§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Eyre.]
§ 7.58 p.m.
§ Mr. Frank Judd (Portsmouth, West)I am deeply grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Overseas Development for making himself available on this day, the first after the Easter Recess, for this debate.
I hope the House will forgive me if in introducing the subject I emphasise the point felt strongly by some of us, that it is unfortunate that during almost a year virtually the only opportunities which hon. Members have had to raise matters concerning this vital aspect of governmental policy—overseas aid and development—have been either in Consolidated Fund Bill debates or Adjournment debates or indirectly in the course of other business. Some of us feel strongly that the time has come for a major debate on this significant subject of overseas aid and development, particularly as we now no longer have an independent Ministry conducting the policy on its own feet but have an administration which, while it is very committed, is submerged in the larger Foreign Office with its naturally wider responsibilities.
I know that I speak for right hon. and hon. Members on both sides when I say that we feel strongly that the recommendations of the Select Committee on Overseas Aid and Development, which recently reported to the House, should be taken seriously, particularly where it urges an annual debate on this vital aspect of British policy. Not only do we feel that the dedicated work of so many people involved in the administration of overseas aid and development deserves better and wider recognition in the House, but we recognise that considerable sums 907 of taxpayers' money are involved in the programme, and the use of this money should not go undebated in the House of Commons.
This brings me to the main theme of the present debate, and I hope, following the example of the last two debates, to keep my remarks fairly brief, since the point can be made concisely. Basically, the point is that, while we are preoccupied in the House and elsewhere with a host of grave social and economic problems on our own doorstep, we may be moving into a world situation in which the so-called industrialised or developed countries are overtaken by events which cannot possibly leave us unscathed. I refer here to the population explosion.
Various statistics from different sources have indicated the magnitude of this problem, but I wonder how many hon. Members realise that it is estimated by most responsible international organisations, on a conservative and cautious basis, that during the next 10 years, the Second Development Decade which has just commenced, we can expect in the developing countries—this excludes Communist China, because statistics are not available for China—an increase in the population of working age of about 225 million, or between 25 and 30 per cent. Moreover, this comes on top of a situation in which already, although precise statistics are hard to come by, for obvious reasons, it is known that the number of unemployed in the developing countries, again excluding China, stands at about 75 million.
Anyone who believes that a problem of that size does not have political implications which will sooner or later affect us in the developed industrialised countries is indulging in serious self-deception.
The International Labour Organisation, which, whatever criticisms one may have of it, is not a body given to melodramatic assessments of the problems with which it is confronted, recently put the point very well in a report delivered to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. This is what the I.L.O. said:
Development with benefits for the few, visible but unavailable to the vast majority, is unlikely to breed domestic stability. It has implications which stretch far beyond the 908 prospects of the developing countries themselves to the international community".The report went on:The world is one because every part of the world is promptly aware of, and increasingly sensitive to, the effect of events in virtually every other part. Growing unemployment in the developing part of the world will not only adversely affect the trade and investments of the developed part of the world—here we come to the crunch line—It can destroy the fabric of national societies, as it once did in Europe, and thereby threaten world peace.If we take that point seriously, we can say that, in our stress on the importance of aid and development programmes, we are not only appealing to the charity and morality of the British people but we are in the best sense addressing ourselves to enlightened self-interest in our nation and other similar industrialised nations.If we are to tackle the problem of finding employment for the growing population, a problem which, as I have said, is extremely urgent, we must be prepared to contemplate far more drastic measures than have yet been foreseen. It is no good just continuing with a gradual expansion of existing policies, however relevant and valuable they may have been. We have to think of new approaches.
One aspect of the matter which we must quickly grasp is that if we are to try to find jobs for these people, there is little likelihood that we shall find enough jobs in the main urban centres. It is not necessary to travel far in Asia, Latin America or Africa to see the squalor and the political instability represented by the vast shanty towns occupied by unemployed people around almost every major centre of population. I know that the Minister has himself visited many such areas and will agree with what I say. We shall not find opportunities for employment in those sad situations.
We must increasingly investigate means of extending employment in the rural areas of these countries. Some would argue that we must, therefore, give a good deal more thought to agricultural techniques which can be labour-intensive within the developing countries. Others, with a good deal of weighty expertise on their side, will say that if 909 we are to maintain efficient agricultural production in the developing countries, it is not possible to envisage a great expansion in the number of people directly employed in agriculture.
This puts another challenge to us in Britain, Europe and the industrialised world as a whole, for we must be ready to ensure that we follow the sort of food policies in our own countries which will so encourage agricultural development in the developing countries by giving them assured outlets for the export of their agricultural produce that they can by this industry, in which they are competitive given an equal opportunity, produce the resources which can then be invested in labour-intensive industries spread throughout their communities as a whole.
It is, therefore, directly relevant to the main theme of my subject tonight to draw attention to a rather startling proposition as it stands at the moment. We have a Government who have repeatedly—I am sure that hon. Members on both sides are glad of it—committed themselves to the principle of maintaining priority for overseas aid and development policies, but a Government who at the same time are committed to entry into the European Economic Community, one of the main pillars of which is a common agricultural policy which works directly against the possibility of the developing countries having fair opportunities for the export of their agricultural produce.
I make that point as one directly related to this debate, since we cannot go on to discuss relevant means of providing opportunities for employment in the developing countries unless we are consistent in our approach to their overall economic and social needs, and this, I believe, entails a radical examination of the common agricultural policy and the way in which it works against the interests of the developing countries and their agriculture. Not only are they denied an opportunity for exports, but subsidised exports from Europe are going to the developing countries as the result of the common agricultural policy, directly providing a disincentive to improve production in those countries.
Supposing we can get our strategy right on these wider, more important issues, what shall we do about finding relevant means of giving greater employment 910 prospects to the people of the developing countries? A great deal has been said in recent years about the importance of what has been described as intermediate technology. I do not need to remind the Minister about this, because he is well briefed on the subject. This is the idea that, instead of going in for capital-intensive projects in the developing countries, we should, wherever possible, seek means of using their wide supply of labour for labour-intensive production. This can ensure that economic progress, where achieved, is shared by the widest possible section of the community, and that it does not result in a technological élite rapidly becoming still better off, sometimes at the expense of the wider community. Therefore, intermediate technology is important, and it is good to see Government Departments in this country and many others responsible for development policies giving so much more priority to this principle within their development programmes.
But there is another problem which we must examine, which is the reason why I sought this debate. It is alarming to see the minute amount of research done both in the industrialised countries and in the developing countries into the unique social, economic, cultural and industrial problems of the developing countries. Too often the research pat-terms in the developing countries are a carbon copy of the plans laid down in the industrialised countries, in which inevitably the needs of the industrialised, relatively sophisticated communities take precedence. What we need is a gigantic stimulation of effort in the world situation as a whole to ensure that more resources go into appropriate research into the special needs of what is, after all, the overwhelming majority of mankind.
In this country the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and previously the Ministry of Overseas Development, under both Administrations, has had a distinguished record in giving pragmatic support to particular institutions, some under its direct control and others less directly under its influence, which are doing valuable work in terms of specialised research. Anyone examining the record will agree that the result is not as effective as it might be because it is too fragmented. Not for the first time, we 911 should be prepared to look across the Atlantic to our colleagues and friends in Canada who have given a magnificent lead in this respect.
By Act of Parliament last year the Canadians established an international research and development centre, the purpose of which was to co-ordinate and increase the amount of research being done into the problem of the majority of mankind. It said:
The objects of the Centre are to initiate, encourage, support and conduct research into the problems of the developing regions of the world and into the means for applying and adopting scientific, technical and other knowledge to the economic and social advancement of those regions, and, in carrying out those objectsWhat I have tried to do in this brief debate is to illustrate the magnitude of the problem with which we are confronted, to bring home to the House that we are living in cloud cuckoo-land if we are tempted to believe, cynically, that this is just a problem of those people unfortunate enough to live in the developing countries, and that it will not affect us. It will in the end affect us, and the end may not be that far distant.
- (a) to enlist the talents of natural and social scientists and technologists of Canada and other countries;
- (b) to assist the developing regions to build up the research capabilities, the innovative skills and the institutions required to solve their problems;
- (c) to encourage generally the co-ordination of international development research; and
- (d) to foster co-operation in research on development problems between the developed and developing regions…".
Then what I have tried to do is to argue that if we are to do the sort of things that are necessary to assist the Governments of the developing countries to find appropriate techniques for their own territories we must make sure that the context in which we approach the matter is sound and logical, that it is no good just handing out charity with one hand, talking about competitive targets for aid and technical assistance, and at the same time denying the developing countries fair and just access, in the interests of us all, to the markets of the industrialised countries, as happens under the common agricultural policy of the E.E.C.
912 Having got that context right, we must mobilise a far greater degree of co-ordinated research both in this country and internationally. How much easier it will be to do it internationally if we have appropriate co-ordination within our own countries! Then we must mobilise the right amount of research into the special, unique problems of the developing countries. They are unique, because nowhere else in the world have we ever seen problems of the present magnitude, of such a number of unemployed people, and the prospect of still greater numbers, and the need to find them employment if we are to preserve the political stability of the individual countries and of the world collectively. We must tackle this problem with resolve.
I deeply respect the Minister for his real commitment on this front. I urge him to get together with some of the specialist interests in this country now to see whether we could not achieve far more rapid and successful results if we were to follow the Canadian example in establishing for ourselves the kind of international research development centre that I have described.
§ 8.17 p.m.
§ The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood)I am grateful, as the House is, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) for raising this matter.
The question of a major debate on aid is something that the hon. Gentleman will have to continue to put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. The very ingenuity of hon. Members in raising matters relevant to my Department's affairs may make my right hon. Friend less willing to accede to the hon. Gentleman's wish, because there has been a number of debates in recent weeks. There was one just before Easter in which very important matters were raised.
The hon Gentleman has talked tonight about the importance of more research, particularly into the immensely important problem of employment in the future in the developing countries. He asked me two or three weeks ago a question about the new International Development Research Centre in Canada, and I then told him that, as I sincerely feel, I greatly welcome the 913 setting up of the centre. It has very wide terms of reference, and it has a most distinguished membership. The board has an international character which convinces me that the centre is likely to make a very valuable contribution in the field in which the hon. Gentleman and I and a number of other right hon. and hon. Members are extremely interested.
The hon. Gentleman would like us to follow that example, though not necessarily to set up the same sort of centre. I always listen to his ideas with the greatest care. He and I have co-operated for several years in matters of this kind, and I know, as the House knows, of his great experience and knowledge. We know of the important part he played on the Select Committee which recently reported, and of the most intelligent interest he takes in all matters relating to my Department. Therefore, I say with sincerity that I hope that any suggestions he makes to me or to any of my right hon. Friends will never be listened to with a closed mind—if one can listen with one's mind. But he will understand that I come from the north of England, where men and women are known for their great caution. All of them I think are conservative with a small "c", but fortunately at the moment a great many of them are Conservative with a large "C". Even without my native caution, however, I believe it would be wrong to follow too closely the Canadians in their present organisational arrangement.
As the hon. Gentleman will realise, in Canada there were few if any organisations which have been wholly or mainly concerned with research in relation to the developing countries. The Canadians, with great wisdom, therefore set up this centre and I am extremely pleased. We on the other hand have a number of organisations already for world quality and renown, as the hon. Gentleman will agree. I have already been able to visit a number of them. These organisations have already done very considerable and valuable research relevant to some of the problems the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
I do not need to rehearse, to the hon. Gentleman at least, at great length the work taking place in the Tropical Products Institute or the Anti-locust Research Centre similar units which are 914 or will be connected with the Anti-locust Research Centre or with the Land Resources Division or the Centre for Tropical Veterinary Medicine. Probably he knows about them better than I do. They are all contributing to the volume of research which has as its objective very much the central problem which the hon. Gentleman has put.
Apart from these institutes and their various disciplines and research funds, all contributing to the objective, we in the Department are operating a great deal of research on our own account. Part of the money available within the aid programme has been set aside specifically for research into the problems which impede the economic or social development of the developing countries. These funds are administered outside geographical priorities. The Department which is charged with controlling them has a separate sub-head. It makes sense, since a piece of research may be in the interests of many countries. The money set aside for the research is independent of priorities for particular countries and can be used to follow priorities dictated by the subject itself. Another advantage is that the relative independence makes for greater and more effective cooperation with the non-Government organisations, on close connection with which the effectiveness of our research effort depends. I make these points because I think that it was with them in mind that the Canadians set up their I.R.D.C.
The research which is funded by the vote of my Department covers a wide range of disciplines. All the funding is in grant form. But basic criteria cover the expenditure. The work must be directed towards gathering new knowledge or the development of new techniques and relate to the problems impeding the social or economic progress of the developing countries. To an important extent our research funds are used in partnership with the work of several British research institutions working in the same field although not necessarily on the same criterion. For example, we work closely with the U.G.C. in research into trypanosemiasis where pure research could not be expected to show immediate or early benefit and in practice may be subsidised by the U.C.G. We are also in regular partnership with 915 the Medical Research Council, with which we maintain the Tropical Medicine Research Board. Other subjects are covered and there is growing research into the problems of the economics of development and social problems, particularly including population control.
Just before Easter we had a valuable debate on this matter, and, provided that it meets the criteria I have mentioned, the work can be undertaken either in Britain in a developing country and by British or non-British scientists. I have mentioned the link with the Medical Research Council and we have close co-operation with the Agricultural Research Council and the Social Science Research Council. We commission or approve and support a large number of research projects at universities in the United Kingdom and in other learned institutions. Our activities are analogous to the intentions of the Canadian centre.
§ Mr. JuddI am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way because I appreciate the considerate way in which he is replying. Before he leaves his point of how research is organised, can he say a little more about how specifically the Department's assistance for research, as at present organised, is geared to improving, for example, labour-intensive industrial techniques in developing countries? Does not he agree that it is striking that, whereas major industries will spend as much as 6 per cent. of their budgets on research into new production methods, taking the aid programme of industrialised countries as a whole, less than half of 1 per cent. of their total aid budgets is spent on research? Can we he satisfied that the resources are being appropriately used, since we are using such a minute amount on research into what is appropriate?
§ Mr. WoodI shall deal with the volume of research in a moment. From what I have said about the specific objective, the hon. Member can rightly deduce that if we believe that any problem is susceptible to further important research, there are a variety of ways in which we can get that research done, either directly ourselves through the means available immediately to us, or through the universities or other learned institutions. There is very little limit under our existing 916 systems to the ways and methods by which we can get answers to questions which we particularly want answered as well as they can be in present circumstances.
The question at the centre of the hon. Member's remarks is at the centre of my thinking in relation to the developing countries, because I realise that this will be a problem not only to the end of the century but in the next decade, the 1980s, as it is a very important problem in the 1970s themselves. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure, a startling figure which I repeat, of an extra 225 million people wanting jobs in 1980 over 1971. That is the measure of the problem. It is, as I and all my advisers recognise, the greatest cardinal problem, apart, perhaps, from the population increase itself, that we have to face. All I can tell him is that my Department, while I would not say it is preoccupied or obsessed with it, is widely aware of the vital importance of trying to solve this problem, and I myself hope in this coming weekend to join in important discussions with this as the main theme.
Within our research programme we naturally have a number of smaller projects which are researches into economic development and the provision of employment possibilities in various parts of the developing world. We are, naturally, co-operating in various projects carried out by the Intermediate Technology Development Group, the aim of which is to encourage the development of technologies appropriate to those parts of the world which do not necessarily derive the best advantage from attempting to take on advanced technologies immediately.
I therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that, both in these particular ways and in the general way of focussing our attention on this employment problem and having the means at our disposal, either directly or indirectly through the universities or other learned institutions, we are confident that we have the means to institute any research which we need to institute into problems of this magnitude. I hope that he will therefore agree that, although he may from time to time want to make suggestions—which I should greatly welcome—our arrangements have many of the features which 917 the Canadians are at present proposing to establish. They have in common the feature of international advice and the commissioning of research over wide disciplines, they both attempt to enlist the co-operation of centres of excellence, both in this country and overseas, and they provide a measure of autonomy from the rest of the aid programme.
The hon. Member may take the view that one large comprehensive centre for research is, for some reason, preferable to a number of specialised centres, but I think he will agree that there are arguments both ways. My conviction is that the use of existing centres of excellence with respect for their autonomy also has much to be said for it in our own situation.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the scale of our efforts, especially in his intervention. It is sometimes under-estimated. Our out-stations, although they may be restricted by manpower restraints on the public service, are advancing in financial terms, as is our research Vote. A great many other things in our technical assistance and some other elements of our financial aid have a research component. There are many examples of work done by the British community.
Some commentators, not the hon. Gentleman, tend to compare what we did last year with what other donor countries have announced they intend to do in the future. This leads to the wrong impression among some people interested in aid matters that our effort is meagre. If we compare our actual research aid effort with that of other donor countries, both in quantity and quality it stands up to the most rigorous examination, although as the hon. Gentleman knows, 918 like my predecessors I would always like to do more.
To return to my main theme, I am not saying that we have nothing to learn from the Canadians and that the results of their research centre will not be extremely valuable to us. All I am saying is that our position is not the same as theirs. We do not have to build an entirely new house. We have one of quite long standing with many good features, including some which the Canadians are planning. Our job is to try to improve our own building, and we constantly try to do this. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press upon us that we must work in exactly the same way as the Canadians. He has given a greater emphasis tonight to the need for us to do more and to do it specifically in relation to this important unemployment problem.
Few hon. Members have as valuable a record as the hon. Member in keeping the needs and interests of developing countries before the Government, whether it is formed from his party or from mine, and in keeping the needs of the developing countries before the British people. I hope the hon. Member will agree to co-operate in future and will bring to bear, in Adjournment debates or in the general debate which he seeks, the astringent criticisms which we have come to expect from him, put never with bitterness but in a constructive way. He can be certain that his aims and mine are almost exactly the same although possibly from time to time the methods by which we try to achieve them may differ a little.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Nine o'clock.