Extracts from Parliamentary Proceedings - Oct 17
|
Extract from Lords debate on Brexit: Agriculture and Farm
Animal Welfare (European Union Committee Report) Lord Davies of
Stamford (Lab):...Proposition number three is that far more serious
is the scenario that the Government want to lead us into. It is one
where we are not a member of the EU single market but endeavour to
sign free trade agreements with lots of people around the world.
The Government deceive themselves entirely about the prospects of
doing that, by the way. I have...Request free trial
Extract from Lords debate
on Brexit: Agriculture and Farm Animal Welfare (European Union
Committee Report)
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab):...Proposition number three is that far more serious is the scenario that the Government want to lead us into. It is one where we are not a member of the EU single market but endeavour to sign free trade agreements with lots of people around the world. The Government deceive themselves entirely about the prospects of doing that, by the way. I have explained on many occasions in our debates that there is very little prospect indeed of signing such a deal with China unless we are prepared to drop steel quotas, or with India unless we are prepared to accept Mr Modi’s demands for massive immigration into this country, or with the United States unless we are prepared to accept hormone-injected beef and chlorinated chicken. So there are great difficulties in that and, even if there were not, it would be absurd to say that we should throw away the benefit of the particularly favourable terms under which we can sell 70% of our exports to the EU and to those countries with which the EU has free trade agreements, and to suggest that we can compensate for that with the remaining 30% of our exports. As I have just explained, more than 90% of that 30%—that is, the three countries I mentioned—are very unlikely to do a deal with us at all. Therefore, the Government’s policy urgently needs rethinking from the bottom up. They are leading this country into a minefield, which is uncharted from their point of view, and I am afraid that they do not see the great dangers that we are facing... Viscount Hanworth (Lab):...The EU trading arrangements are based on a commonality of interest among the member nations, though their basic feature is unrestricted free trade among those nations. The EU has established numerous free trade agreements beyond Europe, while maintaining tariff barriers that have been designed to protect European agriculture and industry. The British Government are keen to maintain the benefits of our free trade with the EU while seeking to promote our trade with other nations through further reciprocal agreements. In the somewhat discredited phrase, the aim has been to have our cake and eat it. It is a fallacy to imagine that we could easily negotiate a more profitable trade in agricultural products with the rest of the world, as the Foreign Secretary has asserted. As examples of products that could be targeted for greater exports, he cited haggis, which the US has banned on health grounds since 1971, and Scotch whisky, on which India imposes a 150% duty. Those are hardly significant opportunities... To read the whole debate, CLICK HERE Extract from FCO questions: Kashmir Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab): What steps he has taken to support a negotiated settlement to the disputed status of Kashmir. [901172] The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field): As the hon. Lady will recognise, the UK’s long-standing position is that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting solution to the situation in Kashmir, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. It is not for the UK either to prescribe some sort of solution or to play a mediation role. Helen Hayes: In the context of continued reports of human rights violations in Kashmir, will the Minister commit to placing human rights and a peace process for Kashmir firmly on the table as part of any new trade and labour market negotiations with India and Pakistan? Mark Field: I am very happy to do that. I visited India only last month and was able to discuss the Kashmiri situation. I am hoping to go to Pakistan in the next few weeks, and I will do likewise there. I think all of us in the House recognise that there are human rights concerns throughout both India-administered and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. We continue to encourage all states to ensure that domestic laws are in line with international standards but, as the hon. Lady rightly says, those human rights issues need to be taken into account when it comes to trade and all the other important work that goes on. Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab): There have been threats from both sides to target nuclear facilities, and talks at the South Asian Association for Regional Co-operation have broken down, so what exactly will the Government and the Foreign Secretary do to defuse those tensions and promote dialogue?
Mark Field: Obviously we will do
our part within the international community—as a member of the P5
at the UN, for example—to encourage all sides to maintain a
positive dialogue, but the pace and scope of that must be for
India and Pakistan to determine. We cannot insist on that. As I
have said, we will continue to discuss the Kashmiri issue at
every opportunity, both here in London, and out in Islamabad or
New Delhi. John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Further to the questions about Kashmir, we are talking about two states with nuclear arms possibly edging towards a conflict, and we should all take that seriously. Given our unique historical relationship with both countries, cannot pressure be brought to bring the two sides together to engage in some sort of meaningful dialogue? Mark Field: It is the 14th minute of injury time already —unlucky for some, I think. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier answers on this issue. We understand that clearly there is a worry: as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, both India and Pakistan are nuclear states and the world can ill afford this flashpoint. From my own discussions in India and Afghanistan—I am going to Pakistan next month, as I said—there seems to be a lessening of some of the tensions. We can take nothing for granted, but ultimately this must be an issue for India and Pakistan rather than anyone else. Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): What are the chances of getting the Chennai Six home by Christmas? Mark Field: I know that this case, which my right hon. Friend raises with me whenever I see him on the parliamentary estate, is very close to his heart. I raised it this month during my visit to India and spent a day in Chennai, when I had a chance to visit the men in prison. It was heart breaking, but the determination of those men and their families is to be much admired. I also saw the families in my office at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I should take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend and other MPs across the House who represent the Chennai Six. I know that a huge amount of work has been done. I cannot make any promises, and I do not want to raise expectations that we cannot meet, but we are doing our level best here and in India to bring them back as soon as possible.
Extracts from Commons
debate on The Rohingya and the Myanmar Government
Wes Streeting (Ilford North)
(Lab):...We must consider the question of regional
leadership, and particularly China and India’s roles in
influencing the Myanmar Government. Will the Minister say
something about that? |