§ 2. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)What recent representations she has received from sugar-producing countries about the everything but arms initiative; and if she will make a statement. [143196]
§ The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short)Since October 2000, the Government have received more than 1,000 representations from UK sugar interests, and just six from sugar producing countries about the European Union proposal to provide duty-free trade access to the 48 least developed countries. In reply, we have made clear the importance of improved access to the EU market for the world's poorest countries, which comprise just 0.4 per cent. of world trade. There is also a need for the UK sugar industry to be prepared to adjust to forthcoming reforms of the CAP. We have also reassured the middle-income sugar producing countries that the least developed countries are not in a position to export large amounts of sugar in the short term. Generous assistance is available from the EU and others to support adjustment to more open markets to which these countries are already committed.
§ Mr. LuffI am genuinely grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, but is she aware of the continuing alarm in African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and the British sugar producing industry, and of the apparent considerable internal dissent in the European Commission, about the precise impact of the proposals? Exactly what impact studies are the Government conducting, what contribution is her Department making to those studies, and when will the results be published?
§ Clare ShortI am aware of all the discussion and of the vested interests at work. I hope that the whole House agrees that the poorest countries in the world—in which the very poorest people live—which are currently responsible for only 0.4 per cent. of world trade, should be given better trade access so that they can grow their economies and improve the lives of their people. I know that there is worry among sugar producers in Britain and that there has been some worry in ACP countries. We have done our own analysis, and more is being conducted by the European Union. I am confident that they need not be so worried. The poorest countries do not have the 1063 capacity rapidly to build up their production and exports. Some of the adjustment that needs to be made is among our sugar producers and ACP countries anyway.
§ Mr. Lawrie Quinn (Scarborough and Whitby)I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware that although many sugar beet producers in north Yorkshire, particularly in my constituency, are concerned about their future, they support the end objective. One concern that they have expressed to me in consultation is that they cannot envisage the time scale of the initiative. Is she able at this stage to spell out when it will be fully implemented?
§ Clare ShortThe current proposal from Pascal Lamy, the Trade Commissioner, is a three-year phase-in period, but the matter has not been finalised and longer phase-in periods have been discussed. Common agricultural policy reform must come because of the peace clause in the Uruguay round, which requires the World Trade Organisation to examine protectionism for agricultural production. The existing common agricultural policy would bankrupt an enlarged European Union, so reform is coming. Sugar producers must face up to the fact that it is unsustainable to have a guaranteed high price that is above international market prices. They need help to adjust, and I think that their friends will do that. They cannot go on under the present regime, because at some point it will collapse underneath them.
§ Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)How exactly will the Secretary of State fulfil her promise to the traditional producers of sugar cane and sugar beet that they will not suffer as a result of this initiative? I agree with her that the world's poorest countries deserve the trade support that the European Community is proposing, but none the less there should not be a beggar thy neighbour policy that makes countries such as Guyana, which is a highly indebted poor country and very vulnerable, more impoverished than it is, and possibly push it into the category of the most poor and least developed countries.
§ Clare ShortI am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should refer to a beggar thy neighbour policy in relation to improving trade access for the very poorest people and countries in the world, given that there may anyway be an adjustment cost to middle-income Caribbean countries. This principle is extremely important, and we must all stand by the policy of enlarging trade access for the poorest countries so that their economies can grow.
Under the Cotonou agreement, which replaced the Lomé accord, there should be duty free access for all products from least developed countries by 2005, so this change is coming. The Caribbean and its banana industry need help to adjust to the opening of trade, not reassurance that an old, dying industry will be protected when the prices of its products are massively higher than world market prices and are in breach of WTO rules and so will increasingly be challenged. The Caribbean needs help to adjust, and we are doing that, but its friends should encourage it to adjust and not to carry on thinking that it can be protected by existing arrangements.