Proceeding contribution from Mark Simmonds (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 12 October 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on World Trade (Doha Development Agenda).
World Trade (Doha Development Agenda)
What the right hon. Gentleman may not be aware of—there is no reason why he should be—is that most of the crops that the farmers in my constituency grow are vegetables and are non-subsidised anyway. However, engaging with some of those subsidies would involve reform of the common agricultural policy and putting a greater emphasis on environmental sustainability—that is where we get into the complexities of the discussion between the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham. There is some defence for subsidies in certain cases, whether for hill farmers or for environmental purposes, which might negate the impact that the right hon. Member for Leeds, West discussed. The right hon. Gentleman was also right to highlight the conflicts between the United States and the European Union and, in my view, the loss of sight of the initial purpose of the whole round, which was to help developing nations and the poor around the world. The hon. Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin), in a typically knowledgeable contribution on this issue, was concerned about the clock being turned back and highlighted the danger of protectionism. I agree with her that there is an increasingly prevalent view about the necessity for greater protectionism. I think that that is a function of a view that has become ingrained in many developing countries, according to which the developed world cannot trusted to follow through the development round. That comes out of the Uruguay round, which was detrimental to developing countries. Developing countries no longer believe that the developed world is genuinely interested in helping them to facilitate and grow their trade. She also quite rightly mentioned the importance of China in the discussions. The hon. Member for Islington, North highlighted the necessity of talking to the poor, and he is absolutely right. All too often we can become engaged in ministerial meetings and discussions at a high level, while forgetting about the need to listen to people on the ground, whether in the Congo, Malawi, Mozambique or elsewhere. He also quite rightly highlighted tariff escalation, the best example of which is the export of Chilean tomatoes into the United States. If Chile exports raw tomatoes, the tariff is 4 per cent. If it adds value and converts them into tomato ketchup, the tariff is 28 per cent. It cannot afford to do that, so the adding of value must take place in the United States. That is a total disgrace, and the World Trade Organisation needs to focus on such issues. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I did not agree with what was almost a promotion of protectionism on his part. His argument that the developed world had started behind protectionist barriers is somewhat disingenuous. I am sure that he knows his economic history; the developed world really started to accelerate in wealth creation and economic growth when protectionist barriers were removed and it started to trade freely throughout the world.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 450 c171WH
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Developing countries Trade Trade agreements World Trade Organization
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-05 22:06:11 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351730
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351730
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_351730