---

East Asia

On textiles and shoes, we have been the leading opponent to attempts by other countries in the EU to use the anti-dumping legislation to prevent continued access from not only China but Vietnam. We have been successful in trying to prevent anti-dumping measures against our colleagues in South Korea. We have a consistent view on that, and as a consequence of our taking that view we sometimes face hostile criticism from some of our colleagues, who then try to take compensatory measures against us—on Scottish salmon, for example. Rest assured, I am not behind the door on that. We are consistent about such matters. We are not only intellectually consistent, but we are consistent in the politics of negotiation in such matters. I have the scars on my back from the past few months of that. The interesting thing about globalisation, of course, is that if those attempts to restrict access for textiles and especially for shoes had succeeded, we would have damaged legitimate British inward investment in Vietnam and China, which is important to the global survival of some of our most important companies. When people say, ““This is a measure against Vietnam or China””, if we look below the surface it is an attempt to interrupt legitimate British business interests that export back into the EU. There can be complex discussions and negotiations but hon. Members can rest assured that we are vigilant on such matters and upfront when it comes to what successful discussion, debate and negotiation on what we sometimes see as unfair efforts. When there is a need to take measures under WTO rules, the EU should do so to defend business in the EU, which sometimes means business interests in mainland Europe and sometimes those in the UK. We take that balanced view. China has been pressing for some time for our support for its market economy status, and that is increasingly important following the succession of Russia to such status. Discussions and debates are taking place—we have helped China—with the EU about the best way in which China can proceed to ensure that it follows the rules, agrees rules and makes changes that will allow the EU to award it market economy status. We have been supportive and helpful, and have also supported China with practical works to undertake economic reforms to allow it to get over the technical barriers that prevent the EU from allowing it that status. The status is important to China, not only because of the privileges that it brings but in political terms because of how people in the EU see China when it comes to trade and its political relationships with the EU. We have been proactive in practically assessing that to establish China’s ability to gain market economy status. I reassure hon. Members that there has not been a delay in our engagement in Shanghai 2010. I do not see it as a defensive measure, but perhaps we should have made it more clear at the time. We were always going to participate. We had meetings at an official level and, once I was appointed, at a political level with the embassy in the UK, with the Government in China and with the vice-mayor of Shanghai, who has been appointed to run the programme up to 2010. As part of the process a number of things happened. First, before the announcement was made, we were able successfully to get major British interests involved not only in the design and construction of the Expo site but in a range of contracts for the infrastructure leading to and from the site based on the work to be done on the Yangtze river, including the creation of their first eco-friendly city. That will be the first city and will be followed by two others. With our work we have established the British company, Arup, as a key player in that. During our discussions, and before an announcement, we consulted with British industry, the regional development agencies and relevant bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland over the structure of the project we are putting together, its themes and what the private and public sectors want to achieve in the run-up to, and during the project, as well as a possible legacy. I had responsibility for the management and structure of the Commonwealth games, which were criticised right up to their opening. People said, ““There is not enough involvement”” and, ““It is not going to happen; it is going to be a disaster””. I assure hon. Members that the same things will be said about this project. I am happy to come back to the Committee and give it a detailed report on the progress of the project. For example, the Committee might want to participate in the design competition that we will be announcing soon. That has involved months of negotiations behind the scenes with a range of sectors about how to run and manage that competition. Negotiations are ongoing with Departments, regional organisations and the private sector about the funding mechanisms that will ensure that, from the spring of next year, we will have a flow of capital resources for the design and construction of the site in Shanghai. We have agreed on the location of the site—it is one of the prime sites—and it is likely that we will be one of the few countries invited afterwards to sustain a structure on or near the site. That will be critically important. Under the expo rules, most of the sites have to be demolished—believe it or not. However, China has a concession that enables it to maintain a number of the pavilions either on or close to the site. If we have that opportunity, we will have to design a pavilion not just to showcase British skills, knowledge, architecture, and new sustainable technologies, but to construct a building with the capacity to be used after the event. That could be a huge asset. I can assure hon. Members that the Government intend—as do I, given my responsibilities—this project to last not just for a few months. In the run-up, we will showcase British skills and knowledge, as well as our companies, and public and private sectors. We will discuss with those cities that have a relationship with China our educational and environmental input. It will not just be a one-stop shop. On our site, we will have a traditional exhibition larger than a football pitch. That has never been done before. It will be a business Olympics. We are in competition not just with our European counterparts, but with other major countries. This is a serious project that we must get right. To do that we have to put in time and effort with our partners in order to come to an agreement on our objectives, on who is going to help to pay for, manage and work within it, and on which companies will act as partners not just for the few months that the expo is on, but afterwards.