§ [Relevant documents: European Community Documents Nos. 6515/190 relating to guidelines for co-operation with developing countries in Asia and Latin America and 7576/91 relating to generalised tariff preferences for certain products originating in Costa Rica, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Panama.]
§ Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How much time do we have to debate this order; and why was it not considered, as recommended by the Select Committee on European Legislation, by European Standing Committee B?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)We have one and a half hours to debate the order, if that much time is required. On the other point, apparently the House voted accordingly.
§ The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document Nos. 4051/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Overseas Development Administration on 18th and 25th February 1991, and 5896/91 + COR I. relating to financial co-operation with developing countries in Asia and Latin America; and endorses the Government's policy on Community aid to Asian and Latin American countries.The motion invites the House to take note of two documents, 4051/91 and 5896/91. The first is a Commission communication to the Council proposing guidelines for technical and financial co-operation with the developing countries of Latin America and Asia during the period 1991 to 1995. The second is a proposed regulation on the same them. If a regulation is adopted by the Council, the guidelines will become redundant. This we hope to do at the Development Council on 28 November.The earlier draft. 4051/91, was deposited with an explanatory memorandum on 8 February, and a supplementary explanatory memorandum on 25 February. The second document, 5896/91, was deposited with an explanatory memorandum on 5 June. There was a previous Commission communication, document 6515/90, which the Select Committee on European Legislation also considered relevant for debate. It is therefore tagged to this motion. However, it has been overtaken by events. It was a general policy paper entitled "Guidelines for Cooperation with Developing Countries of Latin America and Asia". One further document is tagged to this debate: the Commission's recent proposals on the tariff preferences for certain products originating in central America, Document 7576/91. I will come to this later.
Since the United Kingdom joined the EC, British Governments of both parties have supported a global EC development programme going beyond the African Caribbean and Pacific countries covered by the Lome Convention. These documents do not deal with aid to Lome countries, of which there are now 69, nor does it cover food aid, on which about £120 million per year is spent for Asia and Latin America alone. It concerns only the EC's programme of aid to Asia and Latin America —the ALA programme—started in 1976. A Council regulation of February 1981, adopted after five years of discussion, gave it a clear focus on the poorest countries and on the needs of rural areas.
748 Implementation has since then been governed by annual guidelines. In December 1990, the Council of Ministers agreed a five-year framework figure for development aid to Asia and Latin America of £1.92 billion or 2.75 billion ecu. The documents propose the basis on which that money should be allocated.
Asia and Latin America are regions of great importance to us. They include major trading partners, both dynamic growing economies in the Pacific rim and our more traditional partners such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. They are regions of great political signifi-cance, with many countries especially in Latin America emerging from murky military regimes to the light of democracy. They also contain a large proportion of the world's poorest people and environmentally sensitive forests and savannahs. It is therefore right that we should accord them a high place in the EC's external relations.
§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)I agree with almost everything that the Minister has said, especially about murky military regimes. Will she assure the House that agricultural exports, especially the export of tropical fruit from Latin America, will not harm the interests of Caribbean producers? As the Minister knows, many banana producers are now small family farms in the Windward Islands and elsewhere. The Germans do not appear to give a damn about such producers. May we be assured that those producers' interests will not be harmed by the developments that the Minister outlines?
§ Mrs. ChalkerI can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) will know how hard we have worked to try to get a proper regime for Caribbean countries, which are the main suppliers of bananas to the British market. It would be wrong to go into more detail, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that the subject of bananas is never far from my desk, and we shall discuss it further in the future.
§ Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham)Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Commonwealth Caribbean countries should not rely on our good will and supply us with inferior quality bananas? Will she note that a much higher quality of banana is obtainable from the republics of central America, which in many ways also deserve our good will?
§ Mrs. ChalkerI should be in your bad books, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I went into the subject of the quality of bananas at this point in the debate, but I assure hon. Members that the aims of our bilateral aid programme in the Caribbean, which is not covered by these documents, are not only to improve the quality of the produce of all the dependencies, such as the Windward Islands, but to encourage diversification into other products. Without diversification, all banana growers, whether in the Caribbean, central America, Latin America, Asia or Africa, will be in difficulties.
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)Watch out for the skins.
§ Mrs. ChalkerThe hon. Gentleman is too kind.
In 1989, largely at United Kingdom insistence, the Commission produced an evaluation of the 13 years of its ALA programme. At the Development Council in November 1989 I insisted that we should maintain the 749 poverty focus of the programme, increase the role of women in its projects, and make it more sensitive to environmental concerns. I am glad to say that the Council agreed. It was in response to those conclusions that the Commission produced the documents which are the subject of tonight's motion.
The new Development Council policy shows a number of welcome improvements. For example, it has been a goal of British Government policy under Governments of both parties to secure a basis for EC aid to Asia and Latin America which allows for coherent planning of aid in each of the major recipient counties. Hence, we welcome the creation of a multi-annual programme, which should allow more effective aid programmes linked to the implementation of development policies by the Governments concerned.
We also welcome the way in which aid is to be tailored to the varied needs of recipients. The Commission documents refer to two axes: development aid for poor countries and population groups, and economic cooperation with more advanced countries and sectors. For the latter countries, economic co-operation, with its emphasis on trade and the private sector, is clearly the right approach. We have been in the forefront of the pressure for greater access to markets of the developed world, for more effective support for the development of the private sector, and in the promotion of the right climate to encourage investment.
For this to work, there must be a real prospect of markets for the goods produced. We have therefore argued very strongly for an open and liberal trade regime through the general agreement on tariffs and trade, GATT, and continue to believe that this is the best mechanism to advance the development of all economies. Trade is more effective than aid as an engine of growth, and contributes much more income to the developing nations.
However, for poor countries, that trade engine may need help to get started. Aid on concessional terms is vital to help build the infrastructure, both physical and human, that the private sector needs to grow. We also have a duty to seek to alleviate the acute poverty that blights so many lives in these countries. I have repeatedly emphasised the importance that we attach to improving the position of women. Women bear most of the burden of poverty in these countries and we must continually seek to design our aid to meet their needs. For example, we are contributing £6 million and the EC a similar amount to the Chitral rural support project in Pakistan, in which, alongside the Aga Khan Foundation, we aim to help women improve their skills, participate in decision making, and gain genuine control over their lives.
We have therefore worked hard in the negotiations on the new ALA programme to maintain the poverty focus of the development aid axis, so that grant aid goes where it is most needed. We have also pressed hard for a high priority for the needs of women. We expect to succeed in both areas. Our partners now see the crucial importance of these dual focuses.
The conservation of the environment is another key theme of British aid policy. The 1990 Houston summit charged the Commission, together with the World bank, with developing a programme to conserve the Amazon rain forest. Earlier this year, I visited forest areas in Brazil 750 and saw for myself both the scale of the need and the contribution that we are making through our bilateral aid programme there. We have already launched six forestry projects, and appointed a forestry expert to make sure these are effective and to design more projects there. However, the theme is too large for any single donor, so we have argued strongly for a substantial proportion—at least 10 per cent.—of the EC's ALA programme to be set aside for projects specifically to conserve the environment throughout both regions.
We have also pressed for a special place to be given to the fight against drugs. This is a scourge of most regions of Asia and Latin America. We have ensured that there is a special place made in the regulation for aid to combat drug production and trafficking. We therefore welcomed the allocation of 60 million ecu—about £40 million—to the worst affected countries of the Andean region last year. These countries were also accorded special treatment under the Community's trade preference system for developing countries, the generalised system of prefer-ences. Since we do not wish to dilute that advantage, we have reservations about extending the same benefits to central America, as proposed in the Commission proposal 7576/91 which is tagged to this debate.
We believe that human rights and good government are fundamental to the success of development.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs Clwyd) has done some interesting work on the question of renewables and how they could be slotted into the aid programme. Does the Commission have a view on the extent to which the export of renewables technology to third-world countries might be further developed? Do the Government have a view on these matters?
§ Mrs. ChalkerI can answer for my Department. We are examining that question to see where it can fit and where it will work. A country has to have a certain ability to accept and utilise such exports before they are sent. I am not aware that the Commission has taken a position on the issue, but I will check and write to the hon. Gentlemen.
I said that I believe that human rights and good government are fundamental to the success of overseas development. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a clear and powerful statement of our views on this topic in Harare last week at the Commonwealth Heads Of Government meeting. It is critical to look at the broader policy environment when considering aid allocations. For example, are the institutions to which the aid is being directed effective, open and accountable? What are the democratic processes? Does the country respect human rights and the rule of law? Answers to questions of that kind indicate whether resources are being used effectively. They also help to tell whether the recipients are, in fact, committed to those goals in the context of their own societies.
Where improvements can be encouraged, there are positive measures that we can take. These include support for the legal sector, customs, police, public administration, accounting and audit, and a free press. On the other hand, while it is right to emphasise the help that we can give to those who wish to move forward, in cases where the abuse of human rights is serious, we have to be prepared to redesign or withdraw support. That is true for the ALA programme but, of course, it also goes much wider.
§ Mr. WellsAre the Government's broad policy aims shared by the European Community? How can my right hon. Friend ensure that, if they are, they are enforced through the policies of the European Community?
§ Mrs. ChalkerMy hon. Friend anticipates my next comments.
The Dutch presidency is preparing operational guidelines on "Human Rights, Democracy and Development", and we must ensure that these threads are sewn into all Community aid. My discussion with our 11 partners in Holland in July this year was open and first class, and I believe that all countries are prepared to follow the lead that we have given in aid policy. We are also negotiating clear provisions in the ALA regulation in particular. That is very important, because it means that we are starting with the ALA regulations as we mean to go on.
Good government is essential for aid programmes to be effective, but there are other aspects of effectiveness, and here again we are pressing hard for improvements. The United Kingdom's share of the EC aid programme Corms an integral and important part of our overall aid programme, and we work for high quality in it as we do for all our aid. I have to say that I do not believe that the Commission's systems are yet up to our standards, but we have seconded a number of staff to build them up. We are also working to improve monitoring and evaluation procedures in the Community.
The House will have noted that the second draft was a good deal better than the first. At least in part, that is due to our efforts. We now await a further revised proposal which, I trust, will he better again.
§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)My right hon. Friend will have noticed the comment in the explanatory memorandum, which states:
the new proposal does not accurately reflect the conclusions which were reached at Council.Can she share with the House her opinion on whether that refers to an insignificant mistake that we are now pointing out or whether it was a result of deliberate confusion? In the administration of a programme, it strikes me as rather important to translate Ministers' wishes at the Council into what is put before the European Community.
§ Mrs. ChalkerAs so often happens in some of these discussions, there is a good reason for improving the draft. I will check on my hon. Friend's point. As far as my memory serves me, it was a question of improving the draft. There was nothing sinister behind it.
§ Mr. William Cash (Stafford)Has my right hon. Friend had discussions with the United States on these matters? The question of protectionism in Europe and the increasing interest of the United States in south America as a result of that is developing. Has my right hon. Friend observed any change in the United States position? Why are we taking such a specific interest in those countries when it appears that the United States is beginning to take a greater interest in the north-south grid of central and south America, and in the developments that that might have with respect to protectionism and the European Community?
§ Mrs. ChalkerAs the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) has already said, the United States has always taken a 752 tremendous interest in central and south America. It has also taken an interest—one might not always describe it as a free trade interest—in what happens to products coming not only from those countries, but from countries further afield. My hon. Friend may remember that I said earlier in my speech that one of the most important things for the developing ALA countries—and, indeed, for all other developing countries—is trade access. Getting a successful outcome to the GATT round is fundamental. That was underlined by the G7 summit and was repeated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister during the summer months. We are determined to ensure, as we have succeeded in doing in the ALA regulation, that there is improved trade for the developing countries. All our EC partners have signed up to that. I hope that I can put my hon. Friend's anxieties to rest on that.
When we come to the Development Council on 28 November, I intend to ensure that the final version of all the documents incorporates and fully reflects the goals that I have outlined in my speech today. I have no interest in programmes that do not meet those goals, They must meet those goals for the sake of the developing countries, for their future, for alleviating poverty, for improving the lot of women in those countries, improving the environment of those countries and, above all, helping them to gain growth in their own economies, which will help their nations more than anything else.
§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)I welcome this rare opportunity to debate an aspect of development and co-operation on the Floor of the House in Government time. Once again, the timetabling of the debate demonstrates the dismally low priority that the Government give to aid and development. These vital issues are currently treated as little more than a stopgap, or a filler, in parliamentary business. It appears that only when having run scared of a November election, and thinking that they had parliamentary time on their hands, were the Government prepared to debate these issues. Once again, their approach wholly fails to match the importance that is increasingly attached to the subject by the British people.
Be that as it may, I welcome the chance to debate this topic—particularly the European Community's programme for Asia and Latin America, which does not receive enough attention. The programme, however, now runs at over 350 million ecu a year—more than three times its size just 10 years ago.
§ Mrs. ClwydNo, not yet. I have only just started my speech. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his speech in his own time.
The proposals to reform the framework for Community assistance to Asia and Latin America—
§ Mrs. ClwydIf the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech, he may do so when I sit down. I am not giving way.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Lady has made it clear that she is not giving way at this stage; the hon. Gentleman must not persist.
§ Mrs. ClwydThe proposals—
§ Mrs. ClwydIf the hon. Gentleman would wait until I have completed more than a paragraph of what I have to say, we could start the debate. Until then, perhaps he will allow me to develop my theme.
The proposals to reform the framework for the Community's assistance to Asia and Latin America come at an important time for both regions, particularly in regard to their relationship with Europe. In Latin America, countries are striving to build economies to consolidate the democratic gains of recent years— although, sadly, that process has suffered a serious setback following recent events in Haiti.
After a disastrous decade of debt and economic decline, which has left Latin Americans 10 per cent. poorer than they were a decade ago, some glimmers of economic hope are now appearing in countries such as Mexico and Chile. Despite the bullish reports from some parts of the financial press, however, we should make no mistake about the fact that formidable obstacles still face the continent—and, paricularly, its poorest people. Sluggish levels of world growth, the legacy of a decade of debt-induced cuts in social and economic investment, slow progress in the dismantling of developed countries' trade barriers and unsustainably high levels of debt service remain.
In central America, there is now real hope of a peace settlement, particularly in El Salvador. Once peace is secured, the task of reconstruction is massive. There is the need for physical rehabilitation, not least from the devastating environmental impact of war—including the destruction of thousands of acres of forest by Government bombing raids in the Morazan region of northern El Salvador over recent years. There will also be the need to support agrarian reform measures, to give the poor and landless a fairer share of the country's land and to act to put right one of the central popular grievances behind the long-running and bloody war.
In Asia, the challenges are even greater. It shares with central America some of the challenges of post-conflict reconstruction—particularly in Cambodia, with the planned signing of the peace accord on Wednesday. First, the remaining political problems must be confronted. In particular, Britain, through the Community and the United Nations, must not accept a return to positions of power for the Khmer Rouge representatives implicated in the genocide of the Pol Pot era, as seems all too possible.
Secondly, Britain must end a shameful aid and trade embargo that has continued to punish one of the poorest countries and peoples in the world. Community aid will have a crucial role in helping Cambodians to rebuild their country's shattered economy. I hope that the Minister of State will say something about that later. Will she also comment on the position in Vietnam and tell us what she will do to ensure that that country, which for so long has been denied crucial development aid, receives that essential assistance. Although the region which, apart from a few important exceptions such as the Philippines, has not normally been thought of as debt-troubled, the recent financial crisis in India should warn us against complacency.
The starkest challenge is posed by the level of poverty in Asia, and I am glad that the Minister placed such a strong emphasis on alleviating poverty. More than 70 per 754 cent. of the world's poor—struggling to live on less than 50p a day—live in Asia. In south Asia, people can expect to live on average to just 56 years of age—10 years less than in Latin America. Only 65 per cent. of primary school-aged children are enrolled for primary school education in south Asia and that is just above the figure in sub-Saharan Africa.
If the European Community is to play a full part in the concerted efforts to cut world poverty—something that the World bank development committee reaffirmed in Bangkok last week as the highest priority of the international development community—it must allocate adequate resources to Asia.
The Minister referred to a high priority for women. I hope that she can tell us what percentage of the aid will be directly focused on women. When questioned in the past about the direction of poverty alleviation and its aid programme for women in developing countries, the Overseas Development Administration has provided completely inadequate answers.
The relative allocation of Community aid between Asia and Latin America is one of the key points in the new guidelines that we are considering. There has been a long-running debate in the Community on that issue, and I am glad that there is reference to that point in the ODA's memorandum. Given its relative poverty, Asia continues to be considerably underfunded by the Community. Although no explicit financial split is set out in the document, there are clear and worrying references that imply a move away from Asia. For example, article 2 states that all developing countries in the regions are eligible
for development assistance and economic co-operation",opening the way for more aid to be pushed to Latin America. Specific new criteria added for widening the programme—for example, support for drug substitution programmes—also implies diversion of aid away from the poorest countries.We believe that the proposed guidelines could lead to a diversion of aid from the poorest towards bringing Community businesses the greatest commercial gain. Aid will be used instead, as the Commission states,
to promote European investment in the ALA developing countries.The gradual loss of focus on the poorest countries and the poorest people is a worrying trend that must be actively resisted by the Government. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the guidelines will not be allowed further to tilt the balance of the Community's programme with non-Lomé countries away from Asia, where the greatest levels of poverty lie. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the overriding priority of helping the poorest is compatible with promoting Community business under the guidelines?There are also serious concerns about the programme over funding. The Council of Ministers recently attempted to cut elements of the Asia-Latin America programme to find money for the 400 million ecu aid package for the Soviet Union.
Did the Minister support the Council of Ministers' proposal to cut 14.8 million ecu in commitments from budget line B7/3005 for support for small and medium-sized businesses, including the co-operatives in Asia? Did she, in the Council of Ministers, support the proposal to cut 10.8 million ecu of commitments from budget line B7/3015 for similar activities in Latin America?
755 Although the cuts have been opposed by the European Parliament, the attempts to cut aid to Asia and Latin America belie the oft-repeated assurances by the Commission and by the United Kingdom Government that the south will not lose out to the east.
§ Mr. Hugo Summerson (Walthamstow)I am sure that the hon. Lady will find time to welcome the proposal by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to remit entirely the debts of the poorest countries to the tune or £550 million.
§ Mrs. ClwydOf course one welcomes that move by the Prime Minister. Opposition Members have been urging it for a long time. That leaves, of course, a percentage still owed by the poorest countries to the commerical banks and to multilaterals. I hope that the Prime Minister will also address that point in future proposals to allay the debt of some of the poorest countries. I hope also that he will apply himself to the debts of some middle-income countries, which are equally worrying and in respect of which we have also been urging some debt relief.
§ Mr. CorbynAlthough any relief of debt must be welcome news for the poorest in the poorest parts of the world, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister, in making his statement, also put down considerable conditions, insisting on the adoption of market economy measures which have been a palpable failure in this country and in many other parts of the world. That is a condition on which the British Government would be prepared to write off those debts.
§ Mrs. ClwydI thank my hon. Friend for reminding us of that point. I am sure that his remarks will not fall on deaf ears on the Government side of the House.
The other major change included in the document is the proposal to end the present practice of the EC aid programme to Asia and Latin America being run on a system of single-year cycles. That practice has been rightly criticised as clearly working against long-term planning. As the Minister said, we welcome the principle of changing to multi-year programmes, allowing the Community and recipients to build a proper long-term strategy for its aid and economic co-operation in Asia and Latin America which is badly lacking at present.
There are also other welcome elements in the guidelines, some of which the Minister mentioned, such as the stress on human rights and democracy, the undertaking to direct aid towards the poorest people, and references to support for the human dimension of development, notably the role of women. As I said, much lip service has been paid to directing aid towards women. I hope that the ODA will have specific targets and be able to answer specific questions on that point.
§ Dr. GodmanWith regard to improvements in human rights and the development of parliamentary democracies in Latin American countries which, rightly and properly, are to receive this sort of assistance from the European Community, is my hon. Friend aware of any discussions with United Nations officials concerning that aid? I remind her that Mr. de Soto and his colleagues have performed admirable work on behalf of the United Nations in El Salvador and Guatemala. Perhaps their experiences in those countries might help the European Community's deliberations concerning those criteria.
§ Mrs. ClwydI thank my hon. Friend for making those valuable points. I hope that the Government will also be even-handed in their consideration of support for human rights. There is plenty of evidence that the Government have not been even-handed and that, depending on their attitude towards the rulers of certain countries, they will turn a blind eye to the abuse of human rights in those countries.
I agree with the reservation in the ODA memorandum on the vagueness of the guidelines on environmental vetting. The issue of implementation is even more important. In practice, the record of EC aid to the regions is appalling. Let us take Bangladesh as an example. At the end of last year, the EC Court of Auditors produced an utterly damning report on the record of the Community's programme to that country between 1976 and 1988. One of the report's criticisms was that none of the 12 major problems looked at, which accounted for nearly three quarters of the total spent in the period, achieved its main socio-economic objectives. It stated that most projects set unrealistic completion dates. A cotton project that was supposed to take three years was still less than three quarters implemented after eight years. One cereals project started three months after it was supposed to finish. The assessment and monitoring of the EC programmes was weak.
Aid was given to improve veterinary services for livestock, assuming that that was behind the shortage of animal power for ploughing and other tasks in rural Bangladesh. In fact, the shortfall had more to do with the lack of fodder and of credit for farmers to buy animals, which the project did nothing to tackle. Monitoring was poor, which is hardly surprising because the report reveals that, since the middle of 1986, only one person in Brussels had responsibility for monitoring the 65 EC-funded infrastructure projects in various countries, and that he did not visit Bangladesh once.
It is not only in Bangladesh that EC aid has failed to reach the poorest. To choose just one example from the Latin American programme, 18.5 million ecu was allocated for the Central American civil aviation authority to equip the airline network with radar—hardly much help to the struggling peasant farmers or agricultural workers on poverty pay across the region.
The lessons from Bangladesh and from other EC programmes in Asia and Latin America are that, although it is important to have better guidelines for Community aid to Asia and Latin America, it is even more important to ensure that the guidelines are followed and properly implemented.
Ministers have not been slow to agree about the shortcomings in EC aid—almost as a way of diverting criticism from the bilateral programme—but the Government's attitude to the scandal of wasted EC aid has been as ambiguous and confused as their attitude to Europe in general. They distance themselves from the shortcomings of EC aid by shifting the blame on to the Community, as though they were not part of it. It is imperative that the Government do more to be actively and constructively engaged in ensuring that programmes under the new guidelines are carefully assessed, monitored and evaluated in practice. Perhaps our European partners would pay more heed to what the British Government have to say about the quality of Community aid if we were seen to be serious in our commitment to the overall level of aid funding instead of cutting aid to just 0.27 per cent.
757 of GNP last year—the lowest ever on record and something that the Minister herself told us last week that she regretted.
With a Labour Government in place by June next year for the start of Britain's presidency of the Community, we will act to ensure that Britain's aid programme is adequately funded and that Europe's aid programme to Asia and Latin America is effectively used in the battle against poverty.
§ Sir Michael Marshall (Arundel)Having just returned from Asia and Latin America. I am glad to have this opportunity to say a few words in this debate. When I read the guidelines for co-operation with developing countries in Latin America and Asia, I was worried about the bloodless nature of the prose. When I considered some of the problems with which both Latin America and Asia are confronted, I was anxious about the way in which the proposed implementation would work in practice. Also, the sanctions to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) referred earlier seem to call come matters into question.
Having heard my right hon. Friend the Minister, I was somewhat more reassured, although I still wish to put some questions to her. I appreciated in particular the robust ending of her speech, in which she said that the Council of Ministers, as I would hope, is there to make political judgments, to take the bloodless prose and to consider some of the practical problems and what can be done to resolve them.
In paragraph 5.2.2, the guidelines state:
the Commission considers it neither desirable nor possible to retain the original objectives for Community aid to the developing countries in Asia and Latin America. if only because the needs of these countries have changed.That is undoubtedly true, but it is precisely because of those changes that I suggest that there is an opportunity perhaps to sharpen up the way in which Community aid, along with bilateral aid, might be directed.One must observe in Latin America the truly remarkable political development of the ending of so many "murky military dictatorships", as my right hon. Friend described them. That presents us with an era ahead in which Latin America and Europe will come closer and closer together. That is to be greatly welcomed. It is perhaps indicative of that that, at the Inter-Parliamentary Union conference just over a week ago, Spanish was introduced as a third main language, after many generations of having English and French as the only effective official languages. That is a sign of the times, and something which, again, I welcome.
Within the document, there are some good thoughts on the environment and so on and, indeed, on the general framework of how economic aid to those countries might be applied. But I wish to concentrate on drugs for a moment in relation to aid to Latin America. It seems to me that the stated objective of helping to stamp out drug production is all very fine, but I am worried about the degree to which aid seems to be specific, in the sense that it is not coupled directly with whether there is a total commitment to stamping out drug production.
I hope that my right hon. Friend can assure me that, at the political level, assessments will be made to ensure that 758 aid which is given throught the community does not go hand in hand with economies which are being successfully driven forward by ever-increasing drug production. There should be some relationship there. There should be some willingness to withdraw, if that is seen as a feature of certain countries.
§ Mr. CorbynIn the hon. Member's discussions with people about the awful problem of drug production in Latin America, was the problem raised with him that many farmers are paid such disgracefully low prices for legitimate crops that they produce that to some extent they feel themselves pushed into drug production against their wishes, and certainly without any wish to pollute our youth in Europe or north America with the consequences of their drug production, the profits from which go. of course, to the millionaires in between?
§ Sir Michael MarshallThe hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The obvious corollary is surely to ensure that aid goes to helping to resolve that balance. That is the type of aid that I would like to see.
I shall be brief, because I am aware that others wish to speak, and we have only a short time. Turning to the problems of Asia, I want to concentrate not on the environment, population or drugs, which are well known problems, but on human rights. The problem of human rights in Asia is massive. Before I deal with it, I must cross swords briefly with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd). She suggested that we should simply continue to push aid into Asia-Pacific on an ever-increasing scale. In touching on that problem, she ignores an important and significant shift within the Asia-Pacific region.
Anyone who has had the chance to attend Asia-Pacific conferences recently must be greatly encouraged by the way in which more and more countries within the region are beginning to see a commitment—indeed, a positive moral imperative—to assist in the process of development within the region. One can cite the constructive attitude of Malaysia, Singapore, Japan and Korea in that regard. Therefore, one should not automatically assume that there is a straight, upward European progression. It must be related to what is being done in the region. Given that resources will always be limited, one should not just take a straight, upward-curve view of life about assistance to Asia. One must balance those two factors.
I was pleased that my right hon. Friend stressed human rights. Against the background of Harare, with the tie in the Commonwealth of aid to progress on human rights, we see a standard that I should like to believe could he more widely spread throughout Asia. The human rights problems are well known, and I do not need to repeat them in detail.
There is a long way to go on rights for women and children. The House does not need to be reminded of all the figures, but in Asia, particularly in the Indian subcontinent, the overwhelming number of illiterate women is one of the greatest single barriers to progress for their future and that of their country. I hope that my right hon. Friend, if not tonight then in future, can let me know how much aid is spent, not just on women and children as the hon. Lady requested, but on that specific area of illiteracy, which is the greatest challenge of all.
In many areas of human rights, whether on a country's record on political prisoners or on the rights of ethnic 759 minorities, our aid, whether bilateral or through the Community, must increasingly look for progress and should indeed include some sanction if we cannot find progress. In short, what has been said in Harare sets the standard which should apply not only to our bilateral aid, but to the aid that we are discussing tonight.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)I shall he only a few moments and shall follow the hon. Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) in his comments, particularly about south-east Asia.
We should treat the hon. Gentleman's proposition with some importance. There is a great scope for many of the major manufacturing countries in south-east Asia— certainly Japan, Hong Kong and the other countries that he mentioned—to play a far more responsible role in developing the countries on their doorstep, which in many ways are underdeveloped. However, there is a danger, as I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree. Japanese aid policy is often determined by self-interest, and if the Japanese were given almost a monopoly arrangement on, for instance, the right of access for aid, in the long term they might abuse it and turn some of those smaller countries virtually into satellite manufacturing states, creating a Greater Japan and developing further industrial strength for it. One should bear that consideration in mind, particularly when considering the role of Japan in that area.
I wish to tackle tht Minister on the report of the European Court of Auditors. A couple of years after I was first elected, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) made a notable speech in the House about a Court of Auditors report. Those reports are rich pickings, and we now have them on Community aid. It seems, however, that little changes. The right hon. Lady said that a couple of staff from the Department has been seconded to the Community to advise, in order to secure higher standards in the quality of aid. I am not altogether convinced that that is sufficient. The European Parliament needs to set up a Public Accounts Committee, similar to the operation that we have in the United Kingdom. It is due to lack of accountability, in terms of not being able to ask questions of the civil servants in the Commission responsible for implementing these policies, that no action is taken to rectify problems.
The right hon. Lady should take that principle on hoard, and I shall press it as and when a Labour Government are elected—because I believe that European institutions should be kept far more accountable in terms of the public moneys that they expend.
There was a statment tonight on the tapes about the Vietnamese boat people. I had expected far greater numbers of people to be involved in the agreement, but there are fewer than 300. A number of my hon. Friends have visited the camps, as have Conservative Members, and the conditions are quite appalling. The Hong Kong authorities are struggling to resolve an insoluble problem. The international community is not interested in playing its part in resolving the problem. Indeed, if people from those camps were invited to more developed parts of the world, that would only lead to an even greater invasion of people from Vietnam into Hong Kong and other parts of south-east Asia. Some people who are genuine refugees will always have a right to move to different parts of the 760 world, but we must not set up a system which simply invites more and more people to Hong Kong and south-east Asia.
How can we get out of the mess? The only answer is for the western powers, and particularly the European Community, to change their attitude to investment in Vietnam. That country is crying out for investment. If it thought that the investment tap was to be turned on, it might see the problem of the resettlement of its people in a different light. I hope that the right hon. Lady will consider that suggestion.
Tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I had an interesting dinner with a professor from Strathclyde university. The subject of our conversation was the attitude of successive British Governments to the export of technology, particularly in relation to power generation. The Minister will be aware that my hon. Friend has tabled many questions on this matter recently and that there have been some heated exchanges on ATP—aid and trade provision—policy.
If the Minister was honest with herself, I am sure that she would accept that problems arise with the technology involved in such programmes. I do not believe that those problems can be abolished overnight, as they are part of a deep-rooted section of British industry that has somehow managed to graft itself on to part of the aid budget.
It could he argued that one should start reprofiling the available aid into technologies which meet environment-ally acceptable criteria. The non-fossil fuel obligation is an interesting example of such development. If one creates a market, industry then moves to react to those new conditions. Is it not possible for the Government to reprofile British industry exports that are ATP-supported or tied-aid-supported towards projects which are environmentally acceptable?
In recent months, the Minister has made some commendable speeches on good governance. The Foreign Secretary also made a good speech on the subject in Westminster Hall about six months ago. Could the right hon. Lady start developing the case for changing the nature of our exports in this area towards such environmentally acceptable projects? I accept that the Minister might claim that she is already doing so, but that this is not coming through in the presentation of policy.
I have spoken to those who work in the relevant agencies and they remain unconvinced at this stage that meaty negotiations are taking place with British industry about changing the profile of the exports. The problem is that, unless major initiatives are taken and the Government lay down far stricter criteria on what projects they are prepared to support, we shall stick to the old pattern of ATP allocation, with all the dangers and environmental instability that that can create in some parts of the world. I make those points on the back of this debate because much of that technology is going into the areas to which we have referred tonight.
Finally, I give an example of where that could have been done but was not. We fought a war in the Falklands in 1982. The Ministry of Defence spent hundreds of millions of pounds on logistical support during and after the war. Instead of sending vast amounts of oil for power generation there, why did we not send windmill technology, which is now very advanced? One windmill can produce three quarters of a megawatt of electricity. Only 1,800 people live in that part of the world, so a couple of windmills would provide electricity for most of the 761 Falklands islands—certainly enough for the south of the islands, where most of the people live. Instead, we sent ships loaded with oil.
That simple proposition helps to concentrate our minds on the fact that there are other ways to deal with problems of power generation, which do not require the burning of fossil fuel. Yet they arc available in the form of fairly cheap technology.
§ Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe)It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and find that I agree with every point that he has just made.
I have always understood that our proposals for change in the European Parliament are about financial and public accounts control, and to give the European Parliament an opportunity to question the European budget as we do in the House.
I follow the hon. Gentleman's point about the Vietnamese boat people. In spite of the pros mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall), all the documents show a convergence and improvement that are to be welcomed. We also welcome the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister and her officials in bringing that about. It is clear that, in those areas of the world, unless there is a convergence and a common policy on development, we shall not chip away at the huge problems which we all recognise exist.
I shall mention three countries for which there is a sense of urgency. First, I follow the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) in mentioning Cambodia. Those of us who have been involved in that country's agonising moves toward the ending of a war and its potential for re-establishing itself in the community of nations look forward to the signatures of the various parties on Wednesday and the setting in motion of the virtuous circle, rather than the other one, which has been the source of such despair for so long.
We are fairly sanguine about that situation and know that it will need a great deal of diplomacy and skill before things are seen to be happening on the ground. It would help if we could make a statement on our attitudes toward the new Supreme National Council and the problems of resettlement, which is one of the subjects that concern us. The Secretary-General is well aware that a hurried resettlement, or driving across the border by any faction that has people in Thailand, would be deplored by all of us.
Statements about resettlement and the shortfall in funds that is likely to be declared in Paris would be a helpful way for us to play a part in bringing about the changes in Cambodia that we want to see. Those of us who have been there know the scale of need in the short term, but it is a pump-priming exercise, because Cambodia is not like sub-Saharan Africa. but has tremendous resources and potential. Therefore, any aid that comes from this country and Europe will be of a pump-priming nature.
One aim which has been realised by visiting experts and which could be achieved relatively quickly would be to provide the know-how ability to raise taxes from the population who, at present, pay no taxes although they have a thriving market economy. We are not talking 762 merely about providing big money in terms of redevelopment, roads, telecommunications, hospitals and resettlement, but of rapidly providing the new Government with the knowledge of how to operate a modern state.
I totally agree with what the hon. Member for Workington said about Vietnam. Those of us who know that country know that desperate poverty is the driving force behind people leaving and must be alleviated. That is where human rights enter the argument, because it is a matter of linking progress with development, but not denying the development in the short term. Vietnam probably has the most significant environmental problems of any country in Asia. I shall not go into the reasons for that, because everyone recognises the enormous devasta-tion caused by the war.
There is tremendous scope for giving Europe the opportunity to break the log jam of the American embargo on Vietnam. Whatever help we give, we are essentially involved in a pump-priming exercise. With the right level of short-term aid, Vietnam could become a second South Korea in a short time, because it has an industrious, able people, and although it is not over-blessed with resources, it has a considerable potential market.
I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could give some sign of how she hopes to lead her European colleagues on 28 November in discussions on those countries, because we are anxious for them to rejoin the family of nations and a prosperous south-east Asia so that we can concentrate even more on different countries in sub-Saharan Africa and other parts of the world that will never have the same opportunity.
One takes a harder line on human rights in Burma, which is an essential producer of drugs. So far, the aid that has gone to Burma from United Nations organisations has been solely connected with drugs. We have all stopped our aid programmes to Burma because of its appalling human rights record and its rejection of the democratic elections held two years ago. We have to weigh the relative evils: drug production and denial of human rights. If we are to deal with Burma, which is a major producer, how can we ensure that any assistance to deal with drugs is ring-fenced so that it specifically addresses that problem and gives no encouragement to what I consider to be the illegal regime currently in control in Burma?
There is tremendous opportunity throughout the world at present. There has been change in Latin America and Asia in districts where it seemed impossible to foresee any improvement, and the same progress can be repeated in Africa and eastern Europe. The opportunities for the transfer of resources that Europe should be contemplating are tremendous. That is the answer to the economic migration that concerns many people, including my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Therefore, we should seriously debate the overall level of aid that we are prepared to give from the European Community, and ensure that it reaches the target countries in good time and at the right time to have the maximum effect.
§ 12.4 am
§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)I congratulate the Minister on holding this debate at a relatively early hour. The last similar debate was held, as I recall, at about 3 am.
763 I represent a dissenting voice amidst all this unanimity. I note that the Minister looks pleased at last. There is something wrong with the approach being foisted on the poorest countries in the world. The continent of Latin America, for instance, has gone from having a trade surplus 30 years ago to having a significant deficit. It is in debt; low prices paid for commodities sold by the continent have contributed to that debt, as have the high interest rates of the past 10 years.
Meanwhile, there have been enormous social upheavals. Rio is now a vast sprawling metropolis surrounded by huge shanty towns. Most other large cities throughout Latin America are the same. Local infrastructures and communities are breaking down. With that breakdown go violence, crime and poverty.
Drugs and drug production represent another major factor. That issue must be faced now and in the future. It is the poor of the inner cities of north America and of western Europe who suffer the consequences of this drug problem, and it is the poor in the poorest countries of Latin America who produce the drugs. In the middle somewhere are the millionaires whose hands are untainted by these drugs. At one end of the scale, people are forced to produce drugs because they cannot produce anything else that will pay them a reasonable price—and the results are seen on our streets.
The attitude now prevalent seems to be that the only solution to Latin America's problems is a reduction in the activities of the state, which should concern itself only with security and the armed forces. The answer, it is said, lies in a rapid increase in export promotions and of inward investment to the continent. The result is the horror stories that we hear—of schools and hospitals being closed and of water purification programmes being put back—all to pay off debts on the edict of Washington via the World bank and the IMF.
I was pleased when I first heard the Prime Minister's statement on the radio last week that he was prepared to write off some of the debts of some of the poorest countries. The inevitable sting in the tail, however, is that writing off those debts appears conditional on the countries adopting what the Prime Minister calls market economics as a solution to their problems.
It is the utmost arrogance on the part of western European Governments, who have deliberately encouraged low prices for the commodities produced by these countries—and the high interest rates that have contributed to their indebtedness—to claim now that they are prepared to write off some of their debts in return for the adoption of market economics, knowing full well that those economics led to enormous social upheaval in the countries. Such arrogance resembles that of certain 19th-century English statesmen and their colonising activities around the world.
§ Mr. LesterWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. CorbynWe should be thinking a little more seriously about the consequences of some of our policies for the desperately poor people of Latin America.
§ Mr. LesterSurely the hon. Gentleman understands that there is no point in writing off a country's debts without changing the policies that caused the debt in the first place? The whole point of market economics is to effect change so that those debts will not recur. Writing off debts and leaving them to accumulate again helps no one.
§ Mr. CorbynI agree with the hon. Gentleman and hope that that does not ruin his future. The policy which caused the debt in the first place must be changed. There is no point in writing off the severe debt of those countries without looking at the policies. I have here the OECD list of such countries. The policies that need to be changed are not those relating to the degree of social activity of the state in those countries, which is usually minimal. I want to see policies that will lead to significantly higher commodity prices and much lower interest payments so that those countries will be able to develop. The hon. Gentleman seems to advocate some form of punishment of the Governments of many of those countries.
The rubric being foisted upon the poorest countries is that the solution to all their problems is the adoption of a free enterprise economy. The pinnacle of that is the GATT negotiations, the obsession of the former Prime Minister, with the idea of a world free market in food. If ever there was a manifesto for free enterprise for the big agribusiness countries of western Europe and north America, that is it. That would be the consequence of the GATT policies that the former Prime Minister sought to pursue.
We must pay attention to the environmental and social consequences and the long-term economic relationship arising from such policies. Despite all the talk about aid for the past 20 years, the reality is that the gap between the richest and poorest countries has got bigger and in many cases the economies of the poorest countries are contracting. We should pursue policies that will help to alleviate social problems and allow economies to expand in a sustainable way rather than in an environmentally destructive way. I know that the Minister has spent some time on that issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) spoke about El Salvador and the unfairness of its land distribution system. I think that she said that the basis of many of that country's problems arc the maldistribution of land and poverty. The same applies in Nicaragua, just across the border, where the Sandinista Government have been defeated in an election that they themselves called. The consequences of the free market economy being thrust upon Nicaragua are that co-operatives are being broken up and the big landowners are returning. Much of the social deprivation that brought about the Sandinista revolution in the first place is returning.
§ Mr. Jacques ArnoldWhy was not land reform carried out in Nicaragua during all the years of the Sandinista Government?
§ Mr. CorbynThe hon. Gentleman is wrong. A great deal of land reform was carried out. The hon. Gentleman may not have been listening carefully to my speech. I spoke about the return of unreformed land in Nicaragua to large owners who are returning and being given their land back by the current Government. That is one of the problems recreating the inequalities that brought about the Sandinista revolution. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) visited Nicaragua during the time of the Sandinista Government and can confirm what I have said.
§ Mr. CorbynPerhaps in winding-up, the Minister will tell the House about the trading relationship between the EC, including this country, and Cuba. Cuba removed 765 United States influence in 1959 and has suffered 30 years of a United States economic blockade. As a means of survival, Cuba became a full member of Comecon and its economy was greatly linked to those of eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Now it has to pay for all its imports with hard currency—[Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but that has resulted in severe shortages for the Cuban people. The Government of Cuba are making considerable efforts to export medicines and medical equipment and to diversify their economy to give self-sufficiency and export fresh food and vegetables. Cuba produces many goods which could reasonably be imported into Britain and western Europe. In return, this country and western Europe might like to export to Cuba such things as technical equipment, vehicles and electrical technology.
I hope that the Minister will not allow the Government to be persuaded by President Bush and others in the United States into further isolating Cuba, which has made considerable achievements in education, literacy and health. It is probably the best-educated and most literate country in Latin America: that is a great achievement for a country that was in abject poverty in 1959.
§ Mr. Jacques ArnoldI wonder whether the Cuban Government might be prevailed upon to go for the biggest achievement of them all and to have a truly democratic election. It is now the only Hispanic Latin American country not to have had a proper election of its Government by the people.
§ Mr. CorbynThat is rich, coming from the hon. Gentleman. He talks about democracy in Latin America, but I remember him, only two or three years ago, at 4 o'clock in the morning, desperately defending the Pinochet Government. The human rights record of the United States, in its activities in the region, is abominable. I am asking the Minister what trade conditions are being imposed on Cuba and what trade will be allowed in future.
What is being given to Sri Lanka and is there any monitoring of how that aid is used? What controls are there over the final destination of that aid? The situation there is appalling. The abuses of human rights are serious and there is great poverty. It would be useful if the Minister could address herself to those questions.
I hope that we can come back for futher debates on the relationship between northern and southern countries. We cannot go on observing the growing gulf between the richest and the poorest countries and adopting economic policies that widen rather than narrow that gulf, create rather than prevent environmental destruction and create greater poverty and urbanisation, rather than promoting sustainable development.
debatge.
§ Mrs. ChalkerWith the leave of the House, in the time left to me I shall try to respond to as many as possible of the points made in this interesting debate.
It is evidence of the consensus in the House that hon. Members seemed to agree with most of the factors that I outlined in my opening speech, such as European Community co-operation in aid programmes with Asia and Latin America. Good government, with all its 766 implications—including elections in Cuba—seems to be the order of the day. We want not only the Community aid programme, but all aid programmes, to have a poverty focus and an emphasis on the special needs of women. We want conservation of the environment to be a requirement of all aid programmes, not just that of the EC, which is the subject of our debate. We want to ensure that we help these countries in their great fight against drugs. We need effective measures to raise project quality. I hope, although it has not been mentioned in the debate, that hon. Members will agree that all aid programmes should give support for population planning and family health, because these are critical to the well-being of the developing world.
We shall continue to press other issues in other Community programmes. We have to achieve many objectives through the international financial institutions, particularly the World bank, as well as in the EC and our bilateral activities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) for his comments on the improvement and development of Community aid. I can tell him that it is certainly better than it was five years ago, but the reason for having strict guidelines and for ensuring that they are implemented is to improve them still further. My hon. Friend the Member for Arundel (Sir M. Marshall) also referred to that. While I am mentioning him, may I congratulate him on his election as president of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which is welcomed by his colleagues in all parties.
Some hon. Members commented on the quality of aid, as did I. The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked about the accountability of the Commission in delivering its aid programme. The Court of Auditors report to which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred demonstrates that there are controls in the system. Their scope may need broadening, but they exist and it is Britain that has emphasised for many years the importance of proper evaluation. Progress has been made, especially in the past two or three years, and I shall continue to press for further progress. However, I agree that aid quality control mechanisms within the Commission are not as tight as we want them to be. There is more work to be done and we shall continue to do it.
We must continue to press for accountability from aid recipients because accountability is an integral part of good government. It is not enough for the Commission to ensure that the aid is being dispatched properly—it is critical that the aid is properly utilised, so donors must he subject to the highest standards of accountability and control. We must ensure that that control extends to the recipient countries.
We have covered much ground this evening, but I especially want to take up the points made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley about women. She asked what percentage of the projects are of direct benefit to women. I fear that she misses the fundamental point, which is that women bear the overwhelming burden of poverty in the developing world. They and their children are at the bottom of the heap, which is why every programme must have a poverty focus to try to lift that burden from them. To focus on poverty is to benefit women directly. It is too important an issue to aim at targets which could quickly become meaningless—all poverty-focused aid must and should benefit women. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel, with whose comments on the key 767 role of women in development I concur, will accept that. We believe that it is crucial for the development of these nations that aid is directed to poverty alleviation and thereby helps women.
§ Sir Michael MarshallI asked my right hon. Friend about illiteracy and the slave labour of women and children at work.
§ Mrs. ChalkerIf I started to talk about slave labour, we might be here beyond the time allotted. However, I have sought to deal with the question of illiteracy during my two and half years with the Overseas Development Administration. To enable women to read and write is to enable them to start to take their rightful place. Therefore, our programmes seek—as do projects such as the Aga Khan Foundation projects which I mentioned—to target women to enable them to play their full role.
I shall respond to what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said about the split between Asia and Latin America. She asked whether the emphasis was moving away from the poorest countries. I assure her that it is not, and that we shall not allow that to happen. I remind her that the ALA programme began as a consequence of British accession to the Community because of our close relationship with the poor countries of southern Asia. It is a key objective in our present discussions and will remain so.
Far from promoting EC business interests, the bulk of the ALA programme goes to the poor countries of Asia and will focus on the poverty alleviation that I have mentioned. There will, of course, be encouragement of private investment for the more developed countries of Latin America; that is part of generating growth in their economies. However, as far as we can see—and the intentions of our colleagues in the Community are the same as ours—we shall focus specifically on poverty alleviation, and that means on Asia.
Several hon. Members have asked me about Cambodia and Vietnam. There is no aid and trade embargo on Cambodia. Last year, we extended our British non-governmental organisation joint funding scheme to Cambodia. We encouraged Voluntary Service Overseas to start work there and we made more than £ 1 million available through the United Nations agencies. With the settlement, which we hope is about to be signed on Wednesday, we shall build on those measures, and we shall make a specific United Kingdom announcement very shortly about what further we can do. We will build on the work that we have done in the past, but we will also go into new areas of work.
On Vietnam, and especially on the vexed problem of the Vietnamese boat people, we believe that financial support 768 for an international programme to assist the reintegration of the returning economic migrants and know-how for the Vietnamese Government's economic reform programme are most important. We will provide those, and details will be announced very shortly.
On the boat people specifically, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has today announced in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) a pledge of £3 million towards the international reintegration assistance programme. That is in addition to our substantial share of the European Community contribution to the $114 million international reintegration assistance programme. We know that there is an urgent need for a solution, and we are working away at it. The internationally agreed comprehensive plan of action offers the best way to bring the solution about, but it is essential that we implement it fully, especially the provision that all non-refugees must return to their country of origin.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe asked me a number of other questions which I should like to answer, but I shall have to do so in writing.
The Community dimension of our programme is increasingly important in our overall development assistance effort. We have worked hard to ensure that the regulation reflects our priorities. I believe that the version on which we finally decide in November will meet that objective. I commend the motion to the House.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 4051/91 and the Supplementary Explanatory Memoranda submitted by the Overseas Development Administration on 18th and 25th February 1991, and 5896/91 + COR I, relating to financial and technical co-operation with developing countries in Asia and Latin America; and endorses the Government's policy on Community aid to Asian and Latin American countries.