HC Deb 17 June 1980 vol 986 cc1505-27 11.18 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hard)

I beg to move, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Second APC-EEC Convention of Lomé) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 3 June, be approved. I also seek approval for the three treaties that are listed in the schedule to the order, namely the new convention, the provisions for tariff-free access for ACP products in the area covered by the ECSC, and the arrangements for the implementation of the Community's aid obligations. All those documents are contained in Cmnd. 7895.

In addition, I understand that the House has asked for consideration to be given to document 11817/79, which provides for maintaining the main provisions of Lomé I in force, pending the complete ratification of Lomé II and also document 11932/79 which governs the relations between the Community and the dependent territories of member States. The first of these documents breaks no new ground and the second is modelled directly on Lomé II.

The Lomé II treaty, which we are discussing this evening, is of quite substantial importance between the European Community and 58 developing countries. Twenty-nine of these—exactly half—are members of the Commonwealth. In fact, they constitute two-thirds of the membership of the commonwealth, so we are dealing here with a substantial treaty covering a substantial part of our relationships with the developing world.

The negotiation of the treaty spanned the general election and my predecessor in this post, Mr. Frank Judd, played a strenuous part in getting the negotiations under way. They were difficult negotiations, and towards the end the negotiating room became fairly smoke filled. Quite naturally, the ACP countries were trying to introduce into the Lomé negotiations many of the ideas—some of which we debated yesterday to some extent—for a new international economic order. There were difficulties on the European side in dealing with some of these requests, and therefore the nego- tiations—rightly, because they were dealing with real issues and not rhetoric—took a long time. One of the sessions lasted 26 hours. But when the smoke cleared and agreement was reached, it could be fairly claimed that the second Lomé treaty, while not a sensational breakthrough in the area of the North-South dialogue, was, nevertheless, a solid achievement. It preserved all the achievements of Lomé I, and added to them. It preserved in particular the basic principle of the first Lomé treaty which is, of course, free access to the European market for industrial products from ACP countries.

I shall summarise briefly the main ways in which the new Lomé treaty developed from the first Lomé treaty. In trade the new Lomé treaty affirmed all the benefits of Lomé I, and in addition it provided better access to the Community market for various agricultural exports, including some of the most important ones from the Commonwealth point of view—rum, which is very important to the Caribbean countries, and beef which is important to Botswana, Swaziland and Kenya—particularly Botswana. It has also revised and improved the banana protocol.

Some of the complaints and difficulties of the ACP countries related to the operation of the rules of origin, which were designed to ensure that the access promised acted in favour of products originating in the ACP countries concerned. There is now more flexibility in the new treaty in this respect.

Sugar was not discussed because the sugar protocol does not have an expiry date. It is an indefinite protocol, and therefore did not come forward for renegotiation. It continues and we fully support it.

The next matter was the Stabex scheme which was an important innovation in Lomé I. In the new treaty it covers an expanded list of products. Eight new products have been included for the first time, including rubber, and a number of others which are important. The Community also agreed to consider the possibility of including tobacco and sisal, both of which are important to Commonwealth countries.

There are a number of new provisions that increase industrial co-operation.

The right hon. Member for Lanark (Dame Judith Hart), in the previous debate, raised the question of aid. It is difficult to produce the figures in the exact form that she wanted. We do not give forward figures for our bilateral aid programme. I can give the figures for the European development fund in the five years covered by the new treaty. It was one of the most substantial points of argument. Naturally enough, the ACP countries were pressing for an even more substantial increase in the aid than we were able to undertake. Nevertheless, there is a substantial increase. The total for the new five-year period will be £3,136 million, which represents a substantial increase over Lomé I. I have given the figure in sterling for the convenience of the House.

The Commission reckoned that inflation between Lomé I and Lomé II could be estimated at 40 per cent., and it is worth pointing out that the new fund in Lomé II is 54 per cent. bigger than the Lomé I fund. That is a real increase over and above the figure for inflation. One could argue about the proper figure for inflation, what account should be taken of population and so on, but that is an endless argument. My point is that the new figure represents a real increase.

The United Kingdom share of the new European development fund under the new treaty is 18 per cent., as, broadly speaking, it was under the old, although there has been a slight adjustment. Our share amounts to £523 million over the five-year period. That is a substantial sum by any account.

There is a new arrangement for minerals. That is an innovation in the new treaty, designed to cover the special problems brought to our attention of certain ACP mineral producers, notably Zambia and Zaire, which have suffered acutely from disruption of mineral production for various reasons. Minerals do not come under the Stabex, and therefore may be claimed. After much discussion and negotiation, a new arrangement has been designed, and we shall have to see how it works out. It is intended to remedy the harmful effects on the income of those countries of serious temporary disruptions of mineral production beyond their control.

The Community emphasised the importance of encouraging and protecting investment. Various new commitments were undertaken, designed to eliminate discrimination and thus encourage investment.

There is a new chapter on agricultural co-operation, and a new technical centre for agricultural and rural co-operation. There is also an expanded declaration on sea fishing, providing for the possibility of bilateral fishery agreements.

I have tried briefly to summarise how the new treaty represents an advance on the old. I do not claim that these advances add up to a total breakthrough. Nevertheless, they are advances, when so often the accusation against Europe and the developed world generally is that we are in retreat in these areas.

From a United Kingdom point of view, the negotiations were on the whole satisfactory. We achieved the main objectives that we sought. One disappointment was in the difficulty that we found in inserting in the new treaty a substantial provision about human rights. The previous Government set their hand to that. As the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made clear, they knew the difficulty of asking ACP countries to insert in a treaty about economic co-operation even a provision in the preamble about human rights. That proved to be too difficult, but the new treaty refers to the principles of the United Nations charter which cover human rights and the preamble describes one of its aims as being to promote the well-being of populations—as opposed to Governments. That is the main point that the House, the Government and the previous Administration have aimed at. We want to make it possible for the Community in cases of flagrant violations to take particular care that its aid benefits peoples and not regimes.

That was the difficulty that arose in the case of Uganda before President Amin was overthrown and we want to ensure that, as in that case, we can make sure that aid benefits people and we believe that our discussions in the Community and the references, albeit oblique, to human rights in the new treaty will make that possible.

There is one point to which we attach great importance. We and the Select Committee on Overseas Development in the previous Parliament have worried about the small proportion of the business arising from the EDF that is taken by British firms. As the figures that I have given indicate, there are substantial opportunities for British firms, not only in the new fund, but in the 20 per cent. of the Lomé fund that has still to be taken up.

Up to the end of 1979, only 10.2 per cent. of all EDF business won by firms in the Community had gone to British firms. That contrasts with our contribution of 18 per cent. to the expenditure of the fund. We have been trying to get to grips with the problem, to see where the problems are and to alert the Commission, our delegation in Brussels, the Commission offices throughout the ACP countries and, above all, British business so that our firms realise the opportunities. There is some preliminary evidence that the position is improving. British firms won nearly 13 per cent. of all EDF business won by member States in the latest period for which figures are available. However, there is still a long way to go before we can be satisfied that we are getting our fair share of the business. That is something that we in the Foreign Office and our colleagues in the Department of Trade are anxious to see improved.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)

Another point that worried the Select Committee was the considerable slowness in disbursing EDF funds. Is any attention being paid to that problem, and are the Government taking steps to try to speed up the process?

Mr. Hurd

That is a fair point. Of course, the Commission has a problem here. It is anxious to ensure that projects that are submitted meet the high standards that are reasonably required and we must be chary of criticising slow disbursement on the one hand and suggesting that the administration is a little slapdash on the other. There is an increasing realisation in the Commission that the problems of administering the European aid programme are substantial and that the machinery for doing so needs to be tightened up and improved. The Commissioner concerned, M. Cheysson, deserves a good deal of credit for the energy that he has devoted to that task. The procedures have improved over the past year or so.

We mean to play our full part in Lomé. We think that it is an important exercise, particularly because of the growing participation of the Commonwealth in it. The new secretary general on the ACP side is a Kenyan. We are anxious to keep in close touch with the Commonwealth members of the Lomé agreement. Yesterday the House showed its considerable interest in this general area of the North-South dialogue. One of the difficulties of the dialogue is that it produces a great many well-meaning conferences which are a bit strong on rhetoric and slow on action. The Lomé treaty is, by contrast, a real agreement, about real trade and aid. To that extent we think it is important, and we intend to give it full support.

11.35 pm
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe)

It is probably very sensible for us to be discussing, in a week when the Brandt Commission has been one of our main considerations, the implications of the Lomé treaty. The Minister said that one thing about the Lomé agreement was that it was about real things, about trade, about the way we could develop our relationships with the developing world. This is a good moment to examine Lomé because we now have a second treaty. In spite of the kind words about the development, the advances, the improvements, we have a need to look at it fairly objectively.

What, then, will we find? Lomé is basically an agreement between the Western European countries and those of their ex-colonial partners. It has one fundamental difficulty and it is one that is rarely discussed in detail. That is that there is a positive divide between the Francophone and the Anglophone countries. I am not, in case anyone should think that this is our "Let's hate the French week", bothering to use the normal arguments that the British know how to deal with former colonial territories and the French do not. I am simply pointing out that there is one great stumbling block in Lomé. That is that the British, when dealing with English-speaking former colonies, will always recognise that, once a territory becomes independent it has a responsibility for its own affairs. It certainly has a liaison with the countries of the Commonwealth but such a country has the duty and the responsibility to concern itself with its own trade agreements and to fulfill the role that it sees for itself in world trading.

The former French colonies, on the other hand, have a totally different relationship with the mother country. That is one, in many instances, which is reflected in Lomé as almost a subsidiary status. We see, time and again, inside the agreements that are put forward under the umbrella of Lomé, an extraordinary anomaly whereby English-speaking countries, when they enter into agreements with Lomé are always firmly put on the side of ACP while, on the other hand, the French-speaking territories are given specific trade agreements and a considerable number of concessions, on the basis that they are part of the territory d'outre-mer. This has produced an extraordinary situation inside the Community.

Let me give an example. When, as a member of the agricultural community, I asked why it should be that considerable concessions were given to pineapple growers of the French islands of the Caribbean I was told "You do not understand. They are part of metropolitan France." When I then asked why these concessions should not be given to the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean I was told "You do not understand. They are not part of metropolitan Britain."

All that we should do at this point is to say to ourselves that if Lomé is a trade agreement, if it is to be upheld, as the Government appear to be upholding it, as an advance on the relationships that we have with the under-developed world, let us look at the way it is operating and let us look at what is wrong with it. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what is wrong. It is fundamentally paternalistic. Its interests lie in protecting those aspects of European trading policy that have grown from the ex-colonial relationship previously to independence. It enshrines, in many instances, the very discrimination that it purports to do away with.

The present Lomé convention is only a marginal advance in terms of trade on the previous convention. It says, for example, that there is free access for agricultural exports from ACP nations. That is fine. What it fails to say is that, inside the Community, policy decisions are being taken in fundamental ways that will affect the world markets of the ACP. I take sugar as an example. We are told that there is no need to discuss sugar because it has not been at risk in these negotiations and has not even been discussed. Is it not true, however, that inside the Community, the sugar beet producers, year after year, are encouraging and developing their own production and receiving positive subsidies from the Community in such a way that, when the sugar quota is far greater than necessary, sugar will be unloaded on to the world market in opposition to the ACP countries themselves? While saying that access is being provided to our home markets, we are going into positive competition with those countries on world markets. That can do them nothing but harm.

We are told that, under the new Lomé convention, new agreements have been reached on rum. I looked carefully at the implications of the rum protocol. What happened under the previous convention was scandalous. We were told that there would be special arrangements for the rum exports of ACP countries. When it came to the point, the quotas negotiated had the effect of restricting the export of rum to the Community markets. We are now told that agreement has been reached with the ACP and that all should be well.

The treaty actually says that if there should be agreement on a common organisation of the market in alcohol, the arrangements for rum will have to be examined again. The common arrangement in relation to alcohol internally in the Market means that because far too much wine is already produced, we are looking for an absurd scheme of distillation that will produce considerable advantages to the growers and very few advantages to consumers inside the Community.

It appears to be suggested that because a surplus already exists in a particular field for which no practical answer can be found, we may have to restrict the access of rum to the Community because it would be one way of getting rid of our own agricultural surplus.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

Not, of course, rum from Guadeloupe because that is a departement d'outre-mer .

Mrs. Dunwoody

I should have made clear that everything I say relates only to those countries that are not departements d'outre-mer. I should not wish to be ruled out of order by using any dreadful foreign language. I should perhaps say that my remarks relate only to English-speaking African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and not to those that are French-speaking, for which there are special concessions.

In the new treaty, there are problems with rum. Although, on the surface, it looks as if there is agreement, there is written in a caveat saying "We will let you do it now, but if there are any difficulties, you will be the first to suffer.'' We have problems with beef. We have problems with bananas. The Minister sped rapidly over the question of the banana protocol. The British have complied with the terms of the banana protocol and have done whatever they can to organise the market in bananas, but many Continental countries have used non-tariff barriers to keep out bananas from nations which are not traditional suppliers. That happens again and again under the Lomé agreements.

What does the Minister mean when he talks about the advantages of the Lomé convention in terms of the new Minex and Stabex? One of the policy decisions taken a long time ago was that there should be a positive means of stabilising the market for nations which rely on one basic mineral or commodity. Not surprisingly, ACP countries which were worried that they did not come within the scope of the original Stabex agreement were anxious to expand the money available and to put it into a more efficient fund.

A fundamental policy argument is involved. Lomé should not be a cheap way of providing minerals for the developed countries of Western Europe. It should be accepted as a straight transfer of resources from the rich nations to the poor nations. Even with its paternalistic flavour it should at least be possible to say "We believe that there is a problem. We have examined the difficulties and we have agreed to help you to develop existing markets."

The Select Committee, from which the Minister quoted so approvingly, made it clear that it believed that the successor convention should make it explicit that, short of a total abrogation of the treaty relationship, the EEC will not discriminate and will include aid and public investment funds against the development of export industries in ACP States. The Select Committee said that it regarded the Lomé convention as a straight aid to ACP nations and not as a means of safeguarding their mineral interests.

If that is so, about what sums are we talking? Are we talking about an efficient organisation with access to real sums that will enable exporters of minerals to stabilise world prices? Are we talking of a movement towards proper commodity agreements or about a gesture? Gesture politics are in favour with the Government. They have cut positive aid and tell us that they are making a great contribution to the Lomé convention. That is not good enough.

Mr. Anthony Nelson (Chichester)

The hon. Lady said that the Lomé convention should imply a clear transfer of resources to developing countries. Such a statement must be incompatible with the principle behind Stabex and many of the commodity, equalisation or stabilisation proposals. The essence of those schemes is an artificial price for commodities. Such artificiality makes sense neither to the developed nor the developing countries. The hon. Lady is saying that such aid should be overt and that the market should be free. It is difficult to understand her support for the clear transfer of resources when she argues that there should be an artificial pricing system.

Mrs. Dunwoody

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. My argument is terribly simple to me. It is that, in the case of nations that rely heavily on one commodity or agricultural export, we should be prepared to take that dependence on a narrow exporting base into account when we calculate the arrangements that we make within the Community.

I believe that when we talk about the amounts of money available to Stabex or Minex we should make it available on the clear basis that it is in the interest—put in the most narrow terms—of the Western world that there should be orderly commodity markets. It is certainly in the interest of the producing countries that those markets are capable of being planned in a reasonable way so that the countries concerned know how much money they have coming in ; so that they are not at the obvious risk of having their entire economy wiped out by speculation in particular commodities and that they have guarantees that the people with whom they are dealing, namely the Communty, have thought about the implications of the market and are prepared to put their money where their mouths are. That is to put it in a rather crude way.

I thought that that was the point that I was making clear but if I was not I hope that the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) will acquit me of any double standards. I wish to make it clear that I believe that, though this is a trade agreement, it is, nevertheless, plainly part of the aid that we should be prepared to give to the under-developed and lesser-developed countries with which we traditionally trade. That was the point I was making strongly. I hope that the Minister catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so that he can tell us how much money Minex has at its disposal and how much more money Stabex has at its disposal than it had before.

I come to a point which I believe follows immediately on that one. We are told that there should be no discrimination against products that compete with Community products. That statement is in the treaty. I must say that one of the sad things that one learns when one sits, as I did, for many years on ACP committees is that there is a normal ambivalence which we seem to elevate to the status of a political policy in the Community in our dealings with the ACP.

On the one hand we say that we are going to give those countries money and technological help; that we will give them expertise and send out people to show them how to organise better and produce more. The treaty says that we will help them to market and assist in ensuring that the things that are produced will be given freer access to the Community. But as soon as those commodities come into conflict with anything that we traditionally produce we put up a number of barriers.

They are not always obvious barriers. I must be fair and say that the British are not as efficient at putting up barriers as are the French. The French are very good at it. They know how to bring into operation all sorts of things from their gendarmerie to the width of particular manufactured goods and they know how to make sure that their own markets are not too fully, or too rapidly, impregnated.

However, the fundamental problem remains. The Community is committed to assisting investment. It is, presumably, accepting that many of the nations with whom we trade will move out of the commodities which suit us into the manufactured goods which we normally expect to sell to them. What it does not say is what its attitude will be when that point arises.

There is clear evidence that we will then put up considerable barriers against the products of the Third world and say that it is not convenient for us to afford free access to them once a country has arrived at the point where it thinks it is able to sell to us.

I should like the Minister to say that the Government have considered the implications of the kind of technological advice that is enshrined in the new treaty and that they are prepared to accept that there will be occasions when we must give real free access to manufactured goods and that that will produce considerable political difficulties for us inside the Community.

Some of the other points may not be as important as those that I have mentioned, but the length of the treaty was raised more than once by the Select Committee on Overseas Development and certainly by the ACP nations. It is a shame that, when they are trying to plan their forward economic involvement with the Community, they are restricted to five years. It makes it virtually impossible for them to have any long term planning. Some ex-Commonwealth countries, which had much longer term agreements under previous United Kingdom treaties, are now suffering.

When the Minister said that Commissioner Cheysson had looked closely at the operation of the machinery that is needed, he perhaps overstated the matter. The machinery inside the Community is not only inefficient, but extremely slow and incompetent. In many instances it uses the excuse that the ACP partners are unable to give the necessary information and details to promote particular projects when there is clear evidence that the problem lies on the side not of the ACP countries, but of the Community. I put on record that over four years I have complained bitterly to the Community that its machinery is not geared to deal with the emergency situation. It is certainly not geared to deal with the fairly urgent but not dramatic crisis. Over a long period it has proved itself inefficient in dealing with even the day-to-day administration of the ACP problems.

I welcome the one change in the treaty which seems to suggest that in future the cost of the EEC staffs in the ACP countries will be borne not, as before, by the EDF, but by the Community itself. I think that is important. It is also vital that the staff who arrive in the country with which the Community is trading should be efficiently geared to getting the information back to the Community as fast as possible and to producing projects which are simply and easily put into operation. We should move away from this business of having two years of preparation before quite small sums are expended on the ground. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at that aspect when he talks to his colleagues in the Community.

We are told that the amount of money that is to be spent under this new Lomé convention is larger than the amount that was to be spent under the previous one. In fact, we are told that the British share will be 18 per cent. over five years. I do not wish to appear to be ungracious to the hon. Gentleman, but I learnt a long time age to beware of those who speak softly and, without bearing the big stick, who occasionally seem to be concerned to push through their own ideas irrespective of the people with whom they are dealing.

The Lomé convention is still resented, even by many of the nations involved in it. It has no section dealing with some of the poorest nations of the world. It excludes the whole of the Indian Subcontinent. It restricts itself narrowly to those areas of trade which would appear to the outside world to be of interest to the EEC and not automatically to the ACP countries. It has a basic problem inasmuch as it has not yet been prepared to look at the way that internal Community policies affect external Community policies, particularly in agriculture. Sugar is a basic problem, but there are other areas where the Community takes decisions internally with, apparently, no concern for the commitments that it has given in the ACP to the nations outside.

I do not believe that it is all that one hopes for in a trade agreement. It is a small step in the right direction, but that is not always enough. I know that the Government do not have any strong feeling that we should take a lead in the North-South dialogue, but I would like them to say that, if we are to transfer resources in a meaningful way from the richer nations to the poorer nations, this agreement is one way in which we could begin to look at the machinery to see where it could be improved. In effect, we have patched up a fairly inadequate agreement. We have not been prepared to be honest about many of the difficulties involved. Having said that, I suppose that I shall have to give it one small cheer, and hope that we shall do better next time.

12.2 am

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

My first point of a number of short, sharp points, is procedural. Technically we are not debating the Lomé treaty but the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Second ACP-EEC Convention of Lomé) Order 1980, which is the means of ratification of international treaties under the European Communities Act 1972.

I make complaint yet again about the explanatory note attached to the statutory instrument. We thought that there might have been some reference to the nature of the ACP-EEC convention of Lomé. Instead, there is the startling sentence : The principal effect of declaring the Convention and related agreements to be Community Treaties as so defined is to bring into play, in relation to them, the provisions of section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 which provides for the implementation of treaties so specified. There is no description of the meaning of the convention of Lomé, the numbers of ACP countries concerned—I am not suggesting that they should be listed—and, broadly, the matters covered by the treaty. A brief explanatory note of a couple of paragraphs could have covered those items admirably. I have mentioned this matter in the House on a number of occasions. It appears that the Department concerned with the definition of treaties orders is either blind, deaf or illiterate—I suspect that sometimes it is all three.

I wish to ask the Miniser about the technicalities of the treaty, which he did not mention in his introduction. It is still to be ratified and there are provisional regulations to which he referred at the beginning of his speech. For the record, will he tell us, if ratification proceeds smoothly, when the treaty will come into force? Presumably it ceases to take effect five years after the date of its implementation. The order does not help us in that respect. It does not tell us the date, and it is not contained in the treaty.

My second point relates to the printing of Cmnd. 7895. The treaty, which was signed in late October 1979, has almost certainly been printed in its English version of the EEC documents. I have seen some pink documents around this evening. But Cmnd. 7895, which is the United Kingdom version of the treaty, was presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in June 1980. Therefore, the print in the Vote Office is of relatively recent origin. Although we have scrutinised it in some way, it has not been published in the United Kingdom for very long—possibly a matter of weeks or even days before its effective ratification this evening.

My first major point is related to sugar. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) properly referred to this, and I think that the Minister did, too. It is in article 48 and protocol 7, which repeats protocol 3 of the original ACP agreement, and unlike the treaty, the protocol is one of indefinite period. Nevertheless, we cannot dismiss it entirely because it was done in relation to Lomé, and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, the departements d'outre-mer always come into it. Indeed, Reunion and Gaudeloupe produce sugar which is part, I believe, of the beet quotas of metropolitan France.

Protocol 7 repeats the original protocols. There has been argument about the operation of the force majeure clauses. If there is a shortfall, particularly due to climatic conditions, and the Commission has it within its power to reallocate the quotas, meaning a permanent reduction in the quotas of some of the member States, there has been argument between the Commission and the member States as to whether the force majeure provision was really necessary, and about its operation.

I understand that there have been agreements since those arguments which have regularised the position, but I notice that they are not so written into the renewing of the treaty. I am not necessarily suggesting that they ought to be, but if some modus vivendi has been reached on this, at what stage is this, as it were, entrenched in some sort of agreement, or is it a gentleman's agreement? I have no wish to say that it should not remain so, but I think that if there have been arguments in relation to force majeure and sugar and if they have been resolved, there should be some means of so defining that.

My second point follows up that of my hon. Friend in relation to what appears to be an almost permanent negotiation. Here we have what on any ground is a fairly thick volume of 191 articles and seven protocols, which is in operation for only about three years, or even less than that if it is not ratified, and then we start the round all over again. This was a matter of concern to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs' Sub-Committee on Overseas Development. It puts a considerable onus sometimes upon very small territories in having to watch out for matters which could be of vital significance to their internal economies. I notice, with some wryness, that the Minister was signing the treaty with three hats. I understood that he did it on behalf of Her Majesty and on behalf of the Solomon Islands and Kiribati, for which he was appointed plenipotentiary.

I am not suggesting that that is in any way irregular or wrong, but it underlines my point that some of the smaller members of the ACP treaty will find it very hard to keep up with the marathon negotiations and will have to get others to negotiate on their behalf. I do not know whether it has happened before. I suspect that it may have happened. But here we have the Minister having signed the treaty with three hats and on both sides at once.

The Minister referred to beef and Botswana. It seems extraordinary that Botswana, until fairly recent discoveries one of the poorest of Britain's former territories in Southern Africa, should need such a lot of trouble to ensure that its beef is exported to traditional markets in the United Kingdom.

Mr. McNamara

One day's supply.

Mr. Spearing

I was about to remark that I thought that it was three days' supply, but my hon. Friend tells me that it is one day's supply for the EEC. Is haggling over that sort of figure really necessary, and does it mean that Botswana will have to fight again in five years? If, in five years, the expected mineral riches materialise, will the arrangement fall? If so, it would have severe consequences for the people who are dependent for their livelihoods on cattle-raising in Botswana. I do not believe that anyone would like those herds to be decimated, or people to lose their jobs or to go out of business in favour of becoming miners.

I know that the Minister will not be able to answer that point, but I use it to illustrate that the Lomé convention is not what many people have said it is. It is spoken of as a great new breakthrough in North-South relations. The Minister is shaking his head, but he did not shake his head five years ago when his party was in opposition, and when certain people advocated the championing of the Third world by the EEC. It was said then that the Lomé convention was a new stage in the relationship between the rich North and what we now call the South. I suggest to the Minister and to the House that the Lomé convention is not as it was cracked up to be.

Can the Minister of State say whether there has been any change in the criteria for investment of the European development fund? Another matter that engaged the attention of the Sub-Committee was the sort of project in which the European development fund, in association with the European investment bank, appeared to be interested—in particular, the curious distortions of investment and disbursements from the European development fund in relation to the per capita disbursements to members of the ACP.

There seemed to be a considerable imbalance in Lomé I as there was in its predecessor, the Yaoundé convention. Perhaps the habits of Yaoundé were continued in Lomé I. I had hoped that they would have been ironed out in Lomé II. The Minister may not be able to say now whether there were agreements that would have assisted those changes, but he may wish to reply to that point later.

That was another concern of the subcommittee, and it underlined my hon. Friend's point that the Lomé convention is not a partnership. It is a means whereby some of the former colonial territories to which we have obligations can be assisted—but only where it also suits the convenience of the EEC. The proof of that is shown not only in the exclusion of some large countries—former and present members of the British Commonwealth—but of some not so large territories, such as Malaysia, whose trading links with Britain were broken to some extent after our accession to the EEC. Therefore, I cannot commend Lomé II wholeheartedly to the House. I would give it two-and-a-half cheers at the most.

12.14 am
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston-upon-Hull, Central)

I am in a difficult position. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) suggested half a cheer for the new convention. But my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) who sat with me for many long hours on the Foreign Affairs Sub-Committee on Overseas Development has suggested two-and-a-half cheers. I cannot say that I am torn between either. It is in the nature of their characters that they are both being over-generous.

Anyone who considers objectively the arrangements that have been made through Lomé with the ACP countries must come to the conclusion that someone is getting something out of it. It is true that the ACP countries are getting something out of it, but the majority of what is to be obtained is finding its way to the countries of the European Community. If that is so, we have a trade agreement which is based upon former Imperial ties, whether it be of the French, the British or the Belgians, and the general principle of exploitation, or, if not that, at least upon that which does not present immediate competition to us. On the North Hull estate, for example, there are no great banana plantations. It is an agreement that will not produce any immediate pressure upon our resources, our manufactures and our own industries.

If I felt that there was a community of interest between the banana producers of the Caribbean or Africa and the machinery producers of my constituency, I might believe that there was a compatability and a mutuality of interest about which the Brandt Commission speaks and supports so strongly. I do not happen to believe that such an arrangement exists in the philosophy behind the Lomé convention.

When we were discussing, thinking and talking about this matter in the Select Committee, we came to a conclusion among ourselves that the agreement with the ACP countries existed for the benefit of the ACP countries but that the greater benefit existed for the countries of the Community. The ACP countries are given access to our markets for goods that we cannot produce—especially agricultural products—and we supply goods to them that do not amount to a parallel of agreement. That is because they have supplies from other sources or because they have no interest in or cannot afford to buy the items that we are prepared to sell. In many ways the traffic is one-way.

The small-mindedness of the agreement is illustrated by Botswana beef. There was not great interest in that activity until the enormous mineral and diamond discoveries in Botswana. Presumably it will become an area for competition between EEC countries. Britain will suddenly remember its Imperial heritage, notwithstanding the evils of South Africa, when it comes to who shall control, govern and who will exercise control over that market.

I speak with a degree of bitterness. Lomé could have presented an opportunity for the countries of the Community and the countries of the developing world to reach an understanding, an agreement, and an arrangement that would have been for the benefit of all. They would not have exploited us over the price of bananas and we would not have exploited them over the price of our manufactured products. There could have been a co-operative agreement, understanding and arrangement.

That opportunity has gone. We were not arguing and debating at arm's length. By no stretch of the imagination could it be said that the Lomé countries were as strong, as well informed or as technically competent as the countries of the EEC. The sub-committee, of which I was chairman at the time, suggested in its report that there should be a stengthening of the ACP's negotiating position, its ability and the facilities that it had to support its ideas.

The idea that we are arguing between equals just cannot be confirmed. It may exist as a figment of the imaginations of lawyers or the signatories of treaties, but it does not exist in fact. In some ways this was shown by the mild, if I may give it that epithet, alteration in the rules of origin. The rules of origin of added value in the ACP countries were to be of tremendous importance to them, if they could bring in semi-manufactured goods, add to and export them. Because of the way the rules of origin worked, it meant that they could not add any skill or entrepreneurial advantage to goods imported into their countries and then exported. Nevertheless, despite the fact that we could not give that advantage to the ACP countries, it still existed for those countries which were beyond the ACP. I refer to Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea and other countries in the Far East.

Stabex is still held up as being a tremendous example of how we, the munificent West, were prepared to give equality of treatment over the years to Stabex commodities. However, every one of those commodities we can use and exploit to our benefit. Any commodity that is shared with non-ACP countries—for example, commodities such as copper—are immediately put outside the scheme. Such an arrangement for copper would have been of tremendous importance to Zambia and Zaire.

The Minister of State referred to commodities and mentioned en passant the advantage of tobacco as a great new introduction into Stabex. Great. We give the people lung cancer and an early death to help improvements in Third world. However, we should be looking for those commodities which will improve the health of all people rather than a cash crop such as tobacco, which is now subject to a great deal of criticism from development agencies and the United Nations. Tobacco is a cash crop which produces an immediate income but in the long run results in detrimental effects upon the health of the people in the producer and other countries. I should have preferred the Minister to announce cuts in the list than the introduction of tobacco.

In these matters we take three steps forward and two steps back. We understand that. To regard Lomé as an important step forward in terms of the North-South dialogue and the improvement in the relationship between North and South is to look at it through spectacles that were rose tinted on the Côte d'Azur, in Knightsbridge or Régine's, but not to look at the position in terms of what is happening.

The agreement is dishonest. It completely cuts out the countries with the greatest problems. I have criticised Labour and Conservative Governments impartially. However. I may have adopted a degree of vehemence towards this Government that I did not adopt towards my party. The agreement does not include Bangladesh, which has an enormous problem. It does not include Sri Lanka, the Indian sub-continent, Pakistan or the enormous problems of South-East Asia. Those countries have been left out because the French did not have any interests in them. We did not want to include those countries because of the enormity of the problems involved. The French gave us a good excuse for leaving them out. It is wrong to regard the agreement as a great step forward in the North-South dialogue.

The agreement improves a neo-colonial and neo-imperialistic position. Although the agreement is of advantage to the developing countries en passant, it is designed to improve the position of EEC countries. If we approve the order, we do so on that basis. It may help the poorest of the poor. However, the agreement predominantly favours our selfish interests. It may be argued that we must look after Jack. However, if that is so, we must also look after Jill and the other parties to the agreement. We have not done that. We are co-partners in an agreement that is considered to be an example of forward co-operation between North and South. I do not believe that that is so. It is a paltry step forward, if that. As such, I do not even give it the half cheer that my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe was prepared to give. I certainly do not give it the two and a half cheers that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South gave. I shrug my shoulders and say that it is better than nothing. Anything that is better than nothing is better, but by God, nothing really is nothing.

12.27 am
Mr. Hurd

With permission, I shall reply to some of the questions that have been raised. The hon. Members for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody), Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) have been rather grudging. Rather than re-enter the argument, I shall deal with the points on which clarification was sought.

As regards the length of the treaty, we would have been prepared to consider a longer period. However, a clear majority of the ACP countries preferred five years. The hon. Member for Crewe asked about the mineral scheme. Over the period of the treaty, £168 million has been allocated. The scheme is experimental, but it is generally designed to help those mineral producers who find—through no fault of their own—that their income and production have been disrupted.

The hon. Lady also asked about Stabex. The figures are £225 million for Lomé I and £330 million for Lomé II. She criticised the existence of safeguard clauses. However, they are commonly found in trade agreements and exist in GATT. As regards Lomé, they have never been used. However, if she considers the textile industry and constituencies such as Crewe, in which that industry is important, she will understand that there is a case for including safeguard clauses in such agreements.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Newham, South about the explanatory memorandum. A full summary of Lomé II was put to the House in October last year, before the convention was signed, and again afterwards. The hon. Member is on to the right point over force majeure. There has been a problem. It was agreed at the ACP-EEC Council of Ministers meeting in May to institute the good offices procedures, which are provided for in the convention to consider the dispute. There has been a friendly decision as to how this matter can be handled.

The hon. Member for Crewe mentioned particular advantages for French overseas territories. Most of the Francophones involved in the treaty are independent States, and there is no particular discrimination in their favour. We have secured our special arrangements, such as the beef arrangement, which are of particular interest to the Commonwealth countries. The position over sugar is unchanged, while that of rum is somewhat improved. Of course one can make points against the CAP in this context, but I shall not enter into that argument now.

Mrs. Dunwoody

It appears from the treaty—and I hope I am wrong—that a marginal improvement has been agreed for the moment, but if a Community scheme for alcohol is agreed, it is possible that the concessions given on rum will be withdrawn. Is that the position?

Mr. Hurd

I take the hon. Lady's point. I have always understood that rum is an alcoholic drink, and if there were an arrangement for alcohol it would be perfectly natural and obvious that rum would have to be considered as part of it. However, there is no immediate prospect of the rum provisions that were negotiated with such difficulty being called into question in that way.

The main criticism has been that the treaty is paternalistic and selfish. The analysis which brings forward that criticism is becoming a little out of date. The ACP countries are now showing themselves to be robust negotiators. They are sticking up for themselves, and I can bear witness to that from my own experience. They are not quite the downtrodden exploited people that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central supposes. They and we regard this treaty as a step forward, not solving all their problems, and certainly not solving all the problems of the countries which are outside Lomé. Nevertheless, the arrangements represent a realistic step forward, arrived at after difficult negotiations. The outcome is one that they and we welcome, and we all want to make it work.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Second APC-EEC Convention of Lomé) Order 1980, which was laid before this House on 3 June, be approved.