Food Aid

HC Deb 29 February 1984 vol 55 cc353-64 10.25 pm

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison)

I beg to move, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11003/83 on a proposal for a Council Regulation on the implementation in relation to food of alternative operations in place of food aid; and endorses the Government's intention to work for the early adoption of such a Regulation to reinforce the Community's ability to help developing countries in their quest for food security by improving their own agricultural production. I welcome the Select Committee's recommendation that this document should be debated by the House. The Commission's proposal is constructive. It should help to promote the transition from food aid to direct assistance for agricultural development in developing countries. The House's support for this would be most welcome to the Government in their discussions within the Council of Ministers.

Document No. 11003/83 contains a proposal from the Commission to the Council for a draft regulation which would provide a legal basis for the use, in certain circumstances, of resources originally earmarked for food aid to finance alternative operations in support of agricultural and food projects. If a country were prepared to forgo an allocation of food aid, it could receive instead assistance to aspects of its agricultural development programme, such as applied research or rural credit operations. Budget appropriations would be transferred from the relevant food aid budget line to the budget line food projects in place of food aid". The draft regulation describes the circumstances in which this might be done and the procedure to be followed for deciding on individual cases. No additional money will be required, because costs will be met from existing appropriations already provided for food aid.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

If money is given instead of food, what will happen to that food? Will it not clutter up the whole panoply of stores up and down the Community which are bulging at the seams with Community surpluses? If so, will it not cost money and reduce still further the price of the food kept in those stores? If that food is then put on the world market, will not the world market price fall still lower and cause even greater problems to the countries we are trying to support?

Mr. Raison

Only a part of the food that goes to food aid comes from intervention. A substantial proportion comes from elsewhere. Of course, my hon. Friend is right, and we are unhappy about the way in which the common agricultural policy tends to encourage the creation of surpluses. We are trying separately to tackle that.

The Government have always accepted that there is a role for food aid in famine relief in emergency situations; but most food aid is not provided for this purpose and, although the Community is trying to improve the developmental impact of food aid, the Government believe that food aid is not the best way of helping developing countries to achieve food security. I think that the House and informed opinion in this country take a fairly sceptical view of food aid. Food aid can have a disincentive effect on agricultural production in developing countries by distorting market forces and delaying the introduction of necessary, but in the short-term unpopular, policy reforms. It can also accustom people to new diets and create a demand for imports which did not previously exist. It is a difficult form of aid to handle efficiently and it is, in some circumstances, more susceptible to misappropriation and waste than other forms of aid. In some cases, and without proper supervision, it can also be a health hazard.

The Community food aid programme began in 1963 and was inspired by the need to dispose of agricultural surpluses more than the wish to help developing countries. This thinking still stronly influences the attitude of some member states and is the main reason why such a large part of the Community's development budget relates to food aid. In the 1984 budget 502 million ecu, about £293 million, is allocated for food aid out of an overall development budget of 960 million ecu, about £560 million. Nearly half of this goes as dairy products, which are generally a particularly inappropriate form of food aid. It would, in my view, be better to spend most of this money in helping developing countries to implement national food strategies or. in some other way, to seek greater food security by developing their agriculture and related sectors. This draft regulation, if approved, wall go some way towards facilitating this.

None the less, despite the new proposal, we have to accept Community food aid as a fact of life for some time to come and the Government have been anxious to promote policy guidelines for Community food aid. Such guidelines were adopted by the Development Council in November 1983. These call for greater integration of food aid into agricultural development policies of the recipient countries, a dialogue with recipients, multiannual food aid programmes within defined circumstances, criteria for the choice of products, increased use of products from other developing countries and more checks on the use of counterpart funds.

Some hon. Members may ask whether, in view of the large food shortages in Africa, this is not the wrong time to cut food aid. Agricultural production per capita in developing countries taken as a whole has been slightly but steadily increasing over the past decade and there is, therefore, no prima facie case for contemplating a larger overall food aid programme. Some African countries are tragic exceptions to this general trend. That is not a reason for increasing overall tonnages of food aid but may be a reason for redistributing it towards Africa and away from other countries which are now growing more themselves; and that, in fact, has happened. I have already said that most food aid does not go for emergency relief. Moreover, no developing country would be obliged as a consequence of the draft regulation before us to give up its food aid. Such a country would, however, have the possibility of asking for some other form of assistance to agriculture instead of food aid, if its Government judged that to be in its own best interests.

The Commission's proposal is presently being discussed by working parties of officials of member states before going to the Committee of Permanent Representatives, probably in early April. The European Parliament will consider the document in committee and then in plenary, and I hope that it will be able to express a formal opinion in April. On receipt of the report from the Committee of Permanent Representatives the Council of Ministers should take a final decision on the regulation in April or May, taking account of the opinion of the European Parliament. In terms of the trialogue agreement between the Council of Ministers, the European Parliament and the Commission of 30 June 1982, draft regulations of this nature providing a legal basis for new budget lines should be decided not later than the end of May.

Already it is evident that some member states who look at food aid as a convenient means of disposing of agricultural surpluses are adopting a restrictive attitude to the regulation. I should like to have a regulation sufficiently wide in its scope to enable developing countries to make the maximum use of this new instrument for assistance to agriculture. I hope, therefore, that the House can give its wholehearted support to a proposal to make more flexible and efficient use of Community aid resources to support the development of agriculture in developing countries.

10.34 pm

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

I am glad that the spokesmen on Europe do not normally deal with the detailed matters in the large number of directives that we receive from the European Community, which the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) knows so well. These are usually dealt with by the appropriate Department spokesmen. I am pleased to be speaking this evening in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland). The Opposition consider this matter to be of great importance.

We welcome the directive and the attitude taken by the Government. Of course, we welcome the opportunity of a debate, as suggested by the Select Committee. But we are somewhat bemused by the Government's enthusiasm for this strategy because they have not always been noted for that enthusiasm. Indeed, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) will recall that the Government have not been the greatest advocates of a move in this direction.

We support the general goals of the European Community on food aid—to relieve distress in urgent cases, to contribute to economic development and to raise the level of nutrition. However, food aid until now has failed to meet those goals. Starvation still persists—it has increased in those countries that we have tried to help.

The Community document "Food Strategies" shows that the state of food supplies in the Third world, especially in Africa, far from improving in recent years has deteriorated, and will be even more disastrous in 20 years. It states: The food situation is critical in most African countries owing to the lack of progress in socio-economic development in general and rural development in particular. The document illustrates that with a number for figures. It states: In Africa, per capita food crop production fell by an average of 1.2 per cent. a year in the seventies … Per capita agricultural producion, which during the sixties had remained constant, fell even more rapidly by an average of 1.4 per cent. a year. Far from improving, the position was deteriorating during the period that we were increasing our food aid. We argue that food aid does not solve the root problems of starvation. It does not deal with a country's lack of infrastructure. I wish to quote the European Commissioner responsible for development co-operation, Edgar Pisani, who is the architect of the move that we are discussing. He said that: hunger will not be vanquished by temporary expedients, but rather by a process of economic development, which will be slow and difficult, because development is not just building roads, dams, hospitals, schools, irrigation systems and factories: it is all those things, but it is first and foremost the mobilization and the organization of an entire nation which wishes finally to take in hand its economic and social destiny after it has taken its political destiny in hand. We have seen so many countries that have taken their political destinies in their hands, but, for reasons upon which we will touch tonight, have not yet taken their social and economic destinies in their hands.

The document "Food Aid for Development" states: This problem cannot be solved merely by food handouts, which are often difficult to organize anyway when they have to reach scattered, unorganized groups of people; the solution lies in promoting food production in countries where this state of poverty is rife. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich, in a debate in May last year, described his experiences of dealing with the matter and the problems that can arise.

We accept, and the Government accept, that food aid is right and appropriate in emergencies and for countries in turmoil where the organised development and progress of agriculture is clearly difficult. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that there will be no diminution in the aid and no lack of willingness to supply quickly and generously food aid in all cases of emergencies. Where there are surpluses, as there are in the European Community, and where they can be speedily mobilised to help in emergencies, that must be done.

We accept that food aid has, in many cases, been counter-productive. It decreases initiative within a country and increases its dependence on food from the European Community and the developed world in general.

Sometimes food is provided that is not traditionally known in developing countries. In that case they can enjoy and become dependent on foods that they cannot themselves supply, and that can create difficulties in those countries.

We agree that the motivation behind the supply of food in many cases has not been so much the need of the country concerned as the desire to get rid of food surpluses, and the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who is no longer in his place, seemed to have that motivation behind his philosophy. We are not in favour of providing food aid simply to move food mountains. We are anxious to prevent those mountains arising in the first place, and to do that we need more sensible food production.

We, like the Government, are anxious to wean the developing countries off food aid and towards food projects, and we hope that the projects that we are discussing tonight and that are to be identified by the Community and approved by the Commission will be used to develop indigenous agriculture and that there will be a positive policy to encourage the form of agriculture that is appropriate in each country.

It is to be hoped that there will be co-operation between the Community donor countries and the recipients. May we have an assurance that in the contracts or pacts that are envisaged in the development of food projects, the interests of the recipient rather than the donor countries will be paramount and that there will be a clear understanding and acceptance of that in the Community? Food projects are being welcomed by the developing countries. For example, African countries have already expressed interest, and if that sort of enthusiasm is there, particularly from the less developed countries, we should move in that direction. Will the priorities of the Government and the Community be towards the least developed countries? It is generally accepted that the developing countries fall into a wide spectrum of need and that in recent years the poorer countries have become even poorer, showing that our development strategy has not been working.

I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to reconsider a previous response that he made to a report of the Overseas Development Sub-Committee of the Foreign Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) will recall the occasion well. If we are moving from food aid towards food projects, certain specialist units of the Overseas Development Administration could be particularly helpful in providing assistance for developing countries; for example, the tropical products institute, the land resources development centre and other specialist units on which the Government have cut back, against the recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Committee. They are the type of units that should be providing more assistance. If we are genuinely moving towards food projects and if there is a real commitment on the part of the Community to the concept, I hope that the Government will reconsider their attitude to these specialist units.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) said about the Select Committee. It was, of course, the Foreign Affairs Committee, although the report came originally from the Sub-Committee. He did not mention the centre for overseas pest research. It is about to be joined with the tropical products institute to form a coherent whole. I am sure the Minister will agree—and perhaps he will say so when he winds up the debate—that this research centre is very important for the tropical world in the prevention and eradication of tropical pests and its expertise, particularly in entomology, in this country may in some respects be unique.

Mr. Foulkes

I do not dissent in any way from what my hon. Friend has said. As usual, he is much more precise. We both served on that Sub-Committee and Committee, but he did most of the work and knows more of the details. I occasionally spent more time on the wider strategies than on the specific details. I hope that the Minister will reply to the general question of the recommendations of the Overseas Development Sub-Committee.

I hope the Minister will appreciate that rural development in the developing countries, which is what we are discussing, in terms of food projects and agricultural projects is linked with industrial development, and that it is important also to encourage industrial development in the developing countries, even though this poses challenges for us. After all, it was important in our own early development that rural and industrial development went hand in hand. It would be wrong to see the developing countries continuing with just a rural economy without encouraging their industrial development also.

Mr. Raison

Is the hon Gentleman really saying that he believes that this document that we are studying should be changed to allow for assistance to industrial development? That would rather undermine its point.

Mr. Foulkes

No, certainly not. I was putting the document in a much wider context rather than looking at the specifics of it. I hope that the Government in their development strategy—and the Minister must consider the development strategy in a wider context—will bear that in mind.

I also appreciate and support one of the points made by the Government, that it is important, where we are moving away from direct provision of food, to make sure that aid in the form of money is carefully scrutinised and monitored, as in the past we have been concerned that some of the food aid has not reached its destination. I am sure that the Minister will be concerned about that.

I ask the Minister for an assurance about the change-over procedure. Can he confirm that there will be no hiatus in the support for a particular country? The procedure as described in the document seems to envisage a cancellation of the aid before the introduction of a food project. I hope that there will be some kind of overlap and that it is not envisaged that there will be a gap in the procedure.

The Opposition generally welcome the direction in which this document moves the Government, and are pleased to see that the Government are moving in that direction. We hope that they will continue to do so with renewed and increased enthusiasm.

10.48 pm

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

It is most unusual for a constructive and sensible proposal to come from the European Community, but there is no doubt whatsover that the proposal before us tonight is a very sensible one indeed.

I have one basic question to put to the Minister. It serves the interests of the underdeveloped countries much better if we can help them to build up their own agriculture and thereby go on to develop their own industries. this is obviously the way in which they can best provide for themselves and also enjoy the benefits of the higher living standards which ensue. Is there any way in which the money for food projects, as opposed to food aid, could be used for collectives or for consortia, for creating some price guarantees for agriculture in these underdeveloped countries?

I say that because it is to our eternal shame that we have inflicted so much damage, distress, hardship and starvation on the countries of the underdeveloped world through the policy of dumping massive quantities of surplus food on the world market at knockdown prices. When considering the total budget of the European Community, it is interesting to note that 40p out of every £1 is spent on the disposal of surpluses — about £7 million every day—simply to subsidise the dumping of food in the Third world. That provides great benefits to the Soviet Union, which gets the cheap food, but it does immense damage to the poorer countries which are struggling to get a decent return for their own produce.

I draw particular attention to sugar. Many under-developed countries could provide sugar production—Pakistan is one country and we are all aware of many others — but at present the price they can get in the world market is £112 a tonne. From that must be deducted the cost of transporting the sugar to the markets where it is in demand.

On the other hand, the internal Common Market price available to British farmers and others is about £360 a tonne—more than three times as much. There is not much point in our helping Third-world countries to build a sugar industry if we keep the world price quite so low simply in consequence of the irresponsible dumping of food surpluses by the European Community on the world market.

It would be splendid if we gave those countries the means to provide food more efficiently, but I am sure that the Minister — who, irrespective of his ministerial position, has always taken an immense interest in the underdeveloped world — will accept that there is not much point in doing so if they are denied a reasonable return for their produce.

Would it not be possible for some of the EEC's resources to go towards a procedure to protect the Third world against the irresponsible dumping policy? However, dumping is a much wider subject which we cannot discuss under the regulation. But I am sure the Minister will accept that until we can find an answer to this general question, sensible proposals such as this will not achieve all that they should.

As well as providing cash to develop agricultural production, might there not be some way in which advice or cash aid could be given as a means of ensuring that Third-world countries get a reasonable return for their. produce—which I hope the regulation will enable them to improve?

10.53 pm

Mr. Guy Barnett (Greenwich)

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the regulation, and I agree with much of what he said about food aid policy in general. However, I must admit to having less faith than he appeared to have in its likely effectiveness. I say that partly in the light of the context in which we are discussing the regulation and the nature of the problem to which, presumably, it addresses itself—food shortages, with which food aid is concerned.

After all, there are two overriding factors, one of which has received no attention and to which I wish to draw attention—the growth of population, particularly in the Third world. The world's population is now moving towards 5 billion people. While that is happening, the production of many basic commodities is falling. Meanwhile, global economic growth has fallen in recent years from 4 per cent. to 2 per cent. a year.

The effect has been to divide the countries of the world into two groups—those where economic growth exceeds population growth, and those where it does not. For the first group, living standards are improving, if on average only slowly, while for the second group they are falling. We should not speak, as we have done in the past, about the rich world and the poor world. but we should underline the divide between that part of the world which is becoming richer, and that part which is facing increasing poverty and the despair that goes with it.

It is worth pointing out in the debate the obvious fact that food shortages are a function of poverty. People are hungry because they are poor. It is possible to live well and to get plenty to eat in any country provided that one has the money to buy what one needs. There are millions of under-nourished and starving people in the world because they do not have money. The unthinking reaction is to send them food and turn many of them into beggars, instead of recognising the basic injustice which determines the distribution of the world's resources. Food aid is often a palliative, and not a satisfactory one. It fails to tackle the basic problem.

On the supply side, there are numerous factors, but the only one that I shall mention tonight is the record of unpredictability in climatic conditions which has recently affected large parts of the African continent as well as ether parts of the world. Sub-Saharan Africa must be a matter of special concern in this debate, because the resulting tragedies there have been so devastating, and because many of the countries concerned are ACP countries, and are therefore of special concern to the European Economic Community. Of course, European food aid is not limited to ACP countries, but the EEC claims a special responsibility, through Lomé, for those countries. Initiatives on food aid should be related to the activities of the European development fund and the Lomé convention if they are to be genuinely concerned with development.

In the light of the worsening crisis on the African continent, the EEC response must be described as a mouse of a scheme. It does not begin to measure up to the problem, and it gives no guarantee that many of the well-known abuses of the Common Market's food aid policy, which have been mentioned in the debate, will not persist. I say "Common Market" advisedly, because food aid policy is not the responsibility of the European development fund, although it is associated with the needs of the common agricultural policy.

I have quoted in the House previously, and I shall quote again, a statement by Katharina Focke, a Member of the European Parliament: The European Community's food aid policy is still dictated by agricultural interests rather than any intention to promote development; it is an inefficient way of distributing European surplus production to the poor countries, associated with high costs, countless mishaps, delays, wrangling over responsibility and bureaucratic obstacles; there is scarcely any control over how it works and what effects it achieves and, to the extent that it actually involves aid, it is the balance of payments or the budget that is aided more than anything else.". The Select Committee in another place which considered this matter said a couple of years ago that the benefits of food aid can only be realised if food aid programmes are carefully and efficiently administered and are related to the recipients' development needs. One witness to the Committee said in evidence: Although the dangers of food aid can be avoided, the way in which the EEC proceeds to give food aid makes it as difficult as it can be to ensure the negative effects are avoided and that positive effects are attained. The question that the House must consider this evening, in examining the regulation, is whether there is a guarantee of improvement, 'despite the words of the explanatory memorandum, which states that food aid policy is designed to … contribute towards the balanced economic and social development of the recipient countries. What chance is there of that, given that the policy is inevitably dictated by agricultural interests whose prime objective is the disposal of surpluses? What chance does the Minister think there is that the Community budget—that, I believe, is what we are discussing—will be spent with the no doubt laudable aim of initiating food projects designed to enable countries to become self-sufficient in food? I wonder whether the Community budget will be spent in such a way—in the same kind of way as the EDF is presumably concerned directly with the needs of development in the Third world.

I have grave doubts—and I wonder at the Minister's keen acceptance of the proposals—about his welcome for a proposal which seems likely to be doomed from the start. Am I right in believing that it is the agriculture budget of the European Community that is involved? I hope that the Minister will answer that question. If I am right, I cannot believe that the powerful agricultural lobbies which operate on the continent would permit anything but minimal expenditure, under the head which covers the cost of dumping or disposal of surplus food outside the Market, on the support of indigenous agriculture in the Third world.

On of the most iniquitous consequences of the common agricultural policy—it has been mentioned today—is the subsidised dumping of surpluses on world markets. It depresses certain commodity prices to the detriment of the farmers of the Third world who are endeavouring to make a living and want to be able to sell their own surplus and plough back the profits into the productivity of their farms.

This proposed regulation hardly represents a serious change of direction; nor does it measure up to the frightening and growing problems of, in particular, sub-Saharan Africa. A vast and growing number of people in the Third world face the possibility of increasing food shortages as the population grows, unless the decline in food production can be halted and reversed.

11.2 pm

Mr. Raison

I believe that, in this short but useful debate, the House has given the Government the endorsement for which I asked. I believe that that is a fair statement of the tone of the debate in general. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) was rather more carping about the value of the proposal than the Opposition Front Bench spokesman or, indeed, the general mood of the House.

I will attempt briefly to answer the specific points that have been made. The remarks of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) were a little hard. He said that he was bemused by our enthusiasm and surprised that I should advocate such a development. However, I have had responsibility for overseas development for rather more than a year and, in that time, one of the arguments that I have pressed hardest on my colleagues in the European Community has been the need to switch from crude food aid to positive development strategies. The British Government played some part in the significant decision of the development council, taken towards the end of last year, to plump for a more enlightened approach to the use of food. We have worked effectively within the Community, and I hope that, with the backing of the House, we will be able to expand our support of this document into something that is shared by the other member countries of the Community.

The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley asked me for one or two assurances. By and large, I can give them. He wanted an assurance that there would be no diminution of the supply of food in emergencies. I can certainly give that assurance. I understand that about 20 per cent. of food aid goes on emergencies. I believe that the actions that we have taken and continue to take domestically show that we take the problem of food emergencies seriously. It is a high priority for the EC and for the Government.

The hon. Gentleman also asked for an assurance that in the contracts, as he put it, what happens will he in the interests of the recipient country. The procedure is that the recipient country puts proposals to the Community for the implementation of this document in regard to food aid. I cannot believe that what will happen will be in interests other than those of the recipient country if we accept, as we must, that the countries concerned know what is good for them. That has to be the basis on which the development programme works.

The hon. Gentleman also asked for an assurance that priority would be given to the least developed countries. I think that I can give that assurance. Of the Comniunity's 1982 food aid programme, 92 per cent. by value went to low income food deficit countries, a category defined as a priority by the committee of food aid policies' procedure. In other words, the overwhelming bulk of food aid goes to areas where the need is greatest.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would reconsider our decision about the scientific units. He will not be surprised to learn that the answer is no. However, I can tell him that, in its new guise, the tropical development research institute and the land resources unit will be able to continue their traditionally valuable work. The element of the TDRI which was the tropical products institute was renowned for its work on the handling of stored food. I see every reason why that work should continue, as will the work on pest research which has also been referred to.

Mr. Foulkes

Is the Minister giving us a clear assurance that there will be no more studies by Rayner or anyone else on those units? They have been plagued by study after study. I should have liked the Minister to go further, but if he gave us that assurance it would be helpful.

Mr. Raison

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that, as they now know what they are doing, there should be no more studies. I am not sure whether I ought to apply that to Select Committees as well. It would be a rather daring thing for a Minister to do. Nevertheless, I accept the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am sure that the units will be successful.

The hon. Gentleman also asked for an assurance about what he called the changeover procedure and asked that there should be no hiatus. It should be possible to achieve the switch from food aid to the new form of development approach without hiccup.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) did an amazing thing, and blessed my actions. As he said, it is not often that, when we discuss the activities of the EC, he sings its praises. I was hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) might join in that blessing, but perhaps that would be too much to expect. Nevertheless, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East for what he has said. Article 3 lists what might be financed and he will find that it mentions financing "inter alia", so the list is not necessarily exclusive. I was not quite clear what he was after, but I think that the types of thing for which he is looking would be permitted. My hon. Friend also considered whether we can use this measure as a protection against dumping. He answered that question in the negative. I do not believe that he saw it in those terms. He also mentioned sugar and sugar prices. Although I accept that sugar producers would like higher prices than they get at the moment, the fact remains that the protocol that we have with them gives them a guaranteed market and a price level that, speaking from memory, is about double the present world price. Although they might like something better, the sugar deal, which is not up for renegotiation as part of the Lomé negotiations, is thus of considerable value to the sugar-growing countries of the Caribbean and elsewhere.

The hon. Member for Greenwich was a little more sour in his approach than others who have spoken. He said that he agreed in general with what we were doing but then tried to cast doubt on its effectiveness. I hope that in my speech I did not claim any enormously grand results from the measure. I was not saying that it would revolutionise development in the Third world or anything of that kind. I did not try to pretend that it was other than a useful measure. How useful it will be, assuming that it is accepted, will depend very much on the response of the recipient countries. Nevertheless, it gives them the chance to say that, instead of food aid, they would like resources to use for the improvement of their indigenous agriculture and we all agree that that is a valuable objective.

Mr. Spearing

Perhaps the Minister will help me to come down on either the sweet or the sour side of this happy debate. In case he is not about to come to my hon. Friend's other point, may I ask him again from what financial source the food aid funds come and who authorises them? Is it largely a developmental consideration or is it a matter for Finance Ministers or Agriculture Ministers? That authorisation will be the acid test of much of the activity.

Mr. Raison

I intended to deal with that, but I do not begrudge the hon. Gentleman raising it now. Perhaps, however, I may take the points in the order that I intended.

The hon. Member for Greenwich then asked about the European Community's response to the food shortages in the world. I believe that through its food aid mechanism the Community has shown a very strong response. In 1983 the EC food aid programme provided nearly £70 million. Despite the doubts that we have all expressed about how that can best be used, in some countries in Africa and elsewhere sheer starvation is the problem to be faced and food aid is essential. There is no immediate alternative there. I believe that it is generally accepted that the Community has a good record on this and we can be proud of that.

As to whether there is any chance of improvement in food strategies, I believe that there is. I believe that Mr. Pisani has shown that the Commission now takes a more enlightened view of this. As I have said, the British Government have been pressing an enlightened view and I believe that the gospel is gradually spreading. I know that there are difficulties in countries which are heavily wedded to the common agricultural policy and do not fuss too much if surpluses are created, but we are pressing our point and making headway in the Community and we shall continue to do so.

On the question of which budget the funds come from, the answer is the development budget. That is as it should be because this is—we hope that it will increasingly be so — a genuine development activity. That is the emphasis of my remarks and of the document. I hope that the House will not only give us the backing that I believe that it has given today but will publicly give us further support when the matter comes before the Council. I am sure that that will be very helpful.

Mr. Barnett

Will the Minister clarify the last point a little further? Is it the money spent through this regulation that comes out of the development budget? Surely the whole of food aid does not come out of that budget?

Mr. Raison

I understand that food aid is paid for out of the development budget. As the House knows, it does not come out of the European development fund side. It is budgetised expenditure and is dealt with not by Agriculture Ministers—they do not make the decisions about the allocation of food aid—but by my colleagues and myself in the Development Council, which is as it should be.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 11003/83 on a proposal for a Council Regulation on the implementation in relation to food of alternative operations in place of food aid; and endorses the Government's intention to work for the early adoption of such a Regulation to reinforce the Community's ability to help developing countries in their quest for food security by improving their own agricultural production.