HC Deb 02 July 1974 vol 876 cc347-60

10.2 p.m.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

I should like first, in opening this short Adjournment debate, to welcome to the Front Bench my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I am sure that he will not be embarrassed if I say that a number of us wondered why it took him so long to get there. We are delighted to see him there this evening.

On 2nd April, through a Written Question, I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement on the policy that the United Kingdom will pursue at the World Food Conference which is to be held in Rome in November.

In his reply my right hon. Friend mentioned the problems facing the conference, but did not provide many clues to the policy that we shall put before the conference. I am hoping that this short debate will help to fill some of the gaps in our understanding of the Government's position.

We cannot expect a comprehensive reply from my hon. Friend because this is only a 30-minute debate, but I hope that he will spell out the broad objectives of our policy and tell us about some of the specific proposals that the Government will put before the conference.

Before leaving this point I should like to make two suggestions. The first is that my hon. Friend's Ministry should consider holding a seminar on the World Food Conference. Recently the Foreign and Commonwealth Office held a seminar prior to our delegation leaving for the Law of the Sea Conference. I understand that that was of great benefit to all concerned. I think that it would be worth while for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to hold a seminar on the World Food Conference.

My second suggestion is more properly directed to the Leader of the House, who is not here this evening, so I put it to my hon. Friend. I hope that it will be possible for at least one parliamentary day to be set aside for consideration of United Kingdom policy in relation to this conference. I would have thought it important for the Minister and his official team to have Parliament's endorsement of his policy before going to Rome.

The conference and world food supplies are matters of supreme importance, and that is by no means an exaggeration. In normal times the world food position would be clearly recognised as the greatest problem we face at present, and the greatest single threat to what remained of peace. But we do not live in normal times, and all of us are having difficulty in coping with the crises thrown up by a world in the process of profound economic and political change.

Against the background of a steady power shift from the industrialised countries to the rest of the world—a process still in the early stages; the possible collapse of the international monetary system; the probable collapse of some nations State economies in the West; unprecedented rates of inflation, and an increasing tempo of violence and the employment of new techniques of violence—world food supplies appear as just one more in a long train of disturbing problems now facing mankind.

It is the basis of my argument that, while acknowledging the need to find solutions to all the other difficulties presently before the world community, we need to give the greatest priority to matching world food supplies to world needs. There is no question but that in this world of change there are no swift solutions to the whole range of problems we face and that we shall face for many more years of instability and strain on our political system and institution as a new world order emerges to replace that formed immediately after 1945.

The years ahead are going to be very difficult ones to live with and live through, but a lot of tension and explosive content could be eliminated from world affairs if we property tackle the question of world food supplies and achieve a world food policy.

As the world goes through this period of significant change and disturbance, politicians and Governments should seek to identify those areas of human affairs which pose the main threat to relations between nations and peoples. Identification should be followed by real efforts to establish agreed world policies which meet the needs of all. That is one way to ease strain in international relations, and I immediately acknowledge that it is much easier said than done. I do not envy any Government Minister his rôle in this situation.

World food supplies already play a key rôle in world affairs, and I would argue that if the new world order is to emerge in world affairs, and I would argue that if the new world order is to emerge with the minimum of casualties in both political and human terms, we must now reach an agreed and workable world food policy. If the World Food Conference leads to such a policy it will guarantee no more than the world having a fair chance to avoid increasing conflict because there are many other pitfalls before us. But if the conference fails, that failure will directly contribute to a future of the most harrowing and dangerous years experience by the world community in modern times.

That sounds a pessimistic or, indeed, a cataclysmic note, but again I say that it is no exaggeration. The facts speak for themselves. The Voluntary Committee on Overseas Aid and Development has presented some of the facts to hon. Members through its newsletter, "Action for Development". It has pointed out that hundreds of millions of the world's population are undernourished; that population growth is adding 75 million to 80 million more people each year—a rate of 200,000 each day; that within the next 25 years our present numbers of four billion will be nearly seven billion; and that they will all need to be fed.

The Secretary General of the United Nations informed the recent Special Session of the General Assembly that never in recent decades have world food reserves been so frighteningly low.

On 1st May this year my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food contributed his own words of warning. Addressing the Financial Times conference on world food supplies he said: Today there is a very real concern that over the coming years food supplies will not be sufficient to feed adequately the increasing world population. He also quoted the reminder from Ernest Bevin that You can never build peace out of hunger. On 3rd June The Guardian carried a news item about the preparatory report of the United Nations World Food Conference organisation. The headline introduction was 700 million face malnutrition by 1985. The article stated that if present population and production trends continue, the world's developing nations will find themselves short of 85 million tons of cereals a year. In its final comment in that article, The Guardian recorded the United Nations as stressing that only a major adjustment of production and stockholding policies would permit world agriculture to fill this need.

The fact that the World Food Conference is being held at all indicates the gravity of the problem that we face. At present, millions of people cannot get enough to eat, and this army of the hungry will grow in numbers. If the world's nations do not produce a world policy on food production and supply, they will have to rely on luck if we are to avoid the worst.

If the present system of production and supply is to continue, we need to guarantee several years of bumper harvests to rebuild stocks and to meet the demand from millions of additional mouths. I am reminded here of the words of the Scottish poet, Robert Burns, that Nae man can tether time nor tide. That is an eloquent way of reminding us that man's power in comparison with that of nature is a very puny thing indeed. To guarantee good harvests is beyond our ability. But the need for bumper harvests in certain limited areas of the world—that is what we are talking about—is only as great as our present production and supply system is inadequate. We could overcome harvest setbacks if our system of production and supply were radically improved throughout the world.

In addition to this problem of the inadequacy of the present system, we have to reckon with a new and welcome political phenomenon—that the days are gone when the poor of the world simply sat down and conveniently died in order that the industrial countries could buy in the giant share of the world's harvest, and harvest aids such as fertiliser. There are signs that the poor of the earth, driven by hunger, will fight for their share of what is available, or will find people who, so shocked and horrified at the gross injustice of millions starving while others feast, will fight on their behalf. All of us should remember the words of Lord Boyd Orr: Hunger is the greatest of all politicians. It is one thing to state the nature of the crisis that we face, and to speculate on possible consequences, but it is quite another thing to find the correct solutions. I readily acknowledge the problems which face all the delegates to the World Food Conference. However, we are fortunate in that the conference will not be breaking new ground or blazing an unknown trail. The world has travelled this way before—immediately after 1945—but unfortunately the statesmen of that day—including, it must be said, the Labour Government of that day—failed to grasp the opportunity then offered by those such as Lord Boyd Orr. It is not a chauvinistic spirit that moves me to introduce Lord Boyd Orr into the debate. The contribution made by him to the world community is a standing example that one can be an enormously patriotic Scotsman and yet an internationalist at the same time. I hope that my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies will bear that factor in mind.

My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware of the history of the post-1945 period—the birth of the FAO, the Boyd Orr appointment as first Director-General, his campaign for a world food policy, and the sad failure of that campaign. My hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the FAO proposals at the time of Lord Boyd Orr's leadership of that body. Lord Boyd Orr set them out in a pamphlet called "Food—the Foundation of World Unity", printed in 1948. They are worth placing on the record again, and I quote from the pamphlet: Having done what it could for the postwar crisis, FAO put forward proposals for a permanent world food board with three main objectives. First, a rapid increase of production especially in underdeveloped countries; to provide food for the increasing population of the world. Second, a world reserve of food to meet any threatened famine owing to a failure of harvest, such as occurred in Europe in 1947. Third, to stabilise prices in the international market at levels fair to producers and consumers, so that countries would be assured of their supply at a level rate and farmers would be assured that if they went out for full production there would be a market for what they produce. Those proposals came from a man blessed with wisdom. Nothing that has happened in the last quarter of a century has reduced the relevance of that policy.

There is no doubt that Lord Boyd Orr was ahead of his time and world practice in his day could not match his vision and understanding of what was required. Perhaps the world is now about to catch up with him, but only just in time. The Boyd Orr policy would be a good starting point for our Government and for the conference because his policy has the merit of realism. Lord Boyd Orr did not live in a dream world in which he paid no attention to economic reality. He was by no means a do-gooder who did not understand the real world in which we live. He saw the need for a system and a controlling organisation which would prevent rapid expansion of agricultural output which would thus create economic chaos. He recognised the necessity of making agricultural effort and world economics serve each other, not cancel each other out.

I believe that the world food crisis can be tackled only if we adopt something like the Boyd Orr plan. We need a world food board capable of mobilising and allocating resources and boosting production where that is most needed, and which is capable also of stockholding against lean years and stockholding as an aid to stabilising the agricultural element of the world economy. I could go on and develop my argument in favour of the Boyd Orr plan, but one of the principal reasons for seeking a debate is to hear what the Government have to say, and I shall therefore draw my remarks to a close to give my hon. Friend an opportunity to speak.

The Boyd Orr plan would ensure that the world's agricultural resources would be brought into full production through a steady expansion of output by bringing the needs of producers and consumers nearer to each other. That expansion of output would produce stability in a world desperately in need of some stability, but above all that extra food would feed the hungry.

10.18 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop)

I must begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) for his opening remarks. He has presented the House with the opportunity to look at the agenda before the World Food Conference and the chance that that provides for all nations. I commend him sincerely on the approach he took in presenting his case and we shall study his remarks with some care because what he said will make an important contribution to our work at the conference.

We face the challenge of ensuring that production of world food is adequate and, of course, the challenge of making sure that there is a much fairer distribution of it. I cannot think of a more important subject with which to deal at this Dispatch Box especially in my first few days in office. For that, of course, I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In agriculture we have the largest industry in Britain, one which is ever-changing in its techniques. With a combination of science and technology, and with the skill of the farmers and farm workers, it has produced the biggest rise in productivity of any industry over the years.

Tonight we are concerned with the ways in which Britain can provide the initiative and leadership which will help the developing countries to provide a much fuller life for all their peoples. I was pleased that my hon. Friend referred to the work of Sir John Boyd Orr, as he was then, the former Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organisation, in his address to the Royal Society of Arts in London in July 1948. Having studied that speech and the comments afterwards, one recognises his contribution over the years, which has set the standards that must be considered even today in deciding the basic principles on which we should work, when a quarter of the world's population has barely enough on which to live.

The background of the conference is of some importance. We need to consider it to decide what our policy should be. The World Food Conference, to be held in Rome from 5th to 16th November, will be a ministerial conference. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will be leading the United Kingdom delegation.

The conference proposals from both developing and developed countries reflect world-wide concern at the short supplies and high prices of many foodstuffs. This has been particularly noticeable in this country. The sudden development of short supply situations for several products—notably cereals—was due to a coincidence of harvest failures in many countries due to bad weather. But there were longer-term factors in the situation also, and issues of greater importance—and difficulty—than unusually large seasonal fluctuations in yields for a range of crops.

This is recognised in the United Nations General Assembly resolution authorising the conference, which refers to … specific action to resolve the world food problem within the broader context of development and international co-operation. The resolution puts as the major issue the situation in developing countries. But the conference will in addition deal with security of world food supplies and with problems of supplies of inputs, particularly fertilisers. My hon. Friends will recall the resolution from Sri Lanka and New Zealand in this connection.

The conference will also give some consideration to trade.

In considering my right hon. Friend's attitude, we should briefly examine the agenda to see the issues that will come before the conference. First, there will be an assessment of the world food situation, based on the reports of the Secretary-General to the conference and the preparatory committee. Then there will be the national and international programmes of action to be considered. These include measures for increasing food production in developing countries within the wider framework of development policies and programmes for improving the consumption pattern in all countries and ensuring adequate availability of food in developing countries, particularly to the vulnerable groups; the strengthening of world food security through measures including a better early warning and food information system; more effective national and international stockholding policies—I am glad that my hon. Friend referred to them; and measures to improve arrangements for emergency relief and food aid.

Most important of all, the conference will close with consideration of the arrangements for follow-up action, including appropriate international machinery and recommendations and resolutions of the conference. Without the follow-up the conference has no real purpose, except to draw attention to a matter of grave importance.

I do not think that there is any need to stress the importance the United Kingdom attaches to the topics of the conference. It is in our interests as food importers that adequate supplies should be regularly available on world markets. It is in all countries' interests—ours no less than others—that world food production and distribution should be improved to eliminate hunger and malnutrition. These are continuing problems which we and other countries face.

I now turn to consider what the conference can do. We would stress that the conference will be dealing with practical problems. We want it to contribute to practical solutions requiring cooperative international action. We hope that developing and developed countries, importers and exporters, will work together. That has not always been assured. Of course, we appreciate the problems that are involved. We realise that countries have different interests in some aspects of world food supplies. There are major problems, notably production and the adequacy of supplies, and on such matters co-operation is essential and, I think, possible.

On all the main topics before the conference there is work in progress both in international organisations and nationally. We are aware of the many organisations which are involved in these immense problems. There is the enormous problem of co-ordination of effort so as to avoid overlap and to ensure that there are no gaps. We must consider food production in developing countries in the light of the technical assistance and financial aid that is provided bilaterally and multilaterally. The complex difficulties of an agricultural, economic and social nature and the difficulties of increasing production and improving distribution are receiving a great deal of attention.

The security of world food supplies is being treated as we know by the FAO of the United Nations on the basis of proposals made by its Director-General. The shortages of supplies of fertilisers and pesticides has been raised in the Economic and Social Committee of the United Nations by a Sri Lanka-New Zealand resolution. That is a matter that is also under review.

The FAO Fertiliser Commission is meeting in Rome this week and will, we hope, provide the factual background that all countries agree is essential before helpful action can be devised. Trade issues, and particularly improved access for developing countries' exports, are currently being dealt with in the GATT and the UNCTAD contexts and nationally in generalised schemes of preferences.

The rôle of the World Food Conference must be to help this range of continuing work and to supplement it where necessary. The Government see the contribution of the conference in those terms and they are taking a full part in preparatory meetings at which ways forward are being sought.

What action do we want the conference to take? First, with regard to improved food production in developing countries, we hope for an agreed concentration of attention by donors of development aid and by the developing countries themselves on the rural sector. That emphasis in third world development will be achieved only if the developing countries accept it and if their objectives and plans are selected accordingly. That is most important as aid can be given only in a form in which it will be acceptable to those who need to receive it. I well recall a few years ago attending an IPU conference in India and feeling out of place in an environment in which there were women and children lying around on the road and living in the most appalling circumstances. It is essential that those of us who have the means to help such people should know how help can be given in a way which will be acceptable to those who need it so greatly.

We need to make increased efforts to improve marketing arrangements, including storage, in developing countries and to improve distribution. This, of course, depends largely on the decisions that are taken by the developing countries themselves. The problem of world food supplies involves not only overall adequacy for any country but also the level of nutrition in different parts of the country, different economic or social classes and the vulnerable groups, particularly children and nursing mothers. The Government hope increased attention will be given in development planning to these important matters.

The need for financial assistance to developing countries has been altered by the recent large increases in many product prices, notably oil. These are factors to be considered. Some of the most populous developing countries will have even less foreign exchange to pay for food and other imports. At the same time many traditional donors, including the United Kingdom, face large foreign exchange deficits as a result of increased oil prices.

The conference will also consider world food security. As I have said, that is being dealt with by the FAO. It may also need later to be passed to an even wider forum. The proposals need further technical consideration within that organisation.

To summarise the matters which my right hon. Friend will have in mind for the conference, we look to the conference to produce, above all, a renewed concentration of effort to improve production, distribution and consumption patterns in the developing countries. This must be undertaken by both developed and developing countries, working together. We look to the conference to support the FAO proposals to improve world security, and we think it important that Russia and China take part in these arrangements. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be sorry that, so far, China has not taken part in the preparations for the conference.

We also want the conference to support international arrangements to help deal with the shortage of fertilisers and some other inputs. In these ways, the conference can take some practical steps towards overcoming the problems which the world faces in trying to feed its people adequately.

Having said that, I do not think that anyone will doubt that the greatest contribution that the developed countries can make is the more rapid production of home-produced food so as to reduce food imports and thereby help the balance of payments position and their economic independence.

To be in the position to give food is desirable, but there are preferable forms of aid. We must stimulate food production in developing countries through capital aid and technical assistance, the latter being important because people must be trained to use the technical aids and machinery which we may provide.

Most of all, we all need to examine the national priorities of spending to see what further resources can be devoted to the task which we are considering. In the defence debate, some of us will have had ideas about priorities and ways in which, by raising the living standards in various parts of the world, we could help to reduce the tensions which cause the developed countries to spend more and more on defence and to be less able to help those who need it.

I end with a quotation from a speech by Sir John Boyd Orr, as he then was, in 1948. He said: The problem facing mankind to-day is—can we make this machine work? Have we got the resources? Have we got the scientific knowledge to carry through the great plan? Yes. We can to-day perform the miracle of the loaves and fishes; we can make the desert bloom and yield grain for bread; we can grow fruit within the Arctic Circle; modern technology in industry can produce goods in abundance. If half the effort being spent on making tanks, guns, aeroplanes and atomic bombs were diverted to producing the primary necessities of life the last of poverty in the world would be eliminated in the lifetime of our children. This is the challenge of the two debates today—the first debate on defence, and—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.