§ 54. Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will estimate the share of contracts granted to United Kingdom countries by the International Fund for Agricultural Development as a percentage of the total number of external contracts offered by the organisation since its inception.
§ Mr. RaisonBy the end of 1984, 5.6 percent. by value of IFAD's total spending was on British goods and services. We won 21 per cent. of procurement placed outside the benefiting countries.
§ Mr. ClarkeHow does the Minister defend the Government's astonishing attitude to the special fund for sub-Saharan Africa, in view of the fact that this country obtained 47 per cent. of non-local contracts, in spite of competition from Germany, the United States, Japan and other countries? Why are the Government being so insensitive to the agricultural needs of the area, as well as throwing away jobs?
§ Mr. RaisonWe are playing our full part in the replenishment of IFAD. I see the merits of the special fund, but the more we provide to multilateral agencies, the less we can provide for bilateral aid. Our bilateral aid is largely a tied programme, and it is highly effective. I am not anxious to see it whittled away.
§ Mr. BeithWill we not lose contracts for British firms if we do not contribute to the special programme? Is not the record of the IFAD programme in giving aid directly to agricultural production good, and does it not compare favourably with much of our direct aid?
§ Mr. RaisonThat programme does not yet have a record, because it has not yet come into being. Only a limited number of countries are subscribing to it. If we switch money from the bilateral to the multilateral programme, we shall lose the return on the bilateral programme, even though we make it up on the multilateral spending.