TUESDAY 17 NOVEMBER 1998

MR RICHARD BATE

  100. Yes, so it is really the discrimination you want to home in on rather than whether the legislation is necessary or whether enforcement is necessary?
  (Mr Bate) Absolutely. The business community, I will not say does not mind legislation in these areas, though obviously the business community would like to see some legislation not be there, but what the business community really wants is to know what the rules are going to be and, providing the rules are there for all to see, then to know that they are going to be fairly applied to everybody.

  101. It must be even-handedly applied and it must be enforced against everybody who is involved in that particular activity?
  (Mr Bate) That is right, yes.

  102. Thank you, Mr Bate. I just come back to the point because I want to try and get in my mind the history of this and where we are going. It is fair to say that when this was promoted initially, there were in power in a number of the countries governments of the centre-right, for want of a better expression, and in large measure they have been replaced by centre-left governments who are likely to be more interventionist, who are likely to be somewhat less enamoured of a completely liberalised market, who do see a social dimension in a number of business areas and whilst they may not go down the road of ethical trading in its purest form, they are prepared to draw lines where some of the more right-wing predecessor governments were not prepared to do so. As a consequence of that, in future MAI-style negotiations—because it may not be called "MAI"—do you think that the business community will have to take account of these political changes in the governments that will be responsible for at least a substantial part of the negotiation?
  (Mr Bate) Of course, yes, the business community is practical and very pragmatic and if there is a general trend or change in attitudes, the business community will take that into account.

  103. Do you think, therefore, as a consequence of that, the business community and its input into a successor MAI would in these circumstances be prepared to accept binding labour standards and consumer policy standards of the kind that we have had discussed today?
  (Mr Bate) We still feel that specific labour standards and so on should be dealt with by the expert body in the world set up to do just that, which is the ILO.

  104. Yes, but, with respect, the ILO has two rather conflicting records, one of establishing high standards of performance, and two of being singularly unsuccessful in persuading member countries to fulfil them, and we have seen countries like the United Kingdom which in recent years has been in the dock because of its inability or its unwillingness to meet the ILO standards and we, by and large, are the kind of country that pays its dues internationally, but even we have been found lacking there. Is it not frankly a wee bit naive to pass the buck to the ILO when it has got such a feeble record on enforcement? Would it not be more appropriate if we are starting with an almost clean sheet, incorporating a whole raft of international agreements, often bilateral, but in trying to put them into a coherent form that there be binding, enforceable elements that relate to the labour dimension just as much as the ability to move capital and business rights?
  (Mr Bate) In principle, that is fair enough, providing there are not in the agreement, whatever it is going to be called, but the MAI for the time being, providing there are not too many restrictions and limitations and so on to make it impossible to operate. That is one of the dangers of writing in too many specific restrictions. There is national legislation and international treaties on a whole raft of areas which are already there. Now, the MAI is really trying to bring, or what we see it as trying to do is to bring it all under one roof to make it a comprehensible and understandable agreement which means that everyone knows what it is covering. If you fill it up with minute legislation on very great, detailed items, it will stop business and others from operating internationally if you try to write it up in too detailed a fashion.

  Chairman: I think we will just have to leave that to future negotiators. I think that there might not be unanimity around this Committee as to whether or not there should be fine print or general headings, but I think there is a sense in which we recognise that, on occasions, without regulation the rascals can get away with an awful lot, and some of us maybe start from the premise that the rascals need a bit more policing than they have got, but that is not a unanimous view around the Committee. Thank you very much for your time this morning and for the fulsome nature of your answers.