HC Deb 07 July 1982 vol 27 cc398-413 11.26 pm
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Neil Marten)

I beg to move, That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development (First Replenishment) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved. This order seeks the approval of the House for an increase in our payments to the fund. The United Kingdom has voted in favour of the proposed contributions, at a meeting of the fund's governing council, subject to the approval of Parliament.

The international fund for agricultural development—I shall refer to it as IFAD—is a specialised agency of the United Nations, born out of a resolution of the world food conference in 1974. It is aimed specifically at strengthening agricultural production in developing countries. It is, by definition, focused on the rural sector where so much of the world's poverty lies. We were a founder member of the fund and we approve of its aims and its policies.

As in the case of other multilateral aid institutions, our contribution helps to generate a substantial flow of resources to countries in need. In IFAD's case, 16 Commonwealth countries had received loans by the end of 1981.

IFAD is an unique institution. Its 136 members are divided into three categories, each with equal voting power. Category I covers the OECD member countries, category II the OPEC member countries and category III the non-oil developing countries, which are the only members eligible for assistance from the fund. This partnership has not been without its problems—I shall mention this in a moment—but with fairly modest administrative and financial resources the fund has already tried to put its special stamp on many rural projects.

IFAD began its operations in 1977 with initial resources of $1,024 million, made up of contributions from category I of $569.5 million, category II, $435.5 million and category III, $19 million. The rather peculiar balance between OECD and. OPEC contributions reflected an ad hoc compromise between their differing views. All this has now been committed, although by 31 December 1981 only $110 million had been spent.

A ratio of disbursements to commitments of just under 11 per cent. may seem on the low side, but IFAD is a young institution and deals only with agricultural projects on which the rate of disbursement is normally quite low in the early years of each project. We expect spending to rise steadily as more of the projects mature.

Negotiations for the first replenishment of the fund's resources to cover the commitment period 1981 to 1983 started in 1980. They were rather drawn out because, as with the original endowment, OPEC and OECD members had different ideas about the right balance between their relative contributions. Western traditional donors have always seen IFAD as an institution in which there should be equal partnership, equal votes, and equal contributions, but OPEC donors did not wish their contributions to be more than two-thirds of that put up by the OECD countries.

Eventually a compromise was reached, itself not far from the original compromise. At the fund's fifth governing council in January 1982, category I and II members agreed to provide $1,070 million to cover commitments up until about the end of 1983. Category I members will contribute $620 million, which includes some special supplementary contributions pledged to help the negotiations reach finality. Category II will put up $450 million, which includes $430 million from individual members and a further contribution of $20 million from the OPEC special fund. It is expected that category III countries will contribute in addition about $31 million, but this figure is subject to confirmation.

The OECD contributions collectively will go up by 8.8 per cent., and those of OPEC collectively by 3.4 per cent. Together with the $240 million carried over from the initial endowment, the fund will thus be able to sustain a lending programme for the three years 1981 to 1983 of some $1,300 million.

Our own share, subject to parliamentary approval, will be £12,901,127. That is equivalent to $29.75 million at the exchange rate agreed for the replenishment, or 5 per cent. of the basic category I contribution of $595 million, and 4.8 per cent. of the final category I total. Our participation in category I's share of the replenishment at this rate was accepted by other donors. I apologise for all these figures. I know that they are difficult to follow, but they must be put on the record.

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)

I understood the Minister to say that £12.9 million was equivalent to $29 million. That cannot possibly be correct at the present rate of exchange. How is that dollar rate calculated?

Mr. Marten

I said that our own share, subject to parliamentary approval, will be £12,901,127. That is equivalent to $29.75 million at the exchange rate agreed for the replenishment.

Mr. Hooley

Ah!

Mr. Marten

That is how it works. In accordance with the agreed resolution covering the replenishment, our contribution will require to be paid in one, two or three instalments in such a manner that the last instalment is paid within the current replenishment period—in other words, before the end of 1983.

Our payments will be in the form of the deposit of non-interest bearing notes encashable on demand. We plan to deposit the first of these as soon as possible after this order is made. We expect all these notes to be encashed over several years. Again, I should emphasise that it is only at the encashment stage that there is an actual call for funds on the aid Vote. The replenishment arrangement provides that, if one or more donors fail to meet their obligations promptly and in full, other countries' contributions may also be rephased.

The draft statutory order entitled "The International Fund for Agricultural Development (First Replenishment)" authorises the Secretary of State to pay the United Kingdom contribution to the replenishment. I commend it to the House with confidence that hon. Members will wish to see our support for IFAD continue, and that that support will be translated by the fund into well-targeted food production projects in some of the world's most deprived countries.

11.35 pm
Mr. Frank McElhone (Glasgow, Queen's Park)

In endorsing the order, I wish to put several questions to the Minister. The Labour Government's initial contribution to the fund in July 1977 was £18 million. The present sum is £12,900,000. At May 1982 prices, if the Government were to make the contribution that was made by the Labour Government, the Minister should have said £31.5 million. The present sum is low and cannot cover IFAD, which provides agricultural development to almost the entire world. I checked the Minister's figures with the statistician in the Library and was assured that they are accurate.

Is this paltry sum due to the fact that part of the PESC allocations to the Minister's Department are being transferred to the Foreign Office or Ministry of Defence budgets? I hope that the Minister will give a firm and positive answer because I should hate to believe that the starving poor of the Third world must pay for the Prime Minister's adventure in the Falkland Islands. [Interruption.] I understand the difficulties of conferring with the Whips at this late hour, but I hope that the Minister understood what I said. Has the PESC allocation to his Department been transferred to the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence? I repeat that because of the intervention of the Whip.

I return to the question that I raised during our debate on the African development fund about the tragic underspending of aid funds. As I said to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mr. Wells), the order—like the previous order—does not cover students' fees. However, I must repeat that if one disburses money in African or other poor countries, one must place trained people in those countries. They must be trained in Britain in order to ensure that the money that we allocate under this and other funds is spent as speedily as possible.

The Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations stated: The world's cereal reserves fell seriously below danger level last year.… Stocks fell from 274 million tons—19 per cent. of annual consumption—in 1979, to only 210 million tons—14 per cent. of consumption—in 1981. I warn the Minister that the report goes on to say: This is not far above the low of 12 per cent. recorded in the 'world food crisis' of 1973–74 and way below the 18 per cent. which the FAO recommends as a minimum safety level. We cannot be complacent, because the poorest countries cannot produce the food to feed themselves. Unless we train skilled personnel and encourage students to come to Britain, our efforts to disburse money may be a waste of time. The FAO report "Agriculture Towards 2000" shows that between now and the end of this decade there will be another 155 million people who will be acutely undernourished. Those are frightening figures taken with the 800 million people to whom we have already referred.

In spite of criticisms levelled against it, IFAD has a great deal to boast about. The Brandt commission described it as a model for the future, and I pay tribute to its system of power sharing. The voting is balanced equally, with one-third being controlled by OPEC, who are donors to the fund, and one-third by OECD countries who are the other contributors. The fund is unique because a one-third control is held by the recipients. For many years we have asked for something similar for the World Bank. The World Bank is controlled by the United States of America. Those countries which do not suit the United States of America—Nicaragua for example—do not benefit from the World Bank. We should pay a tribute to the democratic balance in that fund. It is something we should like to see in the other aid and development funds that proliferate throughout the world.

The fund deserves credit for giving the first international loan to Cuba since the revolution. It is important that countries such as Cuba and Nicaragua should receive loans. I have constantly raised that point with the Minister. The £20,000 that the Government have offered Nicaragua through the Red Cross for the serious flooding there is a disgrace. That should be rejected by a Minister who we have said has some compassion in his make-up. Perhaps it does not surface when he is at the Dispatch Box.

The Government and the United States Government do not want countries such as Cuba and Nicaragua—which fought against the cruel dictatorships of Batista and Somoza—to go to Russia and other Eastern countries for their aid. With their problems of illiteracy and poor agriculture they need funds. Great Britain and the United States of America rejected requests for aid from Cuba and Nicaragua, which left them only one place to go. The Nicaraguan Foreign Minister came here some months ago and then had to go to Russia.

There is a great deal of disagreement within the Minister's Department because he is making serious cuts in the numbers of skilled staff who can give advice on agricultural projects. One department has been cut by 60 per cent., according to a report in The Observer a few weeks ago. If the Minister is cutting his Department as a result of the Rayner proposals I hope that he will think again.

It is nonsense for the Minister to ask the House to endorse a proposal to give £12 million to the fund because the fund has over $1,000 million, yet only $110 million was spent during 1981. The Minister should think seriously about his Department.

The Minister was in the Caribbean last month. Is the fund giving any assistance to Grenada which is under immense pressure from the United States of America because it is building an airport which the United States Government think poses a threat to their security? I think that is nonsense.

What help is being given to the smaller islands in the Caribbean, so that they can diversify their crops? I understand from a speech that the Minister made last month there that he will have to cut the allocations to the Caribbean in comparison with the previous year. If that is so, it makes a bleak picture for those small islands. For example, in Haiti, three-quarters of the people are living on an income of £70 a year.

With a cut in the aid programme of 11 per cent. in real terms this year, I find it somewhat hypocritical that the Prime Minister could say on World Food Day in October last year: All of us, as human beings, must feel compassion with those in need, and determination to help eliminate suffering and degradation … Hunger and malnutrition are major problems. Everyone should be concerned about them". We know only too well from the right hon. Lady's answers at Question Time and her negative responses at the summits at Cancun, Versailles and Ottawa, that she is making no response. I hope that the Minister will give a more positive response when he winds up tonight.

11.47 pm
Mr. Michael Welsh (Don Valley)

I should like to emphasise a point that has already been made, that £18 million was paid by this order last year, but only £13 million this year. I appreciate the tremendous amount of trouble that has been taken and the discussions that have been going on in Rome over this issue and it appears that we are paying a percentage, which means in real terms a decrease in aid to the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

What detail was gone into in the discussion on this replenishment with the United States? With the democratic system for distributing the aid, I appreciate that the United States, to say the least, is fighting shy. It may be because of this that the reduction in real terms has come about. This is a great pity, because of all the methods of distributing aid I can see, by reading articles about the fund, that it is one of the good methods.

This order is similar to the previous order that we have discussed tonight, which dealt with the African Development Bank, African States and the African development fund, which helps the States. The policy of the previous order is geared to the conquest of hunger, poverty and disease. This order helps agriculture and, particularly, food production. The two orders are therefore similar, but different, methods of distribution.

I wonder whether the Minister and other hon. Members realise—as I am sure that they do—that in 1974 it was discovered that there were some 500 million malnourished people living in rural areas of the Third world. That is still with us. This may be due to large and rising populations, but it is still there. On top of that, we have been let down by the international financial community. At least $30 billion is needed each year for agricultural investment in these areas. Last year, in real terms, there was only $5 billion, which was a terrific shortfall on investment to provide food for the needy.

With the World Bank "de-emphasising" poverty as a criterion for its loans, other aid reeling from cuts, and Western aid being pruned, it is to this IFAD aid that the poor in the rural areas of the Third world are looking. As a result of all the cuts that are being made, it is inevitable that the poor in the rural areas will look to this sort of aid. I therefore welcome it, although I wish that it had been a lot more. I am sure that the Minister, too, would have liked it be more. It will help the needy in the Third world.

One wonders sometimes whether the aid reaches the poor. From the documents that I have read recently on this subject, it appears that much of the money is going to the vast pool of landless and rural poor in Asia, where it is being reasonably successful. There are 23,000 people in Bangladesh who are receiving aid of this description. Many of the people receiving aid are women who are working in rural areas. So the aid seems to be getting through to the places where we intend it to go.

This aid helps many other countries with loans to small farmers. It breaks clown certain obstacles which large aid projects cannot overcome, and it can get more directly to the places where it is needed. The aid seems to be reaching the poor.

What we do not want is criticism, and I am sure that no right hon. or hon. Member would criticise it. It needs a three years' run before a judgment can be made. Only then shall we see whether it is reaching the places that it is intended to reach. So we should wait another three years before passing judgment.

One must accept that some funds are drying up. Iran, for example, gave $105 million to the fund. Now that the Ayatollah is in power, I am sorry to say that Iran has contributed only $19 million. That shortfall has to be made up from somewhere else, and I am glad to learn that other countries in the Middle East and other areas are making it up. Saudi Arabia, for example, has increased its aid tremendously to help to get over the shortfall from Iran.

There is much to be done for the poor rural areas, and I feel very deeply about this matter. I should like to know what is happening about the decade of water. By and large, that is what the order is about. Agriculture is about water. What is happening to the decade of water, and are the Government giving any more help in that regard? If, through this order, money is being invested in water, and so on, in agricultural areas, when it could come direct from the decade of water, if we contributed to it, this small amount that we are contributing could help other projects in rural areas. It is a matter of vital importance. I should be very grateful if the Minister could explain what the Government are doing in connection with the decade of water, and what they expect to do to help our brothers and sisters who are unfortunate enough to live in areas of poverty. The decade of water is most important. If we can win on that, we will see a vast improvement.

Are we sending technical aid to these countries in addition to the aid set out in the order? It would be a great pity if rural areas had to pay for technical help. I do not say that that would be a waste of money, because it would be needed, but it would be a great deal better if the rural areas could receive direct technical aid from the Government to help investment and work in the rural areas. Two or three technical experts could bring a tremendous amount of help to those areas. Is the Minister saying that we are leaving it to independent water authorities to send their own technical men, and that the water rates will pay for it? Water is vitally important to the rural areas. If we choose to be narrow minded—there is nothing wrong with occasional narrowmindedness—we could send technical advisers to advise the people in the rural areas how to use to the best advantage good British hardware. There is nothing wrong with advisers going out there to use British hardware. It is not immoral if because of the loans we make we can in return provide jobs for our industry.

I turn now to the cuts in the numbers of overseas students. In Malaysia we have already lost about £4 billion of trade. The deputy Prime Minister, whom I met there, told me that, because of what we had done to their students, we would receive hardly any contracts. Those students will go somewhere and will receive aid from other countries. They will buy manufactured goods from the countries in which they were trained because they will already have been trained to use them. I say with great respect to the Minister that the changes in the fees for overseas students were not his fault. I accept that it was the fault of another Department. I have spoken to many people in different countries about this matter and it must be accepted that it was a dear mistake to lose hundreds of millions of pounds in contracts and the friendship of those countries in order to save a few hundred thousand pounds. I am sure that the Department of Education and Science now accept that that was a mistake. Nevertheless, it has been done.

Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

If the hon. Gentleman is of the opinion that we are losing out economically as a result of that decision, has he any evidence that other countries are seeking to offer the same type of facilities to overseas students in order to gain that advantage?

Mr. Welsh

Australia, New Zealand and Germany are doing so. The biggest shock was that Malaysia was thinking about sending its students to Russia where the fees are only a quarter as high as ours. Those students would be heavily subsidised. We should subsidise overseas students so that they can go back and help their poor countries to grow into an industrial country and a better country. If they can do that, the subsidy has been worth it; and if, having studied in Britain, they return home and order British goods, the subsidy has been worth it three fold. The Minister visits many of the countries affected and I am sure that he finds, as I did on my visit to Singapore and Malaysia, that our treatment of overseas students dominates all discussions.

The IFAD is a good way to help poor rural areas. The power-sharing in the fund is unique, and I hope that it continues. I am sure that the Americans, would like to change the system, because they make the biggest contribution to the fund, but I hope that, bearing in mind the good will generated by the fund and the fact that the working together ensures that money goes to the poorest, the Americans will accept the power-sharing. The results will be clearer after another three or four years, and I am sure that the fund will prove a success.

As changes occur we may be called upon to be more generous. As oil prices come down, some countries may not be able to contribute as much to the fund as they would wish and we, as one of the richer countries, may have to be more generous—not to a State or a piece of land, but to our less fortunate brothers and sisters. I hope that when the call for more money comes, the British Government of the day will answer that call.

12.1 am

Mr. Frank Hooley (Sheffield, Heeley)

Mention has been made of the tripartite structure of the fund, and we need to stress that the structure is tripartite not only in terms of finance but in terms of control. It is sad that the Communist bloc did not join and make it a quadrilateral structure, but perhaps that will come about one day.

I am not sure whether the structure is unique among United Nations organisations. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have weighted voting, but it is so massively in favour of OECD countries that it has provoked considerable resentment in the Third world because it does not have an adequate voice in those bodies, which dispose of enormous financial resources for the alleviation of world poverty and the problems of the Third world. If the IFAD structure could be adapted or extended by other bodies it could go some way to meet that criticism of Third world countries.

I prefer to call the fund IFAD. I do not like the Minister's IF; there are too many "ifs" in the aid programme. The senior staff of the fund are predominantly from the Third world. For example, the director is a distinguished Saudi Arabian. The staff are, therefore, probably more receptive and more knowledgeable about the problems of the countries that wish to draw on the fund's resources than might be the case.

The primary function of IFAD is to assist the rural poor with food production and particularly to help small farmers and even some landless peasants to produce more food. It operates not alone, but in conjunction with other agencies, both financial and technical, and the countries assisted so far include Nicaragua, Bangladesh and Pakistan, where loans were distributed to about 10,000 villages throughout the country. Help has also been given to Nepal, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Egypt and, as has been mentioned, for the first time to Cuba.

Considerable help was given to 15,000 small farmers in Nicaragua who had taken over the estates of the notorious Somoza. They were badly in need of credit to purchase equipment, seed, fertilisers and so on. The IFAD money was used to good purpose, because the crops grown were maize, beans, Sorghum and rice, which were of direct value to the people there.

There has been no dispute so far in this mini debate about the value of the fund, but it should be pointed out that its value has not been reflected in the generosity of contributions from the major contributors. The initial contribution of the United States was $230 million under President Carter and that has fallen to $185 million under President Reagan. Our own contribution, as has been pointed out, was £18 million initially and only £12.9 million on the second occasion. Since those cash figures do not allow for the effect of inflation, the actual fall must be far more drastic. I take the Minister's point that the dollar exchange rate makes some difference to those figures. Even so, there was a fall between the two contributions and an even bigger fall when allowance has been made for the effect of inflation. That is extremely regrettable in an international institution that is just beginning to find its feet and is fairly widely admired for its valuable work. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to contribute on the scale of the initial contribution.

As has been said, the Western world is not the only offender. Iran made a major contribution originally, but little subsequently. Another curious absentee is Mexico. I am disinclined to criticise Mexico, because it has been generous with its oil resources to Caribbean countries and has given them considerable help. However, as a major oil producer, deriving considerable wealth from it, I am a little surprised that the Mexican Government have not contributed to the fund.

A disturbing feature is the slow rate of disbursement. The Minister mentioned that, but he gave no reasons. We should use our influence within IFAD to speed up disbursement or at least to find out why it is so slow.

The world food problem is formidable. The latest World Bank report says that the production of food grains has been relatively stable for a year or two at 1,500 million tonnes. However, populations are increasing and, as incomes in some countries increase, demand is increasing too.

In 1970–71 the poorer countries imported about 20 million tonnes of food grain at a cost of $2,000 million. By 1980–81, according to the World Bank, those imports had shot up to 50 million tonnes at a cost of $10,000 million. Again allowing for the exchange rate, they were paying double for their food imports at the end of that decade.

South-East Asia food production has increased and the position is more favourable, but in sub-Saharan Africa the position is getting worse. The production of food is falling and the strain on the balance of payments of those countries in importing food—which they are forced to do in greater and greater quantities—is becoming serious.

A curious feature of the world food situation is the flow of food from the poor to the rich world. An interesting study that I read recently claimed that the United States was a net importer of meat and fish and fish products on a large scale. We have the odd situation that in real terms the poor world is supplying food net to the rich world. This state of affairs must be examined to determine whether the situation can be remedied by aid policies, technological help or by some other means.

I am concerned about the negative and selfish attitude of the United States, Canada and Australia at the world food conference last month in the United States. I refer to the attitude that they adopted to the proposition that there should be, as it were, a strategic international grain reserve of 12 million tonnes. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) said that world grain reserves had fallen dangerously over the past few years and that if there were a major failure in either the northern or southern hemisphere, or, as disastrously occurred in 1973, in both, the situation for the poorest countries would be terrifying.

It was proposed at the Acapulco conference that there should be an international reserve of 12 million tonnes. For selfish, stupid, and ideological reasons it was resisted by the United States and, I regret to say, by two important Commonwealth countries, Canada and Australia. Britain is not a world food exporter—it is a net importer and not, therefore, in the same league as the United States, Canada and Australia—but I hope that it will use its influence in IFAD, in FAO and within other international agencies to ensure that there is an adequate international strategic grain reserve against the day that will surely come when there is a serious harvest failure in either the North or the South in a major grain-producing part of the world. If a reserve is established, there will at least be stocks to preserve millions from sheer desperate famine. Even though we are not producing as much money as we should for aid, I hope that we shall show that we are aware of the problem and are prepared to bring our skill, influence and advice to bear to change the attitude of the depressing Administration in Washington.

12.12 am
Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler (Norfolk, North-West)

The international fund for agricultural development was born following the world food conference in 1974 in Rome. Its purpose was to attract new foreign funds, principally from the OPEC countries, to try to give a major lift to the world resources being devoted to the production of food in developing countries.

We have debated the subject only since 1977, and that debate took place in the Fourth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments on 13 July 1977. The first order was then laid and we voted an initial contribution of £18 million. At that time, as a member of the Conservative Party, I was the only spokesman for that party in the Committee to discuss the statutory instrument. I welcomed the previous Labour Government's initiative in giving the United Kingdom's support to a major new venture that offered the prospect of more funds being drawn into international agricultural development and because the fund, as the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) have said, was the first example, we hoped of many, of a much wider management of international resources being devoted to an international effort.

In welcoming the 1977 order, as I welcome this order tonight, I raised a number of questions that I hoped would be borne in mind as we watched the fund's progress. I was concerned that there might be some duplication of activity between IFAD and the FAO, the Food and Agricultural Organisation, which is also sited in Rome. I believed at that time—there are some grounds for thinking the same today—that there might be some competition between the two organisations in identifying the major and the most prestigious agricultural development projects throughout the developing world.

The world food shortage has not abated. With the enormous population growth in many major developing countries it is serious that so many countries are increasingly unable to be self-sufficient in food supplies. Those who supported the British Government's contribution to the fund looked to it to play a major part in encouraging the poorest developing countries to be self-sufficient. To what extent is the Minister satisfied that the fund is playing an important and new part in trying to bring that about?

One of the other questions that I raised in the earlier debate was about the possibility of funds being concentrated in Muslim countries. Although we welcome Arabic funds, fears were expressed that priority might be given to Muslim countries and that the funds would not get to non-Muslim countries south of the Sahara which are among the poorest countries in the world. Is the Minister satisfied that the funds are being fairly disbursed among the needy countries?

In the earlier debate I also asked about the staff. The Minister reported that about 30 staff were to be employed initially. I expressed surprise because I believed that a staff of 30 in Rome was unlikely to play a major part in identifying the types of development project that the fund was set up to finance. How many staff are now employed? Is the Minister satisfied with the fund's capacity to identify and appraise projects and to ensure that sufficient funds are allocated to them?

We recognise that all the major fund agencies, both multilateral and bilateral—particularly in relation to donor Governments which try to emphasise agricultural developments—are competing for a small market of major funds. Far too many recipient Governments engage their bureaucracies in identifying major projects, leading to imports of inappropriate equipment on a large scale, when more help could reach the poorest if smaller amounts of money were spent in smaller projects to meet the needs of local populations. I wonder whether we have the right balance. We should support financially viable and socially necessary projects at the lowest level, accepting that the administrative costs will be higher, so that it is in balance with the major projects for which most countries compete.

I have described some of the matters that I raised a few years ago. We must address ourselves to them constantly, but I am certain that this is not the right forum to get down to the technical detail. I welcome the Minister's most helpful comments about the need for these matters to be examined by the appropriate Select Committee so that we can assure the British taxpayer that the moneys that they spend with a good heart are being used to good purpose.

I sometimes disagree with the Front Bench of the official Opposition. The problems of development are not always solved by throwing large sums of money at them. We must ensure that what we spend is spent effectively. I am a little worried that the rate of disbursement of funds from IFAD to the developing countries shows that there is a bottleneck. It may be a bottleneck of project identification, the availability of technicians and managers, just as is the case with the African Development Bank.

Mr. McElhone

I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that we do not disagree. The problems are not solved by throwing money at them. All hon. Members who have spoken on this and the previous order are worried about the difficulty of disbursing the money. The Minister referred to $110 million being disbursed in 1981 as opposed to a commitment to more than $1,000 million. We do not disagree.

Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler

I am glad to hear that. We committed £18 million in the first stage. On 10 February, in answer to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley), the Minister reported that since 1978 the amounts drawn were £1.76 million in 1978, nil in 1979, nil in 1980, £0.88 million in 1981, and £2.11 million in the first quarter of 1982, making a total of £4.75 million over five years. Is that part of the initial £18 million or is it additional to it? What is the relationship between the £4.75 million and the sum that we are discussing in the order? Do they constitute the £18 million together, and what is the total commitment during the time that we have supported this important international institution? As both my and the Minister's mathematics are bad at this time of night, perhaps he will write to me on the matter.

The matter should be discussed in another arena. I give way to no one in my support for the efforts of British Governments to assist the poorest people in the poorest countries of the world. No need is more pressing than that of agricultural and rural development in the poorest countries. The fund can play a major part in doing that. As representatives of British taxpayers, we are right to press successive Governments to ensure that the funds that we vote are received by the countries concerned and that they are put to the most efficient use. That can only be achieved if we constantly review the matter in the Select Committee.

12.24 am
Mr. Richard Body (Holland with Boston)

The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler)—I suppose that I must not call him "my hon. Friend" any more—has argued this case in all the debates on this subject that I can remember over the years and has always been very persuasive. Nevertheless, I wish that I could persuade him of one proposition. He represents a large number of farmers in Norfolk, just as I represent a large number of farmers in my neighbouring constituency in Lincolnshire. In one respect, farmers are the same the world over. They will not begin the expensive process of producing more food unless they can see the prospect of a reasonable return for what they produce. This is at the heart of the matter.

The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) and indeed probably all of us have seen areas in which thousands of people are slowly dying of hunger. Yet in those same countries we have seen areas in which the soil and climate are capable of producing all the food necessary to feed those people. The only reason why that food is not being produced is that the people who are hungry do not have the money in their pockets or their loin cloths to buy the food that could be produced for them. That is the essential fact of the matter.

Not long ago, I saw some very rich alluvial soil in Senegal. I am not much of a farmer, but it looked just as good as the soil around the Wash in the constituency of the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West and my own. It was rich alluvial soil capable of growing tremendous crops. Yet that land was not cultivated. Nothing was being grown there. It is a dreadful and wicked thing that that land should go uncultivated while down the road there are villages in which people are desperately hungry.

I am a little sceptical, however, about throwing more money in the way of this development fund to solve that problem. It will help to some extent, of course, but the real way to help is to lower the barriers that we have erected against so many Third world countries. The hon. Member for Heeley criticised the system whereby so many of them export food to the West, but if they want foreign exchange, if they want to generate wealth and jobs for their own people, they have little alternative. If they cannot grow food or produce textiles because we have put up barriers against them, what else can they do? If they are to get on to the launching pad, they must produce something that they can export to gain foreign exchange to develop themselves indusrially.

We in the West have been pursuing utterly selfish policies towards the Third world and we are causing many hundreds of thousands of people to lead very poor lives as a result.

Mr. Hooley

At the time of the greatest famine in Europe—in Ireland in the 1840s—Ireland was exporting large quantities of valuable food. That food did not go to the 2 million people who were dying of starvation. It is no answer to say that if one adapts prices to market forces the problem of hunger will be solved.

Mr. Body

The famine of the 1840s was a terrible experience for Ireland, although I hesitate to agree that it was the worse famine in Europe. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied the subject, so he will be aware that there were other factors involved in causing the potato disease and the terrible famine and distress that followed. I hope that he will not overlook that.

My contribution will be very brief. I simply wish to emphasise that the right way to help the Third world countries is for us to be much less selfish towards them and to pull down the barriers that we have erected against them. We are now putting up barriers against textiles, which are an essential industry for so many Third world countries. We have also erected barriers against their foodstuffs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West—I am sure that he will not mind my calling him "my hon. Friend"—has argued in favour of the Lomé convention, but in his travels in the Third world he must have heard the criticism that the Lomé convention is not really helping. What is really needed is for this country and the developed world as a whole to be a great deal less selfish toward the Third world. We must bring down the barriers and allow the products that they can produce cheaply to come in. In that way they will obtain the foreign exchange and the income to enable them to develop. That is the only honest and honourable way to help the Third world. I urge my hon. Friend to bear that in mind.

I ask my hon. Friend to acquit me of any discourtesy for not being in the Chamber at the beginning of his speech. I was detained elsewhere.

12.30 am
Mr. John Sever (Birmingham, Ladywood)

I thank the Minister for his kind welcome to me on my first attempt to debate with him at the Dispatch Box the issues of overseas development.

Closely on the heels of that, I want the Minister to know that I consider it one of my foremost duties to explain to him, as I am sure he will accept, that, strangely enough, I have almost a constituency interest in this debate. Many of my constituents in Ladywood originally came from some of the areas covered by the order and many of them belong to the ethnic minority communities. Therefore, these matters, particularly aid to the original homelands of my constituents, are of importance to me.

I hope that the Minister will accept the arguments put to him concerning the positive and forthright way in which he should pursue these matters. I am sure that he has noticed that the speeches have been made with conviction and a great deal of thought and anxiety for those who are in far worse situations than people in this country.

I refer specifically to India and Pakistan. Many of my constituents came from those countries. They, and many thousands of families in Britain, hope that the Government's commitment to India and Pakistan and to South-East Asia will be continued and improved upon.

Many of the families and loved ones of those now living in Britain are in South-East Asia and the Indian subcontinent. Those areas are of concern to many British electors. Every Government would be wise to remember that. Our help and co-operation must be offered in far greater measure to those Asian countries with whom our own history is inextricably woven. For example, India's agricultural programmes continue to improve, but we should be doing whatever we can, with all haste and vigour, to improve on those programmes. I believe that the Minister is sympathetic to that general view and I hope that he will use his influence in the spheres in which he operates to pursue those objectives.

I remind the Minister that thousands of children who are barely alive this evening will be dead tomorrow. They will die because they are suffering from malnutrition, starvation and the lack of proper medical attention. The funding of this organisation is crucial to the development of the countries concerned, but in real terms it is crucial to the lives of the individuals. Countless millions of people are dependent upon the wealthy industrialised nations such as our own for support and assistance to get through one day and into the next. We must look for every possible opportunity of giving assistance and providing the necessary funds for the programmes we are debating tonight. We must improve the lot of all those who so desperately need our help.

The starving world cannot be happy with what the rest of us do on their behalf. We can, with a degree of modesty, claim to be helping in some small way. However, that help is not sufficient. The money that we give is not enough. I suspect, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier, that the Minister wishes he could have come to the House with a proposal for supplying more money to the aid programme. If we concede that the Minister wishes to do that, it is incumbent on him to say how he will improve things in the future.

Some of my hon. Friends have referred to matters of particular interest to themselves, but the underlying theme reflects our concern and worry that the disbursement of the money in the fund is not rapid enough and that the funds are not being used by those for whom they are intended at the speed that we would wish to achieve the maximum help in the shortest possible time. I urge the Minister to do everything he can to ensure that his fellow donors realise the importance that hon. Members attach to the rapid disbursement of the funds.

I do not think that is a difficult job. I am sure that he can put the case quite admirably. If by doing so there is a quicker response to the needs of the developing and underprivileged world, many of us would feel a lot happier, not only that we have made a modest contribution to the fund but that what we have given goes to where it is needed in the shortest possible time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Welsh) used two phrases that stuck in my mind. He talked about the conquest of hunger and providing food for the needy. If the order is not about those two things, it is about nothing. Those considerations are crucial to our argument and to the way in which we should like to see the fund operate in the future. We should all remember that unless this money gets to these people in the shortest possible time, many of them will die. People will die anyway, whether or not the money is disbursed effectively.

The official Opposition are not arguing that we must simply throw money at the problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) responded to that point. The amount of money we give is of the utmost importance to the future of the fund and the future well being of those in greatest need. That is the force of our argument, and we are pleased to be able to support the introduction of this replenishment order.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) referred to the tripartite arrangements for the management of the fund. We welcome the way in which the overseas aid programmes of the industrialised countries are operated. We are glad that representatives of the recipients are at the very source of decision making. Those representatives are important people and can advise how the fund should be disposed of.

My hon. Friend also asked about the action that the Minister will take to speed up the disbursement of the funds. I do not wish to labour that point further, but it is of the utmost importance that we try to get that message across. By his assent, the Minister is acknowledging what I am trying to say. Perhaps he will explain how he can best achieve that.

The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) raised points that are just as relevant today as they were a few years ago. I welcome his brief history lesson in support of the order.

Does the Minister consider that the small amount of money given to Nicaragua for flood relief is sufficient for such a large problem? Does he believe, with the benefit of hindsight, that the Government might have been rather more generous? The sum was not adequate to cover the problems faced by a country that has only recently brought itself to the position whereby it can have meaningful development after a long time under a tyrannical regime. Nicaragua should have support from Britain for its inherent problems following such an upheaval and natural disaster.

The argument about the way in which aid is disbursed from wealthy countries to those most in need could keep us going for a long time. When the Minister next meets his European colleagues, perhaps he will ask them whether they are prepared to extend their sphere of influence to the parts of the world that they do not at present assist. The Government should be more purposeful in encouraging our European partners to find more money to aid countries that have been overlooked. I hesitate to say "ignored", because I am sure that they are not, but they seem to be overlooked. If the Minister puts some of the points raised tonight to his European colleagues, the wealthier nations might give more money to the countries with the greatest problems. It might encourage us to give more support to the European arrangement.

I know that it is difficult for the Minister because he is not totally in control of the matter, but he has influence and I hope that he will use it. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman may not be able to answer all of my points immediately. If he cannot, I hope that he will write to me soon so that we may know the Government's thinking on such crucial matters to the Third world, the under-privileged and the starving.

The Minister may find that from time to time I shall wish to talk to him about the way in which Britain deals with overseas development. I hope that I shall find an open door when I wish to make representations to him on behalf of my colleagues. There is a growing awareness in Britain of the duties that fall upon the wealthier countries to do something about the under-privileged and disadvantaged. The best evidence of that is the massive lobby of the House earlier this year. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen's Park and many other right hon. and hon. Members addressed the meeting, following the publication of the "North-South" report. For so many people to take the trouble to come to the House on such an effective lobby shows the enormous concern about our commitments to the Third world. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was impressed by that demonstration of public support for the policies that must be pursued to bring about improvements. The Minister should do everything that he can to show the Government's continuing support for the proposition that the overseas aid programme should be extended. Some more positive proposals should be brought forward so that we can obtain more money for programmes that we are keen to support.

12.44 am
Mr. Neil Marten

If the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Sever) wishes to see me to talk about these matters he should contact me and we can arrange a time. It is useful to be able to chat privately as it helps matters to proceed smoothly.

I am grateful for the views that have been expressed, and I shall read the report of the debate over the weekend and take to heart many of the points that have been raised. All hon. Members have stressed the immense problems facing the poorer countries in feeding their growing populations. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Queen's Park (Mr. McElhone) made that point in his eloquent speech.

IFAD is not the only aid institution. The World Bank, the various regional banks and the Arican development fund; that we discussed earlier, together provide more aid for agriculture than IFAD. We do a great deal bilaterally. IFAD is young and unique. Whatever differences of opinion we may have had on some points everyone will unanimously support our continued backing for the fund; and it is in that spirit that I commend the draft order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the draft International Fund for Agricultural Development (First Replenishment) Order 1982, which was laid before this House on 21st June, be approved.