---

G8

The Prime Minister is undoubtedly to be congratulated on what was, for the best and happiest of reasons as well as for the most dreadful, an extraordinary week. It was a considerable achievement to produce a coherent communiqué from the G8 members, given everything else that properly demanded his attention and presence. It has been said by many, but cannot be said often enough, that the approach of those making perfectly legitimate points about the G8—the Make Poverty History campaigners and those involved in Live 8 as well as the leaders themselves—was in such moral contrast to the scenes that we witnessed in London that it will stand the test of history. It will be seen as the way in which to go about things, both by decision-makers and by citizens around the globe seeking, properly and legitimately, to influence those decision-makers. Does the Prime Minister accept that the agreements reached by the G8 countries at Gleneagles will be judged not on the basis of promises made, but on the basis of the promises that are fulfilled in the months and years to come? The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say in the context of Africa—and we have supported him throughout—that many of the initiatives rely heavily on the willingness of African leaders to root out corruption and improve governance on their own continent and in their own countries. That is, of course, vital. As the G8 rolls on year after year, however, it is also important for us to have mechanisms ensuring that all its members fulfil the pledges into which they so willingly enter in a rather public way, as they did at the end of the Gleneagles summit by putting their signatures on the documents in front of the cameras. The Prime Minister said a few moments ago that so far as EU finances were concerned, British contributions definitely constituted new additional money, but perhaps he could be a bit more specific about the UK context. Will any new funds for the commitments given be drawn from the Department for International Development’s existing budget, or will all such funds be supplementary to it? As the Prime Minister knows, this remains an abiding source of interest and legitimate concern to many of those who follow DFID’s work in detail. I also welcome the $3 billion-worth of aid pledged to the Palestinian Authority. That far-sighted move is good news that surely must command not only cross-party support in our country, but broad international support. Were any conditions placed on this aid package so far as the Palestinian Authority are concerned, and was it possible—either formally or in the margins of the G8—to discuss advancing the road map and the way forward? On trade and the elimination of subsidies, how does the Prime Minister intend to progress that part of the agenda? Can he explain the disjunction between the agreement—entered into in principle at Gleneagles—to attack agricultural subsidies in the west, and the parallel universe of the simultaneous lack of progress in the WTO trade talks, which are under way in Geneva? The Prime Minister will accept that that disjunction presents a real difficulty. Finally, it is significant—indeed, it reflects the balance of the package that emerged from Gleneagles—that the section of the Prime Minister’s statement devoted to the all-important issue of climate change was significantly shorter than the sections devoted to other headline matters discussed at the G8. Does he agree—he has more than alluded to this point this afternoon—that the Gleneagles agreements on climate change, in so far as they exist, constitute little more than treading water, and that we will not achieve real success until we have a concrete, target-based, country-based successor to the Kyoto process? He spoke of a pathway and the leader of the Conservatives spoke of impetus and dialogue—the other buzzwords of communiqués and statements during, and concerning, the summit. Were any specific steps actually agreed at Gleneagles to reduce emissions, because that is the bottom line? Earlier in the year, the Prime Minister set out three tests for the success of his G8 presidency—and fairly so—in addressing climate change: agreement on the basic science; agreement on the process to speed up provision of the technology necessary to meet the threat; and engagement with other countries with growing energy needs, China and India being the most obvious and notable examples. He has mentioned this issue already, but now that he has got through this amazing week, culminating in the summit’s conclusion, it would be interesting to hear the answer to the following question, which I ask in no sense pejoratively. Following Gleneagles and thus far into his presidency, to what extent has he been able to meet the objective tests that he set himself, and does he agree that there is much further to go on climate change? As long as he keeps pressing that case, he deserves practical and political support.