HC Deb 26 March 1970 vol 798 cc1719-39

3.20 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle (Birmingham, Handsworth)

It is just about four months since my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) put the House in his debt by raising on a Private Member's Motion on a Friday the issue of aid and development. Since that debate in November, there has been, in February, a quite important conference in the United States. Thanks to the initiative of Lady Barbara Ward Jackson, there were discussions on the Pearson Report at Williamsburg, followed by a conference at Columbia University, in New York. I was lucky enough to attend the conference and to hear the distinguished contribution made by the right hon. Lady the Minister. It was probably the first time in her life that she was billed to appear immediately after a Roman Catholic cardinal. Her contribution was much appreciated, and I am grateful to her for attending the House today. I told her on that occasion that hoped to raise this matter before we rose for the Easter Recess.

The Columbia conference started with a speech by Mr. Lester Pearson. I hope that the right hon. Lady, who has said that she will distribute to the House some material on this subject, will consider circulating Mr. Pearson's speech, which I thought was of considerable importance. Mr. Pearson answered most effectively both extreme points of view. He answered those who would seek to rely entirely on market forces to solve the problems of under-development, and he also answered those members of the less-developed countries—and they were well represented at Columbia—who would like to make a clean break with the richer nations and who look on unequal partnership as the consequences of, as they would say, the essentially exploitative character of the dominant Powers' grip on the resources of the world.

As we started this debate a little before 3.30, the House perhaps will forgive me if I make two quotations from Mr. Pearson's speech to show how effectively he answered those extreme points of view. In answer to those who believe that market forces can solve the problems of development—a view explicitly turned down by the Pearson Commission—Mr. Pearson said: If to one kind of environment we apply, unchanged, policies evolved for another, then, I think, they have a fair chance of failing. This is the core of my disagreement with those who would abandon aid to development in favour of renewed reliance upon the traditional international market system. To do so would, I believe, entail far more confidence in the method than is justified by economic history. It would also gloss over the violent contrasts between our problems today and those of the areas and epochs where 'normal methods' are supposed to have worked. I believe, on the contrary, that the market system did not work unaided even in the hyper-favourable conditions of the 19th century Atlantic world. … When … critics spea today of 'normal' methods of development by way of orderly investment aimed at commercial returns achieved by verifiable increases in productivity, they forget, I think, that immeasurably vast 'takeover', virtually for free of the world's best, largest, agricultural reserves by the small group of Europeans erupting out of Western Europe and occupying every remaining temperate land in the course of two brief centuries. To exclude this immense enrichment and talk of 'development' as a normal increment of careful commercial investment is, to my mind, to talk nonsense. Nothing comparable is available to developing nations today—unless we use our abundant capital and technology to provide a comparable gift. Those words were much appreciated by the conference, because Mr. Pearson showed that he not only understood, but also felt emotionally, the very close association that persists between underdevelopment and tropicality. We often do not recognise sufficiently enough the extent to which the problems of world poverty and the problems of underdevelopment are bound up acutely with tropical areas.

But Mr. Pearson went on to answer with equal point those who felt that the right strategy for the less-developed countries was to cut themselves off from the richer nations altogether and to make a clean break. I am bound to say—and my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) will know what I mean—that when one hears some of these arguments they distinctly recall the ingenious, but I never thought quite plausible, arguments of people like the late Mr. Leo Amery at Conservative Party conferences years ago to justify this country attempting to follow an economic policy completely independent of the United States. The arguments which we heard from speakers at Columbia were curiously reminiscent of those debates which my hon. Friend and I well remember at party conferences some years ago.

Mr. Pearson said: And great as progress has been in the last decade and high as ambition and dedication undoubtedly are, I do not yet see among the developing nations the margin of capital and managerial and technical skills needed to mobilise in time sufficient defence against the risk of a planet-sized disaster. He then used these very effective words: It is easy when one is oneself well-educated, well-fed and reasonably well-employed to speak of the duties and splendours and opportunities of total, unqualified self-reliance. But we are not the ones who starve. We do not witness the death of children and the misery of parents. We do not carry the despair of the workless or the hopelessness of the illiterate. If a total break could mobilise the scale of effort and resources needed for a 'great leap forward', we ought, no doubt, to support the idea. But if we are convinced that, on the contrary, it would deprive developing people's of essential inputs of capital and skill, I do not think we should romanticise policies which could carry with them the risk of dislocation, stagnation and spreading hunger. Neither do I.

Those were wise words. I could not help being reminded, as I heard them, of the views expressed by the Minister of State, Home Office when she used to reply to me in education debates. She used to speak of the "ruthlessness" of a certain point of view. She was, rightly, always in favour of having a confrontation with the ruthlessness of those who wanted, as they claimed, to show up the hypocrisy of society and to overturn today's "system". Among those in the less-developed countries are a certain number of people who pursue the problem of development with the same kind of ruthlessness—ruthlessness which I do not believe could make sense in terms of human misery and the risk of starvation.

I come to what was said at the Williamsburg and Columbia conferences. They generally supported the Pearson recommendations. They saw in them a set of policies which, if adopted by Governments, could arrest and reverse the present relative decline in support for co-operative world development. They suggested that priority should be given, in particular, to four recommendations in the commission's report: to larger transfers of sustained and predictable resources from developed countries to less-developed countries; to the replenishment of I.D.A. for a five-year period; and to policies for relief of debt. As I said in November, this is a subject on which I find outside this country a slight difference of view from that which obtains in the right hon. Lady's Department. Strong views are held in other continents on the issue of debt repayment and debt relief. Lastly, the conferences suggested better access to world markets for the exports of less developed countries.

Having mentioned the ways in which the conferences at Williamsburg and Columbia endorsed the Pearson Commission's Report, I turn to the respects in which it encountered criticism. I am thinking particularly of the speeches I heard at Columbia.

I said when I spoke in the November debate that, as a member of the Pearson Commission, I thought it was important to take neither too pessimistic nor too optimistic a view of world development. I adhere to what I said on that occasion, and yet I cannot help agreeing, bearing in mind the general sense of the Columbia conference, that the Pearson Commission, in emphasising that development was a "lickable" proposition, perhaps underrated the crisis that exists today in relations between the developed and the developing world.

There was widespread feeling that the developing nations operate in a world in which much of the resources, and most of the positions of power, are controlled by the nations which are already developed. The ratio of wealth of population in the developed nations is approximately 80–20—whereas, of course, for the developing peoples exactly the reverse is true.

This fact, that the gap in living standards throughout the world is today growing more rapidly than ever before, came out most vividly in a paper submitted by Dr. Richard Jolly, of the Institute of Development Studies. Whether or not the right hon. Lady and I agreed with everything that was said by Dr. Jolly at Columbia, we will agree that his paper made a bigger impact than that of any of the other critics of the commission's report.

Dr. Jolly gave two sets of extremely interesting figures. He pointed out that the gap in living standards throughout the world was not merely great but was growing more rapidly than ever before. Perhaps 100 dollars or 200 dollars in 1850, the gap in average living standards between the wealthiest and poorest countries had widened to about 1,000 dollars by 1950, to about 1,500 dollars by 1960 and to over 2,000 dollars a year by 1970. By the end of the century, the average living standard per head, if one compared the wealthiest with the poorest countries, seemed likely to reach about 7,000 dollars.

While recognising that those are approximate figures, and are based on a number of assumptions, they give some measure of the crisis that faces us today. Another striking figure he gave is that by the end of the century it is probable that the standard of living per head for one-third of the world's population will still be less than 400 dollars a year, contrasted with an average of 10,000 dollars in North America. That is the measure of the problem we face.

This leads to another point that was made by Dr. Jolly and many others at the conference; the importance of seeking directly not merely to stimulate development but also to relieve poverty and unemployment. It was pointed out that growth rates of 5 per cent., 6 per cent. or even 7 per cent. would not necessarily deal with the most urgent problems of 25 per cent. of the world's population.

We must remember that in certain parts of the world where there have been considerable increases in growth rates year by year there still remains an intractable problem of unemployment. Furthermore, the poorest 25 per cent. of the world are today trapped in a situation of poor diet, bad health, illiteracy and unemployment. That should influence our targets in developing the strategy we want not merely to achieve higher growth rates but to improve diets, increase provision in health matters and provide better conditions to give wider employment for the poorest members of the less-developed countries. There was widespread feelings about the importance of developing a strategy designed to fit the specific needs of particular regions of the world, a subject to which I shall return when I deal with the Jackson Report.

What are the lessons for us in the light of these considerations, and what are the points on which we should continue to press the Government? First, we should press the Minister to go a little further regarding the Pearson target of 0.7 per cent. of the gross national product in public aid flows. I hope that the right hon. Lady will today go a little further than saying, 'This is one of the many things that we would like to do".

I appreciate that we have a Government plan for the control of public expenditure—in some respects, notably education, it is not a very realistic one—and I am conscious of the fact that the right hon. Lady is bound by that. But I hope that she will say more than just that the Pearson target of 0.7 per cent is one of the many aspirations that the Government hope to fulfil. In other words, we want to be assured that it is a target which Britain should certainly be able to achieve by the end of this decade. We cannot too often remind ourselves that while Britain, in relation to the rest of the world, may periodically go broke, as a country we are not poor. Furthermore, I still believe that we owe a debt for the fact that we were one of the great imperial Powers. We must have a continuing sense of responsibility for those countries which were our dependencies up to a short time ago.

I hope that it is recognised by the House, and that we will remind public opinion, that the developing countries have not merely development problems but also continuing foreign exchange problems. This is a subject on which I have frequently spoken in the House and I hesitate to weary hon. Members again on this issue. However, it is fair to say that 15 years ago, under the influence of people like Walt Rostow, emphasis was on take-off from the point of view of the developing countries. Today it is realised that there is an intractable foreign exchange problem, too. I have always believed it a fallacy to suppose that all nations are fundamentally in equilibrium with one another, except when they are not. This is exactly the same mistake as used to be made by those who said that Britain had really no dollar gap after the last war, but that the whole trouble was caused by excessive spending. Some people have remained too much in thrall to nineteenth century free trade economics, in totally different world circumstances.

The Pearson recommendations were also, of course, concerned with trade and liquidity. May we be assured that those recommendations are being considered by the Government and that the great importance of the developing countries will always be borne in mind, for example, during the Common Market negotiations? We need not only to think of the consequences of entering the Common Market for our cost of living but also to bear in mind the important implications for the developing countries.

There is everything to be said for mobilising public opinion in this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ton-bridge (Mr. Hornby) rightly said in the last debate, it is important to know the answers to give to critics. Whilst I sympathise with the importance attached to environment, let us remember that economic development is itself a major part of the task of making sense of man's environment. It would be absurd if we paid even more attention to the effects of pollution than to the grinding poverty of the bottom 25 per cent. of the world's population.

Next, the Jackson proposals. These are extremely important in that they emphasise the need for the programming of international assistance at country level, with a much stronger U.N.D.P. playing a central, co-ordinating rôle. They require the whole operation being organised within a developed, co-operated cycle comprising all the elements of project formulation, budgeting and implementation within a five-year programme. These are indeed important recommendations.

Let us remember how this all looks from the point of view of the country receiving aid. Mr. Peter Williams, who was present at the conference, said at a seminar, as one highly experienced in these matters, that there were enormous problems when a great many questions were suddenly asked at short notice of a developing country with slender resources of skill, administration and manpower. There are also the recommendations in Jackson for a reform of headquarters at agency levels.

To me, the really important aspect of the Jackson Report is that we do indeed need to give increasing emphasis to strengthening the kind of international institutions which have some semblance of balanced representation. I look on the Jackson Report as pointing the way to a slightly less unequal partnership in international economic world relations. For that reason alone, it is a document of high importance.

My last point is to emphasise how important it is that we should think of development in real, concrete terms. It is often talked about in broad abstract terms, which is understandable. Perhaps, indeed, this is the one week in the year in which all of us think more than we would otherwise do about these all-important abstract concepts of love, power and justice. But it is important to view world development in real terms, and to descend to thought about particular sectors and individual projects.

I agree very much with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) that it is not enough just to pay lip service to aid and development. It is incumbent upon the wealthier nations to take action—and we shall not be able to maintain our own comfortable living standards unless we make our contribution to a world order under which all nations can live in peace and in dignity.

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice (East Ham. North)

The House is indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for this debate. In welcoming what he said, we should recognise the need for the House, some time during the next few months, to move for a full day's debate in Government time upon the progress made in implementing both the Pearson and the Jackson Reports. I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a debate after the Recess, and I hope that others, including my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development will support me.

I turn, first, to the Jackson Report. I support its broad conception and I am sure that most of us who have studied these matters want to see its recommendations carried through. What worries me is that inevitably—there are signs of it already—there will be considerable opposition from the United Nations Specialised Agencies to the implementation of the main Jackson recommendations.

It is natural that these agencies should resist them. It is almost inevitable. But the Jackson recommendations can only be carried through in this situation if the main Governments, particularly those of the larger Powers, treat this matter as a major item on the international agenda, if there are firm Cabinet decisions in favour of the Jackson strategy and if these are pushed strongly through the appropriate machinery. I understand that the governing body of the U.N.D.P. is meeting this week. Perhaps my right hon. Friend can tell us about the attitude of the representative of Her Majesty's Government.

I want to elaborate on what the right hon. Gentleman said about aid volume. He asked my right hon. Friend to say something about the Government's intentions towards the fulfilment of the Pearson target of 0.7 of 1 per cent. in official aid. Even if she cannot say anything more about it today, I hope that this is being vigorously pursued within the Government machinery in relation to this year's public expenditure review.

The central fact about our aid programme is that it is too small, that it has always been too small and that it should grow. It is tragic that we are approaching the 1970s with the prospect that, even if we fulfil all our aid intentions, we shall still fall short in 1974 of the pledges of the Labour Party and Labour Government over many years and of the proposals made by the Pearson Commission.

The fact that the petition organised by the Council of Churches has attracted over 1 million signatures—I understand that it received the millionth yesterday—is evidence that a growing minority of our people—although still a minority—would support a higher aid performance, and that number includes very many young people.

Last November, my hon. Friend, in announcing the figures for the next few years, said that she was not then making a response to the Pearson Report. She said, quite reasonably, that it had only been received a few weeks previously and it was too early to respond to it. I deduce from that that we are still due to have a response to the report about aid volume. This has to take effect, if it does not do so earlier, in the context of the public expenditure review this year.

The figures announced last autumn were a five-year span up to the year 1973–74. The figures which will be announced this autumn will go up to a year later, to the financial year 1974–75. I take it to be incontestible that the new fifth year—1974–75—should provide for a larger aid total than in the preceding years. This follows logically from what my right hon. Friend said—that she hoped to reach the Pearson target some time within the 1970s. I hope that that is realised even within the darkest recesses of the Treasury.

But that is not sufficient. What I am suggesting—and I hope my right hon. Friend will take the point and, even if she cannot comment now, will press it within the Government machine—is that it is essential that the programme for the intervening years should be raised and that this decision should be made plain in the public expenditure review this year. The programme should be raised sufficiently to put us on course for reaching the volume targets of Pearson—I regard the 0.7 and the 1 per cent. as being related to each other. The Overseas Development Institute has calculated that, if we are to be on course for this, we need to provide about an extra £50 million in four years' time. That, out of a total public expenditure of £20,000 million, is a comparatively small sum. If this country takes seriously its duty in the fight against world poverty, we ought at least to do that.

I remind the House that it was in early 1968 that, at the second United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, we promised to use our best endeavours to reach a 1 per cent. flow of resources as soon as our position allowed. The balance of payments, if it ever was an excuse for not doing this, is no longer an excuse. If we meant what we said at that conference in 1968, it is not unreasonable that we should carry out the pledge seven years later in 1975. I hope and believe that we shall do so.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor (Glasgow, Cathcart) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving)

Order. Has the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) the agreement of the Minister to intervene in an arranged debate?

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

I understand that my intervention will be acceptable. Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It is perhaps impertinent of me to intervene in a debate in which we have heard such distinguished contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), but I intervene briefly to put one point which, I hope, the Minister will consider and about which I feel rather strongly.

Trade versus aid is one of the old arguments on the subject of foreign aid. I think that everyone would agree that it helps developing countries enormously if they have sufficient investment and industry can be encouraged. But many of the developing countries are not attracting, I fear, as much investment as they could which could help them to restore their economies. This is because of the policies of unreasonably high taxation, of difficulties in sending remittances of profits and of sequestration of industry.

In many countries—India, for example—taxation is too high; in other countries—like Ceylon and Nigeria—there are difficulties of sending remittances which cause real problems; again, in Tanzania and Indonesia, for example, sequestration has undermined confidence in their economies.

I wonder whether consideration has been given by the Minister to encouraging or otherwise promoting a code of cemmercial conduct on the part of those countries which receive aid from us, because I think that, apart from the benefits which they secure from aid, that would enable them to make their own economies grow by their own efforts by encouraging increased foreign investment.

3.50 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

I am sure the whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for a speech of admirable clarity and feeling. I agree with the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) that it is a great pity that we have not more time to discuss a subject of such importance, and I will reinforce him in the plea that he is to make for a fuller debate.

I would not dissent from a single word which my right hon. Friend said about the case for an international aid programme on a sufficiently adequate scale to make a real impact upon the problem of world poverty. I agree entirely with him that the problem is one which cannot be safely left, as some pundits tell us, to the operation of market forces. He quoted Dr. Richard Jolly, who has said that the gap between the rich and the poor nations is widening. That gap will go on widening still further because of the population explosion now taking place in the developing countries.

As my right hon. Friend reminded us, we are talking not merely about the desirability of increasing growth rates, which we can do from the comfortable recesses of our armchairs, but about the need for gainful employment for the ever-increasing millions, for tackling the evils of poverty, malnutrition and disease which afflict so large a part of the world, for giving a real chance to millions of our people to lead a life worth living.

One reason why I am glad that my right hon. Friend has raised this subject this afternoon is that many of us are conscious that the way ahead for international development is at the moment clouded with doubt and anxiety. There is anxiety about the United States. The fact is that that country provides at least half of the total Western aid effort, and any flagging of American effort, any change in the direction of American aid, must have profound effects upon the whole development scene. I am bound to say that in this country, too, there is some uncertainty as to the direction in which we are moving. Certainly the Pearson recommendation that we should be devoting 1 per cent. of the gross national product to aid by 1975 has fired the enthusiasm of many; so it is a good thing in that sense. Indeed, I think we have all been greatly impressed by the fervour of those who signed the December declaration. However, the fact is that while the Government accept the general target of 1 per cent. we are a long way from achieving it, and, without getting into any kind of statistical argument—though I could follow the right hon. Gentleman on that, but time does not permit—the truth is that we have no hope whatsoever on present form of reaching the 1 per cent. target by 1975, or, indeed, the lesser target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product in the norm of official aid.

Of course the right hon. Lady knows that the British aid effort is at the moment subject to very close scrutiny in the Select Committee on Overseas Aid, and it would be quite improper for me to refer in any way to the possible conclusions which that body may reach, but those of us who have followed this debate on development elsewhere, who have read the literature, and who have had the benefit of listening to the advice of my right hon. Friend, know that serious doubts are creeping in as to whether the Pearson approach is wholly the right one. For example, the 1 per cent. target does not really relate to aid in the accepted sense of the word but to total financial flows to the developing countries including guaranteed export credits and private investment. Yet the odd thing is that it does not include any provision for the substantial transfer of resouces which the Government and their predecessors have been making to developing countries through commodity agreements.

Thus, the Pearson target is no more than a rough measuring rod, and its only real merit is that it fixes in ordinary people's mind—and admitting this is a real merit—a reasonable-sounding target which it should be within the capacity of relatively wealthy nations like ours, to achieve. It is true that the Pearson proposal to redefine the objective by saying that at least 0.7 per cent. of G.N.P. should be in the form of official aid is a recognition that Governments, if they have the will, can provide the resources out of public funds, but they cannot guarantee private flows. Of course, we should try to do our best to reach the target, but there is no possibility whatsoever that the private flows can be stepped up in the Pearson context as long as the Government refuse to remove the fiscal disincentives to private overseas investment they have introduced, or to enter into investment guarantees along the lines which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) mentioned this afternoon.

I myself feel that there is a strong argument for not allowing ourselves to be mesmerised by targets but rather to concentrate our attention much more on the quality of the aid which we are providing, and the purpose of this short debate will have been well served if the Minister will say something about that in her remarks. For example, it looks to me, following the report of the Peterson Task Force to President Nixon, as if the United States may move away from a bilateral aid programme towards channelling more aid through the international lending institutions such as the World Bank, I.D.A., regional banks and so on. There may be a good deal of merit in this. I would concede that multilateral aid can be used to finance large and costly projects, whether channelled through the World Bank or through consortia of countries acting together, and this has the advantage, from the donor countries' point of view, that they individually do not have to take initiatives which can prove costly and embarrassing if other donors refuse, for one reason or another, to participate. Multilateral aid should also make it easier for recipient Governments to adopt the right kind of approach to their own development, while donor governments cannot then be charged with neo-colonialism.

I am bound to say, however, that in the case of the United Nations development programme there is doubt, for historical reasons concerning the way in which the specialised agencies have grown, as to whether it is capable of anything more than marginal changes, certainly until such time as reform on the lines of the Jackson Report is implemented. Experience shows—and to say this is the real reason for my intervention that it is less the way in which aid is channelled to the developing countries than the use to which the aid is put, and the way it is co-ordinated on the ground, which matters. I would hope, therefore, that the right hon. Lady will be able to say something about the steps the Government are taking to improve the British aid administration in the field, both on evaluating projects in advance and in seeing that they are properly carried out so that there is no waste or duplication.

One of the most successful developments in British overseas aid has been the setting up of regional aid divisions. Only two have so far been established, one in the Middle East, and one in the Caribbean. We shall be most interested to hear whether the Government have any proposals to move any further in this direction.

There are also certain matters in which the Government really must take a positive stand this year if heed is to be paid to the recommendations of the Pearson Report.

First, what attitude do the Government take towards the proposal that the major donors and recipients should meet this year to discuss ways of improving the effective administration of aid? Secondly, what attitude do they take towards the proposal that the World Bank should convene a conference of multilateral agencies, regional banks, major bilateral donors and representatives of the developing countries this year to discuss the creation of improved machinery for coordinating and reviewing aid programmes?

Lastly, bearing in mind that aid is not the sole, or even the main, factor in promoting economic growth and speeding advance towards the eradication of world poverty, what initiatives are the Government taking in the world forum to secure a framework of world trade which will give the developing nations an easier access to the world's markets?

4.2 p.m.

The Minister of Overseas Development (Mrs. Judith Hart)

I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) for carrying out his promise made at Columbia to initiate a debate of this kind. We all agree about the considerable frustration in not having sufficient time to discuss overseas aid. I have been adding up the amount of time which I have been able to spend, including today's debate, in discussing aid matters since I became Minister at the beginning of October and, excluding of course Question Time, it amounts to only 25 minutes.

This reflects the amount of time that hon. Members on the other side of the House and on the back benches everywhere have had to do the same thing. It is disproportionately small. I would certainly encourage everyone here—and I will support their efforts—to get a longer debate at an early date.

As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who is with us, and in view of what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth said at the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member may like to know that this morning, following the receipt of the million signatures, I received from the hon. Member for Canterbury his petition forms which include the very distinguished names of the Archbishop of Canterbury and many members of his Church in Canterbury. I was delighted to be able to receive this.

There are so many questions to answer and too little time. I will try to give priority to one or two subjects. The Jackson Report must be one, because it is important at this moment. I will say something about the conferences in North America and about the four points which the right hon. Gentleman rightly identified as emerging as priorities from these conferences. If I have time I will say something, not so much about the content of our aid programme as about the sort of objectives within it.

The Jackson Report, which has been emphasised, rightly, as being of great importance, came out towards the end of 1969. It was produced by Sir Robert Jackson and called "The United Nations Capacity Study". It examined the United Nations Development System which is the main multilateral source of technical and pre-investment assistance, including all the Specialised Agencies that administer development programmes.

To put this in perspective, I should mention that by 1968 the scale of the effort had risen to an annual level of 230 million dollars, of which 170 million dollars, or 75 per cent., was direct from the U.N.D.P. whose resources consist of voluntary contributions by member-Governments. We are a considerable contributor.

The findings of the capacity study was that the system was suffering from strain and needed reform if it was to develop the capacity to handle a greater volume of aid, which, hopefully, it might expect during the second development decade. To put things into perspective I ought to say that in Sir Robert Jackson's view some 80 per cent. of the output of the system, was efficient. This is derived from a letter to The Times and not the report itself.

We are talking marginally here, but very importantly along the margin about the efficiency of the U.N. system. As major contributors to the system, which has been increasing its budget in recent years, we have the greatest interest in ensuring that every penny provided should be used to the maximum advantage of the developing countries. This is the whole objective of the system. We share Sir Robert Jackson's wish to see an increase in the United Nations Development System so that it can handle an increased volume of technical and pre-investment assistance and bring about an improvement in the service that it provides to developing countries.

The Governing Council of the U.N.D.P. has been specially convened in New York to examine the capacity study. The session is nearing its end. I cannot say what its conclusions will be. They will obviously to some extent be provisional at this stage, as is inevitable, and will probably be carried a stage further at the next regular session of the council to be held in Geneva in June. The general spirit that has prevailed seems to have been positive.

The essential proposals of the Jackson Report relating to the focus on co-ordinated planning at the country level, what is called country programming, and the organisational changes both at that level and at regional and central level will concentrate responsibility for the balance and impact in the U.N.D.P. contribution in the hands of the U.N.D.P. resident representatives. There has been a wide measure of agreement.

The developing countries have naturally and rightly emphasised that the determination of national objectives in development, the identification of the rôle in approaching them and the social and economic priorities in relation to each developing country must be decisions for the developing countries themselves.

This is the point I sought to emphasis in my discussions in North America about the Jackson Report, that one must start from the point of view of the development countries themselves. One must not merely accept the situation, but must emphasise their right to make their own decisions about their planning priorities.

I am glad that during the recent discussions on the Jackson Report which are still continuing with the developing and developed countries there has been a tendency to identify the same objectives and the same methodology of approach. There seems to have been no conflict whatever, and this is quite right since there is a real identification of interests in this matter. The developing countries as a whole seem to have welcomed the prospect of participation in a United Nations development co-operation cycle, on the Jackson model, in order to ensure a coherent and cost-effective application of resources.

The United Kingdom representatives have played a constructive part in supporting this convergence of opinion. We have been in no doubt about our view of the Jackson Report. We hope—and we will play our part towards this end—that a growing proportion of development assistance will flow through multilateral channels.

This is one of the main recommendations of the Pearson Commission. But if a growing proportion of aid from Britain is to flow through multilateral channels it is the more important that the necessary reorganisations are carried through.

I will not go into detail about our own aid programme, but I feel that we have a right to be satisfied that the management of the bilateral aid programme is highly efficient and cost-effective. If we are to put an increasing proportion of our aid programme through multilateral channels, it is all the more important that we should be able to believe that such expenditure is being channelled effectively. I have no doubt that this will be so.

The Jackson Capacity Study has struck a fresh note in taking a new look at the effectiveness of international action. It has analysed its inadequacies and stressed its successes. We intend to put our best endeavours into achieving the main objectives of the Jackson Report. The right hon. Member for Handsworth, identified four areas on which concentration was aimed at the Columbia conference, in New York, and I should like to say a word or two about those matters. I will leave official flows until last. I have a strong feeling that if I begin on that point I shall use all my time.

I thought that the Williamsburg conference, which I did not attend but which produced some immensely valuable papers that I hope will be provided in the Library, and the Columbia conference were extremely useful. So, also, was my own opportunity to attend the conference of the Overseas Development Council in Washington, where, hon. Members will be surprised to hear, I was asked to make an opening speech emphasising the splendid response that Britain has so far made to the Pearson Commission's Report as an example to other donor nations.

This will strike a not exactly ready ear amongst those who are concerned about it, but it puts in fair reflection our comparative performance in relation to other donor countries in responding to Pearson. I also attended a private conference in Montebello of the heads of all the multilateral bodies, at which we threw round our ideas about Jackson and Pearson.

Let me come next to I.D.A. replenishment. As is so often the case, when one is not doing well enough, plenty of public concentration is devoted to one's shortcomings; but when one is doing well, it passes unnoticed. One of the major Pearson recommendations has attracted a great deal of attention in Parliamentary Questions since I became Minister. It is what will be the scale of our contributions to the I.D.A. replenishment and will Britain play its full part? I announced last Thursday—and it went as unmarked as any answer to a Question that I have experienced—that we have made it clear in the I.D.A. discussions that we are ready to make our contribution at a scale which will allow 1 billion dollars replenishment of I.D.A.

There are one or two points that we shall need to discuss in relation to this, but we are thoroughly supporting a very large increase in I.D.A. activity, and the very large replenishment which this figure indicates. I am glad to say that as a result of what was an initiative of ours we are seeing one or two other countries following our example. So perhaps I may score a point: we have responded very well to an important Pearson target, and I shall be delighted if the House will take note of that and underline it.

The discussions are not yet complete. They will have to continue over the next few months, and there are one or two other countries which will have a crucial rôle to play if the eventual I.D.A. replenishment is to be at that level. Much will depend on them in the coming months.

As regards access to markets, we support the general objectives of the Pearson Report, though not all the detailed ideas, many of which have to be discussed internationally. Some are being discussed already; for example, generalised preferences. In general, our record is pretty good.

On debt relief, which the Pearson Commission and the Columbia conference identified as being a major issue, here again we have an extremely good record in that, since 1965, about half of our aid has been in grant form, with the remainder in loans, 90 per cent. of which have been interest-free, often with a seven-year grace period before capital repayments are due.

About the response of developing countries on investment matters, there was a conference in Amsterdam last year at which the developing countries themselves responded very well. The difficulty at arriving at a code of conduct which would fit the criteria which have been mentioned by one hon. Member today arose not from them but from the developed countries.

I see that I have only about one minute left, which adds force to what I said earlier about the small amount of time at our disposal to discuss these subjects, and that we would like a longer debate. Unfortunately, the Leader of the House is not here, but the Deputy Leader of the House is, and he is, no doubt, taking note of what I say.

I should like to say a great deal about the kind of criteria that we need to apply to aid. I should like to say something about how I see population planning going and what contribution Britain may be able to make. I should like to say something about what I see as the close interlinked relationship between the success of population planning and the success of rural development. But, in a debate on aid, I accept that I must leave those matters for another occasion. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Handsworth for initiating the debate.