The Caribbean

02 Dec 2004
Ms Abbott : On the question of sugar: the region will be reassured to hear of the Minister's concern, but I am sure that some people will ask why, if the Government are so concerned about the social and economic effect on the region of the change of regime in sugar, they support a 24 per cent. price cut in sugar from 1 July 2005, and a 37 per cent. cut from 1 July 2007, despite the unified voice of the regions saying that such abrupt price cuts would be catastrophic in social terms.

Mr. Thomas : We continue to talk to the region and country leaders about the proposed changes, but we are and have been clear about the fact that change is inevitable and that we must recognise that those cuts are coming. Of course, we must get the transitional assistance right. When I was in the region, Caribbean leaders reaffirmed that message to me in strong terms, as they have to other members of the Government. With the Commission, we continue to look at what else we can do to support the transitional assistance that is needed.

...

Ms Abbott : Would the hon. Gentleman agree that it has long been the position of British business and people who trade in the region that Her Majesty's Government could do more to put pressure on the US to lift the embargo? Cuba was successful in minimising the loss of life after hurricane Ivan. It has effective methods of evacuating its population, including farm animals, into underground shelters.

Mr. Simmonds : The hon. Lady makes a good point. However, the European Union has reacted properly to the recent human rights abuses that have taken place in Cuba.

...

Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) (Lab): I am grateful to have an opportunity to speak in this important debate. Let me join my noble—sorry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) in congratulating the Government on holding the debate in Government time.

As someone who has been a Member of the House since 1987, I want to begin by saying that there is no doubt that since the mid-'80s the Caribbean region has slipped down the Government's agenda. That is to take nothing away from the indefatigable efforts of former Ministers in previous Governments and this Government or the indefatigable efforts of Baronesses Amos and Scotland, friends of mine who have worked very hard in the other place to represent the interests of the region. Whatever Heads of Government tell Ministers over cocktails, they tell everyone else that over the past two decades the region has slipped down the agenda.

I do not blame any particular Government for that. There are historic trends; the end of the iron curtain and of the cold war meant that regions that were once cockpits of the cold war fell from the attention of the United States, and to a lesser extent that of the UK. With the rise of the Asian tigers and the emergence of the massive economies of Taiwan, China and Korea, our economic focus has moved. The importance of eastern Europe and Russia has led attention, capital flows and economic interest away from the region to other parts of the world.

Undoubtedly, the Department for International Development's otherwise laudable emphasis on helping the very poorest countries has been at the expense of allegedly middle-income countries such as Caribbean countries. It is regrettable that the region has dropped down the Government's agenda. It is regrettable philosophically because of the historic links between the region and Britain and because of the existence of large and passionately engaged Caribbean communities in all our great cities. It is also regrettable practically.

I come to this debate having spent the morning at a conference on gun crime organised by the Metropolitan police. I am sure that Ministers appreciate that in a globalised world we face globalised crime and globalised social disorder. Ministers cannot pursue policies in relation to trade liberalisation, and the so-called modernisation of the public sector, which will inevitably lead to job losses in the region, without that having an impact on security and crime issues right here in Britain.

If people sneeze in west Kingston, we catch a cold in Hackney. The criminals are as globalised as any multinational company. I regret that for all the energy that Ministers put into security, crime and drug issues, they do not link it to their trade liberalisation policies and modify them accordingly. Of course change has to come—to bananas, to sugar and to the whole region—but the pace of change and the ability of the countries to draw down funds to manage that change is crucial if this is not to result in social disorder and dislocation in that region, which directly impacts on us here in London.

I am sure that hon. Members will forgive me if I return to sugar, because it is a major issue. People are very unhappy with how things have developed. I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the distinguished former ambassador, Derrick Heaven, on his work defending the sugar industry of the region and Jamaica specifically. I do not want to repeat what my right hon. Friend said, but these new proposals on sugar—whether they are in technical breach of the Cotonou agreement or not, they certainly breach its spirit—specifically reconfirm the importance of preserving the benefits of the sugar protocol.

Although I may not say this over cocktails with Ministers, as far as the region is concerned, the new proposals on sugar and the precipitate slashing of the sugar price are a breach of faith. There has been a lot of talk about transitional arrangements, but, like my right hon. Friend, I quote the ambassador's recent speech:

    "As our region's experience with bananas and rum shows, the delivery of development assistance to industries undergoing finite transitions as a result of trade liberalisation measures bears very little relationship to the reality of the situation that the ACP now faces."

The ambassador is a diplomat, but I am a politician, so let me put the matter in clearer language. People were promised money and aid in relation to bananas, but until now they have not been able to draw down even a fraction of that money, nor do they want to repeat that experience with sugar.

For Ministers, trade issues are in some sense abstract, as they have to fit in with a wider Government agenda. Perhaps Ministers think it is enough to say that change must come, but I remind hon. Members of the economic, social and psychological importance of sugar to the region. We are, after all, talking about sugar islands that were the jewels of the British empire precisely because of sugar production. The structures of the societies on those islands—their economies and internal social relations—are still based on the world that sugar made. Those economies are still major employers of unskilled and semi-skilled labour.

The Minister will probably tell me about diversification, but I want to know how an unskilled sugar cane worker in Portland, Jamaica, is going to diversify and become a computer programmer. That is the reality that people across the region face, not just in Jamaica, but in St. Kitts and Nevis and elsewhere. Ministers talk too glibly about diversification without considering the reality of the work force that they are trying to diversify and the work available.

Ministers must also remember, when they glibly talk about diversification, that there is no major political party in the sugar-producing islands of the region that does not have its political base in the sugar unions. What politicians are being asked to do is turn to their bases and say that an economic structure and source of work and prosperity that has been relied on since the beginning of those island societies is going to go, and go much more rapidly than anyone anticipated at the time of Cotonou.

Let me remind Ministers that those sugar industries were originally constructed as suppliers to the metropolitan market. Unlike British beef producers, they do not enjoy sizeable domestic purchasing bases, which is one of the things that makes the current price proposal so untenable. Let me also repeat that most countries want to diversify. They do not want to rely on the same economic and social relationships that existed in the 18th century. 
 
There is sufficient surplus land and labour to diversify, albeit not at the expense of the industry. Having been a Member of the House since 1987, I have seen Ministers with responsibility for the Caribbean come and go, but there is a list of large-scale experiments that the Caribbean islands have entered into in an attempt to diversify their agricultural production for the large and lucrative US market. Many of those experiments have failed, owing to all sorts of structural difficulties.

When Ministers talk about diversification, they also ignore the fact that in most islands the structure of the economy, small populations and underdeveloped internal and international transport militate against the establishment of new businesses. Where there are communications structures, people have realised that they could, for instance, move out of bananas and into other crops. But guess what—up to now, how would they have transported those new crops to Europe and America? The answer is on a banana boat. If we smash up the banana industry, we also smash up the transport infrastructure with which the agricultural produce of those islands could be moved about as a whole.

There is a lack of joined-up thinking among International Development Ministers about diversification. Ministers also need to remember that the economic pressures affecting sugar are also hammering other industries, such as bananas and citrus.

Finally, Ministers need to remember that in the long-term search for diversification in infrastructure and added value, many ACP countries have become deeply indebted and will simply be unable to attract new finance for that diversification.

Mr. Foulkes
: My hon. Friend has directed her criticism at DFID Ministers. I wonder whether she ever thinks that, as agreement has to be reached within the European Union, 25 countries have to agree. It may well be the case, as I believe it to be, that Ministers go to meetings and argue the case that she has been arguing, but cannot always convince the 24 other countries to go along with them. I hope that she understands that process and that she will not necessarily criticise Ministers for not making these arguments. I believe that they are making exactly the arguments that she is.

Ms Abbott : One has to listen to my right hon. Friend with respect as he was a Minister, but I have noticed that even when Ministers come back from the region and have seen what devastation a precipitate, savage cut in the sugar price—I am not saying that it should not be cut—will lead to, they still refuse to consider staggering that price cut. It is argued in such debates that Her Majesty's Government are among the keenest proponents of a price cut, but I defer to my right hon. Friend.

The other issue that the region would want raised is the unequal treatment meted out to the ACP countries compared with the European producers. They are bearing the full brunt of the introduction of tariff-free access by the least developed countries. Under the new proposals, they are also required to bear the cost of the removal of the cane sugar refining subsidy by bearing a larger price cut than European producers. How can it be fair that sugar producers in one of the poor regions of the world have to bear a larger price cut than European producers? 
 
When pressed on the sugar question, Ministers will tell us that it is all about British consumers and that they want them to have cheaper sugar. Consumers in Hackney call me for lots of reasons, but they do not call for cheaper sugar. Let us be clear: consumers in Britain or Europe will not benefit from lower sugar prices. The main beneficiaries will be an oligarchy of sugar producers in Brazil and the large sugar-using industrial manufacturers.

I can only concur with what my right hon. Friend said about the significance of sugar, stress my disappointment that the Minister is still unwilling to consider phasing in the price cut and re-emphasise what I am sure he was told on his visits to Clarendon, my parents' parish: what will be the social consequences of a precipitate collapse of the sugar industry?

The people in the precise categories of the labour market that the sugar industry employs are not those who will find it easy to diversify into new industries. They will not just grow ganja—if they were growing ganja alone, that would be one thing—but we will see an accelerated drift of young men from the rural areas of St. Kitts, Jamaica and elsewhere to the big cities, where they will find themselves involved in criminality and then fan out into international crime between New York, London and the region. That is the consequence of trade liberalisation if sufficient thought is not given to the transition.

I want to touch briefly on the post-Hurricane Ivan situation. There can be no question but that the Government's response immediately after the hurricane was exemplary and much appreciated in the region. It was also appreciated that the Foreign Secretary sent my noble Friend and colleague, Baroness Howells, as his personal envoy. I said at the time, as Ministers will be aware, that the test of the Government's commitment to the region would be not the immediate sending of tarpaulins, bandages and plastic sheeting—wonderful as the immediate assistance was—but what they did in the medium term.

Some islands, such as Jamaica and Cuba, will do their best to make good their economies, but let me repeat that Grenada has had its tourism industry and its nutmeg wiped out. There is an economic vacuum in Grenada, and let me say this plainly and clearly: if that vacuum is left for any length of time, the drug industry will step in.

Ministers must start to link their concern about security with trade policies and aid and development issues. It is also important, post-Hurricane Ivan, that efforts be made to intensify disaster mitigation processes. I am aware that the Department for International Development is doing work on that, but let me return to what was said about Cuba. I listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Minister said, but the Government should do more to put pressure on the United States over the Cuban trade embargo. The fact is that the US position on the embargo is conditioned more by electoral concerns in Florida than by any strategic approach to the region and how it is possible to help to lead a post-Castro Cuba to genuine free-market democracy. Her Majesty's Government—having such a close relationship with America under George Bush—could do more on the embargo. 
 
It would be wrong to end my remarks without saying a few words about Haiti. I know that we do not have the historical relationship with Haiti that we have with the English-speaking countries in the region, but it is the very poorest country in the Caribbean. It lost thousands of people as a result of Hurricane Ivan, and DFID could make a difference there. I have read what DFID has to say about whether it can add value to Haiti in the next few years, but there must be a plan actively to explore what difference the Department could make in Hackney—sorry, Haiti. Hackney is never far from my thoughts.

There must be long-term support from DFID in Haiti. We must consider cancellation of Haiti's debt and mitigate future emergencies. Part of the reason why Haiti lost so many people post-Hurricane Ivan and Cuba lost so few is the disorganisation and social chaos in Haiti as opposed to Cuba, which is a well-run Stalinist society.

I would not want the debate to end without a repetition of what was said about the importance of the British overseas territories and of considering our policies in the region not just as they affect the sovereign states there, but as they affect the British overseas territories. The point was well made about the financial services industry in the British Virgin Islands and other British overseas territories: those countries understand the need for a level playing field, but are concerned that EU institutions may simply try to take out competitors.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks—I speak as one who has been a Member of the House since the mid-1980s—there is no question but that the region has, although not through the fault of any particular Administration, gradually slid down the agenda of Her Majesty's Government. We can see that. People protest and talk about the UK-Caribbean Forum. That is very nice. They talk about visits by junior Ministers—it is always a treat to have such a visit—but we can see that the region has slid down the Government agenda when we look at the institutional arrangements in DFID and the Foreign Office for dealing with the Caribbean.

Mr. Foulkes : My hon. Friend is chairman of the all-party Caribbean group, and its secretary, the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), has just arrived in the Chamber. Does my hon. Friend not think that there is an important role for that group to play in raising the profile of the Caribbean, tabling questions and motions, and pressing the Government not only in this forum, but in every other one?

Ms Abbott : Absolutely. Within days of Hurricane Ivan, we organised a very successful meeting in the all-party group, which was attended by all the Caribbean high commissioners, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and relevant non-governmental organisations. The secretary of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), and I continue to table questions on Haiti, the British Virgin Islands and Jamaica post-Hurricane Ivan. I am committed to using the all-party group to help to drive forward the agenda I have set out. 
 
Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con): I apologise to the House for coming in late, but I have been attending the fisheries debate in the main Chamber. As I now have the largest fishing port in the UK in my constituency, I am sure that hon. Members will understand why I had to be there.

I pay tribute to and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for her wonderful work as chairman of the all-party Caribbean group. Does she agree that the most effective way of operating is to have all the islands as sub-groups of the main committee, and that to have fragmented groups is not the best way to operate in this place? Does she also agree that she should welcome, as I do, the many people involved with the Caribbean and in raising its profile in the House of Commons, but under the auspices of an established all-party Caribbean group?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The House does not look well on people coming in and immediately intervening in a debate to which they have not listened. However, we understand the hon. Gentleman's position, and I am in a very agreeable mood this afternoon.

Ms Abbott : I am grateful for the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes in building up the all-party group. Let me say this on the dangers of fragmentation: most people in the Chamber may not remember or have learned about the history of the West Indies Federation, but when Britain sought to oversee the move to independence of different Caribbean islands, the original idea was that they should form part of that federation, because it was clear all those years ago that individual islands and dependencies would find it difficult to impact on international institutions, let alone the British Government.

Those countries, led by Jamaica under Alexander Bustamante, resoundingly rejected the idea of the federation, but as we move into the 21st century the islands of the region need to act more collectively and to have a common view on issues. In recent years, I have tried to lobby on issues such as bananas, but I have often found it difficult to establish the common view of the region, despite the fact that it has been represented by distinguished diplomats.

The region is building and reinforcing its common institutions and is trying to take more of a common view on issues. Here in Parliament, it is wonderful to have a multiplicity of groups, but in the context of making an impact on Ministers, the more that we can move together in a common organisation the better.

It is regrettable that the region has moved down the Government's agenda, but it will never move down the agenda in the hearts and minds of those of us whose parents and grandparents came from the region immediately after the second world war. I constantly urge diplomatic representatives here to do more to harness the passion and concern of the Caribbean diaspora because, as well as building up the parliamentary work, that would be an important weapon to help the region.

On the weekend of Hurricane Ivan, I remember sitting with friends watching the news bulletins hour by hour. We all had friends, family and villages of which we were thinking. I would like to see a time when the institutional arrangements in DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the funding, the concern, and the approach to trade matters reflect in their understanding of Caribbean issues the genuine love and concern that so many of us have for the region.



back ⇢