Jane replied that the she believed the aims were compatible. The South-East is a great wealth creator in the UK, Europe and, to some extent, the world. This leads to difficulties for the local population; there are jobs for everyone, but pressures on infrastructure. There is also a responsibility in what region does with its wealth. She lobbies for investment in infrastructure in the SE, and thinks that the UK is not in Europe and the wider world enough, and that the common agricultural policy needs reform. She gave the example of Mozambique and the damaging effects of EU sugar exports to Mozambique; which is itself a sugar producer. Concluded that without reform of CAP, she did not see there would be justice for the rest of the world.
She was questioned about the balance between co-operation and competition in the aims. Her response was that she didn't believe we should be much poorer. Access to wealth brings with it responsibilities. The aims do not say we should strive to be less equitable. The ranking target is in comparison to the other regions of Europe. The wider European economy has responsibilities to the rest of the world. She then made a further reference to CAP, but was challenged on the relevance of CAP to the region. The point was made that the financial sector was a larger growth engine locally, and that for this sector we should look at things like ethical investments and corporate responsibility for where the competitive and equitable meet.
Jane said she was more or less in agreement with this.
Jane did not think that the process is being rushed forward in essence. She also agreed that more time was needed for impact assessment in developed and developing world. She sees it as a continuous process of assessment going on. She indicated that it was the responsibility of wealthier countries to say if it was not working and she agreed that GATS was going too fast in terms of impact assessment.
She was asked about how the UK supports developing countries to carry out assessments. Are there any strings attached to the help?
Jane said the government was assisting and the assistance differed depending on the country. She was more familiar with the African countries. For the most part, the assistance is financial as she said it is not thought appropriate to send a team of people to say how to do things. Support is also given for the capacity to do things. She also said that corruption is an issue in many countries, creating problems and meaning that where help is given must be targeted carefully.
She was also asked why these assessments had not been done. She replied that the government does not give a country timetable to work by.
She was asked about GATS going forward on a uniform front. Why was there not a requirement to carry out the impact assessment by a particular date? She agreed that giving a date for this would have been better - but this is not the position we are in now.
The question of the irreversibility of GATS was raised. Jane was asked if she thought this a threat to democracy.
She thought it did not pose a threat. She said it might do so in some places and at some times, but she was not worried by the irreversibility. She was not worried because most countries affected in this way, do not have open or clean democratic processes.
She was asked about the UK & asked to consider the UK opening the railways to GATS. If subsequently the will of the majority were to re-nationalize the railways, how could this happen if the government had open the railways to an irreversible GATS decision? She repeated that she didn't think that this was a threat, and that there had been no interest in re-nationalizing the railways as an election issue.
The group explained further their concern over irreversibility and democracy, and Jane confirmed that she understood the group's concern.
Jane said that all consultations go into forming policy.
She was asked why the consultation did not contain questions on the possible impact of the EU's requests on other countries. These requests were only now known because of a leaked document, the EU's position had been that the negotiating positions could not be released.
She agreed that the EU wasn't nearly transparent enough. She was asked about Pascal Lamy's statement about needing to keep the information confidential for confidential reasons. She thought there was a concern, but not necessarily a conspiracy.
She was asked about the lack of consultation with NGOs and civil society.
She was seriously worried by the lack of transparency throughout the EU institutions, she believed there was a culture of secrecy and enclosure. The EU didn't necessarily have a will to exclude. She gave the example of a document that was delayed for several months because it required translations into all the languages required by the EU.
The WTO was apparently the only supranational body able to enforce a multi-lateral agreement. The concern was that the WTO will rule on a case within a trade framework, even when this conflicts with other international agreements. She was asked if there should be equivalent bodies, and if so how should they be set up?
She agreed that it should happen, but had no good answer.
She was asked if the government was keen to push for transparency and accountability of the World Bank and the IMF?
She said that the government was not obviously keen to push for transparency, but this didn't mean that individual ministers were not keen. It is in the interest of the government to know, as we pay for it.
She also said that the government was not, not keen!
When asked about how to achieve it, she was not sure she could answer - most dialogue is at finance minister conferences. The chancellor will get access to information and there are other networks, but there is no system.
She has spoken to Clare Short about this, and will also speak to Gordon Brown.
The group asked what was the best way to lobby her.
She said that dialogue was the most important thing. She said that if the group gave her our input on a consultation, then she would be better informed.
She was willing to see the group at the lobby in June.
Alison Macmillan