UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT (Hansard, 12 June 1972)

§ 60. Mr. MEACHER
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the results of the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

§ 62. Mr. SPEARING
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the conclusions reached by the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

§ Mr. MARTEN
To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.

§ The Minister for Trade (Mr. Michael Noble)
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will answer these questions.
The Third United Nations Conference on Trade and Development met in Santiago, Chile, from 13th April to 21st May, 1972. It reached agreement on a number of guidelines that will be important in future work in other international organisations as well as in UNCTAD.
In my opening statement for the United Kingdom I made an assessment of what could be realistically expected from the conference. Our delegation put all its efforts into promoting agreement where this was possible. I believe that this constructive and realistic rôle was the most valuable one possible in the circumstances of this conference. In the event 998 the assessment which I presented was proved to be largely accurate.
The most important expectations for the conference were on monetary matters. Agreement was reached that the International Monetary Fund be invited to ensure the effective participation of the developing countries in international monetary reform by the establishment of a Special Committee of Governors. The Fund, as part of its consideration of monetary reform, is also to pursue its consideration of the possibility of a link between special drawing rights and development aid.
In the field of trade it was agreed that all developing countries should be enabled to participate fully and effectively in the multilateral trade negotiations expected to start in GATT next year, and that the UNCTAD and the GATT should co-ordinate their activities in assisting the developing countries to prepare for these negotiations.
In many instances, notably over the development of the generalised preferences scheme and over special measures for the benefit of the least developed among the developing countries, the conference set guidelines for the future work of its permanent organisation. We shall continue there the active and constructive rôle which we played in the conference.
Details of these and all the matters dealt with by the conference will be published in a White Paper as soon as is practicable this summer

§ Mr. Spearing
Will the Minister say a little more about the special new fund which we understand will be set up in respect of the least developed countries. Will those funds be part of the existing aid organisation or extra aid? Secondly, on the question of the resolution on insurance which suggested that the least developed countries should carry a greater share of their own risks, could he say whether the United Kingdom delegation abstained on this resolution, how many other nations abstained and the reasons for our abstention, if any? Was one of the reasons that our delegation was afraid of what the City might have to say?

§ Mr. Noble
On the hon. Gentleman's second question which, if I heard him aright, was on insurance, I can tell him that we were the only country to abstain on an otherwise unanimously agreed resolution. The particularly objectionable 999 features of the resolution were paragraphs in it which encouraged developing countries, first, to reserve insurance business to their national insurers; secondly, to require insurance funds to be invested locally; and, thirdly, to require the developed countries to encourage those investing in developing countries to use local insurers. The House will appreciate that Britain is more immediately concerned with international insurance than is any other country. We also have to bear in mind in insurance matters the interests of the consumers as well as our own national interests. In all the cases where the type of policy which was advocated by certain countries in UNCTAD has been followed through consumers have come off worst.
With regard to the least developed countries, Britain already supplies 13 per cent. of our bilateral aid to the group of 25 least developed countries, which is a higher proportion than that recommended in the UNCTAD secretariat's action programme. We do this on very soft terms. I cannot at the moment give the hon. Gentleman an answer on the detail of whether or not this aid will be extra.

§ Mr. Marten
We look forward to studying the White Paper, but does my right hon. Friend not agree that trade is as important as, if not more important than, aid? In that context is he not surprised that trade with the developing countries from the Common Market—I do not want to harp on this unduly—declined in the last 10 years from 22 per cent. to 15.9 per cent.? Is that not a very depressing thought if we are to join the Market, and do we have to harmonise downwards?

§ Mr. Noble
I assure my hon. Friend, if he does not already know it, that we have an extremely good record of trade with the developing countries. I am convinced that we shall be able to maintain that record in the future.

§ Mrs. Hart
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman precisely when the White Paper will be published? Furthermore, will the Government provide time for us to debate this subject, bearing in mind that the Opposition provided time to debate the preliminary matters on the last occasion?
1000 I wish to record our deep regret and embarrassment that the British attitude to the major proposals made in Santiago by the developing countries was either entirely negative or positively obstructive? Is it the case that we actively opposed, as distinct from not accepting it, a proposal for an official aid target of 0.7 per cent. of GNP?
May I also deplore the fact that we abstained on the resolution on insurance, on which the hon. Gentleman's answer today was abysmal. Could he say what is our precise position in respect of the resolution on debt relief, and will he say what our attitude will be to the IMF discussions on special drawing rights?

§ Mr. Noble
I will try to cover all the right hon. Lady's questions. I cannot give the exact date of the publication of the White Paper. I have said that it will be early in the summer, and I am afraid that is the best I can say at the moment.
The question of time for debate should be discussed through the usual channels.
On the point about 0.7 per cent. official aid targets, we have never made any bones about the fact that we have not accepted this or any other target for official aid. We believe it is the performance that counts, and the British record compares well with that of most other donors. In 1971 we provided net disbursements of official aid totalling 0.41 per cent. of GNP compared with a preliminary average of all developed countries in the Development Assistance Committee of 0.34 per cent.
On the question of debt, we voted with the other developed countries against a resolution passed by a majority vote on increasing the burden of debt servicing, since it called for new institutional arrangements and far-reaching measures to be applied irrespective of the circumstances of individual countries. We shall work with our partners in the enlarged Community in seeking ways of solving debt problems which impede development without destroying the basis of confidence on which the flow of international trade and credit is based.
The right hon. Lady expresses disappointment at my attitude in respect of insurance. I can only say that my duties are to look after both the interests of 1001 this country and the interests of consumers in the developing countries.

§ Sir Gilbert Longden
Can my right hon. Friend make it clear, if not now at least in the White Paper, what are the major obstacles to an international agreement to establish minimum commodity prices on the lines of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement? Surely that is one of the best ways in which we can help the under-developed countries.

§ Mr. Noble
My hon. Friend is quite right. Britain has a very good record in this connection. We belong to all the five commodity arrangements which have been reached so far. We are very keen that this should be developed, and we shall take an active part in any further work that UNCTAD can produce on commodity problems. I very much agree with my hon. Friend.

§ Mr. David Steel
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the general demand that this important White Paper should be debated on the Floor of the House at the earliest convenient opportunity. Will it go further into the reasons for failing to agree with a target and explain the Government's view of hostility towards a target for aid? Can the right hon. Gentleman say also whether it will deal with the Government's record both at home and in an international context on the fixing of higher stabilised primary commodity prices?

§ Mr. Noble
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the general desire for a debate on this matter. However, I cannot go further than I did in answer to the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart). As for the target, our position has been explained very fully on a great many occasions. The White Paper will give details of many of the points that we have put forward in arguing for agreements and explaining the reason why we could not support certain actions.

§ Mr. Selwyn Gummer
Will my right hon. Friend take an opportunity in the White Paper to spell out directly the way in which the British Government intend to take initiatives leading to a considerable expansion in our aid to the developing countries? Is not this an area in which Britain should be leading? Is my 1002 right hon. Friend aware that many of us feel that the UNCTAD conference was less happy than it should have been?

§ Mr. Noble
I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. The conference was much less happy than it should have been. The reason is clear. It set out with a great deal of publicity from the developing countries about a whole lot of targets which, in the view of the majority of people in the developed countries and many in the developing countries, were totally unrealistic. If a conference sets out with aims of that sort, inevitably it finishes in an atmosphere of disappointment or frustration. However, the British record in most of these matters is extremely good, and it should not be run down by right hon. and hon. Members opposite simply because they expected more.

§ Mr. Judd
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in the light of the discussions at Santiago and precisely because of our excellent record on trade with the third world there is a great deal of room for concern about what is to happen to our trading pattern with the third world once we enter the EEC?

§ Mr. Noble
There is a great deal of concern but I do not link it with the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. There are many problems that we have to look at seriously in this connection over the next five or 10 years. In fact, I took the opportunity only a few days ago to discuss them with a number of trade union leaders. There are many complicated problems that we have to solve However, I do not see that there are specific difficulties as a result of our joining the Common Market.