§ 7 pm
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd)I beg to move,
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we also consider the draft African Development Fund (Sixth Replenishment) Order 1992.I bring to the House the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, who was tonight to have been in Angola. However, on her way to Angola she caught an ear infection when in Zimbabwe and had to curtail her visit and return home. She is sorry that she cannot be here, but I am confident that she will be well and back in the House soon.
The purpose of these orders is to authorise further payments to the replenishments to the African development fund and the special development fund of the Caribbean Development bank. In common with similar international financial institutions, the banks have two main lending arms: the bank itself, which borrows in the financial markets for on-lending to its regional members; and the funds, which lend at concessional rates. These are sometimes referred to as the "hard" and "soft" windows respectively. These draft orders authorise payments for the "soft" windows. The United Kingdom was a founder member of the African development fund, established in 1973. Its purpose is to contribute to the economic development and social progress of its regional members.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)How does the Minister know whether funds that are allocated under the "soft" window are allocated to projects that should be funded through that window rather than through the other one?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI shall deal with that point at greater length in my winding-up speech. For the Caribbean development fund we have an executive who is a board member and for the African development fund we share with three other countries, which include Germany and the Netherlands, a representative who would be privy to these decisions, and we are able to review the situation in the light of those appointments.
The fund is part of the African Development bank group and lends on concessional terms. Its resources are replenished every three years with contributions agreed through a process of multilateral negotiation with donor Governments. These negotiations provide the opportunity for donors to review past performance and agree policy directions for the future, as well as agreeing an overall target for the replenishment and relative burden-sharing among donors. Negotiations on the sixth replenishment of the fund began in June 1990, and were concluded last year. The replenishment that we are discussing will cover commitments made over the period 1991–93.
The agreed replenishment total was 2.65 billion fund units of account, or approximately £1.8 billion. This represented a modest increase in real terms over the fifth replenishment. The United Kingdom increased its share from 3.55 to 4 per cent., a total full commitment of, in today's money, £71.9 million. This sum will be paid in 76 three equal instalments in the form of non-interest bearing promissory notes which will be encashed over a number of years.
A report was drawn up which set out understandings on policy issues which will serve as guidelines for the management of the fund over the next three years. In particular, it was agreed that allocation of resources should be based to a much greater extent than in the past on the performance of borrowing countries. Donors emphasised that, given the demands on concessional resources, it was important to ensure that these are allocated to programmes and projects where they will be used most effectively. Borrowing countries which are pursuing sound economic policies, which are making efforts to reduce poverty and achieve growth with equity, or which are committed to development which is sustainable both in environmental or other terms are those on which the fund should be concentrating its efforts.
With reference to economic management, donors agreed that the bulk of the funds resources should go either to countries implementing adjustment programmes supported by the International Monetary Fund or World bank, especially within the umbrella of the World bank's special programme of assistance for Africa, or to those countries with a sound policy framework.
Sound economic management is an essential pre-requisite for renewed growth and development in Africa. We hope that the greater weight given to performance in fund operations will act as a spur to those countries that have not yet begun the process of economic reform to do so as quickly as possible.
Good government is also vital if aid is to provide sustainable development. This includes not just sound economic policies but competent administration, democratically accountable institutions and respect for the rule of law. We emphasised the importance of these points during the sixth replenishment negotiations, and we are encouraged by the extent to which the African Development bank is lending its weight to promoting this concept in its dialogue with borrowing countries.
A second major policy theme in the negotiations was that of poverty alleviation. The obvious lesson that a sustainable reduction in poverty is not possible without economic growth was underlined. So, too, was the need to ensure that the poor get a bigger slice of the benefits of growth, and the need for direct help to the poorest, especially in the provision of basic health and primary education. The bank has set up a task force to prepare a strategy on poverty reduction.
The bank also agreed to initiate work on population problems. Population growth rates in sub-Saharan Africa are among the highest of any region of the developing world. They have reached a rate of 3 per cent. a year. This means that population will double in 25 years, with clear implications for poverty reduction efforts, and of course, pressure on social infrastructure and the environment.
The bank's performance on environmental issues has been criticised in this House and elsewhere. Management has finalised an environmental policy and is now implementing operational guidelines. The bank is also preparing a forestry sector policy paper, and has undertaken to consult with interested non-governmental organisations before this is finalised. Donors asked that environmental impact assessments be provided for all 77 projects which could have a significant effect on the environment and urged the bank to strengthen its professional staffing in this area as quickly as possible.
These measures taken together should considerably enhance the quality of assistance provided by the fund to its low-income borrowers. The majority of these countries are classified as moderately or severely indebted countries. They cannot afford to borrow on commercial terms and add to their crippling burden of debt.
Their debt problems, of course, are being addressed in other ways. The Government have consistently taken the lead in promoting concerted debt relief measures for those poorest countries which owe most of their debts to Governments. I am delighted, as the House will also be, that in mid-December we successfully achieved consensus in the Paris Club to grant improved debt relief to the poorest, most heavily indebted countries. Under these new terms, up to 50 per cent. of eligible debt service will be written off. This important advance is, of course, a direct result of proposals made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1990. The new arrangements represent a good start to implementation of the Trinidad terms, and we shall continue to press for improvements in the terms offered, along the lines of my right hon. Friend's original proposals.
I should now like to turn to the second order. The Caribbean Development bank was established in 1969 and lends only to the Commonwealth Caribbean. There are 17 borrowing member countries, of which five are dependent territories. The United Kingdom and Canada were the two non-regional founding members. For many years the special development fund—the "soft" window—was funded by a variety of voluntary contributions, each with its own conditions attached. The procedure was simplified in 1984 when a unified fund was established.
The main support for the special development fund comes from the non-regional members, whose numbers expanded in the late 1980s to include France, Italy and Germany. Negotiations for the third replenishment were concluded in May last year. The total agreed was $118 million—more than £62 million. That figure may increase slightly as further pledges are received. The United Kingdom's share is £10.6 million—about 17 per cent. of the total. The United Kingdom's share of the second replenishment was £9.3 million, so there has been a significant increase. The replenishment will cover the period 1992–95, and, as with the African development fund, our contributions will be paid by promissory note. We see the Caribbean Development bank as playing a key role in channelling development assistance to the region.
The CDB operates on a much smaller scale than the African Development bank. The island communities that borrow from it are for the most part small and rely on one or two commodities only, and tourism, and are therefore exceptionally vulnerable to market forces. Emphasis in its programme is given to the development of human resources, through education schemes—secondary, technical, vocational, and teacher training in some cases—in co-operation with the World bank. The CDB is a focal point for skilled manpower within the region, and is manned entirely by people from the Caribbean. It also supports projects to diversify agriculture to reduce the dependence on export crops.
Attention is given to the establishment of new enterprises, and the bank recently expanded its lending to 78 the private sector further to encourage local initiatives. The Caribbean islands are in a hurricane belt and are subject to regular storms and severe flooding. To help reduce the effects of tidal waves and regular erosion of the coastline, the bank supports schemes to strengthen coastal sea defences. The Caribbean Development bank is assisting in the economic recovery programme for Guyana. Those are examples of practical ways of helping the small island communities, five of which are still British dependent territories. The special development fund concentrates on the most vulnerable parts of those communities. The third replenishment will enable the fund to continue to provide valuable support to those small but valued members of the Commonwealth.
The funds to be authorised under the two orders thus represent a significant contribution to our efforts to help Africa and the Caribbean. I commend them both to the House.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)As the Minister has said, it is in order for motions Nos. 4 and 5 to be debated together.
§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)I want my comments on the role of the African development fund and the Caribbean Development bank to be understood as being in the context of the role of the British Government vis-a-vis the development challenges facing the African continent.
This debate is taking place at a crucial time. The Minister mentioned two particular initiatives that he thought were most important. The first of these is the Prime Minister's Commonwealth debt initiative. Although we have always welcomed this, it must be put in the context of the fact that it is no compensation at all for the Conservative Government's aid cuts. Although debt relief for the poorest countries is a step forward, it is absolutely no substitute for aid. While the Government have been prepared to cancel debts—many of which were not being serviced anyway—they have cut aid, as a percentage of gross national product, to the lowest level on record: 0.27 per cent. last year, compared with 0.51 per cent. in 1979 under the last Labour Government. In 1979, under Labour, Britain's contribution as a percentage of GNP was the second highest in the group of seven richest countries; now Britain's contribution is the second lowest. While the Governments of African countries may be paying out a little less in debt servicing, they are no better off if less is coming in by way of aid.
The third world has lost £10 billion because of cutbacks in aid as a percentage of GNP from the 1979 level under Labour, which was 20 times the maximum estimated debt relief under the present Government's new scheme. The Prime Minister's initiative is too limited, and Britain has failed to secure the agreement of its international partners, especially the United States of America, on the issue. The initiative applies only to country-to-country bilateral debt; it does not apply to amounts owed to the international institutions. In fact, the Government actually blocked a proposal that debt to the European Community be written off. A Labour Government would press for such agreements.
The initiative does not apply to amounts owed to the commercial banks. The Government have a hands-off approach to the commercial banks, while granting them 79 large amounts of tax relief in respect of these debts. During the Committee stage of the Finance Bill of 1991 Labour pressed for the withdrawal of this tax relief if banks did not write off the debts.
The initiative applies to only a small group of the poorest countries. Other very poor countries, such as Ethiopia, are not included. Many millions in Africa still face famine. Only this week the United Nations appealed for an extra $621.6 million for emergency operations in the Horn of Africa. The total pledged by donors so far is only three quarters of what is needed.
Long-term poverty is also on the increase. In a relatively optimistic projection the World bank estimates that, on the basis of present trends, the number of people in Africa living in absolute poverty will rise from the present 180 million to 265 million in the year 2000. In that time the continent's share of the world's poorest people will double—rising from 16 per cent. to 32 per cent. Before the Minister congratulates the Prime Minister again, perhaps he will bear those figures in mind.
The Minister stressed also the importance of population policies, but in a parliamentary answer that I received today, the Government admit to massive cuts in funding to key United Nation agencies. The United Kingdom's 1990 contribution to the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, for example, was cut by 65 per cent. between 1979 and 1990. While the Prime Minister espouses the Government's support for the United Nations, in reality they have savaged Britain's contribution to key United Nation agencies with proven track records. The Minister ought to review the figures before stressing the importance of policy initiatives that the Government have been particularly tardy in supporting with cash.
As we debate tonight, 23 million people's lives are at risk in the Horn of Africa. The urgent appeal to the international community has yet to find receptive ears. The intensifying of internal conflict, breakdown of law and order in parts of the region, massive population movements, and continuing drought-induced famine in some areas are taking their toll.
The eye of the storm must be Somalia. The Prime Minister's fine words this afternoon about the United Nation's newly enhanced role as peacemaker in the new world order must be tested against Somalia's pressing case. Many Somalians who for months looked to Britain, with all her historic links with that country, to take a leading role in the peace process were disappointed with the Government's reluctance and unimpressive response. Although the recent United Nation resolution is a welcome sign of a vigorous approach, I am sorry that it did not feature more prominently at the recent summit.
The appalling suffering of the people of Somalia and the impact that it is having across the region must be a top priority for the United Nations. The world's attention has focused on the needs of the Commonwealth of Independent States—the former Soviet Union. I do not deny the necessity for action there, but Africa's desperate needs have not gone away. The imperative for action is all the greater because so many opportunities exist among the gloom. In some areas, the problems to which the United Nations Secretary-General is pointing are, with cruel irony, caused by improvements to security and good 80 government—such as that seen in Ethiopia—that are allowing people to return to their homes. It would be an even greater tragedy if support were denied to help the thousands of refugees who are returning to their homelands after years of war and exile.
The immediate crisis is being played out against the background of Africa's prolonged economic crisis. According to the World bank, incomes per head in sub-Saharan Africa fell by 2.2 per cent. a year between 1980 and 1989. Excluding those in oil-rich Nigeria, most Africans are by that measure worse off today than in 1965.
There have been enormous external economic pressures on the continent. A steady decline in Africa's terms of trade in the 1970s was severely compounded by a drastic fall in the purchasing power of the country's exports of more than 40 per cent. between 1980 and 1986. Debt problems have mounted. More than one fifth of Africa's export earnings are swallowed up in debt servicing. That level would be much higher were it not for constant rescheduling and the continuing build-up of arrears.
Against that background, there is in parts of Africa clear evidence that long-term malnutrition is on the increase, while average lifespans and primary school enrolment levels are decreasing. Internal factors, including autocratic government and internal mismanagement, play a significant part. Nevertheless, there has in recent years been a remarkable, continuing trend towards economic reform and democracy. Great opportunities are opening up in Africa—as great in scale in many ways as those that exist in the former Soviet Union.
However, Africa cannot do it alone. Many African Governments feel a sense of betrayal that, having implemented the painful reforms advocated by rich countries, they are not being supported. Britain must play a much fuller part in tackling the African crisis and building on the potential offered by reform. We must provide emergency relief. We are watching the Government closely to see whether their high-minded talk of support for the United Nations manifests itself in a major response to the United Nations Secretary-General's appeal for the Horn of Africa.
We must support also the process of recovery. We are shocked by the Government's refusal to support the second phase of the UN's special programme for Africa. Despite the widely acknowledged success of the first phase in channelling support to small farmers to help them recover from famine, in the urgent task of growing more food, and improve the incomes of the rural poor—and the programme's good work and accumulated experience—the Government are prepared to see it die. They seem prepared to allow the support of other donors to go to waste by not making a United Kingdom contribution.
A Labour Government will not be content to allow that to continue happening to that important and crucial fund. We believe that Britain should join other donors who have said that they are prepared to contribute their share to ensure the special programme's continuation, provided that others do the same.
Britain must respond to the mood of reform and extend support for long-term economic development in the region. I refer to the specific role of the African development fund. We support the distinctive and positive contribution made by the African Development bank, and that of the fund in particular under the bank's energetic presidency. We welcome the importance attached to agriculture, which is the top priority for economic 81 development in Africa, and the promise made at the last replenishment to devote more resources to poverty-reduction programmes and those that benefit women.
The bank does not have a faultless record. There are concerns over whether it is keeping its environmental pledges, and we urge it to reconsider whether it is the appropriate instrument for structural adjustment lending. However, the fund's overall contribution has been increasingly positive, and it deserves more support than Britain has given.
In the past, scepticism was expressed about the role of the African Development bank by comparison with other regional development banks—but that has, rightly, faded. One of the most important reasons for supporting the bank is its role as a distinctly Africa-based body.
One of Africa's key needs is to build up its own development institutions, and the African Development bank has made significant advances in that regard in recent years. Those advances are especially important given the eagerly awaited movement to a fully democratic South Africa which, we hope, will take place in the near future. If South Africa played an active role in the ADB—as we hope that it will—it would do a good deal, in the next decade, to help South Africa's reintegration with other African economies, and also to help it play a positive role in the development of the rest of southern Africa and that of the continent as a whole.
Despite the movement by African Governments towards reform, British support of Africa—including its funding of the African development fund—has, in our view, been niggardly. Notwithstanding Britain's extensive links with Africa, its support for the continent is quite a long way behind that of our international partners. Perhaps the Minister will confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was told recently by the Minister for Overseas Development; we are sorry to hear that the right hon. Lady is unwell, and hope that she will soon return to the House. According to the right hon. Lady, United Kingdom funding for Africa is half that of our G7 partners Germany, Italy, Japan and the United States, and less than a fifth of that provided by France.
The current, sixth replenishment of the fund represents only a 17 per cent. increase over the previous 50 per cent. replenishment. That is barely enough to keep pace with inflation. Within that meagre replenishment, Britain's contribution has been very poor. According to the most recent statement of total subscriptions available from the ADB, Britain's contribution is less than that of any other G7 country. It is even less than Sweden's contribution, and equal to that of Norway. Britain simply is not pulling its weight.
Although I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom is contributing to the fund, this is a very small slice of a modestly sized cake. It does not do justice to the major economic and political changes that are now being undertaken by African Governments. Must we be confronted yet again with images of mass starvation before Britain makes more effort to act now on long-term investments to prevent the famines of the future? What we need now is action to improve north-south terms of trade, reduce debts, and increase aid—I stress that point, and I do not think that the Minister will be able to defend the Government's position and protect the world's environments.
82 Let me say a word about the Caribbean Development bank. Although the poverty and economic decline in the Caribbean are not of the same magnitude as those in Africa, there are many parallels between the two regions, in regard to both problems and opportunities. Debt problems in the Caribbean remain considerable, and—as in Africa—relate primarily to official debt, including debts to multilateral institutions. The decline in trade has affected a number of Caribbean commodities, such as bauxite, although possibly less severely than in Africa. At recent meetings with representatives of sister Caribbean parties, I, as a representative of the British Labour party, was able to hear at first hand both about the economic pressures and about the development of democratic institutions in the regions.
Will the Minister tell us the extent of our support for three areas of major importance to the Caribbean? First, what support does the bank give to the development of interregional trade? I am glad to see that that subject is back on the Caribbean agenda. Secondly, how is the bank seeking to foster diversification programmes to help countries reduce their over-reliance on a single crop commodity? Thirdly, what programmes is it supporting to bring about food security in Caribbean nations that remain heavily reliant on the expensive import of basic foods?
Although Africa's emergency needs will continue throughout the current year and the rest of the decade, it should be an increasing priority for the north to support the positive changes that are sweeping the continent. More resources are needed now to aid recovery and development. In countries such as Ethiopia and Angola, which have seen a dramatic end to decades of civil war, support is needed to resettle displaced people, demobilise soldiers, rebuild shattered societies and economies and help safeguard fledgling democracies.
Those aims are as important as assisting the emerging democracies in the former Soviet Union and central and eastern Europe with massive aid and debt relief, if not more important. The equally fundamental changes sweeping Africa have not been rewarded to anything like the same extent—although Africa's needs are so much greater.
§ Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)The orders are not contentious in principle; they are open to criticism only in terms of degree, and of the extent to which the Government are following up their rhetoric with realistic contributions to those in need. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has just been telling us about that.
In the case of Africa—to which I shall confine my remarks—linking aid with the development of democracy, the pursuance of better-balanced economic policies, the evolution of effective administration, the spread of help to the poor in particular, the encouragement of population control and an emphasis on the environment is desirable. Such a shift of linkage and emphasis has, after all, been under way for some time, and has wide support in other countries and on both sides of the House.
Although I support the thrust of the policy, I must repeat our view that what is being done in Africa—particularly in sub-Saharan Africa—still falls far short of what we should be doing. Not only are the communities 83 concerned starting off in a pretty terrible position; they have now been even more gravely affected by the world recession and the Gulf war.
I agree with what the hon. Member for Cynon Valley said about the reduction in the British aid contribution as a proportion of gross national product over the period—getting on for 13 years—since the Conservatives came to office. I hope that positive changes in the functioning and prospects of the United Nations—which we have discussed a good deal today in other connections—will allow a stemming of the flood of arms into the African continent which has caused so much carnage. I appreciate that that does not arise directly from the motion, but it is part of the background, and I hope that the Government will use all their influence to staunch that flood.
Like the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, my party supports the work done by the African development fund, and feels ashamed to compare our contribution with that of other countries of comparable size and economic capacity. I shall not repeat the figures given by the hon. Lady, but it is in no way admirable that we should give one fifth of France's contribution, and one half of Italy's. The orders provide for further United Kingdom contributions towards two funds that enable much valuable work to be undertaken. We should, however, be doing far more.
§ Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth)I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, as a new boy, I believed what my superiors told me—that the debate would not start until later. I was in the middle of my bacon and eggs when I saw on the Annunciator that the Minister was speaking. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I left them!
I intend to consider this question from a slightly different angle. For five years I spoke for the British Labour group in the European Parliament on overseas development. For over two years I worked in west Africa, as the Commission's delegate in Guinea-Bissau. I agree entirely with all the ideas that my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has just put forward, but I shall consider all those matters, too, from a slightly different angle.
There are some practicalities that need to be considered in terms of the cohesion of programmes. That is much more true of Africa than it is of the Caribbean. European Community aid, bilateral aid, United Nations aid and Arab aid, all in the form of projects and programmes, is being given without any attempt being made to ensure that all those projects and programmes complement one another. The European Community's programmes often contradict European development fund programmes in Africa, with the result that they are less effective than they might otherwise be. We need urgently to find a mechanism to unify the programmes and make them more positive.
In theory, the programmes are co-ordinated by the United Nations development programme, but in practice that does not happen. I should be grateful if the Minister could assure us that the Government are working towards creating an alliance in Africa rather than pursuing a policy of rivalry with other countries. That would lead to our programmes being much more cost effective.
84 In many cases we are destroying the countries that we attempt to assist when providing industrial aid. I think of Tanzania's fishing fleet. The European Community was responsible for financing that fleet of about 40 boats. Almost all them cannot be used, not because the people are terribly at fault but because the fleet was provided with 12 different types of engines and hundreds of different types of screws. Not even this country can boast the technology that would be required to repair and make good all that goes wrong. It is imposssible to gut one ship for the sake of another.
I think in particular of Guinea-Bissau's electrical generating plant. When I first went there it was almost completely out of order. We were lucky to have one hour of electricity a day, and that was mainly in the middle of the night. The problem was mainly due to the many kinds of generator. There was a splendid British generator, but there were also French, German, Russian and Japanese generators, which led to disaster.
Guinea-Bissau has not been independent of Portugal for very long. At the time of independence it had only four graduates and few people had been trained in technology. The people were mainly concerned with rural matters, but they had to cope with sophisticated technology and keep it going. They could not do it. The amount of hard currency that had to be spent on keeping it going could not be sustained. A good feature of the recent writing off of debt is that Guinea-Bissau gained considerable benefit from it.
Guinea-Bissau is moving towards a multi-party system. Assistance is being provided by the United States of America. It is providing money and specialist aid to help Guinea-Bissau to convert to a multi-party system. In the particular circumstances there, I am not altogether convinced that it is wise for Guinea-Bissau to move towards a multi-party system. Parties split along tribal lines; splits are not the result of genuine ideological differences. However, the president has determined that there shall be a multi-party system and he has thrown his full weight behind it. He has ensured that in this case party splits will not start off as tribe versus tribe. A great deal of assistance, from wherever it can be obtained, is required. It would not be expensive. Her Majesty's Government could provide very effective help. I ask the Minister to consider that with great care.
I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley said about the difficulties that surround dependence upon a monoculture in the Caribbean. The West Indies is being hit badly by the enormous increase in the production of sugar beet in the United Kingdom. A realistic cane sugar regime is needed. Cane sugar is the life blood of employment and society in the Caribbean. It is a plant which grows well there and it can stand up to all the vagaries of the weather. I beseech the Government to consider that question when looking at trading regimes and the common agricultural policy regimes.
Not least—I am sure that this will be very close to the Minister's heart—I ask him to consider the rum regime. [Interruption.] Rum is included in the protocol to the Lomé convention, but it is very difficult to import rum into France. The French protect imports of their own white rum from their overseas territories. It is essential to look towards the next Lomé convention and the provision of a better protocol for rum. I am sure that the Minister agrees that rum is a splendid product. It provides employment for 85 a great many people. If they were able to increase their rum exports, they would also increase the amount of hard currency that they need.
§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)One of the strengths of the House of Commons is its enormous wealth of personal experience. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) has personal experience and also a much rarer quality in the House of Commons—fresh personal experience. All too often our personal experience is far too dated to be useful. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth speaks with fresh personal experience, having held a position of responsibility within the Community. Some of us, for all sorts of reasons, are glad that he has become our colleague in the House of Commons—not least because of his recent personal experience in Africa.
When I was a member of the indirectly elected Parliament I had the good fortune to go to Lomé to attend one of the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries functions. I was greatly moved by the proceedings and thought that it was one of the most worthwhile events that the Community had staged. At that time Claude Cheysson—a man of drive and imagination—was the Commissioner with responsibility for these matters. Whatever criticisms may have been made of his performance in other jobs, he was a great Commissioner who succeeded in achieving much.
I apologise to the House for speaking twice in a day, having spoken in the nuclear debate. I was chosen by Mr. Speaker to lead a parliamentary delegation to Zaire in November 1990. I should like to ask the Minister a few questions about that torn and striven country. Zaire has 47 per cent. of the remaining African rain forest. The Minister receives reports from our excellent ambassador, Roger Westbrook. A lot is said about the Foreign Office not doing this or not being interested in that, but Roger Westbrook should receive full credit for having the initiative to see people who were interested in rain forests. In the course of a busy schedule, he had breakfast at Ghillean Prance in Kew and was briefed on rain forest matters in Africa by the director of Kew and his wife, who is a distinguished botanist. I give good to any diplomat who can do that.
In the chaos that is now Zaire, because of the civil war, what sensible measures can we take to protect its flora and fauna and its vast timber resources? My personal reflection during a trip that was truncated by the requirement of the Whips to return early was that Zaire varied enormously from province to province and that some of its provincial governors were men of considerable quality who were trying to do something in places such as East Kasai. Since so much of the African rain forest is in Zaire, what constructive proposals can we make for francophone Africa?
What is the Government's policy on help for francophone Africa? It might be said that because of historical ties we owe our allegiance to Tanzania, Malawi, the Sudan, Nigeria, Ghana and other African countries with which we have particularly close links. That could be an easy way out of doing nothing about francophone Africa. I and my colleagues, the hon. Members for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) and for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Cummings), formed the strong impression that 86 people in positions of importance in Kinshasa desperately wanted connections with European countries other than France and Belgium. They understandably wanted links with members of the Community who were not former colonial powers. If resources allow, there is a strong argument for our becoming more involved with francophone Africa and for not taking the line of leaving it to the French.
Last week I was invited to the inaugural meeting of the tropical forest resource group at Kew. I was extremely impressed by David Attenborough's presentation on the importance of water and his study of such sciences as limnology. What is the Government's policy on the acute water situation in much of Africa? When David Attenborough and others talk about the need for a world policy on water, everybody nods his head sagely and says, "Yes, we must have it"; but what is being done? That is a matter that concerns the Edinburgh Centre for Tropical Forests.
In addition, there is the acute problem of the loss of top soil and the use of fire wood as a main fuel. It may sound extraordinary to say it, but there is a strong argument for the Brazilian example of constructing nuclear power stations, which we hope will work one day, to save wood from the Mato Grosso and possibly from the rain forests.
In discussions on the rain forests, Jeff Burley, head of the Oxford forestry institute, pointed out that far too little had been said about saving the dry forest. Is there a policy on helping the dry forest in Africa? The figures given were 58 per cent. dry forest and 42 per cent. rain forest. The dry forest is absolutely enormous and is of considerable importance in stricken areas such as the Sudan, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth knows so well.
A paper was given by Dr. Dransfield on the economic possibilities for rattan. I have previously raised the question of help for rattan growing in Ghana and the Ivory Coast. According to the presentation that was made last week at Kew, there is an enormous potential market for rattan products, and rattan meets every criteria of being sustainable. Can we offer any specific encouragement for rattan? The Minister has expert advisers in the Box who will be able to answer such questions off the top of their heads, and I know that the Whip and his Parliamentary Private Secretary are very athletic in going to the Official Box.
My last question was raised at the Kew seminar by Dr. Colin Ogborne. It concerns optical character recognition and the information that can now be stored on disks to avoid repeating information that could be so valuable in the tropical forest. I know that that subject is dear to the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and our mutual friend Professor Howell of the Overseas Development Institute. That is my last question to arise out of Kew.
I want to engage the Minister's attention on another subject about which I feel very strongly. This afternoon I asked the Prime Minister a simple, straight, one-sentence question and I was shocked by his reply. I believe that my shock was shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) because he commented on it. The question was whether the Prime Minister would rule out United Nations military action against Libya. His answer came as quick as a flash—a decisive "No, Sir".
This is not the place to repeat my Adjournment debate of the other night about Lockerbie, but I wish to make one 87 comment. Lockerbie was a tragedy of horrendous proportions. The police in my area had to help to clear it up and I went to see it. I do not in any way underestimate the tragedy, but the view of the Scottish police about Syria and Iran is wholly different from what the Foreign Secretary is saying.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. I find it very difficult to relate what the hon. Gentleman is now saying to either of the orders before the House.
§ Mr. DalyellYes, that is why I had to make that comment before I return completely to order and return to African development and the great man-made river project in Libya.
That project has been ridiculed as a Colonel Gaddafi white elephant but that is not the view of many ecologists who have been to see it. Nor is it the view of, for example, my friend Professor Barri Jones, who is professor of archaeology at Manchester and responsible for the Cyrenaica digs. He is a very intelligent man who understands how the ancients got their water when that part of north Africa was one of the most fertile parts of the world.
I believe that I have the Minister's sympathy to a certain extent because he, almost uniquely in the House, is an Arabic speaker. Both my parents were Arabic speakers but, I, alas, am not and I regret it very much. We are talking about an area of great civilisation. If you ever get the chance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not fail to go to the great Roman remains at Leptis Magnus because they are more spectacular than anything in ancient Rome. That place must have sustained an enormous, sophisticated civilisation; but do not let me digress.
The main point for us is that the man-made river project is the largest engineering project in the western world. Thirty-six United Kingdom firms are involved. The consulting engineers are Brown and Root. In the light of the answer that the Prime Minister gave this afternoon, it is high time that the Government talked seriously to, for example, Dick Morris. He is the chairman not only of Brown and Root but of Nirex. The Government should ask him, as a major business person in this country, what is his view of the Libyan Government. I suspect that it is favourable, as was that of expatriates who could quietly say that those people are not corrupt and that they are pretty efficient.
I do not hide the fact that in the early 1980s Colonel Gaddafi and those around him may have been responsible for some terrible things in the support of terrorism. However, there is much more to be brought into that equation—for example, the bombing of Benghazi and Tripoli. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, I believe in seeing for myself. She has moved the House by going to areas that interest her in particular in Iraq, and she and others can take it from me that I was greatly moved by going to see working-class areas in Tripoli and Benghazi which had been flattened by bombing that had caused terrible casualties. That had been done by bombers based in the United Kingdom and, whatever the rights and wrongs of La Belle discotheque which was purported to be the reason for the bombing, I 88 cannot believe that the working-class people in Benghazi and Tripoli had much responsibility for what happened in Berlin.
The Libyan situation should be considered carefully by the Foreign Office because the Libyans have held out an olive branch. My Labour colleagues and I went there in early November. It may be said that we were naive to go, but, if so, we were naive in the company of that cautious fox Mr. Giulio Andreotti, the Italian Prime Minister, and Mr. Dumas, the French Foreign Minister. They had both been and there are few more cautious than they.
We should reconsider the Libyan situation, remembering that there are 5,500 of our fellow countrymen there, many of whom are Scottish engineers from the west of Scotland. When I wrote an article defending my general views in the Sunday Post, I received a great deal of mail from relations who said that they were extremely concerned about what might happen. The British were well treated the last time, but if it were to happen again—and I return to my question this afternoon—and if military action were not ruled out—I am not so sure that, human beings being what they are, British workers who are earning the Minister's bread and butter, my bread and butter and that of all of us by working in the oil industry and related engineering projects, will be so well treated.
The Libyans are per head easily the richest in Africa because of their huge oil production. They have an enormous potential which they say they are prepared to deploy—and I am inclined to believe them—to help the less wealthy or, indeed, the poorest, countries in Africa—especially those in the Maghreb—to make progress. My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth is doing me the courtesy of listening attentively. I suspect that he knows from his European experience that that is certainly considered to be a possibility by his former Italian colleagues. Incidentally, if anyone is talking about sanctions, I can tell him that that is pie in the sky. I do not believe for one moment that the Italian Government will impose sanctions on Libya in view of their interests in Libya and their dependence on Libyan oil. The planes will fly every day as they do from Fiumicino and if they are banned from flying from Fiumicino for a week, they will fly from Bari or Taranto or some obscure airfield. The Italians will not go along with sanctions against Libya—that is sheer make-believe.
Before anyone says that I am callous, I can say that I am extremely close to the Lockerbie relatives. Jim Swire and his wife Jane were my guests here—as they have been previously—the week before last and the week before that. Anybody who has been to Lockerbie and who has a close relationship with the Roman Catholic priest Father Patrick Keegans who lives in Sherwood crescent, which was destroyed, or with the Rev. Logan Kirk, who speaks for the Church of Scotland community in the area, cannot be callous about the matter.
It is high time that the Foreign Office looked again at the whole question of economic and political relations with Libya. The Foreign Office should look at the report of the Adjournment debate. Although I had the courtesy to give to the Foreign Office at 9.15 am that Monday, every word of what I planned to say and although the debate did not take place before 1 am on Tuesday, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), the Minister of State, did not make the least attempt to answer the precise questions of which—
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)Order. I have been very tolerant with the hon. Gentleman, but he is now straying well away from the orders again.
§ Mr. DalyellYou have been extremely tolerant, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have made my point and I will leave it at that.
§ Mr. Robert N. Wareing (Liverpool, West Derby)I will be brief because the orders are not controversial and we do not oppose them. However, this is an occasion when it is possible to say to the Government that we have heard so much of this before. Some of us can remember back to the 1950s and to the time of the Colombo plan, when various grandiose schemes were suggested and when we were told that the problems of Africa and of third-world countries could be dealt with if only the plans were put into operation. It is now almost 40 years on, yet the world is still divided between the countries that have and the countries that have not.
It is appalling that the Government place such small importance on overseas development. That must be so because only 0.27 per cent. of gross domestic product is expended on overseas aid. The Government must tell us why that is the case. It is no good arguing that it is a matter of waiting for economic growth in the United Kingdom before we can help the rest of the world. The figure of 0.27 is the percentage of GDP at any particular time. In the past 13 years, we have been brought up on the fairy tale of Britain's economic miracle. We are repeatedly told by Ministers that economic growth has been greater and that economic performance has been better in this country than in Germany, in Italy, in France and in the countries of our other European Community partners.
We need to examine exactly what the Government mean by economic growth. They do not mean manufacturing investment. Many of the countries that have made their way and have taken their place in the second rather than in the third world are the countries that have found that investment from multinational corporations has enabled them to do so. I refer to countries such as South Korea and Taiwan which, not many years ago, were regarded very much as third-world countries. African countries, such as Mali, Chad and Guinea-Bissau, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) knows so well—and I am delighted to see him here—do not yet have the resources to enable them to step out of the third into the second world.
The Government are under the misapprehension that overseas development is not important electorally. They will be amazed when the next election comes. In previous election campaigns in which I have taken part, it is highly significant, especially when one addresses meetings promoted by the churches and by charitable organisations, that overseas aid is very much to the fore. Even in my poor constituency—poor not in the hearts of the people, but in the poverty that has been pressed on them by the Government's economic policies—people who are unemployed come to my surgery and write letters to me at the House expressing the view that Britain should do more about poverty in areas such as the Horn of Africa and Ethiopia. When the Ethiopian famine was shown on television, I was inundated by letters asking what the British Government were doing.
90 The Government may be able to say that they are giving assistance. However, the Minister's speech posed more questions than it answered. Will the Minister spell out to the House and to the nation what percentage of the African development fund is contributed by our European Community partners? The Minister boasted that our share in the African development fund—I do not know whether the replenishment element or the total amount—has increased from 3.55 per cent. to 4 per cent. What is the contribution of France, of Portugal and of Italy? Where do we stand in the league table of assistance to the African development fund? I should love to know the answer and I am sure that many people will ask that question in the next few months as we approach the general election.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursI will give the answer.
§ Mr. WareingIt is unusual for my hon. Friend to make a suggestion from a sedentary position because he is more often on his feet. I think that he will provide the answer. I want the Minister not only to provide the answer, but to give the justification for our share being so drastically small when we have had the marvellous economic miracle of the disastrous Thatcherite years. The Minister tells us that the United Kingdom provides 17 per cent. of the Caribbean Development fund. What share is being taken up by others? Britain especially has a moral responsibility to the Caribbean because most of the Caribbean was part of the former British empire and most of it remains within the Commonwealth. If it were the case that Germany, France, Italy or Portugal were contributing a similar share or a bigger share, that would be a damnable testimony to the inadequacy of the Government's economic development policy for the third world and for the Caribbean.
I also want to know the answer to the question posed by the Minister when he talked about the principles on which aid will be based. He talked about sound policy frameworks and about economic reforms. What does he mean? Does he mean getting on one's bended knee and bowing in the direction of the Thatcher Foundation, for example? Is the answer something far more meaningful than that?
Market economics have not solved the problems even of our economy and they certainly cannot solve the problems of the African economies. We cannot control environmental pollution in the United Kingdom simply by looking to the market, and we cannot save the rain forests of Africa or of Brazil by sheer market economics. Something more is required—the middle way which requires the planning of resources to ensure that the problems are tackled.
The Minister referred to "good government", but what does he mean by that? Is "good government" the one party state, such as Malawi? Hastings Banda has always been a favourite of Tory politicians. Is he "good government"? Is the Government of Kenya, with all its recent problems from which the British Government have veered away, good government? I suggest that before there can be good government there must be self-government. I believe that it was the Liberal statesman, Campbell-Bannerman, who said that self-government is better than good government. I have always believed that to be the case because I believe that, although it may not be perfect, democracy is the best form of government even though it sometimes throws up the type of Government that our people have had to endure for the past 13 years.
91 However, should we not argue that if there is to be good government and if people in countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria and Zaire are to have rights and democracy, the first thing to do is to put food into people's mouths and ensure that they have a roof over their head? It is no use talking like that to this Government because one does not need to go more than a couple of hundred yards from this place to find people in our own country who do not have a roof over their heads. It is only when people have food in their bellies, shelter over their heads and something reasonable with which to clothe their bodies that they can be preached at and called upon to look at forms of government that give them rights and ensure that dictators do not have full reign over third-world countries.
Good government is all very well and I love to think that, in time, plural democracy will come to all the countries in Africa, but first things first. The first thing is to put food into the bellies of starving African people and to ensure that they have a good environment in which to live. If we do that, it will not be for the benefit of the inhabitants of those countries alone, because if we improve the environment of continents such as Africa and areas such as the Caribbean, we are providing ourselves with a greater safeguard than that which can be achieved by the massive sale of arms to such countries, which the Government have condoned. We would provide ourselves with a safeguard for maintaining world peace and, in the long run, would provide markets and business for people in our own continent and our own country which would ensure their employment as well as a better and decent standard of living for the people of Africa.
§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)I had not planned to speak in this debate, Mr. Speaker, because of my illness and hospitalisation, of which you are aware. However, having heard the debate, I am minded to say a few words.
The House is indebted to my hon. Friends the Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth has given the House the benefit of his great expertise in such matters and has referred to an important consideration. I refer to the way in which we can unify the contributions of the major donors especially at the technological level. I have been struck by reports that I have received from various organisations in parts of Africa that, on occasions, aid has been allocated for projects that have previously been put in place by other donors and that when our tranche has been allocated we have not taken into account the previous failure of similar projects. That position seems to arise because of the lack of co-ordination between the major donors.
I am indebted also to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow for referring to the conference that he attended a week ago at Kew at which Sir David Attenborough spoke and at which the concept of a world policy on water was advocated. I found that particularly interesting because when my hon. Friend and I visited India some weeks ago we were struck by the fact that when seeking to secure development in those parts of India that are in need of development—almost the entire country—a major 92 target is the need to provide villages and communities with a water supply. Wherever we went, the lack of a water supply was clearly what determined the level and nature of economic activity in the area. As my hon. Friend said, we need a world policy on water. That matter will need to be addressed by the next Labour Government.
The danger in these debates is that, whenever Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box, they lead us and the country to believe that they are making resources available to the various and varied programmes that are submitted to them for support. The public could well believe that the Government are actually increasing aid, when the reverse is happening. Last week my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow tabled a significant question that drew from Ministers information and evidence to the effect that the three principal United Nations agencies with which we are concerned have suffered cuts not of 38 per cent., as was suggested today in the Prime Minister's statement, but of an average of nearly 60 per cent. Those are substantial cuts in United Nations programmes to which the Government have admitted in an answer to my hon. Friend—
§ Mr. Lennox-Boydindicated dissent.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThe Minister shakes his head, but before replying to the debate he would do well to secure a copy of the answer that was given to my hon. Friend last week.
Several references have been made to our contribution to the African development fund. It would be for the benefit of the House if I were to place our contribution in the context of those made by other countries since the fund was started in, I believe, 1972. During that period, France's contribution has been twice ours; Germany's contribution has been two and a half times ours; the United States' contribution has been three and half times ours; the Japanese contribution has been four times ours; and the contribution of Sweden—a very small country—has been substantially more than ours. Furthermore, Switzerland—that small country in the centre of Europe —has made a larger contribution and my much-loved Italy has contributed twice the amount of the United Kingdom. But we are talking about a part of the world with which Britain in particular has immense historic links. Indeed, although previous Labour Governments made Africa a priority when determining areas of need, this Government seem to see Africa differently.
I understand that the sixth replenishment will come into effect only when 40 per cent. of the contributions have been deposited. Perhaps the Minister will explain whether there will be any delay in the allocation. If I am short of breath, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will understand in the light of what I said earlier, so please forgive me. I hope that the Minister will explain whether any delay in the contributions of others could influence the use of the moneys that we are allocating to Africa.
In one regard, the Prime Minister's statement today was particularly significant and I do not want to criticise that part because it was a notable contribution to an important issue affecting third-world countries. The Prime Minister said:
We asked the Secretary-General to make recommendations for a more effective role for the United Nations as peacekeeper and as peacemaker. Under article 99 of the charter, the Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which, in his opinion, may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security. 93 We hope the new Secretary-General will use those powers. He will report to us within six months with his recommendations.I am pleased that such matters of substance are discussed at the United Nations and that there will be a report on them. What worries me is that article 27 of the UN charter almost prohibits intervention in the internal affairs of nation states. There is a crying need for intervention of a particular type in various parts of the world—not the intervention to which my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow referred with some concern in the case of Libya, but intervention where it is impossible to deliver aid and meet the needs of suffering peoples.In that respect I refer to what is happening in the Horn of Africa, not so much in Ethiopia as in the Sudan. According to Oxfam, the effects of conflict and drought on already weakened economies in the Horn have pushed the margins of effective groups beyond the bounds of near vulnerability to a state of critical impoverishment. Coupled with massive population movements and famine, the disruption to already inadequate social services and, in some cases, the loss of traditional coping machanisms have created unprecedented levels of hardship and household stress in the region. In many parts of the Horn family farms have been abandoned and assets destroyed or stolen. Children have been deserted and orphaned, and, in many cases, drawn into the fighting. Women have been exposed increasingly to violence and rape. Diseases, such as malaria, have swept through the region, adding to the already high death toll. Fighting between rival clans and factions within clans has escalated in Somalia, engulfing some cities and communities in violence and bloodshed. Conflict has increased in the Sudan, in parts of Ethiopia and Djibouti. Ethnic tensions are complicating attempts at reforming administrative and political processes. Those are the comments of Oxfam's field officers who are witnessing what is happening and reporting back to the developed world.
I do not know whether it is right to say this, but I feel strongly that the UN must find a way of intervening in these areas. We cannot allow hundreds of thousands of lives, indeed sometimes millions of lives, to be prejudiced and endangered because the western developed world, the Security Council or possibly distorted liberal opinion in the west is unwilling to realise that we have a duty to intervene and ensure that aid reaches those people who, otherwise, will lose their life.
In recent years, many of the problems in the Horn could have been dealt with if the western democracies and the Security Council had recognised their responsibility to take action—not to intervene militarily, as the Prime Minister may have implied in his statement, but to intervene with a spirit of compassion, understanding and concern to deal with the problems of these desperate people who live in desperate conditions.
Finally, I come to the Caribbean Development bank. It raises yet another issue which has caused me increasing concern over the past year—the monitoring of funds from our aid budget for developing countries. Perhaps it is my 11 years on the Public Accounts Committee that have made me a fierce defender of the taxpayers' interest, but they want to know that aid gets through to people, meets needs and secures the objective of policy to which all Governments subscribe—to ensure that we help people in need.
94 The aims and objectives of the bank were clearly set down by Mr. Ben Whitaker in a debate in January 1970 just before the fall of the Labour Government. At that time we were contributing 50 per cent. of the paid-up capital of the bank. That is far more as a proportion than the sum that we are paying today. It seems that others have taken over our role. Indeed, the replenishment in this order is only twice as much in cash terms, not real terms, as we were allocating at the time of the construction of the bank in 1970. I do not think that I have misread Mr. Whitaker's comments.
Be that as it may, we allocate moneys with a view to their being used as concessional funds for investment. Although the Minister says that we have representatives, what monitoring ensures that we absolutely meet the objectives set by Parliament? Is there a possibility that funds will make their way into projects that the British taxpayer may not feel deserve support under the heading of needy relief? Is it possible that without proper monitoring funds can be invested in areas that, in our view, may not be helpful in securing our objectives? We are here to ensure that moneys are made available for the development of these countries and that through that development we meet the needs of people who should be the real beneficiaries.
§ Mr. DalyellDoes my hon. Friend agree that one example of that is what appears to have happened with the sale of vast areas of the Guyana rain forest and the resale of perhaps the most fragile area of the whole South American river system area?
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursMy hon. Friend has just triggered my memory. He is absolutely right. I had forgotten that example. Indeed, it is only a few weeks since I tabled a question on that. At that time the Clerks in the Table Office referred me to answers that my hon. Friend had gleaned from Ministers. If I recall correctly, a banker or a British company—
§ Mr. DalyellIt was Lord Beaverbrook who had been a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry and who is, I think, the treasurer of the Conservative party.
§ Mr. Campbell-Savours—purchased at a low price a project that was supported in the 1970s with substantial sums of taxpayers' money.
I recall another example. A few weeks ago The Guardian revealed an investment in the Virgin Islands. Ministers may feel that what happened can be justified in that some may say that the investment was made to avoid social dislocation or trouble in that particular community. Nevertheless, some question whether that investment should have been made in so far as losses on a particular operation were being written off. These are important matters.
The only way to resolve these problems is for our discussion of projects to include not just comment on their technicality, but examples. Tonight the Minister has not given us lists of projects to discuss. In future Ministers may think it wise to make it clear on the explanatory memorandums provided with such orders where the money has been spent. Taxpayers want to know that, because they want to know that those in development funds and banks take into consideration value for money when investing these moneys. All I can say to Ministers is 95 that, in future, it would be good if some projects could be identified in whatever material is provided for hon. Members in advance of our debates.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI should like to reply to as many of the issues raised by hon. Members as possible. This has been a courteous and harmonious debate, but, none the less, I appreciate that it sparks an area of controversy in the House about the overall level of funding by the United Kingdom. I shall comment on that in due course, but first I should like to consider the detailed points raised by hon. Members.
As a result of collective brains—to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)—I have a sheaf of notes on which I shall rely and call upon in my speech. My comments may therefore be somewhat incoherent and not as elegant as I would like, since I have not had time to put all those notes into order. However, I believe that my reply will be fairly comprehensive.
First, may I say how pleased I was to see the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) address the House? I hope that there will be occasions on one of the railway journeys that we often share northwards when I shall be able to talk to him further. I mean no disrespect to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) by commenting on the hon. Gentleman's speech first; I shall return to her opening speech later.
The hon. Member for Workington referred to the form of influence that we have over the policies of the Caribbean Development bank and the African Development bank. It is right to consider the institutional set-up that enables us to monitor those two institutions. The African Development bank has 18 seats on its board—two thirds for regional members and one third for non-regional members, of which we are one. The board meets monthly. There are so many non-regional members that we share that one seat with three other countries—Germany, the Netherlands and Portugal. We try to reach a consensus on the way in which we vote. Inevitably, that practice dilutes to a considerable extent the degree of supervision—not influence—that any one country, including ourselves, can give. However, we have great influence because we are respected by our colleagues.
The United Kingdom, along with Canada, is a major shareholder in the Caribbean Development bank. We have a separate seat on the board of directors, and our executive member is the locally based official in the region who is responsible for our bilateral aid. We have a major influence on the board.
The hon. Member for Workington asked whether we can be sure that the British taxpayer would be happy with every investment that is made. I greatly respect the hon. Gentleman's interest in ensuring, on behalf of the taxpayer and the Treasury, that that money from the taxpayer is well spent, but, obviously, the short answer to his question is no: one cannot be certain that the taxpayer would be absolutely happy with every investment. There are occasions when, given the consensus of the four different countries under which we operate, we are sometimes not entirely happy and we may express our reservations.
That loss of sovereignty and control over aid disbursement is not serious, however, because we have 96 great influence. Such loss of sovereignty and control is inevitable if one gives sums of money to such an institution to disburse. If we did not want that loss sovereignty, we would not give a penny to the African development fund —we would give it all through our bilateral subscriptions and dues. We could do it that way, but we choose to do it through the African Development bank.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursThe question is whether they meet tests of development soundness—soft loan allocations.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThere is a test for soft loan standards, because a country's eligibility depends on its relative poverty, as defined by its gross national product per head and its creditworthiness. With the African Development bank, countries with a GNP of more than $900 per head are not entitled to receive concessional resources, and 90 per cent. of the fund's resources are earmarked for countries with a GNP per head of $510 or less. Those are the sort of criteria that are set. We monitor them, of course, and we are satisfied that those criteria are followed.
The nature of the projects is less important than a country's eligibility but, in general, we focus on activities concerning agriculture, social services and the environment. In Benin and Zambia, the structural adjustment programmes have been the method of support used.
The hon. Member for Workington asked a specific question about when the 40 per cent. trigger—the current allocation—for the African development fund will be reached. As at 22 January, 12 donors had deposited instruments of contribution totalling 1 billion fund units of account or 39.1 per cent. of capital. I need not name those donors. Kuwait, alongside the United Kingdom, is also actively considering its position now. I am confident that, within the next week or so, the 40 per cent. trigger limit will be reached. It is a race between Kuwait and the United Kingdom to reach the end of the course.
I do not want to spend too much time on the speech of the hon. Member of Workington, but he did mention the world policy on water and the Kew conference. I agree that the problem of water resources, especially those shared between countries, will become increasingly important in the future. Water supply and sanitation projects are also vital, and this is certainly an area in which the African development fund is assisting. In 1990, more than £10.5 million was spent on water and sanitation projects under the ODA's bilateral programmes in Africa.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned that Canada and the United Kingdom were founder members of the Caribbean development fund. Since then, France, Germany and Italy have joined. The inevitable result is that not only the British share, but the Canadian share has, in relative terms —relative to the total raised, because the fund has got much bigger—declined.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley spoke about Africa, and my comments will refer to her speech, but I appreciate that those comments will also relate to the contributions from the hon. Members for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) and for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston). In terms of humanitarian assistance, we have made a swift, generous and continuous response to the present food crisis in Africa. Since September 1990, we have spent about £135 million and £255 million since the beginning of 1989. The United Kingdom is among the 97 largest bilateral food aid donors to the Horn. We are deeply concerned at the desperate situation in Mogadishu. We have given nearly £2.3 million of emergency aid in recent weeks. but violence is badly disrupting our relief efforts. As the hon. Lady will know, Security Council resolution 733 calls for a ceasefire and for access to relief supplies.
I realise that my remarks are somewhat disjointed but I shall come later to some of the more substantial comments made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. She mentioned population activities and overseas aid. In 1990, almost £24 million were spent on activities directly related to population concerns—a 28 per cent increase in real terms since 1989. A further £67 million was spent on other health programmes, many of which contributed indirectly to reducing population growth.
Perhaps the gravamen of the hon. Lady's speech was our contribution to the African development fund No. 6. As I said in my opening speech, that represents a modest increase in real terms over the fifth replenishment. She said that the United Kingdom's role was far too small in that development fund, but she must appreciate that, if we are to make a fair analysis of the British aid programme, it must be stated that the African development fund is only one of many channels of bilateral aid.
The hon. Member for Workington implied that we have less control over aid disbursement in that fund than over bilateral aid. But many other avenues of aid, including the World bank and the European development fund, provide aid to Africa. It cannot be disputed that Africa is high on the United Kingdom's list of priorities for aid. Indeed, almost half our bilateral aid goes to Africa. Our contribution to the special programme for Africa makes us the fourth largest bilateral donor to that programme of action.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley also referred to the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and I am fully aware of the issue. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development, in a letter that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley will have received, explained the Government's position. It must be remembered that we were unhappy about the first phase of the special programme for Africa under IFAD. We made it clear that we were contributing to that first phase rather reluctantly. Indeed, our £7 million pledge at that time was expressed as a one-off exercise, so there is no question of our behaving inconsistently with policy established over a number of years.
The IFAD's future activities in Africa should be financed in the same way as its work elsewhere, and the most important priority is not the special programme for Africa but to work for a successful outcome of the fourth replenishment, which we are about to undertake this year, and generous provision of IFAD's resources. Discussions are due to start in Qatar in April.
§ Mrs. ClwydI did not mention IFAD, but I shall return to it later. I mentioned the United Nations Development Programme, the United Nations Fund for Population Activities and the United Nations children's fund. Those three funds have experienced considerable cuts in the past 12 years under the Government, and they are particularly important to Africa and the Caribbean.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI was about to come to that. I am sorry if I attributed those remarks to the hon. Lady rather than to the hon. Member for Hemsworth.
§ Mr. EnrightThose were not my remarks.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydIn any event, those points were raised.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley also mentioned our aid to eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. She knows that that aid is separate from and in addition to our aid to developing countries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reaffirmed that during the meeting with Commonwealth heads of Government in Harare last autumn. Africa has been and remains an enormously high priority for the British aid programme.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley mentioned the reduction in our voluntary contributions to the United Nations agencies from 1979 to 1990. The hon. Member for Workington said that I should check the figures. I know the figures perfectly well, and they are not those that he gave. He may have given the nominal figure, but the 37 per cent. reduction is in real terms, and that is the basis on which I have been working.
Our multilateral aid commitments have been rising steadily over the years, and the demands on them are growing month by month—especially our commitment to the European Community aid programmes, which are an area of maximum growth. I am sure that no Labour Members, who have such a deep and abiding support for the ideals and principles of the European Community, would wish to see a reduction in that commitment. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley should speak to her Front-Bench colleagues, because their rhetoric is very much in sympathy with that view. [Interruption.] I shall not stray too far into the European Community debate tonight.
The consequence has been that, from 1979, to use the same time scale as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley in framing her question to my right hon. Friend, the expenditure has risen from £118 million to £333 million in 1990, an increase in cash terms—to use the figures of the hon. Member for Workington—of 182 per cent., or well over 25 per cent. in real terms.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWill the Minister confirm that, according to the Minister for Overseas Development and OECD figures, we spent the lowest proportion of gross domestic product last year in the history of the United Kingdom? How can the Minister plead his case when, in answer to my question, Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and admit that fact?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI shall come to that, and I shall stick to my word, but I cannot concede that point.
The consequence of that growth in European Community multilateral aid is that we have had little option but to restrain our contribution to those voluntary United Nations programmes.
The hon. Lady asked three specific questions at the end of her speech. She asked about the Caribbean Development bank's support for intra-regional trade, economic diversification and food security. The Caribbean Development bank aims to support all three policies throughout the region. It works closely with other regional institutions of importance of which the hon. Lady will be aware, such as CARICOM—the Caribbean Community 99 and Common Market—and the Organisation of East Caribbean States in developing programmes in those regions.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) spoke of the United Nations target for developed countries to contribute 0.7 per cent in aid, and of the United Kingdom's contribution to the African development fund. I think that I have addressed the issue of the development fund, and I shall deal with the United Nations target later.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth is an acknowledged expert on the subject, but I cannot accept his assertion that there is no co-ordination among donor nations. Under Lomé 4, the European development fund has been authorised to lend money for structural adjustment programmes and it is co-ordinating its activities with the World bank. It is not part of the World bank special programme of assistance, but it co-ordinates structural adjustment efforts with that institution.
Another example of donor co-ordination is the World bank's special programme of assistance for Africa—an excellent illustration of the mechanism for co-ordinating donor assistance to Africa. Our pledge of £300 million to SPA 2 is evidence of the high regard in which we hold that institution's achievements. It is now examining its public expenditure priorities, which should further enhance the effectiveness with which aid is used in Africa.
§ Mr. EnrightI was not talking about the World bank, but as the Minister has raised that issue, may I say that co-ordination with the World bank on the ground, as tested, is not good. I should be appalled were the World bank to become the driving force of co-ordination for the European development fund, as the aims of those two organisations are not allied. I do not wish to make allegations against Her Majesty's Government, the Netherlands Government or anywhere else, but it truly worries me that bilateral projects are often put in place which do not always prove helpful or complementary, and consideration is not always given to previous failures. I know that the will and desire exist for co-ordination, but often it is not forthcoming as it is not given sufficient attention, and rivalries and jealousies remain.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI am sure that the experts could fairly debate that point, but tonight is not the appropriate occasion to do so. The hon. Gentleman advanced the case for multilateral aid programmes as opposed to bilateral ones. I can see the force of that argument on the face of it.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned rum. The European Community is concerned to ensure that rum should be treated in the same way as other agricultural products. We want to ensure fair competition and prevent artificial barriers. Therefore, we are resisting the French position.
With regard to sugar, we wish to ensure that small producers without much scope to diversify are not excluded from trading with the European Community, and are not unfairly treated. I have personal knowledge of that subject because, as Minister, I have responsibility for our relations with the Caribbean region. I agree with much of what was said on that issue.
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursWhat about bananas?
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThat subject was not raised.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to Zaire. United Kingdom bilateral aid is naturally focused on the Commonwealth in Africa, but Zaire is a major recipient of the African Development bank finance and fund resources. We hope that the African development fund will undertake work in the forestry sector in Zaire. We agree that tropical rain forest resources are of vital importance in Zaire.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow also mentioned the issue of dry versus wet forests. We most certainly agree that dry forests deserve as much attention as tropical and moist forests.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow referred to rattan and to water in Africa. My collective brain has its limitations, and it cannot answer this question off the top of its collective head. Once again, the hon. Gentleman has shown by his skill and knowledge a way of challenging the expertise of the experts, who will have to take further instruction on the matter. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is answered by letter.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow kindly referred me to Leptis Magna and the successful irrigation system of the Roman world. If I may digress for a moment, I refer him in turn to the successful water system invented by the Greeks at Pergamon. That system did not even need the Roman aqueduct; it managed the flow of water on Archimedean principles, which was even more remarkable. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's friend in Manchester university will enlighten him further about that.
In 1990, we spent more than £10.5 million bilaterally on water sanitation projects in Africa—
§ Mr. DalyellOn the question of Libya—I realise, an unpopular cause and a delicate issue—may I ask the Foreign Office to reflect again on what I have said, which is rather different from the subject of the Adjournment debate? I say this in the presence of the Leader of the House: if, heaven help us, there are to be sanctions or if military action is to take place, there should at least be some statement to the House of Commons and a three-hour debate before we go further down that perilous road.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydThe hon. Gentleman will understand that, in all matters of such sensitivity, it is deeply important that a weak signal is never given by any Member of this House. He will agree that it will be only wise of me not to attempt to comment on or in any way to qualify the words that the Prime Minister used this afternoon—and I have no intention of doing so.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) asked me to list the contributions of our European Community partners. That is all published information. I can give it again tonight if the hon. Gentleman wants the figures, but I suspect that the fact he wants to establish, which I do not dispute, is that Britain comes fourth on the list of contributors behind France, with 9.43 per cent., Italy with 9.43 per cent., and Germany with 9 per cent. Britain gives 4 per cent. I will not list the countries that come below us.
Why is the United Kingdom so low down the list? I explained during my comments on the speech by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley that we attach high priority to Africa, but that there are other channels in the aid system. Fifty per cent. of our aid budget goes to the African 101 continent. Our aid to Kenya has been well used in helping to improve living standards and prospects for the poorest. Kenya's economic performance has been better than many other sub-Saharan country. We welcome the positive moves of recent weeks on economic and political reform, but further effort is needed on key economic issues. The coming elections must be free and fair. We shall continue to stress the need for transparency and a level playing field. The Kenyans are absolutely clear about our views on that.
I hope that I have done justice to at least some part of all hon. Members' contributions. I now want to deal with the central point raised this evening. It has been raised often before with me and with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and I am sure that it will be raised again. I shall answer it as best I can, although I am afraid that I may burden Opposition Members with an answer that they have heard before. It is important, however, that the facts should be put in some perspective.
We accept in principle the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent., but we are not prepared to set a timetable, because a real-terms growth in aid quality is much more important. When the hon. Lady says that our official aid-to-GNP ratio was 0.2 per cent. in the calendar year of 1990, that does not reflect—
§ Mr. Campbell-SavoursMy hon. Friend did not say that.
§ Mr. Lennox-BoydI thought she did.
For those who do say that, it does not reflect the underlying growth in the aid programme. This year—1991–92—our aid programme is £1,789 million, which is 10 per cent. more in cash terms and 3 per cent. more in real terms than in 1991–92. Over the past five years, our average aid—to—GNP ratio has been 0.3 per cent. We cannot make forecasts, but in 1991–92 our aid is expected to be about 0.3 per cent. of GNP.
Is the hon. Lady saying that, if a Labour Government were elected, they would immediately put right that ratio? Is she making a promise to the British people that this improvement will be financed by an increase in taxation, or that, just as the Conservative Government have always aspired to improve that target, so will a Labour Government, and the British people will have to wait a long time for such an improvement to materialise? The Government have tried strenuously to maintain effective and sensible aid policies, with a view to maintaining that commitment and reaching that target when the country can afford it.
§ Mrs. Clwydrose—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. The hon. Lady has already spoken. She needs the leave of the House to speak again.
§ Mrs. ClwydWith the leave of the House, I wish to answer the question that the Minister asked me. The Labour party's policy is clear. I would be happy to send him a copy of our policy document if he would like to have more detail. It is much more substantial than the policies produced by the Government in their papers on overseas development.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady does not have the leave of the House to speak a second time.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWhen I asked whether the hon. Lady had the leave of the House to speak again, there was no objection.
§ Dame Elaine Kellett-BowmanI said no.
§ Mrs. ClwydI am sorry that the hon. Lady was not here for the debate. She has come into the Chamber in the past five minutes. The answer to the Minister's question is clear in Labour party policy documents. Within the lifetime of a future Labour Government—that is, within the next five years —we shall aim to meet the 0.7 per cent. United Nations target for developed countries. The Government are not prepared to set out any timetable for reaching that limit. Their aid policies will be judged by that failure to make any such promise. In 1979, the Labour Government achieved an aid budget of 0.51 per cent. of GNP. Since then, the Government have carved that back, and the developing world has lost £10 billion in aid. Those are the facts.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Resolved,
That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Further Payments) Order 1992, which was laid before this House on 13th January, be approved.
-
c102
- OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT AND CO-OPERATION 22 words