refusal to accept our amendments to the International Development Bill to introduce anti-corruption provisions? Perhaps it will be incorporated when the Bill goes through the other place. I wonder whether that is possible.
4.45 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page